God used Evolution to create man

[Golden Yak]

I think you may be on to something here. Why is there something instead of just nothing? Necessarily there must be an infinite reason for reality.

It's a good question, but appeal to a god doesn't get you out of it. Why is there a god rather than no god? Why does it 'just have to' exist just cuz? Why can't a changing universe be the 'necessary existing' thing just cuz?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's a good question, but appeal to a god doesn't get you out of it. Why is there a god rather than no god? Why does it 'just have to' exist just cuz? Why can't a changing universe be the 'necessary existing' thing just cuz?

Well, of course, just because we pose the question doesn't force there to be an answer to the question. However, we do have one advantage in posing the question. We know there has to be an answer somehow, since here we are!

Oh, and "just cuz" isn't an answer.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The common thread though is a basic rejection of a 'higher power', isn't it?

Not at all, in fact, I'd say that would be a basis for many of the spiritual atheists. Only deities specifically.

 

[Golden Yak]

Oh, and "just cuz" isn't an answer.

I agree, though I hear it often as an explanation for God - he doesn't need explaining because he just does exist.

 

[FredVB]

I say there are those who will just avoid the reasoning that is shown. But the logic is undeniable. It goes way beyond simply saying there's something, so God exists. There can be no logical denial of necessary existence, which will amount to all that was said of it. If there wasn't that, there wouldn't be anything, that is there wouldn't be any material thing at all, there wouldn't be any potential or kinetic energy at all, no spatial dimensions, no dimension of time to have anything available, no power and no mind for any intelligence to be present anywhere, and with absolutely nothing in that way it is completely without logic to say all that was needed for the universe to exist as it does just came into being from nothing existing that is defined that way. To think that persistently is highly illogical, whereas belief that God is the explanation is without being so illogical, with there being reasonable explanation that is consistent with faith being put in God, that is still reasonable, as opposed to the alternative of denial, such as the dismissiveness that can be seen here. Those showing that just don't want to deal with it, and will avoid having anything to show that there would be acknowledgement of anything like the Creator.

I think you may be on to something here. Why is there something instead of just nothing? Necessarily there must be an infinite reason for reality.

It's a good question, but appeal to a god doesn't get you out of it. Why is there a god rather than no god? Why does it 'just have to' exist just cuz?

Getting out of what? Not having anything for an explanation for all that there is? If you actually look carefully to understand my argument, you would likely see that the logic doesn't appeal to God existing, the logic establishes that there is necessary existence, that existence is not finite by its necessity and is without any limit, and that has this necessary existence being the cause of all other things coming into being. This does not appeal to God, but what is established by logic with it is fully consistent with people's belief in God. There is no argument against that logically possible.

Why can't a changing universe be the 'necessary existing' thing just cuz?

If the necessary existence was the universe itself, the universe would show all the characteristics of necessary existence. Necessary existence is absolutely necessary, it wouldn't be otherwise, by that necessity, and so would not change by evolving, never having a beginning either, that would only be something possible for what wouldn't be necessary existence. With the absolute necessity would be no limit or being finite. There would not be any uneven gaps. With there being power with being necessary existence, there would be infinite power. If there were ever any intelligence then there would be intelligence that is all-knowing. I could go on like that. The universe the way it appears is not like that at all. But one who believes that the universe is a manifestation of that infinite, omnipresent being, which would be omnipotent, would be consistent with that much of the logic, being a pantheist that way. This would not be an atheist position though, and the atheists have no explanation and are ignorant of that logic, either willfully if it is heard or conceived, or else never having come to that logic. So they cannot have anything consistent with it from their position.


Lawful good

 

[EternalDragon]

It's a good question, but appeal to a god doesn't get you out of it. Why is there a god rather than no god? Why does it 'just have to' exist just cuz? Why can't a changing universe be the 'necessary existing' thing just cuz?

Then why can't an alien sentient being exist that is not effected by
time and is eternal?

 

[SkyWriting]

Then why can't an alien sentient being exist that is not effected by
time and is eternal?

That is a valid theory. The story Jesus told works better.

 

[SkyWriting]

If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two.

When Jesus turned water into wine, a scientist proclaimed it to be the best wine of any served. The wine specialist may be correct on the flavor, but he was unable to discern the history of the wine and it's origins.

So the Scripture makes clear that science will not correctly "back up" Gods works.

If you are not well read on the difference between this kingdom and the father's kingdom, then you have missed a point or two.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then why can't an alien sentient being exist that is not effected by
time and is eternal?

To not be affected by time requires said being to exist outside of our universe and, once any interaction occurred, it would be affected by time.

 

[Delphiki]

Atheism, as does Darwinism, shapes one's philosophical life view. So does theism.

No, they really don't.

 

[Loudmouth]

Getting out of what? Not having anything for an explanation for all that there is? If you actually look carefully to understand my argument, you would likely see that the logic doesn't appeal to God existing, the logic establishes that there is necessary existence, that existence is not finite by its necessity and is without any limit, and that has this necessary existence being the cause of all other things coming into being. This does not appeal to God, but what is established by logic with it is fully consistent with people's belief in God. There is no argument against that logically possible.

The same argument would apply for fairies, leprechauns, and unicorns.

But one who believes that the universe is a manifestation of that infinite, omnipresent being, which would be omnipotent, would be consistent with that much of the logic, being a pantheist that way.

Believing in something that has no evidence is not logical.

This would not be an atheist position though, and the atheists have no explanation and are ignorant of that logic, either willfully if it is heard or conceived, or else never having come to that logic. So they cannot have anything consistent with it from their position.

Then all you have is a God of the Gaps argument.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Atheism, as does Darwinism, shapes one's philosophical life view. So does theism.

I question that. I imagine it depends on how much you actually care and think about those positions.

 

[justlookinla]

I question that. I imagine it depends on how much you actually care and think about those positions.

I agree. It depends on one's belief and how much they embrace the positions. That doesn't negate the impact that atheism, Darwinism and theism have on individuals though.

 

[Delphiki]

I agree. It depends on one's belief and how much they embrace the positions. That doesn't negate the impact that atheism, Darwinism and theism have on individuals though.

Like the ability to think critically and rationally?

 

[justlookinla]

Like the ability to think critically and rationally?

You shouldn't talk about atheistic Darwinist creationists like that.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sarah just gave the answer. Evolution as a theory only explains how life changes over time across generations, no more, no less.

Actually both more and less. Some covered DNA changes, parts cover population changes, parts cover changes over time with one individual, and parts speculate that current, observable processes can be extrapolated back into history and indicate one common origin for all life, and another field considers how chemical processes are responsible for life from non-life.

So there is a lot to swallow and much to take on faith.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Atheism, as does Darwinism, shapes one's philosophical life view. So does theism.

Everything you know and believe shapes your worldview.

And atheism isn't part of that, because atheism isn't about believing something. It's about "not believing" something. Nobody shapes worldviews based on what they do not believe.


My worldview is shaped by my atheism in exactly the same way as your worldview is being shaped by not believing in Shiva, Thor and Zeus.

It's stupid.

My worldview is the result of the things I DO believe, not the result of what I do NOT believe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then why can't an alien sentient being exist that is not effected by time and is eternal?

Because the notion of a sentient being that is not affected by time and is "eternal" doesn't mean anything. It's not sensible.

It's like wood that doesn't come from a tree.
I don't see how a sentient being can exist "outside of time".
I don't even know what "outside of time" means.

I recognise the english words, but the sentence is meaningless.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually both more and less. Some covered DNA changes, parts cover population changes, parts cover changes over time with one individual, and parts speculate that current, observable processes can be extrapolated back into history and indicate one common origin for all life,

No dude, it's all one theory.
It's a single mechanism.

and another field considers how chemical processes are responsible for life from non-life.

No, that's an entirely different theory. One that actually is quite independent from evolution theory. Abiogenesis could be falsified today and it wouldn't change evolution theory one bit.

So there is a lot to swallow and much to take on faith.

No, there isn't.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's a good question, but appeal to a god doesn't get you out of it. Why is there a god rather than no god? Why does it 'just have to' exist just cuz? Why can't a changing universe be the 'necessary existing' thing just cuz?

SOMETHING can exist "just cuz" . . . . in my way of thinking, postulating God makes it easier to transition from necessarily existing to particular things that exist .

Suppose there wasn't anything, nothing existed at all. That's a logical possibility, it doesn't have a self contradiction in it, anyway.

Would the concept of numbers still be valid? One, two, three . . . Infinity?
Lets suppose it would be, if only there was something to interpret them.

Numbers can be interpreted to have meaning. "Mary had a little lamb" is really only a set of numbers in your computer. Clearly, however, there are alternate interpretation schemes using numbers, an infinite number of different ways to encode the phrase "Mary had a little lamb" is possible to be devised.

Alternate interpretation schemes themselves can be described in numbers. Every program your computer ever runs are encoded in numbers.

So there are interpretation schemes, embedded in numbers, that can read numbers.

In order to express much, and comprehend much, truly large numbers become involved, but hey, all the numbers needed for that necessarily exist.

In order for the idea of God to become reality . . . that is, for there to be an entity of infinite extent that holds the entire universe as a great thought in His mind . . . all that has to happen is for the numbers that represent the ability to do that to be represented as doing that with the numbers that represent the description of all things that exist.

And for infinities to be as real as ordinary numbers, of course.

This to me is about the only way I can conceive of for reality to exist, and after all, reality does exist.

So that is what I mean when I say it is easier for me to imagine reality existing because God exists than to imagine reality existing without God.