1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Human Evolution

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by doubtingmerle, Jul 18, 2022.

  1. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,787
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    That's right.

    Creationists were here first.

    Then science showed up and started sowing its tares.

    Now look.

    You can throw a beach ball into a crown with your eyes closed and hit an atheist.
     
  2. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,787
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Same for that barrel analogy to avoid answering what you know is right.
     
  3. Estrid

    Estrid Well-Known Member

    +2,165
    Hong Kong
    Skeptic
    In Relationship
    Maybe there's a reason it violates the rules to say it is religion
     
  4. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,787
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Oh, here we go again. :doh:

    Does anything exist in academia?
     
  5. Warden_of_the_Storm

    Warden_of_the_Storm Well-Known Member

    +5,537
    United Kingdom
    Deist
    Single
    Except that it's not right since you clearly avoided the word 'thinking'.
     
  6. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,787
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I wasn't trying to imply evolution runs on faith.

    In fact, I didn't notice that until after I had typed it.

    It's just a good point.

    Belief comes before acceptance.
     
  7. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    First Cause is quite a bit more than 'just is', though we might tend to think of him that way. Existence itself 'is' because God exists —not the other way around. God does not fit a principle we know of as 'existence'.

    Somehow, the threads have a tendency to be about postulations that either do or do not deny God.
     
  8. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    If God is God, First Cause and Omnipotent, yes, God made that. He is not subject to it —it is, (to put it crassly), his invention, as is all of reality. But don't worry, he will not change.

    Reality is what it is, because God is real. Reality is his 'invention'.
     
  9. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    By golly, I think you're on to something there, AV1611VET.
     
  10. Bradskii

    Bradskii Well-Known Member

    +5,540
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    That's not true. We're heading towards 200 posts in this thread and nothing has been claimed or suggested that would deny God's existence. If there wasn't a single atheist on this forum, these discussions would still take place. The same arguments would be used. The same points made. It's always been thus.

    I am really not aware of anyone in this forum who has ever used science as a means to deny God's existence. Feel free to look if you like, but you'd be wasting your time.

    To be honest, these discussions are sometimes a good way to learn about some scientific aspect of evolution or star creation or planetary formation or any of umpteen topics that emerge. And this doesn't reflect well on me, but I join in on occasions because I find some of the arguments mildly amusing (yes, you could say that I'm only doing that because it makes me feel smarter...and I'll take the fifth on that).

    So let's be honest here. These type of threads are about some fundamentalist views of scripture bumping into scientific reality. A reality which, as I have said, does NOT deny God's existence.

    Glad to have cleared that up.
     
  11. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,787
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    That's just what Paul warned about in Romans 1.
     
  12. expos4ever

    expos4ever Well-Known Member

    +5,275
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Deleted own post.
     
  13. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    I guess I was too vague. By 'postulations' I wasn't referring to science, as such, but simply, 'claims', by whatever means anyone arrived at those claims. @doubtingmerle , to whom I was responding, was complaining:
    doubtingmerle said:
    And why is it, that, no matter what the thread is about, people always, always, always ignore the subject of the thread and change the topic to talk about the origin of the universe instead?
     
  14. Estrid

    Estrid Well-Known Member

    +2,165
    Hong Kong
    Skeptic
    In Relationship
    Poor little post never had a chance.
     
  15. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    But then, it has always been so, from the beginning...
     
  16. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +3,499
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    Yes, but by removing the justification you give a false equivalence to interpretations.

    I feel that is a false oversimplification of both terms.

    I never denied that it is disputable... I just questioned the reasoning of the dispute.

    I also stated that nothing is an indisputable fact in science.

    Some religious believers may claim to have indisputable facts... but those can even be inconsistent within the same sect of the same religion.
     
  17. Bradskii

    Bradskii Well-Known Member

    +5,540
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    And the origin of the universe, however we discover it happened (IF we discover it), will be the way that God had decided it should happen. Unless people want to believe in a God that deliberately hides things from us.

    I'm up to the back teeth with those (present company exempted) who claim that God must exist because...gee, just look around you at his wonders, and then bend over backwards to deny those wonders when they are explained in terms we can understand.

    When the world encompassed as far as we could reasonable travel, then it might have seemed that God must have created it especially for us. His wonders to behold. Then we discovered parts of the planet that had been hidden from us. Then we discovered that some of the pretty lights in the night sky were other planets. So we updated what we thought God had made for us.

    Then we discovered that we were a system of planets that revolved around a rather nondescripts sun, and we weren't the centre of all things (at which point the Church had had enough of this heresy and burnt those like Giordano Bruno at the stake for promoting such ideas). Because they seemed to directly counter our impression of what God must have done.

    Then we discovered that our solar system was one of many. Then one of thousands. Then one of billions. In an outer suburb of a mediocre galaxy. And people had to rethink what God might have done. Which is difficult at this point because we aren't built to consider such things. Numbers such as a billion and distances like a light year and times on a galactic scale are simply beyond us. Some people started to wonder what it was all for.

    Then we discovered that our galaxy was likewise one of many. Then one of billions. We have no concept of a million, let alone a billion. So multiply billions by billions (and I'm starting to sound like Sagan now) and it becomes utterly meaningless. So a lot more people started wondering what on earth it was for.

    Then Hubble discovered that space is expanding. So all we can see is not all there is. And some of what we can see is disappearing from all possible contact with us. And that which was out of our reach when we climbed down from the trees will be forever out of our reach. And...this is the clincher...there is good reason to believe that there is an infinity of that which is outside the observable universe.

    So there is a small rock on the dark side of a small moon circling a dead planet in a tiny solar system on the outer edge of a dying galaxy in a place that has always been and will forever be somewhere that we can't even see let alone reach. I wonder what on earth it is for.

    Feynman once said:
    “It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil - which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.”

    To say that I couldn't agree more is the Understatement Of The Week. But some still hold to the view that caused Bruno to be burnt alive; that we are the centre of everything. And they still claim a
    literally medieval viewpoint. I can't cope with the audacity of that view.

    But even that view is still not an argument against God.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2022
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • List
  18. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Two angels walk into a bar. The bartender brings over a pair of beers. "We're thirsty," says the first angel, "Can you please bring us two more?"

    "Are you crazy?" says the bartender. "I can't serve you 53,567 beers!"

    I am sorry, but the quantity two plus two cannot possibly equal the quantity 53,567. That is logically impossible. No God can make those two quantities be equal.

    Your quote above was in response to, "And you do agree with me that the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4 represents a fact that just is? It could not possibly be otherwise in any universe." And I stand by that.

    But you assert that no, 2+2=4 is simply his invention because that is what he decided. He could have decided otherwise.

    In no possible world is two angels on the head of a pin holding two beer mugs each the same thing as two angels on a head of a pin holding a total of 53,567. Not even an omnipotent God can do things that are logically impossible.

    If your God can do things that are logically impossible, can he be completely honest with you while lying to you at the same time?
     
  19. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    He warned you not to think, else you might become an atheist?

    As Robert G. Ingersoll put it, "If God did not intend I should think, why did he give me a thinker?"
     
  20. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Which does not answer my question. You might have misunderstood the question. Let's reword it a little:

    Why is it logical to postulate that perhaps it just is that a first cause with a mind exists, and it could not be otherwise; but it is not logical to postulate that perhaps it just is that a first cause without a mind exists, and it could not be otherwise?
    I contend that the root cause of existence possibly did not have a mind, and possibly did. Both options seem logical to me.
     
Loading...