If Evolution were true...

[Greg1234]

-A god (Any God or Gods, I'm going with FSM) < This includes deistic Gods.

What is a "deistic God?" By the way FSM is just another name. You materialists just think you're on to something.

I can keep going forever, making up Gods and causes, but it doesn't make Theism, deism, pantheism, or any other belief in a God true.

In theism God is personal, which is what you would expect if God was omnipresent (theistic pantheism), and his presence the result of creation (deism). It's the same thing, chief.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And just because you say that does not make it true. Why don't you try talking about yourself instead of AV.

Let's do a test... I'm going to say exactly what you said about AV and you tell me how true it is.

Here goes...

"And yet only 1% of your posts have words."

Now there you go... just because I posted it does it make it true. I'd say "not." Just like I'd say "not" about yours. What does that tell us??

I'd say it tells us that you made a ridiculous claim about AV's posts.

End of test.

You don't actually look at all of AV's posts, do you?

He'd be lying if he said they weren't mostly counting threads.

 

[Davian]

Can I use that same test regarding unsupported Christian beliefs? Because so far you've rejected it (and failed it) every time.

"Yahweh is the one TRUE God!"
"Allah is the one TRUE God!"
"No, you see the thing is, Yahweh is the one true God. Allah isn't, so your statement is false, while mine is true."

Different names, same being.

And Jesus? And the Holy Ghost?

Are they all the same being?

How confusing.

 

[Davian]

What is a "deistic God?" By the way FSM is just another name. You materialists just think you're on to something.

In theism God is personal, which is what you would expect if God was omnipresent (theistic pantheism), and his presence the result of creation (deism). It's the same thing, chief.

With a deistic god (no capital G) I would not expect claims of eternal souls, afterlife, absolute morals, etc.

They are not the same thing, Greg.

 

[Davian]

You don't actually look at all of AV's posts, do you?

He'd be lying if he said they weren't mostly counting threads.

There was a 'law', back when bbs' started to rise in popularity, that was directed at posters whose contribution to a site could remain static despite the rise in post count. I can't recall the name of it at the moment.

 

[AV1611VET]

There was a 'law', back when bbs' started to rise in popularity, that was directed at posters whose contribution to a site could remain static despite the rise in post count. I can't recall the name of it at the moment.

I think for those who whine about my post count -- it's called the Law of Jealousy?

 

[TerranceL]

Different names, same being.

So you find the Koran holy and your pray five times a day facing Mecca? Because one of those named actually wants you to do that.

 

[TerranceL]

I think for those who whine about my post count -- it's called the Law of Jealousy?

Sympathy more like it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sympathy more like it.

Nah -- I know sympathy when I see it.

More like jealousy or hatred.

After all, there's a difference in what whiners do -- and this: 1

The choice is yours though.

 

[rjc34]

I will make mself more clear, for you. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Therefore, I believe that God is the creator of everything.

I will make your point more inane: I believe the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the Word of His Noodliness. Therefore, I believe that FSM is the creator of everything.

Without a universe, a solar system, or an earth there would be nothing to evolve. So, I go back to the beginning.

The 'beginning' as it were is the realm of theoretical physics. Where the universe came from has no impact on this discussion. Whether it be a quantum fluctuation, or the act of some hyper-intelligent being, is irrelevant to this thread.

Now let’s look at a summary of the Genesis theory of Creation:

Now now, don't go misusing scientific terms in an attempt to make your assertion more 'science-y'. It is not a theory, it is an assertion, or at best, a hypothesis.

God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in the following order:

· Day 1: The earth without any form; water; light
· Day 2: The sky, the earth’s atmosphere
· Day 3: The bodies of water; the dry land; vegetation
· Day 4: The sun, moon, and stars to serve as signs, seasons, days, and years.
· Day 5: The aquatic creatures; the birds
· Day 6: The land creatures; man

Well that's a very nice story you've got there. Too bad we know very well how the sun formed, how the earth formed, and how it came to be the way it is now.

How is your creation myth any more valid than, say, the Hindu creation account?

Can these two things, evolution and creation, work together?

Well, I guess you can believe God sparked the first life in the primordial soup, or that perhaps he guided it along, or sparked the universe, etc etc.

As a Christian, I believe in creation (In the beginning God created…) with ongoing micro-evolution of the species.

Define species (or what you're calling a species) and tell me how 'micro-evolution' can account for speciation events that we've observed. Or describe to me exactly what limits evolution to the species (which it most definitely isn't).

 

[rjc34]

Nope, no one is interested in your "simple" test. Somethings are above that.

You just know the test will show people aren't hearing anything special, merely a 'voice in their head'.

 

[Insane_Duck]

What is a "deistic God?" By the way FSM is just another name. You materialists just think you're on to something.

A deistic God is one who takes no interest in humans specifically. Therefore one wouldn't feel a need to pray to this God, a God who is more like an ambiguous creator than a God. Most of the founding fathers were deists for example.

As for your second statement. Each of those Gods thinks different things. Some are eternally loving, some not so much. Some are perfect, some imperfect. Some care, some don't. It becomes really important which one is real.

In theism God is personal, which is what you would expect if God was omnipresent (theistic pantheism), and his presence the result of creation (deism). It's the same thing, chief.

Not quite. Deistic: Created the universe one way or another. Doesn't care, not necessarily all powerful. (or powerful at all) Theistic: Created the universe via selected creation myth. Usually cares. Decides our fate after we die.

But regardless you are missing the point. If the question asked: There is a universe, how did it get here? (the argument attempting to prove God by necessity) Then the answer is, any manner you chose.

I choose cake. That's right, an inter-dimensional cake created our universe. Not by force of will, it's just something it spontaneously does. The cake is eternal and unchanging and moreover, it doesn't inhabit our dimension so it doesn't require a cause. (our slogan: "The cake is not a lie.")

Can you honestly tell me the above fits within the category of a God? (you also completely ignored the non-being related causes like Quantum Fluctuations)

 

[Insane_Duck]

You just know the test will show people aren't hearing anything special, merely a 'voice in their head'.

Where did she say that? I can't find it at all.

 

[rjc34]

Where did she say that? I can't find it at all.

She didn't, but I'm just stating a reason why she'd claim that some things are 'beyond' testing. The only things 'beyond' testing are untestable and worthless claims, assertions and conjectures.

 

[Insane_Duck]

She didn't, but I'm just stating a reason why she'd claim that some things are 'beyond' testing. The only things 'beyond' testing are untestable and worthless claims, assertions and conjectures.

It's odd that you would quote it if she didn't say it at all though...

 

[Davian]

Nah -- I know sympathy when I see it.

More like jealousy or hatred.

After all, there's a difference in what whiners do -- and this: 1

The choice is yours though.

False dichotomy. It could just be truly sad.

You did make the fool out of Inan, though. That was funny.

 

[Davian]

Well, why don't you tell us your beliefs then and we'll try to help you give them a good shake.

I believe you are afraid to test your god. Even AV evaded the subject.

I believe that your fear is based on the fact that the men that founded the Christian religion wrote into the text of of their book that testing of this god must not be done. In today's world, we would say "no flash photography" so as not to capture the wires and other trickery of the stage magician.

I believe this statement to be true:

"There's no reason, in theory, why god's presence couldn't be measured or detected in some way. The only reason that believers claim that god "can't" be detected in this way is because god *isn't* detected, and so a vast and intricate rationale has to be devised to explain this vast, loving, eternal, all-powerful "something" which is, in every external, objective respect, indistinguishable from nothing." -- NMS on alt.atheism

I believe that you are unable to demonstrate that gods, like those mentioned in the Christian Bible, are even possible.

 

[Greg1234]

A deistic God is one who takes no interest in humans specifically. Therefore one wouldn't feel a need to pray to this God, a God who is more like an ambiguous creator than a God. Most of the founding fathers were deists for example.

A "deistic God" is everywhere (theistic pantheism) including life and takes interest in human affairs through such (theism).

As for your second statement. Each of those Gods thinks different things. Some are eternally loving, some not so much. Some are perfect, some imperfect. Some care, some don't. It becomes really important which one is real.

And some radio waves are EM radiation, some aren't.

Not quite. Deistic: Created the universe one way or another. Doesn't care, not necessarily all powerful. (or powerful at all) Theistic: Created the universe via selected creation myth. Usually cares. Decides our fate after we die.

To create the universe out of itself (deism) is to be a part of the universe and all that is in it (theistic pantheism). Power also stems from the attribute of being the basic substrate of things. The presense in all things becomes all power (theism).

I choose cake. That's right, an inter-dimensional cake created our universe. Not by force of will, it's just something it spontaneously does. The cake is eternal and unchanging and moreover, it doesn't inhabit our dimension so it doesn't require a cause. (our slogan: "The cake is not a lie.")

It simply means that "cake" takes on the attribute of God, desserts its conventional meaning and adopts the information that was encoded within "first cause."

Can you honestly tell me the above fits within the category of a God? (you also completely ignored the non-being related causes like Quantum Fluctuations)

A complete vacuum was not attained in that experiment.

 

[Greg1234]

I will make your point more inane: I believe the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the Word of His Noodliness. Therefore, I believe that FSM is the creator of everything.

Then the FSM simply takes on the definition of God. I can say that my computer runs on FSM. I load my car up on unleaded FSM. We breathe in FSM and exhale FSM. Information is transmitted through the air via FSM, etc.

Now now, don't go misusing scientific terms in an attempt to make your assertion more 'science-y'. It is not a theory, it is an assertion, or at best, a hypothesis.

Anybody can use science.

Well that's a very nice story you've got there. Too bad we know very well how the sun formed, how the earth formed, and how it came to be the way it is now.

No you don't. When elements came to man's awareness it would have been through elements, atoms came- through atoms, sub atomic particles- same, and so on. You only think that it has ended. The finest has not been reached and God is inevitable.

How is your creation myth any more valid than, say, the Hindu creation account?

The Hindu creation account as wel as others are used. Within it is the biblical account and within the biblical account its there. The extraction and discarding of relevant patterns goes beyond those two.

Well, I guess you can believe God sparked the first life in the primordial soup, or that perhaps he guided it along, or sparked the universe, etc etc.

He would have to believe in Darwin's assertions first before any type of microbial origination becomes relevant.

Define species (or what you're calling a species) and tell me how 'micro-evolution' can account for speciation events that we've observed. Or describe to me exactly what limits evolution to the species (which it most definitely isn't).

What speciation events?

 

[Cabal]

A "deistic God" is everywhere (theistic pantheism) including life and takes interest in human affairs through such (theism).

Try learning what deism means, then rejoin the discussion.

It is amusing though watching diehard Christians endorse every religion under the sun, anything to avoid having to face that icky evolution.