Origins Flowchart

[RamiC]

https://theologetics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/origins-flowchart.pdf

Above is a link to a flow chart of opinions on the origins of humanity, with their respective relationship to the Bible. I thought the people who frequent this area of the forums might enjoy it. It seems good for a quick glance at the variety that exists, and it certainly quite an original way of presenting the information.

 

[trophy33]

https://theologetics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/origins-flowchart.pdf

Above is a link to a flow chart of opinions on the origins of humanity, with their respective relationship to the Bible. I thought the people who frequent this area of the forums might enjoy it. It seems good for a quick glance at the variety that exists, and it certainly quite an original way of presenting the information.

You start with "Does God exist" and then you go to "Can we be confident God exists", which is a bit cumbersome, because you can still end up in agnosticism even if you said yes to "Does God exist". Similarly if you chose that God does not exist.

What about the start being "Is it possible (or plausible) God exists"?

 

[RamiC]

You start with "Does God exist" and then you go to "Can we be confident God exists", which is a bit cumbersome, because you can still end up in agnosticism even if you said yes to "Does God exist". Similarly if you chose that God does not exist.

I didn't make the thing, I just discovered it on this web site that I really like. But I can see your point, it does send anyone who has both "yes" and "no" in response to the first two questions to "agnostic", when a simple "don't know" going there would be clearer.

 

[PloverWing]

I also got stuck on "Can we be confident God exists?" My first reaction was "How confident?"

It seems that one could answer the question of confidence in God's existence with "somewhat" or "no, but it's my best guess" and still go on to one of the categories like Planned Evolution or Directed Evolution, holding those views with appropriate degrees of uncertainty.

Aside from that nitpick, it seems to be a reasonable chart of some of the major views regarding origins.

 

[RamiC]

I also got stuck on "Can we be confident God exists?" My first reaction was "How confident?"

It seems that one could answer the question of confidence in God's existence with "somewhat" or "no, but it's my best guess" and still go on to one of the categories like Planned Evolution or Directed Evolution, holding those views with appropriate degrees of uncertainty.

Aside from that nitpick, it seems to be a reasonable chart of some of the major views regarding origins.

Since the human brain is massively more complicated than any flow chart that we could actually understand, and this one is supposed to simplify a complicated debate, I am not surprised that when people with brains start using it, they come up with reasons to say "but that is not complex enough to match my brain about it." .

The aim of the Theologetics web site is "to provide free witnessing tools to believers, give answers for those who seek, and help bring the truth to those who do not believe.", with a particular goal of equipping Christians with responses to common modern day skeptical arguments, I think it is fit for purpose. It does show the links between a person's philosophical pre-suppositions and the conclusions they draw.

For example, if someone says "no" at "Does God exist?" and "Does the supernatural exist?" they will believe "Naturalistic Evolution" as the explanation of origins, because there is no possibility of anything else after their two "no's".

To get to Christian beliefs on the chart, requires a "yes" to all of the first four questions, which passes a "yes" to the Trinity. After that point you reach the range of opinion that this part of CF is about, and the chart then makes it quite clear that where you end up after that is a mixture of how literally a person believes the Bible in application, mixed up with how convincing a person finds the scientific consensus, and if you can just skip the pedantic details your neurons can throw in, you should be able to track a direct route to your own view. When you reach the letters that connect to your own opinion, you can look at the grey boxes to find where the Bible supports your opinion, and where you might need to find a satisfactory response to challenges to it. I just want everyone to be ready to defend their faith, where ever it is at, as long as they pass the first four questions mark...
Does the Triune God of the Bible exist? Yes

In case anyone in here is just with curiosity, I am "yes" right down until it runs out of yes's and ends up with Time Dilation Creationism.

 

[PloverWing]

The aim of the Theologetics web site is "to provide free witnessing tools to believers

Ah, I didn't catch that. So the use of the flowchart is that when I'm talking to someone about the Christian faith, I can start at the start node, ask the questions, and follow the path through the graph. That makes more sense now.

My pedantic brain still wants to add links from "agnostic" to Planned Evolution and Direct Evolution. Something like one of those two is where I land.

 

[RamiC]

Ah, I didn't catch that. So the use of the flowchart is that when I'm talking to someone about the Christian faith, I can start at the start node, ask the questions, and follow the path through the graph. That makes more sense now.

Yes.

You can also use it as an aid to explain your own faith if it suits you, in your case, if what you said below is where you are on the chart, then the Bible verse that can be used to support your beliefs is Hebrews 4

3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said:

“So I swore in My wrath,
‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ”
although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and again in this place: “They shall not enter My rest.” NKJV

From that you can argue that the days in Genesis are all also unknown lengths, but very long, segments of time.

My pedantic brain still wants to add links from "agnostic" to Planned Evolution and Direct Evolution. Something like one of those two is where I land.

If you print it out, just draw in you. Or convert it to a graphics program, and add yourself. I am struggling to follow why you want to get from "agnostic" to planned or directed evolution though, because both of those include confidence in God's existence. God is either the planner or the director in those circles, so you should be saying yes to "Does God exist?"

You may be doing your own thing with it though, so carry on.

 

[PloverWing]

I am struggling to follow why you want to get from "agnostic" to planned or directed evolution though, because both of those include confidence in God's existence. God is either the planner or the director in those circles, so you should be saying yes to "Does God exist?"

You may be doing your own thing with it though, so carry on.

Sorry to be difficult.

I genuinely don't think we can know the answer to any of the questions on the chart with certainty. So I approach all of them assuming that they're really asking "What do you think is the most probable answer to this question?" I mentally adjust all the "yes" and "no" links to read "probably yes" or "probably no".

So when I got to the "Can we be confident?" bubble, it seemed out of place. Asking what I think is probably true is different from asking what my level of certainty is.

If I were to adjust the chart, I think I'd have more links coming from "Does God exist?": "probably no" leads to atheism, "probably multiple gods" to other religions, "probably yes" to "Can we personally know God?", and I'd skip the confidence bubble altogether.

I'm not sure what to do with the links from the agnostic bubble to the options in the Origins Stance column. It seems that a person who thinks it's unknowable whether God exists wouldn't be able to rule out the options where God is involved in creation, because, well, if you don't know then you don't know

But again, I acknowledge I'm being difficult. I make a very bad evangelist, because I'm always full of "maybe"s. Some people have the gift of being able to preach without any doubts, and for them, the chart is a good way to organize their thoughts. I'll get out of their way now and let them exercise their gift of evangelism.

 

[RamiC]

Sorry to be difficult.

I genuinely don't think we can know the answer to any of the questions on the chart with certainty. So I approach all of them assuming that they're really asking "What do you think is the most probable answer to this question?" I mentally adjust all the "yes" and "no" links to read "probably yes" or "probably no".

So when I got to the "Can we be confident?" bubble, it seemed out of place. Asking what I think is probably true is different from asking what my level of certainty is.

If I were to adjust the chart, I think I'd have more links coming from "Does God exist?": "probably no" leads to atheism, "probably multiple gods" to other religions, "probably yes" to "Can we personally know God?", and I'd skip the confidence bubble altogether.

I'm not sure what to do with the links from the agnostic bubble to the options in the Origins Stance column. It seems that a person who thinks it's unknowable whether God exists wouldn't be able to rule out the options where God is involved in creation, because, well, if you don't know then you don't know

But again, I acknowledge I'm being difficult. I make a very bad evangelist, because I'm always full of "maybe"s. Some people have the gift of being able to preach without any doubts, and for them, the chart is a good way to organize their thoughts. I'll get out of their way now and let them exercise their gift of evangelism.

You can just imagine that any of it is based on probably. Use "probably" as if it is yes.... However you have made a good point.