Now see, here's where you make these GINORMOUS leaps of faith without any evidence to back them up whatsoever.Evidence...?
There was a Big Bang beginning Gen 1:1/
And, Pangea was discovered in 1920 as a proof of Gen 1:9, that once only one large continent existed, surrounded by a giant ocean where "all the waters under heaven were collected into one place.
Evidence...?
There was a Big Bang beginning Gen 1:1/
And, Pangea was discovered in 1920 as a proof of Gen 1:9, that once only one large continent existed, surrounded by a giant ocean where "all the waters under heaven were collected into one place.
The universe may have always existed, just not in its current form.
And why would we assume that the instantiation of the cosmos required a deity? And why *yours*?
There may be other options that I have not come across yet.
I find myself, as in my last post, delineating between 'universe' (the set including everything) and 'cosmos' (what we know of the current contents of the universe).The Universe may have existed eternally, however, contemporary cosmology suggests it had a finite beginning some 13.72 billion years ago.
My point is, we have not established that the universe had a beginning, so one should avoid building on that premise. That is what you appear to be doing.There may be other options, but if they cannot be defined and argued for then why should we consider them?
The term 'god' comes with a lot of baggage and presumptions.Deism is often misunderstood because the world derives from the Latin word deus, which means god or deity. Deism is not necessarily a belief in a deity/god, but a creator(s)/force. The term god is simply used as a label for this unknown, undefined, creator(s)/force.
Or it may just be the *appearance* of some creative intelligence at work, given the demonstrable predilection for humans to see patterns where there may be none.Since Deism has no dogma, tenets or sacred text that say how things must be, the answers are not always cut and dried. Bear in mind that the answers that follow merely represent the beliefs of many Deists. No one answers for all Deists.
Deism was intended to grow and evolve with new evidence and arguments.
I hold an unassuming deistic view. It goes like this:
As a result of knowledge revealed to me with the aid of reasoning, I conclude that design is the best explanation for the nature of our Universe. It appears to me that the Universe was contrived and not a result of random events. That the intention of some creative intelligence was at work.
I think of agnostic as 'it may be unknowable, or cannot be knowable' - it is not a fence-sitting position.I am an agnostic in the fact that I admit I do not "know". I am a weak deist because I don't maintain a very high degree of certainty with my belief. I am therefore best classified as an agnostic/weak deist.
Depends. What do you do with this 'god' that you believe exists? Does it offer any more explanatory power than theories or hypothesis that do not evoke deities?If you like I can provide you with reasons and evidence to support my claim, however, this thread is probably not the best place to do it.
What it means is that God got it right from the start and there is no need for blind random mutations.If organisms do not evolve from other organisms than that means that they have to pop into existence.
What it means is that God got it right from the start and there is no need for blind random mutations.
Where did the first living organism come from? Did it not pop into existence?If organisms do not evolve from other organisms than that means that they have to pop into existence.
No -- abiogenesis has not been verified.but has anyone ever observed a living organism just pop into existence?
Isn't this what scientists must also believe to explain the origin of life?The entire concept is rather silly, yet this this what creationists must believe if they do not accept evolution.
Why don't you explain how life originated in the universe?If you do believe god makes organisms pop into existence then provide me with evidence.
I find myself, as in my last post, delineating between 'universe' (the set including everything) and 'cosmos' (what we know of the current contents of the universe). Which do you mean when you say 'universe'?
There is a scientific consensus amongst cosmologists that the Universe did in fact have a finite beginning. Until new scientific data presents itself that seriously challenges this I am justified to build on such premise.My point is, we have not established that the universe had a beginning, so one should avoid building on that premise. That is what you appear to be doing.
Indeed, the term ‘god’ does come with many presumptions, this is why I choose not to use such term.The term 'god' comes with a lot of baggage and presumptions.
Then so be it. I am interested in uncovering reality, not dictating it.What if whatever created the universe (or the instantiation of the cosmos) was no more complex or intelligent than say, a toaster oven?
Are you suggesting that patterns in nature are circumstantial evidence of a creative intelligence? It appears you are too me.Or it may just be the *appearance* of some creative intelligence at work, given the demonstrable predilection for humans to see patterns where there may be none.
There is a distinction between knowledge and belief. I would never say I ‘believe’ in my sister because I 'know' her.I think of agnostic as 'it may be unknowable, or cannot be knowable' - it is not a fence-sitting position.
In my view, design (intention) provides greater explanatory power than chance (non-intention) for the nature of the Universe. The Universe exhibits profound order, harmony and regularity. Our experience of the cause and effect structure of the Universe suggests that these attributes are far better explained by design than chance.Depends. What do you do with this 'god' that you believe exists? Does it offer any more explanatory power than theories or hypothesis that do not evoke deities?
Once again, go tell that to the parents of kids with genetic diseases caused by blind mutations.
Where did the first living organism come from? Did it not pop into existence?
No -- abiogenesis has not been verified.
Isn't this what scientists must also believe to explain the origin of life?
Why don't you explain how life originated in the universe?
Where did the first living organism come from?
The first living organism likely derived from pre-existing matter as does everything else in our Universe that we observe.Did it not pop into existence?
That is correct.No -- abiogenesis has not been verified.
Everything that we observe derives from pre-existing matter, therefore, there is no reason to believe life is any different.Isn't this what scientists must also believe to explain the origin of life?
Why don't you explain how life originated in the universe?
What do you mean by 'organisms'?If organisms do not evolve from other organisms than that means that they have to pop into existence.
There are some YEC like Dr Dino that depends on the theory of evolution to explain the biodiversity that he feels took place after Noah and after the flood. Otherwise if there are 5 million different species then Noah would have had to have all of them on the Ark. If there was a world wide flood. We believe it to be impossible for all the different species all over the world to have been on Noah's Ark. So then the flood must have been local and the species on the Ark must have been from the Biodiverse Ecology that is called Eden in the Bible. In other words Noah saved himself, his family and the animals on his farm and in the area he was from. Otherwise that biodiversity hotspot would have gone extinct. Lambs, Sheep, Goats and so on.I have a question. Do all YEC's believe that god only created life during the seven day period of the genesis story or that he actively creates living organisms?
What do you mean by 'organisms'?
I'm an 'organism' that evolved from my parents, but I'm still a human being.
And I certainly didn't just 'pop into existence', unless you mean when I was conceived; but frankly, I'm not sure what you mean.
There are some YEC like Dr Dino that depends on the theory of evolution to explain the biodiversity that he feels took place after Noah and after the flood. Otherwise if there are 5 million different species then Noah would have had to have all of them on the Ark. If there was a world wide flood. We believe it to be impossible for all the different species all over the world to have been on Noah's Ark. So then the flood must have been local and the species on the Ark must have been from the Biodiverse Ecology that is called Eden in the Bible. In other words Noah saved himself, his family and the animals on his farm and in the area he was from. Otherwise that biodiversity hotspot would have gone extinct. Lambs, Sheep, Goats and so on.
You got to be careful of the word many. As a general rule a third believe a third do not believe and a third are undecided. God will not accept undecided. So a third will be saved and two thirds, what some call "many" well perish.Many other people, particularly certain theists, believe life is a result of creation ex nihilo by god.
Science rejects a Global flood and there is overwelming evidence to support that. But by all means tell us how the Kangaroo got from Australia to Noahs Boat in the Middle East and then back to Australia again after the flood. Or the Tarsier monkey from the Philippines that only lives on one of the islands there. In fact most of the many South Pacific Islands have their own biodiverse species that you only find on that island. I am a Bible literalist. I accept the vast majority of Bishop Usshers work and his book.I would have to believe that many if not most biblical literalists must disagree with your interpretation of the Bible being that you reject a global flood. Certainly someone like the poster AV does.
You got to be careful of the word many. As a general rule a third believe a third do not believe and a third are undecided. God will not accept undecided. So a third will be saved and two thirds, what some call "many" well perish.
"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and there are many who go in by it" mat 7 13
Science rejects a Global flood and there is overwelming evidence to support that. But by all means tell us how the Kangaroo got from Australia to Noahs Boat in the Middle East and then back to Australia again after the flood. Or the Tarsier monkey from the Philippines that only lives on one of the islands there. In fact most of the many South Pacific Islands have their own biodiverse species that you only find on that island. I am a Bible literalist. I accept the vast majority of Bishop Usshers work and his book.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?