Your church and your views on evolution (2)

CaliforniaSun

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
2,104
41
✟2,613.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
....matter and space just happen to exist, and always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By one chance in a thousand something hit our sun and made it produce the planets; and by another thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for life, and the right temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of the matter on this earth came alive; and then, by a very long series of chances, the living creatures developed into things like us. (CS Lewis)

This is more acceptable and believable than God did it?
Why? The same science that atheists say can not prove the existence of God, can not prove any of this.

To me, that is why not only evolution, but materialism itself is at best a worldview but better described as a religion and should never be even remotely called a science.

CSL was a fine fiction writer (although I prefer the imagination of his contemporary, Tolkein), as a child I enjoyed CoN series and read them half dozen times. His sci-fi not so much, I made it through Space Triology just once. As a theologian, he was just average. Mere Christianity is a treatise on faith which resorts to incredulity and argumentum ad pop. Anything he has to say about astrophysics should in no way be conflated with what actual astrophysicists have to say about our universe. Yes, circumstances for life have to be 'just so,' however, given that we know there are billions of galaxies, consisting of trillions (that's 000000000000 zeros!) it seems entirely likely that just one planet, orbiting just one star, might produce conditions that allow for life to evolve. It's really not that much of a stretch when you look at the facts.

You should not let scientific understanding and knowlege challenge your faith. If a god exists, then he exists, independently of you and your beliefs about it. And if a god exists, what's wrong with trying to understand how he did it? This has been one downfall, IMO, of religions and why they're losing membership, as they come across as being dragged kicking and screaming when confronted with new scientific discoveries.
 
Upvote 0

jpcedotal

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style
May 26, 2009
4,243
239
In between Deliverance and Brother, Where Art Thou
✟13,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, "I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 A.M. on January 15th and saw so-and-so," or, "I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so." Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science—and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes—something of a different kind—this is not a scientific question. (CS Lewis)
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaSun

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
2,104
41
✟2,613.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, "I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 A.M. on January 15th and saw so-and-so," or, "I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so." Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science—and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes—something of a different kind—this is not a scientific question. (CS Lewis)
CSL may not be the best guy to get our science from. Just sayin'.
 
Upvote 0

jpcedotal

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style
May 26, 2009
4,243
239
In between Deliverance and Brother, Where Art Thou
✟13,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
CSL was a fine fiction writer (although I prefer the imagination of his contemporary, Tolkein), as a child I enjoyed CoN series and read them half dozen times. His sci-fi not so much, I made it through Space Triology just once. As a theologian, he was just average. Mere Christianity is a treatise on faith which resorts to incredulity and argumentum ad pop. Anything he has to say about astrophysics should in no way be conflated with what actual astrophysicists have to say about our universe. Yes, circumstances for life have to be 'just so,' however, given that we know there are billions of galaxies, consisting of trillions (that's 000000000000 zeros!) it seems entirely likely that just one planet, orbiting just one star, might produce conditions that allow for life to evolve. It's really not that much of a stretch when you look at the facts.

You should not let scientific understanding and knowlege challenge your faith. If a god exists, then he exists, independently of you and your beliefs about it. And if a god exists, what's wrong with trying to understand how he did it? This has been one downfall, IMO, of religions and why they're losing membership, as they come across as being dragged kicking and screaming when confronted with new scientific discoveries.

So your argument is because the size of the universe and the number of stars, suns and planets in it...that that changes the probability of one planet (that we know of, and according to science that is all we can use as evidence) out of all of them having life...and not having just one "1 in a 10000how many zeros u want to add" chance event happening but having a chain of these astronomical events happening in such a way that here we are today.

It takes less faith to believe in God did it...in fact just on the probability factor alone...it is more feasible for an intelligent being to be behind it all than simply mere chance.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
....matter and space just happen to exist, and always have existed, nobody knows why;
"Why" may not be a valid question.
and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think.
What do you mean by 'fluke'? What was the alternative?
By one chance in a thousand something hit our sun and made it produce the planets; and by another thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for life, and the right temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of the matter on this earth came alive; and then, by a very long series of chances, the living creatures developed into things like us. (CS Lewis)
No matter the odds, it appears to have happened at least once.
This is more acceptable and believable than God did it?
All I know of "God" is a character in a book. "God did it" does not have any explanatory power.
Why? The same science that atheists say can not prove the existence of God, can not prove any of this.
Which atheists say this?

Science does not "prove" anything.
To me, that is why not only evolution, but materialism itself is at best a worldview but better described as a religion and should never be even remotely called a science.
With your demonstrable misconception of what you think science is, I can see why you say that. Using "religion" as an insult puzzles me.

Can you show me a section, an example, from the theory of evolution that is "anti-God"?
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaSun

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
2,104
41
✟2,613.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So your argument is because the size of the universe and the number of stars, suns and planets in it...that that changes the probability of one planet (that we know of, and according to science that is all we can use as evidence) out of all of them having life...and not having just one "1 in a 10000how many zeros u want to add" chance event happening but having a chain of these astronomical events happening in such a way that here we are today.

It takes less faith to believe in God did it...in fact just on the probability factor alone...it is more feasible for an intelligent being to be behind it all than simply mere chance.
We'll, the fact that we're here at all suggests it happened, at least once. Given the fact there trillions of stars, suggests a probablitiy of at least one.

If you're asking "why is there something, rather than nothing," we don't know. We may never know. But we shouldn't stop looking, throw up our hands and say 'goddidit.'
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
....matter and space just happen to exist, and always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By one chance in a thousand something hit our sun and made it produce the planets; and by another thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for life, and the right temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of the matter on this earth came alive; and then, by a very long series of chances, the living creatures developed into things like us. (CS Lewis)

This is more acceptable and believable than God did it?
Correct. As the number of trials approaches infinity, the improbable becomes inevitable. Given the number of stars in the universe (300 sextillion at last count), even the most remotely improbable coincidences occur somewhere.

Why? The same science that atheists say can not prove the existence of God, can not prove any of this.
Yes, it can.
 
Upvote 0

jpcedotal

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style
May 26, 2009
4,243
239
In between Deliverance and Brother, Where Art Thou
✟13,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
We'll, the fact that we're here at all suggests it happened, at least once. Given the fact there trillions of stars, suggests a probablitiy of at least one.

If you're asking "why is there something, rather than nothing," we don't know. We may never know. But we shouldn't stop looking, throw up our hands and say 'goddidit.'

see, that is where we can agree. I to believe we should search for the "why" or "who" if that be the case...but this is also where the human element comes into play. I do not think the science community, or at least the money behind the research, would allow this search to be unbiased...there is always a result to searched for, not a search to find the result whatever that may be.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaSun

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
2,104
41
✟2,613.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
see, that is where we can agree. I to believe we should search for the "why" or "who" if that be the case...but this is also where the human element comes into play. I do not think the science community, or at least the money behind the research, would allow this search to be unbiased...there is always a result to searched for, not a search to find the result whatever that may be.
Which is why science is different than religion. Faith makes unreasonable assertions without evidence, and is defended against all reason, where science is objectively verified, and the most parsimonious explanation accepted.

That is to say, you let your religion inform your beliefs, in spite of evidence.

As for your belief in god/s, I accept the null hypothesis, and do not accept deitites as a reasonable explanation for anything, until such time evidence would suggest it's existence. As Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
 
Upvote 0

jpcedotal

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style
May 26, 2009
4,243
239
In between Deliverance and Brother, Where Art Thou
✟13,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Which is why science is different than religion. Faith makes unreasonable assertions without evidence, and is defended against all reason, where science is objectively verified, and the most parsimonious explanation accepted.

That is to say, you let your religion inform your beliefs, in spite of evidence.

As for your belief in god/s, I accept the null hypothesis, and do not accept deitites as a reasonable explanation for anything, until such time evidence would suggest it's existence. As Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

But we do have an evidence of sort. There is only one physical thing in the entire universe that we can go further with than simple observation...man. We kind of have inside information about this creature. Every other creature and thing, all we can do is observe what it does. With man there is another element..a sense of what we ought to do and a choice to do this or not, a generic moral code that is different than any other creature we have observed.

We have two bits of evidence about the Somebody. One is the universe He has made. If we used that as our only clue, then I think we should have to conclude that He was a great artist (for the universe is a very beautiful place), but also that He is quite merciless and no friend to man (for the universe is a very dangerous and terrifying place). The other bit of evidence is that Moral Law which He has put into our minds. And this is a better bit of evidence than the other, because it is inside information. (CS Lewis)

This inside information that we all have is unobservable by science.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,666
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,434.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This inside information that we all have is unobservable by science.
Indeed -- :thumbsup:

God is the best explanation for the universe today, and science should be considered a branch of Theology.

In my opinion.
 
Upvote 0

jpcedotal

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style
May 26, 2009
4,243
239
In between Deliverance and Brother, Where Art Thou
✟13,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The way CS Lewis arrives at the fact that there must be something other than the physical universe is pretty thought provoking. He does this without quoting any Scripture. The reason I brought it up here is the whole science issue in relation to the origins of the physical universe still ends with God not only being the best rational answer but more importantly being the only rational answer without having to deny this inner moral code we all are born with.

For some reason, we want to separate and put everything in these neat little boxes and no one piece is allowed to be in two separate boxes at the same time. I personally believe it is when there are no boxes, that everything relates to everything else, the physical, mental, and spiritual all mixed together, is always the most complete and clearest answer...and the most obvious. I don't have to deny anything, all is included and put to the litmus test.

Atheist science begins with denial...and spirals down into deceit at the level where it is even believed by the deceivers themselves as truth.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
The way CS Lewis arrives at the fact that there must be something other than the physical universe is pretty thought provoking. He does this without quoting any Scripture.
This was never established as a 'fact'.
The reason I brought it up here is the whole science issue in relation to the origins of the physical universe still ends with God not only being the best rational answer but more importantly being the only rational answer without having to deny this inner moral code we all are born with.
Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.
For some reason, we want to separate and put everything in these neat little boxes and no one piece is allowed to be in two separate boxes at the same time. I personally believe it is when there are no boxes, that everything relates to everything else, the physical, mental, and spiritual all mixed together, is always the most complete and clearest answer...and the most obvious. I don't have to deny anything, all is included and put to the litmus test.
Do you deny that men have travelled to the moon and back?

Will you put this 'God' of yours to the test? How would you do that?
Atheist science begins with denial...and spirals down into deceit at the level where it is even believed by the deceivers themselves as truth.
What do you know of this 'atheist science' (just what does that mean)? Can you show me a section, an example, from the theory of evolution that is "anti-God"?
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaSun

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
2,104
41
✟2,613.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But we do have an evidence of sort. There is only one physical thing in the entire universe that we can go further with than simple observation...man. We kind of have inside information about this creature. Every other creature and thing, all we can do is observe what it does. With man there is another element..a sense of what we ought to do and a choice to do this or not, a generic moral code that is different than any other creature we have observed.


This inside information that we all have is unobservable by science.

Morals are not absolute and have evolved right along with our species. All observable evidence demonstrates this, no reason to think otherwise. If our higher cognition didn't evolve a sense of morality, our species would not have survived.

I understand your reasons for wanting to insert a deity into your beliefs about reality, but it doesn't help to further our understanding of the physical universe, and only begs the question.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CaliforniaSun

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
2,104
41
✟2,613.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The way CS Lewis arrives at the fact that there must be something other than the physical universe is pretty thought provoking. He does this without quoting any Scripture. The reason I brought it up here is the whole science issue in relation to the origins of the physical universe still ends with God not only being the best rational answer but more importantly being the only rational answer without having to deny this inner moral code we all are born with.

For some reason, we want to separate and put everything in these neat little boxes and no one piece is allowed to be in two separate boxes at the same time. I personally believe it is when there are no boxes, that everything relates to everything else, the physical, mental, and spiritual all mixed together, is always the most complete and clearest answer...and the most obvious. I don't have to deny anything, all is included and put to the litmus test.

Atheist science begins with denial...and spirals down into deceit at the level where it is even believed by the deceivers themselves as truth.
I have read much CSL when I was still a Christian: (off the top head)

The Great Divorce
Letters to Malcom, Chiefly on Prayer
Surprised by Joy
Mere Christianity
CoN 7-8x
Space Trilogy
Screwtape Letters
The Problem of Pain
The Four Loves

CSL was a great writer of nonfiction, and an ok theologian. He also only would have know only about ten percent of current cosmology. If you keep wanting to bring him up as an authority on astrophysics -not even his field- that's ok, just don't expect me to think it's deep in any sense of the word.

As for science and religion, you are correct, there are vast differences in their modus operandi. Science begins with the null hypothesis, asks a question, collects data, and then postulates most parsimonious explanation. Religion begins with the answer, and then selectively accepts evidence to support it's assertions -that's why you refer to it as faith.

As a sceptic, it's not that I don't want to believe, it's just that I want to know. And I want to believe what's real.
 
Upvote 0

jpcedotal

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style
May 26, 2009
4,243
239
In between Deliverance and Brother, Where Art Thou
✟13,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
So just because it is CS Lewis, it isn't even worth explaining where his logic is falling short...that's your argument?

Just seems a lot like deflection..
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaSun

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
2,104
41
✟2,613.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So just because it is CS Lewis, it isn't even worth explaining where his logic is falling short...that's your argument?

Just seems a lot like deflection..
I'm sorry, I thought I was clear on CSL.

1. He is not an astrophysicist.
2. His argument is one from incredulity.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
285427-albums4496-40214.gif
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,666
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,434.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's cute ... and typical.

If I were Governor Perry, I would reply, "You take your microevolution and do with it what you have to do; but don't try and push macroevolution, or I'll veto your class."
 
Upvote 0