Is there such a thing as God?

[dogma]

OK, again my fault. Let me summarise, hopefully not making it too complicated:

Ryanvergel asked me whether my issues with evolution aren't actually about evolution, but that scientists haven't really proved that evolution is "true".

My long post ran with that, concluding that in maths, if something is true, it really must be true. In science, something is true because thats the best thing that fits the evidence. That's why I'm just unconvinced by evolution. [DEL]Not enough evidence for it.[/DEL] The evidence we have is open to questioning, hence I can't accept it.

The last part of the post then brings the question back to God. If I require such a high standard of proof for everything, how can I believe in God? Because no way is there that level of evidence for His existence. But that's missing the point - I believe in God, not rationally claim his existence is true. Therefore I don't need that kind of evidence to hold my beliefs.

Ignore the maths, read the rest of it (ultimately you're not missing much). And I'll tone it down from now too

 

[Ky00ber the III]

I was planning to type a long-ish reply but I am really tired from soccer. What I have to got say is this:speaking as a biology student, refuting evolution by the basis of evidence or lack of it is a very weak argument. It's almost ridiculous. But then again since you're so anti-science I can't really blame you

 

[P_A]

Ky00ber, I'm not sure who you're attacking there, but it wasn't a good idea. Someone could very easily become offended and turn your words back on you. Speaking as a biology "student," you should realize that some actual biologists don't agree with your opinion. Scientists in general look for truth - observable facts. Theories are still theories until they can be proven. If there are gaping holes in a theory, it is thrown out, and another theory is suggested. If you forwarded a theory today with as many holes as the original evolution theory, you would be laughed out of the profession - based on evidence or lack of it. Being anti-science has nothing to do with it. If something is a fact, it is a fact. People today are so quick to quote as fact the evolution theory, when in reality, it is just their opinion. If you like, please by all means state your evidence in support of evolution, however it would be best to leave broad sweeping statements attacking others at home.

 

[dogma]

I'm guessing Ky00ber was 'attacking' me. But I'm not offended - his point is perfectly rational from his point of view

 

[Ky00ber the III]

Well since I can't go to sleep I will try tackling some things here.

Speaking as a biology "student," you should realize that some actual biologists don't agree with your opinion. Scientists in general look for truth - observable facts.

Do provide some references to these "biologists". Now, Evolution is one of the key principles of biology next to the Cell Theory and Homeostasis. While aspects of it are under dispute on a whole the idea that populations do change is an observable fact as clear as the fact that apples fall from trees.

"As far as "detractors", the nature of science is to question things, nothing is (or should be) sacrosanct. But, this does not necessarily mean that just because someone questions a law (or theory) that the law/theory in question is wrong. Was Einstein a detractor of Newton when he showed that the Newtonian "Laws" of mechanics did not explain everything (wasn't that why quantum mechanics came into existence)? Just because Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" in some situations, does that mean it is useless? I don't think so!! If certain aspects of evolutionary theory (e.g., natural selection, gradualism) has "detractors" (and I mean among people who are qualified to argue about it -- among biologists), does that mean natural selection (or the idea of biological evolution in general) is wrong? NO!! Scientific knowledge is strengthened by people questioning what is or has been accepted."

Theories are still theories until they can be proven.

You're confusing the scientific use of theory with a layman use. Theories have to be tested, accepted and usable in research and Evolution has already fulfilled that. While the mechanisms of evolution may be "wrong" or not accurate the Theory provides an accurate model that when scientists say "Let's find so-and-so by using evolution as a foundation" they do find it.

If you forwarded a theory today with as many holes as the original evolution theory, you would be laughed out of the profession - based on evidence or lack of it.

Do point out these holes of the original theory. If you ask me to provide some substantial argument then I would like you to do the same for your "opinion". Darwin's theory was very solid and while we know he got some things wrong what he didn't lack was evidence. In fact the whole of the Origin of Species is like a observational diary. He did lack the crucial evidence of hereditary particles(we now know this as genes) but Gregor Mendel already did his work for him. There is only so much one man could have done based on his knowledge of geology and animal husbandry.

People today are so quick to quote as fact the evolution theory, when in reality, it is just their opinion.

Right, all scientific theories, irregardless of their efficacy, demand 100% proof or else it's an opinion when we state it. Evolutionary Biology and Science doesn't work that way.

If you like, please by all means state your evidence in support of evolution, however it would be best to leave broad sweeping statements attacking others at home.

I would love to, but there are already many evolutionary textbooks that provide a plethora of evidence. I would also like to recommend the textbook my school is using, Campbell and Reece's Biology 7th edition.

@dogma I think your issue is more of a philosophical bent, regarding knowledge and truth itself. Scientists are humans limited to what works for them. A axiomatic approach may not work with the complex systems of biology. (although recently scientists have found there may be basic laws governing cellular systems) I appreciate your arguments and I wasn't attacking you personally. It's just that your argument comes very close to a old favorite of creationists which is entirely false.

 

[dogma]

@dogma I think your issue is more of a philosophical bent, regarding knowledge and truth itself. Scientists are humans limited to what works for them. A axiomatic approach may not work with the complex systems of biology. (although recently scientists have found there may be basic laws governing cellular systems) I appreciate your arguments and I wasn't attacking you personally. It's just that your argument comes very close to a old favorite of creationists which is entirely false.

Agreed that my issue is a philosophical one. But care to elaborate on this creationist argument which you say is false?

 

[Ky00ber the III]

The evidence argument. It goes something like this: "There is no certain proof of evolution". Same thing different way of saying: "Lack of evidence (in fossil record or other wise)", "there are only apes and men in the fossils, no apemen", "macroevolution vs microevolution"

I'm not sure if they still pull this card though.

 

[Will-iam]

Question 'Is there anyone who adheres to the theory of evolution in this thread who believes its start originated by God or God still exists and somehow participates in this world?'

 

[baby mario]

Question 'Is there anyone who adheres to the theory of evolution in this thread who believes its start originated by God or God still exists and somehow participates in this world?'

Mainstream Christianity like Catholicism and Anglicanism doesn't have too much of a problem with evolution theory and doesn't see it as necessarily incompatible with their beliefs. I found this on a Catholic Website:

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

The Church of England has an article on its website which states . . .

The trouble with **** sapiens is that we’re only human. People, and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and churches are no exception. When a big new idea emerges which changes the way people look at the world, it’s easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is under attack and then to do battle against the new insights. The church made that mistake with Galileo’s astronomy, and has since realised its error. Some church people did it again in the 1860s with Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. So it is important to think again about Darwin’s impact on religious thinking, then and now – and the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth in 1809 is a good time to do so.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html

It seems to be the more fundamentalist Protestant sects that reject evolution utterly. Here in the UK, Creationism is probably seen as an extremist viewpoint.

 

[DarthPika]

I've never really understood why creationists make such a huge deal out of it anyway. As long as you believe that God is behind it, why does it matter? Not to mention, the people who wrote the Bible couldn't possibly have said that "God created the world via the adaptation and evolution of life forms" since,

#1. The theory of evolution didn't even exist.

#2. They had no knowledge of genetics, and it's doubtful they would have understood it if they did. Even with all our high tech stuff we still have a hard time understanding it.

#3. Creation needed to be explained in a way that to those people made sense. It's kind of hard to explain that the life we see today might have come from microbes, if the people at the time didn't even know that the microscopic organisms existed.

 

[dogma]

The evidence argument. It goes something like this: "There is no certain proof of evolution". Same thing different way of saying: "Lack of evidence (in fossil record or other wise)", "there are only apes and men in the fossils, no apemen", "macroevolution vs microevolution"

I'm not sure if they still pull this card though.

I'm going to start a new thread on evolution. For the most part we can discuss God sensibly, I don't see why we can't also discuss evolution in the same way.

Only reason for this is so that people can actually talk about God as opposed to evolution vs. creationism here!

See you guys there!

 

[Will-iam]

Question 'Is there anyone who adheres to the theory of evolution in this thread who believes its start originated by God or God still exists and somehow participates in this world?'

While I don't 'believe' in evoulution per se I don't see the harm or contradiction in it via creationsim. Yes we are to acknowledge God as Creator of all things even those which has yet to be created or occur like humanity risen from the grave on Judgement Day (to use a 'simple' example. This event of our rising to be called to account and clothed accordingly to what we as individuals have done hasn't 'happended' yet for us in our 'time-zone' yet it has and is occuring in God's eternal 'time-zone'.

In order for God to be creator of all things then God must be creating at all times in all time. You, me and our thoughts are from God they may not be of God but they are from. Yes it is said God made man from clay but this is not literal or if it is it's not the same clay we use to make earthenware but a clay we have no idea about though it's not the material that's important but the function of such a purpose and what was the purpose of this 'clay' the purpose was and is to show God has and is the giver and gift of life. This 'clay' mayhave been gradually 'molded' in to man via evoltuion and the moment man was made from it and of it God as reverence was established and not only God as creator.

 

[Barkjon]

Yes, God is real. Read the Bible. It has it all there.

 

[Benzo]

Ok- something simple to explain a point of view.
Example- Let's say that you have a million Lego pieces. You start "creating" something. When you are done creating whatever it is, you have pride for your accomplishment. You then want to show everyone your masterpeice.
Then you decide, I will make this come to life. So you do.Then, you want to add something to your creation, a home. So you make it a home. If the thing you created is "in your own image", and said "it is good", then you have the basic concept of what it means to be considered a God. Then you give your creation intelligence. It now has undersatanding. Does it question you at all? Not until some influience gives the creation a reason to start questioning you and why it is "without" something that it now believes it has to have.
So, if it is a question of needing proof that you exist from your creation, then you are asking a question better answered by what has already been provided for you from the start. Since You the creator has made a whole "home" with everything your creation needed to sustain its own life, then why the need to challenge the fact that the creator exists? Man has yet to do anything "new" that God has not already created. If anything about God that I believe to be true, is we are His creation with a choice- to beleive or turn around and deny His existance.
Back to my example- Your Lego creation is now in the hands of your little brother, who starts to take it apart-Your first reaction would be anger, because you made something that is "perfect" in your design. Sure, you can remake your creation, but now it has been "tainted" by what your little brother has done. So, instead of just giving up, you decide to not be imature and fight with your brother, but let your creation choose the better "God" on who will proporly repair it's now imperfect state. God will not fight our own fights, for God was challenged by a "fallen angel" who thinks he should be in control of us, and he has a better offer then the one who created us. God will allow this to happen for the reason that we are now in an imperfect state of existance, and even we can see that this "fallen angel" is a fake, lying thief who is just jealouse that he can not create something as cool as us humans.

 

[P_A]

Wow, nice example. I couldn't have done better. Simplistic, easy to understand, effective. Good job.

Barkjon, though you may have a point, it too is inflamatory, and possibly a bit too simplistic. Sure, the bible does give info about God and his purposes, but sometimes passages may be hard to follow, or understand. Reading the bible is not enough. Studying it to find some deeper meaning, meditation, and prayer are required to get the sense of it. I would definitely recommend getting some help with this if you really would like to learn about Him. Other religions have other "holy" writings. Though I don't personally recommend those to others, due to my own beliefs, no more than I recommend evolutionary theory books, if your search helps you to identify God, then by all means I hope your search is a fruitful one.

 

[Will-iam]

I agree with P A nice analogy, question though for you Benzo since you used 'lego' as the material do you believe in the 'eternity of matter'? Personally I don't believe in the eternity of matter and the only creator is God. What we do is merely assmable and disassemble the matter God made. We can not create we cannot destroy that power is unique to God as creator and destroyer, in the sense God made something out of nothing and can return that something to nothing.

 

[Benzo]

^ I was using Lego's as an example for the "creation material", since you can create and disassemble them. And I do beleive that God can create and disassemble what He created with the "meterials" He had in order to create, and disassemble like wise. We humans have the ability to "alter" the matter to use at our discression. For good and for "evil". Science can break down evrything from genetics to nanoatoms. But we can only mimic or alter the "matter".
To clone something, science will mimic an original design. And then alter it to get similier results. But it all will fail, since we can not mimic "everlasting life", since we are unable to create anything perfect. Since Lego is a man made item, we can use them to mimic things that man has made by altering or adding pieces to to get a finale result of what it is that is intended to be mimiced.Therefore, copycatting someone else's original idea is all we can realy do, because if we surpass that- then we obtain the level that God holds. We will never obtain that, since God is our Father. Why allow your own creation to succeed you if you are the "everlasting Alpha and Omega"?

 

[Jaeger]

I think blind faith is one of the most dangerous things, while I am Christian and believe in God and the Bible I am also open minded.

 

[Pyro Entite]

I think this is kinda stupid just for that fact that no one is going to see eye to eye. The fact is that people are going to beleave in a god even if theres proof that one don't exist and people are also going to not beleave in god because there's no proof that he/she/it isn't real. So the point of this thread is pointless and will just make people mad. I for one don't care for a thing that they say in church but as for one that has die thats a different story. So going on with this is only going to tic people off and it will last until it gets blocked or people are to mad to come back to this thread. But thats IMO.

 

[DarthPika]

I think blind faith is one of the most dangerous things, while I am Christian and believe in God and the Bible I am also open minded.

I've noticed that most Christans are willing to be open minded. It seems that it's mostly the fundamentalist protestants that insist on blind faith. I will never be able to understand the "we're 100% right, everyone else is completely wrong" attitude that many of them seem to have. Seriously, it's always best to look somewhere in the middle of two extremes for an answer, even more so on a topic as old as this.