Theory of Creation

[Sandslash7]

so, why did god allow a distorted version of his creation to exist and be taught to everyone in the world?
surely he knew this would distort peoples beliefs

What do you mean? Are you talking about evolution?

in case you havent figured out what im talking about, i mean there is no way in a llama's hind leg that creation happened as it was written in genesis

Why not?

 

[ninetales1234]

Do you believe that humans were created by God, like scriptures and religion teach us, or do you think we evolved.

I believe you asked a bad question. There is continuum of beliefs between pure evolutionism and pure creationism.
It's more than just black and white, red team v. blue team.

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

Oh, and saying God "helped along the evolutionary process" is like saying that God made all the laws in the universe but then manually made each particle behave exactly as the laws said it would anyway. The whole point of the theory of evolution is that it describes an autonomous process; there's absolutely no need for an intelligent meddler.

 

[Marril]

Sure, humans evolved from old-school hominids. Why would you think otherwise? Because that's what the Jews guessed a couple thousand years ago?

Well... yeah. I mean, aren't we supposed to believe whatever they wrote, considering they were influenced by god? Questioning otherwise, especially with logic, is heresy.

Seriously, though, scientific evidence points to evolution. A bunch of dead Jews point to creation. I think I'll trust the scientific evidence.

Well, if you read Genesis, you'll note humans being created "in God's image," as well as with sexual dimorphism.

I actually touched on this a bit in the old thread. It's not so much "created in god's image" as the fact that Adam was created in Adam Qadmon's image, the whole thing being largely a raise in status to his position on the divine council. They didn't even really differentiate between the two Adams originally, either (also, "Adam", like "Christ" and "Satan", is a title, not a name).

This part isn't an argument, mind you. I'm simply expanding on the point a little.

Evolution is scientifically proven fact.

No, it's not. It's called the "theory of evolution," not the "law of evolution."

The whole point of the theory of evolution is that it describes an autonomous process; there's absolutely no need for an intelligent meddler.

QFT.

 

[ixidor89]

you mad

there was no creation
the universe is, and always was, eternal
where did people get the idea that something or someone created all this?
where did this thing come from? what was he doing before he created everything? playing solitare?
silliness really...

I'm pretty sure that the latest in scientific theory says that the universe is fourteen billion years old and may very well eventually end...

 

[Marril]

His statement can be considered true in the sense that the concept of anything "before" the universe is undefined. Then again, I highly doubt that's what he meant.

 

[The Captain]

The thing about most religions today there is pretty much solid proof that they didn't exist from the beginning of the human race( BTW I do believe in evolution and I’m an atheist). They more came out of the necessity of humans to explain the world around them. In a sense humans created God not the other way around. Think to the past the Greeks came up with their own theories as did various other groups. But they made the Gods somewhat tangible. Like the Greeks placed the gods on Mt. and made them wonder our world. This made it easy to disprove their existence. While the god of the religions of Islam , Christianity, and Judaism, came up with a concept of a god that simply could not be proven untrue because it was not something tangible or even comprehendible. So how can you prove or disprove something that you can't even understand?
You can't, it's foolish to assume you can. Weather you belief or not believe it's all a matter of instinct and faith of what you feel is right.

But there are something’s that are more or less irrefutable by educated people evolution is one of these things at least to an extent it is. We evolved from monkeys it is pretty much proven. That we evolved from other organisms it’s not completely proven but very much assumable. Also evolution and religion are not per say contradictory concepts. But like the museum in some redneck state that has dinos with saddles and humans ridding them that’s really idiotic. That museum should be shut down for sayng that provably false info is true

 

[ryanvergel]

You all should do yourselves a personal favor and look up the following 4 basic arguments:

Ontological argument
Cosmological argument
Teleological argument
Problem of Evil

 

[Magic_Umbreon]

^Studied those four. Not quite convinced by the teleological but as for evil, you can't have evil without good.

What I mean is, with no God there is no evil so do innate morals etc. show God?

 

[Marril]

"Good" and "evil" are nothing more than words to describe whether or not something falls within something you support or not. There are the somewhat universally agreed-upon things (such as "murder is evil"), but there is no such thing as "evil" in the absolute sense.

Statements like "with no god there is no evil" are utterly ignorant.

 

[Magic_Umbreon]

So why is murder evil?

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

We evolved from monkeys it is pretty much proven.

:nonono: Sigh, no we didn't. Humans evolved from apelike creatures, but not from monkeys. Monkeys are contemporary organisms and also evolved from those apey things.

Ontological argument

Blatant nonsense.

Cosmological argument

Faulty assumptions and massively overreaching conclusion.

Teleological argument

Only if you ignore a bunch of other possibilities; and even then it supports Deism at best.

Problem of Evil

This is an argument against theism, right? Not a great one, unless you dip into free will argument, which is its own point, really. However, expanding it to "problem of the world really really sucks" is pretty strong against modern religions.

 

[B_B_C]

Both.

 

[ryanvergel]

Ontological argument is blatant nonsense?

It only took years and years for it to be rebuked. It's a fantastic and beautifully conceived argument. It's definitely not "blatant nonsense" or else it wouldn't even be a valid argument.

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

Well, it isn't a valid argument, hence its being rebuked. The argument hinges, in a convoluted way, on simply defining God as a thing that exists.

 

[homeofmew]

Another Religion topic ugh.
I believe that we were created by a Higher Being.

 

[ryanvergel]

No, it isn't sound. It is valid.

There's a huge difference.

An argument is valid iff:
The inference made from the premises to conclusion is perfect.

It can also be said that when an argument has a form such that if the premises were true the conclusion must also be true.

Now, an argument can be valid and still have untrue premises- which is the case that you believe the ontological argument fits into.

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

I didn't mean that the proof wasn't valid, just the argument. I didn't mean to use the term so formally.

It's still a sham of a proof, especially in its original form. It's much more complicated than it needs to be, serving the function of making it harder to realize that its conclusion is basically among its premises. It's like the logic equivalent of doublespeak: it seems convincing, but if you actually work through its reasoning you'll find that it proves nothing.

 

[ryanvergel]

It's still a beautiful argument.

 

[Azure Kite]

considering how much it hurt my eyes last time to read all the incredibly long unparagraphed posts, I'm not even going to bother this time.
All I know is I believe what I believe, and from what I saw on the last topic, arguing or discussing the point simply hardens people more to the truth I believe,
and will eventually turn back into the my theory of yes/no is better than your theory of yes/no.