Perceptions of God, Creationism and Evolution

[Vangelovski]

This is an answer to most of Dawkins' rubbish:

http://trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

I know that noone is actually reading these lengthy articles because if they were, we would have had a few conversions in the last few days, or at least given up on evolution!

[Soldier of Macedon]

You confused the crap out of me

Sorry mate, the topic has expanded well beyond the original post, like many topics do, sometimes more fortunately than others

Can you prove to me that we actually exist, as opposed to being in the matrix or a figment of someone’s imagination?

We have senses, both emotionally and physically. Neither can be truly replicated in their actual forms through a matrix or figment. They can only be programmed or conjured in the world of their creator, but they will never be tangible, never real, irrespective of the illusion of reality it may come with. If you are suggesting that the opposite is the case, then the onus would be on you to prove it. What evidence is there against the suggestion that God was the figment of someone's imagination, given that nobody has ever see Him or knows what He looks like?

The existence of nations is not an indisputable fact. Nations are not tangible, they are an idea.

I could just as easily say that the existence of a government is not an indisputable fact because it is not tangible. And while the concept of a government or nation may not be tangible, the people that form a government or nation most certainly are.

Marxists have always denied the existence of nations. Rather, they believe people either belong to the proletariat or the bourgeoisie and that nations are the figment of bourgeoisie imagination in order to suppress the masses.

The concept of a nation could commence for a number of reasons, such as common positive action, common negative action, common reaction/rebellion, etc.

If you can argue convincingly against a young earth (i.e, 5500BC), then I'm all ears. I used to believe in an old earth (as many Christians do), but I have been thoroughly convinced against such a notion over the past few years.

I am not sure if you're all ears on this point given your strong convictions, or that you would ever be convinced, despite the evidence. I am neither an atheist or a Christian fundamentalist, so I would be more open to suggestions based on balanced and logical interpretation - not that I am implying that you don't apply logic, it's just that your current views don't seem to allow for a revision of the status quo as you see it.

Someone who believes this is a Christian and if you believe this, then its only logical to believe that this all powerful God gave us the Bible and whats in the Bible is true, not just a bunch of stories.

That is fair enough, but I also think that people should be allowed to take some of those stories with a grain of salt and apply their own logical interpretation, especially in this day and age. For example, it is more logical to assume that there was a tide or tidal wave that parted some of the waters in the Red Sea rather than them being split by Moses and his stick. That interpretation doesn't necessarily exempt the possibility of divine intervention from God, but the point I am trying to make is that the story about Moses would have been more readily accepted as genuine at the time of its occurrence because of ignorance and lack of available information. There is no actual evidence in support of the event taking place as described in the Book of Exodus.

Nothing is literally that – nothing – the absence of everything. How can even the tiniest particle just spontaneously appear out of nothing?

So if we assume that God created everything, who created God?

There are scientist who believe God created the Universe but they support evolution! This, IMHO, is a far more reasoned and logical position to take on the question of the existence of God than to argue for a newly created earth in accordance of the creation theory found in the Bible.

I agree.

To me, what christianity did is; adopting ethnocentric Jewish religion and making it universal by adding a new protagonist, the Jesus. Remember that first christians even argued about whether christianity is a sect of Judaism or a new religion for decades.

What do you mean by 'ethnocentric'? Has Christianity ever excluded non-Jews?

What are your perceptions of the man who was Muhammed? Was he just a disgruntled Arab who adopted 70% of the Jewish and Christian beliefs and scriptures, and inspired his followers to spread this religion through the sword, just like their subsequent lackeys (like some Turkish tribes) did afterwards? Is that a fair assessment, or is it cynical, like your assessment of Christianity?

If the Earth is 6 billion years ago or however old Evolutionists believe the Earth is. Why did human civilisation come only around 6000 years ago??? In 6000 years Humans have come from using stone tools to what we see in the world today. If evolution was true then we should not have been able to evolve so quickly in such a short amount of time I mean it took us 6 billion years to evolve from a cell to a human then 6000 years to develope the high amount of intelligence we possess today

Yet we have only made great strides in scientific discoveries in the last couple hundred years. Why did it take 5,800 years (according to your 6,000 year suggestion) to figure out how electricity can be used to supply power to most of the daily resources in use today? Why didn't the ancient Egyptians, who built magnificent structures that would take years to replicate even with modern technology, not realise that they could use the power generated from the sun in the same manner that some fish in the Nile are able to generate electricity? Why were there glorious periods in antiquity followed by periods of 'darkness' and backwardness? I don't you think you understand how evolution works and all the implications involved, it isn't always a straight line of continuity where layer upon layer of improvement is successfully applied.

[Phoenix]

GS, in regards to your 'LHC is being sabotaged from the future' post (#335).
I think you should cut this project a bit of slack, considering the LHC is the largest machine ever made by mankind, undertaking the most advanced research ever attempted, it wouldnt be very wise to suggest that everything should go flawlessly from the moment somebody plugs the thing in and pushes the shiny green button...

[Vangelovski]

SoM,

Without going into the theory of nationalism, I actually agree that nations exist, not because I can conclusively prove they exist, but because the evidence points towards their existence. Same as the idea of existence itself - its an entire philosophical question of its own. They are topics for another thread. Regardless, I was merely trying to point out that everything requires some degree of faith, otherwise you can't believe anything.

To suggest that I'm not open to the evidence on old earth vs new earth would be to ignore the fact that I used to believe in an old earth and ignore the fact that I have spent numerous years reading literally thousands of books and articles on the subject. Having gone through this process, I would have to leave my brain at the door and revisit everything I have already learn't for a second time. But, if you have evidence that you want to provide, do so. Even if I have already seen it, that is not a reason for you not to post it.

In relation to the events described in the Bible, people do apply their own interpretations to them - this thread alone is evidence enough of that. But be careful not to apply an uninformed interpretation.

In relation to the 'who created God' question, the question does not really make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

[Soldier of Macedon]

To suggest that I'm not open to the evidence on old earth vs new earth would be to ignore the fact that I used to believe in an old earth and ignore the fact that I have spent numerous years reading literally thousands of books and articles on the subject.

Tom, I wouldn't deny the fact that you are well versed with the subject, but you have formed a strong opinion based not only on research but also on religion. Was your devotion to the latter what triggered the former, or the other way around?

In relation to the events described in the Bible, people do apply their own interpretations to them - this thread alone is evidence enough of that. But be careful not to apply an uninformed interpretation.

Is it uninformed to suggest that nature and not Moses' stick was responsible for the separation of the Red Sea? In my opinion, neither exclude the possibility of divine intervention from God.

........if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is God.

I am receptive to such a notion, but this would only be an assumption based more on religious faith than anything else, as there is no factual evidence which can be conclusively determined beyond a reasonable doubt, at least not in this regard. We simply don't know, therefore all we can do is have faith that there is a God - but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of the stories in the Bible are true, or are meant to be interpreted literally.

[Vangelovski]

Tom, I wouldn't deny the fact that you are well versed with the subject, but you have formed a strong opinion based not only on research but also on religion. Was your devotion to the latter what triggered the former, or the other way around?

Is it uninformed to suggest that nature and not Moses' stick was responsible for the separation of the Red Sea? In my opinion, neither exclude the possibility of divine intervention from God.

I am receptive to such a notion, but this would only be an assumption based more on religious faith than anything else, as there is no factual evidence which can be conclusively determined beyond a reasonable doubt, at least not in this regard. We simply don't know, therefore all we can do is have faith that there is a God - but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of the stories in the Bible are true, or are meant to be interpreted literally.

Does it really matter whether I was a Christian first and then delved into the old vs new earth or the other way around?

I think we're confusing each others terminology - when you say nature could have been responsible for the parting of the waters, that implies no divine intervention. I don't think anyone suggests that Moses' stick parted the waters - that would be ridiculous - and that's not what the Bible is saying - its saying that God parted the waters.

What isn't there factual evidence about? That something cannot come from nothing? That is not a line of argument that even the most militant atheists make

If something can appear out of nothing, then surely it would not be unresonable to expect a $50 note (a simple piece of plastic) to appear out of nothing in my wallet, especially if we were to believe that this complex universe appeared out of nothing?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Does it really matter whether I was a Christian first and then delved into the old vs new earth or the other way around?

It does if I am to understand what led you to your current perceptions and how they were developed.

I think we're confusing each others terminology - when you say nature could have been responsible for the parting of the waters, that implies no divine intervention.

Nature would also be the work of God according to your previous definition relating to the existence of God. Thus, such an event can imply divine intervention, depending on how one would perceive it - and one could easily see how such an event would be considered as divine intervention, irrespective of Moses' presence.

I don't think anyone suggests that Moses' stick parted the waters - that would be ridiculous - and that's not what the Bible is saying - its saying that God parted the waters.

The chapter says that "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the LORD drove the sea back". However, just prior to this passage, God says to Moses, "lift up your staff, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it". If it was God that split the sea, why did He ask Moses to raise his stick over the water and "divide it"?

[George S.]

There are a lot of excellent points made regarding creation & science.For one thing you can't siscount a god out of the picture he ias real as they come.Our very existence proves there is a god.The universe is proof that god exists.It says in the bible that only a FOOL hath said in his heart there is no god.When one considers the immensity of it all we are like ants and we don't count for anything like nought.It says in isaiah that god is doing whatever he wants & he is in charge of everything.In regards to proof god is not going to provide proof to everyone who asks.We aren't going to hget proof in this lifetime.Also it says that gods ways are higher than mans.Mans ways &thinking are not gods.At the same time god says he did not make man in vain but with a chance to elevate theselves to god status not in this life but in the next life.Man tries to be like god but it's in a linited way.A lot of deceived people such as the catholic church beleive that the kingdom of god is allready here on earth & representing christ is the pope who is the vicar of christ.Nothing could be further from the truth.The kingdom of god means a kingdom of god beings.That's in the future after everyone that is meant to be ressurcted unto eternal life.Gods spirit living in them.Jesus was saying that to his disciples to worry about more important things like following gods word.He said don't worry about what you shall wear or what you shall eat.

[Vangelovski]

SoM,

My current view on the earth's age was a result of the evidence at hand. But obviously I was a Christian first, who believed in an old earth originally and could not understand how people could believe in a young earth until I slowly unravelled the 'science' behind it all and what we actually know.

When atheists and Christians debate, they usually refer to natural events as events that do not include divine intervention. I understand where you are coming from now, basically, that God caused things to happen in nature which led to the parting of the red sea - that is still divine intervention.

As for Moses and his staff, God likes to work through people (which is a key theme in the Bible). God did not even need Moses, let alone his staff, but it is how he has decided to bring about his will for the most part.

[julie]

I read somewhere the red sea "parted" was a tsunamai

[Daskalot]

In the case of the Red Sea and Moses, what makes this a historical fact? Is this story verified in other sources, ie Egyptian ones etc. Or is it only found in the Old Testament?

[vojnik]

I read somewhere the red sea "parted" was a tsunamai

The Red Sea could not have parted without Divine Intervention from God. If lets say this tsunami theory were true then the tsunami would of had to freeze to allow the Moses and the Jews to cross then resume its destruction to destroy the Egyptians.

[Vangelovski]

Another powerful objection to Darwinian theory is its inability to offer a convincing solution to the problem of ‘irreducible complexity’ – i.e. the existence of biological organisms and systems comprised of multiple, co-ordinated parts, all of which must co-exist to ensure the proper functioning of that organism or system.

As Darwin himself admitted in The Origin of Species: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Precisely such a demonstration has been made by American biochemist, Dr Michael Behe, in his award-winning best-seller, Darwin’s Black Box: the biochemical challenge to evolution. In this book, he argues that many biochemical structures within living organisms are ‘irreducibly complex’, like, for example, those involved in vision and blood-clotting. Behe shows that even the simplest form of vision requires a dazzling array of chemicals in the right places, as well as a system to transmit and process the information.

The blood-clotting mechanism similarly needs many different chemicals to work together in order to prevent us bleeding to death from minor cuts. If a simple mousetrap cannot function if any of its component parts are missing, how could an evolutionary process produce infinitely more complex single-cell organisms?

As one Darwinian scientist, Franklin M. Harold,has pointed out in his book, The Way of the Cell, (Oxford University Press, 2001, p.205), a single-cell organism is a biological high-tech factory complete with: “artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction…[and] a capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours.” Not surprisingly, he reluctantly concludes: “…we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (p.329).

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/advanced/does-science-contradict-religion.htm

[makedonin]

Makedonin, still chasing the unicorn?
.

No need for that, it is your jurisdiction and realm!

Have fun while it lasts

I really wonder what is going on in your lala land when you say something like this:

Can you prove to me that we actually exist, as opposed to being in the matrix or a figment of someone’s imagination?

and than complain about science and throw bs around. Science has more conclusive evidence than your Bible and creationist camp will ever dream to have, and yet you stick to the foolishnes.

You really are Model example of Pauls ideology:

"we [are] fools because of Christ" 1 Corinthians 4:10

[Onur]

What do you mean by 'ethnocentric'? Has Christianity ever excluded non-Jews?

The Jewish religion was ethnocentric, exclusive for the Jews themselves and to their descendants. Christianity adopted their faith, made some changes and presented it to the whole world as an universal religion.

The Jewish religion is still ethnocentric belief today. If you want, you can be a christian or muslim but you cannot be a real Jew if you didn't born by a Jewish mother.

What are your perceptions of the man who was Muhammed? Was he just a disgruntled Arab who adopted 70% of the Jewish and Christian beliefs and scriptures, and inspired his followers to spread this religion through the sword, just like their subsequent lackeys (like some Turkish tribes) did afterwards? Is that a fair assessment, or is it cynical, like your assessment of Christianity?

Yes, this might be fair assessment but the key point here is not the identities of Mohammed or Jesus. Most of the stories about their life probably exaggerated or maybe completely false. You know, we still don't have a proof whether a man called Jesus really existed or not.

These are just details. You gotta look at the big picture. And when i look at it, i see what Daskalot said;

Religion is a tool used by the few to control the many, quite simple.

This never changes. First christians used religion to free people from the grasp of Jews and pagan Romans and then control them for their own needs. Then first muslims used their religion to free people from the grasp of alexandrian church and pagan Arabs of Mecca and then control them for their own needs.


Religion is also a tool for legitimization of the ruling core`s actions. What Bush said when they bombed Iraq? And what French said when they bombed Libya? Both mentioned about a new crusade.

What Al-Qaida or any other middle-eastern terrorists says when they attack somewhere? They say that they are doing this in the name of islam.

What Israel says when they bomb Palestine? They say that they do it in the name of Zionism.

One of the biggest event of the christianity was the adoption of the religion by the Roman empire. You know how that happened; Roman emperor Constantine, sees the vision of Jesus and a cross while he walks on a bridge and a voice inside his head tells him that "You will conquer under this banner/cross" and he becomes a christian. People like Vangelovski believes this story and thinks that Jesus appeared to the Roman empire and magically, he became a christian! but people like me believes that Constantine saw this new religion as a new opportunity for his reign and he thought like he can manipulate people in his realm with that and this gives him basis to convince ordinary people to fight for his own benefit. I can say the same for the early Turkish states and their adoption of islam.