Evidence for creationism

[Xanikk999]

Is there even a good reason why Paul is presumed to have any kind of authority?

I thought he was the one who went on a pilgrimage to spread the teachings of Jesus following his crusifixion. That could have a significant effect on the influence of the early religion because basically he and the rest of the disciples dictated what would be the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Arakhor]

Paul is the one who started off by persecuting the followers of Jesus, allegedly had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus and became the prototypical born-again Christian.

 

[MobBoss]

Not even ten posts above, you already had your answer.

/shrug. I reject your answer, just as you reject God.

Suffice to say, I am not an illogical person. I accept evolution, and the geological record, and nor do I believe the bible to be literal, however, in the manner of how I exericse my faith, I can still fit all that in and believe in God in the way I do.

We dont have all the answers, either scientifically or spiritually. I have a personal feeling that both are intertwined far more than we think, but until that is understood, I dont think you can 'answer my question' anymore than I could convince you otherwise either.

Fair enough?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Then to put it baldly, you're not a Christian.

So?

I never claimed to be one; I merely said I like to use it as a source on the possibilities of God. I'll use other sources too.

As was said, the key to attaining ultimate knowledge is first acknowledging you don't have it. Which, for me, means you must also try and look at all possible sources and see what rings with you as the truth.

Being at least partially familiar with the Bible does not in any way insist that you must trust it as literal Gospel truth.

Very true. Many people use the Bible as a tool to debate against Christianity, for a case in point.

I don't know what his faith is, or even if he has one, but the Bible isn't the only route to be a believer in God. Quit being so rude and disrespectful. Heck, I don't recall him even stating if he has faith, yet you're insulting him anyway.

Indeed, I'm more spiritual than religious. That I'm not Christian is irrelevant to the debate. "God" is used as a placeholder for convenience when describing any potential deity, despite its Judeo-Christian connotations.

I suppose it creates confusion though; people often assume I argue with the Bible, but I do not. I argue based on the concepts of free will and omnibenevolence.

 

[Akka]

/shrug. I reject your answer, just as you reject God.

Well, the difference being : my answer simply points the basic contradiction between an omniscient and benevolent God, and the simple fact that the universe is NOT benevolent.
That I don't believe in such a God is more of a logical consequence than a somehow weird mirrored position.

Suffice to say, I am not an illogical person. I accept evolution, and the geological record, and nor do I believe the bible to be literal, however, in the manner of how I exericse my faith, I can still fit all that in and believe in God in the way I do.

We dont have all the answers, either scientifically or spiritually. I have a personal feeling that both are intertwined far more than we think, but until that is understood, I dont think you can 'answer my question' anymore than I could convince you otherwise either.

Fair enough?

Fair enough about the fact of believing in a god.
But just not sufficient if the god you're believing in is supposed to be omnipotent and benevolent.

Fact : the world requires for most life to prey on another to survive. There is diseases. There is natural disasters. How can all that comes from a completely benevolent and all-powerful creator ?
Does not compute.

Unless we use the out-of-jail card of "God's mind is just divine and as such we can't comprehend his designs", which is just a way to recognize that it doesn't make any sense, but while still keeping the wishful thinking.

Now, if you believe in the biblical God but consider that he has limited powers (or that he's sadistic/uncaring, but I suppose if you had to accept a failing, it would rather be the lack of omnipotence than the lack of benevolence), then well, I can accept that someone believe some supernatural power somehow sparked life - though I still see it as an unnecessary addition, just like the gods of thunder and the like in the past.

 

[El_Machinae]

Arguably, RealGod is a pretty horrific being. Isn't atheism preferable?

Preferable, how? Atheism is a belief. Beliefs have two values that I can think of: being truth, or being comforting. If RealGod exists, then atheism is an untrue belief, even if it's comforting. If RealGod does not exist, but you embrace atheism because of comfort, then you're kinda allowing yourself to be 'right' for potentially the wrong reasons.

Now, there could be a moral question there. Is the RealGod worthy of worship? Well, either it is, or it isn't. Even if it's not worthy of worship, atheism wouldn't be the proper course. Atheism would be false, even if it's a route to avoiding worshiping an unworthy god.

Now, the god depicted in the Bible is fundamentally wicked. I think it's a moral error to worship this being, and I think that the majority 'cause' of this evil worship is actually selfishness. People worship a wicked God because they'd prefer to be on the winning side. Or, more probably, because it feels good to worship God and it feels bad to think of God as wicked. Dissonance.

As for the RealGod. Well, that's a tougher question. The RealGod is constrained by reality. It's fair to hold the RealGod accountable for the suffering it has caused, but it's also okay to forgive this god. By analogy, a parent with Huntington's is directly responsible for the suffering of its children, who themselves have to suffer the horror of the disease. But, can we still love those parents? Sure! They're fallible and they're constrained by reality. We can 'blame' them for the weakness that drove them to procreate and to propagate this misery. But we also realise that they've got strong biological urges to procreate, and that their nature is battling our morality.

And there's nothing wrong with forgiving and loving something that's imperfect. It might even be a noble thing to do. The moral error is when you try to convince others that the imperfection is actually perfection. It's okay to love the Huntington's parents, but it's wrong to insist that Huntington's doesn't cause suffering.

 

[MobBoss]

Fact : the world requires for most life to prey on another to survive. There is diseases. There is natural disasters. How can all that comes from a completely benevolent and all-powerful creator ?

Because those things challenge us and make us grow.

Does not compute.

Maybe it doesnt compute simply because you and I are unable to see the entire picture from that vantage point?

Unless we use the out-of-jail card of "God's mind is just divine and as such we can't comprehend his designs", which is just a way to recognize that it doesn't make any sense, but while still keeping the wishful thinking.

If your talking about an entity like God, then how are you supposed to comprehend something like that? Even being smart people, you and I have our limits. God doesnt.

 

[carlosMM]

Preferable, how? Atheism is a belief.

Sigh.

No, atheism is not a belief, not in the sense (religious belief) you use it in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_belief
Atheism is a rational deduction, based on facts, not a conviction of existence in the absence of supporting facts.

Beliefs have two values that I can think of: being truth, or being comforting.

Three: power over others, in whom you instill a belief that results in power for you.

 

[carlosMM]

If your talking about an entity like God, then how are you supposed to comprehend something like that? Even being smart people, you and I have our limits. God doesnt.

yeah, the ever-shifting made-up-on-the-spot definition of god, the one that allows no discussion but is constantly used by religious people in discussions.

Could you please bring any evidence that your god thingy has no limits? And if so, why is said god thingy so cruel and allows innocents to suffer? Yes, again that question you've been dodging all this thread. Can we now finally get a proper answer, please?

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, carlosMM, I know what you're saying, because I agree. And I know what I'm saying, but I might have said it too casually. In the passage I'm replying to, you'll notice that atheism is being discussed as a positive belief, because it's in response to another belief.

For someone who's never held faith, it's a hard concept to fully grasp. I think, anyway. I'll try to explain.

I'm atheistic regarding Zeus and the FSM. I've never believed in either, and I see no reason to. Atheism is not a 'faith' or a 'belief' in this instance. It's an absence of belief, and is undefined. However, I used to believe in the Christian god. In the process of losing this faith, I gained another belief: that this god does not exist. So, if one chooses atheism as an alternative to the RealGod, because one does not like the moral implications of the RealGod and because atheism is "better", then I think my comments make sense.

 

[MobBoss]

yeah, the ever-shifting made-up-on-the-spot definition of god, the one that allows no discussion but is constantly used by religious people in discussions.

Its not made up on the spot, and you not being fair at all by describing it in such a manner.

No one said you cant discuss it either. Go right ahead. But I fully appreciate the problems of trying to explain God to someone determined to not believe in God. That's why there is a little something called 'faith' to make up the difference.

Could you please bring any evidence that your god thingy has no limits?

Why would I be interested in discussing something I take seriously with someone who describes it as my 'god thingy'? Would you waste your time trying to explain something to someone who referred to your expert area of science as that 'science thingy'?

Probably not.

And if so, why is said god thingy so cruel and allows innocents to suffer?

Free will. As a parent, I can appreciate the fact that I have to allow my kids to go through pain to learn tough lessons sometimes. Especially now that they are adults, and have no desire to listen to good advice, since they think they know better. The same adage appllies with God.

The irony of the situation is that people who dont believe in God simply cant appreciate how he eases suffering as opposed to causes it. A tradgedy indeed.

Yes, again that question you've been dodging all this thread. Can we now finally get a proper answer, please?

Its not a question thats dodged, its just simply one you never like the answer to. /shrug.

 

[classical_hero]

yeah, the ever-shifting made-up-on-the-spot definition of god, the one that allows no discussion but is constantly used by religious people in discussions.

Could you please bring any evidence that your god thingy has no limits? And if so, why is said god thingy so cruel and allows innocents to suffer? Yes, again that question you've been dodging all this thread. Can we now finally get a proper answer, please?

Well according to the Bible, no one is "innocent" since we are all sinners. So as a result of sin we a destined to death, all that matters is the timing of it. The only thing that you should worry about is this. Repent or perish.
Luke:1-5 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

 

[Tacitusitis]

Well then what kind of theology does Christianity have? Is it just a case of picking the bits you like a la carte off the menu. Frankly that makes you about as religious as the new Age "pagans" whose beliefs boil down to "whatever I feel like".

DING DING DING winner.

I'm not a theologian, but provided you accept Christ Jesus as the Son of God and attempt to live your life as he taught, I would say that you are a Christian.

"Trying to live like Jesus taught" makes you a follower of Jesus' moral teachings, a Jesusite of sorts. There's a distinction between that and Christian. Again, I don't intend any insult by pointing this out. Christians have some pretty specific beliefs. They believe that Christ died to atone for our sins, that he was resurrected, and that belief in Him is necessary for salvation (Real Christians will correct me if I missed anything there).

Probably, but I find that unlikely. Biblical literallism is a largely new phenomenon. As Plotinus said in another thread, Genesis is in the mythical genre, it's like thinking the Greeks literally believed to enter paradise you just had to climb a mountain, or to find a dead relative you just had to fall in a hole. I find no particularly powerful evidence that Paul was a biblical literallist in his letters other then the fact that he makes mention of Adam.

Biblical literalism is recent within the Christian Church. But Jesus was Jewish.

The Genesis narrative was written as a literal narrative and intended to be interpreted as a literal narrative - I don't mean that it is a literal account of chronology, but it IS a literal account of functionalization and cosmology - that is, of the proper order of things in the universe. The Jews did and do believe that God created the sun and moon as lamps to light the earth, and humans as stewards of creation, and so on.

This literal narrative of functionalization is direly called into question by modern science that says things like "the sun is just a star" and "humans are one of the most recent products of evolution."

The Jews did believe, according to Genesis, that the world was originally Edenic and was stuffed up by humans (adam & eve). Even taking A&E as "metaphorical," the text still clearly says that God originally made a "very good" universe and someone, somewhere ruined it and caused a Fall.

Again contradicted by science that says the universe has been entropic from inception, that there has been death/suffering as long as there has been life. And more fundamentally science says that attempts to see a fundamental order, functionalization, or teleology in biology/cosmology is misguided.

Some pretty direct contradictions with the Biblical text there.

What does that have to do with man's responsibility for Sin?

The Bible alleges that humans are not only responsible for their own sin but for inducing the "fallen" state of the world.

This is pretty important, because if it's wrong you have to locate blame for the fallen state of the world somewhere else.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, Christian Science takes a literal view of Jesus' various healings and miracles and attributes it to the Christ that lived in him as the Son of God. (My interpretation is decidedly shaky all these years later, so don't quote me.) Therefore, I have no problem in believing that Jesus was the Son of God, he died and returned to life and that the healing power of Christ remains to this day for harnessing by those who are spiritually in tune with God.

However, being an aficionado of various Classical mythologies, I know a blatant creation story when I see one and frankly Genesis is purely mythical. I'm also a modern man with an interest in history and palaeo-archaeology and I fail to see how all these intelligent and alert modern people instantly take every word in the Bible as literal Gospel truth, simply because some ancient mythology recorded by a primitive people contradicts modern science.

 

[Akka]

Because those things challenge us and make us grow.

Wow, and you pretend to "not be illogical" ?
Yeah, sure, being eaten helps people to grow !
That's one hell of a benevolence, "walk or die". Do you beat your children every evening to be sure they will grow strong ?

I'm afraid you'll need to do better than that to earn the "not illogical" title.

Maybe it doesnt compute simply because you and I are unable to see the entire picture from that vantage point?

If your talking about an entity like God, then how are you supposed to comprehend something like that? Even being smart people, you and I have our limits. God doesnt.

Yeah, that's exactly why I call it a "get out of jail card", you can use it each time there is a logical hole because "hey, it's just that God is beyond our understanding". A bit too convenient, especially as it's very selective - because suddendly, when it comes to the moral mandates like abortion and the like, god's designs become understandable !

Nah, inconsistency doesn't make for a good logical basis.

 

[ParkCungHee]

You know, for people who believe that a world with no suffering is the most moral of all outcomes, there is a movement working on that if you really believe it.

 

[Tacitusitis]

Suffice to say, I am not an illogical person. I accept evolution, and the geological record, and nor do I believe the bible to be literal, however, in the manner of how I exericse my faith, I can still fit all that in and believe in God in the way I do.

In my view, you have two beliefs and you have hermetically compartmentalized them. You want both to be true so you dismiss a discussion of how they could possibly interact because that could possibly threaten your belief/faith in one or both.

This is not so crazy, many people have Ideas A, B, C that they don't test against each other to see if they are being self consistent. Because they know they like each one of those ideas.

It is however illogical. Believing in Christianity implies a certain amount of Biblical literalism. I'm sure you believe that Jesus literally lived, died and was resurrected, that he literally was the son of God, that he literally did die for our sins as a path to salvation and that people are literally doomed without him because man sinned against God.

Indeed, I'm more spiritual than religious. That I'm not Christian is irrelevant to the debate. "God" is used as a placeholder for convenience when describing any potential deity, despite its Judeo-Christian connotations.

Do you believe in "any potential deity" or do you believe in a deity of a specific description? Do you believe you can say "God has characteristics x y and z" or say "God did a b and c"?

I will answer El Mach in a sep post since there are a few conversations going on here.

 

[Tacitusitis]

@ el Machinae and Akka:

BTW before I say this, I appreciate that you two and I seem to be on the same page wrt, "If God exists then he must have characteristics xyz simply because that conforms with what we observe from the world he created."

We left off with both Akka and I implying that this 'RealGod' is a horrific being or a being contrary to human values, a Cthulhu if you like, and I said it was preferable to be an atheist.

Preferable, how? Atheism is a belief. Beliefs have two values that I can think of: being truth, or being comforting. If RealGod exists, then atheism is an untrue belief, even if it's comforting. If RealGod does not exist, but you embrace atheism because of comfort, then you're kinda allowing yourself to be 'right' for potentially the wrong reasons.

You are correct that either RealGod exists or not, and beliefs will not change that. However we have a choice to believe either scenario, since they are both plausible and we don't have strong proof either way. Given this, I don't yet see a motivation for believing in RealGod as it would seem to have only depressing downsides.

Now, there could be a moral question there. Is the RealGod worthy of worship?

No, he's not. I don't expect a world of candy coated unicorns, but it seems intuitive that RealGod had better have a damn good (haha) explanation for any instance of evil or suffering that would seem surplus to you or me. i.e. "Wouldn't you create a world without _____?"

Ordinary people who don't vex their brains about God too hard, do seem to get a sense of this problem every time they are confronted with a massively arbitrary instance of evil or suffering for example thousands of people perishing senselessly.

Now, the god depicted in the Bible is fundamentally wicked. I think it's a moral error to worship this being

Personally I believe our philosophical construct RealGod is wicked enough without adding to his names any of the exploits of the God of the Bible.

The RealGod is constrained by reality. It's fair to hold the RealGod accountable for the suffering it has caused, but it's also okay to forgive this god.

Since we were created by him, wouldn't you find that presumptuous. Also, sending up a nice little "I forgive you, God!" prayer, aside from being arrogant, will hardly stop him from unleashing the next tsunami he's got planned.

Like I said, I don't really see an upside to believing in RealGod, especially compared to the various fantasy Gods who offer afterlives, remission of sins, the feeling that someone upstairs has a Plan for you, and whatnot.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That (Young Earth Creationism) is a hypothesis. A theory has credible scientific evidence- Arakhor

I didn't know evolution was a hypothesis! That's awesome!

Evolution has some evidence for it sure, but none of it anywhere near conclusive. Macroevolution that is. Microevolution is proven, but that that automatically means macroevolution is a logical fallacy. It could mean that sure, but its not conclusive.

Which is also based on the assumption that the present is key to the past. On that kind of logic, the Earth should have been inside the Sun millions of years ago.

There's some evidence from the other thread

 

[Arakhor]

Evolution is a theory, because it has masses and masses of evidence backing it up, whether or not you disagree with it.

We're at over 500 posts in this thread and no credible creationist evidence has been presented at all, therefore the Genesis account is at best a hypothesis, veering all the way down to the mythology of scientifically unaware tribal people.