Man vs. God

[zhimbo]

Logic dictates that the complexity of anything has to be created.

No, your personal intuition suggests that.

 

[JerryLove]

What I find to be interesting is the idea that if it can’t be detected/measured scientifically, it can’t exist.

Maybe it's my imagination: but it seems to me that I keep hearing you say this even though no I've see actually falls into the "can't exist" group.

Can you think of anyone who holds this idea in relation to this thread's topic? Perhaps you could point me at one of their posts.

So many people demand proof, they are unwilling to believe in something that for others is very true. My question then to all of you then is this; why can’t both camps co-exist?

Both camps do exist.

This debate about creation vs. evolution has been going on far longer than any of us have been around, and when this thread finally makes its way to the pages of past threads, the debate will remain. Debate is good – it allows people to at the very least consider other view points while presenting theirs. But, arguing for the sake of argument is pointless.

DO you see a difference in "debate" and "argument" that would categorize this discussion as an argument? What point does a deabate that will not change anything serve among people who make no new consideration of the other side?

Honestly, have you considered my position anew since getting in this discussion with me?

If you find that you are the kind of person who vehemently feels they need quantifiable, verifiable, scientifically measured proof of something, it’s likely this thread will not change your mind. Likewise if you are sure and secure in your “beliefs”, whatever they may be. On the occasions I accompany my wife & kids to church, there is a part in the mass where the priest sings “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith”. I would say that for the believers, faith is a mystery, but one they are more than willing to seek clues about all their lives. Being a believer does not make one bad or wrong, just a believer. I have no disdain for those whose views are opposed to mine, and I hope this is universal.

I'm interested in the second to last sentance.

Assume for a moment that your belief is not an accurate reflection of reality (perhaps the Norse were right and the universe was licked from the eternal ice by a cow). Doesn't being a believer, in fact, make you wrong?

Certainly, if you are right, my non-belief would make me wrong. Justified perhaps, but still wrong.

 

[JerryLove]

This thread seems to contain an awful lot of incorrect statements about existing science. Let me make a few points clear if I may.

Evolution discusses how modern life came from previous life. It does not discuss anything else. It does not discuss how first life came, or how the Earth formed, or the origin of the universe.

Big-Bang theory is general. There's more than one. As we get closer and closer to the big-bang event, our information gets less observed and more induced/deduced. There is no evidence, and therefore no scientific theory as to the state of existance at the moment of and before the big bang.

Finally: No one I am aware of has asserted as "definately false" something for which no evidence exists. At least not on my side of the debate. There might be underpants gnomes, though the evidence fails to bear that out and it would be unjustified to believe there were.

 

[CraigV]

Both camps do exist.


Honestly, have you considered my position anew since getting in this discussion with me?

…and I could also say the same thing about everything you’ve written thus far, and also nothing to back up such a statement.

Here’s another belief I have: No matter what, you are determined to make the last post in this thread.

 

[rnatalli]

I don't take a side on whether God exists or not because I simply do not know. But I will say this. If there is a God, he/she certainly isn't the all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent God Sunday school told me about growing up.

"Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?"

-Ecclesiastes 7:13

 

[JerryLove]

…and I could also say the same thing about everything you’ve written thus far, and also nothing to back up such a statement.

Why is it that every time I ask a question you don't answer it?

I don't believe you've raised a claim I had not already considered. I was already familiar with most of the actual claims you have made.

To contrast, I obviously have made claims you were not familiar with. I've made corrections to your understanding of, for example, the big bang.

Faced with "no, that's not the claim this is", can you honestly say that you've considered what I have said? We know that you had not considered it before because you were unfamiliar with it.

Here’s another belief I have: No matter what, you are determined to make the last post in this thread.

That belief, at least, has a rational basis. It doesn't happen to be true (I may or may not end up with the last post in the thread, I don't actually have such a determination), but the suspicion is related to observed reality.

 

[highfigh]

I don't take a side on whether God exists or not because I simply do not know. But I will say this. If there is a God, he/she certainly isn't the all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent God Sunday school told me about growing up.

"Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?"

-Ecclesiastes 7:13

Made straight, in whose opinion and by what time-line? With 'free will' in the equation, the chance of someone doing bad things is 100%.

 

[Davemcc]

Dave, I'm just curious what your parameters would be to actually prove/disprove creation or existence of God. I'm just curious what it takes to prove anything. Has evolution been 'proven'? What would it take?

I suppose that God, being omnipotent and omniscient as He is, could demonstrate his existence to me in myriad ways that would satisfy my own requirements. That I fail to recognize His existence must be a sign that He doesn't want me to recognize Him or that I was born without that ability.

From what I understand in scientific circles, yes, evolution has been proven. I prefer to think of it as a theory (in the vernacular sense) mostly because I don't have the knowledge base to declare it fact. Yet I see a mountain of evidence in support of this theory that lends me to think it's true. Should there ever be evidence to support the theological claims in the bible beyond the general protestations of belief, assumptions, premises or analogies, I suppose I could consider religion to have some basis in reality. Until then, I am forced to live in the real world as I have found it.

 

[CraigV]

JL

At this point, it seems as though you are trying to come across as the premier authority on the BB theory. I simply stated that one theory I had heard was that there was hydrogen & helium in “whatever” it was that exploded into the BB, but because you had not heard that theory, you assumed it couldn’t exist, and attacked me for even brining it up. I never said it was fact, just a theory I had heard.

 

[CraigV]

I suppose that God, being omnipotent and omniscient as He is, could demonstrate his existence to me in myriad ways that would satisfy my own requirements. That I fail to recognize His existence must be a sign that He doesn't want me to recognize Him or that I was born without that ability.

From what I understand in scientific circles, yes, evolution has been proven. I prefer to think of it as a theory (in the vernacular sense) mostly because I don't have the knowledge base to declare it fact. Yet I see a mountain of evidence in support of this theory that lends me to think it's true. Should there ever be evidence to support the theological claims in the bible beyond the general protestations of belief, assumptions, premises or analogies, I suppose I could consider religion to have some basis in reality. Until then, I am forced to live in the real world as I have found it.

Dave,

If I may ask – Does a belief in one negate the other? In other words, could it be that “God” (or whichever name you prefer) simply put forth a “spark” that evolved and transformed into what we now call the universe, and consequently everything in it (including human kind), but had no further interaction to change/control/create the out come?

 

[JerryLove]

At this point, it seems as though you are trying to come across as the premier authority on the BB theory. I simply stated that one theory I had heard was that there was hydrogen & helium in “whatever” it was that exploded into the BB, but because you had not heard that theory, you assumed it couldn’t exist, and attacked me for even brining it up. I never said it was fact, just a theory I had heard.

I have not attacked you for anything. The only posts I've seen making personal commentary are yours, accusing me of arguing rather than debating, accusing me of "trying to come across as the premier authority on the BB", etc.

You've repeatedly used and cited the term "singularity". I believe you've also explicitly stated "infinitely hot" (though that may have been another poster). I also notice you have not answered any of my sincere questions.

Please go look up what a gravitational singularity is. It's a point where matter-energy is compressed to its maximum density (though whether that's "infinite" or controlled by plank's constant is debatable).

Now go look up what a neutron star it. Notice the degenerate state of matter that occurs in neutron stars and why.

If you've actually done this, what you've discovered is that, as density increases, atoms become impossible. They break down into sub-atomic particles, which again break down as density increases, and so-on to some unknown limit.

It is therefore impossible for a singularity to contain hydrogen, helium, or any other atom. Someone who has made a claim "like you heard" is not simply putting forward a different or even wrong big-bang theory: they are putting forth one which is obviously wrong in a way even a first-year physics student should see within seconds.

 

[CraigV]

I have not attacked you for anything. The only posts I've seen making personal commentary are yours, accusing me of arguing rather than debating, accusing me of "trying to come across as the premier authority on the BB", etc.

.

“Your understanding of big-bang theory is fundamentally flawed.”

“Your statement is self conflicting.”

“While you are at it, you might explain why you buy that God "existed all along".

“That doesn't sound like any big-bang theory I am familiar with. If you find someone with those beliefs, perhaps you can discuss it with them.”

“I also understand the various theistic arguments. I suspect better than you yourself understand them.”

“All that said: in the end you have a positive claim. You have a reason you believe it, but you don't have support for it. That's fine. What's odd is that you seem to believe you have support for it.”

“Sarcasam seems a pretty thin way to avoid supporting a accusation.”

“No sane person not entirely ignorant of (insert any number of physical sceicnes here) would hold such the opsition that there were atoms in a singularity.”




Copied & pasted from your posts. I’m sure you will now drone on about how I have misinterpreted & misunderstood your statements, but “attack” is my chosen belief in their intent.

 

[rnatalli]

Dave,

If I may ask – Does a belief in one negate the other? In other words, could it be that “God” (or whichever name you prefer) simply put forth a “spark” that evolved and transformed into what we now call the universe, and consequently everything in it (including human kind), but had no further interaction to change/control/create the out come?

I myself have no problem accepting this if it was indeed the case, but I refuse to worship such a being or believe God is benevolent and/or an all-loving creator as I was taught. What do we call a man who impregnates a woman and then takes off? In other words, gets life rolling and then abandons it. The bible itself is filled with cruelty.

"God created man in his image. If our father's fail us, what does that tell you about God?"

-Tyler Durden

 

[CraigV]

I myself have no problem accepting this if it was indeed the case, but I refuse to worship such a being or believe God is benevolent and/or an all-loving creator as I was taught. What do we call a man who impregnates a woman and then takes off? In other words, gets life rolling and then abandons it. The bible itself is filled with cruelty.

I too find it difficult to believe in everything any book based on religious beliefs would suggest is true.

 

[adwilk]

I myself have no problem accepting this if it was indeed the case, but I refuse to worship such a being or believe God is benevolent and/or an all-loving creator as I was taught. What do we call a man who impregnates a woman and then takes off? In other words, gets life rolling and then abandons it. The bible itself is filled with cruelty.

Hey, man.. I don't care if you don't believe what the Bible says... God gave you that right but if you're gonna use it as an argument make sure you got the story right. God didn't just take off. I'm not sure where you even draw that conclusion. Either way, yeah, I suppose the Bible is full of cruelty, nothing like real life.

 

[adwilk]

Copied & pasted from your posts. I’m sure you will now drone on about how I have misinterpreted & misunderstood your statements, but “attack” is my chosen belief in their intent.

Craig, I don't think he's attacking you, but I understand why you would think that. His posts are very "matter of fact". You gotta know you can't come into one of these threads without thick skin.

 

[rnatalli]

Hey, man.. I don't care if you don't believe what the Bible says... God gave you that right but if you're gonna use it as an argument make sure you got the story right. God didn't just take off. I'm not sure where you even draw that conclusion. Either way, yeah, I suppose the Bible is full of cruelty, nothing like real life.

I didn't reach that conclusion. I was entertaining a hypothetical situation offered by Craig. Please read the posts before suggesting I don't have my story straight.

 

[adwilk]

I suppose that God, being omnipotent and omniscient as He is, could demonstrate his existence to me in myriad ways that would satisfy my own requirements. That I fail to recognize His existence must be a sign that He doesn't want me to recognize Him or that I was born without that ability.

From what I understand in scientific circles, yes, evolution has been proven. I prefer to think of it as a theory (in the vernacular sense) mostly because I don't have the knowledge base to declare it fact. Yet I see a mountain of evidence in support of this theory that lends me to think it's true. Should there ever be evidence to support the theological claims in the bible beyond the general protestations of belief, assumptions, premises or analogies, I suppose I could consider religion to have some basis in reality. Until then, I am forced to live in the real world as I have found it.

I understand that in a scientific connotation, that the theological clams in the Bible can't be proven. I also think that proving his existence negates the Creators entire purpose of free will and "faith". That said, the closest I could come to proving any thing would be the thousands upon thousands of testimonies or unexplainable events linked directly to God in more modern literature and word of mouth. In a universe that trends towards chaos its too hard to believe coincidence sometimes. I'm curious what your thoughts are on that...

 

[JerryLove]

Copied & pasted from your posts. I’m sure you will now drone on about how I have misinterpreted & misunderstood your statements, but “attack” is my chosen belief in their intent.

Your poisoning the well not withstanding: there isn't a single personal comment in the bunch. There isn't a single instance of questioning your motivations, or you as a person, or anything of the kind.

But since you feel attacked, let me assure you that no personal commentary was intended. My intent has been to comment on your posts and the thoughts contained therein. To whatever extent I may have diverged from that intent, you have my sincere apologies.

 

[adwilk]

I didn't reach that conclusion. I was entertaining a hypothetical situation offered by Craig. Please read the posts before suggesting I don't have my story straight.

Well I apologize then, I don't remember reading that and still didn't find it in the past 5 or so pages.