Religion Creation vs. Darwin's MacroEvolution Myth

[Lethality]

Yes. Teaching their baby a lesson they couldn't understand by giving them a painful death makes then bad.

Everything that is commanded by God is good, up to and including child sacrifice. It seems to me then that there would be provisions to believe that anything that happens is consistent with God's loving nature, even though we might not see it that way.

That would be the belief of the monotheistic god/s, as I understand it.

 

[Procrastinator35]

All knowing, all powerful and all loving can't exist. Because so many innocents suffer. Babies getting malaria etc.

So you have to choose which of those three God isn't.

That's why all Pagan Gods have both good & bad sides....Far more in tune & in touch with actuality....Such is the pathological wish fulfilment that inheres in the Judeo-Christian perception.....A denial of actuality & immanence that accords with their destruction & ignorance of our earth's fragility, via their fully transcendent God-head. Ergo reification & alienation.

All the different Gods in Pagan mythology are merely representative of all those differing aspects/characteristics that inhere in the human psychic consciousness.....Rocket science it aint.

Christianity is merely Zeus wedded to the Hebrew Yahweh....And all the other Pagan Gods become divided & split into Angels & Demons....Hence the propensity for schizophrenia in our Culture....Our emotional bodies & reasoning minds become split in two via an all or nothing, either/or dialectic.

 

[Taylor]

Everything that is commanded by God is good, up to and including child sacrifice. It seems to me then that there would be provisions to believe that anything that happens is consistent with God's loving nature, even though we might not see it that way.

That would be the belief of the monotheistic god/s, as I understand it.

This will conflict with the idea of good and evil, because people would see some of that loving death as being evil.

To be god like and good could empower you to do anything, no matter how much pain it causes.

 

[BEaston]

When I stop respecting others' rights to hold certain beliefs, probably. Hopefully that never happens.

It's the natural question that pops up when love is questioned due to the presence of suffering. Parents allow their children to suffer without having their love questioned. Why would God be any different?

Sure, OK guy.

 

[The Speaker]

All knowing, all powerful and all loving can't exist. Because so many innocents suffer. Babies getting malaria etc.

Explain how this removes the possibility of God being loving, and what you define as innocent.

 

[Taylor]

Explain how this removes the possibility of God being loving, and what you define as innocent.

If you know something bad will happen to those you love and have the power to stop it but don't then you don't love.

Innocent is children dying of starvation etc

 

[Barry Roundhouse]

**** me. Why did I click on this thread. Deeply religious people are so dense.

I'm glad your faith makes you less scared of death, gives you purpose and encourages you to be nice to people... But don't try and convert anyone who thinks it's dog shit by using God as a counter argument to universally accepted science.

 

[Roylion]

Human beings' belief in it.

So 'faith' is the basis of the premise that the Bible is an accurate account of the origins of the Universe and/or Earth?

If faith is to be regarded as valid then absolutely anything goes. Any assertion, no matter how improbable or fanciful is then valid.

They believe in creation, I accept science only. None of us is known to have the answers.

The certain belief in a particular methodology of the creation of the earth and universe by a supernatural omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient creator and ruler of the universe who has power over nature (or human fortunes) as outlined in the Bible, is solely by faith. It's not a solid basis on which to make any conclusions about the actual origins of the Earth and universe.

The job of science is to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena. That includes the origins of life on Earth, the creation of the Earth and the beginnings / origins of the universe.

The study of cosmology, as opposed to the study of religious tracts, seems to have begun to supply some observational evidence how and why the universe began. There has been tremendous progress in cosmology in the last hundred years. The General Theory of Relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe by Edwin Hubble, as well as advances in quantum theory by the likes of Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose have led to new observations and a number of new theoretical advances. The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted model that explains the origins of the universe, and is supported by all the observational evidence.

A new window on the very early universe looks like it has been opened by the detection of gravitational waves. New observational results and theoretical advances are now coming in rapidly. Some of these new discoveries may alter / modify current theories, some may confirm existing models / theories. Whatever the case, we can construct a more plausible explanation of the processes of the origins of the universe / earth / life with more observational evidence that merely what was written down by an ancient cultural group between roughly between 700 - 200 BC

As well as that, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components, as this has been shown to be very possible. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells.

You suggest that the evidence from the Bible should not be dismissed. I rank the evidence for the origins of the universe as provided in the Bible to be far, far below that of the evidence provided by the various branches of science, such as cosmology. I fail to see what the value of Biblical evidence is to account for the actual origins of the universe. All it seems to provide is a snapshot of what a particular cultural group believed, or provided as an explanation for the origins of the universe, at a particular time in human history.

 

[Lethality]

So 'faith' is the basis of the premise that the Bible is an accurate account of the origins of the Universe and/or Earth?

If faith is to be regarded as valid then absolutely anything goes. Any assertion, no matter how improbable or fanciful is then valid.

More or less, as long as it is grounded in something substantial. The Christian or Muslim or Jewish doctrines should be set apart from simply believing something for no reason whatsoever.

The certain belief in a particular methodology of the creation of the earth and universe by a supernatural omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient creator and ruler of the universe who has power over nature (or human fortunes) as outlined in the Bible, is solely by faith. It's not a solid basis on which to make any conclusions about the actual origins of the Earth and universe.

There's nothing wrong with faith. I would be very wary of telling people that they shouldn't believe in something, or that my reason for believing in science is better than their reason for believing in a god or gods.

 

[Roylion]

More or less, as long as it is grounded in something substantial.

Such as? What do you mean by 'substantial'?

The Christian or Muslim or Jewish doctrines should be set apart from simply believing something for no reason whatsoever.

Why?

There's nothing wrong with faith.

If faith alone is to be regarded as valid then absolutely anything goes. Any assertion, no matter how improbable or fanciful is then valid.

I would be very wary of telling people that they shouldn't believe in something, or that my reason for believing in science is better than their reason for believing in a god or gods.

I'm agnostic. I have no evidence that an immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe, doesn't exist. However if I believe that such an entity does actually exist, then I do so by purely faith given that I consider there is no supporting evidence for that fact.

Given that I'm not prepared to accept the premise of an unknowable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe by faith alone, my daily life incorporates little to no acknowledgment of such a being.

I put far greater stock that various explanatory theories more accurately explain phenomena such as the origins of the universe, because they are supported by evidence, which happens to be assembled via the scientific method. Those that make public assertions of a belief that something is factual on the basis of faith alone, will and should be challenged.

 

[Lethality]

Such as? What do you mean by 'substantial'?

A legitimate belief, not something made up.

Why?

Because they're different things. Religious beliefs have more behind them than just the belief, they're more widespread, there's often historical evidence, it's a field of study, etc etc.

 

[Roylion]

A legitimate belief, not something made up.

How is the Biblical story of the Creation, as outlined in Genesis, a 'legitimate belief'?

Because they're different things. Religious beliefs have more behind them than just the belief, they're more widespread,

That doesn't make the claimed events, such as the Biblical creation, behind those religious beliefs true.

there's often historical evidence,

What historical evidence do we have for the events of the Biblical Creation story?

it's a field of study, etc etc.

So is literature. Despite that you wouldn't claim that a piece of fictional writing is true just because it is a field of study.

 

[Lethality]

That doesn't make the claimed events, such as the Biblical creation, behind those religious beliefs true.

No, I'm not claiming it does.

What historical evidence do we have for the events of the Biblical Creation story?

Well in this instance I was referring to other parts of the Bible. However there is evidence about prophecies in the Bible or Koran which would suggest that the author had divine knowledge, and therefore the stories about Creation would have more credibility.

So is literature. Despite that you wouldn't claim that a piece of fictional writing is true just because it is a field of study.

It's true as a piece of writing, as a historical document, evidence of the author, the information that can be gotten from the text, and so on. The story itself may or may not be presented as fiction. In terms of the Bible, it's presented as reality.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Well in this instance I was referring to other parts of the Bible. However there is evidence about prophecies in the Bible or Koran which would suggest that the author had divine knowledge, and therefore the stories about Creation would have more credibility.

Prophesies tend to be much more mundane than that. They were written down and circulated during times of persecution. Intentionally vague or set as a story in times outside of living memory but with parallels to their own day; because they couldn't afford to say things openly. For example it is quite widely accepted by scholars that all the 666 and the mark of the beast stuff in Revelations is a reference to the Roman Emperor Nero, likewise the stuff in Daniel was written during the Maccabean era and refers to events pertinent to that day.

 

[Roylion]

No, I'm not claiming it does.

Then why make a statement that "Religious beliefs have more behind them than just the belief, they're more widespread,"

However there is evidence about prophecies in the Bible or Koran which would suggest that the author had divine knowledge,

Is there?

'Divine knowledge'? From 'God'? Which 'prophecies' do you refer to?

and therefore the stories about Creation would have more credibility.

Even if the 'author's of the 'prophecies' were different authors of the Creation story? How do we ascertain which had 'divine knowledge' and which didn't?

Christopher Hitchens once remarked about prophecy in the New Testament.

"If you pick up any of the four Gospels and read them at random, it will not be long before you learn that such and such an action or saying, attributed to Jesus, was done so that an ancient prophecy should come true. If it should seem odd that an action should be deliberately performed in order that a foretelling be vindicated, that is because it is odd. And it is necessarily odd because, just like the Old Testament, the "New" one is also a work of crude carpentry, hammered together long after its purported events, and full of improvised attempts to make things come out right."

It's true as a piece of writing, as a historical document, evidence of the author, the information that can be gotten from the text, and so on.

As I've said the Bible is a mixture of myth, legend, law, poetry, prophecy, philosophy and even on occasions a bit of actual history. Certainly for the Old Testament at least we do not know the actual authors of any of the books apart from perhaps Ezra, and even that is hightly disputed.

The story itself may or may not be presented as fiction. In terms of the Bible, it's presented as reality.

Presenting something as 'reality' does not actually make it factual. The story of Noah and the global flood is one example.

 

[Lethality]

Then why make a statement that "Religious beliefs have more behind them than just the belief, they're more widespread,"

That refers to differences between beliefs. They're not all the same.

Is there?

'Divine knowledge'? From 'God'? Which 'prophecies' do you refer to?

I am mainly referring to the Koran, which supposedly has knowledge of the future, and interesting rhythms in the writing which would suggest they are of divine origin.

Presenting something as 'reality' does not actually make it factual. The story of Noah and the global flood is one example.

True, but I think it would be arrogant to dismiss it entirely. I prefer that people believe what they want to, and we can acknowledge those beliefs.

 

[Roylion]

That refers to differences between beliefs. They're not all the same.

And how do we differentiate between various religious beliefs?

I am mainly referring to the Koran, which supposedly has knowledge of the future, and interesting rhythms in the writing which would suggest they are of divine origin.

And how do "interesting rhythms in the writing" suggest divine origin of a particular piece of writing?

True, but I think it would be arrogant to dismiss it entirely. I prefer that people believe what they want to, and we can acknowledge those beliefs.

So any assertion, no matter how improbable or fanciful and which is supported only by 'faith' is valid in your eyes and should be acknowledged as factual?

 

[Lethality]

And how do "interesting rhythms in the writing" suggest divine origin of a particular piece of writing?

It's of a kind that couldn't be man made, is the argument.

So any assertion, no matter how improbable or fanciful and which is supported only by 'faith' is valid in your eyes and should be acknowledged as factual?

No, I don't believe in them, so I don't think they should be acknowledged as factual. Thats my perspective. Other people have the opposite view.

 

[Roylion]

It's of a kind that couldn't be man made, is the argument.

Who's argument? Why should I believe that argument is accurate? And where is the evidence that those "interesting rhythms in the writing" couldn't be 'man-made'? Clearly Arabic script is man-made and very likely derives from the Nabataean variation of the Aramaic alphabet which in turn descended from the Phoenican alphabet.

No, I don't believe in them, so I don't think they should be acknowledged as factual. Thats my perspective. Other people have the opposite view.

And why should I, or anyone else, accept that 'opposite view' is factual?

 

[Lethality]

Who's argument? Why should I believe that argument is accurate? And where is the evidence that those "interesting rhythms in the writing" couldn't be 'man-made'? Clearly Arabic script is man-made and very likely derives from the Nabataean variation of the Aramaic alphabet which in turn descended from the Phoenican alphabet.


And why should I, or anyone else, accept that 'opposite view' is factual?

I think I should reiterate that I don't necessarily think it should be accepted as accurate, only that it not be dismissed.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I think I should reiterate that I don't necessarily think it should be accepted as accurate, only that it not be dismissed.

But what's the point in that? If something is inaccurate and unreliable why not dismiss it?

 

[Roylion]

I think I should reiterate that I don't necessarily think it should be accepted as accurate, only that it not be dismissed.

If it's not accepted as accurate or factual why shouldn't it be dismissed?

 

[Crankyhawk]

What do you base this on? Those men over two thousand years ago were supposedly inspired by the Holy Spirit, so while they don't have specific scientific knowledge, they were privy to the secrets of the universe and its Creator.

Spirits yes.

Holy I'm not so sure though.

More likely C2H5OH spirit.

 

[Lethality]

But what's the point in that? If something is inaccurate and unreliable why not dismiss it?

We don't know about whether its accurate or not.

 

[Admiral Byng]

We don't know about whether its accurate or not.

Well, just set it aside then, pending possible reinstatement if some sort of accuracy and reliability can be demonstrated.