Evolution Vs Creation
Discussion
ChrisGB said:
God did it and evolution did it, to use that example, are not rival claims but just two ways of viewing the same facts that could be held without any inconsistency by the same person.
Nope. If god did it, then it's not evolution as we know it, because evolution in this context(Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection) is an unplanned process with no goal. If god is involved, then it's planned and he has a goal. Or else God cannot know what's coming, but he must know, as he knows everything.People are perfectly entitled to believe that, that god uses this process of gradual change to bring about pre ordained results, but find another name for it.
ChrisGB said:
Would it be fair to say that in every post you have written on my ideas you at some point have to say that my "belief forces" me to do this or that.
That would not be fair - I haven't done that in every reply, nor have I consistently used words as strong as "forces". Why put words into my mouth.ChrisGB said:
Can you actually back that up instead of just making the accusation? What foundation do you have for such an accusation?
Why did you assert that science cannot prove god exists then. The christian faith tells us that god is ultimately unknowable - but we dont know whether that is true. Science may well be able to prove they exist if they have measurable, detectable attributes.You appear to be making such assertions because you already hold the belief that god is unknowable - and therefore have to make the argument fit that belief. If you have arrived at the conclusion that god is unknowable (and therefore undetectable by any aspect of scientific method) - then please show us this proof.
ChrisGB said:
As I usually reply, if my belief forces me to adopt this argument, then a) how come many Christians wouldn't take this line, b) many people come to faith because of the arguments, not the other way round.
a) maybe some christians aren't as strongly held in their beliefs.b) arguments made by whom - people who already believe? Indoctrination, evangelism etc.
ChrisGB said:
Now to your point above:
It is the conclusion to an enquiry about causality that tells you there is something that is purely actual, I.e. that has no potentialities and therefore isn't going to change in any way. This thing therefore couldn't have any physical properties, because these would make it complex and subject to change.
Again - it isnt "the" conclusion. It is one conclusion that can be drawn based on a set line of enquiry and many assumptions. Using a different line of enquiry or a different set of assumptions could lead you to an entirely different conclusion.It is the conclusion to an enquiry about causality that tells you there is something that is purely actual, I.e. that has no potentialities and therefore isn't going to change in any way. This thing therefore couldn't have any physical properties, because these would make it complex and subject to change.
You are drawing the argument to a conclusion that has absolutely no precedent. When I offered a possible alternative proposition (i.e. broken causality) - you claimed there was no precedent for it and asked me for examples/proof.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 09:10
Engineer1 said:
ChrisGB's God is almost indstigishable from there not being a God for all the input he has in the universe since started it, it's just Chris belives he exists.
The God of classical theism accounts for and makes possible every event, all rationality and all meaning. I guess in a fundamentalist-atheist universe none of those things matters much though?ChrisGB said:
Engineer1 said:
ChrisGB's God is almost indstigishable from there not being a God for all the input he has in the universe since started it, it's just Chris belives he exists.
The God of classical theism accounts for and makes possible every event, all rationality and all meaning. I guess in a fundamentalist-atheist universe none of those things matters much though?ofcorsa said:
The trouble I have with hylermorphism is it starts of by defining form and matter separately and and saying one is removable from the other. It then decides that form is actually the soul?
No, soul is just a way to distinguish form in living things/ organisms from form in other objects.Edited by ofcorsa on Thursday 17th April 08:27
TwigtheWonderkid said:
ChrisGB said:
God did it and evolution did it, to use that example, are not rival claims but just two ways of viewing the same facts that could be held without any inconsistency by the same person.
Nope. If god did it, then it's not evolution as we know it, because evolution in this context(Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection) is an unplanned process with no goal. If god is involved, then it's planned and he has a goal. Or else God cannot know what's coming, but he must know, as he knows everything.People are perfectly entitled to believe that, that god uses this process of gradual change to bring about pre ordained results, but find another name for it.
The science of evolution does not change if it was accurately predicted by God or not. It's just how you feel about the science that changes. And also how Christians have to feel about the sham that is the illusion of free will.
God being able to predict evolution doesn't change evolution, it changes religion.
rxtx said:
Didn't think so. It's not your fault you were indoctrinated Chris.
(Why do I feel like Robin Williams?)
On this basis, every atheist would have studied in depth the arguments for and against God, so would have a ready refutation of prime mover, final causality, immateriality of mind? Those exact things conspicuous by their absence in this thread and anywhere else.(Why do I feel like Robin Williams?)
Sounds like double standards to me.
And my comment stands: the implied argument is that if religion is universal, then religion is false. This is a worthless argument.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
ChrisGB said:
God did it and evolution did it, to use that example, are not rival claims but just two ways of viewing the same facts that could be held without any inconsistency by the same person.
Nope. If god did it, then it's not evolution as we know it, because evolution in this context(Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection) is an unplanned process with no goal. If god is involved, then it's planned and he has a goal. Or else God cannot know what's coming, but he must know, as he knows everything.People are perfectly entitled to believe that, that god uses this process of gradual change to bring about pre ordained results, but find another name for it.
You're forgetting the impossibility of explaining the evolution of complex human artefacts like religion without using final causality.
ChrisGB said:
First, as I said, I didn't write that bit.
Doesnt matter - you appeared to quote it in support of your argument - ergo, its reasonable for me to assume you agree with the quote.ChrisGB said:
Second, I think the point is that given God, it doesn't really matter how life got here or we got here. God did it and evolution did it, to use that example, are not rival claims but just two ways of viewing the same facts that could be held without any inconsistency by the same person.
I didn't say they were rival claims. Prior to understandings about evolution, the belief was that god created man fully formed.Now that we understand evolution - suddenly the goal posts are changed. The gap in our knowledge that "god did it" was used to fill suddenly became much smaller.
The argument now goes that god didn't create man fully formed, but rather, created life - and set evolution is motion with a pre determined end point to create man.
My point was - what happens next. If science ultimately shows that life can arise spontaneously from a soup of chemicals under the right conditions.......will the goalposts be moved again.
Will the argument be changed to "ok god didn't actually create life - but he did create the conditions under which life can arise spontaneously" .........again the gap becomes smaller.
ChrisGB said:
As the writer points out, science cannot give us a naturalistic explanation of something, because that presupposes a decision about nature being the only possible field of enquiry, which is not something science can establish.
This paragraph sounds an awful lot like you are switching the burden of proof (and old trick in these type of arguments).'Science cannot disprove nature being the only possible field of enquiry - therefore it can't be the only possible field of enquiry'
ChrisGB said:
Engineer1 said:
ChrisGB's God is almost indstigishable from there not being a God for all the input he has in the universe since started it, it's just Chris belives he exists.
The God of classical theism accounts for and makes possible every event, all rationality and all meaning. I guess in a fundamentalist-atheist universe none of those things matters much though?Pick the story you like the most and pretend it's that, no one will mind, just so long as you're willing to admit that when there is no proof either way you can't really be sure.
ChrisGB said:
On this basis, every atheist would have studied in depth the arguments for and against God, so would have a ready refutation of prime mover, final causality, immateriality of mind? Those exact things conspicuous by their absence in this thread and anywhere else.
Sounds like double standards to me.
And my comment stands: the implied argument is that if religion is universal, then religion is false. This is a worthless argument.
No the implied argumnet is if religion is universal but religions are indvidual and contradictory they can't all be the divine truth.Sounds like double standards to me.
And my comment stands: the implied argument is that if religion is universal, then religion is false. This is a worthless argument.
durbster said:
I was listening to a thing about alternative medicine this morning and the debate was strikingly similar to this one. It also raised a question for ChrisGB.
Given your claim that thoughts are immaterial, how is it we are able to influence them with material things e.g. drugs?
If I say immaterial aspects of thought, this means material aspects too. Aspects being aspects not totalities. Nothing in neuroscience is in question, only the naturalistic interpretations given to it out of prior commitment to an easily refuted ideology, that will never explain qualia, intellect, etc.Given your claim that thoughts are immaterial, how is it we are able to influence them with material things e.g. drugs?
ChrisGB said:
rxtx said:
Didn't think so. It's not your fault you were indoctrinated Chris.
(Why do I feel like Robin Williams?)
On this basis, every atheist would have studied in depth the arguments for and against God, so would have a ready refutation of prime mover, final causality, immateriality of mind? Those exact things conspicuous by their absence in this thread and anywhere else.(Why do I feel like Robin Williams?)
Sounds like double standards to me.
The problem comes from either side beleiving they are right and thinking the other side is wrong.
I've written a new version of the Lord's prayer to end this silly misunderstanding, obviously something similar will have to be rolled out to the rest of the religions:
Dear God, if you exist, you're ace.
Nice trick with the creation and lack of proof.
Given that we don't know the rules we made some up and hope we got them right.
But lets face it, you'd have to be pretty cruel and arbitrary to judge us either way.
Thanks for all the cancer,
Amen.
ChrisGB said:
On this basis, every atheist would have studied in depth the arguments for and against God, so would have a ready refutation of prime mover, final causality, immateriality of mind? Those exact things conspicuous by their absence in this thread and anywhere else.
Sounds like double standards to me.
Why though - a lack of belief in something doesn't suddenly gain some special significance just because you call it "god". I haven't studied and formulated in depth arguments for and against the existence of dragons, ghosts, flying spaghetti monsters, teapots in orbit around jupiter etc etc (i'm sure you haven't either). Sounds like double standards to me.
I am applying the same standards of reasoning and proof to god as I do to any other apparently baseless supernatural or spiritual explanation - I am skeptical until evidence is provided. I'm sure you apply a similar level of skepticism in things - and dont suddenly rush out to study and formulate in depth arguments for and against something - just because of a single suggestion that something may exist.
Moonhawk said:
ChrisGB said:
First, as I said, I didn't write that bit.
Doesnt matter - you appeared to quote it in support of your argument - ergo, its reasonable for me to assume you agree with the quote.ChrisGB said:
Second, I think the point is that given God, it doesn't really matter how life got here or we got here. God did it and evolution did it, to use that example, are not rival claims but just two ways of viewing the same facts that could be held without any inconsistency by the same person.
I didn't say they were rival claims. Prior to understandings about evolution, the belief was that god created man fully formed.Now that we understand evolution - suddenly the goal posts are changed. The gap in our knowledge that "god did it" was used to fill suddenly became much smaller.
The argument now goes that god didn't create man fully formed, but rather, created life - and set evolution is motion with a pre determined end point to create man.
My point was - what happens next. If science ultimately shows that life can arise spontaneously from a soup of chemicals under the right conditions.......will the goalposts be moved again.
Will the argument be changed to "ok god didn't actually create life - but he did create the conditions under which life can arise spontaneously" .........again the gap becomes smaller.
ChrisGB said:
As the writer points out, science cannot give us a naturalistic explanation of something, because that presupposes a decision about nature being the only possible field of enquiry, which is not something science can establish.
This paragraph sounds an awful lot like you are switching the burden of proof (and old trick in these type of arguments).'Science cannot disprove nature being the only possible field of enquiry - therefore it can't be the only possible field of enquiry'
There is no difference in terms of explanation to say "god created life" and to say "god created the conditions that spontaneously led to life". God is the sustainer of every change, the creator of everything there is, so how can life's beginning in that view not be explained by God?
I don't hold that god intervened miraculously to turn non-life into life. Like all scientists I have no idea how that happened. I know from arguments for gods existence that it happened because god creates and sustains everything.
You are fudging the thought put into my mouth, so to speak:
'Science cannot prove nature is the only possible field of enquiry - therefore it can't be claimed on the basis of accepting the scientific method that the only possible field of enquiry is nature' - do you disagree?
ChrisGB said:
I don't hold that god intervened miraculously to turn non-life into life. Like all scientists I have no idea how that happened. I knowstrongly suspect from arguments for gods existence that it happened because god creates and sustains everything.
I corrected that for you.Unless of course your arguments for their being a god doen't also work if you replace the word "god" with "magic floating hamburger creature who wears a Gas Monkey Garage t-shirt and hates gerkins".
ChrisGB said:
My point was you misread my post and to just say "doesn't matter" is a bit glib.
I didn't misread your post - I just drew different conclusions to what was written.ChrisGB said:
There is no difference in terms of explanation to say "god created life" and to say "god created the conditions that spontaneously led to life". God is the sustainer of every change, the creator of everything there is, so how can life's beginning in that view not be explained by God?
I don't hold that god intervened miraculously to turn non-life into life. Like all scientists I have no idea how that happened. I know from arguments for gods existence that it happened because god creates and sustains everything.
You are fudging the thought put into my mouth, so to speak:
So the question arises - why wasn't this explanation offered in the first instance. Why a biblical creation story that was patently incorrect?I don't hold that god intervened miraculously to turn non-life into life. Like all scientists I have no idea how that happened. I know from arguments for gods existence that it happened because god creates and sustains everything.
You are fudging the thought put into my mouth, so to speak:
ChrisGB said:
'Science cannot prove nature is the only possible field of enquiry - therefore it can't be claimed on the basis of accepting the scientific method that the only possible field of enquiry is nature' - do you disagree?
Again - you are twisting the burden of proof to make something that is unsubstantiated sound like a plausible alternative. Science only deals with that which is measurable/detectable.Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 09:42
DickyC said:
Captain Muppet said:
I corrected that for you.
Unless of course your arguments for their being a god doen't also work if you replace the word "god" with "magic floating hamburger creature who wears a Gas Monkey Garage t-shirt and hates gerkins".
How dare you! God loves gerkins!Unless of course your arguments for their being a god doen't also work if you replace the word "god" with "magic floating hamburger creature who wears a Gas Monkey Garage t-shirt and hates gerkins".
I have to conceed that it's statistically possible for me to have projected my hatred of gerkins on to my version of God. But I believe he hates gerkins, and no amount of no-evidence-what-so-ever will shake me from the Truth.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff