-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Evolution VS. Creation
- Thread starter evolutionrex
- Start date
- Status
I didn't mean my expectations. What I meant to communicate was the oddity that no one finds God unless they already believe he is there. No one ever stumbles upon Him.
So unlike 'real' situations where you can burn yourself without expecting to be burnt, or you can discover something by accident, you can't find God unless you already believe he will be there.
Somewhat akin to the placebo effect I suppose...
Under my logic (without condescending quotations), neither you or I can make any definitive statements on Their state of existing or non-existing.
I am not.
Sorry, let me speak in your language:
<<English -> Troll>>
Ohai troll i herd u leik trollin fail troll iz fail go /b/ack and lurk moar ok?
But unlike the burning situation, you can never definitely find God even if you are doing so consciously, because your hand is able to feel the stove, but there is no sense capable of detecting God. Whether this is indicative of our limited ability to perceive or of Their non-existence is a matter of faith.
Last edited:
Yeah, u mad.
Rainbowdashtheawesome
20% Cooler
Exactly, as I said, the Bible never says how God created the universe or the lifeforms. Why couldn't he use evolution so the creatures are born knowing many basics of survival? If he just went "Bibiddy bobiddy boo" and all the animals appeared out of nowhere, he would have to go to all the extra trouble of teaching all of them the basics of survival. By letting them develop through natural selection, he invented one of the most important tools for survival: instinct, an inborn knowledge of certain important details that can help cope with trials of life.
Yeah, I hate when people insist that Christianity is an all-or-nothing faith that you either believe 100% or don't believe at all. There is a person who used to be one of my Dad's best friends, but more recently, after they reconnected through Facebook, he learned about Dad's scientific beliefs and openly accused Dad of not being a real Christian; he said that, just because Dad questions some aspects of Christianity, he can't be a real Christian.
What do you expect, the Bible is absolutely filled with paradoxes and contradictions; you really must suspend all disbelief to believe all of it.
Yeah, time supposedly moves far faster for God; even if the process of the world and life coming together seemed to us like a few billion years, for God it could have been as short as, say, a week.
Good point; in the course of recorded history, even within the last 6000 years or, if you are a Creationist, the entire 6000 years of human history, we have created numerous new species of dogs by selectively breeding existing ones to form ideal combinations of traits leading to new appearances and skills between different species of dogs.
That is all I got out of your post. Also, don\'t feed the troll (Eloi).
Tim the turtle
Happy Mudkip
As much as I'm actually really enjoying Eloi and Chuboy's debate, I'm not entirely sure this thread's going in the right direction.
Eloi, I must say that I agree with your comments about the fundamental ambiguities of knowledge when it comes to a discussion about God. My question to you would be: why do you appear to have elected the Bible and Christianity as your religion of choice, a religion that attempts to make at least some definite claims about God, when you have admitted the logical fallacy of making claims about God?
Note: I'm not actually sure if you even are Christian. You appear to be, from a few small hints in your posts but if I'm wrong please do correct me.
If this is straying too off topic then I would love to debate these issues in PM form.
Eloi, I must say that I agree with your comments about the fundamental ambiguities of knowledge when it comes to a discussion about God. My question to you would be: why do you appear to have elected the Bible and Christianity as your religion of choice, a religion that attempts to make at least some definite claims about God, when you have admitted the logical fallacy of making claims about God?
Note: I'm not actually sure if you even are Christian. You appear to be, from a few small hints in your posts but if I'm wrong please do correct me.
If this is straying too off topic then I would love to debate these issues in PM form.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Yes, GhostAnime, it is a lose-lose situation. So why have you been at this for so long?
Let's try to be socially rational here.
1. Creationism is a part of faith. You can't persuade faith. It leads to endless argument. And when you push it, it just pushes back, when you insult it, it just martyrs itself and gets stronger.
2. Many creationists seem to believe in some part or something similar to evolution anyway (since the post a while back that claimed animals all decended from multiple families, macroevolution). You could percieve this as hypocrisy, or you could appreciate it as a having something in common.
3. Many people in this debate believe in evolution, but are still getting lectured for involving God in their person interpretation. Again, you could keep wheedling away at someone's opinion until they believe the exact same thing as you, or you could appreciate what you have in common.
4. The concept of God as defined as those who carry the concept, is above having to be proved, and cannot be disproved, so trying to do so will be an endless argument.
5. People who see the concept of God as irrational may acknowledge humans are incapable of being perfectly rational yet, in a contradicting action, argue against people exercising that irrationality.
6. Also, belief in "God" has been scientifically dissected to be a basis of sociological respect for ethics and goodwill toward other people (this comes from an article of Scientific American) so, even if God isn't real, carrying belief of him is psychologically beneficial.
7. The best way to win an irrational argument is to stop talking, and simply separate yourself from the irrational practice.
8. Despite 1-7, this is a Debate Forum, where people are entitled to, encouraged to, and feel empowered by arguing to prove that people who they don't know and probably don't understand entirely, wrong.
9. This question will never be solved.
Let's try to be socially rational here.
1. Creationism is a part of faith. You can't persuade faith. It leads to endless argument. And when you push it, it just pushes back, when you insult it, it just martyrs itself and gets stronger.
2. Many creationists seem to believe in some part or something similar to evolution anyway (since the post a while back that claimed animals all decended from multiple families, macroevolution). You could percieve this as hypocrisy, or you could appreciate it as a having something in common.
3. Many people in this debate believe in evolution, but are still getting lectured for involving God in their person interpretation. Again, you could keep wheedling away at someone's opinion until they believe the exact same thing as you, or you could appreciate what you have in common.
4. The concept of God as defined as those who carry the concept, is above having to be proved, and cannot be disproved, so trying to do so will be an endless argument.
5. People who see the concept of God as irrational may acknowledge humans are incapable of being perfectly rational yet, in a contradicting action, argue against people exercising that irrationality.
6. Also, belief in "God" has been scientifically dissected to be a basis of sociological respect for ethics and goodwill toward other people (this comes from an article of Scientific American) so, even if God isn't real, carrying belief of him is psychologically beneficial.
7. The best way to win an irrational argument is to stop talking, and simply separate yourself from the irrational practice.
8. Despite 1-7, this is a Debate Forum, where people are entitled to, encouraged to, and feel empowered by arguing to prove that people who they don't know and probably don't understand entirely, wrong.
9. This question will never be solved.
@SunnyC: You have very good points and I agree. I do wish more Christians wouldn't view modern biology as something that offends their beliefs but eh.
Anyway, because I think even if you or I can't make definitive claims about God, perhaps others could have. If Jesus possessed the senses to perceive God, or was God's vessel, is again, a matter of faith, because we can't really determine how He perceived reality because we were never Him. I have faith that Jesus was honest, and had a unique perception of reality that enabled him to make definitive claims about God. And if I have misplaced my faith in Jesus as being completely truthful, I don't see what harm it could do. This is my reasoning:
a) I believe trusting him as my savior will grant eternal life because I trust his claims because of his unique perspective of reality. If this not true, I will never know because I will be dead.
b) I believe his discourse of ethics is true. That means I believe in forgiving others, caring for others, not holding grudges, not enacting revenge, and loving one another despite differences among others. I have no idea how believing in all of this would bring about negative effects.
I also believe he was honest because he was willing to spread his beliefs with no benefit, and to the point of being executed. Thus, my entire faith is placed in Him being truthful, and that he had a unique perspective to be able to make definitive claims on theistic matters.
I agree, we have certainly strayed from the actual topic, but its mostly because we possess Theistic and Atheistic models of Evolution, thus creating the debate.
Off-topic: I like you already.
Anyway, because I think even if you or I can't make definitive claims about God, perhaps others could have. If Jesus possessed the senses to perceive God, or was God's vessel, is again, a matter of faith, because we can't really determine how He perceived reality because we were never Him. I have faith that Jesus was honest, and had a unique perception of reality that enabled him to make definitive claims about God. And if I have misplaced my faith in Jesus as being completely truthful, I don't see what harm it could do. This is my reasoning:
a) I believe trusting him as my savior will grant eternal life because I trust his claims because of his unique perspective of reality. If this not true, I will never know because I will be dead.
b) I believe his discourse of ethics is true. That means I believe in forgiving others, caring for others, not holding grudges, not enacting revenge, and loving one another despite differences among others. I have no idea how believing in all of this would bring about negative effects.
I also believe he was honest because he was willing to spread his beliefs with no benefit, and to the point of being executed. Thus, my entire faith is placed in Him being truthful, and that he had a unique perspective to be able to make definitive claims on theistic matters.
I am not a garden-variety Sunday-school Christian, but I do follow Christ's ethics and view on theism.
Last edited:
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
Re-read my post. It's not the only thing God wants from people.Eloi said:
What are you talking about with the verse you gave me?
The He loves us and all He wants from us is acceptance as His savior, at least in my view of theology.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
Been at what? Debating religion? I like speaking what I think.
Hypocrisy.
You simply can't pick and choose science; and I'm going to tell the truth about it no matter. Even when they believe in Evolution, they still have some missing 'pieces' in what makes it true.
Oh really? How come less crime happens in atheistic countries? How come they graduate more scientists and mathematicians? It doesn't seem to be SOCIOLOGICALLY beneficial and that's obvious from simply looking at history.
My point is that many Christians differ on the requirements from God in order to get into heaven; from just believing in Jesus to 10 commandments to the Old Testament counting, to homosexuality being a sin; everybody differs. That's my point, and depending on who you are, you are in reality just speaking from your own mind and not for God.
Last edited:
Tim the turtle
Happy Mudkip
Thank you very much for the response Eloi. There are, I feel, arguments to be made against the case you have described and so in the spirit of debate I hope you don't mind my doing so.
I guess I would ask why is it you think that your faith has brought you to Jesus and not Muhammad or another such individual? Most major religions posit some sort of prophet or teacher, and it seems to me that it could just be a matter of chance in up-bringing or culture that determines which of these individuals people eventually have faith in. Indeed there is certainly a correlation between these factors and a persons religion. Do you not worry that your faith might be based more on the culture you grew up in (assuming you did grow up in such a culture) than on any clear difference between individuals teachings?
I understand that you accept your beliefs on faith, I'm really just arguing this for the fun of debate rather than anything else. You're one of the best debaters to come through here in a long while and this should be very interesting.
This is one of the most interesting (and best) answers I've ever recieved to my question.
I guess I would ask why is it you think that your faith has brought you to Jesus and not Muhammad or another such individual? Most major religions posit some sort of prophet or teacher, and it seems to me that it could just be a matter of chance in up-bringing or culture that determines which of these individuals people eventually have faith in. Indeed there is certainly a correlation between these factors and a persons religion. Do you not worry that your faith might be based more on the culture you grew up in (assuming you did grow up in such a culture) than on any clear difference between individuals teachings?
It appears to me that with this argument you assume a false dichotomy. You believe in heaven (and thus presumably hell) on the grounds of faith and believe that if you are wrong you will merely die and thus suffer no harm. But if you're willing to accept the possibility that you are wrong and also the possibility that you are right, that seems to leave open the option for other religions to be correct instead, since you could be correct about heaven and hell but wrong about how to get there. In such an event, you would not simply lose your eternal life in heaven but may actually have to endure eternal torment in hell. Thus the conclusion that being mistaken will simply make you dead and oblivious is not necessarily the case.
I agree that those are all fine and virtuous things to believe in, but such an ethical system has been posited before Jesus, by another man willing to die for his beliefs for little to no benefit no less. Not only that but this individual seems to have had a profoundly different view or perspective of God and reality than the rest of the people in his society. Is there a particular reason you have faith in the ethics of Jesus and not in those of Socrates?
I understand that you accept your beliefs on faith, I'm really just arguing this for the fun of debate rather than anything else. You're one of the best debaters to come through here in a long while and this should be very interesting.
Here are your citations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
How how is itoff-topic?
Historically speaking, people like Galileo have made huge discoveries in science but were threatened with death simply because they did no agree with the Bible. If we had made these discoveries a lot more important earlier, our society today as we know it would be A LOT more advanced. Again, this is simply basic history. The more we've left religion, the more we were able to discover about ourselves and the world.
If you were asking about atheistic countries: http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-121066.0.html
Disclaimer: I'm not saying being an atheist country leads to lower crime; I'm simply saying that Christianity has no bearing sociologically which I consider a lot more beneficial than an individual.
There were actual surveys I once read that atheists in europe were happier than christians in america at least, but I've yet to come across it again. If I do find it, I'll be sure to get it.
edit: oh, would you look at that
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup.html
the happiest countries are non religious.
America graduating less in science and math than other countries is common knowledge.
Historically speaking, people like Galileo have made huge discoveries in science but were threatened with death simply because they did no agree with the Bible. If we had made these discoveries a lot more important earlier, our society today as we know it would be A LOT more advanced. Again, this is simply basic history. The more we've left religion, the more we were able to discover about ourselves and the world.
If you were asking about atheistic countries: http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-121066.0.html
Disclaimer: I'm not saying being an atheist country leads to lower crime; I'm simply saying that Christianity has no bearing sociologically which I consider a lot more beneficial than an individual.
There were actual surveys I once read that atheists in europe were happier than christians in america at least, but I've yet to come across it again. If I do find it, I'll be sure to get it.
edit: oh, would you look at that
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup.html
the happiest countries are non religious.
Last edited:
Not at all, debating helps me to flesh out my own doubts and build my perspective.
Thank you, I think about these matters quite abit.
I do agree that being raised in a Christian home has influenced my choices, but there are is a reason why I believe Christ over other teachers. I'll present major religious leaders, and this is just my personal opinion on religion, not meant to offend the people who follow these religions.
Muhammad: He was a political leader, and had much to gain by using religion as a unification tool. He united the tribes of Arabia under his leadership, wherein Jesus had no such political gain in propagating his beliefs.
Siddhārtha Gautama: He is a very convincing religious leader, and has a lot of good teachings coming from him, however, I have not found a way to reconcile Siddhārtha Gautama and Jesus Christ both being correct and truthful, and I am currently studying Buddhism to find out more about his teachings and life, and perhaps as I study more I will see that their teachings and views can both fit in a non-contradictory cosmology, but I am not sure.
Hinduism: I can't be sure that these very, very old beliefs have not lost anything in the translation, wherein Siddhārtha Gautama, Muhammad, and Jesus are more recent and thus I can be sure I am getting more of their intended message.
Judaism: Similar to Islam, but with a different group of people to unite. Jesus was raised as Jewish and needed to establish followers somehow, and thus utilized Judaism as a tool, but his cosmology and views contradict Judaism in many ways.
Pastafanarism: As much as I like spaghetti, I think Evolution was God's tool as opposed to noodle appendages. And the prophet admitted to not believing in his beliefs, so yep.
There's more but I was trying to keep the post not as long as the thread.
Hm, yes, but for the above noted reasons, I only believe Christ's cosmology and theism is correct, and thus according to that I shouldn't be eternally damned. In the event that I might be, I will take that risk, for I have faith in Christ. Thus I acknowledge I might have something to lose, but that is why faith is necessary.
Well I think Zoroastrianism is actually somewhat compatible with Christ Cosmology, and due to its older age, some things might have been lost that leads to contradictions, but again, I would like to study it more before making such claims.
Anyway, ethics are something that I can accept from multiple sources, they are just guidelines not definitive statements about reality, I just happen to agree with Christ more than other ethics teachers.
I agree, you seem very intelligent and I enjoy talking to you.
"Common Knowledge" is not a citation.
Simple basic history shows that very religious Muslim nations made a lot of advancements in the sciences, and economic problems (like the Black Death, collapse of the Roman Empire, quarrelling nation-states, invaders) was what hindered Europe, not religion.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Example: There is fewer pirates, and more climate change, therefore pirates prevent climate change.
Last edited:
Rainbowdashtheawesome
20% Cooler
See, you're not the only one who can misquote people to hide their true messages.
Also, Eloi is the troll? Look who's talking, you hypocrite. Yeah, I'm making a troll of myself just for saying this, but at least I'm honest about it instead of relying on everybody's supposed worship of me to get them to overlook the incredibly insulting cruelty of my post.
Basically, you can't make a nice post accusing someone of being a troll.
PS: Here's another question for all you Creationists out there:
If the world is only 6000 years old, why are there creations of man that are older than that, architectural or written?
- Status