Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-17-2017 11:16 AM
349 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, GDR, jar, Meddle, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (7 members, 342 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,745 Year: 25,351/21,208 Month: 978/2,338 Week: 99/450 Day: 23/34 Hour: 0/8

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Theistic Evolution
Rei
Member (Idle past 4568 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 61 of 78 (61063)
10-15-2003 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Prozacman
10-15-2003 6:44 PM


Do you ever get the feeling that God is like a little kid sitting over an anthill with a magnifying glass?

------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Prozacman, posted 10-15-2003 6:44 PM Prozacman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Prozacman, posted 10-15-2003 7:05 PM Rei has not yet responded

    
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 78 (61066)
10-15-2003 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rei
10-15-2003 6:52 PM


Did you ever hear the phrase, "food of the gods"? Reminds me of how little-children not only investigate anthills; they eat some of the ants.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rei, posted 10-15-2003 6:52 PM Rei has not yet responded

  
Thanos6
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 78 (62451)
10-23-2003 10:04 PM


To frog:

The reasons I, as a Deist, believe in a God who probably has not intervened since the moment of Creation are several. If you'll bear with me, I 'll go through them.

1) The old 'First Cause' argument (was it Voltaire who proposed this, or am I mixing up my philosophers?).

2) The human soul. You may disagree with me, and if so, I feel we have no choice BUT to agree to disagree. But I feel that humans have a soul, something that exists separate of the matter and energy that makes up our corporeal forms. The soul or spirit or whatever you wish to call it cannot be measured or explained by purely scientific terms. As such, it cannot have come from our law-governed universe, but rather, is a direct creation of God (perhaps the only time since Creation that He intervened).

I have others but...it's late and my mind is on the fritz.

------------------
"When mankind falls into conflict with nature, monsters are born."

-Professor Hayashida, Godzilla 1985


Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2003 10:16 PM Thanos6 has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 78 (62457)
10-23-2003 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Thanos6
10-23-2003 10:04 PM


The old 'First Cause' argument (was it Voltaire who proposed this, or am I mixing up my philosophers?).

Easily dismissed. Causality is a property of the universe - not even a universal property, as it doesn't hold at the quantum scale - and so there's no reason to suppose it extends beyond the boundaries of time and space. Ergo there's no need for the universe to be caused for it to exist, even if it's finite in time and space.

The human soul. You may disagree with me, and if so, I feel we have no choice BUT to agree to disagree. But I feel that humans have a soul, something that exists separate of the matter and energy that makes up our corporeal forms.

Then it's a contradiction in terms. If it's beyond matter and energy and can't be affected by them, then there's no way you can know it exists, because it can never interact with anything in the universe. Therefore Ockham's Razor removes it, because natural law sufficies to explain the phenomenon of human consiousness.

On the other hand, if you suppose the soul must interact with the physical world, it becomes falsifiable. It should be possible to determine the difference between souled matter and unsouled matter. Since we can determine that there's no difference, we know that such a soul does not exist.

Either way you're in a bind - the only souls that can exist are the ones that have no effect on the universe. There's no other option. So what's the difference between my conception of the universe, with humans who don't have or need souls, and yours, which is just like mine, except that you add something that has no effect and cannot be observed? As Rrhain likes to say, "why add the chocolate sprinkles?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Thanos6, posted 10-23-2003 10:04 PM Thanos6 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Thanos6, posted 10-23-2003 10:42 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Thanos6
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 78 (62474)
10-23-2003 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by crashfrog
10-23-2003 10:16 PM


Because it makes it taste better. But seriously. This is where it simply boils down to Faith. You might think it's just a 'security blanket' we use to keep ourselves shielded from the thought of Oblivion beyond Death, and hell, I won't deny that partially, it is.

But again, it's something more. Something I can't really find the right words to describe. So I'm not even going to try because a substandard attempt wouldn't do it justice.

BTW, frog, let me compliment you. You have (or at least seem to have ) a lot more class than most atheists in your position, many of whom tend to denigrate all believers in any deity as moronic fools. You deserve a commendation.

------------------
"When mankind falls into conflict with nature, monsters are born."

-Professor Hayashida, Godzilla 1985


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2003 10:16 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NosyNed, posted 10-23-2003 11:01 PM Thanos6 has not yet responded
 Message 67 by NosyNed, posted 10-23-2003 11:02 PM Thanos6 has not yet responded
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 10-24-2003 12:46 AM Thanos6 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8800
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 66 of 78 (62484)
10-23-2003 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Thanos6
10-23-2003 10:42 PM


a lot more class than most atheists in your position, many of whom tend to denigrate all believers in any deity as moronic fools.

Gee, I hope that most of us wouldn't fall into this. The problem is that here you are seeing the reaction to a small subset of believers. They could be called the "extremists" of believers and do tend to bring out some more extreme reactions.

That said, I will admit that a significant number of atheists are not just un believers but are militantly anti belief too. Myself I think I tend to vary depending on who I am talking too.

I just spent a pleasant day visiting a couple of old friends who are believers (she is a minister, in fact) and part of the discussion was about religious issues. We get along famously.

I have also had discussions with others who I don't get along with so very well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Thanos6, posted 10-23-2003 10:42 PM Thanos6 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8800
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 67 of 78 (62485)
10-23-2003 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Thanos6
10-23-2003 10:42 PM


Something I can't really find the right words to describe

The concept of "emergant properties" can sometimes help one understand things that are hard to explain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Thanos6, posted 10-23-2003 10:42 PM Thanos6 has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 78 (62494)
10-24-2003 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Thanos6
10-23-2003 10:42 PM


Something I can't really find the right words to describe. So I'm not even going to try because a substandard attempt wouldn't do it justice.

Well, you may very well have a gut feeling that tells you what to believe. But stop and ponder for a moment - how much of your gut is really culture? Would you still have a gut feeling to believe in God if you had been raised in a Buddist culture? Or Moslem? Why do you call your god "God" and not "Supremo" or "Sky-Father" or any other names?

yes, the word "God" may seem the most right to you. But ponder if that would still be so if your cultures word for "god" was something else. If in fact the entire nature of their god was different.

You put a lot more stock in feelings, I guess, than I do. Given the demonstratable biochemical and cultural basis for feeling, I don't see why you would.

You have (or at least seem to have ) a lot more class than most atheists in your position, many of whom tend to denigrate all believers in any deity as moronic fools.

Well, I did used to be a believer, and since I don't think was any stupider then than I am now, I don't think what you believe has much to do with how smart you are. In fact studies show that it's generally the higher-IQ folks that wind up believing the really stupid stuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Thanos6, posted 10-23-2003 10:42 PM Thanos6 has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3553
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 69 of 78 (69721)
11-28-2003 3:30 PM


Theistic AND atheistic evolutionist
It has occured to me, that an individual might be BOTH a theistic and atheistic evolutionist, at the same time.

Ken Miller, author of "Finding Darwin's God", might fall into this area.

Might one consider ones self as a "Theistic Evolutionist", in that your faith is that God is indeed behind it all?

At the same time, might one consider ones self an "Atheistic Evolutionist", in that 1) Evolutionary considerations are irrelevant to your Christian faith, and 2) Your Christian faith is irrelevant to your considerations of evolution?

Moose


    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3553
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 70 of 78 (74515)
12-21-2003 3:08 AM


The theme of "theistic evolutionist" has been coming up in other topics, including "What is a Creationist". I thought about starting a "What is a Theistic Evolutionist?" topic, but thought it be better that I give this one a bump.

I'm sure there's a nice, precise definition of "Theistic Evolutionist" somewhere.

1) What I suspect it is, is an evolutionist who believes God had a (substantial?) hand in guiding the paths that evolution has taken.

2) Another definition might be - An evolutionist who believes that God was ultimately behind it all, but did not actively guide the evolutionary pathways.

Or somewhere in between these two.

MrHambre points out that Kenneth Miller (of "Finding Darwin's God) does not consider himself to be a theistic evolutionist.

quote:
That's where Miller and I part ways. I admire the way he takes great pains to distance himself from 'theistic evolutionists,' since he won't ascribe intention to the admittedly hit-or-miss history of life on earth. I also respect his forthright denial that he could believe in a God who destroyed 99% of all the species He supposedly created, which is far superior to the cynical He-must-have-had-His-reasons attitude typical of creationists.

Earlier in that topic, I mistakingly called Miller an "old Earth creationist". I had meant that as in "Ultimately God is behind it all". I had modified my view to the also apparently wrong "Miller is a theistic evolutionist".

Moose

ps: TrueCreation, currently inactive in this forum, has changed his position considerably from that of early in this topic string.

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-21-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Phat, posted 07-21-2017 1:49 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 78 (130933)
08-06-2004 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
01-19-2002 3:12 PM


Evolution and the Bible (creation) are not compatible because evolution puts death, bloodshed and disease before the fall of man. Whereas God made a perfect world and called it 'very good'. So either we listen to what god actually said or we interpret the scriptures and put death and suffering before the fall of man. Like ive said before, i would not like to worship a god that makes a corrupt world full of death & suffering. I mean isnt that why Charles Darwin lost his faith? Because he could not see God in the cursed world of today? The truth behind that is that its mans fault for what we see. Disobeying God meant that the earth was cursed, not upheld by God, and man is judged.

This message has been edited by almeyda, 08-06-2004 04:43 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-19-2002 3:12 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 08-06-2004 10:29 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29426
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 72 of 78 (130968)
08-06-2004 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by almeyda
08-06-2004 5:41 AM


Evolution and the Bible (creation) are not compatible ...

Actually, as I have said in many other posts, that is only true in the minds of a few minor literalist, fundamental cults.

Genesis itself is not consistent and if one takes them literally, then the second chapter of the Bible creates and insoluable problem. If Chapter 1 of Genesis is literally true, then Chapter 2 of Genesis is literally false. As Bishop Sims said in his Pastoral letter supporting theach Evolution and opposing theaching Creationism,

In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.

Evolution and Christianity, or any religion, are not incompatible. In fact, it helps us learn about the HOW that GOD used to create this wonderous universe.

As Bisop Sims summed it up in that Pastoral Letter,

Insistence upon dated and partially contradictory statements of how as conditions for true belief in the why of creation cannot qualify either as faithful religion or as intelligent science. Neither evolution over an immensity of time nor the work done in a six­day week are articles of the creeds. It is a symptom of fearful and unsound religion to contend with one another as if they were. Historic creedal Christianity joyfully insists on God as sovereign and frees the human spirit to trust and seek that sovereignty in a world full of surprises.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by almeyda, posted 08-06-2004 5:41 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3553
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 73 of 78 (815533)
07-21-2017 3:06 AM


Bump - Seems to me we need an active "Theistic Evolution" topic
This OLD topic seems to have died with some good content at the end.

Moose


    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9885
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 74 of 78 (815596)
07-21-2017 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Minnemooseus
12-21-2003 3:08 AM


Moose writes:

The theme of "theistic evolutionist" has been coming up in other topics, including "What is a Creationist". I thought about starting a "What is a Theistic Evolutionist?" topic, but thought it be better that I give this one a bump.
I'm sure there's a nice, precise definition of "Theistic Evolutionist" somewhere.

1) What I suspect it is, is an evolutionist who believes God had a (substantial?) hand in guiding the paths that evolution has taken.

2) Another definition might be - An evolutionist who believes that God was ultimately behind it all, but did not actively guide the evolutionary pathways.

Or somewhere in between these two.

I consider myself a cosmological creationist. God created the material and allowed nature to take its course.

Even here on earth, it was foreknown what humans would be and how they would grow and decide their fate. God planned Jesus before humans were even created.(or evolved)


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-21-2003 3:08 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Tangle, posted 07-21-2017 1:59 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2017 2:23 PM Phat has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5097
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 75 of 78 (815597)
07-21-2017 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Phat
07-21-2017 1:49 PM


Shrug....

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Phat, posted 07-21-2017 1:49 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017