The evolution of an atheist.

I'll use any word that you think is correct. Atoms are made of their component parts that had to combine at some point. Is that be design or not? It's one or the other.

It may be an option but it isn't an answer. This world either exists because of external developer or it doesn't. To say that we can't know doesn't change the fact that one of those two positions is correct.

Yes I believe that there is an external intelligence that has brought everything into existence. That is correct or it is wrong. Two choices. I can't prove I'm right but you can't prove I'm wrong.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

I am not suggesting that we can't and don't experience a God that we have relationship with and that works with us in this life. I do however think that the historical study of Jesus and His times is important. Remember that His ministry was addressed to 1st century Jews and we should hear what he has to say with that in mind.

The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem was not a new phenomenon. I'm sure it would pale in comparison to Herod returning to the city. In the case of Jesus the whole story of His entry became a non-issue within 2 days when He was executed. They weren't printing the Jerusalem Post at that time. To the best of my knowledge there were at least 16 messianic movements during the 200 year period prior to the Bar Kokhba rebellion. The vast majority of information we have on any of those movements was based on battles that were fought. That was considered newsworthy. There is far more information on the actual messianic movement led by Jesus than the rest of them combined.I don't know how much of the literature from that time has survived but I doubt that it's a very high percentage.

I did have a misconception on the use of random chance as it applies to evolution. Thanks. However that does not answer the question of is evolution a guided process or not.If I say that the fact that we don't know how abiogenesis came about means that God did it you would rightly accuse me of bringing in a "god of the gaps" argument. I suggest that your points add up to a "science of the gaps" argument. We don't know the answer so you just insert the thought that there is a naturalistic answer to the question, it is just that science hasn't figured it out yet.Even if one of your theories is proven is still does not disprove a designer. No matter how much we find about how something is done, it tells us nothing about how it became possible in the first place. Was it by design or not, and if by design was there a designer?

ahh...but who designed those laws. Rats! Still it does beg the question. There is an order to the universe that does suggest intelligence. I agree that this answer is a simplistic cop-out. It is more accurate and honest to say that we don't know the answer and that it a faith issue.However I will add this. I love reading about the nature of time. My understanding is that time most simply put is the way that we experience change. Time is the only way that we know of to experience change and we have no idea of what other way there might be that change can be experienced.I've used this snippet from an interview with Penrose on this forum before but maybe it will help you to understand what I'm getting at.

quote:

---

Roger Penrose : Yes I think physicists would agree that the feeling of time passing is simply an illusion, something that is not real. It has something to do with our perceptions.

​

Narrator : Illusion or not, our perceptions emerge somewhere between the cosmic scale of Relativity where the flow of time is frozen and the quantum scale, where flow descends to uncertainty.Our world is on a scale governed by a mixture of chance and necessity.

​

Roger Penrose : My view is that there is some large scale quantum activity going on in the brain.Physics does not say that Quantum Mechanics takes place in small areas, but also take place over larger areas. I think this has to do with the consciousness. I think we need a new way to look at time, not either Quantum Mechanics or Relativity.

​

Narrator : If Quantum Mechanics is taking place in the brain then the same randomness of outcome and unpredictability might explain our ability to make sometime random choices. Opening up the future to the possibility of change would provide the first step of restoring to physics the flow of time it currently denies.

​

Physicist : I don't think time flows, I feel that time flows, but I feel we can only understand this if we have a better understanding of how consciousness works. I think human consciousness probably has the secrets as to how and why we think of time as going by.

​

Roger Penrose : I don't think we have the tools, I don't think we have the physical picture to accommodate these things yet. We're not very close to it.

---

This however is all conjecture and there is no definitive answer to your question.

I know I sound like a broken record but all that science can do is to observe and experiment with things the way they are. It doesn't deal with the philosophical or theological questions. In the reading that I've done it does occur to me that every time science makes a new discovery it brings up more unanswered questions. As I said earlier, I am in awe of the minds of those that are on the leading edge scientifically. (I wish I could even have the trailing edge in sight. ) I think that we all agree on that. I would also suggest that Christian scientists are just as devoted to that as are atheistic scientists.

When you asked the question of who created God I agreed that there is no answer, however, any answer to that question, if there is one, would have to involve our concept of time or the way that we experience change.By the way, don't think that I don't know that I am in way over my head in any discussion on physics that we might have. I don't qualify as the rankest amateur.

I own "Josephus - The Complete Works" as transcribed by William Whiston, in 1732 from the Greek.The following is from Josephus- The Antiquities of the Jews Chap 18

quote:

---

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

---

I don't see that. Say for exampleassume for a minute that I am correct and that evolution is a designed and guided process. How would a biologist determine the difference between that and one that is not designed or guided. Scientific study is agnostic. Absolutely, but it just seems to me that with the establishment of relativity and QM as solid theories that it opened up a multitude of new horizons to explore. I've read numerous good books. (I even own Penrose's "The Road to Reality" of which the vast majority goes over my head but I find his theories fascinating. I've enjoyed reading Greene, Hawking, Schroeder, McGrath, Sagan and others. I have asked questions about science a number of times on this forum and I often read through threads where others have asked or answered questions I had in mid. There are some very clever people on this forum and our friend Bikerman here certainly fits into that category.As an enthusiastic Christian however I sometimes can't resist threads like this. Interesting that Bikerman is having to argue the existence of Jesus with you while at the same time argue against what He did with Me. I've read Collins and yes he does believe that a moral law, or the Chinese Tao that Lewis writes about exists as something that is beyond the physical. That doesn't mean that he is opposed to science trying to find natural explanations. I would agree with him, but from my point of view if a natural explanation for how morality evolved was found, it still wouldn't answer the question of whether or not it was designed by an external designer. It would only describe how it was done, if indeed the external designer actually existed. With the limited understanding I have of both fields I can't see that there should be any real need to reconcile them. I find them complimentary just as they are. Science answers questions concerning the physical and religion attempts to answer questions that are beyond the physical, with the belief that it actually exists.

There seems to be a good case made by both sides. The version I am using was a translation from the Greek as I mentioned. (Whiston) Josephus on JesusJosephus did write on Jesus though and also on His brother James. The court is out on whether or not he wrote about the crucifixion, but we can't definitively say that he didn't.

When i Use the term deigned it is on the assumption that there is a designer. I get your point though. I think it's closing some gaps and opening up new ones. That doesn't mean though that science won't at some point, if it hasn't already, close those gaps which may well up more new ones, which may at some point be closed which may open....... It's to do with science though and not religion. To be frank the text books include calculus and I have never even had the most basic course on the subject. All my education after high school, (which was a good long time ago), was aviation related. I think that you are making an assumption that is wrong. If I were in his shoes, (and after reading him I think he would think the same way), I would be keen to see what could be discovered. If a natural explanation was found, my response would be an excited - so that's how God did it. That was his response to the study of evolution and genetics. Let's forget religion for a minute. Let's compare science and philosophy. Science requires one standard of evidence and philosophy another. Will Durant wrote: "the sciences are the windows through which philosophy views the world".I assume that there are people trained both in the scientific field as well as in philosophy. There is no reason to assume he/she as a scientist can't work to a rigorous standard of scientific evidence while at the same time working to a rigorous standard of philosophical evidence as a philosopher.You might argue that only empirical or scientific evidence exists but that in itself isn't scientific because it can't be scientifically proven.I think that what holds true in this argument for philosophy also holds true for theology.

The designer has never been relegated to the natural force pile. I'm sure that some people have had to adjust their thinking, but as a Christian I've done that many times in my life. I'd say that most of my views have evolved and changed since the time I became a Christian in my 30's. I'm sure that they will continue to evolve.Let's say that scientists can come up with a natural explanation for how abiogenesis occurred. It would be fascinating but it wouldn't eliminate the possibility of there being a designer. It can just as easily be an explanation for how the designer did it. I certainly didn't mean to suggest it was a problem. I completely agree with your statement. Thank you but I'm not sure just how it is that you are using the term creationist. I think most of us on this board assume a creationist believes in a 6 day creation 6000 or so years ago. I don't fall into that category. I'm a creationist to the extent that I believe that God created this world and all that is in it, but I don't believe that the Bible is to be read like a science text.I agree that science and religion are 2 separate fields.

Agreed. The link that I posted though, did give both sides of the argument