What? Proof of Creationism You Say?

[debipatnaik]

[if you already wholeheartedly believe in god, then what you consider signs of his existance are bound to be very open to interpretation ]Seraphina,

I only meant if the sceptics want a proof then they have to find out themselves.well unless you accept what you perceive to be true how can truth be revealed to you.

There are already enough religious books and practices .one has to have the basic moorings. never has God revealed himself in flesh and blood in broad day light. If somebody expects that to happen to prove his existence and that's what the sceptics want , this discussion is meaningless.

[Seraphina]

never has God revealed himself in flesh and blood in broad day light. If somebody expects that to happen to prove his existence and that's what the sceptics want , this discussion is meaningless.

But that's my very point...since there is no physical evidence, what is considered "proof" of god's existance, obviously comes down to your own interpretation. If you wholeheartedly believe in god, then you're likely to believe something to be a sign of his intervention, where another person would not.

For example, I heard this story about some holiday makers who ended up in some shoot out between police and terrorists somewhere, that they managed to survive. Now, I would call this "lucky"...they say "You know, I think this just proves that God was looking out for us."

Not withstanding that if God was looking out for them, they probably wouldn't have been in that situation to begin with.

If you believe in God, then what counts as "proof" to you, doesn't really carry a whole lot of weight. The fact that some people interpret something as "his work" doesn't add any more or less weight to whether or not he exists. Of course the skeptics want physical evidence of some sort, or at the very least something empirical; abstract thoughts and mythology doesn't work for us.

[trublvr]

You know, what amazes me not only in our posts, but also about most discussions about faith, God, science, and religion are a few automatic assumptions:

1) An unrealistic definition of knowledge that makes knowlegde hostile to faith. With this, a phenomenal inability to distinguish between information (knowing something about a subject/object) and true knowledge (to be able to relate to something properly).

2) A definition of faith that is demeaning to religious adherents (especially those of monotheistic semitic traditions like Islam, Judaism, and Christianity). The presumption that said religious adherents are all "blind" is quite pervasive here. Even a small amount of historical research would reveal that some of our greatest scientists have been devout persons of faith.

3) An unwillingness to submit a belief in ouija boards, ghosts, reincarnation, auras, astrology, etc. to the same criteria one uses to beat up on sacred texts, God-initiated miracles in space, time, and history, the existence of God, etc.

4) Some things about proof:

a) A belief that we humans are just looonnnging for proof of God, and if only He would hook us up with said proof, we'd be more than happy to believe! Why aren't we open to the possibility that we really don't like the notion of someone a lot bigger than us having an agenda for humanity and the world that doesn't square with our own. Our disdain for this reality can cause us to dismiss and squelch any "proof" or "evidence" that God has intentionally submitted.

That our science (wonderful and awe-inspiring as it is) is so objective and pristine that were any kind of god/deity to exist, then we should have empirically discerned his/her/its/their presence by now! Proof is acquired under certain conditions and criteria. Perhaps God--being that He's God--is not always open to submitting Himself to our controlled conditions and experimentation (God as test-tube dweller!). Instead of this being a sign that He either doesn't exist or doesn't care to reveal Himself, this could be a sign that an uncreated being who created and rules reality itself doesn't readily capitulate to human whimsy. Seems to me that when there is something that involves God coming down and doing cool stuff that we humans just write it off as myth, heresay, or religious nuts trying to suck out our brains.

5) An assumption that monotheists are so stupid that even if we were presented with indisputable proof that chipped away significantly at our specific views of who/what God is, we would yet be so blind that we would still hold to that view. From the Judeo-Christian perspective, an unwavering faith in Jesus actually requires that we are open-minded and discriminatory simultaneously. We don't throw out our faith in Jesus when we dialogue with others, but we do submit it to the scrutiny of historicity, science, etc. However, we don't blindly allow others control how such things will be evaluated (see 4b).

No matter what anyone ends up believing or disbelieving, the above-mentioned things are ridiculous assumptions, and holding to them when entering into what could be a mutually-beneficial dialogue trivalizes important conversations.

Edited April 28, 2004 by trublvr

[Universal Absurdity]

Just for the sake of clarity, the only reason i posted here was to share my view on proof of creation and what i believe god to be.

to quickly recap: god, to me, is everything that there is. it is the platform in which all of matter, and life is possible. I do not believe in any single deity, nor do i believe that a deity created us.

in truth, what i believe is that we are all god, not THE god that any religious person would pray to, rather your own personal god, which is part of everything, hence part of god itself.

About creation... well i believe in the soul, i also have an idea about how souls came about but that is for another discussion. anyway it is my belief that our souls had a part in creating this world we call earth , and WE created these bodies, capable of housing the soul , to further experience our creation.

i could go on and on about my beliefs and how i got them. maybe another thread will come about, where it would be proper to post my beliefs and how i got to this conclusion. as for creation, well...i wrote what i believe. it would be very difficult to prove it, but it is something that strikes a cord.

Edit: Belief thread thought it would be nice if anyone is interested in my beliefs, or sharing with others

Edited May 8, 2004 by UniversalAbsurdity

[debipatnaik]

never has God revealed himself in flesh and blood in broad day light. If somebody expects that to happen to prove his existence and that's what the sceptics want , this discussion is meaningless.

But that's my very point...since there is no physical evidence, what is considered "proof" of god's existance, obviously comes down to your own interpretation. If you wholeheartedly believe in god, then you're likely to believe something to be a sign of his intervention, where another person would not.

For example, I heard this story about some holiday makers who ended up in some shoot out between police and terrorists somewhere, that they managed to survive. Now, I would call this "lucky"...they say "You know, I think this just proves that God was looking out for us."

Not withstanding that if God was looking out for them, they probably wouldn't have been in that situation to begin with.

If you believe in God, then what counts as "proof" to you, doesn't really carry a whole lot of weight. The fact that some people interpret something as "his work" doesn't add any more or less weight to whether or not he exists. Of course the skeptics want physical evidence of some sort, or at the very least something empirical; abstract thoughts and mythology doesn't work for us.

imperical proof of God has already been there in the works of Jesus,budha and some other saints in the history. one has to reach that level to show a proof to the non believer.Ther is no one among the participants here I believe who can do thet.then why this argument.Obviously we ahve to rely on thoughts,reasoning and mythology for some convincing to take place. view points may varry but let us analyse each one on its merit rather than discarding it right away.

[Seraphina]

imperical proof of God has already been there in the works of Jesus,budha and some other saints in the history. one has to reach that level to show a proof to the non believer.

I'm afraid the fact that someone "says so", regardless of how important or "holy" you believe them to be, is not evidence of anything. I could very easily start my own cult, convince the supersticious and the desperate, have that belief spread, and eventually cultivate followers across the world, but that would not mean that I was automatically telling the truth, or even if I thought I was, that I was correct.

Basically, what you said touches again on the "blind faith" aspect. You believe, without any evidence whatsoever, that Jesus was the son of god. You believe, without any evidence whatsoever, that everything the bible says he did actually happened (my apologies if you don't personally, I refer to the christian religion in general), and you simply don't require evidence in order to believe this...what you do actually consider evidence is very abstract indeed.

I'd want actual evidence before I would even consider believing in god. At the moment, there simply isn't any such evidence, either for the existance of god, or of creationism.

[debipatnaik]

I'd want actual evidence before I would even consider believing in god. At the moment, there simply isn't any such evidence, either for the existance of god, or of creationism.

do you believe that someone is the creator. why you are unique ? you are you and not me . the way you are placed in life is uniqe? can you thinhk of someone placed exactly in the similar fashion,same happieness and sorrow, laughter and pain.tell me why this is so.

do you think there is no order in the nature or there are no laws of nature.what do you think about the laws of physics .did anyone of the mortal humans created this.all that was there even before . without those laws the universe would not be here.Would you question the ideas of Einstien the greatest of scientiest and his conclusions on the creator?

If there is order in the universe think deeply who set this order in motion?will that constitute some imperical evidence Seraphina!

I do believe in Jesus and his techings eventhough it is not my religion. Because he was a saint a realised master.

[Seraphina]

will that constitute some imperical evidence Seraphina!

Of course it doesn't It's speculation. All you're doing, over and over again, is underlining my very point that what you consider evidence for god is nothing but interpretation.

There simply isn't any evidence that exists for God's existance and, while I'm willing to admit there's as little evidence that he doesn't exist, that makes him a character in a book.

[saucy]

science, though it tries to be based on fact, is also a religion. Science can't and never will answer the question of what happened. Evolution is only a theory and you have to have faith in science to believe that's actually what happened. But still, science tries to prove that they are right. Religion needs to prove to the rest of the world that they know what they are talking about. Us Christians are greatly scrutinized for our beliefs. If we can prove that we are right, then there will be no more war and fighting, but that will never happen. Even if God himself came down and revealed himself to the world, people will still not believe. Either you do or don't, that's up to you, but it takes faith to believe either side.

[trublvr]

imperical proof of God has already been there in the works of Jesus,budha and some other saints in the history. one has to reach that level to show a proof to the non believer.

Basically, what you said touches again on the "blind faith" aspect. You believe, without any evidence whatsoever, that Jesus was the son of god. You believe, without any evidence whatsoever, that everything the bible says he did actually happened (my apologies if you don't personally, I refer to the christian religion in general), and you simply don't require evidence in order to believe this...what you do actually consider evidence is very abstract indeed.

Seraphina,

Actually, Debipatnaik did not make an appeal to "blind faith". He made an appeal to proof of God through the works (miracles) of certain people like Jesus. Because he's talking about the miracles of figures from the past, automatically we are talking about the validity of eyewitness testimony throughout history as a viable source of evidence. Honestly, I don't know why this is such a leap of faith for many who submit to this forum, being that we come into contact with much of the unexplained phenomena through eyewitness testimony.

I have never seen bigfoot, a sea serpent, or thunderbirds. I REALLY would like to (so long as none of these things would devour me!). I believe in these things because of the credible testimony of witnesses. Should all of this testimony be trusted automatically? Absolutely not. There are hoaxes and liars out there. However, there are also entirely truthful people who encountered really weird stuff one day while just living their lives. They weren't looking for bigfoot; they were just on a hunting trip and BOOM he kinda showed up. Also, they have no history of mental problems or lying or making up things about freaky creatures. Their testimony squares entirely with what myriads of people have reported at different places and times throughout history: A big hairy man/ape thing that we have no category for roams parts of our planet. All of these factors plus the occasional picture or footprint combine to give us great eyewitness testimony.

As far as "blind faith" goes (and it seems here that any faith is blind for many here), some aspects of religious belief mirror that of belief in the unexplained: Too many people for too many years saying the exact same thing with no apparent reason or opportunity to lie about or exaggerate details of their story. Without question there is more to religious faith than this, but the favorable consideration of good eyewitness testimony is definitely crucial for we who believe in God and Jesus. And by the by, miracles are still being reported all around the world! I think they happen here in the West as well, but folks are discouraged from talking about God-ordained miracles because of the scorn they'd be subjected to not only by scientific materialists, but also by folks who are hostile to the Judeo-Christian God.

[Seraphina]

Actually, Debipatnaik did not make an appeal to "blind faith". He made an appeal to proof of God through the works (miracles) of certain people like Jesus. Because he's talking about the miracles of figures from the past, automatically we are talking about the validity of eyewitness testimony throughout history as a viable source of evidence.

There's a difference between an "eye-witness" account, and a "say-so"

The miracles that Jesus' has been accounted for, from example, are recorded in a single, extremely biased source...without any evidence, why on earth should we be expected to take this as anything but heresay? An eye-witness account is all well and good, but unless there is a means of confirming...or at the very least determing a good possibility...that the person is telling the truth, it's not worth a great deal.

Even a first year history student knows not to use only one source as an account of history, least of all one so biased as the bible. There's no more reason to believe the "miracles" described in it are real, than there is to pick up any work of fiction in Waterstones and wholeheartadly believe that it is also a true story, simple because one of the leading characters is based on a historical person.

I believe in these things because of the credible testimony of witnesses.

Belief in sasquatch, for example, can be attributed to actual physical evidence (hair, footprints, waste), parallels between eye witness accounts and what we know of the behavour from other greater apes (behavour during displays, physical movement, fine details appearance)...far more than simply "because an alleged eye-witness" said so.

God leaves no physical evidence of his existance, has nothing in existance we can compair him to in an effort to see if this is possible, and the miracles that Jesus allegedly performed (in that single, very biased source) have also never been duplicated, to see if they were possible or not...in short, there's still no reason whatsoever to assume it's anything more than a mythology.

[trublvr]

The miracles that Jesus' has been accounted for, from example, are recorded in a single, extremely biased source...without any evidence, why on earth should we be expected to take this as anything but heresay? An eye-witness account is all well and good, but unless there is a means of confirming...or at the very least determing a good possibility...that the person is telling the truth, it's not worth a great deal.

Even a first year history student knows not to use only one source as an account of history, least of all one so biased as the bible.

Belief in sasquatch, for example, can be attributed to actual physical evidence (hair, footprints, waste), parallels between eye witness accounts and what we know of the behavour from other greater apes (behavour during displays, physical movement, fine details appearance)...far more than simply "because an alleged eye-witness" said so.

the miracles that Jesus allegedly performed (in that single, very biased source) have also never been duplicated, to see if they were possible or not...in short, there's still no reason whatsoever to assume it's anything more than a mythology.

Seraphina,

Any first-year history student also knows that much of the history that is recorded by the ancients does come from singular sources b/c writing wasn't as big then as it is now. Also, the historicity of the gospels is impeccable. You have folks who are able to give first-hand accounts of the geography and topography of Jerusalem before the temple's destruction in AD 70, which is consistent with archeological finds. And there is outside testimony of the accounts of Jesus. In regards to Jesus' miracles, a few ancient Jewish historians, for example refer to Jesus as a "sorcerer." Though their interpretation of his miracles was different from the Christians, the charge of sorcery at least implies some form of miracle. These historians, obviously, have no reason to make this up.

I'm always amazed at the accusation of bias that is placed on the gospel writers. ALL HISTORY IS WRITTEN FROM A BIASED STANDPOINT!!!! No historian says, "I'm utterly disinterested in this subject matter, and I harbor no opinion about the people/events that I'm about to research and write about! Alright, time to record history!" Were the gospel writers biased? Absolutely, being that they were Christians. However, does that mean that there's a likelihood that they lied? No. In fact, a commitment to the truthfulness of one's subject matter can actually work the opposite way: Said commitment can ensure that one is compelled to tell the truth! When Holocaust survivors tell their stories about what the Nazi butchers did, they usually make people understand that they are doing so to ensure that nothing like what those murderers did will ever happen again. They are biased against Hitler and the Nazis (forgive the understatement), and they have an agenda. This bias ensures that they have told us the truth. The religious/theological bias of the gospel writers is not a liability; it's an asset.

As far as the duplication of Jesus' miracles are concerned, miracles happen all the time, and are being reported around the world. If you are calling for duplications in the sense that you can put the miracles in test tube and presto! cast out a demon or raise the dead, then we'll all be quite disappointed. However, if you're talking about the phenomenon simply happening again, then I can tell you that I've been a recipient of miracles on some occasions.

You mentioned the hair of a sasquatch and the footprints as things that bolster eyewitness testimony of these creatures. I agree that this is quite compelling. However, requiring the same kind of "evidence" for a miracle as you do for the existence of a land-dwelling creature is not very fruitful. If you exclude credible witness testimony, then the only way to evaluate whether or not a miracle has happened is to be there while it is happening. Example: In the scriptures, God sent fire from heaven to confirm the word of Elijah the prophet on Mt. Carmel. On the top of Mt. Carmel right now there is fused glass. Could this have been caused by the fire coming down? Yes. Could this have been caused by a lightning bolt (albeit a big one)? Yes. If we exclude eyewitness testimony, there's no way to definitively interpret the glass. The only way out, then, is for us to have been there. Ain't gonna happen. Excluding witness testimony of the past while limiting historicity to that which is scientifically repeatable or observable in the present is unfair. According to this criterion, you'd probably end up excluding a lot of other historical things that have nothing to do with religion or the supernatural.

Before I talk about the charge of "mythology", I'd like to know how you define myth.

[man_in_mudboots]

I also doubt that if God was ever 'proven' to exist, people would all of a sudden stop being atheistic.

They'd think of some excuse, I'm sure.

sure, their excuse would be that they just dont give a damn about saving their souls. just having fun in the present life, and not worrying about later.

[man_in_mudboots]

~if people provide scientific proof that creationism is the true way things began~

if they can proove creationism is how it happened, i will publicly eat allthe pages of Genesis from every version of the bible, erase every creationsim-bashing post ive ever made, burn all my evolution books, and to complete my humiliation, i will sing a version of the hymn 'Man and woman he created them, in six days he created them' and broadcast it on the radio.

[debipatnaik]

The miracles that Jesus' has been accounted for, from example, are recorded in a single, extremely biased source...without any evidence, why on earth should we be expected to take this as anything but heresay? An eye-witness account is all well and good, but unless there is a means of confirming...or at the very least determing a good possibility...that the person is telling the truth, it's not worth a great deal.

God leaves no physical evidence of his existance, has nothing in existance we can compair him to in an effort to see if this is possible, and the miracles that Jesus allegedly performed (in that single, very biased source) have also never been duplicated, to see if they were possible or not...in short, there's still no reason whatsoever to assume it's anything more than a mythology.

i never meant the miracles of Jesus are the only imerical evidence.Now please dont draw a parallel between Jesus and the so called cult gurus. Miracles performed by a person does not necessarily mean he has seen God as even a magician can also treak your eyes.

What I meant to say is saints like jessus and Budha have by their teachings and actions proved that the Supremebeing exists and has also shown paths to reach him.In the history of Christianity as well as other religions like Hindisim there have been many instances of saint who have followed in their footsteps.

As you yourself also admit that God never leaves physical evidence of his existence dont expect any. The evidence can only be look for in the non physical plain...

You have not still answered my question. rather let us say I want to know you views on some intriguing points which I had already posted- What do you think of the laws of nature,the exact laws of physics, the scientific laws and laws of universe,as we all know those laws are the basic foundation of the universe.Our scietists or great thinkers have only brougt that to our notice and more will be revealed in future.But who has created those laws.why it is not a game of random numbers. Please answer

[Seraphina]

What I meant to say is saints like jessus and Budha have by their teachings and actions proved that the Supremebeing exists and has also shown paths to reach him.

And how, exactly, have they proven this? All they've done is teach people their veiws on how to live...they have not proven, in any way, the existance of a "supreme being". As I pointed out, I could do the same, start my own religion, spread the ideals of it across the world, and have many millions of people believe me...it would not mean I had proven a supreme being.

As you yourself also admit that God never leaves physical evidence of his existence dont expect any. The evidence can only be look for in the non physical plain...

And it is entirerly that evidence, evidence that cannot be physically examined or verified, that is down to nothing but interpretation.

But who has created those laws. Please answer

These 'laws' are created due to a limitation in the realms of possibility...this doesn't suggest a creator or grand designer. In any event, humans have managed to break many of these laws already (we have been able to freeze instances in time, for example, or send atoms back in time, and I believe we have determined the mechanics of how we would force an object to move faster than the speed of light, which no natural phenominon is capable of doing).

You might as well ask how a being could (i.e. God) could defy these laws? Or, if they were created by a designer, why they are so limiting? If your god truly wanted mankind to think, and grow, and understand the world around him, you think we'd have a far broader ability to do so than the somewhat rescrited laws and abilities that nature has placed upon us

[bathory]

What I meant to say is saints like jessus and Budha have by their teachings and actions proved that the Supremebeing exists and has also shown paths to reach him.

you mean Ghandi was a supreme being? omg no waonder

[debipatnaik]

These 'laws' are created due to a limitation in the realms of possibility...this doesn't suggest a creator or grand designer. In any event, humans have managed to break many of these laws already (we have been able to freeze instances in time, for example, or send atoms back in time, and I believe we have determined the mechanics of how we would force an object to move faster than the speed of light, which no natural phenominon is capable of doing).

You might as well ask how a being could (i.e. God) could defy these laws? Or, if they were created by a designer, why they are so limiting? If your god truly wanted mankind to think, and grow, and understand the world around him, you think we'd have a far broader ability to do so than the somewhat rescrited laws and abilities that nature has placed upon us

What is this realm of possibility and its limitations.you are guessing Seraphina.If humans have managed to break the laws and formed the new laws you mean they have expanded the realm. How do you know that the limitation has been broken.As I have alreday told, we will continue to know many hidden laws in future and ammend the existing ones-may be our own mistakes- examples flourish in scientific community.

If you think you are being restricted by the natural laws from thinking and growing in a broader way you have only to blame yourself. If there are restrictions those are for the harmony and growth of the mankind. It is ofcourse the way of seeing things.

Anyway even those loopsided or limiting laws were created ..first line of your quote... and then you say this does not suggest a creator or grand design. cantadictory enough.

Can something come out of nothing-be it the laws of universe however limiting or flactuating that might be.This fails me.please give some explanation.I really want to know your view points.. line of thougt that is.. I dont mean to be vauge ar argumenting for just the heck of it.Please dont misunderstand.

[Seraphina]

you are guessing Seraphina

As are you, in believing in God; a being for whom there exists no evidence whatsoever

If humans have managed to break the laws and formed the new laws you mean they have expanded the realm.

True, but there are still limits on what we are actually capable of doing. We can only bend the laws of the universe so far before we are brought to a complete stop...the same is true for any being. While there's no telling exactly how far science and technology will go in the future, I believe certain things shall remain outside our realm of possibility...

For example, since we've never recieved any visitors from the future (at least none that have made themselves known), it's logical to conclude we'll never be able to send people back in time; certainly not by any great distance.

Anyway even those loopsided or limiting laws were created ..first line of your quote... and then you say this does not suggest a creator or grand design. cantadictory enough.

True, "created" was a bad choice of word...perhaps "exist" would be more fitting. Limitations on what is possible are in place because every transaction in the universe requires energy to fuel it; from a cell dividing, to a rocket blasting into orbit. We don't live in a universe of limitless energy (you might also ask why a being who desired us to expand our horizons would "create" such a huge limitation on us? Why we'd be put in a world where we'd be forced to consume every natural recourse in order to keep this energy in circulation, or why such energy sources are so ridiculously finite....I say again, if God is a grand designer, he's terrible at his job).

Can something come out of nothing-be it the laws of universe however limiting or flactuating that might be.

That depends on what you mean by "nothing"...I assume you're refering to evolution, but whether you are or not, the answer is no. However, evolution does not begin with "nothing", it begins with aboigenesis, which shows how the raw materials for life were created from basic natural substances that were present on earth.

The only real example of "something from nothing" I can think of is God...a being that shows no signs of his existance, exists only in a book written by a very supersticious and ignorant group of people, who's very existance and alleged powers contradict themselves in so many ways it's actually quite frightening that intelligent people believe in him/it/her/whatever.

[trublvr]

We don't live in a universe of limitless energy (you might also ask why a being who desired us to expand our horizons would "create" such a huge limitation on us? Why we'd be put in a world where we'd be forced to consume every natural recourse in order to keep this energy in circulation, or why such energy sources are so ridiculously finite....I say again, if God is a grand designer, he's terrible at his job).

Our rabid consumption of resources is God's fault because there are not enough of them? How about this: There are actually more than enough resources available for the entirety of humankind, but some folks (i.e., Westerners) have gobbled them all up and left the rest of the "developing world" in the dust? Is there nothing that we will not pin on God? Instead of coming to terms with our own greed we'd much rather blame God for the lack of supply. We don't want do the things necessary to ensure that the maximum number of people can benefit from the maximum amount of resources. This would require radical changes in lifestyle. For instance: Taking buses and riding bikes more to get around. This would also improve our health (obesity is becoming an epidemic in the U.S. and some parts of Britain). Less fuel is used to get around, so less pollution. Our lifestyles slow down, so we aren't so stressed out (stress being linked to many physical disorders). But such a radical change in lifestyle would require a conversion (such a dirty word!) to another way of life...

Also, the limitations placed upon humans ends up supporting a creationist standpoint because limitation is crucial to definition. The fact that we are free to do/be some things and restricted from doing/being other things points to the reality that we are meant to be (implying purpose) human. Our freedom has parameters, as does all true freedom. Freedom is not the ability to do anything you want; freedom is the ability of men and women to operate equally within the limits of a common morality.

The only real example of "something from nothing" I can think of is God...a being that shows no signs of his existance, exists only in a book written by a very supersticious and ignorant group of people, who's very existance and alleged powers contradict themselves in so many ways it's actually quite frightening that intelligent people believe in him/it/her/whatever.

Actually, as far as the "something from nothing" argument goes, all people are stuck in the same boat. Evolutionists, for example, do not have the kind of evidence that you are clamouring for. Do they have "materials" of some sort? Yes: fossils, rock formations, stardust (for cosmic age research), etc. However, scientists are merely interpreting these things, and some of their interpretations are correct! We take the things that we have around us, and we analyze them, and we extract an interpretation of reality from our analyses. But no one has ever seen evolution happening! Evolutionary theory is a result of interpretation of the material we've got.

At times, Christians interpret the same evidence differently, and yes, we enlist the aid of our holy book in helping us to interpret such evidence. Actually, if people are honest, everyone uses a religious outlook to interpret reality (yes, even atheists). Additionally, though, Christians and other theists allow for "evdience" outside what we've been conditioned to view as scientific and valid. In addition to science and current technology we are informed by the reality of God and His continual acts in space, time, and history. Most times, we arrive at the same conclusion that any scientist would (and many times, Christians are those self-same scientists!).

And by the by, Jews and Christians cannot and should not automatically being placed in the category of "superstitious" and "ignorant" simply b/c they believe in the God of Israel and the world. I have many Muslim friends, and we do not believe the same way. We sometimes have debates and discussions about our differences, but in the end we've got great friendships. While I don't think that Islam is what Muslims puport, I in no way would categorize Muslims as "ignorant" and "superstitious". Usually, people resort to such name-calling only when they've either run out of intelligent things to contribute to conversations or when they fear that their arguments are in danger. Seraphina, the intelligence you've demonstrated in dialogue makes such comments unneccesary. Don't demean yourself.

[bathory]

Our rabid consumption of resources is God's fault because there are not enough of them? How about this: There are actually more than enough resources available for the entirety of humankind, but some folks (i.e., Westerners) have gobbled them all up and left the rest of the "developing world" in the dust?

its called lack of foresight on the creators part. I like it how you put a little kick into us evil westerners. Although, as we can see, advancement in technology/society/culture seems to show an increase in energy consumption, that said, we are bound to switch to alternative energy sources sometime soon

Is there nothing that we will not pin on God?

funny, here i was thinking he created everything. We do what we are destined to do (assuming god exists).

But such a radical change in lifestyle would require a conversion (such a dirty word!) to another way of life...

you better hope to god you use public transport, aren't chubby and have monster thighs from riding cross country:)

Also, the limitations placed upon humans ends up supporting a creationist standpoint because limitation is crucial to definition. The fact that we are free to do/be some things and restricted from doing/being other things points to the reality that we are meant to be (implying purpose) human. 

how incredibly nonsensical, i fail to see how this somehow supports a creationist standpoint?

Evolutionary theory is a result of interpretation of the material we've got.

yes, evolutionary theory is a theory which best adheres to what has been observed and interpreted in the natural world

At times, Christians interpret the same evidence differently, and yes, we enlist the aid of our holy book in helping us to interpret such evidence.

christians read a holy book, make an assertion contrary to evidence and claim its valid

But no one has ever seen evolution happening!

go read the evolution vs creationism thread, you are quite wrong in this regard, unless you adhere to the lovely creationist monstrosity that is 'kinds'

And by the by, Jews and Christians cannot and should not automatically being placed in the category of "superstitious" and "ignorant" simply b/c they believe in the God of Israel and the world.

why? is there a rule that states once a superstition has enough members it becomes a religion

Usually, people resort to such name-calling only when they've either run out of intelligent things to contribute to conversations or when they fear that their arguments are in danger.

its not name calling, its a simple statement of facts (i point mainly to the 2nd definition)

su·per·sti·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-stshn)

n.

1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

2. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

3. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.

4. Idolatry.

thanks dictionary.com

[Seraphina]

Our rabid consumption of resources is God's fault because there are not enough of them? How about this: There are actually more than enough resources available for the entirety of humankind, but some folks (i.e., Westerners) have gobbled them all up and left the rest of the "developing world" in the dust?

Isn't God all knowing? If people are starving, it's because God designed the world so that would happen...wow...between that and murdering every man, woman and child in the world in a flood, God's a real monster

But no one has ever seen evolution happening!

Yes we have...although granted, in a far more slowed down manner. Adaptation is one example of evolution in practice...selective breeding is an example of people actually taking advantage of the idea of evolution (only replacing nature as the selecting agent with themselves) to create new strains and varieties of animals and plants that we can use (eg: cows that produce more milk or meat).

The fact that we are free to do/be some things and restricted from doing/being other things points to the reality that we are meant to be (implying purpose) human.

I agree, this is rather nonsensical. It also continues to underline how some people are willing to see proof wherever they want to; all the evidence that God exists is down to a rather...strange....interpretation of the world around us: "I'm human! Therefore god exists!"

Evolutionary theory is a result of interpretation of the material we've got.

And belief in God is the result of overglorification of a character in a book

And by the by, Jews and Christians cannot and should not automatically being placed in the category of "superstitious" and "ignorant" simply b/c they believe in the God of Israel and the world.

I don't refer to followers of religion as ignorant, but rather the people who lived at the times they were founded. People then had no other means of explaining the world around them, and so had no choice but to "fill in the blanks" with some sort of creator.

And hey Bathory, welcome to the front

Edited April 29, 2004 by Seraphina

[chico del nacho]

If people are starving, it's because God designed the world so that would happen

interesting thing, there are a handful of companies in the world that control all, or almost all, of the food in the world. this world has enough food to satisfactorily feed the entire world six times over.

[trublvr]

If people are starving, it's because God designed the world so that would happen

interesting thing, there are a handful of companies in the world that control all, or almost all, of the food in the world. this world has enough food to satisfactorily feed the entire world six times over.

Great point, Chico del nacho! And you're getting to the heart of what I was talking about. We can distribute food equally if the one-third part of the world (the West) would equally distribute food to the two-thirds world (the rest of the planet)! Interesting how people fail to own up to human evil! "It's God's fault" is our reply! God desires to deliver us from such corporate and individual selfishness so that we may love others by taking care of them.

Isn't God all knowing? If people are starving, it's because God designed the world so that would happen...wow...between that and murdering every man, woman and child in the world in a flood, God's a real monster

A distinction between what is happening in the world and what is intended to happen in the world is sorely lacking here. God attempts to solve two problems simultaneously: Our over-consumption of resources is killing us (note our obesity, among other things), and that same over-consumption of resources is killing our neighbors (via starvation). God would have us share with one another to simultaneously alleviate the suffering caused by gluttony and starvation.

As far as the Flood goes, that is an example of God's justice meted out upon a world that does disgusting things. Justice and judgment go hand in hand. Also, there's something interesting in the flood story that demonstrates God's mercy and His justice simultaneously. According to the flood narrative, the whole world had given itself over to evil. It had to take a while for so many people to get so insane. This is a testimony to the fact that God gives people ample time to wake up and realize that destroying themselves and one another sucks. And when we show a thorough unwillingness to listen and turn towards love, judgment comes. People rail against God b/c of all the evil in world; they fail to see that God is patiently giving us a chance to turn away from evil to love. At the same time, those same people rail against God when He judges evil; they fail to see the necessity of judgment. We want justice without judgment and we want a better world without the inhabitants of that same world becoming better themselves. How sad.

2. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

Thanks for doing the work in looking up the word. As far a superstition goes, I don't dispute the definition. I dispute that we must automatically categorize what the ancients believed just b/c we have rockets, microwaves, televisions, and space shuttles and the ancients did not. Do we know more than they did about the world? Without question, yes. However, does this mean that they lacked the wherewithal to properly interpret reality? Hardly. Let's take one miracle for example. Whether or not one lives a technologically-advanced society like ours, I would think that one is able to distinguish between someone being dead (as Jesus was) and someone being alive (which he was after three days in the grave). Though we know far more about deceased and live human specimens than the ancients did, it does not mean that they were so in the dark about the difference between a dead person and a live one that they would be prone to invent strange stories to compensate for a lack of knowledge. Such an assumption on our part is tantamount to what scholar N.T. Wright calls "chronological snobbery."

Also, realize what such a view of history does to our race. If a few hundred years from now our socities are infinitely more advanced than we are, does it mean that they will automatically be able to cast doubt on any and all of our insights and history simply b/c they have--for instance--teleporation pods and we don't? This makes learning from one another across generations very difficult. It also makes receiving critiques and warnings from the past nearly impossible.

And how do we account for a persistent belief in supernatural beings in our day? I'm not just talking about God. Even in a technologically proficient age like ours (and I'm not trying to diss technology in itself, by the by) people are open to a myriad of things.

[Seraphina]

God desires to deliver us from such corporate and individual selfishness so that we may love others by taking care of them.

Irrelevant; God is supposed to be all knowing; therefore he knows every choice we have ever, or are ever, going to make. He also created the elements in our personalities and nature that lead us to make the choices that we do. If God exists, then he already knew people in the third world were going to be starving to death before he even made the earth, and he knew he must have deliberately set out to design humans to conduct themselves in such a fashion.

This is a testimony to the fact that God gives people ample time to wake up and realize that destroying themselves and one another sucks

Again, God should already have known what they were doing to do, and indeed that the world would fall into such chaos, before he even created it; what right does he have to get angry and murder people over something that he not only knew was going to happen, but designed the very circumstances that led to it?

However, does this mean that they lacked the wherewithal to properly interpret reality? Hardly.

Of course it does; we're talking about a group of people who would have instantly thought an earthquake or a lightning storm was a sign that God was angry. As I said, they had no idea how to explain the world around them, and had to fill in the blanks themselves. THAT is where the belief in a greater being origonates.

I would think that one is able to distinguish between someone being dead (as Jesus was) and someone being alive (which he was after three days in the grave).

You're going back to that single, biased source again What proof is there that Jesus did rise from the grave? Again, it's just a say-so, from a devout follower of him. I could go to a cemetary, dig up a corpse, and shout to people the next day that he'd risen from the dead and wandered off...this would not mean I was telling the truth

And how do we account for a persistent belief in supernatural beings in our day?

With all due respect...perhaps because people like yourself are more interested in clinging to age old beliefs, than you are in trying to determine the truth, with the vast knowledge, information and abilities we now have?