The old evolution debate

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

That still doesn't make sense if we're talking about an omnipotent God. If God is omnipotent, it didn't have to take as long as the Bible describes to create the universe. He could have poofed everything into existence, in its current configuration, yesterday. What use does an omnipotent God have for the tools of nature?

It would be much more impressive if the universe (or the Earth) didn't have the properties we would expect in order to be able to support life, and yet there was life anyway.

I never said that it makes sense, just that that was the rational that is used to marry science and religion.

[mikoyan29]

I'm on the side of evolution myself since the evidence seems to overwhelmingly support that. HOwever, I can see where folks are coming from by pushing creationism. In order for their worldview to work, everything in the Bible has to be true.....

[SkullKing]

Originally Posted by Ghel
Then you must not believe in the Christian God, since (according to his biographers) he admits to making mistakes multiple times. There would have been no need for Jesus to be sacrificed if God had never made mistakes.

Nor would he have need of evolution if his creations were mistake-free to begin with.

Oh, I most certainly, do NOT believe in the christian god, All I said was that your specific argument about god not having to use evolution does not mean that it wouldn´t want to use evolution.

Originally posted by Ipecac Drano

Originally Posted by Ghel
Nor would he have need of evolution if his creations were mistake-free to begin with.

And even the current stages of these "creations" show no sign of being "intelligently designed"; there are a lot of deficits if we were designed by a higher being.

both of theese arguments only work from an engineering point of view.
There are many acessories in cars that are inefficient from an egineering point of view, but are used because some people find them aesthetically pleasing

The same can be said about evolution, it can be argumented that god likes a changing system, like a movie or a theater play.

Also, the definition of perfect varies.

One definition of perfect is:
"Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation(i.e.: She was the perfect actress for the part.")

If this purpose is "to be pleasing to God" than it can only be judged(about it is perfection) by the personal tastes of god, therefore efficiency might be somewhat unimportant.


I also have heard people argument that what we see as "flaws", are just things, the purpose of which, we do not understand since we are not omniscient

[SkullKing]

I have yet to meet someone who worships Yahweh and fails to admit the god they worship is imperfect in any way; especially when that god is guilty of some of the things it forbids its flock to do.

Yahweh is the biblical god, right?

Christians who believe in the bible I talked with, say that god is perfect, it can do the same thing it forbids it´s people to do due to it´s position of autority.

for example:

I can not legally kill a man, who has wronged me, however the government can condemn the same man to die.

also, as I said above

They also say that things we see as "mistakes" are perceived as mistakes because since we are not omniscient we can not understand their purpose.

I have encountered people who believe god isn´t necessarilly perfect, however they do not worship the biblical god.

Some people consider themselves christians, because they follow what they understand to be the teachings of Jesus, even if they think most of the rest of the bible, is silly or incorrect, or even evil.

I remember one guy who doesn´t identify himself as a christian who said "I am more christian then the church, for I live my life much closer to the Ideas of jesus christ then the church"

[Ipecac Drano]

both of theese arguments only work from an engineering point of view.

And engineering spreads over many scientific disciplines.

There are many acessories in cars that are inefficient from an egineering point of view, but are used because some people find them aesthetically pleasing

For starters (no pun intended!), since cars and their accessories are made by the same species as those who use them, we understand and recognize them for what they are. Secondly, since it's been said by the followers of Yahweh that he had created us in his image and that we should follow his rules and try to be more like him (to a limit), we should be able to recognize things that are "inefficient and are aesthetically pleasing" for what they are.

The same can be said about evolution, it can be argumented that god likes a changing system, like a movie or a theater play.

It could be also said no such god exists.

Also, the definition of perfect varies.

According to context. But we're not talking about the definition of perfection.

I also have heard people argument that what we see as "flaws", are just things, the purpose of which, we do not understand since we are not omniscient

No, but we can find simpler ways of doing things. It's not so much that a higher being had left some shortcomings in our design, but it looks like that if there were such a being, it went too far out of its way to achieve these results. A mere human with an understanding of biology could tap this being on the shoulder and show it an easier and more efficient way.

Yahweh is the biblical god, right?

Yeah...

Christians who believe in the bible I talked with, say that god is perfect, it can do the same thing it forbids it´s people to do due to it´s position of autority.

Then it's a hypocrite.

for example:

I can not legally kill a man, who has wronged me, however the government can condemn the same man to die.

The government is not god. Bad example.

They also say that things we see as "mistakes" are perceived as mistakes because since we are not omniscient we can not understand their purpose.

But you, and some others, can? Or are you basing your argument on the flimsiness of what we don't know?

I have encountered people who believe god isn´t necessarilly perfect, however they do not worship the biblical god.

So, it's a god that they made up?

Some people consider themselves christians, because they follow what they understand to be the teachings of Jesus, even if they think most of the rest of the bible, is silly or incorrect, or even evil.

That's interesting, because that Bible is how Yahweh was introduced to civilization. That's his rulebook.

I remember one guy who doesn´t identify himself as a christian who said "I am more christian then the church, for I live my life much closer to the Ideas of jesus christ then the church"

And what examples did he give? I mean, the Bible tells you how to conduct yourself in the Xtian way. To ignore that is not very Xtian.

[Andara Bledin]

That's interesting, because that Bible is how Yahweh was introduced to civilization. That's his rulebook.

Wow, it's like every other conversation you've participated in in which it's pointed out that the Bible was actually written, translated, and edited by man, not God, went in one ear and out the other.

Honestly, I'm through trying to debate with you since you are as uncompromisingly dogmatic as any fundie.

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

Wow, it's like every other conversation you've participated in in which it's pointed out that the Bible was actually written, translated, and edited by man, not God, went in one ear and out the other.

I've even pointed out in some of those conversations that the Bible was written by man. Ecce:
Clicky, and clicky.

So, no it's not like it went in one ear and out the other. The point is that the Bible was written about Yahweh and was intended by its authors to be the de facto source of what he is about and how to worship him.

Honestly, I'm through trying to debate with you since you are as uncompromisingly dogmatic as any fundie.

Cool!

But, you gotta admit that it's kinda funny when a person says they're (a) Christian but rejects either the Bible or parts of it because it doesn't interest them or inconveniences them. If they won't follow the Bible, they should call themselves something else; just like the Xtians did when they highjacked Yahweh and the Jews' holy books for their own religion and like the Jews did when they appropriated Yahweh from the Canaanite pantheon, and having Yahweh kill off the other gods in that pantheon.

There's nothing wrong in not compromising. But there is in waffling.

[SkullKing]

And engineering spreads over many scientific disciplines

True, but it is not the sum of human existence.

You would be hard pressed to explain the sucess of shakeaspeare´s "romeo and juliet" from a purelly engineering perspective.

For starters (no pun intended!), since cars and their accessories are made by the same species as those who use them, we understand and recognize them for what they are. Secondly, since it's been said by the followers of Yahweh that he had created us in his image and that we should follow his rules and try to be more like him (to a limit), we should be able to recognize things that are "inefficient and are aesthetically pleasing" for what they are.

Perhaps, I can´t really comment since I never understood what "created in his Image" actually means.

It could be also said no such god exists.

I agree

According to context. But we're not talking about the definition of perfection.

but we are talking about the possible existence of a being many consider to be "perfect"

No, but we can find simpler ways of doing things. It's not so much that a higher being had left some shortcomings in our design, but it looks like that if there were such a being, it went too far out of its way to achieve these results. A mere human with an understanding of biology could tap this being on the shoulder and show it an easier and more efficient way

You are not considering the possibility that god did things this way simply because it wanted to.

Also, if god is omniscient, them a human might have to be more than omniscient to understand more than god and therefore find, without doubt, flaws in his design.

You probably had the experience of someone in a classroom find what they thought was a flaw in the teachers´ resolution of a problem, when actually it wasn´t a mistake.

Then it's a hypocrite.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. There are many situations where one can legally do things others can´t.

That's interesting, because that Bible is how Yahweh was introduced to civilization. That's his rulebook

according to some, not all. some think that even though god is divine the church is human, and therefore prone to errors and manipulations, since the bible is a view of god trough the eyes of churches, it can be considered untrustworthy.

The government is not god. Bad example.

It successfully shows that an entity can legitimally do something it tells others not to do.

Would the comparison with a graduated engineer who is also a teacher, who does things(i.e.:buildings) but tells his students not to work as engineers since they do not have the understanding to do so, potentially causing tragedies(i.e.:falling buildings) be more to your liking?

But you, and some others, can? Or are you basing your argument on the flimsiness of what we don't know

I can´t, never met anyone who said that could and don´t think it can be done since I do not believe in a hidden purpose in everything

What do you mean by "flimsiness of what we don't know"?

So, it's a god that they made up?

Perhaps.

Some believe for whatever reason that they have a better understanding of the creator god than the churches.

And what examples did he give? I mean, the Bible tells you how to conduct yourself in the Xtian way. To ignore that is not very Xtian.

These people said something along the lines of most people who call themselves Christians are actually 'churchians".

i.e.: he calls himself just a christiam and say that someone else is specifically a "roman catholic", or a "westboro baptist".

If they won't follow the Bible, they should call themselves something else

Perhaps they should. However some decide to call others something else.

[AdminAssistant]

You would be hard pressed to explain the sucess of shakeaspeare´s "romeo and juliet" from a purelly engineering perspective.

Well, I could explain it in fairly concrete terms, including the rise of popularity of Shakespeare in the 19th century due to Victorian-era propaganda and the institutionalization of "culture" in the classroom, but....that's neither here nor there, is it?

[Ipecac Drano]

True, but it is not the sum of human existence.

No, just that "reality" part.

You would be hard pressed to explain the sucess of shakeaspeare´s "romeo and juliet" from a purelly engineering perspective.

Engineering and Brit Lit are two different things.

but we are talking about the possible existence of a being many consider to be "perfect"

And I'm not one of that "many".

You are not considering the possibility that god did things this way simply because it wanted to.

I had, a long time ago.

Also, if god is omniscient, them a human might have to be more than omniscient to understand more than god and therefore find, without doubt, flaws in his design.

One cannot be "more than omniscient" in knowledge as "omniscient" is all-knowing.

You probably had the experience of someone in a classroom find what they thought was a flaw in the teachers´ resolution of a problem, when actually it wasn´t a mistake.

Yeah, so?

Perhaps, but not necessarily. There are many situations where one can legally do things others can´t.

We're talking about God, here. "Do as I say but not as I do" is hypocritical.

according to some, not all. some think that even though god is divine the church is human, and therefore prone to errors and manipulations, since the bible is a view of god trough the eyes of churches, it can be considered untrustworthy.

According to the Bible's authors (and editors), it's God's word. One of the many reasons why I stopped believing in God was due to the origins and translations of the Bible.

It successfully shows that an entity can legitimally do something it tells others not to do.

Again...

Would the comparison with a graduated engineer who is also a teacher, who does things(i.e.:buildings) but tells his students not to work as engineers since they do not have the understanding to do so, potentially causing tragedies(i.e.:falling buildings) be more to your liking?

No, because such an engineer wouldn't go about it that way.

I can´t, never met anyone who said that could and don´t think it can be done since I do not believe in a hidden purpose in everything

You've never encountered a person who claims that they know God's will or talk to God or claim to witness things beyond what mankind is capable of witnessing? Things from other dimensions, or from Heaven or Hell?

What do you mean by "flimsiness of what we don't know"?

Well, there those I've just mentioned who build their arguments on nothing more than uncertainty. They like to cling to statements like, "You don't know that there isn't", or make poor claims about science, and so on. All they have to build their case on is the unknown only or they have to corrupt what is known in addition to it..

Perhaps. Some believe for whatever reason that they have a better understanding of the creator god than the churches.

Which begs the question, what make them feel that they are more authoritative than the churches and those who actually bother to read scripture and the writings of those who came up with the idea of God in the first place?

These people said something along the lines of most people who call themselves Christians are actually 'churchians".

i.e.: he calls himself just a christiam and say that someone else is specifically a "roman catholic", or a "westboro baptist".

So, he's faking it.

Perhaps they should. However some decide to call others something else

Sad.

[SkullKing]

I meant that sometimes people do things, because they like something, or want to try something new.

not everything done by people can be explained by it´s efficiency from an egineering perspective, so perhaps god´s actions can´t either.

[Ipecac Drano]

I meant that sometimes people do things, because they like something, or want to try something new.

True, but just because they do so doesn't make it the way they think it is.

not everything done by people can be explained by it´s efficiency from an egineering perspective, so perhaps god´s actions can´t either.

That's why religion needs to stay out of science. Science doesn't try to explain God (except when corrupted by religious zealots (which, in those cases, it ceases to be science)) and religion cannot explain the physical properties of the universe.

[SkullKing]

No, just that "reality" part.

so you don´t think culture is part of humanity´s "reality"?

We're talking about God, here. "Do as I say but not as I do" is hypocritical.

not necessarily, If a parent tells his young son not to do some things he does.

He may be hypocritical.

Or he may think it is too dangerous for a toddler to use the lawnmower

or his son might not have the experience and training to do something properly, or understand it´s consequences.

Saying ""Do as I say but not as I do" is hypocritical." Is too broad an statement to be right

According to the Bible's authors (and editors), it's God's word.

So?

They are human, they may be wrong, or lying.

You've never encountered a person who claims that they know God's will or talk to God or claim to witness things beyond what mankind is capable of witnessing? Things from other dimensions, or from Heaven or Hell

I never met anyone who claimed to fully understand the purpose behind everything.

That's why religion needs to stay out of science. Science doesn't try to explain God (except when corrupted by religious zealots (which, in those cases, it ceases to be science)) and religion cannot explain the physical properties of the universe.

I agree

[Ipecac Drano]

so you don´t think culture is part of humanity´s "reality"?

What's the difference between "humanity's reality" and reality?

not necessarily, If a parent tells his young son not to do some things he does.

He may be hypocritical.

Or he may think it is too dangerous for a toddler to use the lawnmower

or his son might not have the experience and training to do something properly, or understand it´s consequences.

Saying ""Do as I say but not as I do" is hypocritical." Is too broad an statement to be right

Okay. Wouldn't it be hypocritical if someone told you not to be jealous, but they also tell you that they are jealous?

So? They are human, they may be wrong, or lying.

So, then God can also be a farce?

I never met anyone who claimed to fully understand the purpose behind everything.

That's not what I had asked you. Have you encountered those as I had described?

[SkullKing]

What's the difference between "humanity's reality" and reality?

perhaps none.

Let me refrase my question: don´t you think culture is part of reality?

Okay. Wouldn't it be hypocritical if someone told you not to be jealous, but they also tell you that they are jealous?

I think I understand what you mean now.

If this someone says that he IS jealous, and that you shouldn´t be, because he reconizes it is a bad thing about himself, then I don´t think it is hypocritical, rather he is giving an advice based on experience..


however, if he tells you not to be jealous, while refusing to confront his own jealousy, then yes, I would call it hypocritical.

So, then God can also be a farce?

yes

That's not what I had asked you. Have you encountered those as I had described?

sorry, responded this way, because I thought you asked if me or others could see the purpose behind everything

let me be specific

claims that they know God's will? Better than me, yes. In absolute terms, no.

talk to God? No(or yes, but god doesn´t talk back)

Claim to witness things beyond what mankind is capable of witnessing?

Yes, but they never claimed to fully understand it.


Things from other dimensions?
never got this specific.

from Heaven or Hell?
No