Creation and Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

So, why not define gravity in such a way that precludes God as well? Or any other natural laws? Essentially then, your Evolution cannot be proven, even in the non-rigorous sense that natural sciences prove things - for you would have to disprove the existence of God. So, you are taking it entirely on faith. Very odd indeed.

We could, but we don't because these are things that are not liable to mixed up with religion, so no one really bothers with them. We have a special label for those who do not believe in God: Atheists. There is no term for someone who does not believe in Astronomy, or Chemistry, Physics, astrology, psychics, etc., but yet we have such a term for someone who does not believe in God. When dealing with such matters, there are other things that are taken into consideration. Should you decide to start a crusade to make the existence of Gravity a proof that God exists, I am sure that someone would oblige your request.

I do not see how it can not be proven. I do not need to prove that God has not moved my T.V. and put it back to claim that my T.V. never moved. The standards here are not so rigid as to be impossible to achieve. The level that you reduce faith too in this instance is comparable to the "faith" that we have that if a = b, then b = a. At the bottom of everything, some things are given, but only because they are beyond proof, they are what we base proof on.

Can I prove that God is out of every nook and cranny in the history of evolution? No, because if you put everything up to this standard, nothing can ever be said about anything, because no investigation about anything can be conducted in such a thorough manner.

I do not have to disprove the flying teapot that orbits the earth to claim that it is not there. You exagerate my position in order to have something to attack.

All that I'm saying (and this is the standard way of looking at sciences) is that the concept of an omnipotent omniscient God is NEVER commented on by evolution. Now, to make the sort of claim that you are is linking evolution to a disproof of this concept.

So, how do you go about proving such a 'science' (and it surely is not)? Well, since one of the preconditions is that God didn't set it into motion with full knowledge of its effects, one of the steps in your proof MUST be that this kind of God either does not exist or does not care about the effects. This is why science is not concerned with questions such as this; they are unanswerable, and only able to be taken on faith.

Frankly, I am amused, because I've never had to defend evolution against those with faith against God before. One would normally apply Occam's Razor (and the Irony of using such a pious man's principle does not escape me) to simply say that God is irrelevant to the issue. We must look only at what we can show is consistent with our observations.

Occam was Agnostic

I have invoked occums razor, but instead of simply stating God is irrelevant I have explained why. Thus, the explanation may have threw you off.

I have linked no unreasonable standard of proof to science, but have stated why there are no burdens of proof in certain areas and compared them for you. You are saying that I need to disinvolve God from EVERY nook and cranny in order to claim that he is not responsible in evolution. I have denied that. Science also has a buffer against trying to prove things that are not provable. The Chemist does not sit down for hours trying to disprove that God himself is causing the chemical reaction instead of the chemicals themselves, much as the evolutionist will not try to defend the notion that God started the universe. It is a mute point. A given to the Chemist as it is a given to the Atheist that believes in evolution.

I am an Atheist, I am not agnostic because I claim that I know that God does not exist by logical deduction, not that I am unsure. The God of Chrisitanity and Islam is a logical impossibility as a squared-circle is a logical impossibility. Yes, there may be a "God" out there, but this would not be the God that any human refers too, just as there may be squared-circles flying out in the edges of the universe, but they would not be any type of squared-circle that any human has ever referred too.

Your are defending evolution against your own misperceptions, not my reasoning.

All that I'm denying here is that chance is a necessary part of the equation. Now, IF there is a God of the type that you (on faith as far as I can tell) deny, this definition of evolution is impossible. So, the burden does indeed lie on your shoulders to prove that impossibility. It doesn't lie that way for the bulk of those who see evolution as a reasonable issue, for they are not absolutely precluding an omniscient omnipotent and involved God. They are simply dismissing its relevance. As soon as you insist that such a critter is NOT possible, as part of your definition (and I still don't see why you want to burden evolution alone with this penalty - but whatever), you are involving the unknowable into your science, and making it into faith.


Flagg - anything to substantiate this claim? Occam is not my specialty (rather Anselm and perhaps Scotus were), but I never saw him question the existence of God; indeed doing so would have probably made him unimportant - given that his status was as a Franciscan Theologian.

You say, "IF there is a God that I deny". Only thing is, that there is not. This is like saying, "IF there are squared circles out there that I deny". There is no "if" here, the God that is described in theistic religions (Christian & Islam) is a logical impossibility, much as a squared circle is an impossibility. The structure and rules of our grammer rules this out, as they rule out the existence of squared-circles. As I said before:

Yes, there may be a "God" out there, but this would not be the God that any human refers too, just as there may be squared-circles flying out in the edges of the universe, but they would not be any type of squared-circle that any human has ever referred too.

Only two of the three can co-exist, not all three together:

Omnipotence
Omniscience
Omni-benevolent

If you have a logical argument that allows all three to exist in one being, then I'm all ears.
So, yes the burden does lie on my shoulders, and I have met that burden. If you are claiming otherwise, then you have to meet the burden of proving that the three qualities I have listed above can co-exist in one entity, thus making your rebuttal possible. No philosophical argument has ever reconciled the three in one being.

I have not involved anything unknowable into my argument. There is no faith involved here. The logical structure of our grammer which makes a certain definition of God impossible is not "faith", in the same exact way that the structure of grammer makes squared-circles impossible is not faith either. Or, are you claiming that the non-existence of squared circles is based on faith? For that seems to be the only position that you can be advocating.

Cute. But I can reconcile those three elements - not in some God of the Bible, but in a God who does nothing and creates nothing. To my FAITH, that would be the perfection that you describe. I'm not going to spend the many hours trying to find some more active God than this, for possibility is all that you require.

Nor do I necessarily see that squared circles are impossible, for it is the limitations of our logical system (one which is derived from imperfection and perception) which insist that (A ^ ~A) is false. We can derive other logics where this is not the case.

I spoke to an Evangelical Christian on another site, and he claims that the definition of God that we are using is not how they see it:

See, the point is that science ought to keep it's nose out of Theology. As these are essentially unknowable issues. So, it isn't safe to include God in your defition of a science.

I have stated that according to our system it is not possible, for this is the only system that we use. Yes, other logics would make this possible, but as I said; "there may be squared-circles flying out in the edges of the universe, but they would not be any type of squared-circle that any human has ever referred too." Same with God. If you define him by another system of logic besides our own, then this is a God that no human has referred too.

It would be like saying I can fit an elephant into a matchbox, then when you ask how, I say that it is possible by changing the definition of an "elephant" to mean "ant". This solves nothing about how to fit an elephant into a matchbox. Much as changing the definitions of a perfect God to make them logically coherent does not solve the problem I have proposed.

Cute end around, but I have already answered these points.

There is empirical evidence and circumstantial evidence. The former is what evolutionism tends to use, the latter is what creationism tends to use. So the first is a theory, the second is a hypothesis. Not the same thing. I wouldn't want creationism to be taught in a science lesson, any more than you'd want scientists teaching in church.

1) The author of the Bible/Quran/Torah/etc... has not written any papers with testable predictions. Furthermore, many of the claims of that book are disputed (quite violently) in most parts of the world.

2) Many of the stories in the Bible (including creation) is derived from, or influenced by, Greek, Babylonian, and Persian mythology (e.g. Pandora's Box, Gilgemesh, etc....).

3) Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning that it is testable by experiment and can make predictions. Examples of predictions made (and verified) are stuff like mosquitoes and bacteria with resistant strains, common ancestry within the past million or so years, etc.

Evolution does not make sense. Physicists have deconstructed it many times over.

Explain the absolutely startling chances that lead to the human brain. A lucky event it was not.

Cite this please.

The entropy is always increasing thing?

Simple, Entropy is overcome by energy use.

Life Is Energy Use!

Maybe your idea of God. Maybe mine too. But not the one that this Christian friend of mine has (see just below the post that you quoted). I trust a Christian's view on this more than that of either of us.

Moreover, the God that I was taught about was supposed to be inscrutable - which may well mean within a logic which is insensible to us. I just think that it is ridiculous to open evolution up to criticism that it doesn't deserve - and to remove it from the realm of science.