Evolution v Creationism

[Formby Valiant]

I guess we have reached an impasse. It's about faith. I believe that Vale can get back up to the Championship (at least). If I didn't I would no longer bother to follow them. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. That's where my real journey started.

 

The difference being that you know and can prove that Vale exist and the potential to reach the Championship is a possiblity.

 

There is faith and blind faith.

[Tone]

The difference being that you know and can prove that Vale exist and the potential to reach the Championship is a possiblity.

 

There is faith and blind faith.

 

It's a possibility based on what has happened in the past. If you have ever seen evidence of how God has changed someone's life, you would understand.

[Formby Valiant]

No one has seen the evidence of how god has changed someones life.

 

Surely you're not telling me that you have seen evidence of God.

 

Believing in a god and it giving someone focus and an inner strength and a feeling of spirituality does not mean that there is a god

[Andyregs]

It's a possibility based on what has happened in the past. If you have ever seen evidence of how God has changed someone's life, you would understand.

 

That same argument can be used for an infinite number of things that have no evidence. The question is why choose that story. Is it just coincidence that people follow the same religion as their society or family follow. They would follow a different one if they were born elsewhere.

Sugar pills acting as a placebo have been shown to help people with depression. Ultimately it was the person themselves who made themselves better. Just because it looked like medication, the medication didn't cure them. The belief in the medication did. That in itself is fine as long as it doesn't guide government decisions or any other decisions that affect other people's lives.

[Warren]

Actually, I just find your antediluvian ( yes, I DO know what it means ) attitude rather wearisome

 

That is fine, and fine to say so.

[Warren]

For me the discussion about God existing or not has to be closely linked to science, philosophy and psychology. Science in terms of the study of the very small and the universe as well as theory and mathematics. Philosophy because it offers intellectual tools that help rationalize ideas without though getting to a solution. Psychology because it helps to explain the way the mind works albeit the study of the brain is still very primitive.

 

In the psychological context I find the explanation or how an unsettled mind responds interesting. By this I mean that someone who supports or comes from one view point - say deeply supports the Jewish perspective around the time of Jesus - can suddenly switch positions. It may be that this person sees merit in Jesus and the Christian teachings which causes tension in their mind because they have to this point been strongly within the Jewish community. They have even helped kill Christians. They go off in to the desert to think things through and return transformed as a Christian prepared to go off round the world preaching the gospel. Their view of things might be that they saw the light and God spoke to them. Psychologists might argue in a complex way that the brain has taken a number of measures to achieve thought conflict resolution including suppressing the influence or importance of some thoughts. Nothing to do with meeting God etc.

 

Personally I am left with the view that there is a 50% chance that a being created the universe and we came to be within it. That is based on being able to see forces at play that could have been derived from intellect rather than the chance of multiverse. I am also left with only a few religions as still viable and these are the ones that are analytical and directly concerned also with the nature of mind and thought as psychology and philosophy and also concerned with explaining or pointing to the nature of reality.

 

I switch off very quickly from religions with ritual dominating. Whilst I have sympathy with Muslims over the pork issue from a commercial perspective I find this being important in their beliefs nonsensical. This is not anywhere useful to go in seeking the answers to questions here and neither is American creationism.

[Formby Valiant]

For me the discussion about God existing or not has to be closely linked to science, philosophy and psychology. Science in terms of the study of the very small and the universe as well as theory and mathematics. Philosophy because it offers intellectual tools that help rationalize ideas without though getting to a solution. Psychology because it helps to explain the way the mind works albeit the study of the brain is still very primitive.

 

In the psychological context I find the explanation or how an unsettled mind responds interesting. By this I mean that someone who supports or comes from one view point - say deeply supports the Jewish perspective around the time of Jesus - can suddenly switch positions. It may be that this person sees merit in Jesus and the Christian teachings which causes tension in their mind because they have to this point been strongly within the Jewish community. They have even helped kill Christians. They go off in to the desert to think things through and return transformed as a Christian prepared to go off round the world preaching the gospel. Their view of things might be that they saw the light and God spoke to them. Psychologists might argue in a complex way that the brain has taken a number of measures to achieve thought conflict resolution including suppressing the influence or importance of some thoughts. Nothing to do with meeting God etc.

 

Personally I am left with the view that there is a 50% chance that a being created the universe and we came to be within it. That is based on being able to see forces at play that could have been derived from intellect rather than the chance of multiverse. I am also left with only a few religions as still viable and these are the ones that are analytical and directly concerned also with the nature of mind and thought as psychology and philosophy and also concerned with explaining or pointing to the nature of reality.

 

I switch off very quickly from religions with ritual dominating. Whilst I have sympathy with Muslims over the pork issue from a commercial perspective I find this being important in their beliefs nonsensical. This is not anywhere useful to go in seeking the answers to questions here and neither is American creationism.

 

And so after all the deliberation and thought, what you're actually saying is that you're sitting on the fence

[Andyregs]

Personally I am left with the view that there is a 50% chance that a being created the universe and we came to be within it. That is based on being able to see forces at play that could have been derived from intellect rather than the chance of multiverse. I am also left with only a few religions as still viable and these are the ones that are analytical and directly concerned also with the nature of mind and thought as psychology and philosophy and also concerned with explaining or pointing to the nature of reality.

 

You say 50% based on seeing forces derived from intellect, but don't actually say what these are? Care to share?

The idea that only a few religions are still 'viable' doesn't make sense. If we make the jump to believing in such a being, the pretty much any of them are 'viable'. It's all or nothing, instead of just the ones that fit with warrens fluffy interests. Why would a religion have to be concerned with the nature of the mind to be 'viable'. That makes no sense.

[Warren]

You say 50% based on seeing forces derived from intellect, but don't actually say what these are? Care to share?

 

The idea that only a few religions are still 'viable' doesn't make sense. If we make the jump to believing in such a being, the pretty much any of them are 'viable'. It's all or nothing, instead of just the ones that fit with warrens fluffy interests. Why would a religion have to be concerned with the nature of the mind to be 'viable'. That makes no sense.

 

There is order and consistent patterns in the way the universe works. To take an example of this look at the Giants Causeway - here is a relevant debate! http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/11072012-controversy-over-creationism-at-giants-causeway

 

But the point I want to make is that shapes formed are repeated throughout nature and that things like trees growing behave exactly the same predictable way - seems like they work to rules or mathematical means. One view of that is just chance and I accept if the dice is rolled often enough that could be the case. Another is that there is an intellect behind it. Cause and effect is evident everywhere.

 

The fact we can't prove the existence or not of a so called God at philosophical level is explainable by us being insufficiently knowledgeable and intelligent and perhaps also being a lower level of life form in carbon existence. That is just as likely as the argument that a God does not exist because we are unable at present to prove that satisfactorily as well.

 

Going back to computer power I think it is very possible within a few years that human beings will have enough power on hand to create sentient beings and to become Gods in our own right. Therefore there is nothing in the way of us and the universe being exactly that. Tiers of Gods.

 

Warren's fluffy ideas all come from valid theories and I do not put forward any one in particular. Each of these theories is championed by top level scientists and the work to find answers involves all these people calculating away in research until theories are proved or eliminated.

[SuperValiant1876]

The best thing about science is it is true whether or not you believe in it

[Tone]

The best thing about science is it is true whether or not you believe in it

 

The same can be said, by believers, about God's Word.

 

I found this summary of Albert Einstein's views on religion interesting.

 

LINK

[Andyregs]

There is order and consistent patterns in the way the universe works. To take an example of this look at the Giants Causeway - here is a relevant debate! http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/11072012-controversy-over-creationism-at-giants-causeway

 

But the point I want to make is that shapes formed are repeated throughout nature and that things like trees growing behave exactly the same predictable way - seems like they work to rules or mathematical means. One view of that is just chance and I accept if the dice is rolled often enough that could be the case. Another is that there is an intellect behind it. Cause and effect is evident everywhere.

 

The fact we can't prove the existence or not of a so called God at philosophical level is explainable by us being insufficiently knowledgeable and intelligent and perhaps also being a lower level of life form in carbon existence. That is just as likely as the argument that a God does not exist because we are unable at present to prove that satisfactorily as well.

 

Going back to computer power I think it is very possible within a few years that human beings will have enough power on hand to create sentient beings and to become Gods in our own right. Therefore there is nothing in the way of us and the universe being exactly that. Tiers of Gods.

 

Warren's fluffy ideas all come from valid theories and I do not put forward any one in particular. Each of these theories is championed by top level scientists and the work to find answers involves all these people calculating away in research until theories are proved or eliminated.

 

Genuinely confused what that link proves or shows?

You also talk too much in black and white. Chance or god. In a way that's true. But once here, evolution is not random. You also say we can't prove god, and also can't disprove him, I presume this accounts for the 50:50 comment. However there are infinite possibilities that can't be disproven or proven...god created the universe...big bang....fairies...a cloud monkey farted...turtles all the way down.

The brain is just a super computer, so I get where you are coming from. However you believe that there is more to us than the physical, so I don't see how that fits with your other beliefs. Interestingly, at the current pace of computer power development, 2029 is touted as having the memory to compare to brains. However ere is far more to it than that, how is the memory accessed, how it's used, powered, and what exactly does self aware mean. And just because the power is there, doesn't mean we can program a computer to do it in any way.

[Andyregs]

The same can be said, by believers, about God's Word.

 

I found this summary of Albert Einstein's views on religion interesting.

 

LINK

 

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [Einstein]

 

Sometimes scientists are misquoted or misinterpreted with regards to the 'God' question. Stephen hawking was with his brief history of time. His new work suggests otherwise.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

[Tone]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [Einstein]

 

Sometimes scientists are misquoted or misinterpreted with regards to the 'God' question. Stephen hawking was with his brief history of time. His new work suggests otherwise.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

 

You choose to pick one quote out of the context of a comprehensive and honest report. That's a shame.

 

But it surely opens the door for me to do the same back to you:

 

“I am not a family man. I want my peace. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

[Andyregs]

You choose to pick one quote out of the context of a comprehensive and honest report. That's a shame.

 

But it surely opens the door for me to do the same back to you:

 

“I am not a family man. I want my peace. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

 

Was my quote used in the article? And was yours after 1954? And did you read the post scriptum at the end, and the wriggling by the author that ensued.

 

Anyway, Einstein wasn't religious. Without a shadow of a doubt he didn't believe in a personal god. Which he believed was naive.