Total Posts:119|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theistic Evolution...

Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 8:08:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Pretty much nothing is impossible with "God" you can always use the mysterious ways clause to prevent a disproof..................of anything concerning God.

But that doesn't get you out of plausibility issues and justified non belief.

If you agree that evolution by natural selection is true or if true doesn't require a "God" then to add God is an unnecessary assumption.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 8:10:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

God could have, but there are just better explanations, and the God one isn't likely. For one, survival of the fittest is very cruel. How evolution works, all the other species have to die off, and die is harsh ways. Only the strong survive, with the best genes. Which, brings you us. This seems like an odd way for a benevolent being to make life. Also, It is very messy, and it takes countless time of natural "trials" before something finally "clicks" to and complexity to the system. This seems more like blind natural forces than intelligence, even though God being responsible for evolution wouldn't entail a contradiction, but it would be an unlikely way to explain it. At least, I think so.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 8:16:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 8:10:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

God could have, but there are just better explanations, and the God one isn't likely. For one, survival of the fittest is very cruel. How evolution works, all the other species have to die off, and die is harsh ways. Only the strong survive, with the best genes.

Rational you know better,......."only the strong survive".......that charcterisation is something we would expect from............*gasp* a creationist. It's not that the "strong' survive, it's what is best suited to it's environment has a higher probability of surviving and passing on its genes.

Lions can kick a penguins a$$, yet in some parts of the worlds (antartica ?) we find penguins yet not the stronger lions why not ?

Cause it's all about the organism & its environment.....................you know this.

Which, brings you us. This seems like an odd way for a benevolent being to make life. Also, It is very messy, and it takes countless time of natural "trials" before something finally "clicks" to and complexity to the system. This seems more like blind natural forces than intelligence, even though God being responsible for evolution wouldn't entail a contradiction, but it would be an unlikely way to explain it. At least, I think so.

Well you know how it is................God and his mysterious ways..........
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Darran
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 8:52:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 8:10:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

God could have, but there are just better explanations, and the God one isn't likely. For one, survival of the fittest is very cruel. How evolution works, all the other species have to die off, and die is harsh ways. Only the strong survive, with the best genes. Which, brings you us. This seems like an odd way for a benevolent being to make life. Also, It is very messy, and it takes countless time of natural "trials" before something finally "clicks" to and complexity to the system. This seems more like blind natural forces than intelligence, even though God being responsible for evolution wouldn't entail a contradiction, but it would be an unlikely way to explain it. At least, I think so.

You need to read The Origin of Species as this is not what Survival of the fittest represents, matter of fact it was the Nazi party that distorted Darwin's view and used it as "survival of the fittest" in literal terms, when in fact the phrase was coined regarding natural selection using biological traits.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 10:21:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Evolution leads to life's diversity, not its 'creation'.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 10:25:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 8:08:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Pretty much nothing is impossible with "God" you can always use the mysterious ways clause to prevent a disproof..................of anything concerning God.

But that doesn't get you out of plausibility issues and justified non belief.

If you agree that evolution by natural selection is true or if true doesn't require a "God" then to add God is an unnecessary assumption.

I've seen this argument before, and it's the one I've found most convincing. I agree that it wouldn't be necessary to add God. I mean, it's sort of like Occam's Razor, right? Why add an unnecessary complication? But often that is the way things work. Occam's Razor only posits that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. We can't know what's simpler here, and even if it were simpler to exclude God, Occam's Razor is just a rule of averages. The majority of the time it may be right, but there are plenty of instances where it is wrong. According to laws of average even we shouldn't exist, and if we did then we shouldn't be such complicated beings when we could survive and reproduce quite well as much simpler beings, couldn't we?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 10:40:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 8:10:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

God could have, but there are just better explanations, and the God one isn't likely. For one, survival of the fittest is very cruel. How evolution works, all the other species have to die off, and die is harsh ways. Only the strong survive, with the best genes. Which, brings you us. This seems like an odd way for a benevolent being to make life. Also, It is very messy, and it takes countless time of natural "trials" before something finally "clicks" to and complexity to the system. This seems more like blind natural forces than intelligence, even though God being responsible for evolution wouldn't entail a contradiction, but it would be an unlikely way to explain it. At least, I think so.

I personally believe that every explanation that we've ever posited for our own existence is quite extraordinary, each in its own way. I guess the whole thing of believing in God or not is deciding which is most acceptable to you. Evolution may seem cruel, but it is unquestionable very effective. I mean, we're supposed to be created in the image of God, and competition/reward is the same method we use to sort the 'winners' from the 'losers'. If we have eternal souls then right now we're in the middle of the 'game' that will decide their fate. It's pretty clear that if God were omnipotent and benevolence was all he had on his mind then he could have created us much simpler. We could just be made of animated metal or something. It seems obvious to me that our ability to exist independent of God would have to be very important to him in order for him to build us this way, assuming he did so. All the creatures before modern man would have been soulless stepping-stones to the one final creation which received the "gift" of a soul. We can't know if man is still evolving at this point. And as far as the time goes, time itself supposedly began with the creation event, didn't it? There's no way we could know how a God from outside this reality would perceive our time within it. I think you make good points though, and that is what I've been looking for - something to stir-up the thinking juices. Thanks.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 10:49:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 8:16:35 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:10:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

God could have, but there are just better explanations, and the God one isn't likely. For one, survival of the fittest is very cruel. How evolution works, all the other species have to die off, and die is harsh ways. Only the strong survive, with the best genes.

Rational you know better,......."only the strong survive".......that charcterisation is something we would expect from............*gasp* a creationist. It's not that the "strong' survive, it's what is best suited to it's environment has a higher probability of surviving and passing on its genes.

Lions can kick a penguins a$$, yet in some parts of the worlds (antartica ?) we find penguins yet not the stronger lions why not ?

Cause it's all about the organism & its environment.....................you know this.



Which, brings you us. This seems like an odd way for a benevolent being to make life. Also, It is very messy, and it takes countless time of natural "trials" before something finally "clicks" to and complexity to the system. This seems more like blind natural forces than intelligence, even though God being responsible for evolution wouldn't entail a contradiction, but it would be an unlikely way to explain it. At least, I think so.

Well you know how it is................God and his mysterious ways..........

Isn't this just a debate over the nature of strength? I mean, I think Rational_Thinker is right on that point. In Antarctica a penguin's strength's are more important for surviving in the cold, but that's what makes it the greatest strength within the context of their environment. It seems to have turned-out that the greatest survival-strength of all is to possess the ability to be a creator, which we all are. It's our creations that make us the rulers of this world, not our strength. Which animals can say that? Ironically, it's our personal creations which may also take away our control of the world, or even destroy the entire planet.
bulproof
Posts: 25,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 2:43:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 10:25:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:08:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Pretty much nothing is impossible with "God" you can always use the mysterious ways clause to prevent a disproof..................of anything concerning God.

But that doesn't get you out of plausibility issues and justified non belief.

If you agree that evolution by natural selection is true or if true doesn't require a "God" then to add God is an unnecessary assumption.

I've seen this argument before, and it's the one I've found most convincing. I agree that it wouldn't be necessary to add God. I mean, it's sort of like Occam's Razor, right? Why add an unnecessary complication? But often that is the way things work. Occam's Razor only posits that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. We can't know what's simpler here, and even if it were simpler to exclude God, Occam's Razor is just a rule of averages. The majority of the time it may be right, but there are plenty of instances where it is wrong. According to laws of average even we shouldn't exist, and if we did then we shouldn't be such complicated beings when we could survive and reproduce quite well as much simpler beings, couldn't we?

And there is absolutely no reason why the god of your choice wouldn't use leprechauns to alter DNA in the process. Well it could happen and that is the entire basis of this scenario, isn't it?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 7:52:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 2:43:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/3/2014 10:25:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:08:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Pretty much nothing is impossible with "God" you can always use the mysterious ways clause to prevent a disproof..................of anything concerning God.

But that doesn't get you out of plausibility issues and justified non belief.

If you agree that evolution by natural selection is true or if true doesn't require a "God" then to add God is an unnecessary assumption.

I've seen this argument before, and it's the one I've found most convincing. I agree that it wouldn't be necessary to add God. I mean, it's sort of like Occam's Razor, right? Why add an unnecessary complication? But often that is the way things work. Occam's Razor only posits that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. We can't know what's simpler here, and even if it were simpler to exclude God, Occam's Razor is just a rule of averages. The majority of the time it may be right, but there are plenty of instances where it is wrong. According to laws of average even we shouldn't exist, and if we did then we shouldn't be such complicated beings when we could survive and reproduce quite well as much simpler beings, couldn't we?

And there is absolutely no reason why the god of your choice wouldn't use leprechauns to alter DNA in the process. Well it could happen and that is the entire basis of this scenario, isn't it?

True but evolution is easier isn't it? God could personally adapt every living thing's DNA or send leprechauns to do it, but wouldn't that be a lot of effort? On the other hand with evolution he can just set the ball rolling and watch it all unfold.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 11:26:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Occam's Razor is one of the best rules there is. If we didn't use it, we would think there are invisible devils assisting gravity in pulling matter together. Gravity does the trick by itself, there is no need to posit this invisible being. Similarly, evolution works by itself; no need for a God.

If we didn't take Occam's Razor seriously, and didn't reject ad hoc hypothesis; science wouldn't exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 11:28:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 7:52:33 AM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 2:43:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/3/2014 10:25:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:08:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Pretty much nothing is impossible with "God" you can always use the mysterious ways clause to prevent a disproof..................of anything concerning God.

But that doesn't get you out of plausibility issues and justified non belief.

If you agree that evolution by natural selection is true or if true doesn't require a "God" then to add God is an unnecessary assumption.

I've seen this argument before, and it's the one I've found most convincing. I agree that it wouldn't be necessary to add God. I mean, it's sort of like Occam's Razor, right? Why add an unnecessary complication? But often that is the way things work. Occam's Razor only posits that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. We can't know what's simpler here, and even if it were simpler to exclude God, Occam's Razor is just a rule of averages. The majority of the time it may be right, but there are plenty of instances where it is wrong. According to laws of average even we shouldn't exist, and if we did then we shouldn't be such complicated beings when we could survive and reproduce quite well as much simpler beings, couldn't we?

And there is absolutely no reason why the god of your choice wouldn't use leprechauns to alter DNA in the process. Well it could happen and that is the entire basis of this scenario, isn't it?

True but evolution is easier isn't it? God could personally adapt every living thing's DNA or send leprechauns to do it, but wouldn't that be a lot of effort? On the other hand with evolution he can just set the ball rolling and watch it all unfold.

Easiest means less additive assumptions. Positing a God on top of nature, when nature does the trick by itself is dumb.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 11:30:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 8:08:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

If you agree that evolution by natural selection is true or if true doesn't require a "God" then to add God is an unnecessary assumption.

But if you don't it isn't, so....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 11:37:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

I don't know who first presented the argument, but I've seen some say if evolution is true, the human mind would have came about in a purely physical way. But this means no afterlife is possible. Which would contradict many ideas of God.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 11:50:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 11:37:04 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

I don't know who first presented the argument, but I've seen some say if evolution is true, the human mind would have came about in a purely physical way. But this means no afterlife is possible. Which would contradict many ideas of God.

False. There are quite a few Christian physicalists for instance that believe in an afterlife. I don't see any reason to think it's impossible. See: Kevin Cocoran, Trenton Merricks, Peter Van Inwagen, Lynne Rudder Baker, Hud Hudson, etc
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 12:00:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 11:50:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/4/2014 11:37:04 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

I don't know who first presented the argument, but I've seen some say if evolution is true, the human mind would have came about in a purely physical way. But this means no afterlife is possible. Which would contradict many ideas of God.

False. There are quite a few Christian physicalists for instance that believe in an afterlife. I don't see any reason to think it's impossible. See: Kevin Cocoran, Trenton Merricks, Peter Van Inwagen, Lynne Rudder Baker, Hud Hudson, etc

It's not impossible, just ad hoc. We know the mind is dependent on the brain, so the simple logic is that when the brain goes; the mind does. You would have to believe God somehow "photocopied" your immaterial mind, and that this version, not dependent on the brain can survive or something. So, no, it is not logically impossible, but it doesn't have to be.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 12:19:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 11:50:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/4/2014 11:37:04 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

I don't know who first presented the argument, but I've seen some say if evolution is true, the human mind would have came about in a purely physical way. But this means no afterlife is possible. Which would contradict many ideas of God.

False. There are quite a few Christian physicalists for instance that believe in an afterlife. I don't see any reason to think it's impossible. See: Kevin Cocoran, Trenton Merricks, Peter Van Inwagen, Lynne Rudder Baker, Hud Hudson, etc

But actually, there may be a way around what I said. Godel's Theorem implies that no classical system of neurons and synapses can account for consciousness (The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose). Thus, quantum mechanics has to play a role. The best theory is that self-collapsing wave-functions produce (or actually are) conscious experiences that reside within the microtubules in the brain. If this is true, then due to the retro-causal effects of QM; you can get free-will back!

What I mean by that, is that many experiments like Libet's experiment, show that neural activity that correlates with a later conscious experience. This suggests that brain activity causes our choices (I mean after all, causes come before the effects, right). However, if this quantum mind idea is correct, then the self-collapsing wave-functions (consciousness) would retro-cause the neural activity. Thus, it would explain why the neurons go off first and seem to cause the conscious state; even though that doesn't really happen.

Watch the video "Can science find the soul?". You will find it interesting...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 12:39:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 11:50:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/4/2014 11:37:04 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

I don't know who first presented the argument, but I've seen some say if evolution is true, the human mind would have came about in a purely physical way. But this means no afterlife is possible. Which would contradict many ideas of God.

False. There are quite a few Christian physicalists for instance that believe in an afterlife. I don't see any reason to think it's impossible. See: Kevin Cocoran, Trenton Merricks, Peter Van Inwagen, Lynne Rudder Baker, Hud Hudson, etc

The person who made the video is a physics and philosophy student who I chat with all the time (an Idealist). He said something that I found rather profound:

"The ghost in the machine is dead. Not because there is no ghost, but because there is no machine." - Johanan Raatz
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 12:53:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 11:28:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 7:52:33 AM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 2:43:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/3/2014 10:25:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:08:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Pretty much nothing is impossible with "God" you can always use the mysterious ways clause to prevent a disproof..................of anything concerning God.

But that doesn't get you out of plausibility issues and justified non belief.

If you agree that evolution by natural selection is true or if true doesn't require a "God" then to add God is an unnecessary assumption.

I've seen this argument before, and it's the one I've found most convincing. I agree that it wouldn't be necessary to add God. I mean, it's sort of like Occam's Razor, right? Why add an unnecessary complication? But often that is the way things work. Occam's Razor only posits that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. We can't know what's simpler here, and even if it were simpler to exclude God, Occam's Razor is just a rule of averages. The majority of the time it may be right, but there are plenty of instances where it is wrong. According to laws of average even we shouldn't exist, and if we did then we shouldn't be such complicated beings when we could survive and reproduce quite well as much simpler beings, couldn't we?

And there is absolutely no reason why the god of your choice wouldn't use leprechauns to alter DNA in the process. Well it could happen and that is the entire basis of this scenario, isn't it?

True but evolution is easier isn't it? God could personally adapt every living thing's DNA or send leprechauns to do it, but wouldn't that be a lot of effort? On the other hand with evolution he can just set the ball rolling and watch it all unfold.

Easiest means less additive assumptions. Positing a God on top of nature, when nature does the trick by itself is dumb.

Yes but the thing is that the beginning of the universe and the evolution of life without god is full of ridiculous coincidences and unexplained events. So our choice is to believe in a creation of the universe powered by god or full of coincidences and events that happen for no apparent reason. Since one of the most fundamental ideas of science is that nothing is a coincidence and everything happens for a reason I believe the former.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 1:03:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 12:53:14 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 11:28:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 7:52:33 AM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 2:43:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/3/2014 10:25:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:08:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Pretty much nothing is impossible with "God" you can always use the mysterious ways clause to prevent a disproof..................of anything concerning God.

But that doesn't get you out of plausibility issues and justified non belief.

If you agree that evolution by natural selection is true or if true doesn't require a "God" then to add God is an unnecessary assumption.

I've seen this argument before, and it's the one I've found most convincing. I agree that it wouldn't be necessary to add God. I mean, it's sort of like Occam's Razor, right? Why add an unnecessary complication? But often that is the way things work. Occam's Razor only posits that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. We can't know what's simpler here, and even if it were simpler to exclude God, Occam's Razor is just a rule of averages. The majority of the time it may be right, but there are plenty of instances where it is wrong. According to laws of average even we shouldn't exist, and if we did then we shouldn't be such complicated beings when we could survive and reproduce quite well as much simpler beings, couldn't we?

And there is absolutely no reason why the god of your choice wouldn't use leprechauns to alter DNA in the process. Well it could happen and that is the entire basis of this scenario, isn't it?

True but evolution is easier isn't it? God could personally adapt every living thing's DNA or send leprechauns to do it, but wouldn't that be a lot of effort? On the other hand with evolution he can just set the ball rolling and watch it all unfold.

Easiest means less additive assumptions. Positing a God on top of nature, when nature does the trick by itself is dumb.

Yes but the thing is that the beginning of the universe and the evolution of life without god is full of ridiculous coincidences and unexplained events.

There are tons of explanations. Perhaps our universe is a perfect black hole generator (Lee Smolin's idea). That would explain why it allows for life. You need a lot of stars in order for the fraction that can collapse into black holes; to do so. Thus, you need a lot of solar systems. With enough solar systems, you will have life. This is just how interconnected nature is, it isn't a "coincidence". That is like saying is a coincidence that gravity is pulling me down, and not up or sideways. However, this is just due to ignorance of nature. There are plenty of naturalistic theories that explain why the constants have the values they do.

So our choice is to believe in a creation of the universe powered by god or full of coincidences and events that happen for no apparent reason.

False-dichotomy.

Since one of the most fundamental ideas of science is that nothing is a coincidence and everything happens for a reason I believe the former.

Since what you presented is a false-dilemma, your argument is unsound.
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 1:23:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 1:03:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:53:14 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 11:28:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 7:52:33 AM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 2:43:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/3/2014 10:25:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:08:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Pretty much nothing is impossible with "God" you can always use the mysterious ways clause to prevent a disproof..................of anything concerning God.

But that doesn't get you out of plausibility issues and justified non belief.

If you agree that evolution by natural selection is true or if true doesn't require a "God" then to add God is an unnecessary assumption.

I've seen this argument before, and it's the one I've found most convincing. I agree that it wouldn't be necessary to add God. I mean, it's sort of like Occam's Razor, right? Why add an unnecessary complication? But often that is the way things work. Occam's Razor only posits that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. We can't know what's simpler here, and even if it were simpler to exclude God, Occam's Razor is just a rule of averages. The majority of the time it may be right, but there are plenty of instances where it is wrong. According to laws of average even we shouldn't exist, and if we did then we shouldn't be such complicated beings when we could survive and reproduce quite well as much simpler beings, couldn't we?

And there is absolutely no reason why the god of your choice wouldn't use leprechauns to alter DNA in the process. Well it could happen and that is the entire basis of this scenario, isn't it?

True but evolution is easier isn't it? God could personally adapt every living thing's DNA or send leprechauns to do it, but wouldn't that be a lot of effort? On the other hand with evolution he can just set the ball rolling and watch it all unfold.

Easiest means less additive assumptions. Positing a God on top of nature, when nature does the trick by itself is dumb.

Yes but the thing is that the beginning of the universe and the evolution of life without god is full of ridiculous coincidences and unexplained events.

There are tons of explanations. Perhaps our universe is a perfect black hole generator (Lee Smolin's idea). That would explain why it allows for life. You need a lot of stars in order for the fraction that can collapse into black holes; to do so. Thus, you need a lot of solar systems. With enough solar systems, you will have life. This is just how interconnected nature is, it isn't a "coincidence". That is like saying is a coincidence that gravity is pulling me down, and not up or sideways. However, this is just due to ignorance of nature. There are plenty of naturalistic theories that explain why the constants have the values they do.

So our choice is to believe in a creation of the universe powered by god or full of coincidences and events that happen for no apparent reason.

False-dichotomy.

Since one of the most fundamental ideas of science is that nothing is a coincidence and everything happens for a reason I believe the former.

Since what you presented is a false-dilemma, your argument is unsound.

Please not to sound churlish but if you're going to reference a concept like that again please state that it is exactly what it sounds like. I just spent about 10 minutes looking up that concept only to come to the conclusion it is exactly what it sounds like.

Anyway that is completely irrelevant as it is not how the energy which forms our universe got here that I have a problem with, it is what comes directly after it. By which I mean the reason why expansion happened, which after spending about an hour trawling through the universe a while ago and spending some time talking to my physics teacher about it, I learned that sciences stance on why it happened is It just kind of did. I do not accept it just kind of did as a scientific explanation.

Another thing is most pre big bang theories I have heard of violate general relativity, quantum physics or both. As such I go for a belief in a gravitational singularity, full of an incredible amount of energy, which expanded because of a little helping hand from god.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 1:34:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 1:23:33 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 1:03:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:53:14 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 11:28:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 7:52:33 AM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 2:43:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/3/2014 10:25:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:08:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Pretty much nothing is impossible with "God" you can always use the mysterious ways clause to prevent a disproof..................of anything concerning God.

But that doesn't get you out of plausibility issues and justified non belief.

If you agree that evolution by natural selection is true or if true doesn't require a "God" then to add God is an unnecessary assumption.

I've seen this argument before, and it's the one I've found most convincing. I agree that it wouldn't be necessary to add God. I mean, it's sort of like Occam's Razor, right? Why add an unnecessary complication? But often that is the way things work. Occam's Razor only posits that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. We can't know what's simpler here, and even if it were simpler to exclude God, Occam's Razor is just a rule of averages. The majority of the time it may be right, but there are plenty of instances where it is wrong. According to laws of average even we shouldn't exist, and if we did then we shouldn't be such complicated beings when we could survive and reproduce quite well as much simpler beings, couldn't we?

And there is absolutely no reason why the god of your choice wouldn't use leprechauns to alter DNA in the process. Well it could happen and that is the entire basis of this scenario, isn't it?

True but evolution is easier isn't it? God could personally adapt every living thing's DNA or send leprechauns to do it, but wouldn't that be a lot of effort? On the other hand with evolution he can just set the ball rolling and watch it all unfold.

Easiest means less additive assumptions. Positing a God on top of nature, when nature does the trick by itself is dumb.

Yes but the thing is that the beginning of the universe and the evolution of life without god is full of ridiculous coincidences and unexplained events.

There are tons of explanations. Perhaps our universe is a perfect black hole generator (Lee Smolin's idea). That would explain why it allows for life. You need a lot of stars in order for the fraction that can collapse into black holes; to do so. Thus, you need a lot of solar systems. With enough solar systems, you will have life. This is just how interconnected nature is, it isn't a "coincidence". That is like saying is a coincidence that gravity is pulling me down, and not up or sideways. However, this is just due to ignorance of nature. There are plenty of naturalistic theories that explain why the constants have the values they do.

So our choice is to believe in a creation of the universe powered by god or full of coincidences and events that happen for no apparent reason.

False-dichotomy.

Since one of the most fundamental ideas of science is that nothing is a coincidence and everything happens for a reason I believe the former.

Since what you presented is a false-dilemma, your argument is unsound.

Please not to sound churlish but if you're going to reference a concept like that again please state that it is exactly what it sounds like. I just spent about 10 minutes looking up that concept only to come to the conclusion it is exactly what it sounds like.

I do not compute...


Anyway that is completely irrelevant as it is not how the energy which forms our universe got here that I have a problem with, it is what comes directly after it. By which I mean the reason why expansion happened

It occurred due to inflation.

, which after spending about an hour trawling through the universe a while ago and spending some time talking to my physics teacher about it, I learned that sciences stance on why it happened is It just kind of did. I do not accept it just kind of did as a scientific explanation.

Well, why does God exist? He just kind of does?


Another thing is most pre big bang theories I have heard of violate general relativity, quantum physics or both.

This is obviously not true.

As such I go for a belief in a gravitational singularity

It is widely accepted that a theory of Quantum Gravity will make the singularity obsolete. You believe in an outdated concept.

, full of an incredible amount of energy, which expanded because of a little helping hand from god.

Perhaps, but it is not necessary to assume so.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 1:42:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Why should he, when he can simply create the basic kinds as he wants them?

I suspect that what Theisitc Evolutionists, though I confess I've never heard the term, are really doing is confusing the evidence slithly.

There are basically three ideas of how everything got here.

There is the "7 day creation of all" believers, and their exact opposites the Evolutionists.

If, however you really understand the creation account as laid out in Chronological order in Genesis one, the first thing you realise is that the "Creative days" are not really days at all, at least not in the 24 hour sense. They are days in the alternative meaning of definite but non-specific time periods of approximately equal length" usage.

The second thing which soon becomes obvious is that verse one is completely separate from "the 7 days".

The third should be obvious, but like most obvious things it is easy to overlook, and that is that nowhere in scripture. is the 7th day actually closed of like the otehr 6 are.

The 7 days are, as soon becomes apparent, written from the aspect of someone who might have been viewing events from the surface of the earth, which is why the sun, which has already been created (in verse 1) doesn't immediately become apparent to the reporter on the earth.

When it does the first thing we get is its light, as if it were a cloudy day where it is not visible, and then later the sun actually comes into view.

As for the creation of animals, there is an important thing to note. Animals are created "according to their kinds"

That suggests that God simply created the basic kinds, but built into them the capacity to adapt as needed to suit changes in environment or situation.

If you stop to think about it, that would make perfect sense for a loving God to do, since he would know that the environment would change, as the Garden of Eden was expanded across the globe, and since he "rested from his creative works" at the start of the 7th day, that is the only explanation for all the adaptations we see in nature.

I suspect, though I don't know, that is pretty close to what Theistic Evolutionists teach?

Am I right?

The point being that it is actually what the bible teaches.

Interestingly, Revelation tells us that God becomes fully involved with mankind again at the end of Jesus 1,000 year reign, after the final test. the last 3 chapters of Revelation go into that in reasonable detail.

Since that, along with Daniels prophecy of when the 1,000 year reign begins, gives us a length of approximately 7,000 years for the 7th day, which means that all 7 together would amount to approximately 49,000 years.

Anyway, that is what scripture teaches, simple as. Whether you believe it or not is entirely up to you.
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 1:46:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Depends on how you define "God".

It is impossible if you define it like this:
God: The Christian God that created the Earth in seven days.
Evolution: The theory that explains biological diversity with mutations and natural selection. Most models of evolution also claim that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

This is contradictory because the age of Earth is clearly different between the definitions.

However, if you define it like this, it might work:

God: The omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient deity that created the universe.
Evolution: The theory that explains biological diversity with mutations and natural selection. Most models of evolution also claim that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

As you can see, those definitions don't contradict eachother.

Source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Xf0y13pQI (5:19) (This video was about false dilemmas, but the example raised applies to this.)
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 1:46:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 1:34:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 1:23:33 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 1:03:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:53:14 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 11:28:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 7:52:33 AM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 2:43:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/3/2014 10:25:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:08:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Pretty much nothing is impossible with "God" you can always use the mysterious ways clause to prevent a disproof..................of anything concerning God.

But that doesn't get you out of plausibility issues and justified non belief.

If you agree that evolution by natural selection is true or if true doesn't require a "God" then to add God is an unnecessary assumption.

I've seen this argument before, and it's the one I've found most convincing. I agree that it wouldn't be necessary to add God. I mean, it's sort of like Occam's Razor, right? Why add an unnecessary complication? But often that is the way things work. Occam's Razor only posits that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. We can't know what's simpler here, and even if it were simpler to exclude God, Occam's Razor is just a rule of averages. The majority of the time it may be right, but there are plenty of instances where it is wrong. According to laws of average even we shouldn't exist, and if we did then we shouldn't be such complicated beings when we could survive and reproduce quite well as much simpler beings, couldn't we?

And there is absolutely no reason why the god of your choice wouldn't use leprechauns to alter DNA in the process. Well it could happen and that is the entire basis of this scenario, isn't it?

True but evolution is easier isn't it? God could personally adapt every living thing's DNA or send leprechauns to do it, but wouldn't that be a lot of effort? On the other hand with evolution he can just set the ball rolling and watch it all unfold.

Easiest means less additive assumptions. Positing a God on top of nature, when nature does the trick by itself is dumb.

Yes but the thing is that the beginning of the universe and the evolution of life without god is full of ridiculous coincidences and unexplained events.

There are tons of explanations. Perhaps our universe is a perfect black hole generator (Lee Smolin's idea). That would explain why it allows for life. You need a lot of stars in order for the fraction that can collapse into black holes; to do so. Thus, you need a lot of solar systems. With enough solar systems, you will have life. This is just how interconnected nature is, it isn't a "coincidence". That is like saying is a coincidence that gravity is pulling me down, and not up or sideways. However, this is just due to ignorance of nature. There are plenty of naturalistic theories that explain why the constants have the values they do.

So our choice is to believe in a creation of the universe powered by god or full of coincidences and events that happen for no apparent reason.

False-dichotomy.

Since one of the most fundamental ideas of science is that nothing is a coincidence and everything happens for a reason I believe the former.

Since what you presented is a false-dilemma, your argument is unsound.

Please not to sound churlish but if you're going to reference a concept like that again please state that it is exactly what it sounds like. I just spent about 10 minutes looking up that concept only to come to the conclusion it is exactly what it sounds like.

I do not compute...


Anyway that is completely irrelevant as it is not how the energy which forms our universe got here that I have a problem with, it is what comes directly after it. By which I mean the reason why expansion happened

It occurred due to inflation.

, which after spending about an hour trawling through the universe a while ago and spending some time talking to my physics teacher about it, I learned that sciences stance on why it happened is It just kind of did. I do not accept it just kind of did as a scientific explanation.

Well, why does God exist? He just kind of does?

Beings do not need a reason to exist. Events do. Or to put it another way what is the cause of expansion? The closest I ever got from the internet was that the 4 basic forces of the universe united into 1 great expansion force, for no apparent reason.


Another thing is most pre big bang theories I have heard of violate general relativity, quantum physics or both.

This is obviously not true.
Actually anything that happens before the big bang by definition violates general relativity.

As such I go for a belief in a gravitational singularity

It is widely accepted that a theory of Quantum Gravity will make the singularity obsolete. You believe in an outdated concept.
Widely accepted? It's quite a bold claim that any form of quantum physics is widely accepted.

, full of an incredible amount of energy, which expanded because of a little helping hand from god.

Perhaps, but it is not necessary to assume so.

It's either that or a coincidence.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 1:53:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 1:46:27 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 1:34:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 1:23:33 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 1:03:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:53:14 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 11:28:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 7:52:33 AM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 2:43:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/3/2014 10:25:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:08:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Pretty much nothing is impossible with "God" you can always use the mysterious ways clause to prevent a disproof..................of anything concerning God.

But that doesn't get you out of plausibility issues and justified non belief.

If you agree that evolution by natural selection is true or if true doesn't require a "God" then to add God is an unnecessary assumption.

I've seen this argument before, and it's the one I've found most convincing. I agree that it wouldn't be necessary to add God. I mean, it's sort of like Occam's Razor, right? Why add an unnecessary complication? But often that is the way things work. Occam's Razor only posits that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. We can't know what's simpler here, and even if it were simpler to exclude God, Occam's Razor is just a rule of averages. The majority of the time it may be right, but there are plenty of instances where it is wrong. According to laws of average even we shouldn't exist, and if we did then we shouldn't be such complicated beings when we could survive and reproduce quite well as much simpler beings, couldn't we?

And there is absolutely no reason why the god of your choice wouldn't use leprechauns to alter DNA in the process. Well it could happen and that is the entire basis of this scenario, isn't it?

True but evolution is easier isn't it? God could personally adapt every living thing's DNA or send leprechauns to do it, but wouldn't that be a lot of effort? On the other hand with evolution he can just set the ball rolling and watch it all unfold.

Easiest means less additive assumptions. Positing a God on top of nature, when nature does the trick by itself is dumb.

Yes but the thing is that the beginning of the universe and the evolution of life without god is full of ridiculous coincidences and unexplained events.

There are tons of explanations. Perhaps our universe is a perfect black hole generator (Lee Smolin's idea). That would explain why it allows for life. You need a lot of stars in order for the fraction that can collapse into black holes; to do so. Thus, you need a lot of solar systems. With enough solar systems, you will have life. This is just how interconnected nature is, it isn't a "coincidence". That is like saying is a coincidence that gravity is pulling me down, and not up or sideways. However, this is just due to ignorance of nature. There are plenty of naturalistic theories that explain why the constants have the values they do.

So our choice is to believe in a creation of the universe powered by god or full of coincidences and events that happen for no apparent reason.

False-dichotomy.

Since one of the most fundamental ideas of science is that nothing is a coincidence and everything happens for a reason I believe the former.

Since what you presented is a false-dilemma, your argument is unsound.

Please not to sound churlish but if you're going to reference a concept like that again please state that it is exactly what it sounds like. I just spent about 10 minutes looking up that concept only to come to the conclusion it is exactly what it sounds like.

I do not compute...


Anyway that is completely irrelevant as it is not how the energy which forms our universe got here that I have a problem with, it is what comes directly after it. By which I mean the reason why expansion happened

It occurred due to inflation.

, which after spending about an hour trawling through the universe a while ago and spending some time talking to my physics teacher about it, I learned that sciences stance on why it happened is It just kind of did. I do not accept it just kind of did as a scientific explanation.

Well, why does God exist? He just kind of does?

Beings do not need a reason to exist. Events do.

That is stupid. I am a being, but I have a reason to exist.

Or to put it another way what is the cause of expansion?

Alan Guth's Inflation.

The closest I ever got from the internet was that the 4 basic forces of the universe united into 1 great expansion force, for no apparent reason.

There are plenty reasons. I suggest doing more research.



Another thing is most pre big bang theories I have heard of violate general relativity, quantum physics or both.

This is obviously not true.
Actually anything that happens before the big bang by definition violates general relativity.

In Alexander Vilenkin's model, the universe tunnel's into being with the tail of the wave-function "by passing" the singularity (where Relativity breaks down). As I said, do some more research. There are plenty of coherent pre-big bang cosmologies. The Hawking-Hartle state for example, where the four space pre-exists and a fluctuation turns one of the dimensions of space into time.


As such I go for a belief in a gravitational singularity

It is widely accepted that a theory of Quantum Gravity will make the singularity obsolete. You believe in an outdated concept.
Widely accepted? It's quite a bold claim that any form of quantum physics is widely accepted.

Well, it is. Get used to it:

"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [involving Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterised Einstein"s theory." - John Barrow

"The BGV theorem, together with some more recent work (e.g., arXiv:1204.4658) suggests that the universe did have some sort of a beginning, but we certainly cannot say that this represents the beginning of space and time. This does not necessarily mean a singularity -- that is, simply, a breakdown of physics." - Alexander Vilenkin

"There is no reason to believe that our Universe came from a singularity, and this outdated idea should have died as soon as inflation was accepted." - Ethan Siegel

"There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe." - Steven Hawking

"... I don"t think that any result dealing with classical spacetimes [singularity] can teach us anything definitive about the beginning of the universe."- Sean Carrol


, full of an incredible amount of energy, which expanded because of a little helping hand from god.

Perhaps, but it is not necessary to assume so.

It's either that or a coincidence.

Nope, that is a false-dichotomy. Stop committing so many fallacies, it may help you :)
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 2:02:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 1:46:23 PM, jh1234l wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

Depends on how you define "God".

There is only one true definition of God (with a capital "G") and that is "the supremely powerful and intelligent creator and sustainer of all things." There is nothing else that truly fits him.


It is impossible if you define it like this:
God: The Christian God that created the Earth in seven days.

How do you define day? Which oif it;'s many meanings do you choose to use? The one that fits best in the context is "a ficed but undefined period".

In this case the "Creative days" appear, according to scriptural clues, to be around 7,000 years each.

Evolution: The theory that explains biological diversity with mutations and natural selection. Most models of evolution also claim that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

This is contradictory because the age of Earth is clearly different between the definitions.

The creation account gives no clues to the age of the earth or the universe, since Genesis says they were created before the 7 days began, If you read Genesis 1 carefully and really think about what you are reading you will notice a shift in viewpoint from verse 2 onwards. Since verse 1 tells us it had already been created, the appearance of light and then the sun give the impression of being viewed from the surface of the earth. Light first reaching the earth through cloud and then teh sky clearing.


However, if you define it like this, it might work:

God: The omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient deity that created the universe.
Evolution: The theory that explains biological diversity with mutations and natural selection. Most models of evolution also claim that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.


What really explains it is that God created, as the Creation account tells us, animals according to their kinds and built into them the ability to adapt as needed. That explains it even better because it accounts for all the gaps in the fossil record.

Incidentally it also explains why all the "kinds" could fit into the Ark, there were simply less variants then, if any.

As you can see, those definitions don't contradict each other.

The real description in Genesis, understood as it was meant to be, fits better than both though.


Source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Xf0y13pQI (5:19) (This video was about false dilemmas, but the example raised applies to this.)
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 2:12:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 11:50:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/4/2014 11:37:04 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 1/3/2014 8:00:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people comment on this subject lately on various sites - how it is supposedly a self-contradiction and couldn't ever really work. So what makes it so unlikely (or so impossible)? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create life if he chose to?

I don't know who first presented the argument, but I've seen some say if evolution is true, the human mind would have came about in a purely physical way. But this means no afterlife is possible. Which would contradict many ideas of God.

False. There are quite a few Christian physicalists for instance that believe in an afterlife. I don't see any reason to think it's impossible. See: Kevin Cocoran, Trenton Merricks, Peter Van Inwagen, Lynne Rudder Baker, Hud Hudson, etc

How would you be in an afterlife if that's true? It would be a copy of you, but not the you that lived on earth.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA