GameBanshee Forums

Kristobal wrote:would anyone object or care to comment on the idea that God or some form of Deity created the Earth and everything else by science? Would that be fathomable to say that this was all created by the laws of science as we know them now and possibly laws that we are not aware of yet?

Possible, but ultimately only of interest to those who feel they must find a way to square demonstrable scientific data with specific literalist religious belief systems that define how the universe became what it is, complete with questions of self-awareness, and good and evil.

My first reaction was "It would depend on which God/Godess and what her/his 'truth' was", that's sort of been covered by most other folk though. If it was Loki, then I'd tell him to stuff it where the sun don't shine, other deities would get different responses of course.

Let's just say that the OT & NT were the literal truth though for arguments sake. I'm afraid my answer would be the same as the one I gave Loki, cos from my POV the two are very, very similar. Neither one (according to scripture/saga) has shown that they should be trusted further than I could throw a mature bull elephant. Both are murderous, conceited and downright evil, end of story.

would anyone object or care to comment on the idea that God or some form of Deity created the Earth and everything else by science?

If people want to see god behind the laws of science, they do. I believe it's called 'pantheism' but i might be wrong.

Privately, i don't see any reason to do so. The world doesn't get any better for being created by an old bearded geezer sitting on a cloud. Or, like Dottie said, "the addition of a god doesn't increase the explanatory value of any scientific finding."

And if i was to talk to a deity responsible for all this, i mean really, if it was capable of convincing me that it actually is a god who created everything, well... it would hear from me. On the subject of discrimination, women's rights, sexual violence, births and menstruation

Kristobal wrote:would anyone object or care to comment on the idea that God or some form of Deity created the Earth and everything else by science? Would that be fathomable to say that this was all created by the laws of science as we know them now and possibly laws that we are not aware of yet?

Dottie spoke for everyone with a scientific bent in that response. Whether or not there is a god behind science does not matter because it does not explain anything. To draw an appropriate analogy, does knowing whether or not a person or machine made your watch change the materials that go into the making of watches or the way they were put together? The watchmaker is entirely unimportant, and in fact, is bound by the laws of watchmaking which he cannot violate.

Thought [url="http://www.raptureready.com/rr-ec-debate.html"]this[/url] was worth a bump.
At this point I would like to again second Fable's recommendation that basic logic, especially fallacies, be taught in schools.

Also, we're up to 167 on the RaptureIndex, which is 7 above 'Fasten your seatbelts'.

I have refrained from viewing other responses because I didn't want to be drawn into other viewpoints before stating my own, but I will read the thread as soon as I finish this post.

I'm an antitheist - which is a bit more than an atheist - not much, just a more positive version - which means I'm against all the gods humanity has created for itself throughout our sentient existence. I'm against them because they are not real, merely extensions of ourselves, with all that is best and worst of human traits.
If there is a 'real' god, it wouldn't be anything like the ones we have been worshipping. How could it be? We are human. It would be something not human, and would not be confined by our limited and narrow experience. Also, such a god would have no reason whatever to 'come down' to speak to one puny little human. It would have much better ways of communicating, or - more likely - we are so minutely-brained that it couldn't communicate with us at all. Therefore, for all intents and purposes we might just as well ignore it, anything purporting to be it, or anything purporting to be one of the gods we made ourselves.

For which reason(s), I answered NO!

endboss wrote:It's a popular and interesting view that the creation account just describes evolution in a more easy to digest form (after all, explaining evolution would have been just too darn hard for God to do with all those little brained Roman era people!). There are some snags though.

Light was created before the sun.
Earth was created before the sun.
Plants were created before the sun.
Plants were created before any living creatures.
Fruit bearing plants were created before any animals.
Birds were created before terrestrial animals.
Cattle were created before humans.
Humans were the last species to be created.

The Genesis account does not describe even in the simplest sense the series of events that actually happened. I used to subscribe to that thinking in my younger days before I really read the Genesis account and realized everything was out of order.

Most of my family consists of hard core Christians, and either they have no idea of the existence of certain things in the Bible until I point it out to them or they had just willfully ignored the stuff.

Actually, there are fairly reasonable answers to the list of points you made, but I won't go into all of 'em!

Light before the sun: Assuming a viewpoint FROM THE EARTH, if the planet were surrounded by heavy cloud, (as Venus, for example) you could have diffuse light before the sun was visible. Besides, note that he created Day and Night; an evidence in itself that the earth was rotating around a light source!

Earth before the sun: Why not? It could have been in existence as a lump of rock before being close to a star... but in point of biblical record it simply says 'let luminaries come to be in the expanse' on the 4th day. Doesn't say that was when he CREATED them! Could simply have been when the cloud cover thinned out that they became visible, instead of producing just a diffuse glow.

Plants before the sun: Even today, there are plants that do not need sunlight. But, assuming the presence of diffuse light, there is no reason for light-loving plants not to grow.

Plants before animal life: It makes sense for a god to provide plants and fruits before creating things that need to eat 'em to live...

Birds before other land dwellers: Says 'swarm' with 'flying creatures' which would indicates insects and such, not birds.

Your last three points are not objections to the scientific pattern.

Don't run away with the notion that I'm a believer making a defence of faith; I'm not. I just believe in looking at things with as little bias as I can manage. Not that it always works for me, lol!

Just a reminder to please, keep on topic. This isn't a "is there a god" thread. We already have several of those. This thread has a specific point: the poll question, and as the person who started the thread put it:

After the poll you may discuss your answer in a post or choose not to. I know this poll is directed towards people of a particular belief, I am sorry, but it is a question that came up while doing research.

Any being that would lie, unknowingly or not, would not fit my definition of God, therefore any thing that God tells me I will believe. If I did not believe it, I would not be talking to God, which violates the assumption explicit in the question that I am talking to God. So, yes.

edit: My logic is impenetrable because it is circular, and circles are pretty close to perfection, and therefore God. If God existed in a physical form, He'd probably be a sphere. A ∞-dimensional one.

A final question is what is the most important aspect, that you feel, of the evolutionary theories?

Aspect number four.

Seriously though, your question is vague. This is like asking what the most important aspect of velociraptors is.

Vicsun wrote:Any being that would lie, unknowingly or not, would not fit my definition of God, therefore any thing that God tells me I will believe.

This is a valid point, Kristobal. Any deity worth believing would express its nature in such a way as to immediately convince the recipient of who or what it was. There would be no room for belief/disbelief, but only acceptance/denial.

Kristobal wrote:would anyone object or care to comment on the idea that God or some form of Deity created the Earth and everything else by science? Would that be fathomable to say that this was all created by the laws of science as we know them now and possibly laws that we are not aware of yet?

So long as the god in question wasn't the long-white-haired bearded guy, or any of the others currently or previously worshipped by humanity - yeah. Could be a living being of some sort created this particular universe. And maybe lots of others, too.
Or could be that this universe and lots of others sprang from some cause as yet unknown to us critters on this small, insignificant planet in the outer reaches of a fairly insignificant galaxy.

endboss wrote:Evolution is not a belief. It is a fact. [/i]

Sorry to bust into the discussion, but this really bothered me. Evolution is a theory (a theory I choose to believe), it's not a fact. Theory is the highest form anything in science can get.

QuenGalad wrote:If people want to see god behind the laws of science, they do. I believe it's called 'pantheism' but i might be wrong.[/i]

You're right. Pantheism (as I remember it from my philosophy lessons) is God that goes into reality.

As to the poll, I answered 'no', I couldn't comprehend that that person was God, since a God is mostly portraited as a powerfull supernatural being which whose ways we can't understand. A God is after all something relative, since every religion has a more or less different view on the word and even people who don't believe in a God have more or less a view how one would be.

It's such a strange question, with so many side questions about the situation and how do we know he's God, etc. Your question implies that I know he's God, and if I know he's God, then ofcourse I will believe him, since if I know he's God, then I know he's infinite wisdom, etc, so why shouldn't I believe him. But again, the meaning of words and believe prevent this question to be answered properly.

When in doubt, tur to Wikipedia...

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism"]Pantheism[/url]. Sorta like what QuenGalad says, more like DWs (and my, though I prefer the term mysticism as my own belief in said is based on having a mystic experience) metaphysical belief.

I wouldn't wholeheartedly endorse what Wikipedia says about a lot of things, and there's much in that definition of pantheism that doesn't apply to the belief as it is commonly practiced. This is a lot simpler (despite all the references) and a lot closer to everything I've always known about it, from various people who follow it.

I should add that pantheism isn't a religion, and doesn't preclude belief in anything save a transcendent deity (and even there, you could probably finesse something).

If a deity appeared before me, the only thing I would be preaching for is an anti-psycotic.

fable wrote:I wouldn't wholeheartedly endorse what Wikipedia says about a lot of things...

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20PlHx_JjEo&feature=PlayList&p=AE0142CBAD7CDCBD&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=46"]Say it ain't so![/url]
Unsurprisingly Fable's reference is indeed better, and spot on on the latter point.

@ Kristobal:

I find it quite impossible to answer the question in your poll, as so many others here, it seems. That's not so strange, though. I grew up with the idea of evolution. I never questioned its truth. I've read a lot about religions too, but although they were interesting, I never saw them as anything more than just fun and historically relevant stories. The human brain has trouble accepting clear, undeniable evidence if it goes against all that they ever stood for. That's why staunch creationists will not accept the clear, undeniable facts that prove the accuracy of evolutionary theory. And that's also why staunch evolutionists will not be able to answer your poll. They cannot imagine the situation because it goes against everything they know.

On a different note:
I followed a course called Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behaviour once, and I did my research paper for that course on Religion, in which I argued that the cognitive constraints of our brains, developed through evolution, could explain the properties of religion. If this is something you would like to touch on in your research paper, or if your interested in general, I suggest you seek out Boyer's The Naturalness of Religious Ideas: A Cognitive Theory of Religion and Whitehouse's Modes of Religiosity. The two do not agree, but offer different takes on the subject.

I guess it's the opposite of your research question though, since I think what your research is about is looking at evolution through the eyes of religion, whereas I looked at religion through the eyes of evolution, but it might give you some ideas to work with on future projects.

Kristobal wrote:A final question is what is the most important aspect, that you feel, of the evolutionary theories?

This is a difficult question, but I would say that the most important aspect which is needed for all other aspects of the theory to make sense, is the idea that coincidence, chance is what underlies the existence and emergence of everything. This is something that is difficult for most human minds to grasp, and I believe that that's where most conflicts between Evolutionists and Creationists stem from. At least, it seems to me that what stops even the most open-minded religious people from fully embracing the theory of evolution, is this coincidence factor.

SupaCat wrote:Sorry to bust into the discussion, but this really bothered me. Evolution is a theory (a theory I choose to believe), it's not a fact. Theory is the highest form anything in science can get.

I love semantics more than I love life itself, so I'll go ahead and roll up my sleeves and make a pointless argument which will ultimately benefit no one.

Facts are beliefs backed up by an overwhelming amount of evidence. Ultimately, every fact that you take for granted is a claim you have accepted to be true, beyond all reasonable doubt (to borrow a legal term and use it literally). The fact that Mount Everest is the highest point on Earth, is a belief which you have accepted as unquestionable truth due to an overwhelming amount of evidence from sources you trust. By the same rationale, the change of genetic composition of a population over successive generations (in the knowhow we call this evolution) is also a fact, as it is a belief that you accept as a truth due to an overwhelming amount of evidence from sources you trust. The difference is that people who don't believe Mount Everest is the highest point on Earth (due to some conspiracy to obscure the truth) are generally considered loonies.

Since no pointless discussion about semantics is complete without a dictionary definition or two, here are a few definitions of a fact:

• Something that has actual existence
• a piece of information presented as having objective reality
• something that actually exists; reality; truth
• a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true

Evolution happens to be something that actually exists, quite outside the realm of anyone's opinion. It's as much of a fact as the garden gnome in my back yard.

(Just kidding. I don't have a back yard.)

I'm now actually really curious about how the first measurements on Mount Everest's height were done.

I actually think the word 'fact' is often taking too lightly. I don't think, when thinking of it as a scientifique theory, you can call it a fact. People who think that the Mount Everest isn't the highest point on Earth are part of a very, very small portion of the society. There are however alot of people who think that the evolution theory isn't true. Fact is society made and the majority in a society often decides what is fact. During the medieval ages God was a fact, simply because the entire society was based on the idea of the bible (this is only for Europe ofcourse).

I simply cannot call the evolution theory a fact. To begin with (and this is going to sound so lame), it is called evolution THEORY, second, I was refering to the scientifique level of naming of things discovered. I've been told (by scientist) that theory is the highest level a discovery can get. Furthermore, I think the term theory is a lot more friendly towards people who don't believe it. I hate it when people say God is a fact, I don't hate it when they say they believe in a God. Fact is saying you hold it as a constant. I believe in the Evolution Theory and I will defend that believe as much as people who believe in God.

Yes, I know that I just compared a scientifique theory with a believe from a religion... I'm sorry.

I'm also sorry if this is all a bunch of rubbish or if I'm even arguing about something we both agree on, but I'm tired and I know I'll have regrets about writing this.

Sorry.

SupaCat wrote:I actually think the word 'fact' is often taking too lightly. I don't think, when thinking of it as a scientifique theory, you can call it a fact. People who think that the Mount Everest isn't the highest point on Earth are part of a very, very small portion of the society. There are however alot of people who think that the evolution theory isn't true. Fact is society made and the majority in a society often decides what is fact.

So... facts are a matter of opinion, then? You are treading dangerous ground, all while taking the word fact too lightly

I simply cannot call the evolution theory a fact. To begin with (and this is going to sound so lame), it is called evolution THEORY, second, I was refering to the scientique level of naming of things discovered. I've been told (by scientist) that theory is the highest level a discovery can get.

If facts are a matter of opinion, a theory would be a higher form of knowledge then a fact, as a theory is based on evidence, and not democracy I still strongly object, however, to your previous assertion that society decides what is and isn't a fact, as a fact should require objective truth. Concepts such as beauty or (arguably) ethics are all subjective, as they are human made, and equal to whatever society deems them to be. Conversely, facts are quite independent of our belief in them, or our existence, for that matter. Mount Everest will continue to be the highest point on the Earth's crust, regardless of whether anyone believes it to be. If humanity vanished tomorrow, Everest would still be there, it would still be higher than any other point. It would still be a fact that it's higher than a sandy beach, even if there is no one around to know this fact. Evolution, questioned or not, is also true, which makes it a fact. The theory of evolution is an explanation of exactly how evolutionary changes occur, which does not preclude it from also being a fact.

Furthermore, I think the term theory is a lot more friendly towards people who don't believe it. I hate it when people say God is a fact, I don't hate it when they say they believe in a God. Fact is saying you hold it as a constant. I believe in the Evolution Theory and I will defend that believe as much as people who believe in God.

I'm pretty sure someone who believes in God and also has a background in theology would be appalled at calling God a fact. If God were a fact, belief in Him would not require faith, and faith is a pretty central concept in religion, I hear. My knowledge of theology comes from drunken conversations with theology students and as such it is downright abysmal. Take everything I say on the subject with a grain of salt.

edit: Wikipedia seems to have an article on this very subject that we are discussing.
Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you truly hold to your view that facts are decided by the majority (I think Steven Colbert ridiculed that idea a while ago), everything in wikipedia is fact, therefore the fact that evolution is a fact is also a fact. Ha!