Religous question.honest discussion,no flaming please.

Eejit said:
And are the majority of Christians American?

I'll accept your claim that the majority of Christians believe evolution contradicts Christianity once you show me global statistics.
The Catholics for example are pretty open to evolution, and they make up a far higher proportion of Christians in many countries compared to the USA.
Click to expand...

This may be an interesting read, regarding this subject:

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationismInChurches
 
Saturos said:
Indeed. Catholics are probably the minority branch of Christianity in the US. Protestant is the majority fs without a doubt.
Click to expand...
Roman Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination in the world, with 1.2 billion adherents. The Eastern Orthodox churches come in second, but they're essentially the same in doctrine as the Catholics.
 
Argh. As soon as I leave this thread it turns serious. Must I do everything?
 
It's only Baptists and some types of Presbyterians generally that are creationists.
 
It doesn't matter, there is so much more wrong with religion other than creationism. Just the whole idea of an omniscient and omnipotent god is so flawed. Not to mention the whole issue of what parts of the bible do people take seriously and what parts not to take seriously. If you look at the old testament you realize how absolutely nutty religion was before they pruned it and made it more believable in order to get more followers. Jesus used to be more of an actual person instead of divine, and now he is god apparently. Religion is so silly.
 
FoB_Ed said:
There is no conflict between christianity and evolution, they are very compatible.
Click to expand...

As Dawkins pointed out: why on earth would a being with nigh unlimited power use a method that makes him superfluous? If you accept the fact that life can come to existence and evolve through natural means, why bother postulating a divine being when he's not needed? Not to mention that evolution is a very wasteful process: it took 3.5 billion years for the first species to appear that could actually consciously marvel at God's magnificent creation, a period in which 99.9999..etc% of all species to have ever existed died out. Hardly divine.
 
PvtRyan said:
As Dawkins pointed out: why on earth would a being with nigh unlimited power use a method that makes him superfluous? If you accept the fact that life can come to existence and evolve through natural means, why bother postulating a divine being when he's not needed? Not to mention that evolution is a very wasteful process: it took 3.5 billion years for the first species to appear that could actually consciously marvel at God's magnificent creation, a period in which 99.9999..etc% of all species to have ever existed died out. Hardly divine.
Click to expand...

That's such a flawed argument. Dawkins is extremely overrated.
 
kirovman said:
I would like you to point out its flaws.
Click to expand...
You can't see them for yourself? -.-
Fine.


"Why on earth would a being with nigh unlimited power use a method that makes him superfluous?"
Elegance? Style?
"If you accept the fact that life can come to existence and evolve through natural means, why bother postulating a divine being when he's not needed?"
First, evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang, infinite regression of causes etc.
Second, abiogenesis is very different from evolution and has nowhere near as much evidence.
"Not to mention that evolution is a very wasteful process: it took 3.5 billion years for the first species to appear that could actually consciously marvel at God's magnificent creation, a period in which 99.9999..etc% of all species to have ever existed died out."
Assumes time is important to the theoretical God existing outside our universe, or that He would perceive time in the same manner..

"Hardly divine."
Opinion. Personally (as an agnostic) I believe that if there was a God, He would almost certainly have a sense of elegance and create a universe with physical laws which would not necessitate further interference, though obviously He could choose to.
I would be less "divine" to create a universe that would require constant intervention imo.
 
Eejit said:
You can't see them for yourself? -.-
Fine.
Click to expand...


Yep :D

I find that people seem to spend a lot more time pulling apart arguments for the existence of God than arguments against his existence, like Dawkins'. Just because it supports your view doesn't mean you need to accept it without question.
 
Eejit said:
You can't see them for yourself? -.-
Fine.


"Why on earth would a being with nigh unlimited power use a method that makes him superfluous?"
Elegance? Style?
Click to expand...

OK, to rephrase the question: why would you postulate an infinitely complex being into a problem, when he's not actually necessary to solve the problem? It's a huge, huge redundancy.

"If you accept the fact that life can come to existence and evolve through natural means, why bother postulating a divine being when he's not needed?"
First, evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang, infinite regression of causes etc.
Second, abiogenesis is very different from evolution and has nowhere near as much evidence.
Click to expand...

I know that's not all (Darwinistic) evolution, I don't need lecturing on what evolution is. I never equated evolution to the Big Bang or abiogenesis in that post. I did say that there was no reason as of yet to bring supernatural explanations into the equation to solve problems.

"Not to mention that evolution is a very wasteful process: it took 3.5 billion years for the first species to appear that could actually consciously marvel at God's magnificent creation, a period in which 99.9999..etc% of all species to have ever existed died out."
Assumes time is important to the theoretical God existing outside our universe, or that He would perceive time in the same manner..
Click to expand...

I'm not saying this is about time, I'm saying it's about the inefficient process that evolution is. Evolution on earth wasn't a steady climb from simple organism to people, a ladder of complexity if you will. Evolution on earth was: simple organism > complex organisms > cataclysmic event wiping out 90% of the current complex organisms > new type of complex organism to be the dominant group of organisms > cataclysmic event wiping out 90% of the current complex organisms > etc.

Why? This is like wanting to go to New York from Los Angeles and then taking a route that takes you through Chile to get there. If humans were God's goal, what's up with the detours? And remember this is the compatibility of Christianity and evolution that we're talking about here, so humans were God's goal.
 
PvtRyan said:
OK, to rephrase the question: why would you postulate an infinitely complex being into a problem, when he's not actually necessary to solve the problem? It's a huge, huge redundancy.
Click to expand...

That's assuming that the sole reason to believe in a God is to solve the problem. The logical argument for God depends on infinite regress of causes, not that He is necessary for evolution to have occurred or something of that nature.

PvtRyan said:
I know that's not all (Darwinistic) evolution, I don't need lecturing on what evolution is. I never equated evolution to the Big Bang or abiogenesis in that post. I did say that there was no reason as of yet to bring supernatural explanations into the equation to solve problems.
Click to expand...

"If you accept the fact that life can come to existence and evolve through natural means" - sounds like you're bringing the origin of life and possibly the universe into it to me. If that wasn't your intent so be it, but that's how it read to me.

PvtRyan said:
I'm not saying this is about time, I'm saying it's about the inefficient process that evolution is. Evolution on earth wasn't a steady climb from simple organism to people, a ladder of complexity if you will. Evolution on earth was: simple organism > complex organisms > cataclysmic event wiping out 90% of the current complex organisms > new type of complex organism to be the dominant group of organisms > cataclysmic event wiping out 90% of the current complex organisms > etc.
Click to expand...

So how are you defining efficiency if not by time? Use of resources?

PvtRyan said:
Why? This is like wanting to go to New York from Los Angeles and then taking a route that takes you through Chile to get there. If humans were God's goal, what's up with the detours? And remember this is the compatibility of Christianity and evolution that we're talking about here, so humans were God's goal.
Click to expand...

The analogy of detours is flawed. They were steps along the path. If there was a complete extinction event then that would be a detour.

Also I thought we were moving on to general theism.
 
This could go on for a while... All we're going to prove here is that no argument is flawless.

PvtRyan, a lot of very intelligent people believe that God exists, even with modern scientific discoveries, so there's got to be something in it.

Also, Dawkins is a knob.
 
This made me laugh.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled-2 copy.jpg
    Untitled-2 copy.jpg
    26.1 KB · Views: 247
Eejit said:
That's assuming that the sole reason to believe in a God is to solve the problem. The logical argument for God depends on infinite regress of causes, not that He is necessary for evolution to have occurred or something of that nature.
Click to expand...

The only reason to believe in the supernatural is because you think the problem can't be solved through natural means.

So how are you defining efficiency if not by time? Use of resources?
Click to expand...

Evolution on earth took a lot of steps that didn't work towards God's goal of humans, so I would say that's fairly inefficient.

The analogy of detours is flawed. They were steps along the path. If there was a complete extinction event then that would be a detour.
Click to expand...

Steps that weren't needed, I would call that a detour. There's no reason why dinosaurs ever needed to exist, they were a 200 million year detour. God could've skipped the whole dinosaur thing and go straight to mammals.

Also I thought we were moving on to general theism.
Click to expand...

Considering I was responding to a post that said "Christianity and evolution are compatible", no. But without much effort, you could extend my argument to general theism because a theistic god is a god that has a personal relationship with its creation. For that, you need intelligent, conscious creatures and evolution is silly process to use if you're omnipotent.
 
PvtRyan said:
The only reason to believe in the supernatural is because you think the problem can't be solved through natural means.
Click to expand...

As I already said, a logical argument which can lead to belief in god is that of the Uncaused Cause.

PvtRyan said:
Evolution on earth took a lot of steps that didn't work towards God's goal of humans, so I would say that's fairly inefficient.
Steps that weren't needed, I would call that a detour. There's no reason why dinosaurs ever needed to exist, they were a 200 million year detour. God could've skipped the whole dinosaur thing and go straight to mammals.
Click to expand...

You're failing to understand my point. To do that would require more direct intervention into the system. It's actually more efficient in many ways to design a system that takes longer but doesn't require the system builder's added intervention along the way. Number of steps isn't the ultimate measure of efficiency.

PvtRyan said:
Considering I was responding to a post that said "Christianity and evolution are compatible", no. But without much effort, you could extend my argument to general theism because a theistic god is a god that has a personal relationship with its creation. For that, you need intelligent, conscious creatures and evolution is silly process to use if you're omnipotent.
Click to expand...
I knew that's what you were responding to, it doesn't mean the debate can't progress beyond that.
Evolution wouldn't be a very direct process to use, but it would be extremely elegant. My idea of a divine being would be one which included a sense of elegance and style.
 
You're all missing the point.

All you need here is Ockham's razor.
 
This guy intentionally started this shit. Not good :(




But a little debate is always healthy, so meh
I'm orthodox btw...
 
Solaris said:
You're all missing the point.

All you need here is Ockham's razor.
Click to expand...

Occam's Razor isn't some magical tool that always reveals the correct solution. It's simply a way of deciding which solution is "best" based on simplicity.
The most simple solution isn't always the correct one.
 
Eejit said:
Occam's Razor isn't some magical tool that always reveals the correct solution. It's simply a way of deciding which solution is "best" based on simplicity.
The most simple solution isn't always the correct one.
Click to expand...
No, it reveals the most sensible option.

We have a mystery, we chose the explanation that entails the least. The most logical answer is the simplest one that can be drawn.

For the mystery of life, you entail the most complicated and unsubstanciated being into the answer.
 
Eejit said:
Occam's Razor isn't some magical tool that always reveals the correct solution. It's simply a way of deciding which solution is "best" based on simplicity.
The most simple solution isn't always the correct one.
Click to expand...

It's more likely to be the correct one, because complexity is more improbable than simplicity.
 
Solaris said:
No, it reveals the most sensible option.

We have a mystery, we chose the explanation that entails the least. The most logical answer is the simplest one that can be drawn.

For the mystery of life, you entail the most complicated and unsubstanciated being into the answer.
Click to expand...

My point is that it isn't necessarily the correct answer. Occam's Razor isn't the be-all and end-all.

jondy said:
It's more likely to be the correct one, because complexity is more improbable than simplicity.
Click to expand...
On average, yes that's true. But it's still not a hard rule to find the correct answer.
 
Iliketobenaked said:
I don't mean to start a flame but II wanted to point out something that I think should be obvious to everyone,two things actually.

Nr.1You know how a lot of very religious Christians and other members abrahamic religions say that god has a plan for everyone? If this is true then that means that millions of kids are born each year just so they can die of of starvation or diseases like AIDS.How can people say thing like:"oh god works in mysteries ways and he has plans for everyone " and it the same time know of all these dying children and babies?
Click to expand...

because not even god likes black people

Iliketobenaked said:
Nr.2 If the one god we all know from the Bible ,Torah and Koran. created this planet and the universe 10.000 years ago

Why are the Egyptian gods much older wouldn't Ra,Isis and Osiris have seniority?
Click to expand...

yes and they make god do all the menial tasks like watch over humanity and clean the celestial pooper
 
Eejit...I believe dawkins quote about god being unnecessary was directed more to theists...not agnostics. Dawkins has a problem with theists for many reasons as religion is corrosive to science, whereas agnosticism generally isn't. So you may think he is overrated but all of his ideas are directed towards an omnipotent, omniscient god rather than any agnostic god.

So when it comes to theists...dawkins is hardly over rated and I wish more people(namelt theists) could see the logic he has. It's really astounding. He makes so many good points yet theists always come up with answers that dodge any problems...things such as "god is mysterious" and other such BS.

As I said earlier...it seems irrational that a god could exist(in the christian sense). He is omnipotent and omniscient which means he is all powerful and all knowing. So god created man, and since he is all knowing he knows exactly everything that will happen. He also designed us so he made the way we think and use our "free will" With that said he then must have created people designed to go to hell. How is that at all fair? Why would he even need to test us if he created the bad people and already knows what will happen? Also...how is it fair that us mere mortals have to go up against supernatural forces(the devil) and then pay for all eternity for what we did in a lifetime.
 
My point is that it isn't necessarily the correct answer. Occam's Razor isn't the be-all and end-all.
Click to expand...
That's right, but it is the only conclusion that can be drawn by a rational person, or at least accepted as the most likely.
 
Eejit said:
On average, yes that's true. But it's still not a hard rule to find the correct answer.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant as far as this debate is concerned - we're looking for probabilities, not 'correct answers'. There's no way you'd accept the astronomical odds of a deity existing in any other part of your life. Why is postulating the existence of God an exception to the rule?
 
jondy said:
That's irrelevant as far as this debate is concerned - we're looking for probabilities, not 'correct answers'. There's no way you'd accept the astronomical odds of a deity existing in any other part of your life. Why is postulating the existence of God an exception to the rule?
Click to expand...

Occam's Razor doesn't trump other logical arguments. Such as that bloody infinite regress of causes. I wonder if I'll ever make my mind up about that one, I can't figure out a solution.
But from my viewpoint either side which claims to have solved this apparently unsolvable conundrum which I believe lies at the heart of the existence of a Creator God, either theists or atheists, are both on logically unsound ground (unless they can convince me otherwise. The only difference is that atheists have the slight advantage of Occam's Razor to their 'logical' position while theists don't.

Glirk: fair enough. But why won't any atheists debate with agnostics? That's no fun :(
 
Eejit said:
Occam's Razor doesn't trump other logical arguments. Such as that bloody infinite regress of causes. I wonder if I'll ever make my mind up about that one, I can't figure out a solution.
But from my viewpoint either side which claims to have solved this apparently unsolvable conundrum which I believe lies at the heart of the existence of a Creator God, either theists or atheists, are both on logically unsound ground (unless they can convince me otherwise. The only difference is that atheists have the slight advantage of Occam's Razor to their 'logical' position while theists don't.
Click to expand...

Which unsolvable conundrum?

On the subject of the first cause argument for God's existance, I always thought it was a pretty weak argument. God explains the cause of the universe, but then you must explain the cause of God. I know people say God caused himself, but then why can't the universe cause itself?
 
Solaris said:
That's right, but it is the only conclusion that can be drawn by a rational person, or at least accepted as the most likely.
Click to expand...
This is interesting, because Occam himself was a Franciscan monk :hmph:
 
Godron said:
Which unsolvable conundrum?

On the subject of the first cause argument for God's existance, I always thought it was a pretty weak argument. God explains the cause of the universe, but then you must explain the cause of God. I know people say God caused himself, but then why can't the universe cause itself?
Click to expand...

- Some things exist which do not contain within them the reason for their own existence

- The universe consists of the totality of such objects

- So the explanation for the existence of everything in the universe must lie outside it.

- Therefore, the explanation must be a self-explanatory being that contains the reason for its own existence.


However, as with any argument, there are still loads of problems with this.
 
Saturos said:
...and I fail to see what you said has to do with anything in this thread tbh. :|
Click to expand...

Its quite simple. FoB_Ed argued that the bible can be taken metaphorically (at least the old testament). I disagreed with this, and said some examples that cannot be taken in any other way (that I could think of).

Eejit said:
It can be ignored due to later teaching such as love thy neighbour and let he who is without sin cast the first stone trumping it.
Except for fundies who would probably be homophobes even if they'd never found religion.
Click to expand...

This is all well and good for the gay part, but how does Jesus saying about loving each other affect the flood?

Oh and guys? Even I am growing weary of these pointless debates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lord_raken
We all know one
Replies
24
Views
2K
Bad^Hat
Bad^Hat
Gormanmod
LOL, Epic verbal battle with a supremacist
Replies
20
Views
1K
Druckles
Druckles
Back
Top