Evolution or Creation?

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Actually, I was thinking about this last night as I was falling asleep and just remembered it now....

Talking about gods and gaps....

I think we can agree, as I said earlier, that man has a long, long history of asserting a god or gods were in charge of things we didn't understand... things as simple to us now as why seasons change... as we became more intelligent, we had less gods....

But...

Unless we believe we'll - as an organism - ever fully understand the universe, G-d will always be "allowed" to exist in the gaps. In as much as there will always be something we don't know, that one thing could well be G-d, could it not?

I don't offer that as "proof" that there must therefore be a G-d, much less that that the nature of that entity would be outlined in the Bible....

Really, for me, I can't wrap my head around there not being a creator of all this. The fact that it is here... at all.... I can't seem to accept the reason being "it just is" (Ironcially, I don't have such a problem accepting that G-d would just "be"... I suppose that's because the universe has a known finite begining... whereas there's not a known start to G-d.)

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Actually, I was thinking about this last night as I was falling asleep and just remembered it now....

Talking about gods and gaps....

I think we can agree, as I said earlier, that man has a long, long history of asserting a god or gods were in charge of things we didn't understand... things as simple to us now as why seasons change... as we became more intelligent, we had less gods....

But...

Unless we believe we'll - as an organism - ever fully understand the universe, G-d will always be "allowed" to exist in the gaps. In as much as there will always be something we don't know, that one thing could well be G-d, could it not?

I don't offer that as "proof" that there must therefore be a G-d, much less that that the nature of that entity would be outlined in the Bible....

Really, for me, I can't wrap my head around there not being a creator of all this. The fact that it is here... at all.... I can't seem to accept the reason being "it just is" (Ironcially, I don't have such a problem accepting that G-d would just "be"... I suppose that's because the universe has a known finite begining... whereas there's not a known start to G-d.)

For me, God of the Gaps isn't an issue. I believe every fiber of the universe is held together by God, that He created every natural law, and He has the power to work through that natural even if it's imperceptible to us. I also believe that God can and has worked outside those natural laws. I don't believe in gaps.

 

[buckeyegrad]

For me, God of the Gaps isn't an issue. I believe every fiber of the universe is held together by God, that He created every natural law, and He has the power to work through that natural even if it's imperceptible to us. I also believe that God can and has worked outside those natural laws. I don't believe in gaps.

Very well stated. I agree that there in no "God of the Gaps" because his Will exists in both the perceived gaps as well as those phenomena to which we have attached other explanations. Our ability to attach a material description/explanation tells us nothing of whether or not God's presence/influence exists or is in play.

 

[Brewtus]

As for your question, I believe that nature is an out-pouring of the Infinite. I believe that the Natural Laws were put in place by a Supernatural being. Thus, even a "natural explanation" has a supernatural basis to me. I guess you could think of it in a priori terms. And thus, no, natural explanations do not nor would they make me an atheist. I believe that G-d operates through natural occurrences, events, etc.

For me, God of the Gaps isn't an issue. I believe every fiber of the universe is held together by God, that He created every natural law, and He has the power to work through that natural even if it's imperceptible to us. I also believe that God can and has worked outside those natural laws. I don't believe in gaps.

Those are interesting and similar views, but how do you substantiate those positions except through the Bible and faith? To me those are unsupportable opinions based solely on what you feel in your gut, or heart or wherever. How do you know that what you believe is correct? If I asked someone from another faith or culture about their beliefs, it would be just as supportable as yours. There is no need for a god that is transparent and works through nature or natural occurrences, so why create one?

I'm not trying to change your belief system, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of why people can believe one thing without any evidence to support it but not something else that is based on the same (lack of) supporting evidence. I won't believe anything without some supporting evidence (whether it's in politics, economics, news stories, science, etc.) and I have to believe that you both conduct your daily lives in much the same way. But why, when it comes the existence of a supernatural being, do some people all of a sudden not require any evidence?

 

[AKAK]

The answer given on the show was that there was no "speed limit" to the universe yet because light did not yet exist and the major forces at issue (gravity, electromagnatism, strong and weak atomic) were not yet individual forces, but rather a "super force" of some kind. Seemed like a cop out to me, but I'm not an expert by any means.

How is that a cop out?

All its saying is there is a piece that is not well understood. Now, would it be better for them to say, "Hey, there's a super force here, must have been the Green Lantern" or something?

I strongly that the point is made that there is some "mechanism" here that's not fully understood to the Evolution guys who moronically go out of their way to say "This process is random, there is no God." Rather than what they should be saying, which is, "based on our observations, the process appears to be random."

I don't know that "God in the gaps" is a "solution." What I mean is, it's a thoery, just like the big bang.

That's not a Theory, that's conjecture based on the lack of evidence. I don't see where the lack of scientific knowlegde is evidence for the supernatural.

 

[muffler dragon]

Those are interesting and similar views, but how do you substantiate those positions except through the Bible and faith?

You're asking me to "substantiate" a philosophical opinion? I think I'll have to ask for a re-wording to determine what exactly you would like to know.

To me those are unsupportable opinions based solely on what you feel in your gut, or heart or wherever.

Most philosophical opinions would be rather unsupportable by scientific means. Truthfully, I believe (no pun intended) that you're placing undue boundaries on what is acceptable to someone else.

How do you know that what you believe is correct?

I don't. I just know that it's right for me. I also know that my beliefs are open to change as my life and times pass.

If I asked someone from another faith or culture about their beliefs, it would be just as supportable as yours.

I would certainly hope that they felt that way. Otherwise, why follow their belief structure. To me, this isn't about "right" or "wrong" when comparing religions or belief systems. I follow my G-d and beliefs, because I believe that it is the right way to interact with my fellow man and the world around me. My belief structure doesn't necessitate that I get any more detailed than that.

There is no need for a god that is transparent and works through nature or natural occurrences, so why create one?

I find this to be a rather duplicitous statement, and I've written already about this usage of the term "need". I didn't create a god nor the G-d I believe in. However, in light of the discussion, I will answer by saying that there is much more to my belief system than where, when, why, and how that G-d interacts with nature. It's tangential.

I'm not trying to change your belief system, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of why people can believe one thing without any evidence to support it but not something else that is based on the same (lack of) supporting evidence. I won't believe anything without some supporting evidence (whether it's in politics, economics, news stories, science, etc.) and I have to believe that you both conduct your daily lives in much the same way. But why, when it comes the existence of a supernatural being, do some people all of a sudden not require any evidence?

I'll answer in this way: G-d, to me, is ineffable and inexplicable. There is no way for the finite mind to conceive and/or understand even an inkling of the Infinite. I find that our very existence and that of the universe around us IS evidence. That's how I interpret it. Without attempting to rip off the Machivelian (spelling?) in Matrix, I don't see chance; I see causation.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I'm just trying to get a better understanding of why people can believe one thing without any evidence to support it but not something else that is based on the same (lack of) supporting evidence. I won't believe anything without some supporting evidence (whether it's in politics, economics, news stories, science, etc.) and I have to believe that you both conduct your daily lives in much the same way. But why, when it comes the existence of a supernatural being, do some people all of a sudden not require any evidence?

Brewtus, it is not that people believe things without any evidence to support it. Rather, it is the interpretation of the evidence or the assignment of significance to evidence that causes differences. Evidence in itself does not tell us one concept is correct and another is wrong. Only the interpretation of evidence can do this. Ultimately, all interpretation, regardless of how it is conducted or self-checked, rests upon unprovable, ontological assumptions that make sense to the experiences of the persons who hold them.

I could give you all the evidence in the world that the Biblical God exists because I see and experience that evidence on a daily basis. However, you are likely to disagree with my interpretation of the evidence or dismiss what I would share. This does not mean that the evidence is not there, it just means we disagree on its interpretation and significance.

It is much like when C.S. Lewis compared his belief in Christianity to his belief in the rising in the sun. He believed it not only because he saw it, but by it he saw everything else. Now granted, you can substitute any belief system for Christianity in that statement, but the basic principle remains the same.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

How is that a cop out?

All its saying is there is a piece that is not well understood. Now, would it be better for them to say, "Hey, there's a super force here, must have been the Green Lantern" or something?"

It's a cop out because it defies it's own rules. They are saying "Well, the theory breaks its own rules, and since that cannot be... let's just say those rules didn't apply during this momentary epoch." It's a fudge factor.

On your second paragraph quoted above, they might as well say it's the Green Lantern doing it. It's a working theory. It either checks out or it does not. My point isn't "Hey we dont understand this, therefore G-d" is true... it's that "Hey, we don't understand this, it could be G-d" is a viable theory until it's establised it's not. I don't know... an external thing adding force to an expanding universe strikes me as less remarkable than saying "The system broke it's own rules for a moment." I mean, if I want to speed up the rotation of water in a glass, it's easy enough for me - an external thing with respect to that water- to add the extra energy needed.... It certainly works better than waiting for the rules of nature to defy their own commands and consequences.

That's not a Theory, that's conjecture based on the lack of evidence. I don't see where the lack of scientific knowlegde is evidence for the supernatural.

On this thread maybe. But, I have "reason" to belive in G-d, as an entity. It's been touched on before, and relates to the fact that I believe I have a soul - or, I should say, I have some sort of conciousness that - being energy - survives my body. I can back this up with paranormal events in my life which I have no other explaination for except that a spirit survives physical death. So... it's more than conjecture for me.

In the abstract, however, I completley agree that a lack of knowledge does not mean the supernatural explaination must therefore be true. It's the same problem I have with CS Lewis' "Lord, Liar, lunatic" .... false dilemma.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

I'd like to pat myself on the back for staying out of this....

Ummmm....

One question I have for you, Brewtus, and maybe I've asked it before (If I have, I have just forgotten, and apologize) how is "the universe was created out of nothing" a satisfactory answer for you when science says so, but insufficient when religion says so?

Now, it's true that there's no "proof" of anything... but, as working theories go.. I don't understand how the idea of a creator G-d is distasteful when the alternative is "All that is now came to be from nothing." What I mean is, emptiness does not create fullness... ever... and yet.. that's where science begins. Now, again, I don't suggest that the lack of a scientific answer requires that the alternative "Creator G-d" theory must therefore be true.... I just don't get what's so distasteful about it.

In as much as religion(s) try to regulate morality, I'm quite fine with your objections to a G-d. But, G-d, as a working theory for how or why we're here, it seems to me to be quite a viable one... at least I can't think of a more sound alternative... can you?

I've never really been concerned with who or what created G-d... Although, your point is an important one. For me, the real question is why is there anything at all? In terms of the evolution question, for me, it's interesting to ask - What is the evolutionary signifigance of us even asking the questions about our origin(s)? Is there any signifigance in it? In other words, what is the "selective advantage" (if any) in discerning our position in the universe?

Incidentally, I was watching a show on History International last evening called "The Universe" and I was reminded of something which, as a science guy, I would think you'd find a tad troubling about the "Big Bang" theory. As you probably know, there is a 3 degree radiation out there and it is observed uniformally across the universe. The explaination for how this is possible, however, is troubling. The theory is that for a very brief epoch between the instant the universe began and it's first second of existance the universe expanded (to the size of a grapefruit, basically) and did so faster than the speed of light... about 4 times faster, actually. This is, of course, impossible.

The book Muffler's talking about suggests that G-d is responsible for that anomoly, and it's surely an interesting idea. That said, I would agree with you where you suggest that man has a long history of saying gods were responsible for things they didn't understand.

Anyway.... thanks for your remarks.

Self Consciousness, however, isn't essential to survival. Crocadiles have been quite successful without sentience (of course, for all I know they are as sentient as you or I, I guess). I dont know... it just seems to me that if we accept evolutionary theory, self-conciousness must be considered, at this point, as "selected for." And... there must be a reason. That is to say, if there was no advantage to it, then self aware critters in our past would not have had a reproduction advantage. I undestand what you're saying about secondary benefit, and dont mean to ignore it and it could well be the case that sentience has no particular evolutionary value at all.

An answer to that question might go a long way towards understanding the nature of life, the universe and everything.


The answer given on the show was that there was no "speed limit" to the universe yet because light did not yet exist and the major forces at issue (gravity, electromagnatism, strong and weak atomic) were not yet individual forces, but rather a "super force" of some kind. Seemed like a cop out to me, but I'm not an expert by any means.


I don't know that "God in the gaps" is a "solution." What I mean is, it's a thoery, just like the big bang.

Now, when I say things like that, I realize I'm toeing the line of seemingly trying to "legitimize" creationism... and THAT is NOT my intention. Certainly not in terms of biblical literalism, anyway. Frankly, literalists are quite confusing to me (and I don't mean to put anyone on this board on the spot with that remark, just saying I don't get how you can believe what you believe)

Actually, I was thinking about this last night as I was falling asleep and just remembered it now....

Talking about gods and gaps....

I think we can agree, as I said earlier, that man has a long, long history of asserting a god or gods were in charge of things we didn't understand... things as simple to us now as why seasons change... as we became more intelligent, we had less gods....

But...

Unless we believe we'll - as an organism - ever fully understand the universe, G-d will always be "allowed" to exist in the gaps. In as much as there will always be something we don't know, that one thing could well be G-d, could it not?

I don't offer that as "proof" that there must therefore be a G-d, much less that that the nature of that entity would be outlined in the Bible....

Really, for me, I can't wrap my head around there not being a creator of all this. The fact that it is here... at all.... I can't seem to accept the reason being "it just is" (Ironcially, I don't have such a problem accepting that G-d would just "be"... I suppose that's because the universe has a known finite begining... whereas there's not a known start to G-d.)

It's a cop out because it defies it's own rules. They are saying "Well, the theory breaks its own rules, and since that cannot be... let's just say those rules didn't apply during this momentary epoch." It's a fudge factor.

On your second paragraph quoted above, they might as well say it's the Green Lantern doing it. It's a working theory. It either checks out or it does not. My point isn't "Hey we dont understand this, therefore G-d" is true... it's that "Hey, we don't understand this, it could be G-d" is a viable theory until it's establised it's not. I don't know... an external thing adding force to an expanding universe strikes me as less remarkable than saying "The system broke it's own rules for a moment." I mean, if I want to speed up the rotation of water in a glass, it's easy enough for me - an external thing with respect to that water- to add the extra energy needed.... It certainly works better than waiting for the rules of nature to defy their own commands and consequences.



On this thread maybe. But, I have "reason" to belive in G-d, as an entity. It's been touched on before, and relates to the fact that I believe I have a soul - or, I should say, I have some sort of conciousness that - being energy - survives my body. I can back this up with paranormal events in my life which I have no other explaination for except that a spirit survives physical death. So... it's more than conjecture for me.

In the abstract, however, I completley agree that a lack of knowledge does not mean the supernatural explaination must therefore be true. It's the same problem I have with CS Lewis' "Lord, Liar, lunatic" .... false dilemma.

 

[Brewtus]

Brewtus, it is not that people believe things without any evidence to support it. Rather, it is the interpretation of the evidence or the assignment of significance to evidence that causes differences. Evidence in itself does not tell us one concept is correct and another is wrong. Only the interpretation of evidence can do this. Ultimately, all interpretation, regardless of how it is conducted or self-checked, rests upon unprovable, ontological assumptions that make sense to the experiences of the persons who hold them.

I could give you all the evidence in the world that the Biblical God exists because I see and experience that evidence on a daily basis. However, you are likely to disagree with my interpretation of the evidence or dismiss what I would share. This does not mean that the evidence is not there, it just means we disagree on its interpretation and significance.

It is much like when C.S. Lewis compared his belief in Christianity to his belief in the rising in the sun. He believed it not only because he saw it, but by it he saw everything else. Now granted, you can substitute any belief system for Christianity in that statement, but the basic principle remains the same.

I don't agree that different interpretations of the same evidence are all equal. If this were the case then no one could ever be convicted of a crime based on evidence found at the scene since all interpretations (whether supporting guilt or innocence) would be equal.

When theists claim that there is evidence of God in the natural world, then they are entering the realm of science and are open to scrutiny. If God interacts with nature (including humans) to perform miracles and other supernatural events, then were is the evidence? If one claims that God works within the laws of nature and does not leave behind evidence, then fine - that is outside of science and I can't argue against that position. But if God occasionally changes the laws of nature to suit His own purposes, I'd like to see the evidence.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I don't agree that different interpretations of the same evidence are all equal. If this were the case then no one could ever be convicted of a crime based on evidence found at the scene since all interpretations (whether supporting guilt or innocence) would be equal.

Not all interpretations are equal. However, the test of the validity of an interpretation is whether or not it violates its own internal logic; it is not done by using the logic established by one system of knowledge-creation to evaluate others. As for the criminal justice comment, the reality is that the system in place does favor one type of interpretation of evidence over others. As a society we have agreed that this is okay, but that in itself does not make it more valid than others.

When theists claim that there is evidence of God in the natural world, then they are entering the realm of science and are open to scrutiny. If God interacts with nature (including humans) to perform miracles and other supernatural events, then were is the evidence? If one claims that God works within the laws of nature and does not leave behind evidence, then fine - that is outside of science and I can't argue against that position. But if God occasionally changes the laws of nature to suit His own purposes, I'd like to see the evidence.

Why do you believe "science" has exclusive rights to determine appropriate interpretations of nature? And more importantly, can you prove that "science" is the most accurate way to interpret nature without starting from ontological statements?

I could give you evidence of God working in nature, such as giving messages to people through dreams. Yet, you would dismiss this evidence, not because it exists or does not exist, but because of how you interpret it.

 

[scooter1369]

Ummmm....

That image hurts me in so many ways.

 

[MaxBuck]

... Our ability to attach a material description/explanation tells us nothing of whether or not God's presence/influence exists or is in play.

Outstanding; succinct.

 

[Gatorubet]

For me, God of the Gaps isn't an issue. I believe every fiber of the universe is held together by God, that He created every natural law, and He has the power to work through that natural even if it's imperceptible to us. I also believe that God can and has worked outside those natural laws. I don't believe in gaps.

Pretty neat trick, as it allows you to ignore any scientific evidence within the natural law that is at odds with a theological assertion.

Kinda like the kid surrounded by a dozen playmates going "pow pow" with their toy guns who runs away and says "you missed me."

You can believe things that work outside the natural law, but it is impossible to have a rational dialogue when the people speaking to you are working inside the natural law.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Pretty neat trick, as it allows you to ignore any scientific evidence within the natural law that is at odds with a theological assertion.

Kinda like the kid surrounded by a dozen playmates going "pow pow" with their toy guns who runs away and says "you missed me."

You can believe things that work outside the natural law, but it is impossible to have a rational dialogue when the people speaking to you are working inside the natural law.

So you don't believe that Jesus died and rose again 3 days later?