Theistic Evolution

[Ouroboros]

Try reading Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche.

You mean something like "dialectic of pure reason" and such. I see what you're saying. Don't apply logic to the metaphysics, because "will" is transcendent.

 

So, how do you know God? Or God's will? Or that God can do "anything"? Or that "Sin is action against God's will".

 

This "knowledge" is outside your body and physics, and not part of you, so how are you sure you have it, and I don't?

 

-edit-

 

Btw, I'm really crappy when it comes to Kant et al, but isn't it that Kant supposed that God exists, and just because logic gives that God is logically impossible we had to assume that logic can't be used to argue for or against God? In essence, God exists, logic disproves it, therefor logic should not be used to prove or disprove God. While I personally see it this way, I don't know if God exists, logically it's doubtful, so I'm sticking to agnostic atheism until someone can give me a good reason not to.

[TCH]

Good (to your last post). I have one word why I know God exists:

 

FAITH

 

I have it and you don't. That's not a slam. Just a fact from my perspective.

[Ouroboros]

Good (to your last post). I have one word why I know God exists:

 

FAITH

 

I have it and you don't. That's not a slam. Just a fact from my perspective.

Yup. I don't take it as a slam, because I agree. It's my opinion too. At least we've reached each other halfway.

 

I lost my faith many years ago, and I couldn't get it back. Simple as that. And it wasn't really by logic that I lost it, but purely emotional. It was just gone. I still have a hard time explaining it. And my last prayer was to God (supposed being in the sky that can hear my prayers) to give me faith again. And I'm still waiting.

 

So if God does exist, then it is his will for me to be an agnostic atheist.

 

If I would try to believe against what I currently do, it would be (from your definition) a sin. So I better stay this way.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

It reminds me of the philosophical question about Jason and the Argonauts' boat.

Just to clarify, that's the one where the pieces of the boat is replaced during the journey, and when they finally come back home, all pieces have been replaced. Is it a new boat, or is it the same boat? If it is a new one, at what point did it become new? Is that the question?

 

 

That's the one.

[Ouroboros]

It reminds me of the philosophical question about Jason and the Argonauts' boat.

Just to clarify, that's the one where the pieces of the boat is replaced during the journey, and when they finally come back home, all pieces have been replaced. Is it a new boat, or is it the same boat? If it is a new one, at what point did it become new? Is that the question?

 

 

That's the one.

Is there any answer to it? I don't think there is. Is it the same boat because it has the same name? Or maybe it is the same boat because it has the same crew? What if they replaced the crew also during the trip, and they changed the name at some port? If the answer is that it isn't the same boat, then it be interesting to hear when it changed from "same" to "other".

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

It reminds me of the philosophical question about Jason and the Argonauts' boat.

Just to clarify, that's the one where the pieces of the boat is replaced during the journey, and when they finally come back home, all pieces have been replaced. Is it a new boat, or is it the same boat? If it is a new one, at what point did it become new? Is that the question?

 

 

That's the one.

Is there any answer to it? I don't think there is. Is it the same boat because it has the same name? Or maybe it is the same boat because it has the same crew? What if they replaced the crew also during the trip, and they changed the name at some port? If the answer is that it isn't the same boat, then it be interesting to hear when it changed from "same" to "other".

 

The question can be applied to many situations and the answer is always personal perception. Such as someone who molests and murders a child and then is "born again" in prison. Is he same person who molested and murdered the child? His evil was caused by being without God. Should he be punished for what he had done before conversion? Is being born again sufficient cause for forgiveness?

 

If brain tranplants into a new body become medically possible and the born again murderer gets a new body, is he the same person? We have changed the Christian concept of the soul and the person's body and are left with only the mind itself and one might still argue that it is the same person who comitted those crimes. Is a different body sufficient cause for forgiveness?

 

So now let's say psychological therapy, and medication changes the person's mind after he becomes a born again Christian and it turns out that the reason for his anti-social behavior was a chemical imbalance in his brain. Is he the same person? Is insanity, brain disfunction? Can medication really control one's actions? If we are but products of the cells and chemicals in our bodies and these can be altered and by doing so, alter our behavior, then where is the soul? Where is God? Can one forgive brain disfunction that is beyond our un-assisted control?

 

What change is required to the person who committed the acts against the child, to make him not the person he was before and not subject to punishment. Where does forgiveness factor in? At conversion to Christianity as the Bible would have us believe? After medications have altered behavior to the point that they are no longer the person they were before?

[redneck22]

How can you claim that, when the human body consists of 70% water, and no dirt?

 

But we turn into dust, as its written.

 

For example, evolution has no mechanism to explain talking snakes or donkeys.

 

 

I'm yet to see a logical explaination for talking monkeys

[Ouroboros]

I've been thinking about those things too. And it is perplexing.

 

How can you claim that, when the human body consists of 70% water, and no dirt?

 

But we turn into dust, as its written.

Not really.

 

Btw, your quote is from the Bible, so you prove the Bible correct by using a Bible quote, and deny the scientific evidence. Hmm...

 

For example, evolution has no mechanism to explain talking snakes or donkeys.

 

I'm yet to see a logical explaination for talking monkeys

Eh? Meaning what? Evolution does explain the process, and what do monkeys have to do with it? We didn't evolve from the monkeys, so what's your point?

[white_raven23]

Lost cause Han,

 

It doesn't matter how many times you try to explain the difference between 'evolving from' monkeys (the anti-evolution christian MYTH), and "sharing a common ancestor' with monkeys.

 

Because Christians INSIST on agruing the former....not only are they not listening to the real deal in my opinion, they are too fucking stupid to comprehend the difference. Rarely will I slap that on folks, but people who will argue from ignorance consistantly about subjects they have only a bare understanding of, without bothering to learn MORE......yeah that's a FUCKING STUPID person!

[TCH]

The Road Not Taken – Robert Frost

 

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Lost cause Han,

 

It doesn't matter how many times you try to explain the difference between 'evolving from' monkeys (the anti-evolution christian MYTH), and "sharing a common ancestor' with monkeys.

 

Because Christians INSIST on agruing the former....not only are they not listening to the real deal in my opinion, they are too fucking stupid to comprehend the difference. Rarely will I slap that on folks, but people who will argue from ignorance consistantly about subjects they have only a bare understanding of, without bothering to learn MORE......yeah that's a FUCKING STUPID person!

 

Amen raven, you cannot argue with the ignorant, you can only attempt to educate. Those who wish to remain ignorant are stupid.

[chefranden]

The Road Not Taken – Robert Frost

 

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

 

I suspect that you mean that you have taken the road less traveled, because you are a believer, and believers like to think that they have chosen the narrow way.

 

However, most people are believers of some sort, which would imply that belief is the wide path. In the US 76% of the population consider themselves Christians of some kind. Another 3.7% are some other sort of believer. Only .9% claim agnosticism or atheism. Obviously non-belief is the road less traveled.

.

[TCH]

chefranden:

 

"I suspect that you mean that you have taken the road less traveled, because you are a believer, and believers like to think that they have chosen the narrow way. "

 

Bzzzt! Wrong answer. This poem, in my opinion, applies to all human beings that for whatever reason choose their path in life. All I’m pointing out is I choose my path the same way you choose your path. It is a personal decision.

 

But I think we're way off subject.

 

white_raven23:

Using foul language does nothing but show your lack of intelligence. Lumping all Christians in one category seems to be a stupid argument, as I cannot believe you have met all Christians or spoken to them on this subject. You remind me of people who state things as facts but when pressed cannot give you their source of information.

[Ouroboros]

Lumping all Christians in one category seems to be a stupid argument, as I cannot believe you have met all Christians or spoken to them on this subject.

Ah, but that's the fun part!

 

Besides, we had so much training during our Christian period to judge swift and paint with broad brushes. It's a habit hard to undo. And we see all too often ourself being on the other side of the table.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Lumping all Christians in one category seems to be a stupid argument, as I cannot believe you have met all Christians or spoken to them on this subject.

Ah, but that's the fun part!

 

Besides, we had so much training during our Christian period to judge swift and paint with broad brushes. It's a habit hard to undo. And we see all too often ourself being on the other side of the table.

 

In addition I would like to add that Christians lump themselves into one category, called...Christians.

[TCH]

Lumping all Christians in one category seems to be a stupid argument, as I cannot believe you have met all Christians or spoken to them on this subject.

Ah, but that's the fun part!

 

Besides, we had so much training during our Christian period to judge swift and paint with broad brushes. It's a habit hard to undo. And we see all too often ourself being on the other side of the table.

 

In addition I would like to add that Christians lump themselves into one category, called...Christians.

 

 

We all lump ourselves into groups by actions, words and deeds.

[Ouroboros]

We all lump ourselves into groups by actions, words and deeds.

Yes, we do. It's the need of belonging, I guess. We are pack animals somehow.

[TCH]

Back to the original topic...

 

"Can evolution be reconciled with scripture?"

 

Sure, depends on what you mean by 'reconciled'?

 

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reconciled)

Main Entry: rec·on·cile

Pronunciation: 're-k&n-"sIl

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): -ciled; -cil·ing

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French reconcilier, from Latin reconciliare, from re- + conciliare to conciliate transitive senses

1 a : to restore to friendship or harmony <reconciled the factions> b : SETTLE, RESOLVE <reconcile differences>

2 : to make consistent or congruous <reconcile an ideal with reality>

3 : to cause to submit to or accept something unpleasant <was reconciled to hardship>

4 a : to check (a financial account) against another for accuracy b : to account for intransitive senses : to become reconciled

 

1 - Are they not in harmony?

2 - Are they not consistent with each other?

3 - Does this apply?

4 - We'd need some kind of criteria/criterion to which to measure this one.

[Ouroboros]

What about "1 day"? Evolution requires generations and fight for survival, one day can only be done if all animals and plants and the sun go in superspeed, which then wouldn't be one day anyway. I don't see how "1 day" can be used by any powerful being and still make evolution be the process. The evolution process demands more than one day.

[TCH]

What about "1 day"? Evolution requires generations and fight for survival, one day can only be done if all animals and plants and the sun go in superspeed, which then wouldn't be one day anyway. I don't see how "1 day" can be used by any powerful being and still make evolution be the process. The evolution process demands more than one day.

 

You're assuming it had to be linear. Let's say God wanted to create a new species of dinosaur, today in our time. It would happen in zero time and when we "discovered" it we would see it as being alive millions of years ago. The fosil record would prove it. We would have no idea that God just created it. He's not linear.

 

Now people today have problems grasping concepts like this and we as a whole are more educated than people in the second or third millenia B.C. So why not put it in terms the people then could understand? Did it take one day? Well people knew what a day was. A simple concept. Can we take it literally? Why not?

 

God could create another universe exactly like this one in less than a planck time (Sorry I could not resist ). Rule One: God can do anything.

[Ouroboros]

Wait, wait a minute. Wasn't the question about "Evolution"?

 

You're saying God creating an animal, complete and with bones and everything without the process that evolution specifies, would be considered to be the same as the evolutionary process? That doesn't make sense at all! It sounds more like that you think you can say anything you want and assume it to be true, than God could do anything!

 

Doesn't Theistic Evolution require the use of evolution? Or is it that you're redefining the meaning of the word?

[TCH]

Wait, wait a minute. Wasn't the question about "Evolution"?

 

You're saying God creating an animal, complete and with bones and everything without the process that evolution specifies, would be considered to be the same as the evolutionary process? That doesn't make sense at all! It sounds more like that you think you can say anything you want and assume it to be true, than God could do anything!

 

Doesn't Theistic Evolution require the use of evolution? Or is it that you're redefining the meaning of the word?

 

Sure the question is about Evolution and what I stated does not contradict it, does it? Is this argument better:

 

Nothing existed, except God. God then creates the Universe, as it is right at this moment from our perspective. You and I think we have been in a conversation but everything was just created. All the evolution "signs" are there and from this moment on all the rules are obeyed. I.e. natural selection, mutation, etc.

[Ouroboros]

The world was created last Tuesday.

[TCH]

The world was created last Tuesday.

 

I can accept that.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

The world was created last Tuesday.

 

I can accept that.

 

 

Out the window flies the credibility of common sense.