harvey19 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Why does an acceptance of evolution have any bearing on the existence or none existence of God? Are you aware that the Catholic Church which is the original christian church, and which still has more believers than any other christian denomination, accepts evolution as a fact? They refer to it as 'theistic evolution'. In other words, if that was the way God decided to go about it then who's going to stop him? I was being very simplistic, but as you point out even if evolution is accepted as a fact something had to start it off, a God for example. Many who decide on the evolution theory have no belief in God and that is why I used the example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) Both are theories. There is no proof what started evolution. Are you talking about Abiogenesis? That's a different subject all together. Please check the scientific use of 'Theory' Edited March 14, 2014 by SnailyBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I was being very simplistic, but as you point out even if evolution is accepted as a fact something had to start it off, a God for example. Many who decide on the evolution theory have no belief in God and that is why I used the example. Lets suppose an supper intelligent life form from a distant part of the universe that we are so far unaware of, conducted an experiment. During this experiment they created the singularity that expanded to form our part of the universe, and from that point on they have just observed to see what happens and to see how life develops. Would you seriously define them as a God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Lets suppose an supper intelligent life form from a distant part of the universe that we are so far unaware of, conducted an experiment. During this experiment they created the singularity that expanded to form our part of the universe, and from that point on they have just observed to see what happens and to see how life develops. Would you seriously define them as a God? A bit like the movies Prometheus, or Mission or Mars? I subscribe to that theory, that Earth may have been "seeded". They're certainly creators or superior beings in my book. Not quite the image of the white man in robes with flowing beard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 To me the problem that many theists have with evolution is that it reduces the importance of mankind in the whole scheme of things. All religions assume a 'special relationship' between mankind and God. We are the chosen people, we are created in the image of God, we will get to sit in the presence of our Lord etc. Evolution means we aren't that different to the beasts of the field. Maybe more cognisent - maybe not - but not that different in our creation. Therefore, even if such a being as an intelligent creator exists it probably has little more interest in us as a species than it has in a flea, with no interest whatsoever in meeting up with us in the hereafter. Makes all the praise and worship stuff a bit redundant really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) Both are theories. There is no proof what started evolution. No, one is a theory explained the fact of evolution. The other is a fairy tale. There is plenty of proof on possible mechanisms of abiogenesis. jb ---------- Post added 14-03-2014 at 14:20 ---------- To me the problem that many theists have with evolution is that it reduces the importance of mankind in the whole scheme of things. All religions assume a 'special relationship' between mankind and God. We are the chosen people, we are created in the image of God, we will get to sit in the presence of our Lord etc. Evolution means we aren't that different to the beasts of the field. Maybe more cognisent - maybe not - but not that different in our creation. Therefore, even if such a being as an intelligent creator exists it probably has little more interest in us as a species than it has in a flea, with no interest whatsoever in meeting up with us in the hereafter. Makes all the praise and worship stuff a bit redundant really. Not to mention that worshipping and praising an omnipotent, omniscient God is a pointless exercise. jb Edited March 14, 2014 by barleycorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 One first has to decide whether they believe in creation or evolution. Not really. The universe quite clearly exists, it's either always existed (which doesn't appear to be the case) or it had a beginning. Science can't explain 'before' the beginning, or what 'caused' it, but that's no reason to invent a sky pixie to pin it on. It just means that we haven't figured it out yet. Evolution isn't about the creation of the universe (or even life), it's just about how speciation and adaptation occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I don't think that any of us fit the definition of agnostic. You can't have knowledge of something that doesn't exist, but we aren't claiming that we can't decide, we've decided that we don't believe god exists.I've decided that I don't believe a god exists, but I don't know one doesn't. Tomorrow I might receive a revelation from Vishnu for all I know, extremely unlikely though it is. ---------- Post added 14-03-2014 at 14:51 ---------- I was being very simplistic, but as you point out even if evolution is accepted as a fact something had to start it off, a God for example. I will be equally simplistic, but as you point out even if god is accepted as a fact something had to start it off, a god of god for example. Even if god of god is accepted as a fact something had to start it off, a god of god of god for example. Even if god of god of god is accepted as a fact something had to start it off, a god of god of god of god for example. etc. ad infinitum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I will be equally simplistic, but as you point out even if god is accepted as a fact something had to start it off, a god of god for example. Even if god of god is accepted as a fact something had to start it off, a god of god of god for example. Even if god of god of god is accepted as a fact something had to start it off, a god of god of god of god for example. etc. ad infinitum Your argument breaks down in 2 parts. 1) If (and I assume you are) talking about the theistic God (from Abrahamic faiths) then God is known to be eternal- and anything that is eternal does not have a beginning. Asking who created God is (as someone once stated) asking what is north of the north pole. 2) Lets say for argument sake we were questioning the origin of God-would it matter? Would it lessen the force of the argument that the universe needs a cause? Just because we don't know the origins of God, again, going here for the sake of the argument, doesn't change anything-the causal necessity needed. Me asking if you know who your great,great, great, great grandparents were- you wouldn't know, but it doesn't argue against the fact that they were the cause of your existence. I'll leave a quote from the Biologist, Stephen Jones,(who responded to a similar point you made: “if science was required to explain everything along an infinite regress, before it could explain something, then there could be no scientific explanation of anything new.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) Your argument breaks down in 2 parts.No it really doesn't. 1) If (and I assume you are) talking about the theistic God (from Abrahamic faiths) then God is known to be eternal- and anything that is eternal does not have a beginning. Asking who created God is (as someone once stated) asking what is north of the north pole. Special pleading. Why are you willing to apply these conditions to god but not the universe itself? It could be said with equal validity that the universe is known to be eternal- and anything that is eternal does not have a beginning. Asking who created the universe is (as someone once stated) asking what is north of the north pole. 2) Lets say for argument sake we were questioning the origin of God-would it matter? Would it lessen the force of the argument that the universe needs a cause?Yes. See my response to your first point. Just because we don't know the origins of God, again, going here for the sake of the argument, doesn't change anything-the causal necessity needed.If you accept that god can exist without a 'causal necessity' then why not the universe? Edited March 14, 2014 by flamingjimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now