To Matt, it doesn’t matter whether there seems to be a need for God or not. As for His existence being improbable, what makes Him any less likely than our existence, I don’t even want to begin to fathom the sheer impossibility of the creation of the Earth as it is were it not created by God. It just isn’t very likely. There is nothing wrong with studying psychology, but to say that the study of psychology and human thought processes provides proof against the existence of God because peoples in the past have created gods to describe things they didn’t understand is irresponsible negligence at looking at all the possibilities. Just because it has been done in the past does not mean God can’t be real.
Another comment to Matt, the reason we don’t see miracles on large scale happening today is because the miracles of in the bible served a specific purpose. In the Old Testament, the miracles God performed were a way for Him to spread His word to the people because even Israelites, the favored children of God, strayed from Him, forgot about Him, and disobeyed him. It is human nature to rebel against figures of power over us, it is just a natural reaction to feeling like someone has control over us, especially when we feel in control and confident in ourselves. Today, God’s word is wide-spread and people continue to spread it every day, God has established His dominion on Earth and we as His children are tasked with spreading His word to those who don’t know of Him. Additionally, as a whole, we lack the faith that Israel showed when it was behaving. That faith is what prompted God to perform large scale miracles. Not because we asked him to. Only once in recorded history has God listened to the wishes of a man. In the book of Joshua, when Joshua is fighting the Amorites during Israelite conquest of the promised lands, he pray to God asking that the sun would stay in the sky so that the Israelites could defeat the Amorites as quickly as possible and God does it for him. You called the miracles that have were performed just stories, or visions/delusions of mentally unstable or ill people. But they are written in the bible, and as much as people can try to dispute it and its existence as the infallible word of God, the bible is a historical document. It has stood the test of time, time and time again things written in the bible have been proved as reality through science and historical studies. Such as the resurrection, people of great importance were historically buried in places of honor, and if I can think of anyone who deserves a place of honor it is Jesus, but never has his body been found. We know he existed, that is proven, but despite looking and looking no trace has been found. Also, the actions of the disciples and their willingness to serve God and die for him are historically based; we know they took place through places other than just the bible. One thing to note is how they managed to, from time to time, escape death even when it should have been a certainty. So either these figures were people who believed strongly and were willing to die for a fallacy, or they had witnessed the life and teachings of a man named Jesus who declared himself “I Am”.
Also, as for what you said “Plus, I don't think humans are so important that we have a god who created us and all these things for us, thinking our species is that important is quite selfish of us, is it not?” is not really a valid argument against His existence but, to answer it anyway, perhaps it could seem a little selfish when you look at it, but it does not provide proof for or against the existence of God. Believing in God’s existence does not inherently make one selfish, the fact that God created us as companions to love him cannot be placed on our shoulders removing the possibility of being perceived as selfish.
Belief in the nonexistence of God requires the same faith, as it is placing faith in an idea. In the same way that I believe that God exists and say it to you, you believe God does not exist and say it to me. Ultimately it is one’s own choice to decide where he lays his faith, does one choose to believe in God, or does one choose to believe God does not exist. I cannot tell you what your final choice should be. I can only say that I have made my choice, and I believe it is the correct choice. I will continue to try everything in my power to help anyone understand why I believe in God and maybe doing that will influence someone to make their choice. I can only hope to make a difference; I cannot force a difference to be made.
To Sean, so maybe what’s good for the group is good for the whole, but I don’t see the squirrels around campus running off to other places attempting to increase the living standards of their fellow impoverished squirrels. Going to an impoverished country to show God’s love to people who are in trouble and having a hard time just living by serving them and helping them does not generate any sort of immediate or direct benefit to, say, a missionary from America. Yet thousands of people travel to poor starving countries every year and continue to work to raise the life standards of the people in those countries despite the fact that it increases the hazards to their own life and lowers their standards of living, which makes no sense if everything is all about increasing the viability.
Also to Sean, to your point about suffering not necessarily being beneficial, I don’t believe God ever places more of a burden on someone than they have the means to deal with. Unfortunately many people don’t make full use of the things that God has provided for us, the people in our lives, our own inner strength provided by God, and even prayer as a direct line to God who wants to help us but wants us to seek Him, to love Him. In addition to the fact that only experiencing good would make it hard to appreciate it, the bible shows that, especially for the Israelites in the old testament, when things are good we as humans tend to stray from God. I’m not trying to say that God punishes us to keep us seeking Him. Not at all, In fact as I said, He would love to keep us safe, to protect us from all the harm. But we will never grow and learn that way. And your comment about mental disorders being just plain suffering, God has a special place in his heart for children, and because mentally handicapped individuals are child-like he cares about them even more. You say that it causes suffering for all those involved; yes people tend to experience feelings of sorrow and a sort of shared pain. I know, my step-brother is mentally handicapped and I have worked with many handicapped individuals in the past, but if you look beyond what we see, a life we consider incomplete, unlived, perhaps they have life better than people who display complete control over their mental faculties. One thing I’ve seen is that they take great pleasure even from simplest of things. To say they can’t have a complete life is to take something away from them. Unfortunately sometimes we force individuals who would perhaps be better off released to be in heaven with God to stay here on Earth because we feel that keeping them alive is more merciful than allowing them to pass on. That is a somewhat touchy subject I understand, but I believe everything has a purpose and all things are just a means to the fruition of God’s plans.
Additionally, you say don’t believe in God because I think I can prove He exists, but I believe in God because I believe He exists, and I want to let other people I know He exists and that He loves us and wants us to love Him. It would be a fallacy for me to sit quietly in my belief in God while people around me struggle and suffer without knowing or understanding the love of God. If you believed that, say, leprechauns exist, would you not try and prove to others that they exist? Saying there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God and therefore it cannot be proved goes against human thought. Perhaps there is no physical proof of God’s existence, which I beg to differ on considering I believe he created the universe and everything in it, but that’s another topic entirely; you cannot simply say QED He does not exist. The concept of gravity is very abstract, I’ve heard it used as an example before and the usual response is that we can see it working and therefore isn’t the same thing. But just because we see it happening does not mean it is a tangle thing we can touch and see as it works. It just happens, we can describe it and quantitatively describe it, but it’s still an intangible thing. I believe God moves and works in every aspect of our lives, and though I can’t see it or quantitatively describe it, I still believe that so many things in our lives are example of His work.
To any others interested in commenting or disputing I would love to hear your comments, I will try to respond to them as knowledgeably as I can.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tyler:
ReplyDeleteTo present an idea on the Bible...
Scholars have copies of manuscripts that were presented in first century, up to ten years after being originally written. Scholars also have many of these copies. There is no historical document that can say this. To add to that, there is a chain of translations over centuries leading to our modern translations today in the multiple languages used throughout 1st century and into English. Through all of these centuries of translating there has only been a handful of changes...none of which change any information relevant to the message or idea being presented. Therefore, it is hard to argue that people have changed the Bible to their liking when it has remained consistent since the beginning. There is evidence of people trying to bring down the Bible in almost every time period, but modern technology has only helped the case for the reliability of the Bible. It is a document that can be very much trusted.
I have personally been on a journey to deny God before, but I was unsuccessful. There are many questions that can't be answered, but there is much more positive evidence for God, or what we call God, than being against. If you look deeper into our world you find the need for this greater Being, and, at least for me, the rest falls into place. The case for God, His word, and Jesus that goes beyond religion is too convincing for me to ignore. ... See more
Thank you Ryan for sharing all of this and I know I have made my choice.
Sean:It's difficult for me to ignore the straw-men you've set up as response to my arguments. Without devolving into a discussion on "impoverished squirrels," let me tell you that altruism in lower animals has been scientifically observed, recorded, reviewed, and published in scientific literature. In fact, I just came from a lecture at which a world-reknowned primatologist told of his research with non-human primates and how they display empathy. To put forth an argument based on your personal observations of squirrels is trite.
ReplyDeleteAlso, mentally handicapped is not the same as having a mental disorder. There's quite a distinction between the two, and I wouldn't presume to compare someone with paranoid schizophrenia or bipolar disorder to someone with Down's syndrome or mental retardation, as you seem to do in quite a cavalier manner.
That being said, much of your argument for God's existence seems to come from your amazement with the biological world as it exists today. Regardless of your personal incredulity, there is significant evidence that evolution happens. Should you desire a detailed explanation of the mechanism and proof, including transitional fossils and genetic mechanisms, please let me know. The fact that you cannot imagine the process says more about the limits of your imagination than the veracity of the process. ... See more
I'm not trying to continue a debate about whether god exists or not. To be quite honest, I don't care. However, there is a difference between belief and proof, that's my only point. I would normally leave discussions like this alone, however, I see that you share my former major at my alma mater, and I would be disappointed to see a scientist come from my own institution without a basic understanding of what constitutes proof. You go so far as to say "perhaps there is no physical proof of God's existence..." yet casually disregard that statement and try to prove it anyway. You believe in god, great. Can you prove it? No.
Tyler:
ReplyDeleteYou do fail to mention the gaps in the fossil records which has been shown and also the idea of something being "irreducibly complex." From what little I have researched this has been an issue with evolution.
And how can you clinically prove that monkeys show "empathy?" Can you clinically prove that a human shows a certain emotion? And maybe ... See morescience shouldn't be depended on so much...I mean, even in our supreme technologically advanced culture, there is still a lot that we can't know and that we can't prove.
Sean:You say we shouldn't depend on science so much. What should we rely on then? Our feelings?
ReplyDeleteGaps in the fossil records are a common security blanket for creationists. Here is the problem. 1) Not all dead animals produce fossils. In fact, the outstanding majority do not. Most of them decay and produce things like oil (hence, "fossil fuels"). Thus, we do not expect to find every single transitional fossil. However, the evolution for some animals have been quite well documented. Do a search for "transitional whale fossils." The evolution of the whale is extremely well documented, and, though I suppose I am relying on "science," which you find suspect, is quite convincing support for evolution. The second problem with fossil gaps is demonstrated in the following example. If we say that A --> C, how many gaps do we have? (I don't know if you're also afraid to rely on math, but if not, then the answer is one). Now suppose that we find a transitional fossil that shows the link between A-->C. Let's call it B. Now we have A-->B-->C. How many gaps do we have? That's right, two. The simple fact is that no matter how many transitional fossils we find, creationists will claim that there are that many more gaps, in obvious bullheaded disregard for reality and scientific research.
... See more
2) Irreducible complexity. This idea stems from the so-called "argument from incredulity," a well-known reasoning fallacy. This fallacy says that, since one can't imagine how it happens, it can't have happened. Since you're so skittish about science, how about I use law instead? A federal court found that the idea of irreducible complexity was a thinly-veiled scheme to insert God into the science classroom, and was not based on science (see "Dover case" for more details). In fact, much of the basis for irreducible complexity (blood-clotting, flagella, etc) has been shown, either through actual scientific research, or simple thought experiments, to be quite well supported by evolution.
Tyler:My idea of relying on science too much was more directed to explaining things that are unexplainable, such questions that can't be answered by some equation or formula. Science is an extremely beneficial tool when used in context. I use science quite a bit even in daily life, but as soon as you begin to say that if science is the only way to get information, then you are missing out on a lot of truths that are provided from different areas of life.
ReplyDeleteNow with fossil gaps...the whale. Just because we have different variety of whale fossils doesn't mean that evolution is the answer. What about the possiility whale adaptation. This is something we see in humans. People adapt to circumstances, I'm sure whales might be able to do that to. I'm not sure how by just finding whale fossils that are different we assume that the whale is evolving. And why do we rule out that there are different species on whales, or any animal for that matter.
It would also be nice if the answer to fossil gaps was as easy as A, B, C, but from everything I have seen, which is probably nothing compared to what you have, it isn't this easy. I know creationist like to use the fossil gaps idea to be bullheaded, but when there is no positive track of fossil that clearly exemplifies evolution, can you really blame us? The fossil records we have look more like stairs than a steady slope. Many people take the stairs and then make up what they believe would fill in the blank and present that as fact. Maybe one day they will find more fossils or maybe sadly all the fossils that we need to prove this have disengrated. But the proof isn't there to say that fossil records point to evolution, the fossil records point to a diversity of different animals living on the earth, some adapting among their species. You might be right in saying that we might not have all the information, but then again, we might have all the information.
Tyler:
ReplyDeleteNow, with irreducible complexity. My understanding of the term, and I will use science because I do think that is ok, is that it means that something couldn't be reduced beyond what it is at. Blood clotting is an example, but it is found in many animals as well. If something can't be reduced, then how could something evolve into it? This is a ... See more serious question because I don't have an answer. I don't really understand this concept fully, but know that it does play a role in what we are discussing. That is all I have and I am sorry if I confused you about my science comment. Science is good and beneficial, but it, like all things, has its place. Thank you for
Josh T.:
ReplyDeleteHere you go Tyler. Since you are such an expert on the fossil record I am sure will enjoy and most like agree with this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEougi8bS4I
Tyler:JT...I like Jurassic Park, its a good movie. I don't necessarily group myself with the average "creationist" Sadly, many Christians don't exatly think about this stuff and use proper context to develop a proper understanding of truth. Nor do I think I am "such an expert." I do like to contribute thoughts I have on the idea, but I didn't know that ... See morequalified me as an expert. Sorry about that, it was not my intention. I'm sorry that there are some people that really portray the wrong idea about this subject and I do not with to associate myself with them. I'm not saying I'm an extremely intelligent person, but I do think, and often I try to think for myself. I enjoy discussing this with you guys because it makes people think. I don't expect to persuade anyone, but I appreciate the opportunity to share my opinion on the topic. I've been on both sides of this issue and I've just happened to pick this particular side.
ReplyDeleteJosh T.:
ReplyDeletedid you watch the video? It is hysterical. Its crazy to me that some people actually think this is actually likely. I wasn't trying to offend you. It is simply that people have very different ideas on what logical thinking is. Something people don't consider is that evolution can take millions of years. The earth is billions of years old, and ... See morehumans have been thinking about these ideas for much longer than 200years. Science is just interpretations of available data. It is not necessary to have all the pieces to infer the gaps. Yeah there are mutations and anomalies but over the big picture of time clear trends are observable and then inferences can be made. In addressing this question i my personal life, I previously have gone through phases of believing and not believing in God. The more I study science and see how the world is so complex yet in often cases shows simplicity it is clear that God exists. Every step in creation happens for a reason. God is all powerful, but why is it so hard to believe that his plan and creation has been a function of evolution? In my opinion the fundamental difference is time and literal vs hypothetical interpretation. I have no problem believing that God created the Earth and life through evolution many other people struggle with this concept.
Tyler:
ReplyDeleteHeres the thing....you believe one thing, I believe another, although not completely differenly than you. I am not a "literal" Christian. I take the Bible for the implication. It the implication is literal, then I regard it as literal, if not then I take it for how it is to be taken, which is pretty much opinion depending on the person. For example... See more, Revelations, not exactly literal, but there are literal references implied at certain points. It isn't one way or the other, it is a balance of things.
I belive what I believe and I believe it is true. However, you believe you are right. I don't have all of the answers, nor do you. There are things that I think are true and you may think the exact opposite. Do I agree with you? No. Do I respect that you are a thinking human and you are going to come to your own conclusions? Yes. We both share a similar thinking process, we have just come to opposing conclusions. I can't tell you for sure everything. Now there are some absolutes that I will defend, but the Bible does not clearly identify the exact process of Creation. By God breathing life into us, what exactly does that mean? Well I have certain inferences, but there is no direct and certain process. Also, we can't say for sure whether evolution is true or creation is true or that it might be something in the middle and that leaves us with no way to properly convince someone based on pure, solid fact.
I take no offense to the above, just know that I am not just a crazy creationist, I am just a Biblical Christian and my worldview continues to develop everyday. I respect everything you all have to say even though I don't agree with what you may say. I guess this is just a problem of the human condition. I can only pray that the truth is revealed. Thank you.
Sean:
ReplyDeleteHere's the problem. You present arguments for the existence of god based on problems with evolution. I explain to you that the problems you perceive with evolution have been solved. You come back with the argument that "you believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe." Just once, I'd like to argue with a creationist who had the ... See moreintellectual integrity to admit that they are wrong.
Whale fossils) You obviously did not research what I asked you to, so I'll summarize it for you here. We do not just see different populations of the modern whale in the fossil record. We chart the development of the whale from land animal to sea animal, complete with loss of legs, movement of blowhole to back of the head, etc. We corroborate that these whale fossils are indeed whale fossils by identifying certain physiological characteristics belonging solely to whales in the fossils. Adaptation, in the sense that you offer, is known as Lamarckian evolution. This is like saying that a bodybuilder, who has put in hours of time at the gym to develop larger muscles, will have a child who is born with more musculature than others. It has been disproved and is not accepted by any scientist, creationist or not. If this is not what you meant to describe, and you in fact meant to describe adaptation as the phenomenon that occurs when some members of a population display a certain trait, then over time that trait is favored in the population, then we agree. However, what you just described is evolution. If you agree in evolution, and just can't see how this translates into large-scale speciation, then I think you're just a few science classes away from enlightenment, and there is still hope.
Blood Clotting) The irreducible complexity of blood clotting is based on the premise that blood clotting needs several factors to work. If any of these factors are absent, the clotting doesn't work. Lack of clotting is lethal, thus, couldn't have been developed with small incremental changes.
False premise. Lack of clotting, though resulting in higher mortality, is not lethal. In fact, invertebrates (aside from the horseshoe crab) do not have our clotting mechanism. What happens is that cells begin to rush toward the opening in small wound. They aggregate and form a cellular "plug." This is not the mammalian version of blood clotting. However, we can see that if evolution were based on this platform, it would allow clotting to develop through incremental changes, and would not require divine intervention. In fact, mice that have had their clotting systems removed still remain alive, likely due to their cellular plugging system they retained from early in evolution.
The problem I have with creationists who invoke IC is that they detract from the basic tenet of scientific research - curiosity. They answer "how did this get here?" with "God did it," instead of searching for the answer. If we stop at this point, valuable scientific research will be lost. ... See more
This is not to say that there is no place for god in society. But don't diminish your god by constraining him to the gaps in science. If this is your god, he has become smaller and smaller as scientific research exponentially increases. Instead, give your god some credit. Allow him to be present beyond the gaps, to give meaning beyond our scientific questions. Only when this happens can religion maintain its necessary role in society, without being marginalized.
Tyler:
ReplyDeleteThe first part of your comment about what I said was directed to JT. He makes the realization that we are never going to have the answers, only more questions. I know you think you have all of the answers Sean, but it doesn't matter how many science classes you take, we will never be able to simply prove a concrete, unquestionable answer. Therefore, convincing each other probably just isn't going to happen.
I'm also not arguing God's exsistence based on problems with evolution, I'm just pointing out that there are problems with evolution. I know you say there aren't problems with evolution, but I still believe there are...sorry about just a "typical creationist," although I don't believe I am.
Adaptation happens. I don't have a scientific formula or a theory to prove it, but basic instinct and experience shows me that it happens. I don't know about that whole body builder thing, but thats not what I'm saying. Adaptation is not a bacteria turning into a human. Call me ignorant, thats fine, but you can't prove evolution just as I technically can't prove there is a God. We both, I believe, have evidence for our beliefs, and that is why this is such a difficult topic. ... See more
Blood clotting is not the only example of irreducible complexity. And just because it is not individually lethal in experiments does not mean that it isn't irreducibly complex. And you make it sound like Christians don't use science, that we are all just going around saying, "God did it." You sound like a copy of Richard Dawkins and he is right for some people, but a vast majority of people believing in God don't just simply say "God did it," but look to explain what is going on. Just as there are varying degrees of evolutionists, there are varying degrees of believers in God, and not all of us are simple minded so please reconsider that thought. IC still seems to be a problem with evolution.
Lastly, I do not like the word religion. I think it is actually a negative thing today. God is not just some aspect of people's lives to be worked in along with work and family and so on and so forth. God is the meaning of life. This is a whole separate discussion, but I believe it answers to the root of who we are. I have put a vast amount of time... See more to understanding this. I, too, have denied God and looked at this Faith as just something people made up to make them feel better and looked to disprove it all. Unfortunetly for some, I can no longer say this. I can also say that, there are somethings that are unexplainable and some answers we will never have. Yes, even with science this is still going to happen.
I also believe that science has actually helped the case for God, not hindered it. Now, I know you believe otherwise and I understand, but I do honestly believe that science plays its role in the condusiveness to our lives and that God is made even more real because of it. I do not agree with people who say Christians have checked their brain in and are using God as an excuse to not be thinkers. I feel quite the opposite. I know I'm not going to persuade you of anything because you are obviously quite passionate about your position on this topic. I enjoyed hearing your thoughts and understanding your position better, but I too remain in my current stance. Thank you for the discussion and I hope this has proven beneficial to you, also.
Sean:
ReplyDeleteIt looks like, after some distraction, we've arrived at the crux of the problem. I must say I agree with you on this.
"we will never be able to simply prove a concrete, unquestionable answer"
That's been my point all along. I am extremely passionate about correcting people who claim they can prove God's existence. In addition, I am quick to point out to others that God's existence cannot be disproven through science. ... See more
This makes the problem not "how can we prove God's existence" but "does the state of the world support the idea that God exists." Obviously we have very different views on this, and I'll not presume to be able to change your mind.
As far as the evolution debate goes, I'd just like to point out one more thing. I've never said that there are no problems with evolution (or at least I never intended to). What I've tried to communicate is that there are no problems with evolution that can't be explained by science, even if the explanation requires modifying our view of evolution (as it already has in some case). There are views of evolution that are hotly debated in science, but none that require us to abandon logical thought and turn to a deity for a bailout.
I'm glad we finally agree that we cannot prove God's existence. I think that's a step forward.
Tyler:
ReplyDeleteOk...We'll I can say we do disagree as I find God logical and necessary, but I respect that you can say that it can't be emphatically solved. We answer the question differently, but I respect your passion up have and I appreciate you respecting my beliefs. Maybe one day your beliefs will change as mine did, but I acknowledge where you stand. Thank you for the discussion.