How can you accept evolution and still have a spiritual reality, and/or a God faith

[Subduction Zone]

Just like you severely punished your child for putting his hand in the fire after you explained to him how bad it would hurt?
,

You would punish a child for doing so? The burn would have been punishment enough.

You could have tied your child to the bed so he wouldn't be able to discard your admonition. Maybe God should have taken a clue and tied us to the bed instead of setting us free. I guess in your mind at least that would have been more gracious.

Maybe an all powerful God should have included the knowledge of right and wrong from the start. Poor parenting skills do not make a good analogy.

 

[rrobs]

Yes, Adam made a mistake but that was due to God's poor design. He left out the ability to understand right from wrong in the myth.

Then when man screwed up he punished them for his error.

By asking for specifics, I was hoping you'd have given scripture references. We are talking about scripture, aren't we?

Gen 1:31,

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
​

If words and 8th grade grammar have any meaning at all, the Bible says everything God made was good. You say He made a mistake. Who am I to believe?

 

[osgart]

I suppose all threads lead into one, apologetics vs. Secular humanism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By asking for specifics, I was hoping you'd have given scripture references. We are talking about scripture, aren't we?

Gen 1:31,

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
​

If words and 8th grade grammar have any meaning at all, the Bible says everything God made was good. You say He made a mistake. Who am I to believe?

I am sorry if you have poor grammar. Or more likely an eighth grade reading comprehension level.

Clearly I am more reliable than a book of myths that was shown to be wrong a long time ago.

 

[rrobs]

Maybe an all powerful God should have included the knowledge of right and wrong from the start.

Gen 2:17,

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.​

That was all they needed to know. The knowledge of good and evil cam after they disobeyed the only commandment God gave them.

You are assuming the knowledge of good and evil, is a good thing, that God should have given it to them from the start. Maybe in truth they had something better than that. Maybe that something was really God's wish for them, like your wish is for your child to keep his hands out of the fire. Check your premise.

 

[rrobs]

Clearly I am more reliable than a book of myths that was shown to be wrong a long time ago.

OK. What should I believe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gen 2:17,

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.​

That was all they needed to know. The knowledge of good and evil cam after they disobeyed the only commandment God gave them.

You are assuming the knowledge of good and evil, is a good thing, that God should have given it to them from the start. Maybe in truth they had something better than that. Maybe that something was really God's wish for them, like your wish is for your child to keep his hands out of the fire. Check your premise.

Please, when you are unable to reason logically you should not use the phrase that you closed with.

Being told is meaningless if you do not know that going against that order is wrong. Your version of God screwed the pooch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. What should I believe?

Try studying a bit of science. A bit of other religions. And bone up on some logic as well. The answer should come to you naturally.

 

[David T]

Human thought, like all other biological phenomena, is a product of evolution.

Then its hetrological to evolution thus it is not evolution but a subjective narrative about itself at the intellectual level. What scientifically is observed or experienced is life interconnected. That itself is not explained by science Arrative i

Human thought, like all other biological phenomena, is a product of evolution.

Yes so it's a something bigger than our thoughts. That makes thoughts we have hetrological to the topic thus subjective in context to the topic. If our thoughts were literally autological or separate from evolution, or the topic at hand, then we would all be having an objective discussion!

Life is interconnected that's as valid in religion as it is in science..many odd religious folks over history have said as much. But in religion that is ignored completely ignored.. .. The question is then Why?

 

[David T]

Please, when you are unable to reason logically you should not use the phrase that you closed with.

Being told is meaningless if you do not know that going against that order is wrong. Your version of God screwed the pooch.

What is his map? Is starting with a book to determine nature proper? Are we arguing books? Which book is valid which book is invalid how do we determine? Do books manifest nature? Somehow?

 

[David T]

I never tried to make a perfect creation. When I do make something and it goes wrong I do not tend to accuse what I made, as God did in the Garden of Eden myth.
Nature is not made. Bad science bad religion.

I see that logic is not in your toolbox. God made Adam and Eve without the knowledge of right and wrong. When you make a creation with that lack one can't blame the creation for doing wrong.

 

[David T]

I think that is comes down to how one views this idea called God. If one sees God as a separate personal deity that is removed from Its creation then the idea of evolution can be confusing. On the other hand, if one views this thing called God as an All Encompassing entity (the essence of all things) the Creator, then there no place one can go to remove themselves from It, then evolution become a necessary part of creation, all cellular life evolves because it is joined with the Creator. To argue the idea of how and why becomes an exercise in futility, because evolution happens, it is what it is.

I have to ask as an artist why am I God in religion? Creator seems to be a term understood and not explained in religion exactly. I am most certain I am not God but absolutely certain that metaphysics is art of an order deeper than followers if it. I can say that and a follower of metaphysics will say "but it's more than art" that is what a follower says not what is. Art is an odd duck for certain in context to metaphysics.

I can See why Dylan ran out of church with his hair ablaze.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Actually I was taught and believed evolution til a few years ago. I simply researched it openly - instead of just trying to get the answers right in biology class.

And what did this "research" entail? I'd take a moneyed bet of any sum that you haven't come to your conclusions by reading scientific literature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is his map? Is starting with a book to determine nature proper? Are we arguing books? Which book is valid which book is invalid how do we determine? Do books manifest nature? Somehow?

I really don't care. He claimed he was using logic when he clearly was not. He does not seem to understand that a person cannot be at fault if he lacks the ability to understand right from wrong. Our court systems know that, amazingly his version of God does not know that. He created a version of God dumber than the U.S. courts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And what did this "research" entail? I'd take a moneyed bet of any sum that you haven't come to your conclusions by reading scientific literature.

That would be a pretty safe bet. She has used classic creationist arguments.

Perhaps she will participate in my thread. She has barely posted there so fast.

 

[David T]

I really don't care. He claimed he was using logic when he clearly was not. He does not seem to understand that a person cannot be at fault if he lacks the ability to understand right from wrong. Our court systems know that, amazingly his version of God does not know that. He created a version of God dumber than the U.S. courts.

All versions of God are ones we make in context how we understand ourselves and the world around us experientially, regardless even atheism or agnosticism. I can write and it can Be transliterated in "he believes" but that is not accurate since I never use the word believe...except in context to Google mapping a MC Donald's for me.

If I post a bob Dylan song it comes back with 10 interpretations. Quantum mechanics same thing. The Bible same thing. That's a curious match!!! But if I say ask an atheist or an creationist or intelligent design believer the strength of a 2x4x8'has x compression all agree!!!!.. So we do share a same ground somehow. Ask the religious person a mechanical specific question like are angels fueling your car by flapping their wings and pushing and pulling the cylinders. I doubt you will find a single "believer" in that. But as we start to come closer to us all conceptual hell breaks loose. Curious. I wonder why?

 

[blü 2]

Holy cow! What else in the Bible is a retrofit? Seems like a serious student of the scriptures ought to know which parts to discard. If you're right I don't blame you for being skeptical.

It's easy. Just read Genesis chapters 1 to 3 as a single source uncolored by the remarks of others, and see what the story actually says. (I did a thread on it >here<.)

What else in the bible is a retrofit? Any attempt to place Jesus in the Tanakh, for a start. Jesus is not the messiah of the Jews ─ ask any Jew. Jesus is not foretold in Isaiah's 'suffering servant', who represents the nation of Israel.

Also, any attempt to detect the Trinity in the NT ─ the Trinity doctrine wasn't invented till the 4th century and is incoherent anyway, and Jesus repeatedly denies that he's God, and says the Father is the God he worships. (I did a thread on it >here<.)

And much more, of course. Those Christians are complete rascals when it comes to retrofitting, pretending they own the bible of the Jews.

 

[blü 2]

People went from creation to evolution s l o w l y as the scientific community systematically destroyed God right before their eyes (or so it seemed). It was a bit like the frog in the pot scenario.

Some of them were aggressive, like Thomas Huxley. Some, like Darwin, were not so aggressive but couldn't escape from the sheer weight of evidence supporting evolution, and the coherence it brought to the understanding of nature.

Nor can thoughtful folk today.

But was everything they said based on real substantiated evidence or was most of is based on a small amount of real evidence, inflated to such a degree that it ended up far removed from the truth, without the general population even being aware of the ruse?

What's an example of this?

And does it matter to the modern theory of evolution, which has been confirmed and expanded ever since Darwin, not least when genetics became available as a tool by which the old morphological taxonomies were reexamined and where necessary redefined.

Science contends rather fiercely that it has to be correct, even though the majority of its "evidence" is not really substantive.....it has way more suggestion and assertion than it has facts.

I don't think you could say that if you were aware of the sheer volume and consistency of the evidence.

Yet suggest an Intelligent Designer and you might as well have taken out a weapon and threatened them!

But the arguments against an Intelligent Designer are numerous and very strong. No evidence supports the claim, for instance. If you remember the Dover trial, Michael Behe gave evidence about 'irreducible complexity', the only purported evidence for ID (and I say 'purported' because even were it correct it wouldn't be evidence for ID). Yet every single one of his examples was explained by real scientists as the result of exaptation. Behe had known he had a problem with exaptation since no later than 2002, but he hadn't fixed it by the Dover Trial (2005) and he hasn't fixed it since.

And of course the case is famous for the attempts of Dembski, Meyer and Campbell to get ID statements into evidence without having to be cross-examined on them; and how when it became clear that if they did so they couldn't avoid cross-examination, they turned and fled for the distant hills like Bold Sir Robin.

....and maybe it scares the atheists to think that if they are wrong, what can happen if God shows up one day like he promised to? According to the Bible, they have so much more to lose than we do. But each one will be where their hearts impel them to be.

I'm not technically an atheist, but if I'm wrong I'm always pleased to be put straight.

As for God showing up, what test are we going to use to determine whether the being making the claim is a god or not? What is a real god? For my part I have no idea and no one will tell me.

 

[blü 2]

Then its hetrological to evolution thus it is not evolution but a subjective narrative about itself at the intellectual level. What scientifically is observed or experienced is life interconnected. That itself is not explained by science Arrative

Then I'd be grateful if you'd tell me what thought actually is.

And how you know.

 

[KT Shamim]

Does evolution totally remove God, and spirit from reality.

If yes, how so?

If no, how so?

Assalamualaikum (peace be upon you all).

God is real. Evolution is also real.
There is a starting point for everything (in the wider sense even physicists are creationists at some starting point waaaaay back). And everything evolves.

What needs to be discussed is whether the path that our evolution takes (i.e. it being an evolution not a devolution) is a "game of chess" or a "game of chance" (quoted from RRKT by Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad).

Game of Chess indicates the existence of God
Game of Chances doesn't indicate