How do you reconcile the creating God of the bible with the reality of evolution.

[Orbit]

I don't see how it solves the problem.

Why dismiss it as not intended to be taken literally? Hopefully you have something more substantial than "a literal interpretation seems ridiculous by our modern understanding."

Once you've cleared that other hurdle, you have other questions to deal with, like "if it wasn't meant to be taken literally, how was it meant to be taken?" and "what meaning was the author trying to express?"

It's fine - when justified - to interpret a passage non-literally, but interpreting it in a way that renders it meaningless is a dishonest - or at least unthinking - approach. Regardless of whether a pasaage was intended as a literal chronicle, a metaphoric fable, or as poetry, the author put a lot of work into trying to express some sort of meaning.

Myth isn't meaningless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Myth isn't meaningless.

I know; that was my point.

 

[Thief]

The bible is filled with "God created" yet modern cosmology and evolution theory points to no godly intervention. How do I believe in the Bible's message inspite of this?

was there not a sudden....diversion ?
Man from the rest of the animals

 

[PureX]

I know of 28 different explanations. Some even have the benefit of evidence, no god required for any.

Those are not explanations. Those are speculations based on imagination and conjecture. As I said, we are free to imagine any number of possible "explanations", so long as we understand that they are imagined possibilities, and not actual explanations.

But on the contrary. Those who believe the genesis account, or any of the many different creator god stories have no explanation other than god did it.

They don't need any other possible explanation. They have the one they want.

The number of imagined possibilities we entertain for the source and purpose of existence does not change the fact that they are all still imaginary possibilities. And that goes for an infinite eternity of multiverses just as surely as it goes for a single creator-god.

 

[PureX]

So what level of confidence should we demand before we believe something?

No one else can give you the confidence to act on faith when sufficient knowledge is lacking. You have to make that determination for yourself. All I'm saying is that it's not 'illogical' to act on faith. And in fact, it's essential for we humans to do so a great deal of the time, because we possess so little actual knowledge about the results of our choices.

Religious belief seems to be based on nothing but faith. Science is based on evidence and reason.

Both are accepted or rejected based on the outcomes they produce when they're acted upon in good faith. There is no real difference between them but the biased delusions we place on them.

 

[ChristineM]

Those are not explanations. Those are speculations based on imagination and conjecture. As I said, we are free to imagine any number of possible "explanations", so long as we understand that they are imagined possibilities, and not actual explanations.
They don't need any other possible explanation. They have the one they want.

I think its more, they have the one that they have been told to have, the easiest to digest because its the one the story they have always been told


The number of imagined possibilities we entertain for the source and purpose of existence does not change the fact that they are all still imaginary possibilities. And that goes for an infinite eternity of multiverses just as surely as it goes for a single creator-god.

Ahh speculation like "i dont know so god". Actually most are hypotheses and mathematical models built on existing knowledge. And as i said, some are backed up by evidence.

I think its more the one they have been told since childhood, the one that doesnt involve thinking

Never seen a mathematical model of god magic, have you?

 

[Valjean]

No one else can give you the confidence to act on faith when sufficient knowledge is lacking. You have to make that determination for yourself. All I'm saying is that it's not 'illogical' to act on faith. And in fact, it's essential for we humans to do so a great deal of the time, because we possess so little actual knowledge about the results of our choices.

I was speaking of levels of confidence more in the mathematical sense than the psychological.

Yes, faith can be useful or comforting in certain situations, but in ascertaining epistemic truth it's useless.

Both are accepted or rejected based on the outcomes they produce when they're acted upon in good faith. There is no real difference between them but the biased delusions we place on them.

If you don't understand the difference between faith and knowledge you clearly don't understand what science is.

 

[The Anointed]

Jesus and Paul came before science was invented. Of course they took it seriously. But Jesus was God, so he should have known everything, you say. This line of reasoning highlights why people leave the faith--there are too many nonsensical assertions in the Bible that are internally inconsistent.

Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C.E. To them, the atomus was the quantum of all matter, the smallest indivisible particle from which all visible matter was created, and it is my belief that Paul, was privy to this concept, when he said in Hebrews 11: 3; "It is by faith that we understand that the universe was created by God's command, so that what can be seen was made out of what cannot be seen."

 

[Willamena]

The bible is filled with "God created" yet modern cosmology and evolution theory points to no godly intervention. How do I believe in the Bible's message inspite of this?

"God" created all. So "God" created evolution. What more is there to reconcile?

Oops, sorry. I'm an atheist.

 

[PureX]

I was speaking of levels of confidence more in the mathematical sense than the psychological.

The fact that you find math to be more confidential than psychology is your own choice. There are lots of different ways of understanding our experience of reality, and it's reasonable that we will not all choose to same ways. Nor should we. We tend to choose what we believe 'works for us'. And that often depends on what conceptual "language" we use to define the reality that we are experiencing. Math is just one of those conceptually defining languages. So is religion/spirituality. And there are many others.

Yes, faith can be useful or comforting in certain situations, but in ascertaining epistemic truth it's useless.

It's not matter of one or the other. Faith comes into play for all of us when the limits of our other preferred methodologies have been reached.

If you don't understand the difference between faith and knowledge you clearly don't understand what science is.

And if you think science is not primarily an act of faith, then you don't understand what faith is.

 

[PureX]

Ahh speculation like "i dont know so god". Actually most are hypotheses and mathematical models built on existing knowledge. And as i said, some are backed up by evidence.

I think its more the one they have been told since childhood, the one that doesnt involve thinking

Never seen a mathematical model of god magic, have you?

I'm not here to argue with your biases.

 

[The Anointed]

"God" created all. So "God" created evolution. What more is there to reconcile?

Oops, sorry. I'm an atheist.

Nope! God who is the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, has always existed in one form or another and it is he who has evolved to become all that exists.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not here to argue with your biases.

Lets see if i understand you, are you saying you have no argument but prefer to blame others?

You obviously didn't understand the reality of the situation so please don't tar other people with the same brush that you tar yourself.

 

[ChristineM]

Nope! God who is the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, has always existed in one form or another and it is he who has evolved to become all that exists.

You have evidence for this claim or is it just your opinion?

 

[Willamena]

Nope! God who is the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, has always existed in one form or another and it is he who has evolved to become all that exists.

So God is subject to time?

 

[Valjean]

It's not matter of one or the other. Faith comes into play for all of us when the limits of our other preferred methodologies have been reached.

Aren't most scientists comfortable with saying "I don't know," rather than forging ahead with unsupported proclamations?

And if you think science is not primarily an act of faith, then you don't understand what faith is.

I think of faith as insufficiently supported belief. Doesn't science try its best to eliminate the need for faith by finding as much evidence and support as possible?

Nope! God who is the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, has always existed in one form or another and it is he who has evolved to become all that exists.

So God dwells in my electrical lines?
A "God" is a personage, or at least something personified. Gods have awareness, likes, dislikes, emotions, &c. Plain 'energy' has no awareness, preferences, opinions or anything "Godlike."

 

[PureX]

Aren't most scientists comfortable with saying "I don't know," rather than forging ahead with unsupported proclamations?

Absolutely not. The scientific method is a process practiced by humans who were NOT content to just accept that they didn't know something. And who were willing to trust in and act on the (unproven) idea that through investigative interaction and experience (experimentation) they could learn SOMETHING more than they currently knew, even if it wasn't what they'd hoped to learn. The scientific process is itself an act of faith. Just as acting on faith in a god-ideal is an act of faith. And in both cases they produce experiences that can teach us things that we did not previously know.

I think of faith as insufficiently supported belief.

How is acting on 'belief' in the scientific process any different? In both cases the 'belief' is born in ignorance and skepticism (faith), and then accepted or rejected based on the results.

Doesn't science try its best to eliminate the need for faith by finding as much evidence and support as possible?

No. It tries to eliminate bias that would cause us to misread the results.

A "God" is a personage, or at least something personified. Gods have awareness, likes, dislikes, emotions, &c. Plain 'energy' has no awareness, preferences, opinions or anything "Godlike."

We have no idea what "God" OR energy is beyond what we choose to imagine. Theology is used to help us explore the one idea, while science is used to help us explore the other. But neither methods have produced any clear knowledge on either idea, yet.

They may very well be one and the same phenomena.

 

[Patrick Miron]

The bible is filled with "God created" yet modern cosmology and evolution theory points to no godly intervention. How do I believe in the Bible's message inspite of this?

I hope your following my responses to your "Q" ..Am I a Christian. I just posed part 2 a short bit ago.

Here's the deal,

"Ya can't have one without the other"

I'm not just cute here.

God s the creator of ALL living things. Every living thin has a "soul"; which has as one definition: "THAT WHICH ANIMATES LIFE"

Just as there is a hierarchy of merit in the animal kingdom; so too there is a similar hierarchy of merit doe "souls."

Man's is the most complex and meritorious being rational and immortal {in emulation of God: Gen 1: 26-27}Evolution is GOD APPROVED, so long as He gets credit for what is evolving.

But note: a soul is a spiritual reality; it cannot evolve, nor can it have any source of ORIGIN except GOD.

Pray much,

God Bless YOU!
Patrick

 

[The Anointed]

You have evidence for this claim or is it just your opinion?

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

Can you prove that energy can be created or can be destroyed? If not, then you must accept that energy is eternal having neither beginning or end.

According to the best scientific theory that we have today as to the origin of this material universe, it is said that at the time of the Big Bang, all that exists today was pure energy, which has been converted to that which we perceive as matter. If you believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”? Then you must accept that it is the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, that has become this seemingly material universe and has developed a mind that is the compilation of all the information gathered by all the diverse life-forms that it [The Eternal Energy] has become.

The Collective consciousness of all that exists, which we call the Logos God, in which a Supreme Personality has developed, 'The Son of Man,' the Most High in the creation.

 

[ChristineM]

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

Can you prove that energy can be created or can be destroyed? If not, then you must accept that energy is eternal having neither beginning or end.

According to the best scientific theory that we have today as to the origin of this material universe, it is said that at the time of the Big Bang, all that exists today was pure energy, which has been converted to that which we perceive as matter. If you believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”? Then you must accept that it is the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, that has become this seemingly material universe and has developed a mind that is the compilation of all the information gathered by all the diverse life-forms that it [The Eternal Energy] has become.

The Collective consciousness of all that exists, which we call the Logos God, in which a Supreme Personality has developed, 'The Son of Man,' the Most High in the creation.

what have scientific laws to do with god magic?

According to the best science nothing is known prior to 10e-42 of a second after the bb.

The laws of thermodynamics did not begin to form until 10e-34 of a second after the bb and were not full resolved until 10e-24 of a second after the bb

I must accept no such thing, just because you dont understand the science but use your misunderstanding to fill in gaps is down to your faith, not to an imaginary energy being who can do god like magic.

"Mindless" gravity causes "mindless" clumping of matter to form dust, suns, planets, moons etc. The laws of thermodynamics that you so blatantly misrepresent predict "mindless" evolution.

Your last paragraph is also pure guesswork that makes you feel better about he gaps in your knowledge.

I asked for evidence, you gave me misunderstanding of science and guesswork. Fair enough.