• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"if the Universe was a Godless Universe....."

david rodriguez

New Member
I was watching 3ABN just a while back and several men were on the show discussing the persuasiveness of the theory of Evolution. The talk began with this notion. 'If there was no God and the Universe was a Godless Universe, the theory or Evolution and the things they teach in schools of Darwin and such, can be very persuasive.' (Please, this is NOT the exact quote)...

My thought upon hearing that was this: Why are they discussing any possible notion that there is no God and that the Universe could be a Godless Universe on a Christian t.v. channel?

I know that certain discussions which pertain to the world's ideas of how things 'may' be are interesting to get involved with, but did they leave out all concerns towards any person which may be watching the show? A person who's faith may not be as strong as theirs may become confused when hearing such concepts on a Christian network. And to listen to the whole discussion may become very taxing on the hearer rather than edifying.

So my idea was this: instead of them saying that such ideas can be very 'persuasive', they might fare better if they say that such ideas can be 'very deceptive', instead. This way it separates and helps the hearer in understanding the differences between The Truth of God's Word over the 'deceptions' of the world.
 

Mickdrew

Member
"How can this be! You made the system of the world, you explain the laws of all creation, but in all your book you speak not once of the existence of God!"

"I did not need to make such an assumption." - Pierre Simon Laplace

You're missing the important meaning behind what is being said, David. I think the person in question was trying to hint that "if no God existed, you would expect the universe to be as it is."
It is a very powerful, and yes, persuasive, point to make.

You shouldn't be angered that it is revealed to believers. If they find it convincing, then good on them. If not, then they can continue as they are. Trying to manipulate people's opinions through semantics here seems dishonest to me (or at least done in bad faith).
 
Last edited:

david rodriguez

New Member
"How can this be! You made the system of the world, you explain the laws of all creation, but in all your book you speak not once of the existence of God!"

"I did not need to make such an assumption." - Pierre Simon Laplace

You're missing the important meaning behind what is being said, David. I think the person in question was trying to hint that "if no God existed, you would expect the universe to be as it is."
It is a very powerful, and yes, persuasive, point to make.

You shouldn't be angered that it is revealed to believers. If they find it convincing, then good on them. If not, then they can continue as they are. Trying to manipulate people's opinions through semantics here seems dishonest to me (or at least done in bad faith).

I'm not exactly receiving your point as accurately as you may want me to.. could you please explain what it is you are trying to say so that I may become more knowledgeable?
 

david rodriguez

New Member
"How can this be! You made the system of the world, you explain the laws of all creation, but in all your book you speak not once of the existence of God!"

"I did not need to make such an assumption." - Pierre Simon Laplace

You're missing the important meaning behind what is being said, David. I think the person in question was trying to hint that "if no God existed, you would expect the universe to be as it is."
It is a very powerful, and yes, persuasive, point to make.

You shouldn't be angered that it is revealed to believers. If they find it convincing, then good on them. If not, then they can continue as they are. Trying to manipulate people's opinions through semantics here seems dishonest to me (or at least done in bad faith).

hello? are you still there?
 

david rodriguez

New Member
"How can this be! You made the system of the world, you explain the laws of all creation, but in all your book you speak not once of the existence of God!"

"I did not need to make such an assumption." - Pierre Simon Laplace

You're missing the important meaning behind what is being said, David. I think the person in question was trying to hint that "if no God existed, you would expect the universe to be as it is."
It is a very powerful, and yes, persuasive, point to make.

You shouldn't be angered that it is revealed to believers. If they find it convincing, then good on them. If not, then they can continue as they are. Trying to manipulate people's opinions through semantics here seems dishonest to me (or at least done in bad faith).

You really shouldn't voice an opinion and not answer when questioned.
 

david rodriguez

New Member
perhaps if you should desire to decide to be so courteous as to explain your position on Christian matters, then I will retrieve it upon my reentering.. bye,, have a nice day in the Lord Jesus. :)
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
You really shouldn't voice an opinion and not answer when questioned.
Just exercise a little patience. This is a discussion board, not a chatroom. It can be hours or days before you may get a response.

In regards to your OP, it was a bad idea for them to imply on the show that one can either believe in God or evolution but not both. The fact of the matter is that evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, let alone how our universe came into existence. Evolution is a theory of biology, not astronomy or physics.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
So my idea was this: instead of them saying that such ideas can be very 'persuasive', they might fare better if they say that such ideas can be 'very deceptive', instead. This way it separates and helps the hearer in understanding the differences between The Truth of God's Word over the 'deceptions' of the world.
Evolution is a persuasive theory, because it begins with observations and is driven by them. Do not use the Bible as a Science text. The Bible makes inaccurate statements about the solar system and the beginning of our planet, because it isn't describing them. Its describing other things. The people who argue that the Bible is a Science text are actually attacking the Bible by doing so and attacking Christianity by doing so.
 

Mickdrew

Member
I'm not exactly receiving your point as accurately as you may want me to.. could you please explain what it is you are trying to say so that I may become more knowledgeable?
It's not very difficult. I was essentially saying that the universe is exactly how you'd expect it to be if there was no God.

In other words, all explanations that we've discovered for how things came to be have been without a God being necessary. The universe works perfectly fine without that assumption.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The thing is, that it's only people that bring up this God notion amongst themselves and is found absoultly nowhere else.

What does that tell you?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
You really shouldn't voice an opinion and not answer when questioned.
So, now your trying to establish posting rules around here after having been a member for ....let me take a look. . . .19 days. FYI. Other than moderators who try to keep the place rolling along nicely, no one around here tells others how they should and should not post.


.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I was watching 3ABN just a while back and several men were on the show discussing the persuasiveness of the theory of Evolution. The talk began with this notion. 'If there was no God and the Universe was a Godless Universe, the theory or Evolution and the things they teach in schools of Darwin and such, can be very persuasive.' (Please, this is NOT the exact quote)...

My thought upon hearing that was this: Why are they discussing any possible notion that there is no God and that the Universe could be a Godless Universe on a Christian t.v. channel?

I know that certain discussions which pertain to the world's ideas of how things 'may' be are interesting to get involved with, but did they leave out all concerns towards any person which may be watching the show? A person who's faith may not be as strong as theirs may become confused when hearing such concepts on a Christian network. And to listen to the whole discussion may become very taxing on the hearer rather than edifying.

So my idea was this: instead of them saying that such ideas can be very 'persuasive', they might fare better if they say that such ideas can be 'very deceptive', instead. This way it separates and helps the hearer in understanding the differences between The Truth of God's Word over the 'deceptions' of the world.
One wonders if your favoured deity is as a feared for his identity as you are?
 

GreenKepi

Member
I suppose that I 'could' believe in Evolution...if I did not believe in a "Soul"...I just cannot get passed that point. I believe the Soul exists in mankind and hence, I cannot believe in total evolution. However, I do believe that some things "evolve" or "change" in time....
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
...instead of them saying that such ideas can be very 'persuasive', they might fare better if they say that such ideas can be 'very deceptive', instead.
They could say that.
But perhaps they understand that it's more persuasive to use neutral language when making a cogent argument.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Not sure why it wouldn't be on a Christian network as more than half of all Christians reject literalist interpretations of creationism and accept evolution, with the modus that Genesis is an allegorical tale to explain mankind's fall from grace akin to Jesus' allegorical object lessons. Literal creationism and a 6,000 year timeline is a relatively recent interpretation and even less representative in Jewish scholarship than Christian.
So the notion that there must be God or evolution isn't even the majority christian view, let alone inarguable.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I'm not exactly receiving your point as accurately as you may want me to.. could you please explain what it is you are trying to say so that I may become more knowledgeable?


I can help you out. Basically he was saying that if the universe was not created by a god, there is no reason to believe it would not look like this. Can you give an example of a non created universe versus a created universe and give an example to support the claim ? No. and even if this one was created, that in and of itself does not get you to a god, much less a Christian god. It would only leave you with a mystery.
 
Top