• 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!

Non-sentient creator deity

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Evolution, I think....

Even as a Christian that believes the universe was designed by intelligence, I think 99% of the universe has emerged through natural evolution. I don't know how a creator would go about creating a universe but maybe it instilled the information into the very fabric of space time and all material things.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
'
rusra02 said:
Evolution, I think....

Parsimony said:
Evolutionary theory is purely biological: it has nothing to do with how our universe came to be



Hi Parsimony! I think rusra02 might not of meant the biological theory of evolution by natural selection but rather the idea that things ideas concepts and theories like the big bang theory, and man has it evolved! See what I mean? The bb theory started out as what is now called the standard hot model, bunow has evolved to include inflation and all sorts of addons! Or maybe I am wrong......?


Time to load the camping gear up.....

and call my gf to talk her into going....

and get back on topic?

nah~

can anyone tell I am bored to death?
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Well ... Darwinian, Huxlian and Lamarkian Evolution all have a non sentient blind watchmaker... but a society whose origin starts with a big chatotic expolsion is problematic ... for many reasons I lean toward a trine theistic creator
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Negative.

An atheist might believe that, or anything else under the sun for that matter. To be an 'atheist' is simply to not be convinced of the premise that a god or gods must exist. That's it, anything else is fair game.
I totally disagree that "anything else is fair game." That's no part of atheism. Atheism just means lacking one specific belief.
 
Last edited:
I totally disagree that "anything else is fair game." That's no part of atheism. Atheism just means lacking one specific belief.
I think you misread me, as that is what I said. 'Anything else is fair game' as in, an 'atheist' might believe anything at all just so long as they lack that specific belief.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I think you misread me, as that is what I said. 'Anything else is fair game' as in, an 'atheist' might believe anything at all just so long as they lack that specific belief.
That's what you said--that "anything else is fair game"--and that's what I'm disagreeing with. An atheist might be insane, but that's no part of atheism.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
'





Hi Parsimony! I think rusra02 might not of meant the biological theory of evolution by natural selection but rather the idea that things ideas concepts and theories like the big bang theory, and man has it evolved! See what I mean? The bb theory started out as what is now called the standard hot model, bunow has evolved to include inflation and all sorts of addons! Or maybe I am wrong......?


Time to load the camping gear up.....

and call my gf to talk her into going....

and get back on topic?

nah~

can anyone tell I am bored to death?
That's all fine and good as long as you recognize that "theory of evolution" is a term only used in science to refer to biological evolution. The Big Bang and stellar evolution are distinct from this and are never treated as being the same thing as the theory of evolution.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Well ... Darwinian, Huxlian and Lamarkian Evolution all have a non sentient blind watchmaker...

Ahh' the now discredited blind watchmaker theory, well that ill fated idea was brought to us by a biologist named Richard Dawkins. It has pretty much went the way of the dodo bird. The blind watchmaker idea is another bit of science that was scientific truth for a few days or years. However, after the blind watchmaker was in the trash bin, secular science has been scrambling (for 30 years) to find anything that can provide an answer of how the amazing amount of information many millions of bits of code found its way into DNA/RNA. That answer must be able to meet the requirements of the scientific method. By that I mean something that is testable and falsifiable etc. Another reason I suspect an intelligent agent ie God or GID put it there is that we never see code in nature. Think about that for a moment. Since code never appears in the natural world where does it come from? ALL CODE COMES FROM A MIND, from an intelligence. The code in DNA is called symbolic code. Other examples of SC is drawings for buildings etc, engineering blueprints, it's music and its languages, and one more; symbolic code is a computer program. Some argue with me that a snowflake is code. No snowflakes are patterns and patterns are common in nature because they are created by chaos, Chaos as beautiful as it is has never been shown to produce code!

but a society whose origin starts with a big chatotic expolsion is problematic ... for many reasons I lean toward a trine theistic creator

I like the concept of a theistic creator for more reasons than me being a ordained non preaching minister. The reason I support an intelligence created this universe is the preponderance of evidence is screaming goddidit (I have no problem with the big bang theory, it supports theistic principles). Btw when it become apparent that the BB was theist friendly sometimes profoundly so, the atheistic professors that once embraced the Big Bang model (called the hot standard model) including the best cosmologists and astronomers and theorists began abandoning the big bang standard theory like it was covered in Ebola virus! Even Hawking probably the most famous atheist scientist in the world began to discredit the Big Bang he once lauded, eventually creating a mathematical mess that reanimated (yes like a Z nation zombie) the old eternal rebound theory thus eliminating a starting point for the BB, and is trying to convice his peers

Well ... Darwinian, Huxlian and Lamarkian Evolution all have a non sentient blind watchmaker...

Ahh' the now discredited blind watchmaker theory, well that ill fated idea was brought to us by a biologist named Richard Dawkins. It has pretty much went the way of the dodo bird. The blind watchmaker idea is another bit of science that was scientific truth for a few days or years. However, after the blind watchmaker was in the trash bin, secular science has been scrambling (for 30 years) to find anything that can provide an answer of how the amazing amount of information many millions of bits of code found its way into DNA/RNA. That answer must be able to meet the requirements of the scientific method. By that I mean something that is testable and falsifiable etc. Another reason I suspect an intelligent agent ie God or GID put it there is that we never see code in nature. Think about that for a moment. Since code never appears in the natural world where does it come from? ALL CODE COMES FROM A MIND, from an intelligence. The code in DNA is called symbolic code. Other examples of SC is drawings for buildings etc, engineering blueprints, it's music and its languages, and one more; symbolic code is a computer program. Some argue with me that a snowflake is code. No snowflakes are patterns and patterns are common in nature because they are created by chaos, Chaos as beautiful as it is has never been shown to produce code!

but a society whose origin starts with a big chatotic expolsion is problematic ... for many reasons I lean toward a trine theistic creator

I like the concept of a theistic creator for more reasons than me being a ordained non preaching minister. The reason I support an intelligence created this universe is the preponderance of evidence that supports intelligent creation. Especially the current best theory we have ie the standard big bang hot model. After religion friendly scientists astronomers and christian apologists such as William Craig Phd Thd began showing the BB was very Goddidit friendly I noticed rumblings from the famous atheist crowd of secular scientific. Famous atheists like Anthony Flew debated Craig in large venues and added to the theists vs atheists debate of how the universe began etc. As the debate heated up some agnostic and nearly all atheistic professors including the best cosmologists and astronomers and theorists in the world that once embraced the Big Bang model (now called the hot standard model) began abandoning the big bang standard theory like it was covered in a weaponized Ebola virus! Even Hawking probably the most famous atheist scientist in the world began to discredit the Big Bang that he once lauded, eventually creating a 'new' BB that is not new at all rather its a mathematical mess mixmash of new and old science theory. I once admired Hawking but due to his hate of God being so great as to influence his ideas (my opinion) discredit him at least in my world. ... ... still awake? Lol. Sorry for the length of my reply but these things hit me where I live... eh?

God bless all on this forum and lets hope and (for those of us that are spiritual) pray for Peace on earth ~
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
I totally disagree that "anything else is fair game." That's no part of atheism. Atheism just means lacking one specific belief.

Man are you all' about to open a can of worms. There are many types of atheists (and Christians, and Buddhists, and Hindus and ...lol) which make it near impossible to debate or discuss issues unless the beliefs and details of each are clarified beliefs before the discussion starts.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
That's all fine and good as long as you recognize that "theory of evolution" is a term only used in science to refer to biological evolution. The Big Bang and stellar evolution are distinct from this and are never treated as being the same thing as the theory of evolution.

True and discipline specific words and terms make debating a mixed general audience difficult. Especially if the words are from disciplines that are nearly illegible, like legalese. If we were all scientists, or God forbid lawyers or Christians or Muslims etc etc it would be easier but far more boring, ha ha...
 

BaiRae's Dad

New Member
Has there ever been a religion in which the creating force was not sentient? Perhaps, there existed some kind of pre-creation... stuff, which, through some random (but inevitable) event, ended up creating the universe, without anyone specifically willing for it to be so?
Taoism comes to mind
 
Last edited:

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Has there ever been a religion in which the creating force was not sentient? Perhaps, there existed some kind of pre-creation... stuff, which, through some random (but inevitable) event, ended up creating the universe, without anyone specifically willing for it to be so?

Most religions of other species and plants are this. Atheism doesn't qualify since" I don't believe" is a very self domesticated hairless poodle sentient statement that only has validity in context to religion and zero relationship to nature exactly like religion..
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Taoism comes to mind
Yes!!! What ever you say the Tao is is not the tao!!

That interestingly is reflected in heraclitus stAtement " the logos is common but everyone seems to have their own private understAnding" How little changes in 2600 years.
 

Jedster

Well-Known Member
Has there ever been a religion in which the creating force was not sentient? Perhaps, there existed some kind of pre-creation... stuff, which, through some random (but inevitable) event, ended up creating the universe, without anyone specifically willing for it to be so?

This reminds me of Brahman,which, in Hinduism , is the primordial 'substance' from everthing comes. It also has no attributes which could be interpreted as non-sentient..
Brahman is accepted by both atheist and theist Hindus.

I
 
Top