Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 111
  1. #61
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    733
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    How do "standards of evidence" in terms of evolution or creation differ?
    Do you know what the scientific method is?

    The same evidence that is offered and available to the evolutionist is equally offered and available to the creationist.
    Is the same evidence that is (supposedly) offered and available to the creatoinist equally offered and available to the "evolutionist"?

    Isn't it the case that it is the interpretation of available evidence (which is the same for evolutionist and creationist alike, that is, whatever may be gleaned from the observable creation) is what differs, not the "standard" of evidence, whatever that may mean.
    To be honest, I don't quite understand what you're saying here. It sounds like you're saying that "evolutionists" and creationists equally use pre-established faith to accept/reject evidence. Am I correct here? If so, why don't you just say that?
    “When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves."

    - Herbert Spencer

  2. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Autolykos View Post
    Do you know what the scientific method is?
    Yes; the scientific method requires falsibility, testability, repeatability before it can be considered conclusive. Have I missed anything in my understanding?


    Is the same evidence that is (supposedly) offered and available to the creatoinist equally offered and available to the "evolutionist"?



    To be honest, I don't quite understand what you're saying here. It sounds like you're saying that "evolutionists" and creationists equally use pre-established faith to accept/reject evidence. Am I correct here? If so, why don't you just say that?
    No, what I am saying is that the evidence, that is, the observable universe including fossils and plate techtonics and deposition in the form of rock strata etc etc etc IS the evidence. How one interprets that evidence (which is the same for every observer) is all that makes the difference between a creationist and an evolutionist. We all observe the same evidence, but some interpret it differently from others. The creation itself IS the evidence, just as a crime scene IS the evidence. It's how one interprets and presents that evidence that differs. The scene (evidence) itself does not. That remains unalterable.
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  3. #63
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,427
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    The creation itself IS the evidence, just as a crime scene IS the evidence. It's how one interprets and presents that evidence that differs. The scene (evidence) itself does not. That remains unalterable.
    You are correct to a point....

    An example
    You come downstairs on Christmass morning to find the cookies half eaten.

    The kid says: Look, Santa was here he ate cookies!
    The adult says: Look, a cookie was eaten, someone in our family ate it.

    While the evidence does not directly prove one or the other, there are many bits of other evidence that when compiled together tell you which of the two is the most likely conclusion. Not all interpretations of evidence are equal.

  4. #64
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    How do "standards of evidence" in terms of evolution or creation differ?

    The same evidence that is offered and available to the evolutionist is equally offered and available to the creationist.

    Isn't it the case that it is the interpretation of available evidence (which is the same for evolutionist and creationist alike, that is, whatever may be gleaned from the observable creation) is what differs, not the "standard" of evidence, whatever that may mean.
    disinterested,

    Let's take the two postulates and compare them...

    Premise - explain the wide diversity of species on our planet.

    Creationism - 'God did it'.

    Science - 'All the divergent species on our planet came about via the mechanism of genetic mutation and natural selection occurring across vast periods of time'

    (yes - I am over simplifying this)

    The evidential claim 'God did it' is both unobservable and unverifiable by experiment - excluding it as valid evidence in a scientific context.

    The evidential claims of evolution are both observable and verifiable - via genetic research, archeology, paleontology, zoology, biology, biochemistry and many other independent lines of evidence.

    It would take way too much space in a post to list all of the empirical evidence for evolution...but if you are interested in learning more I would suggest going to the talkorigins.com site - lots of resources there.

    Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with the site talkorigins.com.
    *zip*

  5. #65
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by bradfeaker View Post
    I agree - I think our difference here has to do with standards of evidence. Evidential standards in science are strict. The evidence must be empirical i.e. provable by observation or experiment. Here is the point that faith enters the picture for endeavors other that science - but not for science itself.
    You're missing the point of what I'm saying. If you're arguing that faith is a belief in God without evidence then that is demonstrably false for the reasons I've outlined above. If you are not saying that and you are saying that it is simply a belief in the reliability of the evidence suggesting God is real, then that faith is of the same ilk as the reason people believe evolution is real. They are not distinct types of belief, they are both decisions believed to be rational off the basis of evidence. Whether the evidence of the other is considered reliable or of a higher standard by a different person is an irrelevance. The simple fact of the matter is that on a personal level BOTH are regarded rational decisions off the basis of evidence. Thus they are the same type of "faith" if you want to call one of the two faith at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by bradfeaker View Post
    I agree - my issue is standards of evidence.
    Then you do not conceed that belief in evolution and belief in God are two distinct types of belief on an intellectual level?
    -=]Eliotitus[=-
    "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"- Oscar Wilde

  6. #66
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    Yes; the scientific method requires falsibility, testability, repeatability before it can be considered conclusive. Have I missed anything in my understanding?

    No, what I am saying is that the evidence, that is, the observable universe including fossils and plate techtonics and deposition in the form of rock strata etc etc etc IS the evidence. How one interprets that evidence (which is the same for every observer) is all that makes the difference between a creationist and an evolutionist. We all observe the same evidence, but some interpret it differently from others. The creation itself IS the evidence, just as a crime scene IS the evidence. It's how one interprets and presents that evidence that differs. The scene (evidence) itself does not. That remains unalterable.
    Seems you understand the scientific method perfectly well... All you are missing is the predicate that a hypnoses should contain testable predictions.

    If you apply William of Ockham's shaving instrument (from strictly a logical standpoint) mutation + natural selection + time is a much simpler explanation than the invocation of a transcendental, omniscient, omnipotent creator.

    Another issue with the creationist 'interpretation' is that is is filtered by a religious viewpoint i.e. if one already believes in a supernatural creator it is no stretch to attribute anything to him/her. The creationism hypotheses has ZERO explanatory power.
    *zip*

  7. #67
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You are correct to a point....

    An example
    You come downstairs on Christmass morning to find the cookies half eaten.

    The kid says: Look, Santa was here he ate cookies!
    The adult says: Look, a cookie was eaten, someone in our family ate it.

    While the evidence does not directly prove one or the other, there are many bits of other evidence that when compiled together tell you which of the two is the most likely conclusion. Not all interpretations of evidence are equal.
    I'm glad you mentioned Santa because I've been thinking today....

    (And some would probably say...God preserve us...!)

    Nevertheless, I was considering how children do not believe in Santa per se, what they actually believe in is what mum and dad tell them. Their faith is in their parents' correct (or otherwise) revelation of truth, not in Santa himself. Young children will believe pretty much anything a parent tells them - until that parent is found to be untruthful.

    I know this may be a daft example, but my husband was once a smoker and was in the habit of telling our children somewhat whacky tales about all and everything as though they were true (I have to say I did not concur, but that's a different story). However, what happend was that my husband told one of my daughters that smoking CURES cancer. And trusting her father as she did, she repeated this at school only to suffer terrible derision.

    But as Christians we have a Father God who IS truth, who will not tell us tall stories, in whom we CAN trust - just as a little child trusts a father (until she is made a fool of.)

    But for as long as I have trusted my heavenly Father - 35 years - He has never made a fool of me. My trust has ALWAYS been upheld and confirmed through my experience.

    I know this isn't an argument from logic - and for that I apologise. I am not a great exponent of logic. I can only tell the truth of my experience.
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  8. #68
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by eliotitus View Post
    You're missing the point of what I'm saying. If you're arguing that faith is a belief in God without evidence then that is demonstrably false for the reasons I've outlined above. If you are not saying that and you are saying that it is simply a belief in the reliability of the evidence suggesting God is real, then that faith is of the same ilk as the reason people believe evolution is real. They are not distinct types of belief, they are both decisions believed to be rational off the basis of evidence. Whether the evidence of the other is considered reliable or of a higher standard by a different person is an irrelevance. The simple fact of the matter is that on a personal level BOTH are regarded rational decisions off the basis of evidence. Thus they are the same type of "faith" if you want to call one of the two faith at all.




    Then you do not conceed that belief in evolution and belief in God are two distinct types of belief on an intellectual level?

    I get your point - I just disagree. Standards of evidence are critical to this debate. There are reasons we have such standards in our criminal justice system - as well as science. If you accept anything as valid evidence ('hearsay', prior record/behavior, personal anecdotes, 'God did it', etc...) you open yourself up to unprovable assumptions or worse - deliberate fabrication.

    I apply the same standards of evidence to everything (or at least I try) - religion, evolution, Bigfoot, Nessie or whatever. And I consistently find the quality of the evidence for evolution to be superior in all respects to the evidence for ANY religion. In other words - I do concede that 'belief in evolution and belief in God are two distinct types of belief on an intellectual level' - but but belief in God is based on a much lower standard of evidence and requires you to accept said God's existence on unverifiable assumptions i.e. 'faith'. Belief in evolution only requires you to examine evidence that meets strict standards, is available to everyone on an equal basis and can be tested for reliability.

    ---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    I'm glad you mentioned Santa because I've been thinking today....

    (And some would probably say...God preserve us...!)

    Nevertheless, I was considering how children do not believe in Santa per se, what they actually believe in is what mum and dad tell them. Their faith is in their parents' correct (or otherwise) revelation of truth, not in Santa himself. Young children will believe pretty much anything a parent tells them - until that parent is found to be untruthful.

    I know this may be a daft example, but my husband was once a smoker and was in the habit of telling our children somewhat whacky tales about all and everything as though they were true (I have to say I did not concur, but that's a different story). However, what happend was that my husband told one of my daughters that smoking CURES cancer. And trusting her father as she did, she repeated this at school only to suffer terrible derision.

    But as Christians we have a Father God who IS truth, who will not tell us tall stories, in whom we CAN trust - just as a little child trusts a father (until she is made a fool of.)

    But for as long as I have trusted my heavenly Father - 35 years - He has never made a fool of me. My trust has ALWAYS been upheld and confirmed through my experience.

    I know this isn't an argument from logic - and for that I apologise. I am not a great exponent of logic. I can only tell the truth of my experience.
    disinterested,

    While no one can deny your experience - we cannot share it either. And I cannot use it as a barometer for my own beliefs. My own story is just the opposite of yours it seems - the God I believed in was consistently absent.
    *zip*

  9. #69
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In the hands of God
    Posts
    180
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    bradfeaker,
    The evidential claim 'God did it' is both unobservable and unverifiable by experiment - excluding it as valid evidence in a scientific context.
    So, you are basically admitting that science cannot cover all possible scenarios. You have just stated that if God does exist, we would not be able to observe him, nor verify his actions by experiment in a scientific context. So, science is not a viable tool for making claims against or for God, or against or for the actions of God. This means that we must consider science not as ultimate, but rather that logic and philosophy trump science, since God, if he exists, is discernible by both. Thus, any question in regard to evolution is not simply a scientific one but also a philosophical one. Otherwise, we are not covering every possibility.

    So, basically, you can neither confirm nor deny creationism on a scientific basis, since the only fundamental claim made across the board by creationists is that "God created..." There are numerous variances, but that would be to discuss particular theories of creationism, not creationism itself. So, since you have openly admitted that Science cannot test the above claim, we must turn to philosophy to either confirm or deny this claim.

    I am not entering the thread to affirm the authenticity of creationism at this point, or deny Evolutionism, or Universalism (quite a separate theory), but merely to point out that you are approaching the situation by the wrong means.
    I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. - Albert Einstein
    If Satan can turn God's Word upside down and pervert the Scriptures, what will he do with my words -- or the words of others? - Martin Luther

  10. #70
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,427
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Thoughtful post btw.

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    But as Christians we have a Father God who IS truth, who will not tell us tall stories, in whom we CAN trust - just as a little child trusts a father (until she is made a fool of.)
    From where I sit "IS truth" is just another case where you decided to trust the bible, or the church you belong to. And unlike your dad they are telling you things they believe in so there is not going to be any falsehood that is clearly false like smoking cures cancer. To me you just haven't had that moment yet and probably won't ever have it since when it all comes time to matter, you won't have a living brain to recognize that what you expected hasn't happened.

    But for as long as I have trusted my heavenly Father - 35 years - He has never made a fool of me. My trust has ALWAYS been upheld and confirmed through my experience.
    I don't doubt it. The thing is, many people have the same experience with their own very different beliefs so it argues more that there is a subjective truth in religion than an objective one.

    I have a co-worker who's daughter had a terrible accident. Really really bad, but she did live, barely. In their blogs they praise God for every little sign of life she demonstrates as she slowly recovers from the tragedy. I see that and my stomach turns a little. These people are praising God for the work of doctors and their daughters own biology but calling it miracle while presumably if God worked miracles he could have saved her and all her family from massive pain and suffering. Their so called miracle is their daughter is badly crippled for life. To me it just seems like a desperate appeal when a person feels helpless, kind of like Stockholm syndrome. It seems so horribly unjust to me. If there is no god its simply chance and fate to which there is no appeal nor any reason to rail against it. You simply take your lumps and do what you can recognizing you are finite in a near infinite world.

    I know this isn't an argument from logic - and for that I apologise. I am not a great exponent of logic. I can only tell the truth of my experience.
    Thats fine by me. I don't always argue from a point of reason. I think there are some topics, like religion, family, morality and so on where logic is only part of what matters. Feelings are their own truth and while we all share them, for each person they are subjective and understanding comes from the discussion.

    I try not to tell anyone they are wrong when they say, I feel, or I think, or I Believe. i only counter with my own thoughts and beliefs for the sake of comparison and understanding.

  11. #71
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by bradfeaker View Post
    I get your point - I just disagree. Standards of evidence are critical to this debate. There are reasons we have such standards in our criminal justice system - as well as science. If you accept anything as valid evidence ('hearsay', prior record/behavior, personal anecdotes, 'God did it', etc...) you open yourself up to unprovable assumptions or worse - deliberate fabrication.

    I apply the same standards of evidence to everything (or at least I try) - religion, evolution, Bigfoot, Nessie or whatever. And I consistently find the quality of the evidence for evolution to be superior in all respects to the evidence for ANY religion. In other words - I do concede that 'belief in evolution and belief in God are two distinct types of belief on an intellectual level' - but but belief in God is based on a much lower standard of evidence and requires you to accept said God's existence on unverifiable assumptions i.e. 'faith'. Belief in evolution only requires you to examine evidence that meets strict standards, is available to everyone on an equal basis and can be tested for reliability.

    ---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------



    disinterested,

    While no one can deny your experience - we cannot share it either. And I cannot use it as a barometer for my own beliefs. My own story is just the opposite of yours it seems - the God I believed in was consistently absent.
    Yes, I fully understand that. But whereas you would say it is an omission on God's part, that is, God is less than He claims to be, I would say it is an omission on your part. You have not really known God for yourself. You may have believed in his existence (as do the devil and his cohorts) but you have not known God in an experiential way which is the ONLY way to know God - individually, by faith, as with the experience of taste - no-one else can do it for you, it cannot be achieved vicariously. Which is why God says; "O taste and see that the Lord is good."

    I recognise the difference because I've been there, too.
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  12. #72
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    SavedByGrace,

    Quote Originally Posted by Saved by Grace View Post
    bradfeaker,

    So, you are basically admitting that science cannot cover all possible scenarios. You have just stated that if God does exist, we would not be able to observe him, nor verify his actions by experiment in a scientific context. So, science is not a viable tool for making claims against or for God, or against or for the actions of God.
    Not at all. In fact I contend that the God defined by the Bible/Q'uran/Torah IS testable by science. And I know of at least one scientist who has done it. (Victor Stenger: God - The Failed Hypothesis)

    Not all gods are amenable to such testing however i.e. the Deist God. It truly depends on your definition of 'God'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saved by Grace View Post
    This means that we must consider science not as ultimate, but rather that logic and philosophy trump science, since God, if he exists, is discernible by both. Thus, any question in regard to evolution is not simply a scientific one but also a philosophical one. Otherwise, we are not covering every possibility.

    So, basically, you can neither confirm nor deny creationism on a scientific basis, since the only fundamental claim made across the board by creationists is that "God created..." There are numerous variances, but that would be to discuss particular theories of creationism, not creationism itself. So, since you have openly admitted that Science cannot test the above claim, we must turn to philosophy to either confirm or deny this claim.

    I am not entering the thread to affirm the authenticity of creationism at this point, or deny Evolutionism, or Universalism (quite a separate theory), but merely to point out that you are approaching the situation by the wrong means.
    I disagree completely. I do agree that this is not the thread for this debate. Would you be interested in continuing on another thread in the Religion forum?

    ---------- Post added at 12:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    Yes, I fully understand that. But whereas you would say it is an omission on God's part, that is, God is less than He claims to be, I would say it is an omission on your part. You have not really known God for yourself. You may have believed in his existence (as do the devil and his cohorts) but you have not known God in an experiential way which is the ONLY way to know God - individually, by faith, as with the experience of taste - no-one else can do it for you, it cannot be achieved vicariously. Which is why God says; "O taste and see that the Lord is good."

    I recognise the difference because I've been there, too.
    disinterested,

    If I had a nickel for every time a believer has told me 'You have not really known God for yourself' I could retire in Acapulco right now. I'm sorry - that is insulting. Just as I cannot know your experience - you cannot know mine.
    *zip*

  13. #73
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Thoughtful post btw.



    From where I sit "IS truth" is just another case where you decided to trust the bible, or the church you belong to. And unlike your dad they are telling you things they believe in so there is not going to be any falsehood that is clearly false like smoking cures cancer. To me you just haven't had that moment yet and probably won't ever have it since when it all comes time to matter, you won't have a living brain to recognize that what you expected hasn't happened.



    I don't doubt it. The thing is, many people have the same experience with their own very different beliefs so it argues more that there is a subjective truth in religion than an objective one.

    I have a co-worker who's daughter had a terrible accident. Really really bad, but she did live, barely. In their blogs they praise God for every little sign of life she demonstrates as she slowly recovers from the tragedy. I see that and my stomach turns a little. These people are praising God for the work of doctors and their daughters own biology but calling it miracle while presumably if God worked miracles he could have saved her and all her family from massive pain and suffering. Their so called miracle is their daughter is badly crippled for life. To me it just seems like a desperate appeal when a person feels helpless, kind of like Stockholm syndrome. It seems so horribly unjust to me. If there is no god its simply chance and fate to which there is no appeal nor any reason to rail against it. You simply take your lumps and do what you can recognizing you are finite in a near infinite world.
    That is SO the biggest misconception of what Christianity is: come to Jesus and be healthy, wealthy and happy and preserved from all evil. The Bible makes that quite plain. Paul (the apostle) is constantly going on about how he has been imprisoned and whipped and shipwrecked and faced all manner of trials but he counts it all JOY!

    I have known terrible tragedy in my life, and I have never denied the pain and unhappiness that I have felt because of it. Yet, I have always held fast to my trust in my GOOD Father God, and with hindsight I can see the huge good that has come from this tragedy. I can really, truly see in reality how God has worked it for me/my family's good. And from that I derive a "joy unspeakable and full of glory" not just a passing happiness that is dependent upon one's happenstance.

    Thats fine by me. I don't always argue from a point of reason. I think there are some topics, like religion, family, morality and so on where logic is only part of what matters. Feelings are their own truth and while we all share them, for each person they are subjective and understanding comes from the discussion.

    I try not to tell anyone they are wrong when they say, I feel, or I think, or I Believe. i only counter with my own thoughts and beliefs for the sake of comparison and understanding.
    Thank you for your indulgence.
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  14. #74
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In the hands of God
    Posts
    180
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    bradfeaker,
    The evidential claim 'God did it' is both unobservable and unverifiable by experiment
    Not at all. In fact I contend that the God defined by the Bible/Q'uran/Torah IS testable by science.
    Perhaps I was not specific enough. I assumed that since it was the point of your post that it would be assumed that it my point's topic and my contention were made clear. Obviously not.

    You stated that the claim 'God did it' is not one that science can address. Is this so?

    If so, this action of God is not one that science can address. (Just a restatement of the previous sentence.)

    If this action of God is not one that science can address, we must turn elsewhere to address this claim.

    The only options we have beyond science for this particular discussion are logic and philosophy (the latter being an extension of the former, but its better to be specific).

    Now, I can only guess that the following response was made upon a misunderstanding of the point I was making:
    Not at all.
    Thus I have restated my point as clearly as possible. I am not addressing all aspects of a God, nor any aspect of God, but rather this specific action of God. I believe you, and many others, are coming at this entire issue the wrong way: Evolution makes scientifically testable claims and can be evaluated via science. Creationism does not scientifically testable claims and thus must be evaluated via logic and philosophy.
    I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. - Albert Einstein
    If Satan can turn God's Word upside down and pervert the Scriptures, what will he do with my words -- or the words of others? - Martin Luther

  15. #75
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saved by Grace View Post
    bradfeaker,

    Perhaps I was not specific enough. I assumed that since it was the point of your post that it would be assumed that it my point's topic and my contention were made clear. Obviously not.

    You stated that the claim 'God did it' is not one that science can address. Is this so?

    If so, this action of God is not one that science can address. (Just a restatement of the previous sentence.)

    If this action of God is not one that science can address, we must turn elsewhere to address this claim.
    I was addressing the evidential value of the claim 'God did it' as it relates to creationism. And as I responded in my prior reply - I contend that science CAN address the existence and actions of a 'God'. All that is required is an agreed upon definition of 'God'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saved by Grace View Post
    The only options we have beyond science for this particular discussion are logic and philosophy (the latter being an extension of the former, but its better to be specific).

    Now, I can only guess that the following response was made upon a misunderstanding of the point I was making:

    Thus I have restated my point as clearly as possible. I am not addressing all aspects of a God, nor any aspect of God, but rather this specific action of God. I believe you, and many others, are coming at this entire issue the wrong way: Evolution makes scientifically testable claims and can be evaluated via science. Creationism does not scientifically testable claims and thus must be evaluated via logic and philosophy.

    Creationism does make scientifically testable claims about the natural world that we can test. One example:

    Creationism - 'The earth was created 6 to 10 thousand years ago'

    Science - 'Through radio-carbon and potassium-argon dating we know the eath is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

    Creationism DOES make scientifically testable claims - even when creationism has a null science content.
    *zip*

  16. #76
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by bradfeaker View Post

    Science - 'Through radio-carbon and potassium-argon dating we know the eath is approximately 4.5 billion years old.
    Are you sure that's true? Doesn't that depend on a uniform rate of decay? Are you 100% positive that the speed of light, say, has not decayed? Are you 100% sure (or, perhaps I should ask, is "science - that amorphous body" 100% sure) that the speed of light is constant and if so that it has always been constant? If you answer yes, are you not denying science itself which by definition is always in a state of flux? Or are you claiming that science has now provided ALL the definitive answers for EVERYTHING? That all scientific knowledge today, this minute, reflects unchangeable, unalterable FACT?
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  17. #77
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In the hands of God
    Posts
    180
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    bradfeaker,
    I was addressing the evidential value of the claim 'God did it' as it relates to creationism.
    Were you or were you not saying that it is untestable?
    The evidential claim 'God did it' is both unobservable and unverifiable by experiment
    You said very specifically that it was unverifiable and unobservable, both of which are necessities for science to be a useful tool. Do you agree with this or not?
    Creationism - 'The earth was created 6 to 10 thousand years ago'
    Correction:
    "Short-day Creationism" - ...
    "Long-day Creationism" - The earth was created slowly over a period of about 4 billion years, God creating creatures slowly and eventually
    "Evolution Creationism" - God created the universe, the necessities and prerequisites for life and the sustainability of life, then let it go (In this theory, evolution is a process which God designed and created to fulfill his plan)

    There are countless variations of those three theories. You cannot box all creationists into one particular theory. The only thing the three theories share are "God created..."

    Is the statement "God created..." testable by science?
    I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. - Albert Einstein
    If Satan can turn God's Word upside down and pervert the Scriptures, what will he do with my words -- or the words of others? - Martin Luther

  18. #78
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,427
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    That is SO the biggest misconception of what Christianity is: come to Jesus and be healthy, wealthy and happy and preserved from all evil. The Bible makes that quite plain. Paul (the apostle) is constantly going on about how he has been imprisoned and whipped and shipwrecked and faced all manner of trials but he counts it all JOY!
    It is what many Christians preach you know... thus I'm not sure you could call it a misconception.

    When you say something is JOY that is pain misery and suffering, we like to call that insanity. Sorry but its true. Otherwise I could start calling torture, imprisonment and murder an act of LOVE since clearly I am spreading JOY. It makes no sense at all.

    You should read this some time....
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide

    Its silly but it points out the absurdity of claiming that all misery and suffering is for the ultimate good.

    I have known terrible tragedy in my life, and I have never denied the pain and unhappiness that I have felt because of it. Yet, I have always held fast to my trust in my GOOD Father God, and with hindsight I can see the huge good that has come from this tragedy.
    What greater good can you imagine results from your daughter being crushed by a hit and run driver such that she can't speak for months and has more than 100 broken bones? Sorry but thats BS and her suffering is just a small dose of what life has to offer. No great lessons were learned. History was not altered. No souls were saved. Her brief life is now far more painfully and her dreams she may have had shattered, at least for now.

    No doubt there will be ways for her and her family to find Joy, bit its no Joy greater than that of a happy and healthy life. Yes we all benefit from some adversity but not on that scale and only some of us realize any benefit.

    I can really, truly see in reality how God has worked it for me/my family's good. And from that I derive a "joy unspeakable and full of glory" not just a passing happiness that is dependent upon one's happenstance.
    Honestly now, you have no way to show it was gods work and not the work of your family, yourself or simply the way things turned out. Things have worked out great in my life too but I don't see the hand print of any God on any of it. Sure there are many surprising events and curcumstances that go against the odds, but some of them amounted to absolutely nothing, others were good, others were bad. Unusual events are still real events. At least that is how I see it.

    People praise god when the win the lottery or get better from an illness with a poor survival rate, but unless the chances are 0% its not a miracle, its just the fact that while millions loose the lotto, someone does win, and while most die from said disease, not everyone does. You may or may not be the lucky one.

    I think that it simply makes people happy to think they have done well for a reason and to be able to trust some invisible hand is helping them out. There isn't much harm in it but when push comes to shove nearly every event of any significance is caused by nature or man and not some unseen power.

    ---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    Are you sure that's true? Doesn't that depend on a uniform rate of decay? Are you 100% positive that the speed of light, say, has not decayed? Are you 100% sure (or, perhaps I should ask, is "science - that amorphous body" 100% sure) that the speed of light is constant and if so that it has always been constant?
    Am I 100% sure that if I jump off a 100 foot ledge I will die? No.

    Am I going to go ahead and do that because of this doubt? No.

    Am I 100% sure there is no God? No

    Will I happily blaspheme by denying his very existence? Yes

    What is the difference here? Same opening statement, different conclusion...

    It is the degree of confidence that matters. Carbon dating has been shown to be consistent over and over, as has the speed of light, as has most of the other principles it is based on. Indeed whenever carbon dating fails, we always have discovered why precisely it does. Not so with the bibles dating schemes which are vague, open to interpretation, impossible to demonstrate, etc...

    Which should I trust. An ancient book of religious teachings or repeatable measuring techniques? I know where my money is.

  19. #79
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    It is what many Christians preach you know... thus I'm not sure you could call it a misconception.

    When you say something is JOY that is pain misery and suffering, we like to call that insanity. Sorry but its true. Otherwise I could start calling torture, imprisonment and murder an act of LOVE since clearly I am spreading JOY. It makes no sense at all.

    You should read this some time....
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide

    Its silly but it points out the absurdity of claiming that all misery and suffering is for the ultimate good.
    You do not understand the concept of joy in the Lord. My joy is IN SPITE OF my hap - that is my happiness, which is dependant on happenstance. My joy is in the Lord who is unchangeable, unlike happenstance on which happiness is dependant. And you cannot know it until you have experienced it. I am, today, quite unhappy because of certain circumstances, but I am more joyful than I have been for a very long time because I have seen God at work. I don't expect you to understand, I can only tell you that is the case.


    What greater good can you imagine results from your daughter being crushed by a hit and run driver such that she can't speak for months and has more than 100 broken bones? Sorry but thats BS and her suffering is just a small dose of what life has to offer. No great lessons were learned. History was not altered. No souls were saved. Her brief life is now far more painfully and her dreams she may have had shattered, at least for now.
    I am not trying to suggest that this is a good thing in and of itself. Only that God can WORK it for good, to those that love Him and are called according to His purpose. I know it's true because I have experienced it. We read in the Bible the account of Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers and ending up imprisoned. Was thyat a good thing? Of course it wasn't! But God worked it for good so that eventually Joseph became the means by which many (including his brothers) were saved from famine.

    No doubt there will be ways for her and her family to find Joy, bit its no Joy greater than that of a happy and healthy life. Yes we all benefit from some adversity but not on that scale and only some of us realize any benefit.
    You do not understand what Christian joy is. Our joy is in the Lord! Not in our circumstances.



    Honestly now, you have no way to show it was gods work and not the work of your family, yourself or simply the way things turned out. Things have worked out great in my life too but I don't see the hand print of any God on any of it. Sure there are many surprising events and curcumstances that go against the odds, but some of them amounted to absolutely nothing, others were good, others were bad. Unusual events are still real events. At least that is how I see it.
    Oh, yes I do. And it would take too long to recount each and every event where I have seen God's hand a work.

    People praise god when the win the lottery or get better from an illness with a poor survival rate, but unless the chances are 0% its not a miracle, its just the fact that while millions loose the lotto, someone does win, and while most die from said disease, not everyone does. You may or may not be the lucky one.
    Whether I live or die, it matters not. For me to live is Christ, to die is gain.

    I think that it simply makes people happy to think they have done well for a reason and to be able to trust some invisible hand is helping them out. There isn't much harm in it but when push comes to shove nearly every event of any significance is caused by nature or man and not some unseen power.
    It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with thinking one has "done well". Quite the reverse. It is only as one gives up and lets go and acknowledges that one has done anything BUT "well" and therefore asks God to take the lead and DO, that one experiences God's work in one's life.

    The bridge over the chasm is not, to all appearances, there until one steps out over the cliff edge. Only then does it materialise under one's foot. And that is the nature of faith.
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  20. #80
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,427
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    You do not understand what Christian joy is. Our joy is in the Lord! Not in our circumstances.
    Please don't take it as an insult, but this is the sort of thing I'd expect to hear from a madman or heroin addict. Or the victim of some cult. It sounds inane and silly to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    The bridge over the chasm is not, to all appearances, there until one steps out over the cliff edge. Only then does it materialise under one's foot. And that is the nature of faith.
    Reality is not reality. Life is a dream. The world moves beyond the veil. Sorry but this kind of talk again sounds like false mystique that masquerades as wisdom.

 

 
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution is not PROVEN
    By Apokalupsis in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: February 25th, 2013, 09:06 AM
  2. Pope St. Victor
    By Montalban in forum Religion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: April 24th, 2006, 02:38 PM
  3. Galendir is Wrong!
    By PerVirtuous in forum General Debate
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 18th, 2006, 04:02 AM
  4. Criteria to get into Heaven.
    By Jamie in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: October 13th, 2005, 11:59 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •