What do you belive in, Creationism or Evolution?

Except it hasn't happened to just one person. It's happened to a lot. Quite a few people have felt God in their lifetime.

Could you please explain what you mean by objective, independent evidence?

Is that directed at me...?

Evolution makes perfect sense. I have studied it in great detail (biology is my favorite subject by a long shot) I know a lot more about evolution than I suspect you think I do. But evolution does not at all disprove God. It may disprove certain aspects of the Bible, but it doesn't mean God isn't real.

You're right. What's your point?

Not in the same way, no. One of the biggest differences between Christianity and other religions is that Christianity is more of a relationship than a belief. Other religions (not all, but many) include ways to please the god, otherwise that god will get angry and punish the people. Christianity isn't about keeping God happy so he won't blast you with a lightning bolt, it's about keeping your relationship with God strong.

So those atheists I mentioned were positive God was there before they decided to believe in him? I talked about them to make a point, but you kind of glossed over it, so...

True. But there certainly aren't any people who try to disprove God's existence who aren't biased in any way. Oh no.

I'm getting technical? Oh my.

 

My point is that "you can't prove or disprove it" doesn't hold as much merit as one would think it does.

But you seem to understand that already, so whatever.

Regardless, they *knew* their gods were there. They had a feeling about it.

People have feelings about all sorts of things, really. But you can't rely on them.

Outside of theological debate, we disregard any claims and assertions that doesn't have reasonable evidence behind them.

Imagine if we started arresting people on "feelings". Because the authorities "knew" they were guilty, because it was "obvious". That's why we don't do that. We hold trials.

=/ I'm sorry for being thickheaded today, but I'm not understanding what you're trying to get across.

I never said otherwise. =/

My point is that yes, neither side has absolute proof, but if we needed absolute proof to believe anything we'd never believe in anything at all. We settle for high degrees of certainty. Therefore, "neither side can prove themselves absolutely" loses a lot of its value as an argument.

Again, you already seem to understand this, so maybe the joke's on me. :/

 

I don't mean any offense, although some people will get offended...



That's one of the things I dislike the most in religion. The fact that it's made in a way that can't be fully and completely proved wrong. Whatever people say against it, it's technically possible to say "it's something we can't grasp". In fact, everyone I argue with over this subject, in real life, eventually pops that line.

Of course, there is a lot that CAN and HAS BEEN proved wrong. Such as creationism, for reasons that were more than explained in this thread.
But the concept of a "god" existing was made in order to be undeniable to some extent, because of that excuse that "we can't grasp it".

 

This of course raises the matter of how and why some people feel his presence while others don't.

Actually, according to your own post, you can't say that for sure. ;)

ZOMG REVERSAL TIME!!!! DING DING DING!!!
I know Christians who became atheists because they didn't.

We don't need even that. Arguments that make actual sense will do.

Proof = evidence =/= arguments
Debating sharply is all nice and good but you don't have to bite HadesDragon's head off just because he wants to teach you something that might prevent you from making you sound like a novice. Especially considering that there are debators out there who like to rub it in much more than he does (e.g. me).

There is one more thing I would like to point out. This is directed at all Christians that believe in evolution.
The Bible tells us that God created the world in seven days, with all creatures in their original form. You do not believe this. I'm pretty sure that you can name other stories in the Bible that you don't take literally as well.
My question is only fair: if you admit that science has disproven or at least minimized a lot of biblical stories, then why would you still believe any of them at all, including God's very existence? Why do you still cling to the Bible even though it has lost so much of its reliability? Oh, and I would like an answer without the "feeling his presence" non-argument.
The power of your answer will decide on how much I support the "LOL dumb Christians they believe in something they can't even feel" statement.

 

Yes, but in a slightly different fashion.

That's completely different from believing in God. And I never said God was obvious. He isn't.

No prob. I have those days too :)

My point is that if it was all in our heads and we were imagining it, then please tell how those atheists I mentioned earlier realized God was there when a week before they were absolutely sure he was made-up. There were also no other people telling them the whole time "It's God! You're feeling God!", they figured it out by themselves.

Okay. I guess you know that already, so that's fine.

 

Maybe whatever they felt was inner strength and they'd rather point the finger at God than to believe that they had it in themselves.
Or maybe they weren't so convinced of atheism after all (which is the explanation I lean towards).
It's a feeling like any other. Ask 100 people who have felt it what it was. Can you really say that even half of them will think it's God?

 

@Styx, dancewaterdance, and whoever the heck else is in this argument -

The ancient Native Americans could very easily trigger visions of their deities, spirits, and powerful beings by fasting, mourning, and intentionally putting themselves through hardships. These spirits would then impart wisdom to them, and in legend at least, all their technology and all their techniques for healing, hunting, etc. came from these vision spirits. All of this was without Peyote.

I think all these experiences were what they wanted to happen. They wanted it so badly, and they were in such a weakened state, they began to hallucinate. Now, because of their culture's heavy emphasis on spirituality (it permeated everything), they saw images from their myths. I think, these atheists who sense God are undergoing some kind of lesser version of this. They, probably subconsciously, want god to exist, and to hear him, so they get some weird kind of feeling (that I have never felt, by the way, despite being raised in a very Christian home) that they interpret as a religious experience. that's all I think it is. If it makes them better people, then so much the better. If it makes them happy, I say go for it. But, I do not believe it was God, in any way, shape, or form.

 

I believe the technical term for that is a delusion. Something that you want to be real, even if it isn't. As has been said, the human mind is a powerful and interesting thing. Something real that we don't understand.

 

I wouldn't have used the term "delusion", since that has so many negative connotations, but yes, basically. Something that is not there, yet the subject wants to be there, so he imagines it, or his subconscious triggers it.

 

The word delusion can be used in different but similar circumstances. People can be said to have delusions of grandeur. Or perhaps they have the delusion that they have the perfect life when really it is all a lie that they just refuse to see.

But anyway, this is getting off-topic. If we are to go for the one that makes the most sense with the evidence we have then evolution is the one to go for. Creationism just does not make sense (and is virtually completely incompatible with the evidence we have).

 

And in the same way, some one could just as easily not realize God is there or ignore him because they don't want him to be there. It works both ways.

Yes. Evolution definitely makes sense, and there is certainly lots of evidence for it today. I just don't think that evolution automatically rules out God, that's all.

 

Yes it does. I do admit that. But consider - if God were there, couldn't he just... push a little harder than a delusion ever could?

In an evolution-controlled universe (which would pretty much necessitate a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth, which would necessitate a 12 billion + year-old universe), the only place I can ever see God able to interfere is at the start - at the Big Bang. Other than that, nature and natural laws can do everything else, and it makes more sense to allow them to, than to blame it all on an "unknowable being".

 

I know that it technically doesn't, but this thread is not evolution vs. theism. It is evolution vs. creationism, and really there is no contest.

 

Naturally, that's true, and there are people who would prefer that god not exist because of not wanting to be wrong, etc.

But wouldn't you agree that generally speaking, it's easier on the person's state of mind to believe in some sort of benevolent god? It's a lot harder not believing that there's someone watching over you and that when you die you have a place in a great haven where there's no suffering.

I choose not to specifically believe in him because it seems like the truth to me, not because I'd like to, and I'm sure that's the case for most of us. If such a god was proven, I wouldn't stand much to lose.

But PV's right, this is straying.

 

Do you mean make everyone believe in him? God wouldn't want to force anyone to believe in him if they didn't want to. That wouldn't be real love, and anyone who was being forced to believe wouldn't have a good relationship with God.

You're saying the only thing God could interfere with is the Big Bang? Like he created the Big Bang? That's what I think.

I'm honestly not sure if that's what you're saying, though.

You are correct there.

Perhaps, but not in all cases. For instance, if someone has done something very wrong and they realize how bad what they did was, then it would be easier for them to believe that there was no God because (and I apologize in advance if this offends anyone, I don't mean any offense AT ALL) a lot of atheists seem to think that if you believe in God, then you have one shot, and if you blow it by sinning, then you're going to hell, which isn't true. But if someone thinks that, it would be much easier on them to think there was no God than to admit there was one.

And yes, this is getting a little off-topic. Back to evolution vs. creationism. La dee dah...

 

I mean that a God, any God, would be more... tangible and seem more real than a delusion. Not that he'd force himself, but that it would feel more real. Since most people don't feel this, I prefer the theory that there is no God actively participating in our lives.

I'm saying the only thing the laws of nature and physics can't explain yet is the Big Bang and, thus, at this time, it is the only thing that still requires a superior being to make happen.


So yea, lets get back on topic.

 

Intelligent Design.

WHICH ONE DO I PICK

 

lol creationism in disguise

 

HadesDragon speaks the truth.

I was attending a lecture once, at ASU, about the theories and works of Darwin, for the 200th anniversary of his birth (I think), and there was a guy there who stood up and basically asked her (the lecturer) why she didn't cover ID at all, and she, using a bunch of evidence I don't clearly remember, ripped his argument apart and proved beyond a doubt to me that ID is creationism in a shiny pseudoscientific wrapper. It still makes no attempt to explain how evolution began - it just falls back on the old Christian standby - "God did it".

 

It's not supposed to explain How it began, it's meant to explain the fossils whilst still staying away from the flaws that also exist in pure evolutionism.