Creation Vs Evolution

last SG · 2005-03-14T21:27:13+00:00

it would depend on how many years you believe the world is.. there are many species coming and going.. if human can master the technology of cloning.. they...

plo30360 SG

well, IMO there is no such thing as an ultimate being. Life form started by nature

then hwo does the supreme being appear ? wat is the "cause and effect" on the supreme being ? If tat is the case then surely something has to be the one creating tis supreme being isn't it ?

With regards to these two quotes, actually, I was hoping you would elborate on your 'things starting from nothing'.

That's why I seperated my religious assumptiom from my non religious one.
My religious one being, the one about the ultimate cause giving the start for evolution.

My non-religious one being if there is no supreme being, are we to accept the "Big Bang" and its untraceable cause or find an alternative explaination?

stupidissmart SG

My religious one being, the one about the ultimate cause giving the start for evolution.

I need to find out more about your religious assumption. Wat cause this "ultimate cause" ?

My non-religious one being if there is no supreme being, are we to accept the "Big Bang" and its untraceable cause or find an alternative explaination?

wat answer do u think will be appropriate ? If someone give an answer saying the big bang, u will ask wat cause the big bang. (someone say it was caused by some 9 dimensional object) When we found an answer on wat cause the big bang, then u will ask wat cause tis "cause" again and there will really be no limit to these answering. Lets say u ask the cause and effect for infinity times and infinity causes were given. Wat do u think will be the answer at the end of it all ? A supreme being is the least likely answer at the end since it too has to be caused as well. My bet is, it has to be something created out of nothing.

Icemoon SG

A supreme being in our context, by definition, is uncaused. Don't play around with words.

This supreme being exists outside our "bubble", if you imagine the whole universe and all matter to be in this bubble. It is meaningless to ask what caused this supreme being since we cannot "think" outside this bubble.

Your creation out of nothing is harder to accept since you assume this "bubble" can exist by itself.

Anyway, in trying to compare which is more plausible (God or nothing), you made an unfair assumption - that God is at the same level as this nothing. You see, everything in your argument involves (can only involve) things in this "bubble". The theist's First Cause is outside this "bubble". Can you compare the two like two apples?

In the eyes of science, the two views are indistinguisable. There is a Big Bang.

F Takumi SG

I accept your statement that the theist believes that the supreme being is uncaused and ever-present.

However, in this discussion on creation vs evolution, we have said that religious beliefs shall be put aside.

As atheists, the question on the cause of the supreme being is inevitable. If you could not believe that life could come into being naturally, what makes you believe that the supreme being could just come into existence without any assistance?

To us, any supreme being in any religion is at the same level of the nothingness that we talk about.

Like stupidissmart has said, if you could believe a supreme being existed without questioning its origin, there is no reason why you should reject the notion that life existed by chance.

It's never a question of whether we are comparing apple to apple, in the first place, your perception of the apple and our perception are fundamentally different.

Icemoon SG

However, in this discussion on creation vs evolution, we have said that religious beliefs shall be put aside.

This is not religious belief. It is a philosophical belief.

If you could not believe that life could come into being naturally, what makes you believe that the supreme being could just come into existence without any assistance?

Unfair analogy or comparison. Life is matter. Supreme being is not. We cannot discuss them in the same light.

To us, any supreme being in any religion is at the same level of the nothingness that we talk about.

That is why this discussion or argument will go nowhere. Razz

It's never a question of whether we are comparing apple to apple, in the first place, your perception of the apple and our perception are fundamentally different.

That is why no amount of logical reasoning and argument can convince the atheist. The fundamental premise is different.

Btw, I heard Anthony Flew just believed in God .. dunno true or not. Anyone can verify? Very Happy

PS: If one truly wants to bring down the opponent, then I think only the 'proof by contradiction' or absurdity method can work. You can't win by stating your view is better, that nothing is more logical than God.

F Takumi SG

Originally posted by Icemoon:
[b]However, in this discussion on creation vs evolution, we have said that religious beliefs shall be put aside.

This is not religious belief. It is a philosophical belief.

If you could not believe that life could come into being naturally, what makes you believe that the supreme being could just come into existence without any assistance?

Unfair analogy or comparison. Life is matter. Supreme being is not. We cannot discuss them in the same light.

To us, any supreme being in any religion is at the same level of the nothingness that we talk about.

That is why this discussion or argument will go nowhere. Razz

It's never a question of whether we are comparing apple to apple, in the first place, your perception of the apple and our perception are fundamentally different.

That is why no amount of logical reasoning and argument can convince the atheist. The fundamental premise is different.

Btw, I heard Anthony Flew just believed in God .. dunno true or not. Anyone can verify? Very Happy [/b]

I fully agree with you that this discussion will go nowhere Mr. Green

To an atheist, it is highly illogical to believe in a supreme being which could just sprang into existence out of nothing.

And quoting yourself, that is why no amount of logical reasoning and argument can convince the theist. The fundamental premise is different. Laughing

mdfjami SG

Interesting thread.

Yes, it's possible for evolution and creation to be complementary. However, staunch evolutionists are against this model, because they are using neo-darwinism to do away with the need for a God. Thus, there is a spectrum of views about how complementary creationism and evolution.

By the way, most Christains have admitted that evolution occurs as a process, if not the be-all-and-end-all

~

If you want to talk about a Supreme being, you'd have to ask, where does God come from? This is an infinite regression problem..

Personally, I'm satisfied knowing that God created this universe, with it's three dimensions and time, and as to who created God, that's beyond our comprehension.

F Takumi SG

Let me offer you the following scenario:

Imagine you have a sand box and you have ants inside. They do not notice your existence and carry on their lives.

Then imagine the god is you and yourself as one of the ants.

Now imagine the god is one of the ants.

And so on and so forth.

Sounds a bit Matrix style but it's just one of my theological thought experiments.

loseagain SG

Imagine you have a sand box and you have ants inside. They do not notice your existence and carry on their lives.

Then imagine the god is you and yourself as one of the ants.

Now imagine the god is one of the ants.

And so on and so forth.

that's what i was thinking about when reading through this topic Smile

Icemoon SG

Well .. you like to read Plantinga? Very Happy

Him and his "properly basic belief" .. haha

Icemoon SG

Ok, let's say the theist concede a bit. They agree to accept the idea that their God is not the first cause. On your part, you have to agree with them about the attributes of their not-so-supreme being and the existence of miracles and so on.

Don't kid me. You think the atheists are willing to reach a compromise?

So the problem lies not in what is the first cause, but whether "matter" is all that is.

stupidissmart SG

A supreme being in our context, by definition, is uncaused. Don't play around with words.

tat goes back to my old points on (a) tat it was not being caused. Then it must have been popped off from somewhere isn't it ? If u believe in a thing so complex to be uncaused, then why don't u believe the galaxy can be uncaused as well ?

This supreme being exists outside our "bubble", if you imagine the whole universe and all matter to be in this bubble. It is meaningless to ask what caused this supreme being since we cannot "think" outside this bubble.

tis goes to point (c) of my first reply. Since u believe tat tis supreme being is outside our bubble of understanding, then the galaxy is outside our bubble of understanding as well. U feel it is meaningless to ask wat caused tis supreme being, then it is equally meaningless to ask wat caused the galaxy since we can't think out of the bubble

Your creation out of nothing is harder to accept since you assume this "bubble" can exist by itself

u r just escaping from the question by refering to a bubble. If u believe everything had to be caused to exists, then after a long thread of asking forward infinity times on wat caused an event to happen, I believe it will eventually leads to the point tat things r created out of nothing. Why don't u try and answer the above question ? Wat do u think will be the end of it all ? A supreme being is obviously an object and if u believe tat everything need a creator, then the supreme being need a creator as well. U can't just pay double standard like it was uncaused, full stop, end of story. If u accept it as such, then the galaxy is uncaused, full stop, end of story as well.

Yes, it's possible for evolution and creation to be complementary. However, staunch evolutionists are against this model, because they are using neo-darwinism to do away with the need for a God. Thus, there is a spectrum of views about how complementary creationism and evolution.

personal opinion is, it is not. Why pull in god when everything can be explained without one ? U might as well pull in other mythical characters in like Nu Wa or Shiva as well.

They agree to accept the idea that their God is not the first cause.

just a question, same as the one above. Lets say u can have a chance to know the answer of everything and u keep asking wat create wat etc and etc and etc. After asking infinite times, wat do u think will be the answer at the end ?

On your part, you have to agree with them about the attributes of their not-so-supreme being and the existence of miracles and so on.

why is the 2 issues related ?

F Takumi SG

I'm no philosopher, Plato and Socrates already put me off

F Takumi SG

I like to explore the possibilities.

In my "tian wai you tian" scenario, I'm looking at the possibility that the ants' god is us, our god is a supreme being and this god has his own god, and it goes on infinitely.

We have already agreed that it's pointless to carry on discussing if we have different views and then try to influence each other. It's best to close this thread, like the other one.

mdfjami SG

exactly what I mean by infinite regression.. where does it end?

One of the arguments is that athiests used to put forward, before the Big Bang theory, was that the universe was eternal.

Now that's the Big Bang theory has been more or less accepted to be true, what's wrong with us saying that God is eternal?

At the very least, he's outside our concept of time, which is bound by the duration of the universe.

F Takumi SG

I am not rejecting your notion that there may be a god, but I would also like to present you the possibility that the universe existing as a natural phenomenon. One or both of us may be wrong. Wink

stupidissmart SG

if universe is accepted to be eternal, then why add a god in ?

why do u say god is outside our domain of time ?

Icemoon SG

God existed prior to the Big Bang. Time, as we understand, doesn't exist before the Big Bang.

Icemoon SG

'cos the galaxy is much less complex than God. Very Happy

tis goes to point (c) of my first reply. Since u believe tat tis supreme being is outside our bubble of understanding, then the galaxy is outside our bubble of understanding as well.

Galaxy is inside our domain of understanding. We know what is it. We seen it. In fact, whatever happens after the Big Bang is inside our understanding.

A supreme being is obviously an object and if u believe tat everything need a creator, then the supreme being need a creator as well.

Don't think so. I won't say supreme being is an object.

For example, is the golden triangle in mathematics an object? Does it have a creator? The golden triangle is an idea, a construct, and it exhibited its properties in nature. Not implying supreme being is a triangle .. Evil or Very Mad .. I'm just disagreeing with your domain of object.

U might as well pull in other mythical characters in like Nu Wa or Shiva as well.

Can also. Then we see what kind of worldview you have.

The answer at the end will be - I am who I am, I shall be who I shall be

Note that these are words coming out from a 'being', not a galaxy. Duh, can galaxies think?

stupidissmart SG

God existed prior to the Big Bang. Time, as we understand, doesn't exist before the Big Bang.

according to the big bang, nothing exists before it as well. So if u believe big bang fully, then god wouldn't be in anyway

cos the galaxy is much less complex than God

it is more easier to "cause" a simple thing than a more complex thing isn't it ? Rolling Eyes

Galaxy is inside our domain of understanding. We know what is it. We seen it. In fact, whatever happens after the Big Bang is inside our understanding

No true, before the big bang nobody really knows wat itis all about. the galaxy is outside our understanding

Don't think so. I won't say supreme being is an object.

For example, is the golden triangle in mathematics an object? Does it have a creator? The golden triangle is an idea, a construct, and it exhibited its properties in nature. Not implying supreme being is a triangle .. .. I'm just disagreeing with your domain of object.

golden triangle is not an object, it is an idea. It cannot perform any physical act. God is not an idea, it is supposed to be physical and can do physical action. It is an object

The answer at the end will be - I am who I am, I shall be who I shall be

Note that these are words coming out from a 'being', not a galaxy. Duh, can galaxies think?

yah right ! do u even know wat question u r answering to ?

« Previous Page Next Page »