Creation vs. Evolution

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Or it can mean "in my time", "era", "unspecified length of time" and so on.

It can also mean "when", or, "in the time when", such as when God created (the world/universe, the heavens and the earth).

Yep. So it certainly doesn't have to mean "day."

(Barbarian settles back to watch creationists and atheists) :dhelm:

 

[Hedshaker]

(Barbarian settles back to watch creationists and atheists) :dhelm:

Out of interest, are you placing creationists and atheists on the same level? Because if you are I think we have further discussion regarding our perception of evidence.


Cheers

 

[Stuu]

(Barbarian settles back to watch creationists and atheists) :dhelm:

Hey, Hey, it's your lot who popularised the whole Original Sin thing, even though they don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis including, presumably the story of Adam and Eve, which must be allegorical, right? Or maybe not, depending on whether you read the encyclicals or science periodicals.

If you don't accept a literal reading of Genesis 3 then Original Sin is conviction and sentencing of all humanity because eating the apple is "The kind of thing they would have done in that situation", the ultimate trumped-up charge of the totalitarian fascist dictator.

So, what do you reckon? Is Adam and Eve a literal story inserted in a sea of allegory, or is it allegorical too, in which case we are all cursed through a crime that was never actually committed?

Stuart

 

[The Barbarian]

Out of interest, are you placing creationists and atheists on the same level?

Only in the sense that I think both of them are wrong on various things.

Because if you are I think we have further discussion regarding our perception of evidence.

I notice that the creationists don't seem to be offended by my comment. I guess that would be an important clue. And yes, the difference is who is concerned with the physical evidence. If it matters, I wasn't trying to insult either group.

But I suppose, it might be so taken. My apologies if that was your perception.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, what do you reckon? Is Adam and Eve a literal story inserted in a sea of allegory, or is it allegorical too, in which case we are all cursed through a crime that was never actually committed?

Let's look at that. First, are animals guilty? Or are humans alone (possibly with apes, who are maybe able to also understand evil on some level) capable of comprehending that which is evil, and doing it anyway?

As I mentioned, it's perfectly possible for allegory to involve real people. Something happened to humans when we became able to understand good and evil. Go with the story for a moment. God says Adam will die the day he eats from the tree of good and evil.

"Adam, enjoy the garden, do what you like. Eat all the fruit you like, except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, over there. No, not that one, that one there. Right. Eat from that and you're dead."

Now, it doesn't take a godlike understanding of human nature to know what would happen next.

Enter the serpent. (it's no coincidence that the serpent in Semitic mythology is associated with both knowledge and immortality) He uses part of the truth saying that the humans will become like God, knowing good and evil, and they won't die. At least he knows they won't die physically only spiritually, but he doesn't tell them that.

So they eat. God explains to the humans what has happened, and admits that they have become like Him. Concerned that they will also eat from the tree of life and become immortal, he expells them from the garden, to make what they will of their condition. Becoming Godlike wasn't such a good deal, because although they are now potentially capable of fellowship with God, not being truly good, they cannot be with him.

So He promises a Savior to fix the issue.

If God is omnipotent, and therefore omniscient, do you think He didn't know what was going to happen?

And if the story is true, but an allegory for some bipedal primates gaining a sense of good and evil, what then?

Does it matter? Maybe it does. Let's talk about it.

 

[Jacob]

But you have an entire species of animal, us humans, that suffers unbearable pain if infected by Guinea worms, and none of us is responsible for choices made by the supposed Adam and Eve. Clearly, as well as being sadistic, your god isn't a just god. This is not morality as we understand it.


Why did you mention Jesus in response to a question about pain inflicted by Guinea worms?

Because you are asking about pain and the nervous system and I am telling you Jesus is your remedy against death.

And what is the justification for this "wrath"? Is this god angry at itself for making humans capable of defying it?? And how ridiculous is it to have the god come here in human form to rescue us from its own wrath?

I think we are up to sadistic and patently unjust, and now can add totalitarian to the characteristics of your god "evident in its creation", and in its "word".

Stuart

Making a human capable of sin is not the same thing as a human choosing to sin. If you sin it is your responsibility, not God.

God would be unjust if He did not punish sin.

 

[Jacob]

Did God create sin if He created everything?

The ability to sin that a human has is part of free will, or the ability to choose or decide a thing... one thing over the other. As fallen creatures (man fell from a perfect relationship with God in the garden through sin). So no, God did not create sin. But yes, God did create the ability to sin. I believe I understand you correctly.

 

[Hedshaker]

I wasn't going to reply to this until I read your latest post.

Barbarian suggests:
Take off the God-filters for a change, and criticize for yourself every notion you have nothingness behind somethingness. You might find a vastly more interesting universe. You don't have to be an atheist to do great science. Neither do you have to be a theist. But my path of discovery became easier and far more interesting, after I realized how magnificent it is to have all the things we see, originating from nothing but energy and a little hydrogen.

Might you there be making claims about pre - Big Bang existence of which you know nothing about?

Interestingly I have experienced the exact opposite. Having been Christened and brought up Catholic I find far greater wonder and mystery in a reality free of supernatural interference.

I see no sign of "interference", except in those rare cases where He does a miracle to teach us something. Why would He "interfer" in the world that He made so that it works as He intended? And no, it doesn't have to be deterministic.

Perhaps "interference" was a wrong choice of words then, though I am quite surprised that you missed my meaning completely. Or did you. I'm not so sure now. I, of course meant, any supernatural input what-so-ever. If you have sound, testable, falsifiable evidence for any supernatural input then I'm open to listen. If not then please do not bore me with Christian apologetics as, trust me, I've seen them all

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1

Yes, I've had Thomas Aquinas thrown at me before. Doesn't work in scepticism and I think you know it.

You do accept that such "beliefs" don't work for everyone, yes?

Yes, and so does the Church. And such people are blameless; they cannot believe other than what they believe. The doctrine sounds more judgmental than it actually is; "invincible ignorance."

And I should accept what the church thinks, why exactly?

[Barbarian suggests:
That is worthy of awe, even if you don't think He is there. Being Catholic, I don't think you're necessarily going to hell, even if you don't believe. So I have no sense of urgency to "convert" you. But leave yourself open to the possibility that you could be wrong. It made my life richer and my journey far more rewarding

Worth a look, no?

What you believe made your life richer and your journey far more rewarding is not relevant. Truth is all I care about and I would thank you remember that mindless preaching plays no part in that.

But, the question remains, do you leave yourself open to the possibility of the opposite?

Even Mother Theresa had times of doubt. If one is honest in one's faith, one has to be willing to expose it to reason and evidence.

I think you maybe have a higher standard for mother Theresa that I do but the question I asked was not about doubt. It was about the possibility that you could be wrong? I sincerely hope you hold the same standard as I do regarding scientific evidence, but what about your theology? Doubt aside, could you possibly be wrong? I could be given sufficient evidence that I could be wrong. How about you?

I always find very off putting, arrogant even, this notion that theists have for knowing the "Truth" which just happens to be their own traditional beliefs, among many. What luck, eh?

Remember, I'm Catholic, so I'm not so inclined to judge the faith or rightness of others. Perhaps you might want to read here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Oh please!

Thank you for your kind words. Reason is a valid way to approach God, from the Catholic tradition. Faith with open eyes.

You are very welcome and well deserved of kudos for you knowledge of biology but I see no way to take faith, even from a Catholic tradition as given.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Stuart,

Thanks for your post back to me. I really wanted to read how everyone is doing lately, but only Alwight obliged me. He is ALWAYS COOL!! Very kind-hearted. Good Day, Hedshaker and Noguru. It's been too long also. And of course, Untellectual, who is trying to appease four of you, compared to you ganging up on him and making him do all of the work.

FOR ALL OF YOU:

Yes, God knows things cause pain. See Rev. 2:6. That Jesus hated something. The ways of the people, but not the people themselves: the Nicolaitanes. God gave Satan 1/4 of the Earth to do what he wanted to do with it. Thank God it wasn't 1/2. We have pain because of Satan. That's it in a nutshell. Yes, God knew long before that Jesus was going to die and be a sacrifice for all sins, to save us from ourselves, because we are not able to quit sinning ourselves, since the devil is a lot older than us. Still, man has come to the point where he can learn more so that is the 'why' for 'Armageddon.' Yes, God knew Judas would get 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus. Yes, God knew that Adam would eat the 'fruit' of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. These things need to all play out, with a crescendo that Jesus will succeed above all and defeat death, and hell. That is why He is given the keys of Death and of Hell. All of these things needed to play out for man's forgiveness and ability to go to Heaven. Why should God take you to Heaven just to have you fall in a couple of days. No, instead He is training us how to fight against Satan and his demons, and to overcome him. That is one of the whole reasons for this Earth, whose galaxy is called the Milky Way because it teaches men and women who are babies too, considering the host of heaven. We are quite young, even though we are adults. Some of you dare to speak to God the way that you do are already inviting your future to happen. And it Will Happen. Let's get that straight. Yes, God is in charge of everything, except the 1/4 of the Earth that the devil has to screw with and confuse others. See even Rev. chapter 12 and you will see that some angels fell down with Satan, but they were stripped of their status of going back to Heaven. If you're an angel or servant of God and you fall from Heaven, it is nearly impossible to ever return. But see Rev. 20:13. It says the Sea GAVE UP those in her and that DEATH AND HELL gave up those who were in them, and they were judged according to their works. So could be quite an amount who will be saved. Even God forgives Judas Iscariot, for without him, Jesus would not have been betrayed, and crucified, and lived again. All of this past and present is necessary. But for disbelievers now, if is harder to be forgiven because you have time over time rejected the Lord God and His Son. Of course, Jesus will reward all whom have believed in Him, but He will not cater to the atheists at this junction in the road. You've either chosen your path by now, or never will get it right.

May God Give You Wisdom To Understand,

Michael

 

[alwight]

The ability to sin that a human has is part of free will, or the ability to choose or decide a thing... one thing over the other. As fallen creatures (man fell from a perfect relationship with God in the garden through sin). So no, God did not create sin. But yes, God did create the ability to sin. I believe I understand you correctly.

OK then why exactly should something deemed to be a sin by God and committed by someone other than me before I was born saddle me with all the dire consequences?

 

[Jacob]

OK then why exactly should something deemed to be a sin by God and committed by someone other than me before I was born saddle me with all the dire consequences?

It is not just that Adam sinned and mankind fell. It is that you sinned as well.

In Adam all die. In Christ all will be made alive.

So we have death in Adam, and life in Jesus Christ.

He has saved us from sin and death by His death on the cross. In Him with repentance and faith a person can be born again by the Spirit of God and have forgiveness of sins and eternal life among those resurrected to life in the resurrection from the dead.

 

[alwight]

It is not just that Adam sinned and mankind fell. It is that you sinned as well.

But I wasn't there and since I don't accept vicarious blame then there is no need for any vicarious redemption either, even if that would have spoilt the Christian script/plot somewhat.

In Adam all die. In Christ all will be made alive.

Nice platitudes.

So we have death in Adam, and life in Jesus Christ.

He has saved us from sin and death by His death on the cross. In Him with repentance and faith a person can be born again by the Spirit of God and have forgiveness of sins and eternal life among those resurrected to life in the resurrection from the dead.

Thanks but forgiveness for sins I didn't commit are not necessary and any I have committed I will accept full responsibility for.

 

[Jacob]

But I wasn't there and since I don't accept vicarious blame then there is no need for any vicarious redemption either, even if that would have spoilt the Christian script/plot somewhat.

I don't know what vicarious redemption is. Please excuse my ignorance. I only know that Jesus died for me.

Nice platitudes.

I didn't know if you would accept the scripture offhand, but I do know this verse that will help you see better what God has for you in the scriptures.

1 Corinthians 15:22 NASB - For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Thanks but forgiveness for sins I didn't commit are not necessary and any I have committed I will accept full responsibility for.

You ought to accept responsibility for those sins that are yours. But the Bible says a person can turn from sin in repentance and live out a life of righteousness instead. The problem is, no amount of righteousness can change the guilty verdict before a holy and just God. This is to say that because Jesus was innocent, He "could pay your fine".

 

[alwight]

I don't know what vicarious redemption is. Please excuse my ignorance. I only know that Jesus died for me.

Close enough.

I didn't know if you would accept the scripture offhand, but I do know this verse that will help you see better what God has for you in the scriptures.

1 Corinthians 15:22 NASB - For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
You ought to accept responsibility for those sins that are yours. But the Bible says a person can turn from sin in repentance and live out a life of righteousness instead. The problem is, no amount of righteousness can change the guilty verdict before a holy and just God. This is to say that because Jesus was innocent, He "could pay your fine".

Vicariously then. lain:

 

[Jacob]

Close enough.

Vicariously then. lain:

I believe redemption and salvation are both Biblical concepts, but I don't know why I put them together and I don't know what vicarious means.

I can only confirm that I know what the Bible says.

 

[alwight]

I believe redemption and salvation are both Biblical concepts, but I don't know why I put them together and I don't know what vicarious means.

I can only confirm that I know what the Bible says.

You seem somewhat adverse to finding out information for yourself from the real world, are you Amish or something? :


"adjective

adjective: vicarious



1. experienced in the imagination through the feelings or actions of another person.
"this catalogue brings vicarious pleasure in luxury living"


synonyms: indirect, second-hand, secondary, derivative, derived, at one remove, surrogate, substitute, substituted, by proxy; More
empathetic, empathic

"my friend was going to Italy and I was in a fever of vicarious excitement"


2. acting or done for another.
"a vicarious atonement""

 

[Jacob]

You seem somewhat adverse to finding out information for yourself from the real world, are you Amish or something? :


"adjective

adjective: vicarious



1. experienced in the imagination through the feelings or actions of another person.
"this catalogue brings vicarious pleasure in luxury living"


synonyms: indirect, second-hand, secondary, derivative, derived, at one remove, surrogate, substitute, substituted, by proxy; More
empathetic, empathic

"my friend was going to Italy and I was in a fever of vicarious excitement"


2. acting or done for another.
"a vicarious atonement""

No. I'm not Catholic and I'm not a Theologian. I am a Bible-believing Christian. This means I have read the Bible and I know what it says, and that "Theological word" is not a part of my vocabulary. Therefore I am communicating to you now that it doesn't have to be in order for me to be saved, whatever it is, and it doesn't have to be for you either.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Take off the God-filters for a change, and criticize for yourself every notion you have nothingness behind somethingness. You might find a vastly more interesting universe. You don't have to be an atheist to do great science. Neither do you have to be a theist. But my path of discovery became easier and far more interesting, after I realized how magnificent it is to have all the things we see, originating from nothing but energy and a little hydrogen.

Might you there be making claims about pre - Big Bang existence of which you know nothing about?

Might. Or maybe there are ways of knowing besides evidence. If you don't think so, I'm not here to criticize you.

Interestingly I have experienced the exact opposite. Having been Christened and brought up Catholic I find far greater wonder and mystery in a reality free of supernatural interference.

Barbarian suggests:
I see no sign of "interference", except in those rare cases where He does a miracle to teach us something. Why would He "interfer" in the world that He made so that it works as He intended? And no, it doesn't have to be deterministic.

Perhaps "interference" was a wrong choice of words then, though I am quite surprised that you missed my meaning completely. Or did you. I'm not so sure now. I, of course meant, any supernatural input what-so-ever.

What I'm suggesting is that God doesn't tinker with the universe on a daily basis. If He did, then the world wouldn't be reliable and knowable. On the other hand, if He simply installed the rules, and universally kept them, it's mere semantics to argue whether He is doing it all, or merely following the rules He set.

What this amounts to, is that the universe looks as though it were designed in some respects, as though it were created in others, and as though it originated by natural processes in yet others.

So free will still applies. You've used yours to come to a conclusion. I've used mine to come to a different one. Horserace, as you said, absent any sort of inspiration.

If you have sound, testable, falsifiable evidence for any supernatural input then I'm open to listen. If not then please do not bore me with Christian apologetics as, trust me, I've seen them all

Don't intend to. The arguments are either compelling for you, or the aren't. As I said once, you aren't necessarily going to hell for not believing, and from what I know of you, you'll be all right.

Aquinas writes:
The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1

Yes, I've had Thomas Aquinas thrown at me before. Doesn't work in scepticism and I think you know it.

Just pointing out that contingency is not a logical objection to divine providence. Whether or not you believe there is divine providence is another issue.

You do accept that such "beliefs" don't work for everyone, yes?

Yes, and so does the Church. And such people are blameless; they cannot believe other than what they believe. The doctrine sounds more judgmental than it actually is; "invincible ignorance."

And I should accept what the church thinks, why exactly?

It happens to be correct, but of course, you can only believe what you believe.

Barbarian suggests:
That is worthy of awe, even if you don't think He is there. Being Catholic, I don't think you're necessarily going to hell, even if you don't believe. So I have no sense of urgency to "convert" you. But leave yourself open to the possibility that you could be wrong. It made my life richer and my journey far more rewarding

Worth a look, no?

What you believe made your life richer and your journey far more rewarding is not relevant.

To those who found it, it is. Not necessarily for everyone.

Truth is all I care about

God approves. One of the reasons I think you're going to be all right.

I would thank you remember that mindless preaching plays no part in that.

Plays no part in my faith, either.

But, the question remains, do you leave yourself open to the possibility of the opposite?

Barbarian observes:
Even Mother Theresa had times of doubt. If one is honest in one's faith, one has to be willing to expose it to reason and evidence.

I think you maybe have a higher standard for mother Theresa that I do but the question I asked was not about doubt. It was about the possibility that you could be wrong?

That's what doubt is. I see it as the reverse of Huxley's point. When asked what he was going to say if he died and discovered that he was wrong. He replied that he'd say, "Gentlemen, I was wrong."

If I am wrong (and a reasonable person realizes that it is always possible), then I'm wrong. In such a case, it would harm me in no way, and it certainly led me to live an interesting and principled life (most of the time; like all humans,I don't always live up to my principles).

I sincerely hope you hold the same standard as I do regarding scientific evidence, but what about your theology?

Since since you don't want to hear apologetics, I won't go into that. However, there certainly is a rational basis for belief.

Doubt aside, could you possibly be wrong?

Yep. It's always possible that a human can be mistaken. I have good reasons to think I am not, but of course, that's apologetics.

I always find very off putting, arrogant even, this notion that theists have for knowing the "Truth" which just happens to be their own traditional beliefs, among many. What luck, eh?

Barbarian observes:
Remember, I'm Catholic, so I'm not so inclined to judge the faith or rightness of others. Perhaps you might want to read here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...entium_en.html

Oh please!

The Church acknowledges sacred worth in other religious traditions; they can hardly not do that, given Christ's advice regarding the Good Samaritan.

Barbarian observes:
Thank you for your kind words. Reason is a valid way to approach God, from the Catholic tradition. Faith with open eyes.

You are very welcome and well deserved of kudos for you knowledge of biology but I see no way to take faith, even from a Catholic tradition as given.

Neither do I. If the theology didn't seem rational to me, I wouldn't accept it.

God doesn't require you to turn off your mind.

 

[Stuu]

And if the story is true, but an allegory for some bipedal primates gaining a sense of good and evil, what then?

Burning in sulfur for those who nevertheless were not responsible for the supposed act of rebellion, I guess.

And before that, sore knees for the Catholics amongst them.

And psychological damage for their children.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Because you are asking about pain and the nervous system and I am telling you Jesus is your remedy against death.

Right, so you will understand my confusion then.

Making a human capable of sin is not the same thing as a human choosing to sin. If you sin it is your responsibility, not God.

Apparently not. I am supposed to accept Jesus, the man-god, and then my 'sin' stops being my responsibility. So, what will the man-god do now if it has taken responsibility for my 'sin'?

Maybe it will burn itself in sulfur along with all those it judged harshly.

I can't have that, sorry. As Alwight has pointed out to you, vicarious atonement is immoral. I take responsibility for my actions myself, thanks.

God would be unjust if He did not punish sin.

If a Guinea worm is the punishment for a crime I never committed then your god is inherently unjust already.

This is the visiting of the sins of the father on the son. It's immoral.

Stuart