Why do you believe in God, or why not?

[sumskilz]

In order to conform to the evidence for the Big Bang, natural selection and common ancestry, theistic evolution holds that God preordained cosmological and evolutionary processes (including the sin and death necessary for that to happen) and does not directly intervene in those processes.

I think that solution lacks creativity, especially considering they also believe God exists outside of time. How would God intervening from the beginning appear different than not intervening at all?

But I don't think they really believe that in practice. I think they believe that God directly intervenes too rarely or too subtly to be detectable by scientific methods. For a hypothesis to be tested scientifically, it must be repeatable, and the miracles they believe in tend not to be repeated, otherwise they wouldn't be deemed miracles. As a thought experiment, design the experiment that would test whether or not Jesus was resurrected.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I think that solution lacks creativity, especially considering they also believe God exists outside of time. How would God intervening from the beginning appear different than not intervening at all?

But I don't think they really believe that in practice. I think they believe that God directly intervenes too rarely or too subtly to be detectable by scientific methods. For a hypothesis to be tested scientifically, it must be repeatable, and the miracles they believe in tend not to be repeated, otherwise they wouldn't be deemed miracles. As a thought experiment, design the experiment that would test whether or not Jesus was resurrected.

Nothing says subtlety like theatrically having yourself killed so as to offer a way out of the hellfire you preordained a specific species to endure for eternity. Because you love them. But just because science doesn’t account for miracles doesn’t mean it’s impossible that Jesus was one of Marvel’s eternals: God can intervene, but only if the intervention itself is preordained.

John and Ruth might then ask: if I emphasize the integrity of the regular action of God in sustaining the universe, and even in creating us, then why should miracles occur at all? Can they occur today? Rather than answer that theological question directly, let me resort to a musical analogy borrowed from Colin Humphreys. Suppose you are watching a pianist play a classical piece. You will notice that there are certain notes that he plays, and certain ones that he never does. The choice of notes is constrained because the music is being played in a particular key signature. But then, occasionally he may break this rule and play an unusual note. Musicians call these accidentals, and a composer can put them in wherever she likes (although if there are too many the music would sound strange). As Humphreys puts it,

“If he is a great composer, the accidentals will never be used capriciously: they will always make better music. It is the accidentals which contribute to making the piece of music great. The analogy with how God operates is clear: God created and upholds the universe but, like the great composer, he is free to override his own rules. However, if he is a consistent God, it must make more sense than less for him to override his rules.”

https://biologos.org/articles/miracl...laws-of-nature

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[basics]

When Jesus appeared to Thomas and that man saw Him still carrying the wounds yet very much alive he fell to the ground crying out, " My Lord and my God." This was recorded that we too might believe. Here was the God/man Whom John declared to the fact that nothing that was ever made was made by no-one but Him. It was all written that we might believe by Faith that Jesus Christ died on a cross for a certain people that His Father had given to Him before the worlds were even formed. That is why the words in the Bible are accepted as truth or not. Those that are chosen know them to be true but those not chosen will always question them because they know not God. There is nowhere else that the truth lies but in the Bible because Jesus Himself authenticated that and so where else does God's word come? The Bible is the Gospel meaning it is the power of God unto salvation. It is meant to offend and offend those that don't know Jesus Christ.

[Sir Adrian]

I’m positive the presentation from the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern US does not claim the early church fathers believed “we don't know how and why and do not care.” Quite the opposite. The Roman Church has rejected intelligent design in favor of theistic evolution, the view which holds that Christian doctrine can be reconciled to the modern scientific consensus.

In that case you'd be wrong.

The Roman Church has rejected intelligent design in favor of theistic evolution

It hasn't. Theistic evolution REQUIRES intelligent design. Intelligent design = God made everything. YEC is an American heresy of the 19th century. It never existed in Europe until the early 1900s

In order to conform to the evidence for the Big Bang, natural selection and common ancestry, theistic evolution holds that God preordained cosmological and evolutionary processes (including the sin and death necessary for that to happen) and does not directly intervene in those processes. This is a rejection of the early church doctrine of creation ex nihilo and the dependency of all creation on God’s continuous personal intervention.

It does not believe that and it's not a rejection. As it was pointed out to you repeatedly, intelligent design tells us who, science tells us how. There is so far nothing to tell us why. I have no idea why you are trying to create an artificial contradiction and keep pushing YEC as a valid alternative when it's blatantly obvious for everyone that is not the case.

I mean I have no idea how one can repeatedly and willfully fail to notice the blue whale in the room that is the astonishing parallels between scientific discovery and genesis, especially when taking into consideration that gensis was always read as an allegory by everyone. It's just mind-boggling really.

creation ex nihilo and

Need I point out that the Big Bang happened from literally nothing as there was no space or matter at all only what science calls an unquantifiable and undefinable energy that triggered everything?

[Lord Thesaurian]

I mean I have no idea how one can repeatedly and willfully fail to notice the blue whale in the room that is the astonishing parallels between scientific discovery and genesis

Such as?

It hasn't. Theistic evolution REQUIRES intelligent design.

Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.

[basics]

I watched on Yoitube two articles about this so-called evolution with various scientists saying that science now knows that man did not come from apes or ape like creatures. This was only last night and mainly concentrated on DNA for which the accepted figures have been proved quite wrong. The ape is not one or two percent behind us rather quite a distance. Of course I am no scientist but what they spelled out made sense even to a old dimwit like me. Clearly we did not get here by chance rather as God told Moses to make a record of.

[conon394]

I watched on Yoitube two articles about this so-called evolution with various scientists saying that science now knows that man did not come from apes or ape like creatures. This was only last night and mainly concentrated on DNA for which the accepted figures have been proved quite wrong. The ape is not one or two percent behind us rather quite a distance. Of course I am no scientist but what they spelled out made sense even to a old dimwit like me. Clearly we did not get here by chance rather as God told Moses to make a record of.

Saying I no expert, don't understand the science and found some videos on line that confirm my deeply held belief is not really impressing me - link please?

[razerbelkin]

I watched on Yoitube two articles about this so-called evolution with various scientists saying that science now knows that man did not come from apes or ape like creatures.

I also found a good video which I posted here.

[basics]

I also found a good video which I posted here.

razerbelkin,

There are plenty of videos on Youtube that expose evoultion as a fallacy by good Godly men. Usually what happens when you quote them rather than denounce what they prove the attackers more often than not attack the credentials of the men themsleves.

[conon394]

razerbelkin,

There are plenty of videos on Youtube that expose evoultion as a fallacy by good Godly men. Usually what happens when you quote them rather than denounce what they prove the attackers more often than not attack the credentials of the men themsleves.

Or look like somebody who has no confidence in his source so you cite indirectly in a way makes a snipe hunt to possibly know what you have in mind.

[Akar]

Basics has grown wary of providing sources for his claims because every single time he's provided one in the past it was discredited almost immediately.

[basics]

Basics has grown wary of providing sources for his claims because every single time he's provided one in the past it was discredited almost immediately.

Akar,

Yes, basics is always jumped on by Darwinianists regardless of what he says. Nonetheless evolution is just theory that cannot be proved other than speculation or assumption but the one sure thing is that God was there at the beginning and none of them were. But here's just an example of the nonsense they speak, coal doesn't take long to form, nor do diamonds or stalactites and we see molten rock pour out of volcanoes every day quickly becoming normal rock. Go to Mount St Helens and see the fossilisation that has occurred in just a few years. Take light for another example by just thinking how God made the sun, moon and stars all gleaming light before he placed them out into space. Their light remained on meaning that no matter where they were placed it didn't take lightyears for it to get back to earth and still doesn't, why? Because their light wasn't switched off.

[conon394]

Nonetheless evolution is just theory that cannot be proved other than speculation

So confirming again you have no desire to know how science works.

other than speculation or assumption but the one sure thing is that God was there at the beginning and none of them were

So you see religion remains speculation as well.

we see molten rock pour out of volcanoes every day quickly becoming normal rock

No it becomes one particular kind of 'rock' that no geologist would claim is older than the last eruption in say Hawaii or Iceland.

Go to Mount St Helens and see the fossilisation that has occurred in just a few years.

Done that multiple times anti seen any fossilization or anything that would mistaken visually or via dating methods as some massively old event. Please do source this one.

[Muizer]

Nonetheless evolution is just theory that cannot be proved other than speculation or assumption

You have very strange ideas of what 'proof' means. It seems you think hearsay is more reliable than the scientific method.

[basics]

You have very strange ideas of what 'proof' means. It seems you think hearsay is more reliable than the scientific method.

Muizer,

I'm now assuming that by science you mean being able to reproduce or reconstruct something to be real, so, what has science reconstructed about evolution? My argument is that God made all things in just six wonderful days whilst the evolutionist has to use imagination, supposition and no proof to build a case. God was there at the beginning yet science cannot make its mind up if there even was a beginning.

[Muizer]

Yes, science makes assumptions. One of the fundamental in studies concerning the past is uniformitarianism, which is the assumption that "the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe". Despite the demonstrated power of the principle to build a coherent (if not yet complete) history of our planet and up to a point the universe itself, you reject this assumption in favour of a religion that merely rests on hearsay.

[conon394]

Won't work Muizer. Somebody can always god, goddess, goddess, spirits, dead ancestors change stuff at their whim, things worked differently etc. A scientific explanation is always going to attacked because it accepts its the best fix for existing data and existing methods of examining that data.

----

basics

so, what has science reconstructed about evolution?

This as been pointed out to how many times now.

Lets recollect just how quickly a forced experiment (read environmental pressure on isolated populations) can create fruit fly species that will not interbreed. Add more pressure and change their diet and maybe some radiation and really quickly you get a not fruit fly like the ones that come in on you Safeway bag of groceries.

[basics]

Yes, science makes assumptions. One of the fundamental in studies concerning the past is uniformitarianism, which is the assumption that "the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe". Despite the demonstrated power of the principle to build a coherent (if not yet complete) history of our planet and up to a point the universe itself, you reject this assumption in favour of a religion that merely rests on hearsay.

Muizer,

No Sir I don't because all the laws that sustain everything had to come from somewhere because nothing can come from nothing not even laws. We have a complete history of our planet and even all that surrounds it the problem is that you just won't accept it. Laws just don't invent themselves nor did it take billions of years for them to do so and especially so when each one has to coincide or live with the others. So, the question is, where did the intelligence to bring it all together come from? A big bang? I don't think so because explosions are chaotic not ordered. No my friend God made all this in just six wonderful days for no-one else could do it not by intent and certainly not by chance.

[Muizer]

Muizer,

No Sir I don't because all the laws that sustain everything had to come from somewhere because nothing can come from nothing not even laws. We have a complete history of our planet and even all that surrounds it the problem is that you just won't accept it. Laws just don't invent themselves nor did it take billions of years for them to do so and especially so when each one has to coincide or live with the others. So, the question is, where did the intelligence to bring it all together come from? A big bang? I don't think so because explosions are chaotic not ordered. No my friend God made all this in just six wonderful days for no-one else could do it not by intent and certainly not by chance.

Other than hearsay, i.e. testimony from a time when people were notoriously superstitious passed on by those equally uncritical, what have you got to demonstrate the validity of your account?

[conon394]

Other than hearsay, i.e. testimony from a time when people were notoriously superstitious passed on by those equally uncritical, what have you got to demonstrate the validity of your account?

That is a good point, also though people were not unwilling to believe other people had gods and what not. Its notable the Roman evidence shows just some Jewish rebel we killed and no mention at all any miraculous stuff. Ancient historians in fact kinda liked adding that kind of color to their works.