Evolution or Creationism?

[kangs79]

Both evolution and Creationism are true. Evolution is a slow process by which a dead soul rises from nothingness. Eventually at the highest point in human evolution adam and eve form which are the 2 sides to the evolutionary process. At this time creationism take over. The creationism story of creating everything takes over in reverse. Eventually god unmakes adam and human form is converted to a higher level being. After being freed from the body the soul continues to evolve and eventually it reaches the highest point in evolution which is becoming or waking up as the creator or god. This way creationism fits comfortably within the evolutionary process and all points of view are satisfied. Please let me know your thoughts.

[Eighty]

Hey Kangs79,

I have never heard your theory of evolution and creationism intertwining together in such a way; very interesting.

I don't see how a soul can 'evolve' in anyway so maybe you can help me here.

Are you including consciousness as a part of the soul?

[neuro]

Both evolution and Creationism are true.
...
This way creationism fits comfortably within the evolutionary process and all points of view are satisfied. Please let me know your thoughts.

hi kangs79,

although this is a forum in the philosophy section, and therefore one does not need to discuss evolution in a scientific way, I think that arbitrarily using terms, giving them the meaning one likes, is only confusing.

By "evolution" we usually mean a process through which the characteristics of a species may change with (hugely extended periods of) time so that some novel features may arise which oblige us (the observers, the scientists) to consider that a new species has arisen. In this perspective, humans as well are considered as a species that has evolved from other, more ancient, species.

By "creationism" we usually refer to the idea that some god created various vegetal and animal species, among which humans.

Your effort to reconcile the two mainstreams of thought might well be noble, but I hope you understand that, unless you devoid the two terms of their original meaning, the two views are mutually exclusive, they CANNOT be reconciled. I mean that you can introduce some evolutionist aspects in creationism (some species may have adapted by evolutionary mechanisms, some other species might have arisen from previous ones), but either you assume that a number of species were created de novo or you assume that no such initial event occurred and life took a number of different forms due to mechanisms of genetic variation and selection.

So, I would propose that you offer this idea of yours as an original philosophical/religious view, but with no connection with either the creationist or evolutionary views, since it contradicts both (or it merely does not consider either one).

[mywordsyourthoughts]

I am asking this question not as an annoyance but to truly contemplate the topic. Can intertwining the two ideas, evolution and creationism, with respect to neuro's wishes of considering those meanings which are generally used be as simple as to say that a "creator" created existence and the species therefore existing, with the intentions of those species evolving in the exact ways they have over time? I realize how this possibility seems to make everything seem convenient when trying to explain existence, but to take into consideration both concepts then you must take into consideration the idea that a creator may possess the "all-knowing" mental capacity. Simply put, evolution may very well be but a plan put into place by the "creator".

[CanadysPeak]

I am asking this question not as an annoyance but to truly contemplate the topic. Can intertwining the two ideas, evolution and creationism, with respect to neuro's wishes of considering those meanings which are generally used be as simple as to say that a "creator" created existence and the species therefore existing, with the intentions of those species evolving in the exact ways they have over time? I realize how this possibility seems to make everything seem convenient when trying to explain existence, but to take into consideration both concepts then you must take into consideration the idea that a creator may possess the "all-knowing" mental capacity. Simply put, evolution may very well be but a plan put into place by the "creator".

Doesn't that dodge the question? It's a handy way of not dealing with the whole thing (I like such devices myself), but it doesn't permit any critical examination.

[mywordsyourthoughts]

I completely agree but I was simply presenting a more suitable way of intertwining evolutionism and creationism. I must stress that you have a completely valid point though.

[Eclogite]

This way creationism fits comfortably within the evolutionary process and all points of view are satisfied.

The key point of view that is not satisfied is the one that requires evidence be in place to support a concept and that the concept could be falsified by certain kinds of evidence. Since this viewpoint grew out of philosophy, via natural philosophy, it appears to be one that must be satisified, whether one is a philosopher or a scientist.

There is no convincing evidence for a soul. There is no evidence at all for Adam and Eve, other than as metaphors. This leaves the honourable intent of the proposal as the only thing of value about it.

[charon]

kangs79

Both evolution and Creationism are true

Absolutely. I've never seen a contradiction between these two personally. Something, call it what you may, originated everything which constantly changes - which it would do as it's a living thing.

After being freed from the body the soul continues to evolve and eventually it reaches the highest point in evolution which is becoming or waking up as the creator or god

I can't agree with this though. That which evolves cannot become the originator of itself.

[Eighty]

kangs79

Both evolution and Creationism are true

Absolutely. I've never seen a contradiction between these two personally. Something, call it what you may, originated everything which constantly changes - which it would do as it's a living thing.

Ah, indeed I agree with an interpretation of evolutionary ties o creationism.

It's unfathomable to me how anyone could not only view the world as if it had no creator, but to view it consistently and hold a solid belief in their view.

Creationism is the blessing of science and all we have, know, hold true to, and cling to. Without creationism all of science is useless.

If there was no God, then how does science account for how we [humans] began? Sure, the simple reply is "we were [come] here by chance. We were, were are, and we are to come, and we are to go." This is a very casual view on life, one that is much too over-simplistic and false. If we arrived here by chance, then where did the ingredients from life come from? -I'm no string theorist, but I do have a very good understanding of undergrad-level physics, and I've heard the many theories relating to a "multiverse", "bubble", and other jargon used to help make logical sense of non-laymens euphemisms. One can take his/her pick on the theories, but it doesn't matter, nor is any of it verifiable [currently], nor does any of it bring us any closer to an answer for "when/how/why are we here?"

The question is ultimately one of two shades: black or white. God [creationism], or "chance", the engineer and mathematician in me scoffs at any reference of "chance". That's not very scientific, nor is it logical in the grand scheme of things. My philosopher self chants "Kant, Kant, Kant!"... and for good reason.

Where did everything come from? I am 100% positive science will never explain it for the simple matter that it can't. How can life, the universe, and everything randomly show up? It can't! Trust me, I have done the elementary statistics on it ;)

It's one of those things that is frustrating to all hell to scientists (and engineers!), but at the same time refreshingly reassuring.

The Atheist asks the creationist: "where did life and everything come from?", creationist responds "God did it!", Atheist begins cranking the gears in his head and calculates his opponents responses with his own inferences, "if God did it, where did God come from?"... the unaware Kant apostle shrugs his shoulders... "He just is, always was, and He always will be"...-"HA!" the Atheist scoffs, "so much for your wisdom!".. the creationist, responds in kind, "where do YOU believe life, the universe and everything came from?", the Atheist is more than ready for this "well science tells us we, ourselves and life as we know it are all products of the wonders of evolution, which we are learning are not quite so wondrous after all, because we can now explain these processes through our understanding of science", the creationist asks a follow-up question, "sure I agree with that, I believe evolution can account for many things, but where did everything, including the universe, and the building blocks of life contained within it, where did they come from sir?" the Atheist gives little regard to the structure of the question and focuses on the general topic, "well we came from X, which came from Y, which came from A, etc... it's science sir!", the creationist is but little amused: "I am not anti-science sir, I am a practitioner of science myself, but where did the universe and everything come from, sir?".... "chance says the Atheist. We, along with the universe and everything are the product of chance."... "have you any scientific evidence to prove your claim is greater than mine?", the Atheist: "no sir, I am just perturbed.", the creationist : "I have all the science the back my claim up, and furthermore sir, my theory has no chance. My theory is the truth."

[charon]

Eighty

chance

Absolutely, to suggest all this happened by chance is absurd.

God

The trouble with saying God is that it doesn't actually explain anything. What is God?

Both these views are a belief and belief is really only opinion. Beliefs and opinions can be argued about and such argument goes nowhere.

Apparently man can find the origin and many claim to have done so. Some are fake, some are not. Perhaps the original starters of religions like Christ and Buddha knew what they were talking about, then what they said was corrupted.

[Paralith]

Eighty,

I find your caricature of the creationist and the Atheist amusing. (Also, what's up with the capital A?) There may be some self-labeled creationists and atheists who would say those things, but I feel that's not representative of all creationists and all atheists. As neuro tried to explain earlier, most people who label themselves as creationists or intelligent design proponents have very specific beliefs which are in fact falsifiable by science, such as claiming that the earth is only six thousand years old. You seem to be referring to a much more reserved from of creationism where God set the universe up, and left it to roll on its own. And I think any intellectually honest atheist will agree that, no, we do not understand why the universe came to be the way it is, why the universe has atoms that have the basic physical and chemical properties that they do (and, from the interaction of these physical and chemical properties, you can get things like life). And no, we can't say for sure whether or not something like a god did it or not, especially if said god can do its work in ways that are completely undetectable by humans. I think an intellectually honest atheist is a cognitive agnostic and a behavioral atheist. We don't know for sure there is no god but let's face it, if something like a god actually has a reliable effect on our daily lives, that would create a pattern that science could detect. So either something like a god really doesn't have much to do with our daily lives, or its action is so totally random that there is no pattern to detect, and also no way that we could do anything to change that effect on our lives. I think an intellectually honest atheist says, "Sure, maybe it was a god that got all this rolling. But that's not reason enough to assume that there is a god, or to behave in my daily life as if there is a god. So, I behave as if there isn't one."

(Evolution, by the by, is not solely driven by chance. Chance plays a large role, especially in the specifics. But evolution is also driven in part by function, and what actually functions best in the current environment. If by chance you have something that fails to function well in the environment, you aren't going to stick around very long. You'll disappear. If by chance you have something that functions well in the environment, you can make it. You can persist. And for all life alive today, it's only here because all its ancestors chanced to gain things that helped them function well in the environment they had to face. Because different organisms chanced to gain different things that helped them function successfully, and because they faced a diversity of environments, we have a diversity of life on this planet.)

[Forest_Dump]

It is worth pointing out that Darwin did not like it when some people accused him of being an atheist in his book, "On The Origin of Species..." so in the 2nd and later editions, at the end, he discussed how he thought his ideas of natural selection and evolution illustrated how God had made the earth, etc. Nonetheless, the real beauty of Darwin's ideas were that whether or not God had played a role, you really don't need that supernatural factor. If you want you can believe that God drives evolution, enforces the law of gravity, decides who will catch a cold or makes it so that planes can fly. But all the science we know and use make it clear that whether or not you believe it is necessary for God to act to make planes fly or evolution to occur doesn't really help or explain what really happens. Planes fly whether or not you are an atheist just as things evolve and people will catch colds. The god factor is important in religion but plays absolutely no role in science.

[charon]

Forest_Dump

Planes fly whether or not you are an atheist

Precisely - or a religious believer, of course, the point being that beliefs about life don't alter facts one iota. The rain falls no matter what I believe.

The god factor is important in religion but plays absolutely no role in science

Quite. God is merely an explanation as to why things exist at all, it doesn't explain them. Science explains things but doesn't know their origin.

We're really quite lost, aren't we? :)

[Forest_Dump]

God is merely an explanation as to why things exist at all, it doesn't explain them.

Well, invoking God provides one explanation but not the only one.

Science explains things but doesn't know their origin.

I would say that science explains the origins of a lot of things. The only place where you run into philosophical problems is with ultimate origins but then some people just want all the answers to all their questions and when science says "I don't know" they just turn to religion because religion is willing to provide answers to the things it is impossible to know any other way. And impossible to test or check.

We're really quite lost, aren't we? :)

Well, I sure don't feel that way.

[Lomax]

It is worth pointing out that Darwin did not like it when some people accused him of being an atheist in his book, "On The Origin of Species..." so in the 2nd and later editions, at the end, he discussed how he thought his ideas of natural selection and evolution illustrated how God had made the earth, etc.

I should point out that this was only the case at the time of Origin of the Species. Darwin - very religious in his youth - feared that the theological implications of his theory would be like "confessing a murder", and consequently was tentative about following his theory to what he saw as the logical conclusion. His wife's religiosity made him more reluctant, too. However, Darwin's autobiography confesses that he had lost his faith, and largely as a result of his discovery:

The old argument from design in Nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the Variation of Domesticated Animals and Plants, and the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered

That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this with reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. This very old argu­ment from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the pres­ence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.

While it doesn't strictly matter to the OP what Darwin's views were, I hope this post will be of some relevance, because the arguments offered by Darwin are open for discussion. I urge anybody to read the whole passage, because Darwin expounds the arguments in more depth than I have quoted here.

[Forest_Dump]

What you say is true but, for example, to understand the reference to William Paley, you would probably need to understand what Paley said, etc. (He, by the way, was the originator of the watch and watchmaker analogy in his "Natural Theology" of 1802.) One of Darwin's sons, Francis, wrote a biography of Darwin (published in 1887) in which he addressed the question of his father's religion. He said he never was an atheist but he might have been an agnostic because of his sorrow over his daughter's death. For the detailed critiques on how the ideas on design were being thrashed out in the 1870s and 1880s between Darwin, Asa Gray and the Duke of Argyll, I would recommend Peter Bowler's book "Evolution: The History of an Idea" which covers the 19th and, to a lesser extent, the early 20th century. Good read.

[charon]

Forest_Dump

invoking God provides one explanation but not the only one

Exactly, and one idea's as good as another.

I would say that science explains the origins of a lot of things

Of course, but not everything.

The only place where you run into philosophical problems is with ultimate origins

But it's not a philosophical problem, it's an actual one.

And impossible to test or check

Hence the confusion and incessant argumentation.

Well, I sure don't feel that way

Why not? You mean you know the answer? :)

[Eighty]

Eighty,

I find your caricature of the creationist and the Atheist amusing. (Also, what's up with the capital A?) There may be some self-labeled creationists and atheists who would say those things, but I feel that's not representative of all creationists and all atheists. As neuro tried to explain earlier, most people who label themselves as creationists or intelligent design proponents have very specific beliefs which are in fact falsifiable by science, such as claiming that the earth is only six thousand years old. You seem to be referring to a much more reserved from of creationism where God set the universe up, and left it to roll on its own. And I think any intellectually honest atheist will agree that, no, we do not understand why the universe came to be the way it is, why the universe has atoms that have the basic physical and chemical properties that they do (and, from the interaction of these physical and chemical properties, you can get things like life). And no, we can't say for sure whether or not something like a god did it or not, especially if said god can do its work in ways that are completely undetectable by humans. I think an intellectually honest atheist is a cognitive agnostic and a behavioral atheist. We don't know for sure there is no god but let's face it, if something like a god actually has a reliable effect on our daily lives, that would create a pattern that science could detect. So either something like a god really doesn't have much to do with our daily lives, or its action is so totally random that there is no pattern to detect, and also no way that we could do anything to change that effect on our lives. I think an intellectually honest atheist says, "Sure, maybe it was a god that got all this rolling. But that's not reason enough to assume that there is a god, or to behave in my daily life as if there is a god. So, I behave as if there isn't one."

(Evolution, by the by, is not solely driven by chance. Chance plays a large role, especially in the specifics. But evolution is also driven in part by function, and what actually functions best in the current environment. If by chance you have something that fails to function well in the environment, you aren't going to stick around very long. You'll disappear. If by chance you have something that functions well in the environment, you can make it. You can persist. And for all life alive today, it's only here because all its ancestors chanced to gain things that helped them function well in the environment they had to face. Because different organisms chanced to gain different things that helped them function successfully, and because they faced a diversity of environments, we have a diversity of life on this planet.)

Hey Paralith,

To add clarity to our discussion; not every creationist believes in YEC, or Young Earth Creation. I'm a creationist, but I find evolution entwines itself in perfect harmony with creation.

I am not discussing whether or not God has an involved role in our daily lives, that is a subject that will run off on it's own much to easily, so I'm trying to minimize my possible bunny trails during our discussion.

But whether one wants to use science, or philosophy to infer, imply, or state anything on the direct question of "where did everything come from?", it seems to me that it should, and does, inevitably lead to a creator.

There is no possible science, no matter how much we learn, that will answer this question. Example: "Where did the universe come from?", "from another universe that is part of a multiverse [substitute bubble if you will]", "where did the multiverse come from?", "the multiverse was spawned out of another dimension", "where did that dimension come from?", "that dimension was spawned from another dimension.", "what dimension was that?", "...."

There are limits to our ability to reverse-engineer certain things, the universe being one of them. Perhaps our knowledge is intentionally restricted, not being allowed to attain a higher state where we might learn of a higher order [God, the Heavens, etc].

No matter how far back our presumed knowledge takes us, it will never, and will always fail to answer the most fundamental question: how did we get here? By we, I mean "everything." It's a dark brick wall that hits us. If anyone had a scientific answer, the "chances" are good that someone would have postulated an answer already.

[Eighty]

It is worth pointing out that Darwin did not like it when some people accused him of being an atheist in his book, "On The Origin of Species..." so in the 2nd and later editions, at the end, he discussed how he thought his ideas of natural selection and evolution illustrated how God had made the earth, etc. Nonetheless, the real beauty of Darwin's ideas were that whether or not God had played a role, you really don't need that supernatural factor. If you want you can believe that God drives evolution, enforces the law of gravity, decides who will catch a cold or makes it so that planes can fly. But all the science we know and use make it clear that whether or not you believe it is necessary for God to act to make planes fly or evolution to occur doesn't really help or explain what really happens. Planes fly whether or not you are an atheist just as things evolve and people will catch colds. The god factor is important in religion but plays absolutely no role in science.

I am not discussing God's role in our daily lives and affairs. I am speaking strictly from a "where did everything come from", a sort of past-tense form of the question.

[Forest_Dump]

But it's not a philosophical problem, it's an actual one.

Out of curiosity, why would the ultimate origins of the universe, for example, be anything other than a philosophical problem (although I would say probably to be solved, if at all by science)? Personally I don't really see it as any kind of problem because it is not something I have more than a slight, passing interest in. So I don't see how it would be an actual problem.

Why not? You mean you know the answer? :)

For some questions, I do know the answers. For others I know how to either get the answers or I know that others will get them. But there are still other questions that I don't think we will ever get the answers. Doesn't really bother me any more than knowing that I will never be as rich as Bill Gates. So, I don't think or feel I am lost in any way just because I don't know things like the ultimate origins of the universe or next weekend's lottery numbers, etc.

[sillysmile]

Hi Eighty,

There is no possible science, no matter how much we learn, that will answer this question. Example: "Where did the universe come from?", "from another universe that is part of a multiverse [substitute bubble if you will]", "where did the multiverse come from?", "the multiverse was spawned out of another dimension", "where did that dimension come from?", "that dimension was spawned from another dimension.", "what dimension was that?", "....".

You seem to be employing a double standard here, and I could just ask: where did the creator come from? At which point you would probably say that the creator has always existed. But If the creator did not need to be created, then why must the universe need to be created?

[charon]

Forest_Dump

Out of curiosity, why would the ultimate origins of the universe, for example, be anything other than a philosophical problem (although I would say probably to be solved, if at all by science)? Personally I don't really see it as any kind of problem because it is not something I have more than a slight, passing interest in. So I don't see how it would be an actual problem.

I'll tell you. The ultimate origin of all things may not seem terribly important faced with the complexity and demands of daily life but, if one understands the meaning of the issue, then it is, very.

What does one do in this life? Just bumble along day to day, trying to get by? That's probably what most of us do. Either that or one becomes dedicated to something and puts all one's energy into something utterly superficial like politics, becoming rich, achieving fame, or some other foolish thing.

So you have those two, either just bumbling along, taking whatever comes without any real direction, or inventing a direction for oneself. It can either be personal in the sense of wanting to achieve a position, being ambitious, and so on. Or one becomes idealistic and becomes a fanatical idealist, an activist, perhaps violently killing people, and all that.

Both of these kinds of people are dangerous, not only to others but themselves. The commited idealist is obviously a danger but so is the person who just casually accepts things as they are and muddles through. They're not interested in life, they're not responsible in the highest sense of that word. Neither, of course, is the person who buries themselves in a comforting belief of some kind, which is mere escapism.

However, if one begins to question most seriously what life is all about then those kinds of people don't come into it; they're wiped out. One cannot attach oneself to anything, no cause, no separative group, or simply live for one's own ambition. Nor can one be merely content to muddle through. Such a muddling mind is very dull, sleepy, dead to the extraordinary demands of life and its seriousness.

If one no longer belongs to any of these categories it means one is taking the whole business of living very seriously and that is to be intelligent. The intelligent mind questions everything, wants to know the truth of everything, inwardly and outwardly. It wants to know the truth of life, of its own existence, in all its aspects.

If one has gone that far then one begins to realise that actually nothing is of very great value! I think it was the Biblical book Ecclesiastes that said 'All is vanity'. It's that state of mind that begins to realise that in order to make sense of life and living one has to find or discover something other than this existence. One comes inevitably to a point where nothing satifies that desire. One sees that it needs something else, a unifying factor above and beyond this routine existence to make sense of it.

That's why one can't be satisfied with anything. It's not a question of accepting what others say because they may be quite, quite wrong. The religions say 'God' and that seems to satisfy them, but that word, as a word, has no meaning at all. Science may come along with all the latest discoveries about matter but they don't provide anything except knowledge and knowledge is not something which will fill the heart and mind of man.

So to find out what lies behind this insane world of confusion becomes very, very important for a serious, thinking person. One can't just muddle though or become a dedicated fanatic of some kind. Nor can the question be answered with the mind, the intellect, nor with faith. No philosophy on earth, which is really just clever thinking, can answer it. In any case the word 'philosophy' means the love of truth, the love of wisdom, not these clever, complex ideational arguments. The real philosopher is not an academic, he is one who seeks out the true worth and value of things in actual daily life and then passes beyond it.

I don't think or feel I am lost in any way just because I don't know things like the ultimate origins of the universe or next weekend's lottery numbers, etc.

Then you must question most deeply that feeling of not really caring. It's not that you then dedicate yourself to 'finding the ultimate origin of things' and become a seeker, that would only be a reaction, but find out why you're apparently content to just go along accepting things as they stand, at their face value.

You'll probably say you don't, that you do question things. I'm sure you do, but it only goes so far. You don't question everything, this whole complexity of living, dying, and everything involved in it. Take life as a whole, which it is, and don't be satisfied with mere words and verbal answers.

[Forest_Dump]

Charon

I can assure you there are many things I do take seriously and in some ways I even believe in a higher purpose. However, that you and I do not share the same sense of a higher purpose doesn't trouble me. I'm not that judgemental. However, the ultimate origins of the Universe are not quite are not quite as high on my list as football or baseball (one of which is ending soon for the season isn't it?) I am interested more as to why some people sometimes have an interest in this stuff but once you get down to it, I am more interested in say how many Australopithecine species were around at a give time than unanswerable questions about what came before the Big Bang. To each their own I guess.

[Eighty]

Hi Eighty,

There is no possible science, no matter how much we learn, that will answer this question. Example: "Where did the universe come from?", "from another universe that is part of a multiverse [substitute bubble if you will]", "where did the multiverse come from?", "the multiverse was spawned out of another dimension", "where did that dimension come from?", "that dimension was spawned from another dimension.", "what dimension was that?", "....".

You seem to be employing a double standard here, and I could just ask: where did the creator come from? At which point you would probably say that the creator has always existed. But If the creator did not need to be created, then why must the universe need to be created?

That is a good question!

However, you're overlooking a fundamental principle, one that Kant addressed long ago.

You are taking natural sciences and using a fundamental prerequisite for life [creation], that is physical, and comparing it to a supernatural phenomenon, one that is outside our natural realm, where the "laws" if there be any, must be strangely different. So how can one compare the two? Well one can't.

To add a layer of complexity to the discussion let's address a philosopher, Karl Popper who concluded that no scientific law can, in a positive sense, claim to prove anything at all. Science cannot verify theories, it can merely falsify them.

I view things in a similar light as other creationists do, that there is an internal and an external reality.
The internal reality is our personal, directly influenced dimensions that we come into contact with, i.e. what we see, hear, smell, feel, etc. It is looking outside a window into a patch of green grass, it is speaking with that incredibly beautiful girl next door that you have no chance with (not you personally, more or less referring to myself here), it is all those things we can comprehend and make sense of.
We also have the external reality, or the reality of things through the eyes of God. This is a reality we have never, and will never experience. This is an old traditional theory that has been around for hundreds of years, some may have heard it as the "experiential perspective", or as Paul in Corinthians 13:12 explains it "...through a glass darkly"

Kant argued that our perception of reality is based upon our experience. Our experience determines are perception of reality, in this argument which goes penetrates much deeper than my casual referencing of it, many (Atheists) will resort to argumentum ad ignorantium, because of how we creationists typically use Kant's argument.

So a follow up question is, how do we determine reality? Through common sense? Who is to say our common sense is so perfect we can be entirely deterministic to claim there is no God?

[Eighty]

Hi Eighty,

There is no possible science, no matter how much we learn, that will answer this question. Example: "Where did the universe come from?", "from another universe that is part of a multiverse [substitute bubble if you will]", "where did the multiverse come from?", "the multiverse was spawned out of another dimension", "where did that dimension come from?", "that dimension was spawned from another dimension.", "what dimension was that?", "....".

You seem to be employing a double standard here, and I could just ask: where did the creator come from? At which point you would probably say that the creator has always existed. But If the creator did not need to be created, then why must the universe need to be created?

I want to follow up real quick with this question because I feel like in my first reply I overlooked a very important question you asked, that being asked in your last sentence.

The universe did not need to be created, God did not need to create anything. He created the universe out of His own desire. This sounds incredible, even dubious because our logic typically tells us otherwise, but none the less, based upon that logic, is not falsifiable.

This is also why we cannot compare the supernatural to the physical. The physical asks and answers questions based upon falsifiable inquiries, or a system of checks and balances, where as the supernatural lies outside that personal realm.

It is hard to fathom not having an explicit reason for doing something.

[Paralith]

Hi Eighty,

There is no possible science, no matter how much we learn, that will answer this question. Example: "Where did the universe come from?", "from another universe that is part of a multiverse [substitute bubble if you will]", "where did the multiverse come from?", "the multiverse was spawned out of another dimension", "where did that dimension come from?", "that dimension was spawned from another dimension.", "what dimension was that?", "....".

You seem to be employing a double standard here, and I could just ask: where did the creator come from? At which point you would probably say that the creator has always existed. But If the creator did not need to be created, then why must the universe need to be created?

I want to follow up real quick with this question because I feel like in my first reply I overlooked a very important question you asked, that being asked in your last sentence.

The universe did not need to be created, God did not need to create anything. He created the universe out of His own desire. This sounds incredible, even dubious because our logic typically tells us otherwise, but none the less, based upon that logic, is not falsifiable.

This is also why we cannot compare the supernatural to the physical. The physical asks and answers questions based upon falsifiable inquiries, or a system of checks and balances, where as the supernatural lies outside that personal realm.

It is hard to fathom not having an explicit reason for doing something.

Eh, I'm with sillysmile on this one. You're dishing it out to science for not yet knowing all the answers to everything (and, by the way, not knowing yet isn't the same thing as it being impossible to know), but you're trying to set up your personal beliefs in the supernatural as somehow superior to this. I don't see how that is. From what I can tell your beliefs come from a general inability to imagine the universe as not having a creator, and not from any particular insights or evidence that you could share with other people to demonstrate that your particular beliefs are more right than anyone else's. We don't know how and why it all started. Not by any means currently available to humans. And that's really all one can say on the matter.

And, my main point in my early response to you is that your opinion of how Atheists view this issue is not entirely correct. You agreed with not all creationists thinking the same things, yet sort of glossed over the point about all atheists and all scientists not thinking the same things, and continued your attack on science at large. Science at large knows what it doesn't know. I don't know who you've been talking to who is 100% certain with good evidence to back it up that they know exactly how and why the universe started, but I'm pretty sure they don't represent all scientists and/or all atheists.

[charon]

Forest_Dump

To each their own I guess

I guess :)

[Lomax]

Hello Eighty,

However, you're overlooking a fundamental principle, one that Kant addressed long ago.

You are taking natural sciences and using a fundamental prerequisite for life [creation], that is physical, and comparing it to a supernatural phenomenon, one that is outside our natural realm, where the "laws" if there be any, must be strangely different. So how can one compare the two? Well one can't.

If I may ask then: if we can't know about the creator, or the non-natural phenomena, by means of induction (and for the sake of argument I'll concede that we can't), then what method would you advise? You seem to be making a lot of claims on God's behalf but you haven't told us how you know them.

To add a layer of complexity to the discussion let's address a philosopher, Karl Popper who concluded that no scientific law can, in a positive sense, claim to prove anything at all. Science cannot verify theories, it can merely falsify them.

The problem got more serious after Popper; science can't strictly falsify them either. Hempel tried a theory known as "nomonological deduction", which stated that science is merely a deductive method of eliminating theories by counter-example. But the equivalence of contrapositives seems to disappear in science: consider

1. All ravens are black

Assume (1) to be true. Then

2. All non-black things are non-ravens

Now suppose we find a green tree or a blue sky. This confirms (2) and therefore should confirm (1). But does it confirm (1)? Most people say no, so the idea that science can properly falsify a theory is exploded.

It gets worse, because of the Duhem-Quine thesis. When testing a hypothesis we have to rely on an indefinite number of auxiliary hypotheses - for instance, if testing that a toaster works, we have to assume that the plug socket is working, that there is no powercut, that our eyes are not deceiving us, and so on. There's no way of proving you've thought of every auxiliary hypothesis, and certainly no way of proving every auxiliary hypothesis (because they rely on auxiliaries of their own) so we find that a hypothesis must stand the tribunal of all experience. In other words, it is the overall theory of things, not the isolated theorem, which is really on trial.

The point I'm trying to make is that to falsify one theory is only verify another, and it is folly to assume that science cannot add confirmation to a theory. The choice between multiple theories becomes partly pragmatic rather than purely deductive, but this doesn't allow us to ignore the fact that the theory has to fit observations, or it is not technically a theory at all.

Lomax

[Forest_Dump]

You know, I am an agnostic now but in the distant past I used to be a devout Christian so, perhaps it was the mind opening experience of that or something else when I was younger but, either way, I get the answer to this even if I don't agree with it:

If I may ask then: if we can't know about the creator, or the non-natural phenomena, by means of induction (and for the sake of argument I'll concede that we can't), then what method would you advise? You seem to be making a lot of claims on God's behalf but you haven't told us how you know them.

Strictly within mainstream Christianity, there were a select few individuals who did get direct divine revelation from an angel or the Holy Ghost, etc., but for most Christians, the shibboleth of their religion is pure blind faith. Some would even say that their faith is definitely not supposed to be supportable by empirical evidence or any form of "western" logic or rationale. Some more charismatic forms of that or other religions allow for ecstatic or mystical means. But the point is that, whether or not Locke, Hume, Kant or Russell figured it out, others did. The supernatural may be revealed to you through taking some mushroom, fasting, manipulating the numbers in a sudoku puzzle, going without sleep for long periods of time, or dancing or chanting yourself into a frenzy or catatonic state. Whatever works for you.

[Eighty]

Eh, I'm with sillysmile on this one. You're dishing it out to science for not yet knowing all the answers to everything (and, by the way, not knowing yet isn't the same thing as it being impossible to know), but you're trying to set up your personal beliefs in the supernatural as somehow superior to this. I don't see how that is. From what I can tell your beliefs come from a general inability to imagine the universe as not having a creator, and not from any particular insights or evidence that you could share with other people to demonstrate that your particular beliefs are more right than anyone else's. We don't know how and why it all started. Not by any means currently available to humans. And that's really all one can say on the matter.

And, my main point in my early response to you is that your opinion of how Atheists view this issue is not entirely correct. You agreed with not all creationists thinking the same things, yet sort of glossed over the point about all atheists and all scientists not thinking the same things, and continued your attack on science at large. Science at large knows what it doesn't know. I don't know who you've been talking to who is 100% certain with good evidence to back it up that they know exactly how and why the universe started, but I'm pretty sure they don't represent all scientists and/or all atheists.

Paralith,

I will address your first paragraph:
"You're dishing it out to science for not yet knowing all the answers to everything (and, by the way, not knowing yet isn't the same thing as it being impossible to know)", in a recent discussion I, and others had with a local university, this was the exact phrase barred from being used because it reverts to the same argumentium ad ignorantium, Dr. Michio Kaku in one of his documentaries has said that particular phrase, or any derivative of it is a poor assumption, and personally I find it completely false and much too generalistic.

I am not attacking science for not knowing "enough", I would never attack my own field! I am not anti-science!

I am stating (and, unless you can refute it otherwise, would still stand) that science can never explain the origin of everything. How could it? If science says the Big Bang happened that's one material process that might be verifiable, how is science going to determine where the Big Bang started? Or how? Or why? How, and where both lie in realms of scientific responsibility, I believe the question "why" is our philosophical dilemma. If matter came from another universe, that universe must have had it's beginning somewhere, and so on. It's a logic that becomes circular doesn't it? If D came from C, and C came B, and B came from A, then where did A come from? We can only deduce so far!

This is not the same as saying "science fails because it cannot explain..." no, not at all. This is akin to "science fails because in this regard because science simply fails.", even that is much to harsh of a statement I think, perhaps we should consider "science cannot explain what is not physical." If it could, I could name two dozen of the countries leading professors and doctoral candidates in the sciences fields who would be more shocked than the Poles were of the coming Blitzkrieg.

In this regard, all my scientific inquiry, ideals, and conscience, and all the trillions of synapses in my brain all fire with shock and awe when I think about creation.

I regret not having taken any courses in logic right now, so perhaps someone may help me in phrasing this:

"I don't see how that is. From what I can tell your beliefs come from a general inability to imagine the universe as not having a creator, and not from any particular insights or evidence that you could share with other people to demonstrate that your particular beliefs are more right than anyone else's."

I must ask you, is it more scientific to shrug our shoulders and say "we don't know", as opposed to hypothesizing?

And in reading your last paragraph, I must summarize what would have been a lengthy reply here: I am not anti-science! I love science, and have enjoyed learning about science my whole life. There is a difference between expressing a philosophical, even a deterministic attitude toward the weakness of science, and that of a complete fire-breathing hater of the sciences.