Evolution vs Creationism

[DemolitionSquid]

Read through this interesting story (my own opinion about interesting):

The Egg

An interesting tale.

Which only aids my assertion that the only person one should believe in and worship is oneself. Not "God."

[EvilGenius]

An interesting tale.

Which only aids my assertion that the only person one should believe in and worship is oneself. Not "God."

I read the KJV, and the ESV. (KJV is still the most "reliable" translation - the dead sea scrolls showed it's faithful to the hebrew)

ANYWAY - why would you want to worship yourself? I wouldn't want to worship a depraved, messed up being like myself. :P And, then - who defines right and wrong, if God didn't? (or he doesn't care)

[Equiliari]

who defines right and wrong, if God didn't? (or he doesn't care)

Man does.

[DemolitionSquid]

I read the KJV, and the ESV. (KJV is still the most "reliable" translation - the dead sea scrolls showed it's faithful to the hebrew)

ANYWAY - why would you want to worship yourself? I wouldn't want to worship a depraved, messed up being like myself. :P And, then - who defines right and wrong, if God didn't? (or he doesn't care)

If I must, I will explain my own belief system.

I am Universal Unitarian. To the unenlightened, that means I believe in peaceful spiritual fulfillment, and a free and responsible search for truth and meaning to life, the universe, and everything, by whichever means best suit me. While UU started as a sect of Christianity, belief in God and the bible is not required. There are many Universal Unitarians who follow Muslim, Catholic, Bhuddist, and even Wiccan traditions.

Specifically, I am agnostic and perhaps a bit Bhuddist in my beliefs. I see no need for God nor purpose to him. I believe there is no good nor evil , only power, and how one wields it. Good and evil are decided upon by the society ones exists in, what is considered a sin to some may be a standard of life for others. Personally, I believe in non-violence, and that what defines us from the other lifeforms on this planet is solely choice, to elevate ourselves beyond our primal evolutionary urges. There will always be disputes and differences of opinion, but they can be settled in a civil manner with language. Resulting to physical violence and killing is always senseless. I abhor war and the military, and any religion that supports killing. While God's commandment is "You shall not kill/murder," both Christianity and Islam are major supporters of holy war, and it is as such I detest and fight against these backward, offensive blights of logic with words. I am not naive, and I support the technological progress of weapons, but only for defense from outside threats. To attack is abhorrent, to defend is noble.

[Gradius]

I think this video has one of the best arguments against organized religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYW2xXxFVtU

"But Joe, if you were born in Pakistan, you wouldn't be believing in Jesus, you'd be believing in Muhammed, so it's completely and terribly arbitrary isn't it?"

IT'S DEBATE TIME!!

I haven't seen a heated religious/ethics thread in a while, so here goes...

So, I go to a very conservative Bible believing Baptist school. One of the classes I'm taking is called "Essential Science." The class basically deals with controversial issues. So far, we've covered a lot of anti-evolution stuff. (only ~10% of the world is ENTIRELY atheist, if the statistics they gave are to be believed). It's mostly a lot of talk about mutation being a detraction from DNA (not being positive), and the differences between Adaptation, and Macro-Evolution.

Well, interestingly enough - one emphasis of the class is to find things out for yourself. The school requires you to maintain their beliefs while you're there, but it's not like anyone is forcing me to go there.

I'm just curious about what everyone else believes. If we have any atheists, what arguments do you have FOR evolution?

And before we begin, let's establish that evolution isn't a fact any more than creation is. The origin of the world isn't observable or repeatable.
Therefore whatever position you take, it isn't REALLY scientific.

Evolution never really bothered me, as even when I did believe in God I didn't expect that he magically poofed us into existence (creation). For me the linchpin was always cosmology and the big bang. What most people don't understand, is that just because nobody knows what happened before the big bang, that doesn't mean the big bang was the first action ever and that it just randomly caused itself. People think that scientists simply refuse to take a stance on the issue because if they had to guess what started the big bang, they would have to say that the best explanation we have now is God, which doesn't belong in science. Even the pope called the big bang "scientific verification of the story of creation" or something like that when the theory was being developed. In reality, it's simply that we don't know.

So I started reading about some theories for what could have caused the big bang, especially multiverse theories. According to brane cosmology, our universe is encapsulated in a brane, which is floating inside of higher-dimensional space called the bulk. When branes crash together, it sparks a big bang. Infinite universes are created, each with their own constants. This accounts for why our universe has all of its constants "fine-tuned". Learning that these types of theories even existed was a huge paradigm shift for me.

So, you can either say that God is eternal and created the universe, or you can say that the bulk is eternal and has been creating universes since forever. Both concepts are somewhat hard to fathom, but it's basically your pick of supernatural vs. natural. One of these theories was created using math, logic and our current understanding of the universe, the other "option" is simply an unverifiable claim made by promordial men thousands of years ago. If you have to pick one option, God is not a good choice. He is an infinitely complex & powerful being with seemingly contradictory properties, whereas matter and energy are far simpler (and therefore far more likely to exist). The bottom line is that God is simply not needed as an explanation for anything really, as history has shown again and again. There is always a naturalistic explanation if you choose to seek one out. And if there's not, you just have to remember that there is much we don't know.

**ALSO - (i COMPLETELY forgot why i gave the thread this name) There's been a lot of debate about dolphins, and their level of intelligence - Do you believe it's possible for species far-removed from humans to attain the same level of intelligence/awareness that we have? - Some enthusiasts believe that dolphins are "persons" just as much as humans are, and should have rights preventing mis-treatment.

Well, looking at the wikipedia cetacean intelligence page makes me doubt that. It seems like most of dolphins' intelligence comes from their ability to mimic behaviors. But hey, humans exist, so it's not inconceivable another species could reach our same level of intelligence.

[EvilGenius]

So, you can either say that God is eternal and created the universe, or you can say that the bulk is eternal and has been creating universes since forever. Both concepts are somewhat hard to fathom, but it's basically your pick of supernatural vs. natural. One of these theories was created using math, logic and our current understanding of the universe, the other "option" is simply an unverifiable claim made by promordial men thousands of years ago. If you have to pick one option, God is not a good choice. He is an infinitely complex & powerful being with seemingly contradictory properties, whereas matter and energy are far simpler (and therefore far more likely to exist). The bottom line is that God is simply not needed as an explanation for anything really, as history has shown again and again. There is always a naturalistic explanation if you choose to seek one out. And if there's not, you just have to remember that there is much we don't know. .

So, either position is faith-based :P it's impossible to prove either position. (for now)

I can't understand how an all-powerful intelligent being creating the universe is a BAD thing. God allows bad things to happen for a reason - I'd like to think he has a much better idea of what's going on than we do. None of us are exactly omniscient.

What's the point in living, if there's no purpose for it? If you believe you are the product of chance, what incentive is there to do anything good with your life?

[sandwich_bird]

So, either position is faith-based :P it's impossible to prove either position. (for now)

Nothing is a 100% sure(...not even this statement!). It's always a question of what is more likely based on what we know. Faith is believing in something whatever happens. What Gradius is saying, on the other hand, is that it is more logical to believe in what is more probable based on the knowledge that we have and that this same belief can be challenged if new discoveries prove it wrong.

I can't understand how an all-powerful intelligent being creating the universe is a BAD thing. God allows bad things to happen for a reason - I'd like to think he has a much better idea of what's going on than we do. None of us are exactly omniscient.

No one said it was a bad thing. It simply might not be too accurate to believe in everything that holy texts tells you based on the knowledge that we currently have.

What's the point in living, if there's no purpose for it? If you believe you are the product of chance, what incentive is there to do anything good with your life?

As I said before, I don't think we are the product of chance but this doesn't imply that there's more of a meaning to our life. This is where Dsquid ideas comes in. If there's no supreme being to give a meaning to your life, give yourself your own. Live for yourself and for society, not for a God.

[Lupino]

I can't understand how an all-powerful intelligent being creating the universe is a BAD thing.

That in and of itself is a topic that would take up entire books, but the gist of it is that believing in such things tend to have costs that far outweigh whatever benefit they might bring, especially if those same benefits can be accomplished through other means that don't involve killing others for thinking differently.

What's the point in living, if there's no purpose for it? If you believe you are the product of chance, what incentive is there to do anything good with your life?

Why do you need someone else to give you a purpose to live? Why can't you make your own purpose? Goodness knows there are plenty of real-world causes to dedicate your life to if you absolutely need an outside source to confirm your existence.

[Roland]

Evolution never really bothered me, as even when I did believe in God I didn't expect that he magically poofed us into existence (creation). For me the linchpin was always cosmology and the big bang. What most people don't understand, is that just because nobody knows what happened before the big bang, that doesn't mean the big bang was the first action ever and that it just randomly caused itself. People think that scientists simply refuse to take a stance on the issue because if they had to guess what started the big bang, they would have to say that the best explanation we have now is God, which doesn't belong in science. Even the pope called the big bang "scientific verification of the story of creation" or something like that when the theory was being developed. In reality, it's simply that we don't know.

So I started reading about some theories for what could have caused the big bang, especially multiverse theories. According to brane cosmology, our universe is encapsulated in a brane, which is floating inside of higher-dimensional space called the bulk. When branes crash together, it sparks a big bang. Infinite universes are created, each with their own constants. This accounts for why our universe has all of its constants "fine-tuned". Learning that these types of theories even existed was a huge paradigm shift for me.

So, you can either say that God is eternal and created the universe, or you can say that the bulk is eternal and has been creating universes since forever. Both concepts are somewhat hard to fathom, but it's basically your pick of supernatural vs. natural. One of these theories was created using math, logic and our current understanding of the universe, the other "option" is simply an unverifiable claim made by promordial men thousands of years ago. If you have to pick one option, God is not a good choice. He is an infinitely complex & powerful being with seemingly contradictory properties, whereas matter and energy are far simpler (and therefore far more likely to exist). The bottom line is that God is simply not needed as an explanation for anything really, as history has shown again and again. There is always a naturalistic explanation if you choose to seek one out. And if there's not, you just have to remember that there is much we don't know.

I definitely understand what you're saying, as I've thought about M-theory and religion quite a bit, but ultimately, I decided it can really go either way. The Cosmos, by which I mean the Bulk, as you call it, would inevitably produce our Universe by simple nature of producing infinite, and therefore, all possible Universes. The fact that you and I are a cosmic inevitability by nature of infinite Universes seem to imply to me there is some kind of purpose behind it. Pure chance doesn't result in inevitability, but chance and Infinite repetition do. If you were Omnipotent, trying to produce a specific world, you might as well do it by infinitely creating random Universes, which would be more glorifying to you as the creator anyway, as you would have Infinite realities to worship you, which ties into the theological concept I mentioned in my last post of the Cosmos existing to worship/glorify God. Essentially, I don't think M-theory conflicts with the creation story because it seems like a perfectly viable way for God to produce this Universe, and do so in a way infinitely glorifying to him, and therefore theologically sound.

Anyway, if there are truly infinite Universes, then there is a Universe in which the Bible is entirely true, food for thought.

[Gradius]

What's the point in living, if there's no purpose for it? If you believe you are the product of chance, what incentive is there to do anything good with your life?

I can confirm that life is a hell of alot more depressing if you don't believe that you will live on in eternal paradise with all your relatives and friends after your death. :P

But it's up to you to find purpose. For most people it's simply getting drowned in their work. I just like to think that it's my morals that make my existence on this planet a benefit instead of a detriment.

If you were Omnipotent, trying to produce a specific world, you might as well do it by infinitely creating random Universes, which would be more glorifying to you as the creator anyway, as you would have Infinite realities to worship you, which ties into the theological concept I mentioned in my last post of the Cosmos existing to worship/glorify God. Essentially, I don't think M-theory conflicts with the creation story because it seems like a perfectly viable way for God to produce this Universe, and do so in a way infinitely glorifying to him, and therefore theologically sound.

Personally I don't think "more glory" is a great reason for an omnipotent being to create infinite universes when he only wanted to create one, but that aside, I'm mainly saying that from our vantage point, adding God to the equation only introduces more problems because:
a) he adds nothing to our understanding.
b) he is way more complicated than the basic things that you need for a universe/multiverse to exist. In a scientific quest for the knowledge of ultimate genesis, God is an unnecessary roadblock/addition, especially if your concept of God is that he's beyond human understanding.

True, God doesn't automatically conflict with the possible theories, but that's why even the most hardcore atheists will say they are 99% sure that God doesn't exist, not 100. Because if they had to guess, they would say it's highly unlikely that God did it. With that said, though having knowledge of ultimate genesis would be nice, I don't take a position on either the bulk's existence or god's. Doing so IMO is an act of impatience ("i have to have the answer now").

Anyway, if there are truly infinite Universes, then there is a Universe in which the Bible is entirely true, food for thought.

Not necessarily. Infinite does not mean all variations. If the bulk produces infinite universes but only in the range from [0, ∞], and the universe in which the bible is true is -2, then that universe doesn't exist. Relating to our example, it means that each universe must always follow laws of physics, as opposed to a universe with God which only follows them most of the time. In math, there are also transfinite numbers which are larger than all finite numbers, but not absolutely infinite.