by cantleave 83 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The scientific concensus now seems to be that we simply do not (and cannot) know what happened before the big bang.
We do not know if there are multiple universes that work under different physical laws - we can speculate, but not know.
Same with a god-creator: We can speculate, but not know.
It is enough for me to try to understand those things that are measurable and provable by observation or experiment.
Good post in the never-ending debate to promote better understanding of the world around us.
I don't think it is possible to change anybody's mind with facts if they are a believer.
Belief doesn't use facts. Belief follows something heard that sounds good to the listener.
Science, experiments, theories, logic and rational argument have a low temperature for the believer.
They find conceptual HOT topics more endearing like love, joy, peace, faith, etc.
So, evolution arguments are a complete waste of time, imho.
It took me over 50 years to even sit down and read about it objectively and even after that I fought and argued.
My 21 year old son grew exasperated with my ignorance and I saw reflected in his eyes a genuine disappointment that shook me up.
I cut the crap. I listened with both ears.
Most of my problems with evolution were the result of MY NOT UNDERSTANDING IT in the first place!
What I disagreed with was my OWN MISCONCEPTIONS!
PSac - this is becoming a Teleological argument.
Next you will be saying the Earth is the right distance from the sun to support life, therefore God must exist.
If the laws of nature were slightly different, life and the universe as we know it would not exist, but the probability of another existing, with different properties remains.
What we see is a consequence of the natural "laws" we have been dealt. This is indeed a matter of probablity ("chance" if you like), the same as a coin being tossed and landing on heads or tails. The problem is the coin has been tossed and we are a part of the outcome of that toss. So building an argument on "either or" is a false premise, since that option has passed for us. Somewhere out there, beyond our universe the probabilities are still infinite. We are just begining to scratch the surface of what we don't know!
Psac,
Perhaps what I was trying to say wasn’t clear. I’m not asking you why God had to work within the Universe as it is, in order to create life. My understanding of your views is that you think God is all-powerful and wise? Yes?
So let me rephrase the question more clearly. Why would the all-powerful Creator choose to create a Universe where He would use evolution? Why would evolution be part of the design? Why? That is what I am asking you.
You see, if I hadn’t read your posts on other subjects, I would start to think that you are doing what other Christians do. They see the evidence that evolution is almost irrefutable. They recognise that this frankly undermines the entire Creation account. And so, in an act of intellectual desperation, they state that God used evolution. And they say this with no proof whatsoever. Unless you can show me, I understand that Genesis refers to creation of a man and woman, separately from the rest of the animal creation? No? What possible Biblical reference is there to the possibility of evolution?
They also refuse to answer the question – why would a loving God choose a form, a process of creation, that consigns 98% of species to extinction? Or is this God not that bothered about the rest of the animals? Do they not matter?
In short, it would have been far more sensible, if God existed, for him to create the Universe, and then the rest of the creation more directly, as Genesis states. It would “harmonise” with the “personality” of this God. And, I suspect, that’s what our Middle Eastern goat-herders thought. It makes sense. God created us. We are special. And they meant it to be taken literally.
PP
Terry – “what I disagreed with were my own misconceptions!” HAHAHA! Brilliant. Another gem, so true.
I don't see it as a 50/50 probability split between chance and creator. If the universe was here not by chance but by a creator...where did the creator come from? Chance? So the other option could be that the universe has always been. So instead of adding an extra step and invoke a creator...why not just say the universe was always here? (Brain. Hurts.)
We know this universe had a beginning and as such, we know that things in this universe need a cause, must have a begining.
There is no reason to believe that is the case BEFORE this universe or outside this universe.
PSac - this is becoming a Teleological argument.
Yeah, sorry about that the derail.
Next you will be saying the Earth is the right distance from the sun to support life, therefore God must exist.
If the laws of nature were slightly different, life and the universe as we know it would not exist, but the probability of another existing, with different properties remains.
We can speculate that could be the case, yes.
What we see is a consequence of the natural "laws" we have been dealt. This is indeed a matter of probablity ("chance" if you like), the same as a coin being tossed and landing on heads or tails. The problem is the coin has been tossed and we are a part of the outcome of that toss. So building an argument on "either or" is a false premise, since that option has passed for us. Somewhere out there, beyond our universe the probabilities are still infinite. We are just begining to scratch the surface of what we don't know!
I agree and I for one am very excited about what next great discovery we will make !
Perhaps what I was trying to say wasn’t clear. I’m not asking you why God had to work within the Universe as it is, in order to create life. My understanding of your views is that you think God is all-powerful and wise? Yes?
In human relative terms, yes.
So let me rephrase the question more clearly. Why would the all-powerful Creator choose to create a Universe where He would use evolution? Why would evolution be part of the design? Why? That is what I am asking you.
Because it works? because it is a a most effective? because if it wasn't evolution what esle would it be?
You see, if I hadn’t read your posts on other subjects, I would start to think that you are doing what other Christians do. They see the evidence that evolution is almost irrefutable. They recognise that this frankly undermines the entire Creation account. And so, in an act of intellectual desperation, they state that God used evolution. And they say this with no proof whatsoever. Unless you can show me, I understand that Genesis refers to creation of a man and woman, separately from the rest of the animal creation? No? What possible Biblical reference is there to the possibility of evolution?
Genesis, as a literal and concrete story ie: science, was NOT how it was viewed untill, perhaps ( arguably) mcuh later.
ST Augustine in the late 300's wrote about NOT taking Genesis as literal and forcing OUR interpretations into the creation story.
They also refuse to answer the question – why would a loving God choose a form, a process of creation, that consigns 98% of species to extinction? Or is this God not that bothered about the rest of the animals? Do they not matter?
If life as we know it is just this, perhaps, but if ALL life was just a question of matter and energy and no life is every really "extinct", perhaps not.
I don't know that God does use evolution or why God is "ok" with the extrinction of billions of species, I can't begin to fathom the mind of the creator of the universe.
In short, it would have been far more sensible, if God existed, for him to create the Universe, and then the rest of the creation more directly, as Genesis states. It would “harmonise” with the “personality” of this God. And, I suspect, that’s what our Middle Eastern goat-herders thought. It makes sense. God created us. We are special. And they meant it to be taken literally.
I think you are putting a spin on Genesis that you feel comfortbale with but Iagree that HOW Genesis was told, was aimed at ancient man so that ancient man could understand with his very limited knowledge of the world, much less the universe.
Can you imagine God explaing evolution to ancient man when its hard enough to explain it to modern man?
But if we look at the story of genesis, we see a far closer reality to what we know then what we would have expected from ancient man.
There was no reason to believe the universe had a beginning, no reason to believe that all was created from the some "stuff", that man came after the animals, etc, etc.
marking
PSac,
thanks for your reply. I have to say, the following really made me chuckle: "I think you are putting a spin on Genesis that you feel comfortbale with". I don't think I am.I am not at all comfortable with the idea that Genesis should be taken as the writers meaning it literally. But that doesn't mean they didn't intend it that way.
Let's just be honest here. The Augustine "principle" is just a get-out-of jail free card. Christians interpret the Bible as literal, until science or history show that actually, the events reported could never have happened that way, or did not. Then out comes the "it was never meant to be taken literally, it is SYMBOLIC" etc, and the justification is.........a man who realised that some of the Bible was already under attack scientifically, and that it simply couldn't be defended as literal, and in order to survive it must be "symbolic." Seriously, Augustine makes this point - and where is the evidence that the WRITERS of the text felt that way about what they had written? Nowhere.
Take the Adam and Eve story. Literal, or symbolic? According to Augustine, true. There was a real Adam and Eve. According to many Christians today, true. So.......now we have evolutionary scientists (not all, but a firm consensus) pointing to an "out-of-africa" hypothesis. Evidence, much of it credible, has been presented. And this evidence points to.....no Adam and Eve. No Middle Eastern garden. Just the gradual evolution of homo sapiens, then a migratory route out of Africa, after a severe climatic event, that led to the near-decimation of the species. So.....as the evidence mounts for that hypothesis, what of the Adam and Eve story? No longer literal? We now wheel out Augustine? And what of "original sin"? What of "the fall"? Jesus' sacrifice? Did the Bible writers suddenly never mean them to be taken literally?
I'm sure you seem what I'm getting at. It's all very........convienient. It doesn't really have any intellectual foundation. I would go so far as to say, it smacks of desperation. Beleive me, I would love to think that the writers of Genesis and so on never meant us to take their words literally. But there's very little evidence of that. And that isn't to my liking at all.
PP
