So we may agree on something ... I may believe accept an evolution that doesn't disprove God and you may believe accept an evolution that doesn't need God.
Are we good?
Eden
Do beleivers have a problem with GODS silence in this technological/communication age ? and if not why not ? ?
by smiddy 55 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
still thinking
"There are bugs in your triscuits."
LMAO!
-
EdenOne
The argument of the redundancy of God (God isn't necessary for life to have evolved from non-life, therefore, the idea of God may be discarded), reminds me of a friend couple that has four children.
Considering that the objective of a species is to perpetuate itself, then 2 children would perpetuate a breeding couple. If the species has the objective to achieve a marginal growth on each new generation, then one may consider the third child. But the fourth child is objectively redundant for the two objectives outlined before. Does that mean the fourth child is expendable? I know, this is some kind of strawman argument; but nevertheless, i would like to see how you would justify keeping the fourth child once established its unecessity and redundance.
Eden
-
cofty
I may believe in an evolution that doesn't disprove God and you may believe in an evolution that doesn't need God. Are we good? - Eden One
No. I've read your blog and you are not being honest about your beliefs. The word "may" covers a multitude of superstitions.
"Before they have sinned, Adam and Eve were free from the consequences of sin. Obviously, they were also free from death."
There was no Adam and Eve, no fall from perfection. Humans evolved over millions of years from non-human ancestors.
As for your question; Evolution does not operate at the level of the species but at the level of the individual.
This is only partially an answer to your question. It contains so many misconceptions its hard to know where to start.
-
jgnat
Back to the topic at hand...
There are great silences between the events of the bible. There's the period between Malachi an Matthew (400 years).
Between Adam and Noah, 1600 years.
About 400 years between Noah and Abraham.
Nowadays revivalists are trying hard to resurrect the personal, miracle working God of Acts.
Perhaps genuine connection must be deeper rather than faster. We sure say a lot more about ourselves than ever before. But how much is of substance?
We've passed a milestone where there is now more information about a person on the internet than they can generate in a lifetime.
-
EdenOne
You must really wait for my next installment on that series of articles, cofty. You may be surprised. As I told you long ago, it's not a closed series of articles yet. I misplaced my notes on the next article I was writing and went through a mild depression, and so it took me a long time to go back to the subject. but it's not forgotten.
Eden
-
EdenOne
Jgnat, glad you brought us back to the topic.
Who says that Christianism hasn't changed the paradigm by which God relates himself with mankind? To the point that no more prophets, no more revelations, no more miraculous interventions are needed? It's a distinct possibility.
Eden
-
EdenOne
Dawkins tries to conceal the obvious social darwinist latent within him (in The Selfish Gene) by telling endearing stories about animal moms who sacrifice themselves because they know that at least 50% of their genes will survive if their pups live as a result of her sacrifice. Naturally, Dawkins fails to explain how can a gene gain consciousness of itself to the point of making rational choices.
Also, it's not intellectually honest to point the finger at christianity for the crusades and the inquisition, and turn a blind eye at social darwinism, as if it never had happened, and wasn't the justification for imperiallism, fascism, nazism, eugenics, etc
Eden
-
cofty
Dawkins fails to explain how can a gene gain consciousness of itself to the point of making rational choices.
That is a real facepalm moment!
Eden One - you are off topic again and you have totally misunderstood the premsie of The Selfish Gene.
If you think Dawkins is latent social Darwinist you have never read Dawkins.
If you actually want an answer start a new thread on social Darwinism.
Back on topic the hiddenness of god is one of the strongest arguments for god's non-existence.
-
jgnat
I have a hard time believing there are no further revelations in the past 2,000 years. I mean, seriously, the directions about master-slave relations needs upgrading. Not to mention head-coverings.
Could any religion have so much influence as to silence an omnipotent, omnipresent, all-knowing God?