Are Evolution and A God Irreconcilable?

Endasaurus

Hey all, I'm actually not that familiar with evolution, at least not in-depth, so I was wondering precisely what about it makes people no longer believe in the existence of a God in the traditional sense?


Or is it more just that it proves that we did not start out like the Bible says we did. I don't see how the fact that animals evolve into superior animals as anything that should leave one to believe or disbelieve in a deity or force that brings structure to the universe, let alone prove it one way or another


Because from my very broad understanding of it there should be no problem accepting evolution with or without religious/spiritual belief? Perhaps it only shows literal bible "truths" as what they are, and rightly so, but no more?


Help me out here guys.

Dave!

Yeah you're on the mark there. Evolution does not "disprove" the potential existance of a deist god. It does, however, disprove the story of Genesis.

Endasaurus

So our big trump card only eliminates what most religious people don't put much stock in anyway?

Crucifix

Endasaurus wrote:

So our big trump card only eliminates what most religious people don't put much stock in anyway?

Our big trump card? lol.
But nope. Evolution is even the official stance of the Catholic Church, albeit guided by the hand of God.

Gurgle

Endasaurus wrote:

Or is it more just that it proves that we did not start out like the Bible says we did.

By referring to the bible, you're already limiting your definition of 'A God' to only include the jewish/christian/muslim one (they're all essentially the same religion anyway).

IMO evolution is established scientific fact, while the presence or absense of a God is largely a matter of imagination.

If there is a God, he appears to have created the world by setting up the rules of physics and throwing a ball of burning stuff into a colder part of space.

Everything since then, under those rules, was inevitable.

Endasaurus

Well to clarify that I mean that I hear atheists go on an awful lot about evolution, and it seems to be this big massive point against religion or the believing in a god. I don't see where it factors in significantly at all really.


How can they been seen as incompatable?

I understand what Dave said against it being at odds with the Genesis story of Adam and Eve.. but only a relatively small amount of people put stock in this theory compared to the millions who don't, or who see it as metaphor. And I don't see that as an argument against religion as a whole either.

Endasaurus

Gurgle wrote:

By referring to the bible, you're already limiting your definition of 'A God' to only include the jewish/christian/muslim one (they're all essentially the same religion anyway)

Thats what I was asking though. I asked in the first paragraph if this could be applied to "god" in the general sense of the word, then asked in the second if this argument could only be applied to the jewish/christian/muslim one.

Crucifix

Endasaurus wrote:

Well to clarify that I mean that I hear atheists go on an awful lot about evolution, and it seems to be this big massive point against religion or the believing in a god. I don't see where it factors in significantly at all really.


How can they been seen as incompatable?

I understand what Dave said against it being at odds with the Genesis story of Adam and Eve.. but only a relatively small amount of people put stock in this theory compared to the millions who don't, or who see it as metaphor. And I don't see that as an argument against religion as a whole either.

I think that creationism is just sufficiently annoying enough, to enough people, to prompt such a large response.

Endasaurus

So we can clearly see that these people are wrong, therefore what we believe is highly probable?

joe_chicken

There's really only one reason why you hear so much talk of evolution from atheists latelty: Creationism.

A word that seems to have popped into existence in the last 5 years.

They're trying to get God taught as an alternative to evolution in science books in America.

They set up institutes like the icr that look like they could be science websites, but they are far from it.
(the words "creation" and "research" should never be put together)

Edit: beat me to it

5uspect

Endasaurus wrote:

So our big trump card only eliminates what most religious people don't put much stock in anyway?

One reason evolution is popular with a lot of Atheists because science in general is popular among them. Religion has a habit of being anti-science and evolution in particular has received much flack from religious types by not just the bible bashing types but there are even dodgy articles in Irish newspapers full of misinformation, ignorance and plain lies.

Evolution can explain the development of life on this planet (and possibly any planet where life can form) without the need for God. This is what worries religious types. Funnily enough quantum theory may explain how the universe itself came into existence without a need for a god but it does not piss them off as much. I suppose the reason for this is that evolution is quite easy to understand physically and is quite well explained in many popular science books.
Quantum theory however is naturally counter intuitive and as a result seems mystical enough to many to ensure that its not just "cold hard" science, like the seemingly deterministic genetic view of evolution.

Fallen Seraph

Endasaurus wrote:

So we can clearly see that these people are wrong, therefore what we believe is highly probable?

Not at all really.I reckon that's the same fallacy that creationists make with evolution; their thought process seems to be:

1. Disprove evolution
2. ????
3. Judeo-Christian god wins!

All evolution does is rule out a literal interpretation of genesis. And to be fair, I really think that there are quite strong arguments against literal interpretation of it; I mean if you're an infinately intelligent and wise being who has just come up with a most ingenious process for making the most efficient and diverse life possible I don't think you'll be explaining it literally to sheep herders...

I think that evolution is only evidence for atheism insofar as it doesn't disprove it. It doesn't necessarily indicate it.

DapperGent

Fallen Seraph wrote:

1. Disprove evolution
2. ????
3. Judeo-Christian god wins!

Might have to put this on a t-shirt.

Zombrex

Endasaurus wrote:

Well to clarify that I mean that I hear atheists go on an awful lot about evolution, and it seems to be this big massive point against religion or the believing in a god.

Not really. In fact it has only become a "massive point" against religion because a lot of religious people have such an issue with it. Atheists, who as 5uspect points out tend to be scientifically minded, just answer the call to defend evolution because theists spend a large amount of time attacking it. I personally don't see evolution as being particularly more important in disproving God than any other scientific theory going at the moment.

A lot of religious people believe that it says there is no God. In reality it doesn't mention God at all. But some theists (religious people) have set their religion up in a certain way to explain certain things about the world. Evolution presents a different explanation, and as such they believe that evolution is contradicting their religion (on purpose).

In reality the vast majority of science is contradicting their religion, but for some reason they focus almost exclusively on evolution, probably because it effects the nature humans directly.

This fact, to me, gives a glimpse at the psychology going on behind the sense when it comes to religion. The majority of theists with objections to evolution don't object to (or even understand) something like general relativity, despite the fact that that also presents a largely incompatible model of the universe. They object to evolution because they see evolution as telling them that humans are not special in the world, that we are "simply" (understatement of the year) evolved animals.

This to me would suggest that the reason they don't like evolution so much is because it is a treat to the idea created by religion that you are special. There is a quite obvious tread in western religion to tell people that they are special and that because they are special they will be rewarded, be it Scientologiest telling people that they have cured their mental illness, to Christians say that they are saved from hell. I would imagine for a lot of people that this is part of the appeal of the religion in the first place.

You can again glimpse this in the rather over the top and ridiculous way anti-evolutionists get worked up over the idea that humans evolved from older primates. "I didn't evolve from a monkey" is often quoted by religious people who seem to take that as quite an insult. They seem to think that such a theory devalues their worth, or their special place in the universe.

And at the end of the day I guess everyone likes to feel that they are special

Endasaurus

Thanks guys.

I was wondering why this was such a major talking point when it didn't seem to refute anything for me beyond the bible belt wackos.

pH

Whereas non-belief (in God) existed pre-Darwin, just looking around you at life on this planet was a compelling reason to believe in a creator. Now theists using this as a reason for belief have to fall back to the first fractions of a second following the big bang and say 'Well you can't explain that - therefore God did it!' - this was a much more compelling argument when it could be applied to all the life around us on Earth.

I wouldn't say it's just the beliefs of the 'bible belt wackos' it refutes. It makes it clear that portions of the Bible are incorrect (as an explanation), and therefore were either written by a man who was making it up, or God is some kind of trickster who likes deceiving us. Those who would say that Genesis is some kind of metaphor should be asked what exactly they think it is a metaphor for!

The other thing that it almost certainly disproves is the concept of a soul. Unless someone can argue that a soul could evolve (because it has some form of reproductive advantage), then you're left arguing that at some stage God reached down into a population of animals and gave (some of?) them souls? At birth? Did the first humans with souls have soulless parents? How many did he give souls to, what happened if someone born with a soul has children with a soulless animal? etc etc.

GWolf

Agnostic, and no, I do not think evolution and God are in any way mutually exclusive. If God exists, it's entirely possible he/she/it created evolution.

Zillah

GWolf wrote:

Agnostic, and no, I do not think evolution and God are in any way mutually exclusive. If God exists, it's entirely possible he/she/it created evolution.

Depends entirely on the God though doesn't it?

For a fundamentalist Christian, evolution and God are entirely irreconcilable. The world is 5000 years old and God made all life at once. This evil evolution states that species came about slowly.

Ph wrote:

The other thing that it almost certainly disproves is the concept of a soul. Unless someone can argue that a soul could evolve (because it has some form of reproductive advantage), then you're left arguing that at some stage God reached down into a population of animals and gave (some of?) them souls? At birth? Did the first humans with souls have soulless parents? How many did he give souls to, what happened if someone born with a soul has children with a soulless animal? etc etc.

I must say I'm ashamed that such an elegant observation has never occured to me.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

I wouldn't say it's just the beliefs of the 'bible belt wackos' it refutes. It makes it clear that portions of the Bible are incorrect (as an explanation), and therefore were either written by a man who was making it up, or God is some kind of trickster who likes deceiving us. Those who would say that Genesis is some kind of metaphor should be asked what exactly they think it is a metaphor for!

For the moment where: (a) God reached down and gave "a pair" of animals souls; or (b) "a pair" of humans became sufficiently evolved that God first spoke to them - either spiritually or physically; or (c) "a pair" of animals evolved out of their unthinking /unselfconscious communion with God to become capable of sin through self-consciousness.

pH wrote:

The other thing that it almost certainly disproves is the concept of a soul. Unless someone can argue that a soul could evolve (because it has some form of reproductive advantage), then you're left arguing that at some stage God reached down into a population of animals and gave (some of?) them souls? At birth? Did the first humans with souls have soulless parents? How many did he give souls to, what happened if someone born with a soul has children with a soulless animal? etc etc.

It's obviously not necessary for the soul to evolve, particularly out of nothing. One could claim that the "human lineage" always possessed human souls, or one could claim that everything possesses a soul just as it possesses DNA/RNA and that the soul itself evolves. Heck, one could claim that 'junk DNA' codes for the soul, although there's no real reason to provide that kind of hostage to fortune.

In the case of "God-given" souls, one could claim that God originally gave only the people of Israel souls - and hence the restrictions on marrying outside Israel. The answer to "what happened if someone born with a soul has children with a soulless animal" has already been 'given' repeatedly by those who believed that women had no souls...

Further, one could easily claim that all souls are "sparks" of God, and that as much adheres to life-forms as they can sustain - amounts related to intellectual capacity, say.

Genesis then becomes (as per above) an analogy for any of these processes - interpretations which I think the text will bear. There is, in fact, a massive amount of wriggle-room.

Finally, and most importantly, only Biblical inerrantists require that the Bible be the work of God, as such. It is quite possible for a Christian to believe that the whole thing is written rather inaccurately by/about men who had experienced God - that it is an account of God, rather than by God, with all that implies in the way of possibility of error. In those conditions, it does not matter what we think Genesis is a metaphor for - all that matters is what the original author(s) thought it was a metaphor for. Indeed, they may have thought of it as literal history, and been wrong, without that being very upsetting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pinksoir

yeah, i was having a similar discussion with my mother about the existence of god and the soul. at the end of the blind watchmaker dawkins discusses taxonomy and the fact that speciesation can only make sense if you consider only the animals that exist at this point in time. suffice it to say its a very 'controversial' subject (taxonomy), but it definitely raises questions about the soul. at what point did it come into existence? at what point did hominids develop a soul? do all animals have souls? do other beings?

seems pretty redundent.

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

It's obviously not necessary for the soul to evolve, particularly out of nothing. One could claim that the "human lineage" always possessed human souls, or one could claim that everything possesses a soul just as it possesses DNA/RNA and that the soul itself evolves. Heck, one could claim that 'junk DNA' codes for the soul, although there's no real reason to provide that kind of hostage to fortune.

In the case of "God-given" souls, one could claim that God originally gave only the people of Israel souls - and hence the restrictions on marrying outside Israel. The answer to "what happened if someone born with a soul has children with a soulless animal" has already been 'given' repeatedly by those who believed that women had no souls...

Further, one could easily claim that all souls are "sparks" of God, and that as much adheres to life-forms as they can sustain - amounts related to intellectual capacity, say.

Genesis then becomes (as per above) an analogy for any of these processes - interpretations which I think the text will bear. There is, in fact, a massive amount of wriggle-room.

Finally, and most importantly, only Biblical inerrantists require that the Bible be the work of God, as such. It is quite possible for a Christian to believe that the whole thing is written rather inaccurately by/about men who had experienced God - that it is an account of God, rather than by God, with all that implies in the way of possibility of error. In those conditions, it does not matter what we think Genesis is a metaphor for - all that matters is what the original author(s) thought it was a metaphor for. Indeed, they may have thought of it as literal history, and been wrong, without that being very upsetting.

What if we take the Catholic outlook? They don't maintain that women don't have souls. They also maintain that only humans do have souls. Hence, at what point did we get souls? There is no real point at which God could say "Yes, they've evolved enough", because every animal is functionally identical to its parents and children. The differences only manifest over a large number of generations. And even if we're talking about a specific one generation trait that defines us as "humans", what was that trait? The one trait that appeared one generation that made God go "Ok, cool, they're people now!" And this trait would have appeared in the "first" real human. Was there only one being with a soul for a whole generation? Does this mean that this first ensouled human mated with an animal to make the rest of us?

GWolf

The other thing that it almost certainly disproves is the concept of a soul. Unless someone can argue that a soul could evolve (because it has some form of reproductive advantage), then you're left arguing that at some stage God reached down into a population of animals and gave (some of?) them souls? At birth? Did the first humans with souls have soulless parents? How many did he give souls to, what happened if someone born with a soul has children with a soulless animal? etc etc

That argument means nothing to me since I beleive that if the soul exists every single living thing has one

Zillah

GWolf wrote:

That argument means nothing to me since I beleive that if the soul exists every single living thing has one

"Living" is a term of convenience rather than an objective quality.

- People are alive, yes? They have souls.
- I assume a dog counts as living? They have souls.
- I presume an ant gets a soul?
- What about a single celled bacteria? Are they alive? Do they get souls?
- What about a virus? Is it alive? Many viruses are essentially single bits of replicating protein; Do they get souls?
- What about the individual cells of a person's body? Many of the cells of my immune system (macrophages) are far more complex than many viruses and bateriums, does every cell in my body get a soul? Macrophages float around in the bloodstream, gobbling up bacteria and viruses, communicate with other cells, terminate cancer cells. They lead a much more diverse life than any virus.

Am I a composite being made of trillions of souls?

GWolf

Zillah wrote:

"Living" is a term of convenience rather than an objective quality.

- People are alive, yes? They have souls.
- I assume a dog counts as living? They have souls.
- I presume an ant gets a soul?
- What about a single celled bacteria? Are they alive? Do they get souls?
- What about a virus? Is it alive? Many viruses are essentially single bits of replicating protein; Do they get souls?
- What about the individual cells of a person's body? Many of the cells of my immune system (macrophages) are far more complex than many viruses and bateriums, does every cell in my body get a soul? Macrophages float around in the bloodstream, gobbling up bacteria and viruses, communicate with other cells, terminate cancer cells. They lead a much more diverse life than any virus.

Am I a composite being made of trillions of souls?

I said living, and I meant living. If viruses are alive then yes. Single celled organisms, yes. Since multicelled organisms have cells that all act together, I'd count that as one. Anything else? One of the reasons I'm an agnostic is because while I'm open to the idea of a deity or deities, I'm closed to organised religon. For me, it's an entirely personal thing

--Goldberry--

Zillah wrote:

The differences only manifest over a large number of generations. And even if we're talking about a specific one generation trait that defines us as "humans", what was that trait? The one trait that appeared one generation that made God go "Ok, cool, they're people now!" And this trait would have appeared in the "first" real human.

I dont think that there was a physical trait that made us suddenly human. The thing that makes us human is the fact that God gave us souls. So it wasnt like "Oh look, they've evolved into humans, I'll give them souls so", God gave Adam a soul and he became human.

GWolf

I think everything has a soul, and it's not what makes us more intelligent.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

What if we take the Catholic outlook? They don't maintain that women don't have souls. They also maintain that only humans do have souls. Hence, at what point did we get souls? There is no real point at which God could say "Yes, they've evolved enough", because every animal is functionally identical to its parents and children. The differences only manifest over a large number of generations. And even if we're talking about a specific one generation trait that defines us as "humans", what was that trait? The one trait that appeared one generation that made God go "Ok, cool, they're people now!" And this trait would have appeared in the "first" real human. Was there only one being with a soul for a whole generation? Does this mean that this first ensouled human mated with an animal to make the rest of us?

Did someone say there had to be a sharp dividing line? By your logic, there is no real point at which one can say "yes, they have ears".

How about the following: the human evolves to the point where it can communicate with God (either intellectually or "spiritually") - how do we tell the dividing line? The answer is obvious: ability to communicate with God.

I don't think there's any reason why this "spiritual evolution" should be unidirectional. Presumably, it is possible for human beings to lose the ability to comunicate with God as well as gain it. Indeed, every generation can be expected to produce some people who are unable to communicate with God - atheists. Perhaps, indeed, now that we have made society so cosseting, we might expect to find more of these benighted souls...

completely making this up,
Scofflaw

GWolf

You know, that's not a bad theory at all

Zillah

--Goldberry-- wrote:

I dont think that there was a physical trait that made us suddenly human. The thing that makes us human is the fact that God gave us souls. So it wasnt like "Oh look, they've evolved into humans, I'll give them souls so", God gave Adam a soul and he became human.

Adam? There was an Adam...?

That aside, I'm not saying that there is an evolved trait that makes us human, I was just pointing out that even if we did agree on one for the sake of argument, the situation still makes no sense.


In your scenario, what about poor Adam's parents? They're essentially identical to him, like you and your parents. When he died, he was the only person in heaven. His parents ceased to exist, like any other animal. Is that how you view it? Why did God choose Adam's generation to be the first ones with souls? Did he not love Adam's parents?

GWolf wrote:

I think everything has a soul, and it's not what makes us more intelligent.

Uh, a rock has a soul? What if I break it into two rocks?

What happens these souls? Does my corpse have a soul of its own after I die?

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Did someone say there had to be a sharp dividing line? By your logic, there is no real point at which one can say "yes, they have ears".

Obviously we had proto ears. Are you proposing that our ancestors had proto-souls? And if they did, do those souls go to heaven? Is a dog's primitive soul destined for heaven? The Catholic church says not. They say only humans have souls. When did they get them?

How about the following: the human evolves to the point where it can communicate with God (either intellectually or "spiritually") - how do we tell the dividing line? The answer is obvious: ability to communicate with God.

What the hell has communication to do with it? God is omnipotent. He can have a conversation with a hydrogen atom if he likes.

That aside, the soul is generally considered to be a thing that a person has. Not physical, but something they possess.

I don't think there's any reason why this "spiritual evolution" should be unidirectional.

As I intially said, from the point of view of the Catholic Church, there is no spiritual evolution. People have souls, animals don't. Yes/no, 0/1, on/off.

GWolf

what is it with atheists that you have to think in absolutes about everything. I don't see whyt atheists and fundamentalists don't get on, they have the same attitude. I can't talk to my sister about this kind of stuff at all, she makes the exact same arguments. I'm a very scientific person who is open to the idea of something more then we know about, which might be part of how the universe works and therefore in no way supernatural. I like being an agnostic, so why does every christian and every atheist I know keep trying to convert me? Seriously, all my relatives tell me to pick a side. I say you limit yourselves, I like things the way they are

GWolf

Oh and Zillah, I already said 'everything living". Don't bother trying to catch me out.

Zillah

I asked questions. If your position is correct, then surely you have answers?



If your position is not correct, then you do not have answers, and might get upset when I ask questions. In which case you might want to revise your position.

GWolf wrote:

I like being an agnostic, so why does every christian and every atheist I know keep trying to convert me? Seriously, all my relatives tell me to pick a side. I say you limit yourselves, I like things the way they are

If you asert that souls exist then you are not agnostic. An agnostic is someone who asserts that there is not enough evidence either way, and so maintains neutrality on the issue.

You appear to be some form of wishy washy spiritualist.

And I am very open to the idea that there are things we don't know or understand, hence why I don't jump to conclusions without gathering as much information as I can.

GWolf wrote:

Oh and Zillah, I already said 'everything living". Don't bother trying to catch me out.

Uh no, you said: "I think everything has a soul, and it's not what makes us more intelligent."

That was in response to my question about what counts as alive.

GWolf

And you appear to be a closed minded fool who seems more interested in proving himself right then entertaining ideas outside your limited experience. And I already established my opinons about whtehr or not they defiently exist. I deal in ifs, since there is zero way of proving or disproving something you don't have any understanding of. Which is why people who deal in aboslutes bug me. I'm not a spiritualist, I'm not an anything ist, I only use the term agnostic because its easier then wasting both our time on an actual explanation. but you enjoy feeling superior and right. I'll enjoying feeling good about myself and not wrong

Fallen Seraph

GWolf wrote:

what is it with atheists that you have to think in absolutes about everything. I don't see whyt atheists and fundamentalists don't get on, they have the same attitude.

Almost all generalisations are wrong. [/irony]
A lot of atheists don't try to convert people or think in absolutes. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't make them closed minded.

GWolf

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Almost all generalisations are wrong. [/irony]
A lot of atheists don't try to convert people or think in absolutes. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't make them closed minded.

Sorry, but fundamentalists autimatically disallow any idea of scientific explanation for things, and athesisits visa versa. Seems pretty damn close minded to me. I like disagreement, I dislike the attitude.

Zillah

GWolf wrote:

And you appear to be a closed minded fool who seems more interested in proving himself right then entertaining ideas outside your limited experience.

Closeminded? Definately not. I entertain all ideas, consider the evidence and arguments for them. If something has no evidence and bad arguments I will reject it. Like souls; you have no evidence and no argument.

You dismiss the existence of [insert vampires, flying unicorns or something ridiculous you don't believe in]. Why is that ok, but I'm closeminded if I don't think souls exist?

And I already established my opinons about whtehr or not they defiently exist. I deal in ifs, since there is zero way of proving or disproving something you don't have any understanding of.

But there are infinite "ifs". Vampires, werewolves, Thor, Zeus, flying spaghetti monsters, unicorns, grey aliens etc. You reject billions of things every day, I just reject one of the things you happen to believe in. Why do I get lambasted but its fine for you?

Which is why people who deal in aboslutes bug me

What absolutes have I dealt with?

pinksoir

GWolf, what reasons do you have for believing in the existence of a soul? What evidence have you encountered that would make you accept the idea? What is the point of a soul?

GWolf

Zillah wrote:

You dismiss the existence of [insert vampires, flying unicorns or something ridiculous you don't believe in].

Flying unicorns, no. No evidence that horse ever had a hexapodal existence, which would be needed. Well, except Grani, but I don't know a lot about him. Unicorns maybe. Many animals that lack horns todayy had ancestor that were horned. As for vampires, well since that's something that lives off of blood, then certainly. Plenty of examples in nature

werewolves, Thor, Zeus, flying spaghetti monsters, aliens etc.

Lycanthropy is a recognised psychological condition. Thor and Zeus, no more reject them then I reject any God persay. Aliens? Of course I beleive in aliens. What sane, locical person doesn't. The universe is so big there has to be life out there somewhere. I highly doubt their paying us any visits, but howsever....

Fallen Seraph

GWolf wrote:

Sorry, but fundamentalists autimatically disallow any idea of scientific explanation for things, and athesisits visa versa. Seems pretty damn close minded to me.

An atheist means someone who doesn't believe in god. Not believing in god doesn't preclude believing in magic. I'm mostly quibbling the generalisation, rather than the mindset.

And wrt to people disallowing any supernatural explation for things; I really don't think that it's closed minded to put some faith in a paradigm that has a rather proven track record in explaining things it sets its mind to... I don't think many people assert that there don't exist phenomena that science can't currently explain (if there did then there wouldn't be much left for science to do), but I think it's kinda hard to disagree that it's simply prudent to let science have a bit of a think about them, before pronouncing them supernatural.

--Goldberry--

Zillah wrote:

In your scenario, what about poor Adam's parents? They're essentially identical to him, like you and your parents. When he died, he was the only person in heaven. His parents ceased to exist, like any other animal. Is that how you view it? Why did God choose Adam's generation to be the first ones with souls? Did he not love Adam's parents?

It is how I view it, I mean physically Adam's parents would have been essentially identical to him but if they didn't have eternal souls (the Church actually does believe animals have souls, just not eternal souls like ours) then they weren't human. I'm sure he loved them in the way he loves birds or fish, but unless they had eternal souls they would have only been very smart animals.
Why he chose that moment to create the human race, I don't know, only God can answer that.

GWolf

pinksoir wrote:

GWolf, what reasons do you have for believing in the existence of a soul? What evidence have you encountered that would make you accept the idea? What is the point of a soul?

Point, well to use a pharse that might get me crucified here(hehe), God Only Knows. As for evidence of an existence. Well, a soul is supposed to be something that exists in us and after we die, yes? Well, as far as we know energy cannot be destroyed, only altered in some fashion. And if the energy of our bodies, electrical or whatever, is merely altered after we die, then that's a psssible, maybe not probable, explanation. Point is, if we don't know what to look for, no way to prove or disprove it's existence. Humans think we have all this science stuff down. We know nothing. We might have a basic understandings as they effect our world, might. But we haven't the foggiest clue of reall universal laws. Why do you think we have so many theories about alternate universes and wormholes and such.

Zillah

Whoops, I missed this post in the rapid posting:

GWolf wrote:

I said living, and I meant living. If viruses are alive then yes. Single celled organisms, yes. Since multicelled organisms have cells that all act together, I'd count that as one. Anything else? One of the reasons I'm an agnostic is because while I'm open to the idea of a deity or deities, I'm closed to organised religon. For me, it's an entirely personal thing

I've already pointed out that "alive" is not an absolute statement. Things that are considered "alive" are just complex molecules that replicate. A virus is just a little bit of matter that can make copies of itself, but you give it a soul. But you deny a macrophage a soul despite the fact that it is thousands of times bigger and more complex. It leads a much more diverse life, but just because it works cooperatively with others of its kind it doesn't get a soul.

And the new one:

" wrote:

Flying unicorns, no. Unicorns maybe. Many animals that lack horns todayy had ancestor that were horned. As for vampires, well since that's something that lives off of blood, then certainly. Plenty of examples in natur

I'm talking about flying unicorns that can go invisible and fly and sing to me at night so I get nice dreams. On weekends they bring me ice cream.

Do you believe they exist?

If not then you're a "close minded fool" who deals in absolutes.

GWolf

--Goldberry-- wrote:

It is how I view it, I mean physically Adam's parents would have been essentially identical to him but if they didn't have eternal souls (the Church actually does believe animals have souls, just not eternal souls like ours) then they weren't human. I'm sure he loved them in the way he loves birds or fish, but unless they had souls they would have only been very smart animals.
Why he chose that moment to create the human race, I don't know, only God can answer that.

I always thought it would be hilarious if God made humans simply out of boredom. We hype ourselves up and it turns out we were a way of killing a week

Zillah

--Goldberry-- wrote:

It is how I view it, I mean physically Adam's parents would have been essentially identical to him but if they didn't have eternal souls (the Church actually does believe animals have souls, just not eternal souls like ours) then they weren't human. I'm sure he loved them in the way he loves birds or fish, but unless they had souls they would have only been very smart animals.
Why he chose that moment to create the human race, I don't know, only God can answer that.

Ok, your argument is consistent at least.

Just to be sure of your position: Does the soul have any effect in the physical world? If so, what is it? If not, then Adam and his parents were all human beings as we'd recognise them. His parents were "human" in every sense of the word until they died.

If you found out tomorrow that one of your parents didn't have a soul (lets say God tells you for arguments sake), would you love them any less? Would you love your own mother no more than you love the fish and birds?

GWolf

Zillah wrote:

I'm talking about flying unicorns that can go invisible and fly and sing to me at night so I get nice dreams. On weekends they bring me ice cream.

Lets see. In order to see we use light and it has been theorised that if we reflected the light just right we'd be outside the visual spectrum. Now, if the unicron posessedd a covering which had a reflective quality then yes, it's perfectly possible. And if they're vocal cords were altered so that they had more sing song voices, and they were at least partially nocturnal, then yes, a unicorn could be flying past you at night singing.


All things are possible, it's probablity we're dealing with here. And you can't decide the probablity of a deity of some sort existing if you can't undertand the factors, which no one does.

*Edit* oh right ice cream. Well if they were trainable, why not?

Zillah

GWolf wrote:

All things are possible, it's probablity we're dealing with here. And you can't decide the probablity of a deity of some sort existing if you can't undertand the factors, which no one does.

Aha! So we're dealing with probability. If there is no evidence for something, surely that makes it as improbable as is theoretically possible?

Like souls.

Scofflaw

GWolf wrote:

You know, that's not a bad theory at all

The temptation to found my own church is nearly overwhelming sometimes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

GWolf

Not automatically. There was no evidence of dinosaurs existing until their bones were first exposed however far back that was. If humans had existed back then and you'd asked them what they thought of the idea of a 7 tonne bipedal reptile with tiny arms and a head that was nothing but mouth and teeth, they'd have said it was highly improbable. Well, they'd be wrong now wouldn't they. When you know what to look for its easy to find it.

Zillah

GWolf wrote:

Not automatically. There was no evidence of dinosaurs existing until their bones were first exposed however far back that was. If humans had existed back then and you'd asked them what they thought of the idea of a 7 tonne bipedal reptile with tiny arms and a head that was nothing but mouth and teeth, they'd have said it was highly improbable. Well, they'd be wrong now wouldn't they. When you know what to look for its easy to find it.

True, but completely irrelevant.

If I had said dinosaurs existed, long before there was any evidence for them, then it would have been completely stupid of anyone to believe me.

The fact that it turned out I was right is irrelevant, because I just got lucky, it was still a ridiculously irrational position to maintain. 99.99999% of the time that anyone made a proposal that had no evidence for it, they were wrong. Anyone who does propose something that has no evidence is almost certainly wrong.

GWolf

Zillah wrote:

True, but completely irrelevant.

If I had said dinosaurs existed, long before there was any evidence for them, then it would have been completely stupid of anyone to believe me.

The fact that it turned out I was right is irrelevant, because I just got lucky, it was still a ridiculously irrational position to maintain.

Depends. For you to think dinosaurs existed, you'd either have had to have seen something that made you think it was possible, or be completly crazy. I can't assume that that the people who put forward the thoery of a god or souls were out to make something for themselves out of it, any more then I can think that about the ideas put forward in astrophysics. Therefore, I'm left with either crazy or saw something that made them belive in something. And since I can't prove or disprove either, I'm left with my stance, whatever the hell that is. And btw, I am just plain crazy, before you ask. I'm also terrible at explaining things, whcih explains a lot