Evolution and a supreme being.

mylastparadigm

I have a question.

While darwins theory of evolution employs logic to argue against the idea of creationism - that man and women appeared in the garden of eden - is it logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

No.


Well, I'm glad we wrapped that one up pretty quickly.

Seachmall

Evolution is not an argument against creation.

It's conflict with creation is a byproduct of creation being stupid.

FatherLen

evolution vs religion round 12

ding ding

Ghost Buster

Phew. Close it now before Crucamin, Min and Audrey arrive:eek:

seamus

Evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a God. It's an inorganic process, how could it?

The fact of evolution just implies that the Bible is big book of fables and myths. But then we knew that anyway.

Thrill

FatherLen wrote: »

evolution vs religion round 12

ding ding

Evolution comes out swinging, delivers low blow to religions nether regions.

AnonoBoy

Say that reminds me......You know the way sometimes you heat beans up in the microwave and then forget about them. How long could you leave them before it's safe to reheat them and eat them?

partyatmygaff

mylastparadigm wrote: »

I have a question.

While darwins theory of evolution employs logic to argue against the idea of creationism

I don't think Darwin intended for his theory to "argue against creationism". He formulated the theory in its own right.

Anyway... threads like these generally end up being a trainwreck so i'm out of here.

Pedant

mylastparadigm wrote: »

I have a question.

While darwins theory of evolution employs logic to argue against the idea of creationism - that man and women appeared in the garden of eden - is it logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

Welcome to the internet.

Ghost Buster

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Say that reminds me......You know the way sometimes you heat beans up in the microwave and then forget about them. How long could you leave them before it's safe to reheat them and eat them?

You can pray for an answer or sniff them with your evolved nose.

Logical Fallacy

mylastparadigm wrote: »

I have a question.

While darwins theory of evolution employs logic to argue against the idea of creationism - that man and women appeared in the garden of eden - is it logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

+1 point for having Paradigm in your user name.

-10 for the thread.

Current score = -9

Chances of having any impact on boards = slim

Chances of intact virginity = high

Gods were created to explain gaps in human knowledge. For example, before it was known exactly what the sun and the moon are and why they rise in the east and set in the west, various cultures invented mythological, supernatural gods to explain these natural processes. The Greeks believed that the sun was a fiery chariot being ridden across the sky every day by the god Helios.

Today, thanks to the work of astronomers, we know that the sun is a star like many others and rises in the east and sets in the west due to the rotation of the earth about its axis.

Until relatively recently, there existed no scientific explanation as to how life came to be as it is on this planet. Therefore God(s) filled the gap.

With the discovery of evolution as the reason for the development of various life forms (including us) that gap no longer needs a god to fill it.

So yes, the discovery of evolution does weaken the case for a god, as it removes one of the gaps previously filled by God(s), which for many people, is a "god of the gaps".

mylastparadigm

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

+1 point for having Paradigm in your user name.

-10 for the thread.

Current score = -9

Chances of having any impact on boards = slim

Chances of intact virginity = high

says the guy with 5000 posts. i think you lose overall mate.

"no honey i cant come to bed. theres someone argueing with me on the internet and they are wrong!"

Paddycrumlinman

Evolution, like everything else on this planet is a theory developed by Man's perception of how things work and I for one am aligned to this Theory.

Now the Theory of Religion and the Magic man up in the sky who helps people find their keys and score important goals but neglects all the poor Starven Marvens of the world, well that Theory sucks for one obvious reason, the lack of factual evidence on that the Deity actually exists.

Darwin, go on ya good thing.... Evolution is a fascinating subject and the way to go.

AnonoBoy

Ghost Buster wrote: »

You can pray for an answer or sniff them with your evolved nose.

But does the very presence of a microwave not fundamentally prove the existence of God? Surely only an all powerful being could create people who can create a magic heaty box that makes my dinner?

After all does it not say in the bible. And I quote:

The Book of Isaiah 2:12 wrote:

"And yo Isaiah did put the manna into the magic heaty box,
And the Lord did zap yonder manner with waves of heat
Invisible waves from heaven. Very small and they were too
(Micro in size if you will)
And Isaiah did say onto the people
- Behold! The magic heaty box of the Lord has given onto me
A dinner of manna from last Saturday night
Once again heated with his love
With small invisible waves of his love from heaven
(Micro in size if you will)
From henceforth onto the end of time
We shall call this magic heaty box with its micro waves....
A Hot Love Compartment."

Dravokivich

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

+1 point for having Paradigm in your user name.

-10 for the thread.

Current score = -9

Chances of having any impact on boards = slim

Chances of intact virginity = high

87 posts in 6 years is more so of a hint than the content of his post. :pac:

AnonoBoy wrote: »

But does the very presence of a microwave not fundamentally prove the existence of God? Surely only an all powerful being could create people who can create a magic heaty box that makes my dinner?

After all does it not say in the bible. And I quote:

Ah yes, the sacred, wise and all loving Hatachi.

woodoo

Nobody in this thread knows if a creator exists or not.

Seachmall

woodoo wrote: »

Nobody in this thread knows if a creator exists or not.

Lies.

I created a bowl of porridge just this morning.

Gurgle

mylastparadigm wrote: »

is it logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

Dunno why everyone's bitching, its a good question.

Assuming evolution just keeps going unless some generation wipes itself out, the longer the universe lasts the more Godlike life will become. But to actually become 100% omni-everythingy will take infinite time, i.e. will never happen.

So we can conclude that if there is a God, (s)he(/it) isn't the product of evolution.:)

Where To

woodoo wrote: »

Nobody in this thread knows if a creator exists or not.

Nobody in this thread knows if sex exists or not.

RichieC

Deleted User wrote: »

Gods were created to explain gaps in human knowledge. For example, before it was known exactly what the sun and the moon are and why they rise in the east and set in the west, various cultures invented mythological, supernatural gods to explain these natural processes. The Greeks believed that the sun was a fiery chariot being ridden across the sky every day by the god Helios.

Today, thanks to the work of astronomers, we know that the sun is a star like many others and rises in the east and sets in the west due to the rotation of the earth about its axis.

Until relatively recently, there existed no scientific explanation as to how life came to be as it is on this planet. Therefore God(s) filled the gap.

With the discovery of evolution as the reason for the development of various life forms (including us) that gap no longer needs a god to fill it.

So yes, the discovery of evolution does weaken the case for a god, as it removes one of the gaps previously filled by God(s), which for many people, is a "god of the gaps".

Abiogenisis is their last remaining gap. Once a theory that is widely accepted comes out about the Christies will quickly forget about Darwin and they'll have a fresh new anti christ.

AnonoBoy

Can we PLEASE get back to my question about the beans? I'm getting hungry. :mad:

Seachmall

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Can we PLEASE get back to my question about the beans? I'm getting hungry. :mad:

Stick your elbow in it.

If it's too hot it's hot enough to eat, otherwise reheat it.

partyatmygaff

Deleted User wrote: »

Until relatively recently, there existed no scientific explanation as to how life came to be as it is on this planet.

I don't know where you got that idea. There's no definitive "scientific" explanation for how existence came to be let alone how life came to be.

CrazyRabbit

Evolution is a species' journey towards becoming (a) God.

As we evolve, we become smarter, adapt better to our environment or gain the ability/knowledge/tools to alter our environment. Somewhere down the line, assuming we survive long enough, we will evolve into a species that has god-like knowledge and abilities. Well, in theory anyway. Personally I'd be happy if we just evolved enough to stop being pricks towards one another.

RichieC

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I don't know where you got that idea. There's no definitive "scientific" explanation for how existence came to be let alone how life came to be.

Which is why he said "how life came to be as it is".

Conbhar

mylastparadigm wrote: »

I have a question.

While darwins theory of evolution employs logic to argue against the idea of creationism - that man and women appeared in the garden of eden - is it logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

"Leeloo Dallas Multipass"

seamus

partyatmygaff wrote: »

There's no definitive "scientific" explanation for how existence came to be let alone how life came to be.

Considering that life is a product of existence, we will explain the origin of life before we explain the origin of existence.

Seachmall

Would being able to create consciousness within a computer simulation make us gods?

We would be able to control the environment of that simulation, and we would know all knowledge there is to know within that simulation (i.e. relative omniscience [oxymoron?]).

In relation to that simulation we are omni-everything.

Would we be gods?

Ostrom

mylastparadigm wrote: »

I have a question.

While darwins theory of evolution employs logic to argue against the idea of creationism - that man and women appeared in the garden of eden - is it logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

Darwin's conclusions were not based on logic alone, and the enduring importance of his work was not evolution as such, but rather natural selection as the specific mechanism governing species diversification. Both are well substantiated by empirical evidence.

CrazyRabbit

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Evolution is a species' journey towards becoming (a) God.

As we evolve, we become smarter, adapt better to our environment or gain the ability/knowledge/tools to alter our environment. Somewhere down the line, assuming we survive long enough, we will evolve into a species that has god-like knowledge and abilities. Well, in theory anyway. Personally I'd be happy if we just evolved enough to stop being pricks towards one another.

Em not really, no.

mickrock

Is the evolutionary process supposed to be completely random and directionless?

Has the complexity and diversity of life happened purely by chance?

Is this a correct interpretation of the theory?

Robdude

God creates man
Man creates theory

Thus - the fact that the theory of evolution exists at all is PROOF of God's existence.

No God == No people == No theory of Evolution

Some people might question why a perfect God would create people who reject his existence or are too stupid to believe in the Bible; but remember that God has given man freewill and imperfect beings that we are, choose to do silly things like believe in Evolution.

The truth is, people don't use logic and scientific reasoning to convey ideas; it's just another method of declaring they are right. No better than an appeal to authority or an ad hominem attack. Take a well spoken Professor who has been involved in academic debates for 20 years and put him up against teenagers. The Professor will be able to argue circles around the kid, convincing onlookers that he is 100% correct - regardless of what the topic is.

Historically, there are endless examples of the best scientific minds being wrong about stuff. More often than not, they pursue evidence to PROVE what they believe; rather than to formulate beliefs around what they can prove.

I'm sure you could have gotten a lot of great engineers to explain to you why it was structurally and mathematically impossible for the Titanic to sink....and a layman like myself would have no hope in convincing anyone otherwise. I remember attending a lecture where a University Professor explained why data transmissions over the air was fundamentally impossible at rates higher than some trivially small amount. That we'd never ever, not in a million years, have wireless network cards or routers.

And they all could have shown pages and pages of research and figures and everything else to support it.

Science and logic are not nearly so noble as it's followers would have you believe.

Logical Fallacy

mylastparadigm wrote: »

says the guy with 5000 posts. i think you lose overall mate.

"no honey i cant come to bed. theres someone argueing with me on the internet and they are wrong!"

Way off.

I know how to spell arguing.

Ghost Buster

mickrock wrote: »

Is the evolutionary process supposed to be completely random and directionless?
Not quite.

Has the complexity and diversity of life happened purely by chance?
Probably. Who knows. But "GOD DIDDIT" isnt the answer

Is this a correct interpretation of the theory?

see above.

...

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

Is the evolutionary process supposed to be completely random and directionless?

Has the complexity and diversity of life happened purely by chance?

Is this a correct interpretation of the theory?

No, that is not a correct interpretation of the theory.

Evolution has nothing to do with chance. It is a non-random process. The theory of evolution by natural selection will guarantee diversity. In fact, it is the only thing that can explain the diversity we see in the animal kingdom today.

Logical Fallacy

mickrock wrote: »

Is the evolutionary process supposed to be completely random and directionless?

Has the complexity and diversity of life happened purely by chance?

Is this a correct interpretation of the theory?

Not really. Physical adaptation is based off stimulus and environmental catalysts.

Ghost Buster

Robdude wrote: »

God creates man
Man creates theory

Thus - the fact that the theory of evolution exists at all is PROOF of God's existence.

Hey I can do this as well:

Man creates God
Man uses 'God" to explain away stuff he hasn't figured out yet
Thus ' Your argument above is cobblers and the fact that it exists is depressing.

or

Man creates God
Man imagines God told him that the universe is intelligently designed specifically for man. man eventually realises that 99.999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe , including his own world is utterly hostile to life and human life in particular.
Some men simply use circular thinking and mental gymnastics to explain this away so as to cling to their blankie of religion

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

Evolution has nothing to do with chance. It is a non-random process. The theory of evolution by natural selection will guarantee diversity. In fact, it is the only thing that can explain the diversity we see in the animal kingdom today.

Not in all cases. Sometimes a random selection of the gene pool gets displaced and ends up as a new species, so it can be random, and sometimes diversity is decreased rather than increased, for example in cases of inbreeding.

partyatmygaff

RichieC wrote: »

Which is why he said "how life came to be as it is".

Creationism usually refers to an explanation of how life "came to be". Not how it "came to be as it is". That said, maybe my brain is just tired.

seamus wrote: »

Considering that life is a product of existence, we will explain the origin of life before we explain the origin of existence.

That's assuming we're capable of doing so.

mickrock

If it's not completely random and directionless does that imply that there is a certain intelligence inherent in the process?

mickrock

mickrock wrote: »

If it's not completely random and directionless does that imply that there is a certain intelligence inherent in the process?

That depends on how you define intelligence.

If you mean intent (i.e. God up in heaven deciding the end goal of evolution) then no.

If you mean is there a logical progression? Then yes.

Robdude

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Hey I can do this as well:

Man creates God
Man uses 'God" to explain away stuff he hasn't figured out yet
Thus ' Your argument above is cobblers and the fact that it exists is depressing.

or

Man creates God
Man imagines God told him that the universe is intelligently designed specifically for man. man eventually realises that 99.999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe , including his own world is utterly hostile to life and human life in particular.
Some men simply use circular thinking and mental gymnastics to explain this away so as to cling to their blankie of religion

Except science has shown that man hasn't always existed. Man can't create man. And without the existence of man, man can't create God.

partyatmygaff

mickrock wrote: »

If it's not completely random and directionless does that imply that there is a certain intelligence inherent in the process?

The second law of thermodynamics would imply that there is an outside force that organised things at some point.

mickrock

true-or-false wrote: »

That depends on how you define intelligence.

If you mean intent (i.e. God up in heaven deciding the end goal of evolution) then no.

If you mean is there a logical progression? Then yes.

No, I don't mean a God up in heaven.

But there does seem to be a certain creative intelligence at work behind it all.

G_R

Robdude wrote: »

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Hey I can do this as well:

Man creates God
Man uses 'God" to explain away stuff he hasn't figured out yet
Thus ' Your argument above is cobblers and the fact that it exists is depressing.

or

Man creates God
Man imagines God told him that the universe is intelligently designed specifically for man. man eventually realises that 99.999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe , including his own world is utterly hostile to life and human life in particular.
Some men simply use circular thinking and mental gymnastics to explain this away so as to cling to their blankie of religion

Except science has shown that man hasn't always existed. Man can't create man. And without the existence of man, man can't create God.

Science has however, shown how man was created, ie evolution.

You can argue that it was all overseen by some mythical being till your blue in the face, but the evidence supports evolution, and how it all originated from the big bang.

I'm not gonna pretend that I know all there is to know about darwanism, or that I can fully explain the origin of life on this planet, but this much I'm sure of; it wasn't down to a god.

Pedant

Robdude wrote: »

God creates man
Man creates theory

Thus - the fact that the theory of evolution exists at all is PROOF of God's existence.

No God == No people == No theory of Evolution

That's the most convoluted logic for the existence of God that I've ever read.

The notion of a supreme being is illogic. Also, the notion that something came from nothing is also illogical (or at least we think it's illogical). Both premises are illogical, it's a paradox. Man has yet to figure it out. There is a flaw somewhere in our reasoning, specifically in relation to our understanding of time and our concept of infinity.

However, the notion of a personal God can be easily proven false. I'm an atheist in relation to a personal God but agnostic in relation to the existence of the universe and reality, i.e., an agnostic atheist.

krudler

Robdude wrote: »

Except science has shown that man hasn't always existed. Man can't create man. And without the existence of man, man can't create God.

....not sure if serious

mickrock

mickrock wrote: »

No, I don't mean a God up in heaven.

But there does seem to be a certain creative intelligence at work behind it all.

I agree that it's difficult to look at the world around us and believe it happened without divine intervention, or at least a crazy alien scientist. It's so intricate and seems so unlikely.

But while I'm left in wonder by things like biochemistry or flight or genetics, to me, the theory of evolution by natural selection seems perfectly plausible as not requiring intervention.

Guill

I love this aul' arguement, keeps me up many a night with a few friends and some beer, wine, whiskey and port. Bottom line of everything is that nobody knows anything. Everything is a theory and its up to you what to believe. Personally I believe that religion is a scam. I believe in evolution. I believe in the big bang. I believe in gravity.

Basically I believe in things that can be measured or rationally theorised.