I typed this up as a quick response and the other thread closed
I don't think this is the place for me to jump in, I haven't followed all the previous threads. I'll give my two cents though:
Nobody can say what happened in the beginning, only what they believed happened. So the topper is that the existance of God in the equation cannot be proved or disproved.
My understanding of God has changed a lot over the last year, I no longer see him as a person like me but a great big thing that I don't understand, an intelligence or something. Throughout the evolutionary process there has to be something making a decision to switch something. Darwin recorded beak size changes on the islands (don't quote me on that, I'm pretty ignorant). Something had to decide to change the code. Again, i'm pretty ignorant, but I thought that it happened in a step change fashion a lot. I've read about the "blood type diet" that looks at what foods you are genetically better at digesting. there are 3 main blood types, A B and O (four if you count AO). They came up with dietary shifts, O is more meat based, A is more grain based and B is more dairy based. O was the first, eventually A flopped out and they are now incompatible (that is to say, A is defined, O is defined. There isn't a middle ground). A step change or a quantum leap to a new energy state. I say God is an underlying intelligence that directs those changes. White fur to match the snow? How did the genes "see" the snow to match it? That intelligence is God. (it is very possible that there is a genetic explanation for this, I don't know it so i'm ignorant)
I'm not sure how my definition of God fits with a christian perspective, in fact i'm still trying to decide if i'm christian or not. But I don't see god as a person with a consciousness distinct and outside of me but as part of me and part of everything.
"I don't see god as a person with a consciousness distinct and outside of me but as part of me and part of everything."
That's a pretty broad working definition. I'd think that would allow you to converse with people using many different vocabularies when talking about what life is all about to them - without getting immediately hung up on the g word.
Here's the problem I see with your thinking. ( I'm not saying God isn't at the helm of evolution - if that's what you want to believe go for it. What I'm saying is that your reasoning for why God is at the helm of evolution is flawed.)
The history of evolution isn't that clean. For every step forward there are 10 steps backward. The random, jagged story of life on earth support the idea of a random direction.
Here's one example: We have an appendix. An appendix is an evolutionary disadvantage. Someone with an appendix is more likely to die than someone without one. If God were micro-controlling things it should be more clean - we shouldn't have an appendix. An appendix support the idea.
Here's another: The dinosaurs went extinct.
To meet God's design there is no need for the biodiversity that exists. There is not need for the many species that failed and went extinct. There is no need for the many dead ends of God is at the helm - yet many dead ends exist.
Natural selection already explains the phenomenon you are describing. Whatever is best adapted for survival survives. Or more correctly anything that is adapted for survival survives. Mutation and different combinations of dna provides a wide variety of life forms - those that are best adapted for survival continue to exist.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2013 04:53PM by bc.
bc Wrote: -------------------------------------------------------
> > Here's one example: We have an appendix. An > appendix is an evolutionary disadvantage. Someone > with an appendix is more likely to die than > someone without one. If God were > micro-controlling things it should be more clean - > we shouldn't have an appendix. An appendix > support the idea. >
You are assuming that God is a distinct consciousness, a rational thinker so to speak. I say he works on a level that doesn't fit into our rational logical thinking.
I hope I don't go overboard here, so if I say something that isn't true please call me on it: When you dream your mind is working over thoughts and feelings and you get images that are created by your brain to interpret these thought processes. They aren't always logical but if you look at them "symbolically" then you can interpret what the original thoughts or feelings are. The underlying structure is not a direct conscious thought "I should give him a bigger beak" but on a different level it is an expression of a "thought or feeling," an energy leaning towards something which leads to an evolutionary shift. The evolutionary world is like a bad dream :)
However there are two factors that already explain the "switches".
1) Sexual variety of genes. If you have two parents they have a huge potential of different offspring genetically speaking. One child might be more intelligent. Another may be physically stronger. One may have lighter or darker skin. Depending on the circumstances the offspring is born into the characteristics impact the offspring's odds of survival and reproduction.
2) Genetic mutation. Less often, but it still happens - genes mutate and become something new. 99/100 the mutation is hurtful - e.g. cause cancer or a genetic disease such as down's syndrome. However, occasionally the mutation is useful which increases odds of survival.
So that doesn't really require a mad-hatter god to make those things happen. Of course that doesn't preclude that a mad-hatter god is the cause of the random mutations - it just doesn't seem like the most likely cause.
"I say he works on a level that doesn't fit into our rational logical thinking."
Well there you have it! You are trying to rationally prove your point, at least to some extent, therefore you have just disproved it.
If the way god works doesn't fit into our rational logical thinking, then you can't possibly know what you're talking about when you talk about how god works.
Believe what you want, that's fine, but I don't think your arguement holds any water.....logically that is.
Interesting. The existence or not of God is non-falsifiable. Can get lost in that one.... Is that why it is claimed He is one Eternal round? How come only one?
We have investigated the ends of this earth, observed history in minute detail, and mapped out the structure of the universe, and in all of this exploration we have not found one piece of evidence suggesting that a supernatural being has shaped or disturbed our natural world.
This means that if there is a god, it is either not aware of our existence or has no intention of intervening. Either way, it is not of concern to us. We are on our own, our lives will end at death, and all we can do is our best to enjoy this ride and leave the world a better place.
to kaitlyn: it's true that you cannot scientifically prove Gods existence. But can you prove that he does not exist? Tell me how to infallibly prove that?
To BC: Two strings of DNA and random mutations work. Why are there only 3 distinct blood types? and how did they emerge so rapidly and then hold steady? Sure humans evolve and secure a life for those not biologically disposed to greatness thus maintaining weakness where it might have evolved out before, but there are things that set in firmly entrenched like that that I don't understand why they don't meld together more in the years since their creation except that they were a quantum shift and that shift had to be more than a slight mutation and it didn't come from a new genetic parent.
It's up to those who claim there is a god to prove it.
That's the "burden of proof."
And what are you talking about 3 distinct blood types?
You should know that blood typing is incredibly complex and you can even die from having a transfusion with the same blood type because it is MUCH more complex than that.
Goat said, "But can you prove that he does not exist? Tell me how to infallibly prove that?"
You can't prove any imaginary claim doesn't exist. It's the same situation. Describe how you would dismiss the claim that there is an invisible dragon in my garage (Carl Sagan's example). You cannot PROVE it does not exist.
You can, however, look at the evidence and examine the plausibility of the claim. You can set up some simple experiments that rule out some qualities of the claim. You cannot however prove it 100%. But come on, we know the likelihood is next to zero and can show humans have a proven history of making whimsical claims.
So, if you are OK with admitting there are flying fairies in your shoe who can make dogs howl (see? that's proof!) then I am OK with you claiming a god exists out of nowhere. The proof requirements are exactly the same, and frankly I think the fairies are more feasible.
goat said, "White fur to match the snow? How did the genes "see" the snow to match it? That intelligence is God. (it is very possible that there is a genetic explanation for this.."
Yes, there is an explanation. It is an essential part of evolution. The darker ones against the snow were more visible to predators. This selects for the lighter ones over time.
Also, there could be a genetic link to certain colors being more attractive for mating (think of colorful male birds for example).
The usual reason people attribute this kind of thing to “god did it” is because it is a gap in their knowledge.
I know that fish can change their colors to suit their background at any given moment...Otopus the same...mmaybe God is down in the ocean constantly changing their colors...Gee he is a busy guy!
I love this argument. The other points above already show why such a statement is ludacris...
I'll only add that if you can't prove that something exists, either through direct observation or indirect impact with predicted results, then it is pointless to science and rational arguments.
Theist: God exists! You can't prove that he doesn't!
The preponderance of the evidence shows me it's unlikely that there's a god. Rationalizations abound. These range from the "God doesn't want us to detect him with scientific means" to "God is the ground of all being" or "He's so unlike us that we can't comprehend him" or "God is everything."
Kaitlyn, do you feel like you have a solid understanding of every piece of evidence that exists? I'm impressed, I wish I understood everything.
Raptor Jesus, I don't pretend to be any sort of expert. Type A+,A-, B+,B-, O+,O-, AB+ AB-. That gives 3 main groups A, B, and O with a few sub groups. I didn't know that you could die from a transfusion of the same blood type for blood type reasons. I'm talking with examples that I think about.
I don't care if you believe it or not, I'm not trying to convince anybody of the existence of a creator. What I am saying is that it isn't a mutually exclusive belief to hold to natural selection and a creator. It's not something that can be proven either way. I'm thinking through it.
Rationalguy, I guess you're right. I should probably just stop thinking it through and believe what you do right? If enough people tell me it's wrong then it probably is, right?
So I guess the real question is: Is it bad or harmful to hold to a belief in God? Does it have to make you close minded? Does a belief in God require you develop a skewed way of thinking? From the hotness of the debate it seems like some people have that impression.
I don't think it's "harmful" to believe in a creator. And I don't think it's "harmful" to think there might be a creator who uses evolution and natural selection as tools in the creative process.
My opinion though is that being would be quite odd.
14 billion year old universe. Less than 5 billion year old earth. A handful of species who then ask about "creation" and their role in the universe only a million years ago or so.
I believe in many things seen and unseen, proven and unproven, felt and unfelt I believe because I want to I believe because it makes me feel good and I care not if anyone else believes
goat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I typed this up as a quick response and the other > thread closed > > I don't think this is the place for me to jump in, > I haven't followed all the previous threads. I'll > give my two cents though: > > Nobody can say what happened in the beginning, > only what they believed happened. So the topper > is that the existance of God in the equation > cannot be proved or disproved.
This is where I don't understand what 'evolution' has to do with what follows. If you mean the Darwinian theory of how living things evolved on earth, it doesn't say anything about how life began or 'what happened in the beginning'. That theory only considers how life evolved on earth. The theory about how life began on earth is called abiogenesis. And if you want to know about 'what happened in the beginning (of time as we know it)' then that's big bang physics. 'Evolution' isn't what you should be addressing.
> My understanding of God has changed a lot over the > last year, I no longer see him as a person like me > but a great big thing that I don't understand, an > intelligence or something. Throughout the > evolutionary process there has to be something > making a decision to switch something. Darwin > recorded beak size changes on the islands (don't > quote me on that, I'm pretty ignorant). Something > had to decide to change the code. Again, i'm > pretty ignorant, but I thought that it happened in > a step change fashion a lot. I've read about the > "blood type diet" that looks at what foods you are > genetically better at digesting. there are 3 main > blood types, A B and O (four if you count AO). > They came up with dietary shifts, O is more meat > based, A is more grain based and B is more dairy > based. O was the first, eventually A flopped out > and they are now incompatible (that is to say, A > is defined, O is defined. There isn't a middle > ground). A step change or a quantum leap to a new > energy state. I say God is an underlying > intelligence that directs those changes. White > fur to match the snow? How did the genes "see" > the snow to match it? That intelligence is God. > (it is very possible that there is a genetic > explanation for this, I don't know it so i'm > ignorant) > > I'm not sure how my definition of God fits with a > christian perspective, in fact i'm still trying to > decide if i'm christian or not. But I don't see > god as a person with a consciousness distinct and > outside of me but as part of me and part of > everything.
It would seem to me that your definition of 'god' is different than the prevailing conventional definition of 'god'. Perhaps that is the main idea of this OP that isn't really being discussed. Perhaps other people should address the differences in definitions of 'god' before really discussing... otherwise you'll have people shooting things off based on their own definition of 'god' and really not talking about the same notion of 'god' at all.
Or perhaps the OP should just use another word (or make up a new one) to describe what he believes in rather than using 'god'. For the sake of avoiding misunderstanding. Based on what the OP says, perhaps 'nature' or 'the environment' might be a better candidate...
Everybody else covered the other points, but while there are many adherents to the theory, the blood type doesn't actually dictate what foods are "better" for you. As a child is born, it picks up some of mom's body bacteria, some of which are intestinal bacteria. This is what dictates a child's ease of digesting the same or similar foods its parents do. There is enough similarity in blood types between mother and children that some people have noticed a correlation of preferred food types and chalked it up to blood type. In reality it is pretty much all down to intestinal beasties or whatever other friendly bacteria you manage to consume. (Go ahead and pick me apart for denying the blood type diet. It's correlation, not causation, and most "diets" are pretty much a religion, rather than a science. I have my own kooky way of eating that the vast majority of you would sneer at.)
Did you know that your body cells are out numbered by the non-YOU cells cohabiting right along with you? That's what science says, anyways. Now does that sound like a creator is busily switching codes and thought THAT sounded like a great idea? You'd think if there was any direction behind it all, it would have caused us to be more efficient somehow, rather than to pick up, absorb, consume, and otherwise grow an entire ecosystem upon us to do most of the dirty work.
Instead of imagining answers about the body and evolution, Google and further education can bring you a hell of a lot of facts about many many things. Unless you don't trust the scientific method... I can't really argue with that because I don't believe in magical thinking.
If God exists like that, God would have to be so intimately one with nature that he would be indistinguishable from it. Yet, because God is one with nature, God is one with you.
But he'd also be one with any number of human monsters who have walked the earth. And he'd have to be one with the lion as well as the zebra being eaten by the lion.
The evolution and failure of billions of life forms would have to be considered, "stuff that happened," and our definition of positive events and tragic events would have to change dramatically.
I can certainly see the problem theists and atheists would have with a God like that.
Precisely. In which case, why wouldn't the OP call it 'nature' and not 'god' to begin with? It's the using different (and uncommon) definition for 'god' is the problem. Why does the OP (and others who think like that) get so attached to that word when the use of it causes confusion and misunderstanding? That's the perfect recipe to getting people who think similarly to argue as if they think differently... just because they mean different things when they use the word 'god'.
I guess it tickles me more seeing that here because using own different meaning for words that already have established conventional meaning seems very prevalent amongst Mormons. I think most Christians who convert to Mormonism only to soon deconvert from the religion precisely because the missionaries that converted them never bothered to make it clear for them that Mormons mean different things when they use Christian-sounding words/doctrines. :oP
Silly people. Everybody knows that the world began when coyote and grasshopper climed through the hole in the sky and became blue corn man and white bead girl. I mean, how much more obvious could it be?