Creation Vs Evolution

• F Takumi

  14 Mar 05, 21:32

  Originally posted by Icemoon:
  [b]However, in this discussion on creation vs evolution, we have said that religious beliefs shall be put aside.
  
  This is not religious belief. It is a philosophical belief.
  
  If you could not believe that life could come into being naturally, what makes you believe that the supreme being could just come into existence without any assistance?
  
  Unfair analogy or comparison. Life is matter. Supreme being is not. We cannot discuss them in the same light.
  
  To us, any supreme being in any religion is at the same level of the nothingness that we talk about.
  
  That is why this discussion or argument will go nowhere.
  
  It's never a question of whether we are comparing apple to apple, in the first place, your perception of the apple and our perception are fundamentally different.
  
  That is why no amount of logical reasoning and argument can convince the atheist. The fundamental premise is different.
  
  Btw, I heard Anthony Flew just believed in God .. dunno true or not. Anyone can verify? [/b]

  I fully agree with you that this discussion will go nowhere
  
  To an atheist, it is highly illogical to believe in a supreme being which could just sprang into existence out of nothing.
  
  And quoting yourself, that is why no amount of logical reasoning and argument can convince the theist. The fundamental premise is different.
• mdfjami

  14 Mar 05, 21:37

  Originally posted by plo30360:

  For me, I think that creation and evolution are complementary in the sense that the basic forms were created and then they later evolved.
  
  And I would also like someone to answer this question:
  
  In science there is law about everything having cause and effect. That being said brings up the question what caused everything to come into being. Even if you explain based on the big bang theory, it leaves the question what caused it to happen.
  
  If we were to strip everything down in terms of cause and effect we are left with two scenarios:
  
  The first one being that someone or something(Supreme being) willed everything into existence(at least the basic forms).
  
  The second scenario is that everything came out of nothing???

  Interesting thread.
  
  Yes, it's possible for evolution and creation to be complementary. However, staunch evolutionists are against this model, because they are using neo-darwinism to do away with the need for a God. Thus, there is a spectrum of views about how complementary creationism and evolution.
  
  By the way, most Christains have admitted that evolution occurs as a process, if not the be-all-and-end-all
  
  ~
  
  If you want to talk about a Supreme being, you'd have to ask, where does God come from? This is an infinite regression problem..
  
  Personally, I'm satisfied knowing that God created this universe, with it's three dimensions and time, and as to who created God, that's beyond our comprehension.
• F Takumi

  14 Mar 05, 23:19

  Originally posted by mdfjami:

  Interesting thread.
  
  Yes, it's possible for evolution and creation to be complementary. However, staunch evolutionists are against this model, because they are using neo-darwinism to do away with the need for a God. Thus, there is a spectrum of views about how complementary creationism and evolution.
  
  By the way, most Christains have admitted that evolution occurs as a process, if not the be-all-and-end-all
  
  ~
  
  If you want to talk about a Supreme being, you'd have to ask, where does God come from? This is an infinite regression problem..
  
  Personally, I'm satisfied knowing that God created this universe, with it's three dimensions and time, and as to who created God, that's beyond our comprehension.

  Let me offer you the following scenario:
  
  Imagine you have a sand box and you have ants inside. They do not notice your existence and carry on their lives.
  
  Then imagine the god is you and yourself as one of the ants.
  
  Now imagine the god is one of the ants.
  
  And so on and so forth.
  
  Sounds a bit Matrix style but it's just one of my theological thought experiments.
• loseagain

  15 Mar 05, 00:00

  Imagine you have a sand box and you have ants inside. They do not notice your existence and carry on their lives.
  
  Then imagine the god is you and yourself as one of the ants.
  
  Now imagine the god is one of the ants.
  
  And so on and so forth.

  that's what i was thinking about when reading through this topic
• Icemoon

  15 Mar 05, 00:40

  Originally posted by F Takumi:

  And quoting yourself, that is why no amount of logical reasoning and argument can convince the theist. The fundamental premise is different.

  Well .. you like to read Plantinga?
  
  Him and his "properly basic belief" .. haha
• Icemoon

  15 Mar 05, 00:45

  Originally posted by F Takumi:

  Then imagine the god is you and yourself as one of the ants.
  
  Now imagine the god is one of the ants.

  Ok, let's say the theist concede a bit. They agree to accept the idea that their God is not the first cause. On your part, you have to agree with them about the attributes of their not-so-supreme being and the existence of miracles and so on.
  
  Don't kid me. You think the atheists are willing to reach a compromise?
  
  So the problem lies not in what is the first cause, but whether "matter" is all that is.
  
  
• stupidissmart

  15 Mar 05, 14:08

  A supreme being in our context, by definition, is uncaused. Don't play around with words.

  tat goes back to my old points on (a) tat it was not being caused. Then it must have been popped off from somewhere isn't it ? If u believe in a thing so complex to be uncaused, then why don't u believe the galaxy can be uncaused as well ?
  
  

  This supreme being exists outside our "bubble", if you imagine the whole universe and all matter to be in this bubble. It is meaningless to ask what caused this supreme being since we cannot "think" outside this bubble.

  tis goes to point (c) of my first reply. Since u believe tat tis supreme being is outside our bubble of understanding, then the galaxy is outside our bubble of understanding as well. U feel it is meaningless to ask wat caused tis supreme being, then it is equally meaningless to ask wat caused the galaxy since we can't think out of the bubble
  
  

  Your creation out of nothing is harder to accept since you assume this "bubble" can exist by itself

  u r just escaping from the question by refering to a bubble. If u believe everything had to be caused to exists, then after a long thread of asking forward infinity times on wat caused an event to happen, I believe it will eventually leads to the point tat things r created out of nothing. Why don't u try and answer the above question ? Wat do u think will be the end of it all ? A supreme being is obviously an object and if u believe tat everything need a creator, then the supreme being need a creator as well. U can't just pay double standard like it was uncaused, full stop, end of story. If u accept it as such, then the galaxy is uncaused, full stop, end of story as well.
  
  

  Yes, it's possible for evolution and creation to be complementary. However, staunch evolutionists are against this model, because they are using neo-darwinism to do away with the need for a God. Thus, there is a spectrum of views about how complementary creationism and evolution.

  personal opinion is, it is not. Why pull in god when everything can be explained without one ? U might as well pull in other mythical characters in like Nu Wa or Shiva as well.
  
  

  They agree to accept the idea that their God is not the first cause.

  just a question, same as the one above. Lets say u can have a chance to know the answer of everything and u keep asking wat create wat etc and etc and etc. After asking infinite times, wat do u think will be the answer at the end ?
  
  

  On your part, you have to agree with them about the attributes of their not-so-supreme being and the existence of miracles and so on.

  why is the 2 issues related ?
• F Takumi

  15 Mar 05, 23:41

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Well .. you like to read Plantinga?
  
  Him and his "properly basic belief" .. haha

  I'm no philosopher, Plato and Socrates already put me off
• F Takumi

  15 Mar 05, 23:47

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Ok, let's say the theist concede a bit. They agree to accept the idea that their God is not the first cause. On your part, you have to agree with them about the attributes of their not-so-supreme being and the existence of miracles and so on.
  
  Don't kid me. You think the atheists are willing to reach a compromise?
  
  So the problem lies not in what is the first cause, but whether "matter" is all that is.
  
  

  I like to explore the possibilities.
  
  In my "tian wai you tian" scenario, I'm looking at the possibility that the ants' god is us, our god is a supreme being and this god has his own god, and it goes on infinitely.
  
  We have already agreed that it's pointless to carry on discussing if we have different views and then try to influence each other. It's best to close this thread, like the other one.
• mdfjami

  16 Mar 05, 16:58

  Originally posted by F Takumi:

  Imagine you have a sand box and you have ants inside. They do not notice your existence and carry on their lives.
  
  Then imagine the god is you and yourself as one of the ants.
  
  Now imagine the god is one of the ants.
  
  And so on and so forth.
  
  Sounds a bit Matrix style but it's just one of my theological thought experiments.

  exactly what I mean by infinite regression.. where does it end?
  
  One of the arguments is that athiests used to put forward, before the Big Bang theory, was that the universe was eternal.
  
  Now that's the Big Bang theory has been more or less accepted to be true, what's wrong with us saying that God is eternal?
  
  At the very least, he's outside our concept of time, which is bound by the duration of the universe.
• F Takumi

  16 Mar 05, 22:26

  Originally posted by mdfjami:

  exactly what I mean by infinite regression.. where does it end?
  
  One of the arguments is that athiests used to put forward, before the Big Bang theory, was that the universe was eternal.
  
  Now that's the Big Bang theory has been more or less accepted to be true, what's wrong with us saying that God is eternal?
  
  At the very least, he's outside our concept of time, which is bound by the duration of the universe.

  I am not rejecting your notion that there may be a god, but I would also like to present you the possibility that the universe existing as a natural phenomenon. One or both of us may be wrong.
• stupidissmart

  17 Mar 05, 09:59

  exactly what I mean by infinite regression.. where does it end?
  
  One of the arguments is that athiests used to put forward, before the Big Bang theory, was that the universe was eternal.
  
  Now that's the Big Bang theory has been more or less accepted to be true, what's wrong with us saying that God is eternal?
  
  At the very least, he's outside our concept of time, which is bound by the duration of the universe.

  if universe is accepted to be eternal, then why add a god in ?
  
  why do u say god is outside our domain of time ?
• Icemoon

  18 Mar 05, 16:29

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  why do u say god is outside our domain of time ?

  God existed prior to the Big Bang. Time, as we understand, doesn't exist before the Big Bang.
• Icemoon

  18 Mar 05, 16:41

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  tat goes back to my old points on (a) tat it was not being caused. Then it must have been popped off from somewhere isn't it ? If u believe in a thing so complex to be uncaused, then why don't u believe the galaxy can be uncaused as well ?

  'cos the galaxy is much less complex than God.
  
  

  tis goes to point (c) of my first reply. Since u believe tat tis supreme being is outside our bubble of understanding, then the galaxy is outside our bubble of understanding as well.

  Galaxy is inside our domain of understanding. We know what is it. We seen it. In fact, whatever happens after the Big Bang is inside our understanding.
  
  

  A supreme being is obviously an object and if u believe tat everything need a creator, then the supreme being need a creator as well.

  Don't think so. I won't say supreme being is an object.
  
  For example, is the golden triangle in mathematics an object? Does it have a creator? The golden triangle is an idea, a construct, and it exhibited its properties in nature. Not implying supreme being is a triangle .. .. I'm just disagreeing with your domain of object.
  
  

  U might as well pull in other mythical characters in like Nu Wa or Shiva as well.

  Can also. Then we see what kind of worldview you have.
  
  

  just a question, same as the one above. Lets say u can have a chance to know the answer of everything and u keep asking wat create wat etc and etc and etc. After asking infinite times, wat do u think will be the answer at the end ?

  The answer at the end will be - I am who I am, I shall be who I shall be
  
  Note that these are words coming out from a 'being', not a galaxy. Duh, can galaxies think?
• stupidissmart

  18 Mar 05, 17:05

  God existed prior to the Big Bang. Time, as we understand, doesn't exist before the Big Bang.

  according to the big bang, nothing exists before it as well. So if u believe big bang fully, then god wouldn't be in anyway
  
  

  cos the galaxy is much less complex than God

  it is more easier to "cause" a simple thing than a more complex thing isn't it ?
  
  

  Galaxy is inside our domain of understanding. We know what is it. We seen it. In fact, whatever happens after the Big Bang is inside our understanding

  No true, before the big bang nobody really knows wat itis all about. the galaxy is outside our understanding
  
  

  Don't think so. I won't say supreme being is an object.
  
  For example, is the golden triangle in mathematics an object? Does it have a creator? The golden triangle is an idea, a construct, and it exhibited its properties in nature. Not implying supreme being is a triangle .. .. I'm just disagreeing with your domain of object.

  golden triangle is not an object, it is an idea. It cannot perform any physical act. God is not an idea, it is supposed to be physical and can do physical action. It is an object
  
  

  The answer at the end will be - I am who I am, I shall be who I shall be
  
  Note that these are words coming out from a 'being', not a galaxy. Duh, can galaxies think?

  yah right ! do u even know wat question u r answering to ?
• mdfjami

  18 Mar 05, 17:12

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  if universe is accepted to be eternal, then why add a god in ?
  
  why do u say god is outside our domain of time ?

  hm. my point was that last time ppl say universe is eternal.. therefore no need god..
  
  now there is big bang.. and ppl ask who created big bang, and we say god, and that god is eternal.. and ppl find it strange.
  
  About the time issue, well time can be a sorta be considered a fourth dimension, and just like our concept of 3D is within this universe (outside universe could be 10000000 Dimensions) for all we know, time can only be measured within this universe.
  
  Therefore God is outside our domain of time, in that sense.
• stupidissmart

  18 Mar 05, 17:20

  hm. my point was that last time ppl say universe is eternal.. therefore no need god..
  
  now there is big bang.. and ppl ask who created big bang, and we say god, and that god is eternal.. and ppl find it strange.
  
  About the time issue, well time can be a sorta be considered a fourth dimension, and just like our concept of 3D is within this universe (outside universe could be 10000000 Dimensions) for all we know, time can only be measured within this universe.
  
  Therefore God is outside our domain of time, in that sense.

  the strange thing is, we have gone back one full circle and I have to ask, then wat create god ? But u r right in the sense tat "we say it is god". Saying god create the big bang is equally convincing as saying pang gu create the big bang.
  
  for all we know, time can be measured in other universe as well. Whether time is the fourth dimension is something worth debating about.
• mdfjami

  18 Mar 05, 17:21

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  according to the big bang, nothing exists before it as well. So if u believe big bang fully, then god wouldn't be in anyway ?

  According to the big bang, nothing in the universe exists before it as well. So if we believe in big bang fully, then god wouldn't be in it anyway, cos he was outside of it from the start.
  
  The way I look at it is that we're in this huge fish tank, and god's looking from the outside..
• stupidissmart

  18 Mar 05, 17:26

  So if we believe in big bang fully, then god wouldn't be in it anyway, cos he was outside of it from the start.

  but according to the big bang, there was nothing everywhere, not inside outside etc.
  
  

  The way I look at it is that we're in this huge fish tank, and god's looking from the outside..

  then perhaps this god is being looked fom the outside by another higher being and so on and so forth, much like wat takumi said. IMO, it ends at us and outside of it is probably just due to nature, not a supreme being
• mdfjami

  18 Mar 05, 17:31

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  then perhaps this god is being looked fom the outside by another higher being and so on and so forth, much like wat takumi said. IMO, it ends at us and outside of it is probably just due to nature, not a supreme being

  well.. my fav argument is
  
  If we christians can prove the existance of God... all people bo pian have to convert.. otherwise die right? THat's why we're called a "religon" or "faith".. not a "science" or "knowledge"..
  
  you are fully entitled to have your beliefs.. i was non-christian last time, and it is possible to live a good life w/o being a christian..
  
  well, if you're interested in finding out more about universe "theory"... check out these two terms
  
  Weak Anthropic Principle <----Christian argument
  
  and
  
  Many Universe Hypothesis <---- Non christian argument (dunno whether correct term or not)
• mdfjami

  18 Mar 05, 17:31

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  then perhaps this god is being looked fom the outside by another higher being and so on and so forth, much like wat takumi said. IMO, it ends at us and outside of it is probably just due to nature, not a supreme being

  well.. my fav argument is
  
  If we christians can prove the existance of God... all people bo pian have to convert.. otherwise die right? THat's why we're called a "religon" or "faith".. not a "science" or "knowledge"..
  
  you are fully entitled to have your beliefs.. i was non-christian last time, and it is possible to live a good life w/o being a christian..
  
  well, if you're interested in finding out more about universe "theory"... check out these two terms
  
  Weak Anthropic Principle <----Christian argument
  
  and
  
  Many Universe Hypothesis <---- Non christian argument (dunno whether correct term or not)
• mdfjami

  18 Mar 05, 17:37

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  but according to the big bang, there was nothing everywhere, not inside outside etc.
  

  back to the fishtank example.
  
  Let's say i'm a luohan fish.. i live in fishtank in a HDB flat.. i can swim around my fishtank.. and i can see places surrounding my fishtank that I cannot go too..
  
  If you tell me that there's a whole world outside of the fish tank, I wouldn't even begin to understand what you're talking about. The room my fishtank is in is my "everything" to me..
  
  Big bang can explain the creation of our universe... what's outside, nobody knows.. ppl who believe in a religon think there's a person outside the tank.. ppl who don't believe, don't believe loh..
• stupidissmart

  18 Mar 05, 17:37

  THat's why we're called a "religon" or "faith".. not a "science" or "knowledge"..

  
  
  tat is the problem... IMO it never exists. being a faith can easily means being wrong
• mdfjami

  18 Mar 05, 17:42

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  
  
  tat is the problem... IMO it never exists. being a faith can easily means being wrong

  well yeah, but the thing is.. christians believe that we've experience god in many forms.. so we believe loh.
  
  maybe we're faking ourselves.. but on the whole i think the religon is a good one lah.. it's just that some people give christianity a good name..
  
  Personally I believe in only sharing about christianity when being asked, otherwise keep diam diam enough "harvesters" out there already
• stupidissmart

  18 Mar 05, 17:42

  Let's say i'm a luohan fish.. i live in fishtank in a HDB flat.. i can swim around my fishtank.. and i can see places surrounding my fishtank that I cannot go too..
  
  If you tell me that there's a whole world outside of the fish tank, I wouldn't even begin to understand what you're talking about. The room my fishtank is in is my "everything" to me..
  
  Big bang can explain the creation of our universe... what's outside, nobody knows.. ppl who believe in a religon think there's a person outside the tank.. ppl who don't believe, don't believe loh..

  if we r really at the end of the line, tat mean nothing is outside wat we preceive, then aren't we adding in an extra layer tat doesn't exists ? from the signs we see it may really means we r atthe end of the lone