|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Nov 13, 2017 22:17:33 GMT
At what point in the evolutionary cycle did humans/human ancestors become 'divine' (i.e. in God's image)? At what point did we develop an immortal soul that exists independently of our physical form? At what point 'free will' develop, and do any other types of animals also have free will Were humans God's final intended design, and if so, why did he implement the process of evolution in order to achieve the design that he had intended from the beginning? Do you believe that humans (in their current physical form) are likely to be God's final design, or will there be more evolution. If there is likely to be further evolution, does that give you pause to consider whether humans are really as special as your religion professes them to be? I am an atheist who accepts evolution as reality, but I did want to comment that when I was younger and believed as a Christian, I looked at evolution as the creation story, but the days were not a literal 24 hours. I was a teenager, trying to square this relatively new scientific theory with the faith I had been told was the one true faith. But back then, there was no questioning of at what point did we develop an immortal soul, did 'free will' develop or were we god's final design. If anyone did, I wasn't aware of it. Evolution was one of many reasons that I eventually left religion; it seemed so clear, as an adult, that no creator god was needed if evolution, in all of it's logical progression, was true. The natural laws that formed the universe seemed sufficient to explain the evolutionary process, and as I got older, we were able to understand how evolution worked.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 14, 2017 10:12:53 GMT
How is anyone supposed to know the answers to these questions? It depends on what sort of knowing you mean, as there are several types blog.udemy.com/types-of-knowledge/
I would argue that it is impossible to know (as in 'know correctly what is actually the case') matters transcendental, not least because so much of it is beyond human ken by definition, and cannot be checked as certain. At best such knowing is closest to a subdivision of the a-priori variety, in that it will always depends upon what a person can derive from the world, presuming its influences & etc, without needing to experience it, added to the supposed authority of holy works. But ultimately, this 'knowing' will still always just an utterly convinced belief.
Mathematical equations are common examples of priori knowledge. But even then it would hard to argue that a purported logical proof for God would be equivalent to any mathematical proof, not least since such proofs can be worked through and confirmed, as the mechanics of mathematics are accessible to all for sure.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 14, 2017 15:03:13 GMT
At what point in the evolutionary cycle did humans/human ancestors become 'divine' (i.e. in God's image)? At what point did we develop an immortal soul that exists independently of our physical form? At what point 'free will' develop, and do any other types of animals also have free will Were humans God's final intended design, and if so, why did he implement the process of evolution in order to achieve the design that he had intended from the beginning? Do you believe that humans (in their current physical form) are likely to be God's final design, or will there be more evolution. If there is likely to be further evolution, does that give you pause to consider whether humans are really as special as your religion professes them to be? 1. Adam & Eve - They were specifically created in his image. That didn't make them divine but it did make them responsible for upholding his standards so that's where it starts per Scripture. 2. It doesn't exist separate from the body. 3. Free will developed the moment it became more than instinct. 4. Genetics and heredity determine change and evolution does not need to be something better. Once something attans perfection, evolution becomes irrelevant, but could still happen since adaptation could still happens depending on who we have kids with. 5. Who knows.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 14, 2017 15:15:27 GMT
At what point in the evolutionary cycle did humans/human ancestors become 'divine' (i.e. in God's image)? At what point did we develop an immortal soul that exists independently of our physical form? At what point 'free will' develop, and do any other types of animals also have free will Were humans God's final intended design, and if so, why did he implement the process of evolution in order to achieve the design that he had intended from the beginning? Do you believe that humans (in their current physical form) are likely to be God's final design, or will there be more evolution. If there is likely to be further evolution, does that give you pause to consider whether humans are really as special as your religion professes them to be? 1. Adam & Eve - They were specifically created in his image. That didn't make them divine but it did make them responsible for upholding his standards so that's where it starts per Scripture. 2. It doesn't exist separate from the body. 3. Free will developed the moment it became more than instinct. 4. Genetics and heredity determine change and evolution does not need to be something better. Once something attans perfection, evolution becomes irrelevant, but could still happen since adaptation could still happens depending on who we have kids with. 5. Who knows. 1. You know that not everything in the Bible - especially in the early parts are to be taken as literally true - right? 2. There is no evidence for the 'soul', either separate or attached to the physical. 3. You are entitled to your opinion - but some Christians argue that free will does not exist, that all is predestined, apparently discovered by scriptural exegesis. Previous discussions on this board, and the old one, show at least that nothing is certain either way so, at the very least, the issue is not unambiguous. You'd have thought we would have been able to tell, one way or another, by now. 4. The human genome transmits small changes everytime between successive generations, no matter who we have kids with; so change between generations is inevitable. 5. One has to prove God before assuming we are 'designed'. But even if we accept we are, it seems God has some work to do. The human knee represents poor design for instance; one could also easily think of a better arrangement for the structure of the eye, while our upright posture that the Lord has decided upon allows frequent back problems. And so on.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 14, 2017 15:25:04 GMT
1. Adam & Eve - They were specifically created in his image. That didn't make them divine but it did make them responsible for upholding his standards so that's where it starts per Scripture. 2. It doesn't exist separate from the body. 3. Free will developed the moment it became more than instinct. 4. Genetics and heredity determine change and evolution does not need to be something better. Once something attans perfection, evolution becomes irrelevant, but could still happen since adaptation could still happens depending on who we have kids with. 5. Who knows. 1. You know that not everything in the Bible - especially in the early parts are to be taken as literally true - right? 2. There is no evidence for the 'soul', either separate or attached to the physical. 3. You are entitled to your opinion - but some Christians argue that free will does not exist, that all is predestined, apparently discovered by scriptural exegesis. Previous discussions on this board, and the old one, show at least that nothing is certain either way so, at the very least, the issue is not unambiguous. You'd have thought we would have been able to tell, one way or another, by now. 4. The human genome transmits small changes everytime between successive generations, no matter who we have kids with; so change between generations is inevitable. 5. One has to prove God before assuming we are 'designed'. But even if we accept we are, it seems God has some work to do. The human knee represents poor design for instance; one could also easily think of a better arrangement for the structure of the eye, while our upright posture that the Lord has decided upon allows frequent back problems. And so on. 1. Yes. However, there is nothing to indicate that the story of Adam & Eve shouldn't be taken as true. Scriptures makes it pretty clear that God made an arrangement with those two people and everything abut it leads to the remainder of the collection. Everything. Of course, that isn't the same thing as humans not under divine direction existing, but that's another topic. 2. If soul is life than itpretty conclusively does exist. 3. All I'm stating is my views as outlined in scripture which make it clear that people make choices and that God wants us to. Never once did I indicate I cared about another person;s views as if they are all correct at the same time. 4. Did I dispute this or are you agreeing with me? 5. Which is probably why the OP was specifically asking people who believe in God. I'm not concerned with proving him any more than you are concerned with proving whatever other option is out there.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 14, 2017 15:35:26 GMT
1. You know that not everything in the Bible - especially in the early parts are to be taken as literally true - right? 2. There is no evidence for the 'soul', either separate or attached to the physical. 3. You are entitled to your opinion - but some Christians argue that free will does not exist, that all is predestined, apparently discovered by scriptural exegesis. Previous discussions on this board, and the old one, show at least that nothing is certain either way so, at the very least, the issue is not unambiguous. You'd have thought we would have been able to tell, one way or another, by now. 4. The human genome transmits small changes everytime between successive generations, no matter who we have kids with; so change between generations is inevitable. 5. One has to prove God before assuming we are 'designed'. But even if we accept we are, it seems God has some work to do. The human knee represents poor design for instance; one could also easily think of a better arrangement for the structure of the eye, while our upright posture that the Lord has decided upon allows frequent back problems. And so on. 1. Yes. However, there is nothing to indicate that the story of Adam & Eve shouldn't be taken as true. Scriptures makes it pretty clear that God made an arrangement with those two people and everything abut it leads to the remainder of the collection. Everything. Of course, that isn't the same thing as humans not under divine direction existing, but that's another topic. 2. If soul is life than itpretty conclusively does exist. 3. All I'm stating is my views as outlined in scripture which make it clear that people make choices and that God wants us to. Never once did I indicate I cared about another person;s views as if they are all correct at the same time. 4. Did I dispute this or are you agreeing with me? 5. Which is probably why the OP was specifically asking people who believe in God. I'm not concerned with proving him any more than you are concerned with proving whatever other option is out there. 1. QED. 2. Saying that maybe 'soul is life' does not count as evidence, let alone proof. 3. I am sorry that you don't care about other people's views in whatever instance. I do. 4. I was picking up on the notion that evolutionary change, or adaption 'depends on who we have children with'. 5. Fair enough; I certainly agree that no body knows. But those of us with no belief in the deliberate supernatural have their suspicions especially as far as the perfection (or just 'very good' quality) of God's supposed design goes. It is also, in connection with 'souls' unusual to consider that 'souls' exist without a religious, or transcendental belief system, notoriously hard to evidence, to justify things. But I suppose it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Nov 14, 2017 16:43:11 GMT
Well, I am no longer a Christian, although when I was I was one who also believed in evolution. So I can answer these questions from that perspective.
“At what point in the evolutionary cycle did humans/human ancestors become 'divine' (i.e. in God's image)?” - At the emergence of Homo Sapiens (approximately 200K years ago)
“At what point did we develop an immortal soul that exists independently of our physical form?” - Never. I didn’t believe in such a thing even when I was a Christian because an “immortal soul” is not biblical.
“At what point 'free will' develop, and do any other types of animals also have free will” - Animals are only constrained by their natural instincts, which compel them to act in a certain way given the right circumstances. Free will is accorded to every intelligent being capable of thought and emotion. This ability evolved naturally, however the Christian perspective would be that it was designed by God intentionally (and guided by the process of evolution).
“Were humans God's final intended design, and if so, why did he implement the process of evolution in order to achieve the design that he had intended from the beginning?” - A) The current human form is the final design (or nearly the final design, since we are still evolving) intended as the natural culmination of humanity as it exists on earth. According to scripture, God intends a later, more advanced design of humans (spiritual bodies resurrected to perfection) capable of existing on a spiritual plane. B) The reason God took as much time as he did would be presumably explained away in the same manner that explains why the earth and the universe is so old. He intended humanity to exist at this point in time, because it is this period that he saw as most advantageous/beneficial for humanity to thrive and prosper. If humans were on earth a hundred million years ago, life might have been a bit more complicated. Ever seen Jurassic Park?
“Do you believe that humans (in their current physical form) are likely to be God's final design, or will there be more evolution. If there is likely to be further evolution, does that give you pause to consider whether humans are really as special as your religion professes them to be?” - This is a question I am no longer qualified to answer as I no longer believe in God or intelligent design. There will be more evolution, and there is currently ongoing evolution that we can observe. Beyond natural evolution (which we have hindered to some degree), modern, medical science and technological advancements have and will continue to ensure that humans become better suited to their environment in the future.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 14, 2017 17:39:25 GMT
1. Yes. However, there is nothing to indicate that the story of Adam & Eve shouldn't be taken as true. Scriptures makes it pretty clear that God made an arrangement with those two people and everything abut it leads to the remainder of the collection. Everything. Of course, that isn't the same thing as humans not under divine direction existing, but that's another topic. 2. If soul is life than itpretty conclusively does exist. 3. All I'm stating is my views as outlined in scripture which make it clear that people make choices and that God wants us to. Never once did I indicate I cared about another person;s views as if they are all correct at the same time. 4. Did I dispute this or are you agreeing with me? 5. Which is probably why the OP was specifically asking people who believe in God. I'm not concerned with proving him any more than you are concerned with proving whatever other option is out there. 1. QED. 2. Saying that maybe 'soul is life' does not count as evidence, let alone proof. 3. I am sorry that you don't care about other people's views in whatever instance. I do. 4. I was picking up on the notion that evolutionary change, or adaption 'depends on who we have children with'. 5. Fair enough; I certainly agree that no body knows. But those of us with no belief in the deliberate supernatural have their suspicions especially as far as the perfection (or just 'very good' quality) of God's supposed design goes. It is also, in connection with 'souls' unusual to consider that 'souls' exist without a religious, or transcendental belief system, notoriously hard to evidence, to justify things. But I suppose it can be done. 1. Not sure what that means. Am I supposed to look it up?
2. Life is life. Do I need to prove that?
3. I don't when I feel that mine are correct. I will immediately change my view when someone verifies they view is correct. Otherwise, there's not much reason to give thought to it. Is that what you do for a hobby?
4. Well, I was indicating that it was based on that and not on God's directing it unless we are talking about making bird people or something equally ludicrous.
5. I guess my point is the non-believer's view has no more import than the believer. The weighting is identical because the evidence is exactly the same and any pint to the contrary of that is simply speculation that the non-believer views as fact.
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Nov 15, 2017 0:41:20 GMT
How is anyone supposed to know the answers to these questions? I'd like to know if anyone has thought of any answers to these questions, or whether Christians deliberately avoid thinking about such questions. And one would think that the Bible would have some hints with regards to these questions, rather than giving the indication that humans did not evolve, but were rather created from scratch in their present form. Those questions you ask are profound, and there is no one that can provide such an exact answer. They are part of the mysteries of the universe, and the mysteries of God. Such questions should indeed challenge the current mainstream primitive thinking that beholds Christianity, and there needs to be an awakening and a realization that the Bible in its written form does not work as the kind of be-all and end-all to existence. Failure to answer these questions does not mean we do not think about them, however. Whether you think its a cop out or not, mystery and even doubt is part of the process of faith.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 15, 2017 11:36:35 GMT
1. QED. 2. Saying that maybe 'soul is life' does not count as evidence, let alone proof. 3. I am sorry that you don't care about other people's views in whatever instance. I do. 4. I was picking up on the notion that evolutionary change, or adaption 'depends on who we have children with'. 5. Fair enough; I certainly agree that no body knows. But those of us with no belief in the deliberate supernatural have their suspicions especially as far as the perfection (or just 'very good' quality) of God's supposed design goes. It is also, in connection with 'souls' unusual to consider that 'souls' exist without a religious, or transcendental belief system, notoriously hard to evidence, to justify things. But I suppose it can be done. 1. Not sure what that means. Am I supposed to look it up?
2. Life is life. Do I need to prove that?
3. I don't when I feel that mine are correct. I will immediately change my view when someone verifies they view is correct. Otherwise, there's not much reason to give thought to it. Is that what you do for a hobby?
4. Well, I was indicating that it was based on that and not on God's directing it unless we are talking about making bird people or something equally ludicrous.
5. I guess my point is the non-believer's view has no more import than the believer. The weighting is identical because the evidence is exactly the same and any pint to the contrary of that is simply speculation that the non-believer views as fact.
1. QED = that which was to be proven
2. We know life exists since, well I am here to note it. A 'soul' is just mystical presumption, without evidence. Note that I am not saying that I know that souls do not exist; it is just reasonable for those making the claim that they do to provide substantiation, or the idea can be rejected on the same basis.
3. Even when I feel I am correct I still care about other people's views which can be intriguing or revealing. Hence my presence here. If a hobby can reasonably be considered as one giving thought to something controversial or contrary to a view then, yes, that is a long standing hobby of mine.
4. Fair enough. Although it is hard to know about a god's 'direction' one way or another, since nothing can be shown.
5. Agreed. Although with the proviso that, arguably it is reasonable to assume something does not exist unless positive evidence exists that it does more than otherwise, especially if such an extra thing (like a whole extra layer of reality) adds needless complexity to that which might be explained more obviously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 12:44:37 GMT
And one would think that the Bible would have some hints with regards to these questions, rather than giving the indication that humans did not evolve, but were rather created from scratch in their present form. Why would one think that? The concept of evolution wasn't in anybody's wildest imaginations when the Bible was written. Were you expecting some miracle that enables it to transform into a retrospective biology manual? Perhaps if you read it often enough, some more divine miracles will happen and it will be able to instruct you how to travel in space, build a teleportation machine and lose weight without having to diet or exercise. I would have thought that God (the putative author or at least dictator of the work) would have known about this stuff, even if the humans at the time didn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 12:49:40 GMT
At what point in the evolutionary cycle did humans/human ancestors become 'divine' (i.e. in God's image)? At what point did we develop an immortal soul that exists independently of our physical form? At what point 'free will' develop, and do any other types of animals also have free will Were humans God's final intended design, and if so, why did he implement the process of evolution in order to achieve the design that he had intended from the beginning? Do you believe that humans (in their current physical form) are likely to be God's final design, or will there be more evolution. If there is likely to be further evolution, does that give you pause to consider whether humans are really as special as your religion professes them to be? 1. Adam & Eve - They were specifically created in his image. That didn't make them divine but it did make them responsible for upholding his standards so that's where it starts per Scripture. 2. It doesn't exist separate from the body. 1.If Adam and Eve were actual historical figures and the story of the Garden of Eve was a historical event, would that not preclude the possibility that Adam and Eve were themselves evolved from lower life forms? 2. So you believe that when a 'good Christian' dies, his decaying body teleports or otherwise rematerialises in heaven, thus leaving a vacant coffin (after the open casket funeral, of course)? And does it rematerialise in its decayed and hideous form, do you think?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 15, 2017 14:57:56 GMT
1. Adam & Eve - They were specifically created in his image. That didn't make them divine but it did make them responsible for upholding his standards so that's where it starts per Scripture. 2. It doesn't exist separate from the body. 1.If Adam and Eve were actual historical figures and the story of the Garden of Eve was a historical event, would that not preclude the possibility that Adam and Eve were themselves evolved from lower life forms? 2. So you believe that when a 'good Christian' dies, his decaying body teleports or otherwise rematerialises in heaven, thus leaving a vacant coffin (after the open casket funeral, of course)? And does it rematerialise in its decayed and hideous form, do you think? 1. They weren't since they were directly created by God and for a particular purpose. So assuming that other human forms evolved naturally or under God's direction, Adam & Eve were distinctly separate from that. Now we have no idea what creation processes are involved so anything involving details about evolution of any life are merely speculation since they aren't terribly important.
2. No. I never discussed my beliefs but feel free to assume them.
The questions you pose only involve my opinion which is entirely speculation or actual scripture. Actual Scripture indicates life and soul go hand in hand and dead is dead.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 15, 2017 15:14:02 GMT
1. Not sure what that means. Am I supposed to look it up?
2. Life is life. Do I need to prove that?
3. I don't when I feel that mine are correct. I will immediately change my view when someone verifies they view is correct. Otherwise, there's not much reason to give thought to it. Is that what you do for a hobby?
4. Well, I was indicating that it was based on that and not on God's directing it unless we are talking about making bird people or something equally ludicrous.
5. I guess my point is the non-believer's view has no more import than the believer. The weighting is identical because the evidence is exactly the same and any pint to the contrary of that is simply speculation that the non-believer views as fact.
1. QED = that which was to be proven
2. We know life exists since, well I am here to note it. A 'soul' is just mystical presumption, without evidence. Note that I am not saying that I know that souls do not exist; it is just reasonable for those making the claim that they do to provide substantiation, or the idea can be rejected on the same basis.
3. Even when I feel I am correct I still care about other people's views which can be intriguing or revealing. Hence my presence here. If a hobby can reasonably be considered as one giving thought to something controversial or contrary to a view then, yes, that is a long standing hobby of mine.
4. Fair enough. Although it is hard to know about a god's 'direction' one way or another, since nothing can be shown.
5. Agreed. Although with the proviso that, arguably it is reasonable to assume something does not exist unless positive evidence exists that it does more than otherwise, especially if such an extra thing (like a whole extra layer of reality) adds needless complexity to that which might be explained more obviously.
1. Ok
2. Well, I'm saying that if souls are life then souls exists. If you separate it into something else entirely, then I guess we could argue about something since I don't think something needs to be proven to exist. There's a lot of things that aren't provable. In relation to this particular topic, I am simply stating that soul is synonymous with life. Maybe the argument has more to do with a spiritual life?
3. Of course, I find things interesting that are interesting to me. However, I don't automatically find things I disagree with interesting. Someone attempting to contradict my views without actually doing so is not interesting or gets less interesting with time. Having the same conversations over and over again as if they are either fact or as if they never were discussed is silly.
4. God's directions are pretty clear. Our desire to adhere to them as opposed to our own desires may cause vagueness I guess but God's direction isn't ambiguous at all.
5. I disagree with the notion that something should be dismissed at all just because there's no proof and especially when there is explanation. That is not a reasonable standard. If anything, a lot of things that aren't proven are simply accepted as fact in order to even establish the steps for proving it, or as you call it, providing an explanation
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 15, 2017 15:40:11 GMT
1. QED = that which was to be proven
2. We know life exists since, well I am here to note it. A 'soul' is just mystical presumption, without evidence. Note that I am not saying that I know that souls do not exist; it is just reasonable for those making the claim that they do to provide substantiation, or the idea can be rejected on the same basis.
3. Even when I feel I am correct I still care about other people's views which can be intriguing or revealing. Hence my presence here. If a hobby can reasonably be considered as one giving thought to something controversial or contrary to a view then, yes, that is a long standing hobby of mine.
4. Fair enough. Although it is hard to know about a god's 'direction' one way or another, since nothing can be shown.
5. Agreed. Although with the proviso that, arguably it is reasonable to assume something does not exist unless positive evidence exists that it does more than otherwise, especially if such an extra thing (like a whole extra layer of reality) adds needless complexity to that which might be explained more obviously.
1. Ok
2. Well, I'm saying that if souls are life then souls exists. If you separate it into something else entirely, then I guess we could argue about something since I don't think something needs to be proven to exist. There's a lot of things that aren't provable. In relation to this particular topic, I am simply stating that soul is synonymous with life. Maybe the argument has more to do with a spiritual life?
3. Of course, I find things interesting that are interesting to me. However, I don't automatically find things I disagree with interesting. Someone attempting to contradict my views without actually doing so is not interesting or gets less interesting with time. Having the same conversations over and over again as if they are either fact or as if they never were discussed is silly.
4. God's directions are pretty clear. Our desire to adhere to them as opposed to our own desires may cause vagueness I guess but God's direction isn't ambiguous at all.
5. I disagree with the notion that something should be dismissed at all just because there's no proof and especially when there is explanation. That is not a reasonable standard. If anything, a lot of things that aren't proven are simply accepted as fact in order to even establish the steps for proving it, or as you call it, providing an explanation
2. You are right that something does not need to be proven to exist. But then again just because something could exist does not mean it necessarily does, or that something possible is therefore likely. You are perfectly entitled to your definition of a soul as being synonymous with life. But this still does not mean souls therefore exist. 3. You are welcome to your opinions. 4. In the case of evolutionary change (the context here) how can one know, let alone see, 'God's direction' or not? If God was, in fact, directing the progress of the human genome between generations and then suddenly stopped, what would be the difference? Or if the deliberate supernatural's motives are unknown to us, how can we tell how and when they are being worked? 5. Something suggested without evidence can be rejected in the same way. There is no evidence for the deliberate supernatural, outside of the claims of scripture and personal credulity. And if a thing like a preferred deity was "accepted as fact in order to establish the steps for proving its existence" the lack of success - even if such a thing was possible - is notable. But I am not sure why such steps cannot be made anyway without assuming the truth of a supposition.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 15, 2017 15:55:21 GMT
they (Adam and Eve) were directly created by God and for a particular purpose. This sounds again as if you believe Genesis to be literally true. But then again you have told me already that you don't care about opposing views. This is probably best, since creationism gets plenty of those. Such assumption is hardly biblical and strikes out on its own. One wonders why the Bible doesn't mention the 'extra humans'. And the mixing of evolutionary theory with creationism sounds awkward. Just as well since we don't know anything you speculate is indeed the case, apart from the evolutionary descent of man, with no help proved from any alleged deliberate supernatural. Just 'cos scripture says does not make it necessarily true (and citing scripture as an authority for its own truth is just circular argument). There are, for instance, strong disagreements on the status of Christ between the scriptures of Islam and Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 15, 2017 16:21:27 GMT
1. Ok
2. Well, I'm saying that if souls are life then souls exists. If you separate it into something else entirely, then I guess we could argue about something since I don't think something needs to be proven to exist. There's a lot of things that aren't provable. In relation to this particular topic, I am simply stating that soul is synonymous with life. Maybe the argument has more to do with a spiritual life?
3. Of course, I find things interesting that are interesting to me. However, I don't automatically find things I disagree with interesting. Someone attempting to contradict my views without actually doing so is not interesting or gets less interesting with time. Having the same conversations over and over again as if they are either fact or as if they never were discussed is silly.
4. God's directions are pretty clear. Our desire to adhere to them as opposed to our own desires may cause vagueness I guess but God's direction isn't ambiguous at all.
5. I disagree with the notion that something should be dismissed at all just because there's no proof and especially when there is explanation. That is not a reasonable standard. If anything, a lot of things that aren't proven are simply accepted as fact in order to even establish the steps for proving it, or as you call it, providing an explanation
2. You are right that something does not need to be proven to exist. But then again just because something could exist does not mean it necessarily does, or that something possible is therefore likely. You are perfectly entitled to your definition of a soul as being synonymous with life. But this still does not mean souls therefore exist. 3. You are welcome to your opinions. 4. In the case of evolutionary change (the context here) how can one know, let alone see, 'God's direction' or not? If God was, in fact, directing the progress of the human genome between generations and then suddenly stopped, what would be the difference? Or if the deliberate supernatural's motives are unknown to us, how can we tell how and when they are being worked? 5. Something suggested without evidence can be rejected in the same way. There is no evidence for the deliberate supernatural, outside of the claims of scripture and personal credulity. And if a thing like a preferred deity was "accepted as fact in order to establish the steps for proving its existence" the lack of success - even if such a thing was possible - is notable. But I am not sure why such steps cannot be made anyway without assuming the truth of a supposition. 2. They do if life and soul are the same which is my view.
3. Good
4. I wasn't actually discussing it in evolutionary terms since that isn't something that is particularly relevant in terms of worship or understanding God.
5. I would never argue that creation is in and of itself a supernatural event.
After all, it's the norm even when discussing evolution and adaptation. When discussing God's creative ability, we are only talking about power and the ways to use it. We already know that power is in near infinite supply in this universe. Since we already know that creation is possible and indeed the most likely way life arises, we just have to either assume or be skeptical of something more powerful than what humans can imagine.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 15, 2017 16:53:58 GMT
2. You are right that something does not need to be proven to exist. But then again just because something could exist does not mean it necessarily does, or that something possible is therefore likely. You are perfectly entitled to your definition of a soul as being synonymous with life. But this still does not mean souls therefore exist. 3. You are welcome to your opinions. 4. In the case of evolutionary change (the context here) how can one know, let alone see, 'God's direction' or not? If God was, in fact, directing the progress of the human genome between generations and then suddenly stopped, what would be the difference? Or if the deliberate supernatural's motives are unknown to us, how can we tell how and when they are being worked? 5. Something suggested without evidence can be rejected in the same way. There is no evidence for the deliberate supernatural, outside of the claims of scripture and personal credulity. And if a thing like a preferred deity was "accepted as fact in order to establish the steps for proving its existence" the lack of success - even if such a thing was possible - is notable. But I am not sure why such steps cannot be made anyway without assuming the truth of a supposition. 2. They do if life and soul are the same which is my view.
3. Good
4. I wasn't actually discussing it in evolutionary terms since that isn't something that is particularly relevant in terms of worship or understanding God.
5. I would never argue that creation is in and of itself a supernatural event.
2. You are, as previously said, welcome to your opinion. It is, by the same standard, my opinion that soul and hogwash are also the same. All you have to do to prove me wrong is evidence your claim. 4. Above your words were "Genetics and heredity determine change and evolution does not need to be something better.. Once something attans [sic] perfection [by which one assumes you mean the OP's 'God's final design' since you were addressing the matter], evolution becomes irrelevant" were they not? The observation is still that evolution will continue, whether something is adjudged subjectively 'perfect' or not. And, one recalls even God only managed "very good", one remembers. Perhaps he is still working on the perfection bit? 5. I am glad to hear it. So Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, the talking serpent etc (the former mentioned by you just above in terms which suggests a consideration that they actually existed as described) er, just 'evolved'? How did that work then? What is - the role of deliberate creation? Or that evolutionary processes produced the original humans rather than the Biblical duo complete with talking serpent? If the deliberate supernatural had the power and ways to create but did not use it, then how would we know they - it - ever exist? Of what sort of power speaketh thou? I thought it was energy that could never be destroyed. But this is trying to have your cake and eat it. God, it appears, has creative power and ways, creation is possible and the most likely cause of life but you " would never argue that creation is in and of itself a supernatural event". I see. It is not the power of a First Cause which is assumed or denied (by me at least); it is ultimately whether it is deliberate and magical in operation, let alone one nameable and with human characteristics.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 15, 2017 17:07:35 GMT
FilmFlaneurTo an extent. It's a book written thousands of years ago and it's silly to presume the writer would know all the details that we don't even know in the 21st century. Genesis is far larger than Adam & Eve though and it would be pointless to discuss everything within it until it comes up. In relation to Adam & Eve, I do believe that Israelites traced their roots to Adam & Eve and I have no reason at all to doubt it unless I doubt God's ability & Jesus' teachings which, again, I have been presented with no reason to do. If you have one, I may be bored, but I'll be all ears. Admittedly, someone chiding me for believing God exists and is capable of creating stuff is not an overriding concern for me (Is there an option for God exists but not being capable of creating?). It has no effect on my life or theirs. I will gladly change my view the moment they present something capable of doing so. I am extremely open minded if somewhat bored of unproven rhetoric. I think Adam and Eve were the first humans with a divine purpose. I do not believe they are the first biological humans, only the first ones that mattered since they were connected to a godly standard which had nothing to do with physical appearance beyond the notion that perfect people were probably pretty hot. I never said it was anything other than speculation (Although Cain did seem to be scared of a civilization in the land he was banished to, this could have been a writer issue since that civilization existed at the time Genesis was written. It may not have existed at the time Genesis covered). However, the reason is pretty simply. The Bible had no reason to discuss any other humans. Most civilizations that existed at the time were not discussed in scripture since they had no impact on the people it discussed. The Bible not discussing China didn't mean China didn't exist. Likewise, there is no reason for the writer to know or for God to divulge that there's some Neanderthals roaming around France a million years ago. What chapter would that even go in? I blame this argument on the fan fiction epidemic that pervades a lot of stores - The whole eagles to Mordor thing I bring up every time someone comes up with a "Why come?..." I agree about the creationism vs. evolution argument but only because non-religious people forget that evolution is a slow process. It happens automatically the moment two things that can boink do boink. While it may be ludicrous to think a human came from something not human and that where the lines of demarcation arrive, but that line shouldn't even excist with evolutionary scientists. People who believe in God have little doubt that things can adapt over time and especially when done intelligently. if biology can allow change, there's no reason for God to regulate it. Well, your speculation has exactly the same weight as mine and they are both based on scientific possibility... Or impossibility. I'll let you pick which. Which is fine sine I was only stating what Scripture states and it's silly to suggest it can't be an authority on itself. I never mentioned anything about it being an authority for you or Islam. Why would I?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 15, 2017 17:20:35 GMT
2. They do if life and soul are the same which is my view.
3. Good
4. I wasn't actually discussing it in evolutionary terms since that isn't something that is particularly relevant in terms of worship or understanding God.
5. I would never argue that creation is in and of itself a supernatural event.
2. You are, as previously said, welcome to your opinion. It is, by the same standard, my opinion that soul and hogwash are also the same. All you have to do to prove me wrong is evidence your claim. 4. Above your words were "Genetics and heredity determine change and evolution does not need to be something better.. Once something attans [sic] perfection [by which one assumes you mean the OP's 'God's final design' since you were addressing the matter], evolution becomes irrelevant" were they not? The observation is still that evolution will continue, whether something is adjudged subjectively 'perfect' or not. And, one recalls even God only managed "very good", one remembers. Perhaps he is still working on the perfection bit? 5. I am glad to hear it. So Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, the talking serpent etc (the former mentioned by you just above in terms which suggests a consideration that they actually existed as described) er, just 'evolved'? How did that work then? 2. OK, to reconcile this that would mean life is hogwash.
4. God's final design is not contingent on genetic makeup. Perfection is something that can allow for diversity. Evolution could continue since advancement does not need to be a component of evolution.
That said, I do need to clarify your assumption. One can still advance and be perfect because perfection is based on a standard, not an end game. That's why we can still continue learning or better our skills.
5. I'm saying creation is no more supernatural than ventriloquism. I imagine that right now there are men of science trying or possibly accomplishing the same thing than a man and woman do when they boink.
|
|