Evolution vs Creationism

There is no logical reason to assume that God is not deceitful unless you subscribe to the Traditional Western Conception (TWC), in which God is thought to have three primary properties.

1. Omnipotence (Within logical bounds [if you want to believe in god and believe in evil at the same time], such that God can't make a free willed human being and then force them to take a certain action, because that would make the first premise of the being being free willed false)
2. Omniscience (Usually outside of the constraints of time)
3. Omnibenevolence (No deceit)

One of the reasons Aquinas argument fails is that the third premise is epically flawed.

But here's an argument by David Hume that concludes that you can't prove anything's existance by logic alone
1. The only way to prove something a priori is if its opposite implies a contradiction.
2. If something implies a contradiction, then it is inconceivable.
3. Everything can be conceived not to exist.___________
Therefore: Nothing can be proven to exist a priori, including God.

I realize that that Aquinas is flawed, it was just used as an example. Priori proofs in general are difficult to do anyway. Under assumptions that are a bit less jumps and leaps of faith though...is there reason to believe God is omnibenevolent in a similar premise/conclusion format? Where the premises are MORE believable and harder to argue?

Also, I don't know if we should stop using lingo or not...it may shy people away, but it is easier to get points across when we do...(to those who bother to look it up or already know it).

Jay.J wrote:

I realize that that Aquinas is flawed, it was just used as an example. Priori proofs in general are difficult to do anyway. Under assumptions that are a bit less jumps and leaps of faith though...is there reason to believe God is omnibenevolent in a similar premise/conclusion format? Where the premises are MORE believable and harder to argue?

Also, I don't know if we should stop using lingo or not...it may shy people away, but it is easier to get points across when we do...(to those who bother to look it up or already know it).

There is no way to prove God exists in a premise/conclusion format, proving that something that may or may not exist is omnibenevolent when its hard to nail down what exactly omnibenevolent means, besides infinitely good, is fairly difficult

What I meant by bringing up the TWC of God is that many people of Christian faith in the western world believe those things about God, and to them, the idea of a deceitful God who would create false memories and false histories would be difficult to accept.

So, rather than just throwing out terms like a priori, define them as well as using them. Priori = experience. A priori = without experience. Therefore, trying to prove God's existence a priori means without experience (which, if you think about it, is the *only* way to prove God's existence or non-existence).

Of course, by experience I mean touch, taste, smell, sound, and sight. No one (save for stories in the bible which no one around today has experienced) has truly experienced God (because having an "experience" of religion/spirituality is usually confined to the mind, and that doesn't count as an actual experience).

Okay, as far as the whole evolution vs. creationism thing...

Since the existence of God cannot be proved by any current methods (belief is *not* proof), creationism cannot be proved. In order for creationism to be real, there has to be a creator. Without evidence of that creator, we cannot declare creationism to be true or false. It simply becomes a matter of belief. That's it.

Evolution, flawed, misunderstood as it may be still has some kind of validity to it because there is (or at the least) can be evidence discovered to support or deny it beyond a doubt. God can always be doubted.

Without God, there is no creationism. The debate is moot. Logic can't answer the God question and belief just isn't good enough for this kind of question.

I assume, we all assumed going into this conversation we all knew that we couldn't prove the existence of God...not like some random people on the Internet would figure it out . And most people realized, that ya there are flaws with Evolution but "It's the best we got" because it can actually be tested and can have evidence, unlike God.

I assumed, the point of the conversation was for kicks, no?

Oh, right... sorry my whole cynicism/uber-depressing qualities have taken over for the last couple posts... Maybe more sleep? Aren't you a psychologically inclined person, Jay?

DarkDjinni wrote:

Jay.J wrote:

I still want an answer to a logical reason to think God isn't decietful. Very interesting concept.

Believing in god is a leap in faith, the leap is not as great for some people as for others. Now ask yourself, would you honestly leap if you knew the person catching you was decietful?

It isn't that he is or isn't, there isn't any proof saying either. But, if your believing in a higher power, your first thought is to believe the best.

There is no logical answer, a logical answer would be asking for evidence, proof or an explanation that cannot be ignored. You cannot prove god exists, there is no evidence and for every explanation claiming god is real there is another explanation claiming he isn't.

But like I said, taking a leap of faith into a pit of snakes isn't exactly what most people want to do. So if they can believe there is a higher power, they are well within their right to believe he is not deceitful.

read the bible... god gave PLENTY of proof that he wasnt decietful...

if you need more proof than that [talking to the athiests out there] than you dont deserve his grace...

You fail Demonic. Please keep pointless, stupid, and illogical discussion out of this thread. I am requesting that your post be deleted, and you have been warned to not break the rules of this game.

Belief in anything is meaningless unless you have logic to back it up. Believing because you were taught to, just proves that your stupid and gullible. That kind of belief is not true belief, and would earn you no place in any heaven that I controlled. (Luckily I'm not the gatekeeper of heaven.)

Belief acquired by logic, to uphold moral principles, or just in general discovered as a personal way of being is to be respected. But, I loathe people who have not worked for their belief.

In my opinion, all children should be raised absolutely atheist until the age of 10. At that point, they should be taught classes about EVERY religion of the world, and be given the choices to believe any, all, or none of those. That is the only way to create a world of true believers, and end this hedonistic cycle of deceit and war.

P.S. I am a devout Christian who attends church every week. My belief was forged from a personal moral system, and a desire for a structure. I am always open to changing my belief system, and will listen with an open mind to the views of any other religion. Closing your mind to others is the most certain proof that your belief is weak and foolish.

P.P.S. I do however live in the "bible-belt," so even when I do change my religious views, I have to keep it hidden. I cannot share my belief with others, because I would be ridiculed and outcast by my friends and neighbors if I did not believe the same as them. That is the kind of bigotry that I wish to abolish in this world, and would never partake of myself.

Quote :

read the bible... god gave PLENTY of proof that he wasnt decietful...

if you need more proof than that [talking to the athiests out there] than you dont deserve his grace...

It's begging the question logicaly (Which is a Fallacy). You have to assume God exists to prove God exists, in that you have to believe what the Bible says (From God) to believe in God.

Quote :

You fail Demonic. Please keep pointless, stupid, and illogical discussion out of this thread. I am requesting that your post be deleted, and you have been warned to not break the rules of this game.

No chirping people. Just because he put up a bad argument doesn't mean you say he fails. Don't break your own rules. It wasn't even for rhetoric purposes.

Quote :

In my opinion, all children should be raised absolutely atheist until the age of 10. At that point, they should be taught classes about EVERY religion of the world, and be given the choices to believe any, all, or none of those. That is the only way to create a world of true believers, and end this hedonistic cycle of deceit and war.

Semi-breaking your own rules. That's not backed up by anything. I could say if everyone was raised Jewish then we would also have world of true believers, and we would have no war. I could replace that word with Nazi as well and have the same outcome. Having everyone of the same type wouldn't solve war as there would just be something else to fight about. If it's a religion, then in almost all religions there are different sects - Shia'ts & Sunnis or Hasidic &Tradional or Anglicans & Protestants etc. Although your point may have been that they would be more "True" believers since they chose there religion - however there's the philosophy of choice, and if we actually have free will (Which I don't fully understand, and don't want to argue).

But that reason isn't that good either, since Environment affects a child far too much. More often than not they'll take religion classes as jokes, and more as myths - simply because that's what they believe in. The first 5 years are said to be the most important, instilling any sort of belief in a child would be hard to break at that point.

Quote :

because I would be ridiculed and outcast by my friends and neighbors if I did not believe the same as them.

Not the best of friends out there (No offense).

Quote :

That is the kind of bigotry that I wish to abolish in this world, and would never partake of myself.

By not speaking out against it, you're a part of it. For all you know there are people in your community who feel the same way and are closed just as much as you are for fear of retribution.

Quote :

Oh, right... sorry my whole cynicism/uber-depressing qualities have taken over for the last couple posts... Maybe more sleep? Aren't you a psychologically inclined person, Jay?

Sometimes I debate for the fun of it, or to aqcure knowledge (or to see if my own beliefs hold up when I argue the opposite). You would be suprised (I think) about what I believe in.

God by DEFINITION can't be proven. He can't be observed. He's not "of this universe". However, logicaly you can prove he is more LIKELY to exist. The whole point of the monotheistic religions is faith. If you could prove God you wouldn't need it - and then only retards (people incabable of simple tasks, below 80 IQ) would reject God (And since they are chalenged would go to Heaven anyway [according to monotheistic religions]). The whole point of religion is that you believe in God, and if you do - you get rewarded. If you don't then you get punished.

Logicaly you have Pascals Wager here. You have 3 possibilities here (Assuming montheistic religions). Either you go to Heaven, Hell or Rot in the ground (If God turns out not to be real). Living a life by scriputre allows you to go to Heaven. If God isn't real, the only time you waste is a finite amount of time you spent believing and worshipping God. If God is real then you get an infinite amount of return (You go to Heaven for very little time spent on Earth in exchange). On the other hand if you don't believe in God, then you either go to Hell, or just Rot in the ground. The time lost if God exists is infinite for a finite gain. At best the time you get is the time you wouldn't spend worshipping God.

The problem with Pascals Wager is WHICH God to believe in. Perhaps Zeus is real. You have just as much chance as proving he exists as any other God since God is not something you can prove. I find this to be a weak argument personaly...since I think you can reason which God is more probable if one did exist. (I don't believe in God just because of this Wager by the way nor is it a good argument to prove God exists, nor a good manner to convince an atheist - I just think it's interesting and like bringing it up).

NOTE: I consider monotheistic religions to be Christianity, Juidaism and Islam. (Not just any One God religion...like scientology)

Sigh, I fail. That is why I'm supposed to moderate and not participate in this. (But Demonic_Itunes got my goat.)

Anyway, I like Pascals Wager. True you might not convince someone to believe because of that, but it is a logical reason to choose to believe. Personally, I just think that choice is important. I support anyone's right to their own choices about religion. So long as they actually make them themselves and don't try to force them on others.

Anyway, I'll retreat back out of this before I cause more trouble. (Sigh, I can't even follow my own rules lol.)

Last thing:

Jay.J wrote:

Not the best of friends out there (No offense). By not speaking out against it, you're a part of it. For all you know there are people in your community who feel the same way and are closed just as much as you are for fear of retribution.

No offense taken. I also may have slightly exaggerated the situation. My family, some of my friends, and the people at my church are ok. It isn't 100% of people, just most of them. I got to a very liberal church, and many of them believe similarly to me in respect to freedom of choice. But, there are only about 15 of us that attend that church. But Jay, when you are a minority, there isn't anything you can do. When we are together we celebrate our own beliefs. When we aren't, we just try not to broach the topic. I exaggerated the outcast and ridiculed part too I guess, as usually things go back to normal when apologize/admit they are right. (It isn't fun to do, but it isn't fun to be ostracized either.)

Anyway, it isn't as bad as I make it seem, I just have to separate my religious views from my everyday life. But so help me if someone mentions abortion. (That is when I know it is time to go home.)

lol at minoritys having no power, you have obviously never lived in california, we have waaay to many lawyers.

On topic: Religion is based on faith, Science is based on evidence. Science still has alot of holes, Religion still doesn't have alot of tangible evidence.

Believing due to Pascal's Wager pretty much means that you're not depending on faith for your belief, which defeats the purpose of believing as far as I'm concerned.

1. Assume God exists and he cannot breach logic with His omnipotence (Can't make a free willed being and control that being's actions because it would cause the being to not be free willed)
2. Assume God created us all as free willed beings and logical beings
3. Assume that as logical beings we would be swayed by a sound deductive argument
4. Assume that God created us all as free willed beings for the purpose of drawing faithful believers to Him
5. Assume God allowed for us to discover a way to deductively argue and prove outright His existance.

These five assumptions lead to a not-so-subtle contradiction. If anyone can pull it out they get an e-cookie.

Arguing for or against the actual existance of free will is fairly fruitless in my opinion, so let's not get into that, for the purposes of this, any whiners can replace "free will" with "illusion of free will"

idk bout that...I mean how free can you actually get? I mean as far as I'm concerned our will is as free as anything, I mean we might be limited by society and natural instinct but we are able to over come them w/ enough motivation, which normally if you do you make head line news for suicide or murder.

diaster wrote:

idk bout that...I mean how free can you actually get? I mean as far as I'm concerned our will is as free as anything, I mean we might be limited by society and natural instinct but we are able to over come them w/ enough motivation, which normally if you do you make head line news for suicide or murder.

I recommend you do some philosophy wikipedia reading , the quick version is that to most people causality and free will seem to be mutually exclusive.

There is no contradiction. Should each of those points be valid, that would prove that God is testing us and that logic is against his will. Of course, coming to that conclusion uses logic, which then means that anyone able to discover Gods will has already broken it. The deductions I can get from that, would imply that if your 5 points are valid, then the only way to not defy God is to believe out of pure faith because you were told to. The exact thing that I consider to be evil. (So I guess by your logic, I'm the devil.)

Dragonheart91 wrote:

There is no contradiction. Should each of those points be valid, that would prove that God is testing us and that logic is against his will. Of course, coming to that conclusion uses logic, which then means that anyone able to discover Gods will has already broken it. The deductions I can get from that, would imply that if your 5 points are valid, then the only way to not defy God is to believe out of pure faith because you were told to. The exact thing that I consider to be evil. (So I guess by your logic, I'm the devil.)

The contradiction is subtle in one way, but not in another, due to the wide parenthetical example. Basically, if we are all swayed by an argument to believe because God allowed deductive proof of His existance to exist, it nullifies the freedom of will in the important choice of whether or not to believe in Him, which from the assumptions is a main point of creation.

Edit: And since we're getting into personal reasons to believe. My reason to have faith is that if there is no God, existance is pointless, and that's just too depressing, so I prefer to believe.
I believe all of those assumptions except number 5, because it is the source of the contradiction. I may be alone in connecting deductive arguments and free will though, so you can disagree with me about there being a contradiction if you'd like.

I don't believe you're the devil, and it isnt "my" logic, because if it was "my" logic and not "your" logic, then its not logic. Logic transcends everything.

Ahh damn. I was under the impression that the problem/flaw was that it's not faith if it's hard evidence. And that our purpose wouldn't be able to be fulfilled, since we aren't believing him God - we KNOW he exists. Though, I guess you can believe and know at the same time...

Jay.J wrote:

Ahh damn. I was under the impression that the problem/flaw was that it's not faith if it's hard evidence. And that our purpose wouldn't be able to be fulfilled, since we aren't believing him God - we KNOW he exists. Though, I guess you can believe and know at the same time...

That's pretty much pointing at the same problem just from a different angle, knowing something as a fact eliminates the choice of believing whether or not it is true.

O cool...I didn't really understand your wording to be all that honest. Because...I was under the impression you can't deductively prove anything besides "I think therefore I am". You always have some underlying assumption, and you can't deductively prove anything without information you don't have right?

All A is B
Some B is C
___________
Some A is C

You don't get anything from the argument besides what you already know you just really...organize the information. So we would have to know God exists in some manner to prove that he exists (If he was able to be proven deductively). The only way you can prove God is inductively... and then you still have that choice of not believing in him due to that small chance that he might not be real. Personally I think the mere fact that the universe exists, and that we have the ability to question our existence is far too great a thing for it to have been caused or created by nothing. It just makes no sense that something came from nothing. It makes little sense that something so amazing (Ability to choose, and question ones being) was random.

dolphins are smarter than us and im sure they would question their being except they don't have war and civilizations. they're too happy swimming out there peacefully.

for us we have everyday problems that make us think extra hard, war, presidency, other things...

the reason we are able to question our existence is because we evolved with lock-able kneecaps, sociability and eventually smarts.

isn't it wierd how gods only came to be through civilizations? mostly middle-eastern civilizations. (muslim, christianity, judiasm, etc all originated from there.)

Jay, that argument you just listed fails. If all A is B, and some B is C, then some A does NOT have to be C.

yes but if some isnt then some does.

so in fact some A DOES equal C

(some A=C; some A‡C)

so there are believers and non-believers in this world.

Fail Dragon...I never said "All A = C". I said some A is C, which means - just by the nature of language that some A =/= C as well.

Quote :

dolphins are smarter than us and im sure they would question their being except they don't have war and civilizations. they're too happy swimming out there peacefully.

Source?

Quote :

for us we have everyday problems that make us think extra hard, war, presidency, other things...

Because we created those things...

Quote :

isn't it wierd how gods only came to be through civilizations? mostly middle-eastern civilizations. (muslim, christianity, judiasm, etc all originated from there.)

Not really. If you mean God is a man made creation than no...Assuming absolute truths - Either he exists, or he doesn't independent of me or you thinking so. And if you mean the idea of God, then you can't really say that the first humans without civilizations didn't believe in God...There's no way to prove, or to even give probable reason to think either side (Unless you assume scripture to be true - in which case you Assume Adam/Eve believed in God).

Quote :

Not really. If you mean God is a man made creation than no...Assuming absolute truths - Either he exists, or he doesn't independent of me or you thinking so. And if you mean the idea of God, then you can't really say that the first humans without civilizations didn't believe in God...There's no way to prove, or to even give probable reason to think either side (Unless you assume scripture to be true - in which case you Assume Adam/Eve believed in God).

The first humans were not Adam and Eve. Scientific evidence > scripture.

And, to answer your question, yes, it is believed that early hunter/gatherer societies did believe in God in some form or another (although it was most likely polytheistic). There are also some (very few) remaining h/g tribes in the world and they believe in super natural things but it's more commonly spirits rather than a divine entity.

I'd think that one reason Gods really took place once humanity became sedentary was that now their source of food was hit or miss (pass/fail if you will). If a good crop didn't come in, the society was uberly screwed. Thus prayer, sacrifice to help ensure a productive time took root ("evolved" if you will). Additionally, society became more of a market system. No single group could really do everything required to survive and people began to specialize. It only makes sense, then, that Gods would also take on specialized rolls.

For above (forgot about your parenthesis Jay).

Is it possible to start up like a weekly or bi-weekly or even monthly philosophic topic thread or something? I'm sort of okay with people posting small things, but I would prefer that people keep their personal, unjustified (unbacked by logic) beliefs out of the thread and that most stuff said has either inherent truth (i.e. logic) or source truth behind it. Perhaps attempting to discuss something slightly away from religion next time (even though religion will inevitably brought up since that is human nature). How about a discussion on human nature? Most people seem to associate it with negativity and apathy - "things never change" or "history repeats itself". Is that a function of our nature or just a cycle we've not outgrown yet?

Quote :

The first humans were not Adam and Eve. Scientific evidence > scripture.

It's based on interpretation - for one thing the first humans that are considered humans may very well have been Adam & Eve. (Not saying they are, saying there's a possibility). Secondly scientific evidence is based on previous assumptions, just like religious doctrine is based on the belief God exists.

Quote :

I'd think that one reason Gods really took place once humanity became sedentary was that now their source of food was hit or miss (pass/fail if you will). If a good crop didn't come in, the society was uberly screwed. Thus prayer, sacrifice to help ensure a productive time took root ("evolved" if you will). Additionally, society became more of a market system. No single group could really do everything required to survive and people began to specialize. It only makes sense, then, that Gods would also take on specialized rolls.

On the other hand, the message was more easily conveyed by "Prophets" because people were stationary and not always moving so the belief could become more wide spread easily.

Quote :

Is it possible to start up like a weekly or bi-weekly or even monthly philosophic topic thread or something?

We had a whole topic for it in the old forums. Zync was a major philosophy buff.

Quote :

I'm sort of okay with people posting small things, but I would prefer that people keep their personal, unjustified (unbacked by logic) beliefs out of the thread and that most stuff said has either inherent truth (i.e. logic) or source truth behind it.

Sort of hard. By definition, God's existence can't be backed up by HARD evidence as he's supernatural and unobservable (directly). Pythagoras's little thing on belief in God/Free will shows this in a cool manner. If you could prove God to exist - the whole concept of faith to believe in God vanishes. Either you're rational and accept God and go to Heaven, or you're irrational and don't accept him - in which case your crazy and go to Heaven anyway. (This is assuming God was provable beyond a reasonable doubt).
The whole fact that God is very opinionated, means that you have to make choices. It's the choice that makes it worthwhile. Once you understand something...there's no awe in it. It's like a magic trick - once you understand it, it's not so great anymore. For God to exist and be great and beyond our imaginations...we should never be able to understand him or comprehend it completely(In this world).

Quote :

Perhaps attempting to discuss something slightly away from religion next time (even though religion will inevitably brought up since that is human nature). How about a discussion on human nature? Most people seem to associate it with negativity and apathy - "things never change" or "history repeats itself". Is that a function of our nature or just a cycle we've not outgrown yet?

Throw up a topic, take a stance - I'll take the opposite stance even if I agree with you. (Unless someone already has taken the opposition). We'll debate, people will join in, it'll be a ball.