Does Evolution disprove God what do you think ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Does Evolution disprove God what do you think ?

[ComradeMan]

Not really, and not according to the Vatican, at least, who have no issue with it.

[hatzel]

Hmm...no...

How else would you create a universe, without using evolution? Even gods aren't allowed to defy the laws of physics, man! :lol:

[Octavian]

Evolution shows that every living thing in the universe starts as something very simple and small then evolves to become more complicated over long periods of time. This means that god would have to had started as something small and evolved into a being that powerful overtime.

The conflict Christians and most creationists have with evolution is that almost all of them say we were created by a deity as homo sapiens.

[Dimmu]

No, evolution shows that no "god" is needed when it comes to the explanation how this world works.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Religion has claimed for many years that whatever we don't know, God explains. Evolution has just weakened the case for God... driven it back into other things that we don't know. Soon God will run out of ignorance to support himself with and "wither away" :lol:

[ComradeMan]

Evolution shows that every living thing in the universe starts as something very simple and small then evolves to become more complicated over long periods of time. This means that god would have to had started as something small and evolved into a being that powerful overtime.

The conflict Christians and most creationists have with evolution is that almost all of them say we were created by a deity as homo sapiens.

God is not an organism though- not according to Abrahamic religions.

Most Christians do not have big issues with evolution either, more a hardcore fringe that seem to be more concentrated in the US- which is why many US members seem to have the big issues and the idea that Christianity (and perhaps Judaism) are totally against science and in particular evolutionary theory.

[Octavian]

God is not an organism though- not according to Abrahamic religions.
The only known being that exists with consciousness(I use this term loosely but it could develop in the future) that isn't "living" is a computer. Since I can't prove a negative; that god isn't a conscious being we don't know about.

[hatzel]

The only known being that exists with consciousness(I use this term loosely but it could develop in the future) that isn't "living" is a computer.

Who said gods have to have a consciousness? :p

[PhoenixAsh]

Two things:


You can not prove the existence or non existence of God by any normal means.

The Bible is not God. Equating the book with the entity does not mean that that is a correct representation.




So if the Bible states God created the world in 7 days that does not mean it its true. Conflicting data with that statement does in fact not prove God does not exist. It proves that the Bible is false or misleading or uses incorrect language.

Conversely finding proof of Biblical events do not proof the truth of the entire Bible. It only proofs that parts of the Bible are based in historical fact. Nor does it in fact proof that God exists. You are proving parts of the representation of Biblical stories is factual. Not that the Bible factually depicts what is true.

[ComradeMan]

Two things:


You can not prove the existence or non existence of God by any normal means.

The Bible is not God. Equating the book with the entity does not mean that that is a correct representation.




So if the Bible states God created the world in 7 days that does not mean it its true. Conflicting data with that statement does in fact not prove God does not exist. It proves that the Bible is false or misleading or uses incorrect language.

Conversely finding proof of Biblical events do not proof the truth of the entire Bible. It only proofs that parts of the Bible are based in historical fact. Nor does it in fact proof that God exists. You are proving parts of the representation of Biblical stories is factual. Not that the Bible factually depicts what is true.

What's worse is quoting the Bible literally with bad/mistranslations- like the Hebrew word "yom" which does not necessarily mean a "day" as in Monday! There are at least four classical/rabbinical interpretations to Hebrew scripture.

1- P'shat- the literal interpretation
2- Remez- the philosophical interpretation
3- D'rash- the Midrashic interpretation or homilies
4- Sod- allegorical and mystical

I am sure Rabbi K is a better authority on this though.
;)

[Revolution starts with U]

It still says birds came before fish

[PhoenixAsh]

yes...but did they give life-birth or did they lay eggs....and in the case of the last...what was first? ;)

[ComradeMan]

It still says birds came before fish

It doesn't.

Genesis 1:20-21 (English Standard Version)


20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[a (http://www.revleft.org/vb/#fen-ESV-20a)] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." 21So(A (http://www.revleft.org/vb/#cen-ESV-21A)) God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

[Revolution starts with U]

Oh my bad. It says vegetation came before light. ANd that birds came before land creatures. It then gives a completely alternative version where humans are created before all the other creatures.

Sorry, it's been a while since I had to explain to someone why Genesis has no match up with reality, not even metaphorically.

[hatzel]

It says vegetation came before light.

Light was the first day, vegetation the third :)

[graymouser]

Light was the first day, vegetation the third :)
The sun, which as we all know is inconsequential when it comes to light, was on the fourth. :lol:

As for the original question, evolution doesn't disprove god. It pretty much took all the wind out of deism's sails, since it closed up a major gap for the "god of the gaps" style of argument.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ok. Im just going to go source myself. Apparently it's been so long since I've discussed Genesis I am completely out of context...

OK: It was the stars, vegetation came before the stars possibly even the Sun. It's really just talking about separating light from darkness so light is distinguishable; "the lights in the sky to seperate the day from the night."

Still, vegetation came before stars.. wrong. Birds came before land creatures... wrong. Alternative version where humans come before all of this... wrong. Sound came before light... wrong (God spoke and said "let there be light").

[hatzel]

The sun, which as we all know is inconsequential when it comes to light

DAMN STRAIGHT!


http://www.vectorstock.com/assets/preview/174607/sad-sun-vector.jpg

[ComradeMan]

The trouble with the Book of Genesis is that it is, in the first place, very, very old! In the second place there are actually two creation accounts that seem to have been fused. Such an ancient Hebrew text in translation also poses problems with the interpretations and of course we have the hidden meanings, allegory and allusions as well.

Like I have said before, anyone who attacks or defends based on literal interpretations is a fool!

But as they say in Italian, "la madre del fesso è sempre incinta"- "the mother of the fool is always pregnant.";)

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, yes, take the Bible metaphorically or allegorically.
Either way the illusion still breaks down under further scrutiny. The Sun IS consequential when it comes to light. Birds did not come before land animals. We have well defined rules for why women have periods that have nothing to do with punishment for leading men astray.

[Thirsty Crow]

No, evolution does not "disprove God".
In fact, nothing can "disprove God" since the existence of something which people call "God" simply can not be proven in the first place.
That's why different languages have a term corresponding to the English "faith" (or "belief") as opposed to "fact".

[hatzel]

EDIT: @RSWU

IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!11!!!11!!ELEVENTY!!1!!!2!!!1!! :cursing:

:laugh:

Anyway, everybody knows that the world was actually made like this (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/yetzirah.htm) or maybe like this (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/zdm/zdm010.htm) :)

[Diogenes]

I guess it just depends on your definition of "god". Being a pantheist I would agree with evolution and god coexisting, while also recognizing Genesis as being allegorical compared to scientific facts.

But my opinion is that god is nature so I'm a whole 'nother bag of nuts

[Revolution starts with U]

Im just sayin, it's as piss poor an allegory as it is a scientific treatise.

[hatzel]

Being a pantheist...

Pantheism is just watered down panentheism, the -ism of (anarcho-)kings! :lol:

[Amphictyonis]

No, evolution shows that no "god" is needed when it comes to the explanation how this world works.

I'm an atheist but, no, not really. We still have the problem of what happened before the big bang (bigger picture). I don't see it as a problem per say but it is where religion and science meet on a sort of crossroads. The crossroad of speculation.

[Revolution starts with U]

The God of the gaps grows ever smaller each generation.

[ComradeMan]

Im just sayin, it's as piss poor an allegory as it is a scientific treatise.

But it is an allegory of the spirit and the development of humanity's perception of creation of which they are a part.

Unfortunately, because established religions don't like this sort of thing to be general knowledge they would prefer to keep people literal and dumb. This has happened in both Judaism and Christianity to a large extent. The Kabbalists were not always received that well within Judaism.

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי אוֹר
Fiat lux et facta est lux!
Let there be light

But what does this mean? Light in the sense of Gk. phos, i.e. literally light as in photons etc or light in the sense of consciousness, ilumination- i.e. dispelling ignorance?

;)

[Viet Minh]

It disproves the Bible, if you choose to interpet it literally, but not God. Science generally doesn't necessarily disprove God, in fact the more we learn about biology the more questions are raised about intelligent design.

[Viet Minh]

I used to believe people started religion as a way to excercise personal power over others, through fear. But then I read somewhere about the earliest signs of religion being burial rituals, and think its more borne out of human fear or curiosity of the unknown, and also useful in explaining unexplaining phenomena. The beauty of religion is its very difficult to disprove, not least because those who subscribe to it do so fully and often unquestioningly.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Evolution proves that there is no need for a God for how everything and everyone got here.

An atheist before Darwin (http://www.revleft.com/vb/darwin.htm) could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm
Richard Dawkins argues that evolution leaves God with nothing to do

Before 1859 it would have seemed natural to agree with the Reverend William Paley, in "Natural Theology," that the creation of life was God's greatest work. Especially (vanity might add) human life. Today we'd amend the statement: Evolution is the universe's greatest work. Evolution is the creator of life, and life is arguably the most surprising and most beautiful production that the laws of physics have ever generated. Evolution, to quote a T-shirt sent me by an anonymous well-wisher, is the greatest show on earth, the only game in town.

Indeed, evolution is probably the greatest show in the entire universe. Most scientists' hunch is that there are independently evolved life forms dotted around planetary islands throughout the universe—though sadly too thinly scattered to encounter one another. And if there is life elsewhere, it is something stronger than a hunch to say that it will turn out to be Darwinian life. The argument in favor of alien life's existing at all is weaker than the argument that—if it exists at all—it will be Darwinian life. But it is also possible that we really are alone in the universe, in which case Earth, with its greatest show, is the most remarkable planet in the universe.

Continue reading Richard Dawkins' piece (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405030643556324.html#U 10156404922R1E)

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4293

Q: What is your deal with evolution? Why do you support it so strongly? Why shouldn't we teach creationism in school as an "alternative" to evolution?
A: We support evolution because it is a generally accepted scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet. The reason it is so well accepted in the scientific community is because it is supported by a wide variety of evidence, including fossils, taxonomy, genetics and experimental biology results.
The reason we talk about it so much on our show is because there is a small but vocal community of Christians who object to the theory on religious grounds. They think that the evidence supporting evolution should be removed from science classes, or else their own myths about genesis should be taught side by side with them. We do not object to Judeo-Christian stories about origins being taught in the classroom. What we do object to is the stories being taught as if they were science. They aren't. Science is a process of making observations, testing evidence, and above all, finding and correcting mistakes. This is almost the exact opposite of what religions do. Religions rely on unalterable texts handed down from ancient teachers, which are not to be questioned regardless of what evidence comes up.
Evolution isn't "atheist science", however. Most scientists who accept evolution are not atheists. As biologist Richard Dawkins puts it, "Evolution doesn't make you an atheist, but it does make it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." This is because it takes most of the force out of the Argument from Design for God (see below (http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/#watchmaker)). Evolution is a large, complicated academic subject. We highly recommend reading the talk.origins archive (http://www.atheist-community.org/offsite.php?u=http://www.talkorigins.org) to learn more about this fascinating subject. It contains an overview of evolution, and extensive articles discussing most common creationist objections. Whenever somebody calls about evolution, if we do not know the answer right away, we will almost always look up the information at the talk origins site and have the answer the following week. Creationists would be wise to keep this in mind, and look up their own arguments on the site to be aware of the responses ahead of time.

http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/

[Zostrianos]

Evolution on the contrary, is very compatible with certain religious systems. Neoplatonic, Hermetic, and Gnostic systems generally postulated that everything originated from a simple Monad, the primal One, and through a process of emanation reality became more and more complex progressively. It correlates in an interesting way to biological evolution, whereby simple DNA sequences billions of years ago became gradually more complex through natural selection, ultimately culminating in the endless biological life that took over the planet.

There's an interesting myth of the fall of Man in the Hermetic Discourses of Isis to Horus, that's much more compatible with science than the Biblical one. According to that text, Man originally inhabited the one of the spiritual planes above the physical world; at one level there was God, at another the various Gods and Goddesses, and at a lower one there were human souls. These souls were appointed by God to create life on earth. Having done so, they began to disobey God's instructions, trying to ascend into other planes, and God was displeased by this. He then ordered the God Hermes to create human bodies on earth, and then cast the souls into those bodies as punishment.
As an intellectual exercise, assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God or Gods, and humans have souls, this particular myth would be, in my opinion, the most reasonable one from a scientific stand point. Think about it: Homo Sapiens are probably the newest species of animal on this planet, and at one point sometime around 200,000 years ago their brains finally became large enough to develop consciousness, a faculty that distinguishes us from other animals. If you associate the myth with the facts, you could reach a reasonable conclusion that the souls incarnated around the time when the brain became large enough to accommodate them.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The existence of God doesn't need to be disproved. The existence of God has never been proven. The burden of proof is not on the disbelievers.

[CommunityBeliever]

Evolution just proves that if a god exists, he exists outside of time. This is what most religions claim anyways.

[Yugo45]

lol maybe our world/universe is made by some God people being things from another dimension who are competing in a game. Each player of a game chooses an Earth being, and has to develop him to beat the other species.

When a new player joins, he needs to choose an existing species, and evolve his own species from it.

When a species go extinct, they loose.

Currently the dude evolving humans is winning :lol:

That would be cool, wouldn't it? :cool:

Maybe I should start my own religion. It makes as much sense as other religions.

[GatesofLenin]

This thread reminds me, I bought an atheist book a while back and need to read it. Having grown up catholic myself, only good parts I remember from my childhood was the forced visits to church during schooldays (ok with me, let me skip boring school), being taught math after school by nuns (they sure love them cookies) and that smoking bell the priest waves around, GOD I love that scent of the smoke!
BTW, I'm atheist now.

[Agent Equality]

Idk what it proves. All I know is that I neither know nor care if a God or gods is/are real. If he/she/they/it wants to show him/her/it/ self/selves then let him/her/it/them.

Still, religion doesn't even enter my mind on a daily basis. That's what kind of bugs me about both militant atheists and relgious folk alike. They both care too much, so it causes problems for them. Once you stop caring, you won't think about it anymore, thus it will cease to be a problem in your life and voila! You are now free from one more worry out of the billion you already have! You now have a better life! = my logic on it anyway

I don't know if a God is real or not. I don't presume to have the answers. I just don't care. It doesn't affect me since I don't let it, so I don't care. The only thing we know for certain is this life we are in right now and we want to make that as best as it can possibly be. Which is why we are socialists in the first place is it not? I mean if we didn't care about this life, then we wouldn't care what goes on in it. :D

So to Comrademan: You should stop worrying about religion and focus on the things that matter right now (revolution, end of capitalism, a better life now,etc.). Once life is better now, then you can worry about extending that good life into the one beyond :)

[Revolution starts with U]

Evolution on the contrary, is very compatible with certain religious systems. Neoplatonic, Hermetic, and Gnostic systems generally postulated that everything originated from a simple Monad, the primal One, and through a process of emanation reality became more and more complex progressively. It correlates in an interesting way to biological evolution, whereby simple DNA sequences billions of years ago became gradually more complex through natural selection, ultimately culminating in the endless biological life that took over the planet.

There's an interesting myth of the fall of Man in the Hermetic Discourses of Isis to Horus, that's much more compatible with science than the Biblical one. According to that text, Man originally inhabited the one of the spiritual planes above the physical world; at one level there was God, at another the various Gods and Goddesses, and at a lower one there were human souls. These souls were appointed by God to create life on earth. Having done so, they began to disobey God's instructions, trying to ascend into other planes, and God was displeased by this. He then ordered the God Hermes to create human bodies on earth, and then cast the souls into those bodies as punishment.
As an intellectual exercise, assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God or Gods, and humans have souls, this particular myth would be, in my opinion, the most reasonable one from a scientific stand point. Think about it: Homo Sapiens are probably the newest species of animal on this planet, and at one point sometime around 200,000 years ago their brains finally became large enough to develop consciousness, a faculty that distinguishes us from other animals. If you associate the myth with the facts, you could reach a reasonable conclusion that the souls incarnated around the time when the brain became large enough to accommodate them.
All tool creation requires a certain amount of consciousness (to be aware that things do not have to be as they are). We have been creating tools for millions of years. Homo Erectus is generally regarded as the first to create fire. And Neanderthals used red ochre during burials, suggesting a ritualistic view of death.
How then does your theory explain these phenomenon?

[ComradeMan]

So to Comrademan: You should stop worrying about religion and focus on the things that matter right now (revolution, end of capitalism, a better life now,etc.). Once life is better now, then you can worry about extending that good life into the one beyond :)

And Judaeo-Christian philosophy is actually about the here and now and life on Earth... even the "Kingdom" will the Kingdom on Earth in a sense... ;)

I am worried about fundies, whether they are religious fundies or atheist fundies because they make the world dangerous.

[ComradeMan]

All tool creation requires a certain amount of consciousness (to be aware that things do not have to be as they are). We have been creating tools for millions of years. Homo Erectus is generally regarded as the first to create fire. And Neanderthals used red ochre during burials, suggesting a ritualistic view of death.
How then does your theory explain these phenomenon?

Perhaps Homo Erectus and Homo Neanderthalis also had their "spiritual" beliefs, but what Azaran is talking about is that of Homo Sapiens. Perhaps foxes, chimps and seahorses have their own spirituality too- but that's not what concerns us as humans.

If Homo Erectus was one of our direct answers it would not be a problem anyway- as far as Neanderthals are concerned no one seems to be able to agree and there is evidence we may be "mixed" with some Neanderthal genes anyway.

[Astarte]

The conflict Christians and most creationists have with evolution is that almost all of them say we were created by a deity as homo sapiens.

I love the repeated flawed notion of "Debunking Christianity = proving the non-existence of God". Terrific.

[ComradeMan]

I love the repeated flawed notion of "Debunking Christianity = proving the non-existence of God". Terrific.

And what form of Christianity is that which is debunked too..... ;)

[Revolution starts with U]

Perhaps Homo Erectus and Homo Neanderthalis also had their "spiritual" beliefs, but what Azaran is talking about is that of Homo Sapiens. Perhaps foxes, chimps and seahorses have their own spirituality too- but that's not what concerns us as humans.

If Homo Erectus was one of our direct answers it would not be a problem anyway- as far as Neanderthals are concerned no one seems to be able to agree and there is evidence we may be "mixed" with some Neanderthal genes anyway.

No, his theory was:

Since consciousness only developed 200k years ago with Homo Sapiens Sapiens this offers compelling evidence that Humanity is God's punishment to spirit beings by placing them in human bodies.

Actually, according to this theory, foxes and chimps would not have spirituality at all. That's a human thing (and that is actually what most hermetics say makes us human, that we are the only spiritual beings).

(And yes, it seems like Neanderthals and Sapiens were not speciated from each other. There is something like 7% direct Neanderthal genes in the avg Sapien DNA, which suggests inter-breeding, which suggests a lack of speciation.)

[ComradeMan]

No, his theory was:

Since consciousness only developed 200k years ago with Homo Sapiens Sapiens this offers compelling evidence that Humanity is God's punishment to spirit beings by placing them in human bodies.

Actually, according to this theory, foxes and chimps would not have spirituality at all. That's a human thing (and that is actually what most hermetics say makes us human, that we are the only spiritual beings).

(And yes, it seems like Neanderthals and Sapiens were not speciated from each other. There is something like 7% direct Neanderthal genes in the avg Sapien DNA, which suggests inter-breeding, which suggests a lack of speciation.)

Fair enough, but I would argue that animals do have consciousness and that this theory falls down on that perhaps.

It's also a rather negative view of humanity.

[Astarte]

If I may get a little eclectic here ... Its not so much that animals are not spiritual beings too, its just that they are caught in a lower Dharma for now - they are still looping, irrationally, around in matter with no cognitive spiritual perception. I am not so sure how correct it is to say this about all animals though. I am a cat person, and actually have many, two are in the same room as me right now. The one on my lap right now I picked out when I was a kid, and have had him for 17 years. He is deaf now, but recently, within the past couple years, he will get into moods where he cries incessantly until someone gives him attention - he just wants to be pet. Now, a Buddhist would argue that he is caught in kind of an attachment to wanting human attention - and maybe this is true, but it is an animalic psychological thing - that is pertaining to his soul as an animal.

The question is, what I think ComradeMan was getting at, do lower animals have the same kind of "psyche functions" as higher mammals like cats?

Who knows? But, since I definitely can communicate with my cats, verbally, or even non-verbally with a nod or slight turn of the head, or even just by making eye contact and blinking at them obviously, perhaps there are ways to communicate with mice, or some even lower types of animal, like ants in some way that we don't know about. Perhaps its possible only with higher animals, and impossible with bugs? Maybe we are talking about the real difference between "soul and spirit" - maybe higher animals have soul, spirit and material like humans, while lower animals, like insects only have spirit and material.

I think humans are here as Shepherds of flora and fauna for sure - kind of intermediaries between the material and metaphysical realities.

Here are some interesting quotes from Hermes Trismegistus on animals, humans, and the relationship between the two.


4. But whatsoever human souls have not the Mind as pilot, they share in the same fate as souls of lives irrational.

For [Mind] becomes co-worker with them, giving full play to the desires towards which [such souls] are borne,—[desires] that from the rush of lust strain after the irrational; [so that such human souls,] just like irrational animals, cease not irrationally to rage and lust, nor ever are they satiate of ills.

For passions and irrational desires are ills exceeding great; and over these God hath set up the Mind to play the part of judge and executioner. http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/TGH-v2/th225.html


11. Tat: By God made steadfast, father, no longer with the sight my eyes afford I look on things, but with the energy the Mind doth give me through the Powers.

In Heaven am I, in earth, in water, air; I am in animals, in plants; I'm in the womb, before the womb, after the womb; I'm everywhere! http://www.gnosis.org/library/hermes13.html

[ColonelCossack]

It doesn't rule out the existence of God... it jus makes the idea seem quite illogical, because it's evolution by natural selection.

Maybe God is nature, or maybe it (God) made the laws of physics when time didn't exist, when the big bang was just a singularity ("before" the big bang, if you will), and let stuff just run its course*.

*= "Before" (the big bang) doesn't have much meaning here, because by definition time began at the big bang (because time is a dimension, so when the other, spatial, dimensions came into existence it follows that time did at the same time), so God would have to exist outside of time, and thus outside of the universe, because time counts as a dimension- sort of meaning that God doesn't really exist, or there's much more to existence and dimentionality than anyone thinks or can comprehend.

Edit: I now have a headache.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Evolution does not disprove God but it does make God UnNecessary for the question as to why everything and everyone is and are here.


Richard Dawkins argues that evolution leaves God with nothing to