No position on God? How Evolution works according to Science

[SamuelTheLamanite]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Don't conflate explaining all life to whether God intervened. They're not the same argument...The Mormon evolutionist is fine with occasional intervention

Occasional intervention? Elder Nelson testified in General Conference, "I testify that the earth and all life upon it are of divine origin. The Creation did not happen by chance" 

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 The main issue for a Mormon evolutionist is merely how God could create bodies for his children.

Well thank you, it is a significant problem for Theistic Evolutionists.

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think evolution is a natural event in the sense of happening on its own. It's a technological event. As to why I believe it, it's because I trust God who says it happens. The difference from creation is that while God says he did it, he's rather vague how. 

Evolution or the Resurrection?  A technological event? Brent Allsop (a Mormon Atheist) believes the same thing.  You don't have to believe in God if you believe that technology will eventually raise people from the dead.  You can simply replace God with technology. 

If you are a believer in Science, why do you believe in the Resurrection? Bringing back to life decomposing bodies with technology is pseudoscience for now. You believe in pseudoscience? 

Edited September 12, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Occasional intervention? Elder Nelson testified in General Conference, "I testify that the earth and all life upon it are of divine origin. The Creation did not happen by chance" 

Yes. How is that at odds with what I said? You're creating a false dichotomy. Either it's atheistic chance or God has full control. You seem unable to even imagine other options, which is why I continue to think you're actually just trolling.

Quote

Evolution or the Resurrection?  A technological event? Brent Allsop (a Mormon Atheist) believes the same thing.  You don't have to believe in God if you believe that technology will eventually raise people from the dead.  You can simply replace God with technology. 

Technology = utilizing natural law to do something. God acts in accord with the ultimate laws of the universe thus his actions are technological by that definition unless one buys into creation ex nihilo under which there's no limit to what God can do.

To say God can do it is not to say anyone could. Although it's not hard to imagine technology in 1000 years that could heal most physical problems. If scientists don't discover spirit matter and its properties though then of course they couldn't resurrect.

Edited September 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes. How is that at odds with what I said? You're creating a false dichotomy. Either it's atheistic chance or God has full control. You seem unable to even imagine other options, which is why I continue to think you're actually just trolling.

You said "Occasional intervention". It is at odds with "Occasional intervention". It is not hard to "imagine", one can easily get creative and come up with some good theology/speculation to explain anything. 

Here, in case you didn't read the second part 

10 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

A technological event? Brent Allsop (a Mormon Atheist) believes the same thing.  You don't have to believe in God if you believe that technology will eventually raise people from the dead.  You can simply replace God with technology. 

If you are a believer in Science, why do you believe in the Resurrection? Bringing back to life decomposing bodies with technology is pseudoscience for now. You believe in pseudoscience? 

What makes you think I am trolling? 

Edited September 12, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Nice, we are now doing some progress. However, "genetic engineering" is god-of-the-gaps according to scientists. Science has rational explanations to why the environment changes. In Science I don't see much room for Theistic creation, and that is why I believe God simply made our world appear to be godless to test our faith.   

You believe in Evolution because of the evidence, so why do you believe in the Resurrection? Science teaches that resurrections don't happen, especially if the dead body is decomposed. Do you believe the Resurrection is going to be a slow process like Evolution? 

See, Gray is saying that "Creation is a metaphor for evolution. Simple." 

That is not a God of the Gaps argument. Lack of knowledge in an area does not imply a God.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Science can not address the Resurrection. Individual scientists can believe or not believe in it, as is their choice.

Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.

Galileo Galilei

 

[DJBrown]

I believe that we are literally God's offspring- not just spiritually His children.  But ultimately, we are descended from beings that were physically created by Him (Adam and Eve).  Some of the early brethren (including Brigham Young) alluded to this.  And of course, if this is true, evolution is a mute point.  

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

You said "Occasional intervention". It is at odds with "Occasional intervention". It is not hard to "imagine", one can easily get creative and come up with some good theology/speculation to explain anything. 

Honestly not sure at all what you're saying here.

 

[thesometimesaint]

25 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

I believe that we are literally God's offspring- not just spiritually His children.  But ultimately, we are descended from beings that were physically created by Him (Adam and Eve).  Some of the early brethren (including Brigham Young) alluded to this.  And of course, if this is true, evolution is a mute point.  

I'm not a fan of dust literally coming to life by incantation.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Honestly not sure at all what you're saying here.

 

You told me, "Occasional intervention". You tell me what your're saying here 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

14 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Science is not based on a belief in any God or the lack there of. A Theist can be just as wrong on a question of science as can an Atheist. To put it another way "If you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work you're not doing science, but you are doing religion". 

Never mind 

Edited September 12, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Gray]

On 9/12/2017 at 8:37 AM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you believe the day of the Resurrection is a metaphor too? Science teaches that resurrections don't happen, especially if the dead body is decomposed. 

How should I know? A metaphorical creation story does not imply anything in particular about the resurrection. The creation story is about the past, which has happened, and can't be changed. Who knows what the future holds?

 

Quote

A god that didn't literally create anything is indistinguishable to a god that doesn't exists.  

You keep saying that, but the rather childish notion that God literally puts the pieces of clay together to create worlds and lives is not the beginning and the end of the roles of God. A more intelligent God sets up a universe that does all this on its own.

 

Quote

Why not Mormon Deism? 

None of this precludes God intervening in the universe in other ways. Such as in the atonement, or in revelation.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

On 9/12/2017 at 8:57 AM, jkwilliams said:

Maybe it's just me, but creationism seems to me a rather immature approach to scripture and science.

It really is. Only the most fundamentalist of traditions insist on that that kind of thing anymore.

 

Quote

As mfbukowski noted, the Bible is not a science text. It isn't meant to explain exactly how things came about but is meant to convey doctrines and concepts that are important for human salvation. To insist that scripture must be taken absolutely literally (i.e., literal in terms of the way the reader interprets it) is to miss much of the depth of what is in there, and it is to limit and constrain God. I was a hard-core creationist for a few months in my early 20s after doing some heavy reading of Joseph Fielding Smith. I got better.

Literalism the quickest path to distorting the scriptures. It always ignores historical context, intent, the limitations of the writers, and so on. It re-writes the scriptures according to the assumptions of the reader.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Gray

[SamuelTheLamanite]

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

A more intelligent God sets up a universe that does all this on its own.

I understand, but to quote again  "A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist"

I think your view makes god unnecessary for creation, or did I misunderstanding something? 

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

None of this precludes God intervening in the universe in other ways. Such as in the atonement, or in revelation.

except for his role as creator.  I guess it is fine as long as you believe in the atonement and revelation. 

Edited September 13, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Gray]

1 minute ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I understand, but to quote again  "A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist"

What makes you think that implies that God doesn't manifest in reality?

 

1 minute ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I think your view makes god unnecessary for creation, or did I misunderstanding something? 

Nope. God could very easily have been the agent behind the big bang. That's not my view, but that's a view held by many Christians.

 

1 minute ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

except for his role as creator.  

Even then, he's still creator.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Nope. God could very easily have been the agent behind the big bang. 

That is god-of-the-gaps according to scientists. 

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Even then, he's still creator.

You can use "metaphorical truth" for anything. You can say the moon is made of cheese as a metaphorical truth.

If we try very hard we can reconcile science and the Lord of the Rings, it is not hard. 

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

What makes you think that implies that God doesn't manifest in reality?

He does. You sound like a very intelligent science guy so please here me here

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

That is god-of-the-gaps according to scientists. 

That's not really relevant to the discussion.

 

32 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

You can use "metaphorical truth" for anything. You can say the moon is made of cheese as a metaphorical truth.

But scripture is entirely about metaphorical/spiritual truths. Scripture has never been about scientific or historical truths.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/7/2017 at 11:02 AM, thesometimesaint said:

Science by definition must be Agnostic.

 

 

SAMUEL the LAMANITE play this over and over and over until you get this

THIS is your faith promoting story!!!!!!!!!!

Science does not speak of God but is not anti-God.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

But scripture is entirely about metaphorical/spiritual truths. Scripture has never been about scientific or historical truths.

Do you believe the Resurrection of Jesus was a historical truth?

2 hours ago, Gray said:

None of this precludes God intervening in the universe in other ways. Such as in the atonement, or in revelation.

Is revelation a metaphor? Is the atonement a metaphor? 

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Science does not speak of God but is not anti-God.

I understand, but many scientists say faith in God is not necessary.  My facebook friend told me purpose and meaning don't exists, both are simply a human invention according to him. I do see some aspects of science as anti-God because it is a test of faith. Isn't it possible that God made our world appear to be godless to test our faith? 

Edited September 13, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I understand, but to quote again  "A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist"

I think your view makes god unnecessary for creation, or did I misunderstanding something? 

except for his role as creator.  I guess it is fine as long as you believe in the atonement and revelation. 

A God isn't necessary to any science. Individual scientists can believe, or not believe in a God, as is their choice. IE; God didn't give men wings, but he did inspire men to build air planes.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you believe the Resurrection of Jesus was a historical truth?

Is revelation a metaphor? Is the atonement a metaphor? 

I understand, but many scientists say faith in God is not necessary.  My facebook friend told me purpose and meaning don't exists, both are simply a human invention according to him. I do see some aspects of science as anti-God because it is a test of faith. Isn't it possible that God made our world appear to be godless to test our faith? 

Then according to your friend what is NOT a "human invention"?  His very understanding of the world comes through a human brain.   We see light waves and organize them into chairs and tables- we do not see things "as they are".   We do not see light waves, we see colors and hear sounds- we do not see angstrom units or hear frequencies of vibrations in the air- we hear music and see colors

What are music and colors "really"?   We do not see or hear that- we see what our human brain INTERPRETS.  Remember that word?   All we have is interpretations coming through a human brain.

What does the facebook guy  do for a living?  What is his purpose for getting out of bed in the morning?  Is his purpose arguing against religion?

Is his purpose getting rich, or saving the whales, or eating ice cream all day?   Is his purpose sex drugs and rock n roll?   What gives him fulfillment?

THAT becomes his purpose!!!   Why does he do it if it has no purpose?   Yes it is the purpose he gives to arguing against religion!   Does facebook give him a purpose in life??

Yes we select our purpose in life and live accordingly.

He is doing that just as much as YOU are but your purpose is to honor God, his purpose is to tear down the idea that God exists.

Yes, we pick our purposes.   

How can he speak words if the words have no meaning?

Read my siggy below- the Rorty quote and see if you can understand it. 

Remember the tower of Babel.  Our words are confounded. Every thought we think comes from where?  Our brains/mind/spirit.  Every representation of the world comes from where?  Our brains/mind/spirit.   In that sense, yes, there is no meaning but what confounded humans make of it all.

But I suspect that is a hard concept.

Edited September 13, 2017 by mfbukowski

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Then according to your friend what is NOT a "human invention"?  His very understanding of the world comes through a human brain.   We see light waves and organize them into chairs and tables- we do not see things "as they are".   We do not see light waves, we see colors and hear sounds- we do not see angstrom units or hear frequencies of vibrations in the air- we hear music and see colors

He says it is all natural selection. For him purpose and meaning don't exists in nature. 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What does the facebook guy  do for a living?  What is his purpose for getting out of bed in the morning?  Is his purpose arguing against religion?

He says there is no purpose, to him everything is going to disappear in the end. I guess it is simply a hobby for him to challenge my beliefs. 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, we pick our purposes.   

How can he speak words if the words have no meaning?

Read my siggy below- the Rorty quote and see if you can understand it. 

Remember the tower of Babel.  Our words are confounded. Every thought we think comes from where?  Our brains/mind/spirit.  Every representation of the world comes from where?  Our brains/mind/spirit.   In that sense, yes, there is no meaning but what confounded humans make of it all.

But I suspect that is a hard concept.

It is. I think I am about to give up on him. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

A God isn't necessary to any science. Individual scientists can believe, or not believe in a God, as is their choice. IE; God didn't give men wings, but he did inspire men to build air planes.

Science teaches the forces of nature control everything. The scriptures teach God controls the motion of the planets (Alma 30:44)  

Neuroscience teaches it is  all in your mind. The scriptures teach God communicates to men and women. 

If you tell a psychiatrist that God is speaks to you, the doctor is probably going to give you medicine. There are many reasons why I say some aspects of Science are anti-God.  

Edited September 13, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you believe the Resurrection of Jesus was a historical truth?

Is revelation a metaphor? Is the atonement a metaphor? 

I understand, but many scientists say faith in God is not necessary.  My facebook friend told me purpose and meaning don't exists, both are simply a human invention according to him. I do see some aspects of science as anti-God because it is a test of faith. Isn't it possible that God made our world appear to be godless to test our faith? 

I believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. A Theist of a different religion can look at the same evidence and not believe it. An Atheist can look at the same evidence and not believe it. Science can not address the Resurrection.

It can be. It can be poetry. It can be a story designed to promote faith. It can be an analogy. It can also be flat out wrong in its claims about science. IE; Pi isn't the whole round numeral 3 that the Bible claims. Using Scripture to make claims about science is about as useful as measuring the length of a football field using "A Mid-Summer's Nights Dream" by William Shakespeare.

'Every scientist can say anything they want concerning God, or the lack thereof.

It is entirely possible for God to do anything he wants. That's the joy in being omnipotent. IE; It is entirely possible for God to have made you last Thursday, and changed all the evidence and everyone's including your memory of it to make it appear that you weren't born last Thursday. But what is the point of him doing that?

Edited September 14, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Science teaches the forces of nature control everything. The scriptures teach God controls the motion of the planets (Alma 30:44)  

Neuroscience teaches it is  all in your mind. The scriptures teach God communicates to men and women. 

If you tell a psychiatrist that God is speaks to you, the doctor is probably going to give you medicine. There are many reasons why I say some aspects of Science are anti-God.  

Science  teaches no such thing. Science can not impose any God or Godlike force onto natural events. To me science explains how God controls the motion of the planets. Plus in all probability Alma knew nothing of the outer planets, or how the planets maintain their elliptical orbit.

The neurosciences teaches no such thing. We experience the world through what our brain tells us we're experiencing.

A psychiatrist will do no such thing. If you tell a psychiatrist that God told you to kill someone. You and he/she are going to have a nice long talk, and maybe some med's. If you tell the psychiatrist that God told you where your car keys are. He/she will simply smile and go onto something else.

Edited September 14, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

To me science explains how God controls the motion of the planets.

 Science teaches the motion of planets is explained by gravity. If we fall off a cliff would it mean God was ultimately responsible?  Gravity and God are not the same thing, and that is why I believe our astronomical observations are just an illusion to test our faith.  

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

 Plus in all probability Alma knew nothing of the outer planets, or how the planets maintain their elliptical orbit.

I thought Alma 30 was revelation. 

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

. We experience the world through what our brain tells us we're experiencing.

Yes, but that does not mean our conversation is just inside my brain.  

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. A Theist of a different religion can look at the same evidence and not believe it. An Atheist can look at the same evidence and not believe it. Science can not address the Resurrection.

Science teaches that resurrections don't happen. 

Edited September 14, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is entirely possible for God to do anything he wants. That's the joy in being omnipotent. IE; It is entirely possible for God to have made you last Thursday, and changed all the evidence and everyone's including your memory of it to make it appear that you weren't born last Thursday. But what is the point of him doing that?

To test our faith. See divinely approved deception

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Why_would_God_tell_Abraham_to_lie_about_his_wife_Sarah%3F