Creation vs. Evolution

[H2Andy]

let me just say that i believe there are things that can be known, and there are things that can not be known.

for example: no one can know if there is a God. they can certainly believe it, but they don't know it. if they knew it, then it wouldn't be faith. and if it wasn't faith, then it would be worthless (by its own internal logic)

however, we can know a number of things: how old the earth is, how old the universe is, the age of the mammalian line, the age of the primate line, the age of the hominid (leading to humans) line, and, ultimately, the age of the human species.

we know all this stuff. there is ample proof for it.

if you want to convince me otherwise, you need to present me with better proof.

that's the level of this discussion, not whether you are entitled to belive in God or not (which you obviously are)

if you say, for example, the universe is 6000 years old, then please show me your proof.

if you say, humans are not descended from apes, then please show me your proof.

these are things that CAN be proven, and HAVE been proven. if you wish to disprove them, the burden is on you.

 

[Uncle Pug]

no one can know if there is a God. they can certainly believe it, but they don't know it. if they knew it, then it wouldn't be faith. and if it wasn't faith, then it would be worthless (by its own internal logic)

Now you want to define a theological framework of understanding? I don't think you are at all qualified to do that.

You can't even tell a branch from a deer.

 

[H2Andy]

well, i fess up ... i'm not sure if salvation without faith would negate itself ... though i suspect it would, at least in the Christian framework ("for it is by grace you have been saved, through faith")

anyway... no, i don't know that for sure

but my point was that one believes in God through faith, not through physical evidence, by God's very nature

no one knows whether God exists or not (as knowledge implies evidence).

but you can certainly believe God exists

 

[bwerb]

I think Andy that where "we" differ is that "we" took a step of faith into believing that which we could not see and have each been rewarded with individual ample proofs that our "faith" was/is not a "blind" faith. Each of us has likely a ream of evidences for what we believe...I might liken it to the M.Night Shamaylan movie "Signs"...everything made complete logical sense looking backwards, but at the time, it looked completely insane on an individual point of reference basis.

I would also caution that on this thread you also have several different "schools of thought" regarding what "creation" means. Some would take it as a literal 6000 year old universe, others would take it as an initial causality...and there are infinite ranges of belief within these extremes. I'd just be cautious in believing that "creation" is a unified thought. Some of us would gladly walk alongside you nodding a the age of the earth, age of the universe etc. but we might perhaps have different answers to the "why's" and ultimately may find some of the current scientific hypothesis regarding the exact "how's" to still leave much room for both of us to discover.

I think where the "God believers" would all be in agreement however is that we believe in that which we cannot see, we believe that there is a "spiritual" realm to the universe as it were, we can argue and discuss what exactly we believe it to be and likely will find out it's much more amazing than we ever dreamed of imagining.

 

[H2Andy]

I think Andy that where "we" differ is that "we" took a step of faith into believing that which we could not see and have each been rewarded with individual ample proofs that our "faith" was/is not a "blind" faith.

no, i dont' agree.

it takes no faith for me to know that the universe is not 6000 years old. all i have to do is look at the overwhelming proof.

likewise, it takes no faith for me to know that my DNA is 98% similar to a chimp's. that can be proven (and has been proven) beyond a shadow of a doubt.

it takes faith for you to believe in God, because you have to belive in the absence of proof. you can't prove God exists. you have no proof of it.

if you did, you'd be a billionaire

the words "know" and "believe" are different for a reson

 

[Soggy]

if you did, you'd be a billionaire

Probably a kagillionaire or even a zillionaire!

 

[Uncle Pug]

no one knows whether God exists or not (as knowledge implies evidence).

but you can certainly believe God exists

Andy, seriously... you are still trying to define and frame something you do not understand.

There are people who know things you don't know base on evidence you cannot understand much less define.

You say that no one knows based on your definition of knowledge and based on your understanding of evidence. While You can't know based on your definition... I do know what I know.

but my point was that one believes in God through faith, not through physical evidence, by God's very nature

Actually, for those with faith, the physical world is filled with evidence of the Glory of God. Apart from faith your available senses stop short of perceiving what is in plain view.

But faith is a spiritual thing. Willfully locked in a physical reality and denying a spiritual reality you can never see what those who are spiritually awake see and know what they know.

 

[bwerb]

As I said before, I'll walk alongside you and fully agree that the universe is not 6000 years old. I acknowledge the overwhelming proof.

I have more than enough proof to prove that God exists. However my proof is not "scientifically testable and repeatable". You would not consider it to be valid and therefore declare it to be merely "faith." It is the equivalent of overwealming circumstancial evidence, no one piece in isolation could be enough...but add piece upon piece upon piece and at the end of the day, you look back upon the whole and can see the "bigger picture". I would almost define proof of God as being only possible through looking backwards...faith is the act of looking forwards believing that that which you have seen as "true" in retrospect will continue to be true while looking forward.

Just as time only moves in one direction and we can't go backwards, so proof of God can only be seen by going backwards in time as our faith reflects and is only possible when walking towards the future.

I guess at the end of the day, you'd likely look at most "believers" as being insane because they/we can't prove that God exists based on your definitions but...I'd perhaps take it into the realm of science and say "of course we can't"...how can someone living in a four dimensional world ever "prove" the existence of something living outside of of those dimensions...even scientific theories of the universe have to start adding dimensions to account for observed phenomena. Can science prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we live in a 10 dimensional universe? No, but looking at the available evidence allows them to infer that this must be the case and they can take "that which can't be proven" as an observable and valid understanding of the universe.

 

[Soggy]

But faith is a spiritual thing. Willfully locked in a physical reality and denying a spiritual reality you can never see what those who are spiritually awake see and know what they know.

Are Hindi and Native Americans spiritually awake, too, or just Christians?

 

[Uncle Pug]

Are Hindi and Native Americans spiritually awake, too, or just Christians?

Are you now searching? So soon I've convinced you?

Wonderful.

It is the universal human experience that we should seek after God.

Ask and it will be given to you;
Seek and you will find;
Knock and the door will be opened to you.