Deprecated: mysql_connect(): The mysql extension is deprecated and will be removed in the future: use mysqli or PDO instead in /home/coolgeek/freetag/freetag-0.240/adodb/drivers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 340
Honest Argument: Evolution does not preclude the existence of God
join message

Evolution does not preclude the existence of God

(Click boxes for full text or to add/edit/delete node. More help?)
Evolution does not preclude the existence of God  Evolution does not preclude the existence of God
       Evolution studies the physical realm  Evolution studies the physical realm
              Existence of God implies an omniscient, omnipotent entity  Existence of God implies an omniscient, omnipotent entity
                     Omniscience and omnipotence do not imply a requirement to direct physical realm  Omniscience and omnipotence do not imply a requirement to direct physical realm
                            But omniscience and omnipotence do imply the ABILITY to enter the physical realm  But omniscience and omnipotence do imply the ABILITY to enter the physical realm
                                   That point isn't being argued  That point isn't being argued
       Darwin's religiosity varied but he was never an atheist  Darwin's religiosity varied but he was never an atheist
              Evolution studies have outgrown Darwin  Evolution studies have outgrown Darwin
       Evolution and the existence of God are only mutually exclusive if the Bible is interpreted literally  Evolution and the existence of God are only mutually exclusive if the Bible is interpreted literally
              Unless one believes the Bible literally, biblical interpretation is not relevant to the thesis.  Unless one believes the Bible literally, biblical interpretation is not relevant to the thesis.
       A personal God does not exist  A personal God does not exist

Comments:




Re: node: Evolution studies the physical realm

Many religions accept the scientific process as a legitimate knowledge base that is not in conflict with their belief systems.

That is, they also recognize the distinction between physical and metaphysical.

Comment by: JamieF At: 2008-04-29 11:29:32



Re: comment: Re: node: Evolution studies the physical realm

Not least of which is the Roman Catholic Church

http://www.catholic.net/...

Comment by: Ulysses Berman At: 2008-05-01 10:07:57



Definition of terms may be of assistance

- Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.
- Microevolution is referring to inter species changes, like the size of finch beaks.

Response
- Most strong debates on the existence of God do not leave the coexistence of both intelligent design, by this existent God, and 1 common ancestor for all living things, a common view within macroevolution.
- There is room for the alteration within a species, a key view within microevolution.


Comment by: TG4Family At: 2008-06-01 13:09:13



Re: comment: Definition of terms may be of assistance

TG4family - you're right, it would be helpful if it distinguished between micro and macro.

However, I'd argue that neither is incompatible. Macroevolution is incompatible with biblical literalism, but it's not incompatible with the existence of God.

Comment by: Ulysses Berman At: 2008-06-02 17:11:19



Re: node: Evolution and the existence of God are only mutually e

Neither evolution nor the existence of God are commented on in the Bible -- interpretation of the Bible is immaterial to the thesis.

Comment by: dbmartin00 At: 2008-08-07 18:20:38



Re: comment: Evolution and the existence of God are only mutuall

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. -NIV

How can you say that the Bible does not comment on the existence of God when the narrative shows him creating the universe, telling us what we can and connot do, and relentlessly meddling in human affairs?

Comment by: kuzyk At: 2008-08-07 19:27:41



Re: comment: Evolution and the existence of God are only mutuall

Consider the sentence "Bob ate food". The sentence contains a subject, verb, and object in that order. While the sentence by necessity gives Bob the ability to eat, it doesn't explicitly afford Bob any other abilities.

"Let there be light" is perhaps an expression of the power of God. But it cannot be considered discussion of the existence of God, i.e. what it means for God to exist.

In everyday language "to exist" means something that cannot be understood in everyday terms when we are talking of God.

God needs to be clearly defined in order to make logical statements about God's existence (and its relation to evolution). But if God is "that which the mind cannot grasp", then no such definition is available to us.

Thus, the thesis is unintelligible and argument futile.

Comment by: dbmartin00 At: 2008-08-08 12:45:45



Re: node: God can be objectively defined

The node tag should read your actual argument: "God can be objectively defined by referring to the Bible"

This argument is wildly disrespectful of the myriad world religions that do not rely upon the Bible for their understanding of God.

Comment by: dbmartin00 At: 2008-08-08 12:53:50



Re: node: Evolution studies the physical realm

Node tag is misleading: the argument is that evolution and the existence of god occupy separate domains of human knowledge.



Comment by: dbmartin00 At: 2008-08-08 12:58:25



Re: node: Biblical description of God is itself untelligible, an

Ah, there is the sticking point. Your argument assumes that God has a very well defined property: "that which the mind cannot grasp." On what basis can you conclude that God exits and then make the logical leap that the supreme being is not able to be grasped? That is equivalent to having me say that unicorns exist, but that they are in every way invisible.

The dictionary definition of God is "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." I can grasp that. And, He is well defined by his actions.

Comment by: kuzyk At: 2008-08-08 20:33:04



Re: comment: God can be objectively defined

So you imply that there are many distinct gods?

Comment by: kuzyk At: 2008-08-09 09:23:42



Re: comment: Evolution and the existence of God are only mutuall

Let's consider the statement, "God said that Bob eats food three times a day." If we watch Bob for one week and he does not eat the whole time, then we can conclude that the statement is false. If this statement comes from a book that claims to be the infallible word of God, our experiment shows that God is fallible, thus negating the definition of God as the almighty. A being that is not almighty is not God.

If there is no objective evidence for God, and the books that testify to God are riddled with fallacies, then there is no need to invoke the existence of God. One cannot prove that something does not exist. However, if you claim that God exists, it is your responsibility to supply evidence.

Finally, the response to my above analysis by believers in the accuracy of holy books would typically be of the form, "Well, by three times a day, God really means once a year." With this kind of latitude for interpretation, you can prove anything by using the description that best defends your argument.

Comment by: kuzyk At: 2008-08-09 09:42:42



Re: comment: Biblical description of God is itself untelligible,

Your reply to my argument is not wrong in its approach, but it is unsuccessful nonetheless. We don't have a well defined notion of "God" or "the existence of God", so this is something of a silly debate in the first place.

Still, you criticize my definition -- a definition which allows for God to be larger than a human mind can encompass -- only to replace it with an equally arbitrary definition, and one that explicitly allows for qualities which are themselves just asking for debate.

But all that aside, are you really saying "creator and ruler of the universe" is something that your mind can grasp? Maybe YOUR mind can grasp that, but mine boggles. Maybe I shouldn't try to push the point. Do you NEED me to explain why I think your definition is no closer to intelligible (in the normal, everyday sense that language is normally intelligible)?


Comment by: dbmartin00 At: 2008-08-10 20:00:09



Re: comment: Evolution and the existence of God are only mutuall

First, I think you're wrong that a claim of God's existence by necessity requires evidence. If the claim is made to advertise a wholly subjective state -- "this is MY experience; God is something that happened to ME" -- then why would objective evidence be necessary? Perhaps what you mean is that evidence is required if a claim is supposed to be objectively provided.

Since the debate doesn't explicitly suppose whether the thesis is objective or subjective, maybe we can reach the conclusion that IF the thesis is objectively claimed, THEN it is unlikely to be verifiable.

But then the fun is over. Let's assume that the thesis is something that I privately could find to be true, subjectively.

In that case, I don't need to provide evidence as you insist. I also don't need to interpret any literature, for you or for me, in order to reach a conclusion. If I believe God is almighty, then that's enough. Thesis proven.

Do you think you can knock me off my subjective perch, or do you wisely leave me to my private audience with God?



Comment by: dbmartin00 At: 2008-08-10 20:06:53



Catching up on comments...

dbmartin00:

While this Argument does in fact assume monotheism, I fail to see how an attempt to explore this concept can be "wildly disrespectful of the myriad world religions that do not rely upon the Bible for their understanding of God".

Polytheistic and non-theistic religions do not fall within the context of the Argument

I think that it's pretty well agreed that God, Yahweh and Allah are different names for the same supreme entity.

As to "evolution and the existence of god occupy separate domains of human knowledge" that's pretty much the difference between the physical and the metaphysical realms.

Comment by: Ulysses Berman At: 2008-08-12 19:14:48



"The "existence of God" is an untelligible concept; the thesis t

This whole chain has been moved to the "A personal God does not exist" Argument:

http://honestargument.com/...

Comment by: Ulysses Berman At: 2008-08-12 19:38:23



You are not signed in. You need to be registered to comment on this site. Sign in or create account (all you need is a valid email address)




Pending Arguments

There are no pending Arguments.

Create an Argument!