Why Doesn't God Communicate With Us Anymore?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Oh shit. Both sides of the “evolution proves things about god” argument are beyond retarded.[/quote]

It doesn’t prove anything about God. It does, however, reduce the story of Adam and Eve to a fairy tale with only allegorical worth at best.

The point is that, regardless of what the theory of evolution says about God’s nature or existence, it has the support of the scientific community. To deny evolution is to swim against an overwhelmingly intelligent and informed current.[/quote]

No no no no. If you accept the possibility of a creator as something outside the bounds of the physical universe, it doesn’t do anything to the story of adam and eve. If something exists that brought all the universe into being, it is entirely bogus to claim that the study of the boundaries of the universe can say anything about that creation.

Creation happening at the big bang or yesterday are logically equivalent. It doesn’t make it more plausible longer ago or less plausible the more recent.

A creation is by definition outside of the boundaries of science, if you are going to discuss it, you must accept that premise. If you aren’t accepting that premise (which you aren’t) then you aren’t discussing the creation story of the Bible or any other creation story.

They are entirely separate things.[/quote]

No. Evolution says nothing about the creation of the Universe. Nothing. The creation of the universe has no bearing on evolution whatsoever. You brought that into the argument but it doesn’t belong there at all. I believe in a creator (of matter) and I believe in evolution. They are compatible.

Evolution and the story of Adam and Eve, however, are mutually exclusive. They both explain how MAN came into being, and they give conflicting accounts which cannot in any way be reconciled.

In Genesis, God created Man from dust and Woman from his rib. In one shot. Not monkeys that transformed into men. Dust----> Man. Rib-----> Woman.

Evolution directly contradicts this. Directly.

Taken literally, the two are mutually exclusive.

22

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Oh shit. Both sides of the “evolution proves things about god” argument are beyond retarded.[/quote]

It doesn’t prove anything about God. It does, however, reduce the story of Adam and Eve to a fairy tale with only allegorical worth at best.

The point is that, regardless of what the theory of evolution says about God’s nature or existence, it has the support of the scientific community. To deny evolution is to swim against an overwhelmingly intelligent and informed current.[/quote]

No no no no. If you accept the possibility of a creator as something outside the bounds of the physical universe, it doesn’t do anything to the story of adam and eve. If something exists that brought all the universe into being, it is entirely bogus to claim that the study of the boundaries of the universe can say anything about that creation.

Creation happening at the big bang or yesterday are logically equivalent. It doesn’t make it more plausible longer ago or less plausible the more recent.

A creation is by definition outside of the boundaries of science, if you are going to discuss it, you must accept that premise. If you aren’t accepting that premise (which you aren’t) then you aren’t discussing the creation story of the Bible or any other creation story.

They are entirely separate things.[/quote]

No. Evolution says nothing about the creation of the Universe. Nothing. The creation of the universe has no bearing on evolution whatsoever. You brought that into the argument but it doesn’t belong there at all. I believe in a creator (of matter) and I believe in evolution. They are compatible.

Evolution and the story of Adam and Eve, however, are mutually exclusive. They both explain how MAN came into being, and they give conflicting accounts which cannot in any way be reconciled.

In Genesis, God created Man from dust and Woman from his rib. In one shot. Not monkeys that transformed into men. Dust----> Man. Rib-----> Woman.

Evolution directly contradicts this. Directly.

Taken literally, the two are mutually exclusive.[/quote]

NO. You didn’t listen to anything I said.

Creation means the laws of science were violated. The laws of science cannot therefore disprove creation. This is retarded.

You accept that a powerfull being outside the bounds of the laws of the universe created all matter and things from nothing, but you deny that it would be possible he created man out of dust?

The 2 are only mutually exclusive only insofar as that science says the universe behaves this way, and creation says the laws were violated.

Do you realize how dumb your position is. On one hand you accept that the laws were violated, and then on the other you saw the laws prove creation didn’t happen a certain way. I don’t know how to dumb that down any more. I can try typing slower if you think it will help.

Creation = violation of the laws of science

Therefore

Science theory /= prof about creation

If you acknowledge the possibility of creation you must logically acknowledge the possibility science is wrong. They are the same thing.

I don’t know whether religious people or “science” people are more retardedly dogmatic about this issue.

23

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Oh shit. Both sides of the “evolution proves things about god” argument are beyond retarded.[/quote]

It doesn’t prove anything about God. It does, however, reduce the story of Adam and Eve to a fairy tale with only allegorical worth at best.

The point is that, regardless of what the theory of evolution says about God’s nature or existence, it has the support of the scientific community. To deny evolution is to swim against an overwhelmingly intelligent and informed current.[/quote]

No no no no. If you accept the possibility of a creator as something outside the bounds of the physical universe, it doesn’t do anything to the story of adam and eve. If something exists that brought all the universe into being, it is entirely bogus to claim that the study of the boundaries of the universe can say anything about that creation.

Creation happening at the big bang or yesterday are logically equivalent. It doesn’t make it more plausible longer ago or less plausible the more recent.

A creation is by definition outside of the boundaries of science, if you are going to discuss it, you must accept that premise. If you aren’t accepting that premise (which you aren’t) then you aren’t discussing the creation story of the Bible or any other creation story.

They are entirely separate things.[/quote]

No. Evolution says nothing about the creation of the Universe. Nothing. The creation of the universe has no bearing on evolution whatsoever. You brought that into the argument but it doesn’t belong there at all. I believe in a creator (of matter) and I believe in evolution. They are compatible.

Evolution and the story of Adam and Eve, however, are mutually exclusive. They both explain how MAN came into being, and they give conflicting accounts which cannot in any way be reconciled.

In Genesis, God created Man from dust and Woman from his rib. In one shot. Not monkeys that transformed into men. Dust----> Man. Rib-----> Woman.

Evolution directly contradicts this. Directly.

Taken literally, the two are mutually exclusive.[/quote]

Start a new thread, and I will respond to this.

24

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Rational conversation about the past/present/future necessarily assumes uniformitarianism–the notion that the physical laws under which our universe can be observed to operate today have always existed and will continue to exist. In other words: it has been my experience that apples fall down, not up. Though I have no direct evidence of it, I must assume that it was so even in prehistory.
.[/quote]

Sorry I havent read your whole post but it has been proved that the laws of physics were the same in the past by Emily Noether in the beggining of the 20th century.

25

I look at the bible as morality expressed through metaphor and allegory. When it is conveyed through story that god no longer communicates with people I have to look at it as communication being a two way street.

Someone (god) can talk all they want but if you aren’t listening (people) there is no communication. On the other hand, If you are looking, listening, and actively seeking a god centered life, well you just might find what you are looking for. You at least have a better chance than someone who isn’t.

It’s the people that know for a fact that what they are doing is righteous or ordained by god or what ever they believe in that I have a hard time with.

26

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Oh shit. Both sides of the “evolution proves things about god” argument are beyond retarded.[/quote]

It doesn’t prove anything about God. It does, however, reduce the story of Adam and Eve to a fairy tale with only allegorical worth at best.

The point is that, regardless of what the theory of evolution says about God’s nature or existence, it has the support of the scientific community. To deny evolution is to swim against an overwhelmingly intelligent and informed current.[/quote]

No no no no. If you accept the possibility of a creator as something outside the bounds of the physical universe, it doesn’t do anything to the story of adam and eve. If something exists that brought all the universe into being, it is entirely bogus to claim that the study of the boundaries of the universe can say anything about that creation.

Creation happening at the big bang or yesterday are logically equivalent. It doesn’t make it more plausible longer ago or less plausible the more recent.

A creation is by definition outside of the boundaries of science, if you are going to discuss it, you must accept that premise. If you aren’t accepting that premise (which you aren’t) then you aren’t discussing the creation story of the Bible or any other creation story.

They are entirely separate things.[/quote]

No. Evolution says nothing about the creation of the Universe. Nothing. The creation of the universe has no bearing on evolution whatsoever. You brought that into the argument but it doesn’t belong there at all. I believe in a creator (of matter) and I believe in evolution. They are compatible.

Evolution and the story of Adam and Eve, however, are mutually exclusive. They both explain how MAN came into being, and they give conflicting accounts which cannot in any way be reconciled.

In Genesis, God created Man from dust and Woman from his rib. In one shot. Not monkeys that transformed into men. Dust----> Man. Rib-----> Woman.

Evolution directly contradicts this. Directly.

Taken literally, the two are mutually exclusive.[/quote]

NO. You didn’t listen to anything I said.

Creation means the laws of science were violated. The laws of science cannot therefore disprove creation. This is retarded.

You accept that a powerfull being outside the bounds of the laws of the universe created all matter and things from nothing, but you deny that it would be possible he created man out of dust?

The 2 are only mutually exclusive only insofar as that science says the universe behaves this way, and creation says the laws were violated.

Do you realize how dumb your position is. On one hand you accept that the laws were violated, and then on the other you saw the laws prove creation didn’t happen a certain way. I don’t know how to dumb that down any more. I can try typing slower if you think it will help.

Creation = violation of the laws of science

Therefore

Science theory /= prof about creation

If you acknowledge the possibility of creation you must logically acknowledge the possibility science is wrong. They are the same thing.

I don’t know whether religious people or “science” people are more retardedly dogmatic about this issue.[/quote]

Look I’m saying simply that IF evolution is true, THEN the story of Adam and Eve is false. That is not really disputable. If you can imagine a scenario in which BOTH men evolved from apes AND God created man in one shot from dust, then I will defer. But you can’t. Either the first man came from dust in God’s hand or was born a genetically mutated version of an ape. IT CANT BE BOTH. THEY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. That’s my point and its pretty fucking bulletproof. I’ve never heard it argued that evolution and Genesis can exist in harmony. BECAUSE THEY CANNOT.

27

Just so everybody is aware: the Adam and Eve story is just that, a story. Not even remotely true. C’mon it’s 2011 people.

28

And to acknowledge ANY form of creation is to acknowledge literal adam and eve as a possibility.

I believe both creation and evolution. My belief about the scientific nature of the universe is evolution. But I do believe that the laws of science were violated. They are independent.

Is there are real difference between creation a long long time ago that eventually lead to these exact circumstances and creation right now in the present condition?

If creation just happened in this exact situation (memories, carbon dated fossil record, est.) does that make evolution wrong? Would that mean I never actually married my wife and my marriage is a shame?

I’d say no. I’d say the specific time of creation has no real bearing on the truth of the current situation. Is there a difference between me marring my wife to create the memory of it versus god creating me with that memory?

Either way, science can’t prove anything about it. It’s a deep question, but I don’t see them as contradiction.

29

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And to acknowledge ANY form of creation is to acknowledge literal adam and eve as a possibility.

I believe both creation and evolution. My belief about the scientific nature of the universe is evolution. But I do believe that the laws of science were violated. They are independent.

Is there are real difference between creation a long long time ago that eventually lead to these exact circumstances and creation right now in the present condition?

If creation just happened in this exact situation (memories, carbon dated fossil record, est.) does that make evolution wrong? Would that mean I never actually married my wife and my marriage is a shame?

I’d say no. I’d say the specific time of creation has no real bearing on the truth of the current situation. Is there a difference between me marring my wife to create the memory of it versus god creating me with that memory?

Either way, science can’t prove anything about it. It’s a deep question, but I don’t see them as contradiction.[/quote]

Whether you see a contradiction or not, it exists.

Evolution claims than man as he is today gradually came to exist over millenia via genetic mutation and natural selection. Genesis (interpreted literally) claims that man as he is today came to exist when God breathed life into dust. Woman shortly thereafter, from man’s rib. This is as simple as I can make it. If you can’t see that these two scenarios are incompatible then there is something wrong with your ability to reason. They cannot exist in harmony.

I’m not saying God and evolution can’t exist in harmony. I’m not saying God [as the creator of matter] and evolution can’t exist in harmony. I’m saying evolution and the story of Adam and Eve are mutually exclusive. They are.

30

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
Just so everybody is aware: the Adam and Eve story is just that, a story. Not even remotely true. C’mon it’s 2011 people.[/quote]

Unfortunately many people disagree with this. Some of them hold public office at the federal level.

31

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And to acknowledge ANY form of creation is to acknowledge literal adam and eve as a possibility.

I believe both creation and evolution. My belief about the scientific nature of the universe is evolution. But I do believe that the laws of science were violated. They are independent.

Is there are real difference between creation a long long time ago that eventually lead to these exact circumstances and creation right now in the present condition?

If creation just happened in this exact situation (memories, carbon dated fossil record, est.) does that make evolution wrong? Would that mean I never actually married my wife and my marriage is a shame?

I’d say no. I’d say the specific time of creation has no real bearing on the truth of the current situation. Is there a difference between me marring my wife to create the memory of it versus god creating me with that memory?

Either way, science can’t prove anything about it. It’s a deep question, but I don’t see them as contradiction.[/quote]

Whether you see a contradiction or not, it exists.

Evolution claims than man as he is today gradually came to exist over millenia via genetic mutation and natural selection. Genesis (interpreted literally) claims that man as he is today came to exist when God breathed life into dust. Woman shortly thereafter, from man’s rib. This is as simple as I can make it. If you can’t see that these two scenarios are incompatible then there is something wrong with your ability to reason. They cannot exist in harmony.

I’m not saying God and evolution can’t exist in harmony. I’m not saying God [as the creator of matter] and evolution can’t exist in harmony. I’m saying evolution and the story of Adam and Eve are mutually exclusive. They are.[/quote]

Even though I explained how they could both be true?

32

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And to acknowledge ANY form of creation is to acknowledge literal adam and eve as a possibility.

I believe both creation and evolution. My belief about the scientific nature of the universe is evolution. But I do believe that the laws of science were violated. They are independent.

Is there are real difference between creation a long long time ago that eventually lead to these exact circumstances and creation right now in the present condition?

If creation just happened in this exact situation (memories, carbon dated fossil record, est.) does that make evolution wrong? Would that mean I never actually married my wife and my marriage is a shame?

I’d say no. I’d say the specific time of creation has no real bearing on the truth of the current situation. Is there a difference between me marring my wife to create the memory of it versus god creating me with that memory?

Either way, science can’t prove anything about it. It’s a deep question, but I don’t see them as contradiction.[/quote]

Whether you see a contradiction or not, it exists.

Evolution claims than man as he is today gradually came to exist over millenia via genetic mutation and natural selection. Genesis (interpreted literally) claims that man as he is today came to exist when God breathed life into dust. Woman shortly thereafter, from man’s rib. This is as simple as I can make it. If you can’t see that these two scenarios are incompatible then there is something wrong with your ability to reason. They cannot exist in harmony.

I’m not saying God and evolution can’t exist in harmony. I’m not saying God [as the creator of matter] and evolution can’t exist in harmony. I’m saying evolution and the story of Adam and Eve are mutually exclusive. They are.[/quote]

Even though I explained how they could both be true?[/quote]

You didn’t. Give me a coherent scenario in which both evolution and Genesis are literally true. If you can do that I defer. Coherent though…following logical steps.

33

Let me try it this way. Existence is a movie. Creation means that god put the movie in the player and started it.

If you think creation is possible, god could start the movie at any scene. If he started the movie in the second scene, does that make the first scene not true?

The problem is that you are constraining your thinking to the linear order of the universe.

Couldn’t god create a universe in which evolution had already happened?

This is once again a case where you are trying to apply the rules of the universe to something that is, by definition, not part of the universe.

34

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And to acknowledge ANY form of creation is to acknowledge literal adam and eve as a possibility.

I believe both creation and evolution. My belief about the scientific nature of the universe is evolution. But I do believe that the laws of science were violated. They are independent.

Is there are real difference between creation a long long time ago that eventually lead to these exact circumstances and creation right now in the present condition?

If creation just happened in this exact situation (memories, carbon dated fossil record, est.) does that make evolution wrong? Would that mean I never actually married my wife and my marriage is a shame?

I’d say no. I’d say the specific time of creation has no real bearing on the truth of the current situation. Is there a difference between me marring my wife to create the memory of it versus god creating me with that memory?

Either way, science can’t prove anything about it. It’s a deep question, but I don’t see them as contradiction.[/quote]

Whether you see a contradiction or not, it exists.

Evolution claims than man as he is today gradually came to exist over millenia via genetic mutation and natural selection. Genesis (interpreted literally) claims that man as he is today came to exist when God breathed life into dust. Woman shortly thereafter, from man’s rib. This is as simple as I can make it. If you can’t see that these two scenarios are incompatible then there is something wrong with your ability to reason. They cannot exist in harmony.

I’m not saying God and evolution can’t exist in harmony. I’m not saying God [as the creator of matter] and evolution can’t exist in harmony. I’m saying evolution and the story of Adam and Eve are mutually exclusive. They are.[/quote]

Even though I explained how they could both be true?[/quote]

You didn’t. Give me a coherent scenario in which both evolution and Genesis are literally true. If you can do that I defer. Coherent though…following logical steps.[/quote]

God created a universe where evolution had already happened and he used dust to do it. You cannot confine your logic to the rules of the universe. So you cannot apply time to god.

35

I feel that your analogy would be more accurate with a small modification. It’s like God had a movie on VHS, which he started playing (creation), but then he realised he really wanted to record another movie (evolution) on TV and didn’t have any spare tapes. So he just recorded over the top of the tape he had in the player. Then when he came to play it back he had messed it all up and it didn’t make any sense, because he couldn’t follow the plot properly.

Essentially what I’m saying is that if God exists then he is either incompetent or mentally ill.

36

But this is what I’m talking about outside the bounds of the universe ANYTHING, literally ANYTHING is possible.

Science theory and meta-physics are entirely separate entities.

37

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And to acknowledge ANY form of creation is to acknowledge literal adam and eve as a possibility.

I believe both creation and evolution. My belief about the scientific nature of the universe is evolution. But I do believe that the laws of science were violated. They are independent.

Is there are real difference between creation a long long time ago that eventually lead to these exact circumstances and creation right now in the present condition?

If creation just happened in this exact situation (memories, carbon dated fossil record, est.) does that make evolution wrong? Would that mean I never actually married my wife and my marriage is a shame?

I’d say no. I’d say the specific time of creation has no real bearing on the truth of the current situation. Is there a difference between me marring my wife to create the memory of it versus god creating me with that memory?

Either way, science can’t prove anything about it. It’s a deep question, but I don’t see them as contradiction.[/quote]

Whether you see a contradiction or not, it exists.

Evolution claims than man as he is today gradually came to exist over millenia via genetic mutation and natural selection. Genesis (interpreted literally) claims that man as he is today came to exist when God breathed life into dust. Woman shortly thereafter, from man’s rib. This is as simple as I can make it. If you can’t see that these two scenarios are incompatible then there is something wrong with your ability to reason. They cannot exist in harmony.

I’m not saying God and evolution can’t exist in harmony. I’m not saying God [as the creator of matter] and evolution can’t exist in harmony. I’m saying evolution and the story of Adam and Eve are mutually exclusive. They are.[/quote]

Even though I explained how they could both be true?[/quote]

You didn’t. Give me a coherent scenario in which both evolution and Genesis are literally true. If you can do that I defer. Coherent though…following logical steps.[/quote]

God created a universe where evolution had already happened and he used dust to do it. You cannot confine your logic to the rules of the universe. So you cannot apply time to god.[/quote]

Mental acrobatics that are nonetheless interesting. If you wish to start a new thread I’ll debate it with you, because your scenario can be reduced to any number of absurd contradictions. This particular thread isn’t the place to debate it anymore.

38

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
I feel that your analogy would be more accurate with a small modification. It’s like God had a movie on VHS, which he started playing (creation), but then he realised he really wanted to record another movie (evolution) on TV and didn’t have any spare tapes. So he just recorded over the top of the tape he had in the player. Then when he came to play it back he had messed it all up and it didn’t make any sense, because he couldn’t follow the plot properly.

Essentially what I’m saying is that if God exists then he is either incompetent or mentally ill.[/quote]

Or maybe he just screwed up on you. Hah.

39

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And to acknowledge ANY form of creation is to acknowledge literal adam and eve as a possibility.

I believe both creation and evolution. My belief about the scientific nature of the universe is evolution. But I do believe that the laws of science were violated. They are independent.

Is there are real difference between creation a long long time ago that eventually lead to these exact circumstances and creation right now in the present condition?

If creation just happened in this exact situation (memories, carbon dated fossil record, est.) does that make evolution wrong? Would that mean I never actually married my wife and my marriage is a shame?

I’d say no. I’d say the specific time of creation has no real bearing on the truth of the current situation. Is there a difference between me marring my wife to create the memory of it versus god creating me with that memory?

Either way, science can’t prove anything about it. It’s a deep question, but I don’t see them as contradiction.[/quote]

Whether you see a contradiction or not, it exists.

Evolution claims than man as he is today gradually came to exist over millenia via genetic mutation and natural selection. Genesis (interpreted literally) claims that man as he is today came to exist when God breathed life into dust. Woman shortly thereafter, from man’s rib. This is as simple as I can make it. If you can’t see that these two scenarios are incompatible then there is something wrong with your ability to reason. They cannot exist in harmony.

I’m not saying God and evolution can’t exist in harmony. I’m not saying God [as the creator of matter] and evolution can’t exist in harmony. I’m saying evolution and the story of Adam and Eve are mutually exclusive. They are.[/quote]

Even though I explained how they could both be true?[/quote]

You didn’t. Give me a coherent scenario in which both evolution and Genesis are literally true. If you can do that I defer. Coherent though…following logical steps.[/quote]

God created a universe where evolution had already happened and he used dust to do it. You cannot confine your logic to the rules of the universe. So you cannot apply time to god.[/quote]

Mental acrobatics that are nonetheless interesting. If you wish to start a new thread I’ll debate it with you, because your scenario can be reduced to any number of absurd contradictions. This particular thread isn’t the place to debate it anymore.[/quote]

No acrobatics, it is an entirely valid scenario that you asked for. You just forgot that creation doesn’t have to be time linear.

40

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
I feel that your analogy would be more accurate with a small modification. It’s like God had a movie on VHS, which he started playing (creation), but then he realised he really wanted to record another movie (evolution) on TV and didn’t have any spare tapes. So he just recorded over the top of the tape he had in the player. Then when he came to play it back he had messed it all up and it didn’t make any sense, because he couldn’t follow the plot properly.

Essentially what I’m saying is that if God exists then he is either incompetent or mentally ill.[/quote]

Rational Gaze is a good name for you.