Posted on 11/04/2001 10:27:45 AM PST by Sungirl
I'd like to ask this question to Freepers to get some answers. A friend of mine will often say she doesn't believe in God....but, I think she is fishing for a reason TO believe. Today she sent me a note from her other friend who states the theory of evolution and that people who believe God put us here are 'brainwashed'. She tells her.... 'Evolution has PROOF...where is the Proof of God?'
Personally, I think evolution has made man evolve....but I also think that the earth and all its resources are not here without a reason and a purpose. There are just too many coincidences to think that it is not planned. Just my thought.
A lot of people have come up with a lot of equally valid ideas (some more valid than others) over time with respect to this question. God is just one possible answer, but by no means the only one or arguably even the best one. My point being that nobody has THE answer, and assuming that your guess is the correct one out of the infinite number of valid possibilities makes it statistically very improbable that you will be right. (There ARE mathematical means for selecting the most probably valid hypotheses in the absence of proof, but that doesn't really simplify the problem much.) This is why answers can only be determined by an objective and rigorous search, not declared by fiat. The problem is that I see a lot more of the latter than the former.
Impressive, amazing, etc etc. What is needed from secular materialist apologists is less talk, more substance; less computer animation, more testing of theory; less government-funded propaganda, more free inquiry; and certainly a cessation of apeal to the miraculous.
However, on evolution, try "Darwin on Trial", by Johnson, a lawyer, who uses the evolutionists own writings to thoroughly debunk evolution and demonstrate that far from being established science, the theory of evolution requires either (1)belief in a higher power that guides dramatic jumps forward in the process, or (2) a leap of faith equal to the faith necessary to believe in the Genesis account of the re-creation of the Earth. And always keep in mind that Genesis is an account of the re-creation of the Earth after its destruction, not an account of its original creation. If you read the Old Testament closely, you will discover that the earth has been a long time battleground between heavenly forces, at least twice destroyed in the process.
In any event, nothing can prove God's existence to your friend more quickly than her fervent and sincere request to Him to prove Himself. Suggest to her that death is the most terrible event that a human faces, and if it is true that one man died and then rose again from death, and that witnesses wrote about this resurrection, and themselves were put to death rather than deny that resurrection, then it might behoove her, as a rational human being, to do everything in her power to investigate those accounts, and to give God, if He exists, the opportunity to prove Himself. This, He is perfectly willing to do to an open mind and a willing heart.
" I'd first like to make it clear that I'm not attempting to take any position of condemnation against anyone, and have certainly no ambition of such. I've intentionally allowed time to pass between the quoted to help insure there is no misconception of that fact. Since one previously mentioned the subject of faith, and with solely the intentions of continuing to expound upon that certain topic with reasonable thought and of equal conviction, I quote that which has been written as a beginning point of reference: "In fact there is no next life. So just pay attention to this life. In the end people will be better off if they just concentrate on this world - the only world they will ever know. Dead or alive. " As the former U.S. president Bill Clinton testified to under oath, "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is." While in theory the latter part of this position may sound fine, I truely believe this doctrine is a large contributor to the despair in these peoples' heart and spirit. They're not guided or encouraged at all by their own to develop any spiritual hope and direction within themselves, so they turn to the first external back-scratcher they find which seems to fill that void. This seems to be true irrespective of one's origins upon this earth. So I carefully but resolutely counter: Can anyone be 100% positive, and present substantial facts proving, that there is no after-life? I can not on the contrary. Can anyone prove unequivocally that there is nothing but this fleeting existence of which to cling? I can only hope that there is better and trust that our Creator is merciful: we may all know fully in due time. It is the belief in the unseen and a hope of the unknown, but a desire for better to come, that compel an individual to choose to believe in the Great Creator's existence and by FAITH, take Him at His word, not merely by the ability on anyone's accord to prove anything. Hence the definition of the word and action of "FAITH" is established. If mankind cannot and does not grasp the moral principal that he is constantly being held accountable for his actions by a Higher power who holds all mankind equally subject to His will, what basis or reasoning would there be to treat another fellow human with dignity and respect or to conduct one's behavior appropriately in society? To what or Whom then, can we ascribe the existence of the moral fabric that produces, developes, and molds the conscience, which is so unique to our species? Is there any wonder why - absent such a defined purpose of life - such vicious hatred abounds in some's heart? If one walks through graveyards, one will easily find a single common denominator between any race, religion, or tongue written upon the grave markers. That is the space between the birth and death dates. I believe that space in time is merely on loan to each of us and we will ultimately be judged by what we do with it in respect to our treatment of each other and of our love and desire for righteousness. This belief is not based upon religious denomination, for that seems to be only a cover-up, a vague attempt to explain the things of life we can not understand. If a person so chooses to be bound (as best as he knows how) by what he believes are his Creator's commands of: 1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. who are the ones that benefit from these teachings, whether the believer is right or wrong? Why would I, if I am the beneficiary, condemn someone's faith if they are true and choose to follow to the best of their ability these two commands? Obviously, if the first command is strictly adhered to, the temptation or willingness to follow a carnal leader would simply have no place in the heart. I'm not referring to, nor including, those religious fanatics who can't seem to get beyond trying to destroy everyone and anything they contact (they sorely fail the second command while claiming to hold fast to the first), but is it wise to totally dismiss the development of that inner character which is based upon the belief that we are indeed responsible for our actions, and ultimately bear the burden of consequence for how we conduct ourselves in the presence of our fellow? Likewise, the teachings that implore us to have respect for the authorities in charge, should they also be abandoned because we fail to comprehend and do not attempt to obey the first two commands? What fool would subject others who subscribe to such belief to ridicule if they themselves are benefitted? There is a saying "to throw out the baby with the bath water". This might just apply here where the moral compass of the spirit of man has been quenched (and in some cases broken) for far too long. There seems to be the circulation of the buzz-word "blind faith" among our fellows and, coupled with the confusion between faith and trust, begs for clarification. Faith is an ingredient of trust - not vice-versa. One may read it for themself from Webster's. Some would readily argue the point and say "you believe with blind-faith" - but that term is axiomatic because faith does not exist if it can be grounded upon "logical proof or material evidence". Trust, on the other hand, is that which is hoped for based on past performance or with an expected outcome based upon tangable circumstances. Hence we say we TRUST in governments, hoping for and expecting a desirable result based upon provable, material performance. We say we have FAITH in religious convictions because no one can prove or disprove its basis without circumstancial knowledge of a life after death. My final point is, no one can disprove the existence of the after-life and what lies beyond any better than another can prove that it exists. Medical studies are continuously being conducted to try to determine either way, but all attempts seem to converge at a "dead" end. Not one soul has been able to prove or disprove God's existence beyond any doubt either way on this side of death's doorstep. Which belief one chooses, however, depends entirely upon one's faith; as it is given to be our individual responsibility of choice. Given the choices, if I had to err, trusting man or God, I'd rather play it safe...."
I hope this helps you with your friend.
This was covered around post 150-160, but the short story is that we DIDN'T evolve from monkeys and apes. That is a common misperception. Our closest living relatives in the simian world had a common ancestor with us (now extinct) around five million years ago. "Cousins" would be a better description perhaps. This is easily verifiable with standard DNA tests.
That said, there is nothing that prevents the co-existence of a species that experience divergent evolution. In fact, there are many cases where this happens, usually with one specie specializing in an ecological niche that the other isn't as well suited for. However, in some cases, a change in the environment, whether related to having two species competing or not, will frequently eliminate one species. Trout in the Western U.S. are a good example of an animal that has undergone quite a bit of rapid speciation and constant conflict between the different subspecies. (Sadly, the Federal Govt still has much to learn about trout, particularly as it pertains to "protection".)
Without even saying anything....my friend sent me this explanation from another friends post in some newsgroup she is in. Her way of telling me it's all a crock.
Here's the email:
Religion is not the answer ... it is the problem.
9/11 happened because a bunch of fools believed in god and heaven and that their actions would guarantee them eternal life in heaven. Their religious beliefs cost thousands their lives.
And yes I use the word "fools." Definition of "fool": a person who is the victim of a joke or trick; dupe.
Those highjackers were tricked to believe that package of mythology and thus wasted their lives and the lives of others accomplishing some political operative's (Bin Laden?) agenda.
And before you respond negatively to my post ... think objectively for once in your life... a post in support of the god-myth is a post in support of the myth that was used to motivate this senseless mass murder ... in essence, you are on the side of the terrorists no matter how you "spin" your argument.
"Religion is regarded by the common man as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Seneca, Roman Philosopher.
There is no god... it's just superstition.
A simulation scenario does not address the question of a beginning....who began the simulation, the creation of matter, the existence of time and space, etc. I'm not really a religious person, but when you look at the philosophical view from any basis, the questions are unanswerable...particularly from a scientific standpoint.
I understand your point, but I don't know how far we want to go into this matter on this forum. Part of the problem with the question of the "beginning" is that it makes a LOT of assumptions about time that aren't necessarily true. Human intuition and experience suggests that time is invariant, linear, and immutable, but in fact it is not. It can be mangled, created, and destroyed in the same way you can a magnetic field or similar, though doing so in any non-trivial manner is completely beyond our technological capability at the moment. Unfortunately, this doesn't answer the question, it just makes it more difficult to comprehend. Furthermore, the possibility of closed loops (which though they sound like it, do not have a chicken-egg paradox) is enough to make your head spin. It certainly fries MY brain. And then you have the problem that if even God exists outside our universe in proper God-like fashion, God still MUST exist within a greater System ad infinitum. It's enough to give you a brain aneurism if you really think about it.
I actually think the most logical way to think of God is as a being outside the scope of our universe. From our perspective, that is essentially the equivalent to omniscient and omnipotent, but not actually in the (impossible) mathematical sense. This perspective has the nicety of being both religiously and mathematically consistent, since the only context where it wouldn't apply is outside the scope of our reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.