Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Dear freelight,

Thanks for your post. Look at what I have to deal with!

God and Jesus Bless You,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

I am not trying to promote my book or myself as anything. I am trying to urge others to make their peace with God before Armageddon. That's ALL I'm trying to make others aware of. You are not the only soul around, you know.

In Christ's Love,

MichaelC

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

It breaks my heart that one of these atheists cannot be reached and won't like the end result. That is why I'm here. But it does seem unlikely that they will take any care for themselves, regardless. Amen.

MichaelC

 

[noguru]

Dear noguru,

It breaks my heart that one of these atheists cannot be reached and won't like the end result. That is why I'm here. But it does seem unlikely that they will take any care for themselves, regardless. Amen.

MichaelC

Perhaps you should ask them who they would be more likely to listen to and why, you or me?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

Because you cater to their non-beliefs and what they want over what God and Jesus want. That is why. You will say believing in Creation is not necessary, but only evolution is correct, which is a lie. Of course they won't concede that. But if you think you can lead them to God and especially Jesus, have at it. Remember, Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father, except by Me (Jesus). They'll probably listen to you just to spite me. It's fine with me.

In Christ's Love and Patience,

MichaelC

 

[xAvarice]

I just came for the tags.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear xAvarice,

What do you mean??

God's Best For You,

MichaelC

 

[alwight]

Dear noguru,

Because you cater to their non-beliefs and what they want over what God and Jesus want. That is why. You will say believing in Creation is not necessary, but only evolution is correct, which is a lie. Of course they won't concede that. But if you think you can lead them to God and especially Jesus, have at it. Remember, Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father, except by Me (Jesus). They'll probably listen to you just to spite me. It's fine with me.

In Christ's Love and Patience,

MichaelC

Nobody needs to cater for my non-belief at least, which only exist simply as an absence of rational belief in lieu in something that you for one have patently failed to provide any more than the usual empty assertions and special pleading for. Provide some convincing rational reasons for belief instead and I will believe, I will want to believe rather than not.

You have no response to Darwinian evolution other than to assert it as a lie and wave it away without apparently knowing the first thing about it. In fact you don't seem to even want to know the first thing about it, perhaps because of it being based in real evidence and facts, which are clearly not things that you are at all comfortable about dealing with it seems. You much prefer to live in your comfortable fantasy delusional version, be happy Michael.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Theory of Evolution is science. Creationism, or theistic evolution, or Intelligent design is religion, not science. Simple as that.

Einstein was giving answer to probably an atheist who had asked him if he was an atheist. He said "never, I could never be an atheist. True that I can't believe in a personal God, but an atheist I could never be." That's from his pen in his "Of My Later Years." And that's my opinion too. Likewise I don't relate to God on a personal basis but I could never be an atheist.

Now for the theory of Evolution it is explained by mutations and adaptations throughout the years that Mankind exist. Creationism according to the Genesis account of Creation must be interpreted metaphorically but never to mean that man has come from the worm or the ape. Somehow mutations and times of adaptations throughout the history of man acted upon the DNA and activated chain reactions.

Now, the fact that religion bends towards Creation does not mean at all that logically there was no creation. I challenge any atheist to give me a reply if matter or the universe for that matter could have caused itself to exist. Since it can't, the Creator becomes obvious or at least wins a place under the concept of probability.

 

[alwight]

Now, the fact that religion bends towards Creation does not mean at all that logically there was no creation. I challenge any atheist to give me a reply if matter or the universe for that matter could have caused itself to exist. Since it can't, the Creator becomes obvious or at least wins a place under the concept of probability.

Religions will generally tend to suppose a knowledge of the unknowable, its what they do after all.
Atheists otoh won't usually claim to have any ultimate answers, instead what is unknown is allowed to be called just that, an "unknown". It doesn't need to be dressed up in fancy clothes and supposed supernatural beliefs, or even believed in.

I don't know why supposing a "creator" might for some reason even be considered as an acceptable answer to anything at all?
Or why a "creator" can happily be presumed to have always existed and an answer but physical matter/energy always existing can't?
Atheists don't believe in gods, most will not claim to know there is/are no god(s)/creator(s), there is simply no specific belief in gods.

"Creator" is simply your word for "unknown" because it is nevertheless unknowable. I think it just gives religionists more scope for dressing up their particular "unknown" in some fancy made-up religious regalia.

 

[gcthomas]

I challenge any atheist to give me a reply if matter or the universe for that matter could have caused itself to exist. Since it can't, the Creator becomes obvious or at least wins a place under the concept of probability.

So you can't conceive of matter or the universe causing itself to exist, but you can conceive of a self creating God? Seems a little inconsistent.

 

[Hedshaker]

Einstein was giving answer to probably an atheist who had asked him if he was an atheist. He said "never, I could never be an atheist. True that I can't believe in a personal God, but an atheist I could never be." That's from his pen in his "Of My Later Years." And that's my opinion too. Likewise I don't relate to God on a personal basis but I could never be an atheist.

You seem a little confused about what Einstein actually said on the subject. Maybe a further look at his words will make clear.

Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. - Albert Einstein

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

There are many more quotes but I think that's enough to make the point. Sourse

Einstein clearly did not believe in the god of the bible or give the bible any credence whatever. Regarding not wanting to identify as an atheist I understand his dilemma. I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the terms atheist, atheism, atheistic or any descriptor with "theis" in it which takes theism as the default position and prefixes "A" to describe those who do not subscribe. I too do not want to be labelled by someone else's evidence free beliefs.

There are many other things I do not believe in, such as : fairies, leprechauns, pixies, ghosts, psychics.... and so on. Yet I do not identify as a Aleprechaunist or Apixist.

Like Einstein I don't buy any of it. I'm a sceptic, nothing more.

 

[noguru]

Dear noguru,

Because you cater to their non-beliefs and what they want over what God and Jesus want. That is why. You will say believing in Creation is not necessary, but only evolution is correct, which is a lie. Of course they won't concede that. But if you think you can lead them to God and especially Jesus, have at it. Remember, Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father, except by Me (Jesus). They'll probably listen to you just to spite me. It's fine with me.

In Christ's Love and Patience,

MichaelC

No, I do not lie to them about the things they can see, you do. How can anyone trust you about the things they cannot see, if you lie to them about the things they can see?

 

[noguru]

So you can't conceive of matter or the universe causing itself to exist, but you can conceive of a self creating God? Seems a little inconsistent.

Well to be completely accurate, neither option is "self-creating". In both scenarios the basic various components are eternal and unchanging. Though their effects and various re-combinations through time create what we see as change.

 

[illusionray]

So you can't conceive of matter or the universe causing itself to exist, but you can conceive of a self creating God? Seems a little inconsistent.

I don't think guys can conceive anything, let alone the universe. Even women would struggle to fit that in their womb. :chuckle: Point poorly made initially.

 

[alwight]

No, I do not lie to them about the things they can see, you do. How can anyone trust you about the things they cannot see, if you lie to them about the things they can see?

I don't think Michael can see the real things we can see and may not actually be lying, Michael's demon?

Morton's Demon:
"...The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!..."

"...But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen..."

 

[noguru]

I don't think Michael can see the real things we can see and may not actually be lying, Michael's demon?

Morton's Demon:
"...The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!..."

"...But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen..."

If a person is not honest with themselves, then the ultimate result is to deceive others as well.

This is exactly why delusionray and Michael make claims. And when the answers to those claims require explanations from them, they avoid fulfilling their own original commitment. They are not to be trusted. Regardless of whether or not they are aware of their own deceit.

 

[alwight]

If a person is not honest with themselves, then the ultimate result is to deceive others as well.

This is exactly why delusionray and Michael make claims. And when the answers to those claims require explanations from them, they avoid fulfilling their own original commitment. They are not to be trusted. Regardless of whether or not they are aware of their own deceit.

Morton's demon is of course just a metaphor for a kind of self delusion. Michael is primarily lying to himself imo but I don't think he actually intends to lie to others because he really is deceived by his own delusion. lain:

 

[noguru]

Morton's demon is of course just a metaphor for a kind of self delusion. Michael is primarily lying to himself imo but I don't think he actually intends to lie to others because he really is deceived by his own delusion. lain:

I understand that. That is why I said "the ultimate result of such self delusion is deceiving others as well".

 

[alwight]

I understand that. That is why I said "the ultimate result of such self delusion is deceiving others as well".

Yes agreed.