Do you believe in evolution?

[Bill_B_NY]

The overwhelming majority of atheists I know, including this atheist, do not believe in God simply because there is no demonstrable proof for God. I wouldn’t argue that God is impossible anymore than I would argue that Russell’s teapot is impossible. But I would argue that they seem to be unlikely.

Jesus needed to show His authority or else nobody would believe in Him.
So, He gave demonstrable proof. He worked miracles. We have the documentary evidence for this.
Evolution needs to show it’s correctness or else nobody like myself will believe it.
Evolution does not give the demonstrable proof. It’s conjecture about what might have happened in the past.
So, evolution demands my belief and trust.
I withhold it.
I give, instead, trust to the demonstrations given by Jesus - His miracles.
The Church holds up many more miracles for our consideration.
For the atheist, just one of those needs to be true.
I urge the atheist to investigate and have some openness to this.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I’d argue that everything bears with it a certain degree of characteristic uncertainty.

Are you uncertain about that?

 

[Neithan]

Meaning is subjective, and unless you’re a hard nihilist, you’re looking for it.

But that’s a red herring. Whether or not there is evidence of teleology in nature is objective. An atheist panpsychist could accept natural teleology and still be a hard nihilist. A Buddhist as well.

 

[Hume]

Jesus needed to show His authority or else nobody would believe in Him.
So, He gave demonstrable proof. He worked miracles. We have the documentary evidence for this.

Well, just like we have “documentary evidence” of every ancient and present miracle worker. It’s not particularly convincing.

Evolution needs to show it’s correctness or else nobody like myself will believe it.

As a theory, I doubt it’ll ever be indisputable. But the theories of evolution enjoy the benefit of more evidence than any theory that existed before it or since. The body of evidence is… just… massive.

So, evolution demands my belief and trust.
I withhold it.

As you’re free to do. There are those who genuinely, in-their-hearts think that Americans never landed on the moon and the Earth is flat. Those folks can be said to have a standard of evidence that is probably unreasonable.

For the atheist, just one of those needs to be true.
I urge the atheist to investigate and have some openness to this.

Sure. Like myself, most of us were theists. Many of us were Catholic.

But what I also urge you to consider is that evolution and theism need not be enemies.

 

[Hume]

Meaning is subjective, and unless you’re a hard nihilist, you’re looking for it.

Absolutely!

But that’s a red herring.

No it isn’t. It’s the fundamental drive that pushes the theist to attempt to shoehorn their preferred deity into systems where no deity is demonstrably present.

 

[Neithan]

No it isn’t. It’s the fundamental drive that pushes the theist to attempt to shoehorn their preferred deity into systems where no deity is demonstrably present.

This is demonstrative of your bias. As a theist I am not shoehorning anything, but, as Antony Flew contended, following the evidence where it leads.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

No it isn’t. It’s the fundamental drive that pushes the theist to attempt to shoehorn their preferred deity into systems where no deity is demonstrably present.

The deity is the origin of order versus chaos - and thus does not need to be shoehorned, but is the cause of all. First cause, First mover.
You cannot have an ordered system - goal directed without a order-maker and goal-setter.
God is the cause of systems. The creator of life .

 

[Hume]

This is demonstrative of your bias. As a theist I am not shoehorning anything, but, as Antony Flew contended, following the evidence where it leads.

shrug

I’ve never seen a text our took a course that demonstrated the presence of a deity. And boy oh boy I’ve taken a lot of them.

Now, there’s a chance I can be wrong. Always. But there seems to be a lack of evidence for the existence of a deity. Most of the “evidence” with which we are presented consists of deductive syllogisms that may possibly invoke special pleading or begging the question, as with the classical proofs.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

But there seems to be a lack of evidence for the existence of a deity.

What evidence have you evaluated?

 

[Hume]

The deity is the origin of order versus chaos

Order and chaos are constructs of our minds and depending on how you want to define them, both are present in the universe. The universe generally tends toward entropy. But the fundamental forces seem to exist and counter general entropy in particular cases.

The first mover is beyond our realm of observation. As such, we can know nothing about it, but we can speculate endlessly.

 

[Neithan]

That depends on how radical your skepticism is. There are no “proofs” in a non-axiomatic system.

Anyway I think we agree on the topic of this thread, more or less.

 

[Hume]

That depends on how radical your skepticism is. There are no “proofs” in a non-axiomatic system.

I’ll do ya one better - there are no non-axiomatic systems.

The acceptance of base axiom is a sales-job. Some appear more reasonable than others.

 

[Hume]

Anyway I think we agree on the topic of this thread, more or less.

Probably so.

Cheers.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Order and chaos are constructs of our minds and depending on how you want to define them, both are present in the universe.

You cannot have chaos without order. Our minds do not produce the order - we do not create our own mind.

 

[Hume]

You cannot have chaos without order. Our minds do not produce the order - we do not create our own mind.

Statements like these make it seem like you began doing your research with a conclusion already in mind. No offense intended.

But to that point, when some folks look at the inside of a furnace, they see firey chaos. When an engineer that designs furnaces looks into one, they see firey order.

Teleology appears to be just an exercise in bias.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Statements like these make it seem like you began doing your research with a conclusion already in mind.

No. I made two clear statements there and you didn’t address either one.

 

[Hume]

No. I made two clear statements there and you didn’t address either one.

Because I can’t. As discrete objects, they don’t exist. They’re constructs. Interpretations.

 

[Dan123]

Bacteria are quite happy without needing any evolutionary changes.

Then why are some becoming resistant to antibiotics?

 

[Hume]

Then why are some becoming resistant to antibiotics?

Because they’re evolving.

 

[rossum]

Hydrogen and oxygen for water molecules. Some things do happen from random combinations.

Your knowledge of chemistry is lacking. Hydrogen and oxygen do not form “random combinations”. Haven’t you ever heard of valency in chemistry lessons? If the formation was random then there would be as much HO2 as H2O.

Your lack of knowledge of science is leading you into error. A lack of knowledge can be cured by learning. “An intelligent mind acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” - Proverbs 18:15.