It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationism or Evolutionism? Or could it be a combination of both?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

The word of God is the Son and the Son is God. It matters to know God [the Trinity] not just because you are meant to know God but because it is just to know truth.

Time, in my opinion, is the rate at which will/spirit manifests images. God is not outside of time, he created in days/time, and he has said Jesus is his body as well. I think the way God can see the future is not because he is outside of time but because he can see will/spirit/The Holy Ghost. In spirit is where we were before the foundation of the Earth. In spirit is where Jesus always was before Father saw and said be. Just like your dreams come from what is unseen but not from something that is not there.

Oh and the Kingdom of God is within... its Spirit. Visions of the future are visions of the spirit - to be carried away in the spirit.


John 14:10
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

John 14:20
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.



If the future has already happened, and God outside of time, what good would his covenants be? It would be like making a bet on a game that had already been played. No... the future is God's will / Spirit and he sees his spirit and what is in it, but because it is Spirit/will it is malleable or able to be changed... it is will. He can will want he wants but he sees his will.
edit on 8/19/2014 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

"Life springs only from life and mind is derived only from pre-exiting mind. Saying God has nothing to do with evolution is like saying Flash has nothing to do with the videos on Youtube. God created the necessary foundation for which evolution can function."

Much of what you assert as fact are assumptions based upon your faith. For example, there is no reasonable justification to state as a fact that life springs only from life. Also I did not, and would not state that God has nothing to do with evolution.

I am open to the idea that God is real, but I await a reasonable proof.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I'm all for Creationism AND Evolution. I just do not believe in the literal translation of Genesis. Genesis is the made up story.

And you speak the words Creationist or creationism aren't you really meaning to say Christian Creationism? Let's be clear. There's a big difference between believing in God and believing in Genesis.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we were to except for a minute that this GOD (Or whatever name you choose to use) was no more than the very structure of the ether we live within, i don't know as an example LIKE DC Current. This very energy source encompasses all of life from it's energetic bowl but does no more than fluctuate between the circuits on the board. It has NO Intelligence or need to Choose between Polarity because it is Polarity and everything else. It is the Singularity the toolbox of infinite possibility. We the slowly evolving other current, AC (Yes before someone chips in AC and DC Probably can't share the same space) is the Intelligence expanding consciousness outwards. Somewhere in this existence we're linked into the limitless toolbox DC and thus through our own experimentation become the deities ourselves the very GOD we reference.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: UB2120

"Life springs only from life and mind is derived only from pre-exiting mind. Saying God has nothing to do with evolution is like saying Flash has nothing to do with the videos on Youtube. God created the necessary foundation for which evolution can function."

Much of what you assert as fact are assumptions based upon your faith. For example, there is no reasonable justification to state as a fact that life springs only from life. Also I did not, and would not state that God has nothing to do with evolution.

I am open to the idea that God is real, but I await a reasonable proof.


Do you have an example of life that did not spring from life?

What would be considered reasonable proof to you?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

Are you not familiar with the Abiogenesis hypothesis?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: UB2120

The word of God is the Son and the Son is God. It matters to know God [the Trinity] not just because you are meant to know God but because it is just to know truth.

Time, in my opinion, is the rate at which will/spirit manifests images. God is not outside of time, he created in days/time, and he has said Jesus is his body as well. I think the way God can see the future is not because he is outside of time but because he can see will/spirit/The Holy Ghost. In spirit is where we were before the foundation of the Earth. In spirit is where Jesus always was before Father saw and said be. Just like your dreams come from what is unseen but not from something that is not there.

Oh and the Kingdom of God is within... its Spirit. Visions of the future are visions of the spirit - to be carried away in the spirit.


John 14:10
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

John 14:20
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.



If the future has already happened, and God outside of time, what good would his covenants be? It would be like making a bet on a game that had already been played. No... the future is God's will / Spirit and he sees his spirit and what is in it, but because it is Spirit/will it is malleable or able to be changed... it is will. He can will want he wants but he sees his will.


The three persons of Deity are, The Universal Father, The Eternal Son and the Infinite Spirit. As I mentioned in the OP, God does not do everything himself. The universe is much larger that we currently estimate. God the Father and God the Son created sons who are called Creator Sons. They attempt to do in time and space what God, the Son and the Spirit did in Eternity and that is to create a perfectly stable creation. What we call heaven is the divine universe. I will use the term universe as an administrative unit.

The Creator Sons are the makers and rulers of the local universes of time and space. These universe creators and sovereigns are of dual origin, embodying the characteristics of God the Father and God the Son. But each Creator Son is different from every other; each is unique in nature as well as in personality; each is the “only-begotten Son” of the perfect deity ideal of his origin.

In the vast work of organizing, evolving, and perfecting a local universe, these high Sons always enjoy the sustaining approval of the Universal Father. The relationship of the Creator Sons with their Paradise Father is touching and superlative. No doubt the profound affection of the Deity parents for their divine progeny is the wellspring of that beautiful and well-nigh divine love which even mortal parents bear their children.

It is like a well to do business man giving his sons a slice of the company to try and run on their own. These sons did not create the company, but their piece is subject to their will. Meaning that the foundations of matter and energy originate with God, but these Creator Sons are empowered to organize as they see fit.

Part of the training of a Creator Son is to bestow himself in the likeness of his created beings. He must do this 7 times in the similitude of his various created beings, from high to low. Our Creator Son, on his 7th and final bestowal lived the life of mortal flesh and we know him as Jesus. In a way it is similar to the show undercover boss. It is intended to make these high sons understanding and sympathetic rulers.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
I'm all for Creationism AND Evolution. I just do not believe in the literal translation of Genesis. Genesis is the made up story.

And you speak the words Creationist or creationism aren't you really meaning to say Christian Creationism? Let's be clear. There's a big difference between believing in God and believing in Genesis.


That is one of the points I was trying to make. That most of the time when the term creationism is used it is assumed you mean the Christian idea of Genesis. That is not what I mean. I mean the concept that the universe was designed and created. That life is purposeful and not accidental.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UB2120

Are you not familiar with the Abiogenesis hypothesis?


I am familiar with the hypothesis. To me that is science trying to take God out of the equation. How God can enliven matter is something we will never be able to comprehend nor replicate.

That doesn't mean science should not try to understand as much as they can, but I feel they should at least be humbled by it. I don't understand why Science, Philosophy and Religion can't form some sort of partnership. When I say religion I don't mean Christianity. To me, to get a better grasp you need all three to work together.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120


I am familiar with the hypothesis. To me that is science trying to take God out of the equation.

Your assertion that science is "trying to take God out of the equation" is predicated on the existence of God, for which there is no objective evidence.


How God can enliven matter is something we will never be able to comprehend nor replicate.

You're engaging in a god of the gaps fallacy. Thunder and lightning, volcanoes, diseases... all sorts of natural phenomena have been attributed to the supernatural. You should be careful of making arguments along the lines of "we don't know how this happens, therefore God", because (to paraphrase Tyson) you're defining God as an ever shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance.


That doesn't mean science should not try to understand as much as they can, but I feel they should at least be humbled by it.

I am constantly humbled by the vastness and diversity of the Universe around me. That doesn't mean I need to believe in God or attribute that to God. If you think scientists don't feel humility when learning new things about the world around us, I suggest you get to know more scientists.


I don't understand why Science, Philosophy and Religion can't form some sort of partnership. When I say religion I don't mean Christianity. To me, to get a better grasp you need all three to work together.

I think it depends on what you're goal is. If it's to understand the world around you in a rational and objective way, then science, and to a lesser degree philosophy, would seem to be the right tool to use. As you asserted above, anything that can't be explained by science right now should be chalked up to God when trying to use religion as a tool to understand the world around us. This seems to be an intellectual dead end to me.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm in no way saying that religion is useless -- I think it can provide a strong sense of community, a way for people to bond over set of shared common experiences, and even (sometimes) provide a set of ethical guidelines. But when it comes to exploring and understanding the underlying phenomena of reality, I'll take science.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero

Out of the theories that try to explain where the universe came from, the concept that a God created it makes the most sense to me. The complexity and elegance of the universe/life is the handy work of a divine and infinite mind. It seems more possible to me that a God is the creator of all things and beings than the concept that everything is an accident. There seems to be too much that is just right for it to be an accident. We see pattern everywhere.

But it is the bestowals of life and mind that are the biggest aspects that lean me toward believing in a personal God. We are something more than animals. Saying that something must be proven to be real invalidates emotions. You can say you love someone, but you can never prove it. Or at least prove it to the satisfaction of everyone. You could go through all the motions of acting like you loved someone but really not. The only proof one human can offer another concerning God is their own personal experience.

If you choose not to believe, have faith, there is nothing wrong with that. You have that choice. God compels no one to believe in him. You will not go to hell, there is no such place. I believe the antagonism that many have toward the concept of God is due to there exposure to Christianity. It crystallized long ago in a different time and is just incompatible with many of today's people.

I do personally believe that everyone is given a chance to make an informed decision concerning the prospects of eternal life. I believe that once born into the universe we have the potential to be here a long time. We must grow and develop. If you decide it's not for you, that is your choice.

Excepting that God created the universe/life does not take away from the scientific thrill of discovering how his will is manifested in time and space. It is still something to marvel at. In the end both science and religion are seeking the source. To science God is a cause, to philosophy an idea, to religion a person, even the loving heavenly Father.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

Oh you're Urantian.

I don't understand how you can you relate to that book and/or philosophy. It sounds like a comic book that takes things from reality and then turns it into abstract story telling. Is there anything in it that deals with the human experience, which helps you understand day to day life?

I guess what I'm asking is: What gives you faith in The Urantia Book? And is there anything in it which gives you better understanding of the world / reality like the Bible does?



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

Science and religion are like oil and water. I said earlier that religion makes assumptions then tries to get evidence to fit those assumptions. Science finds evidence and then comes up with an explanation for that evidence. There is a big difference there, and that difference makes them incompatible. If you let religion guide your science then it can lead to bad conclusions since religion will give you a confirmation bias. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with being religious and a scientist, but make no mistake you NEVER bring your religion into science.

Philosophy and science are kind of linked anyways since philosophy is a good source for hypotheses to test, but you certainly should never use it to prove anything since philosophy is just ideas.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: UB2120
Out of the theories that try to explain where the universe came from, the concept that a God created it makes the most sense to me. The complexity and elegance of the universe/life is the handy work of a divine and infinite mind. It seems more possible to me that a God is the creator of all things and beings than the concept that everything is an accident. There seems to be too much that is just right for it to be an accident. We see pattern everywhere.


It is perfectly fine that you are happy with God being answer to everything, but please don't bash science for shortcomings of your creator. Telling that only divine and infinite mind created universe and life works well as long as you don't think about millions of objects that are floating around place God created for his favorite creature made in his image... then it all breaks and shows you how ignorant this statement is. I would love to see those paterns you talk about, but just small notice - evolution and science never claimed that life and evolution is product of an accident.




originally posted by: UB2120
But it is the bestowals of life and mind that are the biggest aspects that lean me toward believing in a personal God. We are something more than animals. Saying that something must be proven to be real invalidates emotions. You can say you love someone, but you can never prove it. Or at least prove it to the satisfaction of everyone. You could go through all the motions of acting like you loved someone but really not. The only proof one human can offer another concerning God is their own personal experience.


Mention of emotion of love reminds me of Tim Minchin quote - 'Love without evidence is stalking'.

At least you got it right, religion is personal experience, in some cases experience of people who by today standard would be considered mentally ill and would require help.



originally posted by: UB2120
If you choose not to believe, have faith, there is nothing wrong with that. You have that choice. God compels no one to believe in him. You will not go to hell, there is no such place. I believe the antagonism that many have toward the concept of God is due to there exposure to Christianity. It crystallized long ago in a different time and is just incompatible with many of today's people.

If there is no hell, what about paradise?



originally posted by: UB2120
I do personally believe that everyone is given a chance to make an informed decision concerning the prospects of eternal life. I believe that once born into the universe we have the potential to be here a long time. We must grow and develop. If you decide it's not for you, that is your choice.


Really? And that is only achievable by believing in your God and being member of your religion?? I agree that we need to grow and develop and once and for all outgrow ancient mythology and fairy tales.


originally posted by: UB2120
Excepting that God created the universe/life does not take away from the scientific thrill of discovering how his will is manifested in time and space. It is still something to marvel at. In the end both science and religion are seeking the source. To science God is a cause, to philosophy an idea, to religion a person, even the loving heavenly Father.

I am sure that by him creating everything, we would by now find some compelling evidence into his existence... yet... we have none... what does that tell ya?



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: UB2120

Oh you're Urantian.

I don't understand how you can you relate to that book and/or philosophy. It sounds like a comic book that takes things from reality and then turns it into abstract story telling. Is there anything in it that deals with the human experience, which helps you understand day to day life?

I guess what I'm asking is: What gives you faith in The Urantia Book? And is there anything in it which gives you better understanding of the world / reality like the Bible does?


He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones. How does it sound anymore like a fairy tale than the Bible? I have read both the Bible and the Urantia Book. I chose the Urantia Book as my guide. Have you ever read the Urantia Book? Don't judge something you know nothing about. A brief description on a website could hardly tell you much about a 2000 page book.

The Urantia Book gave me a far better understanding of God, the universe he created and my place in it. It also gave me a much more inspiring account of the potential after life mortals can have, if they choose. It takes away all the childish fears that other religions try to use as a means of control. Not to mention there is no clergy or leader that tries to direct the affairs of the movement.

It not only gave me a richer understanding of the world I live on and why things are the way that are it also gave me a deeper understanding of the universe and our future in it. Instead of being closed minded you should try to expand your understanding of God and the universe he created.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UB2120

Science and religion are like oil and water. I said earlier that religion makes assumptions then tries to get evidence to fit those assumptions. Science finds evidence and then comes up with an explanation for that evidence. There is a big difference there, and that difference makes them incompatible. If you let religion guide your science then it can lead to bad conclusions since religion will give you a confirmation bias. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with being religious and a scientist, but make no mistake you NEVER bring your religion into science.

Philosophy and science are kind of linked anyways since philosophy is a good source for hypotheses to test, but you certainly should never use it to prove anything since philosophy is just ideas.


The sovereignty of God is unlimited; it is the fundamental fact of all creation. The universe was not inevitable. The universe is not an accident, neither is it self-existent. The universe is a work of creation and is therefore wholly subject to the will of the Creator. The will of God is divine truth, living love; therefore are the perfecting creations of the evolutionary universes characterized by goodness — nearness to divinity; by potential evil — remoteness from divinity.

All religious philosophy, sooner or later, arrives at the concept of unified universe rule, of one God. Universe causes cannot be lower than universe effects. The source of the streams of universe life and of the cosmic mind must be above the levels of their manifestation. The human mind cannot be consistently explained in terms of the lower orders of existence. Man’s mind can be truly comprehended only by recognizing the reality of higher orders of thought and purposive will. Man as a moral being is inexplicable unless the reality of the Universal Father is acknowledged.

The mechanistic philosopher professes to reject the idea of a universal and sovereign will, the very sovereign will whose activity in the elaboration of universe laws he so deeply reverences. What unintended homage the mechanist pays the law-Creator when he conceives such laws to be self-acting and self-explanatory!



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

I am not bashing science. To me it seems that science bashes religion. What shortcomings of the Creator are you referring to?

I am not sure what you mean by "...millions of objects that are floating around place God created for his favorite creature made in his image... then it all breaks and shows you how ignorant this statement is." For one it seems you are basing your assumptions of God on the Christian faith. Also, the "in his image" I discussed earlier that it refers to our spiritual nature, not our material nature.

One of the patterns is the Golden Ratio seen throughout creation.

If life is not an accident then it must be purposeful, right?

The emotion of love was just one example. The same can be said for any emotion. There really isn't a way to prove them.

There is no hell, but there is a place where God dwells and humans have called that place Paradise. It's an eternal creation that is outside of time and space and is at the center of all things. It is the nuclear source of material existence.

I never said you had to believe as I do. God is no respecter of persons, races, cultures or worlds. There is no one way to believe in God. God is infinite, as such there are an infinite number of ways to conceive of him. Again, you seem to be basing your concept of God and all that pertains thereto on the Christian belief system. There is more if you look for it. As the saying goes, seek and you shall find.

As I said in an earlier post: Extremely complex and highly automatic-appearing cosmic mechanisms always tend to conceal the presence of the originative or creative indwelling mind from any and all intelligences very far below the universe levels of the nature and capacity of the mechanism itself. Therefore is it inevitable that the higher universe mechanisms must appear to be mindless to the lower orders of creatures. The only possible exception to such a conclusion would be the implication of mindedness in the amazing phenomenon of an apparently self-maintaining universe — but that is a matter of philosophy rather than one of actual experience.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

You see, everything you just said are all assumptions. None of that is proven and until it is, it is just as valid as me saying that a flying spaghetti monster is our god (man I thought I'd never have to use that cliche...). Though if what you just said is what you believe, that's fine. Just don't let your beliefs contradict established science. Cutting edge science is shaky ground so it may be alright to contradict that; but if it becomes established science and still contradicts your beliefs, you need to change your beliefs.
edit on 20-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UB2120

You see, everything you just said are all assumptions. None of that is proven and until it is, it is just as valid as me saying that a flying spaghetti monster is our god (man I thought I'd never have to use that cliche...). Though if what you just said is what you believe, that's fine. Just don't let your beliefs contradict established science. Cutting edge science is shaky ground so it may be alright to contradict that; but if it becomes established science and still contradicts your beliefs, you need to change your beliefs.


Thus far no science has contradicted my beliefs, really. I believe the currently excepted age of the universe is way low, but it doesn't impact my beliefs. Just as you say I make assumptions that God created the universe and life, so has science made assumptions in this area too. There is no more evidence of the Big Bang, Mulitverses or life starting by mixing just the right amino acids than there is of a God.

So please tell me what science you believe contradicts the existence of God? I assume you base your understanding of God on the Christian teachings and if so perhaps I can supply you a couple links to information that might make you think slightly differently.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: UB2120

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UB2120

You see, everything you just said are all assumptions. None of that is proven and until it is, it is just as valid as me saying that a flying spaghetti monster is our god (man I thought I'd never have to use that cliche...). Though if what you just said is what you believe, that's fine. Just don't let your beliefs contradict established science. Cutting edge science is shaky ground so it may be alright to contradict that; but if it becomes established science and still contradicts your beliefs, you need to change your beliefs.


Thus far no science has contradicted my beliefs, really. I believe the currently excepted age of the universe is way low, but it doesn't impact my beliefs. Just as you say I make assumptions that God created the universe and life, so has science made assumptions in this area too. There is no more evidence of the Big Bang, Mulitverses or life starting by mixing just the right amino acids than there is of a God.

So please tell me what science you believe contradicts the existence of God? I assume you base your understanding of God on the Christian teachings and if so perhaps I can supply you a couple links to information that might make you think slightly differently.


There is none. My whole point is to be agnostic, which is what I am. For any answer that we don't have the evidence to answer, the goto answer is ALWAYS "I/We don't know." Anything else is an assumption. For instance you made an assumption that I am atheist despite no evidence showing that that is the case.

By the way, there is PLENTY of evidence for the Big Bang, because it IS after all a scientific theory. So it needs tons of evidence to be labeled as such. BUT the biggest misconception about it is that the Big Bang doesn't necessarily talk about the beginning of the universe. It's more like the beginning of space-time (general physics). Before the Big Bang happened there was a singularity and your guess is as good as mine as to what was going on there or how long it was there for.

This is different than Abiogenesis which is just a hypothesis and is FAR from proven or even mainstream accepted. Basically abiogenesis is the best guess scientists have right now. But don't confuse that with the Big Bang which is a theory meaning that it has quite a bit of evidence backing its claims.

ETA: One more thing. If I were to be religious (again), I'd probably be Buddhist or some sort of Eastern religion. Those religions make more sense then Christian or any other Abrahamic religion. I'd explain why, but that is a topic for another thread (or a pm if you are really interested). But at the end of the day even those religions make assumptions about things. So I just stay agnostic.
edit on 20-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join