Why Do Christians Need Proof A question from an atheist

[glenstein 0]

I see plenty of arguments on this board and elsewhere, and one pattern seems to be for Christians to embrace empirical facts, and logic when it suits them, but otherwise to suggest that the creator is simply incomprehensible and logic is useless. Why bother with the first if the second is true? And more importantly, why be bothered by things like Evolution science, or the big bang theory? Obviously an omnipotent creator can set those events in motion. They can set any event in motion so I'm not sure why cold rationality and science would have to contradict a being that exists outside of them/

 

Truth be told, I'm not sure why Christians even feel a need to argue for the proof of god. Even with, for example, the most damning and obvious evidence of evolution, what stopped god from instantly creating the world with fossils, animals, etc. as they are in a way that would perfectly conform to a theory of evolution? You don't even necessarily need intelligent design. God can get along just fine without needing to be propped up by our earthly theories.

 

For that matter, what's preventing him from say creating the universe five minutes ago and just planting memories in us that make us think there has been an intricate history? This guy is omnipotent, for, um, god's sake. He can easily slice and dice evolution and make it perfectly plausible, nothings stopping him. So in the context of the "god" debate, why does it matter if, for example, evolution is valid or not?

 

There is no aspect of existence we can turn to that he couldn't have already rigged.

[delivi 0]

do you know the truth that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was referred by Darwin himself as a work of imagination and not real, it just points his views. It is not the real truth about the humanity.

[truefusion 3]

If one is going to talk about God they have to consider things like the Bible, for that's how we have come to know Him. Evolution contradicts the Bible. And there are many scientific facts in the Bible. Yes, indeed it is possible for God to have caused macro-evolution to happen, but you can't talk about God without considering His Word. If you don't consider it, you might as well not start conversations about Him. In the same way you say,

what's preventing him from say creating the universe five minutes ago and just planting memories in us that make us think there has been an intricate history?

, same goes for evolution: why don't we remember ever evolving? It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God (yes, i know this is old, but it's true, therefore i repeat it). All "proof" i've seen for evolution were a lot of drawings, computer simulations and statements that seem like it can happen (not really proof). Also a lot of people grabbing one skull and some jaw and claiming it's a new species—it's like building a snow man. God wants us to live by faith, for the time being. But at the same time, all who believe have their own proof. In the end, we will all believe: this is why i say "non-believers" (with quotes).

 

You must also remember that just 'cause it's logical doesn't mean it's true; that's why it's called a "theory."

 

And God can't contradict Science, 'cause that may mean Science can disprove Him—which it can't.

[adriantc 0]

I see plenty of arguments on this board and elsewhere, and one pattern seems to be for Christians to embrace empirical facts, and logic when it suits them, but otherwise to suggest that the creator is simply incomprehensible and logic is useless. Why bother with the first if the second is true? And more importantly, why be bothered by things like Evolution science, or the big bang theory? Obviously an omnipotent creator can set those events in motion. They can set any event in motion so I'm not sure why cold rationality and science would have to contradict a being that exists outside of them/

 

Truth be told, I'm not sure why Christians even feel a need to argue for the proof of god. Even with, for example, the most damning and obvious evidence of evolution, what stopped god from instantly creating the world with fossils, animals, etc. as they are in a way that would perfectly conform to a theory of evolution? You don't even necessarily need intelligent design. God can get along just fine without needing to be propped up by our earthly theories.

 

For that matter, what's preventing him from say creating the universe five minutes ago and just planting memories in us that make us think there has been an intricate history? This guy is omnipotent, for, um, god's sake. He can easily slice and dice evolution and make it perfectly plausible, nothings stopping him. So in the context of the "god" debate, why does it matter if, for example, evolution is valid or not?

 

There is no aspect of existence we can turn to that he couldn't have already rigged.

I should point out before I continue that I am also an atheist so my post should be considered as MY point of view (an atheists point of view).

 

Two days ago in the biology class we discussed this theories and a new one (!?). My desk mate is a Christian who believes in the creation theory. He just doesn't give up no matter how much I try... In my own language there is a saying, don't know if there is one in English, but it is something like this: Believe and don't search (with the meaning of wonder, ask questions, etc.) (some say this is written in the Bible).

I really cannot see how anyone could think the evolution theory is not valid. There are tons of evidence that point out to it. Besides there is NOTHING that points out to the creation theory. In fact there isn't much in the Bible that can be scientifically proven. Logically most things in the Bible don't even make sense.

There is something that troubles my atheist mind... Gottfried Leibniz created in 1714 the "Principle of sufficient reason" (prime mover theory):

There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition, without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases.

Basically what he said (and others before him) is that if everything is a reaction to an action then the very first action, the very first link in the chain is God. If every other theory is illogical this one really makes sense. Think about it...

My biology teacher also told me that there is a new theory regarding evolution. It turns what we know upside down. According to this theory men is not an evolved ape, but the ape is an evolved men. As hard as that may seem (I totally disagree with this theory, although men is by far the worst and the best of all animal kingdom) there is something that makes sense in it. Speech may not be an evolution, but an involution, men may have developed speech because he could no longer use body language. And considering what men does to this planet this theory seems at least possible. One more theory to think about...

There was a time when people would have taken for granted how men was born, how the Earth and the Universe was. I hope that time has passed, questions must be raised and answered with the use of science. Nothing must be taken for granted, everything must be researched and if possible proven scientifically. We should remember the ones that still believe men was created rather then evolved that this is the age of reason not of blind faith!

 

EDIT

, same goes for evolution: why don't we remember ever evolving? It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God (yes, i know this is old, but it's true, therefore i repeat it). All "proof" i've seen for evolution were a lot of drawings, computer simulations and statements that seem like it can happen (not really proof). Also a lot of people grabbing one skull and some jaw and claiming it's a new species—it's like building a snow man. God wants us to live by faith, for the time being. But at the same time, all who believe have their own proof. In the end, we will all believe: this is why i say "non-believers" (with quotes).

Drawings, computer simulations and statements are more then we can say about the creation theory. Is there any proof (even logic) to support it? No there isn't... The way I see it the creation theory was an easy answer to a difficult question that 2000 or 3000 years ago could not be answered. If you would take someone from the first century AD and show him a TV he would say it is a miracle and blame it on God because he simply wouldn't bother with finding another answer.

 

Notice from truefusion:

Quoted the "prime mover theory". You quote my text, but not an offsite's text? Next time will result as a warning. You're a hosted member; you should know what belongs in QUOTE bbcodes by now.

Edited February 16, 2007 by truefusion (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

Is there any proof (even logic) to support it? No there isn't...

So you're saying that saying, "God created [this]," isn't logical enough? We support creationism with Intelligent Design (I.D.). And there's the watchmaker argument?still not logical enough? Our proof is what we see and the logic behind it. Isn't that what the theory of evolution is based on as well? I've been in this discussion with glenstein, already: We believe by how things are presented. And I.D. provides a good enough presentation.

[glenstein 0]

First, before anything else, I want to emphasize that I was merely using evolution as a placeholder for any field of science at all that has any religious implications whatever. I didn't want to focus on the truth of evolution itself. Ok. Here we go.

 

If one is going to talk about God they have to consider things like the Bible, for that's how we have come to know Him. Evolution contradicts the Bible.

And God can't contradict Science

hmmmmm...... Which is true? I guess it depends a lot on how true to the word of God the Bible is.

 

But isolating that first quote, "evolution contradicts the bible", I have something to say. There is a considerable and thoughtful group of people who believe quite the opposite on this point. One can consider his word without taking it literally, and as far as I know fundamentalists are exclusively the only group who even take the science of the Bible literally. Which, staying away from evolution, means that many christians are ok both with science and religion. Most, I would say.

 

In the same way you say, , same goes for evolution: why don't we remember ever evolving? It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God (yes, i know this is old, but it's true, therefore i repeat it).

I am not sure I understand the above statement. What kind of "remembering" are you talking about and how is it the same as the memory I mentioned (where you are convinced you've been alive for many years when you are really only 5 minutes old)?? Those seem to me fundamentally, totally opposed. No one has a personal memory of evolution like they have a personal memory of their own life. Was that your point?

 

 

So you're saying that saying, "God created [this]," isn't logical enough?

I agree with that statement above very much and if I were a christian, I would stop there. But why do people go on and use science when God doesn't need science. Why is there an urge to use it to prove him?

 

It turns what we know upside down. According to this theory men is not an evolved ape, but the ape is an evolved men.

Um, I'm fairly sure that neither are true. Both humans and apes branched off from a common ancestor and evolved alongside one another, but neither apes in their present form nor humans in their present form turned into one or the other. Edited February 17, 2007 by glenstein (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

If one is going to talk about God they have to consider things like the Bible, for that's how we have come to know Him. Evolution contradicts the Bible.

And God can't contradict Science

hmmmmm...... Which is true?

They're both true. Reason you don't believe such is 'cause you believe that evolution is Science?this is where our beliefs differ.

 

But isolating that first quote, "evolution contradicts the bible", I have something to say. [1]There is a considerable and thoughtful group of people who believe quite the opposite on this point. [2]One can consider his word without taking it literally, and as far as I know fundamentalists are exclusively the only group who even take the science of the Bible literally. [3]Which, staying away from evolution, means that many christians are ok both with science and religion. Most, I would say.

[1]Who are these people?

[2]I remember seeing a poll on how the Bible should be read, in a Christian forum, and i think 98% of the poll said people read the Bible literally (i'd provide a link to the topic, but i can't find it). The only time a person might not/wouldn't/shouldn't take certain verses literally are those that are poetic, speak in parables, prophecy, etc... Basically everything else should be taken literally.

[3]Mhmm.

 

. . . No one has a personal memory of evolution like they have a personal memory of their own life. Was that your point?

Yes, that was my point.

 

But why do people go on and use science when God doesn't need science. Why is there an urge to use it to prove him?

This part can be answered a couple of ways:

Because certain people state, "Well, i'm a Science person, that's why i don't believe in God."?even though you can be a Science person and believe in God.

Better to ask those who ask us to prove God with Science.

[glenstein 0]

[1]Who are these people?

For one, all Catholic Schools, which alone seems significant enough to me. Also, the Vatican's former chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne said intelligent design is not science "even though it pretends to be" and should not be taught in place of evolution.

 

And there are the occasionally pieces like this, representative of Christians who accept evolution. And then there is this account of 530 congregations that participated in the recent Evolution Sunday. And here is a nice resource of prominent Christian Evolutionists and christian websites that are pro-evolution.

 

[2]I remember seeing a poll on how the Bible should be read, in a Christian forum, and i think 98% of the poll said people read the Bible literally (i'd provide a link to the topic, but i can't find.

65% of Americans aren't fundamentalist Christians, meaning they do not believe in the literal, non-metaphorical truth of the bible.

 

[3]Mhmm.

Mhmm indeed.

 

On your last point, I only meant science as it specifically related to demonstrating the validity of God. The very existence of intelligent design/creationist proponents is a statement that Christians feel a need to prove God with science. I was merely asking, why, given God's omnipotence, is it even necessary to resort to sciencey arguments. I was not saying people who believe in God should give up any and all science, only that which they think is necessary to directly prove the existence of their creator. But I was unclear, so that's my fault

 

As for your point on "memory" of evolution, that's apples and oranges. No personal memory or personal direct visualization of one animal changing into another is necessary to believe in evolution. While, on the other hand, a direct, immediate experience is necessary in order to convince someone they have been alive for many years when they've only existed for five minutes. So those appear to be two different things.

 

do you know the truth that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was referred by Darwin himself as a work of imagination and not real, it just points his views. It is not the real truth about the humanity.

Explore the word "imagination" a bit and you get exactly the kind of exploratory, creative thinking necessary to unearth and develop a theory.

Edited February 17, 2007 by glenstein (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

For one, all Catholic Schools, which alone seems significant enough to me. Also, the Vatican's former chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne said intelligent design is not science "even though it pretends to be" and should not be taught in place of evolution.

Although Catholics are Christians, in a sense, for they accept Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior, but they are not Christians due to certain beliefs and practices. Christians have separated from them a long time ago. Catholics accept things they shouldn't, and they have been known to add to scripture although the Bible condemns that (1 Corinthians 4:6).

 

And there are the occasionally pieces like [1]this, representative of Christians who accept evolution. And then there is [2]this account of 530 congregations that participated in the recent Evolution Sunday. And [3]here is a nice resource of prominent Christian Evolutionists and christian websites that are pro-evolution.

[1]The site itself mentions that they have to put aside the Genesis account in order to believe in evolution. A real Christian believes in the whole Bible.

[2]How many congregations are there in the world? Surely it must be way more than what is mentioned in this article. So how can one claim that there is a considerable group of people, when it's really minority?

[3]Heh, my friend believes the same thingand he rejects all scripture. How much scripture must this person reject to claim such statements? Might as well be like my friend and reject all scripture.

 

65% of Americans aren't fundamentalist Christians, meaning they do not believe in the literal, non-metaphorical truth of the bible.

How do you know? You met them all? Just 'cause they're not fundamentalists mean that they don't take the Bible literally? And that article is unreliable and debunking.

 

. . . or personal direct visualization of one animal changing into another is necessary to believe in evolution.

Then why the need for computer simulations and drawings?

[adriantc 0]

So you're saying that saying, "God created [this]," isn't logical enough? We support creationism with Intelligent Design (I.D.). And there's the watchmaker argument—still not logical enough? Our proof is what we see and the logic behind it. Isn't that what the theory of evolution is based on as well? I've been in this discussion with glenstein, already: We believe by how things are presented. And I.D. provides a good enough presentation.

No that is not logical. Why? Because you did not look for an answer. Logic means making connections... Starting from one thing and getting to another by relation (true statements). Cat eats bird. Dog eats cat --> Dog eats bird (stupid as that example may look like it is an example of logic).

Your statement "God created [this]," is not logical because it is not supported by any other (true) statement. It is, as I have said, an easy answer to a very difficult question!

. . . No one has a personal memory of evolution like they have a personal memory of their own life. Was that your point?

Yes, that was my point.

There can't be a personal memory of evolution... not like the personal memory of our own life. Evolution does not mean we recall memories (even though it might be the case) but we recall traits. What we recall from our ancestors are traits and basic experiences not individual memories. In other words we can't have a collective memory at a conscious level, rather we have some past experience it an unconscious level. We call that instinct... So yes our ancestors not only give us their traits, but also some of their experience!
Edited February 17, 2007 by adriantc (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

No that is not logical. Why? Because you did not look for an answer. Logic means making connections... Starting from one thing and getting to another by relation (true statements). Cat eats bird. Dog eats cat --> Dog eats bird (stupid as that example may look like it is an example of logic).

Your statement "God created [this]," is not logical because it is not supported by any other (true) statement. It is, as I have said, an easy answer to a very difficult question!

The example you gave isn't really stupid, but it doesn't help you. For what question does it answer? It's as much of a statement as my statement: "God created [this]". And how is it not supported by any other (true) statements? You must've not read the Bible. We start from the Bible and start making connections. And i'll tell you, we've made a lot of connections.

 

There can't be a personal memory of evolution... not like the personal memory of our own life. Evolution does not mean we recall memories (even though it might be the case) but we recall traits. What we recall from our ancestors are traits and basic experiences not individual memories. In other words we can't have a collective memory at a conscious level, rather we have some past experience it an unconscious level. We call that instinct... So yes our ancestors not only give us their traits, but also some of their experience!

There is nothing new in the world. What has happened has happened, and will happen again. So, it's not so much their experience, it is our own as well, for we've gone through the very same things. Our experience is also their experience.

 

Also, just 'cause there are similarities, it does not mean that they're an evolved form of another species?that is just conjecture.

[glenstein 0]

This is pretty silly, so I'll try to respond to the points that make sense.

 

That Catholics aren't Christians would be news to them, and using the "no true Scotsman" argument, a logical fallacy maintaining that they aren't true Christians unless they believe x, y and z is unfair. Saying things like "A real Christian believes in the whole Bible." is really a loaded, self serving interpretation, and reading your posts on this boards you seem thoughtful enough, so the reasons why Catholics are, in fact, Christians (why is this even disputed?) are there and you should already be able to figure them out yourself. But if you want, I'll gladly elaborate on why you can't wantonly exclude vast swaths of the religious community from the very beliefs they claim to practice.

 

[2]How many congregations are there in the world? Surely it must be way more than what is mentioned in this article. So how can one claim that there is a considerable group of people, when it's really minority?

There are probably a whole lot more Christian congregations that don't participate. But I was never arguing against that. You wanted to know what Christians exist who could believe in evolution. There is obviously a sizable group, regardless of whether you think they are "true" enough or whether you think such a group has to be in the majority before it can be considered notable. No one could suggest, for example, that racial groups aren't sufficiently "considerable" if they are merely minority populations, and get away with it. Why is this logic any more sensible in the present context? You wanted to know who these people are who think Christianity can agree with mainstream science, I'm representing them.

 

How do you know? You met them all? Just 'cause they're not fundamentalists mean that they don't take the Bible literally? And that article is unreliable and debunking.

This is frustrating. Here is a better source. It's a report based on a survey by a professional and respected polling firm, Rasmussen Reports. Broken down, just 4% of evangelics think the bible is not literally true. But 30% of protestants and 42% of Catholics don't believe the bible is literally true, such groups exist in significant numbers exactly like I was saying. Meaning all of this doubt and disagreement was a waste of time and beside the point.

 

I sympathize with and understand what you are saying, just like I did from the beginning. There exist Christians who do take the bible literally. But I would have hoped it was fundamentally self evident that my question applied exclusively to those who it was relevant to, not to those who it isn't relevant to.

Edited February 18, 2007 by glenstein (see edit history)

[adriantc 0]

The example you gave isn't really stupid, but it doesn't help you. For what question does it answer? It's as much of a statement as my statement: "God created [this]". And how is it not supported by any other (true) statements? You must've not read the Bible. We start from the Bible and start making connections. And i'll tell you, we've made a lot of connections.

There is nothing new in the world. What has happened has happened, and will happen again. So, it's not so much their experience, it is our own as well, for we've gone through the very same things. Our experience is also their experience.

 

Also, just 'cause there are similarities, it does not mean that they're an evolved form of another species—that is just conjecture.

There are of course a lot of connections in the Bible, but none is based on a fact that can be proven (referring of course to the creation theory). You have to start from one true statement and then using (true) connections get to what you want. So connections without a basic truth means nothing... I have to admit I haven't read the Bible... Maybe someday I will so I can better understand the other side of the problem...

 

In part you are right... History does repeat itself, but that doesn't mean that there isn't anything new in the world. I do realize that the evolution theory is never going to be totally proven because it's simply too massive to prove. We do not see air, but we know it is there; same thing with the evolution theory. As I have said in other posts religion is good as long as it has it's measure. Too much and we end up in the Dark Ages... Faith and hope are the basic needs of mankind. Above all MUST be reason...

Edited February 17, 2007 by adriantc (see edit history)

[BooZker 0]

In response to a large number of posts in this topic:To me it seems as christians make up things as they go. For example, my friend who is in a christian school has long hair and is growing it out. The teachers are going to make him cut it because,"It's the way Jesus wanted it." Yes, I am not making this up that is what they said. Not only did Jesus have long hair, there is NOTHING in the Bible that says boys can't have long hair when they attend a christian school. Another example is that my friend's mom (this is another friend) told him he had to go to church, so before we left this is what she said,"Oscar (me), when was that last time you had communion?" My response was,"Not for months." (I am an Athiest, but i never dare say that to his mom!) She goes,"OK, well don't have communion then, because we believe (we as in Christian) believe you need to regulary take it to receive it." My friend said,"Mom, that is so stupid. Nothing in the Bible says that." And an argument started, but that was just to state my point. There are many times incidents like this have come up. How does this tie into your topic? Well, i think that there is no reason for what you are saying. I think Christians WANT to believe in ID. If they really took an open mind into Evolution they would see how, although MAY not be true although most likely is and i certainly believe it, much more of a chance that, that could happen over the idea someone just went ""BAM!" and "POOF!" the world was here. Yes, Darwin said that about how its imagination, but could you honestly imagine him saying that kind of thing then?! Even now, by some, it's hated and the people who believe this are put aside as sinners and will go to hell. Think about years ago when you could get hanged for that. I couldn't and I think anyone with a right mind would also say that.

[zyzzyvette 0]

@Boozker- I once had someone tell me that public nudity should stay illegal because it went against his religion (Christianity), and after I pointed out several verses from both Old and New Testaments which involved public nudity being a-OK, and finding not a single one that condemned it, he still insisted. Some people just like to feel that all their personal opinions are supported by their "big guy in the sky", because in their eyes, that makes them infallible. Lots of times they'll "get away" with just making stuff up as they go, because come on, the Bible is so huge and contradictory that other people on the street can't rule it out unless they have the whole thing memorized.