The Evidence War

[chrispalasz]

Please take the time to read this entire post.

This thread is created for posts that:

1. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity holds the Truth about God and humanity.

2. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity does not hold the truth about God and humanity.

Evidence posted must be according to one of the two definitions, or it will not be deemed sufficient as evidence. All debate arising from posted evidence should be addressed using counter-evidence [counter-evidence defined as evidence that goes against or attempts to falsify or discredit evidence already posted].

Evidence, on this thread, is defined as follows:

1. Of or having to do with a material object that demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue;

2. A matter of record, or writing, or by the testimony of witnesses, enabling one to pronounce with certainty; concerning the truth of any matter in dispute.

[chrispalasz]

Dilettante wrote: However, evolution is not necessarily incompatible with a belief in God, at least many reasonable people see it that way.

I really don't think anyone's contesting that "evolution is not necessarily incompatible with a belief in god." It is, however, incompatible with the Christian Biblical belief that God created Adam and Eve who were the first two humans and that all humans came from Adam and Eve.

But, no, you're right. It's not incompatible with god. We can make up any old god for it to be compatible with.

There's a lot about science that I don't know - but I do know that humans and apes did not both evolve to their current state from a single common ancestor. How do I know? Because I am a Christian and that contridicts what the Bible says.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

There's a lot about science that I don't know - but I do know that humans and apes did not both evolve to their current state from a single common ancestor. How do I know? Because I am a Christian and that contridicts what the Bible says.

"You know what bible says"--but what made you believe what bible says about creation and distrust scientists?Faith alone or sound logical facts?

[chrispalasz]

The Christian Faith and sound logical facts are one and the same. So the answer is both.

I know that's not what you're asking and that's not what you're looking for. First came the Faith, and from Faith came sound logical facts (although none are needed). So, the answer is still both. If you don't have Faith... you will never see the facts. Seek the Faith, then seek the facts - otherwise it's like searching for a particular penny somewhere on this earth with absolutely no light. Even if you find that penny you're looking for... you won't know it.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

The Christian Faith and sound logical facts are one and the same. So the answer is both.

I know that's not what you're asking and that's not what you're looking for. First came the Faith, and from Faith came sound logical facts (although none are needed). So, the answer is still both. If you don't have Faith... you will never see the facts. Seek the Faith, then seek the facts - otherwise it's like searching for a particular penny somewhere on this earth with absolutely no light. Even if you find that penny you're looking for... you won't know it.

I agree faith came first before logic.Because if logic was there nobody would have had faith in religion.And faith actually makes you not to agree facts.Because faith and facts seldom coincide.actually facts should lead you to faith and not vice versa.Faith is an outcome,not the mean.Faith built on facts is durable.

[chrispalasz]

worship-your-mother-she-i wrote:
I agree faith came first before logic.Because if logic was there nobody would have had faith in religion.And faith actually makes you not to agree facts.Because faith and facts seldom coincide.actually facts should lead you to faith and not vice versa.Faith is an outcome,not the mean.Faith built on facts is durable.

My Faith is built up by facts. The facts only support my faith. Faith is the fact that God exists as Jesus Christ - so one fact did indeed come first. 8)

It may be true that if logic came first there may be no religion. But it is more true that if Faith had never come, there would be no logic.

[Dilettante]

Greenlight311 wrote

Evolution[...]is however, incompatible with the Christian Biblical belief that God created Adam and Eve who were the first two humans and that all humans came from Adam and Eve

I disagree. Evolution is only incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis. There are lots of Christians out there who do not confuse the Bible with a science textbook. Even John Paul II, head of the largest Christian denomination, the Catholic church, has said that evolution is good science and that it does not clash with Christian beliefs (provided that one beliefs God guided the process). Here's a quote taken from his statement:

"'Humani Generis' (an encyclical by a previous Pope)," he stated, "considered the doctrine of
'evolutionism' as a serious hypothesis, worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection on a par with the opposite hypothesis. ... Today, more than a half century after this encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize
in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence,
neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one
from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this
theory."
He continued: "The elaboration of a theory such as that of evolution,
while obeying the exigency of homogeneity with the data of observation,
borrows certain ideas from the philosophy of nature. To tell the truth, more than the theory of evolution, one must speak of the theories of evolution.
...
There are thus materialistic and reductionist readings and spiritual
readings."
"The magisterium of the Church is directly interested in the question of
evolution because this touches upon the concept of man, ... created in
the image and likeness of God. ... Pius XII underlined this essential point:
'if the origin of the human body is sought in living matter which
existed before it, the spiritual soul is directly created by God.'

In other words, an unquestionably Christian leader recognizes that evolution is a fact, even if he adds that God infused the soul into humans at a certain point in the process. Whether or not we agree with the content of his statement, it's clear that Christianity is, then, not incompatible with evolution.

As for all humans coming from Adam and Eve, I supposed God gave us all reason so that we made use of it, and reason shows this impossible. Starting from a population of only four people (three after Abel's untimely death) which supposedly were related, I don't see how human population could have prospered as it has. For one thing, who did Cain have children with? A sister? His own mother? I am repelled by the thought of God using incest as away to populate our planet.
Another thing: Genesis includes two different creation accounts which are mutually exclusive. If we decide to read the Bible literally, which one should we believe?

[bernee51]

My Faith is built up by facts. The facts only support my faith. Faith is the fact that God exists as Jesus Christ - so one fact did indeed come first.

Below are some of the definitions of the words 'fact' and 'faith' - of which I'm sure you are well aware.

They seem to me to be mutiually exclusive terms. Without 'facts' you need faith with facts there is no need of faith. What do you have - faith or facts?

Exactly what 'facts' is your 'faith' built on.

God's existence fits only with definition #4 - something which is believed to be true. An even longer bow must be drawn to surmise that Jesus=god. Now we have two beliefs making up a fact. i.e. the belief in god and the belief in Jesus.

You have demonstrate quite clearly the depth of your faith - no question. You cannot, logically, prove the fact of the existence of your god or your belief that Jesus=god without compromising your faith.

fact (noun).

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed:
3. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
4. Something believed to be true or real

faith

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

It may be true that if logic came first there may be no religion. But it is more true that if Faith had never come, there would be no logic.

Can you clarify what you mean by this. Logic is not dependent on religion.

Logic is "the study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning"

By your own definition (in the atheism thread) logic and religion are antithetic.

[samuelbb7]

[quote]Science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without ever having examined its advantages and its limits.
Paul Feyerabend --Against Method

That is a quote from a daily philosoplical board I get. But I agree with it.

There are dinosaurs and other animals found out of place all the time. There are supposed layers of older earth on top of younger earth in many places in the world. Why do they not make news. Because the people who report on them have an explanation and do not feel it necessary to disturb us with small points they can explain away.

I was read a book that was a variation of a Ripley's believe it or not. In it were facts and evidence that no explanation could be offered for. The person who wrote it was a scientist and they were saying things not told to the public. At the time I believed in evolution and just thought the book interesting. Now I wish I had it.

In the recent National Geographic on Darwin which was proevolution. The point was made that 999 out every 1000 pieces was missing from the puzzle. But it is still true when you are guessing on 999 out every 1000 parts of the doctrine of evolution,.

[youngborean]

Thanks for that samuelbb7,

I hope I can elaborate on your point of view if you don't mind. I have always thought of religion as an explanation of Noise. I mean that noise in science is the point that all people have to use faith to compensate for there worldview. Why in statistics can we never say anything with 100% confidence. The answer is noise. But where does it come from? We can never get rid of it becasue we are inherently making more of it the more we create. No instrumentation will ever be perfect becasue of it.

The explanation of noise is the point where all worldviews have to become religious. I think that the existence of noise is another point of evidence for my belief in not so much Christianity, but a basis for humility in my inability to obtain perfection through any action.

[chrispalasz]

Dilettante: I disagree. Evolution is only incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis. There are lots of Christians out there who do not confuse the Bible with a science textbook. Even John Paul II, head of the largest Christian denomination, the Catholic church, has said that evolution is good science and that it does not clash with Christian beliefs (provided that one beliefs God guided the process). Here's a quote taken from his statement:

Yikes. I think you're playing with fire here! 8)

First, John Paul II does not represent Christianity in the least. Jesus Christ does - and not a single person apart from Him does, nor does any single person alone. Catholicism is a different discussion.

And Catholic dogma is very highly heretical.

But don't misunderstand me. I have many Catholic friends (same as I have athiest friends and agnostic friends). Also, I know Catholics that are True Christians - but it's definately not due to the Catholic church!

Dilettante: In other words, an unquestionably Christian leader recognizes that evolution is a fact, even if he adds that God infused the soul into humans at a certain point in the process. Whether or not we agree with the content of his statement, it's clear that Christianity is, then, not incompatible with evolution.

Eeeek. John Paul II does not represent me... he does not represent Christianity, and he does not represent Christ!

John Paul II is no more a representitive of Christianity than President Bush is representative of the entire world. Bush may technically represent the United States, and he may be the head of the most powerful nation... but he hardly speaks for everyone on his decisions!

Now, I will say this: It may be that evolution is NOT incompatible with Christianity - BUT it is still definately incompatible with the fact that every human being is descended from Adam and Eve.

Dilettante: As for all humans coming from Adam and Eve, I supposed God gave us all reason so that we made use of it, and reason shows this impossible.

Really? Reason shows this impossible? Please provide evidence for this claim. I do not see this as impossible - so I must not have heard this reason.

Dilettante: Starting from a population of only four people (three after Abel's untimely death) which supposedly were related, I don't see how human population could have prospered as it has. For one thing, who did Cain have children with? A sister? His own mother? I am repelled by the thought of God using incest as away to populate our planet.
Another thing: Genesis includes two different creation accounts which are mutually exclusive. If we decide to read the Bible literally, which one should we believe?

First, I hope this isn't your reason that you mentioned above.

Second, in what way is this less likely or less appealing than the scientific theory of how humans came about?

Third, you are not correct in your assessment of Genesis. The two creation accounts are both included for a good reason - they portray different points. We are to believe them both. It is not necessary to choose one or the other - the purpose of each is not contradictory.