Current Events > Why do people act like evolution disproves God?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The Trent posted...

you can be an intelligent designer and purposefully design a system that is not perfect or "smart"
kind of obvious?

if you mean purposely (not purposefully) no you can't. lol

---

On_The_Edge posted...

YEC and intelligent design people aren't the same though. Intelligent design people usually believe in an old earth

i'd been under the impression that YEC and intelligent design were mutually inclusive, as they are both derived from a literalist interpretation of the same text

---

The Trent posted...

you can be an intelligent designer and purposefully design a system that is not perfect or "smart"
kind of obvious?

But at that point, how do we distinguish something that wasn't designed and doesn't appear to be designed, from something designed intentionally in a way that doesn't appear designed?

Maze_ posted...

It doesn't

it just disproved literal interpretations of religious texts

God is a nebulous unfalsifiable concept that cant be proven or disproven scientifically

This is how I feel.

I just live to be the best person I can for myself and those around me, and will deal with death and any afterlife when it happens.

---

Wewillrocku posted...

if you mean purposely (not purposefully) no you can't. lol

and why not

---

The existence of donald trump disproves god
---

While I dont believe this myself, it could be said God is the guiding force behind evolution. He created life and is now allowing it to evolve independently of him or he is the one making the mutations in DNA.

---

But adding a god to evolution does nothing to explain it. You can add pixies and leprechauns and say they started the processes of evolution and it would be the same thing.

---

thrashmetal14 posted...

You can't say people are "moving the goal posts" when individual books in the bible should be analyzed differently.

But I can say the goal posts are moved when creation was assumed to be literal truth until we found evidence otherwise, and rather than discarding the creation mythos we massaged it to be still accurate all along!
---

Wewillrocku posted...

if you mean purposely (not purposefully) no you can't. lol

yes, you can. It's funny how the more scientists discover about the earth and our universe, the less we know.
What we do know however, is that it's INSANELY INSANELY likely for life to even form out of some random whammy thunder striking rocks out of a 1 gazillion of a chance of randomness and even a gazillion times unlikely of how the universe came to be. Change gravity by a miniscule amount and this whole universe would collapse. We don't even know what in the world is dark energy and dark matter which is the driving force behind our entire universe.
The very idea of how human intelligence formed is also fishy at best, with the only logical theory about us eating cooked food being kinda dumb as well.

It boils down to a simple question:
Do you seriously believe this whole universe and earth and life was born out of such pure randomness?

Is it unsicentific to attribute such unknowns to a god? of course they use the god-of-the-gaps argument but logically speaking, if our universe is deterministic (everything was known from the very get-go and the future is set in stone... which is actually indeed what scientists agree on... then surely there must be some intelligence behind this whole thing.?

Why do people act like an unprovable being with no hard evidence is real?

---

philsov posted...

But I can say the goal posts are moved when creation was assumed to be literal truth until we found evidence otherwise, and rather than discarding the creation mythos we massaged it to be still accurate all along!

most modern Christians aren't creationists if I'm not wrong. They do take books like Genesis and Noah's Flood as allegories while New Testament books are taken at heart as literal.

some notes here
'Medieval scholars believed the Old Testament to serve as an allegory of New Testament events, such as the story of Jonah and the whale, which represents Jesus' death and resurrection'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation_of_the_Bible#Middle_Ages

Wutobliteration posted...

Is it unsicentific to attribute such unknowns to a god?

Yes, the proper response to something you don't know is "I don't know". You can then try to figure out how to know.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Why do people act like an unprovable being with no hard evidence is real?

can we prove a multiverse? can we prove what lies beyond our cosmos? neither can we.

Scientists nowadays are also having to go into the deep end by disregarding falsifiability and empirical evidence to draw conclusions about the universe beyond our mere telescopes can observe.
And if so, it's kinda funny since it puts intelligent design back into the picture for consideration. The more physcists look harder, the more they have to accept a fine-tuned universe.

quote here:
Physicist Paul Davies asserts, "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life." However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because abiogenesis occurs frequently

How do you explain this fine-tuning if not an intelligent creator behind it?

Thoery #1: Aliens designed it!
Scientists: Yup! Yup! Who knows! Could be!

Theory #2: It's still all just randomness and luck we came to be! Universe doesnt allow enough chance for that? No prob, we're actually in...a MULTIVERSE!
Scientists: Yup! Yup! Who knows! Could be!

Thoery #3: God.
Scientists: NO. NO!! NO!! IMPOSSIBRU!!

I'd say the system of scientific induction and religiosity are two separate frameworks to understand the world and leave it at that. You can approach science religiously too, and that's bad.

---

https://youtu.be/mSy1NQx2bJE

---

COVxy posted...

I'd say the system of scientific induction and religiosity are two separate frameworks to understand the world and leave it at that. You can approach science religiously too, and that's bad.

that's a false dichotomy. Science and religion never had to be separated. But it's just the more we know, the more cocky we get and the less we'd like to think a god may be in control.

Humans absolutely hate what they cannot control. That much is a fact.

Wutobliteration posted...

can we prove a multiverse? can we prove what lies beyond our cosmos? neither can we.

Scientists nowadays are also having to go into the deep end by disregarding falsifiability and empirical evidence to draw conclusions about the universe beyond our mere telescopes can observe.
And if so, it's kinda funny since it puts intelligent design back into the picture for consideration

Anything that isn't proven basically doesn't exist until if and when it is. If we have to consider God, then we also have to consider infinite other deities, and infinite unproven concepts as possibly real. That's silly and would drive you mad.

---

Wutobliteration posted...

that's a false dichotomy. Science and religion never had to be separated. But it's just the more we know, the more cocky we get and the less we'd like to think a god may be in control.

Humans absolutely hate what they cannot control. That much is a fact.

Science is based on evidence based induction. Religion is based on faith. Different ways of parsing the world.

---

Wutobliteration posted...

yes, you can. It's funny how the more scientists discover about the earth and our universe, the less we know.
What we do know however, is that it's INSANELY INSANELY likely for life to even form out of some random whammy thunder striking rocks out of a 1 gazillion of a chance of randomness and even a gazillion times unlikely of how the universe came to be. Change gravity by a miniscule amount and this whole universe would collapse. We don't even know what in the world is dark energy and dark matter which is the driving force behind our entire universe.
The very idea of how human intelligence formed is also fishy at best, with the only logical theory about us eating cooked food being kinda dumb as well.

It boils down to a simple question:
Do you seriously believe this whole universe and earth and life was born out of such pure randomness?

Is it unsicentific to attribute such unknowns to a god? of course they use the god-of-the-gaps argument but logically speaking, if our universe is deterministic (everything was known from the very get-go and the future is set in stone... which is actually indeed what scientists agree on... then surely there must be some intelligence behind this whole thing.?

if it's just some intelligence, then i don't want to worship it. it's not all intelligent. obviously i could be smarter than this being. it would be ridiculous logically for me to worship something lower than i am.

i also have no idea how christians jump from the good of being alive to triune god and never will.

---

Wutobliteration posted...

most modern Christians aren't creationists if I'm not wrong. They do take books like Genesis and Noah's Flood as allegories while New Testament books are taken at heart as literal.

Only because we've disproven much of the old testament, and this is how they attempt to reconcile reality with scripture.

Medieval scholars believed the Old Testament to serve as an allegory of New Testament events, such as the story of Jonah and the whale, which represents Jesus' death and resurrection.[8] According to the Old Testament Book of Jonah, a prophet spent three days in the belly of a fish. Medieval scholars believed this was an allegory (using the typological interpretation) of Jesus' death and his being in the tomb for three days before he rose from the dead.

The book of Jonah was set in ~750 BC written in ~450 BC. How can an allegory exist before the actual event occurs?
---

philsov posted...

Only because we've disproven much of the old testament, and this is how they attempt to reconcile reality with scripture.

Medieval scholars believed the Old Testament to serve as an allegory of New Testament events, such as the story of Jonah and the whale, which represents Jesus' death and resurrection.[8] According to the Old Testament Book of Jonah, a prophet spent three days in the belly of a fish. Medieval scholars believed this was an allegory (using the typological interpretation) of Jesus' death and his being in the tomb for three days before he rose from the dead.

The book of Jonah was set in ~750 BC written in ~450 BC. How can an allegory exist before the actual event occurs?

uh what?? That's exactly the point. Christians see the Old Testament as predicting the events that later arose in the New Testament.

There is no reason I should value Christianity anymore than Greek mythology. People come up with fantastic ideas to explain what they don't know. They can be interesting to read up on, but there is absolutely nothing that gives the Abrahmic religions extra validity over other religions. Even if a deity is one day proven, who is to say any human religion got it right? It takes a lot of arrogance to assert being truth or true than others without a single shred of evidence.

inb4butscienceistreatedlikereligion

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Anything that isn't proven basically doesn't exist until if and when it is. If we have to consider God, then we also have to consider infinite other deities, and infinite unproven concepts as possibly real. That's silly and would drive you mad.

God =/= Religion
God =/= Religion
God =/= Religion

repeat this 100x until it gets stuck in your head. The possibility of existence of a god (intervening god or non-interventionist god) does NOT need to have anything to do with the various faiths and religions humans subscribe to today. This is the problem many people have today. The moment they think of god, they think of religion and the moment they think of religion, all the negativity comes out into their heads.
Someone can believe in the existence of a deity but not believe any religion. Ever heard of a deist? Charles Darwin was one.

Scientists looking from a purely objective view also consider this. Stephen Hawking wrote about his consideration of a god as well in his book The Grand Design iirc

The existence of an unexplained phenomena does not indicate presence of a god (in other words, correlation does not equal causation). That's a very old argument: "If god isn't real then explain gravity!" Of course, by the same logic you can not disprove the intelligent design theory, but thats as much an argument against it than for it.

Atheist get so vehemently against the belief of a God that they too sound like a religion, lmao
---

Solid_Seb posted...

The existence of an unexplained phenomena does not indicate presence of a god (in other words, correlation does not equal causation). That's a very old argument: "If god isn't real then explain gravity!" Of course, by the same logic you can not disprove the intelligent design theory, but thats as much an argument against it than for it.

A fine-tuned universe IS an understood phenomena. Scientists KNOW the universe is fine-tuned. If so, then there has to be cause behind it. This is one of the biggest most controversial conundrums of all that scientists would rather whitewash away with excuses like anthropic reasoning and a multiverse

Religion means a belief in God. We should not believe in something not proven. We really just shouldn't believe, period. Either we know something or its explanation does not yet exist.

---

Wutobliteration posted...

Christians see the Old Testament as predicting the events that later arose in the New Testament.

If Jonah and the whale was an actual event, then it is not a metaphor in the same vein as Creation.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Religion means a belief in God. We should not believe in something not proven. We really just shouldn't believe, period. Either we know something or its explanation does not yet exist.

there's some things out there that we can probably never ever prove an explanation for. But we do have a inking to believe in a possibility of the existence. So that doesn't mean you can disbelieve it either. Because disbelieving it means having a belief as well.

this is a logical fallacy as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

A fully logical person takes an agnostism stance, not an athiest stance

It's a pretty simple matter of understanding extrapolation.

They do a few tests, see how things tend to change over time, and extrapolate out a lot of things about the planet's history, and there's nothing wrong with that. You know, the ball is here now, it was there a minute ago, so it must have been over there ten minutes ago.

But you gotta understand that extrapolation is more like an educated guess. Maybe there's a wall we can't see that the ball bounced off of. Maybe its evidently linear trajectory was derived from too small a sample space to account for small coefficients on the other polynomial degrees. Maybe the universe itself came into existence three minutes ago with the ball having the particular initial velocity we have observed.

There's nothing wrong with making a best guess that ignores these kinds of possibilities, but it's silly to just assert as unarguably true that since we haven't seen them they didn't happen.

---

Evolution doesn't disprove God, but it does indicate that there's really no need for him outside of the gaps he's so fond of hiding in.
---

Wutobliteration posted...

there's some things out there that we can probably never ever prove an explanation for. But we do have a inking to believe in a possibility of the existence. So that doesn't mean you can disbelieve it either. Because disbelieving it means having a belief as well.

this is a logical fallacy as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

A fully logical person takes an agnostism stance, not an athiest stance

Again, I am not saying anything can't exist. Literally anything is possible, but it essentially does not exist until it does. The entire human race would go extinct before anyone could lay out a truly agnostic belief. Agnostic atheism is far more efficient. Without evidence, God is no more or less likely than infinite other possibilities, but I only see people screaming about agnosticism and keeping an open mind when it comes to God..

---

philsov posted...

If Jonah and the whale was an actual event, then it is not a metaphor in the same vein as Creation.

It probably was a real event... Jonah probably went off into the wilderness and ate some kind of hallucinatory mushroom or plant and tripped his testicles off for a few days and the whole whale thing was in his head and then he came back and told the story as if it had been real and people believed him.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

But doesn't it suck? The knowledge that your consciousness is only bound by the mortal coil and death brings a flat end to your mind?

Immensely. I've wished at times that rather than having a father who was an atheist I was allowed to believe something comforting, regardless of if it was true. But it sucking doesn't change if it's true or not.

---

Wutobliteration posted...

what's interesting though about the Abrahamic religions is that they're all centered on historical figures and events that did happen and did exist. Jesus and his disciples, Paul founding the early church... all these people DID exist. No reputable scholar denies this. And since so, the question to ask is why did they do what they did? The early Christians were heavily being prosecuted. They had no reason to advance their religion if it's all fake. A lot of the new testament are accurately written in its context of time.
I guess an athiest could pull back to the roots and ask, who exactly was Jesus really and why did he do what he did? Why would he tie back to the Old Testament for (which is the part of that is what's most contentious to many)?

A lot of Derpstians seem to think this is a good argument. "Some people some time believed in the religious stuff they spewed even though it would seem there is no benefit in a scam. Therefore the religion is real"

It's such an absurd suggestion you just know the people using it as an argument has never even considered "maybe the same thing has happened in other religions?". Which, of course it did. Most if not all religions' history has a sea of martyr histories in their early days. Nevermind that I've never actually seen any atheist suggesting that Paul et. al were scammers rather than devout people who believed in a dumbo thing.

Edit: Nvm, judging by the dude's other posts he is (most likely pretending to be) a creationist, poorly paraphrasing the idiocy of Answers in Genesis, making shit up, and using wikipedia articles that flat out state that their neutrality are questioned at top as his only supporting source (that I had to look up myself).
---

Wutobliteration posted...

yes, you can. It's funny how the more scientists discover about the earth and our universe, the less we know.
What we do know however, is that it's INSANELY INSANELY likely for life to even form out of some random whammy thunder striking rocks out of a 1 gazillion of a chance of randomness and even a gazillion times unlikely of how the universe came to be. Change gravity by a miniscule amount and this whole universe would collapse. We don't even know what in the world is dark energy and dark matter which is the driving force behind our entire universe.
The very idea of how human intelligence formed is also fishy at best, with the only logical theory about us eating cooked food being kinda dumb as well.

It boils down to a simple question:
Do you seriously believe this whole universe and earth and life was born out of such pure randomness?

Is it unsicentific to attribute such unknowns to a god? of course they use the god-of-the-gaps argument but logically speaking, if our universe is deterministic (everything was known from the very get-go and the future is set in stone... which is actually indeed what scientists agree on... then surely there must be some intelligence behind this whole thing.?

There are a couple things the "unlikely" argument doesn't take into account.

1) We were not inevitable, the odds to us specifically don't need to be taken into account, just the odds that any form of life, even ones that cannot exist as the world is now might have come into being.

2) The amount of time it took for this to happen is staggering. If you thought about the longest amount of time you can possibly imagine the amount of time it actually took is longer. It's not like the universe looked behind three bushes and found life behind the third one.

The science behind it says that with enough time life isn't just not unlikely, it's inevitable.

---

MyMainAccount posted...

Immensely. I've wished at times that rather than having a father who was an atheist I was allowed to believe something comforting, regardless of if it was true. But it sucking doesn't change if it's true or not.

I'd be terrified even if I believed in the Christian God because that would mean I'd likely burn in Hell forever. Even if I didn't, eternity might still scare me more than oblivion. If I don't die suddenly, I will probably go insane in my final days.

---

I can't imagine anyone actually believes they are headed for hell. I feel sorry for someone who does; most people do an excellent job of rationalizing their behavior on a day to day basis. Hell is for sinners sure, but they've gone to church and when they did something wrong, they had a reason, God will understand. Hell is for the real evil people, like Hitler.

---

MyMainAccount posted...

I can't imagine anyone actually believes they are headed for hell.

Not dealt with many old Catholics?

---

Never knew they conflicted tbh

---

Machete posted...

It probably was a real event... Jonah probably went off into the wilderness and ate some kind of hallucinatory mushroom or plant and tripped his testicles off for a few days and the whole whale thing was in his head and then he came back and told the story as if it had been real and people believed him.

I find it far more difficult to believe that the book of Jonah is written based on his own testamony than to believe a dag gadol swallowed him and puked him up, tbh.

It's pretty unflattering. It paints Jonah as a petty, self-righteous ingrate who insists God is a jerk for not being evil and insults God with his own words on being loving and forgiving, and even ends when God asks him a question he can't answer, which serves as the moral of the story.

It would be like seeing one of those moderation complaint topics that says "so I blatantly broke the ToU, disrespected the mods in the dispute, then whined about times when people I don't like have gotten their moderations overturned, and finally they pointed me to the exact spot in the ToU that describes the rule I broke and they were totally right."

---

Deadpool_18 posted...

Plenty of logic disproves most Abrahamic religions.

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

A lot of Derpstians seem to think this is a good argument. "Some people some time believed in the religious stuff they spewed even though it would seem there is no benefit in a scam. Therefore the religion is real"

It's such an absurd suggestion you just know the people using it as an argument has never even considered "maybe the same thing has happened in other religions?". Which, of course it did. Most if not all religions' history has a sea of martyr histories in their early days. Nevermind that I've never actually seen any atheist suggesting that Paul et. al were scammers rather than devout people who believed in a dumbo thing.

Edit: Nvm, judging by the dude's other posts he is (most likely pretending to be) a creationist, poorly paraphrasing the idiocy of Answers in Genesis, making shit up, and using wikipedia articles that flat out state that their neutrality are questioned at top as his only supporting source (that I had to look up myself).

tell me in what sense are they scammers for? You clearly know nothing about the early church. These people risked their lives to care for others. Not for any profit. Paul himself was a persecutor of Christians until he went 180 and became a Christians himself. Tell me for WHAT reason at all did he have to change and take the hard life of a Christian?

No, more of a deist but it's not like you've even heard the term let alone considered it. It seems far more convenient for you to label everyone that mentions the word 'god' as no, not even a Christian or Catholic, but a creationist, since so it sounds more mocking and makes you feel more fulfilled at your self-perceived self-informed status.

I respect atheistic scholars or just anyone in general who has taken the effort to review the knowledge of a religion they disagree with than just openly mocking it without respect and with sheer ignorance of the subject they're talking about. People like you specifically.

MyMainAccount posted...

There are a couple things the "unlikely" argument doesn't take into account.

1) We were not inevitable, the odds to us specifically don't need to be taken into account, just the odds that any form of life, even ones that cannot exist as the world is now might have come into being.

2) The amount of time it took for this to happen is staggering. If you thought about the longest amount of time you can possibly imagine the amount of time it actually took is longer. It's not like the universe looked behind three bushes and found life behind the third one.

The science behind it says that with enough time life isn't just not unlikely, it's inevitable.

If you want to get into an argument of time, then we can go back full circle by questioning what came before.
secondly, it's not so much a question of when, but a question of why.

If life is truly that meaningless and random and purely probabilistic, please give me your best theory on the Fermi Paradox then.

Exactly, its merely the answer to how.

DevsChum posted...

I find it far more difficult to believe that the book of Jonah is written based on his own testamony than to believe a dag gadol swallowed him and puked him up, tbh.

It's pretty unflattering. It paints Jonah as a petty, self-righteous ingrate who insists God is a jerk for not being evil and insults God with his own words on being loving and forgiving, and even ends when God asks him a question he can't answer, which serves as the moral of the story.

It would be like seeing one of those moderation complaint topics that says "so I blatantly broke the ToU, disrespected the mods in the dispute, then whined about times when people I don't like have gotten their moderations overturned, and finally they pointed me to the exact spot in the ToU that describes the rule I broke and they were totally right."

This is the case with most books in the bible.

Moses writes himself as a coward who didn't want to go save his people and who got upset and got punished for it.

The apostles in the NT are constantly shown as not understanding Jesus and being unbelieiving and this isn't even taking into account when Peter denied Jesus and the other apostles hid during the crucifixion.
Like Jesus says "i gotta die" and Peter goes "no, shut up" and Jesus calls Peter Satan.

Quite unflattering.

MudKip_Master posted...

Exactly, its merely the answer to how.

It's not even that.
We actually don't even know most questions of the in-between, when, what and how either. Let alone why (unless you deem that just a human concept requiring no explanation)

A lot of media has somehow convinced people that we know everything and the Big Bang came from cosmic inflation yet it's been so widely spread that all these have become a cemented fact to us when it IS NOT.

Most of the stuff in astrophysics are simply out of extreme extrapolation and can never be tested, nor falsified. We're literally believing in scientific theories just to comfort ourselves from an excuse of the unknown.

DeadBankerDream posted...

Nevermind that I've never actually seen any atheist suggesting that Paul et. al were scammers

Wutobliteration posted...

tell me in what sense are they scammers for?

?????????

DeadBankerDream posted...

he is (most likely pretending to be) a creationist

Wutobliteration posted...

It seems far more convenient for you to label everyone that mentions the word 'god' as no, not even a Christian or Catholic, but a creationist

I'm clearly not labelling you as a creationist. But if I were it would be because of your parroting of creationist arguments rather than to make you look stupid. You parroting creationist arguments does that well on its own.

Edit: Also your constant misunderstanding of scientific notions, like the big bang resulting from cosmic inflation, when it was the source of it. This type of language of pretending to understand science while having no clue about it is another creationist hallmark.
---