6 ms·

So basically you're saying that this "God" thingy created the world to look like it evolved and changed but this is the way it always was? Such that he planted

So basically you're saying that this "God" thingy created the world to look like it evolved and changed but this is the way it always was? Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists? Do you really believe this idea? Do you think it is worth intellectual respect? Edit: for perspective: there was a time the Catholic church rejected reason. It ended badly to Galileo and Copernicus and had very bad repercussions on the church credibility, from Spinoza to Voltaire. American Pentecostals and fundamentalist Jews and Muslims should learn that lesson: on the long run reason wins.

dragontamer 8y ago
> So basically you're saying that this "God" thingy created the world to look like it evolved and changed but this is the way it always was? Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists? There's a large number of people who believe this. Its a bit weird, because it implies that God is above lying to his followers. So as a Christian myself, who believes in Omnipotence (all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing), and Benevolence (all-loving), the viewpoint that God would explicitly lie to us is almost certainly against the 3rd peg: its anti-benevolence. Anyway, different Christians obviously have different beliefs on the matter. I am in agreement with the poster you responded to: it is an... unfortunately... mainstream belief in some Christian communities. I'm sure there are holes people can poke at my specific denomination of course. So it'd be hypocritical for me to push too much against the belief that "God is tricking us to see the true believers vs the evolutionists". But... yeah, its just not a belief I can get behind. > Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists? Generally speaking, the argument goes to look at the Old Testament, specifically the Book of Job. In the Old Testament, God tested some of his prophets with incredible tests (ie: letting the Devil kill his kids, take all of his wealth away, etc. etc). So the idea of "God is just testing us" is generally the argument that comes forth. I guess the general idea is that God can cause issues that seem big to us, but are small in the great scheme of His plans. If you want the religious background on this particular school of thought. The Book of Job has the prophet lose everything, but eventually gains greater prosperity in the end. In particular, Job deserves prosperity because even when all hope was lost, he kept his faith. Still, that fundamentally doesn't quite explain why God would particularly lie to us humans about the "evolution" issue. So I've never personally liked this particular religious argument. I find it far more likely that God would prefer us Humans to discover science and properly make discoveries and advance our culture for the good of all mankind. ------------ It comes down to Biblical Literalism. Some people believe that the Bible is literally true. That there were exactly 7 days of creation, that Methusala lived over 900 years old... that a dude named "Samson" had magical hair, etc. etc. And since Biblical Literalism is a foundational peg to those denominations, they go through great pains to prove it. Alternatively, if you're in my camp, you are open to interpreting the Bible. My denomination believes that the Bible is a collection of stories that God wants us to know about. Not necessarily that the word is literally true.
- diego_moita 8y ago
  I am very sorry, you talk like a sensible person. But the more you explain it the less respect I have for religion. American Pentecostalism sounds like a very stupid tribal superstition to me. I come from an European and Catholic background. Catholicism and the Protestant mainstream that adopted most of their Theology (e.g.: Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism) do have a deep respect for science. They learned that lesson painfully, after what they did to Copernicus and Galileo. Pentecostals are headed to serious mistakes if they think anti-reason can take them anywhere.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    Well, there are plenty of cults. So the concept of "religion being used for evil" shouldn't be alien to anybody. I think it is fair to say that some religious ideas are harmful (ie: getting together to drink cyanide, aka the Jim Jones cult / Peoples Temple) And even for the Biblical literalists: they only have to look into the Bible to see the many examples of Pagan religions, from the Golden Calf, to Pharaoh / Exodus, and more, to understand that false gods exist. So surely, they should understand the importance of "getting religion correct". So I think it is fair to call out certain religious doctrines to be "unhelpful", or even "evil", depending on the case. But I wouldn't generalize much further than that.
  - nyolfen 8y ago
    pentecostals are the fastest christian denomination in the world and have been for some time. most people barely understand what science means much less weigh it against the core of their social identity.
    - diego_moita 8y ago
      Sorry, what is your point?
      - nyolfen 8y ago
        "Pentecostals are headed to serious mistakes if they think anti-reason can take them anywhere." my point is they're doing pretty well despite you knowing better
xupybd 8y ago
That's interesting that you'd ask if it's worth intellectual respect, I don't think that is what anyone is looking for here. Most people don't believe in God because they think they've figured something out or that their intellectual pursuits have led to that conclusion. A belief in God requires belief that there are super natural forces at work, that escape scientific detection. Yes this goes against materialism and other axioms you may hold dear. But many people have experiences that lead them to believe this to be the case. I totally agree without this sort of personal experience there is no compelling reason to agree. The point is there are people like my self that are totally behind science as the best way to understand our physical reality but have been convinced there exists a God that cannot proven or described. I don't know how the pieces fit but I'm not trying to make them fit. Believing in God doesn't explain the universe for me it just adds another complex unknown.
- diego_moita 8y ago
  I can't discuss "God" because there's no objective argument I can hold about Him. But I can discuss religion and I can point when religious people behave in a stupid way. Again, this is not about God, it is about religion. Some religions (e.g. Catholicism) have learned the hard way how to show respect for reason. Many others seem to not have done that.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- gruez 8y ago
  >But many people have experiences that lead them to believe this to be the case. translation: because that's what they were told by their parents when they were young
  - xupybd 8y ago
    In most cases, perhaps. I'm a bit of an outlier, my parents do not share my beliefs and did not raise me with any belief in God. A data point of one is not enough to draw any conclusions but it is a data point.
YaxelPerez 8y ago
Usually the devil is the one that plants fossils to "lead people astray"
8note 8y ago
it's much more reasonable than alternative God based options that match aramaic scripture, imo
- diego_moita 8y ago
  Such as in "dumb is more reasonable than lunatic"?
ars 8y ago
For God, Free Will reigns supreme. Most importantly the Free Will to believe in God or not. So it's absolutely essential that the world look like it could have created itself. Because if there was evidence that God existed then free will is broken, and that is something God will not do. > and false carbon 14 decay There's nothing false about it. It's basically a backstory. Not is God lying to you. If I "save state" in a game, and then load the state later - is that state a lie? No, it's simply how the current conditions are initialized.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  > Not is God lying to you. If I "save state" in a game, and then load the state later - is that state a lie? No, it's simply how the current conditions are initialized. The fundamental question is not "did God create man". Any religious person would believe that God created Man. Period. The fundamental question is HOW did God create us. Current science suggests that we humans evolved from a species (the Homo Erectus). An animal that very much looked like us, but is slightly different. We have evidence of Homo Erectus societies, tool use, fire use, and other human-like behavior. -------- The two schools of thought are NOT Atheism vs Christianity. But between Creationism and plain-ol' Science. God can exist with science. It is far more likely that God created us, and molded us through the Homo Erectus stage some 3-million years ago. Why would God falsely create Homo Erectus bones (anti-benevolence), when it is far more likely (ie: theologically consistent with the belief in a Benevolent God) for God to want us to believe and grow in biological science and understanding of our own bodies? Homo Erectus existed. And modern Humans were born from them. Period. That doesn't change my opinion on God (or really, anyone's opnion)
esaym 8y ago
There are lots of videos on youtube about creationism. I like watching them. I find the reasoning actually pretty good. Too lazy to dig up good videos right now. But don't knock it till you try it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  The Earth is more than 4 billion years old. Look up zircon crystals: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon#Radiometric_dating https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon#Radiometric_dating

dragontamer 8y ago

> So basically you're saying that this "God" thingy created the world to look like it evolved and changed but this is the way it always was? Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists? There's a large number of people who believe this. Its a bit weird, because it implies that God is above lying to his followers. So as a Christian myself, who believes in Omnipotence (all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing), and Benevolence (all-loving), the viewpoint that God would explicitly lie to us is almost certainly against the 3rd peg: its anti-benevolence. Anyway, different Christians obviously have different beliefs on the matter. I am in agreement with the poster you responded to: it is an... unfortunately... mainstream belief in some Christian communities. I'm sure there are holes people can poke at my specific denomination of course. So it'd be hypocritical for me to push too much against the belief that "God is tricking us to see the true believers vs the evolutionists". But... yeah, its just not a belief I can get behind. > Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists? Generally speaking, the argument goes to look at the Old Testament, specifically the Book of Job. In the Old Testament, God tested some of his prophets with incredible tests (ie: letting the Devil kill his kids, take all of his wealth away, etc. etc). So the idea of "God is just testing us" is generally the argument that comes forth. I guess the general idea is that God can cause issues that seem big to us, but are small in the great scheme of His plans. If you want the religious background on this particular school of thought. The Book of Job has the prophet lose everything, but eventually gains greater prosperity in the end. In particular, Job deserves prosperity because even when all hope was lost, he kept his faith. Still, that fundamentally doesn't quite explain why God would particularly lie to us humans about the "evolution" issue. So I've never personally liked this particular religious argument. I find it far more likely that God would prefer us Humans to discover science and properly make discoveries and advance our culture for the good of all mankind. ------------ It comes down to Biblical Literalism. Some people believe that the Bible is literally true. That there were exactly 7 days of creation, that Methusala lived over 900 years old... that a dude named "Samson" had magical hair, etc. etc. And since Biblical Literalism is a foundational peg to those denominations, they go through great pains to prove it. Alternatively, if you're in my camp, you are open to interpreting the Bible. My denomination believes that the Bible is a collection of stories that God wants us to know about. Not necessarily that the word is literally true.

diego_moita 8y ago
I am very sorry, you talk like a sensible person. But the more you explain it the less respect I have for religion. American Pentecostalism sounds like a very stupid tribal superstition to me. I come from an European and Catholic background. Catholicism and the Protestant mainstream that adopted most of their Theology (e.g.: Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism) do have a deep respect for science. They learned that lesson painfully, after what they did to Copernicus and Galileo. Pentecostals are headed to serious mistakes if they think anti-reason can take them anywhere.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  Well, there are plenty of cults. So the concept of "religion being used for evil" shouldn't be alien to anybody. I think it is fair to say that some religious ideas are harmful (ie: getting together to drink cyanide, aka the Jim Jones cult / Peoples Temple) And even for the Biblical literalists: they only have to look into the Bible to see the many examples of Pagan religions, from the Golden Calf, to Pharaoh / Exodus, and more, to understand that false gods exist. So surely, they should understand the importance of "getting religion correct". So I think it is fair to call out certain religious doctrines to be "unhelpful", or even "evil", depending on the case. But I wouldn't generalize much further than that.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  pentecostals are the fastest christian denomination in the world and have been for some time. most people barely understand what science means much less weigh it against the core of their social identity.
  - diego_moita 8y ago
    Sorry, what is your point?
    - nyolfen 8y ago
      "Pentecostals are headed to serious mistakes if they think anti-reason can take them anywhere." my point is they're doing pretty well despite you knowing better

xupybd 8y ago

That's interesting that you'd ask if it's worth intellectual respect, I don't think that is what anyone is looking for here. Most people don't believe in God because they think they've figured something out or that their intellectual pursuits have led to that conclusion. A belief in God requires belief that there are super natural forces at work, that escape scientific detection. Yes this goes against materialism and other axioms you may hold dear. But many people have experiences that lead them to believe this to be the case. I totally agree without this sort of personal experience there is no compelling reason to agree. The point is there are people like my self that are totally behind science as the best way to understand our physical reality but have been convinced there exists a God that cannot proven or described. I don't know how the pieces fit but I'm not trying to make them fit. Believing in God doesn't explain the universe for me it just adds another complex unknown.

diego_moita 8y ago
I can't discuss "God" because there's no objective argument I can hold about Him. But I can discuss religion and I can point when religious people behave in a stupid way. Again, this is not about God, it is about religion. Some religions (e.g. Catholicism) have learned the hard way how to show respect for reason. Many others seem to not have done that.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
gruez 8y ago
>But many people have experiences that lead them to believe this to be the case. translation: because that's what they were told by their parents when they were young
- xupybd 8y ago
  In most cases, perhaps. I'm a bit of an outlier, my parents do not share my beliefs and did not raise me with any belief in God. A data point of one is not enough to draw any conclusions but it is a data point.

YaxelPerez 8y ago

Usually the devil is the one that plants fossils to "lead people astray"

8note 8y ago

it's much more reasonable than alternative God based options that match aramaic scripture, imo

diego_moita 8y ago
Such as in "dumb is more reasonable than lunatic"?

ars 8y ago

For God, Free Will reigns supreme. Most importantly the Free Will to believe in God or not. So it's absolutely essential that the world look like it could have created itself. Because if there was evidence that God existed then free will is broken, and that is something God will not do. > and false carbon 14 decay There's nothing false about it. It's basically a backstory. Not is God lying to you. If I "save state" in a game, and then load the state later - is that state a lie? No, it's simply how the current conditions are initialized.

dragontamer 8y ago
> Not is God lying to you. If I "save state" in a game, and then load the state later - is that state a lie? No, it's simply how the current conditions are initialized. The fundamental question is not "did God create man". Any religious person would believe that God created Man. Period. The fundamental question is HOW did God create us. Current science suggests that we humans evolved from a species (the Homo Erectus). An animal that very much looked like us, but is slightly different. We have evidence of Homo Erectus societies, tool use, fire use, and other human-like behavior. -------- The two schools of thought are NOT Atheism vs Christianity. But between Creationism and plain-ol' Science. God can exist with science. It is far more likely that God created us, and molded us through the Homo Erectus stage some 3-million years ago. Why would God falsely create Homo Erectus bones (anti-benevolence), when it is far more likely (ie: theologically consistent with the belief in a Benevolent God) for God to want us to believe and grow in biological science and understanding of our own bodies? Homo Erectus existed. And modern Humans were born from them. Period. That doesn't change my opinion on God (or really, anyone's opnion)

esaym 8y ago

There are lots of videos on youtube about creationism. I like watching them. I find the reasoning actually pretty good. Too lazy to dig up good videos right now. But don't knock it till you try it.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dwaltrip 8y ago
The Earth is more than 4 billion years old. Look up zircon crystals: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon#Radiometric_dating https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon#Radiometric_dating