@ otto

Not ignoring you really, I was just wondering if you could back up any of the assertions you made. A little sleepy actually. I was tempted to quote the stories side by side, but what the heck. You're the one making the assertion, you back it up.

One Scripture reference for the Temptation is Matthew 4:1-11
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A1-11&version=NIV

and the Enlightenment of Bhudda can be found here

http://buddhism.about.com/od/lifeofthebuddha/a/buddhalife.htm


I've read them, they don't look that similar to me. Perhaps you could show where I was fooled? ;-)

This is starting to look dogmatic on your part though. I'm giving you reasonable evidence to show that you might have a problem and you're responding with name calling and the multiple reassertions with nothing to back them up. I figured I'd give you the stories and give another chance to bring something to the party.

Good night

** might have a problem defending your position that is** sorry like I said ...tired .....g'night

Maybe you should break it down into paragraphs? It gets rather jejune half-way through the one and only one.

Sorry, about the confusion (I'm assuming it was me). What was the confusion the website addresses?

ottovanbis said: "We're getting off track again, so are we done with this thread. Case closed? Is there a consensus that "balance is best in all things" as Homer says, that's what I seem to be getting here. It seems we never got into the heart of the issue though. Only recently has creationism been mentioned, and the nature of it hasn't been discussed in depth. "

@ottovanbis, what would you like to discuss? I thought we found only a couple of pro-Creationism/anti-Evolution believers - and they've left the thread apparently. I think what we came to - between those who remained - was that those who believe in God here predominantly believe in evolution as being God's tool to create with - and admit that they cannot prove God exists in a typical evidentiary way... and those who don't believe admit that they can't disprove the existence of a God. Aren't we at a sort of friendly impasse?

Impasse, consensus, it would seem so... however, if you're trying to prove something, ie if you make an assumption, don't you have the burden of proof? Atheists don't need to disprove the existence of God, which is impossible, whereas theists with their theory of God have something that they have not proved beyond a doubt. If they believe in evolution as God's tool to create with then it logically follows that they don't follow that silly old testament creationist, whichever of the two they adhere to, stuff.

Impasse, consensus, it would seem so... however, if you're trying to prove something, ie if you make an assumption, don't you have the burden of proof? Atheists don't need to disprove the existence of God, which is impossible, whereas theists with their theory of God have something that they have not proved beyond a doubt. If they believe in evolution as God's tool to create with then it logically follows that they don't follow that silly old testament creationist, whichever of the two they adhere to, stuff. Here, we drift from organized religion (ie Christianity and Judaism) to Deism.

oops, double post

@ otto

Nobody is trying to use evolution to prove or disprove God's existence. God's existence hasn't been a factor in this discussion at all, it's been solely about the theory of evolution being completely compatible with conventional religious belief. Which it is. (Okay and your spurious and somewhat comical notion about Christ being a copy of Siddhartha Guatama).

As Gould says "Science simply cannot affirm or deny outside actors (God)". Your attempted retreat to the existence question is a silly one, as it was never the question to begin with. I believe in God's existence; you don't, period. Neither of us is doing so as a result of science, which is neutral. For either of us to try to speak from the perspective of science affirming our position is to invite Gould to bring in Mrs. McInnerny (Gould's 3rd grade teacher) to wrap our knuckles.

And we're back to deism (an apparent attempt to scare a Creationist into speaking I guess). Right so if we're drifting to deism then we have such notable deists as Pope John Paul II and St. Augustine. The debate between literalists and non-literalists didn't just pop us in the last 150 years. It's been going on for centuries, and it does not mean that taking a non-literal approach to certain stories (Job for instance) makes us believe in a cold, impartial deity that does not interract in our lives.

Placing the burden of proof on the theists seems to contain within it a tacit assumption that there is no God. So far nobody has proved to your satisfaction that God exists but nor, as you admit, have you proved to your satisfaction that He does not. Fair enough. Neither side need feel that they are acting illogically by believing what they do.
As far as creationism goes (and by that I mean the belief that the Universe was created by a supreme being in six days followed by a day's rest) the postulated Last Thursdayism showed how difficult it would be to prove that this didn't happen (and equally difficult to prove that it had - how would you ever know unless the supreme being - let's call Him God for short - showed you).
As far as Genesis 1 and 2 are concerned I think there is fairly clear historical evidence (Last Thursdayism aside) that they were written some time ago by people who had a less clear view of the Universe was like than we do now (pre Hubble telescope, for sure). I wonder what Genesis 1 and 2 would have looked like if Moses had said unto the Lord "Lord, show me how you made the Universe" and the Lord had spoken in truth "You will not understand, my son, let us concentrate on these commandments, I'm not sure about number 6" but Moses had pestered him until at last the Lord spoke and said "Ok, I'll show you, but I warn you it gets a bit confusing." And then the Lord showed Moses the Big Bang and the formation of the solar system and the movement of continents on the earth's surface and the settling down of the atmosphere, the dawn of life and the evolution of higher life forms. And Moses said "Erm, can we go through that again, I think I missed a bit." And the Lord said "No, we really have to work on this list of stuff you're not allowed to covet. Are you sure people covet each others' asses?" And when Moses returned to the Israelites and had done with shouting at them about the calf and breaking the tablets of stone and then making new ones he told Aaron what he had seen and Aaron said "Well, I never. Are you sure about the timing, six days seems awfully fast" and Moses said "God said that he had to fast forward through some of it otherwise we'd have been up there forever, I dunno, can't I just say it was like a day when I was watching it. I'm pretty sure I've got some of the details wrong anyway - there was loads of it." and Aaron said "Ok, if it stops everyone asking all the time, I guess it's better than nothing but next time God gives you a unique insight into the workings of creation take notes or something alright?"
I think we'd end up with something pretty similar to the creation story.

As for a slip into Deism. Here's organised religion for you: Nicene creed.
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
That's the 2000 Anglican version but what all the variations have in common is a failure to consider the discussion of evolution as a drift away from the core beliefs.
"Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen."
Nobody claiming the Christian faith in this thread has argued against that so far (although I imagine someone will in two or three posts time if only to prove me wrong)

I guess I don't see where God can't be the maker of "all that is seen and unseen" using evolution as his tool... I fail to see that God as Creator and evolution are mutually exclusive. Nothing says creation has to be instantaneous. I've created some really cool (and some not so cool) programs in my time, but they didn'tjust "pop" into being, springing fully formed and bug free from my head like Athena from Zeus.

@ Parallelopiped

Lol

I had the same idea but as potential comic strip:

God speaking from on high to Moses (God not pictured).

Frames one through three, God is explaining the Big Bang theory. Moses' expression gets more and more perplexed.

A frame of silence

Last frame:

God says "Okay look, One the first day I said let there be light"

With Moses enthusiatically nodding head and smiling.

@Draugnar - indeed. I agree.
@Crazy Anglican - I draw very badly: all my ideas end up as text

I love it. you could start with the standard E=mc^2, then move onto Maxwell's Equation for light and the third being the critical mass formula. Damn, that would be a good one for XKCD to do as a comic inside a comic...

You could also include Schrödinger's cat. You've got to have animals...

@Parallelopiped (which is still the best name on the site)

You are right in that we cannot *prove* the non-existance of God (you cannot prove non-existance). I don't expect anyone to *prove* His existance, either. If that was possible, we would all be Christians (or Muslims, or whoever has it right). What is reasonable (I think) is that if you posit the existance of something, you should provide some evidence (not anecdote) of that entities existance. (This is why the Flying Spaghetti monster is a useless analogy btw).

The debate hinges on what counts as evidence for people

Agreed. I tried to make that point earlier. As I understand it the main evidence for the Christian story is an individual's experience of a relationship with the living Jesus and that this is available to all who make themselves open to it (I think the language varies a bit but the concept seems to be pretty common). Sadly it's difficult to convince anyone of this unless they are open to it (whatever that means). The analogy would be "I don't believe your friend Bob exists" "Come and see him, he's in the pub right now." "I'm not going to the pub just to meet one of your friends who doesn't exist anyway".
The tricksy bit is always going to be what a relationship with someone who is not here physically is like and what it means to be open to him.
My new slogan:
It's difficult to claim there is no Bob until you've at least been down to the pub.

http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/heavenly-father-s-plan-of-happiness/heavenly-father-s-plan-of-happiness

Is that meant to be a reasoned contribution to the argument Beetle or are you supplying a reference for an argument further up the forum? Either way I think you need to supply a little of your own text to illuminate the, no doubt enlightened, teachings of the Reverend Interweb

But if I went to the pub, not only would I see Bob, but so would everyone else in the pub. And if the pub is the entirty of existance, Bob should be clear for all to see. As it is, Bob appears to have gone to the gents at the very least :)

Also, the analogy is flawed, because it implies you are only rejecting Bob, not other friends. In the analogy, I would reject the existance of any of your friends.

Plus, Bob could always come and visit me, I only live down the road....

Anyway, I've been to the pub, and did so regularly. I don't like the pub now, and Bob wasn't there anyway...

The problem is that science usually minds its own business, whereas religion loves interfering with science. The whole idea of God not being incompatible with scienctific theories should be first explained to believers.

Believers and Dawkins. Agreed.
I'm sorry you didn't find Bob at the pub. Anyone who has been to the pub looking for him and hasn't found him has every right to feel that he might not exist (I'm sure he was in the beer garden or possibly less bearded than I'd led you to believe but I can see where you're coming from). Bob could come and visit you - might still - my point is not that you can only meet Bob in the pub but that someone (else) who refuses to accept his existence and won't come to the pub with me is being unreasonable.

My link above is a good message on the meaning of life. It isn't in response to a specific comment here.

But the following comment is a follow up on Parallelopiped's mention of the Nicene creed:

I agree that the Nicene creed is messed up. After the apostles and prophets were killed (and none were called of God to replace them), the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel slowly changed by men (intentionally or unintentionally) who did NOT receive revelation from God. Christianity had lost the pure truth of Christ's gospel long before the religious experts of the day voted on the nature of God at Nicea. Ever since prophets and apostles were taken from the earth, Christianity has been struggling to find truth in the dark without a flashlight. Only revelation from God can illuminate and re-establish the original doctrines of Christ's church as he originally taught them.

Erm.
I think the Nicene creed is great.
Not relevant, just setting the record straight.
I think maybe we should start another thread for this particular can of worms but here goes...
It's not at all clear that none were called of God to replace the apostles and prophets.
It's not at all clear that some of the church leaders over the centuries have not received revelation from God.
It's not at all clear that Christianity had lost any of the "pure truth" of Christ's gospel between Calvary and Nicea.
Just saying

@ Corwin

Since science and religion are both searching for truth, once they have found it, they should always agree. God is bound by the laws of physics just like you and I. However, his understanding of the laws of physics is perfect. Ours is not.

Is God then not omnipotent Beetle?
I think through this thread we have used the word "God" to mean (broadly) a shortcut for "All powerful supreme and generally well intentioned being". If you're going to start using it differently then we've got a whole new conversation.

If Genesis was written by God, but allegorical, it would be symbolic for the truth - a simplified version for us to understand, presumably?... there wouldn't be any actual mistakes, right? As it is, there are mistakes in Genesis I - numerous ones where things are made out of order: Livestock being made before Man, for example... birds (on Day 5) before wild animals and creatures that crawl (Day 6) - when clearly birds were a later arrival... Seed bearing plants and trees that bear fruit, vegetation and creation of the land and sea on Earth (on Day 3) before the Sun, Moon and Stars (on Day 4) - clearly also out of order... day and night (on Day 1) before there was a Sun or stars (Day 4) - also out of order. There's more, but you get the idea. God making it simple for us is one thing... but there would no reason to insert errors into it that would be so simply be correctable (and no harder for Moses or whoever to understand). Clearly Genesis cannot be the exact words of God even if it was only allegorical. (unless God is fallible and sloppy... which, he can't be if we are to trust other parts of the bible) So, the only reasonable conclusion is that it was written by a man - based on best guesses. Further, the differences between Genesis I and II support this, obviously. So, we have a collection of books (the Bible) carefully gathered and selected for truthfulness that includes untruth - fiction. I could also get into how other parts of the Bible are internally contradictory (such as between the synoptic gospels and John, for example) where we have no other scientific or historical records to compare them to and we'd find out that again the Bible contains fiction (whether intended or not) written by man (because God wouldn't do that).

Once you show that there is error (not just simplification, but error) in the Bible, the whole inerrancy argument goes out the window. And once you show the document to be untrustworthy, how are you to believe without doubt any other parts in it that have not been verified by external sources? You can believe what you want (or feel emotionally to be correct) - but what you believe, as far as backup - as far as the Bible, is based on a foundation of air (of error). The Bible is an unreliable source. I'm not sure how the Bible can have "binding authority" when it is shown to be unreliable. That is not to say that nothing in it is true... but then you are reduced to picking and choosing.

Back to Genesis and Creationism... Once the story has been shown to be incorrect and not written by God, what gives us reason to believe any part of it without outside verification? We might be tempted to keep the "Let there be light" part about how God created the universe... but what reason are we basing that on? We have already realized that the document is unreliable... so, we are actually in the position of the writer of Genesis... we are choosing to believe what sounds right to us... with no authority. Our views are bound to be flawed - just as the views of the writer of Genesis was... ...and the "Let there be Light" part was the biggest hand wave of them all... it contains no history, no eye-witness account, and, based on the proven fiction of Genesis, is not the direct word of God. So really, all we are left with, is the faith or feeling of the writer.

As a philosophical concept, I can understand and respect the thought that "thought preceded substance"... no proof either way. But I don't think that you can go to the Bible as a support (due to its unreliability) - you must arrive there (or wherever) on your own.

@BB I like that way of thinking.

If you imagine what someone from medieval times would think if they saw someone driving a car, while talking on a cellphone, with kids watching TV in the back seat--they'd certainly think we were Gods. The vast gap in knowledge would make it impossible to explain everything to them. As Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."