Is God an inevitable consequence of our evolutionary history? Believing in God (any god) was useful during our evolutionary history. Belief gave (and still gives) people an advantage at the worst times: hope.
Do you agree ? What is your opinion?
Yes, finally someone on the forums who thinks the same as me, (I've been saying this for a very long time here 
).
So, in the beginning there were many things that the humans not could explain like fire, animals, etc. so they gave those things a 'spirit' and that evoluted to Gods, until some people said all those Gods are the same = One True God (I could spent much more words on this but the short version is also good). | Roald wrote: |
Yes, finally someone on the forums who thinks the same as me, (I've been saying this for a very long time here ).
So, in the beginning there were many things that the humans not could explain like fire, animals, etc. so they gave those things a 'spirit' and that evoluted to Gods, until some people said all those Gods are the same = One True God (I could spent much more words on this but the short version is also good). |
I think that you didn't understand my question (although you have a point). I mean evolutionary history as in theory of evolution not evolution of the concept of God. Believing in god created an early advantage over people that did not believe. People who believed lived longer and procreated. What's that advantage ? Hope.It didn't give them any advantage, people just didn't have any other explanations so people latched on to the ideas of spirits than gods then God.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| It didn't give them any advantage, people just didn't have any other explanations so people latched on to the ideas of spirits than gods then God. |
Perhaps you're right. But why most people believes in god today ? There certainly are scientific explanations for almost everything.Rather,
Is god a consequence of man's imagination, or is man a consequence of God's imagination.
Who created who?
I think man created God to explain the mysterious.
| sarapicoazul wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | It didn't give them any advantage, people just didn't have any other explanations so people latched on to the ideas of spirits than gods then God. |
Perhaps you're right. But why most people believes in god today ? There certainly are scientific explanations for almost everything. |
Most people won't to know how it all started, some more than others, some find it interesting but not important, a few don't care but most won;t to know so in ancient times they chose to believe in whatever religion, they then taught it to there children who then believed it and there were more who wonted to know then didn't care or were not interested so religion spread and became mainstream and ofter so many generations, the vast majority believed in whatever religion.Well, people have always a hang to mysteries (Gothics, games) so they believe in God because they can't explain it.
That would also make sense as modern religions no longer attempt to desribe fire, etc, but rather things we can't know about, the afterlife, and whatnot.
If this is all hocus pocus to you, all fake, and all wrong - and if you say our society knows there is "no proof of God", then why are tehre 2 billion Christians, 1 million Muslims, and many more people of different faiths?
Why do 69,000 people (or more) accept Christ daily?
If it's so "wrong" and so "non-existent" and it's so plain to see that, why do we still believe? Because internally, we have faith. In a way, you could look at it as God elects people into Heaven. It's a strange concept I could explain better, but perhaps not now.
Why for so long did people have faith in gods of fire, water, the sky, love and so on, far more gods than was needed to explain the universe? Why did people fallow David Coresh, Jim Jones, Heavens Hate, Order of the Solar Temple, Hitler, Lenin, Charles Manson, Bin Ladin?
Faith is bad.
| sarapicoazul wrote: |
Perhaps you're right. But why most people believes in god today ? There certainly are scientific explanations for almost everything. |
Its because 'almost everything'. SimpLic1ty ...It's very hard to accept that people including yourself die, it is stop existing. A god gives a life after death and people believing in a god aren't that afraid to die anymore. This might have caused some advantage indeed.
By the way, there are parts of our brains that, when stimulated, generate mystical/religious experiences.
What ig GOD not exist!!!!!
Yes it may be possible, but if all that we are living is just a kind of MATRIX...????
Yes!, we can be inside a BIG MATRIX (Why not?)...Think about this
For example a Deja Vu may be a "System Reset" of Matrix or something like this...Interesting??
Well that`s all, thankk you for your time...
Bye 
Until death itself is solved, there will always be a need for people to believe in some kind of g(G)od to provide hope and/or explanations. That is why, even after many things we used to use God to explain has been also explained by science or something else, the concept is still alive and well today.
People want to put lables on stuff especially when they dont understand something, they just have to know the reason so they made a god in there mind. without this believe people would probably have feared a lot more stuff and did not look it in other ways so without there god people might not have tried to research things.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| If this is all hocus pocus to you, all fake, and all wrong - and if you say our society knows there is "no proof of God", then why are tehre 2 billion Christians, 1 million Muslims, and many more people of different faiths? |
Exactly my point !
| Bondings wrote: |
It's very hard to accept that people including yourself die, it is stop existing. A god gives a life after death and people believing in a god aren't that afraid to die anymore. This might have caused some advantage indeed.
By the way, there are parts of our brains that, when stimulated, generate mystical/religious experiences. |
I absolutely agree ! Taking the subject even further i ask you: what if faith resides in our genes and evolved side by side with self-conscienceness ? Is faith simply a by-product of our minds or a necessity dictated by the fact that we are self-conscienceness beings? | The Conspirator wrote: |
Why did people fallow David Coresh, Jim Jones, Heavens Hate, Order of the Solar Temple, Hitler, Lenin, Charles Manson, Bin Ladin?
Faith is bad. |
However, many of those people in your list also used science/technology to rule of their followers. So by your same logic, science and technology are also bad. In reality, neither science, technology, nor faith have any moral or ethical ramifications. Faith for some people causes them to kill people, faith for others leads them to work in orphanages or poverty stricken countries and save lives.
As well, everyone has faith in something. From what I can tell from your posts, you have faith in science (I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but it's not). You say that science has proven natural selection and evolution, thereby making 'God' no longer 'necessary.' However, science really has just shown that evolution is a possible explanation, and honestly, God is still a possible explanation as well, because both evolution and creationism both fit some scientific facts and seem to clash with others. Both sides must take things on faith, believing that eventually all will be explained, either by God in heaven or science on earth. | Vidollo wrote: |
| As well, everyone has faith in something. |
I agree, that's why i have omited the word "god" in my last post.
| Vidollo wrote: |
| God is still a possible explanation as well, because both evolution and creationism both fit some scientific facts and seem to clash with others. Both sides must take things on faith, believing that eventually all will be explained, either by God in heaven or science on earth. |
You are totally wrong, sorry. Creationism does not fit any scientific facts. Evolution does not take anything on faith only scientific methodology. Creationism is not a scientific theory and i am a devoted christian. Believing in creationism is the same as believing the earth is flat.Faith in and of itself is not bad. Faith without doubt is bad. Zealots who mislead and brainwash people into only knowing what they are fed is what makes those on the outside see faith as bad. Religions are not bad as a guide, a tool to help people live a better life, an ideal. But when they are used like they have been by every major reliegon, they get contorted and turned into something hideous, like a means or reason to kill someone else. Faith is best in small doses, but at it's core it is good.
The greatest supporting evidence for the big bang is the cosmic microwave radiation present throughout the entire universe. Scientists cite this as support because it suggests with virtual certainty (nothing else we know of fits this pattern) that the universe came into existence in an instant. However, this fits both the big bang, and creationism.
You said that creationism is not a scientific theory. My guess, correct me if I am wrong, is that you said this because creationism doesn't fit the scientific method (specifically, the steps of observation and experiment). However, neither does evolution. By virtue of no one alive having been there at the beginning of the universe, all we can observe are the 'leftovers' like microwave radiation. And the unfortunate part is that we will never be able to perform an experiment to test for God, or to determine for sure how the universe came into existence.
Perhaps another question should be answered before this discussion is continued. Why must religion and science be separated in study? Both are striving to understand the universe and life. They are simply coming at it from different perspectives, and positive progress is only made when the two work together. The world wars (eg. mustard gas, biological warfare) are examples of what happens when science moves on without religion to guide it, and the belief in a flat earth is how far people get with only religion and no science to verify it.
| Vidollo wrote: |
| You said that creationism is not a scientific theory. My guess, correct me if I am wrong, is that you said this because creationism doesn't fit the scientific method (specifically, the steps of observation and experiment). However, neither does evolution. By virtue of no one alive having been there at the beginning of the universe, all we can observe are the 'leftovers' like microwave radiation. And the unfortunate part is that we will never be able to perform an experiment to test for God, or to determine for sure how the universe came into existence. |
I was only talking about evolution of life not the beginning of universe. Nevertheless the big bang theories do fit scientific facts (not all, of course) and relies solely on scientific method.
| Vidollo wrote: |
| Perhaps another question should be answered before this discussion is continued. Why must religion and science be separated in study? Both are striving to understand the universe and life. They are simply coming at it from different perspectives, and positive progress is only made when the two work together. |
Religion can not evolve with scientific discovery. Religion gives us good values to orient our lives in the good direction (not all religions do that unfornately). Gives us hope in worst times. Religion is about morals, ethics, ideals, good standards. Religions should not try to explain the origin of the world. They do not have that capacity. God is far greater than all the theories of the origin of the world.I can easily imagine that a group of people who had more ideas in common would perhaps do better on average at staying together and working together for their common good; and that could have given some practical advantages over less cohesive groups. This could have given enough advantage to have delivered better survival rates and hence it could be argued that there would be some evolutionary advantages in a society with a larger body of shared beliefs. So that could be argued as supporting the evolution of a tendency to have religion-like beliefs. Assuming that there has been enough time and enough generations for the effects of comparatively small advantages to accumulate, of course. I don't know if that is the same as saying that religion (as a general concept, rather than any specific religion) did or could have evolved.
| Vidollo wrote: |
...snip...
You said that creationism is not a scientific theory. My guess, correct me if I am wrong, is that you said this because creationism doesn't fit the scientific method (specifically, the steps of observation and experiment). However, neither does evolution.
...snip... |
I suspect that even if the theory of evolution is not a completely rigourous scientific theory, it is a lot nearer to it than the "theory" of creationism. The main point of science is that a theory should be able to make novel and non-trivial predictions which can then be tested in a repeatable and independant way. It is very hard to perform evolutionist experiments, even if we disregard the ethical implications; but it is not impossible. For example, it is possible to look at related species and to predict what a common ancestor might have looked like, what sort of environment would have suited it, what sort of time in the past it might have lived, and so on. People have done this sort of analysis and then gone out into the real world to look for the evidence of such ancestors in the places and rocks that are good candidates and found fossils and the like that match their predictions. Is this the same as a repeatable experimental test of the theory? - no it's not. But it was a prediction from the theory that did lead to a new discovery. But as always, only a fool would claim such stuff as proof of any theory - it's just more supportive evidence.Scientists have done experiments with sub-atomic particles and have come to the conclusion that there is a dimension beyond the three we experience and that the laws of physics for that dimension most probably work on different principals than the one’s we are accustomed to.
| Quote: |
| You said that creationism is not a scientific theory. My guess, correct me if I am wrong, is that you said this because creationism doesn't fit the scientific method (specifically, the steps of observation and experiment). However, neither does evolution. By virtue of no one alive having been there at the beginning of the universe, all we can observe are the 'leftovers' like microwave radiation. And the unfortunate part is that we will never be able to perform an experiment to test for God, or to determine for sure how the universe came into existence. |
You need to learn about evolution and science. You do not need to see something your self for in to be science, no one can see the fission factions in the sun but we can detect the neutrinos that are produce by it, no one could ever see the big bang but we and see the effects of it. evolution has been witnessed in insects and micro organisms ad you can see the effects of evolution by the fossil record, in DNA and even the breeding of animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evidence_of_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Misunderstandings_about_modern_evolutionary_biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism_versus_evolution#Theory_vs._fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
If you don't trust Wikipedea, use it as a starting off point.There is evidence for evolution, only process of elimination is used as evidence for creationism. Although if this is selected, there are infinite possibilites.
No one here is gonna change your mind. You set out this forum as a goal to prove some point. You aren't really looking for responces. I personally believe that it takes more faith to believe in evolution that it does to think that things were created by God. If you will go look at things other than what teachers show you about evolution, I bet you will come to the same conclusion. So just go and actually form your own opinions. Don't just listen to what the school board tells ya.
Dude, my point wasn't evolution was real, it was that he needs to learn about evolution and science.
And I didn't get any of my facts from some school teacher, I researched them my self.
Click and reed the links I posted. And I'll say it again, if you don't trust wikipedea (cause any one can edit it (a valid pint by the way)) use it as a starting off point, do research.
By the way. This is a dog 
, this is a wolf 
. Dogs () are descended from wolfs ().
Breeding, contrled evalution. | mhcjsquires wrote: |
| No one here is gonna change your mind. You set out this forum as a goal to prove some point. You aren't really looking for responces. I personally believe that it takes more faith to believe in evolution that it does to think that things were created by God. If you will go look at things other than what teachers show you about evolution, I bet you will come to the same conclusion. So just go and actually form your own opinions. Don't just listen to what the school board tells ya. |
And if I did...? I personally don't post about anything I don't have an opinion about. I have looked at 'evidence' from both sides... And I tend to believe that evolution is more likely, or maybe God determines the eventual result, with evolution as the creative means. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| You do not need to see something your self for in to be science, no one can see the fission factions in the sun but we can detect the neutrinos that are produce by it, no one could ever see the big bang but we and see the effects of it. |
Yes, but the sun is still burning today (last I checked), which means it is far simpler and easier to look at the sun, observe that it is burning, and make a hypothesis for why, then test it by measuring for neutrinos. Actually, that's basically how it was done. It's far harder to 'observe' that "the universe exists" and make any sort of testable hypothesis for why. You said we still see the effects of the big bang, I already mentioned that cosmic radiation could be evidence for either. I obviously have not done as much research as you have, what other evidence for the big bang is there (oh, and please don't mention that the universe is expanding, cause I believe that has more to do with dark matter/energy and stuff than big bang).
| The Conspirator wrote: |
By the way. This is a dog , this is a wolf . Dogs () are descended from wolfs ().
Breeding, contrled evalution. |
Ok, we need to clear something up real quick before I go any further. You are correct that forms of evolution take place all the time. Everyone believes that (well, virtually). Even the account of the flood in the Bible suggests it, since Noah only took two of each kind of animal, and we obviously have more than that now. However, this form of evolution, called micro-evolution, has never been able to change an animal to something outside of it's genus. A wolf is a canine, and whatever kind of dog that is a canine. We have no record of a canine ever becoming a feline (or, I guess since evolution is supposed to improve each species, it would go the other way 
). And as far as I am aware (please inform me if you have other information), that is the only evidence aside from the fossil record to support evolution. And as far as the fossil record goes, you have to be real careful about what you take from that. Perhaps you are aware of the brontosaurus, it was one of my favorite dinosaurs when I was younger. Turns out it never existed, but instead when they were digging it up, the neck and head from one dinosaur and the body of another had been put together to form a completely different one. So whose to say that hasn't happened with a few of the missing links? Or maybe those animals did exist, but it was more coincidence that they looked like they had parts from two different animals. I mean, is a cow considered to be halfway between a dog and a rhino? It seemingly has parts from each. I just think that the fossil record should be used as support for other evidence, not as solid evidence on it's own.Ok, give me some time to read all of both of those pages. Meanwhile, I have a question for you. The section entitled "Misunderstandings about evolutionary biology" says that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact... Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome." My question is what is the 'fact' that is evolution. From what I can tell from his analogy regarding apples, the fact is that humans/all life exists. But that doesn't seem to make evolution a fact. What does he mean by that?
Vidollo, asking stupid questions and making stupid statements about something you are obviously horribly ignorant of is idiocy.
| Quote: |
| Perhaps you are aware of the brontosaurus, it was one of my favorite dinosaurs when I was younger. Turns out it never existed, but instead when they were digging it up, the neck and head from one dinosaur and the body of another had been put together to form a completely different one. |
how is this relavent?, if you knew anything you would be aware that this has little to do with evolutionary theory, and more to do with te dangers of scientific competition, and the story you supposit is incorrect, for the bones were mixed after being dug up, and it was the head and leg bones.
| Quote: |
| And as far as I am aware (please inform me if you have other information), that is the only evidence aside from the fossil record to support evolution |
again rubbish. do some reading arse, i have to go to work, otherwise i would sit here all day showing how ignorant you are | Vidollo wrote: |
| Ok, give me some time to read all of both of those pages. Meanwhile, I have a question for you. The section entitled "Misunderstandings about evolutionary biology" says that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact... Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome." My question is what is the 'fact' that is evolution. From what I can tell from his analogy regarding apples, the fact is that humans/all life exists. But that doesn't seem to make evolution a fact. What does he mean by that? |
I don't under stand what you mean by " what is the 'fact' that is evolution." Do you mean what proves evolution or what evolution is?Whoever wrote the wikipedia article used the analogy of an apple and gravity, saying that no matter what the current theory of gravity was, apples would continually fall to the ground, thereby making falling apples a "fact." They then apply this to the evolution/creation debate. The way I would apply that, is that human existence is a fact, no matter what theory you believe or is the currently reigning one. But he says that evolution is a fact, and a theory, and I don't understand what he means by that. Did that help explain what I was trying to say? (I know, this is all kind of confusing, but I am trying to understand)
Basically, in science a theory is accepted as fact if it is the best explanation for observed events. This is not the same as a theory in general parlance, which is generally considered to be speculation.
For a theory to become accepted in science the assumptions of the model must be testable, repeatable and observable.
Gravity is an example because at the time Newton’s theory was the best possible explanation for that which had been observed, but when Einstein’s theory replaced it, this did not stop gravity existing.
Evolution is a fact, it is not possible to deny its existence using science, and it has happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future.
Evolution is also a theory, evolution the theory is the set of ideas that explain the process of evolution, this includes change through natural selection (survival of the biologically fittest), through sexual selection, allopatric and sympatric speciation etc.
These ideas best explain the observed phenomenon that occur in nature, and nothing has so far been discovered to disprove evolution. Most people of faith of not understand that if evidence to the contrary of the modern synthesis of evolution (evolution the theory) was discovered, and it stood up to the rigorous checks made by the scientific community (peer review, repeatability) then we would have to change the way we think about evolution (the fact)
Last edited by mgumn on Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
| mgumn wrote: |
basically, in science a theory is accepted as fact if it is the best explanation for observed events. this is not the same as a theory in general parlance, which is generally considered to be speculation.
for a thery to become accepted in science the assumptions of the model must be testable, repeatable and observable. |
I agree with you, but not about the first part. We can have no theories about certain phenomena, rather than nonsensical ones. You conflict yourself. If the best theory at a time made no sense but was still technically an 'explanation,' would you follow it? If you take the first part, yes, second, no.Oh.
The proses of evolution is a fact. The theory is the explanation of the proses.
Think of it this was, you know a car engine works but you don;t know how it works and you have no way of learning how its works so you have to examine it and take it apart and put back together and so on. You figure out how its works, that is the theory.
The apple is going to fall no matter what, gravity is real but the theory of gravity is the explanation of gravity.
You would get a better understanding here. | Quote: |
| I agree with you, but not about the first part. We can have no theories about certain phenomena, rather than nonsensical ones. You conflict yourself. |
No, you conflict yourself
Look if evolution makes no sense to you, it is because:
Either
A) You don’t want it to (i.e. you are ignorant);
Or
B) You lack intelligence to such a level that tying your shoelaces deserves a gold star on the special chart
As you are able to use a PC and type something resembling English, I guess it is the first.Ok, let me make sure I understand what you guys are saying. You're saying that it is a fact that evolution has happened, eg. life started as an amoeba, and slowly morphed over time into different animals, including humans. And then the theory of evolution is merely the idea that the fact of evolution happened via the processes of natural and sexual selection, etc. Is that correct?
| Vidollo wrote: |
| Ok, let me make sure I understand what you guys are saying. You're saying that it is a fact that evolution has happened, eg. life started as an amoeba, and slowly morphed over time into different animals, including humans. And then the theory of evolution is merely the idea that the fact of evolution happened via the processes of natural and sexual selection, etc. Is that correct? |
Yep. Thats it. | mgumn wrote: |
| Quote: | | I agree with you, but not about the first part. We can have no theories about certain phenomena, rather than nonsensical ones. You conflict yourself. |
No, you conflict yourself
Look if evolution makes no sense to you, it is because:
Either
A) You don’t want it to (i.e. you are ignorant);
Or
B) You lack intelligence to such a level that tying your shoelaces deserves a gold star on the special chart
As you are able to use a PC and type something resembling English, I guess it is the first. |
| psy_wombats wrote: |
| I agree with you. |
Evolution makes sense to me. What does not make sense to meis the need for a theory if a phenomena is not even remotely understood. I'll say this again, and it does not matter what phenomena: What if all current theories about a new phenomena make no sense? If our only theories have no model, are not testable, and are not repeatable, then is it a theory? There is nothing else to explain this phenomena.As this seems to be hard for me to get my point across: I am debating the meaning of a theory with you, not evolution. Any phenomena works. | wombatrpgs wrote: |
Evolution makes sense to me. What does not make sense to meis the need for a theory if a phenomena is not even remotely understood. I'll say this again, and it does not matter what phenomena: What if all current theories about a new phenomena make no sense? If our only theories have no model, are not testable, and are not repeatable, then is it a theory? There is nothing else to explain this phenomena.As this seems to be hard for me to get my point across: I am debating the meaning of a theory with you, not evolution. Any phenomena works. |
firstly, this is not the place to be debating the meaning of a theory, this is a place to be discussing the evolution of religion and belief systems in mankind, please, if you wish to debate the meaning of a theory open a new thread
secondly, do you know of any unexplainable phenomena that have a random theory applied to them? no!
do you have any idea how science works? a scientist does not simply go, "i know the higgs bosson is excreted by elephants" and all the other scientists agree.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
A point you seem to be missing again and again is that a theory is not wild supposition, but reasoned logic based on the facts.
| Quote: |
| if our only theories have no model, are not testable, and are not repeatable, then is it a theory? |
No by definition it is not a theory. You obviously cannot have a theory for an unexplained phenomenon, as it is a contradiction in terms | mgumn wrote: |
| Quote: | | if our only theories have no model, are not testable, and are not repeatable, then is it a theory? |
No by definition it is not a theory. You obviously cannot have a theory for an unexplained phenomenon, as it is a contradiction in terms |
This is what I was looking for. Your first statement about being the 'best' is what was unclear. Then you would agree a theory is only a theory if it meets your second requirement, regardless of its status as 'best?' | wombatrpgs wrote: |
| Evolution makes sense to me. What does not make sense to meis the need for a theory if a phenomena is not even remotely understood. |
are you by this comment suggesting that evolution is not even remotley understood, because if you i i will ahve to disagree. | mgumn wrote: |
| wombatrpgs wrote: | | Evolution makes sense to me. What does not make sense to meis the need for a theory if a phenomena is not even remotely understood. |
are you by this comment suggesting that evolution is not even remotley understood, because if you i i will ahve to disagree. |
No. The phenomena is arbitrary. | wombatrpgs wrote: |
| No. The phenomena is arbitrary. |
Really? because i hadnt noticed the thousands of scientists, millions of sane people and moderate christians that think otherwise | mgumn wrote: |
| wombatrpgs wrote: | | No. The phenomena is arbitrary. |
Really? because i hadnt noticed the thousands of scientists, millions of sane people and moderate christians that think otherwise |
The phenomena in my above examples. I do not think of evolution of arbitrary.
