Is faith a reliable way to know truth?

[reneweddaybyday]

if humans are not morally responsible for their actions, then saying something is wrong is really saying one has a feeling about something.

but let's go with that.

When two organisms are competing, whether it's two lions fighting for control of the pride or two humans fighting for control of oil, the organism with the superior genes, more survivable, is more likely to win.

I think that's how natural selection works, and how species evolve.

Yes that is accurate.

But the lion will always be a lion. And the zebra will always be a zebra.

The zebra does not change its properties to become a lion. All the zebra can do is outrun the lion or remain in large packs so that the lion does not come after the zebra.

Seems to me that in evolution the zebra would change into something that would prey on the lion.

There is change within species, but one species does not "evolve" into another completely different species.

 

[Renate]

But the lion will always be a lion. And the zebra will always be a zebra.

The zebra does not change its properties to become a lion. All the zebra can do is outrun the lion or remain in large packs so that the lion does not come after the zebra.

Seems to me that in evolution the zebra would change into something that would prey on the lion.

There is change within species, but one species does not "evolve" into another completely different species.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you sound like you know nothing about how evolution works.

 

[Dan_473]

But the lion will always be a lion. And the zebra will always be a zebra.

The zebra does not change its properties to become a lion. All the zebra can do is outrun the lion or remain in large packs so that the lion does not come after the zebra.

Seems to me that in evolution the zebra would change into something that would prey on the lion.

There is change within species, but one species does not "evolve" into another completely different species.

I'm comfortable around both creationists and evolutionists.

When I think in terms of creation, I usually think of an earth created already old. then there's no conflict with things like fossils.

 

[Renate]

I'm comfortable around both creationists and evolutionists.

When I think in terms of creation, I usually think of an earth created already old. then there's no conflict with things like fossils.

That is interesting. Do you mean that God planted fossils in the ground during creation?

 

[Dan_473]

That is interesting. Do you mean that God planted fossils in the ground during creation?

that would be one way to put it.

I like to think of it this way: when God created Adam was Adam a newborn baby or did he look more like a 13 year old?

So the day after Adam was created a person looking at the physical evidence would say he was about 13 years old.

In the same way, someone looking at the Earth might say it's four and a half billion years old when in fact it's only 6000 years old.

 

[Renate]

that would be one way to put it.

I like to think of it this way: when God created Adam was Adam a newborn baby or did he look more like a 13 year old?

So the day after Adam was created a person looking at the physical evidence would say he was about 13 years old.

In the same way, someone looking at the Earth might say it's four and a half billion years old when in fact it's only 6000 years old.

Very interesting theory, that I've never heard before. Don't you think it is a little misleading though? I mean, why would God want to make us think the earth is older than it actually is?

 

[reneweddaybyday]

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you sound like you know nothing about how evolution works.

Genesis 1:24-25 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Everything after its kind. Change within kind.

 

[Renate]

Genesis 1:24-25 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Everything after its kind. Change within kind.

No evolutionist claims that a zebra can give birth to a lion, that is simply an ignorant understanding of how evolution works.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

No evolutionist claims that a zebra can give birth to a lion, that is simply an ignorant understanding of how evolution works.

I didn't say the zebra gives birth to a lion.

I said "The zebra does not change its properties to become a lion. All the zebra can do is outrun the lion or remain in large packs so that the lion does not come after the zebra".

In other words the zebra will always remain a zebra. The zebra can only respond to the lion and outmaneuver (run faster or hang in packs so the lion does not attack). The zebra adapts. The zebra does not change over time to somehow overthrow the lion.

 

[Renate]

I didn't say the zebra gives birth to a lion.

I said "The zebra does not change its properties to become a lion. All the zebra can do is outrun the lion or remain in large packs so that the lion does not come after the zebra".

In other words the zebra will always remain a zebra. The zebra can only respond to the lion and outmaneuver (run faster or hang in packs so the lion does not attack). The zebra adapts. The zebra does not change over time to somehow overthrow the lion.

Right. And no evolutionist will say that a zebra changes over time to overthrow a lion. Because that is not how evolution works.

 

[Dan_473]

Very interesting theory, that I've never heard before. Don't you think it is a little misleading though? I mean, why would God want to make us think the earth is older than it actually is?

that's the usual charge, is that it makes God misleading.

Suppose there was a being who was, say, a million years old with an IQ of, I don't know, 100,000.

would that being do things that would seem strange to me? Probably. Just like a dog or cat might look at me and think I was doing something strange.

*************

say Renate,

are you aware that you often only respond to the last post that I make?

for example I didn't see a response to this

https://christianchat.com/threads/is-faith-a-reliable-way-to-know-truth.177204/post-3623296


Of course you're welcome to respond to whatever posts you want to. but it will be difficult to have a sustained discussion if you only respond to the last post I write, regardless of who it was written to.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Right. And no evolutionist will say that a zebra changes over time to overthrow a lion. Because that is not how evolution works.

I know. Again, this remains true:

Genesis 1:24-25 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The evolutionist believes everything about that verse except:

And God said ...
And God made ...
And God saw ...

But for some reason God's Word is not reliable ...

 

[Renate]

I know. Again, this remains true:

Genesis 1:24-25 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The evolutionist believes everything about that verse except:

And God said ...
And God made ...
And God saw ...

But for some reason God's Word is not reliable ...

If this was the only verse that atheists disagreed with, you would have a point. But it's not.

 

[Renate]

that's the usual charge, is that it makes God misleading.

Suppose there was a being who was, say, a million years old with an IQ of, I don't know, 100,000.

would that being do things that would seem strange to me? Probably. Just like a dog or cat might look at me and think I was doing something strange.

*************

say Renate,

are you aware that you often only respond to the last post that I make?

for example I didn't see a response to this

https://christianchat.com/threads/is-faith-a-reliable-way-to-know-truth.177204/post-3623296


Of course you're welcome to respond to whatever posts you want to. but it will be difficult to have a sustained discussion if you only respond to the last post I write, regardless of who it was written to.

I am aware of this. It is pretty much impossible to reply to everyone, because I'm getting so many replies, and I also have other things to do. I do try to respond as much as possible.

if War over oil is beneficial to humans because it strengthens the species, then why is it wrong? How is it bad?

I find this difficult to explain well, but bear with me. Right and wrong are not directly correlated to whether it strengthens the species, or even to survival. Suppose there is a gene that makes me feel that killing is wrong (I don't think such a simplistic gene exists, but suppose it does). That gene survives and gets promoted through the generations, because the people having that gene aren't killing other people (who likely also have that gene). Because of this, eventually the population as a whole agrees that killing is wrong. There might be situations where killing is beneficial, but this does not change the feeling that it is wrong. The idea is that morality is based on that feeling, caused by that gene, not on any rational assesment of what action is beneficial. It is only indirectly based on whether something is beneficial to survival.

Now, suppose that we evolved such that everyone in the population felt that war over oil is good, then it would not be wrong. But as far as I know there is no selection mechanism for such a gene, so until then it remains wrong.

 

[Dino246]

I am aware of this. It is pretty much impossible to reply to everyone, because I'm getting so many replies, and I also have other things to do. I do try to respond as much as possible.


I find this difficult to explain well, but bear with me. Right and wrong are not directly correlated to whether it strengthens the species, or even to survival. Suppose there is a gene that makes me feel that killing is wrong (I don't think such a simplistic gene exists, but suppose it does). That gene survives and gets promoted through the generations, because the people having that gene aren't killing other people (who likely also have that gene). Because of this, eventually the population as a whole agrees that killing is wrong. There might be situations where killing is beneficial, but this does not change the feeling that it is wrong. The idea is that morality is based on that feeling, caused by that gene, not on any rational assesment of what action is beneficial. It is only indirectly based on whether something is beneficial to survival.

Now, suppose that we evolved such that everyone in the population felt that war over oil is good, then it would not be wrong. But as far as I know there is no selection mechanism for such a gene, so until then it remains wrong.

Renate, on what basis do you call anything "wrong"? (In the moral sense, not the factual sense, that is)

If you believe that we are essentially evolved pond scum, what is right and wrong but conventions which happen to suit your survival instincts for the moment? Why would it be wrong for one bag of chemicals to do anything to another bag of chemicals, or to use chemicals not in bags for any purpose perceived to be beneficial for survival?

You wrote earlier that you believe that morals are a product of evolution. What if your neighbour disagrees with you, and decides to have you for dinner? If morals are evolved, why aren't they shared universally among humans?

 

[reneweddaybyday]

If this was the only verse that atheists disagreed with, you would have a point. But it's not.

Seems to me the atheist does agree with the verse (with the exception of "and God said", "and God made", "and God saw").

The rest of the section = you appear to be in agreement.


P.S. I know how hard it is to keep up with posts from a myriad of people and, for the most part, you're doing pretty good. Don't let this stuff consume you ... unless you find it in your heart to seek God - that's the only One worthy of our full devotion

 

[Renate]

Renate, on what basis do you call anything "wrong"? (In the moral sense, not the factual sense, that is)

If you believe that we are essentially evolved pond scum, what is right and wrong but conventions which happen to suit your survival instincts for the moment? Why would it be wrong for one bag of chemicals to do anything to another bag of chemicals, or to use chemicals not in bags for any purpose perceived to be beneficial for survival?

You wrote earlier that you believe that morals are a product of evolution. What if your neighbour disagrees with you, and decides to have you for dinner? If morals are evolved, why aren't they shared universally among humans?

I believe morals are a product of evolution and culture. Some moral ARE universally shared among humans, except maybe among psychopaths. For example that murdering someone for no reason is wrong. Differences between cultures are usually quite specific. These are the types of moral dilemmas that don't provide enough of a benefit or detriment to survival to be subject to natural selection.

 

[Renate]

Seems to me the atheist does agree with the verse (with the exception of "and God said", "and God made", "and God saw").

The rest of the section = you appear to be in agreement.


P.S. I know how hard it is to keep up with posts from a myriad of people and, for the most part, you're doing pretty good. Don't let this stuff consume you ... unless you find it in your heart to seek God - that's the only One worthy of our full devotion

Yes, I am in agreement with the rest of the verse. I'm just saying this verse is not the reason the bible is unreliable.

PS. Thanks!

 

[Magenta]

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Yes, I am in agreement with the rest of the verse. I'm just saying this verse is not the reason the bible is unreliable to the atheist.

I added the part in red to your statement for clarification.

PS. Thanks!