Why isn't DNA and Human Consciousness Enough For Some Christians?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its still up to you to acknowledge that Dawkins has made clear that in his view science cannot disprove the existence of god


[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't make that clear. It might be unintentional on his part because of his ignorance of theology.

[/ QUOTE ]Actually, he has explicitly stated that theology is not a subject/academic discipline. Yet the history of religion is.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
So, go on, step up to the mark and admit you were wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, because I'm not as I've amply demonstrated.

You can now admit you're wrong. Come on, be a real man.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, he has explicitly stated that theology is not a subject.


[/ QUOTE ]

What a genius. 2cuteby1/2.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> But it does in the case of God because it's part of how He is defined. </font>

Only by you as a Christian... Mr Muhammed, Mr. Patel, and Mr. Soo might all define God differently.

There are many different definitions for God, depending on what part of the planet you were taught to believe in God.

As an aside: What if you were to meet God after you died and found out He was everthing you thought He was with one caveat... He had nothing to do with the 17 year locust. That one just formed on it's own somehow. Would you denounce Him on the spot over the technicality that you found something He wasn't necessary for?

Or am I misunderstanding you? Why can't a very powerful being who created heaven and earth, but isn't necessary for every for every single thing, be called God?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

If you can prove that God is unnecessary you have proved He doesn't exist because theologians have almost uniformly defined God as a necessary being - though the Bible doesn't state it that way it's a valid conclusion that it is saying the same thing about God.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree and I'm sure many theists do as well. I think Dawkins, as arrogant and rude as he is, is trying to prove that God is unnecessary to explain the physical world around us. He does a pretty good job of that. He doesn't claim that God is unnecessary for salvation, a happy life on Earth, etc.

May I ask what you claim that God is necessary for? I think you will find that we are not arguing against your answer to this question.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Only by you as a Christian... Mr Muhammed, Mr. Patel, and Mr. Soo might all define God differently


[/ QUOTE ]

I think Judaism and Islam mostly agree on this point. Could be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

There are many different definitions for God


[/ QUOTE ]

Are there a lot of definitions for every word? If so, how is communication possible?

[ QUOTE ]

What if you were to meet God


[/ QUOTE ]

I would say the God I believed in didn't exist and the Bible is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

Why can't a very powerful being who created heaven and earth, but isn't necessary for every for every single thing be called God?


[/ QUOTE ]

If He created everything that isn't Him, how could He not be necessary for everything? If He didn't create everything, He isn't the God of the Bible.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think Dawkins, as arrogant and rude as he is, is trying to prove that God is unnecessary to explain the physical world around us


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said to Lestat, at the very least, God is necessary to explain existence. It goes much further than that, but at least that far. How can an atheist be intellectually satisfied unless he thinks science (evolution) explains things completely without God?

I do understand the idea of natural law, and working with science without making God part of the equation. If that's all Dawkins meant, fine. But that's nothing new. Newton discovered the laws of gravity but never stopped believing that God causes gravity. But Dawkins ties science to atheism. Big difference.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, go on, step up to the mark and admit you were wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, because I'm not as I've amply demonstrated.


[/ QUOTE ]
This thread can stand in testiment to what has been amply demonstrated. It isn't pretty.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This thread can stand in testiment to what has been amply demonstrated. It isn't pretty.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's never pretty debating you.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, go on, step up to the mark and admit you were wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, because I'm not as I've amply demonstrated.

You can now admit you're wrong. Come on, be a real man.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, it did appear that you were making the claim that Dawkins is making a logical fallacy. And laying claims to him that he did not make. I do however see your implication of statements he makes. I am certain that he does disagree with the statement "God is necessary", so he isn't making the statement you claim he is.

In particular this "God is necessary" statement is more of a Cassanova rationalization, then a statement that deserves any respect or consideration, if it's truth that you seek. However if you wish to find comfort and completely dismiss the unknown unknowns, I can see why a "theologian" might make such a statement, it's very similar to the statements Cassonova makes. Because he was so lucky, and always bounced back from diversity in adventurous and high-risk situation, it was easy for him to make the mistake that a supernatural force is necessarily guarding his life. So we can easily see how people can make the mistake, of being ridiculously lucky then assigning a necessary supernatural cause.

It is this understandable desire that evolution thoroughly decimates. We have a compulsion to tell stories, to theorize, to insist on causality. So much so that we unconsciously theorized God into the picture of creation of life. There was simply nothing better to explain our existence, much as Cassonova had nothing better to explain his good fortune as the failures rarely find a willing ear, and the really big failures can't post humously give us any benefit. A possible reason why DNA and Human Consciousness isn't enough is for the simple reason that evolution takes away too much of the reasons why people are unknowingly theorizing about the nature that brought about their existence and everything else. If we fill our knowledge gap about how we are created, and it's a more parsimonious explanation it becomes a direct threat to religion. And catering to the scientific concensus would inflict great damage on the religion. It's possible that the market place for religion is delivering an effective solution to providing it's services. The utter denial is possibly simply the effective and effiecent invisible hand of the market. People don't need the alternative explanation that God exists, created them, and cares about them. If it's shown that a simple process can do the work more elegantly. The freedom and complete lack of regulation is the reason why the major religion factions in the US dismiss evolution. It destroys the ability to effectively peddle their wares.

Evolution doesn't really damage the existence of gods, just merely takes away a major reason why we have subconsciously theorized him into being.