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

[Lestat]

Maybe we're just splitting hairs, but I'm trying to pin you down to see if you have any room for leeway.

If God only created DNA and its properties, then He created all that is life. If God created a single atom and it's properties, then He created everything. So in that sense, God is necessary for everthing insofar as nothing would be as it is if it weren't for God.

But why must we then supplant the very unnecessary step in logic, that suggests God personally attends to every apple that falls? Or every beetle that gets caught in a spider's web? Or every plant that gets pollinated by every breeze that carries every bee, and so on?

I understand your belief necessitates a personal relationship with God. So ok, make the exception for humans if you must. But you accuse Dawkins (and presumably myself), of using science (of which evolution is but one of many branches), as a weapon to shed hatred upon God. When in fact, all that is being said is that many things which were once mysteries and accredited to God, have been explained through science. And there is every reason to expect this trend to continue. Why does that scare you so?

Just because God isn't necessary for every event, doesn't mean God isn't an underlying necessity or very important. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with that. The only thing I can think of is that you assume it goes against what the bible says. But then, so does carbon dating and that doesn't seem to bother you. Why does this?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If God only created DNA and its properties, etc..
But why must we then supplant the very unnecessary step in logic..


[/ QUOTE ]

From the standpoint of human reason alone some kind of deism would be sufficient - the unmoved mover, etc. And God would be necessary in that sense. But again I direct your attention to the statement "Evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist". I read this to mean not even a deistic god is required. I read it to mean that evolution proves the non-existence of an Absolute, Personal, interactive God. If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean?

And, yes, the Bible does seem to indicate that God is in some way involved in everything about His creation. As I said somewhere else in this thread, as Newton explained gravity through natural law but still believed God causes gravity, natural law doesn't remove the necessity of God, especially in light of the Bible.

[ QUOTE ]

But then, so does carbon dating and that doesn't seem to bother you.


[/ QUOTE ]

This completely stumps me.

[tshort]

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would an atheist need things completely explained to be intellectually satisfied?

Why does intellectual satisfaction matter to an atheist, or you, for that matter?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Word. I doubt you'll find a single atheist on here who believes that science is capable of proving the non-existence of an imaginary being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Mathematics has the potential to.

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

The full potential of omnipotentce looms far larger in scope in the 21st century than it ever did in the 4th century. Such a God thought to be all-powerful then now is in competition with several increasingly plausible explanations. Just because a theory is older and the question has been asked longer and a organization formulated does not mean it's immortal.

Christianity's been fumbling every since the Universe got much, much bigger in size. If our pace of growth was several orders faster than it is now, Christianity would have suffered the fate of being crunched into a historical footnote.

It is also an magnificent organizational leech, no doubt, and it has done many wonderful things in accord with bad things. So in that, unless it is truthful within and without about its mistakes, it cannot evolve.

Does the religion itself have enough potential to evolve past its misassumptions based on fastly receding history and retain its core ethos without the disease of hypocrisy at its core and top?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Your whole analogy to Cassanova is misplaced. The theological position that God is necessary isn't some stop gap, off the cuff explanation. If the Bible is true, that God created everything, His necessity is obvious.

[ QUOTE ]

It is this understandable desire that evolution thoroughly decimates.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same type statement Dawkins makes and proves my point. Evolution proves God doesn't exist. Case closed.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why does intellectual satisfaction matter to an atheist, or you, for that matter?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because God made us that way. The curiosity, awe and intellectual satisfaction that Dawkins worships is a gift of God. Another example of the creature worshipping the creation rather than the Creator.

[tshort]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why does intellectual satisfaction matter to an atheist, or you, for that matter?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because God made us that way. The curiosity, awe and intellectual satisfaction that Dawkins worships is a gift of God. Another example of the creature worshipping the creation rather than the Creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right.

How do you know God wants us to be intellectually curios or satisfied?

Why are some of the seemingly most intellectually satisfied people atheists?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

It is this understandable desire that evolution thoroughly decimates.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same type statement Dawkins makes and proves my point. Evolution proves God doesn't exist. Case closed.

[/ QUOTE ]Again neither I nor dawkins states that. It just fulfills the desire we have to understand how we got here. The answer to which, was previously, is God. No one is saying that Dawkins doesn't make these types of statements, we merely take issue with the words proof and does not exist. Evolution makes your God less likely to exist, but more importantly to the reasons for the religion to backlash against possibly is, it takes away the human need to theorize about the process of our existence, and the long odds against it.

The theological position holds no special place, apart from being part of the human psychology. My opinion is that the Cassonova analogy fits well, although not perfectly.

You have done this to me once before. There is no a-ha here. I am not stating what you attribute to evolutionists. I am stating that evolution destroys a reason why people believe in god. A very difficult question indeed. So difficult a question that you can understand why people have posited and accepted the most ridiculous and nearly impossible answer, God.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why are some of the seemingly most intellectually satisfied people atheist s?


[/ QUOTE ]

If they really are intellectually satisfied with atheism they have very small minds.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">But again I direct your attention to the statement "Evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist". I read this to mean not even a deistic god is required. I read it to mean that evolution proves the non-existence of an Absolute, Personal, interactive God. If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean? </font>

You have to understand that many, many people (probably many more than you think), have some very personal doubts about God. On any given Sunday, there are no doubt a number of them kneeling beside you in church!

Putting things like consciousness and morality aside for a moment...

Few people would disagree that something like the human eye is an amazing apparatus. Heck, even the eye of a horned toad is amazing. If you don't understand how something so complex can come about through a natural evolutionary process, you've got a problem... How else could the eye have came to be? Must be God.

So what I take Dawkins' statement to mean, is that you can be intellectually satisfied that things like the eye have evolved through hundreds of millions of years through a process called evolution. It is not necessary for even something as complex as the human eye to have been hand-made all at once by a deity. Not much different than the 4th century Augustine perhaps arriving at a conclusion that it's not necessary to believe God personaly lowers the moon and ascends the sun every day.

When looked at in this way, do you still find it so insulting of a statement? I'm the first to admit that Dawkins has an abrasive and arrogant edge that I myself do not care for. But the gist of what he's getting at is usually correct, so I look past it.