A Creator is Evident

[Donald G]

That is fair kgcayenne but you have to give others the same right. And since no one can prove what they believe to be their answer there is no ultimate right or wrong to the question of God. If powerful thinkers like Einstein did not deign to know the answer I am sure not going to profess to know ultimate truth.

[kgcayenne]

It can be a great discussion, but in today's world, people have forgotten to disagree from time to time for healthy debate and conversation.

Today, disagreeing is more disruptive than it is a learning tool.

[cliffy1]

I have spent a good part of my life studying comparative religions and spiritual paths and what I find interesting is that quantum physics and mechanics is bridging the gap, that it explains what mystics from all over the planet and from different time frames have been saying all along. The mystical teachings of the bible just happens to be one avenue that science is starting to come to grips with, but it is certainly not the only one, nor should it be. There is great knowledge and wisdom in all the ancient traditions.

[Glacier]

[Poindexter]

Have to admit glacier that the video you posted did make me somewhat more open to religion because I find myself praying that he'd just stop talking. :)

[Donald G]

It still boils down to the fact that, like all Myths, all religions are completely based on faith, with no scientific proof involved.

[OREZ]

You mean it still boils down to the fact that this is a philosophical subject in the religion and spirituality forum and is therefore a discussion on ideas and beliefs and not about science?

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Farmmaa]

You mean it still boils down to the fact that this is a philosophical subject in the religion and spirituality forum and is therefore a discussion on ideas and beliefs and not about science?

Thanks for pointing that out.

Actually, this thread was started to show that there is evidence of a creator...therefore science most certainly comes in to play.
I have yet to see this evidence though...except - feelings.

Those who attribute the bible for scientific facts and quantum physics, or even mysticism...are providing nothing but their personal interpretations of what they are reading. There is no proof that quotes or passages about spirit, soul or anything returning to god as being some sort of advanced knowledge of science instead of merely the hope that we get to float up to heaven in eternal bliss as a way to conquer man's fear of death.
Interpretation, perception and translation - different for every person who reads it...which is why there are so many different religious sects and so many variations of Christianity.

[Glacier]

Facts, proofs, and evidences are three different things. Evidences can be gathered through deductive reasoning. There is evidence for a creator in the same way there's evidence for the Theory of Evolution. In neither case can you use facts to make an airtight argument, but you see plenty of evidence if you just open your eyes.

[Farmmaa]

Facts, proofs, and evidences are three different things. Evidences can be gathered through deductive reasoning. There is evidence for a creator in the same way there's evidence for the Theory of Evolution. In neither case can you use facts to make an airtight argument, but you see plenty of evidence if you just open your eyes.

By definition, no, they are not different things at all.

Evidence:
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation,

There is undeniable evidence - concrete, physical proof to back up the Theory of Evolution. There are still pieces of earth's history that are missing and who knows if they will ever be able to determine the precise moment or cause of the formation of the earth and the universe, at least in our lifetime - but it has reached far past a simple theory.
There is geological, anthropological and biological evidence to back it up.

A creator has - faith as it's main source of 'evidence'.

[OREZ]

Believe it or not, there are scientists, some of whom have multiple PhDs,who believe that there is evidence to support intelligent design. They're certainly not claiming to have proved it beyond shadow of doubt, but that would be a ridiculous claim on either side as far as I'm concerned. It also dispels with this silly claim (which is sometimes made in these discussions) that the only reason anyone would believe in a God is because of the need to believe in myths and fairy tales due to an ignorance of science. A family member of mine has three university degrees, one in physics, and he's become a more firm believer and more outspoken about it in his years since university than previously. Why didn't his accumulated knowledge of science crush his faith or the faith of some of his colleagues who are similarly educated?

Evidence does not always = proof. In a court case, there is often compelling evidence presented on both sides. We don't debate facts, we debate opinions. Only a fool would continue to debate something for which they truly believe they have empirical data which proves their position. It's like arguing about last year's accumulation of precipitation in Kelowna for page after page when the data is there for anyone to access. Hopefully we won't get to that point but you never know on Castanet.

The reason there is so much discussion and debate on this topic is because any armchair amateur of philosophy knows there is no way of proving or disproving the existence of God, hence, the discussion goes on. Therefore we share our ideas and beliefs on the topic and hopefully learn something about each other. It's not about winning a silly argument.

[Glacier]

OREZ, are you reading my mind or something!? Before I even started reading your post, I was thinking of using Kelowna precipitation as an example as well as court evidence. All great minds think alike... or is it fools seldom differ? In either case, the difference between proof and evidence is certainty. With evidence there is some debate while a fact is so certain that no one questions it because you can prove it with experiment. If you can't show it with experiment, and you believe it to be true, you are doing so because of faith. Faith is, after all, the "evidence of things unseen." Hewbrews 11:1.

The Theory of Evolution (decent from a common ancestor) and Abiogenesis (naturalistic spontaneous creation of life from non-life) are not facts because one cannot show them with experiment just as proof of an intelligent creator cannot be verified. No matter which explanation you believe holds the best evidence, you are doing so on faith, and there's nothing wrong with that. The only other option is to be completely agnostic about everything we can't fully comprehend, but what's the fun in that?

[OREZ]

There is undeniable evidence - concrete, physical proof to back up the Theory of Evolution.

And by evolution do you simply mean change over time or do you mean proof of universal common ancestry and that all subsequent diversity is because of natural selection acting on random mutation? And, if you mean the latter, I've never seen or heard about the "proof", but will you also say that there is "undeniable proof" about how that very first life (the common ancestor) began and if so, how did that happen? Remember, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

And this time around, please DO NOT accuse me of derailing the discussion (like you did on page 6) just because I am asking questions and replying to very bold assertions about the "undeniable evidence" and "proof... of evolution."

[Farmmaa]

And by evolution do you simply mean change over time or do you mean proof of universal common ancestry and that all subsequent diversity is because of natural selection acting on random mutation? And, if you mean the latter, I've never seen or heard about the "proof", but will you also say that there is "undeniable proof" about how that very first life (the common ancestor) began and if so, how did that happen? Remember, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

And this time around, please DO NOT accuse me of derailing the discussion (like you did on page 6) just because I am asking questions and replying to very bold assertions about the "undeniable evidence" and "proof... of evolution."

My comment on page six, as you know, was due to the non-stop debate regarding the definitions between scientific terms, phrases and studies...and really wasn't about the topic at hand.

I don't believe that anyone, any time, any where, has ever suggested that there is undeniable proof of exactly how the universe, or even the earth, first came to be or exactly the moment life began. That is, other than true Creationists.
There are theories, there are biological links, there have been great strides made in scientific study - but no, there is no definitive proof of how life first began.
There is also no definitive proof of one single common organism from which all life developed.

Those who believe in evolution believe just that - that species changed and evolved over time to become the form that they are now.
Why do you suggest that these changes have to be random mutations ? Most are adaptations, developed over millions of years in accordance with the environment and what is needed by that organisms in order to survive and thrive.

[kgcayenne]

There's random, and then there's the opposite of random. Intelligent design fits into the latter.