I agree that we will always be in the position of looking for the "next level down." I don't expect that humans will ever find the most fundamental level of the universe (part of that is I don't know what it means for something to be "the most fundamental," so that may just be my own limits influencing what I think is possible), so it will always be a continuing investigation. I simply disagreed with your assertion that a large amount of the scientific community isn't interested in investigating any deeper. I agree that science isn't the best tool for existential questions. Personally, in the absence of evidence, I prefer to leave such questions to "I don't know," but I don't begrudge anyone choosing to ascribe it to a deity. I just wonder why. Why a deity, and doesn't that just push the existential questions back a level? Why does God exist? Who/what created God? From a technical aspect, I am skeptical of "answers" that just create the same questions about the answer.
there are examples of similar empathetic behavior to various extents in the animal kingdom that appear to be beneficial for those species. no reason to think empathetic tendencies in humans didn't evolve like everything else.
I haven't read the entire thread yet, but I felt obligated to comment on this part. You do realize that the New Testament was written after the Old Testament? That means the writers of the New Testaments got to look at the Old Testament and make Jesus fit the prophecies. That is a very preposterous argument for why he is the Son of God.
Looking on from a neutral point of view, both sides are extremely stubborn. The Christians won't even think about the Theory of Evolution while the "Realists" won't think about some sort of higher power. Pointless argument.
Not true. I'm willing to admit to some kinds of evolution, such as certain breeds of animals developing survival-enhancing traits over time, but I don't buy the idea that humans evolved from amoebas. That's a dramatic and radical kind of evolution for which there is no evidence.
give me a break. a higher power in the generic sense hasn't even been a subject of argument in this thread and nobody has denied the possibility. i assure you the vast majority of people who believe in evolution have thought a lot about the possibility of a higher power, and many believe in both. what you're reading here is a few brainwashed biblical literal creationists that don't have a clue what evolution is being stubbord about denying it because they simply have no choice psychologically.
Stop contradicting yourself then. If you're going to make a point, stick to one side. Also, the thread title is "The God that wasn't there" so a higher power the is the key point of this thread.
Lets use that human evolution theory as an example. Surely we evolved from an amoeba to enhance our chances of survival in the same way animals evolve to help cope with their surroundings. You're saying that animals evolve but we do not?
I agree and accept the fact that we evolved through millions of years, but that alone doesn't explain how we came to be, how earth started, how the universe started, etc.
Right, because those are different subjects. Understanding how a refrigerator works doesn't tell you much about your car tires. barfo
Well, I'm not sure who you're putting on what "side," but I certainly consider myself neutral. I'm willing to believe things that have evidence. I can certainly consider the possibility of a higher power, but absent evidence for it, I don't see a reason to believe in one. There are an infinite number of things that could be true, after all.
It's always dangerous to use broad generalizations. This is particularly true of the Christian faith, which has multiple branches and even more denominations. People who profess to be followers of Christ have views on the origin of the universe and life that range from strict fundamentalism regarding the Genesis account of creation to views that accept evolution, but guided by God's hand. I'm not Catholic, but the following link shows that the Catholic Church has come to accept evolution as consistent with Christian faith. http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp Many Protestants, myself included, have similar views.
if you'd read everything there and stop reading just part of it and filling in the rest with your own assumptions you'd see i didn't contradict myself. my only assertion was that certainty a higher power exists without objective evidence (which is what i was responding to) is wishful thinking/self-delusion, which is really only stating the obvious. i don't claim to know if a higher power exists or not, and haven't said anything of the sort. nosir. the thread title refers to the historical truth of the biblical jesus, and the thread was meant specifically to be about the accuracy of the bible (but got semi-hijacked ). the historical truth of the bible is an entirely different subject than the existence of a creator in the generic sense.
