If God, What's Evolution? | ENCORE Episode 1810 | Closer To Truth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.ค. 2022
- Assuming the existence of God, what is evolution? If God does not exist, evolution is a full explanation of human origins, without deep meaning or purpose. But if God does exist, what is evolution and how did it happen? Here are possibilities. Featuring interviews with Michael Ruse, Nancey Murphy, Celia Deane-Drummond, Francisco J. Ayala, and Michael Murray.
An encore screening Season 18, Episode 10 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Theology #Evolution
Thank you for this insightful presentation. If we consider that we are a small speck in the giant ocean of life in the universe, we can expand our consciousness to consider that "God" is the creator of all life in the universe, not just our one little planet. In the book Preparing for the Greater Community, Greater Community is defined as the larger universe of intelligent life in which our world has always existed. This Greater Community encompasses all worlds in the universe where sentient life exists, in all states of evolution and development. God is defined as "the Source and Creator of all life and of countless races in the universe. Here the greater reality of God is unveiled in the expanded context of life in this world and all life in the universe. This greater context redefines the meaning of and our understanding of God and of God's Power and Presence in our lives. ... To understand what God is doing in our world, we must understand what God is doing in the entire universe... God is not a divine entity, personage or a singular awareness, but instead a pervasive force and presence that permeates all life and is moving all life in the universe towards a state of unity. God speaks to the deepest part of each person through the power of Knowledge that lives within them." God's power encompasses the evolutionary process that all life experiences while existing in the physical universe. (Preparing for the Greater Community, Marshall Vian Summers)
Thank you very much.
Perhaps God is a Divine Singularity and a pervasive force that permeates all life simultaneously.
In conflict with Western ideas about God would be in providing an explanation for the Presence of God even during criminal or evil acts perpetrated by a created or an evolved humanity.
In conflict with Eastern ideas about God would be in providing an explanation for the Absence of God in the Material World.
Nevertheless, your words are well taken, and your counsel appreciated.
I just love how old religions make many statements that over time, observations and science prove to be false. Then the same religions change their statements in lame attempts to justify their false statements.
Normally, its science, human intellect....as creations of & gifts from God (show some gratitude to your own Creator without Whom you do not even exist) , that should align with God & with God's true revelation, in order for man to be able to discover God's *signs* within ourselves & without in nature, not that *God should align with science....*
But, fact is, God's revelation had/has been corrupted/falsified/misinterprered...many times before, so it has to be in contradiction with science...
At the other hand, science is just a human activity which is immersed/embedded in reality as man, man's senses, man's conscuiiusness, man's mind ...are , so man cannot access *objective reality* within which man is embedded, whose consciousness & mind alter & are altered by it.
In other words,
Science, reason....must align with the true words, intentions & will of God, if man hopes ever to take a glimpse of the nature of reality in this life before the next, 'cause the moment the body dies & consciousness or the human soul takes off to another higher dimension, the veil is lifted off the (mind's) eye of man & then man sees the whole Truth....
Dont hope to find that here on earth or just a tiny glimpse of it through the perceptual/sensual consciousness & mind only, without aligning that with....God Who is THE ultimate source of knowledge, beauty, truth, love, consciousness, mind, existence...
God must align with science lol
What a ridiculously arrogant mindset. The Creator of everything, of man & man's intellect, science....must align with His creation lol
*Reminds me of the same jewish* *theological mindset, in the sense that*
*God must align with what the rabbis*
*think...lol*
I am referring to the highly important/interesting Talmudic story *The oven of Akhnai* where the Rabbis allegedly won lol the debate against God himself who even allegedly admits His alleged defeat by saying: *"My children triumphed over me...My children triumphed over me.."*
God then allegedly submitted to the "higher authority" lol, that of those Rabbis. Bullshit, i say, sorry.
That Talmudic story not only defined judaism for the last two thousand years & counting, but also did influence *modernity's humanism* enormously.
We see now the bitter fruits of that in the current *materialist* science... where God Himself *"must align with science"* , admit His defeat & submit to the higher authority of science...
What a ridiculously tragic-hilarious pathetic human arrogance /ignorance...
@@trojanhorse860also the ultimate source of slavery, genocide, and just evil in general
@@-villa4575 You mean western enlightenment, modernity, humanist liberalism, right? Lol Seriously. You're right.
Many scientists do the exact same thing with long-held mainstream scientific theories in the face of new research. I suppose the religious doing this are thus in good company!
I've discovered this series/journey only weeks or a month ago, and I'm truly appreciative of Mr. Kuhn's critical approach, and the channel's impressive quality in production AND knowledgable speakers.
I was, just now, thinking that the only improvement I could muster is to have our interlocutors perhaps slow their dialogue! 😂 Experts in their fields, they know what they're talking about! Am I the only viewer that appreciates having the briefest of moments in a dialogue to absorb the complex ideas and thoughts of these experts? I really want to know I'm following Mr. Kuhn's speaker whether or not I agree with them. 😁
It feels as if these folks are told "Alright buddy you've got 3 minutes, what's your take on this?" XD
I feel a more conversational pace would be lovely; I put these videos on .75x speed, the way I would many educational Audible audiobooks (The Great Courses all day).
Thank you again, Mr. Kuhn, for the absolute plethora of insightful dialogue on the wide range of theological chin-scratching questions! This channel is a treasure.
Me too and im loving it!!!
@iarguephilosophy
Ah.. I've been a man of Philosophy for a long time now, since being awakened to many philosophical ideas I'd never pondered, in college. I didn't mean to imply the dialogue or vernacular were beyond me but simply that, to me, the speakers are often getting their ideas out as if they're on a time crunch. But perhaps many people just talk this way.
These experts consider all of these ideas far more often than I, and surely some other viewers, do; it's what they do. So it's only natural that they don't feel the need to slow down.
If I have to I'll slow a video or audio, or pause for a moment if I need to. I suppose I'm just used to deeply thinking about all of these ideas and opinions as they go along, and I often like to take a moment to really absorb and ponder a new perspective, rather than think that I can cram the many points of Mr. Kuhn's various speakers into my brain and so easily understand the implications of such big information and ideas.
I'm no lifelong expert in these philosphical ideas after all. 🙃
I'm a scientist and I do believe in God and Evolution and I don't see any necessary contradiction. God (by his ultimate wisdom) wanted to create a universe governed by natural laws. Even Darwin when he wrote his famous book, he was believing in one God and died later as agnostic as he described himself. I don't understand WHY the public and even some scientists want to convince themselves and the others that if you believe in Evolution, you have to be an atheist and vice versa!!
Yup; just like the multiverse -- they do that with this postulate too.
@@S3RAVA3LM I agree.. I always say that this is not science (as we know it), but mathematical speculations on paper only that cannot be observed, measured, and tested, and this is contrary to the scientific method of research and investigation.
Religion is quack science. Religion was the only way to explain the world during the dark ages of science. Ancient man couldn’t explain thunder, rainbow, solar eclipse, exploding stars etc. And so ancient man created God as an explanation. Science aims to find answers that are backed by evidence. This is why true scientists tend not to be very religious. If they are religious, it is typically due to mental conditioning and brainwashing that occurs during childhood. We live in a society where we have traditions and institutions and holidays and rituals that are designed to brainwash us from childhood to be religious. The tradition is so powerful that you can lose your friends and family if you are not religious.
Hi scientist, how is it possible to combine the mindless purposeless random unguided...so'-called evolution through natural selection with the belief in God? They are mutually exclusive, unless it is guided evolution of some sort. Why even in this case w'd God want to see whole species emerging from prior ones, or what do you make of the fact that man was created apart & dis not descend from any other prior species of any kind, not to mention the fact that God w'd look like you, God forbid lol, a kind of trial & error scientist who w'd experiment with life on earth without knowing what he's doing, without purpose, design, plan, meaning....as He goes along making up his mind now & then....Get real...
*Evolution is a myth, the biggest &* *most stupid lie ever told. There is only*
*adaptation within species (so-called* *micro-evolution), no macro-evolution...*
@@trojanhorse860 I love how religious people deceive themselves. You say that there is only micro-evolution and there is no macro-evolution. It's like saying that I only tell small lies and I never tell big lies. That makes no sense because a liar is a liar.
Thanks for uploading this series on TH-cam. 🙏
Love this series!
I think for me the "Theodrama" scenario opens up possibilities ...a universal mind giving it's physical creation free reign to be whatever it will be and experiencing it alongside us all. What if this mind was naturally in a static state of orderliness(perfection?) but decided to "break out" of this state and experience the adventure of the unknown - chaos and chance/ randomness? Hence the allowance of "random" evolution and mutation, potential for suffering and also pleasure for all sentient creatures. It would explain much. One would hope that at the end of the day the ending would be what we would call a happy one for all concerned...
Stephen Hawking wrote, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." But how did the physical forces driving the Big Bang come into being? If someone points out they were generated by another universe within the multiverse, I'd tend to agree. But this of course would beg the question: Where did the multiverse come from? And on and on we'd go, plunging into the rabbit hole of infinite regress. Which may be the ultimate, inexplicable, brutal fact of existence: It always was, and (in some form) always will be. However, based on my readings over the years -- and, more importantly, based on experiences I've had with meditation -- a spiritual deity of incomprehensible power and knowledge seems at least as likely at some prior link in the chain of infinite regress as the eternal absence of one. I doubt such a deity would conform to the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the Bible. But it still might play an essential role in the unfolding of existence.
"still might play..." check out philosopher of science Stephen Meyer's recently published massive THE RETURN OF THE GOD HYPOTHESIS.
Beginning and end are human invention
@@tubes-lut How so?
@@durosempre4470 without it things just are. To the tree the sun just is. To the bird the tree just is. It's only humans that think linearly with the start / finish of something
It could be, but the fact that we don't know something does not by itself suggest that God is the answer to the mystery. It could be, but it is also possible there are other explanations that we simply don't know or can't comprehend. When we're talking about the mysterious (e.g. "where did the multiverse come from?") we can only speculate.
"If God does not exist, evolution is a full explanation of human origins, without deep meaning or purpose."
Oh, really? We don't have a clue how life formed and are only scratching the surface, but proudly declare that evolution "fully explains"? What is the evidence for such a fantastic claim?
Evolution explains and give s mechanism for how humans evolved from much simpler life .
I agree we don’t yet have a proven theory of abiogenesis , but we are working on it . Not having the latter explanation , doesn’t make the former explanation invalid
I wonder if you understand that the word "we" means points to or indicates the user of the term - that is *you*And his immediate interlocutor and since you have no immediate interlocutor, that just Leaves*you*.
Why do you "Need" any sort of explanation?
Maybe there is no "explanation".
How would an "explanation" help you?
It's called genetics
@@tonyatkinson2210 So, you admit that there is not a shred of evidence that indicates that life is "fully explained" by evolution alone. Evolution is part of the explanation of the mechanism, but we are light years away from proving that it is a self-sufficient explanation that doesn't need anything else or is the expression of something else.
Hardly a fantastic claim. Surely it's common sense that anything that survives the environment it is in, and can create a copy of itself before it ceases to be, will survive as part of a continuous group. This will be true regardless whether the thing being considered has not yet qualified as life, or whether it has. This smoothes the path from one state to the other, and it's then purely up to the definition of life, wrt non-life, that you accept that defines at what point one becomes the other.
Fantastic, as always, keep going :) Perhaps try and explore that Eastern viewpoint next, there's something to it, the Christian paradigm is already saturated and is not enough. Love the locations btw, great production value!
What does common ancestry for organisms mean for evolution of life? Might there be one life that evolves into different organisms?
Is variation / mutation part of nature, similar to probabilities of quantum wave function / fields?
Even without mutagenic substances or radiation, keto-enol and amino-imino tautomerization related to DNA bases provides a mutational “intrinsic” mechanism during DNA replication
Thank you for these wonderful, thought-provoking videos. Watching this discussion of evolution, I was reminded of Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False." In his brief but dense book, Nagel gives a kind of thanks to the proponents of intelligent design who, as I tend to think, find the Neo-Darwinist origin of life and consciousness simply implausible, given the complexity of conscious organisms and constraints of time and random mutations. Even with miraculous epigenetic events interceding, the variety of conscious life still defies the idea of genesis from inert matter. This is not to say that Biblical texts are perfect metaphors, but "in the beginning was the Word..." does give you a lot to think about. Would love to hear Mr. Kuhn interview Thomas Nagel.
I feel, God concept is not separable from Evolution as God is That which is all pervasive. It is that which drives the multiverse and that process has given rise to Evolution. Science of evolution can be considered as a tool to understand that universal consciousness which creates, operates, maintains and destroys. That energy will not cease to exist even if we humans cease to exist. We are from That and we merge in That. We cannot debate our existence and through ourselves, we have to understand that universal consciousness.
You just said you don't know but with alot of murky word salad. What do you mean by universal "Consciousness" when we don't really even understand what consciousness is. When you say "...operates, maintains and destroys..." Have you seen any of these attributes or measured them with precision to conclude that what you are describing "them" as is what it really is?? The concept of God as fascinating as it is in all its different aspects, is absolutely incompatible with scientific observation methods of understanding the world which evolution study happens to be strongly structured around being able to modify and correct itself which God and all godlike attributes is polar to observation and change.
Anyone who begins their argument with, "I feel" instead of, "I think" has already lost all credibility.
Love this intro
The question put the other way around is much more better imo. If evolution than what is God? Quid sit deus? We have proof of evolution, much stronger than the proofs of all the other religions combined. So which God is actually responsible of evolution?
Occam's razor... lol
@@bipslone8880 What's the simplest hypothesis here, no God?
@@mohammedphilonous6856 0:55 "evolution works fine without god".... All he does try and find a place where a God fits in..... ohhh and his particular god. It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred. Science has no need for gods
@@bipslone8880 I agree with you, I would just be curious about the nature of the God responsible of evolution, if there is any. Because he doesn't appear to be one of the those we know in our world.
The more I settle in consciousness, the less importance I heed to philosophical attributes and beliefs.
The compromise is happiness, supreme happiness.
Nice.
Some seek happiness... Others seek truth as a path beyond happiness (which is always transitory)... In truth I find Joy (which is eternal). 🙏
You are quite right, the more conscious you are the more at peace you are.
Reality is a conscious journey. A journey of higher understandings. And new discoveries formulate ones experiences into a philosophy of Life. A journey towards higher consciousness upward/inward with the source of Life.
Evolution / natural selection can be directed or used for purpose / teleology, even if not itself directed or teleology? A teleology or direction is present in nature as well as natural selection / evolution?
It seems to make some sense to not think of ourselves as existing in a fixed reality. Maybe we could think of the evolutionary process as relativistic and that there are an infinite number of ways that living organisms can evolve. We humans only know of one world with living organisms therefore we only know of, and study one evolutionary path of which we are on. We could someday meet beings from other worlds that evolved much differently. Perhaps they will not understand the insecurities and struggles we have experienced. They may have no understanding of the concept of war or any concept of the desire to harm another. Things could be much different on other worlds with other living beings.
Do gene frequencies change in response to nature?
Yes. Environmental pressures
Well...
Somewhere within some dimension
there is something that constitutes our Being:
Clusters of little bits that compose a Human Body
All these itsy bitsy bits are in play
at speeds fast and slow
at scales large and small respectively.
Some of these movements are orchestrated by our conscious efforts.
but there are overtures in play above and below this
and as we know we are here
there is much that escapes our consciousness...
In what way is complexity of the immune response
the hyperactive processes that play at undetectable microscales within our body
akin to the complexity of evolutionary responses
the hypoactive process that play at undetectable macroscales within celestial bodies?
Perhaps Evolution is a process that happens within the body of an "Omnipresent" God?
In much the same way that we are omnipresent in the immunity at play within us?
Could nature have an independence that can lead to good or evil and suffering? Nature was deliberately given an independence by God to develop or evolve naturally and freely?
Nature is *amoral,* or *rather* beyond good & evil. its neither moral nor immoral. It has no free will or rather its will, it has one, a limited conscious one, aligns with God's. Thats the ultimate freedom that man should aspire to, *away from our enslaving egos* (watch animals,, for example, who just follow their instincts & survival, watch natural phenomena like eartquakes,tsunamis...rain...thunder...Do they look or sound to you like they are "independant" or ethical??? Lol) . Nature thus just is as it is made. It works as it is supposed to do. Man, at the other hand is a moral/ethical being, meaning that man can either be/do good or bad, both or in-between. *Thats the* *essence of man, & thats man's* *destiny, in the sense man will either*
*end up good or bad at the end of the* *line or rather at the end of his/her* *journey....the sum of its good/bad* *deeds then that he/she oscilates*
*around or in between....in life.*
Nature, except man & animals in it, plants, insects, ...is like angels who just do what they are told by God. Their nature is to obey God (they know no good or evil. They're beyond that, i guess. Its not in their nature to disobey God), while man has the choice to either obey or disobey, do good or bad or in between....redeem him/hersel...Man lives in a constant struggle between good & bad within & without, the outcome of which determines man's destiny....here in this life & beyond.
And *NO*, no creature of God has an *idependent* existence. Only God is independent & has a real independent Existence. We're not even "independent" from the environment, society...around us, le alone from nature with which we are connected & with each other.
So, we are immersed, embedded in & make part of *the objective reality* that we thus participate in, alter, influence, are altered & influenced by it....
That means there is no independent inner & outer world. They are connected with each other & have impacts on each other, pretty much like the body-mind relationship.
All that means, we alter & distort objevtive reality whenever we interact with it (we do that all the time, & i dont mean the environmental damage that we cause in nature.) or observe it, measure it....which also means that we *cannot access the ultimate nature of* *reality, or objective reality, that will* *always escape us, since we are* *immersed/embedded in it & since*
*our consciousness & mind alter it* *whenever we observe it through our*
*senses or through their technological* *extensions... like the microscope..*
That means also that *objectivity in* *science is a myth,* since science is just a *human activity* (through the perceptual/sensual consciousness & the mind ) , that is immersed/embedded in reality, a human activity that also influences & is influenced by the culture, society or environment (zeitgeist also....) within which it operates.
So; *forget about ever finding THE* *TRUTH, with a big T*, through man's *attributes,* only, like reason, philosophy, science...
*.....except when they align with God's.*
*Materialist* /science/ philosophy are clearly not aligning with God...an understatement....
Does evolution assume nature? Can evolution explain existence of nature, or why there is something? Or is nature separate and independent from life?
What the hell are you talking about? Gibberish, sorry...
What is the issue between evolution and Augustine theology? Is it about historical Adam and Eve? How to interpret Adam and Eve as the ancestor of mankind?
No one has reconciled (Christian) God and evolution yet..!
Does Hinduism account for dimensions where evolution happens with the soul? Also the Egyptians.
@Closertotruth @LawrenceKuhn Life is about eating and fucking. Evolution is about eating better and fucking better. That's all there is at the fundamental level.
With such thing being fundamental there is no need for stuff like civilisation etc.. Since there is civilisation your claim is nonsense.
Stupid redditor moment
Issues to consider:
1. Western scientists deal with evolution and theology from a western tradition due to a lack of familiarity and openess in their early education with other traditions. This needs to be rectified as Michael Roose tries, but having a more rounded education of other theological traditions may help resolve this apparent contradiction.
2. Belief is so powerful in fundamental central dogmas that a new layer of unnecessary complexity is added to reconcile traditional western theology and evolution rather than being open to question the central dogmas. The theo-drama paradigm is an example.
3. Scientists are sentient humans like the rest of us. Some may be blinded, by a rejection of western theological traditions, to the more obvious and common sense conclusions about directionality and teleology in cosmology and evolution.
4. The question of evil can be reconciled if viewed through the lenses of natural causality, teleological final outcomes and evolutionary selection of learning from best experiences. In other words humanity, as a perceiver of evil, is evolving towards a point where apparent evil diminishes and real good becomes more real.
(Side note: if evolutionary biologists can get away with the apparent design argument, why can't we get away with the apparent evil argument ?)
I am fully aware of the problem of evil argument . However , As I understand it, it’s an argument against theism , not atheism . How are you framing it so it’s the other way round ?
Secondly , science assumes methodological naturalism , not philosophical naturalism . The former is important and necessary if science is to be useful . The latter is irrelevant to science
Celia Drummand errantly claimed that Gabriel asked Mary, "Will you become the handmaiden of the Lord?" Though the Bible does in many places promote human agency, Luke chapter 1 gives the account and Gabriel most certainly did not ask her that question. He simply stated that it would happen. Then Mary stated her support of the proposition without objection, saying, "May it happen to me according to your declaration." In other words, it was a statement of faith, not an answer to a question. While she could have said she didn't want to and God would have turned away because he surely wouldn't put his Son in the care of someone who didn't want to raise him, Gabriel never asked the question.
Yes, you are absolutely right in remarking that Mary’s answer is a statement of faith.
We have to remember that this Mary story and the Gospel was apparently written more than 20 years after the events. The basic story may be true but whatever words she was supposed to have said according to whoever actually wrote the narrative I would take with a pinch of salt..
@@guyfeldman4404 What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that Celia knows better than the Bible account because she was there? She might take offense to that. 😉
@@Dismythed I was pointing out that its pointless quoting the words ascribed to Mary as if we know exactly what she said..
@@guyfeldman4404 ... because nobody would ever remember what an angel said to them 50 years earlier. 🙄 I see. So we can just ignore the troll, then.
Actually, and I know you know so too, the only thing I find here with divine qualities like god, is Mother Nature .
I mean think of it. Every thing that ‘god’ is capable of doing, Mother Nature is doing. Including turning matter into living organisms, that means creating life. There for the force of nature is a set of rules that drives to creating life all the time, every where that is giving the right conditions for it. A main necessity for life (and intelligent life forms), is an electromagnetic field. Without it, no life would be possible. So electricity is a key factor here (Which is produced way down between the magma layers underneath our feet).
We still haven’t figured out all the human brain, subconscious, pineal gland and more, who knows what we’ll find, but it would always be a natural thing, part of Mother Nature and her own natural selections, no matter how supernatural they seam to be.
So, the force of creation is there naturally..
Religions are just the interpretation every nation established in order to explain it. And also to rule and to make money by the way. The only thing capable of doing what ‘god’ is capable of doing is the Earth itself. Combined with its electromagnetic field.
Some guy preceded you in claiming that God= nature, quite some centuries ago (Spinoza), so stop behaving as if you've just invented the wheel, while you & Spinoza are wrong. Why?, simply because you both replaced God with nature, God with a "lesser god" or creation, as one (mis) takes AI, for example, for its maker(s)....
Pretty much like when *Dawkins* alleged that *aliens* brought life to earth from star dust lol
You replaced the true God with a false one, so you still end up with a (false) "god" while trying to get rid of God. Comprende?
Pretty much like some lunatics who claim the *universe* arranges itself to "answer their prayers or wishes..." that then materialise or manifest themselves to them lol
*So, no matter what you do, you will*
*end up with God, al be it your own ego that wants to be a god....* in a nutshell.
You w'd better acknowledge the one & only true God whose signs are everywhere, within yourself & without in nature....only the blind-hearted cannot see...
@@trojanhorse860
I never said I’m telling anything new.. in fact this claim goes back long before Spinoza, about 9,000 years ago, to the times people thought of Mother Nature as the only true ‘god’ there is..
the only ‘God’ you could actually see in action and witness it’s miraculous before your eyes is Mother Nature.. I mentioned Electricity too (energy) .. the thing that is allowing us to think, to remember, to move, to live is electricity and it’s part of Nature too.. If god exists than he is in a strong band with the earth because the electricity is produced deep inside between earth layers and it’s core, and without electricity no mind could exist..
@@Spontanomuse You just electrocuted lol yourself. I am not gonna repeat myself, & we are not just our physical bodies. The physical side of the universe is just a level of reality. Dig deeper. Once again, you always end up with God when you try to deny God & whatever you do. Basta....
@@trojanhorse860
I’m not trying to deny god, it’s the same thing.. god is nature..
@@Spontanomuse Then you end up with God. Dont you see that? You always do no matter what you do, be it nature, the universe, your ego, your idols, ....
‘Good’ is a human descriptor and is simplistic. It is an anthropomorphic view of moral and ethical standards. It is a problem of Christianity having described God as Love, good etc.
Similar problem with Judaism , having painted themselves into a corner as the chosen people of God, could not reconcile with their suffering.
The "directional" aspect of evolution arises from the fact that complexity (in Nature) is emergent from simplicity and not the other way round. Hence the simplest minerals had to form first and the simplest creatures had to evolve first. And, more complex creatures are more likely to have a greater variety of tools at their disposal to adapt to a variety of environments - and will therefore be favored for survival over time: possibly culminating in a species that can control the environment to the point that it can protect the planet itself.
The alternative arguments presented here are pure sophistry.
And, as a general point: When the first statement out of someone's mouth is that they "know" something to be true rather than "believe" it to be so - I immediately begin to discount the credibility of everything they say after that. Massaging the facts to fit a preconceived idea is a recipe for "unenlightenment", and a favorite tool of the tribalist and the tyrant.
"Emergent from simplicity" is the evolutionary sequence. However, Life is not inherent in atoms.
Scientists know WHEN Life appeared in the evolutionary timeline, but scientists do Not Know HOW Life was introduced into lifeless molecules. Life comes from Life, and atoms are not the source of Life - living organisms.
@@steveflorida8699 Life is not inherent in atoms any more than melody is inherent to notes. But melody is emergent from notes. And, to the best of our knowledge: molecules are emergent from atoms; cells are emergent from molecules; simple cells are lifeforms on their own, but more complex life is emergent from the symbiosis of many different kinds of cells.
The statement "life comes from life" is as meaningless as saying "sound comes from sound" or "light comes from light": and explains nothing.
The fact that we don't yet know all the details means exactly that. I.E. We don't YET know all the details. It does not mean we will never know or can't know.
@@phonsefagan3754 what it does mean is, you can take any combination of lifeless molecules and; freeze, heat, compress, shake, stir, electrify, & rub them together ... and materialist scientists will Not Create Life - living organisms.
Again, Life comes from Life. And atoms are not the source of Life. Neither are atoms the source of ... love, reason, morality, goodness and altruism. Therefore, the values of the human experience are beyond the material bag of biological molecules.
@@steveflorida8699Must be great to be so certain about it all. Indeed there may be aspects of all this that we haven't yet grasped. But how would you (anyone) know all this with such certainty? Read it in a very old book or something?
@@phonsefagan3754 if randomness brought forth the laws of nature, then science is the sole revealer of reality.
However, if there is an intelligent living being which is the designer, creator, and sustainer of the material universe and Life, then reality is more than what is analyzed by scientific tools.
Therefore, the more complete understandings of reality are found through other sources.
I'm concious my remark may welll be viewed as an uncomplicated assessment of the situation. There is no conflict between the natural world and the time and space occupied by God. Consciousness is a gift by God to provide humanity with both questions and answers. Deep down inside us we know the Truth....We have the ability and the resources to create utopia.... For the most part we choose not to, then blame God for the inertia, the chaos and misery of a material world. In our head long pursuit of the material we have lost our connection to God and the key to real understanding. For those of us, both past, present and future who believe in Jesus. The Truth couldn't be Closer my Friends.
Which god? The Jewish one? Christian one? Muslim one?
Nature is random (independent), however nature brought about by God, so there is something in nature being from God that develops?
A little late to follow this live, I'll check it later; but with regards to the question in the title:
Given that a diety exists, then evolution is obviously part of the created system that allows this universe to exist as it is without continual adjustments.
"Given"?????. No, No chance. The universe SCREAMS that No God could POSSIBLE Exist.
@@john211murphy it depends on which god.
@@matterasmachine That is what EVERY Religion says. They ALL cannot be Right. They All can be WRONG.
@@john211murphy god can be scientific and checked in experiment.
@@matterasmachine As soon as that happens, I will read the Peer-Reviewed Scientific paper with interest.
Since that has never happened, I think that a conclusion that ALL Gods are just figments of man's imagination has far more scientific validity.
Sure, I know that you cannot prove that anything does not exist, just as you cannot prove that you are not a murderer, but can you devise an experiment that will conclusively demonstrate the existence of, say, The Christian version of God is real?
Evolutia is a Latin verb used in context to roll out something like a carpet rolled out across the floor. To unravel a scroll so as to gradually read it as it is unfurled, is what evolution was as a verb in Latin. So any gradual change over time , where time is like rolling a scroll open so it can be examined and read that would be evolution. But the Fabians at Oxford and Cambridge made a verb into a noun subject to infer that radical revolutionary changes do not explain the world , but slow gradual creeping changes explain the world. So Evolution is somewhat true in explaining many things, but not explaining everything. The Big Bang is not explained by Evolution. Any sudden change in life forms, like the gap from the Cambrian world of single celled life forms, by the trillions joining themselves into colonies of complex life forms of many cells , that sort of change came abruptly rapidly , defying the idea of Evolution. So some times life moves slowly to adapt and some times some power or force compels life forms to radically change almost overnight. So some events are called Evolution and some things are Revolutionary. Revolutionary changes promote the idea of Intelligent Design, where design is ethereal or imaged , as if there was a Mind behind the world composing changes and after a time the unloading of intelligent nuances of design explode all at once, showing a conservation of energy, and matter. So when Design is stored up for eons in an Information System , that is reckoned as God, a place of intelligent ideas abstractly superior to things by happenstance, because the new ideas do not evolve , they explode out of some method of storing data , like a conservator of data, something with a Memory Function, that will determined future events by remembering past events, at punctuated moments of moving data into material mechanisms. Thus a Mind of God is a conservator of information from past events lurking in the darkness for some appropriate time to strike out or act out, moving from abstract information to materialism. That would be sufficient behavior to title such a powerful method as God.
Just out of curiosity, how long do you think the Cambrian explosion took ?
And even if the shift from single celled life to multicellular life was a “ revolutionary” - change as you say , why do you get to claim a supernatural explanation for it ?
While evolution explain origin of species, can evolution explain origin of life?
Yes you are right, it evolved from where?
Nope . It doesn’t address that question.
Creation and destruction are the same. Everytime there is a destruction anything new is created. For example, an explosion creates fire and debris. All that exists is creation. A better synonimous is transformation. All that exists is transformation.
How will you get closer to truth when you start by saying that evolution is right and thereafter use evolution to prove or disprove the existence of God?
Denying the reality of biological evolution is like denying gravity. It is only possible if one is completely in the dark about the actual workings of evolution.
Robert doesn't strike me as an ignoramus about basic sciences.
@@andreasplosky8516 Whatever you're claiming to be evidence of biological evolution, the question is, where you there at the time it was occurring to see that it all happened by accident or chance?
@@peweegangloku6428 wow. This is some incredible bullshit. So you basically can't prove anything.
@@andreasplosky8516 Avoid the sweeping claim of having evidence of evolutionary biology. Some specificity is needed. Claiming to be knowledgeable is not sufficient.
@@andreasplosky8516 Evolution within species is observable, but how can new species evolve that have chromosomal differences and cannot reproduce with their apparent parent species?
The chromosomal differences that prevent interspecies breeding are discrete: so at least one viable male and female with the same chromosomal differences are needed to reproduce a new species.
If a new species is created by mutation, an identical mutation has to happen in both a male and female child living around the same time and location for them to birth a new species, not to mention the high probability of their subsequent offspring being inbreed.
There is a purpose in randomness. Randomness, makes the impossible possible.
The classic mistake. Evolution of a physical organism has nothing to do with the spiritual side of a person. You live on a physical world you are a physical being that is evolving and has evolved. But that is physical, it's like saying "but quantum mechanics doesn't fit into classical physics!" Two entirely different things.
Thats one of the main flaws of the evolution myth where there is only question of biological evolution that cannot account for the human spirit, soul or whatever. No wonder, since evolution theory is *materialistic* as science has been since the second half of the 19th century, where only physics & chemistry exist, no soul spirit or whatever. Better still, spirituality, soul, consciousness, ..are reduced to just physics or chemistry, to just emergent properties, as if physics & chemistry can give rise to or account for immaterial processes such as spirituality, consciousness, ....
Not to mention the fact that there is only adaptation within species (the alleged micro-evolution), no (biological) evolution as such, no macro one where whole species emerge from prior ones or thar all the staggering complexity & diversity of life allegedly originates from a common alleged original cell...Bullshit.
So; biological evolution itself is *an *utter insult to human intelligence* (that it cannot account for anyway, to say the least..)....
If God, Then evolution is god slowly changing his mind
Evolution in the natural development of humanity; theology in the spiritual development of mankind?
God itself has been an evolving idea. It’s not something which is but something which we are working towards.
It is something "humanity" is getting away from. Replacing the Creator with "stars", billionaires and governments.
@@EggtherSong I think science actually tells us different. If nothing else science is the concretion of myth. Of making what is metaphor true reality. As if fiction itself conspires to be know in reality, within the terms of physics.
I think if nothing else we have built a clever defense mechanism which makes us believe we are getting away from it, yet when we look around us our life is enriched in what people just a few hundred years ago would have called magic and in that same line of thinking, like many atheist have proposed how could we tell the difference between gods and more advanced civilizations?
@@diggielixx921 If you mean technology, I agree with you. If you mean better ways of extracting resources and using them for our comfort I agree. Everything else is c**p, and going down the drain. I am observing, in real time, the collapse of a civilization built on "science" and technology.
@@EggtherSong to me that’s just things going according to plan. The end of days, the seven suns, ragnarok , the fall of Camelot. Every myth needs an ending in play . I guess the big question is do we go out with a bang or on a whimper?
@@diggielixx921 If it makes you feel better, it will be a "bang". But not one produced by humans. Every source before "darwinism" and "evolutionism" points to that ending of this "civilization". Unfortunately "humanity" has become "too smart" (or arogant) to pay attention to the wisdom of millenia.
OK, I give you the elephant in the room that I do not see. Some kind of directionality when evolving people is not necessarily needed. It may speed things up some, but with all the locations for random evolution, it may have taken two universes to make *Homo sapiens*. If some really complicated item comes along, use several thousand universes. The item will be located where it was born.
One more short thing. There is no connection between the natural world and the time and space occupied by some gods.
"There is no connection".
However, scientists know WHEN Life appeared in the evolutionary timeline, but scientists do Not Know HOW Life was introduced into lifeless molecules. Therefore, there is a fundamental science Gap.
You are dismissive of God, but Life comes from Life. And life is not inherent in atoms - lifeless molecules.
How can a person say that after 10 years of Darwin publishing the whole world except the American South had accepted evolution? How am I going to believe a person who has made this statement?
Evolution through nature, theology through God?
What if, the problem is us? What if god gave us perfection before and we reject it, what if we blindly need good and evil and to ambiguously set our beliefs in them to define reality.
We are not perfect in anyway, GOD is a attempt to answer during our limited knowledge time ,it way past it's expiry time..
The god of the Bible is an habitual underachiever!
Come again????
@@trojanhorse860
The god of the Bible is an habitual underachiever!
Robert, who’s to say that “god” or God, did not use Evolution as God’s way of evolving = it seems like common sense that that would be God’s way of evolving rather then to make each grub, person, spices
Well that's up to your definition of god and what he does. The christian idea of god clearly carries different ideas of acting on the world.
Throughout the rest of the world, excluding the southern states in the US evolution is excepted and this includes the Roman Catholic Church - Judaism and the Protestant religions -
@@jurgenstephanopolus5095 and too i don’t have a specific definition of “God” apparently you do, (and that’s your right),you refer to “God” as HE, (gender specific) - look Juergen i don’t want to get into a BOOGY MAN ARGUMENT - Now, if I’m reading you wrong my most humble apology - and too, I was speaking to Dr Robert, I know his take on “God” -
@@sonnycorbi4316 the idea of a god who does that is a useless concept because it just adds a doer to the doing. I don't say it is wrong but it is not necessary.
I am sorry if I confused you with the notion of god being a he. I am not a native speaker and in my language god just has a male article, that's on me.
@@jurgenstephanopolus5095 No issues with you and none intended - Evolution is excepted by the majority of Christians world wide, when in fact we, including you, don’t have a clue where we or the rest of this all came from - Myself, I despise organized religion - organized religion worships segregated gods - this does not mean i am an atheist - this is an endless and useless conversation - I thank you for writing to me - and I applaud you for being able to speak more then one language, I only speak English - (God is the biggest and the most accomplished doer of us all :-).
Closer to fantasy, more like it. God on the brain.
Dr. William Craig.. hold my Bible
God created this special creature who at 14 saw life in this way 1. Why do I need information if I can do mathematics and solve problems from scratch. 2. Adults are like children who play with other things. 3 I should be fine as I can do mathematics and play football; I can outdo the children who do better mathematics than me because I can play better football than them, and I can outdo the children who play better football than me because I can outdo better mathematics than them. This creature's mission is to tell you that life is about mental security.
If you need a perfect example of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole look no further.
Nature teleology inherent from God's ontology creating nature?
Coming from God, nature inherently has something of God, even though nature is and develops independent and random reality; so that nature does bring about things for God, yet still has independence and randomness given by God?
Maybe it's God experiencing randomness and adventure to some degree in a huge sort of game he created?
I wonder if God feels absent because we humans now see all that he has to take care of (the whole universe), so we are given more independence as we have a newfound understanding of our place in the world. as if God stopped holding our hand.
I think Robert should talk to KENT HOVAN about this topic…i highly recommend ppl look up Kents 100 reasons evaluation is stupid video…its great and you’ll laugh:)
Laugh indeed . The guy is a joke .
Evolution is guided from Above. Eventually you guys will catchup.
Why talk so fast, as if one has a train to catch ?!😕
In terms of logic, both science and theology are _ex post facto_ , both being constrained to describing and interpreting the world as it is. Theology presumes a role for God, whereas science does not. The machinations required to accommodate God into the narrative, however, are rather contorted, and from the standpoint of Occam's Razor, it seems unnecessary.
If people want to incorporate God into their narrative, that seems fine enough, but expecting or requiring others to do so is a prescription for conflict.
It's ironic to think that human beings slaughtering one another in the pursuit of their religious beliefs has apparently become an element in the overall process of human evolution. Is this carnage really part of "God's Plan"? Ugh.
Robert is obviously trying to be as impartial as possible but there is still a lot of presupposition going on here imo. I respect that at the end he did say that natural evolution is the default position and that he doesn't really know which is correct. Personally I don't think supernatural conclusions are a possibility or probability regarding diversity of a species.
But Occam's Razor tells us nothing about whether something is true or not.
@@terryboland3816 Yes, you're right... But it does remind us of the famous dialog between Napoleon and Laplace:
Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.
The only time I ever found that people believe in God is when they have someone make them believe from a very young age that they need to be watched by someone... or something. If they have never been told about some God, then it's never been a cause for them. It's never been a fear for them. Why bother to worry about what's going to happen when you're dead? You'll be dead. So what.
… you’ve never met (or at least heard of) someone who was an atheist (after being raised nonreligious) and became religious later in life?
@@joshheter1517 Yes, one person, a girl who was sucked in by much older people after her farther died. It seems to me, when they take on God at a later age, they're looking for something to hang on to. A friend or a parent figure.
@@toni4729
I assure you there are plenty of mature, reasonable folks who gained faith later in life for completely sober minded reasons.
@@joshheter1517 Then perhaps you can explain those reasons.
@@toni4729
They found that living within a faith community was a net positive for their lives and/or they found the arguments for God’s existence (as well as arguments relevant to their particular faith community) rationally compelling.
If supernatural, then scientific evidence?
"Supernatural" is a stupid term invented by hypocrite and/or lazy "scientists. If something, anything, happens at least once, it is NOT unnatural i.e. "supernatural". This word should be replaced by "it is outside the range of our dogmas so we will not bother looking into it".
A universe from nothing is plenty evidence..which shows that there was outside non materialist interference since from nothing comes nothing.
@@fortynine3225 Mainstream scientific consensus is that the universe began from a singularity. Christians believe a claim that Yahweh spoke the universe into existence (from nothing). Therefore, Christians are the ones who believe something came from nothing, not cosmologists.
@@wj74 You are making up stuff here since before the singulality there was nothing. It was a a big bang out of nothing that is the only thing that makes sense...that is why plenty of scientists feel the same way. Looks o me that you are not interested in what makes sense only interested in confirming your materialist religion.
@@fortynine3225 Mathematical equations demonstrate that all matter in the known universe was once coalesced as point of singularity. No faith needed for that conclusion. Christians believe that there was nothing and then poof an imaginary magical anthropomorphic immortal being spoke everything into existence from nothing. There are no mathematical equations to arrive at that conclusion, it requires faith and lots of it. I encourage you to lose your faith in Christian mythology sir, respectfully.
If something works without something else, why try and shoe-horn something else into it? It is not necessary.
I believe that you are having a conundrum because of religion and not because of God. If you study the history of religion, and how Judiasm and Christianity were created after oral traditions and beliefs which predated the theology we have today, you may realize that the founders of the religion actually intended for their lessons on God to be interpreted as an allegory and metaphorically. Ultimately, these teaching are an effort to know God's morality. Ultimately, it's human morality were man god, or adopt this morality to be more like God.
If you believe the way I believe, you recognize that the entire universe is essentially absorbed by consciousness. It would take a lot more space to explain myself, but arguably, the universe you exerience is derived from consiousness, and, consiousness is something the universe had to create in order to be complete as the universe. You could argue that consciousness had to be created for there to be a validation of the universe's existence. God would have known this.
Evolution is the process of life coping with the universe and naturally selecting traits that allow for greater success as an organism living in the universe. It's a necessary process for preparing the organism for survival. A critical aspect of survival. One of the primary purposes for life is survival. Now, we have evolved to be a species that can thrive everywhere in the galaxy, but we will likely continue to evolve. There is what I think to call the entropic evolution. We will likely evolve even though we don't need further evolution to triumph over the galaxy and colonize everything. Most these evolutions will occur where you have genetic bottlenecks of people living in distant star systems, but if you believe in God the creator, instead of God the magician, you recognize that what God created is rule based, and you don't have an issue with evolution because you recognize that it is an ingenious rule based approach to validating the existence of everything.
People who have difficulty accepting evolution are people who regard God as the magician. It's not a big deal. God's creation, if you believe the universe created, is not magic, but it certainly is something you might think is magic. It certainly is amazing to know that the universe started so small to grow into something so large, you can't really know how large it is, even with sophisticated technology like the JW telescope.
If , then what is . /facepalm
Seems to me more and more people are believe there’s a divine being, yet are throwing away the shackles and boxes of tradition.
There's a trend towards atheism.
It's not great because of the mental hurdles to overcome, but increasing as we become more enlightened and less dependent upon superstitious beliefs.
Christ can be seen as what he did with human body and blood, as well as what happened to it?
Not a challenge at all.
Just know that God is God and we are not. (Job)
The test of life. Our struggle
Nature has independent value from humanity and not controlled by God?
Funny that sperms cells now grown up humans in short span of time flying jets playing guitar wrecking havoc and doing wonderful things around questioning the existing of God.
Adam Eve of the bible might not be the natural progenitors of humanity, maybe spiritual pair that mankind is heir to?
If evolution, what's God?
Because nature was created by God, it has the independence and freedom of God's character? Nature that would not be independent and free would not have the character of God?
Beginning at 25:00 - "The default explanation is atheistic evolution, accidental and without purpose for humans, which is obviously consistent with science [...] 3. God set the laws of nature so perfectly that evolution would bring forth sentient creatures without god's further intervention. If God exists, this will be my bet."
On both of these conclusions, my objection revolves around entropy.
The classic neoDarwinian/Dawkinsian interpretation of evolution as blind, accidental and without purpose is not scientific because it fails to take entropy seriously. Though I agree with Robert's clarifying nuance "without purpose for humans."
As for God setting the laws of nature so perfectly that no further intervention is required, this also does not eliminate the entropy problem. The ability of complexity to persist across time still demands an explanation, and this interpretation of God still fails to deliver. Reverting to God as first cause is unproductive, because it exempts us from trying to understand the principles that might overcome entropy.
If we are to take the entropy problem seriously, my bet is on factoring in some manner of entanglement/nonlocality (to explain, for example, identicality and the astonishing fidelity with which DNA molecules are replicated). While even this entanglement conjecture remains deeply dissatisfying, in the absence of compelling theory to explain it, I see no other way forward, in my quest, to get Closer To Truth.
Evolution is not random.
It has no goal. But absolutly not random.
@@erikhviid3189 I'm familiar with the counter-arguments as they relate to natural selection and adaptive traits not being random. Byles, however, provides a detailed analysis of some of the factors that need to be taken seriously when considering evolution (natural selection) by mutation. Evolutionary theory that relies solely on mutations as the basis for variety is inconsistent with the reality of entropy:
R.H. Byles, "Limiting Conditions for the Operation of the Probable Mutation Effect" Social Biology, 19 (March, 1972):29-34
@@TheTroofSayer in laymans term: Byles forgot (50 years ago !) to “calculate” the amount of genoms and the pressure from the environment.
He was outdated in when i started on biology at the University i Aarhus, Denmark.
@@TheTroofSayer There are no Gods.
All religions are incarnations of primitive superstition and their god-concept are so ordinary and provincial, that it is almost laughable.
You live and you die. End of (your) story.
@@erikhviid3189 I don't know what work of Byles you're citing, but I'm referring to the aforementioned publication, where his logic is simple and self-evident. The vast majority of mutations do not facilitate survival and if anything, are detrimental to survival. Byles factors in such essential concerns as backward mutations, stability of mutations, population size, mutation rates, etc. For example, the question of positive vs negative - are mutations consistent, are the positive mutations sufficient to offset the negative, and so on. These are non-trivial questions and it is sloppy science to dismiss these concerns as unimportant. Commonsense is never "outdated".
I can’t not understand how brilliant theologians reconcile the lack of a shred of historical evidence Jesus even existed. How is it not troubling for someone with that much education on the subject?
Well, I am not a Christian but when I hear someone asserting that there's a lack of a shred of evidence Jesus ever existed I think he must be a very highly educated academic who exhausted all the available literature on the subject and came to such a groundbreaking conclusion after decades and decades of intense academic research. But Ironically, I find that he is someone who has never ever read an elementary book on theology in his entire life.
@@moayadsalih3563 Where did you learn this person you speak of doesn’t have such a breadth of knowledge? Such confidence of the self satisfied. I challenge you to prove this assertion wrong with study. The fact of the matter is that because such a small amount of true verifiable historical evidence exists It wont take such exhaustive study or a doctorate in theology. If the evidence is there it should be pretty easy no? In fact let’s start with the easy question of why you can with only minutes of investigation find a plethora of evidence for way older people places and things in history. Isn’t that strange? What’s the explanation for that?
@@andreh1888 As you yourself just wrote, there's at least "a small amount of true verifiable historical evidence" that an Israelite named Jesus existed during the Roman Empire. What's missing is verifiable evidence that he was divine.
@@durosempre4470 the evidence is the word of a few men and not much more. None of his possessions, writings, diaries, nothing tangible whatsoever. But we have all these types of evidence for people and things from long before his time. It is at least highly questionable he existed at all and extraordinarily unlikely he was divine. Even in his reported words “is it not written in your law? I have said you were gods.” Why would this one “prophet” be revered above all else?
@@andreh1888 Again, I think we agree there's at least some evidence of a charismatic, spiritual leader named Jesus who lived and died in Roman Judea. How he came to be revered above all else is one of the great dramas of all history. It's as much of a political, secular "miracle" as a divine one, in which a small group of believers from what Rome considered a "provincial backwater" grew large enough within a few centuries to dominate the most powerful empire on earth.
That story's just as miraculous (and unlikely) in its own way as the supernatural feats that Jesus is claimed to have performed in his lifetime.
Cut long story short: just watch evolution fast forward when sperms cell evolve into a full grown human.
The reall question is not evolution but life.
And Life is not inherent in atoms - lifeless molecules.
Evolution is an ideology.
Thanks, Bob, you seem to ask: if math (God the Infinite) what's physics (Planck World the constant)?
God is the Life itself (I am the Life!), organizing, transforming and realizing itself! For that we are something like "living building bricks". And everyone has to serve and work for that goal, even if you don't want that. God is in us! God is in everyone, but not everyone knows that. And God is also the point in far far future, where Life will have fully realized itself (I am what I will be!), with all the promised capabilities, the point in far far future, spoken with Max Planck, where science and religion will meet - at their common goal! ✌️
Christians are not allowed to use science to explain their magic
Well this is just a broad definition of god. You can basically just exchange it for "reality".
Also, how is live gonna fullfil itself? What does that even mean? This esoteric bullshit is getting out of hand.
42
Elon Musk would agree with you.😃
It seems most of the answers he's seeking are obvious, he just doesn't like them.
Why should Creation and evolution be considered mutually exclusive? For example, apparently, computer algorithms, created by man, can evolve without further human input.
Evolution is caused by God through events because time isn't real there is just life and death and the things we do wich we only base our lives on time while here and we have lived every generation since the beginning of "time" and when we get to the end if you don't repent and believe in Jesus you will be in a very dark place for eternity
This is all a simulation but it is God's simulation
@@youaresomeone3413 I cant put my faith in a man who is burdened by the sins of the world.
Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe. Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.
Identify one what you call "computer algorithm" that whatever you mean by evolve can do it?
Normally, its science, human intellect....as creations of & gifts from God (show some respect & gratitude to your own Creator without Whom you do not even exist) , that should align with God & with God's true revelation, in order for man to be able to discover God's *signs* within ourselves & without in nature, not that *God should align with science....*
But, fact is, God's revelation had/has been corrupted/falsified/misinterpreted...many times before, so some aspects of it have to be in contradiction with science...
At the other hand, science is just a human activity which is immersed/embedded in reality ,as man, man's senses, man's consciousness, man's mind ...are , so man cannot access *objective reality* within which man is embedded/?immersed, man whose consciousness & mind alter & are altered by it.
In other words,
Science, reason....must align with the true words, intentions & will of God, if man hopes ever to take a glimpse of the nature of reality in this life before the next, 'cause the moment the body dies & consciousness or the human soul takes off to another higher dimension, the veil is lifted off the (mind's) eye of man & then man sees the whole Truth....
Dont hope to find that here on earth or just a tiny glimpse of it through the perceptual/sensual consciousness & mind only, without aligning that with....God Who is THE ultimate source of knowledge, beauty, truth, love, consciousness, mind, existence...
Evolution is the content of this dream God is having. This understanding changes the evolution of species into an evolution of souls selecting different types of bodies from the set of possibilities. This changes the mechanism from random mutations and natural selection to habits, impressions, choices, and consequences.
Just making stuff up, explains nothing.
@@andreasplosky8516 It's nothing I've made up, and it explains everything. Feel free to start learning about it by reading the Shabda Manifesto, or please be on your way.
@@PaulHoward108 With fantasy you can always explain everything, because there is no need to conform to facts, or reality. Theo-babble is meaningless and utterly useless garbage.
@@andreasplosky8516 What evidence contradicts anything I've said?
The description of reality in the Vedas is semantic. It's all about meaning. It says meanings are fundamental, identifies the most essential meanings, and explains how they interact to produce everything. Calling it meaningless shows your lack of understanding. Physics falsely portrays reality as meaningless, because the reduction of whole objects to component parts, or concepts to things, discards meanings.
@@PaulHoward108 Please read what you wrote. It is total humbug.
I don’t believe in God/gods, but a theist might simply answer your seemingly profound, but fundamentally ill-conceived, question by saying: God’s Will Be Done. If “His Will” is to create the Universe and allow for Evolution, then so be it. Albeit, that’s nothing - remember, for the theists “God is so perfect that He doesn’t even have to exist”.
What exactly do you mean by "evolution" given that the word means unroll or unfold, and if you do not give it that particular sense what exactly **do you mean by "evolution?
@@vhawk1951kl Well, if you don't know, then nobody does! 😅😅
@@vhawk1951kl There is nothing profound in asking these stupid questions. Learn a better debating style. Try and engage with a comment in a meaningful manner rather than sounding like a toy town guru.
@@johnyharris Shrug, next mouse(nothing and nobody) please.
Evolution is BS. There is no evidence Nature & natural processes can make & evolve the simplest molecular machine.
Only an intelligence makes, maintains, operates, improves, fine tunes abstract & physical Functions.
The Universe, Sun, Earth, Atmosphere, Air, water, Life are all physical Functions.... composed of functions.
Quantum particles are Functions.
Nature & natural processes can never make & operate the simplest machine. Because a machine is a physical Function. The three types of machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ).
See. Evolution & Abiogenesis are complete BS.
Sir Issac Newton was correct with his Watchmaker Analogy ... which essentially said the Universe is a Function composed of Funcitons and requires a Function Maker to exist & to Function.
The Universe is not 13.7 billion years old ... but is in fact ... less than 6 000 years old because the God of the Jews & Christians is the Intelligence that made every Function in the Universe.
The world had a 7 day week before Abraham became the Father of the Jews & Moses wrote Genesis with the 6 day creation & the 7th Day is for God.
God had a reason for the 7day week, saying in the Bible 1 day is like 1000 year and revealing Jesus ( God's Son) will return to rule for 1000 years before Judgement Day with 144 000 Jews who died during the Tribulation believers of the Christ.
The current Jewish year -- and we all know how the Jews don't like Jesus -- is 5 782.
6 x 1000 years for Man
1 x 1000 years for God
Judgement Day.
Science proves a powerful intelligence made the Universe & Life
Christianity proves God is the intelligence that made the Universe & Life, and fully explained why?
God is man made. That’s why various cultures have it’s own god(s).
And Life is not inherent in atoms. Therefore, what/who is the source of Life?
Scientists know WHEN Life appeared in the evolutionary timeline, but scientists do Not Know HOW Life was introduced into lifeless molecules.
Weird that all cultures that's far apart from each other have that same thinking.
It may well be!! But not the universe needed further investigations?? Unless intelligence spawned from non-biological states...
It’s an irrelevant question. It’s like saying if Engineer then what’s a combustion Engine. God has created energy, matter, and life. Figure one of those out (which you won’t) then you have a valid question. Create 1 gram of matter, one Joule of energy, any living thing then come play your question game.
The LTEE (the E. coli long-term evolution experiment) was started with 12 identical bacterial populations in 1988 and as of early 2020, they have reached 73,500 generations (the equivalent of 1.5 to 2 million years in human generational terms). & yet, bacteria remained bacteria. There were only adaptations/mutations that just *activated* the already present but non-active expressions of some genes. There were no new genes made or genes altered....
There is thus just adaptation (the so-called micro-evolution), no such thing as evolution, especially not the alleged macro one where species allegedly emerge from prior ones (mathematically impossible)...
No, it's not like saying that at all. And it appears they asked the question anyway, guess they didn't need your permission after all.
@@trojanhorse860 Thanks for sharing, this is very interesting! I will research the experiment sometime. If we want to play devil advects here, this might not be sufficient evidence to rollout evolution. It is also easy to argue that 35 years isn’t exactly 2 million years, even if scientists sped things up artificially to increase the rate at which the bacteria is replicating. But again my point was evolution doesn’t contradict God’s existence even if it’s the mechanism at which everything evolved.
@@leob3447 never have I said they needed my permission. I said it’s an irrelevant question just like your comment. I explained exactly why it’s an irrelevant question, while you wrote a comment with a claim that you didn’t support. Come again with something better please (highly doubt you are capable of that).
@@amywatson2066 Actually, I was referring to your apparent minimum requirement before anyone was allowed to ask the question - "Create 1 gram of matter, one Joule of energy, any living thing then come play your question game." They asked the question without having done any (or all) of those things. I can't help it if you can't remember what you wrote. It's also not an irrelevant question, because no matter what your beliefs are on god and evolution, they seemed to be consistently compared in religious and scientific discussions. Or were you not aware of that?
I don’t understand why philosophy has not kept up with itself. Do we know longer think to relieve mental suffering ? They use to. Philosophy was meant to tell how we put our mind at ease was it not ? Thank you Dr. Drummond
This is a very narrow understanding of philosophy. Psychology used to be part of philosophy but has been established as a distinctive field. The field of positive psychology is probably what you are looking for.
So I’m right philosophy targeted science so it had to ditch pleasantries and ouila pseudoscience psychology is aborted/born. Psychology today needs help just like overthinking the comment and positing narrow understanding. This is pervasive in many peoples linear thought that constantly hopes to separate instead of unify ideas , what we know about evolution has taught most people nothing about connections because of the toxic relationship that Bruce lays out but makes no use of his observation as if it’s pleasant ! Scoff !
@@maxsterling8203 Wow. So much to unpack here. I will start with two questions.
1. What makes you think psychology is a pseudoscience?
2. Don't you think that ultimately the universe just is the universe and every model is just a simplification of that?
In my opinion it is then necessary to dissect the world into parts of understanding that can be modeled.
Otherwise every unifying theory of everything is bound to become simplistic or just the universe itself.
In a way that is what we are doing if we say: "all is god" or "god is the guiding principle".
We are referring to model that can't be explained (definition of god in most religion -> only describable by what it is not).
This does not help in explaining the world, but might be a way of coping with our lack of understanding.
@@jurgenstephanopolus5095 psychology is science often unaware of its own methodology , just like pseudo sociopathy , when psychology finally recognizes the person isn’t a sociopath or diseased with sociopathy but is experiencing plasticity maladaptive or a syndrome. Ask 30 year distinguished members of psychiatry associations they themselves disdain for their field and see no scientific progress. Neuroscience is a science but why isn’t it apart of psychology ? The answer is long winded. Question 2 I don’t think is relevant to my point. However , Bruce himself said he wouldn’t teach a theology class because he doesn’t like polyester and the host couldn’t help but mention he felt patronized . I don’t have a problem with philosophy but it seems most people think finding differences and juxtaposed differences is important, I don’t. This sort of intellectual dance of constantly sorting our memories to meander motivation to think just doesn’t pan out well in conversation. Neuroscience experiments are beginning to show intellectual conversations don’t indicate more brain activity than other activities. In other words putting your views on a chopping block and dissecting as you say isn’t a profound distinction of ability. But I’m my opinion philosophizing on your own to train a thought and build a cognitive model to continue to solve more and more problems as you visualize your model that IS shown to illicit more activity in the brain ( problem solving with contingencies and moral interpersonal and emotional restraint and simplifying for efficiency) yes . This produces more exercise (activity) in the brain. Collaboration is more useful than identifying parts only because identifying parts happens almost subconsciously (not really ) but it’s often taking for granted by our own minds where we have categorized the parts and how. Because it’s just a given , I’m not saying it’s not useful , but I do get a feeling that constantly revisiting “ where things go “ in our model is redundant and it seems to me it is precisely that redundancy that fuels the motivation for progress , and then we find we are solving our own problems in a very long winded meandering set of processes. But just my opinion.
@@jurgenstephanopolus5095 I do find that as you say what we do when we say all is god or god is guiding principle “” this is a fascinating phenomena lol humbly lol I do it lol I won’t here for the sake of ourselves but I can’t promise anything lol I see your point of view
Evolution is the coming to consciousness of God. God doesn’t start out conscious, only just at a level of sentience.
Why do you think you can just make sh*t up as you go along? It's so weird.
That is just like. Your opinion. Why do you believe that?
How do you reconcile God with free will? The God of genes and the God of living will? How do we reconcile Nature with the Soul.
Is Nature that part of God's creation that is determined; and the soul that part of creation that is free. Free in the sense of influenced but not bound. Is the fact that we figured out a way to fly a consequence of genes and gravity or Nature; or is this fact an expression of creation that is self-creative? Are we bound by our creator or unbound? If the will is determined by genes and Nature then how do you explain planes? If science, or understanding, is just the mimicry of Nature then how do you reconcile evolution and morality?
What does it mean that we can repurpose the aids virus to make cancer genes vulnerable? What does it mean that viruses can repurpose our cells to reproduce themselves?
Free will in the normal meaning is nonsensical
@@ivankaramasov What has meaning may stand in contradiction to other things; but incompatibility is not, of itself, nonsense. Ask Galileo and Copernicus about the "nonsense" of their beliefs.
@@kallianpublico7517 What do you mean by free will? Are you able to give a meaningful definition?
@@ivankaramasov Will unbound by its creation. Influenced, yes; but not determined. A creation that does not just react or act or not act but can choose to act selfishly or in concert. Matter that has access to time. Created out of matter but unbound to matter due to time.
@@kallianpublico7517 What do you mean by choose?
How on one hand can biologist say that everyone was derived from one common ancestor, yet on the other hand say there is no Adam because there was no one Adam? Sounds like Adam may have been the original progenitor of all biological life forms.
What common ancestor?
Well I have gone through a life story similar to that of my name sake and the absolute truth is that the God that wrote my spiritual story does exist.
One of the main reasons why your decades search for the truth is futile is because you haven't done a minimal research or reading into the subject of evolution and just took it for granted.
If evolution, God is just is just a comforting fairy tale!
A cruel world is indicative of a godless, evolved world.
There is no problem of evil; it is what it is!
Or a world where there is a god and there is the problem of evil.
@@terryboland3816
That would make him a particularly cruel and/or incompetent god.
Perhaps one that reflects the primitive writers of the Bible!
@@terryboland3816
Remove the god and you have a very much simpler, parsimonious and complete account of why things are the way they are.
No need for theologians to waste their time trying to force their worldview to add up!
@@_a.z Or possibly you've not thought it through properly.
@@_a.z We certainly don't have a complete account of why things are the way they are. And some people are interested in the truth even if it's not of practical utility.
How is it that a transcendent God and science must align?
By "transcendent" you're implying that God is beyond human understanding. Science does not buy that definition of God. Science believes that everything can be understood. Science already understands God. God is an imaginary entity created by man to help man deal with the harshness of life. If you need a child, pray to the fertility god. If you're travelling a long journey, pray to the god of the sea. In the olden days, it got a little confusing praying to so many gods, and so in modern times, we have merged all of those gods into a single imaginary entity called God.
Not watching. Conflating god with evolution is a non starter. How stupid can a question get? Geez Louise.
Morality, this does not exist.
God created an illusion that appears to be self sustained.
This illusion is called Maya in Yoga philosophy.
Thanks for that basic religious insight from Hindu mythology. Now the next person should go: "no God created the world in 7 days and bla bla bla..."
How do you base this belief? Is this what you want to believe, something that you personally experienced, or just something you read in the Indian equivalent of a fortune cookie?