-
Yes, we know the earth had a start date
through observation of planet destruction and creation. We do not know the
date, but can determine that there is one.
-
Lee Strobel is an investigative reporter
and did write for The Chicago Tribune, who for fourteen years after high school
biology believed there was no God.
-
When I say “trust that there was a plan”
Arieanne Yates explained it better. I cannot see the future and God is eternal.
This means that he sees that sins or injustices will go punished whether we see
it or not there is a punishment because He is the ideal of justice. Hitting on another point just because there is
injustice does not mean his unloving. Let me put it in a parent child example.
A 6 year old child steals a pair of sunglasses from a store. The alarms go off
and the parent returns them after realizing that the child has picked them up.
Once the two get home the child is spanked. The store manager does not see the
punishment, but has confidence that there was one. The parent loves the child,
but still punishes it. Because there is pain in the world does not determine
that god does not exists just as a parent spanking a child does not determine
that the parent does not love the child. God cries for every sin because he
knows he has to punish it, but that punishment does not mean that there is not
love.
-
Everything so far that it has said has
come true and if we ignore the aspects about God and look at events that
happened such as the crucifixion, places Jesus went, and kings that lived we
see that it has historical accuracy.
-
Some Christians do have logical
explanations for becoming Christians as in they have looked at other religions
and found that Christianity provided them with truth or scientists that are
looking at creation and see no other explanation. Christians have scientific,
historical, and personal reasoning for conversion.
My first installment was supposed to be against God
,but I could not take my own views out of it so I have reversed my initial
plans and the second installment is against God.
~~ second installment~~
The
first philosopher I would like to talk about is Nietzsche who believed God was an illusion of
the mind. He claimed that God was dead and that we killed him and explained
this accusation by saying that “the belief in the Christian god has become
unbelievable”. One his talking points was creation which is understandable
because how do we talk about god without creation. In his book The Anti-
Christ, Nietzsche talks about Genesis and calls out what he says are God’s
blunders. He first says that man was not entertained or want to be an animal
and then says that women are the serpents in their essence. We can clearly see
that he does not believe in the Christian creation, but if not that creation
then which one? As an atheist Nietzsche believed in evolution, but denied
Darwinism. My initial response to this was how? Nietzsche called Darwin out on
four components of evolution: New organs, Weak outlast strong, sexual
selection, transitional forms absent.
Nietzsche
wrote in his book Will to Power “Against Darwinism.—The
utility of an organ does not explain its origin; on the contrary! For most of
the time during which a property is forming it does not preserve the individual
and is of no use to him, least of all in the struggle with external
circumstances and enemies.” Then continues to say that Darwin over estimates
the influence of external circumstances and that the life process moves to
exploit these external circumstances.
I had
trouble finding other sources on this argument, but this is the quote this website
pulled “Anti-Darwin.—As regards the celebrated ‘struggle for life’, … where there is struggle it
is a struggle for power … its
outcome is the reverse of that desired by the school of Darwin … the weaker
dominate the strong again and again—the reason being they are the great
majority, and they are also cleverer.
… Darwin forgot the mind.” I can see his point here with humans and other
evolutions that animals have such as the monarch butterfly imitating a
poisonous butterfly.
His next comment id the first one
where I do not need an outside source to understand. ”Anti-Darwin … We almost always see
males and females take advantage of any chance encounter, exhibiting no
selectivity whatsoever.” This is exemplified by human rape and other animals
that reproduce through rape.
His last confusing point was “there
are no transitional forms”. Nietzsche writes “Primitive creatures are said to
be the ancestors of those now existing. But a look at the fauna and flora of
the Tertiary merely permits us to think of an as yet unexplored country that
harbors types that do not exist elsewhere, while those existing elsewhere are
missing” From what I can gather he is saying that a species as a whole will
evolve and that this is wrong because we see the existence of plants change and
those changes are a fork in their path.
Speaking of Darwinism, I also want to
talk about his views on God which I got from this website.
Early in life he entertained the thought of becoming a clergyman for the Church
of England. After that he went to college to prepare to become a minister and
was accepted after graduation, but he then instead went on his scientific
voyage. This led to a religious voyage of sorts where he questioned religion a
lot. Through the his voyage he was ridiculed by the sailors for quoting the bible
and eventually gave up on the truth of the old testament. He was baffled by
thinking that if God made a revelation to the Hindus would he accept them
saying it was a revelation from Vishnu. Despite this disbelief he wanted to
believe, but it continued to creep in. He eventually gave up on Christianity
and can “hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity true.” I believe that
this caused him to create and accept his broad terms for evolution and natural
selection. He believes that animals are to simple to be put together by an
intelligent designer. He also says that he sees more design in the variability and
in natural selection than in life itself. He also finds flaws in the best
argument of his time saying that the existence of God is proved by deep
convictions by most people which can be experienced by most other religions.
Here are the comments on first installments:
Nietzsche clearly was no scientist.
ReplyDeleteThe speculations on Darwin's "religious voyage" seem a little unmoored, frankly. Everything I've read indicates that he retained a lifelong respect for religion, insisted that the question of God is ultimately too large for the human mind to resolve, but was challenged to sustain a personal faith by the tragic loss of some of his children (and one in particular). The "broad terms for evolution and natural selection" do not flatly contradict religious speculation as to ultimate cosmic origins, which lie beyond the scope of natural science as presently comprehended.