Why are heaven or hell the only options

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The number of options is not important or relevant. What we need to know is which option(s) is the one(s) God has left us with. I dont care if there are 50 options, just as long as we can be sure which is right. The case for Jesus is pretty convincing. The Apologetics for Christianity is its fulfilled prophecies, especially Daniel 9. There is no human solution/explanation to how Daniel told us the week Christ would be crucified. There are other prophecies, but this one you can see with not much effort.

Many books have been written on this phenomena. But if you are a skeptic, you would first need to explain why you would believe a prophecy with an exact date, and then believe it. I have found that very few inquirers are after the Truth. Try the book Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, by Harold Hoehner. By the way, it is ok to be skeptical, but to be fair, you must be skeptical about Skepticism.

Happy Researching

🤔

Fulfilled prophecy... it's like filling out my March Madness bracket after the tournament is over and then saying, look, I got them all right, what are the odds!?

The error is assuming that anything "Jesus/Joshua" did was "fulfillmet" and not reconning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

And yet, there is. Think of it as "advantageous to a social species" or not. Some non-human animals help others, even outside of their own species.

If your life only has meaning because you think there is some future supernatural world waiting for you...that's beyond sad.

And some animals bite each others heads off, literally. What’s your point?

How do you draw the line around your categories of good and bad — “advantageous to a social species” — ? Who says? How is it defined? A little old woman is crossing the street about to hit by a truck she cannot see. Is it “advantageous to a social species” to risk your life to save hers? What if she is very rich and you are very poor? What if she had a large family that relies on her and you have nobody?

Under a pure evolutionary perspective, your origin to life has no meaning — and your ending has no meaning because the sun will just burn up someday — so why does your actually life have any meaning? Why not simply live for yourself and not care too much about the rest of the world?

Your worldview has no moral answers for any of these questions beyond some vaguely defined idea about “how we should act.”

My worldview goes far beyond the supernatural after life — though that’s part of it. My view is that there is a supernatural creator, that we are made in his image, and there is a moral order to the universe that we innately understand as humans — the law of God is written on our hearts as the apostle Paul writes in the Book of Romans. But under this worldview, there are moral obligations, a clear definition of right and wrong, and a strong moral basis for everything that we hold important to us as humans — justice and love.

So this whole fabricated origin story is to fill some need you have for "meaningfulness"? And a set of rules? Seems like a cope for people who can't handle uncertainty.

Right/wrong can all be boiled down to what is advantageous to the survival for our species. It is advantageous for humans (and other species) to help each other; to save each other from harm. Pretty sad that you need some supernatural story to tell you right/wrong.

No, I believe the origin story is true because … it is true. It goes back to the first point I made in this thread — you must determine what you think is actually true.

But your second point is *incredibly* naive. First, again, says who? You? It sure sounds like you want people to be nice to each other, therefore, you have come with your own arbitrary rule saying people should be nice to each other. Why? If we all come from fish and there is no actual moral order, why is your rule superior to anyone else’s? Who made you God? What if people don’t want to help each other? Why is that not an equally valid choice under your theory of a complete denial of moral order since everything is simply a social construct?

Beyond that, many many, many times it is *not* advantageous for someone to help somebody else. In fact, many times it is advantageous not to help anyone at all — to eliminate your threats and exploit the weak. And that’s certainly the basis of how the animal kingdom works. I live on a small 5 acre farm. Yes, it all seems peaceful and tranquil out here with trees, and birds chirping, and a little peaceful creek. But I’ve personally observed incredible cruelty between animals. Animals that do bite each others heads off, quite literally. There is nothing — nothing — in the DNA of other species that says that they do what is helpful to each other.

Don’t so casually dismiss meaning in life. Christians believe that we have meaning in life in the cosmic sense because we were created by a creator in his image; that there is a moral difference between right and wrong that the creator had established; that the end matters because there is an afterlife and a final judgment by the same creator; and therefore what you do here matters too because people have a moral obligation to each other and God to abide by the created moral order. This then gives you meaning in life because your life and how you conduct yourself here absolutely matters.

If you are really no different than a fish at your core; and the world is just going to burn up anyway; if all moral rules are arbitrary — you have your “you must help people” rule that you made up but another human being can come with an equally valid rule since everything is a social construct and it might say completely the opposite; then nothing we do here really matters. People can be kind or people can be cruel but it doesn’t ultimately matter since we all rot in the ground in the end. If your beginning doesn’t have meaning, and your end doesn’t have meaning, then, your life doesn’t have meaning either.

The reality is — a lot of people don’t want to go there because they want to feel like life has meaning. So they come up with their own little social constructs that are every bit a religion as any organized religion — we can call the previous poster “the religion of helping each other” — and that’s how they live their life. No God, but a moral
rule that I come up with in my head to try to make sense of it all. People deny religion and then just invite their own to help them get up in the morning and live life every day.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Just be honest about what you are doing.

You think it’s true. There is a difference.

It sounds like you want your religious stories to be true because they provide your life with meaning and guidelines. OK. Not everyone needs that.

“Moral order” was formed by humans over thousands of generations of people figuring out how societies work best. It’s not arbitrary, it’s been tested and evolved over thousands of years.

It’s advantageous on the whole to help others. Some people don’t help others. Some people hurt others. It happens. Over time, those people are less likely to reproduce so it tends to be a self-limiting issue.

You’ve referred to “coming from fish” multiple times. Do you not believe in evolution? People are obviously different than fish. And different than the organisms that first left the oceans billions of years ago. And even different from humans 20,000 years ago. It’s called evolution.

Other species do help each other. There are also many examples of symbiotic behavior.

Life matters here and now, even if there isn’t some supernatural end game. People find meaning in all sorts of ways that don’t involve supernatural beings.

People have been making stuff up, like religion, to explain the unknown forever. Nothing new about that.

“It’s advantageous *on the whole* to help others” — again, says who? Are you now God? On what basis do you draw that very strong and definitive conclusion?

If everything is a social construct and there is no ultimate moral order, then I can just as easily say — it is actually not advantageous on the whole to help others — it is on the whole better for humans to look out solely for themselves, protect themselves at all costs for longevity, eliminate threats, and exploit the weak. Because there is no afterlife or larger purpose to life, why not? It’s also interesting how your entire theory of moral order has shifted even on an anynomous social message board in the course of this debate.

What proof or evidence do you have for your reproductive theory? There is absolutely no empirical evidence that the so-called “not nice people” will reproduce themselves out of existence.

Is that what we were *really* see in the world today?

When I look around I see a world filled with selfishness, cruelty, war, anguish, malice, and other horrible things. I see it on the macro level every single day when I read the news, I see it on the micro level with how I watch how other people treat each other, and I even see it on the personal level with myself in all kinds of ways that I have fallen short in life. If you can’t see it in yourself, then you are woefully ignorant and blind to your own flaws and imperfections.

Christianity actually has the most realistic view of human nature — it comports completely with what I observe in the real world. That is — all hearts are ultimately very dark because of selfishness. The only difference between a priest and someone on death row is that the seeds are watered differently in the latter case.

You end with “life matters here and now, even if there is no supernatural end game.” That’s what you tell yourself to get up every morning. That’s YOUR religion. It is every bit a belief system as any organized religion. So you end up doing exactly what you accuse other people of doing — believing in something you cannot empirically prove to have meaning in life.

For whatever it is worth — I used to do the same exact thing. I made up a social construct in my own head to get up every morning, regardless of whether there was any actual evidence to back it up. (Ironically, at the same time, I would tell people that I only believed in science and “evidence” — even though
there was no real evidence AT ALL for the things I said were most important!).

And then I realized — instead of me coming up with my own arbitrary systems, why don’t I look at what Christianity actually says about the world and determine if it is both factually true and also consistent with reality? It is absolutely consistent with my lived reality (that part was easier to determine — see above examples) and after some historical research, I came to the conclusion that it is more likely than not to be true. I am not 100% convinced, but I am at the same confidence interval that I am around the existence of any other major historical events (I wasn’t at the Gettysburg Address but I have read enough about it to believe it basically happened the way that we think it happened) — and the confidence level that I need to make any other major life decision — whether to get married, take a job, etc.

Finally, no, I don’t believe that humans evolved from fishes millions of years ago. I believe that the human species was created by God and that explains why we have a fundamentally different physical nature and, more importantly, conscience from animals.

There are no gods, so I'm certainly not one.

We are simply humans who evolved to help each other. This isn't some theory that I fabricated in my head.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201212/the-evolutionary-biology-altruism
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/how-humans-evolved-to-care-for-others.html
https://www.science.org/content/article/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

The people who were more cooperative were more likely to survive and pass down their genes. We’re genetically inclined to help others.

“Moral order” is your language, not mine.

Nothing you described about human behavior requires supernatural forces. We are complex creatures capable of both good and bad actions.

I literally never think about what will happen after I die or the “meaning of life’”.

Religion is a social construct. A system built by people to explain the unknown (along with other ulterior motives).

There is nothing “factual true” about the supernatural.

So a creationist. Fascinating. Did you take much science in college? Did you go to college?

It’s hilarious that one of the articles that you cite for alturism uses “cooperating”during COVID-19 as its opening example.

How is that "hilarious"?

Most people who aren't totally f-ing a-holes came together and tried to help others.

Because the poster is trying to use the article as some sort of proof that alturism exists and COVID-19 is actually an excellent example of alturism not existing at all.

And I happen to agree with you — people were jerks. That’s the whole point. Christianity says that the central problem with the entire human race is that human beings are inherently selfish and self-centered. COVID-19 proved that. It did not prove that we live in some altruistic society where only altruistic people pass on their genetic code.

Most people were not jerks.

I didn’t say “only altruistic people pass on their genetic code”.

I said: “The people who were more cooperative were more likely to survive and pass down their genes.”

The scientific research on this may not matter much to people who don’t believe in evolution but it is available:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201212/the-evolutionary-biology-altruism

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/how-humans-evolved-to-care-for-others.html

https://www.science.org/content/article/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

Most people were not jerks? What alternate universe were you living in?

I also think there were jerks on the right and the left. Many people on the right were selfish and flouting the laws openly. Many people on the left said that we have to stay at home at all costs even to the point where we miss being with a loved one at their moment of death … until we need to have a mass rally to protest Donald Trump, in which case we throw all the rules out the window. Both were there own forms of selfishness.

Nothing in your three studies even comes remotely close to proving as a scientific fact the point you are making. These are highly controlled tests with animals and then making broad applications to the general public. And, in any event, our everyday experience and common sense tells us that this isn’t true. Evil people and evil things are everywhere. It seems that these people are doing just fine in passing along their genetic code.

This whole argument is silly because my point is — you can’t even talk about good and evil, right and wrong unless there is some sort of other moral order to the universe. If there is none — as you say — then why do you care if people are altruistic? Who even determines what is altruism? There is no basis for any of it unless there is some greater force in the universe.

Are you the creationist PP? Critiquing scientific studies, are we?

If you don’t believe in evolution then those studies won’t make sense to you.

First, there are many spots on the spectrum between evolution and creation.

This is a blatantly false assertion and an incorrect understanding. Creationism and evolution do not overlap on a venn diagram. One is based on evidence and logic, the other is based on millenia old tall tales that require a lack of knowledge of how the world operates.

Don't try to equate them. It undermines the premise of your argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

And yet, there is. Think of it as "advantageous to a social species" or not. Some non-human animals help others, even outside of their own species.

If your life only has meaning because you think there is some future supernatural world waiting for you...that's beyond sad.

And some animals bite each others heads off, literally. What’s your point?

How do you draw the line around your categories of good and bad — “advantageous to a social species” — ? Who says? How is it defined? A little old woman is crossing the street about to hit by a truck she cannot see. Is it “advantageous to a social species” to risk your life to save hers? What if she is very rich and you are very poor? What if she had a large family that relies on her and you have nobody?

Under a pure evolutionary perspective, your origin to life has no meaning — and your ending has no meaning because the sun will just burn up someday — so why does your actually life have any meaning? Why not simply live for yourself and not care too much about the rest of the world?

Your worldview has no moral answers for any of these questions beyond some vaguely defined idea about “how we should act.”

My worldview goes far beyond the supernatural after life — though that’s part of it. My view is that there is a supernatural creator, that we are made in his image, and there is a moral order to the universe that we innately understand as humans — the law of God is written on our hearts as the apostle Paul writes in the Book of Romans. But under this worldview, there are moral obligations, a clear definition of right and wrong, and a strong moral basis for everything that we hold important to us as humans — justice and love.

So this whole fabricated origin story is to fill some need you have for "meaningfulness"? And a set of rules? Seems like a cope for people who can't handle uncertainty.

Right/wrong can all be boiled down to what is advantageous to the survival for our species. It is advantageous for humans (and other species) to help each other; to save each other from harm. Pretty sad that you need some supernatural story to tell you right/wrong.

No, I believe the origin story is true because … it is true. It goes back to the first point I made in this thread — you must determine what you think is actually true.

But your second point is *incredibly* naive. First, again, says who? You? It sure sounds like you want people to be nice to each other, therefore, you have come with your own arbitrary rule saying people should be nice to each other. Why? If we all come from fish and there is no actual moral order, why is your rule superior to anyone else’s? Who made you God? What if people don’t want to help each other? Why is that not an equally valid choice under your theory of a complete denial of moral order since everything is simply a social construct?

Beyond that, many many, many times it is *not* advantageous for someone to help somebody else. In fact, many times it is advantageous not to help anyone at all — to eliminate your threats and exploit the weak. And that’s certainly the basis of how the animal kingdom works. I live on a small 5 acre farm. Yes, it all seems peaceful and tranquil out here with trees, and birds chirping, and a little peaceful creek. But I’ve personally observed incredible cruelty between animals. Animals that do bite each others heads off, quite literally. There is nothing — nothing — in the DNA of other species that says that they do what is helpful to each other.

Don’t so casually dismiss meaning in life. Christians believe that we have meaning in life in the cosmic sense because we were created by a creator in his image; that there is a moral difference between right and wrong that the creator had established; that the end matters because there is an afterlife and a final judgment by the same creator; and therefore what you do here matters too because people have a moral obligation to each other and God to abide by the created moral order. This then gives you meaning in life because your life and how you conduct yourself here absolutely matters.

If you are really no different than a fish at your core; and the world is just going to burn up anyway; if all moral rules are arbitrary — you have your “you must help people” rule that you made up but another human being can come with an equally valid rule since everything is a social construct and it might say completely the opposite; then nothing we do here really matters. People can be kind or people can be cruel but it doesn’t ultimately matter since we all rot in the ground in the end. If your beginning doesn’t have meaning, and your end doesn’t have meaning, then, your life doesn’t have meaning either.

The reality is — a lot of people don’t want to go there because they want to feel like life has meaning. So they come up with their own little social constructs that are every bit a religion as any organized religion — we can call the previous poster “the religion of helping each other” — and that’s how they live their life. No God, but a moral
rule that I come up with in my head to try to make sense of it all. People deny religion and then just invite their own to help them get up in the morning and live life every day.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Just be honest about what you are doing.

You think it’s true. There is a difference.

It sounds like you want your religious stories to be true because they provide your life with meaning and guidelines. OK. Not everyone needs that.

“Moral order” was formed by humans over thousands of generations of people figuring out how societies work best. It’s not arbitrary, it’s been tested and evolved over thousands of years.

It’s advantageous on the whole to help others. Some people don’t help others. Some people hurt others. It happens. Over time, those people are less likely to reproduce so it tends to be a self-limiting issue.

You’ve referred to “coming from fish” multiple times. Do you not believe in evolution? People are obviously different than fish. And different than the organisms that first left the oceans billions of years ago. And even different from humans 20,000 years ago. It’s called evolution.

Other species do help each other. There are also many examples of symbiotic behavior.

Life matters here and now, even if there isn’t some supernatural end game. People find meaning in all sorts of ways that don’t involve supernatural beings.

People have been making stuff up, like religion, to explain the unknown forever. Nothing new about that.

“It’s advantageous *on the whole* to help others” — again, says who? Are you now God? On what basis do you draw that very strong and definitive conclusion?

If everything is a social construct and there is no ultimate moral order, then I can just as easily say — it is actually not advantageous on the whole to help others — it is on the whole better for humans to look out solely for themselves, protect themselves at all costs for longevity, eliminate threats, and exploit the weak. Because there is no afterlife or larger purpose to life, why not? It’s also interesting how your entire theory of moral order has shifted even on an anynomous social message board in the course of this debate.

What proof or evidence do you have for your reproductive theory? There is absolutely no empirical evidence that the so-called “not nice people” will reproduce themselves out of existence.

Is that what we were *really* see in the world today?

When I look around I see a world filled with selfishness, cruelty, war, anguish, malice, and other horrible things. I see it on the macro level every single day when I read the news, I see it on the micro level with how I watch how other people treat each other, and I even see it on the personal level with myself in all kinds of ways that I have fallen short in life. If you can’t see it in yourself, then you are woefully ignorant and blind to your own flaws and imperfections.

Christianity actually has the most realistic view of human nature — it comports completely with what I observe in the real world. That is — all hearts are ultimately very dark because of selfishness. The only difference between a priest and someone on death row is that the seeds are watered differently in the latter case.

You end with “life matters here and now, even if there is no supernatural end game.” That’s what you tell yourself to get up every morning. That’s YOUR religion. It is every bit a belief system as any organized religion. So you end up doing exactly what you accuse other people of doing — believing in something you cannot empirically prove to have meaning in life.

For whatever it is worth — I used to do the same exact thing. I made up a social construct in my own head to get up every morning, regardless of whether there was any actual evidence to back it up. (Ironically, at the same time, I would tell people that I only believed in science and “evidence” — even though
there was no real evidence AT ALL for the things I said were most important!).

And then I realized — instead of me coming up with my own arbitrary systems, why don’t I look at what Christianity actually says about the world and determine if it is both factually true and also consistent with reality? It is absolutely consistent with my lived reality (that part was easier to determine — see above examples) and after some historical research, I came to the conclusion that it is more likely than not to be true. I am not 100% convinced, but I am at the same confidence interval that I am around the existence of any other major historical events (I wasn’t at the Gettysburg Address but I have read enough about it to believe it basically happened the way that we think it happened) — and the confidence level that I need to make any other major life decision — whether to get married, take a job, etc.

Finally, no, I don’t believe that humans evolved from fishes millions of years ago. I believe that the human species was created by God and that explains why we have a fundamentally different physical nature and, more importantly, conscience from animals.

There are no gods, so I'm certainly not one.

We are simply humans who evolved to help each other. This isn't some theory that I fabricated in my head.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201212/the-evolutionary-biology-altruism
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/how-humans-evolved-to-care-for-others.html
https://www.science.org/content/article/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

The people who were more cooperative were more likely to survive and pass down their genes. We’re genetically inclined to help others.

“Moral order” is your language, not mine.

Nothing you described about human behavior requires supernatural forces. We are complex creatures capable of both good and bad actions.

I literally never think about what will happen after I die or the “meaning of life’”.

Religion is a social construct. A system built by people to explain the unknown (along with other ulterior motives).

There is nothing “factual true” about the supernatural.

So a creationist. Fascinating. Did you take much science in college? Did you go to college?

It’s hilarious that one of the articles that you cite for alturism uses “cooperating”during COVID-19 as its opening example.

How is that "hilarious"?

Most people who aren't totally f-ing a-holes came together and tried to help others.

Because the poster is trying to use the article as some sort of proof that alturism exists and COVID-19 is actually an excellent example of alturism not existing at all.

And I happen to agree with you — people were jerks. That’s the whole point. Christianity says that the central problem with the entire human race is that human beings are inherently selfish and self-centered. COVID-19 proved that. It did not prove that we live in some altruistic society where only altruistic people pass on their genetic code.

Most people were not jerks.

I didn’t say “only altruistic people pass on their genetic code”.

I said: “The people who were more cooperative were more likely to survive and pass down their genes.”

The scientific research on this may not matter much to people who don’t believe in evolution but it is available:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201212/the-evolutionary-biology-altruism

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/how-humans-evolved-to-care-for-others.html

https://www.science.org/content/article/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

Most people were not jerks? What alternate universe were you living in?

I also think there were jerks on the right and the left. Many people on the right were selfish and flouting the laws openly. Many people on the left said that we have to stay at home at all costs even to the point where we miss being with a loved one at their moment of death … until we need to have a mass rally to protest Donald Trump, in which case we throw all the rules out the window. Both were there own forms of selfishness.

Nothing in your three studies even comes remotely close to proving as a scientific fact the point you are making. These are highly controlled tests with animals and then making broad applications to the general public. And, in any event, our everyday experience and common sense tells us that this isn’t true. Evil people and evil things are everywhere. It seems that these people are doing just fine in passing along their genetic code.

This whole argument is silly because my point is — you can’t even talk about good and evil, right and wrong unless there is some sort of other moral order to the universe. If there is none — as you say — then why do you care if people are altruistic? Who even determines what is altruism? There is no basis for any of it unless there is some greater force in the universe.

Are you the creationist PP? Critiquing scientific studies, are we?

If you don’t believe in evolution then those studies won’t make sense to you.

First, there are many spots on the spectrum between evolution and creation. It’s not as simple as saying one is a “creationist” — I am also comfortable that there are some mysteries and unknowns on all sides of this debate.

But more importantly — the ad hominem attack on somebody’s intelligence shows much more about the person making the argument (I have not engaged in any ad hominem attacks during this discussion — I may not agree with the poster but I have not called him stupid).

There are many intelligent people who believe in God, and many intelligent people who do not believe in God. There are also many not so smart people who believe in God and many not so smart people who do not believe in God. These arguments don’t prove anything.

Also, in the United States anyway, attendance at a weekly religious service is actually positively correlated with higher levels of educational attainment.

It wasn’t intended to be attack on intelligence, just framing. We use animal studies, particularly primates, to learn more about ourselves. But if you are a creationist who doesn’t believe in evolution then that wouldn’t make sense.

Were you the poster who wrote this:
“Finally, no, I don’t believe that humans evolved from fishes millions of years ago. I believe that the human species was created by God and that explains why we have a fundamentally different physical nature and, more importantly, conscience from animals.”

I would question your education though. Were you home schooled? Did you attend college? I am curious how someone becomes a creationist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

And yet, there is. Think of it as "advantageous to a social species" or not. Some non-human animals help others, even outside of their own species.

If your life only has meaning because you think there is some future supernatural world waiting for you...that's beyond sad.

And some animals bite each others heads off, literally. What’s your point?

How do you draw the line around your categories of good and bad — “advantageous to a social species” — ? Who says? How is it defined? A little old woman is crossing the street about to hit by a truck she cannot see. Is it “advantageous to a social species” to risk your life to save hers? What if she is very rich and you are very poor? What if she had a large family that relies on her and you have nobody?

Under a pure evolutionary perspective, your origin to life has no meaning — and your ending has no meaning because the sun will just burn up someday — so why does your actually life have any meaning? Why not simply live for yourself and not care too much about the rest of the world?

Your worldview has no moral answers for any of these questions beyond some vaguely defined idea about “how we should act.”

My worldview goes far beyond the supernatural after life — though that’s part of it. My view is that there is a supernatural creator, that we are made in his image, and there is a moral order to the universe that we innately understand as humans — the law of God is written on our hearts as the apostle Paul writes in the Book of Romans. But under this worldview, there are moral obligations, a clear definition of right and wrong, and a strong moral basis for everything that we hold important to us as humans — justice and love.

So this whole fabricated origin story is to fill some need you have for "meaningfulness"? And a set of rules? Seems like a cope for people who can't handle uncertainty.

Right/wrong can all be boiled down to what is advantageous to the survival for our species. It is advantageous for humans (and other species) to help each other; to save each other from harm. Pretty sad that you need some supernatural story to tell you right/wrong.

No, I believe the origin story is true because … it is true. It goes back to the first point I made in this thread — you must determine what you think is actually true.

But your second point is *incredibly* naive. First, again, says who? You? It sure sounds like you want people to be nice to each other, therefore, you have come with your own arbitrary rule saying people should be nice to each other. Why? If we all come from fish and there is no actual moral order, why is your rule superior to anyone else’s? Who made you God? What if people don’t want to help each other? Why is that not an equally valid choice under your theory of a complete denial of moral order since everything is simply a social construct?

Beyond that, many many, many times it is *not* advantageous for someone to help somebody else. In fact, many times it is advantageous not to help anyone at all — to eliminate your threats and exploit the weak. And that’s certainly the basis of how the animal kingdom works. I live on a small 5 acre farm. Yes, it all seems peaceful and tranquil out here with trees, and birds chirping, and a little peaceful creek. But I’ve personally observed incredible cruelty between animals. Animals that do bite each others heads off, quite literally. There is nothing — nothing — in the DNA of other species that says that they do what is helpful to each other.

Don’t so casually dismiss meaning in life. Christians believe that we have meaning in life in the cosmic sense because we were created by a creator in his image; that there is a moral difference between right and wrong that the creator had established; that the end matters because there is an afterlife and a final judgment by the same creator; and therefore what you do here matters too because people have a moral obligation to each other and God to abide by the created moral order. This then gives you meaning in life because your life and how you conduct yourself here absolutely matters.

If you are really no different than a fish at your core; and the world is just going to burn up anyway; if all moral rules are arbitrary — you have your “you must help people” rule that you made up but another human being can come with an equally valid rule since everything is a social construct and it might say completely the opposite; then nothing we do here really matters. People can be kind or people can be cruel but it doesn’t ultimately matter since we all rot in the ground in the end. If your beginning doesn’t have meaning, and your end doesn’t have meaning, then, your life doesn’t have meaning either.

The reality is — a lot of people don’t want to go there because they want to feel like life has meaning. So they come up with their own little social constructs that are every bit a religion as any organized religion — we can call the previous poster “the religion of helping each other” — and that’s how they live their life. No God, but a moral
rule that I come up with in my head to try to make sense of it all. People deny religion and then just invite their own to help them get up in the morning and live life every day.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Just be honest about what you are doing.

You think it’s true. There is a difference.

It sounds like you want your religious stories to be true because they provide your life with meaning and guidelines. OK. Not everyone needs that.

“Moral order” was formed by humans over thousands of generations of people figuring out how societies work best. It’s not arbitrary, it’s been tested and evolved over thousands of years.

It’s advantageous on the whole to help others. Some people don’t help others. Some people hurt others. It happens. Over time, those people are less likely to reproduce so it tends to be a self-limiting issue.

You’ve referred to “coming from fish” multiple times. Do you not believe in evolution? People are obviously different than fish. And different than the organisms that first left the oceans billions of years ago. And even different from humans 20,000 years ago. It’s called evolution.

Other species do help each other. There are also many examples of symbiotic behavior.

Life matters here and now, even if there isn’t some supernatural end game. People find meaning in all sorts of ways that don’t involve supernatural beings.

People have been making stuff up, like religion, to explain the unknown forever. Nothing new about that.

“It’s advantageous *on the whole* to help others” — again, says who? Are you now God? On what basis do you draw that very strong and definitive conclusion?

If everything is a social construct and there is no ultimate moral order, then I can just as easily say — it is actually not advantageous on the whole to help others — it is on the whole better for humans to look out solely for themselves, protect themselves at all costs for longevity, eliminate threats, and exploit the weak. Because there is no afterlife or larger purpose to life, why not? It’s also interesting how your entire theory of moral order has shifted even on an anynomous social message board in the course of this debate.

What proof or evidence do you have for your reproductive theory? There is absolutely no empirical evidence that the so-called “not nice people” will reproduce themselves out of existence.

Is that what we were *really* see in the world today?

When I look around I see a world filled with selfishness, cruelty, war, anguish, malice, and other horrible things. I see it on the macro level every single day when I read the news, I see it on the micro level with how I watch how other people treat each other, and I even see it on the personal level with myself in all kinds of ways that I have fallen short in life. If you can’t see it in yourself, then you are woefully ignorant and blind to your own flaws and imperfections.

Christianity actually has the most realistic view of human nature — it comports completely with what I observe in the real world. That is — all hearts are ultimately very dark because of selfishness. The only difference between a priest and someone on death row is that the seeds are watered differently in the latter case.

You end with “life matters here and now, even if there is no supernatural end game.” That’s what you tell yourself to get up every morning. That’s YOUR religion. It is every bit a belief system as any organized religion. So you end up doing exactly what you accuse other people of doing — believing in something you cannot empirically prove to have meaning in life.

For whatever it is worth — I used to do the same exact thing. I made up a social construct in my own head to get up every morning, regardless of whether there was any actual evidence to back it up. (Ironically, at the same time, I would tell people that I only believed in science and “evidence” — even though
there was no real evidence AT ALL for the things I said were most important!).

And then I realized — instead of me coming up with my own arbitrary systems, why don’t I look at what Christianity actually says about the world and determine if it is both factually true and also consistent with reality? It is absolutely consistent with my lived reality (that part was easier to determine — see above examples) and after some historical research, I came to the conclusion that it is more likely than not to be true. I am not 100% convinced, but I am at the same confidence interval that I am around the existence of any other major historical events (I wasn’t at the Gettysburg Address but I have read enough about it to believe it basically happened the way that we think it happened) — and the confidence level that I need to make any other major life decision — whether to get married, take a job, etc.

Finally, no, I don’t believe that humans evolved from fishes millions of years ago. I believe that the human species was created by God and that explains why we have a fundamentally different physical nature and, more importantly, conscience from animals.

There are no gods, so I'm certainly not one.

We are simply humans who evolved to help each other. This isn't some theory that I fabricated in my head.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201212/the-evolutionary-biology-altruism
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/how-humans-evolved-to-care-for-others.html
https://www.science.org/content/article/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

The people who were more cooperative were more likely to survive and pass down their genes. We’re genetically inclined to help others.

“Moral order” is your language, not mine.

Nothing you described about human behavior requires supernatural forces. We are complex creatures capable of both good and bad actions.

I literally never think about what will happen after I die or the “meaning of life’”.

Religion is a social construct. A system built by people to explain the unknown (along with other ulterior motives).

There is nothing “factual true” about the supernatural.

So a creationist. Fascinating. Did you take much science in college? Did you go to college?

It’s hilarious that one of the articles that you cite for alturism uses “cooperating”during COVID-19 as its opening example.

How is that "hilarious"?

Most people who aren't totally f-ing a-holes came together and tried to help others.

Because the poster is trying to use the article as some sort of proof that alturism exists and COVID-19 is actually an excellent example of alturism not existing at all.

And I happen to agree with you — people were jerks. That’s the whole point. Christianity says that the central problem with the entire human race is that human beings are inherently selfish and self-centered. COVID-19 proved that. It did not prove that we live in some altruistic society where only altruistic people pass on their genetic code.

Most people were not jerks.

I didn’t say “only altruistic people pass on their genetic code”.

I said: “The people who were more cooperative were more likely to survive and pass down their genes.”

The scientific research on this may not matter much to people who don’t believe in evolution but it is available:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201212/the-evolutionary-biology-altruism

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/how-humans-evolved-to-care-for-others.html

https://www.science.org/content/article/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

Most people were not jerks? What alternate universe were you living in?

I also think there were jerks on the right and the left. Many people on the right were selfish and flouting the laws openly. Many people on the left said that we have to stay at home at all costs even to the point where we miss being with a loved one at their moment of death … until we need to have a mass rally to protest Donald Trump, in which case we throw all the rules out the window. Both were there own forms of selfishness.

Nothing in your three studies even comes remotely close to proving as a scientific fact the point you are making. These are highly controlled tests with animals and then making broad applications to the general public. And, in any event, our everyday experience and common sense tells us that this isn’t true. Evil people and evil things are everywhere. It seems that these people are doing just fine in passing along their genetic code.

This whole argument is silly because my point is — you can’t even talk about good and evil, right and wrong unless there is some sort of other moral order to the universe. If there is none — as you say — then why do you care if people are altruistic? Who even determines what is altruism? There is no basis for any of it unless there is some greater force in the universe.

Are you the creationist PP? Critiquing scientific studies, are we?

If you don’t believe in evolution then those studies won’t make sense to you.

First, there are many spots on the spectrum between evolution and creation. It’s not as simple as saying one is a “creationist” — I am also comfortable that there are some mysteries and unknowns on all sides of this debate.

But more importantly — the ad hominem attack on somebody’s intelligence shows much more about the person making the argument (I have not engaged in any ad hominem attacks during this discussion — I may not agree with the poster but I have not called him stupid).

There are many intelligent people who believe in God, and many intelligent people who do not believe in God. There are also many not so smart people who believe in God and many not so smart people who do not believe in God. These arguments don’t prove anything.

Also, in the United States anyway, attendance at a weekly religious service is actually positively correlated with higher levels of educational attainment.

It wasn’t intended to be attack on intelligence, just framing. We use animal studies, particularly primates, to learn more about ourselves. But if you are a creationist who doesn’t believe in evolution then that wouldn’t make sense.

Were you the poster who wrote this:
“Finally, no, I don’t believe that humans evolved from fishes millions of years ago. I believe that the human species was created by God and that explains why we have a fundamentally different physical nature and, more importantly, conscience from animals.”

I would question your education though. Were you home schooled? Did you attend college? I am curious how someone becomes a creationist.

Your posts are intellectually dishonest — you are of course attacking my intelligence and the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with your view of the world. Why don’t you just own it?

For the record, I was not home schooled, I graduated summa cum laude from a prestigious college. I then went to graduate school at another prestigious university, finished second in my class, and have other academic and professional bona fides. None of those matter to this discussion though.

I could point you to many scientists who believe in a creator God — most notably Francis Collins who knows and understands science at a level far beyond anyone cruising an Internet message board on a Sunday afternoon. But just because Francis Collins is a Christian and brilliant doesn’t make Christianity true either.

You really need to get out and meet more people in the world. In the United States higher education actually correlates with more religious attendance, not less.

https://churchanswers.com/podcasts/rainer-on-leadership/the-burge-report-higher-education-leads-to-more-church-attendance/

As I said in my earlier post, I have met very very smart people who believe in God and very very smart people who don’t. There are people on both sides of the debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

And yet, there is. Think of it as "advantageous to a social species" or not. Some non-human animals help others, even outside of their own species.

If your life only has meaning because you think there is some future supernatural world waiting for you...that's beyond sad.

And some animals bite each others heads off, literally. What’s your point?

How do you draw the line around your categories of good and bad — “advantageous to a social species” — ? Who says? How is it defined? A little old woman is crossing the street about to hit by a truck she cannot see. Is it “advantageous to a social species” to risk your life to save hers? What if she is very rich and you are very poor? What if she had a large family that relies on her and you have nobody?

Under a pure evolutionary perspective, your origin to life has no meaning — and your ending has no meaning because the sun will just burn up someday — so why does your actually life have any meaning? Why not simply live for yourself and not care too much about the rest of the world?

Your worldview has no moral answers for any of these questions beyond some vaguely defined idea about “how we should act.”

My worldview goes far beyond the supernatural after life — though that’s part of it. My view is that there is a supernatural creator, that we are made in his image, and there is a moral order to the universe that we innately understand as humans — the law of God is written on our hearts as the apostle Paul writes in the Book of Romans. But under this worldview, there are moral obligations, a clear definition of right and wrong, and a strong moral basis for everything that we hold important to us as humans — justice and love.

So this whole fabricated origin story is to fill some need you have for "meaningfulness"? And a set of rules? Seems like a cope for people who can't handle uncertainty.

Right/wrong can all be boiled down to what is advantageous to the survival for our species. It is advantageous for humans (and other species) to help each other; to save each other from harm. Pretty sad that you need some supernatural story to tell you right/wrong.

No, I believe the origin story is true because … it is true. It goes back to the first point I made in this thread — you must determine what you think is actually true.

But your second point is *incredibly* naive. First, again, says who? You? It sure sounds like you want people to be nice to each other, therefore, you have come with your own arbitrary rule saying people should be nice to each other. Why? If we all come from fish and there is no actual moral order, why is your rule superior to anyone else’s? Who made you God? What if people don’t want to help each other? Why is that not an equally valid choice under your theory of a complete denial of moral order since everything is simply a social construct?

Beyond that, many many, many times it is *not* advantageous for someone to help somebody else. In fact, many times it is advantageous not to help anyone at all — to eliminate your threats and exploit the weak. And that’s certainly the basis of how the animal kingdom works. I live on a small 5 acre farm. Yes, it all seems peaceful and tranquil out here with trees, and birds chirping, and a little peaceful creek. But I’ve personally observed incredible cruelty between animals. Animals that do bite each others heads off, quite literally. There is nothing — nothing — in the DNA of other species that says that they do what is helpful to each other.

Don’t so casually dismiss meaning in life. Christians believe that we have meaning in life in the cosmic sense because we were created by a creator in his image; that there is a moral difference between right and wrong that the creator had established; that the end matters because there is an afterlife and a final judgment by the same creator; and therefore what you do here matters too because people have a moral obligation to each other and God to abide by the created moral order. This then gives you meaning in life because your life and how you conduct yourself here absolutely matters.

If you are really no different than a fish at your core; and the world is just going to burn up anyway; if all moral rules are arbitrary — you have your “you must help people” rule that you made up but another human being can come with an equally valid rule since everything is a social construct and it might say completely the opposite; then nothing we do here really matters. People can be kind or people can be cruel but it doesn’t ultimately matter since we all rot in the ground in the end. If your beginning doesn’t have meaning, and your end doesn’t have meaning, then, your life doesn’t have meaning either.

The reality is — a lot of people don’t want to go there because they want to feel like life has meaning. So they come up with their own little social constructs that are every bit a religion as any organized religion — we can call the previous poster “the religion of helping each other” — and that’s how they live their life. No God, but a moral
rule that I come up with in my head to try to make sense of it all. People deny religion and then just invite their own to help them get up in the morning and live life every day.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Just be honest about what you are doing.

You think it’s true. There is a difference.

It sounds like you want your religious stories to be true because they provide your life with meaning and guidelines. OK. Not everyone needs that.

“Moral order” was formed by humans over thousands of generations of people figuring out how societies work best. It’s not arbitrary, it’s been tested and evolved over thousands of years.

It’s advantageous on the whole to help others. Some people don’t help others. Some people hurt others. It happens. Over time, those people are less likely to reproduce so it tends to be a self-limiting issue.

You’ve referred to “coming from fish” multiple times. Do you not believe in evolution? People are obviously different than fish. And different than the organisms that first left the oceans billions of years ago. And even different from humans 20,000 years ago. It’s called evolution.

Other species do help each other. There are also many examples of symbiotic behavior.

Life matters here and now, even if there isn’t some supernatural end game. People find meaning in all sorts of ways that don’t involve supernatural beings.

People have been making stuff up, like religion, to explain the unknown forever. Nothing new about that.

“It’s advantageous *on the whole* to help others” — again, says who? Are you now God? On what basis do you draw that very strong and definitive conclusion?

If everything is a social construct and there is no ultimate moral order, then I can just as easily say — it is actually not advantageous on the whole to help others — it is on the whole better for humans to look out solely for themselves, protect themselves at all costs for longevity, eliminate threats, and exploit the weak. Because there is no afterlife or larger purpose to life, why not? It’s also interesting how your entire theory of moral order has shifted even on an anynomous social message board in the course of this debate.

What proof or evidence do you have for your reproductive theory? There is absolutely no empirical evidence that the so-called “not nice people” will reproduce themselves out of existence.

Is that what we were *really* see in the world today?

When I look around I see a world filled with selfishness, cruelty, war, anguish, malice, and other horrible things. I see it on the macro level every single day when I read the news, I see it on the micro level with how I watch how other people treat each other, and I even see it on the personal level with myself in all kinds of ways that I have fallen short in life. If you can’t see it in yourself, then you are woefully ignorant and blind to your own flaws and imperfections.

Christianity actually has the most realistic view of human nature — it comports completely with what I observe in the real world. That is — all hearts are ultimately very dark because of selfishness. The only difference between a priest and someone on death row is that the seeds are watered differently in the latter case.

You end with “life matters here and now, even if there is no supernatural end game.” That’s what you tell yourself to get up every morning. That’s YOUR religion. It is every bit a belief system as any organized religion. So you end up doing exactly what you accuse other people of doing — believing in something you cannot empirically prove to have meaning in life.

For whatever it is worth — I used to do the same exact thing. I made up a social construct in my own head to get up every morning, regardless of whether there was any actual evidence to back it up. (Ironically, at the same time, I would tell people that I only believed in science and “evidence” — even though
there was no real evidence AT ALL for the things I said were most important!).

And then I realized — instead of me coming up with my own arbitrary systems, why don’t I look at what Christianity actually says about the world and determine if it is both factually true and also consistent with reality? It is absolutely consistent with my lived reality (that part was easier to determine — see above examples) and after some historical research, I came to the conclusion that it is more likely than not to be true. I am not 100% convinced, but I am at the same confidence interval that I am around the existence of any other major historical events (I wasn’t at the Gettysburg Address but I have read enough about it to believe it basically happened the way that we think it happened) — and the confidence level that I need to make any other major life decision — whether to get married, take a job, etc.

Finally, no, I don’t believe that humans evolved from fishes millions of years ago. I believe that the human species was created by God and that explains why we have a fundamentally different physical nature and, more importantly, conscience from animals.

There are no gods, so I'm certainly not one.

We are simply humans who evolved to help each other. This isn't some theory that I fabricated in my head.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201212/the-evolutionary-biology-altruism
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/how-humans-evolved-to-care-for-others.html
https://www.science.org/content/article/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

The people who were more cooperative were more likely to survive and pass down their genes. We’re genetically inclined to help others.

“Moral order” is your language, not mine.

Nothing you described about human behavior requires supernatural forces. We are complex creatures capable of both good and bad actions.

I literally never think about what will happen after I die or the “meaning of life’”.

Religion is a social construct. A system built by people to explain the unknown (along with other ulterior motives).

There is nothing “factual true” about the supernatural.

So a creationist. Fascinating. Did you take much science in college? Did you go to college?

It’s hilarious that one of the articles that you cite for alturism uses “cooperating”during COVID-19 as its opening example.

How is that "hilarious"?

Most people who aren't totally f-ing a-holes came together and tried to help others.

Because the poster is trying to use the article as some sort of proof that alturism exists and COVID-19 is actually an excellent example of alturism not existing at all.

And I happen to agree with you — people were jerks. That’s the whole point. Christianity says that the central problem with the entire human race is that human beings are inherently selfish and self-centered. COVID-19 proved that. It did not prove that we live in some altruistic society where only altruistic people pass on their genetic code.

Most people were not jerks.

I didn’t say “only altruistic people pass on their genetic code”.

I said: “The people who were more cooperative were more likely to survive and pass down their genes.”

The scientific research on this may not matter much to people who don’t believe in evolution but it is available:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201212/the-evolutionary-biology-altruism

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/how-humans-evolved-to-care-for-others.html

https://www.science.org/content/article/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

Most people were not jerks? What alternate universe were you living in?

I also think there were jerks on the right and the left. Many people on the right were selfish and flouting the laws openly. Many people on the left said that we have to stay at home at all costs even to the point where we miss being with a loved one at their moment of death … until we need to have a mass rally to protest Donald Trump, in which case we throw all the rules out the window. Both were there own forms of selfishness.

Nothing in your three studies even comes remotely close to proving as a scientific fact the point you are making. These are highly controlled tests with animals and then making broad applications to the general public. And, in any event, our everyday experience and common sense tells us that this isn’t true. Evil people and evil things are everywhere. It seems that these people are doing just fine in passing along their genetic code.

This whole argument is silly because my point is — you can’t even talk about good and evil, right and wrong unless there is some sort of other moral order to the universe. If there is none — as you say — then why do you care if people are altruistic? Who even determines what is altruism? There is no basis for any of it unless there is some greater force in the universe.

Are you the creationist PP? Critiquing scientific studies, are we?

If you don’t believe in evolution then those studies won’t make sense to you.

First, there are many spots on the spectrum between evolution and creation. It’s not as simple as saying one is a “creationist” — I am also comfortable that there are some mysteries and unknowns on all sides of this debate.

But more importantly — the ad hominem attack on somebody’s intelligence shows much more about the person making the argument (I have not engaged in any ad hominem attacks during this discussion — I may not agree with the poster but I have not called him stupid).

There are many intelligent people who believe in God, and many intelligent people who do not believe in God. There are also many not so smart people who believe in God and many not so smart people who do not believe in God. These arguments don’t prove anything.

Also, in the United States anyway, attendance at a weekly religious service is actually positively correlated with higher levels of educational attainment.

It wasn’t intended to be attack on intelligence, just framing. We use animal studies, particularly primates, to learn more about ourselves. But if you are a creationist who doesn’t believe in evolution then that wouldn’t make sense.

Were you the poster who wrote this:
“Finally, no, I don’t believe that humans evolved from fishes millions of years ago. I believe that the human species was created by God and that explains why we have a fundamentally different physical nature and, more importantly, conscience from animals.”

I would question your education though. Were you home schooled? Did you attend college? I am curious how someone becomes a creationist.

Your posts are intellectually dishonest — you are of course attacking my intelligence and the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with your view of the world. Why don’t you just own it?

For the record, I was not home schooled, I graduated summa cum laude from a prestigious college. I then went to graduate school at another prestigious university, finished second in my class, and have other academic and professional bona fides. None of those matter to this discussion though.

I could point you to many scientists who believe in a creator God — most notably Francis Collins who knows and understands science at a level far beyond anyone cruising an Internet message board on a Sunday afternoon. But just because Francis Collins is a Christian and brilliant doesn’t make Christianity true either.

You really need to get out and meet more people in the world. In the United States higher education actually correlates with more religious attendance, not less.

https://churchanswers.com/podcasts/rainer-on-leadership/the-burge-report-higher-education-leads-to-more-church-attendance/

As I said in my earlier post, I have met very very smart people who believe in God and very very smart people who don’t. There are people on both sides of the debate.

I did not attack your intelligence.

My comment was based on the fact that you don’t believe that humans evolved from early primates so you wouldn’t see how studies on primates are relevant to humans. That just doesn’t fit into your view of the world.

I was responding to these comments of yours:
“ that explains why we have a fundamentally different physical nature ”

“ These are highly controlled tests with animals and then making broad applications to the general public. “

We don’t have a “fundamentally different physical nature”. We share ~98.8% of our DNA with chimpanzees.

Your education is relevant because it seems that you have a significant gap in scientific knowledge. Were you a STEM major? Did you ever learn about evolution in school?

What type of church do you attend regularly? Do they preach about creationism?

[Anonymous]

And even Francis Collins believes in evolution (using some irrational connections to the supernational).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

And yet, there is. Think of it as "advantageous to a social species" or not. Some non-human animals help others, even outside of their own species.

If your life only has meaning because you think there is some future supernatural world waiting for you...that's beyond sad.

And some animals bite each others heads off, literally. What’s your point?

How do you draw the line around your categories of good and bad — “advantageous to a social species” — ? Who says? How is it defined? A little old woman is crossing the street about to hit by a truck she cannot see. Is it “advantageous to a social species” to risk your life to save hers? What if she is very rich and you are very poor? What if she had a large family that relies on her and you have nobody?

Under a pure evolutionary perspective, your origin to life has no meaning — and your ending has no meaning because the sun will just burn up someday — so why does your actually life have any meaning? Why not simply live for yourself and not care too much about the rest of the world?

Your worldview has no moral answers for any of these questions beyond some vaguely defined idea about “how we should act.”

My worldview goes far beyond the supernatural after life — though that’s part of it. My view is that there is a supernatural creator, that we are made in his image, and there is a moral order to the universe that we innately understand as humans — the law of God is written on our hearts as the apostle Paul writes in the Book of Romans. But under this worldview, there are moral obligations, a clear definition of right and wrong, and a strong moral basis for everything that we hold important to us as humans — justice and love.

So this whole fabricated origin story is to fill some need you have for "meaningfulness"? And a set of rules? Seems like a cope for people who can't handle uncertainty.

Right/wrong can all be boiled down to what is advantageous to the survival for our species. It is advantageous for humans (and other species) to help each other; to save each other from harm. Pretty sad that you need some supernatural story to tell you right/wrong.

No, I believe the origin story is true because … it is true. It goes back to the first point I made in this thread — you must determine what you think is actually true.

But your second point is *incredibly* naive. First, again, says who? You? It sure sounds like you want people to be nice to each other, therefore, you have come with your own arbitrary rule saying people should be nice to each other. Why? If we all come from fish and there is no actual moral order, why is your rule superior to anyone else’s? Who made you God? What if people don’t want to help each other? Why is that not an equally valid choice under your theory of a complete denial of moral order since everything is simply a social construct?

Beyond that, many many, many times it is *not* advantageous for someone to help somebody else. In fact, many times it is advantageous not to help anyone at all — to eliminate your threats and exploit the weak. And that’s certainly the basis of how the animal kingdom works. I live on a small 5 acre farm. Yes, it all seems peaceful and tranquil out here with trees, and birds chirping, and a little peaceful creek. But I’ve personally observed incredible cruelty between animals. Animals that do bite each others heads off, quite literally. There is nothing — nothing — in the DNA of other species that says that they do what is helpful to each other.

Don’t so casually dismiss meaning in life. Christians believe that we have meaning in life in the cosmic sense because we were created by a creator in his image; that there is a moral difference between right and wrong that the creator had established; that the end matters because there is an afterlife and a final judgment by the same creator; and therefore what you do here matters too because people have a moral obligation to each other and God to abide by the created moral order. This then gives you meaning in life because your life and how you conduct yourself here absolutely matters.

If you are really no different than a fish at your core; and the world is just going to burn up anyway; if all moral rules are arbitrary — you have your “you must help people” rule that you made up but another human being can come with an equally valid rule since everything is a social construct and it might say completely the opposite; then nothing we do here really matters. People can be kind or people can be cruel but it doesn’t ultimately matter since we all rot in the ground in the end. If your beginning doesn’t have meaning, and your end doesn’t have meaning, then, your life doesn’t have meaning either.

The reality is — a lot of people don’t want to go there because they want to feel like life has meaning. So they come up with their own little social constructs that are every bit a religion as any organized religion — we can call the previous poster “the religion of helping each other” — and that’s how they live their life. No God, but a moral
rule that I come up with in my head to try to make sense of it all. People deny religion and then just invite their own to help them get up in the morning and live life every day.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Just be honest about what you are doing.

You think it’s true. There is a difference.

It sounds like you want your religious stories to be true because they provide your life with meaning and guidelines. OK. Not everyone needs that.

“Moral order” was formed by humans over thousands of generations of people figuring out how societies work best. It’s not arbitrary, it’s been tested and evolved over thousands of years.

It’s advantageous on the whole to help others. Some people don’t help others. Some people hurt others. It happens. Over time, those people are less likely to reproduce so it tends to be a self-limiting issue.

You’ve referred to “coming from fish” multiple times. Do you not believe in evolution? People are obviously different than fish. And different than the organisms that first left the oceans billions of years ago. And even different from humans 20,000 years ago. It’s called evolution.

Other species do help each other. There are also many examples of symbiotic behavior.

Life matters here and now, even if there isn’t some supernatural end game. People find meaning in all sorts of ways that don’t involve supernatural beings.

People have been making stuff up, like religion, to explain the unknown forever. Nothing new about that.

“It’s advantageous *on the whole* to help others” — again, says who? Are you now God? On what basis do you draw that very strong and definitive conclusion?

If everything is a social construct and there is no ultimate moral order, then I can just as easily say — it is actually not advantageous on the whole to help others — it is on the whole better for humans to look out solely for themselves, protect themselves at all costs for longevity, eliminate threats, and exploit the weak. Because there is no afterlife or larger purpose to life, why not? It’s also interesting how your entire theory of moral order has shifted even on an anynomous social message board in the course of this debate.

What proof or evidence do you have for your reproductive theory? There is absolutely no empirical evidence that the so-called “not nice people” will reproduce themselves out of existence.

Is that what we were *really* see in the world today?

When I look around I see a world filled with selfishness, cruelty, war, anguish, malice, and other horrible things. I see it on the macro level every single day when I read the news, I see it on the micro level with how I watch how other people treat each other, and I even see it on the personal level with myself in all kinds of ways that I have fallen short in life. If you can’t see it in yourself, then you are woefully ignorant and blind to your own flaws and imperfections.

Christianity actually has the most realistic view of human nature — it comports completely with what I observe in the real world. That is — all hearts are ultimately very dark because of selfishness. The only difference between a priest and someone on death row is that the seeds are watered differently in the latter case.

You end with “life matters here and now, even if there is no supernatural end game.” That’s what you tell yourself to get up every morning. That’s YOUR religion. It is every bit a belief system as any organized religion. So you end up doing exactly what you accuse other people of doing — believing in something you cannot empirically prove to have meaning in life.

For whatever it is worth — I used to do the same exact thing. I made up a social construct in my own head to get up every morning, regardless of whether there was any actual evidence to back it up. (Ironically, at the same time, I would tell people that I only believed in science and “evidence” — even though
there was no real evidence AT ALL for the things I said were most important!).

And then I realized — instead of me coming up with my own arbitrary systems, why don’t I look at what Christianity actually says about the world and determine if it is both factually true and also consistent with reality? It is absolutely consistent with my lived reality (that part was easier to determine — see above examples) and after some historical research, I came to the conclusion that it is more likely than not to be true. I am not 100% convinced, but I am at the same confidence interval that I am around the existence of any other major historical events (I wasn’t at the Gettysburg Address but I have read enough about it to believe it basically happened the way that we think it happened) — and the confidence level that I need to make any other major life decision — whether to get married, take a job, etc.

Finally, no, I don’t believe that humans evolved from fishes millions of years ago. I believe that the human species was created by God and that explains why we have a fundamentally different physical nature and, more importantly, conscience from animals.

There are no gods, so I'm certainly not one.

We are simply humans who evolved to help each other. This isn't some theory that I fabricated in my head.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201212/the-evolutionary-biology-altruism
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/how-humans-evolved-to-care-for-others.html
https://www.science.org/content/article/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

The people who were more cooperative were more likely to survive and pass down their genes. We’re genetically inclined to help others.

“Moral order” is your language, not mine.

Nothing you described about human behavior requires supernatural forces. We are complex creatures capable of both good and bad actions.

I literally never think about what will happen after I die or the “meaning of life’”.

Religion is a social construct. A system built by people to explain the unknown (along with other ulterior motives).

There is nothing “factual true” about the supernatural.

So a creationist. Fascinating. Did you take much science in college? Did you go to college?

It’s hilarious that one of the articles that you cite for alturism uses “cooperating”during COVID-19 as its opening example.

How is that "hilarious"?

Most people who aren't totally f-ing a-holes came together and tried to help others.

Because the poster is trying to use the article as some sort of proof that alturism exists and COVID-19 is actually an excellent example of alturism not existing at all.

And I happen to agree with you — people were jerks. That’s the whole point. Christianity says that the central problem with the entire human race is that human beings are inherently selfish and self-centered. COVID-19 proved that. It did not prove that we live in some altruistic society where only altruistic people pass on their genetic code.

Most people were not jerks.

I didn’t say “only altruistic people pass on their genetic code”.

I said: “The people who were more cooperative were more likely to survive and pass down their genes.”

The scientific research on this may not matter much to people who don’t believe in evolution but it is available:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201212/the-evolutionary-biology-altruism

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/how-humans-evolved-to-care-for-others.html

https://www.science.org/content/article/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

Most people were not jerks? What alternate universe were you living in?

I also think there were jerks on the right and the left. Many people on the right were selfish and flouting the laws openly. Many people on the left said that we have to stay at home at all costs even to the point where we miss being with a loved one at their moment of death … until we need to have a mass rally to protest Donald Trump, in which case we throw all the rules out the window. Both were there own forms of selfishness.

Nothing in your three studies even comes remotely close to proving as a scientific fact the point you are making. These are highly controlled tests with animals and then making broad applications to the general public. And, in any event, our everyday experience and common sense tells us that this isn’t true. Evil people and evil things are everywhere. It seems that these people are doing just fine in passing along their genetic code.

This whole argument is silly because my point is — you can’t even talk about good and evil, right and wrong unless there is some sort of other moral order to the universe. If there is none — as you say — then why do you care if people are altruistic? Who even determines what is altruism? There is no basis for any of it unless there is some greater force in the universe.

Are you the creationist PP? Critiquing scientific studies, are we?

If you don’t believe in evolution then those studies won’t make sense to you.

First, there are many spots on the spectrum between evolution and creation. It’s not as simple as saying one is a “creationist” — I am also comfortable that there are some mysteries and unknowns on all sides of this debate.

But more importantly — the ad hominem attack on somebody’s intelligence shows much more about the person making the argument (I have not engaged in any ad hominem attacks during this discussion — I may not agree with the poster but I have not called him stupid).

There are many intelligent people who believe in God, and many intelligent people who do not believe in God. There are also many not so smart people who believe in God and many not so smart people who do not believe in God. These arguments don’t prove anything.

Also, in the United States anyway, attendance at a weekly religious service is actually positively correlated with higher levels of educational attainment.

It wasn’t intended to be attack on intelligence, just framing. We use animal studies, particularly primates, to learn more about ourselves. But if you are a creationist who doesn’t believe in evolution then that wouldn’t make sense.

Were you the poster who wrote this:
“Finally, no, I don’t believe that humans evolved from fishes millions of years ago. I believe that the human species was created by God and that explains why we have a fundamentally different physical nature and, more importantly, conscience from animals.”

I would question your education though. Were you home schooled? Did you attend college? I am curious how someone becomes a creationist.

Your posts are intellectually dishonest — you are of course attacking my intelligence and the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with your view of the world. Why don’t you just own it?

For the record, I was not home schooled, I graduated summa cum laude from a prestigious college. I then went to graduate school at another prestigious university, finished second in my class, and have other academic and professional bona fides. None of those matter to this discussion though.

I could point you to many scientists who believe in a creator God — most notably Francis Collins who knows and understands science at a level far beyond anyone cruising an Internet message board on a Sunday afternoon. But just because Francis Collins is a Christian and brilliant doesn’t make Christianity true either.

You really need to get out and meet more people in the world. In the United States higher education actually correlates with more religious attendance, not less.

https://churchanswers.com/podcasts/rainer-on-leadership/the-burge-report-higher-education-leads-to-more-church-attendance/

As I said in my earlier post, I have met very very smart people who believe in God and very very smart people who don’t. There are people on both sides of the debate.

I did not attack your intelligence.

My comment was based on the fact that you don’t believe that humans evolved from early primates so you wouldn’t see how studies on primates are relevant to humans. That just doesn’t fit into your view of the world.

I was responding to these comments of yours:
“ that explains why we have a fundamentally different physical nature ”

“ These are highly controlled tests with animals and then making broad applications to the general public. “

We don’t have a “fundamentally different physical nature”. We share ~98.8% of our DNA with chimpanzees.

Your education is relevant because it seems that you have a significant gap in scientific knowledge. Were you a STEM major? Did you ever learn about evolution in school?

What type of church do you attend regularly? Do they preach about creationism?

+1

The creationist errs in their conclusion. There is no evidence to support their supposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And even Francis Collins believes in evolution (using some irrational connections to the supernational).

Francis Collins absolutely believes that humans have a fundamentally different nature from animals in terms of mind, body, and soul. Here is a video where he explains why humans are uniquely created in the image of God.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YM0NHNLBrx0&pp=0gcJCUACo7VqN5tD&ra=m

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And even Francis Collins believes in evolution (using some irrational connections to the supernational).

Francis Collins absolutely believes that humans have a fundamentally different nature from animals in terms of mind, body, and soul. Here is a video where he explains why humans are uniquely created in the image of God.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YM0NHNLBrx0&pp=0gcJCUACo7VqN5tD&ra=m

DP - Does he believe humans evolved from early primates or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And even Francis Collins believes in evolution (using some irrational connections to the supernational).

Francis Collins absolutely believes that humans have a fundamentally different nature from animals in terms of mind, body, and soul. Here is a video where he explains why humans are uniquely created in the image of God.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YM0NHNLBrx0&pp=0gcJCUACo7VqN5tD&ra=m

DP - Does he believe humans evolved from early primates or not?

Yes.

"We are part of this amazing evolutionary history, we are related to those other animals... We are directly related from a common ancestor, the evidence for that is overwhelming. That evolutionary mechanism by which life has spread across this planet and all of its amazing diversity over something like four billion years, is about as well established as anything I know in science" -Francis Collins

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And even Francis Collins believes in evolution (using some irrational connections to the supernational).

Francis Collins absolutely believes that humans have a fundamentally different nature from animals in terms of mind, body, and soul. Here is a video where he explains why humans are uniquely created in the image of God.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YM0NHNLBrx0&pp=0gcJCUACo7VqN5tD&ra=m

DP - Does he believe humans evolved from early primates or not?

Yes.

"We are part of this amazing evolutionary history, we are related to those other animals... We are directly related from a common ancestor, the evidence for that is overwhelming. That evolutionary mechanism by which life has spread across this planet and all of its amazing diversity over something like four billion years, is about as well established as anything I know in science" -Francis Collins

OK, so PP not only committed an argument from authority fallacy, they did it incorrectly, and in fact proved AGAINST their claim.

Nice!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And even Francis Collins believes in evolution (using some irrational connections to the supernational).

Francis Collins absolutely believes that humans have a fundamentally different nature from animals in terms of mind, body, and soul. Here is a video where he explains why humans are uniquely created in the image of God.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YM0NHNLBrx0&pp=0gcJCUACo7VqN5tD&ra=m

DP - Does he believe humans evolved from early primates or not?

Yes.

"We are part of this amazing evolutionary history, we are related to those other animals... We are directly related from a common ancestor, the evidence for that is overwhelming. That evolutionary mechanism by which life has spread across this planet and all of its amazing diversity over something like four billion years, is about as well established as anything I know in science" -Francis Collins

OK, so PP not only committed an argument from authority fallacy, they did it incorrectly, and in fact proved AGAINST their claim.

Nice!

No, it doesn’t. In fact, I said in an earlier post that are many different points in this debate amongst people of faith. Francis Collins has one and there are others. His foundation — The BioLogos Foundation — prints articles wnd hosts conferences with a range of views on this subject.

In any event — did you actually watch the 3 minute video? Because in the video — Francis Collins says that God — and God alone — created the universe 13.7 billion years ago; that God — and God alone — further evolved human beings into a separate species with unique minds, souls, and free will — a “special status” created in God’s own image (his words). And that human beings are thus distinctively different from animals. Wouldn’t that count as “creationism” then since the whole thing starts with a creator God?

But hey I am glad to see you agree with Francis Collins!

[Anonymous]

Yes i agree with him that humans evolved from other primates. You disagree with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes i agree with him that humans evolved from other primates. You disagree with that.

Did God create the entire universe 13.7 billion years God? That is absolutely the position of Francis Collins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes i agree with him that humans evolved from other primates. You disagree with that.

Did God create the entire universe 13.7 billion years God? That is absolutely the position of Francis Collins.

What is the evidence for that position?