Christianity v. MAGA Christianity

@Suzianne said
Have you ever taken any physics courses?

Or even astrophysics?

Why would I need to?

@Suzianne said
I've said many times that there can be no proof of God.

Therefore, everything I think about God is without evidence.

That is why it is called faith.

However, I'm not about to fully denounce evolution. We have some proof of that, at least. I believe in the hand of God doing a bit of tweaking here and there, at critical points in evolution, to keep the train moving ...[text shortened]... rove that God exists, either.

I find that theistic evolution is the closest to how I think it is.

And your completely unsupported faith somehow supports your bad behavior?

Is your dissertation committee aware of your RHP profile and your posting history -- and even if not, where is your integrity?

@moonbus said
The Vatican has grudgingly conceded that the scientific evidence that evolution is really happening is overwhelming. The Vatican claims that God‘s hand is guiding evolution. This overlooks two crucial points. The first point is that the theory of evolution as pure naturalism explains all the phenomena we see without any divine hand guiding it, so the addition of God‘s hand gu ...[text shortened]... ality detector. Until then, the addition of God has no explanatory power in the theory of evolution.

This would strike me as an inaccurate statement about the Catholic position, but I am not a Catholic nor have I learned their position too much concerning this. I am Orthodox...

But the general principle within CHristianity is that God is omniscient, and so He has provided for everything, whether it is purely a physical manifestation that was predetermined/pre-known, or whether it is through literal supernatural intervention.

I think this is also what makes the most sense philosophically when addressing this point from within the given starting point that there is an omnipotent God.

@Arkturos said
And your completely unsupported faith somehow supports your bad behavior?

Is your dissertation committee aware of your RHP profile and your posting history -- and even if not, where is your integrity?

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever you are on about.

But you've always been one to engage in non sequitur.

@Arkturos said
Why would I need to?

Okay, I thought so.

@Philokalia said
This would strike me as an inaccurate statement about the Catholic position, but I am not a Catholic nor have I learned their position too much concerning this. I am Orthodox...

But the general principle within CHristianity is that God is omniscient, and so He has provided for everything, whether it is purely a physical manifestation that was predetermined/pre-known, o ...[text shortened]... lly when addressing this point from within the given starting point that there is an omnipotent God.

One of the conceptual problems of Christian theology is that too many omnis are not all mutually consistent. Omniscience (knowing all things), omnipotence (unlimited power to do things), omnifecence (doing all things, i.e., moving molecules), and omnipresence (being everywhere at once) don't all fit under the same hat.

If one assumes that God's Hand is guiding evolution, either on faith (as Suzi does) or based on some theological argument (the Vatican), then this implies that God moves molecules around when chromosomes mutate, because random mutation is one of the essential factors driving evolution. So, either God decides which molecules to mutate and which to leave to random chance--which would be arbitrary--or God moves all molecules all the time, both the exact chromosome copies and the inexact mutated copies, which renders both science and Laws of Nature superfluous--in which case, one might as well believe in magic, since there is no empirical evidence that any super-natural power is ever moving molecules around.

Another of the key factors driving evolution is natural selection, whereby the weak, the slow, the deformed, the diseased, and the handicapped are hunted down and eaten by predators, so their faulty traits drop out of the gene pool. If God's Hand is guiding natural selection, then God must want the weak, the slow, the deformed, the diseased, and the handicapped to be hunted down and eaten by predators, He must be guiding predators to exactly those specimens, to weed them out. It's a cruel and incoherent concept of a God, IMO.

I can well understand why many Evangelicals will have nothing to do with evolution theory, whatever the evidence for it may be--it's really not compatible with traditional Christian conceptions of God or mankind's purpose here.

@Suzianne said
I've said many times that there can be no proof of God.

Therefore, everything I think about God is without evidence.

That is why it is called faith.

However, I'm not about to fully denounce evolution. We have some proof of that, at least. I believe in the hand of God doing a bit of tweaking here and there, at critical points in evolution, to keep the train moving ...[text shortened]... rove that God exists, either.

I find that theistic evolution is the closest to how I think it is.

See my reply to Philokalia above.

If God is merely 'tweaking' a few mutations sometimes, then it's arbitrary, since we cannot know when He has tweaked something and when not. Does God tweak the chromosomes when a child is born with Down Syndrome but not Edwards Syndrome or a heart defect, one would have to wonder. It would be a cruel and incomprehensible God, IMO, who tweaks chromosomes, but only sometimes.

Whereas, if God has the attribute omnifecence (all-doing), if God moves all molecules all the time, then you can throw freewill out the window--in that case, we're just epi-phenomena of neural-firings in our brains, totally controlled by an omnifecent God.

@moonbus said
See my reply to Philokalia above.

If God is merely 'tweaking' a few mutations sometimes, then it's arbitrary, since we cannot know when He has tweaked something and when not. Does God tweak the chromosomes when a child is born with Down Syndrome but not Edwards Syndrome or a heart defect, one would have to wonder. It would be a cruel and incomprehensible God, IMO, who twe ...[text shortened]... , we're just epi-phenomena of neural-firings in our brains, totally controlled by an omnifecent God.

I imagine the most chromosome tweaking would be like manipulating genes to mutate in a beneficial way to encourage evolution. Not really deciding any one organism's fate.

Or perhaps if a specific organism carried an important mutation, to lend it a survival hand to make sure it reaches the age of reproduction.

@Suzianne said
I've said many times that there can be no proof of God.

Therefore, everything I think about God is without evidence.

That is why it is called faith.

However, I'm not about to fully denounce evolution. We have some proof of that, at least. I believe in the hand of God doing a bit of tweaking here and there, at critical points in evolution, to keep the train moving ...[text shortened]... rove that God exists, either.

I find that theistic evolution is the closest to how I think it is.

Everything we believe to be true should be evidence based. - Without proof it is only conjecture.

I don't think belief in God should be treated any differently. Faith needs to be built on factual foundations or it can easily be swept away by the next big wave.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
Everything we believe to be true should be evidence based. - Without proof it is only conjecture.

I don't think belief in God should be treated any differently. Faith needs to be built on factual foundations or it can easily be swept away by the next big wave.

I firmly believe that my mother loved me, but I have no proof of that. Is this to be swept away by the next big wave, too?

@Suzianne said
I imagine the most chromosome tweaking would be like manipulating genes to mutate in a beneficial way to encourage evolution. Not really deciding any one organism's fate.

Or perhaps if a specific organism carried an important mutation, to lend it a survival hand to make sure it reaches the age of reproduction.

It would require an omniscient Being to foresee which mutations would survive the next hundred thousand years. We'll never know which ones they are though. We have to go on what evidence we have now.

@moonbus said
I firmly believe that my mother loved me, but I have no proof of that. Is this to be swept away by the next big wave, too?

I'm presupposing her love was evidenced by the direct/tangible contact she had with you and that the proof of her love lay in her verifiable actions.

So no, such love will not be swept away.

Now, I'm sure there are many theists who believe they have had some kind of direct contact with God, and in which case their belief (to them) is not void of proof. - My previous post was in response to Suzianne's assertion that there 'can be no proof of God' and that everything she thought of God was 'without evidence.'

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
I'm presupposing her love was evidenced by the direct/tangible contact she had with you and that the proof of her love lay in her verifiable actions.

So no, such love will not be swept away.

Now, I'm sure there are many theists who believe they have had some kind of direct contact with God, and in which case their belief (to them) is not void of proof. - My ...[text shortened]... n that there 'can be no proof of God' and that everything she thought of God was 'without evidence.'

Intangible evidence is difficult to make plausible to other people.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
Everything we believe to be true should be evidence based. - Without proof it is only conjecture.

I don't think belief in God should be treated any differently. Faith needs to be built on factual foundations or it can easily be swept away by the next big wave.

Faith is all about conjecture.

God cannot be proven.

So yeah, it's all opinion. That doesn't bother most actual, or "true", believers.

These days, people have opinions about much more foolish things.


I'd say it's more about what you believe than who you believe in.

Believing that your God(s) are from another planet and wants you to have multiple wives and wants you to invest ALL your money in an earthly church with an earthly greedy televangelist ringmaster is ridiculous and foolhardy. I believe in a lowly carpenter who taught a simple message of love. Yes, he was the Son of God, but I believe in his simple message to follow the will of his Father. There are far worse things to believe in.

Even worse are those who only SAY they believe and yet do not follow his teachings. None of his teachings are about benefiting yourself, only others. Hypocrites need not apply.

@Suzianne said
Faith is all about conjecture.

God cannot be proven.

So yeah, it's all opinion. That doesn't bother most actual, or "true", believers.

These days, people have opinions about much more foolish things.


I'd say it's more about what you believe than who you believe in.

Believing that your God(s) are from another planet and wants you to have multip ...[text shortened]... ings. None of his teachings are about benefiting yourself, only others. Hypocrites need not apply.

And yet many Christians do speak with certainty when it comes to what they believe and the errors of what others might believe.

How is this certainty substantiated if faith is merely opinion or conjecture that can't be proven.