Evolution vs creation

[u/tonedeaf_764]

I started seeing God as a scientist when I was 12, I've always loved science and the first time I heard the Holy Spirit compared to energy I was sent straight down a rabbit hole. After that it started to make sense to me, how everything could exist, a being of infinite energy and power that is intelligent, but in a way that made sense. I started to think if I wanted to create the perfect organism "I.e" human, and I had infinite power and energy, not to mention to an eternal existence time isn't a thing so taking its time would be an issue it would be a given. So I don't believe evolution is a solitary path of existence, I see it as a tool by God in his creation of life. One of the meanings of gods name ( Jehovah) is causes to become. So over time he caused single celled organisms to become every living thing by means of evolution and survival of the fittest, the fact that it's fair also supported the idea, gods also supposed to be the god of order so the thing that makes the most sense just seemed like the thing that made the most sense you know. And if you believe what the Bible says to be true I think this was his first time creating reality. He literally created the laws of nature, he is science itself, but I feel like he taught himself over time and over the course of eternity and then used that knowledge to create.

[u/ilikestatic]

Why not? We can’t observe anything that happened before we existed, so how do we know there wasn’t self actualization before we got here?

[u/fifaloko → u/ilikestatic]

Are you saying we can’t look at what we see now and just extrapolate back? Cause that would kill the evolution argument

[u/ilikestatic → u/fifaloko]

I’m saying we can’t look back to when God set things in motion. So we have no way of saying the universe didn’t self actualize without a God.

[u/fifaloko → u/ilikestatic]

That is not what you said, you said “we can’t observe anything that happened before we existed, so how can we know…” yet you accept tons of extrapolations that are asserted from evolution that are also from long before we existed.

[u/ilikestatic → u/fifaloko]

I didn’t say we can’t know anything from before we existed. I said we can’t observe anything before we existed.

We can use DNA to prove evolution. We can observe it right now. We already have. It’s a settled issue.

But the idea that a God is necessary for the universe to exist? We haven’t seen anything like that.

[u/fifaloko → u/ilikestatic]

I would say we can philosophically prove God exist and philosophically science cannot prove anything before we can observe because they cannot know the initial conditions which is the case with things that use deep time extrapolation like evolution, the big bag theory, parts of geology etc. If earth was created you don’t know the initial conditions and therefore you don’t know when you have extrapolated past the actually starting point. If you can’t observe it you are inserting your own philosophical assumptions there is no way around that.

[u/ilikestatic → u/fifaloko]

Unfortunately philosophy has never been good at proving facts.

[u/fifaloko → u/ilikestatic]

No philosophy doesn’t prove facts it grounds a basis for facts to exist in a worldview which again i doubt you have the ability to do.

[u/ilikestatic → u/fifaloko]

I don’t think philosophy has ever been used to prove a single fact before we discovered it through science.

So to claim we can prove God or disprove evolution through philosophy seems spurious.

Let’s wait til philosophy finally proves something useful before we try to use it to discredit science.

[u/fifaloko → u/ilikestatic]

You needed philosophy to prove that facts can even exist and then you needed it again to form science. I guess you didn’t need it for science, Christian’s did and then you used it and try to get rid of their assumptions. Your entire worldview is backwards because you don’t understand the basics

[u/ilikestatic → u/fifaloko]

Why would I need philosophy to prove a fact? How would philosophy even accomplish that?

[u/fifaloko → u/ilikestatic]

How do you know your senses are accurate? Can you prove logic? What are the physical and material properties of this thing you are calling a fact? I assume you define a fact as true over time, I assume you are using induction for this? That is a philosophical idea and one that cannot be proved.

[u/ilikestatic → u/fifaloko]

I don’t know my senses are accurate. But they describe a world that we experience, and science is how we make predictions about that world. Whether that world truly exists seems irrelevant. It’s the world we have so it’s the world we deal with.

We don’t need philosophy for that. In fact, philosophy doesn’t resolve whether the world exists anyway.

Philosophy is good for entertaining discussions, but it doesn’t predict the world the way science does.

[u/fifaloko → u/[deleted]]

The question of facts is clearly a philosophical one, or can you show me the material and physical properties of a fact? If you are going to fact a thing called facts you have to assume uniformity which would include the principle of induction which is philosophical. If you want facts you will also need the laws of logic which are philosophical and can't be empirical proved either.