This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.

Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"

(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)

Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.

[removed]

Wow, that's a lot of people with a shared belief! We can only hope that this doesn't lead to any cloning-related chaos in the future... ;)

There is definitely discusion among Christians and Jews at least whether Adam and his clone really existed or whether they were the first humans. The Catholics have made a statement saying that the Bible is congruous with evolutionary theory I think. I also recently read a hypothesis from Joshua Swamidas (https://www.amazon.com/Genealogical-Adam-Eve-Surprising-Universal/dp/0830852638) that Adam and his clone could have been created from dirt at the same time as other humans had evolved. This would be done with the divine goal of interbreeding.

I'm not sure how dogmating the Muslim faiths are about Adam and his clone being the first humans, but I think we can potentially take away a whole 1 billion of those that have a more nuanced view of the origin of human life that respects scientific evidence and divine revelation

[deleted]

and the rest of them believe that literally nothing turned into literally everything??

im a creationist and im not gonna pretend science can proove either of our theories. and without faith i can see how both theories are equally as crazy

It's a misconception. It's not "nothing turned into everything", it's "most things, given enough time, turn into different things".

He's talking about how scientists explain the beginning of the universe. Even time was created with the universe. How the universe began from nothing? Nobody will ever be able to answer this question which in a way validate the theory of an existing god. If you study islam and the story of Adam and eve it does not exclude the theory of evolution, neither the process of waiting a long time for everything to turn into something else, it's just a matter of interpretation. I don't know for the other religions

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution

That is true. And science doesn't claim to have answers those questions. While religion does. This disqualifying itself from being taken seriously in any discourse about the beginning of our existence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution

I belive that these stories are a metaphore, and not a real depiction of what happened

Unfortunately for this shower thoughts it's less than that. Theologists in monotheist religions do not refute the idea of evolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution

Einstein himself was an agnostic not an atheist, but you believe that having a theory is wrong. A theory that can not be disproven is not wrong I'm sorry, we just can tell if it's right, you included. My opinion on the matter is that the universe confounds me and I cannot imagine that this big clock exists and has no clockmaker

Christians believe that a sky wizard cursed humanity because his clay golems ate a magical fruit offered to them by a talking snake that lived in an enchanted garden. The only way to escape the curse is to worship the sky wizard's undead zombie son who can walk on water and perform instant fermentation spells.

A theory that cannot be falsified is not a theory. It's a fabrication.

Yeah except those “most things” were considered to be “nothing” before the initial explosion.

Hence why it’s odd that people basically assert “nothing” condensed into a dense ball of “nothing” and then exploded which eventually turned into everything.

Wait, how does simply claiming to have an answer automatically disqualify itself as credible?

Come on, don't make it sound like fantasy. Billions of people would be disappointed. Use more spooky language.

I think you just hate on people believing in a god for no good reason and have a superiority ego pb towards religious beliefs. your definition is wrong by the way

Let me demonstrate:

If you (specifically you, not a hypothetical you) want to get to the next train station, just exit your home, turn right. Follow that road the next intersection, then turn left. Follow that road for five miles, and you will find the train station on your right.

Is this claim credible?

[removed]

Just cause you don’t understand something doesn’t make your opinion right

Sure, it’s credible.

Then would you please follow my instructions and tell me if you ended up at a train station.

Yeah bro, like throw in a “thou” or something

But they don't except in the head of validation seeking theists. Very few people ever believe there was a nothing, and the good faith attempts to communicate it to you in your language always fall on eagerly closed minded ears.

We both believe in a first thing, you believe it is infinitely more complex than what it caused by merit of being able to hold the details of our universe in its mind and actively create design from them all at once.

The same way you feel god can make decisions outside of time to make decisions in. Acausal existences are weird. There never was a nothing and every time you guys reassert it you make the addiction of faith look worse.

Some of the catholics I know have a vision of creation that is absolutely compatible with evolution.

Basically they consider the garden of Eden as a metaphore, the forbidden fruit being knowledge (or consciousness).
Their god is supposed to be omniscient, so it makes zero sense that he forbade Adam and and Even from eating the fruit, knowing that they would eat it anyway, just to ban them from the garden of Eden afterwards, this would be useless cruelty.

Instead, god created man in his image, meaning that he knew that eventually, this man would acquire knowledge.
So he never banned Adam and Eve from the garden, they just could not live in the paradise of not realizing that they will eventually die anymore, so is the curse of consciousness.

You could then see Adam and Eve as a metaphore for the first humans that "became conscious", in that they understood that their life will eventually end, "they realized that they were naked" can meat a lot more than just not wearing clothes.
Leaving the garden of Eden means going from an animal to an human.

Now one point we could make nowadays, is that humans are not so different from many animals, that just have a different form of intelligence, but that doesn't invalidate that methaphore, and nothing said that some animals didn't eat the forbidden fruit as well.

The idea is that human are specials, in that they don't realize their mortality when they are wounded or dying, they are born knowing it, they understand what's in the mirror, what they are and how meaningless their life is in the grand scheme of thing, this is a theme that is not shared only by religious people, but religion here can be seen as a way to explain to people what being human is like, a gift and a curse.

As a Christian… yes… I believe that god created everything, but he used evolution to do so. I really hate it when some Christians are under the assumption that you can’t believe in science if you are Christian.

And that's proof of how bad faith is. "Well no matter what, I'm right, and that's more important than the truth of what was meant when it was written or the billions of people who've believed otherwise in the middle."

[removed]

I'm sorry but if god exists i think he created the universe and time, and so holds knowledge that you can not begin to understand and never will be able to.

We as human can not even have our brain picture what a 4th dimension representation look like and you think you could begin to understand what does it means to be outside of time? Or that we would be able one day to explain the creation of the universe

Now if you don't believe, a scientific explanation that could occur outside of time is such as weird as a god. I don't know why people are so shaken by the theory or religion

In your opinion what's the first thing this god created then?

What i mean is that religion does not mean no science. We believe in science, in the theory of evolution, in the big bang. We just believe that the universe was created by god, or that the thing that created the universe was itself created by god, and that everything can not come from nothingness. Being agnostic is believing that there may be a superior force and consciousness at work not that the monotheist religion are right.

Believing that the universe came from nothing is more crazy to me than believing there's someone else

Maybe a "thy", or a "shan't"

Once again, nobody thinks the universe came from nothing. Every time you reassert that, you just witness theism is so senseless it cannot be defended logically. There is no logic in asserting an infinitely complex undesigned entity just was by itself, made by nothing, to explain how a less complex existence, the universe, came to be.

No. Just that we both accept that there are things we can't understand, and demanding others explain those things for you whilst admitting you can't for them is just showing how faith is narcissism of thought alone.

There is no standard by which to infer the first thing a mind or will. Not prove, not even physically evidence. No standard in human logic.

Nobody can prove it didn't came from nothing, nobody. Nobody can explain it, people believe it does not come from nothing but how would you know? Ah yes you can't. This undesigned entity may not be by itself, it may have been made by something bigger even, it could be anything. You can't even explain where the universe come from and you would like to understand what created it ? Also not believing in a god or in a superior entity is an opinion not a fact, which is something that a lot of religion haters tend to forget

What shock me is that you have no proof of what you bring on the table, as i have none of what i bring, and yet you're persuasive that agnostic and believers are all wrong. I don't believe you're wrong, but you'll never be able to prove that i'm wrong either. I have my opinion and your ego trip just want you to be right

No it's explaining that i don't need people to say to me that being agnostic is me being wrong, or that people believing in a god is wrong. Not believing or believing are both an opinion and it's tiring to see people come up with limited scientific facts to explain why I'm wrong and god doesn't exist

Not quite, Adam and Eve's son Cain took a wife from the Land of Nod and made a life there, so there had to be humans out there in the Land of Nod, wherever that was.

EDIT: Can you thank him for proving my point by blocking me for holding him to his illogic, insults and strawmen. Only proves how thin skinned a need to believe makes you.

Thank you for admitting that you cannot present any logic to believe your position correct. :) And your first sentence sounds like an argument for atheism you're so desperate for me to be wrong.
There was a first cause. By all logic it must have been outside the universe. There is no logic in inventing more complexity to explain no question it doesn't beg of itself.It's not that you are definitively wrong, it's that there is no reason to think you're right, and given that no matter what position is true most humans will be wrong, then your beliefs are not products of truth seeking but a need to be right. Nothing more.

Though I do like the hypocrisy of you shitting on atheists from the strawman of everything from nothing, but when you're held to the fact there's no reason to believe you right or even possibly right then I'm an egotist. Faith is the death of reflective thought it seems.

I'm not reading all that just the fist sentence where you're just disrespectful. You are a hater for no good reason and your ego is big. As you're a science and logical sucker I'll just say that Einstein was an agnostic not an atheist. I'm blocking you. Don't come up with an other account to answer

Most religious people believe in evolution. A small minority believes the Bible in its entirety.

Source: I was forced to go through 8 years of Sunday school and grew up in a very religious family.

If I’m being honest I really don’t know

Telling me to do perform a specific act isn't an explanation of your theory.

So i'm still waiting for an explanation.

>Very few people ever believe there was a nothing

You obviously haven't spent much time around.....I guess anyone?

>the good faith attempts to communicate it to you in your language always fall on eagerly closed minded ears.

To me specifically? How would you have any idea how receptive I am to "beginning of time" explanations? Pointing out an irrational concept does not put me on any particular side.

> you believe it is infinitely more complex than what it caused by merit of being able to hold the details of our universe in its mind and actively create design from them all at once.

Again, how do you have any idea what I believe? I never made any statements insinuating my personal beliefs.

Just for the record, it's you that specifically asked for it to be spelled out. It is not me being condescending to a religious person.

Anyway, let's clear that up.

Any religion's claim to the origins of life or the world is just like me claiming to know how to get to the next train station from your home. A fabrication.

Now the scientific approach would be to gather data, and then postulate a hypothesis. So a scientist would try to find out your address, the address of the nearest train station and then would plot the proper route.

And now it gets really funny: a religious person will, in the very likely case that my directions are wrong, still claim they are true, despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary.

> it's you that specifically asked for it to be spelled out.

All I asked was that you clarify a very puzzling statement you previously made.

> It is not me being condescending to a religious person.

Of course not, I'm not religious.

>Any religion's claim to the origins of life or the world is just like me claiming to know how to get to the next train station from your home. A fabrication.

This particular claim of yours only hold's any merit if you're certain that all religions are completely false. Given the lack of evidence to make such an irrefutable claim, this is again yet another very puzzling statement that you're making.

> And now it gets really funny: a religious person will, in the very likely case that my directions are wrong, still claim they are true, despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary.

A religious person will say a train station exists in a spot even though it doesn't? Wtf...you shoot out these bizarre statements rapid fire huh?

>This particular claim of yours only hold's any merit if you're certain that all religions are completely false.

Well, all evidence and livable experience points strongly towards that being the case.

>A religious person will say a train station exists in a spot even though it doesn't?

Yes. An allegory for every dogma. Every statement of faith works like that.

Nope. You believe God always existed, materialists believe the material has always existed. Thank you for proving the effect of your beliefs on you and thank you for admitting that theism is so obviously undefendable that the only thing a theist can do is slime their way out of accountability. :)
You are transparent, and I don't care that you don't want to be accountable to your beliefs. You theistic Narcissists are nothing but evidence of what theism does to people.