A New Type of Theology in a New World

[Earthseed Ethan]

I don’t post on this forum very often. My friend Daniel is a moderator for it. However, I’ve been thinking so much that I felt like sharing this was necessary. Talking about this to people like my close family and friends hasn’t really helped too much so far.

Philosophy seems to be dated in at this point. There is contemporary advanced philosophy in various fields, and it does seem to help people understand at the core more about very specific situations or cases. Rather than the broad view of things.

My birth was premature; not literally, but the way my theology operates, evolves and grows with me has been nothing less than remarkable and honestly, I wished society would speed up to where I find myself now.

The fundamental understanding of my faith is rooted in the concept that God is not a being but rather a concept. If you look at religions’ past, polytheistic, or many Gods, societies imbodied this idea that beings were attached to concepts. The God of war, the goddess of love, and so on. Monotheistic, or one God, societies combined all the concepts of all the Gods that existed into one unitary God. The God of war is also the God of peace. The God of hate is also the God of love.

There is a new branch of thought forming. It’s still too early to tell exactly where it is heading. It will replace the monolith of monotheism eventually. This idea is to replace the being of God with a concept that is God. Instead of saying there is a God of war or a Goddess of love you would say that war or love itself is God. I see this often when people write silly things like Peace or Love in their religious bio on Facebook.

That begs the question. If God is a concept rather than a being, what is the concept? Love, peace and happiness are all great and wonderful things, but all three concepts are finite. For much of history those things didn’t exist in the way we know them today. On a very rudimental level, somethings have always seemed to exist. Concepts like time, space, maybe even the very idea of existence could be the basis of theological thought. I think therefore I am.

I have started to study and understand this core idea of a dystopian science fiction novel Parable of the Sower and its protagonist and her faith that she calls Earthseed. Earthseed may be the easiest concept to grasp, but it may be the most difficult to develop. In Earthseed the concept surrounding God is change. Simple, right? Change is a very simple concept however its implications on the history and future of our species is infinitely complex.

There is a pitfall in this. Change happens constantly. Everyday at every time. Change may the only constant in the entire Universe. However, we try to think of whatever caused the change as the God rather than change itself. Then we embody the Gods, or beings, of change rather than change itself. My pitfall is pantheism, or the idea that nature is God. My type of pantheism, which also leaves room for multiple universes and a deistic God, may be the physical embodiment of change.

I call God The Omniverse. I refer to it simply as Thee, which I know means “you” in Old English. Everybody is part of this journey we call life anyways, so I find it fitting to call it that. The Omniverse isn’t God though, as much as I would like it to be. My entire idea rests on the fact that change is possible. The Omniverse changed so it ultimately created human beings that are highly known for their wisdom and utility. We have our flaws, but we are currently eight billion strong on this planet.

So, how do we develop a small concept that a concept itself, like change, is God? Well, there are arguably positive and negative changes, even Earthseed touches on that. Transhumanism and futurism seem to be the sciences which try to perceive the best possible outcomes. Will they happen? Most of them don’t, or if they do it’s completely different from the way it was imagined.

There also seems to be a prevailing idea that many people take that nations and civilizations start small, grow larger, become wealthy and then fall. We may be experiencing the wealth of our prosperity right now just to begin the downfall of the nation, the civilization and possibly our species. That is daunting. Another problem may arise that it is possible that humans simply aren’t able to develop new technologies, become wiser than they already are or are in some way too limited as a multicellular being can do.

All kinds of pitfalls exist, some of them more serious while others less. There is a type of philosophy of transhumanism called extropianism. Extropianism is a field which values most the human condition and how far we can reach beyond our very basic needs. It values practicality and pragmatic ways to help us rather than blanket statements over how it will either end or not.

Let’s argue for a moment that we aren’t just in a wealthy period that will eventually collapse, and while I do see that as a very real possibility, let’s just argue for the moment that this ascension will continue to grow for at least another few hundred years. Earthseed is a rudimentary faith builder that sees change as God and as far as I can tell, positive change is accelerating faster as we get more comfortable with our TVs and cars.

A novel approach to these concepts has arisen a new theology. Syntheism. While there is a fledging faith called Syntheism, syntheism as I will discuss is a theology rather than a religion. The idea is a hybrid of syn – or to work for or create, and theism – pertaining to God. The theology sees God as a concept rather than a being, and that we are working, or creating, God rather than being ruled over it.

If change is the only consist than all possibilities will arise at some point. If syntheism is accurate then the change we create in the world and beyond is God. The Universe is a vessel for all of us to grow and comprehend more, to change. I term this change the pantheosis. All becoming God, or all becoming this change. And I am confident that no matter what happens to us here on Earth, this change will always exist, for extropy, for syntheism and for the pantheosis.

[Ichthus77]

A concept without a mind is… a pretty mindless concept.

[obsrvr524]

-
All sounds very Jamesian. I hope your heart isn't too vested in it being a "new type of theology". James proposed that God being a concept was the original and the Abramics allowed it to become viewed as a human-like being (separating East from West).

Specifically -

In concept:
A god ≡ who/whatever incontestably determines what can or cannot be concerning a particular situation.
The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be concerning any situation.

Btw, FYI;
Janmady asya yatah.
The Vedanta-Sutra (1.1.2) defines God or the Absolute Truth, brahman, as the source of everything (The Supreme Creator = Reality itself).

A concept without a mind is… a pretty mindless concept.

- and yet aware of all things.

[Earthseed Ethan]

-
All sounds very Jamesian. I hope your heart isn't too vested in it being a "new type of theology". James proposed that God being a concept was the original and the Abramics allowed it to become viewed as a human-like being (separating East from West).

Specifically -

In concept:
A god ≡ who/whatever incontestably determines what can or cannot be concerning a particular situation.
The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be concerning any situation.

Btw, FYI;
Janmady asya yatah.
The Vedanta-Sutra (1.1.2) defines God or the Absolute Truth, brahman, as the source of everything (The Supreme Creator = Reality itself).

As far as I can tell "Jamesian" or the works of James S Saint aren't in novel form. They aren't in encyclopedias or in some other more tangible way that I easily and fully understand it. As far as I know ... this Saint guy is unique to this forum alone. All the concepts I pose except for the pantheosis are not only the works of other people but can be directly understood from their websites and various education media platforms. Earthseed is in Parable of the Sower and Syntheism has its own Wikipedia page - deemed notable enough for an entry. Also, Saint leaves God so open to interpretation that he, she or it could be a concept *or* a being. Why should I take this "Jamesian" concept by Saint seriously at all?

[felix dakat]

Ultimate reality (“God) is neither merely a concept nor a being but rather the ground of all beings, that is Being Itself. God is the fundamental non-material substance of the universe. Space, time and matter and causality are its objectification by the mind.

[Earthseed Ethan]

Ultimate reality (“God) is neither merely a concept nor a being but rather the ground of all beings, that is Being Itself. God is the fundamental non-material substance of the universe. Space, time and matter and causality are its objectification by the mind.

That definition of God sounds so abstract that it doesn't really mean anything at all.

[Motor Daddy]

I define God as a spirit that resides in those that believe.

You know what a spirit is, right? Love is a spirit. Hate is a spirit. Compassion is a spirit. Etc...

A spirit is not a little fairy that flies around and waves a wand. A spirit is not a dude in the sky that inhabits your mind. A spirit is a "mental feeling" of some subject. You have a spirit about you in different areas of thought.

The church evolves with time, but at a very slow rate. They "follow" society, not lead society.

For all the money people give to the church the church should be LEADERS, not followers.

Observe the Pope on current events, he FOLLOWS his people on issues instead of being a leader.

"Lead from the front."

He follows his people because he's afraid to make a decision that his people won't like, therefor losing money. He is a con man looking to steal people's money! He is not a leader, he is a follower!

If he suddenly claimed abortion to be righteous his cash would deteriorate, so he follows his people to keep the cash flowing in!

For eons the church made it clear its rules on gay marriage and homosexuality. Now that society has reversed course and popularity of those issues has swayed against the church, the church decided it's time to reverse course on those issues.

They follow society so as to have the most people (read cash) like a politician lies to get the most voters.

[Earthseed Ethan]

I define God as a spirit that resides in those that believe.

You know what a spirit is, right? Love is a spirit. Hate is a spirit. Compassion is a spirit. Etc...

A spirit is not a little fairy that flies around and waves a wand. A spirit is not a dude in the sky that inhabits your mind. A spirit is a "mental feeling" of some subject. You have a spirit about you in different areas of thought.

The church evolves with time, but at a very slow rate. They "follow" society, not lead society.

For all the money people give to the church the church should be LEADERS, not followers.

Observe the Pope on current events, he FOLLOWS his people on issues instead of being a leader.

"Lead from the front."

He follows his people because he's afraid to make a decision that his people won't like, therefor losing money. He is a con man looking to steal people's money! He is not a leader, he is a follower!

If he suddenly claimed abortion to be righteous his cash would deteriorate, so he follows his people to keep the cash flowing in!

I absolutely love this post.

The great thing about spirit is I consider it both a concept and a being. The way you are describing it is a concept. But the elusive spiritism does exist that believes spirits are souls or ghosts.

As far as the unrelated rant goes, I'm afraid people rule by majority now days. That's democracy for you. And that's especially true for the Democrat and Liberal Parties of America and Canada. Instead of electing politicians we might as well have national referendums on what laws to pass. Replace the Congress with a court of public opinion. Replace the Pope with his followers instead.

Change happens slowly, and it happens faster in politics than it does in religion.

[Motor Daddy]

The great thing about spirit is I consider it both a concept and a being. The way you are describing it is a concept. But the elusive spiritism does exist that believes spirits are souls or ghosts.

"Souls" and "ghosts" are in fact spirits. A mind can conjure up all sorts of beliefs of "spirits" that are not physical objects.

When kids are young they think there is a monster "spirit" under their bed or in a closet. That is a spirit, the THOUGHT that a being is in your closet trying to get you. It is FEAR.

Of course we know there is no physical monster in the closet, but the spirit is real in the mind. That causes all sorts of REAL WORLD effects.

[Earthseed Ethan]

"Souls" and "ghosts" are in fact spirits. A mind can conjure up all sorts of beliefs of "spirits" that are not physical objects.

When kids are young they think there is a monster "spirit" under their bed or in a closet. That is a spirit, the THOUGHT that a being is in your closet trying to get you. It is FEAR.

Of course we know there is no physical monster in the closet, but the spirit is real in the mind. That causes all sorts of REAL WORLD effects.

Spirit can also be defined as willpower, and in World in Warcraft it used to be a secondary stat that helped generate your mana, or magic. I am very well aware of all the ways and terminology in which spirit is used. A friend of mine helped me understand spirit a little more by describing it as a way, in popular fiction, which the mind can affect reality. Related to psionics in science fiction media as well.

The fear that is placed upon the child at night who dreads the monster that isn't there is the change in which when that child looks in his closet at night. While you might see spirit as God, and while I am validating that experience, the spirit is nothing if the change isn't present. For example, that scared child might actually look in his closet to see that there is no monster there. And without that monster "spirit" there is no fear, nothing there at all and that spirit evaporates. One could argue that there was a monster there before he looked into the closet, but after discovering that it isn't, can't be there at all. And the spirit of the monster simply evaporates.

[Motor Daddy]

For example, that scared child might actually look in his closet to see that there is no monster there. And without that monster "spirit" there is no fear, nothing there at all and that spirit evaporates. One could argue that there was a monster there before he looked into the closet, but after discovering that it isn't, can't be there at all. And the spirit of the monster simply evaporates.

There was the initial fear induced by the spirit of a monster. When opening the closet the REALITY of there not being a monster in the closet eliminates that spirit, because the mind is convinced that there is no monster in the closet once you open the closet door and check it. Initially the mind conjured up some spirit that the monster was in the closet, so the mind believed it, which caused fear.

Even the thought of a monster caused real world events to happen. There was crying, screaming, and the parents came running. It "altered" the real world events that would otherwise not happened. Just the thought CAUSED real world events to happen.

Since Mom had to get up in the middle of the night she was tired the next day at work. Since she was tired she made mistakes at work, which caused the boss to fire her.

The monster (spirit) in the closet caused mom to get fired! Real world stuff.

[Earthseed Ethan]

There was the initial fear induced by the spirit of a monster. When opening the closet the REALITY of there not being a monster in the closet eliminates that spirit, because the mind is convinced that there is no monster in the closet once you open the closet door and check it. Initially the mind conjured up some spirit that the monster was in the closet, so the mind believed it, which caused fear.

So wouldn't you agree that the more humans understand our reality more the less effective the spirit becomes?

Even the thought of a monster caused real world events to happen. There was crying, screaming, and the parents came running. It "altered" the real world events that would otherwise not happened. Just the thought CAUSED real world events to happen.

Since Mom had to get up in the middle of the night she was tired the next day at work. Since she was tired she made mistakes at work, which caused the boss to fire her.

The monster (spirit) in the closet caused mom to get fired! Real world stuff.

Okay, this is all anecdotal and doesn't need to be in the discussion. I'm not talking about stories I'm talking about theology and you are derailing it.

[iambiguous]

What can I say?

In regard to this new type of theology that seems to revolve around concepts and definitions of God, would someone here like to bring this around to the factors that most concern me in regard to God and religion:

1] a demonstrable proof of your own conception or definition of God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of conceptions and definitions of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's conception or definition of God and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular conception and definition of God or religious/spiritual path

[Motor Daddy]

So wouldn't you agree that the more humans understand our reality more the less effective the spirit becomes?

No. Whether you understand reality or not your mind makes stuff up. That's the point, that a mind makes stuff up whether you know it's real or not. The mind causes you to have bad dreams, whether you know it's not real or not. Nothing you can do about it. It's why eye-witness testimony is not reliable, because the Human mind makes stuff up when there is a gap in information, even if the person really thinks it to be true. The mind simply fills in gaps in information, and there will never be a point that the information is complete in the mind, so there will never be a point one can say there is no gap to fill.

Okay, this is all anecdotal and doesn't need to be in the discussion. I'm not talking about stories I'm talking about theology and you are derailing it.

It is not a story, that's how it works.

I can look at a chair and tell you that I'm going to move it BEFORE I move it. Then I move it. I CAUSED the chair to move by simply thinking about moving the chair, and then moving it. My thoughts were the initial cause of the chair to move. The in between links between my thoughts and the chair moving are irrelevant. I thought, and then a time later the chair moved.

[felix dakat]

Ultimate reality (“God) is neither merely a concept nor a being but rather the ground of all beings, that is Being Itself. God is the fundamental non-material substance of the universe. Space, time and matter and causality are its objectification by the mind.

That definition of God sounds so abstract that it doesn't really mean anything at all.

How could it possibly more abstract than your idea that God is a mere concept? Being is not abstract. Without it you would be nothing. If it’s like something to be you than you are. If not you’re a bot or a zombie, that is, you are not.

[Earthseed Ethan]

What can I say?

In regard to this new type of theology that seems to revolve around concepts and definitions of God, would someone here like to bring this around to the factors that most concern me in regard to God and religion:

I'll try my best.

1] a demonstrable proof of your own conception or definition of God or religious/spiritual path

Change in a way is demonstrable enough in the fact that we know it happens. For example, everything is moving. The Earth is moving around the Sun. The Sun is moving around the Sagittarius A* black hole. And in fact there is no absolute zero in our Universe. No absolute zero means everything is vibrating as demonstrated by string theory. And if everything is vibrating, it is changing, no matter how slow or inconsequential it may be.

On the other hand, there may be Universes where there is no change. If change is God than no change means there is no God. And a Universe that can't change can't possibly have a cause or an effect.

2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of conceptions and definitions of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?

Concepts are abstract enough to be universally applied much of the time. Some concepts are abstract enough to not really mean anything. Beings however are are usually subjugated to a finite point. Zeus was worshipped; now he isn't. He is not accredited towards the change of many things anymore. The same will happen with Yahweh. If Yahweh wasn't accredited towards the change he applied on Earth - which I would argue he didn't even do - then nobody would worship him.

On the other hand, the concept of change and what causes it is so universal that nobody can deny it. Find me a language which change isn't in their dictionaries. It's impossible. Change is elusive sometimes, yes, and we don't fully understand it currently, but we know it so well already that it is impossible to deny.

3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's conception or definition of God and religious/spiritual faiths

Dasein, presence, or what I would argue the seeking of patterns will always be an issue. A cloud could look like Mickey Mouse. Is the cloud Mickey Mouse? No. Does Mickey Mouse exist? No. Yet some people may look at that cloud and identify it as such. Will the cloud change and become new images to the people who see them? Of course. Mickey Mouse changes, but ironically enough change does not change.

4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular conception and definition of God or religious/spiritual path

Well, if change is God, and not all changes are positive, it makes a strong argument that change itself causes evil too. Evil could be analyzed differently to various people too, and what a positive or negative change would look like could be entirely subjective.

As far as conceptions and definitions of God, Earthseed doesn't offer the kind of bullshit that we see other religions. It's simple. Earthseed states that change is God; syntheism is the theology of Earthseed, and while Earthseed is a fictional religion it doesn't mean it's a fictional idea, and there's been to my knowledge four real religions that have existed under the umbrella of Earthseed. Terasem, Exaltism, Turing Church and Astronism. If you were to call me any of the first three I would agree with your assessment in fact. All four are Earthseed but touch and develop their basis on different patterns in the transhumanist and futurist tree. Terasem is straight transhumanist; Exaltism is focused on extropianism; Turing Church is cosmist; And Astronism is astrological. And out of the four I would argue that Terasem has the most ability to change the future, even if the question of the religion's future is already at stake.

[Earthseed Ethan]

So wouldn't you agree that the more humans understand our reality more the less effective the spirit becomes?

No. Whether you understand reality or not your mind makes stuff up. That's the point, that a mind makes stuff up whether you know it's real or not. The mind causes you to have bad dreams, whether you know it's not real or not. Nothing you can do about it. It's why eye-witness testimony is not reliable, because the Human mind makes stuff up when there is a gap in information, even if the person really thinks it to be true. The mind simply fills in gaps in information, and there will never be a point that the information is complete in the mind, so there will never be a point one can say there is no gap to fill.

So the change or the reality is somehow always unknowable. You know, I am very fond of the Baha'i Faith. Much of what they say has me nodding my head. But the prophet of that religion, Baha'u'llah, addresses and acknowledges God as the unknowable. If God is unknowable then what is the point of religion? I will read arguments by Baha'is that literally contradict what they say simply by saying that God is unknowable and God is known by the prophets. It doesn't make any sense.

What I believe is God is both knowable and unknowable. And different parts of God are known by some while not known by others. If God is change than this can be the only answer. For example, the change just by typing this; you know I am typing this but you don't know what kind of computer I am using to process this. You don't know the situation, or the being (myself) but you know that change is being made regardless. That is how I know God exists.

It is not a story, that's how it works.

I can look at a chair and tell you that I'm going to move it BEFORE I move it. Then I move it. I CAUSED the chair to move by simply thinking about moving the chair, and then moving it. My thoughts were the initial cause of the chair to move. The in between links between my thoughts and the chair moving are irrelevant. I thought, and then a time later the chair moved.

No you didn't. Are you psionic? Are you literally levitating the chair with your mind by picturing that it is moved? And just because you picture something doesn't mean it literally happens. When I'm caught outside in a rain storm I often think about getting hit by lightning. Did the picture of myself get hit by lightning actually cause me to get hit by lightning? Of course not. I've never been struck by lightning.

Edit: I should also note that not everything that happens happens because someone thought of it. The lightning happens naturally, no one thought of it. I can type this and think of the words two seconds in advance. I know what you are trying to say. Typically thoughts are attached to beings which have the spirit to do those actions. That the being is more important than the action. For non-living things the spirit doesn't really exist however. Could you argue that that a rain cloud has spirit? Of course. But then why not just call it energy or something like that? And does not all energy or spirit change things as well? Unless you talk about potential energy; like with an unused battery.

[Earthseed Ethan]

How could it possibly more abstract than your idea that God is a mere concept? Being is not abstract. Without it you would be nothing. If it’s like something to be you than you are. If not you’re a bot or a zombie, that is, you are not.

I was going to argue on the basis of the amounts of definitions of what being and change has.

Being has nine. Change has thirty-four.

You have a good point sir. I will consider it.

Edit: But wouldn't you say that all beings change? I consume food and beverages that I gain nutrition and recycle the waste. A being that doesn't change typically isn't alive. Even in one day I could get a hair cut and look like a completely different person. Life exists because of the duplication of DNA; change.

[MagsJ]

Okay, this is all anecdotal and doesn't need to be in the discussion. I'm not talking about stories I'm talking about theology and you are derailing it.

I can look at a chair and tell you that I'm going to move it BEFORE I move it. Then I move it. I CAUSED the chair to move by simply thinking about moving the chair, and then moving it. My thoughts were the initial cause of the chair to move. The in between links between my thoughts and the chair moving are irrelevant. I thought, and then a time later the chair moved.

That’s called ‘intention', everything else after that is mechanical.

We are intentional / mechanical Beings..

[Motor Daddy]

Mackerni,
To evolve literally means to change. Don't you think it's funny that you are declaring God to be evolution??? Traditionally they are opposing forces, like Democrats and Republicans. Trying to define a Democrat by calling them Republicans is...well I have no words for that.

CAUSE is something you need to learn about. If I have a thought about doing something, and then plan and execute that plan, then my thoughts were the initial cause of the result of the actions. If I think about moving a chair, and then actually move it, then my THOUGHT was the initial cause of the chair moving. That is not "levitating" the chair, that is what CAUSED the chair to move. Sure, you can say there were intermediate actions that followed the initial cause, but those were all following the INITIAL cause, which was the thought, or "intention." If I wouldn't have thought to move the chair then the chair would not have moved. My thought CAUSED the chair to move, albeit with follow on actions, which were also caused!

There are watches, and cars, and computers now. 13.7 Billion years ago there were no watches, cars, and computers. Watches cars and computers evolved from scratch 13.7 billion years ago. 13.7 billion years ago there was no Earth, but now there is. The Earth evolved and eventually created computers. See?

[Motor Daddy]

That’s called ‘intention', everything else after that is mechanical.

We are intentional / mechanical Beings..

Call it what you want to. So you're saying my "intention" (which is a thought) caused the chair to move?

[Earthseed Ethan]

To evolve literally means to change. Don't you think it's funny that you are declaring God to be evolution??? Traditionally they are opposing forces, like Democrats and Republicans. Trying to define a Democrat by calling them Republicans is...well I have no words for that.

All evolution is change but not all change is evolution.

CAUSE is something you need to learn about. If I have a thought about doing something, and then plan and execute that plan, then my thoughts were the initial cause of the result of the actions. If I think about moving a chair, and then actually move it, then my THOUGHT was the initial cause of the chair moving. That is not "levitating" the chair, that is what CAUSED the chair to move. Sure, you can say there were intermediate actions that followed the initial cause, but those were all following the INITIAL cause, which was the thought, or "intention." If I wouldn't have thought to move the chair then the chair would not have moved. My thought CAUSED the chair to move, albeit with follow on actions, which were also caused!

And the thought to move the chair happened in your brain when your neurons changed and decided to move the chair. The neurons in your brain decided to move the chair, you just agreed with it enough to actually do it.

There are watches, and cars, and computers now. 13.7 Billion years ago there were no watches, cars, and computers. Watches cars and computers evolved from scratch 13.7 billion years ago. 13.7 billion years ago there was no Earth, but now there is. The Earth evolved and eventually created computers. See?

The Earth changed. We evolved from Earth.

[Motor Daddy]

All evolution is change but not all change is evolution.

Again, to evolve means to change, so to change is to evolve. You are defining God to be change, so you are defining God as evolution.

I'm pretty sure the God people don't want you defining them as evolution people. They deny evolution in favor of the "God did it" concept.

[Earthseed Ethan]

Again, to evolve means to change, so to change is to evolve. You are defining God to be change, so you are defining God as evolution.

They aren't the same. Not all changes necessarily have come from evolution. Evolution as it is defined relates to the DNA structure in living things. You are using the term evolution very liberally. And not all change is evolution. If I rearrange my house I didn't cause it to evolve, I simply changed it.

I'm pretty sure the God people don't want you defining them as evolution people. They deny evolution in favor of the "God did it" concept.

Well if evolution is change and God changed something wouldn't that mean God caused some sort of evolution to occur? You aren't making any sense.

[Motor Daddy]

Again, to evolve means to change, so to change is to evolve. You are defining God to be change, so you are defining God as evolution.

They aren't the same.

Yes they are! The word evolve literally means to change. Evolution as a "theory" is that things CHANGED into what they are today, as opposed to God saying "let there be light" and suddenly there was light.

To evolve is to change and to change is to evolve. Evolution is simply change. Creatures evolve by adapting to their environment. They change because their environment changes and they evolve by "equalizing" with that environment.

Evolution is no different than putting an ice cube into a glass of water, the ice cube is cold and the water is warm. Eventually the ice cube evolves by warming up and melting, and the water gets colder. They are coming to an equilibrium with each other. When the ice cube is gone the water comes to an equilibrium with the room temperature.

Ever wonder why chameleons change colors, or creatures blend in with their environment? You think that's an accident? They EVOLVED, they changed to adapt to their surroundings. They changed. They evolved.