October 20th, 2008, 01:55 PM
I just started in this forum and I have to say I am a little taken aback. Those that claim to be Christians or follow a religious orthodoxy do not present any concrete scientific evidence to support their claims. Is their no one in here that can counter scientific arguments for evolution with scientific arguments for I.D. ? Or logically prove the existence of a creator? It honestly isn't that hard....
Personally I think the arguments against intelligent design are woeful and non-scientific.
The book that many Athiests seem to be acclaiming is Richard Dawkins "God Delusion". I found the science explanantion for why God probably doesn't exists very weak and strangely put toghether. I found his review of the bible a disgrace. Literally. He gave an exceptionally arrogant and biased view and showed only that he does not understand the bible (and im not a christian, jew or muslim btw).
All in all, 2/10.
Agreed I have read it and I would totally agree. I have also seen for some odd reason reference to Stanley Miller and Harold Urey and their experiments with gases and semi-state-gases wherein they introduced lightning or an electrical discharge into the environment to see whether these conditions would create organic compounds, unfortunately as well all know now the composition of early earth was not composed primarily of hydrogen, ammonia, and methane. Not only this, they were never able to show how the organic compounds created combined. To be perfectly honest the entire line of thought is flawed and I am shocked people still subscribe to it. It literally takes more faith to believe that inorganic compounds can somehow combine to create a living cell then to believe in an intelligent creator. As I recall they were even unable to show a sustained creation of amino acids and complex protein strains that survived for more then just a few seconds.....Originally Posted by sox
Yup! There are other sciencey arguments too...
Lol I would love to hear them! Btw love the Klingon quote.
Lol the quote isn't originally from the Undiscovered Country... If you remember that scene in the film they are indeed quoting William Shakespeare 8)Lol I would love to hear them! Btw love the Klingon quote.
As for the science arguments, the first one I want to raise is to do with energy. Though I shant post this now as I want to be absolutely sure on what im saying.
Go ahead and post wouldn't mind seeing it, even if it is a work in progress.Lol the quote isn't originally from the Undiscovered Country... If you remember that scene in the film they are indeed quoting William Shakespeare 8)Lol I would love to hear them! Btw love the Klingon quote.
As for the science arguments, the first one I want to raise is to do with energy. Though I shant post this now as I want to be absolutely sure on what im saying.
haha thats nto what im worried about, I dont want anyone else to jump on it and point out any flaws before I have had a chance to iron them out!
I'd be interested to hear your comments on Dawkins specific comments. Thanks.
Ok so it's just a very simple idea considering the concept of ocnservation of energy. It's not actually an argument to prove or disprove anything. Its more a question I pose to athiests who are athiests because they believe science has removed God. Here goes...
"Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can be changed from one form into another."
Energy cannot be created, but we know there is energy in the universe. So therefor we have to assume that energy has always been there. That it is eternal. This is a key concept in physics. Now, what I dont understand, is why they will accept this idea of eternal energy, but the ieda of an eternal God/creator is "irrational"?
Cheers, sox.
p.s - If I am incorrect in my understanding of what I have just said I understand you will want to correct me. All I ask is that you do so politely. I'm not here to bicker. :wink:
No problem, just not tonight though as I have to head to bed soon!I'd be interested to hear your comments on Dawkins specific comments. Thanks.
Pretty sound reasoning if you ask me. Energy by its nature is fundamentally always there, it just takes on different forms but remains constant. More a philosophical argument then scientific though... However it does point to a finite origin. And were you asking me or Sox to review the work of Dawkins?
Yeah it's not really a scientific argument. The scientific arguments that each side present are always going to be dismissed by the opposition. Still i'll keep some for a rainy day... knowing Scotland that will most likely be tommorrow!
I'd love to hear how you can scientifically prove an imaginary being.
Haha well what specifically do you want to know. Or what are your general objections to this notion.
There is a difference between Christians and christian ideologues. Once people decide to lobotomize themselves, I don't really see that it matters that much whether they choose a christian recording to replay or an atheist one. Ideologues are always "taken aback" by people who actually choose to use their brains rather than loyally and mindlessly reciting their "holy"/"rational" recording. The ideologues recite pretend evidence deluding themselves that it is scientific if it has a few scientific sounding words in it. But the plain fact is that science has nothing to do with such rhetoric.
It is the very nature of a scientific explanation that it describes what can be manipulated in a predictable manner, so God obviously can have nothing to do with it. Rhetoric for the christian idelogue's desire that there be no scientific explanation for the origin of life and the species is utterly irrelevant to scientific inquiry. And it really makes me laugh when they claim that they can logicaly prove the existence of a creator. LOL I can understand investigating the rational implications of ones beliefs but an attempt to devise a proof for them can only be motivated by a desire justify their intolerance for those who believe otherwise.
gibberish. ID isn't science and rhetoric is not the methodology of science. ID is an attack upon science by religious ideologues because they do not want a scientific explanation for the existence of the species or life itself. Modern science was created by religious people who saw value in looking for an explanation for things other than God. That is what distinguishes modern science from theology. I like both of these subjects and will defend the right of people to choose either of both of them as I have, against those who would attack the integrity of science just so that they can proseltyze their religion in public schools under the lie that they are doing science.
The appeal to intellegent design is simply a repackaging of the pathetic god of the gaps argument, saying that because science has not explained something yet then they should just give up trying to explain it and obey the christian ideologues. Calling ID a scientific explanation is like saying the operation of computers is explained by the existence of electrical engineers and thus we should all worship the electrical engineers. It is ludicrous. The only value of the "Goddidit" explanation is to provide another reason for worshipping God, but there are plenty of people whose living relationship with a living God provides sufficient motivation for that and so they see no reason to return to the dark ages where people had no choice because there wasn't much else they could do. They really need to address their real problem which is the dead necromancer God of their magic christian ideology that only did things a long time ago.
Of course Dawkins is biased and obnoxious, but I found the book mostly boring and irrelevant because I don't accept the validity of the proofs that he spent the majority of his book arguing against. The most ludicrous thing in his book, however, was his suggestion that God should be treated as a scientific hypothesis. If we were to accept that claim then we would have to accept ID as a valid scientific theory. I am afraid that Dawkins wants to have his cake and eat it too, and in that he panders to the new breed of irrational fundamentalist fanatical atheist ideologues, who want to pretend that science proves that there is no God. He is a herald of the new coming reality of atheism that they can no long claim a higher average intellegence than the relgious.
All knowledge is founded on faith. Judgements of less faith and more faith is just a bunch of subjective rubbish. Your description of abiogenesis which by the way has nothing to do with the theory of evolution is far more ignorant than the most ridiculous description of the Christian God by any atheist I have ever heard - kind of like equating God with Santa Claus and claiming that he lives at the north pole. Abiogenesis has a long way to go but it is making progress and I would suggest reading the February 2007 Scientific American article, "A Simpler Origin for Life", not that any of the christian ideologues will like it for the fact is that they will automatically reject any scientific explanation for the existence of life in favor of their comic book idea of an ancient necromancer creating golems of dust and flesh, which is symptomatic of their belief in magical christianity where "Jesus" is a magic word by which they can make God do their bidding.
You said you can prove god scientifically and it's easy to prove.
Haha well what specifically do you want to know. Or what are your general objections to this notion.
Remember, opinions arn't a scientific base of diagnoses.
Quite an insightful diatribe to say the least. As for "A Simpler Origin for Life" I fail to see the significance about the discovery self replicating RNA based molecules does not explain anything and raises more questions then it answers. And, furthermore, it doesn't explain its origin, or how a self replicating sequence was able to "mutate" and take a backseat to DNA thus taking on the role of "messenger" This is a flawed concept, and, does not prove an "abiogenesis" beginning. As far as Christian ideologues go, I may have a particular faith I belong to but, I don't recall ever being closed minded when considering the opinions or evidence presented that contradict my beliefs. If anything I listen harder. And Jesus, being a magic word for God to do our bidding is moronic. We are suppose to pray in Christs name but clearly you have not taken in the FULL cultural context. Before his death and resurrection Christ was an observant Jew. In the Jewish faith once a year the high priest of Israel would enter the temple (Yom Kupor) to intercede on behalf of Israel and to ask for atonement of sin. He was an intermediary between the people and God. However, when Christ rose again, HE became the high priest on our behalf our intermediary. The distinction between Levitie and commoner was shattered this was also demonstrated when the temple shroud was ripped in half thus the separation between God and man ended (ultimately caused by sin) Christ is a bridge that spans the two and brings them together THAT is why you pray in his name. It is NOT a magic word. The next time you make bold assumptions do your homework first. And for the record you CAN logically prove the existence of a creator, beyond a shadow of a doubt.There is a difference between Christians and christian ideologues. Once people decide to lobotomize themselves, I don't really see that it matters that much whether they choose a christian recording to replay or an atheist one. Ideologues are always "taken aback" by people who actually choose to use their brains rather than loyally and mindlessly reciting their "holy"/"rational" recording. The ideologues recite pretend evidence deluding themselves that it is scientific if it has a few scientific sounding words in it. But the plain fact is that science has nothing to do with such rhetoric.
It is the very nature of a scientific explanation that it describes what can be manipulated in a predictable manner, so God obviously can have nothing to do with it. Rhetoric for the christian idelogue's desire that there be no scientific explanation for the origin of life and the species is utterly irrelevant to scientific inquiry. And it really makes me laugh when they claim that they can logicaly prove the existence of a creator. LOL I can understand investigating the rational implications of ones beliefs but an attempt to devise a proof for them can only be motivated by a desire justify their intolerance for those who believe otherwise.
gibberish. ID isn't science and rhetoric is not the methodology of science. ID is an attack upon science by religious ideologues because they do not want a scientific explanation for the existence of the species or life itself. Modern science was created by religious people who saw value in looking for an explanation for things other than God. That is what distinguishes modern science from theology. I like both of these subjects and will defend the right of people to choose either of both of them as I have, against those who would attack the integrity of science just so that they can proseltyze their religion in public schools under the lie that they are doing science.
The appeal to intellegent design is simply a repackaging of the pathetic god of the gaps argument, saying that because science has not explained something yet then they should just give up trying to explain it and obey the christian ideologues. Calling ID a scientific explanation is like saying the operation of computers is explained by the existence of electrical engineers and thus we should all worship the electrical engineers. It is ludicrous. The only value of the "Goddidit" explanation is to provide another reason for worshipping God, but there are plenty of people whose living relationship with a living God provides sufficient motivation for that and so they see no reason to return to the dark ages where people had no choice because there wasn't much else they could do. They really need to address their real problem which is the dead necromancer God of their magic christian ideology that only did things a long time ago.
Of course Dawkins is biased and obnoxious, but I found the book mostly boring and irrelevant because I don't accept the validity of the proofs that he spent the majority of his book arguing against. The most ludicrous thing in his book, however, was his suggestion that God should be treated as a scientific hypothesis. If we were to accept that claim then we would have to accept ID as a valid scientific theory. I am afraid that Dawkins wants to have his cake and eat it too, and in that he panders to the new breed of irrational fundamentalist fanatical atheist ideologues, who want to pretend that science proves that there is no God. He is a herald of the new coming reality of atheism that they can no long claim a higher average intellegence than the relgious.
All knowledge is founded on faith. Judgements of less faith and more faith is just a bunch of subjective rubbish. Your description of abiogenesis which by the way has nothing to do with the theory of evolution is far more ignorant than the most ridiculous description of the Christian God by any atheist I have ever heard - kind of like equating God with Santa Claus and claiming that he lives at the north pole. Abiogenesis has a long way to go but it is making progress and I would suggest reading the February 2007 Scientific American article, "A Simpler Origin for Life", not that any of the christian ideologues will like it for the fact is that they will automatically reject any scientific explanation for the existence of life in favor of their comic book idea of an ancient necromancer creating golems of dust and flesh, which is symptomatic of their belief in magical christianity where "Jesus" is a magic word by which they can make God do their bidding.
I would love to hear that.
We don't want to hear that you can PROVE a god, we want the facts to back up your claims. Otherwise you are just another idealistic moron who comes in here spouting their mouth about how god can be scientifically proven with no way to back up your claims.
Simple look at the facts as they exist now. This is not to say at some
point in the future that, different evidence will come to light
contradicting these observations but as I see it now, given this data
*(granted I could go on for days but I will describe it as briefly as
I can for your benefit) there is no other logical conclusion.
If you were in a court of law in this country and charged with murder
obviously you are guaranteed certain rights. One of them being innocent
until proven guilty. The burden rests on the state to prove beyond a
shadow of a doubt that you are guilty. This in law school equates to a
percentage of at least 80-95% given the amount of evidence and the
type of evidence. This being said, If I were on the phone with a man
in Australia who was blind his entire life, and suddenly acquired
sight by some means and he asked what color the sky is of course
because of the time zone difference and the fact that is a nice fall
day outside my window I would tell him the sky is in fact blue,
however, where he is it is still night and view the sky as black or at
best a deep purple. Dawn would come and he would see varying shades of
red, yellow, orange, purple. He would still not be able to
substantiate my claims until mid-day when the sky evens out and turns
blue. Quite literally we could both being seeing two sides to the
truth. From his perspective the sky was not blue when he looked up.
But eventually the majority of the day would say otherwise. That is why our court system
is designed the way it is. It Takes all evidence into context and makes a
rational and logical decision based on the available evidence. It is
impossible rationally to PROVE anything 100% however you can prove
something beyond a shadow of a doubt. Here is the evidence, you of
course are left to make your own judgment.
1. The Cosmological constant if fine tuned. If it is to large a
number, things expand into nothing. To small or a negative number and
the universe would collapse. Literally the "calibration" is set to 1
part in a 100 million billion billion billion billion this in of it
self seems a little to implausible to be random chance or to have just
happened. To put this in perspective it would be like being on the
moon throwing a dart and hitting a bulls eye on earth that is one
trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter. That is how precise
it is.
2. If you were to decrease the strong nuclear force (the force that
binds nucleoli (sp?) of atoms together) by 1 part in 10,000 billion
billion billion billion all you would have in the universe is
hydrogen.
3. The funny one: Can you see the wind? No, I can see the effects of
the wind but I have never seen the wind. How is it I know it exists.
4. The universe is known to have began in the big bang. Quite
literally it is this event that brought into being everything that has
and ever will exist. The majority the scientific community will not
dispute this, but, like all things even the universe is subject to
logic. Cause and effect as it were. The universe had a finite
beginning thus can be described as an effect whether that be of near
limitless contraction in on itself or another reason either in order
for something to have an effect it needs a cause. This fundamentally
calls into question a randomly occurring universe. Arguing natural
process can only take you so far. It is an illogical premise to say
that the universe "just" came into being. That gives no answer to the
cause...
5. The Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion otherwise known as
the biological big bang, took place 530 million years ago according to
carbon 14 dating. At the beginning of this era and prior to the era
and event occurred all that exisisted were (this event which took
place in geologic blink of an eye) sponges, worms, bacterial colonys
ect. then all at once 30+ phyla entered the fossil record. This goes
contrary not only natural design, Darwinian thought and random
occurrence. Quite literally all known animals on earth or at least
there proto-types appeared out of thin air. I realize the lack of a
scientific argument does not lend credence to my argument however,
given current evidence there is no other logical realization. And then
once again you have wrestle with the why or cause...
6. Irreducible complexity: In current scientific thought the origins
of life on the planet happened by random chance. In short Protein
strings and amino acids combined into a fully functioning cell. The
problem with this is irreducible complexity. In short because the most
basic cell is as far as you can go it is the most basic of lifeforms.
When I was a child studying biology in school we looked at cells on
slides taken from microscopes. All that appeared was a membrane, a
nucleus and a cell wall, not very complex. However with recent
advances in microscopic s we are learning cells are not as simple as
we thought. Endoplasmic Reticulum for instance move waste products
around the cell, Ribosomes create proteins for the cell Golgi Bodies
store energy for the cell. Quite literally a cell is very very complex
and a living machine. Literally it is impossible to break down a cell
to anything further. Some have countered this with these "tools" or
parts of a cell developed over time or were created or mutated from
something else however, this does not answer the origins issue nor
does it explain how you have a transitional period between combining
of material and a fully functioning machine. This points to a creator.
Some also counter with the mouse trap analogy. In it, they say take a
basic machine such as a mouse trap break it down into different parts,
the board can be used as a paper weight, the bar can be used as a key
chain ect. However, it takes intelligence to take apart these
components, it takes intelligence to put it altogether and furthermore
if you take apart a mouse trap it is no longer a mouse trap.
7. Finally I will end this. I have went on long enough I have much
much more evidence however I think this is enough for now. Finally our
galactic position points to more then just chance. If we were closer
to the galactic center there would be too much radiation to sustain
life and you increase the chance of collisions by various stellar
bodies or other galactic phenomena. Too far out and the elements that
compose our fledgling star system do not exist. (as we all know
stellar composition is primarily made up of Nova and other phenomena)
Next we have the right kind of star, known as a G type star only 8% of
all stars in the known universe are this type. This being
characterized by age, size, chemical composition ect. We are
considered not only in the habitable zone of the galaxy but the
habitable zone in the solar system. The moon is also a guardian of the
earth of sorts. We have a rather large moon however the moon is just
the right size and at just the right distance to sustain life. For
instance if the moon were any bigger the gravitational forces would
shift the currents of the oceans and would create an unideal
environment to sustain life if it were any smaller our climatic
stability would be in jeopardy. Not to mention the amount of hits it
has taken for us over the years (impact of a comet, asteroid or other
body). Then our planetary neighbors conspires for us as well. Because
of the existence of 4 gas giants beyond our own orbit the possibility
of an impact by a meteorite or asteroid is a lot less likely thus
giving eons of undisturbed time for life to develop. Oddly it seems
the universe is designed to support life. I would like to point out
the odds against this are just about statistically impossible, not to
mention factoring intelligent life developing randomly into this
equation.
Well, render your verdict. Of course if you need more evidence let me know.
Holy crap!
Man, you're old! - Remember, speculation does not equal proof, nor does it equal an observation.
Yes?
That means that you can't just say, "I think soandso happens, thus its the truth!"
You also can not say, "Well, I believe soandso happened, thus its the truth!"
As far as I can see I offered no speculative arguments only the facts....Its up to you to make up your own mind for yourself. If you choose to deny logic then so be it.
Saying that a species miraculously appears out of nowhere is speculation.
That was an illustration or a colorful metaphor. Something I used to simplify complex data. If my words weren't precise enough I apologize. I believe at the beginning of my little paper I stated to take everything into context. This sort of legalism or black and white thinking that you have demonstrated is exactly what the scientific community accuses Christians of. I would also like to point out you and no one else has yet to field a logical argument.
With illogical statements, one must confide logical arguments to a better choice of debates rather than this foolish mockery you consider pride of ones self. Your impotence to put together a stout debate is staggeringly shocking.
Lol I have read that 3 times and still have no clue what you are trying to say. What are you 14? I think it is past your bed time kitten.
Um, i'm 24. If you don't know what that means, you're a moron.
It means that in order for us to use our logical debates, we must choose our battles wisely to use them on. Why would we use it on such a failure of an argument?
This means you cant put together a cognitive argument to save your life.Your impotence to put together a stout debate is staggeringly shocking.
I also explain that you have too much pride to stagger from the initial argument and your pride in that no one can dispute your "logic."
Pride will be your downfall.
Sorry I guess it went over your head. Metabolism first theories is an explanation of an developmental process before the existence of DNA or RNA. The word "mutation" is not even applicable. The universe is full of examples of self organizing systems. The phenomena exists and thus the principle that a self organizing chemical system can develop more and more complex structures in response to environmental stimulus, is quite plausible. Science does not deal in your pretend proofs, your rhetoric is irrelevant, scientists will continue to pursue their inquiry and your necromancer god of the gaps will keep looking for other rocks to hide under.
LOL
I am an evangelical Christian. I pray in the name of Jesus. I sing praises and glory to the name of Jesus every Sunday and occasionally on other days of the week too.
LOL LOL
I did all my homework at seminary for my first masters degree, and yet what I learned there is a tiny fragment of what I have learned since. I assure that I do indeed do my homework.
LOL LOL LOL
And when you list these assumptions I was supposedly making, guess what? You will then have a list of the assumptions that you made about me.
LOL LOL LOL LOL
But talking about homework, let me give you some
http://www.astahost.com/magic-christianity-t15700.html
No your intolerance is not justified.
I never said I.D was scientific. I know it is not. But the same applies to atheism.gibberish. ID isn't science and rhetoric is not the methodology of science. ID is an attack upon science by religious ideologues because they do not want a scientific explanation for the existence of the species or life itself. Modern science was created by religious people who saw value in looking for an explanation for things other than God. That is what distinguishes modern science from theology. I like both of these subjects and will defend the right of people to choose either of both of them as I have, against those who would attack the integrity of science just so that they can proseltyze their religion in public schools under the lie that they are doing science.
Sorry I guess it went over your head. Metabolism first theories is an explanation of an developmental process before the existence of DNA or RNA. The word "mutation" is not even applicable. The universe is full of examples of self organizing systems. The phenomena exists and thus the principle that a self organizing chemical system can develop more and more complex structures in response to environmental stimulus, is quite plausible. Science does deal in your pretend proofs, your rhetoric is irrelevant, scientists will continue to pursue their inquiry and your necromancer god of the gaps will keep looking for other rocks to hide under.
LOL
I am an evangelical Christian. I pray in the name of Jesus. I sing praises and glory to the name of Jesus every Sunday and occasionally on other days of the week too.
LOL LOL
I did all my homework at seminary for my first masters degree, and yet what I learned there is a tiny fragment of what I have learned since. I assure that I do indeed do my homework.
LOL LOL LOL
And when you list these assumptions I was supposedly making, guess what? You will then have a list of the assumptions that you made about me.
LOL LOL LOL LOL
But talking about homework, let me give you some
http://www.astahost.com/magic-christianity-t15700.html
No your intolerance is not justified.
Wow,I fail to see how I ever came across as intolerant. If anything I think I have been open to all of your put downs and slander. As far as self replicating systems just because the precedent exist elsewhere doesn't mean it exist everywhere. I believe when using the word mutation I was asking what if any would be the process or next step which would allow this to become a fully functioning cell let alone its own mysterious origins. I would also like to point out that embryology a biological process that is categorized as a form of self replication is the results of many other systems already in place. It is unscientific for anyone to make the claim that things just happen without a cause. But that is exactly what you are trying to tell me. I would also like to point out that these others self replicating or self organizing systems found everywhere in the universe are the result of already existing systems in place and do no point to an origin or cause. You have shown me nothing with the article and have continued to show me nothing with your tiresome arguments.
As for your homework, it can best be described as a doctrinal argument. It is a good premise and I agree there are many many wrongs within the church today. But as the old saying goes "Nobody is perfect" for to expect it out of others or even Judge them and their "magical words" is wrong in of itself assuming we are still following your doctrine. If you want to lash out about all the people that have hurt, call attention to all of your scars and wounds then so be it. And God-forbid anyone disagrees with you or has another side to tell...
Now if you would like to show me my intolerance....
You were free to decide whether the put downs were applicable to you or not. I guess that you decided that it was a fit. As for the article, ...sigh... metabolism first theories is an alternative to replicator first theories and so your comments babbling about replicating systems continue to show how you failed to understand anything it has said. Meanwhile your comment about things happening without a cause reveals that you have a long long way to go in acquiring a science education, if you choose to do so (the christian ideologues choose not to).
Indeed, I see in them and the structure of the universe the design of a creator that reveals to me His purpose and intention. Thus I beleive that God created the universe as a womb of life. But that is not science because these are my subjective impressions, for science deals in objective observation - things that everyone can see.
You don't seem to have a clue what I am trying to tell you, so I guess I am not the right teacher for you. Thus I abdicate from the postion, because tiresome is now how I am finding you as well.
No it was not a doctrinal argument at all. At least, I cannot think what doctrine you think it is refering to. I am quite suprised you know, "nobody is perfect" is not a Christian response, for it suggests that no one could expect such a thing. Is that your final word? Is it really the case that no one you know should have such an expectation? I don't of course. Not me.
Scars? wounds? LOL sigh...
I will lash out. I will lash out at evil. I will lash out at ignorance. I will lash out at intolerance. I will lash out at self-righteousness. Yes they do offend me. But it is not me personally that they wound and scar, it is all of us. They are the self-destructive tendencies of mankind and they lessen the life of all.
No God does not forbid anyone to disagree with Him or with you or with me. As for telling another side, I have encouraged you as I have encouraged others. I encourage the atheists to tell you another side, not that they need much encouragement.
Go ahead. Let it all hang out. Show us your stuff. Let us all know what you are made of, so that we can see the truth about you and judge for ourselves.
Anyway I leave you and the atheists to each other now to see if you can learn anything from each other.
mitchellmckain where do you stand anyway? religious? spiritual? agnostic? athiest?
Whenever I read your posts im never sure. I know you like to post long replys but could you for my sake just pick on of the above 4 whoch fits you best to help me out!
mitchellmckain You have got to be the most self righteous person I think I have ever encountered. Hands down and I grew up in a southern baptist church. Lol
Yes you are pretty long winded but the end of your tirades I am left never quite sure where you stand. Enlighten us. And, keep it to a paragraph.mitchellmckain where do you stand anyway? religious? spiritual? agnostic? athiest?
Whenever I read your posts im never sure. I know you like to post long replys but could you for my sake just pick on of the above 4 whoch fits you best to help me out!
So the first sentence of my posts do not make it clear eh?mitchellmckain where do you stand anyway? religious? spiritual? agnostic? athiest?
Whenever I read your posts im never sure. I know you like to post long replys but could you for my sake just pick on of the above 4 whoch fits you best to help me out!
Well assuming you got past my first sentence this time, I think it is safe to assume that this quotation from an earlier post of mine in this thread provides you with a sufficient basis to decide which of your four boxes to put me in.
However, the truth is more complex because I am not ideologue. Not comparatively anyway -- such things are always relative in the end.
I am an evangelical Christian, but only so far as a physicist and a scientist can be. Do you think a scientist can be a Christian? Some of the atheists around here cannot believe that a Christian can be a scientist any more than many of the christian ideologues think a scientist can be a Christian (or that they can be acceptable to God unless they abandon all the principles and ideals of science). ...sigh...
Then again I am also a bit of an existentialist and a pragmatist, and many evangelical Christians cannot fathom how either of these can be a Christian either, but that just shows how little they know because the first existentialist Soren Kierkegaard was very much a Christian and the first pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce was a Christian also, and for both of these their innovative philosophical outlooks can easily be understood as a part of their Christian apologetics.
And if that were not enough, I should I say that I am pluralist and highly supportive of secular humanism as the proper functional philosophy of public institutions in a free society -- that is a society that supports the ideals of religious freedom and tolerance. And this explains why I can be quite sympathetic to the atheists when dealing with relgious fanatics who have become so intolerant that they have adopted a kind of fascism in opposition to the ideals of religious freedom and tolerance.
No, I do not pander to the functionally illiterate and those who insist on squashing reality down into a one dimensional measure, on the contrary these represent the kind of ignorance that I will certainly lash out against.
Ok I was only asking a simple request no need to be so tactless. I would like to point out though, that I post short posts deliberately as I think it allows smoother running of any discussion.
Yes. How can I deny that I am a sinner. However much I strive for the ideals of humility, tolerance and love, my finite limited reality means that others who have a different measure of God in their soul will see me from a different light and perspective and thus see in me what I cannot. This is not an excuse. I have none. I have big mouth (or big fingers) and it is difficult to not to be self-righteous and intolerant unless one is silent. And so I am self-righteous in my fight against self-righteousness, and I am intolerant of intolerance, and I show no love for those without regard for the well being of others. May God have mercy on my soul.
Ah... and so I have... but whether you will believe and understand is another thing entirely.
October 21st, 2008, 01:23 PM
just read through this forum, mattandstuff, do u have any concrete scientific arguments for christian science/I.D. etc
just asking since u dont feel its that hard, yet no scientist asserts such arguments for publishing.
Ah yes, I am a child of the west, and so blunt honesty in all its tactlessness and ugliness is my habit of communication. Just joking really, I can be tactful when the venue suggests that it is appropriate (I am not like this at church). So let warn you right now. This ain't the right venue. Tact is wasted in this place.
Each must do as he decides is best. I abhor superficiality. I will read a post of great length and have quite often responded point by point to very long posts. It does of course depend on the quality of what they write. BUT, that is how I decide to spend my time, and that is NOT something I can tell anyone else how to do.
haha you tar everyone on here with the same brush!
Interesting actually. I abhore it too and its the reason I dont go to church. As a serious question, do you not find the nicey-nice vibe that goes on in churches too fake??
October 21st, 2008, 01:51 PM
I believe I posted something to that effect in this very thread. Keep reading champ.just read through this forum, mattandstuff, do u have any concrete scientific arguments for christian science/I.D. etc
just asking since u dont feel its that hard, yet no scientist asserts such arguments for publishing.
So the first sentence of my posts do not make it clear eh?mitchellmckain where do you stand anyway? religious? spiritual? agnostic? athiest?
Whenever I read your posts im never sure. I know you like to post long replys but could you for my sake just pick on of the above 4 whoch fits you best to help me out!
Well assuming you got past my first sentence this time, I think it is safe to assume that this quotation from an earlier post of mine in this thread provides you with a sufficient basis to decide which of your four boxes to put me in.
However, the truth is more complex because I am not ideologue. Not comparatively anyway -- such things are always relative in the end.
I am an evangelical Christian, but only so far as a physicist and a scientist can be. Do you think a scientist can be a Christian? Some of the atheists around here cannot believe that a Christian can be a scientist any more than many of the christian ideologues think a scientist can be a Christian (or that they can be acceptable to God unless they abandon all the principles and ideals of science). ...sigh...
Then again I am also a bit of an existentialist and a pragmatist, and many evangelical Christians cannot fathom how either of these can be a Christian either, but that just shows how little they know because the first existentialist Soren Kierkegaard was very much a Christian and the first pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce was a Christian also, and for both of these their innovative philosophical outlooks can easily be understood as a part of their Christian apologetics.
And if that were not enough, I should I say that I am pluralist and highly supportive of secular humanism as the proper functional philosophy of public institutions in a free society -- that is a society that supports the ideals of religious freedom and tolerance. And this explains why I can be quite sympathetic to the atheists when dealing with relgious fanatics who have become so intolerant that they have adopted a kind of fascism in opposition to the ideals of religious freedom and tolerance.
No, I do not pander to the functionally illiterate and those who insist on squashing reality down into a one dimensional measure, on the contrary these represent the kind of ignorance that I will certainly lash out against.
HAHA this doesn't read so much as an admission of faith, it is more like an apologetic manifesto. Honestly if you can find a woman that can put up with you for more then 5 minutes you need to hang on to her like she is the last chopper out of 'Nam
It depends on how sensitive you are to the flaws, which are certainly there. But churches do vary quite a bit, and sometimes the nicey nice vibe is VERY fake from my perspective and then there is the boredom factor -- that can be a real KILLER. LOLInteresting actually. I abhore it too and its the reason I dont go to church. As a serious question, do you not find the nicey-nice vibe that goes on in churches too fake??
My last church exceeded my tolerances when it became clear that they would elect anyone for president that claimed they were Christian -- as if that were all it took. Sheesh!
I have found a gem. It is a Vineyard church. These will vary quite a bit and so I cannot guarantee what you will find in any particular one. But at the conference I attended this summer it was clear that as a group they are really trying to challenge the boundaries of what it means to do church. The main speaker was Irwin McManus who is the pastor of Mosaic church in Los Angelos, which is a great example of a church that is pushing the envelope. He is very critical of the way that Christians typically do church as a kind "spiritual" masturbation.
My church in Salt Lake City, called Emerging Vineyard, adopting some of the ideas of the Emergent church, it is on the forefront of this radical element in the Vineyard group.
Do you think someone can be a good scientist and a good cristian at the same time Mattandstuff? I.e. do you subscribe to ID, young earth creation, Biblical inerrancy?
Well I look at it like this, No one and I mean NO ONE could ever know with 100% certainty what happened at the beginning. Whether you subscribe to ID or the Darwinian model or something totally different. In any case I think it is the responsibility of not only the scientific community but also the religious establishment to keep an open mind. To many times people think there own interpretation or view is incorruptible or they hold the monopoly on truth. Just like in my illustration of the blind man in Australia because I am in a different time zone obviously I see the sky a different color then he does. It doesn't mean we are both right or wrong. I know what I believe and what my faith has taught me. Do subscribe to anything in particular? Well assuming there is a God (I believe the evidence strongly supports this) and he created the universe, literally we are talking about a being in whose mind the very laws of physics were formed. If he does in fact exist I don't think it is outside reason to believe he is quite capable of creating everything in 6 days. But like I said with things like this you have no idea exactly what happened. Isaiah talks about how 1000 years here on earth is equivalent to one day for God. I think it is a mix of all of them to be honest. I think God did create the universe set into place certain physical and natural laws...Beyond that is only speculation. I believe the two fields however can act in concert and compliment one another. It is possible to be a good scientist and be a good Christian. Being a Christian is much more then excepting dogma at face value God gave each of you a mind of your to think for yourself Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together," God himself asks you to consider the evidence never ever ever take anything anyone says at face value. I am a Christian, I believe Jesus was the messiah and I believe in a loving God who cares about me. And, I believe in keeping an open mind.
It depends on how sensitive you are to the flaws, which are certainly there. But churches do vary quite a bit, and sometimes the nicey nice vibe is VERY fake from my perspective and then there is the boredom factor -- that can be a real KILLER. LOLInteresting actually. I abhore it too and its the reason I dont go to church. As a serious question, do you not find the nicey-nice vibe that goes on in churches too fake??
My last church exceeded my tolerances when it became clear that they would elect anyone for president that claimed they were Christian -- as if that were all it took. Sheesh!
I have found a gem. It is a Vineyard church. These will vary quite a bit and so I cannot guarantee what you will find in any particular one. But at the conference I attended this summer it was clear that as a group they are really trying to challenge the boundaries of what it means to do church. The main speaker was Irwin McManus who is the pastor of Mosaic church in Los Angelos, which is a great example of a church that is pushing the envelope. He is very critical of the way that Christians typically do church as a kind "spiritual" masturbation.
My church in Salt Lake City, called Emerging Vineyard, adopting some of the ideas of the Emergent church, it is on the forefront of this radical element in the Vineyard group.
I have heard a lot of good things about vineyard churches and wanted to check one out here in Baltimore, I don't currently have a church home here. If you can ask around if there is one I would be appreciative.
Science explains the world/universe in a way that is consistent with evidence. There is room for an open mind where we do not understand what has happened. However, we must by common sense fit it in such a way that is consistent with evidence.
Like the saying goes, one should keep one's mind open, but not to the extent your brain falls out. No, not everything is possible if it does not comply with what we have discovered. Science is a cumulative process, and the proof that we are right lies in that our standard of living has improved so much up to the present day.
We know this didnt happen.If he does in fact exist I don't think it is outside reason to believe he is quite capable of creating everything in 6 days.
and that still doesnt make it anywhere near the actual figure.Isaiah talks about how 1000 years here on earth is equivalent to one day for God.
I dont believe in God for many reasons, but one of the is because of occam's razor, whereby the simplest explanation is the right one.
In order to account for all the evidence, fossils, universe expansion, whatever, scientifically, one does not need to invent a God, arguably except for the first cause, however if you insist a God does exist, you must invent a wealth of ideas to account for his behaviour and how it fits into all of this... which he does not.
One does not subscribe to either of these as equals, they are not. Evolution is a scientific theory which was first thought of by charles darwin, which has had 150 years of evidence and development and is fundamental to our understanding of biology and the naturalistic history of the planet. Intelligent design is a religious propaganda movement which has been disproven countless times by scientists, this is why it cannot be taught in schools as science.Whether you subscribe to ID or the Darwinian model or something totally different.
That is a pretty bold and some would characterize arrogant statement I assume you have evidence that supports this statement.... I have given you some of mine in this very thread....where is yours...We know this didnt happen
Universe expansion can be measured, and has been this is called hubble's constant, (all the stars and galaxies are moving apart from each other at a similar rate. when you calculate the distance and then work backwards, you can work out that they converged about 13.5 billion years old. i.e. the big bang, when it all started at a single point.
Recently they worked out that this may not have been linear however because the rate of expansion is increasing, this means that if there was an acceleration in this expansion, the universe is even older...
in any case, it certainly wasnt made in 6 days.
I just wanted to quote this so that it would be too late for you to delete it. Vindictive and unforgiving of me I know, but it is such a good illustration of exactly what i meant about showing us all what you are made of, that I could not resist.
Your logic is flawed no one said it couldn't be created in six days and allowed to age for billions of years afterward. As you yourself have pointed out the discovery of red shift proved that the current estimate was off as far as age goes showing that no matter how much we think we know there is no way of knowing for sure.
*Raises an eyebrow*I just wanted to quote this so that it would be too late for you to delete it. Vindictive and unforgiving of me I know, but it is such a good illustration of exactly what i meant about showing us all what you are made of, that I could not resist.
ok hold on, if you believe in 6 days, then you believe in the book of genesis, whereby there is a day by day account of what is made one day, then you must believe that by the end of day 6 there is the earth, the animals, the stars the moon etc.
what exactly was going on for these 6days that you are on about?!>
Fine, but we can make a pretty convincing case for it. Just like nobody knows if somebody committed a murder, but the evidence can be as good as proof.As you yourself have pointed out the discovery of red shift proved that the current estimate was off as far as age goes showing that no matter how much we think we know there is no way of knowing for sure.
True but no one ever knows exactly what happened and the very nature of God is eternal which means he exists outside of time. Who knows how long a day is to God or how long a day would have been then. You are arguing semantics. You want to talk about proof what about the fact that it is statistically impossible for life (not even intelligent life) to occur randomly or by chance. Or the question of irreducible complexity. The fact that the universe seems finely tuned to support life. The point is we can argue a case in either or direction. I know what I believe and simply put my beliefs do not require you to believe them to be true.
So God could have created everything as it was this morning with all our memories of a nonexistent past and all the scientific evidence pointing to something completely contrary to the truth. But then that would make God a big fat liar and the Bible one of His biggest lies. Another really big lie would be that we are the slightest bit responsible for what kind of person we are. Well I suppose you have to think up some alternative that makes your ancient necromancer God seem reasonable by comparision. But frankly whether you say God did this fantastic lying thing this morning or you say that God did it 6000 years ago, I don't see much difference. Anyway my main point here is that the results are not independent of the method. Power is not the answer to every challenge, and accomplishing something meaningful usually requires something quite different. So I must disagree with you: what God wanted to accomplish, he could not accomplish in six days at all.
Since you say you have an open mind, lets challenge it a little. It is doubtful that this will do any good, because most protestants vastly underestimate the impact that tradition has on their thinking, but lets give it a try.
Consider Genesis chapter 6:1-4. Now someone not already programed to understand this according to tradition, might find all the places in the Bible that the phrase "sons of God" can be found and find that it always refers to God's chosen people. In that case, "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose", becomes the very simple answer to the age old question of who did the sons of Adam marry, not their own sisters but the daughters of all those other members of homo sapien species which the Bible refers to as "men".
Then their children, the Nephilim are quite simply the "giants" among men, the leaders of human civilization, or as the Bible puts it, "the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown." If they were as long lived as chapter 5 suggests this is quite understandable indeed. Then suddenly something else back in chapter 4 that made no sense, now does. For if there are all these other "men" out there, then Cain's fear that he will be a fugative and that men will find him and slay him does not sound quite so weird when he and his parents are the only people alive on the planet.
Now compare this with the tradition that sees evolution and science as the enemy of God and so must take the Bible literally when it suits them and know that there were no other people on the earth because Adam and Eve were the first human beings, created by magic from dirt and borrowed body parts (though how you could call that human I will never understand). According to this tradition these "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angels and that these had sex with women to give birth to giant human-like creatures. Some even go so far as to say that this represents a demonic pollution of the human race and that God's work of salvation was one of ethnic cleansing. This is certainly a hermeneutics that is quite palatable to racists, how about to you?
Well now, that is curious.
I am aware of Palms 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night", which is no doubt the inspiration for 2 Peter 3:8, "But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." But Isaiah? Hmmm... I cannot seem to find that one. Maybe you can help with that.
if he exists outside time, he exists outside the universe and since all that exists is contained within the universe, God, as you call him, cannot exist.True but no one ever knows exactly what happened and the very nature of God is eternal which means he exists outside of time. Who knows how long a day is to God or how long a day would have been then. You are arguing semantics.
You need to read up on statistical thermodynamics, if you are talking about the impossibility of certain molecules to form. Long story short, even if improbable it does happen is what this theory, which has been tried, tested and validated says.You want to talk about proof what about the fact that it is statistically impossible for life (not even intelligent life) to occur randomly or by chance.
This is not a question, this has been thoroughly explored and disproven by the scientific community and every example ever dreamt up by a creationist/ID advocate has been proven to have in fact evolved.Or the question of irreducible complexity.
It is not, firstly this calls on the anthropic principle which states, things are in such a way for us to observe them because if they were any different we would not be here to observe them. All you are saying is your existence itself requires the existence of a God, which is a fallacy in opinion, but even if you insist there is one, it most certainly is not the kind of God discussed in any religious text. Furthermore, the universe is far from elegant, there are millions of stars which have burnt out, black holes which devour entire solar systems and in only one distant corner of the universe, exists us on a small, insignificant planet around a small sun, lie we. Amidst a violent universe of gases and explosions.The fact that the universe seems finely tuned to support life.
No, but belief implies asserting beyond what is already known. You dont have to believe the sky is blue, and nobody would claim it is brown. Similarly, when the evidence mounts up in one direction, your beliefs become somewhat negated, reality gets in your way.The point is we can argue a case in either or direction. I know what I believe and simply put my beliefs do not require you to believe them to be true.
So believe what you want, but your head is very much in the sand if you are denying what is regarded as scientific common knowledge.
So God could have created everything as it was this morning with all our memories and all the scientific evidence to the contrary. But then that would make Him a liar and the Bible one of His biggest lies. Another really big lie would be that we are the slightest bit responsible for what kind of person we are. Well I suppose you have to think up some alternative that makes your ancient necromancer God seem reasonable by comparision. But frankly whether you say God did it this morning or you say that God did it 6000 years ago, I don't see much difference. The point is that the result are not independent of the method. Power you see is not the answer to every challenge, and accomplishing something meaningful usually requires something quite different. So I must quite disagree with you. What God wanted to accomplish, he could not accomplish in six days at all.
Since you say you have an open mind, lets challenge it a little. It is doubtful that this will do any good, because most protestants vastly underestimate the impact that tradition has on their thinking, but lets give it a try.
Consider Genesis chapter 6:1-4. Now someone not already programed to understand this according to tradition, might find all the places in the Bible that the phrase "sons of God" can be found and find that it always refers to God's chosen people. In that case, "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose", becomes the very simple answer to the age old question of who did the sons of Adam marry, not their own sisters but the daughters of all those other members of homo sapien species which the Bible refers to as "men".
Then their children, the Nephilim are quite simply the "giants" among men, the leaders of human civilization, or as the Bible puts it, "the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown." If they were as long lived as chapter 5 suggests this is quite understandable indeed. Then suddenly something else back in chapter 4 that made no sense, now does. For if there are all these other "men" out there, then Cain's fear that he will be a fugative and that men will find him and slay him does not sound quite so weird when he and his parents are the only people alive on the planet.
Now compare this with the tradition that sees evolution and science as the enemy of God and so must take the Bible literally when it suits them and know that there were no other people on the earth because Adam and Eve were the first human beings, created by magic from dirt and borrowed body parts (though how you could call that human I will never understand). According to this tradition these "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angels and that these had sex with women to give birth to giant human-like creatures. Some even go so far as to say that this represents a demonic pollution of the human race and that God's work of salvation was one of ethnic cleansing. This is certainly a hermeneutics that is quite palatable to racists, how about to you?
Well now, that is curious.
I am aware of Palms 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night", which is no doubt the inspiration for 2 Peter 3:8, "But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day si as a thousand years, and a thousand years is one day." But Isaiah? Hmmm... I cannot seem to find that one. Maybe you can help with that.
I meant David by the way, mis-wrote....sorry as far as sons of God, I lean either toward Adamic men seduced non Adamic women or, angels/demons. There is very little in the way information in the bible proper I believe the psedographa deals with it in some detail however I do not have enough evidence to make an judgment
Adamic men and non-Adamic men? So what does this mean exactly? That there were the golem people transformed from dirt and bones and some other people made in a different way? So what was this all about, the first interracial marriages that had God so uptight that he destroyed the world with a flood? Sorry if I am jumping to conclusions here but I am floundering around trying to understand why you inserted "seduced" into the text.
Whereas I just make a real stab in the dark and suggest taking the scientific evidence seriously. I find choosing pseudepigrapha over science to be a rather astounding thing to do. LOL
P.S. the new November issue of Scientific American has a small elementary introduction to the non-equillibrium phenomenon of spontaneously generated order. Thought the classic text on the topic is Erich Jantsch's "The Self Organizing Universe".
A court case can be decided by a reasonable doubt.
Even if the cosmological constant were different, we'd simply be living in a different universe. This is not an argument for god.1. The Cosmological constant if fine tuned. If it is to large a
number, things expand into nothing.
This is also not an argument for god. It simply may result in a different universe, and you'd probably still be here trying to argue it's evidence for god.2. If you were to decrease the strong nuclear force (the force that
binds nucleoli (sp?) of atoms together) by 1 part in 10,000 billion
billion billion billion all you would have in the universe is
hydrogen.
By it's effects, you just said that. There are no effects for god.3. The funny one: Can you see the wind? No, I can see the effects of
the wind but I have never seen the wind. How is it I know it exists.
It isn't illogical at all to say the universe just came into being, regardless of the fact the cause is unknown. There is no evidence whatsoever to support gods.4. The universe had a finite
beginning thus can be described as an effect whether that be of near
limitless contraction in on itself or another reason either in order
for something to have an effect it needs a cause. This fundamentally
calls into question a randomly occurring universe. Arguing natural
process can only take you so far. It is an illogical premise to say
that the universe "just" came into being. That gives no answer to the
cause...
No, you don't have to wrestle with the why or cause. Science is concerned with the "how." The fact that you may not understand evolution does not give credibility to the argument of gods.5. I realize the lack of a
scientific argument does not lend credence to my argument however,
given current evidence there is no other logical realization. And then
once again you have wrestle with the why or cause...
Sorry, but it does no such thing. Again, the fact that you don't understand it does not prop up your argument for creationism.6. This points to a creator.
We are not mouse traps.Some also counter with the mouse trap analogy. In it, they say take a
basic machine such as a mouse trap break it down into different parts,
the board can be used as a paper weight, the bar can be used as a key
chain ect. However, it takes intelligence to take apart these
components, it takes intelligence to put it altogether and furthermore
if you take apart a mouse trap it is no longer a mouse trap.
You've provided nothing to support your argument. Most of your claims are from ignorance.7. Finally I will end this. I have went on long enough I have much
much more evidence however I think this is enough for now.
Sorry, but the pothole was not designed to accept the shape of the water contained within. And again, this does not support an argument for gods.Oddly it seems
the universe is designed to support life. I would like to point out
the odds against this are just about statistically impossible, not to
mention factoring intelligent life developing randomly into this
equation.
Your arguments are typical and pointless. You've provided no evidence whatsoever. Try again.Well, render your verdict. Of course if you need more evidence let me know.
There is no scientific proof for or against god. We can quote science both ways but ultimately our arguments are philisophical.
That is correct. The scientific theory of evolution isn't about God.
Shucks! I have not been following this thread which has had some lively conversation.
My response to the OP is that his disappointment stems from the fact that some of the best scientific evidence for God comes from the lack of scientific evidence to prove otherwise. Strangely, that is also the best evidence against Intelligent Design.
No matter what scientific information is advanced, it is less than conclusive of either position.
Science deals only with the information we know. By its very nature, science cannot deal scientifically with the unknown. Yet, scientists will readily admit that there may be more that we do not know than there is that which we do know.
It becomes pretty obvious to me that few people here actually understand the legal concepts of burden of proof. I know of no type of legal matter which requires proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. In law, the strictest burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt which is imposed for the most serious criminal matters such as homicide. In civil matters, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.
I am not convinced that society in general has universally accepted a standard of proof concerning the existence, or lack thereof, on the God question. It seems to me to be more a matter of: You believe, in which case just about everything supports that belief; or you don't believe, in which case just about everything supports your non-belief. A third option is that you can be both ignorant and apathetic in that you don't know and you don't care.
I agree that the Bible is not a science text book and is not intended as such. But I also disagree with those who seem to think the Bible diametrically opposes science. I remain of the belief that wherein the Bible and science appear to disagree, it is a matter that we have misunderstood the Bible or science has come to an inaccurate conclusion but we can never be for sure which is the case.
The Bible does not claim the world is 6,000 years old nor does use of the term "day" in the Genesis account of creation necessitate the understanding of one 24-hour day.
Maybe i should just start believing in a random theory thats unprovable. Since it can't be disproven, then it must be true! Right? Right?!?
Exactly, which is what has caused the response here,I agree that the Bible is not a science text book and is not intended as such. But I also disagree with those who seem to think the Bible diametrically opposes science. I remain of the belief that wherein the Bible and science appear to disagree, it is a matter that we have misunderstood the Bible or science has come to an inaccurate conclusion but we can never be for sure which is the case.
The Bible does not claim the world is 6,000 years old nor does use of the term "day" in the Genesis account of creation necessitate the understanding of one 24-hour day.
This is why the bible must not be used as a science, and when people mistakenly do this, you end up with propaganda like intelligent design.
Robbie said:
There is a massive question of cause and effect here.This is why the bible must not be used as a science, and when people mistakenly do this, you end up with propaganda like intelligent design.
It is possible that some people looking only from a Biblical standpoint would develop a creationist viewpoint which may or may not include the concept of Intelligent Design.
It is also possible that some people looking at the claims of evolution might find them inadequate to explain bio-diversity and to conclude there is a better explanation which might include the concept of Intelligent Design.
My feeling is that there are detractors of evolution which come from both of those positions and who end up with Intelligent Design as their preferred alternative. Meanwhile, there are people who have varying degrees of acceptance of evolution and participation of a creator in the process of biodiversity. Any attempt to lump everybody into one petri dish is silly.
Propaganda, as it is usually used here, only means the promotion of an idea that the person using the word disagrees with.
And of course, there is the obvious conclusion that a closed-minded believer like Dayton would never admit, that the bible is simply wrong.
Modern-day Christians seem to think that the God who sent his son on earth during the Roman Empire two thousand years ago is the same one who caused Big Bang many billion years ago. Any reason?
Christians have always believed that the creator of the Universe is the same God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Like Judaism and Islam, Christianity is monotheistic. There is only one God.
I suppose you might consider the Mormons to be Christian and they might be the exception to this.
But how do they know? It can also be Allah, or Brahm, or any god in any religions.
Was it your god or was it his son who made the claim about being a god, a ghost and a son at the same time?
People may call God by different things or have many different ideas about God or identify different things with a god, but although there may be more than one invisible spirit, there is only one God.
Trinitarian doctrine was a decision by the Christian leaders in eccumenical councils at the end of the fourth century about what it means to be a Christian.Was it your god or was it his son who made the claim about being a god, a ghost and a son at the same time?
prasit asked:
Another way we might come to this conclusion is that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the one who claims to have sent his son to die for us while it is Allah who asks his minons to sent their sons to die for him. Meanwhile, Brahm apparently insists his people worship the sons of cows.But how do they know? It can also be Allah, or Brahm, or any god in any religions.
Are there references or quotes to the bible that formed their decision or did they simply dictate what it means to be a Christian?
These are the same eccumenical councils that created the Bible. Before that, there were only a lot of different documents floating around including both those that Christians would read from and were included in the Bible and others including Gnostic texts that were excluded. But it was quite clear that what the Gnostics were teaching was a completely different understanding of the world and our relationship with God an thus this was a different religion from Christianity.Are there references or quotes to the bible that formed their decision or did they simply dictate what it means to be a Christian?
The doctrine of the Trinity went hand in hand with the canon as a declaration about the nature of God that was most in keeping with holding all of what was included in the canon to be authoritative. The doctrine of the Trinity can be found no where in the Bible but it is the most compatable with the integrity of the canon because any other opposing idea of God requires dismissing some portion of the cannon as inaccurate or unreliable or something.
Mitch wroteIt is a pure speculation that the all-powerful entity who created a universe (think about its size) billions of years ago (think about the duration) suddenly showed up a few thousand years ago and started to micro-manage (nano-manage?) the lives of a particular organism. Or it is not a pure speculation, just a desperate attempt to link fact to fiction.People may call God by different things or have many different ideas about God or identify different things with a god, but although there may be more than one invisible spirit, there is only one God.
His involvement in the events of the universe is as it always was. He created the universe for the purpose of giving birth to live and so wherever there was life, He was there to stimulate the development of life towards a realization of its greater potentialities. That involvement is the same now as it ever was.
Its not really a matter of speculation alone, but of knowing God - knowing why He created the universe and knowing what He is interested in.
Also, He has no need to micromanage either, he has servants to do his will as well. But part of the purpose of having such personel to take care of the routine tasks, is so that you can focus on what is more important and on what truly requires your abilities.
Mitch wroteBack to blind faith. Dead-end.Its not really a matter of speculation alone, but of knowing God - knowing why He created the universe and knowing what He is interested in.
Yes your faith and mine are at odds.
If you want to call your faith blind, that is fine by me. But if you pretend that all you know is based on proof and evidence, then I will certainly call your faith blind, for a faith that one adheres to without conscious awareness is the most blind that faith can be, which is nevertheless willfully blind by your participation in the delusion that all you know is based on proof and evidence.
Of course you could always plead to complete ignorance and that would be very wise, but then you must also be ignorant of what can be known, in which case you would not be able to make a judgement upon what is only speculation.
So wait, that means you allow what you "know" not to be based on ANY proof or evidence??? And you dare to call him ignorant or blind?Yes your faith and mine are at odds.
If you want to call your faith blind, that is fine by me. But if you pretend that all you know is based on proof and evidence, then I will certainly call your faith blind, for a faith that one adheres to without conscious awareness is the most blind that faith can be, which is nevertheless willfully blind by your participation in the delusion that all you know is based on proof and evidence.
Of course you could always plead to complete ignorance and that would be very wise, but then you must also be ignorant of what can be known, in which case you would not be able to make a judgement upon what is only speculation.
I dont care if a faith adheres to conscious awareness or not, whether or not you think significantly about what you believe, it doesnt change that you're faith is implausible... there is evidence against many aspects of it. Why would you think that the amount of thought you gave your faith would influence its validity? It only allows you become more convinced of it being true.
No not at all. Everyone has evidence, arguments and reasons for their beliefs. But objective evidence, convincing arguments and irrefutable reasons are something else altogether. I do believe that science is based on objective evidence, but that very fact greatly restricts what it can say. And thus anyone who claims that their beliefs are based on these things are participating a delusion which they have probably constructed for the purpose of being intolerant of the beliefs of others for I can see no other reason for it.
Life is not reducible to science because life is a great deal more than just observing objectively putting aside what we want to be the case. When it comes to life we have to participate and interact with the world, and when we do so, what we want does matter. To do this in a rational manner means that we make choices and adopt beliefs for which there can be no objective evidence, and the arguments that convince us will not convince those who make different choices in their life.
I did not call him blind. I said that a faith that is embraced without awarness is the blindest faith of all. It is for him to decide whether or not that is applicable in himself. I did not call him ignorant. I said that he could choose to claim ignorance as a reason why faith has no role in his beliefs, but that doing so would have logical consequences.
And now it is your turn. I would suggest that anyone who would so badly distort what I said, is functionally illiterate. It is of course possible that you are handicapped by english being a second language or something, in which case I would say that you have a long way to go before you can claim to understand what other people post in this language.
Implausible is a subjective judgement. As a scientist I am quite aware of the difference between objective observation and subjective perception. Are you?
Your "evidence" is no more objective or convincing than similar "evidence" and "proofs" being constantly spouted by visiting Islamic and Christian evangelists.
Why would you think that pink elephant make the earth rotate on its axis?
Translating from your nonsensical question about a thought I did not have:
Why should people reflect upon their beliefs and give them careful thought and consideration? Because those who do not will hold contradictory beliefs, will give reasons that have no logical bearing on these beliefs, and will be unaware of the logical implications of those beliefs.
Well I suppose that some people do talk themselves in believing things in utter disregard for what evidence there is: there is the flat earth society, there are those who believe in young earth creationism, there are those who insist on believing in the prenatal determination of sexual preference, there are those who insist that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, and there are those who insist on believing in physical determinism.
Mitch wrote:No. You don't know what my faith is. You are saying that if I don't agree with the reasoning for your faith because it does not seem logical or evidence-based, that's fine. You believe that I must have some faith on thing that are equally unlogical and non-evidence based (or more), so let's not discuss whose faith is more likely acceptable, just keep it that way.Yes your faith and mine are at odds.
That's OK by me. At least I thank you to help clarify with Daytonturner on Relativity Theory. He seems to know Einstein on his religious side only.
Do you mean you have "a" faith as opposed to simply "faith" in earthly things?No. You don't know what my faith is.
Yes, prasit, I did receive some correction on a misunderstanding I had about the relationship of matter and the speed of light. I enjoyed it and I learned something.
However, I did not realize there is a religious side to Einstein's theories any more than there is a religious side to Newtonian physics. I do think Einstein is useful in dispelling young earth theory with which I disagree, mostly based on the distance of celestial objects as determined by the speed of light. But you have now intrigued me. What is the religious side of Einstein's theories?
daytonturner wroteI don't say that Einstein's theory has a religious side. I mean that Einstein is famous for his scientific theory, but you quote on his statement about religion. So I say that you seem to know him more on the religious side than on the scientific side.What is the religious side of Einstein's theories?
Having said that, I don't mean that your quote singularly represents Einstein thought about religion either. A number of people quote his other writings that show various views on this subject.
Did not say I did, but that does not mean that I cannot draw conclusions about it by assuming that what you write is consistent with it. You said, "back to blind faith" as a judgement upon what I said, drawing conclusions about what is knowable in a manner that would not be called "blind faith". I judged that this was a consequence of a faith of your own that may be more blind than any faith which I have myself.
this is a sentence fragment...
Agreed. Such subjective judgements, are not useful for communication.
You are welcome. Any explanation of SR is my pleasure.
Sorry. Should have said "faith" only. I mean the belief that is not based on evidence or logical reasoning.You said, "back to blind faith" as a judgement upon what I said, drawing conclusions about what is knowable in a manner that would not be called "blind faith".
I don't get it. An example would help.I judged that this was a consequence of a faith of your own that may be more blind than any faith which I have myself.
You say "If Prasit doesn't agree with the reasoning for my faith because it does not seem logical or evidence-based, that's fine by me."You are saying that if I don't agree with the reasoning for your faith because it does not seem logical or evidence-based, that's fine.
this is a sentence fragment...
But your definition here of faith IS blind faith. Say rather that faith is belief that is not base on evidence which is both sufficient and objective or upon logical reasoning which is compelling or convincing to everyone, then although that is still not how I would define faith, it is close enough that I would not call it blind faith.
And by the way: I define faith as man's unavoidable response to the reality of uncertainty that starts with choice, proceeds through belief and ends in action, and this is a fundamental part of everything we call knowledge.
Again the key word there is "blind". That word makes a judgement about the rationality of others that is an unrealistic assement of human beings and irrational, and therefore it is only natural to conclude that this derives from a an unreasonable premise that one has put ones faith in. However the context of such a judgement implies that the person is not even aware that it is based on such a faith and that makes this faith even more blind than a faith that is embraced with both eyes open. An example of such a premise would be no person can have a real experience of God.
It is fine by me that people do not agree with me or my reasoning for like all such reasoning it is based on premises which are accepted on faith - i.e. as a matter of personal choice. Furthermore, I would agree that it is not based on irrefutable logic or evidence which is both sufficient and objective.
prasit said:
Well, I would agree that I understand him more on his religious side than on his scientific side.So I say that you seem to know him more on the religious side than on the scientific side.
Mitchell said:
HA! Finally got you in my bailiwick. What prasit wrote is not a sentence fragment; the sentence is: "That is fine." Everything prior to the comma is a participial gerund phrase which is an antecedent to the word "that" which is being used as a pronoun.this is a sentence fragment...
Running to the store, Jim was very fast. Running to the store is a participial phrase being used as an adjective to describe Jim.
Running to the store, that's the quick way to get there. Running to the store is a participial gerund being used as a noun to precede the word that.
It would be a little less cumbersome to say, Running to the store is the quick way to get there. But, syntactically, either way can be grammatically justified as a sentence.
Gerunds become more dense as they approach the speed of light.
Mitch wrote:I am also interested in some logic that may be refutable and some evidence that may be insufficient. So please share them if you have any. My intention is not to invalidate your faith but to understand how you get it.Furthermore, I would agree that it is not based on irrefutable logic or evidence which is both sufficient and objective.
Well you can get some of that from the threads of visiting evangelists like the one by zon3d, where my interest is mostly in showing them that their proof are refutable and their evidence insufficient, but that means to me that they are just plain invalid. Therefore my interest lies more in the area of the subjective evidence, which can only be excluded by the metaphysical naturalist premise that only the objectively observable (the scientific world view) is real. Indeed I think it is subjective perceptions and the inability to understand the difference from what is objective that cause people to insist that their invalid proofs and evidence are sufficient and irrefutable.
I for example see design in the physical laws of the universe for they seem exactly what is needed in order to give birth to life and thus designed for exactly this purpose -- such a purpose makes sense of the all this wierd mathematics that I see in physics. But as a physicist I can see that this is most certainly a subjective perception. Furthermore I would add to this the reasoning that this life phenomena is perfect answer to the only logical motivation for a perfect being and thus the most natural and worthwhile creative work for such a being. But, tell me, is this logic and reasoning convincing to you? I very much doubt it.
I see what you mean. I am convinced that your faith is based on your belief on perfection-by-design, as you have just described. In this respect you are more of a Deist than a Christian.
Perfection by design? I do not know what that is supposed to mean and it does not sound like anything which I believe in. If you mean't this simply to be a label to put on my description, perhaps "cosmic design by a perfect being" would be a better such label. However, it is not true that this is the basis of my faith, for I was just giving an example of subjective evidence and not giving anything like an explanation of how I came to believe in God. If that is what you are interested in then an explanation for that is found on the first page of the thread entitled "Reason for your (non)beliefs?" There you will find that the deepest and oldest roots of my faith, as well as my first understanding of the meaning of the word "God", in an equivalence between a faith in God and a faith that life is worth living.
Only in the sense that I am a methodological naturalist and expect things to have a rational explanation, and because I see science as an important source of "truth" (by which I mean understanding reality) independent from and not subject to the validation and approval of scripture.
But let us be clear, my conception of God is quite orthodox Christian and not the least bit Deist, for besides upholding Trinitarian doctrine and other orthodox Chrisitan ideas of God (though my reasons may be different), contrary to the Deist conception of God, I believe in a God who is actively and intimately involved in our lives and indeed in all the development of life. This is also why I am an Open Theist for otherwise this active participation would involve a logical contradiction between free will and God's omniscience.
It is true that I see God in the role of an exclusive cause or as a designer only when it comes to the universe as a whole (i.e. in regards to the mathematical laws of physics) and not when it comes to living things, but that is because the nature of living things precludes this. It is the nature of living things that they participate in the process of their own creation and thus although God plays a causal role in their development it is not the role of an exclusive cause or as a designer, but more like that of a farmer, shepherd and teacher as a participant in their lives and as a guiding influence in their environment.
Frankly I think this YEC nonsense is more Deistic in its conception of God because it sees God's creative work as ending in the distance past, making the rest of us nothing more than the product of Biology and DNA. That is what I would call a dead God. But when Christianity is reconciled with science the result is something more truly Christian in its full affirmation of a living and active God, for it sees all human beings as just as much a creation of God as were Adam and Eve.
The biggest problem we Christians have in attempting to prove God exists is that atheists, agnostics and other forms of skeptics place an impossible standard of proof on this question.
Any subjective values are ruled invalid even though subjective values are considered in just about any other topic of discussion wherein they may be developed. That leaves us only objective, tangible, physical evidence which is not always necessary, even in a court of law.
Perhaps if prasit (or some other skeptic) could express what evidence he would find acceptable, we could at least address how it might a greater burden than he might require on some other subject.
You can't prove god exists through any means especially by saying, "Look around you!"
Do you believe germ's exist? You can't see them, but we can at least prove they exist through observation under a microscope. God? You can't prove him.
Us athiests want proof... hard physical evidence. If you don't have proof, you do not have a basis for your belief. If you don't have a basis, why believe in the first place?
| « Jesus like people in other religions | Religions from around the world! » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
