Near perfect existence

[Davian]

Do you desire to be seen by the world as one of His followers? Do you desire to live as He lived in the world?

Have you abandoned your family, sold all of your possessions, and given away all of your money?

 

[Chriliman]

When then did you bother to ask what I desired?

Where do you think your desire to be happy comes from? Certainly you did not put that desire inside yourself. What put that desire there? Evolution? What purpose does evolution have in putting the desire to be happy in conscious beings? If you can answer that question then you will have proven that the theory of evolution has a purpose behind it, but you will not have defined what that purpose is, which puts us back to square one.

What is the purpose of life?

My answer is: The purpose of life is to find what is true and the reason we have to search it out and find it, is because truth, is independent of our finite lives.

 

[anonymous person]

Have you abandoned your family, sold all of your possessions, and given away all of your money?

No.

 

[Davian]

An eternal truth would be incomprehensible to a finite mind. Eternal truth could be described as an entity with eternal conciousness. The fact that we can describe such an entity without fully understanding it with our finite minds is profound in of itself.

The only "consciousness" that I am aware of is a process, an emergent property of a brain. What does this "entity" use for a brain?

You can niether prove or disprove the existence of eternal truth, logically only it can prove itself. God does prove himself to those who are honest and humble.

This "entity" doesn't take issue with those that toss veiled insults at those they disagree with?

 

[Davian]

Where do you think your desire to be happy comes from? Certainly you did not put that desire inside yourself. What put that desire there? Evolution? What purpose does evolution have in putting the desire to be happy in conscious beings? If you can answer that question then you will have proven that the theory of evolution has a purpose behind it, but you will not have defined what that purpose is, which puts us back to square one.

To apply the word "purpose" to evolutionary theory would be a category error. You are attacking a straw-man.

What is the purpose of life?

I do not hold the presupposition that life necessarily entails purpose. It is a process that continues while conditions are favourable to it.

My answer is: The purpose of life is to find what is true and the reason we have to search it out and find it, is because truth, is independent of our finite lives.

Do you feel it is true that there is a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

 

[Davian]

No.

Why not? Why are you cherry-picking his teachings?

 

[Chriliman]

To apply the word "purpose" to evolutionary theory would be a category error. You are attacking a straw-man.

I do not hold the presupposition that life necessarily entails purpose. It is a process that continues while conditions are favourable to it.

Do you feel it is true that there is a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

So someone who believes evolutionary theory doesn't necessarily believe the purpose of evolutionary theory is to explain how life came about?

Yet it fails to explain how non-life turned into life.

 

[Davian]

So someone who believes evolutionary theory doesn't necessarily believe the purpose of evolutionary theory is to explain how life came about?

Yet it fails to explain how non-life turned into life.

As any religion fails to explain how the process of life began, but evolutionary theory explains the diversity of life; it is not a claim about how it came about. Is this news to you?

 

[Chriliman]

As any religion fails to explain how the process of life began, but evolutionary theory explains the diversity of life; it is not a claim about how it came about. Is this news to you?

What if the reason we're all so confused about how life began is because life as we know it did not come from non-life, but rather from eternal life. God can be thought of as eternally alive and therefore the giver of all life that has a beginning.

Knowing eternity is a possible concept, explain how my thought above is irrational and explain how it does not explain where physical life on earth came from.

 

[Davian]

What if the reason we're all so confused

Who is this "we" that you speak for?

about how life began is because life as we know it did not come from non-life, but rather from eternal life.

That is your unevidenced claim.

God can be thought of as eternally alive

The concept of "alive" that I am aware of would only apply to breathing, consuming, excreting things that are subject to entropy. Is your "God" a breathing, consuming, excreting thing that is subject to entropy?

and therefore the giver of all life that has a beginning.

That is your unevidenced claim.

Knowing eternity is a possible concept, explain how my thought above is irrational and explain how it does not explain where physical life on earth came from.

I do see your attempts to shift your burden of proof onto others as being intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Chriliman]

Who is this "we" that you speak for?

That is your unevidenced claim.

The concept of "alive" that I am aware of would only apply to breathing, consuming, excreting things that are subject to entropy. Is your "God" a breathing, consuming, excreting thing that is subject to entropy?

That is your unevidenced claim.

I do see your attempts to shift your burden of proof onto others as being intellectually bankrupt.

Or is the thought that life can come from non-life, intellectually bankrupt?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Or is the thought that life can come from non-life, intellectually bankrupt?

If you have evidence that it is, please present it.

 

[Chriliman]

The concept of "alive" that I am aware of would only apply to breathing, consuming, excreting things that are subject to entropy. Is your "God" a breathing, consuming, excreting thing that is subject to entropy?

Yes, his name was Jesus and he was a real man and he was and is and will be God because He lives eternally. Do you understand?

 

[Davian]

Or is the thought that life can come from non-life, intellectually bankrupt?

In the manner that you are using it, it is. "Life" is not a thing, but a process.

"I don't know" is intellectually honest, and I do not claim to know. Substantiate your knowledge claims, or retract them.

 

[Davian]

Yes, his name was Jesus and he was a real man and he was and is and will be God because He lives eternally. Do you understand?

Not at all. "Alive" as I described it and "eternal" are mutually exclusive.

Are you simply going to preach from here on in?

 

[Chriliman]

Not at all. "Alive" as I described it and "eternal" are mutually exclusive.

And the only way you could possibility know this as fact is if you could comprehend eternity. Can you comprehend eternity?

Are you simply going to preach from here on in?

I didn't realize asking you if you understand something was considered preaching.

 

[Davian]

And the only way you could possibility know this as fact is if you could comprehend eternity. Can you comprehend eternity?

I did not declare it as fact. Must you misrepresent what I have said?

I didn't realize asking you if you understand something was considered preaching.

I didn't consider that preaching. It was your religious assertion in the preceding sentence that I was commenting on.

 

[Chriliman]

I did not declare it as fact. Must you misrepresent what I have said?

If you're not declaring it as fact, why should I believe you?

I didn't consider that preaching. It was your religious assertion in the preceding sentence that I was commenting on.

What I'm saying is not a religious assertion, I'm claiming I believe it's fact and you have not been able to show how I'm wrong because you're not even presenting what you believe is fact as your previous statement shows.

I did not declare it as fact. Must you misrepresent what I have said?

So you're not presenting what you believe to be facts and I am...who's argument is easier to believe based on the facts presented?

 

[Davian]

If you're not declaring it as fact, why should I believe you?

What did I ask you to believe?

What I'm saying is not a religious assertion, I'm claiming I believe it's fact and you have not been able to show how I'm wrong because you're not even presenting what you believe is fact as your previous statement shows.

I do see your attempts to shift your burden of proof onto others as being intellectually bankrupt.

So you're not presenting what you believe to be facts and I am...who's argument is easier to believe based on the facts presented?

Your religious opinion is not fact. Do you find it easy to believe in a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

 

[Chriliman]

What did I ask you to believe?

Nothing. That's the problem with your argument, you're literally arguing for nothing. Both in the sense that you're argument is grounded on nothing(you can't present facts that you believe are true) and if you believe God is impossible then you've been waisting your time debating with me because if God is actually impossible then our debate is meaningless, if God is possible then our debate has meaning.

Get my point? It has meaning behind it.