Simple mathematics will never produce a "Mona Lisa" by random chance. Nor can random chance form a protein, DNA or a single cell with cytoplasm, mitochondria, Cell membrane, endoplasmic reticulum or any other of the many components of even the most basic cell.... Even if it could... where is the "life" part?
It's preposterous.
What parts do they not take literal... because they don't like it?
Well, what other humans say is not relevant... is it? Otherwise we would just have a bunch of opinions and no datum of truth.
Let's start here.
So you agree with me that Mathematics can form the Mona Lisa if it is complex enough, that stochastical chance can form proteins and DNA and that not accepting it is preposterous.
What, you didn't say that? I misrepresented what you said?
Well, that is just your opinion, and no datum of truth.
You get what I want to say, don't you? What "misrepresenting other human beings" means? That is, in plain english: LYING ABOUT OTHERS. Which should be a big no-no for a Christian, with their precious Ten Commandments.
And they still do it. Should give you pause.
What do you mean by "not directly"?
Did God create me, exactly the way I am? Or did he create my parents, so that they could have child, which would, by "natural processes" become the way I am? Or their parents? Or Adam and Eve? Or a universe where natural process would by evolution result in human beings, going down the line until it came to me?
If you want to end it at the first step, they you have a God who created a life-long atheist who is now here on this forum debating the existance of this same God. Weird fellow, that God.
And that would be the nice guy. It would also be the God who creates little children who die from horrible deformations the minute they leave the womb... or even before, even killing their own mothers in the process. He creates, intentionally, the world that is "red in tooth and claw". He created, intentionally, the guy who fought for "moral reasons" against the adoption of the 8 year old foster child in his care by a gay couple... while raping this same girl. He created, intentionally, the priest who started a campaign to prevent this girl being adopted by the gay couple, fearing for her "moral wellbeing".
Free will? Ok, free will. That would absolve, in some views, God from creating all these horrors.
But it would also mean that he did NOT create everything directly.
I am not sure what your point is here. I thought we already covered that there are very many "views" on all subjects, biblical or not... However, there is always only one truth.
You either have a God who creates everything, directly, just as he wants it... with all the disbelieve, hate, death... or you have a God who only created a world where such things are possible, and "allows" it, even if he doesn't like it.
Take your pick.
Chemistry and biology? If you know this much then you must know the complexities of even a single protein and then the almost infinitely more complex arrangement of these proteins into DNA..
That's just stochastics. Fundamentally, there is no difference between the formation of a protein and the formation of a simple water molecule. It's based on their inherent attributes.
But consider this: if you have one enormously complex arrangement of proteins - a cell, and after some time you suddenly have two enourmously complex arrangements of proteins - two cells.... then you have either an enourmously complex arrangement of proteins
that can duplicate itself.... or you have God having just created two cells.
In the second case, you would have to explain why God gets so sloppy so often.
Ya, again, I must apologize... totally not following your train of thought here.
I told you that it is a little more complex and difficult to explain quickly.
Look at it this way: something either exists, or it does not exist. Right? That's a "fundamental truth". It's logical. It's basic rule of existence.
Ok. We have "nothing". All things done away with. So, there are no basic rules of existence. There is no logic. There is no fundamental truth. There is nothing.
So there is also nothing that states "something either exists or it does not exist".
You cannot fathom it. It is not something that you can understand, or describe how that could be.
That's the point.
Sorry, not here either.....
Well, I didn't think you would understand it. But, hey, you asked.
I watched the interview.. It was not an article written about the interview.. it was actually Dawkins speaking, Stein asking questions and Dawkins answering them...
There was no "spin".
At 4:29.
This is not part of the interview, this is not something that Dawkins says: this is Ben Stein's interpretation of what Dawkins said. A "spin".
Unless you are saying that Dawkins is not responsible for what he says with his own mouth.
Is that really so difficult to understand. HE. DOES. NOT. SAY. THAT.
He said, and I quote: "...that is a possibility..."
What you said... and I quote again (post #87) "...Richard Dawson [sic] stated that we
must of came [sic] from some other intelligent designer..."
(my emphasis)
Can you really not understand the difference between "it's possible" and "it must have been"?
Someone makes the shoes. Someone makes morals.
Humans make shoes. Humans make morals.
That's right.. we don't do it "Because someone tells us not to" We do it because we know it's wrong.. all over the world... all different races... all different tribes... all different levels of civilization and technology.... all of them... it is wrong...
You "know" it is wrong, because someone "wrote in on your heart".
Sorry, atheists think about their morals. They don't have to read organs of the circulatory system.
Written on the heart of every human.... Where did it come from?
That's a misleading question. It doesn't "come from" somewhere. It is part of what we are, what we have become.
It is like a triangle. The sum of angles in a plane triangle is that of half a circle... 180°.
How does a triangle know that? Where does that come from?
It doesn't know. It didn't come from anywhere. It was never decreed by any deity that it should be that way.
It is part of what a plane triangle is.
And it is similar in that way to "morals". It is part of what "humans" are. More complex, but basically similar.
I disagree... an individual does not need to care about others to procreate... just themselves.... male, female... a totalitarian... could and has survived and created an empire without giving one sniff about any one or anything but themselves.
Yes. Such a system could have survived.
But here's the rub, and the problem that you do not seem to understand. You are hooked on the "survival" part. You ignore the "fittest" part.
An individual - or, in this case: a group of individuals - who care about each other are BETTER at procreating and surviving. They are "fitter".
I was not trying to describe evolution.. I was trying to describe what it would be like if nobody had an moral framework.
You was the one who brought this "survival of the fittest" into this. If you don't want to talk about it...
But again, you are are describing a caricature. A strawman. After all, we are not discussing the existence of a "moral framework". We are asking for the reason for a moral framework.
An organism that cares only for itself and it's well being will not give up it's life or safety for some other organism. It would not care about humanity in a situation. It would be the most ruthless of all and it will always over take an organism with morals.
From the viewpoint of Evolution a single "organism" is meaningless. It's the genetical line that is important.
But you ignored two of the important points in this case.
First one is entropy. "An organism" who will "over take" all others, and will only be concerned with it's own survival... will die. Entropy. You cannot escape it.
And if this organism didn't manage to ensure the continued existence of successors... this line will die. Permanently.
Now you might disagree... but cooperation is one the working strategies to ensure the continued existence of successors. There are others... but Evolution doesn't care about "being the best". It just cares about "good enough".
And cooperation - which included a "moral framework" - has shown to be "good enough" for humanity.
Second thing I mentioned and that you ignored: this is not a "perfect" system. It doesn't work all the time and in all instances. It can very easily lead into dead ends. It can fail due to its own mechanisms.
But that is irrelevant as long as the continued existence of successors does not fail.
And if it fails at that... well, there are enough extinctions in the history of the Earth. But because Evolution isn't about a goal... this again is irrelevant.
Absolutely... That's my whole argument.
Triangle. 180°
I disagree.. as I said before.. a group of organisms that have no morals... would over run a group with morals.
That is wrong on at least two levels. A group of organisms without moral does not necessarily "run over" a group with morals.
But what is worse for this argument: without morals, you wouldn't even have a group of organisms.
That is not arrogance.... Arrogance is those that say "I'm good enough and if a loving God won't accept me when I'm as good as Joe Christian.. or even better.. then I don't want a part of it... I'm good enough on my own.
Well, that reassures me. Atheists do not believe in the existence of God, so they aren't bothered with being accepted by a non-existent entity.
Puh, for a moment I was worried that I could be arrogant.
It may not sound humble to say that I am created for fellowship with my creator, you are correct.
It is humble to say that, sadly, due to my behavior, I am not worthy to be in His presence and can do nothing to change that. This is accepting inadequacy.
Admitting that I am not worthy.. that's humbleness.
I will never understand the strange view Christians have about their creator.
But, thanks for putting out one of the more classic arguments against the inability of those to "humble themselves before their creator."
It almost works at turning it backward.. until you break it down into the two parts.
Well, because the first part is based on a position that unbelievers do not hold, and the second is... just weird, I still wouldn't bet any money on it winning a price at the local debate club.
