Ask God for Me

[2PhiloVoid]

Christian Apologetics might achieve more if Christians stopped trying to pretend that they know us and our lives than we do ourselves.

Send your mind-reading helmets back and demand a full refund. You were ripped off.

And vice-versa, Tinker.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Of course it is.

You don't have a ghost of a clue what you're talking about.

I invite anyone reading along, who may be curious and willing to learn, to read this if they are curious about what the actual mechanisms of biological evolution are:
Other Mechanisms of Evolution
And watch this:

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Of course it is. The theory is an explanation for how life came to be what it is without any intelligence, purpose or intent. Zero. It is 100%, dumb-luck chance. That's why people so often cite the need for billions of years (because it's takes LOTS of trial and error, because there is no intelligence guiding the mutations or locations or any other of the many variables involved).

This is incorrect. Evolution does not explain origins, mutations are random, natural selection is not random. No need for a designer. Do the work to understand evolution from actual scientists not apologists. I don't think you know how evolution works based on your posts.

Also, we cite billions of years because that is what the evidence shows. Has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[John Helpher]

You don't have a ghost of a clue what you're talking about.

Well, what I'm saying is that evolutionary theory is an explanation for how life came to be without any direction, guidance, or intelligence behind it. If you say that I'm wrong about that, then the obvious implication is that you think there is some kind of intelligence behind evolutionary theory.

I think you reason you chafe so much at having evolutionary theory described as a dumb-luck explanation which precludes any kind of intelligence, purpose, or intent is because that explanation sounds so bad and yet that really is what evolutionary theory is. There's no point in trying to hide just how vapid the theory is. If you're gonna support it, do so rationally without all the pretense.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Well, what I'm saying is that evolutionary theory is an explanation for how life came to be without any direction, guidance, or intelligence behind it.

And you're wrong. That's not what the Theory of Evolution is, nor what it is intended to explain.

You, like virtually every creationist I have ever encountered, can't even accurately describe what it is you are attempting to critique.

'I flapped my arms up and down, and I didn't fly. Therefor, powered flight is a myth' - What you sound like.

Put down the creationist propaganda for ten minutes and read a textbook.

Or don't. By all means, keep making an example of yourself.

 

[John Helpher]

Evolution does not explain origins

Meh, this is a semantic technicality. Where everything came from, including the bits and pieces that make up life (i.e. amino acids) and how those pieces work together in harmony to make life what it is today all comes down to the same issue; you cannot have ordered complexity by random chance.

There can be only two options; guided or random. It cannot be both because they are opposing concepts, like saying the light is both on and off at the same time. Trying to say that both are true at the same time is nonsense which defeats the purpose of even having such definitions to begin with. If you want to say that off can be on and on can be off both at the same time then the concepts lose their usefulness as any kind of rational description of what the reality of the situation actually is.

In the same way, random cannot be guided and guided cannot be random at the same time without rendering the practical meaning of each of those concepts moot.

natural selection is not random.

Absolutely it is. Both the mutation and the location of the organism are 100% random (otherwise you must explain what guides the mutation to mutate in the way it does and what guides the organism to be in a geographic location which is favorable to the mutation).

If a mutation is favorable based on the location, the organism will be more likely to survive long enough to produce offspring. If the mutation is not favorable according to location, then the organism will be less likely to survive. Organisms are selected to live just as they are selected to die. If a canine mutates a shorter, thinner coat of fur in a cold region, it will die young. If it mutates a thicker coat of fur, it will likely survive. There is no guidance or intent behind any of it; completely, 100% random chance.

"Natural selection" is a favorite talking point because you see it as some kind of "program" but invariably you deny any programmer which is inherently irrational. You cannot have a program without a programmer and this is the most common distortion which keeps the theory afloat; you must twist reality to suit the theory in order for it to have any meaning at all.

Because you really are created by an intelligent designer with a desire to crave meaning and purpose, you will inevitably seek out some kind of purpose behind your existence. You are too proud to accept servitude to an intelligent designer, but you cannot accept that your existence is the result of completely random, dumb-luck chance, so you opt for a middle ground; an implied intelligent program with no programmer. It's utter foolishness.

 

[John Helpher]

And you're wrong. That's not what the Theory of Evolution is, nor what it is intended to explain.

Are you saying, then, that evolutionary theory does have room for intelligence behind it?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Are you saying, then, that evolutionary theory does have room for intelligence behind it?

Theistic evolutionists would tell you yes.

That’s irrelevant though, because you don’t know what the ToE is. Learn, or continue to make an example of yourself. Or drop it. Those are your choices.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Meh, this is a semantic technicality. Where everything came from, including the bits and pieces that make up life (i.e. amino acids) and how those pieces work together in harmony to make life what it is today all comes down to the same issue; you cannot have ordered complexity by random chance.

It just isn't. We know with a high level of confidence that evolution happened and it is supported by tons of evidence. We do not know how life started. It is not semantics and you repeating you cannot have ordered complexity by random chance is unsupported and not what evolution says anyway.

There can be only two options; guided or random. It cannot be both because they are opposing concepts, like saying the light is both on and off at the same time. Trying to say that both are true at the same time is nonsense which defeats the purpose of even having such definitions to begin with. If you want to say that off can be on and on can be off both at the same time then the concepts lose their usefulness as any kind of rational description of what the reality of the situation actually is.

Natural selection is the result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity it has no guiding hand but it is a process that is not random. Your dichotomy is false.

In the same way, random cannot be guided and guided cannot be random at the same time without rendering the practical meaning of each of those concepts moot.

How do you know this is true? Natural selection is not random. Gravity is not random, if you drop a baseball close to earth it will move toward the direction of earth. If it were random then baseballs could do anything when released. Same with natural selection, the laws that govern it are not random. If a certain organism is in a certain environment you will only get certain mutations that may survive. If it were random any organism could come from any predecessor and that is not the case.

Absolutely it is. Both the mutation and the location of the organism are 100% random (otherwise you must explain what guides the mutation to mutate in the way it does and what guides the organism to be in a geographic location which is favorable to the mutation).

See above.

If a mutation is favorable based on the location, the organism will be more likely to survive long enough to produce offspring. If the mutation is not favorable according to location, then the organism will be less likely to survive. Organisms are selected to live just as they are selected to die. If a canine mutates a shorter, thinner coat of fur in a cold region, it will die young. If it mutates a thicker coat of fur, it will likely survive. There is no guidance or intent behind any of it; completely, 100% random chance.

What you described is not random. It is guided by principles. If a dog population in a cold region have less hair and die that is a consequence of the environment and not random. It would be random if the dog population with less hair either dies out or thrives under the same conditions with no reason for either. That is not what natural selection is.

"Natural selection" is a favorite talking point because you see it as some kind of "program" but invariably you deny any programmer which is inherently irrational. You cannot have a program without a programmer and this is the most common distortion which keeps the theory afloat; you must twist reality to suit the theory in order for it to have any meaning at all.

No one sees natural selection as a program and you have smuggled in a designer by calling it a program. It is a natural process just like photosynthesis.

Because you really are created by an intelligent designer with a desire to crave meaning and purpose, you will inevitably seek out some kind of purpose behind your existence. You are too proud to accept servitude to an intelligent designer, but you cannot accept that your existence is the result of completely random, dumb-luck chance, so you opt for a middle ground; an implied intelligent program with no programmer. It's utter foolishness.

That is a lie. Please stop telling me what I believe, think and feel. The fact is evolution is supported by overwhelming good evidence and you telling people that have actually educated themselves about evolution and then assuming bad motives on them indicates you are not representing your god very well becasue we know what you are saying is false. Now you just need to be brave enough to go and seek out the truth of evolution.

If not, then submit your ideas to the scientific community and see if you can convince them. If so, I will pay for your travel to get your Nobel prize for science. If you convince them you will probably convince me as well.

 

[John Helpher]

Theistic evolutionists would tell you yes.

I can't help but notice that you do not want to answer the question.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You don't have a ghost of a clue what you're talking about.

I invite anyone reading along, who may be curious and willing to learn, to read this if they are curious about what the actual mechanisms of biological evolution are:
Other Mechanisms of Evolution
And watch this:

This was a great video, I learned something. And the walking fingers with pants were hilarious. I wonder if John Helpher will even watch it. It explains why evolution is not 100% random with no designer.

 

[John Helpher]

That is a lie. Please stop telling me what I believe, think and feel.

I'm not telling you anything. I'm drawing a conclusion which makes sense based on what you've shared. The reason you so strongly resist accepting that evolutionary theory deliberately excludes intelligence as a reason behind why we're here is because you know, deep down, that such a conclusion is foolish.

A single protein is made up of a combination of hundreds of amino acids joined together in a specific combination and then folded precisely into what is essentially a nano machine. The simplest single celled organism has more than a hundred different proteins joined together in concert, each performing a specific, specialized function which compliments the whole and is organized by genetic information which all scientists refer to as code.

Yes, it would be foolish indeed to say there was no intelligence behind all that organization, but neither can you come right out and say that there is intelligence because that'd be recognition of a creator. You say there's all this evidence but the foundation of your position is irrational, which means all your observations regarding the evidence will be seen through that irrational lens.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I can't help but notice that you do not want to answer the question.

It makes no difference. The mechanisms of biological evolution are the same, whether there is an ‘intelligence’ behind them or not.

And I can’t help but notice you don’t have a clue what it is you are attempting to critique.

 

[Kylie]

I understand that, when you refer to evidence, you mean evidence of the existence of God. It's still not clear what you mean by that, or what evidence could convince you. You say you tried the "ask Jesus into my heart" thing, but it's not clear to me if you yourself understand what that means. Is it a feeling you get? Is it some kind of spectacular vision? How would you know if "asking Jesus into your heart" worked?

How would I know? I'd know because I felt Jesus in my heart, wouldn't I?

What kind of result were you expecting which would be conclusive enough to overpower any lingering, skeptical doubt and in that case, do you really think God is looking for people who only believe in him because they were overpowered into it by an emotional experience?

I dunno. But surely God could give me something that would utterly convince me.

I understand you think you've got a really clever argument by suggesting the ball is in God's court as to whether or not you will believe in (and presumably follow) him, but I wonder if you can see just how stubborn such an argument is. You're essentially saying that if God wants you to follow him, then he must first listen to you and if he properly satisfies you by jumping through whatever hoops it would take to convince you that he is, indeed, your creator, then you will agree to follow him. It's a position which seems to make you think you're being fair toward God, but you're actually sabotaging yourself with that kind of pride, because it should be obvious, at least in concept, that if there really is a creator, it is in his nature that he is the boss. If he must obey your standards for loyalty (i.e. that he must prove himself to you according to your standards), then he no longer would be the boss.

But the fact of the matter is your are essentially saying that someone can give me something good, but I have to do something first without any evidence of results.

It doesn't convince me when it's the scammer saying he can transfer millions of dollars to me as long as I pay some administrative fee first, and it's not going to convince me when it's you saying God can change my life as long as I become convinced he is real first.

Thus you've made the issue a test of wills and you're not gonna win that one. What's more, we already have an example of God demonstrating this concept to us with Pharaoh and Moses. If you read through the record you'll see that each time God sent a plague to Egypt, Pharaoh agreed to let the people go in order to stop the plague. As soon as God stopped the plague and there was a respite, Pharaoh reneged on his agreement and again hardened his heart. This happened several times, to the point that any fair person looking on would wonder why God continued to believe Pharaoh's obvious lies. God wasn't stupid. He knew Pharaoh would continue to deceive. He persevered with Pharaoh's stubborness because he wanted us, here in the present to be able to look back and see that any person trying to win a test of wills against God would utterly fail.

Let's not forget Exodus 9:12, okay?

This is why Jesus said that if anyone wants to know if his teachings really are from God, then you should try them. The time of using miracles as proof is over. God is looking for those sincere people who have examined the merit behind his teachings and practice them because of that merit and not because they're tickled by some emotional experience.

The fact that ideas have merit does not prove they came from God.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I'm not telling you anything. I'm drawing a conclusion which makes sense based on what you've shared. The reason you so strongly resist accepting that evolutionary theory deliberately excludes intelligence as a reason behind why we're here is because you know, deep down, that such a conclusion is foolish.

A single protein is made up of a combination of hundreds of amino acids joined together in a specific combination and then folded precisely into what is essentially a nano machine. The simplest single celled organism has more than a hundred different proteins joined together in concert, each performing a specific, specialized function which compliments the whole and is organized by genetic information which all scientists refer to as code.

Yes, it would be foolish indeed to say there was no intelligence behind all that organization, but neither can you come right out and say that there is intelligence because that'd be recognition of a creator. You say there's all this evidence but the foundation of your position is irrational, which means all your observations regarding the evidence will be seen through that irrational lens.

So I respond to all of your points and you cherry pick one thing I said and then respond with the same tripe that I already responded to. You ignore all of my post about what I believe and why and then tell me what I believe in contradiction to what I actually said I believe. What a dishonest post.

This is the second conversation I have had with you and you have done the same thing in both conversations, ignore my posts and then tell me what I believe in contrary to my posts. The last one you just stopped posting when the conversation got uncomfortable for you. It is clear you don't know how evolution works and don't care to find out.

 

[Olmhinlu]

I wonder if anyone here who can talk to God in prayer would ask God what they could say to me to convince me He exists and post it here if they get an answer.

I have done that - I will let you know if I hear anything.

 

[John Helpher]

I'd know because I felt Jesus in my heart, wouldn't I?

But, Jesus didn't teach that people should pray for a feeling in their heart. I've said this several times now but it seems you simply do not want to acknowledge that you've tried a method which Jesus himself did not teach. It is just testable, observable logic that if you do not follow the instructions, you will not get a proper result. That you do not want to acknowledge this strongly indicates that you are not thinking scientifically or rationally about this, but rather emotionally. You want the experiment to fail so you're deliberately performing it in an improper way and then pretending the results are valid.

Let's not forget Exodus 9:12, okay?

I guess this is your way of suggesting that you think God is hardening your heart?

I dunno. But surely God could give me something that would utterly convince me.

I guess this is your way of saying that despite God hardening your heart, you think he should also so powerfully overwhelm you with his might that you have no choice but to capitulate to his will? No, if God wanted robots he would have made robots. What he's looking for are people who want what he has to offer. If you do not want what he's offering, do not blame him for not forcing you to want it. Just plainly say that you do not want it. That would be the more honest approach.

All this stuff about whether he exists or not is just game playing. Your comments up to know strongly indicate that you would not obey him even if you did believe in his existence. You've already hinted as much with your rather brazen suggestion that forsaking all and working for love (as opposed to working for money) is impossible. Your husband believes in the existence of God, but he's not obeying Jesus (based on what you've shared here) and if you were to mention these teachings to him, he'd probably have some convenient excuse to explain them away, as though he is some kind of exception to the standards Jesus set out for his followers, or that Jesus didn't really mean what he said, or perhaps, like you yourself have shared, that it is impossible to obey Jesus. Whatever the excuse may be, the result will be the same; Jesus' teachings get ignored.

 

[John Helpher]

t is clear you don't know how evolution works and don't care to find out.

But, look who you're aligning yourself with:

It [intelligence] makes no difference. The mechanisms of biological evolution are the same, whether there is an ‘intelligence’ behind them or not.

This guy doesn't know whether intelligence is involved or not; in fact he's making it clear that he simply does not care if intelligence is involved or not, despite boldly declaring that my earlier claims of no intelligence being involved in the theory was definitely wrong. On the one hand he says my assertion is wrong, while on the other hand he's saying he doesn't care if there is or is not intelligence. Neither one of you understands the theory.

You're both lost in this confused, middling, grey area where you want to say there is genetic code, but there is no coder. You want to believe there really is intelligence, but there really is not intelligence. You want both to be true at the same time and in the midst of all that irrational confusion you find shelter for your bitterness toward God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is, predictably, getting repetitive. I'll not be re-addressing points that anyone reading along can just go back and see for themselves.



And creationism doesn't.

What is creationism and what does it claim?

Yes. In comic books and science fiction.

Also, 'mind over matter' refers to manipulation of pre-existing matter. So, that's very Mormon of you to use that as the description of God's relationship to matter.

Matter - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Its ok, I wasn't making a serious point.

Because I have studied this subject, and I'm not in the habit of making arguments from ignorance.

I wonder why you would ignore the rest of my comment? Strange. I too have studied the subject and again, the BB doesn't have evidence of anything prior to the BB, so to speak. As for totality of existence..again no evidence for anything other than the one we are experiencing.

The observer effect is not in any way analogous to classical cause and effect.

I didn't say anything about the 'classical cause and effect'.

Yeah. If you define 'modern' as 'the period during which Christianity was the status quo', and 'history' as 'European history', and 'science' as 'only those developments which came about during that place and time', then you're absolutely right. How deeply profound.



One hundred percent bull crap.

Many ancient cultures - Aztec, Maya, Egyptian, Greek, Etruscan, Chinese, Indian, etc - had independently gleaned scientific methods in various stages of development hundreds or even thousands of years before there was ever such thing as a 'Christian', or even a 'European'.

If your worldview can't cope with basic, mundane facts of history, I suggest you abandon it and find a new one.

I turn this back on you. Who were the founders of Modern Science?

I look forward to your Nobel Prize speech, after you demonstrate the 'correct' creation order.

There was a time when people said there could never be life on early earth due to the heat, there was a time when people said that there could be no liquid form when the universe first came into existence, there was a time when water could not have been on early earth because of the heat and look where we are now. All of the above were found to be the reality. So while I would not be up for a Nobel Prize, I have found through the years that Science does change its findings and quite often I might add.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evidence can be anything someone thinks is evidence opinion or fact. I am not saying that truth is subjective. I am saying that everyone evaluates evidence differently.

When has evidence been opinion?