Ask God for Me

[miknik5]

Clizby,

You don´t need to answer my many questions...it´s just that Osiris is too sophisticated for a 4 year old...and Osiris comes from greek mythology...and greek mythology was satan´s way of causing confusion from the beginning...

For a 4 year old to refer to a legendary, (but fake) god by its legendary (but fake) name, goes beyond the abilities of a 4 year old...

Especially if you did not introduce her, (and no other adult figure in her life did not as well) to mythology...

 

[miknik5]

Please reconsider your stubbornness...You want physical proof...and HIS WORD and TESTIMONY is not enough...

That isn´t faith sir...that´s the foolishness explained in 1 Corinthians...

And without faith it is impossible to please GOD, for one would have to (FIRST) believe that HE IS and a rewarder of all who diligently seek HIM...

You ask men to do what you are capable of

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have told you more than once how I determine morals. I also asked you twice now if you wanted to provide an ethical scenario so we could discuss and see if we can come to an agreement on what the moral thing to do is. Seems like all you want to do is talk about theories. How about putting it into practice?

Discussion is 'theory.' In my estimation, discussion about morality is barely even putting a toe over the line into the 'practice' of morality. So, your presentation of a scenario, if it's even pertinent, should only come after you've provided a full explanation of how your moral theory actually works, step by step. This you haven't yet done, and if your efforts here wouldn't cut it in the ethics classroom (and they wouldn't), what makes you think they should cut it here?

 

[Oncedeceived]

And the answer to that question is "evolution."

Evolution doesn't explain the information needed before evolution can occur.

Again, evolution.

That magic wand evolution.

A way to reproduce?

As someone who has a child, I can tell you that reproduction is most definitely a thing.

I really just don't know what to say to this. Reproduction is certainly a thing. However, it being a 'thing' doesn't explain reproduction prior to a system to allow for it.

Or how did it start in the first place?

I'll cut and paste from one of my other posts...

All matter needs to start the development of life is imperfect replication, and this could easily be satisfied by an enzyme.

Basically, an enzyme is a chemical that helps a chemical reaction but isn't used up in that reaction. It could be a molecule that can grab two other molecule and join them together. The enzyme is usually named something-ase, based on what it does. So Lactase is an enzyme that works on Lactose.

So, if we have an enzyme that takes molecule A and joins it to Molecule B to make Molecule C, we might called this enzyme Abcase. So we have lots of Abcase molecules floating around, grabbing an A and joining to a B to make a C.

Now, what happens if Molecule C is Abcase itself? We've got Abcase molecules floating around making more of themselves! That's reproduction.

And let's say some of these abcase molecules have a tiny change in the way they are put together which makes them better at joining A to B. Then this is a reproductive advantage, and this variation of Abcase is going to spread throughout the population. That's natural selection. That's evolution. And we haven't even got to cells yet.

And the Urey-Miller experiment counts as an example of an experiment that is progress in the formation of life. It shows how easily organic molecules that are the basis for life can be formed.

So simple why hasn't this taken off as the explanation of the origin of life and declared the winner in the Abiogenesis Expedition! Oh yes, because it has serious problems and so no Nobel for Urey-Miller or Sidney Fox. To start with both experiments needed atmospheric conditions that were not represented by new discoveries of early earth. It has been found that early earth when all this pre-evolutionary jumbling was suppose to occur, was very hospitable to life early on. They thought it was too hot for liquid water, found that water was on earth very early... that shot down Urey-Meyer at the onset, before even going into the other problems in their experiment. Sidney Fox needed hot temperatures, so volcano's or deep ocean vents were the only place on earth for that and it was limited in that respect and then the problems with the enzymes, at that time they were not like those of today. They were barely detectable and unrelated to those found today. The amino acids have their own problems and are more likely to be destroyed or biologically inactive. The replacement of a single amino acid in a protein with its D-form completely destroys all biological activity. The information needed for anything to get off the ground so to speak, is not found in the bases as I said. They are only the letters of the alphabet and the sequence are the words and the instruction of this sequence, the instruction of the words is the information that instructs all of this. The information creates the sequence. So rather than l-a-s-t you get s-a-l-t which makes all the difference. There can be no simple hit and miss if you want life or even a biologically sound precursor that allows for the first step towards evolution.

Gotta disagree with you there.

I guess we agree to disagree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is well understood for a while now. One site is Biologos that brings clarity to this question Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution? - Common-questions

Do you think that the nature of science should rely upon a praxis of Methodological Naturalism, or instead, of Philosophical Naturalism?

I'm just wondering, because depending on how you answer this question, it will be telling to the rest of us just how familiar you are with various issues of epistemology as they play a part in the philosophy and nature of science. And while I may moderately disagree with @Oncedeceived about the extent to which scientific evidence can or cannot actually indicate to us some degree of design built into 'creation,' you can't really refer to BioLogos in connection to the theory of evolution and know what you're talking about in that connection if you adhere to one of the two praxes I mention above ...

Just an f.y.i., especially since you say you care about epistemology, and metaphysical truth, and ethics and all that ...

 

[Kylie]

I really just don't know what to say to this. Reproduction is certainly a thing. However, it being a 'thing' doesn't explain reproduction prior to a system to allow for it.

And my next part explained how that could have happened.

So simple why hasn't this taken off as the explanation of the origin of life and declared the winner in the Abiogenesis Expedition! Oh yes, because it has serious problems and so no Nobel for Urey-Miller or Sidney Fox. To start with both experiments needed atmospheric conditions that were not represented by new discoveries of early earth. It has been found that early earth when all this pre-evolutionary jumbling was suppose to occur, was very hospitable to life early on. They thought it was too hot for liquid water, found that water was on earth very early... that shot down Urey-Meyer at the onset, before even going into the other problems in their experiment. Sidney Fox needed hot temperatures, so volcano's or deep ocean vents were the only place on earth for that and it was limited in that respect and then the problems with the enzymes, at that time they were not like those of today. They were barely detectable and unrelated to those found today. The amino acids have their own problems and are more likely to be destroyed or biologically inactive. The replacement of a single amino acid in a protein with its D-form completely destroys all biological activity. The information needed for anything to get off the ground so to speak, is not found in the bases as I said. They are only the letters of the alphabet and the sequence are the words and the instruction of this sequence, the instruction of the words is the information that instructs all of this. The information creates the sequence. So rather than l-a-s-t you get s-a-l-t which makes all the difference. There can be no simple hit and miss if you want life or even a biologically sound precursor that allows for the first step towards evolution.

Irrelevant.

The UM experiment simply showed that it is possible to get amino acids from basic chemicals. Of course it's not going to recreate life in the lab. It didn't need to. It was showing that the concept worked.

And I noticed that you put all your effort into arguing against just the last paragraph of that. Do I take it that means you have no problem with the Abcase portion? Because that part is the bit that actually answers your question.

I guess we agree to disagree.

I've provided explanations. All you've provided is disagreement.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You agree now its information?

No please read what I said.

How if not information would a cell even edit itself? How would it form anything? DNA's information is an instruction manual for life. The information doesn't come from the material makeup of the DNA itself. The bases that Kylie is speaking about are not information, they are a code that is the used to provide the instructions. They by themselves have no information without the words they eventually 'spell'. The letters need information to make up the words. The letters can be random and still carry out a specific function. The letters can't run on and on without beginnings or endings or they are only gibberish. It is the information that does the instruction to form the words, the sentence beginning and end. I am making this as simple as I can.

I already granted you fro the purpose of this discussion that information is contained in the DNA.

Lets say it this way, the only way life exists is due to the cell. We have no evidence that life exists without cells. It is not fallacious to claim this.

No it is not but when you then make a leap and say that only life can exist with cells that is fallacious. Or life cannot exist without cells. A

That is a fact that remains true all across earth. The same is true of information, across the earth the only way information is produced is through intelligent beings. It is no more fallacious to make this claim as it is to claim life exists due to the cell.

Can you tell me the difference between these two statements?

Information can only be produced by intelligent beings

and

We have only found information being produced by intelligent beings.

In fact, life exists because of information because without the information systems within DNA life would not exist on earth.

I am not disagreeing with this statement.

Nope not the same at all. We know that cars not starting are due to many causes and it can be demonstrated. Not so with information, we have no other causes of information other than intelligent beings.

You missed the point. Should a person decide that the car won't start because the battery is dead before investigating whether that is the case even if every other time the battery was the answer?

It is investigated, it is called Biology. Biology has no answer to the information in the DNA, but due to many factors, God can not be considered. That in no way says it is not God.

God can be considered but it cannot be assumed to be the cause without evidence.

Why do you believe in evolution, even though you are unclear about many aspects of it?

This is only your assessment.

I don't know what to say to a person that believes my disbelief in their god is evidence for their God.

Again, why do you believe in Evolution?

I studied it from scientists and found the evidence convincing.


Now I have responded to your questions can you respond to my post. I will post t again here.

This is your argument:

1. Information is in DNA.
2. Only intelligence can produce information.
3. Therefore information in DNA was produced by an intelligent being.

You then support premise 2. with the claim that every time we have investigated where information came from we find an intelligent being as the creator.

Is this correct?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

My point is there was a starting point.

We wouldn´t be here if there wasn´t

I agree with this. I was asking what is your point for pointing this out?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

If you tell me that you read to your 4 year old child greek mythology, and midgets with horns, then of course, I am wrong...
And if you tell me that your child was being taught at the age 4 by preschool teachers, I will ask you....
WHY?

So it is impossible that she heard the name from a children book or someone else? The name is not only used for mythology. In the end you or I can not confirm in a any way the reason for the experience.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Discussion is 'theory.' In my estimation, discussion about morality is barely even putting a toe over the line into the 'practice' of morality. So, your presentation of a scenario, if it's even pertinent, should only come after you've provided a full explanation of how your moral theory actually works, step by step. This you haven't yet done, and if your efforts here wouldn't cut it in the ethics classroom (and they wouldn't), what makes you think they should cut it here?

I have already said how I come to decide on my morals. I don't need a dissertation to know what my morals are. People do not decide an ethical or moral issue by putting a step by step procedure down to do so. This is ridiculous. You are so enamored with the theory that you cannot put it into practice. If you want to discuss a specific moral dilemma we can do so.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Do you think that the nature of science should rely upon a praxis of Methodological Naturalism, or instead, of Philosophical Naturalism?

Methodological naturalism, I would not rule out the supernatural.

I'm just wondering, because depending on how you answer this question, it will be telling to the rest of us just how familiar you are with various issues of epistemology as they play a part in the philosophy and nature of science. And while I may moderately disagree with @Oncedeceived about the extent to which scientific evidence can or cannot actually indicate to us some degree of design built into 'creation,' you can't really refer to BioLogos in connection to the theory of evolution and know what you're talking about in that connection if you adhere to one of the two praxes I mention above ...

Just an f.y.i., especially since you say you care about epistemology, and metaphysical truth, and ethics and all that ...

It was just to show that the Cambrian explosion is substantiated by science. That we have a good idea what happened during that time. You telling me I cannot use it is funny.

 

[coffee4u]

Well no. He can set what he thinks is moral but we can decide if we agree or not. Commanding the killing of someone for being homosexual is never moral for humans or for a god.

The creator gets to do whatever he chooses. You can try and argue with God if you want but at the end of the day, it means nothing.

Just because you don't like the implications of there not being a god does not mean he exists.

But there is a God and we will all answer to him.

Again so what. This is why we need to use our brains to figure out morals. If we do most will realize killing homosexuals is immoral.

If you are just an evolved animals then so is the guy sitting next to you. If you say "It's immoral to kill homosexuals" and he says "it's immoral to let them live" what makes your opinion matter any more than his? Are you a god? Do you have some kind of bigger brain or authority that he doesn't have? As I said the only thing that determines human made morality is group consensus. Right now group consensus would be on your side and against him, but if the world changes and group conceses goes back the other way the group will be on his side and against you. If this was 1920 you would find people siding with him or at least for jail time.
The brain of a sociopath has decided that killing people is fun and enjoyable.

The whole pint of this is -mens morals are not only not trustworthy but they change.

How would you feel if god said to kill you if you acted on your heterosexuality?

May as well say God said to kill for having blond hair-it makes as much sense. God wouldn't say that as God created sex and God's morals don't change. Every single thing that God made rules on he did for mankind's overall well being. Gods morals are not just about "I don't like that" they had serious reasons behind them. He knows certain things ultimately harm people, if they can see it or not.

Again, just because you don't like the implications of no God does not mean he exists.

Prove he doesn't exist if you want to keep saying this. I know he does.

Then God still thinks homosexuals should be killed if they act on it?

God deemed homosexual practices to be immoral. That did not change. What he did change was the laws.
Jesus dying allowed for the new covenant and a new way. God says we are to love all people but not love the sin.

No, my morality is not only based on feelings it is based on logic and reason as much as possible. I can change my moral stances based on evidence, you cannot. If I was against gay marriage for instance I can see how it hurts people needlessly and i can change my position to increase well being for everyone. You cannot, you must try to deny peoples rights that has nothing to do with you. This is why secular morality is better, it can get better over time.

And if we are just an evolved animal what makes your logic any better than the thug who is out gay bashing? Of course, it's based on your current feelings. It's also based on how you were raised, your experiences in life but also by the culture and times you are in. No doubt he also used his logic and reason and came up with a completely different view.

You are only seeing the surface happiness. It's like the numerous transexuals who are unhappy they changed and who are now trying to change back. Giving people want they want is not always good for them long term. God has very serious reasons for his laws.
Also God has laws regarding all forms of sexual behaviour including heterosexual behaviour. Don't think heterosexuals are exempt.

What people choose to do is not my businesses, that is between them and God. People should pay more attention to their own sins and less to those of others. Or as God says, check out the plank in your own eye first before bothering with the splinter in your brothers.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The creator gets to do whatever he chooses. You can try and argue with God if you want but at the end of the day, it means nothing.

I disagree. Once a creator makes a thinking conscious being torturing them is immoral.

But there is a God and we will all answer to him.

Why do you believe this?

If you are just an evolved animals then so is the guy sitting next to you. If you say "It's immoral to kill homosexuals" and he says "it's immoral to let them live" what makes your opinion matter any more than his? Are you a god? Do you have some kind of bigger brain or authority that he doesn't have? As I said the only thing that determines human made morality is group consensus. Right now group consensus would be on your side and against him, but if the world changes and group conceses goes back the other way the group will be on his side and against you. If this was 1920 you would find people siding with him or at least for jail time.
The brain of a sociopath has decided that killing people is fun and enjoyable.

First I don;t think of us as "just evolved animals". We have thoughts, feelings, dreams etc. that matter in our lives and in other peoples lives.

Second, if God does not exist then how would you determine morals?

The whole pint of this is -mens morals are not only not trustworthy but they change.

Morals are trustworthy if they are demonstrated to be trustworthy. The good thing about secular morality is that it does change so we can get a better morality. We no longer kill homosexuals or jail them we have accepted them into our society (at least on a rights basis) because secular people pushed for it, not religious. Religious dogma cannot change so religious people cannot change moral system for the better.

Do you think basing a morality around the greatest well being of all involved is a good goal?

May as well say God said to kill for having blond hair-it makes as much sense. God wouldn't say that as God created sex and God's morals don't change. Every single thing that God made rules on he did for mankind's overall well being. Gods morals are not just about "I don't like that" they had serious reasons behind them. He knows certain things ultimately harm people, if they can see it or not.

I think I have demonstrated that gods morals do not increase the well being of mankind. It certainly is not good for slaves, women or non Christians.

Prove he doesn't exist if you want to keep saying this. I know he does.

How do you know he does?

I don't claim god does not exist, I am only saying there is not enough evidence to believe that he does.

God deemed homosexual practices to be immoral. That did not change. What he did change was the laws.
Jesus dying allowed for the new covenant and a new way. God says we are to love all people but not love the sin.

You cannot hate the sin and love the sinner because what God deems as a sin is part of who they are. When you say to a homosexual I hate your sin but love you, you are saying I hate a part of who you are. They cannot change who they are.

And if we are just an evolved animal what makes your logic any better than the thug who is out gay bashing? Of course, it's based on your current feelings. It's also based on how you were raised, your experiences in life but also by the culture and times you are in. No doubt he also used his logic and reason and came up with a completely different view.

I agree that our beliefs are shaped by these things. (I disagree that we are just evolved animals). This is why reason is needed to determine morals. Gods morals are not absolute either because they are whatever he decides they are. I can have an objective morality without a god. My goal of morality is well being. What that means is another discussion but If that is my goal I can objectively evaluate my actions based on that goal. This is the same ting you do with the bible. You can objectively evaluate your actions based on your interpretation of what the bible says.

You are only seeing the surface happiness. It's like the numerous transexuals who are unhappy they changed and who are now trying to change back. Giving people want they want is not always good for them long term. God has very serious reasons for his laws.
Also God has laws regarding all forms of sexual behaviour including heterosexual behaviour. Don't think heterosexuals are exempt.

Where doe s it say in the bible that heterosexual sin should be reason for killing them. What is the good that comes from commanding the killing of people who perform homosexual acts?

What people choose to do is not my businesses, that is between them and God. People should pay more attention to their own sins and less to those of others. Or as God says, check out the plank in your own eye first before bothering with the splinter in your brothers.

Then do you support homosexual marriage in our society? Do you support the normalization of homosexuality in our society be taught in our schools?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Methodological naturalism, I would not rule out the supernatural.

It was just to show that the Cambrian explosion is substantiated by science. That we have a good idea what happened during that time. You telling me I cannot use it is funny.

I didn't say you "can't use it." I was attempting to discern how closely you align with somehow like Richard Dawkins. Fortunately, your answer above indicates that you don't. So, that's always a plus in my book.

 

[miknik5]

I agree with this. I was asking what is your point for pointing this out?

The point is that you are willing to dissect and break out and down in order to educate others on what a being consists of back to its smallest particle...but you seem to overlook the starting point of the living thing.

To me, what is the point of breaking down what makes up a living thing if you don't acknowledge where the first living thing came from....

Again, science can only provide information based on what they have physically before them...they need the tangible matter in order to look over that matter to figure out the mechanics and the intricate design of that matter.

But that matter had a starting point...and that matter speaks of...a creator.

And Romans 1 speaks to this...

But, if you can, please provide me an alternate way to where and how this matter originally began..

I would be interested in knowing sciences......................guess.............as to how these living beings came into being...

Thank you

 

[Oncedeceived]

And my next part explained how that could have happened.

That is nearly as simplistic as your comment about being a mother makes reproduction a 'thing'. It doesn't explain anything about the information needed to take Molecule A, Molecule B and then molecule C gaining information to form anything resembling a simple cell.

Irrelevant.

Only if you don't care about reality.

The UM experiment simply showed that it is possible to get amino acids from basic chemicals. Of course it's not going to recreate life in the lab. It didn't need to. It was showing that the concept worked.

Amino acids do not contain genetic information.

And I noticed that you put all your effort into arguing against just the last paragraph of that. Do I take it that means you have no problem with the Abcase portion? Because that part is the bit that actually answers your question.

No, it doesn't. See above.

I've provided explanations. All you've provided is disagreement.

Bizarre.[/QUOTE]

 

[Oncedeceived]

No please read what I said.

I already granted you fro the purpose of this discussion that information is contained in the DNA.

Ok.

No it is not but when you then make a leap and say that only life can exist with cells that is fallacious. Or life cannot exist without cells. A

You can say it when you live here on earth and that is the only life that exists. I specified earth if you will notice. We have no evidence for anything other than cellular life here and we have no evidence of life anywhere else in the universe that might have some other form.

Can you tell me the difference between these two statements?

Information can only be produced by intelligent beings

and

We have only found information being produced by intelligent beings.

You claim to only be interested in evidence, the evidence shows that information is only produced by intelligent beings here on earth. Provide counter evidence if you have it.

I am not disagreeing with this statement.

Good.

You missed the point. Should a person decide that the car won't start because the battery is dead before investigating whether that is the case even if every other time the battery was the answer?

I didn't miss the point at all. It just is an invalid analogy. There are other causes of cars not starting and that can be demonstrated. Information has no other known causes that can be demonstrated.

God can be considered but it cannot be assumed to be the cause without evidence.

He can be considered if you want to lose your funding, be ostracized and ridiculed.

This is only your assessment.

Yes, based on what you have posted.

I studied it from scientists and found the evidence convincing.

And what evidence did you find convincing? A short list perhaps?


Now I have responded to your questions can you respond to my post. I will post t again here.

This is your argument:

1. Information is in DNA.
2. Only intelligence can produce information.
3. Therefore information in DNA was produced by an intelligent being.

You then support premise 2. with the claim that every time we have investigated where information came from we find an intelligent being as the creator.

Are you claiming that premise 2 is invalid?

Is this correct?

More like this:
1. Information is in DNA
2. Only intelligent beings are known to produce intelligence.
3. Therefore, it is probable but not verifiable that information in DNA was produced by an intelligent being.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It was just to show that the Cambrian explosion is substantiated by science. That we have a good idea what happened during that time. You telling me I cannot use it is funny.

What do you mean the Cambrian Explosion is substantiated by Science?

Yes, we have a good idea that suddenly life formed in the ocean, already with complex features and in a very short time. Is that what you meant?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The point is that you are willing to dissect and break out and down in order to educate others on what a being consists of back to its smallest particle...but you seem to overlook the starting point of the living thing.

To me, what is the point of breaking down what makes up a living thing if you don't acknowledge where the first living thing came from....

Again, science can only provide information based on what they have physically before them...they need the tangible matter in order to look over that matter to figure out the mechanics and the intricate design of that matter.

But that matter had a starting point...and that matter speaks of...a creator.

And Romans 1 speaks to this...

But, if you can, please provide me an alternate way to where and how this matter originally began..

I would be interested in knowing sciences......................guess.............as to how these living beings came into being...

Thank you

If you can show a creator exists then OK. Until then the answer is I don't know. The fact that the universe exists does not mean there was a creator until it can be demonstrated.

I don't have an explanation as to how or why the universe exists. I don't need to know to not be convinced a god did it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Ok.


You can say it when you live here on earth and that is the only life that exists. I specified earth if you will notice. We have no evidence for anything other than cellular life here and we have no evidence of life anywhere else in the universe that might have some other form.


You claim to only be interested in evidence, the evidence shows that information is only produced by intelligent beings here on earth. Provide counter evidence if you have it.

No, I don't need to. I am unconvinced by your evidence.

You say this:

the evidence shows that information is only produced by intelligent beings here on earth.

But then say this (#2):

More like this:
1. Information is in DNA
2. Only intelligent beings are known to produce intelligence.
3. Therefore, it is probable but not verifiable that information in DNA was produced by an intelligent being.

Which do you believe? That intelligent beings only produce information on earth or that intelligent beings are known to produce intelligence on earth.