How do you resolve unbelief?

com7fy8 · Sep 19, 2019

I said:
Well, it is not a slot machine thing. And prayer includes thanking.

And you Elle12 said:
What do you mean by "slot machine"?

Well . . . I mean this in reference to how you said said:
I wouldn't think that God would care about the words or the method more than the intent, but I've nothing to lose.

And then you said:
The only thing I've thought to do but haven't done is get baptized again - it feels disingenuous. But again, I suppose I have nothing to lose.

"nothing to lose" . . . "nothing to lose" > To me, this seems like you don't feel sure of anything getting results; but, just in case, you keep putting things out. But to me this could be like playing a slot machine > someone puts money in and pulls the handle, hoping to get something, but they know they can get nothing.

I would say seeking God is not a chance and luck thing.

And, actually, things you have been doing could turn out, later, to be used by God. So, I would pray and invest.

Elle12 · Sep 19, 2019

com7fy8 said:
"nothing to lose" . . . "nothing to lose" > To me, this seems like you don't feel sure of anything getting results; but, just in case, you keep putting things out. But to me this could be like playing a slot machine > someone puts money in and pulling the handle, hoping to get something, but they know they can get nothing.

You're not wrong. I haven't gotten any results for the effort I've put in, but I keep doing it. So it seems exactly like slots. Einstein would probably call me insane.

com7fy8 · Sep 19, 2019

Elle12 said:
it seems exactly like slots.

understood . . . I offer . . .

But I can feel like I am getting nowhere. And I understand only God can correct me the real way I need and He wants. So, here I can be . . . knowing I am not the way Jesus is and not living and loving the way the Bible says God will have us be and live and love. And no way can I get my own self right. And how can I be honest enough to pray right for myself . . . if I am not really honest??

But > I am encouraged, quietly, to be quiet and trust God to judge what He pleases to do with me. And then . . . after a moment or after all day . . . I get changed to be in peace and discover how I see things in peace and what God has me doing . . . in peace.

But I get > you are saying it has been four years, for you. Well, may be I go through the same thing, just not so long.

But I know what God wants me to do > have hope for you, in prayer for you > love "hopes all things" (in 1 Corinthians 13:7). One thing that comes to me > don't keep track of how you have failed, start fresh now with simply trusting God to do what He pleases with you. But He is quiet and sensitive . . . not in negative quiet.

xianghua · Sep 20, 2019

Elle12 said:
Are you referring to some organism that looks like a robot that we would create, or an actual robot that we did create? Assuming the former, I would imagine genetic selection would apply to it as well as anything else. The latter, as we don't have the ability to create life in that way, no.

i refer to a robot that was made in a factory. but instead of plastic and iron components its made from oragnic matter (carbon, proteins, DNA etc) and its able to reproduce and make copies of itself. do you think that if we will find such a robot on mars we can conclude design or a natural process? b) if it will be a watch it will make any difference?

Elle12 said:
Again, assuming that an "airplane" is a placeholder for a species and a "car" is a placeholder for one of its ancestors, sure.

there is at least one problem with that. take the car for instance: any car cant drive without 3 basic parts: wheels, chassis and engine. it means that a car cant evolve stepwise even if its able to reproduce. the engine by itself need many parts for its minimal function. so even if we can evolve wheels and chassis eventually we get stuck in the middle.

Elle12 · Sep 20, 2019

xianghua said:
i refer to a robot that was made in a factory. but instead of plastic and iron components its made from oragnic matter (carbon, proteins, DNA etc) and its able to reproduce and make copies of itself. do you think that if we will find such a robot on mars we can conclude design or a natural process? b) if it will be a watch it will make any difference?

If we know it was made in a factory, then design is evident. If we simply find an organism that behaves like other living organisms in reproduction, but looks like a robot (or a watch), it isn't conclusive. More context (such as its behavior, population, history etc.) could provide more evidence one way or the other, but with just that information, you can't conclude much of anything.

xianghua said:
there is at least one problem with that. take the car for instance: any car cant drive without 3 basic parts: wheels, chassis and engine. it means that a car cant evolve stepwise even if its able to reproduce. the engine by itself need many parts for its minimal function. so even if we can evolve wheels and chassis eventually we get stuck in the middle.

I haven't followed your logic here. According to what we know of the principles of natural selection, we could go from the starting 'ancestor' you have chosen ("a car that is able to reproduce and has DNA so it can add small changes over time like a living thing") to a later descendant ("an airplane") through small changes. If a mutation/change resulted in an organism that could not survive to reproduction, that mutation would not persist. Why can't the "car" organism, starting already with a wheel, chassis, and engine, develop other features that eventually make it a genetically distinct species (ie; the "airplane")?

2PhiloVoid · Sep 20, 2019

Elle12 said:
What does "seeing spiritually" mean? Do you mean in study? What of the one who hears, but is not convinced?

How much is a lot?

Perhaps what I meant to ask is, what is the force that pushes you to 'believe' and abide when year after year you see no fruit? It's tempting to call the tree diseased and be done with it.

Maybe some of what goes into a person's ability to believe depends on the kind of fruit she thinks she's looking for and "why." (?) What "fruit" are you expecting to find but aren't getting, Elle12?

2PhiloVoid · Sep 20, 2019

Elle12 said:
If we know it was made in a factory, then design is evident. If we simply find an organism that behaves like other living organisms in reproduction, but looks like a robot (or a watch), it isn't conclusive. More context (such as its behavior, population, history etc.) could provide more evidence one way or the other, but with just that information, you can't conclude much of anything.

I haven't followed your logic here. According to what we know of the principles of natural selection, we could go from the starting 'ancestor' you have chosen ("a car that is able to reproduce and has DNA so it can add small changes over time like a living thing") to a later descendant ("an airplane") through small changes. If a mutation/change resulted in an organism that could not survive to reproduction, that mutation would not persist. Why can't the "car" organism, starting already with a wheel, chassis, and engine, develop other features that eventually make it a genetically distinct species (ie; the "airplane")?

It might be that there is 'another' logical approach to all of this that makes 'more sense.' Maybe see the following thread (and maybe don't be shocked by the snazzy thread title

):

She embraced the E Word as she contemplated the F Word....!

Elle12 · Sep 20, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Maybe some of what goes into a person's ability to believe depends on the kind of fruit she thinks she's looking for and "why." (?) What "fruit" are you expecting to find but aren't getting, Elle12?

I hope to find something that makes me feel that believing in God is true or right. I don't know how that's supposed to present. I don't expect any miracles or physical sensation. Many of my closest friends site the reasons for their belief as "knowing" or "feeling" that it's right, or some type of experience that they have had that altered their worldview, but I've also been told not to rely on logic or feelings or experiences to find faith. But if you cross out feelings, experiences, and what I can see, hear, touch, and taste, you aren't left with much. So I'm hoping for anything to give me some type of insight or feeling into God or truth or what's right, beyond what I know myself.

2PhiloVoid said:
It might be that there is 'another' logical approach to all of this that makes 'more sense.' Maybe see the following thread (and maybe don't be shocked by the snazzy thread title ):

She embraced the E Word as she contemplated the F Word....!

I have never understood the perception that faith and evolution are incompatible. I've met many Christians, and the vast majority of them have no conflict between their beliefs in Christianity and in evolution. (I will admit, most of my Christian friends are very well-educated in college-level biology and sciences, and that's not a privilege that everyone has, so that may color my experiences.) However, while I understand completely how they are compatible, I don't see how belief in evolution or natural selection can be used as evidence of creation or God, logical or no.

But, I will give the thread a thorough read. Thank you.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 20, 2019

Elle12 said:
I hope to find something that makes me feel that believing in God is true or right. I don't know how that's supposed to present. I don't expect any miracles or physical sensation. Many of my closest friends site the reasons for their belief as "knowing" or "feeling" that it's right, or some type of experience that they have had that altered their worldview, but I've also been told not to rely on logic or feelings or experiences to find faith. But if you cross out feelings, experiences, and what I can see, hear, touch, and taste, you aren't left with much. So I'm hoping for anything to give me some type of insight or feeling into God or truth or what's right, beyond what I know myself.

That's all completely understandable.

I have never understood the perception that faith and evolution are incompatible. I've met many Christians, and the vast majority of them have no conflict between their beliefs in Christianity and in evolution. (I will admit, most of my Christian friends are very well-educated in college-level biology and sciences, and that's not a privilege that everyone has, so that may color my experiences.) However, while I understand completely how they are compatible, I don't see how belief in evolution or natural selection can be used as evidence of creation or God, logical or no.

But, I will give the thread a thorough read. Thank you.

Fair enough. Just keep in mind that April Cordero is not with the Intelligent Design group, so for her, the presence of evolution in biological history doesn't in all [epistemic] necessity reflect a direct, scientific set of evidences for Christian faith. No, evolution is simply a state of the world we can explore and wonder about. We can then appreciate it on various existential, as well as analytical, levels. But we won't be expecting to see a chain of causation, again, such as is claimed by proponents of Intelligent Design. No, those like April Cordero who affiliate with the BioLogos group take a more mainstream approach to science in how they conceptualize compatibility between science and the Christian faith.

Anyway, I'd suggest just listening to the TED Talk April gives, not as an end point, but as a beginning point from which to springboard into broader considerations. And also keep in mind that the growth of faith takes time.

If I can be of further academic service to you in discussion or in offering sources, let me know.

Peace

xianghua · Sep 21, 2019

Elle12 said:
If we know it was made in a factory, then design is evident. If we simply find an organism that behaves like other living organisms in reproduction, but looks like a robot (or a watch), it isn't conclusive. More context (such as its behavior, population, history etc.) could provide more evidence one way or the other, but with just that information, you can't conclude much of anything.

so you are basically saying that if we will find something like this object, but say that its possible to reproduce like a living thing in this case, we cant realy conclude design for sure?:

(image from https://www.amazon.com/Mens-Wrist-Watches/b?ie=UTF8&node=6358540011)

Elle12 said:
Why can't the "car" organism, starting already with a wheel, chassis, and engine, develop other features that eventually make it a genetically distinct species (ie; the "airplane")?

that is because there is no stepwise from a car to an airplane. for instance: say that we wnat to add a sonar system to the car. we know that any sonar system need at least several parts for its minimal function. thus it cant evolve stepwise:

Active%26passive_sonar_signal_processing.png

(image from Sonar signal processing - Wikipedia)

childeye 2 · Sep 21, 2019

Elle12 said:
All things are possible for the one who believes, but what happens when you can't find faith?

The Bible says that salvation through faith is a gift from God, and this speaks to me. I don't feel that faith and belief is a conscious choice that I can make; my belief comes from what I know to be true, based on what I have seen, heard, and felt. Without the work of God, we could not believe in the gospel to be saved. I feel no more able to choose to believe in God than I could choose to believe that I will not see the sun set today. Yet, the gospels condemn those without belief. I pray that God might open my mind to the truth of the matter, while sustaining my patience and persistence.

What is the path for those that do not believe, but want to? What is the response to those who have tried for years without success?

I think you need to realize that either you believe that God/Love is Eternal, or that evil will overcome good and darkness will reign forever. This is what we are fighting in the struggle of Love, hope, and faith.

Elle12 · Sep 22, 2019

xianghua said:
so you are basically saying that if we will find something like this object, but say that its possible to reproduce like a living thing in this case, we cant realy conclude design for sure?:

(image from https://www.amazon.com/Mens-Wrist-Watches/b?ie=UTF8&node=6358540011)

I feel that it would be difficult to conclude without more understanding. Finding an exact replica of a digital watch with English notations, with no apparent other function, but made of organic material, would imply design to me - but would such a thing be possible? The example is so far removed from reality that I'm having trouble understanding how it relates. It's not something that would happen.

xianghua said:
that is because there is no stepwise from a car to an airplane. for instance: say that we wnat to add a sonar system to the car. we know that any sonar system need at least several parts for its minimal function. thus it cant evolve stepwise:

(image from Sonar signal processing - Wikipedia)

You don't need a sonar system to be an airplane. And even if you did want to illustrate a complex system evolving from a more basic system, there are examples of that occurring stepwise. For example, the development of functional wings - it's not as if one organism had arms and then its offspring had wings; a species' features tend one way or another based on what is genetically successful. Small changes over time result in speciation.

childeye 2 said:
I think you need to realize that either you believe that God/Love is Eternal, or that evil will overcome good and darkness will reign forever. This is what we are fighting in the struggle of Love, hope, and faith.

I don't believe either of those things. I don't have any reason to believe that anything is eternal or forever - from what I have experienced, life and every part of it is finite. I wish it were so black and white.

childeye 2 · Sep 22, 2019

Elle12 said:
I don't believe either of those things.

Well that's the problem. So then how do you trust/believe in God when you don't even realize that God is Love/empathy? How can you not believe in Love/God when Love is clearly seen as the goodness in mankind? What exactly do you suppose causes a person to pick up a puppy and hug it and pet it, instead of stomp on it and kick it around till it's dead?

I don't have any reason to believe that anything is eternal or forever - from what I have experienced, life and every part of it is finite. I wish it were so black and white.

No one can prove something eternal, is eternal. Nor can it be proven that it is not. That is why scripture indicates that all good things are built on faith, because it can't be proven.

But I know I was loved by my Father and Mother and I loved them, and that means everything to me. And I still carry that with me even though my parents have passed away long ago. I in turn Love my wife and my children and would sacrifice everything that is my life for them. And our children will carry it on to their children after we're dead, and so will their children and so on and so forth. Now I can't prove that, but I believe it with all my heart. Love makes all the difference in making Life worthwhile even as the absence of love makes life meaningless.

I study semantics, and the mind reasons upon dichotomies of right and wrong, light and dark, true and false, life and death, etc... The fact that you said you wished things were that black and white is indicative of this. So yes there is black/no love/no goodness, and there is white/filled with Love/goodness. And there are shades of grey growing darker and darker the farther one moves away from the Light that is the Spirit of God, the Light that is Love/empathy.

Respectfully, you do have every reason to believe and hope that Love/Light is Eternal, even because the alternative is to believe that goodness amounts to nothing, wherefore Life would be counted as a cruel existence, and would be no better than death.

So decide what is true and what is false by honestly answering this question: Is Love good and worth believing in, or is Love worthless?

xianghua · Sep 22, 2019

Elle12 said:
I feel that it would be difficult to conclude without more understanding. Finding an exact replica of a digital watch with English notations, with no apparent other function, but made of organic material, would imply design to me - but would such a thing be possible?

so if the watch above is able to reproduce you will not necessarily conclude design and if its not able to reproduce you will? but why actually? a watch that is able to reproduce is far more sophisticated and complex than a watch that cant reproduce (remember that even human cant made such a watch with all his intelligent). so a self replicating watch should be even stronger evidence for design.

Elle12 said:
The example is so far removed from reality that I'm having trouble understanding how it relates

actually we find a spinning motor like this in nature:

(image from https://phys.org/news/2018-04-bacterial-propeller.html)

so i dont see a real difference between watch and a spinning motor. actually even human can be consider as a self replicating robot from a materialistic perspective.

Elle12 said:
You don't need a sonar system to be an airplane. And even if you did want to illustrate a complex system evolving from a more basic system, there are examples of that occurring stepwise.

but a sonar system does exist in nature. so how it can evolve stepwise if we know that any minimal sonar need at least several parts?

Elle12 · Sep 22, 2019

childeye 2 said:
Well that's the problem. So then how do you trust/believe in God when you don't even realize that God is Love/empathy? How can you not believe in Love/God when Love is clearly seen as the goodness in mankind?

You're implying that there is a common moral system that is inherent in human nature. One can believe in love and empathy without believing in God, or that God is Love. And the idea that "Love is the goodness in mankind" is extremely subjective. Certainly, I believe that love is real and meaningful, but that is in part because I have experienced it and witnessed it. But not God.

childeye 2 said:
What exactly do you suppose causes a person to pick up a puppy and hug it and pet it, instead of stomp on it and kick it around till it's dead?

Prior experience or education about domestic dogs, in the context of dogs being cute and friendly. What do you suppose causes the wide range of human responses to a dog? Some people fight dogs, others raise them as livestock and slaughter them in painful and stressful fashions, some breed them to the point of harm or death to raise a profit, some use them to hunt or serve, and some keep them as pets. What overarching moral philosophy imparted by God explains these various responses? It surely isn't love.

childeye 2 said:
I study semantics, and the mind reasons upon dichotomies of right and wrong, light and dark, true and false, life and death, etc... The fact that you said you wished things were that black and white is indicative of this. So yes there is black/no love/no goodness, and there is white/filled with Love/goodness. And there are shades of grey growing darker and darker the farther one moves away from the Light that is the Spirit of God, the Light that is Love/empathy.

Respectfully, you do have every reason to believe and hope that Love/Light is Eternal, even because the alternative is to believe that goodness amounts to nothing, wherefore Life would be counted as a cruel existence, and would be no better than death.

childeye 2 said:
So decide what is true and what is false by honestly answering this question: Is Love good and worth believing in, or is Love worthless?

But the dichotomy you present is one that you have presented no reason for. You have spoken about love and empathy and goodness, but not how you can equate those things with God. You have started your logical train with the assumption that God is love, so your evidence that love is good backs up the idea that God is good. I believe that love is good and powerful, but not that God (by extension) is.

xianghua said:
so if the watch above is able to reproduce you will not necessarily conclude design and if its not able to reproduce you will? but why actually? a watch that is able to reproduce is far more sophisticated and complex than a watch that cant reproduce (remember that even human cant made such a watch with all his intelligent). so a self replicating watch should be even stronger evidence for design.

No - what would imply design is finding something (organic or not, able to reproduce or not) that has an apparent function meant to serve humanity (or some other intelligence). If such functions had no apparent function to the organism, and is unlikely to have evolved via natural selection, that would imply design. If an organism were found that looked and functioned like a watch, using English notations and measurements and units conceived by humans, that would imply design because such a thing is so unlikely to evolve by natural selection. The complexity doesn't matter as much - we know of very complex systems that have developed via natural selections. But we don't know everything about genetics and selection and the natural world. I don't think you can conclude design without some indication of a creator.

xianghua said:
actually we find a spinning motor like this in nature:

(image from https://phys.org/news/2018-04-bacterial-propeller.html)

so i dont see a real difference between watch and a spinning motor. actually even human can be consider as a self replicating robot from a materialistic perspective.

The key difference is that what you are calling "a spinning motor" (a flagellum) has a purpose (a method to move an organism around its aqueous environment) that benefits the organism. Versus a watch's only purpose is to benefit humans in timekeeping - hence why an organic watch would never evolve without the intervention of an intelligent designer, whereas there are reasonable theories as to how various bacteria and microorganisms have developed flagella. The same distinction separates the 'watch' from a human.

xianghua said:
but a sonar system does exist in nature. so how it can evolve stepwise if we know that any minimal sonar need at least several parts?

I assume you are referring to echolocation - correct me if that's not the case. Briefly, the evidence behind echolocation in bats leads us to believe that individuals that could hear their prey were better able to survive and reproduce; naturally selecting individuals with better hearing to spread those genes that allowed them to hear more efficiently. As this selection continued, the gene pool of the population that descended into today's echolocation bats expanded to include features like specialized ears and facial bones to hear and interpret echoes, and specialized vocalization to best be interpreted by their ears. Individuals that are able to survive and reproduce spread their genetics, pushing their inheritable traits further through the gene pool. The genetic combination of all of the successful organisms in a population drives selection and speciation.

~Zao~ · Sep 22, 2019

Elle12 said:
You're implying that there is a common moral system that is inherent in human nature. One can believe in love and empathy without believing in God, or that God is Love. And the idea that "Love is the goodness in mankind" is extremely subjective. Certainly, I believe that love is real and meaningful, but that is in part because I have experienced it and witnessed it. But not God.

I believe that humans are inherently good. Everybody loves, but true love is found in loving the unlovable humans, like the one your next story. Intercity kid does an extreme act of kindness in not kicking the kitten out of the way. God’s love justifies that act of kindness moreso than the privileged kid out doing his philanthropy work or act of kindness for the day. That’s God’s character in my estimation. That’s the only thing that I base anything on. His way being far above our own, He’s chosen to show Himself in Christ.

Prior experience or education about domestic dogs, in the context of dogs being cute and friendly. What do you suppose causes the wide range of human responses to a dog? Some people fight dogs, others raise them as livestock and slaughter them in painful and stressful fashions, some breed them to the point of harm or death to raise a profit, some use them to hunt or serve, and some keep them as pets. What overarching moral philosophy imparted by God explains these various responses? It surely isn't love.

childeye 2 · Sep 22, 2019

Elle12 said:
You're implying that there is a common moral system that is inherent in human nature. One can believe in love and empathy without believing in God, or that God is Love. And the idea that "Love is the goodness in mankind" is extremely subjective. Certainly, I believe that love is real and meaningful, but that is in part because I have experienced it and witnessed it. But not God.

Your Op is about finding faith according to what scripture is referring to. The scripture clearly is referring to faith in God, and the scripture clearly defines God as Love. Love being the goodness in mankind is proclaimed by all who know Love, and Love is real and witnessed to by everyone. For it is self evident that caring about how our actions affect others is the foundation of what is called morality. Hence the moral Truth is articulated in scripture and understood throughout the world as love others as you would want to be loved.

In other words according to scripture, written thousands of years before you or I were even born, God was proclaimed as Love and faith is alluding to God/Love. It would be disingenuous to redefine the term God/Love to mean something other than what it means in scripture and then claim we have no faith in God.

Prior experience or education about domestic dogs, in the context of dogs being cute and friendly. What do you suppose causes the wide range of human responses to a dog? Some people fight dogs, others raise them as livestock and slaughter them in painful and stressful fashions, some breed them to the point of harm or death to raise a profit, some use them to hunt or serve, and some keep them as pets. What overarching moral philosophy imparted by God explains these various responses? It surely isn't love.

The overall question presents both positive and negative aspects of Love. If Love/empathy is described as the ability to share the feelings of others, then a lack of love/empathy for dogs would cause people to be indifferent and unattached. However cruelty would have to be a perversion of empathy/Love wherein someone experiences a sick type of glee in seeing others suffer.

But the dichotomy you present is one that you have presented no reason for.
You have spoken about love and empathy and goodness, but not how you can equate those things with God. You have started your logical train with the assumption that God is love, so your evidence that love is good backs up the idea that God is good. I believe that love is good and powerful, but not that God (by extension) is.

Respectfully, I didn't assume God is Love as you might think. I'm just using the scriptural definition of God as Love, which preceded my existence, and therefore is the only applicable definition to understand the spiritual aspects of scripture according to the intentions and sentiments of the writers thereof. If you believe that Love is good and powerful, then you have faith in God.

Elle12 · Sep 22, 2019

childeye 2 said:
Your Op is about finding faith according to what scripture is referring to. The scripture clearly is referring to faith in God, and the scripture clearly defines God as Love. Love being the goodness in mankind is proclaimed by all who know Love, and Love is real and witnessed to by everyone. For it is self evident that caring about how our actions affect others is the foundation of what is called morality. Hence the moral Truth is articulated in scripture and understood throughout the world as love others as you would want to be loved.

In other words according to scripture, written thousands of years before you or I were even born, God was proclaimed as Love and faith is alluding to God/Love. It would be disingenuous to redefine the term God/Love to mean something other than what it means in scripture and then claim we have no faith in God.

The overall question presents both positive and negative aspects of Love. If Love/empathy is described as the ability to share the feelings of others, then a lack of love/empathy for dogs would cause people to be indifferent and unattached. However cruelty would have to be a perversion of empathy/Love wherein someone experiences a sick type of glee in seeing others suffer.

Respectfully, I didn't assume God is Love as you might think. I'm just using the scriptural definition of God as Love, which preceded my existence, and therefore is the only applicable definition to understand the spiritual aspects of scripture according to the intentions and sentiments of the writers thereof. If you believe that Love is good and powerful, then you have faith in God.

Interesting premise. I haven't heard the opinion that you can have faith in God without believing in God, but I'll have to give it more thought. I'm unsure how you would progress any further under this logic, though, as it requires the initial buy-in of believing that what scripture says about God is true - and if you did, by extension you likely wouldn't need to be convinced of the existence of the God that scripture speaks of.

childeye 2 · Sep 22, 2019

Elle12 said:
Interesting premise. I haven't heard the opinion that you can have faith in God without believing in God, but I'll have to give it more thought.

The term God as the Creator is an axiom in scripture. God as the Creator denotes the source of the energy that creates all that is. If the physical existence of the universe is an Eternal phenomenon and has no created beginning, then the universe would be God.

Since the term God is an axiom, there may exist many images of God/gods. But to wonder if God exists is not logical since we would not exist if God didn't.

Subsequently the term "believe" in scripture infers "trust". So that when Jesus says he who "believes" in me has Eternal Life, he is not proclaiming that the people he is talking to must believe he exists since he is standing right there talking.

I'm unsure how you would progress any further under this logic, though, as it requires the initial buy-in of believing that what scripture says about God is true - and if you did, by extension you likely wouldn't need to be convinced of the existence of the God that scripture speaks of.

As I said, the term God in scripture is an axiom. Existence is never questioned because we exist and we come from somewhere, or something, and that is what the term "God" is meant to denote. Therefore the only analysis or commentary of what pertains to God is called imagery in scripture. But you are correct in saying that to believe/trust, one needs be convinced to some degree that the imagery presented in scripture is the actual true Image of God. Scripture acknowledges this when it says there are degrees of faith.

How far you can progress in this reasoning is probably always limited, since the Eternal probably cannot be fully comprehended by the temporal. However if one actually found themselves contemplating the Eternal, then they probably would have discovered an Eternal epiphany.

You therefore don't have to blindly buy in to what scripture says about God, for even scripture says that God must reveal Himself. The fact is, all deductive and inductive reasoning begins with believing something as true. It is always advised that one explore the implications and consequences of believing all the perceivable possibilities so as to compare the various outcomes and assess their viability. However in the moral/immoral paradigm, any reasoning based upon falsehood always ends in a contradiction, so it is therefore knowable and provable.

xianghua · Sep 23, 2019

Elle12 said:
No - what would imply design is finding something (organic or not, able to reproduce or not) that has an apparent function meant to serve humanity (or some other intelligence).

so since fruit has an apparent function meant to serve humanity (feeding). or any organ actually (eyes to make animal able to see). then they are also evidence for design? on the other hand we also have designed objects that its seems to be non functional by itself (like a paint). so a paint isnt evidence for design too?

Elle12 said:
If an organism were found that looked and functioned like a watch, using English notations and measurements and units conceived by humans, that would imply design because such a thing is so unlikely to evolve by natural selection. The complexity doesn't matter as much

why its so unlikely to evolve by natural selection? if a watch can evolve by natural selection why not a watch with english notations? i see no real difference. its even possible that human will use such a watch because he like these notations that evolved by mutations so he will take this kind of watch and keep it.

Elle12 said:
Versus a watch's only purpose is to benefit humans in timekeeping - hence why an organic watch would never evolve without the intervention of an intelligent designer

beside what i said above to how a watch can evolve naturally, lets say that you are right about this specific watch. what about a walking robot (human)? also note that we dont know if there was a function in any step during the flagellum evolution. so what you said about a watch we can say about flalgellum too. scientists only have theories to how the flagellum evolve. they cant prove them. so i can also have a theory how a watch can evolve. so again i see no real difference between a flagellum and a watch evolution.

Elle12 said:
I assume you are referring to echolocation - correct me if that's not the case. Briefly, the evidence behind echolocation in bats leads us to believe that individuals that could hear their prey were better able to survive and reproduce; naturally selecting individuals with better hearing to spread those genes that allowed them to hear more efficiently. As this selection continued, the gene pool of the population that descended into today's echolocation bats expanded to include features like specialized ears and facial bones to hear and interpret echoes, and specialized vocalization to best be interpreted by their ears. Individuals that are able to survive and reproduce spread their genetics, pushing their inheritable traits further through the gene pool. The genetic combination of all of the successful organisms in a population drives selection and speciation.

but some steps to echolocation will need at least several parts to be functional. for instance hearing isnt a simple function. its like a special sensor that can detect sound waves. we know that such a sensor will need at least several parts. we cant made such a sensor by a single part.

How do you resolve unbelief?

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Active Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Wisdom’s child

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads