Lewis Black did a bit about visiting your neighbor NZ. He said it was a beautiful country, but the flight was 18 hours long. "If they want people to visit, they need to jump off their island and push it closer!"
Upvote
0
Why are there still apes?
- Thread starter doubtingmerle
- Start date
- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,219
- 3,838
- 45
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
That's a completely flawed argument. Declaring yourself to be correct on basis that it must be correct to some higher, but unknowable standard is just assuming your conclusion.
We don't have any objective access to an Eternal Mind. We only have the evidence of the phenomenal world.
(Also this strikes me as a very relativistic version of morality. Most forms of Christianity very rarely seem to openly advocate for the ends justifying the means.)
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2003
- 9,703
- 2,335
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
When did this fall occur? In 4004 BC when only the first two people were alive?
That's odd. For our ancestors had lived far before that, and many of them were surely engaging in "fallen" behavior.
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2020
- 244
- 77
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
The quote I replied to referred to "omniscient deity" which understandably is the Creator who transcends space and time so, I did not assume anything. What I tried to explain in my reply was the way the mind works within space-time (human) and beyond space-time (God) are different.
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2020
- 244
- 77
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
We don't have the objective access by definition - mathematical equations can't go beyond our physical universe and the "deity" we are talking about is metaphysical as well. We however can do a-posteriori study, analyze the effect to determine the nature of its cause.
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2020
- 244
- 77
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
It is a very small group of Christians who believe in this "4000 BC" time estimation
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2020
- 244
- 77
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Let me summarize why I think Evolution can't be true. Again, I don't deny Theistic Evolution; it is the claim of some unintelligent agents driving the diversification of life without a preplan is what I disagree with. In order to focus on the pre-design versus no-design discussion, let us imagine "creator" in general - out side of the description in the Bible; I don't want anyone's personal disagreement with Religion interfere with this discussion.
1) metaphysical properties
Many living beings, especially humans, have properties that cannot be described physically (if we are evolved by the action of some natural agents then we are nothing but chemical/physical equations). How do we explain the metaphysical properties like love, consciousness, empathy, life etc. ? Evidently, they originated from a metaphysical entity we call, God. If God acted at some phases of our life, it is natural to believe that God is the cause and designer of the life.
2) Complex, cumulative, well defined product.
A complex, cumulative, well-defined product posits predesign so, Intelligent Design is the default explanation of the life. Why do we assume that some natural agents like environmental changes ,"survival of the fittest" etc. would result into this many complex species? Where did their instincts come from ( why do baby turtles move towards the ocean right after they are hatched ) ?
No one bothers to explain why the leaves are scattered randomly after a storm nonetheless, if there is a pattern or discipline in which the leaves are arranged, the involvement of an intelligent mind is all but certain. No objects can escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent. It is the disorder among physical objects that increases with time so, if we see the order increased over the time - more complex species appeared over the time - then the involvement of an intelligent mind is certain.
3) Origin of life.
Origin of life is arguably the most complex event known to humans. It is so complex that some scholars believe the early forms of life like Amino acids or Protein molecule came from outer space. The life originated at the time when Earth was hostile to living forms, with harmful radiations, devastating tornadoes, earthquakes etc. For most part of Earth's existence, Moon's gravitational field caused frequent tsunami's. Yet, the primitive life not only thrived but it advanced to more complex forms. Doesn't this prove the involvement of an intelligent mind?
4) Male and female.
What sort of "natural agents" mutated the primitive bacteria, presumably unisex, into complex male and female with organs which complement each other? Not to mention, their instinct to live together and reproduce.
5) Irreducible complex.
Two well placed eyes and ears are required for estimating the distance of the source. Just curious, did the earliest species to have eyes and ears had them at random places and only those with the organs correctly placed survive?
6) Falsifiable.
Is the theory of Evolution falsifiable?
7) Venomous animals.
What kind of "natural" agents mutated an organism (say, ancestors of modern day snakes) to generate an enzyme (venom) which is capable of killing its own body cells?
1) metaphysical properties
Many living beings, especially humans, have properties that cannot be described physically (if we are evolved by the action of some natural agents then we are nothing but chemical/physical equations). How do we explain the metaphysical properties like love, consciousness, empathy, life etc. ? Evidently, they originated from a metaphysical entity we call, God. If God acted at some phases of our life, it is natural to believe that God is the cause and designer of the life.
2) Complex, cumulative, well defined product.
A complex, cumulative, well-defined product posits predesign so, Intelligent Design is the default explanation of the life. Why do we assume that some natural agents like environmental changes ,"survival of the fittest" etc. would result into this many complex species? Where did their instincts come from ( why do baby turtles move towards the ocean right after they are hatched ) ?
No one bothers to explain why the leaves are scattered randomly after a storm nonetheless, if there is a pattern or discipline in which the leaves are arranged, the involvement of an intelligent mind is all but certain. No objects can escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent. It is the disorder among physical objects that increases with time so, if we see the order increased over the time - more complex species appeared over the time - then the involvement of an intelligent mind is certain.
3) Origin of life.
Origin of life is arguably the most complex event known to humans. It is so complex that some scholars believe the early forms of life like Amino acids or Protein molecule came from outer space. The life originated at the time when Earth was hostile to living forms, with harmful radiations, devastating tornadoes, earthquakes etc. For most part of Earth's existence, Moon's gravitational field caused frequent tsunami's. Yet, the primitive life not only thrived but it advanced to more complex forms. Doesn't this prove the involvement of an intelligent mind?
4) Male and female.
What sort of "natural agents" mutated the primitive bacteria, presumably unisex, into complex male and female with organs which complement each other? Not to mention, their instinct to live together and reproduce.
5) Irreducible complex.
Two well placed eyes and ears are required for estimating the distance of the source. Just curious, did the earliest species to have eyes and ears had them at random places and only those with the organs correctly placed survive?
6) Falsifiable.
Is the theory of Evolution falsifiable?
7) Venomous animals.
What kind of "natural" agents mutated an organism (say, ancestors of modern day snakes) to generate an enzyme (venom) which is capable of killing its own body cells?
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2020
- 244
- 77
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Burden of proof is on theists to prove that god exists nonetheless, I am curious to know why do atheists think god doesn't exist or god can't exists
Upvote
0
Right from the get-go, you have already asserted there must be a "creator", but at no point do you say why this is a necessary condition.
Arguments from incredulity and ignorance. A simple internet search would give you answers to every one of those assertions.
Yes it is.
That's just more ignorance - venomous animals are immune to their own venom.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Apr 25, 2020
- 244
- 77
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
First off, based on the conventional wisdom, I can assume creator's role ( or design) in the diversification of life until, proven otherwise.
Secondly, there are many a priori arguments for the existence of god
1) Prime mover by Aristotle
2) Aquinas' proof of God by St. Aquinas
3) Cosmological argument
"Handbook of Christian Apologetics" presents 19 arguments for god.
Serious ?? a physical object cannot have metaphysical properties unless it is acted upon by a metaphysical being and this is by definition. I don't need to look up.
Would would you elaborate? What evidence would make the theory false (in terms of its conclusion that here is no pre-design ) ?
You unfortunately missed this, I was trying to prove that "natural" agents cannot mutate an organism to produce something which can destroy itself.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No, you can't.
That's an unjustified assumption. Existence of a creator deity, or deities, is neither axiomatic nor philosophically sufficient or necessary.
Even philosophical apologists like Plantinga and Feser don't consider it valid (or, tellingly, convincing - hence Plantinga's Modal Ontological argument and Feser's neo-Platonic formulation).
Those are all just differing formulations of the same argument.
That's nice. Does it provide any supporting evidence that can be demonstrably verified?
Well, that's demonstrably wrong. There are all sorts of mutations in humans alone that produce conditions whereby the body ends up destroying itself. There's a reason handbooks of medicine and surgery are so thick.
Upvote
0
Some information on the evolutionary origins and genetic structure of instinctual behaviors.
Open questions: Tackling Darwin’s “instincts”: the genetic basis of behavioral evolution
Cool. Show me the cause of quantum indeterminacy then.
Nope. It doesn't.
All it proves was that life initially had a pretty hard time get going. Although the evidence suggests that it wasn't TOO hard of a time, as like may have been around on earth as early as the Late Heavy Bombardment.
Also, we don't know how life started, but that doesn't mean we can't know or that its not worth trying to find out.
Abiogenesis researchers are increasingly finding clues to life's pre-biotic origins. There has been several that have suggest that not only may the physical laws of the universe lend themselves to the creation of life, but life may be an inevitable result of them.
The origin and evolution of sexual reproduction up to the evolution of the male-female phenomenon
This isn't an example of irreducible complexity.
Find me a rabbit in the Cambrian, or a conifer in the Ediacaran.
On the Origin of Venom
James: It seems to me that all you do is read arguments FOR your position and then regurgitate them, rather than investigating yourself. I'd challenge you to undertake some reading of positions that are adversarial to your own, and then see if you can debunk them.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,219
- 3,838
- 45
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
The problem is that a deity is being proposed as a rational explanation for the history and diversity of life.
When the rationality of that is questioned the explanation is that a deity doesn't need to conform to rational explanations, thus invalidating the initial justification.
So without justification it's just an assumption.
Fair enough. If detectable effects that distinguish the deity from other causes can be predicted then tested then such a metaphysical entity can be demonstrated. If they can't then I can't see a justification to assume or accept it.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
This particular atheist has seen no evidence to support the assertion, nor have theists satisfied their burden of proof or provided plausible rational argument to support it. Further, the claimed entity is remarkably ill-defined, with theists differing over its supposed attributes.
OTOH, what we have learned about the world through careful scientific investigation also suggests that entities of the kind generally described are not feasible or realistic. There is a better explanation for these beliefs that doesn't involve an appeal to the immaterial, inexplicable, and undemonstrable; anthropology, psychology, and the history of religious belief, strongly suggest that deities (and supernatural phenomena in general) are fictional products of human imagination.
I can't speak for other atheists.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2003
- 9,703
- 2,335
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Understood. But that wasn't the main point of my question. You refer to the fall as an historical event. Do you believe that there was a literal Adam and eve that were created instead of born? If so, what do you do with all the evidence that says humans evolved?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,123
- 51,509
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
What about the existence of God and deep time? or the existence of God and Original Sin?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The default position is not "God must exist until proven otherwise". The default position is "we don't know if God exists", so your assumption remains unjustified.
Yeah, no.
Oh, I see what you did there. Adding "in terms of pre-design" because you know your original question was easily answered. FYI ToE says nothing about whether or not there is pre-design, it simply explains how evolution happens.
You made an incorrect statement when trying to prove something that is, also, incorrect. Don't try to blame others for your own mistakes.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
