Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[Ana the Ist]

So it's your opinion that it's not extraordinary that we as homosapiense exist because of an unexplainable universe that caused us to evolve for an undisclosed amount of time into beings that can consider why this universe is unexplainable?

Who considers the universe unexplainable? We've explained a lot of it....just not all of it.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, I am aware that some people give genuinely wrong information, and that some people intentionally give misleading information. But what you are saying here is different from what the statement said that I objected to. Perhaps this is due to some expectation you have, that I would assume your first statement was not complete (I am not a lawyer). If that is the case, then that is OK and my objection becomes invalid when the legal procedure does in fact permit witness testimony to consideration in absence of the witness. But, you are now saying that such a written witness' testimony is accepted to consideration, whereas you first said that it wasn't.

Lets say a witness provided an affidavit of something they saw and before trial, they die. The judge may allow the affidavit into the trial, depending on certain circumstances, or he or she may not. If the affidavit is allowed in, the judge would likely instruct the jury, to take into account, the witness could not be cross examined in court and to give the affidavit less weight in their deliberations.

 

[bhsmte]

So it's your opinion that it's not extraordinary that we as homosapiense exist because of an unexplainable universe that caused us to evolve for an undisclosed amount of time into beings that can consider why this universe is unexplainable?

Because we don't have all the answers, does this mean we can't know anything?

How much about the universe did we understand say 100 years ago? We understand much more today and chances are, we will understand much more 100 years from now. The gaps, will continue to close and get tighter and tighter to insert a God, as the explanation.

 

[Chriliman]

Who considers the universe unexplainable? We've explained a lot of it....just not all of it.

A simple yes would suffice

You agree that we have yet to fully explain the universe? Meaning it's still unexplainable in a way that we can all agree is the truth.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A simple yes would suffice

You agree that we have yet to fully explain the universe? Meaning it's still unexplainable in a way that we can all agree is the truth.

 

[Chriliman]

Your posts suggest that you're quite irresponsible in that regard.

I'm aware that this is your opinion and it's all you have left to argue against me.

 

[Chriliman]

You either intentionally misunderstand what I say or you don't try too hard to understand what I'm saying. Either way I don't appreciate it

 

[bhsmte]

A simple yes would suffice

You agree that we have yet to fully explain the universe? Meaning it's still unexplainable in a way that we can all agree is the truth.

Do we understand the universe much better today than 100 years ago?

When well evidenced explanations become available, do you accept them, if they go against your faith belief?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm aware that this is your opinion and it's all you have left to argue against me.

You think you're being profound, don't you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You either intentionally misunderstand what I say or you don't try too hard to understand what I'm saying. Either way I don't appreciate it

Not a lot of understanding seems to go into what you say.

 

[Chriliman]

Do we understand the universe much better today than 100 years ago?

When well evidenced explanations become available, do you accept them, if they go against your faith belief?

Our perceived understanding is much better, yes, we now understand that an eternal and infinite existence is possible, based on our observations of the universe. (The universe itself could be eternal and infinite, but we don't know this for sure)

My faith includes the belief that God is eternal and infinite, so the only way I could be wrong is if it's proven that an eternal infinite God does not exist.

Do you find all of this unreasonable?

 

[bhsmte]

Our perceived understanding is much better, yes, we now understand that an eternal and infinite existence is possible, based on our observations of the universe. (The universe itself could be eternal and infinite, but we don't know this for sure)

My faith includes the belief that God is eternal and infinite, so the only way I could be wrong is if it's proven that an eternal infinite God does not exist.

Do you find all of this unreasonable?

If someone has a faith belief, I find it perfectly reasonable, for someone to have faith that a God exists. What I find unreasonable, is when a person with a faith belief, is required to deny well evidenced reality, to protect their specific personal faith belief.

Folks who deny evolution, would be a good example.

 

[Chriliman]

If someone has a faith belief, I find it perfectly reasonable, for someone to have faith that a God exists. What I find unreasonable, is when a person with a faith belief, is required to deny well evidenced reality, to protect their specific personal faith belief.

Folks who deny evolution, would be a good example.

Depends on the definition of evolution. I believe in evolution among species, but I don't believe a fish can evolve into a land dwelling animal because we don't observe this happening at all in real time, we just observe fossil evidence that suggests it could be true, but those fossils could also be individual species that did not evolve from previous different species. Evolution is a theory after all and should be subject to falsification just like every other theory.

 

[bhsmte]

Depends on the definition of evolution. I believe in evolution among species, but I don't believe a fish can evolve into a land dwelling animal because we don't observe this happening at all in real time, we just observe fossil evidence that suggests it could be true, but those fossils could also be individual species that did not evolve from previous different species. Evolution is a theory after all and should be subject to falsification just like every other theory.

The theory of evolution is well defined and also, very well evidenced.

 

[Chriliman]

The theory of evolution is well defined and also, very well evidenced.

So you believe species can evolve into completely different species, even though we don't observe this happening at all in real time? We observe species adapting to changing environments, but does this mean a species can change into a different species? I don't believe so because of well evidence reality that shows no species evolving into different species.

 

[bhsmte]

So you believe species can evolve into completely different species, even though we don't observe this happening at all in real time? We observe species adapting to changing environments, but does this mean a species can change into a different species? I don't believe so because of well evidence reality that shows no species evolving into different species.

If you understood the theory, you would be in a better place to offer critique. I fully understand though, to some, evolution is scary and it threatens one's beliefs and they must deny it, despite the evidence.

I tend to side with those that understand the theory and the evidence, better than anyone and that would be; the scientists, that study the theory and forget more about it, than you and I will ever know.

The devout Christian, Francis Collins, is a good example:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-part-2

 

[Chriliman]

If you understood the theory, you would be in a better place to offer critique. I fully understand though, to some, evolution is scary and it threatens one's beliefs and they must deny it, despite the evidence.

I tend to side with those that understand the theory and the evidence, better than anyone and that would be; the scientists, that study the theory and forget more about it, than you and I will ever know.

The devout Christian, Francis Collins, is a good example:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-part-2

I agree I don't have a robust understanding of evolution, but I know that down at the DNA level there are functions that could not have evolved without the other supporting function, which easily suggests they were created together to perform a specific function, this is strong evidence of a creator because as of right now there is no other way to explain how the two pieces came to exist and perform the specific function that they perform.

Unfortunately for you there will always be reasons to believe Goddidit because it's true that God actually did it and I believe that claim.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree I don't have a robust understanding of evolution, but I know that down at the DNA level there are functions that could not have evolved without the other supporting function, which easily suggests they were created together to perform a specific function, this is strong evidence of a creator because as of right now there is no other way to explain how the two pieces came to exist and perform the specific function that they perform.

Unfortunately for you there will always be reasons to believe Goddidit because it's true that God actually did it and I believe that claim.

Of course you believe your claim.

Am I mistaken, or are you telling me that I have reasons to believe Goddidit?

You are mind reading again. What are these reasons you believe I have?

 

[Davian]

The only evidence I'm presenting is myself and my reasoning and logic.

Don't you think you should be able to provide more, if your god actually existed in some demonstrable way?

If you accepted my reasoning and logic as reasonable then you'd begin to seriously consider believing in God.

I still do not know what you mean by "God", other than you need most of mainstream science to be wrong for your beliefs to be right.

However, you don't accept my reasoning and logic as sound, simply because you take issue with those who present their reasoning and logic as evidence for others to objectively consider the existence of God.

I don't accept your reasoning and logic as sound because, as I have pointed out on many occasions, your reasoning and logic are rife with false dichotomies, special pleading, question begging, unevidenced assertions, evasion, and semantic convolutions.

Let me ask you a question; do you believe that if everyone was able to shed their biases and objectively consider the existence of God, that everyone would conclude that God does not exist?

The intent of scientific methodology is to reduce or eliminate bias where possible, and by that, "gods" have yet to appear as being of significance.

Can you define you "God" in a testable, falsifiable manner, so that its existence can be objective considered? No?

Or would everyone conclude that they honestly don't know if God exists or not?

You keep using that word "honestly" as if it is of some significance in your arguments. Why is that? Is that an accusation of lying pointed at everyone that disagrees with you?

 

[Chriliman]

Of course you believe your claim.

Am I mistaken, or are you telling me that I have reasons to believe Goddidit?

You are mind reading again. What are these reasons you believe I have?

No, I'm saying those of faith will always have legitimate reasons to believe Goddidit. You even said yourself that it's reasonable to have faith that God exists. Should I not take you at your word?