How did the universe come into existence?

[quatona]

so if its made from organic components and have a self replication system we cant consider it as a robot? why not?

Are you a robot? Why not?

look at this wood watch for instance:

watch wood‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

lets say that it even have a self replication system. according to your criteria we cant consider it as a watch?

The point was not that we can´t - the point was that we wouldn´t.

 

[Peter1000]

i do think that we can prove that god exist. for example: lets say that we will find a robot with a living traits like self replication and DNA. if such organic robot is evidence for design then also human is evidence for design.

For me, there is plenty of evidence for a Superior Designer that brought about human life. The alternatives are just underwhelming. So I agree with you.
Thanks for your contribution.

 

[Dave Ellis]

so if its made from organic components and have a self replication system we cant consider it as a robot? why not? look at this wood watch for instance:

watch wood‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

lets say that it even have a self replication system. according to your criteria we cant consider it as a watch?

If it's made out of wood it's derived from a tree. While it would be a watch, it would likely be some kind of tree derivative.

If the robot was made out of flesh and bone, I see no reason to call it a robot. The difference between that being and us would be insignificant.

 

[Dave Ellis]

For me, there is plenty of evidence for a Superior Designer that brought about human life. The alternatives are just underwhelming. So I agree with you.
Thanks for your contribution.

What is this evidence?

 

[Peter1000]

You are claiming things about this God. You can't just say that any God is necessarily your God.

I believe that there are some atheists that are atheist simply because of the mainline Christian description of God. They cannot fathom this God and therefore eventually move away from Him. The Christian description of God is not God, and if you knew the real God of the universe, you may feel differently about Him.

Actually, my position is that you don't have the exclusive key to happiness. But, yes, it involves that observation.

Again, the key to a fuller happiness is a true knowledge of God. Having access to this God, and becoming like this God, even to the degree of being able to create like Him. That knowledge propels me to continue on the path.

I understand that you believe that. I'm not saying that there aren't joyful Christians (although I have met some depressed ones), but you seem to think that there aren't joyful people who aren't Christians. That is the flaw in your position that I see.

I know there are atheists that experience happiness in this life and are comfortable in their settings. Underlying this happiness, however, is the reality that in a few years, its over, forever over. That self imposed reality has to take a strain on your momentary happiness. If you say that it doesn't, I think you are just fooling yourself.

LOL! I'm sure that God, if such an entity exists according to Christian understanding, needs nothing at all. An "omni" being can't have needs.
Remember, we are not talking about the Christian God.

God is only God because He has someone to be God to. He is God to His created children and He has given them the principles of eternal joy and happiness (in the form of commandments) that have been developed over eons of time, that have proven to be true. Even an "omni" needs love and family. He wants His children (just like all fathers) to grow up to be like Him and to share in His knowledge, power, and glory. He is teaching us how to be "omni" like Him.

Mainline Christianity has no idea of this process and in fact will fight me over this concept, but it is true.

My path is clear, and straight, and is full of excitement as I learn the principles of joy and happiness and godliness. It is not all going to church on Sunday. It is far beyond that minor event. It is a lifestyle.

That is the very reason that I believe you are the type of person that God wants, because you are smart, articulate, agressive etc., etc., etc.
Listen to what Jesus told Joseph Smith:
This is found in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 130:18-19
18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.
19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.

It is said that 'the power of God is intelligence'. I believe that. I believe that God is the most intelligent Person in the universe. I believe also He is the most humble Person in the universe, and the most powerful, and the most loving, and is all knowing and the most merciful. You will notice that qualities of God are interesting. Powerful, intelligent, all knowing, yet humble, loving, merciful. If God did not have all of these qualities He would not be God.

The study of God and His words and principles is a life long study, but it is interesting to find the true concepts of the real God and what you can look forward to being also. Join in the research, find a more exciting life than darkness at the end of a pretty good life.

 

[Eudaimonist]

so if its made from organic components and have a self replication system we cant consider it as a robot? why not? look at this wood watch for instance:

How would it reproduce? Does it grow new wood? In growing new wood, does it code for protein synthesis with DNA? What is the difference between that and a plant?

I'm not certain what we could conclude from such an organism. It could be an amazing example of plant-breeding. It could be a dramatic effort of genetic engineering. It could be built from the ground-up, molecule by molecule. I'm not sure what is gained by calling it a "robot". You may if you wish, but to me it sounds like an organic life form.

lets say that it even have a self replication system. according to your criteria we cant consider it as a watch?

You could consider it a plant that functions like a watch. What does any of this have to do with human beings?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

I believe that there are some atheists that are atheist simply because of the mainline Christian description of God. They cannot fathom this God and therefore eventually move away from Him. The Christian description of God is not God, and if you knew the real God of the universe, you may feel differently about Him.

Again, the key to a fuller happiness is a true knowledge of God. Having access to this God, and becoming like this God, even to the degree of being able to create like Him. That knowledge propels me to continue on the path.

I think most atheists are atheists because they see no evidence of a god, christian or not. If you have access to this god as you claim you do, how did you get it?

I know there are atheists that experience happiness in this life and are comfortable in their settings. Underlying this happiness, however, is the reality that in a few years, its over, forever over. That self imposed reality has to take a strain on your momentary happiness. If you say that it doesn't, I think you are just fooling yourself.

It really doesn't put any kind of strain on my happiness. One day my life will end, that's basic reality. However just because one day I'll die shouldn't impede me from enjoying life while I have it.

In reality the fact that my life is finite drives me to make the most of it while I have it. If I thought I was going to live forever, I'd procrastinate a whole lot more on doing things that I want to experience.

God is only God because He has someone to be God to. He is God to His created children and He has given them the principles of eternal joy and happiness (in the form of commandments) that have been developed over eons of time, that have proven to be true. Even an "omni" needs love and family. He wants His children (just like all fathers) to grow up to be like Him and to share in His knowledge, power, and glory. He is teaching us how to be "omni" like Him.

Mainline Christianity has no idea of this process and in fact will fight me over this concept, but it is true.

My path is clear, and straight, and is full of excitement as I learn the principles of joy and happiness and godliness. It is not all going to church on Sunday. It is far beyond that minor event. It is a lifestyle.

That is the very reason that I believe you are the type of person that God wants, because you are smart, articulate, agressive etc., etc., etc.
Listen to what Jesus told Joseph Smith:
This is found in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 130:18-19
18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.
19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.

It is said that 'the power of God is intelligence'. I believe that. I believe that God is the most intelligent Person in the universe. I believe also He is the most humble Person in the universe, and the most powerful, and the most loving, and is all knowing and the most merciful. You will notice that qualities of God are interesting. Powerful, intelligent, all knowing, yet humble, loving, merciful. If God did not have all of these qualities He would not be God.

The study of God and His words and principles is a life long study, but it is interesting to find the true concepts of the real God and what you can look forward to being also. Join in the research, find a more exciting life than darkness at the end of a pretty good life.

lol, Jesus talked to Joseph Smith.

He was a con man. The Mormon church is built on just as many lies as any other church.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I know there are atheists that experience happiness in this life and are comfortable in their settings. Underlying this happiness, however, is the reality that in a few years, its over, forever over. That self imposed reality has to take a strain on your momentary happiness. If you say that it doesn't, I think you are just fooling yourself.

Back when I was a Catholic, I did have that experience when contemplating my own death and wondering if it was the end. However, my thoughts and feelings have changed since becoming an atheist. I'm not "strained" by thoughts of death like I had been. I am more likely to contemplate how I had the chance to exist as a human being, and how special that is to me.

Your subjective projections onto my mental state aren't likely to be accurate. They say more about you than they do about me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[HitchSlap]

 

[Chriliman]

lol, Jesus talked to Joseph Smith.

He was a con man. The Mormon church is built on just as many lies as any other church.

How do you know any church is based on lies?

You don't see any truth or value in self-giving love so that others who are hurting may live and feel loved? That's the truth and love that the church of Christ is built on and I'm truly sorry if you've never felt that love.

We are called to heal the sick help the poor, while some may do the opposite, that doesn't change the calling Christ has given the church.

 

[Dave Ellis]

How do you know any church is based on lies?

You don't see any truth or value in self-giving love so that others who are hurting may live and feel loved? That's the truth and love that the church of Christ is built on and I'm truly sorry if you've never felt that love.

We are called to heal the sick help the poor, while some may do the opposite, that doesn't change the calling Christ has given the church.

The fundamental claim built around any theistic religion is that a god exists, and that usually comes with a list of ways you should behave.

None of these religions can prove (or at least demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt) that the god their religion rests on is even a real thing.

In short, if you start claiming things are true when you have no justification for doing so, you are engaging in dishonest behaviour. That is the case for every theistic religion I'm aware of.

 

[Chriliman]

The fundamental claim built around any theistic religion is that a god exists, and that usually comes with a list of ways you should behave.

Yes, objectively good ways to behave, like healing the sick and helping the poor. Yes, people can behave that way without God telling them to, but their justification for why it's objectively good to behave that way is limited.

In short, if you start claiming things are true when you have no justification for doing so, you are engaging in dishonest behaviour. That is the case for every theistic religion I'm aware of.

Agreed, justification for claims is important, but any justification apart from God who lives forever, is limited justification that doesn't last.

 

[quatona]

Yes, objectively good ways to behave, like healing the sick and helping the poor. Yes, people can behave that way without God telling them to, but their justification for why it's objectively good to behave that way is limited.

1. Why would I even need an objective justification for doing good? For me as a part of this world it´s perfectly enough that it is good for this world.
2. A God´s opinion isn´t objective.
3. Even if a God´s opinion were relevant for any intent or purpose, your justification is terribly limited until you can actually demonstrate that there´s a God and what this God´s moral opinion is.

Agreed, justification for claims is important, but any justification apart from God who lives forever, is limited justification that doesn't last.

Well, as long as this world last, the justification "it´s good for this world" is going to last, and it´s perfectly sufficient.

So don´t pretend that my view on things suffers of a problem that´s induced by your worldview, and that your worldview claims to have the solution to. It´s the ever same observation: Religion merely promises solutions for problems that it has created itself, and that wouldn´t exist without it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes, objectively good ways to behave, like healing the sick and helping the poor. Yes, people can behave that way without God telling them to, but their justification for why it's objectively good to behave that way is limited.

If you agree those are objectively good acts, then why would you need any more justification to want to do them?

Agreed, justification for claims is important, but any justification apart from God who lives forever, is limited justification that doesn't last.

If the foundational claim you are making can not in itself be justified, then anything based on that claim is also not justified.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Allowing mothers to kill their children in the womb devalues human life greatly. Since Roe vs Wade, child abuse has increased exponentially because parents realize that they could have gotten rid of them earlier. Secular humanist judges and officials are forcing Christians to endorse messages that go against their religious beliefs thereby violating the free exercise clause of the first amendment.

de: Nonsense, child abuse has dropped dramatically over the last century. 100 years ago it was completely acceptable in most circles to beat the crap out of your kid (or even your wife) for disobeying. Doing that now will land you in jail. The difference is it's more visible now because it's no longer considered acceptable and people actually report it to the police.

Fraid not:
"A 2005 study by Priscilla Coleman (Bowling Green University) showed that women who obtained abortions were 144 percent more likely to abuse their own children.

At a more theoretical level, Dr. Philip G. Ney, head of the Department of Psychiatry at Royal Jubilee Hospital in Canada, has outlined why abortion can lead directly to child abuse.

1. Abortion decreases an individual's instinctual restraint against the occasional rage felt toward those dependent on his or her care.

2. Permissive abortion diminishes the taboo against aggressing [against] the defenseless.

3. Abortion increases the hostility between the generations.

4. Abortion has devalued children, thus diminishing the value of caring for children.

5. Abortion increases guilt and self-hatred, which the parent takes out on the child.

6. Abortion increases hostile frustration, intensifying the battle of the sexes, for which children are scapegoated.

7. Abortion cuts the developing mother-infant bond, thereby diminishing her future mothering capability.

Overall, American statistics paint a clear picture. Legal abortion did not reduce child abuse. In fact, the exact opposite happened. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect has reported that child abuse has increased more than 1,000 percent since the legalization of abortion in 1973. According to data from the US Statistical Abstract, deaths due to child abuse continued to rise after the Roe v. Wade decision and increased by 400 percent between 1972 and 1990."

de: As for gay marriage, first off the Supreme Court is overwhelmingly made up of Christians, and nobody is forcing Christians to endorse anyone's marriage. Your endorsement is not required for two people (gay or straight) to get married. Your opinion on their marriage (as well as my opinion) is completely irrelevant.

Bakers and photographers are being forced in multiple cases in the US to bake cakes endorsing gay marriages and being forced to photograph and film them. Do you think blacks should be forced to bake a birthday cake for the Grand Dragon of the KKK? But you are right gays could get "married" anytime they wanted in the past they did not need the SCOTUS or the government to endorse it so there was no reason for the ruling.

de: Your religious beliefs matter to your life, nobody else is required to care at all about them. So stop pushing them on other people when they're trying to get married.

They are free to get "married". It should just not be endorsed by the government because the behavior is not good for people just like smoking. Also, as I demonstrated earlier with the quotes from the DOI the US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Those principles are what has made it the greatest nation in history. And people like myself want it to stay great.
↑

ed: It can be seen in how even natural laws "punish" you when you violate His moral laws. Such as when you are promiscuous you will probably get an STD. They come from His moral character.

de: That has to do with biology, when you sleep with a lot of people your risks of acquiring a disease is higher. That has nothing at all to do with morality.

No, the natural laws and moral laws of this universe were both created by the same Being, so there is a general connection between the two. Though sometimes God is merciful and some people may not acquire a disease but generally they do.

ed: In other news, when you take public transit, or working in a school, you're also at a higher risk of catching a cold. That's also biology. Contact with more people means more contact with germs.

And when you take care of your body like God commands then your immune system is generally stronger and you are less likely to catch a cold from people.

↑

ed: No, He didn't invent the standard, it is part of who He is, ie His moral character.

de: So therefore god is not the author of morality. He didn't create it.

Yes, He did, His moral laws which He created and revealed in the Bible such as the Ten Commandments and Christs moral teachings are based on His character.

ed: Nothing above refutes that His moral law is not an opinion because it is based on the fact of His objectively existing moral character. Just as the laws of physics objectively exist because even though they are non-physical they exist outside of human minds irrespective of what you believe about the laws of physics.

de: How do you have an objectively existing moral character independent of himself? Is his moral character some different entity, or is that a part of him?

No you are confused. His moral law objectively exists because it is based on His objectively existing moral character. So there is an objective standard that we are judged by. As I stated above it is analogous to the laws of nature or physics.

 

[Ed1wolf]

How do you verify that he's good? What independent standard do you use?

Our moral conscience.

 

[xianghua]

If it's made out of wood it's derived from a tree. While it would be a watch, it would likely be some kind of tree derivative.

if it would be a watch, then why not consider an organic robot a robot?

 

[xianghua]

How would it reproduce? Does it grow new wood? In growing new wood, does it code for protein synthesis with DNA? What is the difference between that and a plant?

lets say that this watch can to all that stuff. can we consider it as a watch. and if its a watch then who is having the burden of proof in this case: someone that claim that a watch can evolve naturally, or someone that claim that such a watch need a designer?

 

[quatona]

if it would be a watch,
then why not consider an organic robot a robot?

How would you tell, say, a duck and a organic duck robot apart?

 

[quatona]

lets say that this watch can to all that stuff. can we consider it as a watch. and if its a watch then who is having the burden of proof in this case: someone that claim that a watch can evolve naturally, or someone that claim that such a watch need a designer?

I think the chances that nature eventually will begin to copy devices created by humans (and not vice versa) is pretty low. Until then I will consider my dog an organic product of nature, and not a self-replicating organic robot designed to fetch the newspaper for me.