How to choose between creation and evolution.

[SelfSim]

What test will you use to prove that you love another person?

Well, for starters, there's no necessity to 'prove' anything.
Secondly, to conclude whether or not I love another person would be up to me .. It would be a self-referential test, which would give no particular insights to anyone other than myself, so it would be a pretty useless test for the purpose of discussing its existence (or not) with anyone other than myself.

Perhaps a better question would be: What observations could we make that might be consistent with what we mean when we say 'love is present'?
We could then make such observations, record them, and cross reference them by asking the subjects whether or not these corresponded with when they felt 'love', (or didn't feel 'love')?

Thirdly, 'love' means something to us humans. (We can also test that meaning amongst our subjects). Here's dictionary definition (or some results) of the test for that meaning:

noun
an intense feeling of deep affection
"babies fill parents with feelings of love"
Similar: deep affection, fondness, tenderness, warmth, intimacy, attachment, endearment, devotion

a great interest and pleasure in something.
"his love for football"
Similar: liking ("taken an instant liking to Arnie's new girlfriend"), weakness, partiality (partiality for flowering shrubs is evident"), bent, leaning, proclivity ("proclivity for hard work")

verb
feel deep affection or sexual love for (someone): ("do you love me?")

Notice all of the above requires the presence of other human minds .. and never requires the existence of anything independent from those minds (like gods or miracles).

 

[coffee4u]

For more recent examples:
Wearing surgical masks is dangerous and evil
Viruses only effect those with weak faith
The climate isn't heating up

None of those has anything to do with God.

1)Wearing a mask is a purely physical thing to help prevent physical droplets from going into the air.

2) Definitely not found in the Bible.
God instituted quarantine way back when the Moses lead them around the desert, long before germs were discovered.

3. Again nothing for or against in the Bible.

 

[coffee4u]

Well, for starters, there's no necessity to 'prove' anything.
Secondly, to conclude whether or not I love another person would be up to me .. It would be a self-referential test, which would give no particular insights to anyone other than myself, so it would be a pretty useless test for the purpose of discussing its existence (or not) with anyone other than myself.

Which was what I was getting at. You know if you love someone, but nobody else truly knows that. A person could fake love for other reasons.
I know God is there but you can't tell that simply because I say so.

Perhaps a better question would be: What observations could we make that might be consistent with what we mean when we say 'love is present'?

In the same way there is plenty of observations that people have made about the spiritual.
Some people have claimed to see ghosts or talked to dead. Things that we are warned not to do since it taps into the fallen angel side.
Other people have had other types of encounters such as waking up to music and finding out someone close died, to simply feeling and seeing God's guiding hand in their life by prayers answered to outright miracles with no explanation.

We could then make such observations, record them, and cross reference them by asking the subjects whether or not these corresponded with when they felt 'love', (or didn't feel 'love')?

Thirdly, 'love' means something to us humans. (We can also test that meaning amongst our subjects). Here's dictionary definition (or some results) of the test for that meaning:

noun
an intense feeling of deep affection
"babies fill parents with feelings of love"
Similar: deep affection, fondness, tenderness, warmth, intimacy, attachment, endearment, devotion

a great interest and pleasure in something.
"his love for football"
Similar: liking ("taken an instant liking to Arnie's new girlfriend"), weakness, partiality (partiality for flowering shrubs is evident"), bent, leaning, proclivity ("proclivity for hard work")

verb
feel deep affection or sexual love for (someone): ("do you love me?")

Notice all of the above requires the presence of other human minds .. and never requires the existence of anything independent from those minds (like gods or miracles).

We believe love exists because God is love. There is no real reason in the theory of evolution for love to exist at all.

I wasn't saying love is exactly the same, just that there are some similarities to the spiritual.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why is it that physical intervention isn't a necessity for achieving changes in the sense of self?

What changes in the sense of self are not in some way the result of a physical intervention?

Does long term motor neurone or Parkinson's diseases, not ultimately alter an individual's perceptions of what is real and what isn't?

I don't know; why would they change what is perceived to be real?

I think the way we view the physiology of the brain as being (crudely) 'where it all happens', might fall somewhat short in recognising the significance of the tight integration with other elements forming the intricate neurological pathways we've evolved .. We need to update that simplisitic model, I think, in order to explain the higher level effects of disorders localised to other parts along those pathways?
(Akin to a circuit theory analogy in electrical physics here).

Not sure quite what you mean, but there is a strong move in recent times towards a more holistic idea of the 'embodied brain'; i.e. that interoception and bodily physiological changes are powerful drivers and modulators of brain function, including behaviour. Antonio Damasio has been working with these ideas for years. The gut microbiome is the latest recruit to these brain influences.

 

[Kylie]

God instituted quarantine way back when the Moses lead them around the desert, long before germs were discovered.

Of course, people back then would have been perfectly capable of figuring out that keeping sick people away from healthy people would have stopped the spread if disease, even if they didn't understand the mechanism by which it worked...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I believed in the whole story of evolution, which has to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated.

It could, in principle, be wrong, but can't be a hoax because there's no intent to decieve.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, people back then would have been perfectly capable of figuring out that keeping sick people away from healthy people would have stopped the spread if disease, even if they didn't understand the mechanism by which it worked...

Embedded in the Law of Moses was a prohibition against eating bats.

Said prohibition not only was ignored, but was ridiculed on Linnaean grounds.

Now we wear masks.

 

[SelfSim]

... I know God is there but you can't tell that simply because I say so.

Why not? If God is concept and as you describe your concept of God, using words such as 'exists' and 'is' for which, somehow, I also share with you in the meanings and understanding of those words, then through that description, you have realised God and conveyed that to me in that conversation.

That method of realising God's existence is quite legitimate as far as I'm concerned. It is however, not the same method as the scientific method .. it is the method of belief .. It still results in a meaning which you then associate with reality by using the language you choose to use.

Science creates its own reality via speculation=>hypothesis=>testing=>conclusion and it results in science's objective reality, which is an entirely distinct process to the belief method described above.

Regardless of which of those two methods one uses, they still require a human mind, and thus your realisation of God still requires a mind .. ie: your mind. The issue that remains, is that the concept of God which you just realised, by way of belief, only demonstrates dependence on your active mind and doesn't demonstrate a mind (or presence) of something which exists independently from it. That's at the heart of most disagreements around this forum. There is no evidence whatsoever of some mind independent so-called 'physical universe' (meaning: a universe that exists independently from the meaning I give to that term, using my own mind). The universe exists because my mind gave the word 'universe', the attribute of 'existence' at the moment I described it.

In the same way there is plenty of observations that people have made about the spiritual.
Some people have claimed to see ghosts or talked to dead. Things that we are warned not to do since it taps into the fallen angel side.
Other people have had other types of encounters such as waking up to music and finding out someone close died, to simply feeling and seeing God's guiding hand in their life by prayers answered to outright miracles with no explanation.

None of which are objectively testable, yet they are real to those people (& you?) .. and when they describe what they've seen, I can observe their mind in action by noticing the meanings they add to those descriptions. The existence of those 'things' provide me with evidence of their minds in action and doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever of anything existing independently of their, my, or anyone else's minds!

We believe love exists because God is love. There is no real reason in the theory of evolution for love to exist at all.

I suggest you look into the evolution of language use. It is absolutely key to understanding the human mind's role in how we create meaning to word the words 'exists' or 'is real' .. (and all of what I just said is abundantly objectively evidenced).

I wasn't saying love is exactly the same, just that there are some similarities to the spiritual.

More like some very important and distinct differences .. all of which demonstrate the opposite point your actually trying to make there, unfortunately.

 

[AV1611VET]

Regardless of which of those two methods one uses, they still require a human mind,

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Before you respond, consider these two questions:

1. Which came first? God or a human mind?

2. Does God exist apart from anything else?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...I know God is there but you can't tell that simply because I say so.

Of course, the disinterested observer, looking at all the equally strongly held but conflicting beliefs that people have, and have had over time, would say that the odds are, that although you believe you know, you're no more likely to be correct than any of them...

There is no real reason in the theory of evolution for love to exist at all.

On the contrary, there are a number of plausible evolutionary reasons for it.

 

[Shemjaza]

None of those has anything to do with God.

1)Wearing a mask is a purely physical thing to help prevent physical droplets from going into the air.

2) Definitely not found in the Bible.
God instituted quarantine way back when the Moses lead them around the desert, long before germs were discovered.

3. Again nothing for or against in the Bible.

I don't think they are explicitly in the Bible either... but there are definitely people who propose these things with their personal interpretation and spiritual discernment from the Bible as justification.

That was my point, without a method of verification you can't tell truth from mistake from misinformation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. Brick walls are made of atoms residing within the universe as it is.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but I think you are claiming that there is a dividing line somewhere down in the details of things designed. For example, you can design a chair without considering the quantum mechanics involved.

But can an intelligent designer design features of an organism without needing to be concerned with the molecules and their interactions? I don't see how it's possible.

God designed the 'bricks' and the 'wall'.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Can you provide evidence to support this claim that good and evil are spiritual in nature?

All thoughts are spiritual (can't be observed, or predicted, using the scientific method).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Scientists in the future may see themselves as being privileged in being able to view the evidence of the cutting edge of Theoretical Physics thinking, when it comes to concepts such as String Theory (as are we).
Perhaps students in the future will see it as quaint but at least it will persist as being consistently logical (a stubbornly persistent trait humans have always sought .. throughout all of recorded history).

Science is even now frustrated by the wall I speak of, that being the origin of matter. They have reduced it to energy, but are at wits end to determine the origin of self-renewing energy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What's 'spiritual' about behaviors?

Good will, evidenced by good behavior, comes from a spirit of good will (and conversely). It cannot be otherwise.

 

[Allandavid]

All thoughts are spiritual (can't be observed, or predicted, using the scientific method).

Sorry, but they can be observed. You’ve never seen ‘heat maps’ of the brain?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry, but they can be observed. You’ve never seen ‘heat maps’ of the brain?

All that tells us is that there is brain activity. For example just seeing someone start their vehicle doesn't tell you where they are going.

I often take a longer indirect route home from the grocery store. If thoughts were material/physical the scientific method should be able to determine why I do this.

 

[AV1611VET]

I often take a longer indirect route home from the grocery store. If thoughts were material/physical the scientific method should be able to determine why I do this.

Cause the cops are chasing ya for not paying?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

All that tells us is that there is brain activity. For example just seeing someone start their vehicle doesn't tell you where they are going.

I often take a longer indirect route home from the grocery store. If thoughts were material/physical the scientific method should be able to determine why I do this.

Some things are just too complex to decode even if you know the principles behind their working. The brain is the most complex thing we know of.

The evidence we have suggests that thoughts are the patterns of activity in the brain, but so far we can only tell whether someone is thinking of some particular thing if we already know the corresponding pattern of activity and we see it occurring again. We don't even need science to tell why people do some things, but many things people do are for reasons that are the result of the cumulative effects of a lifetime of experiences - there's not much chance of decoding a puzzle of that complexity.

 

[SelfSim]

Of course, the disinterested observer, looking at all the equally strongly held but conflicting beliefs that people have, and have had over time, would say that the odds are, that although you believe you know, you're no more likely to be correct than any of them...

On the contrary, there are a number of plausible evolutionary reasons for it.

Please reference your post#2310.

For the record, would you mind correcting the quotation in it?
(I did not say the things you attribute to me).

Just a case of errored attribution, methinks.
Cheers