[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A question for those who.....

[GrowingSmaller]

Evolution, affirming the consequent?

 

[Poster0]

One thing is for sure. If my faith is only a neurological condition then emotions are as well. Love and joy are meaningless. I am just a robot who simply follows its mechanical attributes. Life is a meaningless existence and the love we feel is nothing but a thing. Deep down inside though, we cry out wanting to live, to feel loved and accepted. That is the part which science cannot give any meaning to whatsoever, but its also the part of us that we value the most. Why worry about scientific discovery if we will die soon and our existence is meaningless? To be happy and to feel loved as well, these are why we do the things we do. Its why we build wealth, why we get jealous of our love, why we do everything. This however has no value if it has no purpose. If its just a mechanical neurological condition then it has no value. However if this has purpose, and its a gift from God which will go on even after our bodies die, then it has purpose because it is who we are. We will go on loving and wanting to be happy. Thats the whole meaning of life but science thinks its only a temporary neurological condition, and therefore we are only temporary ourselves. Why even discover science? Whats the point? Why observe something that is meaningless?

 

[Poster0]

*

 

[Poster0]

Evidence that God exists is already inside us, We don't need a mathematical equation to prove Gods existence. That part of us that wants to go on living even after we die, that part that wants to live...that's the evidence that God put inside of us. We can choose to embrace it and seek the truth of God, or ignore it and live a meaningless existence. What is this desire to live that we all have, if not evidence that God exists? If its just a meaningless neurological condition, then ignore it, then dont desire to live because there is no purpose to it. Its just a neurological thing that can be measured using scientific instruments. Nothing more.

 

[Freodin]

6000 years is short in comparison to 200,000 years. It seems far more likely that sudden enlightenment would occur in a short period as apposed to a much longer one. Its 333 times longer and the law of averages would seem to be on my side, in my opinion.

That "sudden enlightenment" happened in an even shorter period of time... just a couple of hundred years. So what was about the rest of the 6000 years that explains why this "sudden enlightenment" did not happen earlier?

And here we come to the core of you misunderstanding: the "law of avarages" doesn't really apply here. It is not a stochastic process, where you can assign probabilities and evaluate a "mean time to happen". It is indeed a complex process, that is easy to misunderstand here... and you just did.

If i not mistaken science has changed its understanding of how long certain time periods were, and so it has already admitted to being wrong in the past and its probable that it can be wrong still. Its interesting that when i read something concerning when humans originated on earth, that it usually says that it's "thought" to be around 200,000 years ago.

And again you show your complete lack of understanding of the whole process of science.
When science "change its understanding", it is not because someone "thought" something, made a guess, produced some fantasy, told a story. Every change in a scientific explanation is based on discoveries. New date that led to new understanding that wasn't available earlier.

This would indicate that its more of a theory than a proven fact.

Aaaand... another of these famous creationist sound bites: just a theory, not a fact.

First of all, "theory" in science has a slightly different meaning that in the common language. It is not a "guess" or an "idea"... a theory is a complex system of interconnected statements that explain a certain observation.
Second, because of that, there is no progression in science from "theory" to "fact"... both these terms describe different concepts. Facts are accepted observations or conclusions. Theories are systems that explain the "how and why" of these facts.

There are observable facts, from fields like geology and biology and chemistry and physics. Geological structures. Chemical processes. Nuclear processes. Biological similarities. Genetic research. The Theory of Evolution - common descent, variation within lines of descent via mutations and selections - is the only existing system that provides detailed, plausible, testable explanations for all of these observations. "Creation theory" does not do that. There is no explanatory value in claiming "God did it" for each and every observation.

Not till now, but thanks for sharing. I don't think im superior in understanding anything. I just think that Science cannot possibly understand all the complexities of life and they are only scratching the surface of that iceberg. How can they expect me to believe they know the things that they cannot see?

Well, they can see. They know what they are doing. It is you who doesn't, and thus "cannot see". It is you who cannot go against his bias, and thus does not want to see.

It is just so easy to claim "They could be wrong, therefore I don't accept anything they say."
Well, you are free to do that. But if that reasoning is all you can offer, the best you can offer... you should be aware that others might do the same to you.

You could be wrong. I don't accept anything you say.

I can study a thing and tell others what i have learned but that doesnt mean that i know everything and cannot be wrong. I believe that humans are often wrong and science is no exception. Science can admit that its only speculating and theorizing about many things. Its no crime to admit that you have no idea about how most things actually work.

Yes, you are completely correct here. But you go to far.
They can be wrong. But they can also be right... and they can show you things over things that lend credence to the claim that they are right.
You dismiss all these things by a whim. You don't have anything credible to rebut these things. You just stand there and repeat "They might be wrong. They might have made it up."
But there is Colonel Plum, standing in the Library, holding the Revolver, perched over the dead body of the victim. Dismissing all that won't win you the game.

Science has only scratched the surface and there are so many unexplained things. Why should i just accept a theory that i evolved from the same lineage as an ape or perhaps a chimpanzee? Is science infallible? I choose to think that its more likely that science has only misinterpreted its observation concerning this.

No, science is not infallible. But science has also a rather good track record of being right. And if you want to show that science is false in a certain regard, you need to do more than just make assertions... you need to get into science, do the work, get the observations... AND SHOW IT!

IT is still a theory despite what you may claim.

Read above about theories in science.

A theory can, and has many times before, been proven either flawed or completely wrong. Not every theory is proven and many times its based on incomplete data and is easily misinterpreted. Im sorry but i dont believe that we evolved out of some primordial soup, then slowly evolved from an ape like creature into what we are now. This is only a bunch of theory and is far from being proven.

Yes, again you are correct. Scientific theories have been proven flawed or even completely wrong. But that is exactly the point: they have been proven flawed or wrong. By science. By better theories. Not by people "not believing it".

And especially in regard the the Theory of Evolution: it has been around for a 150 years... and while it has been improved and expanded based on new observations, there hasn't been a single piece of evidence that would have shown this theory flawed or false.

A theory is not proven. It can be disproven though. But the ToE has withstood every doubt that has been cast upon it for over a century. And it was not for lack of trying.
That makes it a rather strong theory. A good theory.

The best we have. A lot better that anything creationists can offer.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not till now, but thanks for sharing. I don't think im superior in understanding anything. I just think that Science cannot possibly understand all the complexities of life and they are only scratching the surface of that iceberg. How can they expect me to believe they know the things that they cannot see? I can study a thing and tell others what i have learned but that doesnt mean that i know everything and cannot be wrong. I believe that humans are often wrong and science is no exception. Science can admit that its only speculating and theorizing about many things. Its no crime to admit that you have no idea about how most things actually work. Science has only scratched the surface and there are so many unexplained things. Why should i just accept a theory that i evolved from the same lineage as an ape or perhaps a chimpanzee? Is science infallible?

Could you be wrong?

IT is still a theory despite what you may claim. A theory can, and has many times before, been proven either flawed or completely wrong. Not every theory is proven and many times its based on incomplete data and is easily misinterpreted. Im sorry but i dont believe that we evolved out of some primordial soup, then slowly evolved from an ape like creature into what we are now. This is only a bunch of theory and is far from being proven.

Please bear in mind that the word 'theory' has a special scientific meaning.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If my faith is only a neurological condition then emotions are as well. Love and joy are meaningless.

That doesn't follow, and no one is saying that faith has no meaning to Christians. It evidently does, just as love and joy have meaning to everyone.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Evidence that God exists is already inside us, We don't need a mathematical equation to prove Gods existence. That part of us that wants to go on living even after we die, that part that wants to live...that's the evidence that God put inside of us.

That isn't evidence of anything divine. That's just as easily explained...indeed better explained...by an evolved survival instinct.

We can choose to embrace it and seek the truth of God, or ignore it and live a meaningless existence.

I have a meaningful existence without any notion of God.

If its just a meaningless neurological condition

"Neurological conditions" aren't necessarily meaningless.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[paulm50]

Evidence that God exists is already inside ME, I don't need a mathematical equation to prove Gods existence. That part of ME that wants to go on living even after I die, that part that wants to live...that's the evidence that God put inside of ME. I can choose to embrace it and seek the truth of God, or ignore it and live a meaningless existence. What is this desire to live that I have, if not evidence that God exists? If its just a meaningless neurological condition, then ignore it, then dont desire to live because there is no purpose to it. Its just a neurological thing that can be measured using scientific instruments. Nothing more.

You can't speak for anyone else.

As for purpose in life. If your belief is your purpose and desire, hang onto religion. Most of us have more in our lives. Family, friends, life itself. Life is so much more than a neurological thing that can be measured using scientific instruments.

 

[anonymous person]

Jesus said that unless one is born again, they cannot see the Kingdom of God. No one is born again unless they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God. No one can be regenerated by the Holy Spirit unless they come to Jesus as Lord and Savior. No one can come to Jesus as Lord and Savior unless the Father draw them. No one can be drawn by God unless God choose to draw them.

From beginning to end, salvation is a work of God to which we contribute nothing save the sins that necessitate our salvation.

Poster0, remember that the natural carnal man will not receive the things of God because he is unable to receive them apart from a work of God taking place in the heart. Therefore pray for this for them that God has called you to minister to.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Jesus said that unless one is born again, they cannot see the Kingdom of God. No one is born again unless they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God. No one can be regenerated by the Holy Spirit unless they come to Jesus as Lord and Savior. No one can come to Jesus as Lord and Savior unless the Father draw them. No one can be drawn by God unless God choose to draw them.

From beginning to end, salvation is a work of God to which we contribute nothing save the sins that necessitate our salvation.

Poster0, remember that the natural carnal man will not receive the things of God because he is unable to receive them apart from a work of God taking place in the heart. Therefore pray for this for them that God has called you to minister to.

So you concede that God is ultimately responsible for the damnation of souls by not drawing them toward himself?

 

[Freodin]

Jesus said that unless one is born again, they cannot see the Kingdom of God. No one is born again unless they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God. No one can be regenerated by the Holy Spirit unless they come to Jesus as Lord and Savior. No one can come to Jesus as Lord and Savior unless the Father draw them. No one can be drawn by God unless God choose to draw them.

From beginning to end, salvation is a work of God to which we contribute nothing save the sins that necessitate our salvation.

Poster0, remember that the natural carnal man will not receive the things of God because he is unable to receive them apart from a work of God taking place in the heart. Therefore pray for this for them that God has called you to minister to.

You are aware that this position is self-contradicting, are you?

 

[paulm50]

That "sudden enlightenment" happened in an even shorter period of time... just a couple of hundred years. So what was about the rest of the 6000 years that explains why this "sudden enlightenment" did not happen earlier?

Being a questioning type of guy. I always wondered if the 6,000 estimate was based on fiction.

In a time of high infant mortality, no protection from diseases, a simple ailment could kill. Would it make sense to tell people the prophets were so good, they lived 100s of years. No one has ever found bones to prove it. So James Ussher's calculations are all wrong. We know they are wrong, because he didn't know the exact date of their death. And we now have scholars who think the word day is a bad translation.

"The Hebrew word yom has three literal meanings - a 12-hour period of time (sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour period of time from sunset to sunset (the Hebrew day), and an indefinite period of time."

So could be 6 days, or 3 billion years.

 

[Freodin]

You can't speak for anyone else.

As for purpose in life. If your belief is your purpose and desire, hang onto religion. Most of us have more in our lives. Family, friends, life itself. Life is so much more than a neurological thing that can be measured using scientific instruments.

I know that I cannot speak for you... but I think you are wrong here, at least in your last point.

Yes, I agree, familiy, friends, life itself... important. But why would it be "more than just a neurological thing"? (Well, it is more than neurological, but whatever... )

People like Poster0 seem to think: if it isn't magic, it isn't real. Science isn't magic, so it isn't real.
And you seem to agree with him, partially: Yes, the science isn't magic, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any magic. There is more than science... there is also magic.

I disagree: there isn't anything more than science, more than "neurological things" (nudge, nudge). But that IS the magic! That IS the purpose and the meaning and the desire and the hope... the life!

 

[Poster0]

That doesn't follow, and no one is saying that faith has no meaning to Christians. It evidently does, just as love and joy have meaning to everyone.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You didn't follow exactly what i was saying. Im suggesting that love is the ultimate of all truth. Im not basing this on any religious dogma but it comes from my own observation of what is myself, the essence of my being. I am suggesting that without eternal life then love is ultimately meaningless because its only temporary like life is only temporary, but if eternal life is real then love is the ultimate truth and its the essence of what we are. I was suggesting that love is the part of us that is meaningful, and love, along with happiness, is the motivation for everything we do, so love in essence is us, its the driving force behind everything we do. So if love is just a neurological condition and nothing more than we are nothing. If we do not have eternal life and this brief period of existence in this world is all there is, then life is meaningless. Why observe science if it is an observation meaninglessness? What im saying might be hard to understand using only an outward observation of this world, and we must look within ourselves, at that part of us that desires to live forever, in order to understand what im suggesting about love and happiness as being our true essence. This is an internal observation of what we are that im suggesting.

 

[Poster0]

Just because science may have a different meaning for the word theory does't mean that it doesnt use theory by its other definition as well.

 

[Poster0]

You can't speak for anyone else.

As for purpose in life. If your belief is your purpose and desire, hang onto religion. Most of us have more in our lives. Family, friends, life itself. Life is so much more than a neurological thing that can be measured using scientific instruments.

Im only sharing by internal scientific observations. Im observing things you cant see under a microscope but can be observed regardless.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You didn't follow exactly what i was saying. Im suggesting that love is the ultimate of all truth. Im not basing this on any religious dogma but it comes from my own observation of what is myself, the essence of my being. I am suggesting that without eternal life then love is ultimately meaningless because its only temporary like life is only temporary, but if eternal life is real then love is the ultimate truth and its the essence of what we are. I was suggesting that love is the part of us that is meaningful, and love, along with happiness, is the motivation for everything we do, so love in essence is us, its the driving force behind everything we do. So if love is just a neurological condition and nothing more than we are nothing. If we do not have eternal life and this brief period of existence in this world is all there is, then life is meaningless.

What? Why? Why assume that life must be imbued with theological significance or else it is insignificant?

 

[Poster0]

What im doing is using philosophy. This is a philosophy forum and it shouldn't be surprising.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Just because science may have a different meaning for the word theory does't mean that it doesnt use theory by its other definition as well.

If you want to discuss 'theory' in science then you are obligated to use the definition that science uses. Otherwise you are erecting a strawman.