Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
the atheist are much better versed in science than the theist it appears
What I am hearing from you is that supernatural explanations and experiences are impossible! is that right?
*groans*
Don't tell me you've been buying into those crappy YouTube videos put up by VenomFangX, now have you?...znip...
Well, and here's my first big objection. Yes, religions do provide answers to the Big Mysteries of life - but I find that, for the most part, these answers are simplistic appeals to supernatural forces, rather than real explanations.Lifes big questions are "Why am I here on earth? Where did I come from? Do I serve a purpose?"
These are questions science cannot answer, but religion can.
Exactly. That's part of the problem. If you believe to be in possession of Absolute Truth, you are sure to miss new discoveries, even if they are right in front of your eyes.Religion tells us of why we're on earth, where we came from, and what our purpose is.
The natural sciences do not concern themselves with anthropological/philosophical matters. That's what philosophy, ethnology, psychology, sociology and anthropology are for, among others.To this date, science hasn't because science still does not know. I truly believe science never will answer this. I don't see how it could.
This (and the rest of the post) pretty much rests on the assumptions thatWhat I do know is if God, or a creator, doesn't exist, then life has came about through a purposeless and unintelligent process. That would mean that we, as well, are just as purposeless as the very process that we came from. We can find things to do, such as getting married, having kids, getting a job, buying a home, and so on. In the end, if life was formed by chance, our lives are just as meaningless. We can hide these feelings, however, by giving ourselves a purpose, making ourselves believe we are truly worth something, and giving ourselves a meaning from a purposeless process. But in the end, we are accidents, and tomorrow you shall die, and be taken to the cemetary to be laid to rest forever, and shortly there after, so shall your kids, and their kids, and their kids' kids. How wonderful life is.
Because nature does not operate according to man-made purposes. A tidal wave has no intention, no meaning, no significance. It just is. Whatever significance we associate with it, we have put there first.Then lets look at life entierly. Many live to they are 70, or 80, while a newborn child may be born with cancer and dies within two years of his or her life. It is upsetting. And then we ask, how could natures laws be so cruel?
To me, these beliefs are neither comforting nor frightening, but just seem - if you'd allow me the honesty - supremely childish. I can see why some would cling to them, for ridiculous fears of their own mortality or egotistical desires, but in the end, I'll stick to the humbling realization that it is not all about us, and that true meaning can only reside in the eternal NOW.In the end, God has a purpose for us. That's exactly why we even exist. God created humans as we know it, and in the end He will prevail. He already does prevail everyday, but in the end, you know of what I am talking about. To some, this makes us happy to know. To others, it's a scary thought. If God doesn't exist, don't ask yourself why you exist, because everything is ultimately purposeless. You can give yourself a reason not to believe so, but by the chance we just came about, it's reality.
Religion cannot answer anything: it's little more than wild conjecture. Draping it in pomp and ritual doesn't make it any more true.Lifes big questions are "Why am I here on earth? Where did I come from? Do I serve a purpose?"
These are questions science cannot answer, but religion can.
It tells us, yes, but it gives us no reason to believe its shots-in-the-dark are true. I could spout any old nonsense I want, but why should you believe me over religion?Religion tells us of why we're on earth, where we came from, and what our purpose is.
Agreed.What I do know is if God, or a creator, doesn't exist, then life has came about through a purposeless and unintelligent process.
Atheism does not imply existential nihilism.That would mean that we, as well, are just as purposeless as the very process that we came from. We can find things to do, such as getting married, having kids, getting a job, buying a home, and so on. In the end, if life was formed by chance, our lives are just as meaningless. We can hide these feelings, however, by giving ourselves a purpose, making ourselves believe we are truly worth something, and giving ourselves a meaning from a purposeless process.
Whining about the way of the world doesn't make it any less true: we are accidents, we will die, and so shall our children. Even with gods, those facts don't change.But in the end, we are accidents, and tomorrow you shall die, and be taken to the cemetary to be laid to rest forever, and shortly there after, so shall your kids, and their kids, and their kids' kids. How wonderful life is.
The laws of nature do not care for us: they are inanimate forces with no more awareness than a rock.Then lets look at life entierly. Many live to they are 70, or 80, while a newborn child may be born with cancer and dies within two years of his or her life. It is upsetting. And then we ask, how could natures laws be so cruel?
Allegedly.In the end, God has a purpose for us.
Allegedly.That's exactly why we even exist.
Allegedly.God created humans as we know it, and in the end He will prevail.
Ah, the arrogance is palpable! "I'm not going to listen to what you say you think, I'm going to tell you what you think!"He already does prevail everyday, but in the end, you know of what I am talking about.
That doesn't mean we don't have lives to live, desires to fulfil, innate curiosities to satiate. You may find life without God to be unbearable, but the 800 million non-religious people of the world seem to get on just fine.To some, this makes us happy to know. To others, it's a scary thought. If God doesn't exist, don't ask yourself why you exist, because everything is ultimately purposeless.
Let's run with this: assuming that atheism really does lead to existential nihilism, what's your point? Either gods do exist, or they don't. Either we have a purpose, or we don't. What we want to be true is irrelevant to what is true. We can moan about the lack of purpose in our lives till the cows come home, but at the end of the day, you haven't justified your religious claims.You can give yourself a reason not to believe so, but by the chance we just came about, it's reality.
You don't actually have a right to live; you just prefer not to die. Someone else on the other hand might want to kill you regardless of how you feel about it, and who is to say that they're wrong? In the absence of absolute morality, power reigns supreme; the strong survive and the weak get exploited.
To answer what you've just said, I quote
Why? Because our life experiences show us that design is fueled and maintained by creativity. Humans always seek to find purpose and intent behind phenomena. That is a major role in applying the logic behind science--understanding how, why. We see rules that govern creation and ponder on where those laws originated. When humans create things, there is a set of rules used to create the design and final product. Why should it be any different in evaluating other seemingly ordered systems such as natural ones? Why shouldn't we extend the same concepts that we find with human creativity to other creations and think a designer is at hand? The issue is not whether you want to believe in God, but whether your logic extends to things that are not inherent to human creativity. Or do you expect different rules to apply to nature? That is no ID. Perhaps materialism.Why?
From a Christian perspective, it is called general revelation: Romans 1-2. It consists of revelation through nature, human history, and human nature.I heard this claim, and others like it, a thousand times over. But I've never heard just what it is that indicates a Creator: yes, nature is complex.
So what? Complexity implies design. That's what. It is very reasonable to expect any complexity to have been designed. That is what happens in our world when humans realize that when they need something to do tasks A, B, and C. They think of what is needed to make A, B, and C happen. They look at past and present data and observations and then try to predict what the future data will look like and how it will produce the results desired. It is a thought-out process. Careful attention is made to create order in a directed process. Cars don't get created by one looking at pieces of metal and insisting that over time, these pieces will form a car. Pieces of metal don't organize themselves into a car. Living things do follow that pattern either. It should be assumed that from what we see in human terms must extend to non human things. We don't just believe that things come into being without cause, intent, and design in the creative works of man. Why should we reject this observation in other areas of creation?But so what?
What are you referring to? Are we talking about the synthesized experiments involving the amino acids? Or is there something else? Do these complex systems constitute life or a single complete living cell? Are we talking about actual demonstrations or explanations? Please list some of them if you have access to the material. Then I can be clear on what you are saying.The theory of evolution aptly demonstrates that very complex systems can arise by purely mundane and undirected processes (whether this actually occurred is, for the moment, irrelevant).
I can understand what you mean, but if general revelation is the precursor to personal revelation of God (which it is from a Christian's POV), then when one denies the general revelation by attributing naturalistic/materialistic explanations only to nature, then they have denied the concept of ID, which also implies the denial of God as well. See how that works? The Bible says in Romans 1 and 2 that man has no excuse. He has been given enough information to know that God exists even without a Bible, a preacher, or even Christ. With that outlook, then everyone who wants to believe in naturalistic evolution do want to deny. It is not simply that they don't have a reason to believe because general revelation gives them that reason. Then add to that the human capacity to design. We humans realize that we don't get any thing done without a consciously directed attempt to achieve creativity. Creativity requires that energy is directed in specific ways to get the job done. If that energy is not directed, we don't get the job done. We have disorder (chaos). Even at an intellectual level, we can still see ID is more reasonable than naturalistic evolution since man must use his intelligence to figure how to direct that energy to achieve creativity. Why don't we apply that logic to other systems?Perhaps, but it's not so much that people don't want to conclude a deity, but that people see no reason to conclude a deity (any more than they see a reason to conclude, ghosts, fairies, and elves).
That is what they are supposed to do, but this is not always the case. A perfect example is evolution. If it is all about science based upon information, then abiogenesis is not tenable and so are transitional forms and even natural selection. Given these examples, then why is evolution treated as if it is fact by many secularist scientists? My suspicion is that there are personal agendas involved in keeping evolutionary theory alive--namely the advancement of secularism to the spite of God. I think that their investment into their materialistic beliefs are more important to uphold than what the data reveals to them. It would be no different than accusations of Christians and other religious people holding onto their dogma. But this time, it is a non religious dogma; yet, it carries religious overtones.The scientific community drops theories if they become untenable, regardless of what we'd 'like' to be true.
I have already mentioned at least three, abiogensis was the first one. It is not observable in nature. It has no true backing since non living materials are not observed and tested to produce life. It is not reasonable to hold to that position under current scientific knowledge and human observation. Natural selection is another. It is not scientific in the way that evolutionist use it. Natural selection was proposed by Darwin as an engine by which evolution was manifested, but no such engine is seen in nature whereby a different class of organisms evolve from an existing one over the history of recorded by man. It does not explain a great many life forms that have existed or exist now. Evolution as defined and observed by scientist is the tendency of organisms to adapt to their environment only within their own species/kind/class. Organisms that do change actually revert to their normative once the environment that they adapted to is no longer dominant or prevalent. The tendency is to stay close to normative. The changes are never across the species/class level, meaning that humans will not evolve to produce another class of organism in the future that are not strictly humans. There is a genetic boundary that prevents this. The changes (variations) do not add any new information to DNA since DNA is fixed to a finite set of possible traits. The possible combinations of traits are fixed within the DNA. That is why birds remain birds, moths remain moths, etc. The observation that Darwin made only showed that preexisting genetic material that organisms have was the cause of the changes--not some new material added to the DNA whereby the change manifested itself. That is what science has shown through testing organisms that have a short life span over multitudes of generations. That is what we observe from human history as well. Humans have not been recorded as evolving into something other than humans. No extra fingers, no new body parts or loss of body parts to transform into a new class of organisms unless you want to argue that species is defined by an evolutionary model instead of a formal scientific model. I explained the evolutionist definition of species somewhere else.By all means, present us with this science.
I was referring to things that have been tested and are shown to be true and have become common knowledge. I didn't mean for you to take it that anything that a large group believes is inherently truthful. I will be more careful the next time when I speak. You should realize that much of the older beliefs were not based upon any scientific information or testing. People were ignorant of these things, even scientists themselves in some cases. They didn't have a lab to go in or a science journal that they could read. I don't think that technology was that important to them. I think that social issues and daily living were their priorities.It should also be noted that "common knowledge" is a poor substitute for actual knowledge: everyone knows that pre-Columbus civilisations thought the world was flat, but that is simply false (the West knew the Earth was round by the third century BCE). Everyone knows that heavier things fall faster, but that is also false (g=9.81ms[sup]-2[/sup], regardless of one's mass).
That is not to say that common knowledge is not true knowledge, which is what you are implying. It is not rubbish if what is common is also true. It is only rubbish when unverified or deviant information gets distributed to the masses and they don't check the sources or perhaps have a way of checking, thus allowing the specious information to spread unchecked or uncorrected. Perhaps a group of people who want to believe a false story will propagate it as truth, but that is not what I am presupposing. I am talking about scientific data that is already available to the common person that has been establish as factual and truthful.Common sense is useful in a pinch, but but rubbish at acquiring actual knowledge.
My fault for saying "right result". I do not mean that they get a favorable result to what they want to believe, but for what they predict should happen.A scientists hopes to get a result. A scientist plans her experiment, but she would be mad if she didn't design it to simulate actual events. Evolutionary biologists leave isolated populations and see how they've evolved, naturally, by themselves (some even speciate).
That was not abiogenesis that was performed. That was an attempt to demonstrate that it could happen. If it were actually abiogenesis, then the material should have formed life as the evolutionary theory suggests. Synthesizing amino acids does not constitute life or a single living cell. Amino acids are only a part of the development of cellular life. The combination of molecules is highly complex and requires very delicate conditions to exist in forming complex systems such as cells. Having amino acids does not constitute abiogenesis. You need to have all parts in the right amounts, and with the right conditions as a starting point before cellular life can exist. The complexity needed for single cells is not to be taken lightly. As I was reading, I found this partial quote to be very accurate of what I am trying to say.Again, just what science are you referring to? Abiogenesis has born astounding fruit since the famous Miller-Urey experiments. Indeed, a recent study has found 22 amino acids have formed by simulating prebiotic conditions and leaving it to stew (terrestrial life uses only 20).
You need the right amount of amino acids as well as other molecules to be arranged in the proper chains and then attach themselves in the right sequences with the right amount of energy directed on that process even before a single cell can be created....assembling the right parts in the right way at the right time and at the right place, while keeping out the wrong material, is simply insurmountable.
You are sounding like Richard Dawkins from "The Blind Watchmaker" when he said this: "Biology is the study of complicated things [that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose]." Emphasis: mine. I find that funny and a nice parallel.The logical error is in assuming they won't give up their presuppositions. Many people have been convinced by what looks like evidence of the supernatural: ghosts, angels, deities, etc.
Not only is it an assertion, it is factual. There exists supernatural phenomena. No, not all people who make claims of such are hallucinating from drugs or are out of their minds.No, you simply assert we have a non-physical aspect, a 'spirit'.
I don't need to observe yours to know that it exists. Have you experienced my experience with supernatural events to say that they didn't happen? Does the truthfulness of the event depend upon what you presume may not have happened? There are areas outside of the naturalistic and do not conform to naturalistic explanations or rules. There are spiritual laws that govern spiritual things apart from the naturalistic/materialistic. That is what I am trying to relay to you. Just because you haven't experienced these things says nothing for their authenticity. The logical error that you are making is again the idea of natural/physical phenomena as the source of all truth and reality. By definition, spiritual things are nonphysical and are not governed by the natural/physical rules. That alone should help you to see your error in reasoning from my perspective. If these things exist and don't conform to what you are so sure is the total source of reality (natural/physical events), then you will miss the point entirely in what I am saying. Your goal is to remove yourself from strictly naturalistic and materialistic philosophy. Open the door for the supernatural, or at least be willing to recognize that science and naturalism don't have all of the answers to life.Have you seen it? Have you observed* it in any way, shape, or form? Have you observed mine?
If you can't see something, it is going to be very difficult to test it scientifically. maybe we can create a spiritual lab.*Obviously, i mean 'observe' in the scientific sense.
No, I am saying that there is no such thing as "human" logic and "higher" logic. There is only logic.
Logic rests on the law of non-contradiction. Logic is essentially about avoiding contradictions in one's thought. Telling someone to abandon "human" logic is like telling them to accept contradictions into their thought.
That is what I am hearing.
eudaimonia,
Mark
That does not prevent conclusions from being drawn based upon experimentation already done by scientists. The evidence points heavily against it if we allow that complexity seems to be intelligently designed and is always organized, which requires some directed means and intention. Even amino acids can't be placed into chains to form proteins without some external information being applied to them that tells them to form bonds at certain locations in the molecule and then align in a chain as well as knowing how long the chain should be in order to produce the correct protein for the specific purpose. That doesn't happen without purpose and design. Without purpose and design, these amino acids would not form correctly and wold cause death to the cell or at least, deformity. Higher complexities demand ID. Whether the designer is thought to be God is irrelevant to this conclusion: intelligent design.A few things:
.
There is NO scientific conclusion on abiogenesis. So science offers no basis for proof of anything, in that department.
Actually it does. By observation, experience, and experimentation in the human realm, it is logical to conclude design to all things that have organization. Organized systems require design by implication. We see it every day in our personal lives. Therefore, it is not far fetched to apply it to all complex entities that we observe in the material realm. If you believe in order only, then I can see your point. Order does not require information, therefore intelligence as an input; however, organization does. Christians believe that God organized all matter to conform to His given laws, which you will argue that are not of God, but are in some way either eternal or naturalistic with no purpose intended.People are designers, so the things we make are often designed. But that says nothing about the necessity for design as the foundation for the universe.
.I dont have any presuppositions about this. I'd be happy to part with my provisional conclusions given any sort of convincing evidence, objective OR subjective.
Yes, because I have experience, interaction, and knowledge of God which validates my position. It is not as if I am just going by some wishful thinking. There is evidence for supernatural. Natural is not everything. You can see most of the natural, but it is not all there is in this world, or should I say, reality. For you, I suppose that it is since your frame is in other realms--namely materialistic.The question for you is: are you permanently attached to your presuppositions about God and his role in the world.
Well, let's make sure that we understand each other. I am not advocating that we automatically jump to a supernatural explanation just because we can't explain it; rather, that we not prevent the possibility. And, when we are confronted with problems in explaining things limited to naturalistic/materialistic philosophies, we don't get trapped into having to have an answer in those realms. That is what is suffocating you and others at the moment. I don't have that issue since I am open to a non supernatural explanation but ultimately believe that God has sovereignty over everything. I am more free to be open with both the natural and supernatural. If given a choice between the two, I will take side with God being the designer and not purposeless undirected processes. I see cause and effect built into reality; so, I wisely (IMO) allow for it to predominate what I conclude. I believe in consistency. If I see a designer in cars, airplanes, computers, and mouse traps, then I will argue that it extends across the board. It does not make much sense to attribute intelligent design to man made things and then abort that concept to things much more complex that anything that man has ever made. Do you understand my position more clearly?Yes, the soul, morality, conscience ARE part of our humanity. But that doesnt mean they necessarily have a supernatural basis. I do not deny them.
I am not sure if you subscribe to Darwinism, but if you do, then this can't be. Non materialistic aspects are not materialistic. Your mistake it to apply the same set of laws to everything when it is clear that there is a line of demarcation in the two. Material things don't hold information like the mind does, for example. You should rethink this some more. Is there a law that has been verified as creating information from materials? The conscience also generates information. That is what helps us to discern when some thing seems to be wrong or right. The ability to be moral is also embedded in our conscience. These are information rich and are not byproducts of material, which have no capacity for information. There is intelligence in the presence of information. Materials don't have information and don't form information.Just as life and intelligence emerge from highly organized matter, spirit emerges from the natural world, as a property of nature. I dont deny spirit at all.
I accept that as your position, although I disagree.Matter -> life -> intelligence -> soul. It seems entirely plausible that this is a natural process.
I concur, but with a caveat: don't expect science to answer non material and non naturalistic issues. Science was not built for exploring spiritual, and metaphysical constructs. Let's keep the door open for non natural/non material causes. Note that I didn't use supernatural this time to purposely deflect the God issue.Dont let the infancy of our natural sciences set limits on what might be known in the future.
I can understand why? You are stymied by the possible alternative: supernatural. Supernatural means would be too convenient for you, IMO, since there needs not to be any science involved in determining its veracity. There would be the absence of materialism to ground yourself on. Simple explanations may be too easy to swallow. God made it; so, it is. If God did it, then we don't need to know the details in order to believe it. We don't even need to understand it in terms of knowing the cause. We could, of course, pursue the hows and whys on an intellectual and theological basis.On the other hand, there might be a God who just gave us a soul, but I have no basis for that belief.
A moral statement or code that holds true in all situations for all peoples. They do not, however, exist.First ask, what is moral absolute?
That is a reality for all of us. Doesn't mean God exists, though. Doesn't mean objective morality is true, either.To answer your question if God exists, I know He does. I will know the truth when I die. That's when you find out as well. You aren't going to live forever. Just imagine one day, you will no longer be alive. You will not see your kids, you won't see your wife, nothing at all.
No one deserves infinite punishment, regardless of what finite crimes they have committed in this life.This world is full of pain, suffering, and disease. Why? I know why. I am not afraid to die. Absolute non-existence is a nihilistic lie at best, and not true. I am not trying to say atheists will go to Hell. However, there are plenty of people that do deserve to go there. To say otherwise, you are lying to yourself and others.
If a man made absolutely no effort to make himself known, why would I think he existed? It's God's own fault that we don't think he exists: he hides himself from us for his own inscrutable reasons (or so you claim), and so how can you blame us for not believing in him? We believe what can be justified, and neither God, nor unicorns, nor fairies, have been justified.How would you feel if your child came up to you and said "Daddy, your not my dad. I hate you. You aren't my true dad, I wish you didn't exist." Though you may not saying this about God, this is what he feels when people say they don't believe in Him, or blasphemy him.
Because to do so is a logical fallacy. Just because one complex thing is designed, doesn't mean all complex things are designed.Why? Because our life experiences show us that design is fueled and maintained by creativity. Humans always seek to find purpose and intent behind phenomena. That is a major role in applying the logic behind science--understanding how, why. We see rules that govern creation and ponder on where those laws originated. When humans create things, there is a set of rules used to create the design and final product. Why should it be any different in evaluating other seemingly ordered systems such as natural ones? Why shouldn't we extend the same concepts that we find with human creativity to other creations and think a designer is at hand?
None of which indicate a designer. See above.From a Christian perspective, it is called general revelation: Romans 1-2. It consists of revelation through nature, human history, and human nature.
Nature: the complexity, laws, and designs thereof.
The evidence that Jesus ever existed is scant indeed, and his resurrection is only recorded in the internally inconsistent texts of the NT, written decades after the alleged events. This hardly points to a creator.Human history: the accumulation of events such as Jesus death and resurrection to save fallen man as well as prophetic events unfolding.
I don't suppose you can show me this 'spirit'?Human nature: the internal aspects of every human--namely conscience, which gives us a sense of morality, judgment, and justice. The mind, which allows us to be rational beings. The spirit which allows us to interface with God and discern His presence.
No, it doesn't. There are many complex things in this world which we know to be formed by mundane processes: we know, for instance, that biological life to be the result of 3.5 billion years of evolutionSo what? Complexity implies design.
Unless you can justify that assumption, your logic crumples beneath it.Cars don't get created by one looking at pieces of metal and insisting that over time, these pieces will form a car. Pieces of metal don't organize themselves into a car. Living things do follow that pattern either. It should be assumed that from what we see in human terms must extend to non human things.
I am saying that complex systems (e.g., our cardiopulmonary system) arose by evolution. I am not talking about abiogenesis.What are you referring to? Are we talking about the synthesized experiments involving the amino acids? Or is there something else? Do these complex systems constitute life or a single complete living cell? Are we talking about actual demonstrations or explanations? Please list some of them if you have access to the material. Then I can be clear on what you are saying.
No. First, amino acids can and do form monomers (and, in turn, long polypeptide chains). The order in which they do this is completely random: there is no preference for one over another. But the point is that some of these chains just so happen to be self-replicating, and some aren't. It isn't hard to see that the self-replicating are going to quickly overpopulate the non-self-replicating ones. There is no such thing as 'information', external or otherwise.Before I was about to post this, I did read some information about chaos (disorder), order, and organization that I think would explain what you are speaking of. In the case of amino acids, they were ordered--meaning that they were able to be formed from simple processes whereby energy is not necessarily directed in a process. That is not considered complex. Over 100 different types of amino acids have been found in meteorites that have impacted the earth. They are not so difficult to be produced. Now, when we get to proteins--complex chains of amino acids attached by other bonds, we have a completely different situation. The amino acids are ordered in the protein molecule since the amino acids must be placed in certain arrangements (chains) and attached by bonds in such a way as to form a chain. There is a specific sequence that these chains must conform to in order to produce the protein molecule. That is, they must be organized into their form. Ordered structures are not random, but they lack complexity whereas organized structures (also not random) require a specific plan to be formed. An organized system must be assembled element by element according to some kind of map or instruction with information that is external to the system. Neither ordered systems or organized systems are random, but the simpler type (ordered) lacks in complexity and some type of blueprint.
You can use technical vocabulary if it makes things easier for you. I'm sure I'll understand.I am trying to explain this in laymen terms. Hopefully I didn't mess it up. If it is not clear, I will try to explain it some other way or with perhaps different vocabulary.
Yes. Fortunately, that's not what we do, so your point is moot.I can understand what you mean, but if general revelation is the precursor to personal revelation of God (which it is from a Christian's POV), then when one denies the general revelation by attributing naturalistic/materialistic explanations only to nature, then they have denied the concept of ID, which also implies the denial of God as well. See how that works?
Circular logic: you conclude they want to deny because the Bible (indirectly) says so. But you only believe in the Bible because you believe in God: if you didn't believe in God, you wouldn't listen to what the Bible said.The Bible says in Romans 1 and 2 that man has no excuse. He has been given enough information to know that God exists even without a Bible, a preacher, or even Christ. With that outlook, then everyone who wants to believe in naturalistic evolution do want to deny.
Allegedly. Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it's true.It is not simply that they don't have a reason to believe because general revelation gives them that reason.
Nope: disorder is only inevitable in a closed system, which the Earth is not. Moreover, chaos is completely unrelated to disorder: you say you've read up on it, but I am beginning to have my doubts that you have.If that energy is not directed, we don't get the job done. We have disorder (chaos).
And the same applies to gods: they are equally grounded in mythology, and were equally created to explain the unknown. Recall Thor was the Nordic cause of thunder.Elves and fairies are historically grounded in mythology, which sought to explain the unknown or were simply created perhaps for amusement. Ghosts are also not based upon reality, but there are cases where the term means spirit. In that sense, there is a basis for them.
Because, for all intents and purposes, it is: the theories of common descent and abiogenesis are supported by so much evidence that they have been proven by all reasonable doubt. We have more evidence for evolution than we do for general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or atomic theory.That is what they are supposed to do, but this is not always the case. A perfect example is evolution. If it is all about science based upon information, then abiogenesis is not tenable and so are transitional forms and even natural selection. Given these examples, then why is evolution treated as if it is fact by many secularist scientists?
On the contrary, there are many experiments which show how abiogenesis could have occurred. For example, the famous Miller-Urey experiments simulated Earth's prebiotic conditions, and produce a myriad of amino acids in a relatively very short period of time. Indeed, just last year, scientists discovered even more amino acids in vials left over from the original Miller-Urey experiments, this time with 22 amino acids (modern life only uses 20).I have already mentioned at least three, abiogensis was the first one. It is not observable in nature. It has no true backing since non living materials are not observed and tested to produce life. It is not reasonable to hold to that position under current scientific knowledge and human observation.
No. The common creationists misunderstanding is that we say one species evolves into another, pre-existing species (e.g., giraffes to walruses). This is not the case: the descendants of giraffes will always be giraffes. It's just that their descendants will split into a myriad of groups that cannot interbreed: new species.Natural selection is another. It is not scientific in the way that evolutionist use it. Natural selection was proposed by Darwin as an engine by which evolution was manifested, but no such engine is seen in nature whereby a different class of organisms evolve from an existing one over the history of recorded by man. It does not explain a great many life forms that have existed or exist now. Evolution as defined and observed by scientist is the tendency of organisms to adapt to their environment only within their own species/kind/class.
Source?Organisms that do change actually revert to their normative once the environment that they adapted to is no longer dominant or prevalent. The tendency is to stay close to normative.
Well of course not. No evolutionists has ever proposed this.The changes are never across the species/class level, meaning that humans will not evolve to produce another class of organism in the future that are not strictly humans.
And what boundary is this?There is a genetic boundary that prevents this.
Nope. New information can be added to DNA all the time, from viral infection to chiasmata formation. Point insertion mutations insert individual nucleotides or even entire codons into DNA, physically increasing the length of DNA, and thereby adding information to it (inasmuch as 'information' has any meaning at all when it comes to genetics).The changes (variations) do not add any new information to DNA since DNA is fixed to a finite set of possible traits.
And yet you turn around and fly in the face of the same established scientific knowledge you're upholding here. Which is it?I was referring to things that have been tested and are shown to be true and have become common knowledge. I didn't mean for you to take it that anything that a large group believes is inherently truthful. I will be more careful the next time when I speak. You should realize that much of the older beliefs were not based upon any scientific information or testing. People were ignorant of these things, even scientists themselves in some cases. They didn't have a lab to go in or a science journal that they could read. I don't think that technology was that important to them. I think that social issues and daily living were their priorities.
Which is the danger of Creationism: it appeals to the masses, mascaraing as science when it is in fact no such thing. Scientists can see it for what it is, since they have experience in what is actually science. The layman, however, does not, and so cannot.That is not to say that common knowledge is not true knowledge, which is what you are implying. It is not rubbish if what is common is also true. It is only rubbish when unverified or deviant information gets distributed to the masses and they don't check the sources or perhaps have a way of checking, thus allowing the specious information to spread unchecked or uncorrected.
In other words, evolution, abiogenesis, a 4.5 billion year old Earth, the Big Bang, etc. Oh, wait, no, you selectively reject such theories if they contradict your religious beliefs.Perhaps a group of people who want to believe a false story will propagate it as truth, but that is not what I am presupposing. I am talking about scientific data that is already available to the common person that has been establish as factual and truthful.
Then you are using the term in a very unscientific way. Two organisms are in different species if they cannot interbreed to yield fertile offspring. The taxon 'bird' contains a great many species, but the taxon 'dog' is a species unto itself.I think that I should make sure that you understand the terms that I am using because I feel that you are using them in a different sense than I am. Species refers to organisms of the same kind/group/class. For example all birds are a species as well as all dogs.
Not yet. But speciation (where one species evolves into two, mutually unbreedable, species)Adaptations to environments don't change the qualities of theses groups overall. They still have the same general characteristics regardless of their variation. That is because of a finite combinations of information in DNA. A Great Dane and a Hound are still dogs. They are not separate species.
Darwin suggested no such thing: the whole point of evolution is that things are descended from previous things. All dogs are descended from a proto-dog species (the wolf). All descendants of dogs will also be dogs. All descendants of humans will also be human.They didn't evolve across species as Darwin would argue and produce a non dog.
Correct, and we have seen this occur countless times. A population of fruit flies has evolved into two separate species of fruit fly.Evolution theory holds that if one group of organisms is divided into two groups and these two groups are allowed to separate whereby they can no longer breed, speciation will occur if given enough time since the gene pools will change quite dramatically and create separate independent genetic lineages called species.
Which is precisely what we would predict to happen: the fruit flies will always be fruit flies. It's just that one group of fruit fly has traits and attributes the other does not.The problem is that the gene pool is fixed with DNA since no new data is added to it (another problem with evolution). The worst that could happen is that we get another of the same group/kind/class.
No, it is not.Now lets deal with the term evolution. Evolution is any general change that is implied to improve something.
Because that isn't how evolution works! That isn't what evolution predicts, it isn't what Darwin said, and it isn't what we say today. Please, pick up a book.That can be interpreted to include Darwin's view or a ID's view. The area of controversy is in how far evolution goes in terms of life and its related processes. Does it create new species or does it remain localized to a certain group/class. Creationist and ID advocates will argue the latter. Such examples as Darwin's finches, peppered moths, and other inter-species changes are evolutionary within a kind which I refer to as variations. At no point do the changes of such examples create any new kind/species/class. They are all variations of the same kind/class/group. Also note that those changes are environmental responses only! There is no new genetic material that is being created that makes them evolve across their kind/class/group.
I never said it was.That was not abiogenesis that was performed.
Which is another common creationist mistake: assuming that the first cells would have to be as complex as their modern counterparts. We can create today what are thought to be prebiotic life: micelles.That was an attempt to demonstrate that it could happen. If it were actually abiogenesis, then the material should have formed life as the evolutionary theory suggests. Synthesizing amino acids does not constitute life or a single living cell. Amino acids are only a part of the development of cellular life. The combination of molecules is highly complex and requires very delicate conditions to exist in forming complex systems such as cells. Having amino acids does not constitute abiogenesis. You need to have all parts in the right amounts, and with the right conditions as a starting point before cellular life can exist. The complexity needed for single cells is not to be taken lightly.
You might want to read up some more. This Creationist myth has long since been debunked.Also, we don't know what the conditions were when life first began; so, it is purely guesswork as to what chemicals, their concentrations, amounts, and environmental conditions that were present under the assumed evolutionary model. Having amino acids is an essential step, but it is not isolated from all of the other steps and conditions necessary at precisely the right time. As I understand, these amino acids cannot form in the presence of free oxygen since the oxygen would oxidize them, resulting in their destruction. There is no way of knowing if there were any free oxygen or not or any of the other chemicals that evolutionary scientist postulate. For all we know, there could have been other chemicals present that would destroy any attempt to form complex molecules from a "primordial soup".
Oh please, you really think this has anything to do with your god? The arrogance is astounding, but pales to the hypocrisy: you accuse us of dogmatically sticking to archaic and out-moded beliefs!I think that you get my point. I am talking about the ones that have taken their position and still believe. I know that some people become convinced, but not everyone. Most don't. Most stay hinged to their materialistic position and will seek to see everything in a materialistic framework. That is one of the reasons that evolutionist and secularist have no problem explaining everything without God. It is their motive since their frame of logic is from materialism. What else do we expect?
But it's funny how not one, not one, of these alleged supernatural phenomena have actually been justified.Not only is it an assertion, it is factual. There exists supernatural phenomena. No, not all people who make claims of such are hallucinating from drugs or are out of their minds.
No. But you claim something exists, and so the onus is on your to justify those claims.I don't need to observe yours to know that it exists. Have you experienced my experience with supernatural events to say that they didn't happen? Does the truthfulness of the event depend upon what you presume may not have happened?
Yes, I get that. What I'm asking for is justification: its all very well claiming something is true, but until you justify those claims, why should I believe you?There are areas outside of the naturalistic and do not conform to naturalistic explanations or rules. There are spiritual laws that govern spiritual things apart from the naturalistic/materialistic. That is what I am trying to relay to you.
I have made no such assumption.Just because you haven't experienced these things says nothing for their authenticity. The logical error that you are making is again the idea of natural/physical phenomena as the source of all truth and reality.
You presume that I have not. The fact remains that, if something can have some observable effect on us, then it falls within the realm of scientific scrutiny. If God can interact with the world (e.g., by parting the Red Sea), then he falls under the umbrella of science. If spirits exist and can be observed (in the scientific sense), then they are subject to scientific scrutiny.By definition, spiritual things are nonphysical and are not governed by the natural/physical rules. That alone should help you to see your error in reasoning from my perspective. If these things exist and don't conform to what you are so sure is the total source of reality (natural/physical events), then you will miss the point entirely in what I am saying. Your goal is to remove yourself from strictly naturalistic and materialistic philosophy. Open the door for the supernatural, or at least be willing to recognize that science and naturalism don't have all of the answers to life.
Look at my post again: by 'observe in the scientific sense', I was distinguishing between the colloquial observation (seeing with your own eyes) and the scientific observation (which is a more general version of the colloquial; the neutrinos have been observed scientifically, but not colloquially).If you can't see something, it is going to be very difficult to test it scientifically. maybe we can create a spiritual lab.If you assume that what you see is what you get, then you will only see natural things and explain by natural means.
Secularism is not the rejection of religion, but rather the separation of religious presupposition from politics, science, etc. Secular science can still conclude the existence of some supernatural thing or other, it's just that it doesn't presuppose its existence because of some religious backing.If you are sure that seeing things validates them and not seeing things invalidates them, then you are trapped into natural phenomena. Many secularist think that science must be able to explain everything. The funny thing that I see is that once the scientific world became more secular, they started to dismiss the possibility for supernatural explanations.
Allegedly. You have shown me absolutely nothing that cannot be explained by science. Even morality and conciousness have scientific explanations, and you have not shown that the mind or the spirit even exist.Since morality, consciousness, mind, and spirit are not under naturalistic laws, one should not expect them to be tested in the same way under a scientific method. Understand that the scientific method is a limited tool. It has limited scope in dealing with reality.
On the contrary, you need to understand what science actually is, and get over your hangup with this whole 'science is a materialistic conspiracy to remove God'.Even as recent as 100 years ago, the science world was more open to accepting that they didn't know something and were more apt to leave the door open for supernatural explanations. If you are depending upon science to give you all of the answers, then you will forever be lacking in your pursuit of truth. Science is a process and discipline made by humans and is limited in explaining the supernatural, let alone the natural. It does not possess the tools to deal with non naturalistic processes and concepts. You must get past this important barrier.
Why is it nonsense?Ah, the tired old nonsense about "absolute morality".
I can agree to a point if we are talking strictly about human based morality, which is based upon situations and societies where the morals are determined by who has the most power or persuasion to control the ideas of what morality will encompass. Morals come from God. He ingrained them within our mind and consciousness so that we can have a sense of right and wrong concerning His laws. Even if there were no society or people near us, we would still have a sense of morality. It is not dependent upon society or organization; however, it is influenced by them, and in many cases, it is substituted for God's morals. In that case, they have taken the place of God.Morality is a cultural product, closely tied to the needs and demands of social coexistence. As such, it isn't absolute, but neither is it arbitrary, as societies can only work in a certain fashion. Thus, you'll find a large amount of "basic" premises that pretty much all cultures share - AND a whole bunch of cultural peculiarities that differ greatly from country to country.
If God decreed it, we shouldn't be doing it anyways, even if we could claim ignorance to the reason or think that it is arbitrary. That would not change it to amoral or make it arbitrary. It is possible to do a moral action for the wrong reason. Nothing that God does is arbitrary. He has wisdom to know that it shouldn't be done regardless of what you or I believe or reason.In fact, adding God to the picture doesn't change anything about that: if killing your neighbour is only wrong because God decreed it thus, then the rule would be utterly arbitrary, born from whim - and thus, amoral.
Actually it would be both. God said it and then explained why. God doesn't tell us something without there being wisdom behind it, which we most often could not see anyways. That is why He tell us--so that we can avoid the consequences that He sees. He would rather that we avoid the problem altogether regardless of what we think.If, however, God decreed it because He was aware of the disruptive nature of such deeds - then the reason why killing is immoral is NOT "because God said so", but "because it is disruptive to society".
It's more complicated than that - and that is mostly due to cultural constructs such as language. Check the next paragraph for an explanation of what I mean.Do you not believe that certain acts are absolutely right or wrong?
The very term "murder" already connotates its wrongness - it's "unlawful killing" by default. The problem, however, lies in determining what can be called murder and what cannot. Language provides us with clear-cut categorizations - life does not.Is murder not always wrong?
Practicability - if you hurt too many people, chances are that they'll band together and punish you for it. That's how all social coexistence starts, pretty much: with the realization that cooperation may be advantageous to you, and compromise a good price to pay for it.If absolutes don't exist, then you should have no reason to complain that something is wrong or immoral. If things are relative, then again, why should you be able to declare something wrong or immoral? Is there something in between absolute and relative that would allow your morals to judge mine?
"Human-based morality" is the only kind you'll find - even if various cultures throughout history have tried to attribute their distinctive idiosyncrasies to their deities. How do I know? Because their God(s) always thought the way they did, according to the material circumstances of their existence.I can agree to a point if we are talking strictly about human based morality, which is based upon situations and societies where the morals are determined by who has the most power or persuasion to control the ideas of what morality will encompass.
*sigh*Morals come from God. He ingrained them within our mind and consciousness so that we can have a sense of right and wrong concerning His laws. Even if there were no society or people near us, we would still have a sense of morality. It is not dependent upon society or organization; however, it is influenced by them, and in many cases, it is substituted for God's morals. In that case, they have taken the place of God.
1. Which set of the ten commandments?There are some basic moral actions that are known and understood by everyone such as the Ten Commandments while there are others that are conditional to that person and God.
OK.It's more complicated than that - and that is mostly due to cultural constructs such as language. Check the next paragraph for an explanation of what I mean.
The point is that there is a clear cut standard--an absolute, objective standard to follow. The interpretation is another story; but that doesn't change the standard.The very term "murder" already connotates its wrongness - it's "unlawful killing" by default. The problem, however, lies in determining what can be called murder and what cannot. Language provides us with clear-cut categorizations - life does not.
War situations are not the same as everyday life among social groups. But, let's use the war example. If one is simply defending their territory, assuming that is theirs, then it is not murder; but, if one army kills those who have surrendered after they beg for mercy of their lives, then we have an issue of murder. We can argue if the situation is murder or not, but that would be a non issue if we didn't have the standard to begin with.Killing a member of another tribe or nation might earn you a medal or an epic poem with your own folks, but might be considered murder by the enemy tribe or nation, if you happened to fall into their hands. So, which one is it? Where lies the thin red line between a war hero and a ruthless killer?
We are not arguing simplicity, rather the application of an absolute standard whereby everyone is obliged to follow. I think that you are thinking that since not every culture, nation, or group agrees on a single set of morals, that is an indication that there is no objective set at all. You would be incorrect from my POV.In the 20th century, people tried to put up some binding code of conduct in the form of the Geneva conventions, but even thus, things are not always as simple as they seem.
Circumstances do determine which morals are most important at any time. There are often conflicting moral obligations in events. Nevertheless, there must be some standard to work with or we become situational practitioners of morality. We become reduced to justifying our behavior solely upon what we feel we can personally justify. That is the situation that I am trying to get you to see that must be avoided. It can't be avoided if society is the sole source of our morality. If there isn't a more objective law to govern us, then we are truly moral relative beings.Practicability - if you hurt too many people, chances are that they'll band together and punish you for it. That's how all social coexistence starts, pretty much: with the realization that cooperation may be advantageous to you, and compromise a good price to pay for it.
Ethics are not some high and mighty words from above - they are as closely tied to the material circumstances and practical restraints of life as, say, seeking food when you are hungry.
That certainly does not prove your point. All of their thoughts were not always correct, but most did think that morals were from something greater than them and more objective than what they could do by themselves. This is not coincidental because Christians believe that God created us with the capacity to perceive these things. That is part of the function of our conscience and spirit/soul. You accredit the morality to human invention, but I see it as coming from God to help guide humanity. We don't think that murder is wrong because we have made a social declaration. We think that it is wrong because our conscience speaks to us which compels us to legislate such behavior in our societies and compels us to legislate ourselves. The breakdown in morals is a result of not following our conscience and obeying God's objective standards."Human-based morality" is the only kind you'll find - even if various cultures throughout history have tried to attribute their distinctive idiosyncrasies to their deities. How do I know? Because their God(s) always thought the way they did, according to the material circumstances of their existence.
I do, but you are dealing within a materialistic realm whereas I am not confined to mateirals. I understand your materialistic explanations and they make good sense in that context; but, I am dealing with that, but in context of there being an objective lawgiver that also gives man the capacity to discern his moral laws. What do you think will happen to humans isolated from laws of societies and not influenced to murder? Do you feel that people will still be able to discern that murder is wrong?*sigh*
You really don't understand, do you?
All of them except the Sabbath, which was mandated to Israel specifically. The other ones apply to all humans. Our conscience does make us aware of these commandments; unfortunately, some of us suppress them or vow to ignore them for our own personal ones. There are also those who do get the concepts but apply them to things that God forbids. It is not coincidental that a majority of people throughout known history seem to gravitate around these commandments, even if they have been distorted in many cases.1. Which set of the ten commandments?
I agree although I could make a weak case for the Sabbath. The case of not boiling the kid in milk is still covered under thou shalt not murder. As I have stated, absolute refers to the fact that God gave the commandments. From God's perspective, these are absolute and binding to everyone. They are absolute because God mandates them. It is not whether every single human agrees with that or not, or if they agree with the commandments individually. It is all about where the laws came from and their relevance to us.2. I doubt that culture-specific commandments such as "do not boil a kid in its mother's milk" or even "remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy" are either universal or absolute. In fact, I can say with some confidence that they are neither.
It is not coincidental, which is my assertion. There is some ingrained capacity to sense this. The materialistic part is not the reason alone. I assert that if the materialism is taken away, there would still be a conscience to convict them to not murder, steal, etc. Now, I say this with the understanding that not every single human will act on that knowledge, but the majority will. Some people don't follow such conscious guidance and will do evil anyways.3. The fact that virtually every culture exhibits rules that prohibit certain forms of killing and regulate the distribution of goods does not point to a divine source, but is bound to the material necessities of social coexistence. There's nothing particularly mysterious about it: a group that lacked such prohibitions would quickly disintegrate, never rising to the level of even the most primitive society.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?