SHEEPEOPLE

[Michael]

I did. You didn't address my question.

Yes I did.

http://disinfo.com/2011/07/our-brains-neurons-look-exactly-like-the-structure-of-the-universe/

 

[Michael]

"A" for effort for sure, and while much appreciated, it all suggests that the tail (science) can wag the dog (God)...which if we are going to consider truth at all should not be entertained.

I think the key issue is that science is actually more liberal in terms of it's use of 'evidence' than most atheists like to admit. Most atheists tend to apply a purely 100 percent empirical standard toward the topic of God, and tend to misrepresent the empirical method as the 'scientific' method. In reality the scientific method does *not* require demonstrated cause/effect relationships. Those relationships are often assumed in the scientific method, much to the dismay of atheists.

 

[dlamberth]

If a man tells you he has been picked up like a kitten by its mother and carried to safety by God who made himself known to him personally, and it changed his life from hopelessness to hope, from doubt to knowing...you do not have to believe him, and that says something of you. But if a hundred say the same, and then a million, and then a million per generation...and still you don't believe it, then that too, says something about you.

What's so wonderful and a true, true blessing is that God's reach is so wide that Billions around the world in a large variety of spiritual paths are able to say the same. That they have been carried to safety by the one they worship who made Himself known to them personally and changed for life. I know I'm one of those who has been carried away and changed. And that says more about God than it does about you and I.


.

 

[Michael]

Define "life" in a manner that includes both the biology of this planet and a "living" universe.

Awareness as we understand it is sustained by/generated by currents that flow through specific structures of our form/brain, along with chemical reactions inside that form. Ditto for any macroscopic understanding of awareness. It need not be any fundamentally different at a macroscopic level. The currents that flow through spacetime leave a magnetic field signature in their wake which we can and do measure.

 

[Davian]

A universe that is forever changing and yet governed my laws that do not change.

Your laws?

 

[ScottA]

I think the key issue is that science is actually more liberal in terms of it's use of 'evidence' than most atheists like to admit. Most atheists tend to apply a purely 100 percent empirical standard toward the topic of God, and tend to misrepresent the empirical method as the 'scientific' method. In reality the scientific method does *not* require demonstrated cause/effect relationships. Those relationships are often assumed in the scientific method, much to the dismay of atheists.

Well put. Science is just an attempt to understand our world, and yet was not always so opposed to understanding our world as it fits into the greater scheme of things. Unfortunately, closing the circuit blocks out MOST of the causes of the effects they study. Their loss.

 

[Davian]

And this has to do with what, since he too is using those same finches that interbreed and produce fertile offspring and calling them separate species to support his false belief in evolution?

Do you feel that you are more qualified than Dr. Collins, or have better access to the evidence?

Unlike you I don't base my beliefs on what other Christians believe.

Do you think I am a Christian?

Unlike you I can look at the evidence and determine for myself if finches that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are the same species or not. Unlike you I don't need to ignore breed mating with breed producing new breeds and then classify everything in the fossil record as new species, instead of breeds - as per observation of the world around us.

Good strawman, but still doesn't make it anything other than a strawman.

Indeed, what you present is a straw-man.

 

[Davian]

This "spiritual discernment" - is it any different from guessing?

Seems to work better than <snip false dichotomy><snip straw-man>

If you are familiar with it, perhaps you can directly answer the question.

This "spiritual discernment" - is it any different from guessing? How does it work?

 

[Davian]

Yes, always changing but still never changing. Always evolving into something new, yet the laws of physics never change to meet these new evolutionary forms. We always hear talk of change - of something new - yet the laws of physics always remain the same. I feel I should clarify - the laws of physics - not peoples belief in theory they think is laws of physics.

"A physical law or scientific law "is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."[1] Physical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experimentsand observations over many years and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

These change or are updated as new data comes in.

What are you talking about?

 

[ScottA]

What's so wonderful and a true, true blessing is that God's reach is so wide that Billions around the world in a large variety of spiritual paths are able to say the same. That they have been carried to safety by the one they worship who made Himself known to them personally and changed for life. I know I'm one of those who has been carried away and changed. And that says more about God than it does about you and I.
.

Of course that speaks well of those of us who do not reject God. But my comment was a lament for those who even go well beyond their own rejection of God, to criticize out of an obvious and expressed hatred. Here we are on a "Christian" forum where it can only be looked at as active aggression. When Christians are aggressive, it is to bring good [news]. Granted, there are bound to be exceptions on both sides, and these few may only be those exceptions.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Your laws?

Not me, the laws of science like gravity, perpetual motion and stuff like that. My laws would be the laws of Moses. I doubt if I could do any better to explain them then I could explain scientific laws.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Of course that speaks well of those of us who do not reject God. But my comment was a lament for those who even go well beyond their own rejection of God, to criticize out of an obvious and expressed hatred. Here we are on a "Christian" forum where it can only be looked at as active aggression. When Christians are aggressive, it is to bring good [news]. Granted, there are bound to be exceptions on both sides, and these few may only be those exceptions.

God has a reason and a purpose for everything.

 

[Davian]

And yet we are not the ones searching for life on other planets - not that we deny the possibility either.

Who is this "we" that you speak for?

So what precautions have "you" taken, since it is those same aliens they blame for changing the genetics of mankind

You are already mentioned on the wiki page:

"The search for extraterrestrial intelligence is not an assertion that extraterrestrial intelligence exists or that intelligent extraterrestrials are visiting Earth, and conflating the two can be seen as a straw man argument."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_extraterrestrial_intelligence

so they can accept mankind's obvious intelligent design

Obvious to whom?

and not have to consider God instead?

Define "God" in a robust, testable manner.

But since NASA is the leader in this search for ET, shouldn't you be taking precautions yourself?

As above, the ETIs NASA and others are looking are not here yet.

Or isn't that strawman good for yourself too?

No, your straw-man is not good enough for me.

 

[Davian]

How many do you think has given their life for that belief?

I do not see what that has to do with the veracity of one's beliefs.

 

[Davian]

Here, let me Google too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

"Virtually all scholars who write on the subject accept that Jesus existed,"

So we can assume that those others are not informed scholars, since virtually all of those who are informed on the subject believe he existed. So which class do you fall in - the informed scholar class or the uninformed myth class?

The "historical Jesus" argument does not establish his alleged divinity.

He was just an apocalyptic preacher, an otherwise normal human being, no magic, or he was myth. Those are the two options you would have me pick from?

 

[Davian]

That is why people are "forever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2tim3:7

"Truth" as in "your religious opinion"?

 

[Davian]

Yes I did.

http://disinfo.com/2011/07/our-brains-neurons-look-exactly-like-the-structure-of-the-universe/

Look, it's a mermaid on Mars! Or is that Bigfoot?

 

[joshua 1 9]

"Truth" as in "your religious opinion"?

Truth as represented by Jesus.

 

[Davian]

I think the key issue is that science is actually more liberal in terms of it's use of 'evidence' than most atheists like to admit. Most atheists tend to apply a purely 100 percent empirical standard toward the topic of God, and tend to misrepresent the empirical method as the 'scientific' method. In reality the scientific method does *not* require demonstrated cause/effect relationships. Those relationships are often assumed in the scientific method, much to the dismay of atheists.

Atheism is a theological position on the existence of deities. Why must you always conflate them with astrophysicists, or imply that mainstream cosmology is incompatible with beliefs in gods, even the Christian God?

 

[ScottA]

This "spiritual discernment" - is it any different from guessing? How does it work?

You imply that it is conjecture, that it is only wishful thinking. "How it works", is not like that at all. First of all, we do not speak of what we "think", but of what we know. We are not throwing up questions in hope that the answers to unanswered questions will be good. That is NOT how it works.

What is missing in that perspective, is that in order to have "spiritual discernment" one has to have first received access to all the answers. When one looks and sees a mathematical or grammatical error, it is because he has learned. Spiritual discernment is no different. We have knowledge that supersedes that of the universe. And when we see error, we are not policing, not judging...we are learned, and have something to offer, something to bring to the table, something MORE.

But do not confuse that with the multitude of crazies that want in on it, but have NOTHING to offer. We do not apologize for ourselves, nor do we apologize for them. Welcome to the chaos. It is what it is. But don't, as they say, throw the baby out with the bath water.