I got your point. I just don't think the thinking behind it is satisfactory. JMHO.
I'm not sure what more would be required, but alright.
Yes, but we see even more simple examples prior to that which do not have the complexity only like 60 million years earlier.
That's still quite a bit more than half a million. How much time do you think is required for a lifeform that is very generalized and simple, bristling with as yet unformed potential, to develop into more refined forms?
You are rather confusing me. ON one hand you say that we discover these behaviors and on the other you say we develop them. Am I missing something here?
We develop the behaviors and interactions, then we discover truths about the best ones.
Right, but they do think about survival and what it takes for them individually and behaviors to assure that.
Yes, on some level I imagine most lifeforms are aware of what they need to survive.
That does not appear to be the case, no. That was my point - intellect is a handy trait for survival, but its not a vital one. At least not for some living things.
So God created the universe with exact fine tuned parameters to assure the existence of the universe and life, but this is not evidence to you.
That the universe is the way it is does not, for me, constitute evidence that it was supernaturally created. Not in and of itself.
You would rather see something unorganized and senseless? What would you want to see that would point to God?
It's not about what I
want or would rather see - what I
do see does not point to the supernatural. If I could see miraculous violations of the natural laws we observe, that would at least be evidence that the supernatural exists.
Go could do anything true, but why would He? Why not make a world that we can explore and learn about. Don't you think it would be boring if we were just plopped down in a universe that we could not make sense of and which had no laws or rules to learn?
It could still have laws and rules to learn - my point is that we do not observe violations of these laws and rules. Life exists in accordance with them, not in violation of them. If life existed in violation of all universal law, I imagine that many people would be holding that up as proof positive that we are specially created and that we exist by the will of a supernatural force that supersedes natural law.
Why? What purpose would that provide?
It would be a powerful testament to the existence of the supernatural, and almost certainly evidence that the supernatural was interested in the existence of life. A stronger testament than a universe where the supernatural is not evidently required for the continuous function and existence of life.
So you think it is mundane that we exist and that the universe is such that we can discover and learn about it using abstract mathematical equations that work!
Mundane only in the sense that it is not supernatural. I think things can be mind-blowingly wonderful without being magic.
So what do you attribute those precise parameters to?
I haven't the foggiest idea. I'm not sure what specific parameters you are referring to - some of the stuff I read about physics and gravity is over my head. I couldn't begin to tell you why they are as they are, or what ramifications them being different would have on life. Only that their current state does not lead me to conclude that 'only God could have done it.'
I tend to think that life will find a way to thrive. In terms of just the Earth, there is a huge variety of environments on our planet, and they have evidently changed throughout time. Life thrives everywhere that it can, even at depths in the sea where a human would instantly cease to be from the pressure. Every living thing on Earth spent billions of years settling into their niches - of course it seems cushy and comfortable and perfectly formed to us.
Need is not necessary. However, if God wanted us to know Him through the Universe it seems to be a perfect way to do it.
I think the scenarios I mention above would do the job better.
That outlook is only because you accept things that you don't know or have evidence for within your worldview. You have no explanation why life is on earth or that earth is perfect for life. You accept it even though it could have had to be God behind it.
I do, actually. God
could still really be responsible, though I do not see any reason to come to that conclusion. There may be many questions about existence to which I am forced to answer, truthfully, 'I don't know.' I don't leap directly to 'therefore it must be God,' however. I'm fine with 'I don't know' until I get further information.
We can observe that 2+2=4. We can not observe that dying for another is noble or moral.
Sure we can. We look at someone making the sacrifice, we evaluate their reasons, we decide whether it was noble or not.
What evidence and what reason?
Any evidence or reason. If I hold a position based on faith that is incorrect, and put faith above reason and evidence, then I've left myself with no way to correct my position. If I cared at all about whether or not my beliefs were true, then that would be a sorry state of affairs.
But you don't agree.
It is not due to hurt feelings. It is God's holiness. His perfection.
What's so perfect about Him that, by comparrison, all humans deserve eternal torment?
So what I am conferring from your stance is that you will not worship God even if He exists?
As I said, I would have many questions I'd want answered before taking any further steps. The fact of His existence, while it would certainly be incredible, would not alone compel worship from me. There are many things that exist which I do not worship.
I think you missed my question: Do you believe we have free will?
I did respond - it appears to have been accidentally folded into your previous post. What you asked was:
Oncedeceived said:
I want to ask you something here. Do you agree that most evolutionary traits are universally stable and can be seen running through the entire current species? I also want to ask if you believe in free will.
My response:
Golden Yak said:
Depends on what you mean by universally stable traits. For the most part, I see humans as generally comparable physically and mentally, and that differences in culture are the main reason for different behavior. And yes, I do believe in free will.
