Why do Gods

[ToHoldNothing]

The argumentation is the same. The random formation of biological structures. Attributing the origin of reality to chance. Whether it is through a pogo stick a lightning bolt or wherever opportunity may present itself, it has been something atheism always wanted to smuggle into the mainstream. The current belief in Darwinism is just that. It is not an outright proclamation. You dont just come out and say that the human body arranged itself randomly. You sugar coat it. But the usage of existing processes to explain the formation of a system like the human body is no different than the use of gravity to explain the how a wooden house can be built.

That man emerged through the random mutation of previous life forms is the same as man originating randomly, in less conspicuous terminology. As to not give one's self away. You still have all the integrated systems being built through random processes. Gradualism does not diminish this. The chance formation of a human through a gradual process is the same as the chance formation of the great pyramid through a chance process. Somehow, by endowing chance with gradualism, it 1ups. But chance is chance no matter in what form atheism attempts to put it, it is chance.

Natural selection is not an active agent. It just happens. If the pyramid is structurally unstable it will fall to the ground. Sections which are properly built and integrated will stand up. It isnt a force which comes and corrects the pyramid. It doesnt change the structure so that it will stand. The structure just stands if it is stable. Natural selection does not rationalize chance. In fact I doubt it has any significance in being stated other than to act as a cloak.

You clearly don't understand evolution, imho; I'm not even a science major and I think I have a more informed understanding of the subject than you appear to have gotten from Answers in Genesis or such rubbish. You seem to vastly misunderstand the idea of randomness within a scientific context as opposed to randomness that is in a mathematical context. As I said before, scientific randomness is unpredictable, but not without some guiding principle, even if it's not necessarily directed by a higher entity of any sort. Natural selection is the guiding principle, even if it is technically not cut and dry in every situation, because of the variant nature of what constitutes a beneficial trait that adapts from mutation and genetic drift.

No one uses gravity to demonstrate how a house is built because the two things are explicitly connected to each other. You require architecture and engineering background to understand how a house is built, not physics and the like that occurs across the universe.

Organic structures that are integrated don't necessarily have to function in strict and completely codependent ways. There are organs we have that we don't use anymore or don't really lose anything if we remove them, but they may have had a purpose before, I seem to recall the appendix and the tonsils for two examples of things that may have had biological purposes in previous evolutionary ancestors, but they don't have any real use now. Similarly, other supposed integrated systems may have not been so interconnected as we think beforehand. They may have survived separately and slowly integrated by mutation and genetic drift to a functional adaptation that would engender survival.

Man originating completely randomly is not the same thing as humanity's existence happening to involve certain random biological processes and the like leading to its present state. Like I said, randomness exists around us anyway, we just don't see it in a full scale or even consider it on such a large scale, we prefer the familiar.

You're misapplying the term natural selection when you're talking about any mechanical structure like the watch example or the persistent pyramid example. No one uses these terms besides you in relation to those structures, since the term is exclusively in evolutionary biology's terms applied to biological organisms who are in a general state of flux and change.

We will remain on biological structures. I am positing what the core tenets of Darwinism, and atheism in general posits. Its not an issue of whether it is through random events or not. It needs to be random. Thats the whole purpose. The whole point. Take away random and atheism moves away from it. Natural selection is passive. In fact, you dont even have to utter it. You say Darwinism is a result of random mutations, you yell natural selection. This is of no purpose. You are merely hiding behind natural selection. Because in truth, Darwinism laid out bare for what it truly is, is no different that the assembly of a wooden house or the great pyramid. But people should not see this.

Darwinism does not equal atheism. Not to mention atheism doesn't really have anything strictly elaborated for beliefs besides "There is no God" to one degree or another. Not everything has to have a conscious designed purpose that humans can understand for it to be so. Evolution would exist and progress as a process regardless of if we existed or not, we're simply a product of it. That doesn't make us mere animals, it makes us advanced animals.

I never said that you believed it. Why would you believe something like that. But I guarantee you that given enough time, I could make you believe it. Given that the Great Pyramid was dated at 720 million years old, and Darwinists no longer had the power to change dates at will, then the alternative is chance formation. I could come here every day like a ringer, and tell you about the rocks breaking into the appropriate pieces just by chance. From meteor showers to volcanic eruptions, heating and cooling of the surface, rising water levels creating slight buoyancy which moves the rocks, i'll hit you from every angle. In the end you have a sparkling great pyramid (dont ak me how or I'll erupt and issue personal attacks). Is your mind changing yet about the pyramid being able to be made through chance? It should be. That's how it works. Thats what happened to you and the reason why atheists come here every day. The weak minds will fall first. The rest will be naturally selected.

I doubt you could convince me that chance creates a complex structure like a pyramid because it necessarily requires a designer, no one is disputing this, therefore your example is moot and I'm amazed I've tolerated its asininity for this long. MOving on past this example and this discussion. And now you're making personal insults in suggesting that atheists are somehow weak minded, whereas I never said we were smarter than theists, so you're preaching to the choir.

A Christian will expect one thing, no different than a certain antibody for a particular virus. But when you cloak that virus in something which seems harmless then it passes freely through. And then it wreaks havoc internally and kills from the inside out. There are Christians today who say that they can't read their bible anymore. They can't have faith in Christ. They don't know whats happening to them. But you do. Don't you.

No, I don't know. People's choices in their faith are primarily theirs. Any input I have is secondary because I can't make the choice for them, I can only attempt to inform them where I see them being genuinely mistaken.

If you believe that you came from a primordial soup through chance then to the primordial soup you believe you will return. I do not hold this belief. The design of the human system is only a fraction of the evidence yet stands to be used. It is the past which defines the persistence in the present.

The primordial soup thesis has long been debunked, the only people persisting in saying evolutionists believe this are the creationists who are ill informed to begin with. I'm ending this discussion, since this would be better directed in another forum or another topic, but I sure am not starting it. We clearly don't agree on these things, but I'm not making this a ridiculous competition of words or arguments to try to have some empty victory here. Let's just sincerely keep on topic. I will post if I have something to say in regards to the OP, but I'm not responding anymore.

 

[razeontherock]

I also read that Gods can give a meaning to life, although how fooling yourself

Still speaking for yourself, but projecting it onto everyone else. That's not healthy, Grace.

 

[razeontherock]

The most apparent pattern to me in regards to religion is geographic location.

You were raising the sticky point of some people getting revelation, while others don't. I pointed to Moses, and what separated him from the rest.

If I don't believe in your deity, the question isn't particularly valid to me.

-Lyn

And that's the first step in no revelation. Moses turned aside, and observed a not very interesting thing for quite some time before it was even unusual. It turned out to be the very thing that made his life significant. And there's still geologic evidence for his adventures to this day, so it's really not a question of believing it or not like you make it out to be.

 

[Penumbra]

You were raising the sticky point of some people getting revelation, while others don't. I pointed to Moses, and what separated him from the rest.

I didn't raise that, you did.

My point was simply that if a powerful god wishes to make himself known to anyone he chooses to, then it will happen. If he does not, then it will not happen.

There are a variety of options, and this probably isn't even a completely exhaustive list:

-There exist god(s) that do not wish to be known, and actively make sure they are not known, and are powerful enough to accomplish this. The result would be that nobody knows them.

-There exist god(s) that do not wish to be known, and actively make sure they are not known, but are not powerful or skillful enough to cover up their trail, so the result is that some people end up knowing about them.

-There exist god(s) that do not care whether they are known or not, and therefore took no action to make their selves known. The result could be that nobody knows them, or some people know them, or everyone knows them.

-There exist god(s) that want to be known but are not powerful or skillful enough to get everyone to know them. The result is that only some people, or nobody, knows them.

-There exist all-powerful god(s) that want to be known by everyone and of course will be known by everyone since they are all-powerful.

-There exist all-powerful god(s) that want to be known by some subset of the population, either based on some criteria or some arbitrary chance, and of course everyone that has been targeted to know them will know them.

-There do not exist any gods.


The only time it begins not making sense is if there exists an all-powerful god that wants everyone to know him, but it turns out most people don't.

And that's the first step in no revelation. Moses turned aside, and observed a not very interesting thing for quite some time before it was even unusual. It turned out to be the very thing that made his life significant. And there's still geologic evidence for his adventures to this day, so it's really not a question of believing it or not like you make it out to be.

I haven't seen any geologic evidence that a god revealed itself to Moses.

-Lyn

 

[Riski]

The most apparent pattern to me in regards to religion is geographic location.


If I don't believe in your deity, the question isn't particularly valid to me.

-Lyn

I agree, most people get the religion of the place and people where they were born and raised then try to tell every other religion that the religion they have is the only true religion,
if they think like that religion must dull the senses which tells me that religion is not a good thing to have.

 

[razeontherock]

My point was simply that if a powerful god wishes to make himself known to anyone he chooses to, then it will happen.

That point is demonstrably false.

 

[Greg1234]

I didn't raise that, you did.

My point was simply that if a powerful god wishes to make himself known to anyone he chooses to, then it will happen. If he does not, then it will not happen.

There are a variety of options, and this probably isn't even a completely exhaustive list:

-The only way to the Father is through the Son. Not through the sky, not the sea.

-Man seeks to carve his own path as a demonstration of his power, or the power he thinks he has, having secured his reign in this sphere. But the way remains. Regardless of his rebellion.

-It is the infinite in Man which interacts with the infinite. There lies the "replacement of an eye with an eye". Sought through other means does not negate this law.

-There is the seeking of carnal satisfaction through the physical senses rather than through the spiritual means. How does a hungry man navigate further from water when you put his lunch in the middle of the ocean.

-Revelation is not a intervening force but a natural process. As natural as water turning to ice at 0 degrees. When the conditions are met there is the effect.

 

[Penumbra]

That point is demonstrably false.

Then can you demonstrate it?

 

[SkyWriting]

<snip>
The primordial soup thesis has long been debunked, the only people persisting in saying evolutionists believe this are the creationists who are ill informed to begin with.
<snip>

Darwin wrote that he supported it. That could be why some bring it up.