Why God Created Atheists?
You do know that some disgruntled hubber will come along and report you for taking this thread off topic? As clever and vixen like as you are PDS, I cannot imagine how you could possibly develop the relationship between atheism and Elton John's "I guess that's why we call it the blues"
"Laughing like children
Living like lovers""Rolling like thunder under the covers
And I guess that's why
They call it the blues""But, wait! There's more!"
My purpose is to truly help here...Oh no, is this witnessing- you're going to try to convert me aren't you?
"Rolling like thunder under the covers
and I guess that's why they call it the b....""You have recently submitted a very similar post, posting the same message repeatedly is prohibited."
OK, done. Did my best.
"And I guess that's why
They call it the blues
Time on my hands
Could be time spent with you
Laughing like children
Living like lovers
Rolling like thunder under the covers
And I guess that's why
They call it the blues"Ehmm, try this one:
And now I know
Spanish Harlem are not just pretty words to say
I thought I knew
But now I know that rose trees never grow in New York CityUntil you've seen this trash can dream come true,
You stand at the edge, while people run you through.
And I thank the Lord, there's people out there like you,
I thank the Lord there's people out there like you.While Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters
Sons of bankers, sons of lawyers
Turn around and say good morning to the night
For unless they see the sky
But they can't and that is why
They know not if it's dark outside or light
"Live for each second
Without hesitation
And never forget...""Without...
Cry in the night if it helps
But more than ever I simply love you
More than I love life itself""And never forget that I'm your man
Without me girl
Cry in the night if it helps"- Rad Manposted 12 years ago
0And I guess that's why
They call it the blues
Time on my hands
Could be time spent with you
Laughing like children
Living like lovers
Rolling like thunder under the covers
And I guess that's why
They call it the blues
Wait on me girl
Cry in the night if it helps
But more than ever I simply love you
More than I love life itself
And I guess that's why
They call it the blues
Time on my hands
Could be time spent with you
Laughing like children
Living like lovers
Rolling like thunder under the covers
And I guess that's why
They call it the blues "And I guess that's why
They call it the blues
Time on my hands
Could be time spent with you
Laughing like children
Living like lovers
Rolling like thunder under the covers
And I guess that's why
They call it the blues""Don't wish it away
Don't look at it like it's forever
Between you and me
I could honestly say
That things can only get better"
Yes, I can do that...Time for a new song, the birdie song perhaps?
The mirror test is hardly a definitive test of self awareness. but of you choose that one a good dozen species have passed and most haven't been tested. I don;t recall domestic cats being tested.
Absolutely. In fact, I have a copy of the invitation sent out on whatever day it was when atheists were created. It reads:
"Good aeon and ages of ages to all creatures great and small! You are hereby invited to my self-destruction party. It's going to be a blast! To destroy myself, I'm creating the most powerful force in all creation - atheists! I'm sure you have no idea what they are, but wow, are you ever going to be impressed! I can't say when exactly I'll be destroyed because that is all in the hands of the all-powerful atheists, so check with them. Hope to see everyone and everything in creation whenever the atheists decide it is time for my demise. RSVP--regrets, only please--directed to Atheists, the Great and Powerful. Thanks, God."You haven't explained anything, so how would you know? What facts and evidence dispute my worldview? If not for me and my stubborn hard-headedness, then explain it for everyone else here. Please explain what facts and evidence you're referring to that I'm ignoring to hold onto my religious worldview. Nobody can gain from your superior knowledge base if you refuse to share it. Making general accusations about people serves absolutely no purpose and is a complete "waste of time" without substance.
If anything, known facts and evidence illustrate how a worldview that suggests something comes from nothing is a ridiculous notion. Majik, as Mark would put it. Does this mean you believe in majik? It's okay if you do. I won't hold it against you and I won't try to change your mind. Just own your beliefs.
No, it's not my religious beliefs that cause me to reject your view of 'reality' as something that came from nothing all on its own. It's logic and common sense. Now, here's another chance to add substance that supports your view. Name just one thing that you can back up with evidence that came from nothing all on its own.
Again, if you simply said what caused the universe to begin, or life to begin, or the emergence of the modern human mind, is still factually unknown or not yet discovered or understood, then I could get on board with what you're saying. But you're not. You're insisting that your belief system that things can actually come about all on their own is the only right answer. That's where I object. And that has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.
No, they don't. This is why we don't know how life began. If the physical laws explained life then we would understand. We don't. If the physical laws explained life then we would have a much better grasp of how life evolved. We wouldn't have to guess as to what caused life to adapt in this way or that. We'd be able to simply apply our grasp of the physical laws to life and reconstruct life developing just as we have the formation of the universe. But we can't. We make educated guesses in an attempt to explain it. The physical laws in no way explain life.
Now, here's your chance to prove your point with something a little stronger than "Yes, they explain life." Substance, ATM, substance.I do understand that your question was not directed towards me, however that being said, I can't help myself.
I know you're having a hard time understanding ATM as you don't think he's supplying enough of an argument, but to me everything he says makes perfect sense. He is merely explaining to you why you are thinking as you do and why no amount of reasoning will change you. And frankly he's right. And he usually makes me laugh.
Your argument that something must have started life and this something must have been God shows just how unopened you are to logic. Stating that God created life because it couldn't have started on it's own causes more confusion in logic then you are able to see. Let's go ahead and see. God created life. What question arise from that statement then were not there before? Who created God? It makes no sense for something to not have a start and an end. Everything in the known universe has a beginning and an ending. Should I just take your word that the creator is different? However when we take magic out of the equation it starts to make sense and we start to think and learn, otherwise we sit around and say God done it, and no one is supposed to ask where such God is or where he came from.
You are in serious denial if you think your religious views are not part of your explanation that God created everything because for those who take God out of the equation their thoughts are directed to the study of Abiogenesis. My guess is you will reject all their theories as none involve God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
The most likely reason we don't know why or how life began is because Christians stopped science for about a 1000 years, and you appear to be trying to do the same.No, Rad Man, you're missing the point. I agree with you that we began to learn much more once we stopped just assuming God did everything. I agree that the basic 'naturalist' standpoint of science is what has led to such a greater understanding of existence.
What I'm trying to point out is that ATM is doing the exact same thing believers did. He's killing the question right from the start by assuming he knows that it all happened on its own. That the answer could actually be that something came from nothing on its own. It's the same thing. It's that same mindset that hampered progress in the first place.
Science has drawn a very distinct line between what can be explained and what cannot. So far, at least. I am a fan of science and applaud those that try to understand without just assuming God 'miracled' everything into existence. What we've learned so far fascinates me to no end. Again, I'm not trying to prove God here. I'm objecting to the idea that science has disproven God. I'm pointing out that that viewpoint, much like the viewpoint of believers that you pointed out, hampers progress and understanding by assuming we know something we do not.What you don't get is ATM is killing the question because religion has no place in science, just as science has no place in religion. It's you who is injecting religion into science, not him injecting science into religion. You are the one say we can't get something from nothing and we should be open to the idea that God created life. That's your injection of religious faith into science. Have a read through the link?
No, you're talking about an invisible super being who waved his magic hand... (oops! "scientific" hand) while I'm talking about the laws of nature.
Well there's part of the problem. You have a very skewed concept of what/who God is. And, not surprisingly, a very wrong perception of what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the natural laws too. Newton's law of gravitation. Coulomb's law. Mass-Energy Equivalence. Maxwell's Laws of Electromagnetism. Einstein's field equations. The very same laws of nature that give the cosmos the 'harmony' that caused Einstein himself to believe the universe had a creator. The same laws that prompted Professor Russell Stannard, a high energy particle physicist, to say "The universe appears to have bent over backwards to accommodate life." The same laws that prompted Physicist Freeman Dyson to say "The universe knew we were coming." The natural laws that create just the right environment for us to be here as we are today. The natural laws that were (magically?) already in place from the very beginning. But created by what? Nothing? Ever-present?
The only one talking about magic is you. You and your belief that the universe and life just came about on its own. Though there's no account for where the matter came from, how life started or what invisible will compels it to continuously adapt, survive, and perpetuate, or where the laws themselves come from. According to you and your view, they just happened on their own.So your back to I can't explain it so God done it. You can't explain how God done it or where or who God is, but your okay with that?
A fairy tale for adults?
It's obvious you have no understanding of those laws whatsoever. Listing them here doesn't show otherwise.
Please stop propagating lies about Einstein. Thanks.
No, according to science, they happened on their own. If you believe science is magic, that is your problem. Citing Stannard and Dyson as if they were proponents of Creationism or ID is simply dishonesty on your part.
You make asinine demands for substance, yet show by your conclusion a simplistically puerile and childlike comprehension of how the universe formed and the laws of physics governing it. Hilarious.
Childlike? I'll take that. Now, maybe you can provide some substance (ie. specific information) that explains how my 'childlike' comprehension of the universe and the laws of physics is inaccurate? What do the adults know about the universe or the natural laws that I misunderstand? What have I said that you know to be factually wrong? Just pick one thing. And please, be specific. Please.
What you said demonstrates clearly you have no understanding of the laws of nature and how they work. You are under an elementary childish illusion that scientists can recreate life using the same process as nature, when nature underwent billions of years of slow, small changes in order for life to come about. And, because you conclude scientists can't do such a thing, your magical fairy tale God must have dunnit.
Laws of Nature. Laws require a lawgiver, and these laws have had to be in place from the first instant for anything to work. It is so obvious, credit has to go somewhere for intelligence but Atheists must do it as indirectly as possible so they give their god any other name...in this case "nature". Nature is the mystical, magical guiding hand and one of the secret gods of Atheism. Worshiping creation rather than the creator. Still a god. Still all faith. A god created to your liking to avoid accountability.
True, we are the lawgivers. We have given principles, properties and characteristics to observed phenomena, allowing us to understand how they work. Those phenomena arose as a result of inflationary expansion during the Big Bang.
Excuse me? There is nothing obvious for an intelligence, hence no credit is due.
Gibberish.If we are the lawgivers, however did creation get by before we wrote the laws? We observed them in action and documented them. We are not the author of them, just the reporters. If you are the author, perhaps I could get you to modify a few. That would be very handy as we age.
Yes, we are the authors of those laws. However, the phenomena governing those laws were a result of physical events occurring during the expansion of the universe, so we can't really modify them.
Let me get this straight, you've been speaking as if you have a superior understanding of the laws of nature that makes what I say so obviously false, then you turn around and make a statement like this ...
"Those phenomena arose as a result of inflationary expansion during the Big Bang."
Please, explain that.There's nothing superior in my understanding of the laws of nature, it's simply an understanding, something you lack.
I'm not sure you're qualified to make that assessment. Didn't you say this? ...
"Those phenomena (physical laws) arose as a result of inflationary expansion during the Big Bang."
Are you actually trying to say that gravity didn't exist until expansion began? And are you actually suggesting that we know/understand what creates/causes these natural laws to the point that we can actually ascertain that they 'arose as a result of inflationary expansion during the Big Bang'?
Please explain.That is correct. All of the forces did not exist until the expansion began. There was no need for them to exist until then.
In a secular context there is nothing to wow... Without mass how can there be force?
What makes you think I worship creation? Religions worship creation, but atheists do not, some of us try to learn about it, but none show up to praise the first ameba on Sunday morning. Faith means you believe something you were told without seeing or asking for proof. I question everything and ask for evidence.
By itself the magic spot from nowhere needs help. At that point those denying there is a god have to come up with something to attribute intelligence to but they usually do it as indirectly as possible, hoping it will slip by. Regardless of what you choose to call that thing, or force or whatever, by virtue of it's influence in directing creation you have made a god for you have given it supernatural power and usually some sort of intelligence. You may not worship it in the most common sense, but you have given it reverence for it's imagined but unsung contribution.
I know exactly what to attribute intelligence to, evolution. Our need to use weapons to hunt led to bigger and bigger brains. You may not understand evolution, but that is no excuse, perhaps you should read a little about it before you make ridiculous claims.
I don't think you understand the word worship. I'll help you out here.
worship |ˈwərSHəp|
noun
the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity: the worship of God | ancestor worship.
Credit then has to go to human evolution for intelligence. For in our evolutionary chain we were not always so smart, which means we weren't created with intelligence.
You clearly misunderstood. I never said scientists can recreate life. Did we recreate the big bang? Then how do we know so much? Because of our understanding of the physical laws and our understanding of inanimate matter. So, what are we lacking, understanding wise, about life that we're unable to do the same?
Here is exactly what you said...
You were using that example to illustrate that we should be able to recreate life if we apply our knowledge of the physical laws, and since we can't, this is your reasoning to suspect the physical laws were not the cause of life developing.
Sorry, but you don't have that understanding, that's why you're arguing.
Your childlike simplistic illusions of scientific understanding is the answer to that question.
Come to think of it, you should watch these too. The whole series....
Boundaries of the Knowable - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF54xqYh … 0179B12F8D
There's 10 in all. Consciousness, Free Will/Determinism, Cosmology, ET Life and the Universe, The Size of the Universe, The Nature of Space, The Nature of Time, The Nature of Matter, The Wave-Particle Paradox, and Superstrings.
Then come back and explain again how you have a superior knowledge of the natural world over myself, Professor Stannard, and Einstein. Because unlike any of us, you claim to know for certain there is no God based purely on your understanding of the natural world and the natural laws and that letting go of this 'delusion' is required to truly understand science. Einstein, as we already covered, believed the universe had a creator due to the harmony he saw in the cosmos. And Professor Stannard here, who does this series, who actually worked as a high energy particle physicist at the Supercolider in Cern outside of Geneva, and who also was awarded the Templeton Prize for ‘significant contributions to the field of spiritual values; in particular for contributions to greater understanding of science and religion’, acknowledges just how much we don't know and probably will never know scientifically.Odd you need to keep lying about this. I posted what Einstein actually thought of your religion. He most certainly did not believe in a Creator.
The Templeton Prize is awarded by religionists to other religionists for saying "goddunit." and their genuine goal rather than the lie you just posted is this:
"The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension," which almost always turns out to be, "there has to be something more than this."
You think us atheists cannot read? Dear me.
I know. That's something stated specifically in a quote I already provided ...
"Einstein rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God's nonexistence. Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.""
"He said he believed in the god of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ … t_Einstein
"Spinozism (also spelt Spinoza-ism or Spinozaism) is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, and both matter and thought as attributes of such."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism
Apparently, you are having a hard time reading, and you clearly didn't watch the links I provided. Yes, Stannard is a "religionist", if that's what you want to call him. He's also a high energy particle physicist. He clearly understands science, in spite of his 'spiritual' beliefs. Something you claim can't happen. You say it's just ignorance that allows for such beliefs. Yet, here's this guy who was actually involved in some of the most phenomenal discoveries in the realm of subatomic particles who also believes "there has to be something more than this". How can that be?
Dear me, you sure are stubborn.LOL
I read just fine. I reject the label atheist. Far as I am concerned - the word should not even exist. This is what Einstein thought of your religion:
Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."
See how it says nothing about a creator?
Near those of Spinoza
not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere
Near.
Shall I remind you what he said about your bible again?
"Childish."
So - as you respect his views so much - odd you cling to the bible. Still - you have rewritten it somewhat.
Love that you compare yourself to Einstein though.The fact that you seem to think that Einstein's views of a Christian God, or the God of the bible, has any relevance to the discussion, despite the clear context of my statements, as well as my statements directly clarifying otherwise, means you're either truly having a problem with reading comprehension, or you're being purposefully coy. Your inability to simply acknowledge the point that Einstein saw "logical simplicity" and "order", which he ascertained as purposeful and not coming out of random chance or chaos, also alludes to one or the other. Again, differing only in whether or not you're just being purposefully argumentative or truly unable to comprehend. Personally, I think you understand just fine. You just don't have a better argument.
Please stop lying at me. The entire point of this discussion is you trying to show that the bible is true.
You were the one bought up Einstein - I am just reminding you what he thought of your beliefs.
The point of this discussion, the one you and I are having right here, is to address your generalized objection to a discussion I was having with others. That discussion was about the accuracy of Genesis, yes. This discussion, the one in which I referred to Einstein, is about your objection that any God exists based on science, and your suggestion that it's only through an ignorance of science that anyone could even consider there's "something more". You're right, I'm the one that brought up Einstein. And for the specific purpose I stated.
Even in the quote you included ...
"admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding"
In other words, there's something more than we are even able to understand. And isn't that exactly what you said about the 'religionist to religionist' award, that it "almost always turns out to be, "there has to be something more than this.""? Einstein thought so too.
Clearly, or what should be clear, is that knowledge of science is not enough to answer the questions you claim to have the answers to. Therefore, you have yourself a belief system and are no different than I am. Well, except for the fact that you apparently believe in majik, or the idea that the universe and life and the conscious mind just came about on their own. In whatever case, you don't have the facts to refute my claim. Your objection is null and void, as it's based on an unproven belief system.
Now, if you want to discuss the other, I'll be glad to.Weird. You agree you are trying to show the bible is correct. You used Einstein as an example of thinking - I pointed out that he thought your bible childish and the idea of a God ridiculous.
Science has not answered all the questions - therefore it was Majik? OK lol
"admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding" does not say "there has to be something more than this,"
You seem to be having trouble understanding plain English. Love it that you think you have a better understanding than Einstein though. Most amusing.
I suggest to you that "natural occurrence," is the default argument. It is logical to me that the Universe in which we discover ourselves is perfect for us to exist in. Otherwise we would not be here. It is up to you to prove something majikal happened, because - as usual - you are saying that because you don't understand something, a god must be involved.
Then you go on to agree that you are showing that the Majik book that you have rewritten to suit yourself is accurate - and when I remind you that Einstein thought it was childish - you accuse me of not understanding.
I could believe in Spinoza's god. There is no evidence of it, it has no involvement in the running of the Universe and is not necessary for the Universe to have been put together as we see it. In fact - it might as well not exist. Oh wait - I already believe in that one. It is called atheism.
You are not arguing for that god, you are arguing that the biblical goddunnit according to Genesis 2.1 as rewritten by your good self. Thus any reference to Spinoza is at best disingenuous, but typical of religionists.
Now - be a man and admit that Einstein thought your beliefs were childish. And seeing how much you respect Einstein's opinion - explain why you think you know better than he did.I did admit it. I included quotes that stated it specifically and even said specifically that I had and then included that same quote again. Man enough for you?
Sure, 'natural occurrence' can be your default argument. You're allowed your beliefs.Odd that you need to say that natural occurrence is a belief. Surely that is the default until evidence is presented otherwise? Everything we see and can measure says there is no majikal intervention. The greatest minds of our time agree there is no need for a Majikal Super Being. You are the one making a claim which you cannot back up with anything other than personal slights.
Show me the Majik and I will believe you that it is impossible for the Universe to exist and function without a Majikal Being having started it and guided it.
If you understood evolution - you would not hold this idea. You know - I think that is the problem. Why don't you do some research and learn about evolution? That might help you understand why your "theory," is impossible. There are lots of adult education centers around - I am sure there will be one near you.
Yes, I understand you get your information from youtube videos and tv as opposed to having spent some years in university. That's entirely part of your problem with understanding anything.
Please stop propagating lies about Einstein. Thanks.I'm not surprised you didn't watch. That's too bad. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
He's a retired high energy physicist who used to work at CERN and has now made videos in which he provides his opinions on various topics, some within his field of study and others not.
So what?His opinions? You wouldn't speak about things without first making sure you know what you're talking about, would you?
Again, so what? Is that how you learn things, from such videos? It's little wonder why you have such a poor understanding of science.
Exactly grand old lady. Well said - short and to the point.
Um LOL...
Please keep in mind not everyone may have the same belief as you and there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe god created YOU, but he did not create me.- Emile Rposted 12 years ago0
Not having read through the thread; my apologies if I reiterate a comment already made.
I don't think God created atheists. They created themselves on some levels, just as believers created themselves. You make the choice to perceive reality in any given way. But, my perception of reality flavors your perception, and vice versa. So, we as a species are responsible for the perceptions of each individual, on some level.
Our collective perception of reality can be compared to living in a house of mirrors, with bad cell phone reception. I see through a skewed mirror that doesn't match the one you are looking in and my inability to effectively explain what I see...to someone who can't completely hear what I'm saying adds to our collective inability to accurately define the totality of reality.
I move through life, the view changes and even though I may now be standing in front of the mirror you were previously gazing into I still can't find the same perspective as yours because my judgments are clouded by the previous series of mirrors I studied and I don't have reason to trust your judgment. Multiply that by about seven billion and you'll come up with some atheists, agnostics and believers. I would not see it quite as a choice. Some things seem true to some people. The might like it if, for example, unicorns existed. But you either think that is plausible or you don't. It is not purely a matter of whether you would prefer a world with unicorns in it and thus choose to believe in them.
Posting anyhting about god on this site is just banging your head against a wall...just one point that has been beyond doubt proven these days and that is that "hell" is just another word for "the grave" its where everyone goes when they die, the righteous along with the unrighteous and it is where everyone who has ever lived (except a select number) is right now.
Everyone who dies before the final war, armageddon will get a ressurection: John 5:28 "do not marvel at this because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice" 29"and come out, those who did good things to a ressurection of life, those who practiced vile things to a ressurection of judgement". God (jehovah) understands that there was a long period in which people where ignorant like for example the medieval period and the majority of people of that time will get a second chance however in our day (the last days) everybody has enough knowledge to make a choice what they want to do : whether they want to serve god properly or whether they dont want to worship him and the choice we make we can be judged on because we arent ignorant anymore.
Catholics are the most culpible to god but all religion will be the first thing to go during armageddon because it blinded the masses and taught disgusting things and slandered god and totally refused to even acknowledge his name.
Atheists are not as culpible as religion i dont think because their atheism is a by product of what religion has taught them..if god really is like that who in their right mind would want to worship him? Even so if atheists continue to deny god then they will go to the same place as religious people which is "hell" "the grave" where they will simply cease to exist.But, let me guess, you've got it all correct, right? Funny how ALL religions think they've got it right.
its simple follow the one that follows the bible thats the trick to finding the right one...not a trick really just common sense which people dont seem to have these days
Also i never said we have it all right but you only need 90% to get an A while the rest are still only on about 40% and thats because they are not humble enough to admit their mistakes and go back to the textbook and revise what they got wrong.It's common sense to just blindly follow someone else because they told you they are right?
no radman i have a brain capable of making sure what im being told is true and i have access to a bible like everyone else to be able to confirm this.
im sure you did the same thing with the theory of evolution, ok some one told you this is what it is at first but you did you're own research to make sure it was right...its the same thing and in terms of teaching the bible my "religion" by far outshines any other.
every individual is capable of understanding whatever they want, i understand that there are just people who blindly follow things (including in my religion probably) but that goes for eveything including evolutionLooking back at my comment i want to just say that i am not being arrogant and i certainly dont think that i am saved while everyone else doesn't have a chance, there are a lot of things that i know personally i shouldnt do but do it anyway i'm just saying that there is a standard set by god and there is a religion that tells you properly what that standard is that doesnt mean i am following it to my best so apologies if that seemed arrogant.
Ok, I had the time to read this entire thread including the comments made nine months back. It seems to me that:
1. There is this belief stated by someone that atheists created themselves. Really? How did they do that? I think what this person meant is that he or she chose to be an atheist. Unless he or she really knows for a fact that he or she created himself out of nothing.
2. There still seems to be no answer supplied by those who believe in science as to how something was created by nothing. I have nothing against evolution, but even the particles that came together and evolved had to come from something. Since science has no answer, I presume you are taking it by faith that everything including those particles already existed and had no beginning.Science has already answered this question. The matter that built the Universe has always existed. This is a known fact.
But - you say it is possible for something to be created from nothing? Is that correct?
Presumably you can then prove to us that there was a point where nothing existed? I bet you have a get out of logic free card to apply to god though. Did god not need a beginning by any chance?Which scientists and how did they prove that? Were they there? How do you come to believe this, were you there or you accept what scientists say on faith?
And about atheists creating themselves, what is the answer to that? Did Science say that too?
Prove your logic, since you are the logical one.I was not there - no. I have only existed for a few years. The Big Bang theory states that all matter that built the Universe was inside it before it expanded. Personally - I subscribe to the proven fact that matter cannot be created pr destroyed. Don't you?
As to atheists creating themselves - that is garbage. Their parents created them.
As to believing something with a wealth of evidence behind it and saying that is "faith," because I did not witness it - that seems as though you are simply defending your irrational beliefs which have no basis in fact.
Care to answer my questions now?
Are you stating that because you're unaware of what science has to say about the subject or are you saying that because you deny or reject what they have to say?
Which is it and why?
Yes, science has answers. Are you not aware of them or do you just reject them?The big bang theory explains that all matter was contain in one small spot and exploded. You are the one who is suggested everything came from nothing by magic.
As for the development of life there are may theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiogenesisI know what your hoping. God must have done it. Do you really think that answers all the questions. Ever ask yourself where God came from? You want science to have all the answers, but you refuse to look in your own back yard.
That being said there are many theories as to what happened before the big bang. Some think the universe expands and then contracts and right now it's expanding. You should do your own research. You most likely didn't even look at the link I sent.I say "In the beginning God" You say, "In the beginning spot".
I find the idea that an entity outside of creation, with intelligence and purpose having designed things in a delicate balance, to be the most logical of the only two possible perspectives. I do not need to know or understand His origin. Why wouldn't he be beyond comprehension?
Your spot however does not possess intelligence or purpose. We have every bit as much proof of where it was before it became a spot as we do for the time it did become a spot, (none). Okay, so we don't know where it came from either. Now your spot has a lot of work to do. A hot molten explosion results in dna, life, delicate balances of interdependent components, etc. Environmentalists will tell you how delicate nature is and we all understand about the laws that govern creation. These laws had to come from that spot too. Now if that isn't a magic spot, I don't know what would be.But I don't worship the spot, I'm not even sure that's how it started. You worship a fictitious God and you don't even want to question where he came from. But you seem to need to know where all matter came from? Where did God come from and where are his parents? Why don't his parent live forever as you think your God does?
An entity outside of creation, not bound by what you know, laws or principles used to govern the material world He created..., does He need parents?
He needs a beginning and an ending just like everything else. You still won't question that, but you want me to solve the mysteries of the universe for you.
Where is this evidence of a hidden entity.Creation is the proof. If you found pine cones next to a parking spot you were in, spelling out your name, you would attribute it to intelligence. DNA? The human Cell? All of creation? No intelligence needed. Straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel. We aren't likely to ever agree on this, which is fine. I suspect you already know the bible makes no effort to prove to the atheist that there is a God. It simply says if creation isn't enough to make it obvious, we needn't pursue it. I get in these exchanges for those who have not dedicated themselves to either belief. Not my intention to have you taking it personally.
You think your God responsible for this cruel world? Have you ever seen the list of human parasites and how they attack people? Your God's responsible for that to. Nope, this earth is the survival of the fittest and evolution explains this as well has intelligence perfectly. You idea of God falls short, that's why all do not believe. Sure you can look at the wonders of the earth an marvel, but you'll also have to look at earth's cruelty as well.
Sorry, but that is not proof of anything and is merely an argument from incredulity.
...then later:
Also, you use the pronoun "He." That would imply the entity you speak of is bound by "what you know:" He is male!
Forgive me for saying so, Sir, but your mind does not sound consistent to me. Maybe if you were to just tell us your perceived attributes of your "god."
Otherwise this thread seems to be going no where useful.Jonny, I am not sure I follow the logic of your complaint, but will try to elaborate and hopefully clarify. We cannot comprehend anything beyond the universe we are part of, so it is not surprising that people tend to imagine a Creator based on what we do understand. Being outside of that creation however, there is no reason to expect He would be subject to the very laws He put in place to govern it, or be limited to characteristics we see within it. I suspect all of man's knowledge is just scratching the surface on what God has put in place and that comprehending Him is well beyond that.
Which brings us to the pronoun by which you feel I am trying to confine God within my own knowledge...far from it. I am simply using a means by which I believe He has identified Himself in an attempt to provide some sort of reference we could grasp onto. I am not trying to market the bible to anyone here so no need to begin the attacks. The bible itself declares it is foolishness to those who don't even believe in a Creator, so those debates are pointless. Becoming aware there is a god behind creation at all is the first step and what our debate was regarding.Let me get this straight.
You know there is something that exists outside of existence?I saw there was a troll in the water and jumped in anyway. ;~) Hello Mark. Why yes, that is what I am saying. No need cutting and pasting back in the reason I would say that, you can read the thread. Certainly no less reasonable than the crowded imaginary exploding spot theory resulting in life.
Awww - thanks for not insulting me again.
Something that exists outside of existence huh? Most amusing. Is it a Goat?There you go again...always trying to get somebody's goat.
No - it was a real question. But - let me just check. It is not possible for the Universe to originate without a Majikal Intervention, therefore there is a Majikal Being that exists outside of existence.
But it is not a Goat?
How do you know it is not a Goat?Tell me again how your version doesn't include magic? In the beginning...rock or whatever from nowhere. Explodes for no reason, results in everything. Molecules, chemicals, etc. Hey wait, was it an exploding goat? Perhaps that is where you keep getting that from. Just as plausible. In fact more so because at least you would be starting with life. "Evolution" always skips all those parts like what anamated the rocks to get them to turn themselves into everything necessary for life. A corpse has everything necessary for life yet it doesn't live...what is life? Oh that's right...science has no idea...they just pretend and defer to all the "smart" people who believe that fairy tale. Don't you want to be a "smart" person too? If you don't believe our story and overlook it's tremendous flaws we won't call you one. Keep up a united front, and perhaps we can fool the world. Yes Mark, yours can be an exploding goat.
Sorry sweetie. I know this is hard but - there was no beginning in mine. Nothing came from nowhere. It is not possible to create or destroy matter. Yes - we don't know exactly how life started. Does that mean a goddunit?
No goats would survive the density of such a spot with the entire universe's mass compacted in it. Much like a neutron star. Tell me why would an entity out side our universe create stars that eventually die? Sounds more like nature to me. Everything has a beginning and ending, except your concept of a God.
"Certainly no less reasonable than the crowded imaginary exploding spot theory resulting in life"
Ahhh, there is evidence for an expanding universe, but no evidence for anything outside it. Get back to me when you find some.
I can see that you are continuing on your search for answers, bBerean.
I suggest the nature of the search can tell us much about the Searcher. I have followed this line of reasoning by looking into my own mirror and find that any concept of a "god" or "something outside of creation" is only seen by me in relation to my own needs.
For example, if I have a social need, such as a companion, or a loving father, or a person to support me in a time of fear, then the "god" I seek will tend to fulfill that need in my imagination.
Similarly, someone in need of a loving, caring, understanding and empathizing mother in his/her life, might envisage a figure in the form of the Virgin Mary and bow down and worship her.
So yours, and the searchings of many other contributors to this Forum, can maybe tell us much more about you and your needs, than the "god" you are trying to promote.
What's really hilarious is that the more nonsense you make up about your creator being so aloof to us, the more you show just how impossible it would be for anyone to know about him. Yet, here you are telling us all about it.
No, you have been indoctrinated to believe that nonsense while having no understanding of the science that explains the Big Bang. It is dishonest of you to state you have chosen one over the other when you have no clue of the other.
Yes, that would verify your lack of understanding of the science.
There is no prof for a GOD who is judging creature, Such a God is only introduced in Ibrahim's 3 main religions: Jewish, Christianity and Islam. There are some other religions which have millions of followers, without calling people as religious, Theist or Atheist.
Everyone has written on their heart, if you will, a standard. A knowledge of good and evil. A conscience. That voice holds us accountable, even when others don't know if we have done anything wrong. Evolution can't account for it, as often making things right with this voice runs counter to all that evolution stands for. There are many ways people seek to satisfy this voice, with varying degrees of success. Many try to deny it is there, and "sere" it thereby making it less sensitive. This may allow them to take actions against it's direction, but they become more troubled as the conscience will not be totally silenced. The very word conscience means "with knowledge" as people know when what they are doing is wrong. All still fall short, so even those trying hard to do what is right will feel guilt. Countless gods have been created by men to help them silence that guilt. Surely if the god they have created approves of them, (according the the standard they have established for that god to represent), then they are justified in dismissing their conscience. No matter what you tell yourself or anyone else, that conscience remains a witness to you of accountability.
That would be why we don't have any murderers or rapists then?
They hear a voice that says "no" which evolution cannot account for - or even see because it does not exist.You stand as testimony that one can go against that voice and reject God and try to escape accountability, just as I stated in my last post that many do. They fool themselves, and with practice some become quite good at it. Good show.
On the contrary, Mark is merely being accountable to himself. One can't be accountable to anyone or anything unless they are accountable to themselves, first and foremost.
But what does that mean? You're just a biological machine, right? Just firing neurons and sugars and chemical and blood flow changes? What is this 'self' you refer to? And why does a biological machine need to be 'accountable to themselves, first and foremost'? Evolution? Adaptation to societal pressures? It's just matter, right? Determined outside of our control, by chemical and biological mechanics internally, and pressures and dangers and stimuli externally. Just natural, mechanical matter behaving according to the laws of physics, with no will and no purpose beyond what's imagined, right? Just dumb matter that developed intelligence and then started holding itself accountable? Explain.
The explanation is simple. You have no understanding of scientific explanations and wish to invoke your magical super being as the answer to everything.
Is it? If it's so simple then you should be able to explain it. But you won't, and I get it. The few times you do include any actual substance or specific information you only illuminate that you're not nearly as knowledgeable as you like to put on.
I just did explain it, you have no understanding of science. There is nothing more that needs explanation until you do.
I'm sorry, but you are confused. A conscience is a product of the brain, and the proof in that is that not all people have one. Sociopaths and psychopaths have no conscience.
You second error was stating that evolution can't account for a conscience. Of course it can, Evolution is all about the survival of the fittest and survival of the tribe. Humans are social animals that care for each other. Without the caring the tribe would die. We are certainly not the only animal that has in innate sense of right and wrong. Even my dog know he's not allowed to bite.We've spoken of this before. No conscience or pure dedication to rebel against it? Damaged interface? Brain damage or drugs that inhibit the information between the spirit and that biological link may result in behavior that, based on information the person (spirit) is getting, seems quite rational to them. Although it will muddy the waters further for you I expect, there is the issue of demons. Nonsense to those who deny the spiritual part of reality, but just another part of things to those who don't. People who allow access to "guiding spirits" through altered states may find themselves guided in ways they had not anticipated and may not be in the driver's seat of that machine. Put them through a psych evaluation and try to make sense of it.
Oh I see, your suggesting psychopaths are brain damaged and that damage is what is not allowing a connection with God. Are you suggesting Atheists are brain damaged because we don't believe in God, but have a conscience? Is that why Atheists make up less then 1% of the US prison while Christians are over represented?
Touchy, touchy. I said neither. I gave possible explanations that would allow someone to act contrary to the conscience, that's all. Things to consider. How you turned that into claiming atheists have brain damage, I don't know. Conscience can be a strong motivator for behavior both consistent with it's direction and rebelling against it.
As for worship, yes I would say whatever a person chooses to give credit to for God's creation, be it an entity or process, they are thereby bestowing high reverence on it. How can you not have respect for whatever you believe got you here?My conscience doesn't feel guilt for not believing in God. It did at first when I was very young. You can go through life believing in a God that has always been and always will be and never ask if that's possible if you like, but I then think it's hypocritical to expect me to explain to you what happened before the big bang when you won't ask what happened before God.
I had no expectation you would or could answer that. I was simply illustrating we both must accept there is a point beyond which our beliefs can't even pretend to have an answer. I say in the beginning there was God, you say in the beginning was the spot...or something else to get it started. Beyond that we can't comprehend. I draw the comparison because neither is observable science. Both are taken on faith.
I'm not taking anything on faith, as I've said the big bang theory is just a guess, I personally have no idea what created this universe or if there are others. I am in search for knowledge however and if an explanation comes along worth considering I'll do just that.
Can you say the same?I love learning about true science, (things we can observe and prove). What you want to do is be able to say I am closed minded. If that means having no doubt what so ever that there is a God, then fine, call me close minded. Isn't everyone who is looking, hoping to someday know and have that confidence? I enjoy the knowledge that is shared in the forums, but many here are closed minded, certain of their own views which sure look religious to me...even if they won't acknowledge it. I also enjoy conversations with folks who really are looking for answers, as well as those who feel they already know them. I have been about this a long time and can say, yes I am certain of what I believe in. Lots of room to learn about what God has done, but have yet to hear a reason to doubt He did it.
I think "In the beginning God" makes more sense than "In the begining, spot.". The conversation has already veered to the atheist saying it might not have been "spot" and he or she is open to other theories as long as it came from science, which was not even there in the beginning.
Yes, it would, if one were reading from a book of myths.
Guinea Worm
People have been doing battle with the Guinea Worm for over a thousand years. Once introduced, it grows to be several feet long. The worst part is that the most effective way to remove it is to pull it out of the body by slowly winding it around a stick for days or even weeks.
Sure doesn't sound like a loving God to me.It is obvious from your posts that is entirely false.
Once again, you show a lack of understanding of the scientific explanations in favor of your indoctrinated beliefs. You then go on to claim "we can't comprehend" that God but are still here telling us all about Him, despite that fact.
Sorry, but there is no evidence for spirits and how they would interact with our biological functions. You are making up nonsense.
Rad Man,
Instead of going all this way trying to discredit the man, why don't you do the most direct, obvious thing and illustrate how what he says during the course of those videos is wrong. What does he say that you can illustrate as inaccurate?I already gave my interpretation of both videos I've watched. I'm letting you know that from a purely scientific perspective he cannot be trusted because of his agenda. He clearly states what his agenda is.
Defining the boundaries of what's knowable through science? I'm sorry, Rad Man, but you're way out of line here. He's not saying anything that a secular scientist wouldn't support. The issue here, clearly, is a non-logically based bias against believers. You're making slanderous statements about a highly respected scientist because you don't agree with his religious views. What he states here is fact, and if you don't understand that then there's a lot you don't understand about science.
Really, have a look at what he says about the human brain and how different his view is to how neurology is looking at the brain. He is essentially saying there is a limit to what we can learn about the mind and the universe, which of course is ridiculous we are just starting. Do you really think we at this moment in time can define the boundaries of what we can learn from ourselves and the universe. Remember what star trek has taught us. Want a tricorder? Make one. Stating it will never happen has been done before and then we put stuff on Mars. I believe he is purposely leaving holes so we can fill in spirituality. I'm also a little confused as to which awards he was granted. I do know ALL of the books I found were about God, not about real science.
Actually - that is not what he is doing. He is - like all other religious zealots - claiming some special knowledge that must by definition exist outside reality. As science only deals with reality - it will never be able to explore this "extra-reality."
To be fair, that is not "Defining the boundaries of what's knowable through science."
I can't hardly believe what I'm reading. I've got two guys here arguing against a highly respected physicist and his statements about science. This guy was directly involved in some of the biggest discoveries in the realm of quantum physics of the past two decades. Do you understand that?
Rad Man, I do want to specifically say that I have much more respect for you than either Mark or ATM, but come on. Can you not see how you're dealing with your own delusion here? Much like what can be seen in believers when refuting scientific evidence? You're so certain that you're right that you'll tell me that I'm wrong over and over again, then without a hint of hesitation that you know better than a physicist what's what.
Forgive me if I don't just take your word for it. Both of you. And ATM while I'm at it. During just the course of this forum discussion I've seen all three of your make some obscenely inaccurate statements, which in itself I wouldn't have a problem with, except that all three of you are also really quick to call my level of understanding or my knowledge base into question as well.
Mark and Rad Man, you both have made wildly inaccurate statements about human development that you've yet to acknowledge or admit to and apparently can't be bothered to verify. And now, here again, your ignorance is showing. And don't even get me started on ATM. In one very short sentence ATM made the mistake of finally making just specific enough of a statement to show that he lacks even the most fundamental understanding of the Big Bang theory and the laws of physics. Whatever flawed perception of him I once had has been blown. Now I know why he doesn't get into specifics.
How about you guys find me something with a little more weight? Maybe somebody much more qualified to refute what Professor Stannard is stating. Some sort of substance to confirm what you're saying. Or maybe just one demonstrably factual inaccuracy in what is said in those videos. Anything other than your cynical opinion of him based on your bias against his religious beliefs.Religious beliefs? That is the issue - he is spouting religious beliefs.
After all - Einstein thought your religious beliefs to be garbage. Odd you persist - seeing as how you respect his opinion so much.No, he's not. And let's not forget that Einstein also spoke out very directly and specifically against your view. Not his pedestrian opinion as was the case with Christianity, mind you, but based on his expert level understanding of the universe. Now a physicist is basically acknowledging the same harmony in the cosmos that Einstein noted, as well as acknowledging the very same limitations to our ability to fully understand and comprehend that Einstein also noted directly, yet you're the one I should listen to? you offer nothing of substance of course, which seems to be a running theme, but all statements of opinion. Very obviously flawed and jaded and uninformed statements at that.
Odd - you avoided the question once again. Einstein thought your beliefs to be garbage and acknowledged that there were things he didn't understand - but you do?
No wonder your religion causes so many wars.I acknowledge both Einstein's views (for like the 8th time now), and I acknowledge there are things we don't understand. That's why I'm posing a hypothesis to be tested. To be verified against evidence. As I've said many times before, I'm totally open to being wrong.
No - you don't seem to be. All you have ever offered is opinion. No evidence. For your hypothesis to be "tested," you need to put us in touch with the Invisible Super Being for questioning.
Well then I guess you'll just have to wait a few years.
Just that dramatic change in human behavior that spawned the first civilizations, independently, each with their own unique language, verbal and written, in a very short amount of time that's described directly in Genesis.
I understand that is an appeal to authority fallacy.
That also is an appeal to authority.
And, what statement do you specifically refer?"Those phenomena (natural laws) arose as a result of inflationary expansion during the Big Bang."
"That is correct. All of the forces (natural laws) did not exist until the expansion began. There was no need for them to exist until then."I'm not sure, but from my understanding ATM's statements may be entirely correct. It's thought that other universes my have completely different laws.
Are you serious? Did I not just read you telling bBerean earlier that his postulations about things outside of this universe were just speculation?
"Ahhh, there is evidence for an expanding universe, but no evidence for anything outside it. Get back to me when you find some."
Now you're suggesting the multi-universe scenario?
Besides, the entire theory of evolution is based on two major underlying assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle. And while these are being questioned as far as the values of the laws being constant or differing, nobody in their right mind would suggest they didn't exist until expansion. Gravity is a pretty crucial ingredient where the singularity of infinite density is concerned, after all.
Plus you've got the added problem that we don't know what 'causes' the natural laws. Wouldn't you first have to understand what causes them before ever determining how a particular process could have made them come about?Yes, speculation. Look at the words I used please. "Ahhh, there is evidence for an expanding universe, but no evidence for anything outside it. Get back to me when you find some."
There is evidence for an expanding universe but none for anything outside it because it's just speculation.
I'm suggesting that ATM's comment may be valid in that very early on the universe would have had much different rules as matter as we know it would not yet exist, and IF there are more universes that may have different rules and perhaps different matter or even dominated by anti-matter for that matter.- Making a word salad?
No, you don't need to know what causes them in order to understand them.I'm always perplexed as to why they seem to think we need to know the cause, but they never ask any question to the cause of their own version reality. They never have to question God's reasoning or ability to exist outside our dimensions, but we have to explain what and why our version of the universe exists?
Do you maybe see then how it can be perplexing to us that atheists try to use science as a means to dismiss God when there are clear limitations to its application? One would think this is where the bible should ring significant. Though it was written long before it was ever known that humanity would come so far in our understanding of the universe, it still managed to consistently describe God in a way that doesn't contradict. It describes Him as being outside/before the universe, which did indeed have a beginning, meaning He lies beyond the reach of science. It describes His alternate perspective of time and His ability to be everywhere long before the concepts of time and space were ever understood to the level that would make that possible and even probable (being outside of the universe). It also makes a clear distinction throughout between the physical body and the non-physical/spiritual soul, again, outside of the jurisdiction of the physical sciences. And it actually explains the one thing about biological life that science doesn't answer by describing that the will that drives it to 'be fruitful and multiply' was instilled by this same creator. Then the emergence of self-awareness and reason, the two things that most differentiate us from the rest of the natural world. Pretty creative for a bronze age work of fiction.
Meanwhile, here we are, thousands of years later and much more knowledgeable, and we still can't crack those specific things; what 'caused' the universe, what 'caused' life and 'causes' it to willfully survive/perpetuate, what 'causes' the human mind? And no, Rad Man, we still haven't cracked the human mind yet.
There's absolutely no grounds to dismiss it still to this day, even with all we've learned, yet physical science is still used as a reason to justify doing so. Meanwhile, though there's no factual foundation to stand on, believers are told over and over again that they just don't/can't understand science if they still believe, and that it all happened on its own and its irrational to think otherwise.I can sum this argument up for you if you like.
"I don't know what happened, but it must have been a god."
Clearly you don't understand evolution or you would not be suggesting it was directed and guided in such a way as to deliberately produce humans.
Odd you don't see that claiming this god exists outside of existence and it is not possible that the human mind developed naturally is a non scientific argument that is immediately dismissed because it is not a testable proposition. This is grounds to dismiss it.
Honestly - I think the problem is you have no idea how evolution works - try reading about it. I suggest Dawkins is a good place to start for some one with no understanding of the process.Mark, how can you sensibly "sum up" so much plain good sense and perspective as HeadlyvonNoggin has just written? I see nothing there as being unreasonable. It is all debatable, for sure, provided you are debating on an equal level of knowledge and learning. Most of it is way beyond mine, I assure you, but I can still read it, chew it over, accept or reject any part I wish..... but the idea of "summarising" it seems pointless.
All the time you "stick to your guns" with you non-acceptance of anything outside of scientific proof and your own perception, I don't see how your mind can expand and grow.Explains it, doesn't it?
Just because it is beyond you does not mean it should be above everybody else. HeadlyvonNoggin has cleverly used his words, to denote it carry some profound meaning, but in its essence is as Mark summed up, that he do not think of a good number of things, he cannot comprehend or has the time to understand, want the bible to be true somehow, hence what he didn't understood is done by god.Quite easily - as you saw. There is no "good sense," there. I summarized it rather succinctly I thought. Where exactly did I fail? He can say it using as many words as he wants, but it still remains the same argument. "I don't understand therefore there must have been a god dunnit."
Sorry if you think rejecting religious drivel is preventing my mind from expanding and growing. There is more than enough information and ideas in reality to keep me busy expanding and growing my mind. Yours seem to be the limited one.
I don't need to believe that there is "something else," that science cannot explore. Obviously - you do. What a pity you can't get on board with the bible.I propose Mark's mind doesn't exist and that the comments that are claimed to be of his mind actually just came together on their own. Anything that appears to be an organized, intelligent thought is simply an illusion that people don't understand so they just want to say 'MarksMindDunIt'.
"Clearly you don't understand evolution or you would not be suggesting it was directed and guided in such a way as to deliberately produce humans."
Where did you get that? I didn't say that.
"Odd you don't see that claiming this god exists outside of existence and it is not possible that the human mind developed naturally is a non scientific argument that is immediately dismissed because it is not a testable proposition."
I didn't suggest God exists outside of existence. The bible did. Way before me.
Of course it's not testable and of course it's non-scientific. That's the whole point of my comment. You're dismissing something on the grounds that you can't physically test for it using the physical sciences. You're using the physical sciences to try to explain away something described from the start as non-physical. It's the wrong tool, Mark. You're trying to use a screwdriver on a bolt.
The physical testable world is the result of a non-physical, scientifically undetectable will. Much like your will. You obviously have one that propels you and compels you to do what you do, but if you were put to task to scientifically prove your non-physical will exists then we'd just have to settle for the answer that it doesn't using your logic.
And when did I say it's not possible that the human mind developed naturally?Mark's will is from his body? Where is this universal will from?
What is this'exist outside existence'?Prove it. What does Mark's will look like? What's its observable/quantifiable properties? And what method do you use to detect it and show me it exists?
Yeah, exists outside existence. As in this existence. Do you think nothing existed before? Do you think the beginning of the universe was the first and only thing that ever happened before this universe? If anything ever happened before that, then that would be something that 'exists/existed outside of (this) existence'. Though there's no way to prove it one way or the other, I find it hard to believe that the events that created this universe just happened. It's much more likely that something caused it. Could have been a previous universe that collapsed on itself then sprang back up. Could have been another universe that disappeared into a black hole and we're on the other side of it. Could have been God. But something most likely came before this existence.There is a problem vonNoggin, will do not exist. Will is the property of organised matter. That is why I asked you, when you said there is a will, what that matter is that exhibited that property.
How can you suppose a beginning to this universe? How could you explain matter vanishing into nothing?
Without a beginning how could there be a creation?
We certainly can't prove it, because we cannot go back in the past and see that event. What we can do is discuss about the event. You says two things..1) Universe needs a beginning and as it is there, it needs to be created. 2) God created it. But he problem with that logic is that you are assuming everything need to be created and then exclude god from your premise without giving any sufficient reason. So if no creation occurred, by default, it was always there. And if what was always there was called god, then what you call god is actually the universe.
Please note that I do not dismiss anything because one cannot detect it through the physical senses. I reject the biblical god, because it is contradictory. And the science you say in bible is merely re-interpretation of the old words to infer new meanings or simply god did it.
It is not a lie, it is a wrong explanation which stem from ignorance. It is how ancient man tried to see god, as an explanation of what they didn't understand. These people are simply continuing the precedence. And it is written thunder, wind etc represent god. The only continuing pagan religion - hinduism has gods for all these- Indra for thunder and rain, vayudeva for wind and so on..And these gods did interact with humans and animals and they even had sons from humans and animals say Bali and Arjuna for Indra, Sugreeva and Karna for vayudeva......
the biblical god is not consistent, he nearly killed almost all human, then tried to kill all except jews and then suddenly had a volte face and advocated peace and love.
You didn't say evolution was deliberately guided by God to produce humans? I'm confused. Did you say that you agree with the bible's genesis? God deliberately made humans?
You didn't say God exists outside of existence? You just saying you completely agree with the bible, All biblical scholars may not agree that the bible says what you think it says. You now say you didn't say that you've just been repeating what the bible say?
His will is detectable, we've gone down that before. It's detectable and explained. If you feel that our understanding of the brain is not perfect yet, wait it's getting better.
I'm not sure if you've ever said it was impossible for the human mind to develop naturally, but you certainly have said it did not develop naturally.Lets do one at a time shall we? This is a good place to start I think. Perhaps you could explain to me whether homo sapiens were deliberately developed or not?
I can't factually say, but I 'believe' they were.
In that case - you don't understand evolutionary theory at all.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, I guess. As far as I understand it, we still don't know how humans came about. A lot of theories, a lot of guesses, little evidence. But I'm sure you're right and there's a reasonable explanation. Keep the faith.
Not my opinion. You obviously don't understand evolutionary theory.
Then help. Explain it to me. Explain how humans as we are now can be factually proven to have come about through unguided evolution.
As I said - you do not understand evolutionary theory. There is no evidence of a micro manager and we must discard the entire theory if you can show this evidence.
Can you? Because the onus is on you to disprove the current theory.Obviously, you still don't get the physical/spiritual thing. What would evidence that supports a micromanager look like exactly? Because, according to the bible, God simply spoke His will and things followed. No hands-on molding. No finger prints. No disembodied arms floating in space balling up a planet like clay. Just an intelligence in the process. Random? Sure, that's our best guess.
Now you are sounding like just another religious troll. You either like science and the evidence that accompanies it - or you believe in majik.
Seems you believe in majik and reject science then.You're the one suggesting things came about all on their own. I'm the one pointing to the existence of an intelligent mind that is undetectable physically as the most likely candidate to explain the obvious intelligence in the process. It stands to reason it's not the only entity like that, capable of intelligence and creation. Makes way more sense than 'it just happened'. Which sounds more like majik to you? Nevermind, I know the answer.
So - science has got it all wrong? You reject evolutionary theory completely because it doesn't recognize the existence of an intelligent mind that is undetectable physically.
At least you are being honest now and make no pretense of being logical and scientific.
I guess that is progress.No, again you're making up your own version of what I"m saying and then arguing against it. Evolution, adaptation, being molded by the environment, that sounds just like God's style to me. Now whether or not those mutations that led to arms and fins and teeth and intelligence were just random, or if there was method to the madness, is another story. So no, I don't reject evolution. I just don't agree with what we know now as existence coming about randomly and fortuitously.
Sorry - you don't understand evolutionary theory in that case.
LAWL that the Majikal Invisible Super Being is so well hidden. That's what the bible said all along. Didn't make it up...
Romans 1:20 - For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
I'm sorry you don't understand. Truly, I am.Not a question of not understanding.
Glad you have stopped lying though - I know your invisible Super Being punishes you for that.Oh I've got plenty coming to me, I have no doubt. I'm a Christian, but don't claim to be a good one.
That would be admittance to not wanting to learn anything, that you "know the answer" which is your conclusion that an "obvious intelligence" created everything.
That is not science nor is it having any options for an open mind.
There is nothing obvious about an intelligence governing natural selection and diversity of species, quite the opposite, in fact. But, these are things you'll never bother to learn, because you already know the answer.I get it. I get natural selection. I get diversity of species. Just because I have an alternate take based on my own analysis that actually includes a God doesn't mean I don't get it. I'm fully capable. I just don't subscribe to your idea that it all just happened. Whether you want to admit it or not, your explanations are lacking logically. I can't subscribe to them.
I don't mind you disagreeing with me and I don't mind you telling me so. What I do mind is when you don't include the information that makes me factually wrong. "Haha, you don't understand" doesn't help.They lack the :logic: of Christian belief, which is why you don't subscribe to or understand them.
I've done just that many times, it's just not sticking.
I don't recall you covering what species the first hominids developed from, or how the DNA strands changes so significantly from other primates. There may be documented answers here. I honestly don't know. I haven't come across them yet.
You don't recall me explaining how evolution produced the intelligent human brain? Selective memory I guess.
No, I'm talking physical body. That's what I was referring to. Physical evolution that made physical humans. What species evolved into hominids? How did the DNA from primates to us change so significantly? That kind of thing?
As for the mind, your explanation doesn't jive. Survival, being able to calculate how to throw a projectile, hunting, making fire, etc, does not equate to a brain capable of figuring out the universe. Just look at indigenous cultures. That's a perfect example of everything you describe. That I can see. They're content with simply existing. Living, spending time together, hunting, that's it. They don't feel compelled to argue existence. They don't feel compelled to figure everything out. They're not inherently discontent like we are. It's that same inherent discontent that pushes us to take land from others, murder and enslave, build civilizations, put a rover on mars, etc.
The brain is an energy hog. We still don't get that part either. Why would something so energy dependent that it robs the rest of the body, come about?Interesting that you claim you are interested in science, but when ever something come up that contradicts you religious theories you simply dismiss the science. You don't even notice that because the brain is an energy hog it show us that a lot of work is going on in there, in the physical brain. The brain is doing the work, and when at work it uses more energy.
Your religious view has also taught you that humans are supposed to understand the universe. This intelligence is a by product of evolution and has the potential to be our downfall, leaving the opportunity for another hominid to eventually take over.
What can humans do better then any other animal. Throw with accuracy, and sweat. Both these things helped us hunt and they still do today.No, it's not my religious views that tells me we're supposed to understand the universe. As it's stated in the bible, faith doesn't require reason. It says we're not capable of fully understanding. I'm talking about what we are today. What we've become doesn't equate to evolution spurred by survival.
You make way too many assumptions about me. You think you've got me figured out. That's your first mistake. Science gives us the facts. What can be known. We all fill in the gaps between. You as well.
The 'naturalist' standpoint of science makes sense. You can't account for divine intervention in a controlled experiment. And I agree with that approach. Those doing the investigating I fully support that view because that's how we learn.
But we're talking about all of existence. And there are things in existence beyond the realm of science. In my attempt to figure out existence, I take the facts provided by science to inform my worldview. That view includes God and does not contradict known facts. They can coexist. I believe they do.You do not take facts provided my science, you pick which pieces of science fits into your religious views. I've shown you how evolution can develop the human brain, but you dismiss it because you want that part left up to God.
You've shown me the common assumptions about evolution in regards to the human brain. I'm talking about the facts. Again, there are many assumptions to fill in those gaps. You have to know the difference. You're acting like it's all already figured out. Far from. That has nothing to do with my religious views. That's acknowledging facts.
Understand, even if what you were saying were true it wouldn't conflict with my 'religious views'. You seem to have in your head that there has to be some magical element for it to be God. It doesn't. Life evolves and adapts to environment and conditions. The God I believe in created the natural world, which means He created the universe, the sun, and the earth through the Big Bang and created life through evolution. Rejecting your claims regarding brain development is not based on my beliefs. It's based on the fact that I'm well aware of what we know, what we don't, where the proven facts end and the speculation and guesswork begin.I do believe I've said this is how it could have happened and you have been rejecting that it could have happened entirely. There is no reason to disregard the theory. It makes perfect sense. The brain has to do a lot of calculations instantly to throw accurately.
Do you have a theory as to how the human mind has developed through evolution. You're now so ready to show us that your religion is not involved in this conversation, what's your theory? The throwing theory was of course not mine, I've just adopted it because it makes the most sense.
What's your theory? No bible or religion please.See, this is what drives me nuts when I'm being told over and over again that I just don't get it or don't understand science. The assumption always seems to be that your view holds some sort of intellectual authority in 'reality' and that not accepting what you're saying can't be logically grounded, but that it must be more based on my beliefs and my trying to defend them. Or even worse, my being purposefully deceptive.
Let's think about this. Do you think a squirrel is making a lot of complex calculations to jump from one branch to another accurately? Or a frog catching a fly with his tongue?
Because the mind cannot be observed directly, our best insight into the mind is through observing behavior. From your perspective, development of the human mind would be a rather gradual progression, wouldn't it? Each generation produced by the more successful specimen, passing on the traits that made them more successful?
Yet human history tells a very different story. There's little to no change over numerous generations, for thousands of years. Much like Neanderthal, or homo Habilis, tools were used but didn't change or improve for roughly 130 thousand years. The advances forward in humanity towards modernity were observably not gradual.
As we've discussed, humans reached anatomical modernity around 200 thousand years ago originating in the Great Rift Valley in Africa. The first major jump forward that differentiated homo sapien from all other species of the homo genus came about 50 thousand years ago. About 20 thousand years prior, or 70 thousand years ago, our ancestors were reduced all the way down to 10 thousand mating pairs or less, possibly due to the enormous Toba volcanic eruption. It's from the descendants of those that survived that humanity really begins to take shape. It's around 50 thousand years ago that we begin to see not just an upswing in the number of human made tools found by homo sapiens, but also an increase in diversity in tool type and function. This is sometimes referred to as the 'Great Leap Forward' or the 'Upper Paleolithic Revolution'. And it's these descendants of that genetic bottleneck who went from less than 10 thousand mating pairs on to fully populate the entire planet unlike any other species within less than 60 thousand years.
Then came the discovery of horticulture around 9000 BC in northern Mesopotamia. This was a very gradual, very slow process. It took 6000 years just for horticulture to be adopted across Eurasia, and took even longer to reach elsewhere. For thousands of years there were large populations of humans who lived in settled communities with populations in the thousands in some places, mainly in Europe and the northern Mesopotamia. Behaviorally, these humans were no different than the hunter-gatherer humans who came before. There was equality among all. No male dominance and no class separation.
Then there's that 4000 BC mark. Again, there were human communities prior to this for thousands of years that had by this point spread all throughout Eurasia. Yet it was just here that we see the next 'great leap forward' in human behavior. A very localized event and extremely abrupt considering the full breadth of human history. We've got at least 5 different civilizations independently forming in this region, each with their own language, including at least 3 different writing systems, plus the numerous inventions that go well beyond anything humans had ever done prior. All of this in a very short amount of time. And what's most significant is that these advances forward didn't come gradually from within those large settled communities like you'd expect. They came very abruptly, and they came from outside sources.
Each civilization, specifically Egypt and the Indus Valley, tells a very similar tale. The beginnings of both civilizations began against the backdrop of a growing Sahara desert with the arrival of nomads from the Sahara region. We know that the arrival of these nomadic tribes had a significant impact because they're the ones that brought the languages that took over in these communities, mainly Semetic and Indo-European. And their behavior traits took over as well as these communities that had existed for many centuries began to turn much more male-dominant and we begin to see the first signs in all of human history of class stratification. Not to mention the dozens and dozens of new inventions that came from these same regions, including a governing ruling class, laws, and the beginnings of astrology/astronomy and mathematics.
Can you maybe see now why I'm not so quick to get on board with what you're saying?I don't have time for this today, but I'll say a few words. You may no something about science, but your objective is not to learn but to display your theory that genesis is correct.
You examples don't relate at all to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the use of tools and weapons, you're talking about a squirrel's ability to be nimble. Not the same thing. Perhaps you can show me another animal that uses tools and weapons as we do. Show me another animal that can throw a rock with accuracy. Sure of closest relatives use tools, and they are also right up there behind us in intelligence.
So, I'll ask once again form an evolutionary standpoint, why do our brain's develop as they did?
No genesis please.If you're talking about physical brain adaptations then you should know you're off the mark. Why? Because neither Neanderthal or homo Habilis used projectiles. This is also specific to homo sapiens. Yet, though they were anatomically modern for 150 thousand years, they didn't use this ability until then. Projectile tools, like arrow and spear heads, didn't appear until around 50 thousand years ago with that 'great leap forward'.
How does that make sense from your perspective?Also, two things. First, my objective is to show the accuracy of Genesis BECAUSE of what could be learned if what I'm saying is true. It offers profound insight into the early development of humanity that has been missed for many centuries due to inaccurate interpretations of what it's saying. So, yes, this is about learning. Stop with the assumptions. Please.
Also, how can you say my examples don't relate? Just because they're not throwing projectiles or using tools? You're still dealing with physics. Body weight, distance, speed, accuracy. How much force to exert to accomplish a desired task. If you're going to make a leap don't you make similar guesstimates as you would if you were to throw something?"my objective is to show the accuracy of Genesis"
You see, you don't want answer that conflict with your objective. You just need to admit that.
You keep telling me how into science you are and reject the tools and weapons explanation for the rapid development of the human brain so...
Again, how do you explain the evolution of the human brain, without resorting to genesis?A 'will' to live pitted against adversity. Basically, they were 'inspired' by environmental conditions. Like the bottleneck in our genetic history. Whatever pushed our species to the brink of extinction brought something profound out of us. Then the Sahara region transforming into desert brought something out in those humans who had farmed for generations when they were forced back into migrating nomadic lifestyles. I would say the 'human spirit' in all of us that makes us push past our limits to achieve something great, whatever that is and where ever that comes from, in the face of incredible adversity, was the catalyst.
I love answers that conflict, because that always leads to learning something new I didn't know before. My objective is first testing my hypothesis because of all that could be LEARNED from it if true, which leads to my ultimate objective of bringing together two very opposed sides arguing over a very divisive topic when there's good reason to believe we're all actually talking about the same thing.
We are not here to educate you in topics requiring time, rigor and critical thinking, that is something you must achieve on your own. We can only guide you to some sources.
So much to say and so little time. I'm aware you like to think the bible has all the answers, but it causes more questions then answers. My answer to some of these question is "we don't know yet, but the right people are on the job". Your answer is "God did it, end of story, and my evidence is the bible". The bible is flawed and your answer doesn't really answer anything. Who, where, when, why, how? Don't you ever ask the very simple question that you guys always avoid and always say you don't need the answer to, what is God and how can he always have existed?
Biology and evolution perfectly describe the be fruitful and multiply as well as self-awareness and reason (which humans are not alone with). But I've explained that to you many times, you just keep reverting back to something about our minds are a spiritual connection to God. You are correct it was creative for a bronze age work of fiction. It show they were creative, but had no more knowledge of our universe then those of their time. One would have to reinterpret every sentence of the OT to think otherwise.
Ask a neuroscientist about the brain, ask a physicist about sub-atomic particles, ask me about photoshop.
Meanwhile, here we are, thousands of years later and much more knowledgeable, and we are still unable to crack some of those things. Why, because no one looks at why the universe began they look at how and when. Saying God did it is inserting religion into science. Saying God did it answers nothing without evidence, I may as well say we are but a dot in a petrie dish on a high school desk. Prove me wrong. It's speculation and only speculation.
There's no grounds to dismiss my petrie dish explanation either is there?
Science most likely does play a small role in dismissing faith as it shown us many of the things that are simply incorrect in the bible, why do you think we had the middle ages? But science is no the only reason, perhaps we all need different things, you may need to feel you have someone caring for you while I do not. Speculation of course.
Have a look at what research is going on right now. To say the brain won't be completely mapped out someday is a ridiculous notion. At one time some thought they'd never be able to perform a heart transplant, but here we are.
http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_jones_a_ … brain.htmlHow can I simultaneously be a fan of science and spend as much time as I do reading and researching it, yet dismiss everything as 'God did it', no need to look? The people doing the looking is who provides the information I'm reading about. Why would I want them to stop? I'm proposing a hypothesis. A testable hypothesis that says human behavior changed here, in this specific region/timeframe. There are specific events and a specific timeline given that can be verified. If I'm right then this explains things we don't understand yet. My mind is totally open to being completely wrong. Given the amount of supporting evidence I highly doubt I'm totally off-base, but it's possible.
The bigger point I'm trying to make is that you have no grounds to dismiss my beliefs. Yet that doesn't stop you. I'm trying to test a hypothesis that includes a creator God. You have no grounds to dismiss Him as a possibility. So the next best thing is to test the hypothesis. Basically, just as you're saying to me, don't rule something out that you don't know for sure. Don't assume you know the answer if you don't have it. If your petrie dish explanation helps you put together a hypothesis that has mounds of supporting evidence and potentially explains something we didn't before understand, then yes I could not rule it out and I'd give it due consideration.
As for the bible, I argue science has only illuminated glaring errors in our human-made interpretation of it.
As for the link, I appreciate it and will be sure to check it out. I know and can see the disconnect we're having about the brain/mind thing, but don't quite know what to say or how to say it so that you see it. The things we're mapping out in the brain, I agree with that. Anything that has anything to do with processing physically gathered information is in the brain. It's the will that drives you that I'm talking about. You use the brain to use the information you've gathered, and to think and reason and decide a course of action. But from 4000 BC on humans have exhibited willful actions unlike anything else in the natural world, including earlier homo sapiens. This is what I'm trying to point out to you.Headly, with respect, your theories are being dismissed for a few reasons. This first of which is that your claim that science is flawed, but the bible is perfect tells me that your not looking at science the way it should be looked at. To understand science you need to leave your religious agenda aside, they don't go together as I've said repeatedly. Your second problem is assuming that the will to survive has nothing to do with the brain, you call it non-physical, but that again is your religious issues playing with your mind. I've showed you how this will can come about with evolution and showed you we aren't the only animal with the will to survive.
Look into your spiritual world if you like, but religion and science do not mix, unless you want to go back to the dark ages?When did I say science is flawed? I've said many times that science removes the fallible human element from history. I've said that science gives us our most complete and unobstructed view of existence. When did I say it's flawed? I use it, extensively. I site it. Why would I if my stance is that it's flawed?
And it's not just the will to survive. I've made the distinction many times. It's everything else that makes humans unique. Our inherent selfishness to take more than we need, to destroy our environment through an attempt to control it, all of those things that make us so 'lovable' are unique to us. Survival is different. And, if you consider human history as far as being a tribal/social creature, qualities like selfishness and greed don't jive as far as being related to survival. That kind of thing, if you look at indigenous cultures, is strongly frowned upon and would get you ejected from the tribe, hence ejected from the breeding pool.
I know you think that's funny, and I'm glad I entertain you. I'm not so glad you believe in majik while simultaneously claiming intellectual superiority, but you're allowed to be you. I just wish you'd wake up. You've got a lot to offer, a lot of knowledge and wisdom to share, whether we agree or not. In fact, I find it's best when we don't. There's a lot to learn, but that requires mutual respect. When you address everyone not privileged enough to attend 'university', doomed to learn through whatever resources they can get their hands on, as if they're drooling simpletons, and not people, then we get nowhere.
You need look no further than our minds. That should tell you everything. Your view that things just happened this way and we're only here because it happened to play out the way it did, on its own, ignores one major thing that we know exists. The mind. It's capable of incredible things, makes us who we are, gives us the ability to actually understand existence to the level we do, yet is totally invisible. That should tell you something. You're a smart guy and you're much more than a biological/mechanical machine. I'm sorry you refuse to see that.I claimed no such thing, but I expect those kind of intellectually dishonest accusations from you.
Yes, I know, such is the nature of your religion, to cause conflict where none existed before.
Yes, you get nowhere getting your information from tv and youtube videos. And, to use the excuse "not privileged to attend 'university' as a reason for creating conflict and arguing religious beliefs as science is a cowardly act.
Yes, it tells me you wish to continue arguing your religious beliefs in light of everything you just said and pretend it's science.Nothing about science contradicts my beliefs. If you don't understand that then you don't understand science. Spiritual and physical are two different things. I'm allowed my beliefs as you are yours. You haven't the facts to discount my view as anything less than what you believe. That's your choice. Your ego. Stop trying to put it on me.
Again, not helpful. Maybe you can give me an example and I'll show you how you're wrong.
Those concepts are explained as the Grand unification epoch followed by the Electroweak epoch as temperatures cool and inflation is underway, gravity and then the weak and strong electromagnetic forces separate. This info can be found almost anywhere.
I see what you're saying. Clearly, they existed. No, they didn't exist as separate identifiable entities in that initial split second considering the environment, but they were there, right from the beginning. Only the environment changed, not the laws. To say they didn't exist, or that they 'arose', is a bit misleading, if not inaccurate, but I won't knit-pick.
Bullocks, they were not there right from the beginning, the didn't exist until matter/energy came into existence and the universe began to expand AND cool.
Right, the environment changed. Where before there was just the singularity, after there was space and time and matter and energy and mass. According to you, they didn't exist, therefore matter/energy coming into existence somehow created the laws that in turn govern them? How does that even make sense?
Came into existence? I thought you couldn't create/destroy matter? Are you talking about majik again?Once again, it is a complete waste of time trying to explain anything to you. You are not here to learn, but to troll.
Hahahaha!! Says the man with no hubs who takes pot-shots all day every day at believers in the forums simply for his own amusement and refuses to offer any substance to substantiate his statements. You're projecting, ATM.
More fallacies and lies. No wonder your religion causes so much grief and conflict in the world. Tragic.
Now you're saying that's a lie? If I were to take a poll of forum users I'd say the majority who have encountered you would describe you much the same way. I could certainly be wrong, but lying?
Another appeal to popularity fallacy.
You never learn.Who's fault is that? Give me something new to learn. 95% of your statements are so general, and often dripping with dismissive, snarky, sarcasm, that I could easily write a script to automate responses that would be indecipherable between which is script generated and which are yours. Just some random jab about somebody's ability to understand followed by an emoticon. Very informative.
That has been tried and failed due to the fact you have no interest in learning anything, you only wish to argue your religious beliefs and pretend it's science.
I understand that, but he's also injecting religion into the mix. I have to be sceptical of that, Did you not look at the question I have about his credentials?
The physicist certainly knows more about physics than I, but that doesn't make his opinion of religion one I have to respect. You perhaps can't see that he's trying to insert religion because of your own personal beliefs. Did you not see the list of his religious books? I did personally find any books of physics, if you do let me know.
Please show my our obscenely inaccurate statements? Your tension regarding us questioning is beginning to give validity to Johnny's statement, far be it from me to pscho-analize, but Johnny's got me thinking.
What wildly inaccurate statements about human have I made?
I've already done that, his assessment of free will is valid, but he contradicted himself a lot in the first video. See my first comment if you feel the need. I've showed you repeatedly how well the human brain is mapped out and what lobes perform was actions, did you see his description of that?
- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago0
In the making the new movie about God ........, " No real atheists were ever hurt or in any way injured during the making of this film "..........Not untill they begin to trip over their own ego's flocking to the theatres to see it ! Come on you guys , fess up , you NEED God in your pitifull existance ........:-}
Yes, I did. You know, back in the 20's when Georges Lemaître first proposed the Big Bang theory, or what he called the 'hypothesis of the primeval atom', there were critics that rejected it simply because he was a catholic priest as well as a an astronomer and professor of physics. They rejected it because they claimed he was trying to 'inject' his religion into the scientific landscape by suggesting the universe had a beginning. They thought, like many at the time, that the universe was infinite, and didn't bother to listen to the priest and his crazy idea.
Not to mention the majority of the forefathers of science and its methods were themselves Christians. Don't be so quick to dismiss a believer's ability to think and contribute.
Here's one ...
"Actually we finished populating the entire planet about 15,000 to 16,000 years ago, but we haven't started to really screw things up until that few hundred years. Your 6000 year mark is completely irrelevant.
During the 4th millennium BC (and slightly before - Ubaid period) we see the invention of writing, the first monarchy, laws, the wheel, checkers, arithmetic and geometry, irrigation systems, sailboats, lunisolar calendar, bronze, leather, saws, chisels, hammers, braces, bits, nails, pins, rings, hoes, axes, knives, lancepoints, swords, glue, daggers, waterskins, bags, harnesses, armor, quivers, scabbards, boots, sandal (footwear), harpoons, and beer. Not to mention the rise of Sumer, Egypt, the Indus Valley culture, Akkad, and Syrian civilizations, each developing independently of one another, each with their own unique language, and each making dramatic leaps forward in both technology and craftsmanship in a very short amount of time. I would say that's far from 'completely irrelevant'.I always knew it. Aristotle and Plato were Christians. The Indians who discovered '0' were christians. All the Arabs were christians. Why, even Bruno was a christian. His burning was the christian way of promoting science.
I said "the majority of the forefathers of science". Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Pascal, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Pasteur, Kelvin, etc. All these guys believed in God and saw science as the study of God's creation. Obviously this mindset wasn't the obstacle many here try to make it out to be.
They did in spite of and when you compare the times they were very radical...
Again many of theirs was exactly christian and most have kept religion out of their scienceI'm not sure how long you've been following along in the discussion, but the idea that was posed that I'm arguing against is that according to Rad Man, because the physicist I referred to is a Christian, everything he says about science is 'suspect', basically. He can't be trusted because his 'spiritual' mindset hampers his ability to think logically/scientifically. Clearly, there are many Christians who manage just fine.
I was reading it all along. I have to agree with Rad man, foe science should start with a clean slate and work backwards. Somebody who has already decided there was god because there were things he couldn't explain is not doing science nor is he arguing God's case, it is just argument from ignorance.
I agree. Science should work from a 'naturalist' standpoint because you can't account for or test God or His involvement. I agree with that.
But in discussing existence, which is clearly more than what's within science's wheelhouse, to use and only allow for what's detectable through the physical sciences is to dismiss a large, important part of the topic at hand.
And it's an assumption on your part that this God was made up to explain what they didn't understand. You're assuming they lied. Because it's not written to say that the thunder represents a god, wind represents a god, etc. It specifically tells a story about a very specifically and consistently described God that these stories say actually interacted with, talked to, appeared to, humans.
That is an unfair claim, I've never said I am sceptical because he is christian. I've said I'm sceptical because he has been promoting Christianity through his notoriety as a physicist. Look back at the research I did a few pages back. Plenty of books promoting Christianity and I couldn't find one on physics alone. He even claims he received an award for promoting the combination of religion and science, but I couldn't confirm that award.
I believe that was Wikipedia that said he won that award. I honestly can't say. All I knew about him was as a physicist. The 'believer' side of him is new to me. And in reading about Lemaitre, trying to find ATM his requested source, I found that Lemaitre too did a lot to promote science and religion being inter-related. But I think these two can differentiate what can be factually/scientifically proven and what is spiritual conjecture, and certainly wouldn't promote something under the guise of science if that's not their intention. Stannard is a professor and has worked closely with other scientists. I'm sure he's aware if he's crossing a line. But I don't know the guy, so I can't say. What I can say is that there's nothing in those videos that contradicts known facts. He's not twisting anything to allow for God. He's saying what I've been saying about the brain/mind all along because it's true.
Yes, still waiting here for that. Funny, how it suddenly does not appear anywhere, despite the fact you know you read it.
That's never happened to you? I read a lot, ATM, and had read that quite a while back. I just haven't found it yet.
Please back up your claims about Lemaitre with sources. Where does it say he was rejected simply because he was trying to 'inject' his religion into the scientific landscape?
I said he was criticized by some who rejected it believing instead that he was injecting his religious beliefs. I'll see if I can find a source that specifically says that, as I know I read it. Do you doubt that while still being debated there were critics who would feel this way? The debates continued for a while, until ...
"Others took up the big bang theory, and for several years there were strong debates between those supporting it and those who favored a "steady state" theory of the universe, in which the universe was eternal and unchanging. This argument ended when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson found evidence of cosmic background radiation, which Lemaitre and other theorists had determined would be the residue of the big bang's explosion many billions of years ago."
http://theor.jinr.ru/~kuzemsky/glembio.htmlThose who read his papers said no such thing, they weighed his paper based entirely on what was written there.
I await your source. Please provide a link to it asap.
Is there some point to that quote?
You assume. Can you prove that? That it's the property of organized matter? You're right, the will does not 'physically' exist.
That's a good question. Where did the matter come from? We don't know. We can't say. The universe as it is today began then in that way. Beyond that, we have no idea.
The point I'm trying to make is that the universe as we now understand it conforms to what's described. I'm not trying to explain how God could be infinite. My mind can't even grasp that. All I know is we're here now, and according to what we do know, it doesn't contradict what the bible describes. That, to me, offers a better explanation than 'it just happened'. We have non-physical minds able to create. What are the odds that our minds are the only non-physical/non-detectable entities in existance capable of creation?
Says you. Using modern scientific understanding to give proper context to Genesis I argue that it resolves contradictions.
If they're telling stories of interactions with God, and those interactions didn't happen, then they're lies, right? They specifically say a being was created who, along with all of his off-spring, lived for centuries, then mated with mortal humans. In fact, every civilization in that age claimed roughly the same thing. Super human beings who lived longer than mortal lives and who breeded with humans. The Sumerians/Akkadians/Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, etc. You assume it's all just fiction.What do you mean by "exist" vonNoggin? If something does not physically exist, then what do you mean when you say something exist?
'Will' a property of matter, its simple? A simple structural abnormality is enough to make an intelligent man, a dumb one.
What is this 'began'? How do you make out there was a 'beginning'. Suppose you got a tape that shows the universe and you play it in reverse mode, you will find that atoms changing its course, but you won't find it suddenly disappearing neither you will reach the end of the tape. If it does, then you can say a beginning,then explain how does that happen and why?
What is described? Bible describe earth as a circle? is it a circle?
We are here now. It do not contradict bible because it also describes that. The contradiction happens when it starts to explain how we got here.
Bible says an intelligent beings needs to be created.
Then says god created this intelligent being. So what is the inference, that either god is not intelligent or the explanation is wrong? What is this non physical? How do you describe it? Mind is a product of the neurons just like cpu is the product ic chips.
What happened. Universe is eternal, no beginning. Non-physical is the property of physical, without physical there is no property, that is without brain there is no mind.
If a universal mind is there, it need a universal brain to make it a reality.
Let me see how you resolve the contradiction which I stated. I'll state once more for you benefit.
1. Everything needs to be created
2. God created everything
hence god is nothing, for if god is a thing he too needs to be created according to your logic. But how can nothing create?
They are not lying, that is called misconceptions or wrong explanations. They tried to give the explanation they knew, but unfortunately failed to see the inherent contradiction.I think there's one aspect here that hasn't been addressed. (sorry, I started a new job, and I'm not able to follow the forums as actively throughout the day as I'm accustomed. I'm coming late to the party)
Are you familiar with the CS Lewis argument about jesus - Liar, Lunatic or Lord? There's another L option out there that Lewis never addresses - Legend.
The people who wrote genesis are NOT the people who the stories are about. Abraham, Isaac, Lot, Noah, etc did not write down these experiences first-hand. They were oral traditions passed down for generations. Oral tradition is often changed intentionally or accidentally and there is evidence of this all over the place. What if the person who wrote it down was mistaken or misinformed? There are no eyewitnesses by the time any of the biblical stories were committed to paper.Are you just referring to the stories you mentioned and other OT stories or do you mean the NT stories as well?
I don't think that is true of the New Testament given the time frame in which they were written, as well as the circumstances surrounding the writing of Luke.
even your bible says that the authors of the gospels are unknown. Luke wasn't an eyewitness. Paul never met jesus. There are NO eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life and almost all biblical scholars - christian and secular alike - will concur that the EARLIEST gospel (Mark) was written at LEAST 40-50 years after jesus' supposed death.
Unless you've gone to a prestigious bible college, read the original languages and studied the history, I'm not really sure you're in a position to challenge these facts with me.
You are right. Lewis copied the bible to make a new story. May be he thought that everybody was like him, without much imagination.
@RadMan
The only thing that has become such a huge barrier for science and religion to touch and therefore complement each other, is Human EGO. Rid your EGO of, and release it from, so much self-made detritus and you will realize that science and religion can and should mix.Thank goodness that is no longer the case. Religion is the exact opposite of science. Your EGO is telling you that you know something when you don't.
Awww - you are sounding more like the troll with every utterance.
Cya Genea.
Mark you talk of Ego as though it's the sole province of others, not yourself!
Headly... has taken every one of your postings, where you have confronted him with ridicule and vitriol, without thrashing out at you in return. Consistently he has come back to you with calm, respectful, thoughtful replies which really need thinking about on you part.
Yet I don't see you able to consider other points of view objectively. It seems you cannot get out of your own EGO in order to thoroughly consider other possibilities.
What is your problem? Are you afraid that you might change your opinion, just one tiny bit? Because a locked mind can feel safe, can't it? Very comfortable. Impregnable.
At least that's how I see it. Up to you to decide whether this is true or not.....Vitriol?
I have considered his views objectively. He claims knowledge of an entity that exists outside of existence. He also rejects current evolutionary theory completely.
Objectively - this is utter nonsense. Sorry you don't agree, but I am quite comfortable telling him that this is ridiculous.
He also promotes the book that tells us to stone homosexuals to death as being correct.
And he also consistently tells me I don't know anything and should do some more research.
I reject this completely, I have done my research. I see no reason to change my opinion and start stoning homosexuals.
I have explained over and over why his "theories," are false. Sorry you did not notice that - and all you saw was the "vitriol."
Perhaps you aught to read back through the thread and see that I have made lots of valid points that have been completely ignored.
I only bought up EGO because some one else did in order to tell me that was why I didn't understand about the Majikal Invisible Super Being. Nor was that comment directed at Mr Noggin."he also rejects current evolutionary theory"
Well thats a good thing isnt it since its just as you say theory? if we just accepted it completely how it is then how can the theory of evolution evolve? it would continue to be a useless effort to explain life on earthNot how it works, sorry. To reject it, you need some evidence that it is false.
Got some?did i say reject it completely? nope is said the current evolutionary theory and it has been changed many times during its 100+ years of being a theory for example no more tree of life, life does not evolve as slowly as some scientists would have liked, one species cannot evolve into another species because genetics will not allow them and many more.
I love the theory of evolution however it still needs to change for it to become a fact, and for it to become a fact you need to realise that it is not the FULL answer to life but it is part of the puzzle and if you continue to think it is the full answer then soon you are going to become a caveman (inwilling to accept change)do you understand how the word "theory" is used in science? I'm doubting that you do. Theory is the graduation point. It means that it has been tested repeatedly, subjected to peer review and duplication, etc. The "theory" of evolution isn't a theory in the laymen sense of the word. No concept in science can get any higher than a theory. It seems that you're equating the word theory with the word hypothesis. You may want to read up on your scientific terms. www.notjustatheory.com/
i know what it means thanks for your patrony but the point i'm getting at is that because its a theory it is subject to change yes?
Like i said im not attacking evolution just some peoples distorted view on it and their over confidence in it as being the complete answer to life on earth.
We need to do better to explain life on earth...no scientist would argue that which is why so much research is still going into the subject because everyone knows that we don't know that much so why would you post me a stupid link like that?As JMcFarland stated, you need to read up on what constitutes a theory rather than continuing to look foolish. Theories require 'falsifiability" in order for them to be considered false, then they can be subject to being discarded or changed. Do you understand?
Evolution does that quite adequately. Try taking the time to learn about it.Everything in science is subject to change when new evidence is presented. That's how science, rational thought and intellectual honesty WORK, thanks so much for your sarcasm. It really allows the conversation to progress positively.
Evolution doesn't address the beginning of life on earth. It is the model for how life "evolves". Scientists, unlike many religious followers are more confident to say that "they don't know" when they don't have an answer. They don't inject a supernatural being into the mix just to force it to make sense.
Since evolution doesn't address the beginning of life on earth, more research has been and IS being done to figure out the universe and existence. I wouldn't expect you to know or understand that, however, since you're throwing "theory" around like a closed-minded person who doesn't understand what it really means. You're not worth any more of my time, sorry. I'm interested in talking to people who actually want to have a discussion - not toss around sarcasm, insults or ignorance.
LAWL. It will never become a fact. The FULL answer to life? What are you talking about? Do you have sopme evidence that makes you reject our current theory or not?
you don't know what im talking about? are you sure or are you just playing dumb and trying to throw the question back at me without dealing with what i said?
this is why there is no point in talking to certain hard headed people....maybe the missing link still lives among us?
indulge me with your version of what the current version is then mark and we will see if that is what it actually is, that way you can actually answer a question directly.Would that be admittance to not knowing anything about evolution? Funny how you can deride a theory you know nothing about.
why don't you butt out A troubled man because i structured that reply to a specific person not to you and now you are misconstruing what i meant, you have already proven yourself as totally unreasonable so im not replying to anything you say
You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of a theory and the theory of evolution, yet you are here telling us nonsense about both of them. There is nothing misconstrued about that.
so you are saying theory is not subject to change? because that is all i said (i will stick to one sentence with you because if i dont you will pick one sentence out and miss the rest)
Only, if it can be shown to be false, then it can be discarded or changed. Evolution has never been shown to be false, quite the contrary.
again you didnt read what i said did you? i said certain parts of evolution have changed i never said the WHOLE theory needs scrapping did i? so where have i demonstrated a lack of understanding?
Yes, I read it and explained it to you. What part of it don't you understand?
Such as what?NO TREE OF LIFE
SPECIES EVOLVE FAR QUICKER THAN FIRST THOUGHT
ONE SPECIES CANNOT EVOLVE INTO ANOTHER SPECIES I.E A FELINE WILL NEVER BECOME ANYTHING OTHER THAN A FELINE GENETICS WONT ALLOW IT
is that big enough for you? or will you manage to miss it again?
what have you explained to me? back up what you say or dont say anythingYour claims have already been shown to be false. Sorry.
There is a tree of life in that all life on earth had common ancestors.
Species evolve at various rates.
Felines evolved from a common ancestor.What is your proof of this troubled man? Where do you get your information about common ancestry from? Some sources would be helpful. Thanks.
I am not here to educate you in evolution. Please start by reading, "On the Origin of Species" by Darwin if you wish to begin your education.
haha a troubled man please start by reading, is that another way of saying you have no sources? i think it is isnt it?
That IS a source. It will help you understand evolution.
Haha I have my education Troubled Man. I know quite a bit about evolution, I am quite fascinated by it. I am asking what you know. What your proof is of common ancestry. I don't want you to teach me. I want to see what you know, because many of your posts talk about evolution as if you thoroughly understand it, yet you have demonstrated a knowledge of pop science rather than actual science.
So. What proof do you have of common ancestry? Sources please. I want to see how you can support this unproven, unobservable theory. The theory that seems to be the *god* of many intellectually lazy atheists.Funny how you say you're educated in evolution, yet make childish misinformed comments about it.
Such as? Examples of my childish, misinformed comments please. I am currently of the same opinion when it comes to you.
I really want to know what you think about evolution, especially common ancestry. Perhaps it will clear up an misconceptions I have about you. Please actually answer the questions instead of avoiding them. Every time you avoid them it gives me a laugh but also wastes both our time.Okay it seems you have nothing to offer. I doubt you have any actual scientific knowledge seeing as you will not present any opinions, ideas, facts, sources or anything else positive. It seems you only offer the negative, what you do not believe, what is not true, what is not intelligent...not worth it.
ATM always offers his opinions, so your statement is false.
If you say so.
So, when are you going to get around to learning about evolution so you are able to make intelligent comments about it rather than the childish beliefs you offer?
Full title is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Of course, in spite of the title it never actually answers the question of the origin of any species. We never find out where the initial rock came from, which rock mated with which rock, when things became alive, what life is, etc...none of that. Also doesn't explain how losing data becomes gaining and creating new data, which would be crucial for it to work.
Favored races? Yes, that is what evolution teaches. Who was that fellow trying to help evolution along back in Germany many years back? Hmmmm.Favoured Races? No that's what the bible teaches. Evolution doesn't care about skin colour unless it has to adapt to a new environment. That guy back in Germany was trying to exterminate a race or religion because of what the bible taught him, not because of evolution.
How can you say such things when you've never read the book?
Wow, believers will say the most silliest things.
So, you also want evolution to answer questions that do not concern evolution?
LOL! No, that is not crucial for evolution to work. Again, that shows you don't understand it. Such dishonesty."
We never find out where the initial rock came from, which rock mated with which rock
Wow, believers will say the most silliest things."
You never heard of people "getting their rocks off," ATM?The irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
The Flagella has been shown to work without all it's protein and pieces and other similar bacteria has been found that has less parts but still work which was original thought not to be the case by ID'ers.
no a troubled man that tree has been scrapped and they now believe that life had to have started by chance more than once.
show me your common ancestor?Sorry, that you have no understanding of evolution but are still compelled to lie about it.
There is a great deal of information on our common ancestors. Have you not take the time to do the homework? I found no less than 173,000 current peer reviewed articles on "human common ancestors".when i say source i don't mean some random person creating a blog and titleing it "human evolution" you know?
I'm not talking about blogs. Do you understand what a peer reviewed article is? Considering you don't even know what a theory is, I can't expect you to know that, either.
But yet there is plenty of evidence that if does happen. The donkey, horse, mule and zebra. Lions and Tigers, and last but not least the fruit fly. You have been lied to about evolution, don't listen to people trying to sell you God.
well when you talk about a species you are taking it to a VERY broad scale...when i say species i mean the feline species i.e House cat, lion, tiger, cheetah they are all part of the same genetic pool so i do not accept that as proof at all just like i do not accept that black people and white people are a different species.
you're reply right there shows me that i'm not the one who needs to learn what evolution is, thanksA species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
Interesting that the donkey and horse can breed, even though they have a different number of chromosomes? But guess what their offspring is infertile so that makes them a different species. Why is that? And why does the same thing happen with fruit flies. Geographic isolation is an important step of some speciation events.you mean hybrids dont you? but isnt that just proof of what i said? they cannot go past a certain point because their genetics will not allow them, if they are infertile then that is the stopping point that they can't go past.
They are part of the same family (equidae) so it would make sense that they can breed, same with the lion and tiger...same family and they breed but then the stopping point that has been put into place is that they cannot go any further. the confusion here is with the word "species" it is far too broad
you might be interested to know that there was a hybrid human race according to the bible as well which is angels coming down from earth and transforming into male bodies and breeding with females, creating a race of incredibally powerful humans...interesting to note perhaps is that only the female chromosone can be targeted in neaderthols not the male.You don't understand. The horse can now breed with other horse and the donkey with other donkeys. They just can't beed with each other anymore because they have been separated to long, thus showing how evolution actually works.
a horse and a donkey CAN breed to make a mule which is a hybrid so tell me again how it works?
and the reason they can is because they are part of the same family.
if we where part of the same family as apes then we could make a hybrid with them since according to evolution we are 'only' 6 million years apart but we cant.You poor thing, the mule is not viable and sterile, therefore the horse and the donkey are no longer the same species. It's in the very definition of species.
Humans and chimps have been separated to long, but we still share 99.8% of genetics. You and I would not be able to tell the difference.Nope not good enough, they are part of the same family and can breed together thats a fact you told me a porkie and said that they cannot breed but clearly they can you're tactic of deflecting my reply won't work.
again we share so much DNA but we cant breed with them because we arent part of the same family as them, DNA has nothing to do with it, we share 98% DNA with a halibut as well which never gets mentioned but that does not mean we hsare a common ancestor, we share 70% with a bannana but that doesnt mean we are 70% similar to a bannana
also dont be so optimistic in how much DNA we share with chimps - its more like 98% not 99.8%A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
Horse
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Perissodactyla
Family: Equidae
Genus: Equus
Species: E. ferus
Subspecies: E. f. caballus
Donkey
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Perissodactyla
Family: Equidae
Genus: Equus
Subgenus: Asinus
Species: E. africanus
Subspecies: E. a. asinus
Well look at that? They are in the same Genus, but not the same species. But can produce unviable offspring.
Tiger
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Panthera
Species: P. tigris
Lion
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Panthera
Species: P. leo
Well look at that? They are in the same Genus, but are not the same species, and yet can (although never the wild) can produce viable offspring.
As for our connection with the chimp and genetics you have been given misleading information as well.haha E. ferus and E. africanus are both described as still being part of the wild horse family, the main difference being one lives in africa.
what im saying is the word species is far too broad but these still have the same genetic make up as eachover so....
misleading information yeah im sure i have or perhaps is just misleading me away from your conclusionI agree that it's a broad term however you have been saying that these things are the same species, but they have been determined to be of different species. Do you suppose you know better.
Wolf
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Subfamily: Caninae
Tribe: Canini
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Cayote
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. latrans
Dog
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. familiaris[1]
All are the same Genus, but the coyote is a different species, but can mate with wolves. The Dog is now described as a subspecies of the wolf, because they have become very different in both mating practices, temper and ability to understand the human pointing finger.
Need I go on?haha if i did say that i didnt mean it but i think all i said that i think the term species is very broad...you are right they are defined as a different "species" but that is not proof of evolution because they can only evolve to a certain point and genetics dont allow them to go past a certain point.
it has been observed that evolution goes back on itself and back to its original point...for example darwins finches where observed to have larger beaks than other finches and the reason for that was that sea levels had risen during that period of time but now the finches beaks have returned to normal...But, that's why your not understanding the horse and the donkey. This is an example of just that transition. There genetics are to varied for them to have offspring that can have further offspring. In other words they have been separate for so long they can never go back. This is the perfect example of what you said doesn't exist.
It is not because the donkey is still a horse and is part of the horse family
NO, it's no longer the same species, I've showed you that. If it were still a horse it would be able to have viable offspring. A loin and a tiger can still have offspring that can mate, but are not the same species, while the horse and donkey are not the same species, can still mate, but the offspring cannot.
This is the evidence you said doesn't exist, and yet it does.Many a slip....lol. The tiger would relish the loin.
Have you ever seen a liger? Lion father and tiger mother. Google it.
Thanks for that link - fascinating!
I have heard of Geeps and Shoats.Wolphins (whale and dolphin)
Cama (camel and llama)
Zubron (wisent and domestic cattle)
Mangalitsa (boar descendants and pigs)
Savannah cat (wild cat and domestic cat)
Grolar Bear (Grizzly bear and polar bear)
Zebroid (zebra and horse)With offspring that can't reproduce? How does that help evolution?
most of these hybrids are done by mankind - they don't occur naturally in the wild. Therefore evolution has nothing do do with it in the general sense. It is not natural selection, it's artificial selection.
Wait, not so fast. The original statement was something like, if evolution were true then why don't we ever see one animal changing to another. I had originally showed him/her the horse and the donkey as an example of animals in transition. They were once the same, but were separated long enough to look different and be a separate species, but still be able to produce offspring, but the offspring are sterile. I was then talking to jonny about more hybrids. Of course most of these never meet in the wild, but the point is the fact that they can produce offspring is evidence of evolution.
That's true, and I may have jumped the gun before reading the entire response, apologies. It is evidence of evolution - even if artificial selection is the means that makes it happen. I have a feeling that what they're looking for is the Ray Comfort crock-a-duck that's half of a crocodile and half of a duck, which is - of course - absurd. Evolution doesn't work THAT way. That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of transitional forms.
The repeated fruit fly experiments in the lab are rather telling. Since fruit flies reproduce so rapidly and have such a short life span, scientists are actually able to observe evolution in a very high-paced manner. before too long (within a few generations, I think) they're able to see provable evidence that fruit flies evolve into a different species that are no longer able to reproduce with the original group set. It's mind-blowing, but there it is in black and white. It's fascinating.
Still not understanding? You asked for any creature that has changed from one animal to another, but are no longer the same species. These are examples of animals in just that transition.
I have been called one, but I think you would be able to spot the difference!
But of course you have a much better explanation of life on earth? No need for science?
again you just blurt out nonsense, how can you really expect me to believe that it is only religious people that are dogmatic and unreasonable in their views when you are acting in the same way?
Ever heard of the bible saying 'the blind leading the blind'? that has great relevance here i think
Perhaps your forgetting the dark/middle ages when religion attempted to control science?
That's ego too. Humans are the ones that have mucked it up from the start, and religion is no exception.
@RadMan:
Religion attempting to control science is as insane/inane an idea as science attempting to controll religion. Human ego tends to lead man to try to do things that are not according to his natural bent. And trying to over-ride one human endevour with another is bound to fail... as it has failed in the past... and will fail in the future.I'm confused didn't you just say "The only thing that has become such a huge barrier for science and religion to touch and therefore complement each other, is Human EGO."
Then
"Religion attempting to control science is as insane/inane an idea as science attempting to controll religion."
First you want them together and then separate? I prefer separate. You stop trying to tell me that phycologist testing other animals for self-awareness are incorrect and I'll leave you to pray. Good.@Radman:
Complementing and controlling are not the same thing. Complementing involves/invokes synergy,while controlling involves disonance/competition.
Now praying involves recognizing the fact that as humans we are all going on a journey that we are not in total control of.....a concept that is alien to atheists, because their idea of a supreme self/ego is their most ardent article of faith.you get that atheists don't have articles of faith, right? In fact, the definition of an atheist in the most general of terms is someone who has a lack of belief in a god due to insufficient evidence. Atheists in general (and specifically when referring to myself) do not have "faith". I have trust in certain things based on prior experience and overall trustworthiness. I do not have any kind of faith.
@JM:
When I wrote "ardent article of faith" I was not referring to any set values vis a vis a belief system . God knows that the only thing that atheists put value on is their supreme belief in their own EGO.How can you know what God knows. It's said in the bible that he is undetectable and you seem to be able to read his mind.
@RadMan:
I used the "God knows" as it is usually said in the context of a casual conversation ie. God knows I hate to see you go, but have a goodtime, anyway.Fair enough, but I don't see why my ego is getting in the way of believing in a fictitious super being that lives outside our known universe and watches. Is it my ego or your need for a father figure?
That is simply an assertion. Its your opinion, which is not based on facts and is furthermore blatantly untrue. Try again.
@JM:
So tell me why my opinion is not based on facts and is untrue. I'm open to having this discussion.You said: When I wrote "ardent article of faith" I was not referring to any set values vis a vis a belief system . God knows that the only thing that atheists put value on is their supreme belief in their own EGO.
I'm an atheist, and I don't rely on my EGO to determine reality. I rely on evidence and things that can be claimed, demonstrated and sufficiently proven. Therefore your assertion is untrue in regards to me - and many others like me. I don't particularly like my EGO at all. I am more than willing to admit that there's a lot that I don't know, and I'm perfectly comfortable saying that I don't know. I'll always be interested in new or different information, and my position on many things may evolve. That's not an ego-centric worldview is it? Your overall experience may lead you to that blanket stereotype, but that doesn't mean that it's true across the board for ALL atheists, just like ALL christians don't support burning people at the stake for a difference in denomination. Do you agree?
@JM:
Atheists came to the conclusion that God does not exist, purely on the basis of them not being able to perceive God via their 5 physical senses. For them to believe that God exist they have to, physically up close and in person, see,hear, touch, smell, and taste God.
Well good luck with that one.
So why do you think that atheists are so embedded to the purely physical and material perception and interpretation of of reality? The only sane explanation is that their oversized EGO have made them treasonous to their natural bent of being able to conceptualize reality other than their OWN physical and material self.Hilarious, you claim atheists don't believe in God because they can't perceive God, yet you can? Please tell us all how you perceive God that would be verifiable for us that cannot?
@ATM: If you are waiting for me to provide you with physical/material/totally empiric evidence that god exist.. then as I said, good luck with that.,
Now am I the least inclined to summarize for you the thinking that went with my decision to believe in God. No I'm not, for the simple reason that that would be an exercize in futility.
I don't know about that. I can't see atom's but I think they are there. I can't see gravity or air, but experiments help to think they are there. If you can provide me with some similar evidence I'd be all over it, because I like the idea of living forever after I die, see family again would be great, but reality bites and that bite has nothing to do with ego.
@RadMan:
Same response that I gave ATM applies to your post.
Ok, so does it follow from this, that a belief in God is purely imaginary? Without the actions of those influences on our senses, we cannot be aware of anything except imagination.
I like you jonny, you've given me insight and argued from both sides of the fence. Your insight was wise and may have answered my question as to why do believers believe. My work is just may be done.
I guess you weren't willing to give me the time to answer, since i was at work before providing a followup again. I understand, I'm not the world's most patient person either.
Again, you're lumping all atheists together when the ONLY thing that atheism addresses is a lack of belief in a god claim. I do not conclude that no god exists. I conclude that none of the evidence I've been presented with has been sufficient to justify having faith in a god. Atheism is a lack of faith, period. I don't fault you for not knowing my personal history, but i'm not just making these claims ignorantly. I was a believer, a missionary and a theology student in college for years. i believed in the bible for over 25 years. Once I started studying it, however, including many apologetics courses, I could no longer justify those beliefs. They were based on FAITH, which is defined as belief without supporting evidence, not on FACTS, EVIDENCE or critical thinking. I don't particularly want to taste god. But if this supreme supernatural being exists, it's rational to expect that he'd provide evidence that justifies believing in him. He doesn't. When you start learning about the bible - specifically how it was written, when it was written, all of the errors in it, all the politics involved in putting together a religious belief, etc and start studying the actual HISTORY of the faith, it shakes what you believe to be true - until you realize that you can't demonstrate that it's true at all.
Your second paragraph is all pure assumption. It may be based on your prior experience with atheists, but that doesn't make it true.@JM:
I do understand that my previous post in answer to yours was somewhat overarching, and I apologize for that.
I can not present, (neither can the millions of other beleivers), you with any concrete evidence (if that is what you are asking for) that God exist. As I have said before, in other posts on this and other forum, my belief in a non-material/non-physical reality is more a result of introspection, coupled with intuition. Now that may not be enough for you and other folks who require empirically tested evidence,
I also understand that you went through a period of introspection and investigation, and came to a different conclusion. We are simply being human in that regard, in the sense that we have the inate ability to chose our own path, free will and all.
I don't have any expectation for God to provide me evidence that he exist.. Irrationally, I don't think He plays by the same rules as human's do, but would I think less of Him because of that? Rationally, I would'nt.
Ego?
Which of the following two groups has an over inflated ego?
1. The person who doesn't just take someone's word for it, but investigates the matter on his/her own. The person who understands that humans are but just another animal on a lonely planet on the edge of our galaxy which is but one of billions.
or
2. The person who accepts someone's word without investigation and thinks that humans are in the likeness of a God and were put on earth by God to rule of all other creatures, and he/she alone was given a mind capable of connecting with God by God.
I'd have to pick number 2 as they are the group that thinks they are special and deserves and gets special attention.@RadMan:
Your arguments are really going beyond stretching credulity and into fatuousness.
Believers neither feel special nor un-encumbered by the fact that they introspected and intuited a reality that is different from the physical and material that they are encompassed with.. On the contrary, we feel that to go a little further down the path of realization, we also have to shred and shed most of the EGO that tethers and embedds us to the purely physical/material.
Some believers have anchored their belief in the Divine on the Biblical accounts. Personally, I have not been one of those, mainly because I think the bible presents such a skewed picture of Divinity, if as some have insisted , it should all be interpreted literally. Personally, I believe that parts of the Bible could be interpreted as such, but some should be interpreted metaphorically and allegorically. I am not a biblical scholar, so I leave it to the experts to determine which is which.So let me get this straight, you don't think God has placed humans in a position of power over other animals? You don't think God created all of this for us?
@RadMan:
I believe that the creation of the universe and all the animate (and inanimate) entties that have ever lived on earth was initiated by an ENIGMATIC but nonetheless non-material and non-physical POWER. I say ENIGMATIC, because as humans, with can never fully understand HIS true and absolute nature. Thus all that there was, is and will be on earth are subject to his POWER alone. Humans, being part of that creation must act according to his inate dignity vis-a-vis other earthly entities. By inate dignity I mean the consciousness and conscientiousness that emanates from the ENERGY that has been imparted to us individually when we are born, by that ENIGMATIC POWER. Do I think that the other earthly entities have also been given that ENERGY for them to exist and find their own niche in the natural order. Yes I do.
Man has obviously found his own niche, and I am not being hubristic if I say that man is close to or near the top of that natural order, by virtue of the complexly/integratively/uniquely constructed neuronal synapses in his brain and the rest of his nervous system.
My intuition and introspection leads me to believe that humans, because of his cerebral capacity to persist and insist for answers to the questions of the why/how/when of his creation and existence, can and must continually aspire to a deeper level of understanding, to a higher level of consciousness, and ultimately a more transcendental existence.
My disagreement with atheists arise not from the fact that they do not believe a higher power exist (call Him GOD), for after all they have the will to freely chose what they chose to believe, but from their corollary insinuation that human existence is devoid of purpose, utility and significance, aside from acting according to the dictates of their physical and material needs, and not aspiring for something more than what their perception of reality allows them... a perception that is glued ONLY to the physical and material.When I first read through this post, I was already taken by that first line as having found a gem. I had no idea the rest of the post would exceed my expectations for containing a wealth of gems.
The contradictory 'non-material and non-physical POWER' statement was silly enough without having the word POWER in caps. Not just power, but POWER. Completely undetectable, invisible and indistinguishable from NOTHING, there exists a POWER. NOTHING = POWER. Funny stuff.
Yet, here you are telling us all about HIS true and absolute nature. Another gem.
That is pretty much what a dictator would say before declaring himself one of those earthly entities also given that ENERGY by that invisible ENIGMATIC POWER.
Of course, in light of the fact there is only NOTHING and no POWER has been detected, we can only assume it is you who wishes to decide how "that creation must act according to his inate dignity vis-a-vis other earthly entities".
Honey Bees have remained in their current state for the last 20 million years, as if they too have plateaued their evolution. That's actually not a bad prediction.
THAT'S a gem unto itself.
You claim there is a POWER that is "non-material and non-physical". Non-material and non-physical is exactly the same thing as NOTHING. You offer us NOTHING but call it POWER.
And, if indeed, the NOTHING that you offer is in fact "non-material and non-physical" as you claim, it cannot be seen or detected in any way, therefore we as humans will only see NOTHING.
If you too can only see NOTHING, how do you know POWER is there? Do you have special powers?
@RadMan:
I believe that the creation of the universe and all the animate (and inanimate) entties that have ever lived on earth was initiated by an ENIGMATIC but nonetheless non-material and non-physical POWER. I say ENIGMATIC, because as humans, with can never fully understand HIS true and absolute nature. Thus all that there was, is and will be on earth are subject to his POWER alone. Humans, being part of that creation must act according to his inate dignity vis-a-vis other earthly entities. By inate dignity I mean the consciousness and conscientiousness that emanates from the ENERGY that has been imparted to us individually when we are born, by that ENIGMATIC POWER. Do I think that the other earthly entities have also been given that ENERGY for them to exist and find their own niche in the natural order. Yes I do.
Man has obviously found his own niche, and I am not being hubristic if I say that man is close to or near the top of that natural order, by virtue of the complexly/integratively/uniquely constructed neuronal synapses in his brain and the rest of his nervous system.
My intuition and introspection leads me to believe that humans, because of his cerebral capacity to persist and insist for answers to the questions of the why/how/when of his creation and existence, can and must continually aspire to a deeper level of understanding, to a higher level of consciousness, and ultimately a more transcendental existence.
My disagreement with atheists arise not from the fact that they do not believe a higher power exist (call Him GOD), for after all they have the will to freely chose what they chose to believe, but from their corollary insinuation that human existence is devoid of purpose, utility and significance, aside from acting according to the dictates of their physical and material needs, and not aspiring for something more than what their perception of reality allows them... a perception that is glued ONLY to the physical and material.Thanks for the insight into your world. If you don't mind I have another question.
You claim it Okay that Atheists don't believe in God, but we should have a purpose and significance and aspire for more in the spiritual world. I think? Tell me please what or how are you doing something different than I? I've never said I don't have purpose, utility or significance? How would you expect a person such as me that doesn't believe in a creator or God to feel I have a spirit of some kind?Yet instead you think you are so important that we are here for a higher purpose than that which we can perceive? How arrogant of you. I think when you say, "intuition and introspection, what you mean is "desperate need."
Seems to me you are just claiming the moral high ground as usual. No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts.Mark, you and Rad Man are really keeping this site going! I wish it were my Hub.
@RadMan:
You asked me how I expect you, who does not believe in a creator or God, to feel you have aspirit of some kind.
In everyday life, there comes ocassional instances when, events/ people/things are not where you expect or feel they should be in relation to you, And you feel these weight bearing down on you, but then this inner voice teels you that your life and your existence is worth all your effort to make events/people/things "line up" again. That inner voice is your spirit... your soul,,the eternal energy that does not die when your physical/material self dies. This energy goes back to where it came from irregardless of whether, while alive, you did not believe in HIm who was the source of that enegy.That inner voice is not spiritual, Sorry, perhaps you need to get your head into a psychology book. I believe Fraud called that inner voice that puts you on the straight an narrow the super-ego. Nothing spiritual, just what evolution has done to our brain to keep us alive.
Thanks for the explanation though.Why does evolution care about survival and how does it decide how to do these things? You can't wait generations for every change. You pretty much need that eye, wing, leg or mechanism right away don't you?
I believe recent research is showing that it has not been necessary for evolution to "wait" for genes to change by natural selection; apparently within generations it has been possible for species to adapt to changes in conditions and circumstance.
I have no first-hand knowledge of this, and cannot quote any links, but maybe someone here can enlighten us with some facts.Evolution doesn't care about anything, because it's a process not a caring person. Your questions indicate you need to read a book. I don't need a wing, what are you talking about? Please read a book or at least start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution I don't have the time or energy to explain evolution to someone clearly not interested in learning.
Sounds like we agree that there is much evolution can't begin to answer, yet when confronted with that atheists still refer me to it. I understand evolution, but for those for whom it appears to be integral to their belief system, anyone questioning the sacred doctrine must not understand the theory.
Sorry, if you understood evolution you would not ask those questions. Do you know for example why some people have light skin?
-
Come on you dark-skinned folk, I'm sure you have lots of advice for us!
Incidentally, it's good to be talking here in the time zone of the Eastern United States. Normally in Australia I am 17 hours ahead of you, so the replies cannot be synchronized.
Well all human came out of Africa. Those who remained close to the equator kept dark skin, but those who move into the far north developed or adapted or evolved lighter skin. I've always been perplexed as to why, because dark skin seems to be more advantageous. However, Dark skinned people need a lot of sunlight to get the required vitamin D needed for survival. So when a lighter skinned person was born they had an advantage and were stronger, given a sufficient amount of time and we have all these pasty white people carrying around sun screen.
I believe I am right in saying that if you provide a dark-skinned person with the same sort of dietary intake as a white person, there would be no difference in bone-structure and strength.
The difference in occupations and life needs will more likely determine the bone structure and strength, given an adequate dietary and solar UV intake.
If true, this would point to environmental influences more than genetic effects, although the genetics would have to be there in the first place.Most in north need to take vitamin D supplement as most are deficient especially the dark skinned folk. We get most of vitamin D from the sun through the skin. Dark skinned people just can't get enough Vitamin D in January in Norway, Sweden or Finland. Notice that these are amoug the lightest peoples in the world. Try traveling from southern Italy to the north. You start with dark haired, dark eyed, dark skinned folk, by the time you get to the top, you've got a bunch of tall blond, blue eyed light skinned people.
Rickets is a disorder caused by a lack of vitamin D, calcium, or phosphate. It leads to softening and weakening of the bones.
I understand that explanation. I have to wonder how advantageous it actually is, though, to be lighter skinned. My husband and I are pasty, papery, snowy white. But we both suffer a vitamin D deficiency and have to take supplements. Of course, vitamin D is most easily created in our bodies through exposure to the sun. But, being as white as we are, we can't expose ourselves (unprotected) to sunlight long enough to get our bodies to adequately produce it.
No, you do not understand evolution, you have made that amply clear. Try being honest.
That's a very good point. Inward reconciliation and introspection should not be shackled by the material world's limitations because it is not material. You can use knowledge of the material world to establish certain truths, and to guide introspection, but we should also put more trust in the intuition that has gotten us this far. The same intuition that informed our ancestors before the level of knowledge we've since achieved, and that helped us in gaining that increased knowledge. Belief in a higher power of some kind has been all but absolute throughout human history, with the only real exception being those who through learned knowledge of the external reasoned an understanding that did not include divinity. If we have learned anything through scientific discovery, it's that we've still got a lot to learn. To impose limitations, based purely on our limited knowledge of the material world, on our attempts to better understand ourselves through introspection is to ignore the fundamental elements that made us who we are. Science can establish provable/observable/objective truths about the external world we perceive through our senses, but where the mind is concerned there is only subjective understanding. True, you can go astray, and many have. But as long as you don't impose limits, and leave your mind open to alter its understanding when better truths are established, you're then able to use everything at your disposal to achieve better understanding.
I understand what you're saying about the bible, and it makes me realize something I should make clear about my approach. I use the bible, predominantly Genesis, and I do look at it literally, but my faith and my spirituality are not anchored to, or hinge on, this explanation of the bible. I see it as a tool. And I also agree that what you see on the shelf at your local book store has been through the filter of many human brains and hands, and I take that into consideration. I focus primarily on the Books of Moses, or the first 5 books of the old testament, for a reason. They are much older than the rest of the bible, and every other book of the bible, whether included in whichever version you prefer or not, are based on or inspired by those first 5 books. They also are the basis for three of the major religions of the world. And even they were ultimately compiled from multiple even older sources whose date of writing and origin are unknown. The first 11 chapters of Genesis, the part I most focus on, are the oldest parts of all, with the only other possible exception being the book of Job. All that is known for sure about them is that they originate in the cradle of civilization.
That is how I use the bible in my study of history. Whether taken literally or metaphorically, the idea is the same. But because these stories are so specific in terms of listing ages and naming specific geographic locations, given all we now know about history, if there's any literal truth to what's described then we should probably be able to see it. That's how I approach what I'm describing in this thread. If I hadn't found such a large number of corresponding points between known history and the beginning of Genesis then I never would have started talking to others about it. I don't see this as a way of proving God's existence and that is not what drives what I do. I do it to better understand. And through it I think I have found better understanding. That's why I'm talking about it now. That's why I address questions through this perspective. If it holds up it holds up. If it doesn't, it doesn't. But if it's true, even just partially true, then it offers some explanations that I have found truly enlightening.I spend sometime yesterday rereading Genesis as you may be aware. I don't remember it as being as immoral as I just read. I started another forum asking would you read the entire book of Genesis to a child because of the horror of which I read. I have to say I'm glad we don't use Genesis as our moral compass. Lot and his daughters are despicable that are under the care of God and not punished. It appears incest and slavery is perfectly acceptable behaviour to God.
I'm aware to some that my comment may be blasphemy, but I'd rather be against such teaching then for it.
That being said your opinion that the detail somehow makes Genesis factual is a complete rationalization. If you are under the thought that the writers were incapable of telling a story you are mistaken. Have you read the Harry Potter series? Writers are capable writing fiction and inserting details to make you think it actually happened. Can you imagine what would happen if the Harry Potter series was found without the fiction title in a few thousand years. Do you think people would say, well this was a long time ago maybe there where dragons because there are stories of dragons from all over the world at the time. The holes in Genesis are glaring to anyone who is willing to look and think critically. Tell me where did Lot's daughter come up with enough wine to get their Dad so drunk as to not know he was having sex with his daughters? Given that they were living in a cave and thought they would never see another man. Sure glad I didn't read that to my children when they were young.Yes, you're right, these stories are appalling to you and I. But notice these were the actions of humans. Just because they're told in the bible doesn't mean that everything it describes is 'condoned' by God. In the context of the story people had been given the capability of behaving of their own volition. A capability that it makes clear caused problems right from the start. Adam/Eve break the one and only rule they're given, then by the second generation you have a brother murdering his brother. Like in those lines from Genesis 6 right before the flood. It explains that the breeding between the 'free-willed' family of Adam/Cain and 'mortal' humans is the reason for the wickedness that brought about the flood. Here again, in the portion of Genesis where Lot's stories are told, there is that 'free-will' capability spreading like wildfire throughout the land, planted by the descendants of Noah dispersed in all directions at Babel just a handful of generations before. If you'll notice, God rarely interferes in these stories. It's not so much that He condones these behaviors as much as He works within the framework of humans behaving as they choose. After all, if God consistently intervened then it wouldn't truly be 'free will', so there'd be no point.
We live in a very different time. A time when there are established governments, militarily protected lands with laws enforced by police. And there are established 'norms' and moral ideals formed through centuries of social interaction. This is why context is so important. Whether you see this as actual history or a fictional tale set in that time, it's important to note the landscape these stories are set in. In the context of the story, the portions of Genesis that discuss Lot come before Moses, before the ten commandments, before any law had been established by God, other than the rule to not eat animals with the 'lifeblood' still in it that God gave Noah after the flood. And the story of Lot in Sodom should give an indication of the temperament of the people. The two visitors that come to town that Lot welcomes into his home draw the attention of the men of the town who gather around Lot's house demanding that the strangers come out so the mob can have their way with them. These were the kinds of men that populated the landscape. Lot and his daughters fled to the cave because they were afraid to stay in Zoar. It's not that they 'thought they'd never see another man'. It specifically says they did what they did to 'preserve their family line'.
In the context of the story, this was an age when the first civilizations were forming. When the territorial lines were still being drawn, and when much of the land outside of the established city-states was lawless and extremely dangerous. Just before the story of the two strangers that Lot took in at Sodom it says Abraham had to take Lot back by force because an army had swept through and taken Sodom and Gomorrah. In the context of my view, this story occurs right in the middle of the very violent 4th millennium BC where there was a lot of this kind of activity. This was the age that humans invented war. Organized war fought with swords and armor. To get a glimpse of just how crazy the landscape was in this age, check this out ... http://www.world-archaeology.com/featur … ll-brak-3/
I know these stories can be jarring to people of our age, but you have to give consideration to context. These are often read much like you're reading them, from a modern mindset. You and I can not hardly even imagine what life in that age and region must have been like. To survive you had to claim land and then defend it. Being out in the open was too dangerous, like what's evidenced by the attacks on Moses and the Israelites that kept happening while in the wilderness. And if you took land, you had to do something with the inhabitants. Slavery in that age was common. And those doing the labor often didn't have much of an alternative other than taking and defending their own territory by force. Slave labor often provided food, shelter, and most importantly, protection. It's not like there were established economies and jobs that paid wages. The people of that age and region had very few options and faced situations and decisions that we can hardly even imagine.Odd - you seem to know all about it.
Pity your Invisible Super Being was not capable of predicting how things would turn out really.
As a matter of interest - why did He kill the dinosaurs off? Were they a failed attempt at creating war and conflicts?It's not like it's hidden information. You can easily pinpoint the time frame and then simply look to what's known about that region in that time frame. The most obvious detail to nail down an approximate time in this instance is the city-state of Uruk....
Genesis 10:10 - The first centers of his (Nimrod's) kingdom were Babylon (Eridu), Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar (Sumer).
Nimrod was Noah's great grandson. Lot was seven generations after Nimrod. According to both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List, Uruk was established by someone they both refer to as 'a mighty hunter' and both place the establishment of this city-state as happening not long after the flood and when the once universal language was confused into many. The actual Sumerian city of Uruk was established around the beginning of the 4th millenium BC. And it's no secret this was a very violent time in that region.
" Due to the lack of written evidence, it is hard to determine when the first military conflicts took place in Mesopotamia. Various wars must have taken place between rivaling regions and against all kinds of nomadic tribes even at the time of the earliest cities in ca. 5000 BC. As the states grew we can assume that military conflicts also flared up first between different Sumerian city states and then between larger unions of those city states. The danger of being attacked or surrounded by another organized military power can clearly be seen, for example, when the city of Uruk built its city walls about 10 meters high in ca. 3000 BC. The need to build such massive fortifications shows that the city must have been in constant danger and had to be able to survive a long siege by hostile organized forces."
http://www.academia.edu/1575881/The_Eme … _Near_East
You seem to think that if God were able to see what would happen then He would have prevented what happened. Why is that? Can you not see that you inject your own stuff into it whether you realize it or not? What would be the point of giving humans the capability to behave of their own volition if you're just going to override everything they do anyway? God purposefully created beings with their own wills, and because they were able to behave according to their own will, and not God's, they added a volatile element to existence. Everything else behaves according to one, constant, consistent will. Now there were competing wills in existence and inevitably conflict. But, we have to learn how to wield this capability somehow.
Obviously, dinosaurs were long gone by this time. Personally, I see the mass extinction of dinosaurs as being for the purpose of clearing the terrain of the dominant species to allow for mammals to come along. The birds God had called for during 'day 5' had been realized, and they came from the dinosaurs. Then He called for mammals. Then humans eventually de-throned megafauna from atop the food chain, again, just as commanded.- Okay dinosaurs, you've had 250 million years reign of the planet and I'm getting bored of you eating each other, I want to witness some real killing and wars, so I'll have to wipe you all out and create man.
I think what he is actually saying (and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but) is dinosaurs reigned the planet for 250 million years so we could have birds. And that's okay, I love chicken. But you'd think he could have just made chicken, I mean he made everything else instantly.
Headly, I have no doubt these were horrid times, that's not my point. In Genesis God does intervene, he wipes out almost all of humanity and entire cities, protects Lot and his two daughters and never says a word to them. If you could/would stop for just one moment and look at it critically you'd see it for what it is. You will notice that in every generation only boys were born except for Lot. Most often wives were not even given names, except for perhaps Sara who forced her slave to sleep with Abram so they could start a family. The slave was so upset when she became pregnant she ran away, until God told her to go back and submit to your owner. The slave had a boy, but I don't think this boy was spoken of again. Anyhow as I was saying, The only way Lots daughters could pass down the family blood line was to get that blood from their father. It's stipulated many times to only marry family. The writers' contempt for women should be enough to show you this was a book of fiction unless of course one agrees with the writer that women are unimportant and only men carry genetics?
Rad Man, you have to understand that you're applying your own concepts here. There's something in particular you're expecting it to mean or something you're expecting it should say if it were 'right'. Everything you pointed out here you're looking for some moral meaning, or that if a particular story is told then it must mean this was condoned, or that if it wasn't God should have punished, or corrected, or intervened in some way.
The two particular stories you're referring to explain where certain groups of people that play a role in the story later came from. In the case of Abraham the story is explaining where the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael came from. According to the traditional Jewish interpretation, their people came from the son that God promised Abraham and Sarah, Isaac, and the Arab people came from the child that Abraham and Sarah decided to conceive by making their slave have his child because they thought Sarah was too old to ever have the child promised them. And in that context they basically created a people that the Jewish people have since been in constant conflict with. They didn't trust God and follow what He said, so by their own actions they created one of the world's most volatile conflicts by taking an action they had not the foresight or the perspective to understand the repercussions of. In the case of Lot and his daughters this story describes where the Moabites and Ammonites came from, who were both a point of contention for the Jewish people later on in the story. If there's any moral story to be learned here, it's that our actions have far reaching affects that we can't possibly fathom in the moment we're making the decision.
As for women, it's standard custom when talking about lineages to focus on the male side of the family. As for the writers 'contempt' for women, this is an undeniable fact as far as history goes. In the context of the story it stems from Eve's punishment because she influenced Adam to break the one and only law they were given. And if you look at it in the context of known history, one of the most significant changes that came in that behavioral shift I keep pointing to around 4000 BC is that these people were male dominant unlike any other human throughout tens of thousands of years of history. Before this shift towards violence and war and constant conflict, humans treated men and women equally and there were no differences in class.
The stipulations to only marry family were given to only the Israelites. The chosen line of Abraham. God chose Abraham to bless with many descendants. Especially in the context I'm trying to point out, that Adam's line was not the only humans in existence, this is most significant. Adam was created outside of the naturally evolved line of humans. To retain that 'spirit' that God kept talking about, that He 'breathed' directly into Adam's nostrils, the one that 'would not contend with humans forever', He gave them very specific rules about who to conceive children with and who not to. Basically, keep it in the family, but not too close. In Lot and his daughters case, this came before those laws. God protected Lot because He 'remembered Abraham'. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they were extremely volatile places that were placing the protected line in danger. The only times God intervened was to realize His 'will' to allow for the lineage promised to Abraham, the chosen lineage that would bring about the savior. Where before everything worked according to God's will, now there were many individual wills that did whatever they wanted, so God had to take action to realize outcomes.Yes, your right. God did intervene a lot in Genesis, flooding land and bombing entire cities without ever setting the rules to live by. There is a reason why it was written without common sense or ethics. It was written for a particular people to instil a sense of entitlement to them. God most certainly in the Genesis condones slavery and incest for he tell the raped slave to go back and submit to your owner and he insists cousins marry and does nothing to Lots daughters, but punishes Cain for killing his brother. But he doesn't punish him because he killed someone, he punishes him for killing the bloodline. This story was designed to give a certain people a sense of ownership. God said I can have this land so I'll take it, the rest I'll get to later.
Again, you obviously have some pre-conceived ideas about what you think it says and you compare that to what you think it should say. You have a particular view of what this material is and what it's actual purpose was, and that view colors your perception. And, of course, you could say the same for me and my perception. In either case, it's still just a couple of fallible humans with a limited grasp of the material and the setting in which they're placed, deciding for themselves what it all means. You see your perspective as grounds for dismissal, I see mine as clarification that explains how and why humans became what we know today.
The purpose in the old testament is stated to be for the one prophesied, or God's promise. The only times He intervened was to realize that end in an environment that included competing wills that were not 'of Him'. The flood, Sodom/Gomorrah, the Exodus, etc. The new testament is about that promise being realized. And that promise is stated to be for the good of all humankind, and deals not with what happens here in this life, but more has to do with what happens after this life. Just as many cells have to be created and then die just for a fetus to form, just as many dinosaurs came about just for birds to be realized, and maybe also as a means to program into the genetic code of the biological matter that ultimately became birds balance, agility, motor skills, feeding/digestion, survival, etc. If the natural world is God's creation, again assuming the context of the story, then nature informs us of God's methods. It's also made clear that the states of life/death are only really understood by God and are His domain, as they lie beyond our ability to observe them.
As for punishment, He punished the Israelites for breaking the commands He gave them. He punished Adam/Eve for breaking the command He gave them. He did not send the flood as punishment and He did not destroy Sodom/Gomorrah as punishment, though He did offer to spare Sodom/Gomorrah at Abraham's request if there could be found even just a handful of righteous individuals to justify sparing them, of which there was none. But these acts were not to punish, they were to realize an outcome in an environment that included individual wills not 'of Him'. That outcome required that breeding be controlled to retain the spirit required to ultimately be realized.I don't see a loving God in the OT. I see a confused, angry, unethical being who even Abraham has to reason with to not destroy an entire city. You see clarification, I see a story told to give a particular group of people entitlement. Written by someone with a complete lack of respect for women and people in general.
I asure it is I that can see this story for what it is as you have to much invested. You've under the assumption that this is the word of God, but can't see it for what is was intended. Propaganda.
You will notice that the OT was propaganda written to give a sense of entitlement to the a particular group of people whereas the NT was written to include others. Why, well because the OT was written by and for Jews and the NT was written for and by the rest. You will notice that the OT even goes so far as saying Jews should be marked with circumcision. Again only interested in marking boys, and you think God wrote that?
You think God made birds by creating dinosaurs and the reptiles that proceeded them just to make birds? He let the dinosaurs rule for 225 million years just to make birds? You believe this because of Genesis? Funny the bible doesn't mention all the creatures that came for dinosaurs some of which we eventually evolved into. It just say water things and birds and then of corse livestock. Funny I thought livestock was fairly recent.
You are correct, I did error, he didn't punish he destroyed. Some may think destroyed/killing in anger is punishment, but I can see your point of view. Adam and Eve is another example of the writers contempt for women, if I'm not mistake God didn't tell Eve not to eat from the tree as he was still looking for a companion for Adam. Such confusion, he makes two of everything including people and then makes Adam and as no idea of what can be his companion, goes through every animal and names them, but still nothing. Silly really, don't you think. Always the women getting the men in trouble. Sara tempting her husband with her slave, never mind them telling everyone they are sisters and God getting angry with the king who takes her, not knowing they are married, but as it turns out that actually are brother and sister and married, but God says nothing to them. You'd think incest would have been at least one of the ten commandments? But wait they didn't know anything about inbreeding back then. Bigger rules are needed like don't eat anything that isn't fully cooked? More propaganda. Wait I forgot to mention the horror of Lots daughters who somehow living in a cave found enough wine to seduce their own father. More hatred towards women by the writers.
I find it particularly interesting that the Jews don't think the ultimate story was realized. Sorry, the OT was only propaganda to give Jews entitlement as God favourites.Okay, clearly you have your mind made up what it is you're reading. Nevermind the correlation to a series of actual events that match up down to the specified timeline, in that specified region between those two specifically named rivers, naming specific cities along the way that were actually built on the correct coordinate of that timeline, and coming just after a dramatic climatological event that actually did cause massive human migrations that also falls right in line chronologically, all of which happened many centuries before writing was even invented, and all of which were pivotal events in the progression of humanity towards the dawn of civilization. You know it's all just bull and the God it describes is just too mean and small-minded for you. Obviously, this book that describes the Jewish people as practically incapable of following their own God was written by the Jewish people as propaganda. I guess that would make it the world's oldest known, and most successful, work of propaganda. Wow, those guys were good! They still have half the world fooled and still manage to this day to get the most powerful countries in the world to help them defend their land, over 2000 years later, even though current followers of Judaism only make up less than 1% of the current world's population.
Consider this. It has been determined over the past couple of centuries of scientific investigation that the history of this planet consisted of at least six mass extinctions that each played a role in life eventually evolving into what it has become today. Is it maybe just coincidence that the God described in Genesis as the creator of the universe and everything that is the natural world exhibits behaviors that so closely match the kinds of major events that shaped life millions and even billions of years before it was written? If the God described in Genesis were all sunshine and smiles so that he was much more to your liking, would you then object by saying that this God in no way resembles the violent past that formed this planet?There you go again, assuming all this, the entire universe is for us. How humble, and there is another forum where someone keeps spouting that Atheists have an ego problem. You think because we are here it was all made for us. Perhaps we are here now because of naturally occurring events and in a few more million reptiles will get there day on the top of the food chain. Sorry your book has not convinced me that the writers had any information that wasn't know at their time, but it has ensured me of their disrespect of women and that they had a need give the Jewish a sense of entitlement.
Well, that's too bad, because it's clear that there are other factors coloring your view of this ancient text that are affecting your ability to look at it objectively. I keep trying to point out that these first few books of the bible, and in particular the first few chapters of Genesis, come from extremely ancient sources that are completely unknown, for a reason. Even in the age when the old testament as we know it today was compiled, following Jewish exile, the books of Moses were a mystery to even them. This was the ancient past to them as well. This is why there were people like Pharisees who dedicated their lives to trying to understand them and decipher their meaning. These are the texts that I'm trying to point out line up rather well with the history of that specific region down to the specified timeline. For whatever reason, these are significant. They had a significant impact on everyone who came in contact with them. They fascinated the Greeks, they were eventually adopted by Rome, and they've played a major role in human history ever since. And nobody knows who wrote them. Now, they also seem to line up with the history we've only recently pieced together. Ignore it if you like, as I'm sure many will as to many their worth has already been determined, but there's a good chance there's a lot more to them than most give it credit for.
If you don't think humans are significant then I think you're diluting yourself. If modern science has shown us anything it's the enormous improbability of humans existing now as they do in the first place, and the incalculable odds that life exists elsewhere in this gigantic universe even at the simplest level, much less at the level that evolves intelligence. Not to say it isn't out there, but there's a limit to the number of planets that could even potentially host life, that would have to have all the right conditions and elements, and would have to have several very particular events in the right conditions to properly bring about life as we understand it, which of course doesn't include how life began in the first place. You and I, at least as far as we can tell, belong to a very special species of animal capable of reason and self-awareness who have existed for a fraction of a percent of this planet's history, much less the history of the universe. We're not even a blip on the screen as far as our spec on the overall timeline, yet we're the only beings in existence that we're aware of who have consciously made things not of nature and not born merely of instinctual behavior. How you can dismiss humanity as 'nothing special' is beyond me.With all the galaxies and stars contained within each one, there is a great potential for many such planets in the universe to host life. And, it's not a matter of of several particular events in the right conditions, it's more a matter of when and what kind of life emerges as the events and conditions will be ample.
The vast majority of species that ever existed on earth are extinct. No mention of this in the bible, of course. Quite the contrary, in fact.That's why I specified 'life as we understand it'. I do leave open the possibility that life in some other form could very well exist, but that's really just speculation. The only form of life we know, we have a pretty good sense of the odds that life happening in that particular way in the right conditions and environment would be remote at best, even highly unlikely, but not impossible.
The bible clearly deals with what's relevant to humans. Species of animals that went extinct millions of years ago aren't relevant to humans.Try not to include others who do understand when making your sweeping statements of incredulity..
But, as you've admitted, no amount of facts will every sway your religious beliefs, so you do not leave possibilities open.
Again, your argument from incredulity rule your worldview.
That's why we reject it as nonsense. Yes, of course, when you're thumping a bible.Fossil fuel is not relevant to humans? I think dinosaurs are relevant to human existence. If they were still here we would be.
It must be out of frustration that you are making such uncharacteristic bazaar statements. ATM and Mark getting under your skin?"The only life that we know of" is surely based upon the Carbon Cycle. As I understand it, the energy levels and transitions possible within the atomic structure allow that Cycle to "happen."
No doubt more and more understanding of it will come about. If the entire universe as we know it is based upon the same atomic structure and the conforming elements within that structure, then any other life form on any other planet within our universe would have to follow the same pattern.
I am so little of a "scientist" that I don't need to stick to all the technical knowledge in order to have a sense of awe. If that is missing in the pure techno-scientific mind so be it, but I think you would be missing out.... in the same way that a strongly religious person would think I was missing out if I do not have a belief in a god.
To sum it up? the old saying, "it takes all sorts....." and there is always room for "I don't know."Yes, exactly. Life as we know it. Carbon-based, oxygen breathing life that organized as it did on this planet is the only form of life we know, but doesn't mean it's the only kind there is. But as for this particular form of life as we are familiar, all we do know for sure is the exacting conditions that led to lie on this planet would be highly unlikely to have played out in the exact same way elsewhere. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it's not out there now, or was out there billions of years ago.
But yes, the whole point of this comment was that I can't understand how you (Rad Man), or anyone else, could convince themselves that human are insignificant or no big deal. I know and understand music on a deep, technical level as well, but that doesn't mean I'm not still sometimes awestruck by it. Sometimes, that deeper knowledge just makes me appreciate it that much more.
Limit to the number of planets that could even potentially host life? How lied to you about that? Planets outside our solar system as you know are difficult to see, they need to be detected. There are 200 billion to 400 billion stars in just our galaxy and the most current estimates guess that there are 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the Universe. It's now known that planets orbiting stars is more the rule rather than the exception.
Care to reword your statement that there is a limit to the number of planets that could potentially host life?
http://news.discovery.com/space/habitab … 21107.htmlWhy does everything have to be a lie with you? Either I'm lying or being lied to. Anybody else not of my belief system could simply be mistaken, misinformed, etc. But me, somebody's obviously lying. Why is that?
There are searches underway, much like the link you provided, looking for earth-like planets. There are numerous factors to determine whether or not a planet is truly 'earth-like'. Here, here's another from that same site ...
http://news.discovery.com/space/suspect … 20229.htmlFrom your link...
"My guess is that life is capable of far more diversity and adapatation than we can imagine. Self-replicating matter might evolve to feel right at home on some of these exotic worlds. "
He obviously doesn't take your theory of Genesis into account. LOLAnd the rest of that quote ...
"However, recognizing such bizarre life forms would probably be impossible without directly visiting the planets where they live."
And what I said earlier ...
"I do leave open the possibility that life in some other form could very well exist, but that's really just speculation."
Did you miss the there are 200 billion to 400 billion stars in just our galaxy and the most current estimates guess that there are 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the Universe? Let's multiply the 300 billion stars by the 150 billion galaxies and see what kind of numbers we get? Lots right. Even if only one in million has earth like planets that number is still big right?
Why the word lie?
lie
noun
loyalty had made him tell lies: untruth, falsehood, fib, fabrication, deception, invention, fiction, piece of fiction, falsification; (little) white lie, half-truth, exaggeration; informal tall tale, whopper, taradiddle. ANTONYMS truth.
verb
he lied to the police: tell an untruth, tell a lie, fib, dissemble, dissimulate, misinform, mislead, tell a white lie, perjure oneself, commit perjury, prevaricate; informal lie through one's teeth, stretch the truth; formal forswear oneself.
If you (misinform) someone you have lied. If someone (misinforms) you then that person has lied. Now, if that person didn't knowingly misinform you then they should be checking the facts first.And did you not notice the first line to that article I linked to ...
"This past year there have been hundreds of news reports about the discovery of so-called "Earth-like" planets."
This was directly addressing the reports you're referring to. I don't think you're taking into consideration all the factors that would have to be in place for the only form of life we know of to exist.
But this whole conversation is pointless. The original point had to do with respecting who we are and what we've become, and not reducing us to just a lucky happening of no real consequence. That's just sad to me that your view makes you see it that way. I get science too, yet am still in awe of humanity.I respect who humans are, not so sure about what we are doing to the planet though. Do you think that eventually humans will go the way of the dodo bird and become just another extinct species? Or do you think in another million years humans will still be here? Are we that special that we can survive a cosmic event such as the one that killed the dinosaurs. That's what it come down to doesn't it? How special are we and does it make sense to base our existence on propaganda from an old book designed to just give Jews a sense of entitlement? Not only did it give Jews a sense of entitlement but it lead Christians to think that Jews have entitlement. Somehow Muslims don't share that particular point of view.
I don't think you speak for all believers since I have heard statements from themaajority of Christians on many forums that contradict what you have just said.
You're not in control? No free will for you then. Tell me, is it that you don't really want to be in control? Do you really need a big fatherly figure?
@RadMan:
Anyone who says that he is in TOTAL control of his life is delusional... and to equate having "control" with having "Free will" is TOTALLY missing the point of having free will.
If you picture a dog in your mind, that image of a dog does not physically exist, but it does exist. Your mind exists, but you can't detect it physically. All you can see if you have the gadgets to do it, are firing neurons and changes to oxygenated blood flow. Yet there's this dynamic non-physical entity that does exist and is capable of incredible things. Why would you think it's the only undetectable/non-physical thing that exists that is so dynamic and capable?
Yes, we use our physical brain to interact with the real world. Physical abnormalities or birth defects or damage can hinder that.
We have no scientific evidence that confirms you or I, the 'I' in your head, can be reduced to nothing more than the result of biological matter. That's only an assumption. A logical assumption, except that the human mind is difficult to reduce to strictly mechanical processes.
Again, I don't know. When I say beginning, I mean the beginning of this existence as it is today. But you're right. Where the singularity of matter came from is unknown. I have an explanation, but it isn't based in provable fact. I just find it a better explanation, given the existence of our intelligent minds, than the idea that it just happened on its own somehow.
The bible describes God as 'the beginning and the end', 'alpha and omega'. Nothing came before or after.
Describing non-physical has been an age old debate back to the days of Socrates/Plato/Aristotle, or even before. Look up the mind-body problem.
Says you because the mind we experience is the only one we know about. And that one requires a brain. But how do you know that's the only one? What are the chances in this expansive existence that our minds are the only entities in existence like that? This one requires a brain? Does that mean that's the only way? Who knows?My question was “what do YOU mean by ‘exist’? There is no dog inside our brain, but just a few chemicals in a few neurons. If you write the image of a dog on the CD does it mean there is a picture of dog on the CD? It is the ineteractions of the neurons you call the “non-physical entity that does exist and is capable”.
Please tell me what do you mean by ‘exist’.
Then how this “non-physical entity that does exist and is capable”, beomes incapable. If these non-physical entity is capable, it should be capable in spite of the brain.
We have the evidence, haven’t you heard of any neurological disorders?
Existence has no beiginning. You are the person who say ther is a beginning, so it is your job to explain how you conceived a beginning. There is no beginning, so no question of how it happened.
If god has no beginning, how come the universe got one? And why are you not trying to resolve YOUR logical contradiction.
Non-physical is called concepts. Concepts are conceived by intelligent brain, no need to appeal to authority.
I am not saying there cannot be any other brain, it is your notion. What I said was, mind is the property of brain and if you say ther is a mind there should be a brain for that.My question was “what do YOU mean by ‘exist’? There is no dog inside our brain, but just a few chemicals in a few neurons. If you write the image of a dog on the CD does it mean there is a picture of dog on the CD? It is the ineteractions of the neurons you call the “non-physical entity that does exist and is capable”.
Please tell me what do you mean by ‘exist’.
Then how this “non-physical entity that does exist and is capable”, beomes incapable. If these non-physical entity is capable, it should be capable in spite of the brain.
We have the evidence, haven’t you heard of any neurological disorders?
Existence has no beginning. Exist is present, an eternal present tense. You are the person who say ther is a beginning, so it is your job to explain how you conceived a beginning. There is no beginning, so no question of how it happened.
If god has no beginning, how come the universe got one? And why are you not trying to resolve YOUR logical contradiction.
Non-physical is called concepts. Concepts are conceived by intelligent brain that is, they are only thoughts no counterparts in the real world, no need to appeal to authority.
I am not saying there cannot be any other brain, it is your notion. What I said was, mind is the property of brain and if you say ther is a mind there should be a brain for that.existence is present, an eternal present tense. Yes, linguistically, by definition.
Beginning is the start of something, moving on to the future. Yes, linguistically too, by definition.
How do you extrapolate linguistics to the reality of the universe, to the big bang theory, et. al. to explain the big bang theory as reality? Nothing against the big bang, but who was there to see it? Where is the proof?The universe expanding is part of the evidence for the big bang. We actually can see back in time, I know that sounds silly, but the farther we are able to look out in space the further back in time we see. You see the light from distance galaxies takes (or the farthest we've detected to day) 13.3 billion years to get to us, so because we are just getting that light now we are see that galaxy 13.3 billion years ago.
That only refers to the observable universe and is not far enough back in time to witness the big bang. If atheists only believe in facts, this proves that the facts don't go that far back.
Look, we don't know for sure there was ever a big explosion, but we have an expanding universe and when we look back in time 13.3 billions years the things we see support the theory. Got a better one?
They go back far enough to help us understand that the universe evolved on it's own without the need for an invisible super being.
Let's think about that. Do you not agree that those natural laws that formed the universe played a crucial role? In the beginning as a unified fundamental force? And we can't see back far enough to see how that came about or what causes that? Just that they were always there? So then how can you say that it evolved "without the need for an invisible super being."?
See, you can't talk science without bringing religion into the conversation. But you get upset when we point it out?
The only mention of 'religion' was my quoting ATM about an 'invisible super being'. Can you not see that you're not thinking straight here? He's talking about what's known for certain, yet these fundamental forces that literally formed the universe were already in place. So, my point is, how can you say what was 'needed' for it to happen? We don't know would be the only factually certain answer, but he didn't say that.
There would be evidence for an invisible super being, but there isn't.
And if that being were the creator of this existence, therefore existing before/outside of it, what exactly would that evidence look like?
don't bother with a troubled man he has a long history of talking nonsense and completely ignoring what you say to him
I know, but sometimes I just can't help myself, which is really my own fault, and I recognize that.
I am not ignoring you, so please stop lying.
you block out the bits you don't like and replace them with your own thoughts...that is a form of ignoring what im saying
Again, please stop lying. If you're unable to form an argument, you need not take it out on others.
you still havent replied to my last comment regarding changes in evolution
That is something you should be telling me. You're the one invoking magical super beings, hence you must have plenty of evidence for it.
If you understand science as well as you claim then you should already know why that statement makes absolutely no sense. I'm obviously referring to a God already described specifically as being outside of the realm of what can be proven through physical evidence. It's not like I'm 'invoking' Him out of thin air. You're the one refuting this idea with no ground to stand on.
I have to say it was clever of them to describe him as not being detectable. I'm not sure why so many believers feels they can detect him? Sorry for the short answers, trying to get work done.
I know. I need to work too. I get all wrapped up in these discussions.
It's a spiritual connection that first requires your acceptance. Internal verses external. Whatever life is, it's the tie that binds us all, that links us in an unbroken chain all the way back to the primordial pool when life began. But just like other naturally developed functions of the body, our minds can often muck things up, get in the way, and confuse matters.
If that is the case then, you aren't able to invoke that which is "outside of the realm of what can be proven through physical evidence" because you would have no knowledge of such a god to invoke.
You're talking like I'm 'invoking' some made up concept, like a spaghetti monster, and not basing these ideas on the God that you know full well I'm referring to just as He's described by an ancient book which has an unknown exact origin other than coming from the 'cradle of civilization'. A document that has had a significant impact on a significant chunk of our human history and that is still believed by half the world's population to this day. Yet, here you are, trying to refute all of that when we've both acknowledged you have no factual ground to do so.
Exactly. A book of myths and superstitions. Is that all your evidence or do you actually have some hard evidence for your creator?
Well, I have a ton of supporting evidence. Way more than you have that justifies you dismissing it as 'A book of myths and superstitions'.
We have seen no evidence from you whatsoever. If you have hard evidence for a creator, show it.
Correction, you have accepted no evidence because you think you already know better. Because you've already ruled out certain possibilities as impossible though you had no grounds to do so.
You have presented no evidence, so please stop lying that you did.
one more thing (sorry, I'm slightly scatterbrained from trying to follow all of these points).
I think you would agree that it is either true that a god exists or a god doesn't exist, right?
If a god exists, you could go the deist route and say that god is not evidenced in nature, and it doesn't interact with human beings or it's the god of the bible that claims to interact with people. If it's the deist version is true, then that god concept is indistinguishable from no god. If the theist position is true in the general sense, there should be sufficient proof to back up that claim. Do you agree?Well said. Having the level of knowledge you have about the bible, I'd love to get your input on this. I won't get too into it tonight, and I have GOT to stop getting involved in these discussions while I'm at work, but I will be back to write it out for anyone willing to listen.
The basic gist, to give you an idea, comes from the realization that Adam wasn't the first human. The creation of humans in Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 are two different events. What was significant about Adam/Eve was their ability to behave outside of God's will, or according to their own individual wills. The humans in Genesis 1 were given very specific commands; be fruitful/multiply, fill/subdue the earth, establish dominance in the animal kingdom. This is exactly what homo sapiens did by about 10,000 BC. Afterwards it says God looked on all He had made and deemed it 'good'. Then, in Genesis 2, it starts with 'day 7', then the creation of Adam. In that story Adam isn't told what to do, but rather he's only told one thing to not do, which of course he did anyway.
The thing that got me going on this idea was the beginning of Genesis 6. That part about the 'sons of God' having children with the 'daughters of humans'. Then it says God's 'spirit' will not contend with humans forever because they're 'mortal' and only live 120 years. This comes right after the list of descendants from Adam to Noah showing each living for centuries. In fact, Genesis explains this as the reason for the flood. And it actually says God 'regretted' putting humans on the earth. I think Adam was created separately and was the first creation by God that had his own individual will, or was capable of behaving outside of God's will. When descendants of Adam/Cain mated with humans because they found them 'beautiful', that's when God said humans had become wicked. Then came the flood. A local flood, as that's all that would be needed.
There's much more to it, but that's the basic idea that got me going. Like you said, as most of the universe goes I think God doesn't directly interfere, so there's no 'detecting' Him or distinguishing it from a 'causal' universe. It goes according to His will. Everything does. Everything but us, and that started with Adam. I think that's why He began to intervene, and why it was only that one 'chosen' bloodline he focused on. And while that part isn't necessarily testable, the part that is is the 'individual will' thing. That's what I'm trying to illustrate. A series of events in history in that specific region and timeframe that line up with events in Genesis, down to the number of centuries in between where specified. The city Cain built, the flood, and the dispersion and mass migrations of humans at Babel. Plus, as I'll try to show, the behavioral differences can be seen as well that match up with what's described in the Eden story, namely an enhanced self-awareness, or ego. Behavioral changes that I believe are directly related to the dawning of the first civilizations, as well as the beginnings of male dominated human societies, social stratification, love of possessions and greed, and organized warfare.I saw this post, and I took note of the page number so I can go back and respond in-depth when I'm out of work. I have to research a few of your assertions and reference some material I have on hand. I want to make sure that I look a few things up before just instantly responding based on my gut - not on my research. I just wanted to let you know that I've taken note of your position and will get back to you when I get back home :-) Thanks for laying it out there for me to research, I appreciate it.
First, you would have to prove that the Bible is a valid source. Secondly you would have to provide spring evidence for your claim. I haven't seen either.
Well how long have you been following along? If you haven't noticed, I can't seem to get to that point. So, first I have to prove that the grounds on which people are refusing the concept of a God are not founded. Then, maybe, we can get to the meat of the topic. But, it's obvious I'm not dealing with logical arguments here. I'm dealing with a kind of materialism-based defense mechanism.
No, you are dealing in religious fantasies while others are attempting to show you logic.
I've been following since about the middle. I keep trying to catch up, but since I can't participate while I'm at work, I'm falling behind. I apologize for that, and I understand that I have a lot of catching up to do - I'm trying.
I think first you would have to prove that the bible is an authority. Since I was in theological seminary for years, I may have a bit of advantage, but I no longer believe in it and you do. If the bible cannot be proven to be an authority, then whatever it says should be weighed against additional supporting evidence. You would also have to demonstrate falsifiability in your own hypothesis. If there is no falsifiability, then it's not really a hypothesis if nothing would be sufficient to prove it wrong.
Instead of proving why atheists are wrong about a god concept, which would be hard to do if only strong atheists will make the positive claim that they believe NO god exists and the large majority (like myself) would simply say that all the evidence presented has not been sufficient, why don't you prove your hypothesis positively? Present your evidence - I know that you've tried to, and maybe I just missed the post where you spelled it all out. If so, I apologize.
I have an open mind. I'm an atheist, but I didn't used to be, and I'm fully open to the possibility that I could be wrong - but that possibility is not sufficient for me to throw out rational thought and intellectual honesty and just believe in a god again. You get where I'm coming from? Also, I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't consider myself to be a materialist.additionally, if it was actually proven that a creator was necessary, the person who demonstrated that proof would have a Nobel prize. People have been trying for thousands of years - no one has come up with it yet.
So, surely, we cannot arrive at "facts" in this instant and therefore we will depend upon "beliefs," tempered and coloured with knowledge as it becomes available from scientific study and discovery.
Since "beliefs" are as numerous as there are "believers," we cannot know precisely the nature of each others' beliefs, so we need to be infinitely patient and condescending to each and their own.
I cannot accept the existence of a creator that is in any way "human" in looks or in character. We humans will naturally conjure up images of a creator that is analogous to human nature in some form or another, but that image will never be "factually" true for anyone but the individual.
Even a brief glimpse at a website dealing with the comparative anatomy of various herbivorous and carnivorous animals, and the intricate differences of digestive systems (beautifully adapted to the food types) convinces me that there is much more ordered design involved than just accidental natural selection within the species.
We can NEVER know for sure what, when, how it all started, OR the exact method by which things progress.... we can only speculate and consider and share our thoughts.
Not one of us has (probably) any where near the true understanding of origins.
I see plenty of room for us atheists and you theists out there..... let's be friends!
Who was there to see your God create the universe? Where is the proof of that?
Notice how silly your argument?Yeah, that would have been a really strong argument back when we thought the universe was constant and eternal. But then, less than a hundred years ago, we find out it all came about from one single point. I'd say it's much less silly now.
It is an acceptable FACT that Christians take this on faith. It also seems clear that atheists take this on INCOMPLETE FACT. Which to me proves that faith in these possible facts that must exist to prove the big bang is part of the atheist's logic and beliefe in FACTS. It shows an element of faith must go into the making of their conclusions.
You are confusing your blind faith in magical super beings with the faith associated with hard evidence and facts.
But, nowhere as silly and childish as invoking magical invisible super beings.
A universe that requires exactness in the properties of the phenomena of the fundamental natural forces that formed it that otherwise would not have supported life as we know it coming about all on its own with no help from an intelligent creator isn't silly? Especially considering that life eventually resulted in intelligence? Do you not see any potential silliness in that at all?
Do you not see any silliness in assuming something made it?
considering all engineers do is copy off nature i would say its perfectly reasonable that it was created
Well, considering the universe is really here, if my two options are 'something' made it or 'nothing' made it, what do you think? Arguments could be made that both sound silly. Giant reptiles with two little arms sounds silly. Doesn't mean it isn't true.
Yes, your religious beliefs are completely silly.
So, do you have any evidence for your creator? None?Its up to you to disprove a creator not the other way around.
you need to tells us why it was not created not the other way aroundYour claim is logically backwards. It is not my job to disprove your god. You are asserting that a good exists. You are making a positive claim. You bear the responsibility to prove it.
ATM No I'm not and you know that. You just refuse to accept the FACT that your INCOMPLETE FACTS and acceptance of them (which may over time change to different FACTS as science evolves) is being accepted by you on FAITH. I'm comfortable with my FAITH. You can't even acknowledge yours.
In response to an anticipated response from ATM which most likely would try to prove otherwise from what I've said above, I am giving a future response now to his anticipated response because I am going to go to bed now. So my response to his anticipated response of my latest comment is this: ROLF.
Again, you're confusing your blind faith in your magical super beings to that of evidence. Yes, I understand your comfortable with being willfully ignorant of facts.
Beginning is the start of an event.
What is reality? Atoms separated by space moving with respect to each other. So where is the beginning?
What big bang?
I've provided plenty. I've shown you and others how events in Genesis line up with the known history of that region, down to the number of centuries in between events where specified, and I've shown you the dramatic change in human behavior, how it relates to the dawn of civilization, and illustrated how this is the story that the first 11 chapters of Genesis is describing.
You and others dismiss all of this categorically under the guise of an illogical objection that states that belief in the existence of God is due to a flawed knowledge and understanding of science, which is then used to categorically dismiss the whole thing.Sorry, but that is not evidence for a creator, that is merely your own personal opinions.
We are asking for hard evidence?Heavens.
As we've discussed, we're dealing with a being described as existing before/outside of this universe, being that He's said to be the creator of it, and a spiritual element that is directly stated as being non-physical. So, what 'hard evidence' do you suggest for something that falls outside the realm/jurisdiction of the physical sciences?
So, the next step is to, as JMcFarland put it, "prove that the Bible is a valid source".
If I were actually dealing with purely logical arguments then we might actually get somewhere. Obviously, I'm not. Specifically in your case considering you won't even say we 'don't know', but instead postulate that existence could have and did just come about "on its own". Again, no facts to back it up. Just an alternate belief system that closes your mind to other possibilities.
Just as it says in this link explaining what a 'theory' is that someone posted earlier ...
"In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be."
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
I'm offering a potential explanation. An explanation I'd like to test by having other scrutinize it and test its validity. I claim that it's 'well supported' by evidence, that it ties together a plethora of facts, and provides an explanation that fits all the observations'.
I'm not sure what else you would want.Hilarious, you invoke your creator and then in the same breath tell us there is no evidence because it falls outside the realm of physical sciences. So then, how do you know your creator exists if no evidence is available?
Can you seriously not connect the dots here?
Your religious beliefs are not dots to connect nor are they evidence for your creator.
Any hard evidence, yet? None?Yes, you have no evidence for your creator. No one does.
You still have not given me your non-religious reason why the human brain has developed at the rate it has. You've dismissed the contemporary view, but don't seem to have your own. I've asked about 4 times now that you've not responded to after you've told everyone that you don't have a religious agenda when it comes to science.
Human brain evolution? No religion required.You never replied to my response, so maybe you missed it ...
"A 'will' to live pitted against adversity. Basically, they were 'inspired' by environmental conditions. Like the bottleneck in our genetic history. Whatever pushed our species to the brink of extinction brought something profound out of us. Then the Sahara region transforming into desert brought something out in those humans who had farmed for generations when they were forced back into migrating nomadic lifestyles. I would say the 'human spirit' in all of us that makes us push past our limits to achieve something great, whatever that is and where ever that comes from, in the face of incredible adversity, was the catalyst."I'm still missing it, but thanks, I've been busy and most likely it passed me by.
I'm not sure I understand how your explanation works entirely. This "will" you speak of is in all animals threatened with extinction. The cheetah for example was threatened with extinction to the point that they are genetically weak and prone to infections because of the lack of genetic diversity. They didn't become smarter or faster, but they did become genetically weaker. You are talking about the Homo habilis time correct 2.4 million-200,000 years ago. Correct? Don't give up on the tools and weapons theory. Ever try to do the math calculation for throwing a ball? The simplest formula I could find is this.
s = ut + 0.5at^2
u is initial velocity of the ball
t is time taken to reach max heigh
a is deceleration due to gravity (-9.81 m/s^2)
That calculation happens instantly in the human brain and no other animal an do it.
In a somewhat unrelated direction, I found this link fascinating.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/neuro … psychology
I'm talking about just the range of time that we have been anatomically modern; 200,000 BC to present. The distinct behavioral changes that I'm talking about are demonstrably rapid, and not gradual like the 'successful hunter passing on successful genes' theory would suggest. Homo habilis had the longest run of any species in the homo genus, yet never were much as far as hunters. They're the first to use stone tools, which consisted of one design that saw no change or improvement throughout the entirety of their run on this planet, they never used projectile weapons, and were often food for megafauna. Habilis remains have been found in petrified droppings from large sabre-toothed cats, or Dinofelis.
Neanderthal, who are Homo sapiens distant cousins, evolved from Homo Heidelburngensis, as did Homo sapiens. The Neanderthal came from those that migrated out of Africa into Europe, while Homo sapiens evolved from those that stayed in Africa. Neanderthal was a much better hunter. In fact, that's about all they did. They hunted megafauna, and they did it really well. They also used the same basic stone tool design throughout their entire run. They never improved on it and never used projectile weapons.
Homo sapiens is the only species to use projectile hunting weapons, but this didn't begin until after 150 thousand years of existence. Arrow and spear heads begin to turn up after that 50 thousand year ago mark, often called the 'great leap forward'. These homo sapiens populated the entire planet unlike any other, and they're the first to diversify their tools in both purpose/use and the materials they made them out of. This comes just 20 thousand years after the bottleneck when African Homo sapiens (my and your ancestors) were reduced to less than 10 thousand mating pairs. That adversity is what I'm referring to for this 'leap forward' as the catalyst.
The other came around 4000 BC when the region that is now the Sahara Desert became the desert we know today. Before it was a great place to live and farm. And homo sapiens existed in this region and farmed in settled communities for centuries. But when the Sahara turned to desert (5.9 kiloyear event) the homo sapiens of these communities were forced back into nomadic lifestyles. This came just before the dawning of multiple civilizations as well as what was potentially the most inventive human millennium ever in history up to the 16th century, the 4th millennium BC.
Also, thanks for the link to that massive head trauma case. I haven't had a chance to read it in its entirety yet, but it looks fascinating.Forgive me but I'm confused, we were talking about the evolution of the human brain, correct?
During that last 200,000 years the human brain has not changed in size that why we call them Homo sapiens and modern humans.
Between 80-100,000 years ago three main lines of Homo sapiens diverged and about his time we have the "Great Leap Forward" leading to full behavioural modernity. But when we look at the evolution of the human brain you need to go back much much farther. The human brain has changed dramatically from the Homininea or even the Homo habilis.
Wikipeidia:
"Rapidly increasing sophistication in tool-making and behaviour is apparent from about 80,000 years ago, and the migration out of Africa follows towards the very end of the Middle Paleolithic, some 60,000 years ago. Fully modern behaviour, including figurative art, music, self-ornamentation, trade, burial rites etc. is evident by 30,000 years ago. The oldest unequivocal examples of prehistoric art date to this period, the Aurignacian and the Gravettian periods of prehistoric Europe, such as the Venus figurines and cave painting (Chauvet Cave) and the earliest musical instruments (the bone pipe of Geissenklösterle, Germany, dated to about 36,000 years ago)."
Need a closer look at the diagram click here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BrainTree.pdfNo, we're talking about the evolution, or emergence, of the mind. The unobservable mind. Since you can't see the mind, much less the mind throughout thousands of years of history, we look at behavior.
You're exactly right, the brain has not changed in size for 200 thousand years. And even with a physically modern brain humans didn't begin to adopt 'behavioral modernity' until 50 thousand years ago, 150 thousand years later. And this only came after that bottleneck I was talking about.
No other prior species of the Homo genus used projectile weapons, and even they (homo sapiens) didn't start to do so until after 50 thousand years ago, so how could that have possibly aided in the development of the Homo sapien brain? Also, that quote you included from Wikipedia is only talking about physically modern humans as well. That's basically what I've been saying, just with slightly different dates.Two things, we can study the size of the human brain throughout evolution. Brain proportion to body is a big indicator for intelligence.
The Toba catastrophe theory created the proposed bottle neck of which you speak about 70,000 years ago, and supposedly only the smart survived. We are still talking about 70,000 years ago.Yes, that's important to note. That's why I'm focusing on the modern brain from 200,000 BC forward. Modern size wise, anyway. It's hard to say beyond that, at least for now. I'm sure DNA research will be filling in some of that stuff soon enough. But the ratio of brain/body size is demonstrably consistent, I'm pretty sure.
Here you touch on the two things I would think make that 'leap forward' at 4,000 BC so significant. Like you said earlier, the survivors of that genetic bottleneck at around 70,000 BC seemed to be the 'smart' ones considering it's the descendents of those 10,000 or less mating pairs that went on to populate the entire planet like no other species in just 60,000 years. Along the way they began using projectile weapons, they began modifying their tools, making specific tools geared towards specific tasks, wearing beads as decoration, making art like cave paintings, and burying their dead. Most of the world's current population is directly descended from survivors of that bottleneck. The only exception being the Australian Aborigines, I believe. They migrated out of Africa much earlier. Though there's really no way of knowing since writing didn't exist, but there are many who think these advances towards behavioral modernity was due to advances in verbal communication. I can see that.
Between roughly 5300 to 3000 BC, starting in southern Mesopotamia (Ubaid Culture) and spreading from there, there's another distinct 'boom'. For a long time it was assumed by many that this was ultimately the result of the discovery of farming. Farming was certainly significant. Between 9000 to 5500 BC the first human settlements began to form, so of them with populations in the thousands. These settlements, predominantly in Europe and northern Mesopotamia, were egalitarian. Graves were always of equal size with no valuables or possessions. There were no defensive walls and no signs of organized war or fighting.
But starting in southern Mesopotamia that changed. And the change was rather abrupt considering the timeline. Humans existed in highly populated regions for thousands of years with no apparent behavioral differences from the humans of the hunter-gatherer era. But starting at Eridu, the first pre-flood Sumerian city according to the Sumerians, there's the formation of the first city-state. It's designated as such because it's the first place a large settlement is established with a ruling and working class. There was a temple built in the middle where the ruling class organized labor efforts and the working class provided for them. This culture pioneered irrigation techniques and were highly organized. Behavior-wise, the Ubaid culture was distinctly different..
"The Ubaid period as a whole, based upon the analysis of grave goods, was one of increasingly polarised social stratification and decreasing egalitarianism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period
After the Ubaid culture came to what's often described as an 'abrupt' end about 4,000 BC, next came the Uruk culture in its place. And this culture picked up right where the other left off, including those behavioral changes. The Uruk period saw significant urbanization that ultimately led up to the establishment of the first full-blown civilization, Sumer, around 3500 BC. Egyptian civilization came not long after, around 3400 BC. Then the other direction in the Indus valley in India around 3300 BC. And to the north in Akkad sometime before 3000 BC. Though they interacted, each of these civilizations developed independently of one another. With each having their own unique language, and each (with the exception of Akkad) developing a system of writing. Not to mention the plethora of inventions that came during this period, including the first government, the first laws, astronomy/astology, mathematics, writing, etc.
There are some that think the catalyst that sparked this surge in human inventions and the dawning of civilizations was the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900 BC) that transformed the Sahara into a desert. This is what some think caused the abrupt end of the Ubaid culture. It is known that humans in the Sahara region who had lived in settled farming communities were forced back to a nomadic lifestyle due to the dramatic climate change. I have a slightly different theory, as you know.
What dots are there to connect. You claim God is undetectable and is outside of our own universe, yet claim the human brain has a soul that can communicate with this God that cannot be detected.
When dealing with something you cannot prove specifically with hard evidence, you find another approach. That's when I said ...
"So, the next step is to, as JMcFarland put it, "prove that the Bible is a valid source"."
Then I referred to this ...
"In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be."
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
I'm offering a potential explanation. An explanation I'd like to test by having other scrutinize it and test its validity. I claim that it's 'well supported' by evidence, that it ties together a plethora of facts, and provides an explanation that fits all the observations'.Yes, you resort to invoking religious beliefs.
Sorry, but your beliefs are not well-substantiated, well-supported or are evidence in any way, shape or form. You need to provide evidence for you creator and since you've already admitted that is not possible, then your point is entirely moot.As I've said before, it's not up to science to prove you religious argument. You should be able to find many theologians willing to study your theory using available knowledge of the universe and our planet by science. But as I've said before I just don't see the bible as being even remotely accurate to what our current knowledge is about our universe or solar system.
So being in the 'Does God Exist?' portion of the forums under 'Religion and Philosophy' is not a good place to discuss this? Besides, why does this have to be a religious argument? I'm not trying to convert anybody. What I"m trying to do is call attention to this document. Again, nobody knows who wrote it or how old it is (Gen1-11). Yet, I used it as a template and have found an incredible amount of supporting evidence for my hypothesis.
This document predates religion. Religion is a man-made thing. If I'm right then this goes a long way towards explaining things about our history we're still trying to figure out. How exactly civilization began. Why humans began warring with one another. Why we became so inventive. Why we became so destructive. What the difference is between primal human cultures and 'civilized' cultures. What inspired the ancient mythologies of the Sumerians/Egyptians/Greeks/Romans. Not to mention all the things it suggests as far as an actual purpose for existence, or 'the meaning of life'.
This isn't a religion thing. This is a human thing. How tragic would it be if many of the answers we've been looking for turned out to be in this very well known ancient document all along, but were never seen or considered because that document was dismissed long ago, based not on the document itself, but based instead on what humans have made out of it?I do believe you are not attempting to convert anyone, but bringing the bible into the conversation become religious.
I have tried to make it not a religious argument and attempted to play your game of annualizing Genesis against what's know about humanity and creation of the universe many times and I just don't see what you see. I know you will not agree but the timeline and the succession is incorrect. You've had to do a lot of changes in translations and rationalization just to make it work for you. You would think if it were accurate it would be more specific and more accurate.
Birds before land animals?
Heavens and earth before light?
Fruit trees before bees?
The first land animals were domesticated livestock?
Humans are in god's image “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness". What is this US is there is only one God? and how can we be of his likeness or image if he or them are no of our universe?
Genesis 2 suddenly says the were no shrubs and no plants had yet sprung up and it had not even rained and was still making trees, but he had just made all plants in Gen 1. This must be a detailed look at how he made man because he was still finishing the each, but that doesn't fit with the way you see it.
I really could go on and on. I don't want you to waist your time explaining all this. I'm just letting you know that if a not overly intelligent fellow as myself can find flaws the surely someone with above average intelligence could find many more.
SorrySorry everyone, but is it not possible to discuss the bible without bringing religion into it? Can't it be considered objectively?
I understand that it's not easy to keep it purely objective, but maybe not impossible. I rather like the idea that it could be used as part of the investigation of historical claims.
Like yourself, Rad Man, I am in no way educated in history of this nature so cannot be contributing anything of merit. But I can watch, read and listen with interest. I would certainly not be bothering if it did turn "religious."
On the other hand, you might think the bible is so stamped with the hand of humans, who have/had ulterior motives in writing it, that it's therefore not feasible to be totally objective.... I don't know the answer.Well Jonny, I think I just looked at it objectively. I showed the inherent flaws it has with history. I certainly didn't show them all and I'm certainly not well versed, but yet there are some glaring problems it has with what is known. I wasn't above putting on my critical thinking cap and having a look. Sure Headly has all kinds of explanations, like by day he didn't mean a day... But the language is clear. No disrespect to Headly at all. I applaud him for acknowledging that the universe is not 6000 years old. His head is in a much better place then most.
And thevconversation continues. You know the more you unbelievers try to convince yourself God created atheists, the more you will become a believer in God and realze He created life and choice. What we do with both is up to us.
You do understand that statement makes no sense - right?
actually, that's not true - I went the opposite way. I was a fervent believer in god and the bible. As I studied it in college, however, I realized that my beliefs were not demonstrated, provable or based on reality. This kind of generalization is one that gives many believers such a bad rep.
Are you sure? Just like God and the Bible don't make sense to some read it again.
Renee - have you read it all the way through? Have you read it in the original languages? I have. That's when it started to not make sense.
Do you know how the bible was put together in the first place?
Well that is a slightly arrogant response don't you think?
Would you mind telling me your sources for this information?Open your bible, and read the introduction to each gospel. While these introduction are obviously skewed in the favor of christianity (since it is in the bible and all) they make clear that the authorship of the gospels is unknown, and give a range of dates for when it was written.
Mark, the first gospel written, was at the EARLIEST dating between 50 AD - 70 AD and is generally believed to have been written AFTER the fall of Jerusalem, due to historical references that it refers to. Matthew (which, if written by -an original apostle, why did it COPY a lot of Mark, who never met jesus at all) was written between 80-100 AD. Open your bible and read the introductions to the gospels and see what you come up with.
If you're interested in more research, check out Bart Ehrman ( a renowned and tenured biblical scholar and professor in college) and his books "forged" and "misquoting jesus". If you want a video, try this one for starters: http://youtu.be/P0zWbL8Uqfw
I apologize. My response was a bit arrogant, I admit it. But I have studied this stuff for years at a college level, and I know what I'm talking about.
it's EARLIEST dating is in the mid 50's, and like I said, it's more often dated after the destruction of Jerusalem in the 70's. I know a lot about all of the gospels. What are you specifically referencing about the gospel of Luke that you want me to comment on?
Why it was written, who it was written for and the way in which it was researched.
the gospel of luke is supposedly written by a disciple of paul (who also never met jesus) and is supposed to be a "historical" account of jesus' life and teachings. It was written between AD 75-100 and is commonly associated with the Acts of the Apostles - although it later contradicts the Pauline epistles, so that is up for debate as to Luke actually wrote it or not. A lot of biblical scholars will go so far as to say that the authorship is unknown. It is believed to have copied a lot of the Markian gospel, as well as the unknown and debated Q source for a lot of its material, and contradicts the other synoptic gospels in quite a few areas - including stories that appear nowhere else (like the prodigal son) and omitting stories found in other gospel accounts. Additionally the genealogy of jesus contradicts the genealogy found in Matthew.
Did that cover it?
Why don't the nonbelievers in God want to admit that they are taking incomplete facts and probabilities as evidence by FAITH. The word exists for a reason and if there were an atheist dictionary it would probably be described as magik or whatever. Call it what you will, everybody needs some of it. When you love your partner you take a leap of FAITH and form a relationship with them. FAITH is a fact of life just like when you follow a new recipe to make spaghetti you have FAITH that it will end up as spaghetti.
There is a difference between blind "faith" which believers are required to have and trust based on former experience and optimism. Faith means that you believe in something without a justifiable, provable reason. Trust is hoping that something will work out well and is based on experience, knowledge and awareness. When you enter into a marriage with your partner, you are TRUSTING that what they say is true and that they'll live up to their promises. When you try a new recipe for spaghetti, what else would it end up as? Faith would be believing that your recipe for spaghetti would produce lasagna. Trust would believe that since it IS a recipe for spaghetti and the ingredients that you're using are consistent with spaghetti that it's spaghetti that you'll end up with when you're done.
If people didn't investigate things, if people just had blind faith then we would have nothing that makes life what it is today. As an example: No mining of ore, no experimentation, no metals, no cooking pans, no cars, no buildings larger than 2 or 3 stories, no cars, no planes, no mechanically powered machines, no wires, no telephones, no electricity, no computers, no internet, no hubpages....... just "grand old lady" sitting by a fire roasting a slug on a stick and cowering at shadows.
We understand the two meanings of faith, but it appears you don't. Your faith in God is blind faith while any faith based on evidence such as your spaghetti recipe is not the same thing.
Thank you grand old lady -maybe they'll wake up and get it one day.
Blind faith! Hmm, it's interesting that this phrase is coming up alot and the response about it sounds so negative. Merriam-Webster's defintion of faith is : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty. b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions. 2. a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God.
Think about it, if you have faith in someone you are operating blindly. Why? Because people change. One minute you have a friend who you trusted and thought was loyal to the relationship, and then BAM! Out of nowhere, they change. They stab you in the back. They turn on you. They talk about you. You find out they were only your "friend" to get something out of you. So, you were blind to the fact of who they really are. Their true self. And I know you naysayers will say "Renee' this doesn't make sense. Blah, blah, blah." But, think about it. I know we all have experienced these situations. So faith in general, no matter what you believe in is blind.Not really, that person did provide evidence and facts for being trusted and loyal, as you say, but then changed, or they lied about it from the get go. Either way, you took that relationship on the faith of the evidence and facts they previously portrayed. That is not blind faith.
Teaching children to have blind faith. Faith in something or someone that's impossible to prove exist, something we have no evidence for instead of teaching children to think critically is opening up the children to a potential life of abuse. Phone rings, Hello sir, you've just won a car and all you need to do is pay the shipping fee. Please send $987 to...
I'd like to study who is more open to scams, believers or non believers.
There you go johhnycomelately. This is the reason for my attitude.
Are you ready to respect and conform?You have been given the choice, so it's up to you. If you're opposed to it, you're allowed. Kind of like the Wedding Banquet parable that Jesus described. The host has put together an incredible banquet and all are invited, he just asks that you follow the rules and don't show up looking all disheveled. Have some respect. If you don't, he's not letting you in. Would you rather not have the choice? Or would you rather just not exist at all? Can't have it all.
Let's see, you say we've all been invited to the wedding/heaven/life, but we don't know where it is and have no evidence that this party will take place, all the inviter requires is that we believe it's somewhere. It doesn't matter how we dress or what kind of person we are, just that we think the party will take place somewhere, sometime? If someone has lived a humble life, given to charity and was kind to all, but doesn't think there will be a party that person is cancerous? All God wants is believers? So some are according to you set up to fail, because they use their mind (God given mind) to think critically.
The bible does say that God's judgement is righteous and basically explains that you're held accountable according to what you know. In other words, if you know the law, and break it anyway, then you're more accountable than someone who doesn't know the law and broke it. It's not just black/white. It's judgement.
Believing means you acknowledge there's a higher authority than you. It acknowledges that you're a part of the whole, and not somehow more important or more deserving than anyone else. Don't judge, basically. Only one has the authority to do that, and it's not any of us.
Personally, I think religion has twisted things up. They've put themselves in a place of authority when they're actually just as human and fallible as the rest of us. The way I understand it, you will be judged on your works and what you know. If you made it through life without ever hearing about God, the bible, the commandments, and broke His laws not knowing you were doing so, that's taken into account.
Besides, if God appeared in front of you, if the creator of the universe was standing over your shoulder, staring at you, showing Himself to you, do you think that would maybe have an impact on your decisions? Would it still really be your decision? Would you really be able to choose of your own free will if you were influenced to do so by God visibly standing before you?Not everyone sees it as you do. I do like your version better then some others, but I'm a little confused as to why people think that not worshiping/bowing down before God is an indication of an ego problem. You see I see it the other way around, and I'm repeating myself a little bit here, but non-believers don't see themselves better than anyone or anything, we just are part of humanity. While believers feel that were made in Gods image and were put here by God to rule the planet. Some even feel that communicate directly with God. Atheists don't judge, but Christians certainly do. A friend of mine recently moved tot the southern states and the first day in the new home was asked by neighbours "WHICH church do you belong to".
You are correct that religion has twisted things up, but the bible does lend it's self up to way to much interpretation.I think you're right. Personally, I think there's going to be a lot of really surprised individuals when that day comes. Human muck things up, and that includes Christians. There are some who develop a sense of entitlement, which tends to become judgmental. I don't generally like to get into the moral side of things because I don't feel I know better than anyone else well enough to say they're right or wrong. In my mind, those who earnestly search for truth will be better off than those who thought they knew better. Especially those that said so and claimed to be doing it in His name.
In my mind, we each enter and exit this world alone. Everyone and everything else is external. And external things, whether it be your parents/church/neighbors/science can potentially lead you astray. In the end it's between you and God. And the path to God is an earnest internal reconciliation.I agree except of course for the last sentence or so. In the end we should hope for a painless respectful death, then lights out. If we are lucky enough to have children we have passed on our energy to them, but not our consciousness, unfortunately that's gone,
But it's good we agree on somethings no?It is nice to find something we agree on every now and then.
Children pass on your legacy, and everything you did/created is still part of existence. The question is, what kind of impact did you have? Was it constructive or destructive?
Great point HeadlyvonNoggin. Let's see what the answers are to your questions.
Also, according to Jesus, conforming just means to love/respect God and to love/respect one another. If you look at the ten commandments, they echo that sentiment. Put no other authority before God, because anything else is part of creation and not the creator, so they're not going to know any better, and be cool to one another. Don't take each other's stuff, don't kill each other, don't sleep with each other's partners, etc. And this also echos how cells interact with one another. It's all about sharing equally and not being selfish, basically. Doesn't sound too much to ask if you ask me, but if you feel differently you're allowed. He gave you the choice.
LOL Doesn't really sound like you hold with the Sabbath thing though - right?
On the 7th day god majicked Adam into existence.......What, you mean, take a day a week off? Don't be lazy, work, but don't work every day? Take a day? That's how I see it. I may be wrong. I really can't say one way or the other for certain, but that's how I see it.
But the Invisible Super Daddy worked for 7 straight - right?
No, on the 7th day He too rested. Then came Adam.
My mistake - I though he dunnit on the 7th day. No so?
Nope, He rested...
Genesis 2:2-3 - And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.Could have sworn you told us Genesis got it wrong and Genesis 2 is actually the 7th day.
Mea culpa.Well, you would have been wrong. I said the creation of humans in Gen1 and the creation of Adam in Gen2 were two separate events. I did point out that chapter 2 begins with day 7, then Adam. Maybe that's where you got that.
Gotcha - so Adam was majicked into existence on the 8th day?
Uh, yes. Though, technically, considering everything else that came before, Adam's creation was the least 'majikal'. Unlike the rest of creation, Adam was created by hand by God. His physical form was made using physical earth/dirt, then God 'breathed the breath of life into his nostrils'. Everything else He just willed it and it happened. Adam was much more 'hands-on'. Some assembly required, I guess.
Right - so it wasn't 6 days of creation - it was 8?
So, Gentlemen, can I just recap and try to see the "state of play" with your discussion up to now?
Am I right in saying, HeadlyvonNoggin, that you would see Genesis early chapters as metaphorical, primarily, but with possibly some hitherto obscure historical elements within and giving rise to the text?
In fact it would have to be metaphorical if it's necessary for you and others to debate the meanings of those texts.No, I see it as literal. It's way too specific, specifying people by name, giving their age, specifying where they were geographically, to be metaphorical. Not to mention everyone from then on from Abraham to David to Jesus are said to be direct descendants of Adam.
I know that will sound crazy to most, but I have (what I feel is) good reason to think that. Think about it like this, if there truly were a small group/family of beings who each lived for numerous centuries and who existed as described in Mesopotamia for over 1600 years, what would you expect to see?
This region was already populated at the time. I took the fact that Abraham interacted with an Egyptian Pharaoh in Gen12, combined with the fact that Genesis says he was born just under 2000 years after Adam was created, and used that to nail down a timeframe. Because Egypt first formed around 3400 BC, this means if this was a literal story and assuming it's accurate, these things could not have happened any earlier than around 5500 BC.
The people that lived in that region at that time were the Sumerians, or at least the people who ultimately became the Sumerians. The Ubaid culture (5500-4000 BC) lasted roughly 1500 years, the same length of time between Cain's banishment and the flood. Not only was there a city built during the Ubaid culture, the first human city-state (Cain built a city in Gen4), and not only is this the first place the specific behavioral changes I'm looking for showed up, but this period is also said to have come to an 'abrupt' end, which at least in the Sumerian city of Ur was directly related to a flood. According to the Sumerians, their immortal god, Enki, built the city (Eridu) and lived in the temple at the center. They also say it's these gods that taught them civilization.
Immediately after the 'abrupt' end of the Ubaid culture came the Uruk culture (4000-3100 BC). Both Genesis and the Sumerian King's list state the Sumerian city of Uruk was built not long after the flood, and both attribute it to being built by someone who is referred to as a 'mighty hunter'; Nimrod in Genesis and Enmerkar in the Sumerian King's List. The actual city of Uruk was built around 3900 BC. Then came that 5.9 kiloyear event that actually did cause mass migrations of humans that falls right in line with when Genesis says the events of Babel took place. AND, Eridu is the location of the oldest known zigguraut, or tower.
The Sumerians also tell a very similar story, both about a flood survived by a man and his family who built a boat and saved a bunch of animals, as well as a story that talks about a once universal language being confused into many. The rapid urbanization seen during the Uruk period led directly to the first human civilizations, first in Sumer (3500 BC), then to the west in Egypt (3400 BC), then to the east in the Indus Valley, or India (3300 BC), then to the north in Akkad sometime before 3000 BC. In each of these places they spoke unique languages and each formed independently, all in a very short amount of time.
Though most were wiped out by a flood according to Genesis, if beings who lived for centuries and who were knowledgeable according to the Eden story actually existed in that populated region for 1600+ years, there should be some sort of sign that they were there. Well, not only do you have some of the most significant advances in human history happening in a short amount of time in this specific region/timeframe, but you also have every ancient civilization from that region who claimed immortal beings, human in form, male and female, existed in their ancient past and bred with humans (Sumerians/Akkadians/Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans). And, in the case of Sumer, they directly state that these beings lived in the temples we know actually existed and taught them. The Sumerians were the first civilization and were probably the most proficient inventors who ever lived, yet don't take the credit themselves. So, were these mythologies all fiction? Or were they maybe inspired by something, or someone?
Headly, I was just reading over Genesis and came across this in Genesis 6
6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
I have two questions if you don't mind.
1. Do you think Genesis word for word? Because if so it appears got spoke directly with people often, but he is now undetectable.
2. What do you suppose was meant by "sons of God"? It's largely thought that God is alone, but to have sons he must have a wife. Is that why is 1:26 is says (26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,)? Us? But then if he has family why 2:20 (But for Adam no suitable helper was found.) does he have to look for a suitable helper before making one?1. You’re right. In early Genesis God walks through the garden and talks to Adam/Eve/Cain/Abel directly. Later, Moses asks to actually see God. This leads to what is probably one of the most fascinating parts of the bible to me …
Exodus 33: 20-23 – “But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” Then the LORD said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
Remember, Adam was created ‘manually’ by God with the ‘breath of life’ breathed directly into his lungs. Adam was created separate from, and was different from, ‘mortal’ humans. In that line above that you included it says, “Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.” It’s after Adam’s descendants began having children with ‘mortal’ humans that the lifespans began to reduce dramatically. Moses only lived to 120. I think this is the difference. Moses came from naturally evolved humans and close contact with God would be too much for him.
Plus, everything He did in the OT was so Jesus could be born. Once that happened there was no more need for God to interact.
2. I’m not entirely sure about the ‘Us’ thing. I suspect that has more to do with the ongoing debate we get a glimpse of in Job. However, the ‘sons of God’ were Adam and his descendants. I know this from throughout the rest of the bible. Like in Luke 3 ….
Luke 3:23-37 – Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat … (another 30 names or so) … the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Choices - Free Will - Faith is a Choice - God is a choice - Your choice not to believe is a what? A choice. God gave us that and you make your decision accordingly. He still loves you no matter what you decide. How many nonbelievers can say they have experienced that kind of love from someone who has not chosen them?
You can't experience love from something that cannot be detected. Sure you may be having some chemical reaction in your brain because you've been told that someone will always love you, but that is just in your brain.
Plus, no matter what you've been told believing is not a choice, you either are gullible or you are sceptical. Do you really think you could choose not to believe? Just make the choice? Today at 12:45 I no longer believe?The problem is that the concept of free will is an illusion, the fact is you can't really choose to believe something (at least not sanely) that something you know to be false is true, for example, can you choose to believe you can fly even though you can't? No, to say you did would be a lie. For example, if you claimed to actually believe you could fly would you jump off a building to prove it? Well if you have sufficient knowledge or sanity then the fact is you would not jump, which would make your choice a lie. Same goes for everything in life. People have chosen something for which they have been brought up to believe is true and would not choose to do otherwise... also you cannot choose to go against your very nature. Can you make the choice today to never eat again? Not if you want to live, so the choices aren't free they have consequences and our nature prohibits making choices.
Further more, I am completely sure that God does not exist, can I choose to believe in such a God, no, it goes against my knowledge and education and the evidence that I have observed. Can you choose to love a fictional being? Probably, but it would not be sane.... or you would be immature like a child loves Santa Claus.
No, your God does not love those who disbelieve, he sends them to a lake of eternal fire. Your God only offers an ultimatum, not a choice.
Okay this thread seems to cite two types of faith. One is blind faith (which Christians supposedly have) and the other is faith based on rational experience (which nonbelievers have). I beg your pardon, I do not have blind faith. My faith is very personal, based on my personal experience of Jesus. This is something you can't know unless you experience it for yourselves. Then you'll know there is no other way to live, nothing that compares in terms of quality of life. My faith came about based on EXPERIENCE. It is not blind faith.
Blind faith is stupidity. Now, nonbelievers will say they base their faith on facts (not all of which they have experienced). But their understanding of facts is enough for them to extrapolate and say there is no God, it's all science and there was a big bang and evolution and matter always existed and was not created. Fine.
But the parallels are there, they logically base their faith on what scientists say whom they don't know personally and on what they read even if science changes over time. Still, they put their faith on that.
As a Christian I put my faith in the Bible. It's based on a personal and continuing experience and personal relationship with Jesus that has gone on for many, many years. If it aint broke, why should I fix it?
Consider me stupid, ignorant, etc., because of my faith, but I bet I have just as good an education as you.
In the end, I think atheists and Christians have a lot more in common than some in either group would like to admit. But it's true.And before I go to sleep, let me add that now, FINALLY nonbelievers admit they have faith and and try to differentiate it from Christian faith. So there. Progress made. both sides admit that FAITH has a place in life, although its place is different for both groups. But I stress over and over, Christians don't have BLIND FAITH. We believe because of our experience of Jesus.
Don't be silly. Blind faith in majick such as you claim is not the same as faith that your brakes will work because you serviced them last week.
Having faith in breaks is a silly notion, I don't have faith that breaks will work, I understand how they work and know that they will work unless they are broken, I don't get how anyone would think faith comes into play in there... belief is not the same as faith and I think that is his general confusion.
Well - this is the reason their religion causes so many conflicts.
Cognitive Dissonance.
They realize sub-consciously that they have no basis for their beliefs, which is fine when every one in your little tribe says they believe the same thing, but when you have other people who don't believe it is necessary to bring them down to their level by suggesting that believing your brakes will work because you just serviced them is "just another belief," therefore atheists have exactly the same belief system as they do.
This is why there has been so many church schisms and splits and wars. All the time everyone says they believe the same nonsense you say you believe there is harmony. As soon as some one decides they believe a different interpretation of the majick book, or don't believe it as all - you get unresolvable conflicts. These conflicts are unresolvable because there is no rational basis for these beliefs, therefore they must either admit they are nonsense and give them up or discard them as soon as there is a rational discussion.
Thus you have Islam/Christianity/Judaism and numerous versions of these - one for each little tribe. It is tribal thinking that always conflicts with reasonable discussion. Just look at the trouble they go to to explain that - "You simply don't understand and perceive what I perceive," or "your belief in evolution is no different." etc etc.Mark, we've had our disagreements, and I'm sure that will continue, but I would like to say that this is probably the best thing I've ever read from you. That's a very astute and well articulated, point. This may blow your mind considering how I can only imagine you think of me, but I agree with you. That's probably my biggest issue with religion. When someone, whether an individual or an institution, places themselves in a place of authority as to what is truth and what isn't, then it's kind of hard to adjust and change when new information comes to light that contradicts what's been insisted on to be the only right way. There is only one truth, yet many beliefs, religions and denominations. Each one convinced their way is the only right way. Religion is a human institution. Religion isn't God. It's the manifestation of the human interpretation of God mixed with human pride. That doesn't necessarily mean there's absolutely no truth to it, only that it's not totally right. All in all humanity as a whole could probably find a good majority of things that we all can agree on to be true, but it's that other part that our pride keeps getting in the way of letting us just work together to figure out.
Well I am glad you think so. Once you understand that - there is no god - maybe we can have a reasonable discussion.
And there's the old Mark. The one who should heed the words of that other Mark.
Sorry - you just don't get it. You are the one ignoring the other Mark. Try reading it again.
Take the god thing out of it and there is nothing to argue about.
This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.That's the whole point. You have no factual basis for your insistence to remove 'the god thing' from the conversation, yet you continue to do so. And much like some believers you abandon reason and tact when there is no longer a rational basis for your perspective. Your view is like another splintered religion, only with a different god. Yours being the god of happenstance or pure incalculable chance whose faith in our progress through scientific discovery assures you that your beliefs will one day be proven absolutely. And there's nothing wrong with your belief. A reasonable conversation is possible without one side insisting the other remove a fundamental part of their viewpoint from the equation if that fundamental part has not been dis-proven by known facts. And I really am sorry you don't understand that. I'd love to hear more from that other Mark. But because I believe what I do, I only get this one.
Once again you missed what I said.
This is why your religion causes so many fights. Really - go back and read what I said again.
The god thing is the problem. Really. Your need to attack my lack of belief in a god is at the root of the conflict you create. Which is what I said. Because you have no rational basis for believing it - you need to attack my lack of belief.
Which is why your religion will always cause conflicts.I did. I've read it a few times now. And I know you get what I'm saying because you wrote it. But I'm not talking to 'that guy' right now. I'm talking to the guarded Mark. Take references to 'the god thing' or the 'majikal book' out of your comment and read it again. That's exactly what you do here in these forums. I understand what you're saying. I understand the view of science you have that is based in a god-less causal universe. I can see it and I get it. And I can see my perspective. I see both. I know you don't/won't believe that, but I do, and I can understand how you think my belief in God obscures my ability to see 'the truth'. But I don't just look at it that way. I also look at it through a purely causal understanding because that is the approach of science. And I get it. But it leaves some really important stuff out. And that's all the stuff the 'guarded Mark' dismisses and ridicules. There is more than what is currently observable. Don't be so quick to close the door. You can dismiss it in your own view, but have no basis to insist it not be discussed at all. When you do that you cheat us all out of hearing the insights you clearly are capable of contributing.
And what did you not get about it? Your insistence on an irrational belief means you need to argue with me because I don't share that irrational belief. Your beliefs are ridiculous - that is why you attack me because I point that out. Baseless non belief in majick huh? The "Important stuff" that you get and I cannot see?
LAWL Everything I said applies to you, and this is the "insight," you recognized. But - only as applied to others.......
"Open Mark"One of the main problems that most of us "nonbelievers" have with the subject of a God is that there is no rational reaason for insisting that the subject is actually rational. There is no reason to think that a God is the causse or reason for anything. It's a childs toy, a monster under the bed, it's an imaagiinnaary friend. In an adult it's purely dilusional. To haave God has the subject of posssibility is irrational because there is no evidence to support it's possibility. Why would we as "nonbelievers" insert a god as a possibility into anything at that point?
Whether there is more to what is currently observable or not does not preclude the fact that science won't one day observe and measure it. But, to jump to the "god thing" as an answer or explanation to that "important stuff" is not logical or reasonable when there is no evidence to suggest a "god thing" and nothing but incredulity to support such a conclusion.
Though I can't speak for all believers, I can say that I am not just 'jumping to the 'god thing''. I have a fully formed philosophical understanding of existence that is consistent with known facts and that is based on philosophical logic and reason.
Take 'life', for example. I view life, and by that I mean the state of being alive versus dead, as a fundamental energy much like the fundamental forces of nature by which all material matter conforms. Much like elements have specific observable behaviors that consistently differ dependent on the conditions in which they exist, like in the way a particular element's properties differ in extremely cold conditions versus extremely hot conditions that are observable and reproducible, so does biological matter when the conditions change where 'life' is concerned. When life is present, whatever it is, biological matter behaves in very specific observable ways that are consistent and constant in all living things. In biology, the state of 'living' cannot be reduced beyond the seven inherent functions that can be observed; homeostasis (maintaining a constant internal state), organization (being made up of one or more cells), metabolism, growth (higher rate of anabolism than catabolism), adaptation, response to stimuli (like the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals), and reproduction.
I view this fact as reason to believe there's more to life than we currently grasp scientifically. And that fact makes it seem to me to be more consistent with my philosophical grasp of existence than your competing view. That isn't necessarily true, and I acknowledge that, but also don't necessarily see how one can see my view as irrational or illogical if the time were taken to actually understand it and not dismiss it based on your own opinions of other believers and what they've stated.But some can consider the real ''purpose" of life to be the ''seven inherent function that can be observed.''
AKA.. homeostasis + organization+ metabolism+ growth+ adaption + response to stimuli = reproduction..the real "purpose" to all the previous six steps= the successful birth of a new life for that species.
No need to go further than that really... Biologically>bio- Logically speaking..
You said: [ I view this fact as reason to believe there's more to life than we currently grasp scientifically. ]
How can you "logically" believe this after stating the above?No need to go further? Let's say those 7 things are the purpose...how was it determined they would be? Why did the components bother to come together for life, (nevermind having to overcome the how)? What is life? Why did the first organism care about survival? Why did it care about perpetuating itself and for that matter where did it find a date? Even if you say the first one procreated by itself, why abandon that in favor of having two separate sexes? What or who exactly is making all these decisions and based on what? To me, those and many more questions are the reason to go further. For all you about to parrot how much I don't know about evolution, although not true, what if it were? Evolution does not answer those questions.
You should take the time to learn something about evolution before asking those questions and looking foolish by saying evolution does not answer them.
Yes, I get what you mean. A successful process that allows for an organism to survive long enough to achieve reproduction means successful genes passed on to future generations. But let's really think about that. Reproduction and the ability to pass on genetic information is the key to life's success by our current understanding. But to reach that very first step you have to have an organism capable of exhibiting all seven of those capabilities, plus the capability to pass on genetic information, to somehow come about without the benefit of previous generations of successful organisms. Unless maybe there's a simpler form of life that predates the more successful model to follow that somehow survived with less than all of these traits? Even then you have the problem of constructing how that organism came about and how that eventually got to where it got.
The bigger issue here is the obvious will that drives life. Living things are compelled to maintain a physical condition conducive to continued living. It's motivated to not die and to perpetuate further not dying by living on through reproduction. This desire to not die also had to be there from the beginning. Now maybe all these things can be traits in the genetic code that somehow evolved into an organism having all seven of those biological functions, and the ability to pass on genetic information, and the desire to not die, without the benefit of previous generations mutating and developing these traits over time, but I honestly can't see how that could be. But maybe there's just something I don't understand. If you could shed some light on this and help me understand, that would be great. It may be that this too is already covered and explained and I just wasn't aware.
Is this not logical?There is something you don't understand - yes. You don't understand how life could be driven by itself.
It has been explained to you many, many, many times how it is both possible and logical that life is driven by life itself and this is what defines life and differentiates it from non-life. But - then you don't get to tell us what the Super Being wants us to do so you reject it as "impossible," but you use the term "illogical," incorrectly. Logic is the process of reaching a conclusion from deductive reasoning. You have started from a premise that god exists and attempted to form an argument based on that premise. As you say - "I honestly can't see how that could be," but you don't have any reasoning behind it. Thus your argument is that classic "argument from incredulity."
I suggest "the selfish gene," by Dawkins as a worthwhile read.Maybe you're confusing me with someone else, but it has not been explained how life can drive itself to me many, many times. I've been told I just don't understand many, many times. Which as I've replied many, many times in return, is no help to me whatsoever. The one exception to this is Rad Man, who suggested the 'will to survive' could have maybe been one of the first genetic traits passed on once replication had been achieved, which I'd like to acknowledge. But that's one possible explanation, as opposed to 'many', that was proposed as a 'maybe' and didn't also include a reference to that effect. And in looking to learn more about this possibility I had yet to find anything. But to my recollection that was the one and only time, and you've yet to explain anything on this topic.
This time, however, you suggested a book that I have since downloaded via kindle and am reading now, and for that I thank you. I haven't gotten very far along yet, but already this book is fascinating and is helping me to better understand. In this particular scenario it possibly redefines my understanding of life being a natural force/energy, and shifts it more towards the idea that it could maybe be a result of the effects of conditions and environment on physical matter that coaxed that response. But as far as the will is concerned, I have continually drawn a divisive line between 'individual' will and not 'individual' will; AKA God's will. And I've continually explained that God's will is manifested in the behavior of nature according to my view.
Now, about the continued assumptions made of me that cause you to spend more time on phonetic mockery and ridicule and less time on sharing your knowledge. As I've said before, these discussions have no bearing on my faith. My faith is absolute, and no matter how many natural causes we find to explain how something came about will change that. Science, for me, helps define the line of where the natural forces stop and where the mechanics inherent to physical matter begin. Time and time again we find that the cause is the exact right conditions coaxing the exact right response out of the matter/organisms in the environment in which those conditions exist to realize an outcome that is 'more' than it was previously. And this I don't associate to chance or happenstance, but to the willful acts of a creator who is the architect of this universe, and who creates through the mechanics of His creation.
But that doesn't mean I don't have scientific understanding through a purely causal/naturalist perspective, or that comments I make like 'I honestly can't see how that could be' come from a place of assumption that somewhere in there God 'miracled' something to make it happen. That statement in this case came from a pondering through the causal/naturalist mindset and my current level of understanding of evolution, which is by no means complete. Again, I'm not here to convince others that I'm right, but rather to test what I think I know to see if I'm right. I'm here to learn myself, and to contribute what knowledge and understanding I have gained, in the hopes that these discussions will raise understanding for everyone involved. It's these kinds of discussions that steer my study and investigation and coax me into new directions to take and new questions to attempt to answer through others who have attempted to answer those same questions themselves. My understanding continually evolves as new information is learned.
The book you referred me to is exactly the kind of thing I'm after. In particular, as far as my hypothesis is concerned, it maybe helps explain how the transition of the Sahara into desert, dispersing already-settled agricultural humans, could coax an 'us vs. them' mentality out of humans where it didn't exist before by simply separating them, which fosters differences in language and behavior, that are then recognized as 'different than us' when those groups re-converged centuries later and invented war. Basically, it's a possible answer to 'how' the story of Babel actually played out to result in what it did.
So, thank you again for the reference. I just wish it didn't take so much back and forth nonsense with you before you relinquish any actual substance. Assumptions about the person you're speaking to that you actually know very little about only hinder the conversation. That's not to say I don't understand why you do as you do, as I too am often frustrated by much of what I read in these forums written by parties on both sides of the discussion, but I would hope by now I may have at least convinced you that I'm willing to listen and attempt to better understand if you'll just give me some substance to chew on. Just telling me I'm ignorant or don't understand gives me nothing. No offense, but I'm not just going to take your word for it.No - not confusing you with any one else - it has been explained many, many times - you simply reject it. You have been offered substance but ignore it because you simply cannot understand how it could be so without a majikal intervention.
Your understanding does not appear to evolve - it appears stuck in "it must have been a goddunit because it couldn't have happened without one." Nor do you appear to be willing to listen.
No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts.Mark, if HeadlyvonNoggin does not get to "proving it," to your satisfaction..... and he continues to have his faith, does that annoy you?
Is it not possible for both sides of the argument to stand without negating either?
Ultimately, does it matter one way or the other?
In your opinion?No - it does not annoy me until he tells me he knows what god wants. OI see you ignored that one - odd.
He thinks the bible is correct and we should kill homosexuals - does that annoy you?That annoys me, but I'll wait to hear him respond to that before I make a judgment.
I don't believe that of HeadlyvonNoggin,,, yes, it might be true of other so-called christians, but I will wait for him to reply.
I have stood my ground in another Hub where an ignorant "christian" was debasing and insulting homosexual people, using his biblical understandings to condemn..... and I will not leave off.
We have seen Headly... put his personal beliefs and points of view. If he can also see yours and other points of view, isn't that good?
Anyone who uses biblical interpretations to condemn and vilify others will stir me up, but I don't think it has happened here, yet.I'm not claiming to have some inside track on knowing God that's beyond anyone else, if that's what you're suggesting. As I think I've said, I've found what I believe to be a glaring error in the traditional interpretation of Genesis. Once re-read in context with this one adjustment in place, it transforms the entire story of the bible from a vague collection of texts that seem to contradict the God of the new testament into a much more clear cohesive narrative that makes the whole thing make a lot more sense. So, in those discussions where you feel I'm telling you I 'know what God wants', I'm probably speaking from that context. If I'm right about what I'm proposing, then not only does it allow you to pinpoint the events of Genesis in history, which give the stories their proper context, but it also makes much more clear what the whole purpose to creating existence was about, the purpose of the flood, why God focused just on the Israelites, and all kinds of other stuff. It offers one simple explanation that clears up loads of confusion about the bible, human history, ancient mythologies, etc.
As for your statement that the I think 'the bible is correct and we should kill homosexuals'... I generally don't like to get so much into the moral side of things because I don't know any better than anyone else and do not see myself as being in any sort of position to tell anyone else how to live. That being said I can tell you that in my personal opinion I think the context makes it pretty clear what the statements in the old testament regarding homosexuality were all about. Notice this isn't addressed in the ten commandments. And it's not addressed in the seven Noahtide laws meant for non-Jewish people who lived in Jewish ruled lands. And Jesus never addressed it. In fact, Jesus specifically said when asked about the laws that the most important was to 'love God and love one another'.
Homosexuality is only addressed specifically with the Jewish people who were also told not to breed outside their own people and all kinds of other really specific things, like specific people in that region and time to not mix with. I think there were 613 specific laws that were given to the Jewish people in all. And as I've tried to point out, especially in the context of there being other humans not 'of Eve' who populated the planet, the priority was to create the great nation of descendants promised to Abraham and to retain the 'spirit of God' given to Adam that would eventually allow for the birth of the savior. So, in that context, when the priority is obviously controlled breeding to realize a specific end, homosexuality is understandably a hindrance to that process. I don't see homosexuality as an automatic refusal of God's grace. In my opinion a sin is a sin, and if God considers homosexuality a sin, then I think it's no different than any other. And I feel that any Christian who takes it upon themselves to speak 'for God' and condemn the lifestyles of others better be sure they know what they're talking about, because unlike homosexuality, that is something that is addressed pretty directly.What are you a politician? You said a lot and said nothing. I think you said Homosexuality is a sin, but I'm not sure. You are usually more direct.
If you get the sense that I'm less direct here than usual then that's probably because we're talking about whether or not something is moral, or a sin. As I said, I'm in no position to say one way or the other and don't feel comfortable telling somebody whether or not how they live is 'right'. But I can tell you my opinion on the matter based on how I read it.
In my opinion, those statements about homosexuality in the bible were to address something that would prove a hindrance in that specific situation for those specific people in that specific age. I can also see how it can be seen by the creator of nature as outside of the way things work, biologically, considering the purpose of sex is procreation. And I can even see the possibility of it being spoken against maybe due to the potential for disease or infection, considering there is no possibility for same sex couples to procreate, thus evolving defenses to such things. But the fact that it's not addressed in the commandments, and not something that Jesus specifically addressed, in my mind, and opposed to what many Christians say, I don't see it as grounds for immediate rejection by God. I don't know if it's a sin in God's eyes. But if it is, then in my opinion it's no different than any other.
Thank you, jonnycomelately, for trying. If I haven't said it before, I find your open mind and your contributions to these discussions refreshing. I thought I'd give it one more shot with Mark. Try to appeal to his reasonable side. But it seems that judgement has been passed as far as I'm concerned and I don't get access to reasonable Mark.
You absolutely do. Try offering something reasonable other than natural development being something "you just cannot see happening," because that is all you have said in 10,000 words.
Standard argument from incredulity that has been dismissed by reasonable Mark as such. Sorry.
I'm sure I misread this, but are you saying it hadn't occurred to you that the separation of groups over a reasonably short time results in separate languages rather then God not liking people getting along?
No, what I'm saying is that the differences that would surely arise from the divergence of different groups in language and behavior would, after a bit of time, certainly make these other groups seem 'different than us' by the time they came back together. If there's a genetically programmed disposition to resist different and protect same, this would foster just the kind of 'us vs. them' mentality that you'd expect to drive such a rapid upswing in violence and the invention of organized war and strategy. I'm not settled on this idea. It's just something that occurred to me while reading Dawson's book.
Language wise, however, there are at least two distinct languages that came from this region that a majority of modern languages stem from; Semitic and Indo-European. The people that spoke these languages were nomads from the Sahara region, chased out by dramatic climate change, who came to the already settled regions along rivers in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Europe, and the Indus Valley. It was these people who brought those dramatic behavioral changes and sparked the rapid advances in technology and craftsmanship in each of these regions.
That is why it is pointless to explain anything to you, by your own words and lack of logic.
That has yet to begin. You have no understanding of evolution nor do you appear to be interested in finding out anything to the contrary.
No, you are not here to learn or understand as you've already admitted; "My faith is absolute, and no matter how many natural causes we find to explain how something came about will change that"Right, that's my faith, or my philosophical view. And that won't change. It's spiritual, so therefore science has no bearing on it. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of comprehending the naturalist disposition of science and scientific thinking. I understand that you don't get that, I can even see why you don't get that, but have run out of ways of trying to explain it.
That is something we are only too aware.
Nothing "spiritual" has ever been shown to exist, hence it's nonsense. And yes, science has no bearing on nonsense.
And yet, your posts show otherwise.
Your only explanation is, Goddunnit.Exactly what I've explained in every way I know how, yet you still manage.
You are the one who wrote these words, not me...
"My faith is absolute, and no matter how many natural causes we find to explain how something came about will change that"
There is nothing more to understand from that statement... Goddunnit according to you. How many ways can you explain that?And I understand you think there's 'nothing more to understand' by statements like this ...
"Nothing "spiritual" has ever been shown to exist"
Again, I understand that you don't get it, and even understand why you don't get it. But repeating myself or trying to find some way to reword how I say it isn't going to make a difference. Your philosophical view doesn't allow for it, therefore you can't see it. Doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong. Doesn't justify your constant insistence that we conform to your way of thinking if we're even going to be allowed to have a discussion. It's close-minded really. But there's nothing I can do about that. That's on you.That would be a fallacious and ridiculous conclusion. It is a statement of fact that would show your statement to be false.
Hogwash, it has nothing to do with me, these are your words that would show amply it is all about you...
"My faith is absolute, and no matter how many natural causes we find to explain how something came about will change that"Yes, of course, a statement of fact that says nothing spiritual (ie. non-physical) has ever been shown to exist (through the physical sciences). It's like a materialism defense mechanism. It allows you to say whatever you want about God and believers, bash the bible, insult and belittle and ridicule any kind of spiritual belief as 'delusion', then dismiss anything and everything believers can say in defense of their beliefs. And it allows you to convince yourself there's nothing more to existence than the material/physical, therefore nothing any more powerful than humanity to be held accountable by.
It's cowardly, really, to use science as your backing to attack and belittle believers and their beliefs, when science in no way informs us of non-physical aspects of existence. If you at least made an effort to use your knowledge to help inform or enlighten, then these discussions could be potentially fruitful and purposeful. Instead we get pointless bickering. So to say it has nothing to do with you is dishonest at the very least. At least acknowledge your role in this that has everything to do with misusing science to argue against spirituality.Doesn't it amount to fears on either side of the argument?
On the "spiritual" side, people can be afraid that their deeply held views will suffer ridicule and cause a dis-belief process, leading to a void in one's understanding of life. If the belief has been held for a long time, there is even greater desire to hang on.
On the "materialist" side, there is the fear that the spiritual camp will bring in all manner of restrictions as to how "I" should lead my life; what I can and what I can't do; condemnation by society; discrimination; even out-right punishment and in the extreme capital punishment!
I see it as important for both sides to be heard, but there needs to be a common acceptance that all sides may continue in their belief/understanding, without bullying and compulsion on either.Nope for me it has nothing to do with fear. I'm not afraid that a God would see what I'm doing is wrong. As a matter of fact I don't think any emotions are attached. Is bewilderment an emotion?
I agree. There are some believers who reject science based on fear because they often don't discern the difference between man-made religious accounts or interpretations of God/spirituality that they've been taught and actual God/spirituality. Science can and does illustrate flaws in man-made religious understandings, but does not contradict or disprove God or spirituality.
And yes, there's also the very real threat of believers and their inability to understand spiritual understanding as being a subjective/fallible thing that should not be used to try to force restrictions on others. That's why I try to make it clear that I'm in no position of knowing any better than anyone else where morality is concerned. Not everyone does that and I am just as quick to call them out as I am anyone else. I hold religion accountable for fostering this kind of mindset by instilling in others, often from a very young age, a sense of responsibility to tell others they're living wrong and that they, by way of the institution that backs them, have some higher level of understanding of 'truth'.
That's what I keep trying to get across. There are aspects that can be proven and there are others beyond our capability to empirically 'know'. And when either side doesn't acknowledge and allow for that then any potential for discussion dies.
Feeling victimized because you believe in fairy tales as an adult?
Patently false. I await evidence like everyone else and am held to the evidence, just like you.
It is far more cowardly to hide behind irrational beliefs and lie about alleged non-physical aspects of existence.
These are your words, hence you are responsible for the bickering.
"My faith is absolute, and no matter how many natural causes we find to explain how something came about will change that"So, you're waiting on physical evidence of the existence of something non-physical? And how exactly is making statements of certainty that state that everything came about 'on its own' waiting for evidence? You're not 'held to the evidence', you're making a statement not yet verified by evidence as if it is. The evidence you're waiting on, that you're expecting, is the evidence that will confirm your belief that everything came about 'on its own'. You have faith that your view will ultimately be confirmed, and your faith seems to be absolute as well.
We're both responsible for the bickering. It takes two to tango, as they say. You play a role in this as well, so you may as well own up to it. If you actually were 'held to the evidence' then you wouldn't be saying anything because we don't 'know' anything. Yet, here you are, telling people they're wrong, they're irrational, they're lying. Just be honest with yourself. I'm owning up to my role in the bickering. Will you?That would be silly. The non-physical is indistinguishable from the non-existent.
That is the evidence, sorry you don't understand it.
Sorry, that you don't understand. Not my problem.
Yes, I understand believers build their worldviews on faith rather than understanding.
Sorry, but it is you who are making the claims for that which has never been shown to exist and are not backing them up. You are ultimately responsible.
Correction, YOU don't know anything. Don't group the rest of us in with your ignorance.
Of course not, it is ultimately you who are being dishonest, lying and bickering.Clearly, you're confused. There's a difference between actual 'evidence' and a hypothesis that's used to guide investigation to establish evidence. Let's just look at the beginning of life. Abiogenesis. Where's the evidence that confirms it 'came about on its own'? There's some pretty solid understanding of the possible origins of monomers. There's some possible ideas as to how the transition from monomers to polymers may have happened. But then there's that transition from molecule to cell. Not to mention the transition from single-celled to multi-celled organisms.
Plus you've got the problem of replication and how and when that started exactly, as that would have to be in place first before any of the rest of it. It's assumed that at some point a molecule formed 'by accident' that was capable of replicating itself. After all, it only really had to happen just once and you have hundreds of millions of years for that one 'accident' to occur. It's not out of the question. It's highly unlikely, or in the words of Richard Dawkins in the book Mark referred me to 'exceedingly improbable', but not necessarily impossible given the timeline. It's an idea that most likely assists in the investigation.
Investigation is done with the mindset that it 'came about on its own' because that's the best method scientifically, as you can't exactly account for 'Goddunit' in a controlled experiment. But you're confusing matters by apparently thinking the scientific mindset that guides investigation has in some way answered the bigger existential questions. And then when somebody comes along and says you're reaching beyond what's confirmed by evidence, you convince yourself that they 'just don't understand it'. Are you sure about that? Are you sure you understand it? Because you can't simultaneously understand it AND make a statement like what you did above, unless you're being purposefully dishonest. So which is it?I am not confused at your words...
"My faith is absolute, and no matter how many natural causes we find to explain how something came about will change that"
"I don't see scientific discovery changing my philosophical belief."
The laws of nature are the evidence and the fact there is no evidence to support your god.
Whether it has or hasn't answered those questions, one would be fool to jump to conclusions of gods.
Sorry, you have no understanding of facts and evidence and must resort to creating fabrications to support your irrational beliefs.Obviously, you misunderstand facts and evidence because you made a statement about life coming about 'on its own' as being supported by facts and evidence. Can you not own up to that? Are you really going to keep accusing me of dishonesty and not acknowledge the obvious errors in your statement? Or do you not realize you're wrong? Because you can't say what you said AND understand facts and evidence AND be speaking honestly.
Ah, here you are again dishonestly asking for scientific explanations when you have already admitted...
"My faith is absolute, and no matter how many natural causes we find to explain how something came about will change that"
"I don't see scientific discovery changing my philosophical belief."I'm not asking for scientific explanations, ATM. I'm showing how science and God are not mutually exclusive. How they both coexist. How it's all one and the same. There's only one truth, and neither God nor science conflict with it. It's only the flawed perceptions of humans that conflict. You're trying to use science to say there is no God, and anybody who argues that point you try to say it's just because they don't understand science. I have shown you over and over again that simply isn't true. I've shown you how the forefathers of science were themselves believers. How somebody who understands science as well as Einstein would not make the statement you're making. I'm showing that your claim that anybody who believes in God simply doesn't understand science is wrong. So, when you say that I just don't understand, THEN I ask you to explain because I want to hear what it is that you think you know that I don't that makes you so certain. I've now had enough discussions with you to know that it's not that you have some better understanding, it's that you struggle to grasp the concept in general. Again, it's a flawed human perception. Same old story.
You admit to use science to illustrate the concept of God is valid, but you don't allow us to use it to illustrate the concept is invalid.
Don't you see that?You're speaking too generally here. I'm using evidence collected by scientific methods that inform us as to what has happened in the earth's past to put context to what Genesis is describing. And in doing so it offers an explanation for a dramatic shift in human behavior that is observable through evidence. It's a hypothesis to explain something that does not conflict with known facts and that has copious amounts of supporting evidence. Something we don't yet have a concrete explanation for.
ATM and others are trying to use science to say, "See, there's no fingerprints on the nucleotide of a cell to suggest a Supreme Being molded this with His hands". I know that's a kind of silly over-simplification, but that's basically what's being claimed here. Because science reveals a 'natural cause', then it must not be God. If it was God I guess they're expecting to see disembodied arms through a telescope, floating in space, forming planets and such. Or that things wouldn't have come together as they have because everybody knows that if God were real then everything He created would have just appeared all of the sudden. Poof. That's how ATM and others apparently think God should work if He existed, because that's the only thing that science has confirmed. That things didn't just appear ... poof.
Sorry, but you have failed miserably in that regard.
That would another one to add to your list of classic, yet revealing quotes...
"My faith is absolute, and no matter how many natural causes we find to explain how something came about will change that"
"I don't see scientific discovery changing my philosophical belief."
"There's only one truth, and neither God nor science conflict with it."
That is a lie, it is YOU who are attempting to use science to prove your God.
That is a fallacy.
Another fallacy.
No, you don't to hear, by your own words of admittance abpve.
Yes, same old story, liars for Jesus.
You know Headly, both sides state with certainty. Some are certain there is a God, others are certain there is no God. You ask that we open up to the possibility that there is a God, but you remain closed to the possibility that no god exists. I can see why and how you feel belittled by ATM's comments, but I think he is trying to help you understand how we see it. I've upset people from time to time by equating belief in God with belief in Santa. To me Santa is just a young persons God. "If we can get them to believe in Santa they are primed to believe in God". So, while it sounds to you like being asked why you still believe in fairy tales is an insult, to us it a very legitimate question.
I know that is generally the case. And while my statements may, in the interest of brevity, not always go through the trouble of declaring 'this is my opinion' each and every time I type something, I usually try to steer clear of speaking with 'certainty' because I realize and acknowledge I'm talking to people who do not take those things as a given. I'm trying to have a discussion based on actual facts. I'm trying to contribute where I can and learn where I don't yet understand by discussing with others who don't totally agree with me. And I try to be respectful of the differing views of others. And just like you have done in the past, I call someone out when their statements aren't being respectful of the views of others, or are not an accurate reflection of what's actually 'known'.
I try to reiterate over and over again that point, and I'm being as honest as I know how to be. I am open to being wrong, but will need more convincing than just being told I don't understand.But - you don't understand - you have made that perfectly clear. You reject all scientific knowledge because it is not "proof," yet - you don't have to provide anything other than "belief."
Your close minded attitude and disinterest in learning anything is the problem.How exactly can you say I 'reject all scientific knowledge'? Clearly I don't. Why would I refer to it if I reject it? Why would I use it to make a point if I reject it? I read and study constantly. I'm currently reading the book you referred me to. How exactly do you see that as 'close minded' or that I have a 'disinterest in learning anything'? Is the only way you'd see me as open minded if I agreed with you? Whose mind is really closed here?
You don't refer to it. You claim it is wrong and actually everything was manipulated by your god. By your own admission no evidence that things occur naturally will change your beliefs.
This is close minded. You are not interested in learning anything. You seem only interested in finding gaps in our knowledge in order to insert your god.I do refer to it and I would love for you to show me an example of me claiming its wrong. I bet it's probably just another misunderstanding.
What don't you understand? If God is the creator of existence, then anything that 'occurs naturally' is His work, or 'by design'. Why would He need to 'manipulate' His own creation? Which would be the more impressive God to you? The one that constantly has to manipulate His own creation for a desired outcome? Or the one who creates existence in such a way that it rolls along 'on its own'? The only real difference here between your view and mine is that mine includes existence as being the result of a purposeful creator. You see it as a series of numerous incalculable happy accidents. The more we learn the more unlikely the 'happy accident' scenario seems, so unless there's a discovery that largely simplifies that, and offers a reasonable explanation, I don't see scientific discovery changing my philosophical belief.
I know it's difficult to understand, but sometimes it's healthy to leave open the possibility that it's you that doesn't understand something, and not always the other person.I understand just fine thanks. You are the one with the comprehension issues. I suggest reading about evolution again. Funniest statement from you yet though. Considering you not only reject what the bible says and rewrote it to suit. You also reject everything we understand about evolution.
If evolution is fact then why is there no proof of evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another?
Why would you say there is not proof of an organism evolving from one distinct organism to another. The evidence is overwhelming. You must instead be searching for evidence against such a thing and you're being sent to those ID sites where the only agenda is to promote God and if a lie is the why to do it then a lie will be done.
Have you never studied the Horse and the Donkey? Or perhaps the Wolf and the Fox? Or the African and Indian Elephants?So according to you the horse and donkey started out as the same and ended up being two separate species?
According to me? It's not just according to me. It's common knowledge. Do you not see that the horse and donkey can produce offspring even though they have a different number of chromosomes? But the offspring are sterile, which means the separation is complete.
The same is said for the African and Indian Elephants. Only one offspring as ever survived and that was only for a few weeks.
The same can be said for the fox and wolf.
You've asked an instance for an organism changing into another. I've given you three example off the top of my head of mammals evolving into another species with common ancestors.They were never the same species to begin with.
That's strange because all of the Palaeontologist say they were. You're suggesting they are not or were never the same species, but can somehow produce offspring which would be contrary to what Palaeontologist, and all of the sciences teach. Perhaps you obtain some information that they do not. Would you care to share.
African Bush Elephant
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Synapsida
Class: Mammalia
Order: Proboscidea
Family: Elephantidae
Genus: Loxodonta
Species: L. africana
Asian Elephant
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Proboscidea
Family: Elephantidae
Genus: Elephas
Species: E. maximus
I won't bore you with the classifications for wolves, foxes, horse or donkeys, but you will notice that not only are they no the same species, but they are not in the same Genus either. And they have a common ancestor.Horses and donkeys are not now nor were they ever of the same species, if they had been the offspring would be fertile.
When the horse and donkey were the same species there offspring were fertile, but since distance and environment has shaped then down a different evolutionary path they are no longer the same species, but are still able to produce offspring, although the offspring are no longer fertile.
Horse
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Perissodactyla
Family: Equidae
Genus: Equus
Species: E. ferus
Subspecies: E. f. caballus
Donkey
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Perissodactyla
Family: Equidae
Genus: Equus
Subgenus: Asinus
Species: E. africanus
Subspecies: E. a. asinus
Common ancestry is the name of the game. You will notice that they have the same Genus, which means all of science knows they have common ancestry. They fact that they (like the elephant and wolf/fox) and produce offspring show that they are a species that has evolved far enough away that can still produce offspring, but the offspring being sterile shows that they are no longer the same species.
If you have evidence to suggest otherwise please bring it forward so we together can prove every palaeontologist wrong. Oh, and an opinion based on your understand of the bible doesn't count.Sorry, I haven't read the bible, a horse and donkey were never the same species. Get back to me when you prove that a species has ever evolved into another species altogether.
I just did. I've showed you that palaeontologists know that the horse, donkey zebra as well as a few other have common ancestry (meaning they were once the same species). Which is the same for the Elephants, and wolf/fox. I haven't even gotten into the fruit fly. Get back to me when you can prove every palaeontologist wrong so we can make some money.
This is nonsense.
Animals of the same species can produce viable offspring.
Animals of different species can often produce viable offspring (e.g. polar bear, brown bear).
And the ability to produce viable offspring has nothing at all to do with whether or not they share an ancestral species.
Where do you get that peculiar idea from?
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is an attempt to show, plausibly, how things could have developed over time. Scientific study has been trying ever since to show the good sense and truth in that theory. Presumably some aspects have been proven; other aspects dis-proven. I cannot say; I don't have the education background to say.
Neither Darwin, or anyone else, has tried to say that "all horses were once donkeys," or visa versa. However, as per the theory, they were probably common members of a previous species. of which some diverged because of climate, terrain, environmental factors, survival benefits, etc..
This Theory does not need to exclude other possibilities or exclude some kind of creative force/spirit, whatever you like to term it. Like any honest scientific study it must be meticulous in the research and totally honest in the reporting. After that scientists and non-scientists alike can debate and work up further tests to prove disprove what has been concluded.
If you are really deeply committed to believing there was some moment in time when everything suddenly "happened" and "emerged" as the species we see today, then be willing to observe a meticulous scientific code of conduct as you expect evolutionists to follow.
If you are only looking for a religious argument, hoping to bolster your faith, then of course you need not waste your time considering any of the above......Sorry to disappoint I have no desire to argue about religion, looking for the answer to the question.
There are fossil evidence, gynaecological evidence to support the fossil evidence and practical evidence. Once again, do you have evidence to the contrary? If not stop your nonsense.
You have not provided proof that a horse and a donkey were ever the same species. And I will continue to do as I please, without regard to you I might add.
Horses, donkeys, and zebras all share the common extinct ancestor Dinohippus. Otherwise they could not produce offspring. You don't have to take my word for it. Just ask every palaeontologist. They are the ones with the evidence and no reason to lie.
Can we start by admitting that ability to produce viable offspring has bugger all to do with it.
Then we can have a talk about the fossil evidence and eohippus.
And the fact that having a common ancestral species doesn't mean they "were the same species". Eohippus was not a horse or a donkey, it was eohippus.
Species A + time and speciation = Species B and Species C.Can we start by admitting that ability to produce viable offspring has everything to do with it. It's absolute proof that the zebra, horse and donkey evolved from the same species and are still in transition. Can you name any species that can produce viable offspring the do not have a common fairly recent ancestor?
You seem to have missed the point. It was suggested that animals that can't breed with fertile offspring cannot have a common ancestor--ergo horse and donkey don't have a common ancestor. And that is blindingly inaccurate. As I hope you would agree.
Perhaps I'm not comprehending your statement. The horse, donkey and zebra all have a common ancestor. That's why they can produce offspring of any kind. If any two can't produce fertile offspring that only means that the two species have become genetically diverse.
Well I'm glad you're entertained. Like I find it entertaining that you start a paragraph with "I understand just fine thanks", then completely contradict that statement with the rest of your comment. But, then again, you kind of have to understand first before you can see just how obvious it is that you clearly don't.
I think I as well as others have given you the explanations you require many many times, but you reject the explanations because you are looking for holes so you can say that only God could have done that. It's very possible that I don't very well articulate the explanations or they just don't stick in your head, but it's very frustrating none the less.
Once again, you give us no reason to explain anything to you, and your requests to do so are dishonest.
Here is the answer...
"My faith is absolute, and no matter how many natural causes we find to explain how something came about will change that"
"I don't see scientific discovery changing my philosophical belief."Again, you seem to be struggling with the difference between spiritual and physical. Yet, instead of seeing the flaw in your own logic, you project it onto me. Can't be you, must be me. The God we're talking about was described in a text written thousands of years ago, and it made the distinction between spiritual and physical long before it was known how that would be relevant in discussions like this.
Science in no way informs you or me or anyone else as to whether or not God exists, and trying to use it as such just illustrates that you're struggling to grasp the whole concept. The only problem here is that you have a flawed concept of who/what God is if He were to exist. That's it.
You keep referring to those particular statements I made as if that's relevant. As if you're making some kind of point. All you're actually doing is saying, "I still don't get it".But it is you who is trying to use science to confirm your beliefs. ATM is simply stating that no such connection exists. You're telling him not to use science to establish the non existence of God while you try to use it to establish God existence, or shall I say your attempting to use it to establish validity to the bible.
As we've discussed, if you can't use science to inform one way or the other as to God's existence directly, then you have to go about it another way. Just like you can't 'see' gravity and say, "there it is". You have to go about it another way. You have to observe its affects on matter. Understand the effect, then understand the cause.
By first establishing Genesis as a valid source we can then use it to illustrate how the events it describes actually played out, which inform us as to how this God we're trying to get a handle on operates.
It's the same way we've been learning things for ages. Like the way Copernicus figured out the whole sun at the center of our planetary system thing. The whole time it was thought the earth was at the center, things didn't line up. Once he made that adjustment and looked again, all of the sudden everything lined up really well. I moved the creation of Adam out of the 'first human ever' slot, and placed him according to the timeline specified, and then everything else just lined up. Instead of planetary paths speeding up, slowing down, and looping, now they're just circular orbits.Sorry, but we do use science to understand gravity. That is the way.
Sorry, but Genesis is not a valid source, by any stretch of the imagination.
Copernicus did not use the Bible or Genesis as his source.
That is nonsense.Right, in the same way that I'm now using science to understand God. Whether you grasp it or not, or accept it or not, science is the study of the natural world, which is God's creation, so science informs us as to God's methods. It's really simple. You can't detect God directly like you can't detect gravity directly. But you can detect them both by observing their affects on the physical world. You can actually gain an understanding once you understand those affects.
Yes, but it only makes sense and lines up in your own mind mainly because you want it to line up.
I am not struggling with that at all. The 'spiritual' has never been shown to exist. Simple really.
Lol. So what? Got evidence or just an ancient book of myths to support that argument?
Lol. And, you are here to tell us all about the concept of God, who/what God is and his existence?
Yes, they are relevant, they are your words of admittance and easily understandable.
"My faith is absolute, and no matter how many natural causes we find to explain how something came about will change that"
"I don't see scientific discovery changing my philosophical belief."
And it's because of that that I find our conversations more interesting then the ones I have with some of the others.
No, you are not open to being wrong by your own admission...
"My faith is absolute, and no matter how many natural causes we find to explain how something came about will change that"
"I don't see scientific discovery changing my philosophical belief."
Okay Headly, we're all closed minded. All of the non-believers are just incapable of opening up to your way of thinking. But not you I guess? Why not prove us all wrong and look at life without a God for a moment. You do what your asking us to do. Lead by example. Wait, I just remembered you said that was not open for discussion. Never mind.
I do, Rad Man. I am fully capable of seeing and comprehending a naturalist/materialist 'no-God' viewpoint, and I understand it from that perspective. It's only your assumption that my not agreeing with you must just mean I'm incapable of understanding.
You expect us to acknowledge the possibility of a God, but you are unable to acknowledge the possibility that there is no God.
"My faith is absolute, and no matter how many natural causes we find to explain how something came about will change that"Again, my not agreeing with you does not equal 'unable to acknowledge the possibility that there is no God'. The context of the discussion is always key. In this regard, when we're arguing whether or not there's any validity to the bible and its claims, when its claim is that there is a God, then arguing against that must allow for seeing and understanding it from that perspective. If you're going to argue against the bible's validity, then I do expect you to acknowledge that mindset just as I acknowledge a 'no-God' mindset.
I'm truly confused. You acknowledge my non-God mindset and I acknowledge your mindset that God has to exist, only in that I acknowledge that you believe in God and you acknowledge that I don't.
Is this the point your attempting to make?No. My point has to do with acknowledging the context of the topic at hand and where the true boundaries lie. If the discussion is whether or not God exists, science cannot answer that. There are two very possible, very logical perspectives that include science; one with God and one without. I see and acknowledge both. And when addressing someone of the 'no-God' mindset I apply that reasoning to better understand their perspective. It is possible for both believers and non-believers to speak in that regard. To dismiss a believers input, not based on factually verifiable information, but rather categorically on the grounds that God cannot exist, claiming superior scientific understanding as your reasoning, is invalid. Just as a believer dismissing scientifically-proven facts on the grounds of some kind of superior knowledge through God or religious belief is also invalid. If the discussion is in relation to a story in the bible, and the context of that story includes the existence of a God, then someone of the 'no-God' mindset in the discussion should be able to see it in that context to better understand the other's perspective.
But - you do claim superior knowledge, and you have categorically rejected the no-god scenario. So - this is all just smoke and mirrors.
This is why your religion causes so many fights.I absolutely do not, and go to great lengths to check myself in that regard. Though, apparently, those efforts are often lost on you because you clearly do not and cannot make the distinction, so your ability to recognize it in my comments is hindered. That's why you're always saying it's '-Odd' to you that I'm the one that doesn't see something, or '-Odd' to you that Jonny is the one that didn't recognize this or that in somebody's comment. When what should be '-Odd' to you is how everybody else can be so consistently wrong, or unable to understand, but the mistake or skewed perception is never YOU.
Yes - you do. You claim some knowledge of a god that I do not have. It is "odd" that you cannot see this.
Wrong, I 'believe' in a God you do not 'believe' in. This is all that differentiates us, and it's the differences between us that can and often do make for interesting conversation. Having discussions with people who completely agree with you usually just end up being a lot of 'Yep's.
Ah - good. At least you admit is it just a belief and not evidence or knowledge.
Thank you.
I think I speak in that context as much as I can when speaking about the bible.
That being said, you see acknowledge both, but you don't except both. You're statement about your faith acknowledges that you can't look at the universe without a God. We or I (shouldn't speak for others) acknowledge that some think there is a god, but can't imagine a universe with a God.
It's how it works both ways. You seem to think we are just being closed minded, but it's the same both ways.Actually, my comments were addressed to ATM and meant more for him than you. If you'll notice, I've more than once specifically acknowledged you as an exception.
Its only a problem when you have convinced yourself before asking the question that will is something other than the seven traits. Hormones can easily explain the "reason" mothers during pregnancy and after birth become aggressive. It is to protect their young. AKA.. in order maintain the process of "life" going.
You either don't actually understand evolution or you don't really want the answer. What if life starting 15 million time before the right combination came together? Would that be suffice. Then after that first generation any individuals that did not have that need to survive wouldn't and wouldn't pass on the broken genetic make up.
You have a bible.
Yes, the bible and arguments from incredulity are more consistent for you than science and reality.
Sorry, but the whole point is you injecting "the god thing" into the conversations when there are no facts to support it.
I get that. And my point is there are also no facts to refute it. Both you and I have a complete understanding that does not conflict with known facts that reconcile existence for us. Our difference is philosophical, and cannot be empirically/objectively resolved. That's where discussion comes in. As long as both realize the boundaries of what is known and what is still undetermined and open to discussion, and talk within those boundaries, then potentially enlightening discussion is possible. If a believer is actively trying to convert you then your objection is very much valid. Your reasons for not accepting my philosophical views are also valid. They are not, however, justification to dismiss the validity of anything and everything a believer has to say. As long as what that believer says does not conflict with known facts, then there is nothing that justifies using this reason as grounds to ridicule and dismiss a believer's input in the discussion. It happens on both sides of the argument, and because of that we all seem doomed to just keep returning to this same unresolvable point in the discussion over and over again. If we can't agree on ground rules then these discussions can never actually be fruitful and are therefore, at best, just a waste of time, and at worst, bearing the fruit of increased ill will and division.
There you go. Finally you seem to be understanding why speaking nonsense and asking others to disprove it causes ill will and division.
Maybe I did get through to you? Do you understand finally why your beliefs cause so much ill will?Mark, this is not a new understanding or new revelation to me. This actually goes back to what I liked so much about what you said, and what I was trying to point out to you. You are one of the biggest instigators on these forums where this is concerned. Though I can't speak for all believers, I can say that when I put something forward and ask you to disprove it, it's because I'm not just injecting some unprovable concept. I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to give me factual reasons for your dismissal of my statements which are based on and grounded by factual supporting evidence. I'm trying to steer the conversation away broad abstract concepts, where there's little to no chance of any meaningful resolution, and more into the realm of concepts grounded in concrete evidence. Discussions that can possibly reach resolutions and conclusions because we're not just batting philosophical arguments back and forth. We're in this case using factual evidence to back up our points that can be confirmed or denied.
There are no facts to refute our universe wasn't blown out of the nostrils of a sneezing giant lizard, either. You can come up with all kinds of imaginary nonsense and there will be no facts to refute them.
Yet, injecting the 'god thing' it is a waste of time and bears nothing more than the fruit of ill will and division.No, it's not allowing for the philosophical differences between people that causes ill will and division. It's when one individual or group decides they know something better than somebody else when there's no factual grounds to do so, yet take it upon themselves anyway to dismiss that person's whole perspective as useless or childish or just plain wrong, that you get ill will and division. When you say 'injecting the 'god thing' is a waste of time' you are putting yourself in a place of authority regarding what is and isn't true with no factual grounds to justify you doing so. This is exactly what religion has done for ages that has caused such ill will in the first place. Obviously, doing the same the other direction is not the way to go. Whether you agree or not, or think it's childish or silly or not, doesn't justify the derision or the dismissal of the input of others as worthless or a 'waste of time'.
Exactly what you're doing.
Exactly, bringing in the "god thing" does indeed cause ill will and division.
There are no factual grounds to bring the "god thing" to the table in the first place. None.
Actually I don't have faith and don't use the concept of faith in any part of my life. Faith is belief that is not based on proof, I don't believe anything that doesn't have proof/evidence... that encompasses pretty much everything. I either believe in something based on faith or I claim ignorance on the subject based on lack of sufficient knowledge or evidence.
Hmmm,life like in a 'sudoko" square?
evolution would have not happened , and the so-called imagination that got us immunizations, hubble, Higgs bosom, meditation, stress management w/o pills, good night sleep w/o fearing tomorrow, genetics predictors of health as a preventive medicine, stem-cell applications, weight loss, reasons for unhappiness, ..all that "jazz" ever had evidence but were started to research by pure intutition; in fact, empiricists go forward based on intuition and that's why the trial and error approach...God included...In fact "I think therefore I exist" is the only evidence needed to develop and grow and output... As you mount on the horse of inquest with more unknowns that not, you know that "along the way one will redistribute the loads put on the horsie" to reach the end; it is not like "miles of nowhere" it's like something inspires us to seek; inspiration was called 'muse' and in Greek myths there were 7 kinds of muses...very 'amusing" is not it/
I don't think anyone would call you stupid, but I can tell you that God is supposed to be undetectable, so how can you claim to have a personal relationship with something that is undetectable?
You faith is blind because there is no way of detecting God, but you believe you can anyway. I have faith that my wife won't leave me based on her actions and words. I can see and talk to her on a daily bases. If you are have conversations with something that is undetectable I can assure you the conversation is happening only in your mind. I you are hearing voices you need to get that checked out.I am neither stupid nor crazy, just blessed. Even Manny Pacquiao has received Jesus in his life. So he is crazy? puhleeze, just because it doesn't coincide with your worldview, try not to limit it with your limited worldview vocabulary. My faith is based on experience. Yours is based on studies by other people. But there is a basis for both. It is just easier for you to say mine is majick, whatever that is.
You're confusing Mark and I. I did not call you crazy, but only mentioned that if you are hearing voices from inside you head, get that checked out.
You know plenty of people say the same thing as you about Allah, or Buddha or Vishnu, or whatever other God they believe in, are you saying that if someone claims to have had a spiritual experience with their deity (other than your God) then we should take them at their word? When can we question someone's sanity?
Sanity is questioned when something interferes with normal life. There is faith preoccupation and there is sexual preoccupation which can both be symptoms of schizophrenia. When faith doesn't interfere with normal life as is the case in a majority of people of faith, whether Muslim, Buddhist or whatever, then it's not insanity.
Experiencing God as I have is hard to explain, but it's like a glass of milk or merlot or whatever. You can describe it but you will only know it when you taste it.
Also, many Christians are not homophobic, don't believe Obama is the antiChrist, believe the RH bill should be passed, have friends of different faiths, and are not conservative. Conservative does not equal Christian.Tell that to conservative Christians. They like to tell everyone who the real Christians are.
So what you are saying is that if insanity is the norm then it can't be classified as insanity because it is the majority. So if everyone all of a sudden started to beat each other for fun then you'd be okay with that because it's the norm, it's the majority?
I don't care about the politics involved in Christianity, nor the hate, I am talking about the entirety of Christianity, believing a story that has no evidence that it actually occurred anywhere except in the mind of the authors of the Bible. It's like taking Twilight, or Harry Potter or any other story of fiction as real. That is insanity. Believing to be true something that is fictional, or with out proof that it is true.Here is the faulty logic of your statement, it is similar to the duck analogy; walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
If someone handed you a glass of milk or merlot or whatever and you had never seen, heard nor tasted it before, you would have no idea what it was, just like if you had seen and heard a duck for the first time and didn't know what it was, you could not then call it a duck. Hence, you cannot conclude from drinking that glass of milk or merlot that it was indeed a glass of milk or merlot, because you have nothing to reference drinking it in the first place.
You cannot therefore claim you have experienced God if you have nothing to reference that your experience had anything to do with God, it could very well have been the result of a piece of moldy cheese you had eaten. Therefore, you have fallaciously and deliberately assigned God to that experience simply because that is what you want to believe.
Not true, everyone works on the faith based on rational experience, it is only believers who also work on blind faith when it comes to their beliefs.
No, it is blind faith because Jesus does not exist, He died centuries ago, if He existed at all.
You said, not us.
Not true, non-believers know science does not show gods, yours or anyone else. Hence, there is no reason to believe in them.
That is not blind faith. Sorry if still don't understand the difference.
That is blind faith. There are no facts or evidence for your beliefs.
Perhaps, you do and perhaps you don't, but that doesn't change the fact you have blind faith in a God.
Only when it comes to faith in rational experience, as you say.
I'd say, jainismus, it's the other way around, atheists created God so they can entertain themselves and play with Him playdough-wisely although not that 'wisely'... Because, what's is the real purpose to debate that God does not exist? Does that mean that a believer should then desperate? and the atheist would feel victorious? that does not seem 'sane' to me nor convincing either; I can tell you, it'd be quite different if the debate is the other way around, i.e. to debate that God does indeed exist...Why? I fancy you'd ask, and my answer? why not? God is an experience. And if you know about experiences then you'd know about how and what that means. And God should not be included in the recipes or formulas of religions. That is the other part of the equation. Why do we need to belong to a particular group practicing a faith? and why is that a debatable fact? why> Why do you have to explain yourself for believing in a God and practicing a faith? What gives you the right to do so? In the name of what? If you do not like your neighborhood there is only two things to do about it: either you adapt (and therefore you will evolve) or, sorry, you will have to find a more likable neighborhood for you...But to decree mere opinions as facts that prove or disprove God is, sorry, a real and sorry waste of...time. Cheers
Good thinking, Puella, I like what you have written.
I can live in the same world as HeadlyvonNoggin; I can live in a country where almost everyone is deeply religious, to the point where I would not agree with any of what is preached.....I do not have take on board what they believe, yet they have sufficient interest to me as persons/people that I stay and enjoy their company.
If at some later date Headly.... says something which has the potential to change my mind, I will possibly do so..... all my choice, but until then the friendships are more important to me.
"God" does not get a look in!Well, until now no one has proven the big bang is a fact. It's a theory that has some rationale. The same could be said of faith, of a God who created an orderly universe. It's a theory with some rationale. You could interchange faith and theory and it's the same. So I'm saying there is more to be had in common between people of faith and those without than some would like to admit.
I have some great atheist friends and we just don''t talk about religion. Many Muslims live in my neighborhood and some of their children used to be tutored in my home when they were very little. We have a very safe neighborhood. I also am a fan of Bill Maher (NOT O' Reilly). And yes, I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and it's been a great relationship for more than 30 years.This is just to say, pls don't put people in a box if they have faith. Everyone of any faith or without is an individual and it would be nice to keep that in mind.
Neither is rational, is the rationale.
You can't. Faith is the acceptance of the other PERSON, that is accepting that whatever he says is true. Theory is an explanation of a past event, how it happened.You're trying really hard to prove that Atheists have faith, but what your talking about is blind faith and they are not just the same thing. I have faith/think my car will start because it's well maintained. I can see, touch and drive my car. I don't have faith about the big bang. It's irrelevant to my existence. There is some evidence for it, therefor it's possible. Your blind faith is nothing like that. You have absolutely no evidence for any God. It's just what you were told, just like you were told about Santa. The relationship you have with God in only in your own mind, unless you are a prophet. And if you claim to be a prophet and are spoken to directly by God, you should be able to supply proof.
TY jcl!!! indeed; TY for your understanding expressed so neatly. See you around
To RadMan and riidle666, I am sorry but you guys need to review your 'definitions' of faith, trust, man-made software and hardware (namely robots), etc. I will take a bit of a moment to explain myself: no one has 'faith' that a car (just because is well maintained" will perform!!!! I have worked in maintenance thru scheduled servicing a lot of machinery, and no matter how well kept, they experience/ indeed fail; to "expect" with certain extent of probability that a car or any machine will not fail is, sorry, simply impossible. On the other hand, it is not about "faith" to hope for someone to correspond your trust. Be clear there. HUmans, no matter how well "maintained" and excuse the use of your term here can still betray, fail, leave, come back, and a lot of wanted and/or unwanted replies to our "trust"...or should I say "faith?"
Regarding God, we believers trust in the Word as written in the Bible and know that no matter how unbearable is any hardship, we will survive even if dying, because our bodies can be vulnerable and perishable but never our souls...and that, my dears, is the difference in the 'rationalle' that you mentioned...There is no theory that explains a feeling (is there? by whom? There is no theory expressing with every possible detail experiencing the presence of God in or lives, is there? by whom? only by each particular believer... and Nobody (capital N) has Absolutely (capital A) any right to declare the experience a mockery...The same way we cannot prove you cannot absolutely disprove. And there is more to assign to the existence of God than less...We only need to bear in mind that we can be here and share a path and a planet and work and much more by humbly accepting and respecting each's particular needs, ideals, inclinations, beliefs, etc as far as it does not go against the wellbeing of anybody (and please do not bring the examples of the inquisition or etc etc...it will not change my thoughts...it has nothing to do with God, indeed, it was a lot of mundane pursuits, as usual) and I find it very disturbing when someone pretends to impose in an absolute way that "something" that we feel and experience deeply is rubbish...then, my dear Watson, I tend to lose respect for that "rationalle" or "theory" or "faith" or whatever you need to name it
On the other hands, we should involve ourselves in more achieving conversations, such as, for example, and no theorizing here, how and why a society that has thousands of years on earth can have acceptably casts in its social organization, and nobody says nothing about it...I'd worry more than entertaining in proving God's existence, in analyzing and explaining to the world why "that' happens on the XXI century and every body is happy??? I do not "trust' in this happiness nor in any explanation, however 1 billion (or more) live happily there.
If someone comes to me saying "you do not have absolutely any evidence" to prove God, I'd have to answer with the same 'rationalle' "neither do you have to disprove" and then, we can all go fishing in the seas of misundersanding and trash our lives in arguing...I do believe it takes two to argue. You claim there is a god and I do not. Since you have made the claim it's up to you to supply the proof and not me to disprove your claim. Eg. If you make the claim you can fly it's up to you to supply evidence to support your claim, and not up to me to disprove your claim, so I ask for evidence, but you supply none and don't attempt to show me you can fly.
As for faith that me car will start, faith that my car will start is trust, and uncertainty. That is not the same as your blind faith that a God exists. I have evidence that my car has started everyday for the last four years, but understand someday it will not start. You can't compare the two.Oh yes you can. It just makes it easier for you to put people of faith in a corner and call it "blind faith." That is simply not true. Having a personal relationship with Jesus takes a leap of faith but if there were nothing there you would go on to the next thing. But if you have a personal experience, then you stay and like any relationship it evolves and grows over time but you have an anchor that you didn't have before. And it is very, very rational and logical. It is not like jumping over a cliff in faith that God's angels will save you. It's the most practical life and so many miss out on it, but so many others find it and they hang on because it is something that changed their lives and helped people to become the person that they were meant to be.
Maybe I can't explain it in the logical way of others, but you can believe in God, or you can believe in yourself or you can believe in nothing. But it is what it is. It's faith.Sure you can tell me you have a personal relationship with God and you can even believe it yourself. But from what I get from the bible the only people to actually communicate with God are prophets, so unless you think your a prophet any communication is happening in your own head, unless of course you can verify the relationship? If you can will call you a prophet, if not your a false prophet.
Okay Rad Man, I'm just an evangelical Christian and there are hundreds of thousands of us and I'm sure you personally have been acquainted with some of them. So you get my drift. It would mean there would be too many prophets. Besides, the Bible said in Revelations that the Bible is already complete and you shouldn't add to it or detract from it. So there are no more prophets.
Not according to Muslims. Of course your bible would say it's finished, because otherwise you'd be a Muslim. The bible clearly states that only prophets talk with God. Are you a prophet?
So spoke zarathustra
... Fine, you go on on having 'faith' that your car will always behave although I am sorry to tell you that you missed all of the important points in my post... That alone tells me of your unwillingness to just concede us the right to be heard...so why more posts to whatever you say; I too do not want to read you ...so we're even... but I KNOW I am right whereas you doubt. I tried to clarify the terms so we could get a common platform to propitiate a productive discussion. No, faith, in religion, is not the same as trust... Faith implies humility, total submission, obedience without us having received nothing but the illumination that God exists for us...whereas trust is a choice; you can be obedient without trusting (say by convenience, like when you obey a boss not liking him ...and in fact, God's graces are divided, regarding the gift of faith, as 'actual and habitual... One is to believe in God by loving Him, knowing Him, and the other one, less perfect, is believing in God because you fear His punishments...so one 'behaves' to prevent a punishments 
see the difference? I believe in God because He is aloving Father; another important aspect of a faith is the teaching of the several types of virtues to achieve to keep ourselves in the right track; moderation in all mundane aspects of life will keep one in track; prayers, knowing God increasingly...etc etc etc
Last: you can communicate with God without being a prophet I gather that you are kind of interpreting the Bible literally and not contextually...and that is a mistake from any perspective. What do you do when you read any literature work; do not you first read about the author and his/her circumstances? so as to understand any message in the reading? The same for work of science; you need to know the background of any topic if you are to read about a development or a paper or the big bang...so. do not give us words parrot-like (like god only speaks to prophets).you do not need a blackberry or a raspberry to hear him; all you need is disposition; disposition may be prompted by a struggle or gratitude; then, humility, obedience, and offering God to accept what He decideds to concede...Do you not behave that way with your beloved children? wife?...you hear, you drop the attitude, you become manse..then you get a communication worth the while...
..God speaks to all of us as long as we initiate a communication or, if we are stubborn, he might do like He did to Saulo of Tarso (St Paul): throw him from the horse!!!that was a communication too!!! is this the way you'd lke God talked to you? ') tell mHim!!! you will get the horse and the force throwing you from the horse too Cheers... and allow me to.... bless you too.Puella, all that you have written here about your "god" is only a statement of your desires for your self. Anything you feel is missing in your life, you build up as an attribute of your "god." Any fears you might have can be placed in the hands of a "loving father." "He" will deal with it like the imaginary father in your mind would do.
You can paint any attributes you like on "him" in a similar way. In your mind "He" becomes real for you.
You have not recognized it as being a mental process. It's got nothing to do with a "spiritual" process.So based on your premise that people believe in a god because of daddy issues, can we say unbelievers have abandonment issues and feel they deserve to be abandoned? Seems like that would be just as valid a guess.
Nope, that makes no sense. Perhaps believers have abandonment issues that's why they need a loving God that's always there for them. This would leave non-believers without any parental issues they need filling. Sure we may have many issues, but we aren't inventing a way of solving our sub-conscious issues.
I never said trust is like faith in God, I said trust is like faith that your car will start. You are the one not willing to budge. Sure you can invent your own bible, and pretend you can communicate with God like a prophet. I've seen the emperor's new cloths.
Grand Old Lady, thank you for all that you are writing here in this Hub. You do a great job of confirming for me why I gave up being an "evangelical christian" a long time ago!
You have not changed. I will not change from being a non-evangelical, non-christian because of the face-value non-sense I hear now and heard then.
You will say I am a "back-slider." Your way of saying you are better than I, because you have got Jesus on your side. You will say I am very bad because I do not renounce my homosexual orientation. You will find all manner of glib reasons why I must "renounce my ways" in order to enter everlasting life with Jesus - in a spiritual form, of course, because that is very conveniently not provable by any reasonable process.
You will always come back at any of my replies with a statement which supports your argument as being the final word in "the name of Jesus."
Jesus has you evangelicals to thank for me not accepting all the rubbish talked about him.
As it happens, I am no worse, no naughtier, no more living in sin than you are. I am no more in need of forgiveness than you or any christian is. I might have more sense of conscience and fair play than you have, because for me this moment here and now is the moment when I am judged. It is not a moment to be waited for or kept as a reminder of wrong doing. Once gone, it is gone forever. This Here and Now Moment is totally under My control, and I don't need a god or a jesus or an evangelical to control it for me. The Moment is here for me until the moment of my unconsciousness. Death. Then finished, totally.
This gives me more joy and awareness in this world than anything evangelism can throw in the air. If you really listen to your inner voice you will hear your Jesus saying the very same thing.
I know you will not be able to grasp it, and don't ask you to. Your life is your business.You seem to think you know me very well, but you don't. Your experiences with evangelicals are probably why you think I am all that. I know I am a Christian and many, many evangelicals who know me disagree with me because when you get to the details of Christianity there is so much room for argument.
I don't think you are backsliding, and if you are gay, and we met personally, we might get along very well. Better than I get along with most evangelicals. I have many gay friends and I don't think they will go to hell. I also believe in gay marriage, but churches shouldn't be forced to perform the marriage if it is against their belief. I believe in gay marriage because a relative is gay and has been in a committed relationship for more than 30 years. Her partner fell very ill, had a stroke and is severely disabled. My relative is not well off and if they were legally married, she could claim access to her partner's inheritance which could go to her partner's care. Gays have the same legal rights as everyone else has. In fact, I believe that old people are the new gay who were once the new black.
You really don't know me, but let me say this, the forum is meant to discuss a very difficult topic -- religion which, like politics tends to be naturally inflammatory.
However, I think it's good for forums like this to exist because it may be the one way that people can say what they really think and in this way it helps me, at least, understand where atheists are coming from.Thank you very much for what you have just written. I stand corrected and it is great to know you more fully. It is a broadening of outlook and attitude that should bring us all a bit closer as a community, as well as bringing justice to all manner of minorities.
Before being able to get on line, just now, I was writing something of a summary, trying to address the original question of this Hub. I am tempted to go back and re-edit it in the light of your posting, Grand Old Lady, but on second thoughts will add it here, just as-is. It might bring in some more interesting responses.
So, after nearly 2000 responses to the question, “Why did god create atheists?” we can come to some kind of understanding. There are TWO gods here!
One is depicted, for me, as probably fundamental to the finite world....the building block, smaller than the atomic particles, that is the “brainchild” of an Infinite force, wanting to have a look at itself via its creation. Being infinite, that force could not look at itself without creating an opposite of itself.... hence it created the Finite, thence able to contemplate itself through the mirror, so to speak.
I suspect this is the view of God which HeadlyvonNoggin is pursuing, with his intelligent study of history and all that it might teach us in terms of what is written in the Bible. That is an inquiring study, willing to admit to not having the answers, but willing to delve and consider and contemplate and question. Such a course has the potential to build up awe and wonder and comprehension, both for himself and any who, like myself, wishes to read and listen. The expanding knowledge of this god is apt to increase my potential acceptance of such a god. I will be tending to move AWAY from atheism.
The second god is depicted, as I understand it, rather like an almighty jelly fish, sitting above us, enveloping us with that great mass of a flimsy canopy, dangling its tentacles, threadlike, into every corner, nook and cranny of our very personal, intimate lives. Its primary objective is to come “down” to us and control us, having created the concept of Sin, Guilt, Retribution, Sacrifice and Forgiveness.
To put it simply, “you're naughty if you do, naughty if you don't! And you have no chance of getting away from Me without Me knowing it!”
The response if the individual who “believes in” this god is to grab hold of one of those tentacles, caress it, send messages through it, paint a mental picture of whatever is uppermost in the mind onto the tentacle and start talking, child-like to that image. All this in the hope of gaining the attention and blessings and protection and forgiveness of that god “up there.”
And guess what! THIS god has actually made me an atheist. Why? Because it's in the interests of that “god” to keep me in fear. Fear of being eternally punished for my naughtiness.
When I reject the notion of such a god even existing, that great jelly fish breaks apart and disappears into the great Sea of Humanity, only to reappear somewhere else in the ocean when someone desires it to.Thank you for sharing this with me. I like what you wrote, just as it is, because it' comes from your heart. And thank you for the kind words:) I may be old but there is still so much to learn, and I have really learned a lot from this forum about what atheists think.
When you are with friends who are atheist, agnostic, gay, Muslim, you are just friends and you don't talk about differences because there is so much more that you share in common. Ideas and beliefs don't matter.
Because of that, I'm grateful for this forum as it has widened my understanding and wisdom.
Thanks again jonny for the words of wisdom. I do however feel rather sorry for her and her like, but most importantly I'm glad you've found your way to enjoy our time on earth.
Thanks Rad. I don't feel sorry for someone as strong in their choices as Grand Old Lady. Such choices have probably come about (GOL we have agreed that I do not know you, lol) through a lot of deep searching and are therefore able to live with those choices..... fully honoured.
Mine is a day-to-day recollection of where I stand. Yes, it can bring more energy to find new answers, but there is always that One centre, the Here and Now which can be returned to, in order to find new courage and nourishment. Again I would say, that if such a person as that Jesus existed, he would have know this and hence the meaning of finding his own solace, away from his disciples and the crowds. It remains a personal journey today, we can all know this.
It's when others presume they have the answers for themselves, (whatever the answers are) and push those answers as being for others as well.
I cannot claim that my findings will suit you or anyone else.... it is for you to discover for yourself, then I respect it.For me it's when they say they have a personal relationship with God that I begin to understand how deeply they have been indoctrinated. They either have themselves convinced that the dialogue in their head is real or they lie about it to fit in with those who make the same claim. Much like the emperors' new cloths.
Ok, I hear that and don't wish to argue it.
I wonder how many Christians are afraid to tell the truth that they really DON'T believe in God anymore but saying so would destroy their lives... I know I can sort of relate... except I had the guts to come out... of course I did it closer to when I was in college and not when I was part of a well established community of Christians who depended on me for "spiritual support".
Thanks Artblack01... this is what I mean by the Inner Search. No one can, or is entitled, to direct that search for you or by you. It's your own business, and it can lead to wonderfully deep honesty. Surely that can be nothing but a good thing?
Once you do that your choices become strong, almost unmovable, until you maybe decide to continue the search.
Sorry, but there is nothing rational or logical in your claim to have a relationship with a dead guy. Personal experiences can be the result of any number of explanations that have evidence to support them, while explanations of relationships with dead guys have none.
No, it is a theory that is supported by a tremendous amount of evidence.
Sorry, but there is no evidence for any gods creating anything.
sorry, guys - I'm still here, but I'm still researching Headly's original argument from page 79, and I've come down with a cold or something, so I haven't quite been up to par. I have a lot to say, but don't want to speak out of turn (before I've done more research) so I haven't jumped in just yet. I hope to get to a good place tomorrow where I can devote some time to responding to the numerous posts that I have something to say about.
No need to apologize. I too sometimes struggle with finding the time to keep up with these discussions, as evidenced here by my finally responding to this comment two days later, and often rob myself of sleep or making meaningful progress at work to do so, which is not very wise on my part. I do definitely appreciate you giving my arguments such thoughtful consideration and look forward to reading your contributions to the discussion.
If there is no God, then he did not create the atheist. If there is no God, and evolution created everything, then evolution created the atheist. What was the point of this forum, again?
Related Discussions
- 2102
Why Do Christians Have Such A Problem With Atheism?
by Brittany Williams 5 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...
- 78
Why would god create atheists who can't be convinced of his existence?
by M. T. Dremer 5 years ago
Why would god create atheists who can't be convinced of his existence?
- 123
How Are Atheists Created?
by yoshi97 15 years ago
Before I go into this discussion, we all need to understand that I am not a scientist, I am not a prophet, and I am not an expert on the topic. I am merely trying to offer my belief in how atheism occurs. And why some of you might not like what I am about to say, understand that it is not meant as...
- 289
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
by PhoenixV 7 years ago
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
- 374
What are the most annoying responses Christians give to questions atheists ask?
by Dwight Phoenix 9 years ago
What are the most annoying responses Christians give to questions atheists ask?I'm a christian and I think that it would be helpful in ministry, if Christians new a bit more about how atheists felt about a Christian's rebuttal
- 59
Why Do Religious People Get So Angry At Atheists?
by Pauline C Stark 7 years ago
Why Do Religious People Get So Angry At Atheists?When it comes to Atheism, most religious people get angry and even combative when it comes to this subject. I wonder why, especially in this day and age, one would feel anger towards another human being with a different perception/outlook/belief....