Regarding Darwin and God's Design

[Chatworthy]

I believe in God, the One known as Elohim, Jehovah, YHWH, El Shaddai. I believe He is One (a Unit) and is three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Sprirt. I believe He created all the Universe and everything we see, as well as what we cannot see.

We have come to understand that there is Dark Matter that helps keep the Universe in balance, though we cannot see it. We know that it is very necessary and we did not know of it until reasonably recently.

I also believe that in His Creation, God made room for us to understand it by reasonable investigation...His goodness makes no room for bias that will exclude the Truth. I believe that only people with private agendas seek to hide the Truth.

At one time, Charles Darwin thought of being a minister and then found a different desire. One that would evidently lead to the denial of God in the Universe and His creative Genius behind it all.

I was reading the Origin of the Species and found the following in Chapter 5, near the end. I found this intersting as you will see: He seems to be confused on the Power and Genius of an Almighty God who could think of every detail in our DNA (which Darwin could not imagine) to the balancing forces of Gravity for all to work in precise syncronization.

Here's what Darwin said:

"He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like the other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore."

Please share your thoughts.

Thank you for taking the time to read this long message.

[weepingforloman]

I think a recurring problem in the western world is to vaguely believe in a God who is subhuman--merely a frowning moral "force" without much (if any) intelligence, without purpose, without action, a God who is in fact not as intelligent or creative as mankind. This is obviously a serious issue. How could the Being who is behind all creation, the Father of all minds, be so utterly lacking in imagination as to create life that could adapt? I do not actually believe in macroevolution (though I am willing to admit the possibility, I see too many weaknesses in the argument), but microevolution (small-scale adaptation) is proven, and makes perfect sense. That some try to justify atheism based on this fact is ridiculous.

[JGL57]

I believe in God, the One known as Elohim, Jehovah, YHWH, El Shaddai. I believe He is One (a Unit) and is three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Sprirt. I believe He created all the Universe and everything we see, as well as what we cannot see.

We have come to understand that there is Dark Matter that helps keep the Universe in balance, though we cannot see it. We know that it is very necessary and we did not know of it until reasonably recently.

I also believe that in His Creation, God made room for us to understand it by reasonable investigation...His goodness makes no room for bias that will exclude the Truth. I believe that only people with private agendas seek to hide the Truth.

At one time, Charles Darwin thought of being a minister and then found a different desire. One that would evidently lead to the denial of God in the Universe and His creative Genius behind it all.

I was reading the Origin of the Species and found the following in Chapter 5, near the end. I found this intersting as you will see: He seems to be confused on the Power and Genius of an Almighty God who could think of every detail in our DNA (which Darwin could not imagine) to the balancing forces of Gravity for all to work in precise syncronization.

Here's what Darwin said:

"He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like the other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore."

Please share your thoughts.

Thank you for taking the time to read this long message.

You seem to believe that if you detect phenomena that you characterize as complex , then this indicates the necessity of an intelligent creator behind the scenes. I don't follow your reasoning. Apparently of the thousand of books available explaining evolution by natural selection you have somehow managed to overlook them all.

I suggest you start with four or five of Richard Dawkins books on the subject of evolution, and then go from there.

BTW, regarding your rather cryptic statement that "...only people with private agendas seek to hide the Truth." - is this directed at the tens of thousands of scientists who accept evolution as a fact? If so, then what would you speculate their "hidden agendas" might be? Just curious.

[kiobe]

I believe in God, the One known as Elohim, Jehovah, YHWH, El Shaddai. I believe He is One (a Unit) and is three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Sprirt. I believe He created all the Universe and everything we see, as well as what we cannot see.

We have come to understand that there is Dark Matter that helps keep the Universe in balance, though we cannot see it. We know that it is very necessary and we did not know of it until reasonably recently.

I also believe that in His Creation, God made room for us to understand it by reasonable investigation...His goodness makes no room for bias that will exclude the Truth. I believe that only people with private agendas seek to hide the Truth.

At one time, Charles Darwin thought of being a minister and then found a different desire. One that would evidently lead to the denial of God in the Universe and His creative Genius behind it all.

I was reading the Origin of the Species and found the following in Chapter 5, near the end. I found this intersting as you will see: He seems to be confused on the Power and Genius of an Almighty God who could think of every detail in our DNA (which Darwin could not imagine) to the balancing forces of Gravity for all to work in precise syncronization.

Here's what Darwin said:

"He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like the other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore."

Please share your thoughts.

Thank you for taking the time to read this long message.

"People with private agendas that seek to hide the truth." The truth as seen by whom? If you ask a fundamentalist christian wouldn't the "person" be any scientist that believes in evolution? What about the athiestic community, are we the ones trying to hide the truth? Or is it God Himself that hides the truth from us. Would it not be better to, not believe rather than to believe in the wrong God. As far as dark matter goes it has been inferred to exist, it's a theory in an attempt to explain the missing mass. God being an electron cloud or something along those lines responsable for the expansion of what may have already been there seems more probable than a supernatural being that has always existed creating something that has existed for a limited time. If the universe itself has evolved as it most certainly has then why wouldn't the inhabitants evolve? Theists seem to have so many answers as to why God does the things He does. My questions are, why make a universe so large that the people for which He made the universe, will never be able to experiance it. 250 billion stars in our galaxy, why? 400 billion galaxys, why? Giant gas clouds 300 million light years across, why? Why place our planet two-thirds the way out of our galaxy next to one of 250 billion stars?

[The Atheist]

I believe that only people with private agendas seek to hide the Truth.

This part I've snipped from your post is correct.

What you need to realise is that in almost all human history, most of the parties which have sought to suppress the truth, are churches. From the pyramids and pantheon of Egypt, through Socrates, right past Newton and Galileo, various churches have tried to hide facts from the congregation.

Wonder what their agendas were.

[Redzeppelin]

What you need to realise is that in almost all human history, most of the parties which have sought to suppress the truth, are churches. From the pyramids and pantheon of Egypt, through Socrates, right past Newton and Galileo, various churches have tried to hide facts from the congregation.

Wonder what their agendas were.

If genuine and sincere, to save people's souls; if dishonest, to save something else of infinitely lesser value.

[JGL57]

... in almost all human history, most of the parties which have sought to suppress the truth, are churches. From the pyramids and pantheon of Egypt, through Socrates, right past Newton and Galileo, various churches have tried to hide facts from the congregation.

Wonder what their agendas were.

I would guess their pompous plan has always been the preservation and perpetuation of power, and the prestige and privilege that it provides. (Funny how truth sometimes comes with build-in alliteration.) :lol:

[Redzeppelin]

I would guess their pompous plan has always been the preservation and perpetuation of power, and the prestige and privilege that it provides. (Funny how truth sometimes comes with build-in alliteration.) :lol:


Your use of sound-devices is excellent. But lies and misunderstandings can be as poetic as the truth.

[Chatworthy]

"People with private agendas that seek to hide the truth." The truth as seen by whom? If you ask a fundamentalist christian wouldn't the "person" be any scientist that believes in evolution? What about the athiestic community, are we the ones trying to hide the truth? Or is it God Himself that hides the truth from us. Would it not be better to, not believe rather than to believe in the wrong God. As far as dark matter goes it has been inferred to exist, it's a theory in an attempt to explain the missing mass. God being an electron cloud or something along those lines responsable for the expansion of what may have already been there seems more probable than a supernatural being that has always existed creating something that has existed for a limited time. If the universe itself has evolved as it most certainly has then why wouldn't the inhabitants evolve? Theists seem to have so many answers as to why God does the things He does. My questions are, why make a universe so large that the people for which He made the universe, will never be able to experiance it. 250 billion stars in our galaxy, why? 400 billion galaxys, why? Giant gas clouds 300 million light years across, why? Why place our planet two-thirds the way out of our galaxy next to one of 250 billion stars?
These are good questions seeking good science. You may be interested in visiting Reasons.ORG, Reasons To Believe. This organization provides much good information as to why so many and for so long.

They coordinate Biblical Truth with Scientific Truth to the point of understanding future scientific discoveries we can anticipate based on real science and not a "blind" faith.

I understand that many who claim to be Christians have demonstrated a lack of faith by not following Biblical Principles as some Truths are inconvenient. This inconvenience is a choice we must face as we follow Christ in His Word vs. what "makes sense" from all we can see.

Time began by God's infinite understanding, the understanding He alone has, to have formed all creation from a "Big Bang". This is the moment Time began, as Dawkins and other accurate persons have understood it to mean.

Through science, we have been confronted with the real beginning of time. We know that there is not any Truth to the concept of an eternally swirling mass of molecules as proposed by Darwin, etc., requiring an inexpressibly long timeframe for atoms to become molecules and molecules to collect into the right structure for the beginning of a life-giving structure and to continue to mutate to improving structures is known to be impossible. The Third Law of Thermodynamics and our understanding of the entropy of the Universe prove that there is no such thing as improving over what was already created.

When I noted about an "agenda", I meant those who used Darwin as their reason for accepting / proving the right to dominate others. People of this type were such as Marx and Hitler. There are still people today who want to keep that agenda going because there is amazing power in what people believe.

When anyone believes a lie to the point of carrying out the natural result of that lie, the result will be totally w/o God-given moral honesty. Our government has accepted the lie of Darwin's theory to the point of denying Christianity had anything to do with the conception of our nation and teaching this lie from Communism to our children. This agenda has sought to bury the Name of Christianity, whether by ignorance or mal-intent, the result has been a degeneration of our Culture as we see more people mistreating others and less people having the Moral Truth to stand up for what is right, in an absolute sense, not a relative sense.

Relativistic moralism will have its own failure when a more powerful body stands in the way of freedom, demanding its way so that no one will have the freedom to discuss these issues, but it will be as it was in England in the 15th Century, when people could not speak of such things when placed before kings or people in power who would not be confronted with Truth that got in the way of their agendas. I am thinking specifically of John Bunyan who wrote a book called "Pilgrim's Progress". Much of what goes on today was confronted by this author and he went to jail for at least 12 years because he saw the fallacy of believing a man could claim more power than God has made room for.

Much more recent history was when the Emperor of Japan was considered God and they (he) felt they could take over any part of the world as they saw fit because for them, the Emperor was god. He later confessed he was not god, but a man.

People seeking power over other people is a usurpation of the position only truly held by God, our Creator. It is His loving kindness to let us understand Him through His Word the Bible. No other Person of antiquity has more contemporary writings of that person than does Jesus Christ. The writings of Him were by the people who knew Him and saw His miracles, first-hand. They are from the time period of their own lives, which was the time of His life as well. Much can be said about this.

Regarding history, our documents on Julius Caesar are dated much newer than the actual time he lived, and there are very few of these documents.

Those written proofs for Christ are far above in number and value for voracity and historicity, yet we are given more attention and credence to Julius Caesar as a result of these scant documents and the World's attention to a godless agenda.

In all candor, most people are not even aware of this agenda as it is in the real, yet invisible, world of the Spirits. These are also things to be uncovered most completely in the pages of Biblical Scripture.

[weepingforloman]

"People with private agendas that seek to hide the truth." The truth as seen by whom? If you ask a fundamentalist christian wouldn't the "person" be any scientist that believes in evolution? What about the athiestic community, are we the ones trying to hide the truth? Or is it God Himself that hides the truth from us. Would it not be better to, not believe rather than to believe in the wrong God. As far as dark matter goes it has been inferred to exist, it's a theory in an attempt to explain the missing mass. God being an electron cloud or something along those lines responsable for the expansion of what may have already been there seems more probable than a supernatural being that has always existed creating something that has existed for a limited time. If the universe itself has evolved as it most certainly has then why wouldn't the inhabitants evolve? Theists seem to have so many answers as to why God does the things He does. My questions are, why make a universe so large that the people for which He made the universe, will never be able to experiance it. 250 billion stars in our galaxy, why? 400 billion galaxys, why? Giant gas clouds 300 million light years across, why? Why place our planet two-thirds the way out of our galaxy next to one of 250 billion stars?

All aspects of Creation are intended to make a statement about God (nature is fallen, so we see things that are Satanic more than divine on a frequent basis). The vastness of space is like the vastness and limitless power of God, albeit on a much baser, cruder scale.

[JGL57]

All aspects of Creation are intended to make a statement about God (nature is fallen, so we see things that are Satanic more than divine on a frequent basis). The vastness of space is like the vastness and limitless power of God, albeit on a much baser, cruder scale.

That seems like an unnecessarily complicated view. Isn't it possible it is way simpler than that?

[Lote-Tree]

All aspects of Creation are intended to make a statement about God (nature is fallen, ....


Nature is MAJESTIC!

Even Atheist's are awed by this MAJESTY!

There is nothing "fallen" about it. It is full of wonder and inspiration. It has beauty as well as ugliness. And just as we admire beauty with pride so do we come to terms with the ugliness with understanding...

[weepingforloman]

Right, it has UGLINESS. I do not accept this thought that beauty and ugliness, and good and evil, are eternally meant to coincide. The beauty of stars and the horror of parasitism were never meant to be together. The goodness of giving to the poor and the terrifying brutality of murder were never meant to coexist. This world is in trouble, and it will be delivered.

[Lote-Tree]

Right, it has UGLINESS. I do not accept this thought that beauty and ugliness, and good and evil, are eternally meant to coincide. The beauty of stars and the horror of parasitism were never meant to be together. The goodness of giving to the poor and the terrifying brutality of murder were never meant to coexist. This world is in trouble, and it will be delivered.

Sign of maturity is when you are able to see the world as it is and not how you want it to be...

[hyperborean]

But lies and misunderstandings can be as poetic as the truth.

I love watching you spin things in an attempt to protect christianity.

[ennison]

'I love watching you spin things in an attempt to protect christianity'

Counterfeiting works by copying something true. The more like the true the better the counterfeit. Red doesn't spin. He's one of the least spinnable folks on this site.
You don't REALLY love it.

[JGL57]

'I love watching you spin things in an attempt to protect christianity'

Counterfeiting works by copying something true. The more like the true the better the counterfeit. Red doesn't spin. He's one of the least spinnable folks on this site.
You don't REALLY love it.

But apparently YOU are in love.

[Logos]

Oh I can feel the love here :p

[The Atheist]

I would guess their pompous plan has always been the preservation and perpetuation of power, and the prestige and privilege that it provides. (Funny how truth sometimes comes with build-in alliteration.) :lol:

;)

And here was me thinking it was all about money...

Well said.


Those written proofs for Christ are far above in number and value for voracity and historicity, yet we are given more attention and credence to Julius Caesar as a result of these scant documents and the World's attention to a godless agenda.

Lovely rant, if perfectly meaningless. Summed up by this little bit I quoted. This is often brought up by christians, the evidence for Julius Caesar vis-avis Jesus Christ, and it's a load of old rubbish. Julius Caesar was a historical figure and whether he or Socrates (another fave for this type of argument) actually existed has no relevance to today at all. There are not two billion followers of Caesarianity or Socratesarity. Even if Jesus walked the earth, which I'm certainly willing to accept, it doesn't mean that a load of post-hoc scrolls claiming him as god mean anything more than Aesop's fables.

And you mention "the world's attention to a godless agenda"! I don't know what part of the galaxy you come from, but the godless have been outnumbered on this planet for well over two thousand years. Note that there are two billion christians in the world and a LOT fewer atheists. Current estimates at Adherents (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) shows irreligious people making up only 1/6th of the population, and even that number can be reduced by half to find the "godless". USA and UK, the two most powerful nations on earth are led by committed christians who have no trouble stating their ability to gain god's direct guidance, while surveys in USA show atheists as the least-trusted minority group in the country.

What "godless agenda"? Please at least consult some historical facts before posting this type of fantasy.

[weepingforloman]

Mmmkay... There's more to Christianity than claiming its name. Better luck next time.

[ennison]

'Oh I can feel the love here ' Ah ha my morphic resonances are getting through to you. I knew it was just a matter of time.

[JGL57]

...There's more to Christianity than claiming its name...

Who could disagree, since

1. there are over ten thousand denominations of the christian religion

2. with some the church is the authority, others its the bible,

3. and there are various translation of the bible.

4. many people call themselves "christian" or would answer a Gallop poll that they were "christian" who have never read the bible, and rarely if ever attend a church service and rarely even think about religion. I.e., they call themselves "christian" for purely social considerations. There has never been much societal reasons to lie and say that one is an atheist even though one is not, but certainly there are many reasons to lie and say one is a "christian" when one is not.

5. The difference between a literalist fundamentalist "christian" and a liberal mystic "christian" who interprets christianity in terms of mythic narrative is as great as the difference between a communist ideological atheist and a secular humanist atheist. I.e., the word "christian" can be associated with such divergent philosophies, it almost becomes a throw-away word in many situations. Ditto the word "atheist", BTW.

6. and, finally, many people just define being a "christian" as synonymous with being "a good person", with no NECESSARY reference in their minds with the alleged incarnation, death and resurrection, ascension and promise to return one day - of jesus - the guy christianity is SUPPOSED to be all about.

Yep, picking out the "true" christian from all the false christians is like looking for a jewel in a dung pile. And "by their fruits shall ye know them" doesn't seem to help - hypocrites always can get around that one, e.g., several thousand catholic priests, not to mention Ted Haggard - formerly one of the most popular prominent "christian" leaders in America for YEARS - but would you want him living next door to you - now?.

[Redzeppelin]

Who could disagree, since

1. there are over ten thousand denominations of the christian religion

2. with some the church is the authority, others its the bible,

3. and there are various translation of the bible.

4. many people call themselves "christian" or would answer a Gallop poll that they were "christian" who have never read the bible, and rarely if ever attend a church service and rarely even think about religion. I.e., they call themselves "christian" for purely social considerations. There has never been much societal reasons to lie and say that one is an atheist even though one is not, but certainly there are many reasons to lie and say one is a "christian" when one is not.

5. The difference between a literalist fundamentalist "christian" and a liberal mystic "christian" who interprets christianity in terms of mythic narrative is as great as the difference between a communist ideological atheist and a secular humanist atheist. I.e., the word "christian" can be associated with such divergent philosophies, it almost becomes a throw-away word in many situations. Ditto the word "atheist", BTW.

6. and, finally, many people just define being a "christian" as synonymous with being "a good person", with no NECESSARY reference in their minds with the alleged incarnation, death and resurrection, ascension and promise to return one day - of jesus - the guy christianity is SUPPOSED to be all about.

Yep, picking out the "true" christian from all the false christians is like looking for a jewel in a dung pile. And "by their fruits shall ye know them" doesn't seem to help - hypocrites always can get around that one, e.g., several thousand catholic priests, not to mention Ted Haggard - formerly one of the most popular prominent "christian" leaders in America for YEARS - but would you want him living next door to you - now?.

God knows who's real and who's posing. Whether or not you see the difference is not a salvational issue; there are fakes everywhere in society in every walk and philosophy of life. That there are misconceptions and stereotypes about Christians is simply a part of living in this world. We don't expect you to get it - but we expect you to be as fair to us as you would any other institution or philosophic world-view. But even if you aren't, that's OK too.

[ennison]

There's lots of fake dollars in circulation. Few would burn all their money just to be on the safe side though.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I believe that only people with private agendas seek to hide the Truth.

If this is true it stands to reason that the converse is equally true: That those with private agendas interpret the "truth" as comports with those agendas.

Elsewhere (and probably in more than once place) a poster writes: "God wants us..." which strikes me as the fallible essence of theism: that this or that speaker knows what God wants. {edit}

[weepingforloman]

Who could disagree, since

1. there are over ten thousand denominations of the christian religion

2. with some the church is the authority, others its the bible,

3. and there are various translation of the bible.

4. many people call themselves "christian" or would answer a Gallop poll that they were "christian" who have never read the bible, and rarely if ever attend a church service and rarely even think about religion. I.e., they call themselves "christian" for purely social considerations. There has never been much societal reasons to lie and say that one is an atheist even though one is not, but certainly there are many reasons to lie and say one is a "christian" when one is not.

5. The difference between a literalist fundamentalist "christian" and a liberal mystic "christian" who interprets christianity in terms of mythic narrative is as great as the difference between a communist ideological atheist and a secular humanist atheist. I.e., the word "christian" can be associated with such divergent philosophies, it almost becomes a throw-away word in many situations. Ditto the word "atheist", BTW.

6. and, finally, many people just define being a "christian" as synonymous with being "a good person", with no NECESSARY reference in their minds with the alleged incarnation, death and resurrection, ascension and promise to return one day - of jesus - the guy christianity is SUPPOSED to be all about.

Yep, picking out the "true" christian from all the false christians is like looking for a jewel in a dung pile. And "by their fruits shall ye know them" doesn't seem to help - hypocrites always can get around that one, e.g., several thousand catholic priests, not to mention Ted Haggard - formerly one of the most popular prominent "christian" leaders in America for YEARS - but would you want him living next door to you - now?.

For once, I actually can agree wholeheartedly with you-- more often than not, people who say they are Christian are agnostic, or maybe just apathetic.

[PrinceMyshkin]

God knows who's real and who's posing.

Indeed? And I would bet that if there is a God then he is either amused or pi**ed off at all those who presume to know what He knows!

[weepingforloman]

No one in Christianity (or at least no one with sound doctrine) claims to know what God knows-- only to know what God has said. There is no touching omniscience.

[PrinceMyshkin]

"Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.--Romans 1:7 "

“Fifty percent of what we believe is untrue, and we never know which fifty percent it is.” spokesperson for a movement among US Jews, called Polydoxy.

[weepingforloman]

Ok, I'm not Jewish.

[PrinceMyshkin]

No one in Christianity (or at least no one with sound doctrine) claims to know what God knows-- only to know what God has said. There is no touching omniscience.

You are distinguishing perhaps between the monolithic God of the Old Testament and the triune God of the New?

Because the OT God says that he wants animal sacrifices & once said that he wished Abraham to sacrifice Isaac - but of course He was only testing him. If you happen to have children then perhaps you would wish, as I do, that Abraham had renounced God on the spot.

Furthermore, having declined to speak ex cathedra on behalf of God, you've set yourself up as an arbiter of "sound doctrine." And there will surely be others to dispute the soundness of your doctrine!!


Ok, I'm not Jewish.

Now you're being flippant. Although the statement was made by a Jew, I believe it is meant to apply to all who confuse belief with "knowledge." Or wishful thinking with faith.

[Redzeppelin]

Indeed? And I would bet that if there is a God then he is either amused or pi**ed off at all those who presume to know what He knows!

Uh, didn't you just presume God's response to people who presume what He knows? Irony, anybody?


You are distinguishing perhaps between the monolithic God of the Old Testament and the triune God of the New?

There is no difference: both are the same God.


Because the OT God says that he wants animal sacrifices & once said that he wished Abraham to sacrifice Isaac - but of course He was only testing him. If you happen to have children then perhaps you would wish, as I do, that Abraham had renounced God on the spot.

To say such simply reveals that you do not believe God is who He claims to be. Since it is God who gives us our children, He is in a position to ask for them back. Abraham had what is popularly called "faith."


Furthermore, having declined to speak ex cathedra on behalf of God, you've set yourself up as an arbiter of "sound doctrine." And there will surely be others to dispute the soundness of your doctrine!!

Christians are allowed to share what they know about God and scripture. You're not required to like or agree with what we say. I find it amazing that people who don't believe in God decide that they will question what a believer claims to know - why would that be? Isn't that the equivalent of asking a crazy man why he's crazy?

[PrinceMyshkin]

To say such simply reveals that you do not believe God is who He claims to be. Since it is God who gives us our children, He is in a position to ask for them back. Abraham had what is popularly called "faith."

Yes, I have heard that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. If indeed He gave me my children I owe him an immeasurable debt of gratitude - but I would not cooperate to give them back.



Christians are allowed to share what they know about God and scripture. You're not required to like or agree with what we say. I find it amazing that people who don't believe in God decide that they will question what a believer claims to know - why would that be? Isn't that the equivalent of asking a crazy man why he's crazy?

Very good point, and I have often wished you ask a believer why he chose to believe but I suspect that, like your crazy man, he would deny that he had any choice in the matter.

'Case I'm wrong about that, suppose you tell me when and why you chose to believe in God?

[weepingforloman]

Ok, maybe I should fill the role of the crazy man. I tend to believe the majority of the theological statements of John Calvin-- including (and here's the crazy man part) that faith is not a choice... It is a gift given by God, impossible to refuse. Throw me in the loony bin.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Ok, maybe I should fill the role of the crazy man. I tend to believe the majority of the theological statements of John Calvin-- including (and here's the crazy man part) that faith is not a choice... It is a gift given by God, impossible to refuse. Throw me in the loony bin.

Believe away but bear in mind it was the same Luther who approached the Jewish community in an effort to persuade them to join him and when they refused he wrote About the Jews and their Lies, a book that might well have served as a model for much of the Nazi anti-Semitic publications, a vicious, hate-filled book.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, I have heard that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. If indeed He gave me my children I owe him an immeasurable debt of gratitude - but I would not cooperate to give them back.

If God is who He claims to be and you believed Him, you would have no fear whatsoever; your hesitancy reveals either a) your lack of knowledge about God, or b) your lack of faith (not that I'm a well-spring of faith myself - I'd have a very, very hard time following in Abraham's footsteps). As well, your refusal suggests that you know better than an omniscient, omnipotent being what is in your child's best interest. How could that be?


Very good point, and I have often wished you ask a believer why he chose to believe but I suspect that, like your crazy man, he would deny that he had any choice in the matter.

'Case I'm wrong about that, suppose you tell me when and why you chose to believe in God?

Of course we have a choice. To quote C.S. Lewis: "God cannot ravish - He can only woo." We must freely choose God - that is the basis of the relationship. Why did I choose God? Partly because I was raised a Christian, but partly because I believe God answers the questions of life the best - the questions about sin, suffering, morality, and meaning; as well, I have had experiences that have pointed me towards a firm belief that God is very real, and very interested not only in my life, but the lives of all His children (including you). I can't give you logical, rational explanations - I can only tell you that I believe God to be ultimate reality - all that is good, all that is love, all that is just, all that is merciful, all that is kind, all that is real - is God. That's the short answer.

[apples of gold]

Ok, maybe I should fill the role of the crazy man. I tend to believe the majority of the theological statements of John Calvin-- including (and here's the crazy man part) that faith is not a choice... It is a gift given by God, impossible to refuse. Throw me in the loony bin.


And I'll be the crazy woman. I think that faith can be described as both a gift and a choice. Let's say the average believer comes to a point of faith in God during the developing years before being accountable for spiritual choices. He's just living as his/her parent, or the church, or the Bible instructs him/her. So choice isn't a factor until a certain level of development has been reached. And when the person has experienced some kind of event or circumstance, whether it be a death, love, an epiphany, the state of fear, what have you, that inspires a revelation of God, it is here that the gift is in operation. When weighed against the religious instruction or if that isn't present, his guiding moral principles, he/she then puts into practice, his/her choice. (you may guess here that I sometimes think we don't need God to be moral). I would presume that atheists have never had these types of spiritual events or if they have, they've been sufficiently underwhelming to have been dismissed as illogical or unscientific. I would bet that some atheists would love to have an overwhelmingly inexplicable event. And woe all of us, to have to suffer the "believers" who have had negative religious instruction and never had the revelation of God, or have had a revelation of God that is perceived through negative conditioning, for this is the essence of bad religion that turns so many people off.

[PrinceMyshkin]

And I'll be the crazy woman. I think that faith can be described as both a gift and a choice.

I must disagree with you right from the start. To assert that faith can be a gift (inferentially from God?) already assumes faith in the existence of the god who makes that "gift." To me it is a gift - a desperate gift - that one makes to oneself when one sees no otherway out of some emotional or moral dilemma. And to quote Flannery O'Connor (from memory): "Faith must take in all the other options." But a choice made in extremis can hardly be considered a rational, deliberate one.


Let's say the average believer comes to a point of faith in God during the developing years before being accountable for spiritual choices. He's just living as his/her parent, or the church, or the bible instruct him/her. So choice isn't a factor until a certain level of development has been reached. And when the person has experienced some kind of event or circumstance, whether it be a death, love, an epiphany, the state of fear, what have you, that inspires a revelation of God, it is here that the gift is in operation.

But, again, you are assuming that God does exist. In a state such as the one you've just described, ANY sort of desperate measure might be perceived as a "revelation: or epiphany.


When weighed against the religious instruction or if that isn't present, his guiding moral principles, he/she then puts into practice, his/her choice. (you may guess here that I sometimes think we don't need God to be moral).

If to be moral is to consider - with as much free consciousness as you possess and on the basis of areasoned evaluation of your experience - then I submit that to rely on the assumed morality of a higher power is never to be really moral.


I would presume that atheists have never had these types of spiritual events or if they have, they've been sufficiently underwhelming to have been dismissed as illogical or unscientific.


YOu may be sure, however, that atheists and or agnostics have suffered as deeply as believers have, have had their own dark night of the soul and have contemplated radical measures of one sort or another.


I would bet that some atheists would love to have an overwhelmingly inexplicable event.

Well, I know that you are talking of something stranger than this, but the beauty of my children and grand-children, well beyond their genes and their upbringing, is a never wholly explicable fact to me.

[apples of gold]

I must disagree with you right from the start. To assert that faith can be a gift (inferentially from God?) already assumes faith in the existence of the god who makes that "gift." To me it is a gift - a desperate gift - that one makes to oneself when one sees no otherway out of some emotional or moral dilemma. And to quote Flannery O'Connor (from memory): "Faith must take in all the other options." But a choice made in extremis can hardly be considered a rational, deliberate one.


But, again, you are assuming that God does exist. In a state such as the one you've just described, ANY sort of desperate measure might be perceived as a "revelation: or epiphany.

You presume I/we think that God would expect the operation of His Gift of faith to be in effect exclusively within the context of difficult circumstances.


YOu may be sure, however, that atheists and or agnostics have suffered as deeply as believers have, have had their own dark night of the soul and have contemplated radical measures of one sort or another.

Well, I know that you are talking of something stranger than this, but the beauty of my children and grand-children, well beyond their genes and their upbringing, is a never wholly explicable fact to me.

Strange and/or woeful events, although they often do, don't have to result in the conflict of whether to believe in God or not. The entire question of suffering must be repulsive to atheists. But the believer sometimes finds great inner peace in suffering. When the perception of God includes life after death, peace can be found in many kinds of trouble. That's faith. If I personally thought the souls of my family members were going to cease to exist when they died, in light of a revelation of God that I had as a child in which I formed the belief that there is a life after death, then I would be in the midst of a deep personal conflict. I would have to choose to alter my beliefs in order to reconcile this dilemma. But the conflict itself would be a matter of faith.

[PrinceMyshkin]

You presume I/we think that God would expect the operation of His Gift of faith to be in effect exclusively within the context of difficult circumstances.

I've quoted this much of your response only to establish to whom I'm responding, but in fact this will hardly be a response to what you have written because I do not have the means - or the interest? - to continue to debate this. I don't mean that in any sort of offensive way, but my interest has shifted to the question of why you and I should be debating this. I.e., I perceive that by your lights your feelings about God are closely and carefully reasoned. There is some sort of nourishment for you in thinking about God as deeply and at such length as you do. About that you and you alone can be the authority.

Insofar as I can measure the thing, I believe I am happier, more intellectually and morally alive without believing in God than if I were to believe. I said "Insofar as I can measure the thing" because obviously I can't without committing myself to such belief! So I must trust - or have faith, if you will - in my conviction that I don't need there to be a God: indeed, in view of the things that have been permitted to take place in human history, I pray - if you will excuse the irony - I pray that there is no God!

[weepingforloman]

Believe away but bear in mind it was the same Luther who approached the Jewish community in an effort to persuade them to join him and when they refused he wrote About the Jews and their Lies, a book that might well have served as a model for much of the Nazi anti-Semitic publications, a vicious, hate-filled book.

I have read some of the more explicit parts of that work...
Remember that anti-Semitism was a Europe-wide problem, it was a cultural, not religious, problem.
I said CALVIN, not Luther.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I have read some of the more explicit parts of that work...
Remember that anti-Semitism was a Europe-wide problem, it was a cultural, not religious, problem.
I said CALVIN, not Luther.

Humble apologies for my careless reading.

[JGL57]

Ok, maybe I should fill the role of the crazy man. I tend to believe the majority of the theological statements of John Calvin-- including (and here's the crazy man part) that faith is not a choice... It is a gift given by God, impossible to refuse. Throw me in the loony bin.

It's not so much that atheists and other religious skeptics want to throw you "in the looney bin", it's your fellow christians who are not Calvinists who think you and yours are heretics. Not that it matters, but they (the non-Calvinists) are in the vast majority among christians.

[PrinceMyshkin]

It's not so much that atheists and other religious skeptics want to throw you "in the looney bin", it's your fellow christians who are not Calvinists who think you and yours are heretics. Not that it matters, but they (the non-Calvinists) are in the vast majority among christians.

Yes, when the Mohameddans have put all the Jews in the loony bin (or worse), and the Sunni have put all the Shia in the loony bin, and the Christians have put all the Sunni in the loony bin, and the Protestants have put all the Catholics in the loony bin, and the Calvinists have put all the non-Calvinists in the loony bin, there is likely to be one Calvinist proving beyond a doubt that the other remaining Calvinist is a certifiable loony...

[weepingforloman]

It's not so much that atheists and other religious skeptics want to throw you "in the looney bin", it's your fellow christians who are not Calvinists who think you and yours are heretics. Not that it matters, but they (the non-Calvinists) are in the vast majority among christians.

Pretty much all of Scotland, most of the Protestants in Ireland, most of the Midwest, and large portions of the Southeast are Calvinist. But, anyway, that's not the point. The "loony bin" thing was me being facetious, I apologize. But, there is not as much intra-Church hatred as you might think.

[weepingforloman]

Yes, when the Mohameddans have put all the Jews in the loony bin (or worse), and the Sunni have put all the Shia in the loony bin, and the Christians have put all the Sunni in the loony bin, and the Protestants have put all the Catholics in the loony bin, and the Calvinists have put all the non-Calvinists in the loony bin, there is likely to be one Calvinist proving beyond a doubt that the other remaining Calvinist is a certifiable loony...

It was a facetious remark. You claimed that that belief was "crazy." That's all I meant. I don't want to put people who believe other things in an asylum. Sorry if that surprises you.

[apples of gold]

I've quoted this much of your response only to establish to whom I'm responding, but in fact this will hardly be a response to what you have written because I do not have the means - or the interest? - to continue to debate this. I don't mean that in any sort of offensive way, but my interest has shifted to the question of why you and I should be debating this.

I took no offense to your losing interest. This is a forum for debate with many members.


(you may guess here that I sometimes think we don't need God to be moral). I would presume that atheists have never had these types of spiritual events or if they have, they've been sufficiently underwhelming to have been dismissed as illogical or unscientific. I would bet that some atheists would love to have an overwhelmingly inexplicable event.

I regret that I used the word "spiritual" instead of mystical or supernatural. I didn't mean to imply that atheists do not have the capacity or quality of spirit to experience profoundly and it was not my intent to sound condescending.

I'm not sure I fully understand what Darwin was saying as quoted in the original topic post, but in reading the article `God Module' Discovered in the Brain - Not! by David Noelle at http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/frontlines_18_2.html, which addresses a report: "The Neural Basis of Religious Experience" by the neuropsychologist V. S. Ramachandran, one has to wonder if further studies in terms of who and how many of us may have this alleged "God Module" hard wired into them, might indicate that the tendency toward belief in God, the proof of God notwithstanding, is undergoing selection.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I took no offense to your losing interest. This is a forum for debate with many other members.



I regret that I used the word "spiritual" instead of mystical or supernatural. I didn't mean to imply that atheists do not have the capacity or quality of spirit to experience profoundly and it was not my intent to sound condescending.

I'm not sure I fully understand what Darwin was saying as quoted in the original topic post, but in reading the article `God Module' Discovered in the Brain - Not! by David Noelle at http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/frontlines_18_2.html, which addresses a report: "The Neural Basis of Religious Experience" by the neuropsychologist V. S. Ramachandran, one has to wonder if further studies in terms of who and how many of us may have this alleged "God Module" hard wired into them, might indicate that the tendency toward belief in God, the proof of God notwithstanding, is undergoing selection.

This is of course off topic, but what interests me more than the evidence or lack of it for God's existence, is how 'He' can engage you & others so deeply and passionately and me hardly ar all - other than my rancour at times at those who profess so confidently in his name. In one of the posts shortly before this someone quotes CS Lewis somewhat to the effect that God does not woo... he ravishes.. which makes me want to leap up and down and screech, How the *&^%* do you know this! Do you also happen to know whether God likes peanut butter and grape jelly sandwiches?


Given that there might be some full-proof test as to your and my respective intelligence & sanity and we scored within a comfortable reach of each other, must one of us be right and the other wrong? Or can we both be right?

[apples of gold]

This is of course off topic, but what interests me more than the evidence or lack of it for God's existence, is how 'He' can engage you & others so deeply and passionately and me hardly ar all - other than my rancour at times at those who profess so confidently in his name. In one of the posts shortly before use someone quotes CS Lewis somewhat to the effect that God does not woo... he ravishes.. which makes me want to leap up and down and screech, How the *&^%* do you know this! Do you also happen to know whether God likes peanut butter and grape jelly sandwiches?


Given that there might be some full-proof test as to your and my respective intelligence & sanity and we scored within a comfortable reach of each other, must one of us be right and the other wrong? Or can we both be right?

To put this back into context, the case for evolution and the case for elegant design certainly don't have to be two divergent paths. Our forum mate Chatworthy has suggested visiting Reasons.org. I'm sure you'll hear enough science on this site to make the relatively few references to God, at least bearable if not palpable. I've bookmarked this site and I'm expecting to learn quite a bit.

I would also be interested in reading a in-depth scientific Christian perspective of selection if anyone knows of one.

[PrinceMyshkin]

To put this back into context, the case for evolution and the case for elegant design certainly don't have to be two divergent paths. Our forum mate Chatworthy has suggested visiting Reasons.org. I'm sure you'll hear enough science on this site to make the relatively few references to God, at least bearable if not palpable. I've bookmarked this site and I'm expecting to learn quite a bit.

I would also be interested in reading a in-depth scientific Christian perspective of selection if anyone knows of one.

The little I've read about "elegant design" (I suspect you mean "Intelligent Design?) suggests that it is "Creationism" by another name and that offering it as "science" is a ruse.

[apples of gold]

This is of course off topic, but what interests me more than the evidence or lack of it for God's existence, is how 'He' can engage you & others so deeply and passionately and me hardly ar all - other than my rancour at times at those who profess so confidently in his name. In one of the posts shortly before this someone quotes CS Lewis somewhat to the effect that God does not woo... he ravishes.. which makes me want to leap up and down and screech, How the *&^%* do you know this! Do you also happen to know whether God likes peanut butter and grape jelly sandwiches?


Given that there might be some full-proof test as to your and my respective intelligence & sanity and we scored within a comfortable reach of each other, must one of us be right and the other wrong? Or can we both be right?


The little I've read about "elegant design" (I suspect you mean "Intelligent Design?) suggests that it is "Creationism" by another name and that offering it as "science" is a ruse.

oops! Yes. I meant intelligent design.

[apples of gold]

Here’s an interesting article on Intelligent Design: http://apatheticagnostic.org/articles/meds/med03/med048.html. The author argues that it is pseudo-science and though agnostic, defends the position of opponents to the teaching of Intelligent Design as an alternative theory to Evolution in public schools. I am a believer in God with a Christian upbringing, but I have no problem with the author’s stance on this. I prefer to let science be science and faith be faith.

But I’m not convinced by any philosophical argument I’ve read yet that there’s a problem with belief in both Evolution and Intelligent Design because doing so would require mutual exclusivity. I happen to believe in both and think they can and do complement each other, regardless of conflicting dates of creation.

If the whole world suddenly believed that God exists, we’d then be saying “Ok now. So what is He?”. And we’d be right back where we started. I believe that through the present course with cosmology, quantum physics, biology, genetics, we will discover what God is. I can think in terms of eternity and I’m willing to wait for science to arrive at a definition. I've tried to come up with a definition through religion. I’m with the agnostic author in as much as I’m not presently concerned with proof of God’s existence and I don’t know what the definition is. To me, dark matter/energy* and the big bang are questions that are within the area of the definition of form and function with the origin of the universe being something that can stay on the back burner for the time-being. But my apathy ends there. Genesis seems to be too distracting a problem to the reverse engineering approach required. On the other hand, it took a slight leap of faith to arrive at evolution as being accepted theory/fact just as it takes faith to pursue String Theory, and it’s this kind of investigation that makes me want to say Ok, lets just all hold hands and get going and in the meantime let’s agree that we will at least agree at some point in the future. (I’m not talking about agreement amongst the members within the two cultures, at least not religion, because the difference between science and religion seems much less than the rift between religious sects and nothing from religion so far has been able to quell those disagreements, including the (un)disputed Word of God).

It’s exciting to think that those mystical and supernatural experiences that have had a profound impact on the faith of some of us who believe, that have long been dismissed by logical minds as figments of disturbed or overactive imaginations, or are merely unique biological sensations in those genetically predisposed to believing in God that evolved the belief for the sake of social survival, could some day be taken out of the paranormal and the collective consciousness and wherever the skeptics have put them, and placed into mainstream scientific consideration of the possibility that God exists and interacts with humans. I often wonder just how much of the scientific community already thinks this way, but that since scientific investigation makes it necessary to ignore God it’s just politically correct not to admit it.

Unlike science that (rightfully) would never be motivated to arbitrarily adjust its methods and would some day arrive at the answers by default, the mainstream religious community has had to overcome its fear of having more contradictions exposed. And a segment of it has made attempts to accept cosmological theories like dark matter* and background radiation with very limited scriptural references to validate them and has incorporated these brand new aspects of God to a less literal biblical view. If the skeptics could budge enough to at least respect the necessity of the leap of faith taken by both cultures, past the absence of proof of God’s existence, past conflicting creationism, and give the open-minded the time needed to put these discoveries into religious context, that’s a start. Both cultures could benefit from more critical thinking and that would give the extreme fundamentalists less room for credibility and ammunition to use in their narrow and destructive definitions.

The Bible and other religious scriptures are not technical manuals and were written during unscientific times. They will remain guides for faith, faith being a desirable capacity, which I believe will not and should not diminish in the human spirit.

*thick darkness is mentioned in Deut 4:11, 5:22; 1 Kings 8:12; 2 Chron 5:1 and others.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Re: Message #52: I want to answer this but again, without exactly answering it, but rather by going sort of behind it, and ask:

Why do we need to be thinking so hard about the existence and/or the nature of God? One answer might be, for no different reason than the species spends so much time and effort exploring the physical nature of reality, cosmology, the sub-particular world and molecular biology. One difference is that in this latter case there is a well-defined and widely accepted methodology for conducting that investigation; whereas in the matter of knowing God, there is no linear programme that even half-guarantees an improvement in one’s knowledge of “Him” or, other than ancient texts and subjective revelations, is there any foundation for this investigation.

God is either there or he is not; but if he is there, one thing on which I believe most creeds agree is that his nature and intentions are a mystery to us, notwithstanding the hailstorm of pronouncements on his behalf. So operate on faith if you will: even the most resolutely secular of us must do so. When we perform an act that is - as far as we know ourselves - to be the expression of mercy or love, we can only have faith that the recipient of that act will be grateful for or benefit from it.

It is interesting to think about God. It may be the most interesting thing we can think of thinking about, but that something is interesting does not necessarily mean a) that any conclusion can be reached about it, or b) that it is useful to think about.

[apples of gold]

Re: Message #52: I want to answer this but again, without exactly answering it, but rather by going sort of behind it, and ask:

Why do we need to be thinking so hard about the existence and/or the nature of God? ...

"Does God exist?" and "What is God?" are valid philosophical discussions. If I'm not mistaken, it's out of logic that the keepers of logic insist the burden of proof rests with the believers. The challenge has been made.

"We" as a whole probably don't need to think so hard about the subject. I agree that problems arise in society out of an obsessive need to define God. Why not just have faith (not blind though). But many people believe that the search for knowledge, the knowing, and understanding of the mysteries of life is the motivation behind all human endeavor and ultimately is our quest for God. Atheists may be the only ones who wouldn't agree with this. But I certainly wouldn't say they have to. If it wasn't for the faithful who pose such complex and illogical questions, would science have gotten as far as it has in refuting them. (I wonder how that could be fit into a god-gene). Surely progress is wonderful because there doesn't appear to be any grand utopia waiting to descend upon all of mankind.


It is interesting to think about God. It may be the most interesting thing we can think of thinking about, but that something is interesting does not necessarily mean a) that any conclusion can be reached about it, or b) that it is useful to think about.

It is interesting to spend time on the internet. It may be the most interesting thing we can think of doing, but that something is interesting does not necessarily mean a) that any conclusion can be reached about it, or b) that it is useful to do it. Lol.

Your atheism is showing again, Jer. Not that that's not OK.

[The Atheist]

But I’m not convinced by any philosophical argument I’ve read yet that there’s a problem with belief in both Evolution and Intelligent Design because doing so would require mutual exclusivity. I happen to believe in both and think they can and do complement each other, regardless of conflicting dates of creation.

Nope, sorry. It's a straight out paradox, the two cannot both be true, unless you're going to claim the intelligent designer is a 100% determinist and created the big bang, from which history has followed an inflexible and undeviating path to where this response to you is the only possible result.

You can't have it both ways, there is either evolution, backed up by 200 years of science, evidence and facts, or there is an intelligent designer, backed up by assertion only. The two are quite incompatible.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Your atheism is showing again, Jer. Not that that's not OK.

No, no. I have identified myself as a lapsed atheist. To define me as an atheist is to define me as being against belief in God, and I would rather define myself in the affirmative. I am for free will, to the maximum that we can identify and exercise it without imposing hurt on others or curtailing their free will. I am for new questions, if there are any to be found, and new answers to old questions where the old answers did not satisfy.

[apples of gold]

Nope, sorry. It's a straight out paradox, the two cannot both be true, unless you're going to claim the intelligent designer is a 100% determinist and created the big bang, from which history has followed an inflexible and undeviating path to where this response to you is the only possible result.

You can't have it both ways, there is either evolution, backed up by 200 years of science, evidence and facts, or there is an intelligent designer, backed up by assertion only. The two are quite incompatible.

A 100% determinist ... wouldn't that also have to be backed up by assertion. The validity of the argument doesn't rest on facts. It rests on definition. There is a standard for evolution. There isn't one for ID. Not that I would agree with it anyway, because the present climate of debate is one that says ID is really creationism in disguise with the agenda of debunking evolution and evolutionists have debunked creationism because of the incomprehensibility of it. That's too much political nonsense for me. And within all that noise is the dismissal of an entire culture because logic completely invalidates any or all of its assertions, when what should be validating religion is it's own merits. Unfortunately, that noise is preventing too many from hearing a misplaced culture say we are listening to the facts because we want evidence of things, of proof of God as well.

I think it can be both ways. If I were to try to define the Intelligent Designer of our world, at this point, I don't think the ID'er would have the classic credential of omnipresence. I may say there was an intent in design at the outset - probably that life evolve. (I wouldn't necessarily say creator of the elements). I may say that he was omniscient and could have been able to foresee the outcome at a certain point in the future, but he wouldn't have to be. I may say that as ID'er he arranged for the parameters (DNA? enzymes?) within which the basic building blocks would have to bond and function, for organisms to live, but he wouldn't have to be omnipotent. Within this definition there's room for a god-gene but that does not necessarily mean that the designer intended for humans to become aware of the ID'er or the creator. I'd probably say that a good portion of the intent was to leave the rest up to chance and allow for mutations so life could evolve. This doesn't have to invalidate any master "plan" that a creator may have had.

I don't see why the option you presented has to mean 100% determinist.

[PrinceMyshkin]

So then, having borrowed the trappings and some of the methodology of materialistic science, your ID'er encounters such phenomena as malaria and HIV AIDS and psychoses, slips back into the telephone booth and re-emerging as Clark Kent, he argues that "God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform."

[apples of gold]

Ha! Ha! That's a funny image and I did laugh BTW. But I would have imagined someone like Harrison Ford doing his Indiana Jones thing. I don't take myself so seriously, you know. But I'm really into this thread.

In the definition I mentioned, he wouldn't have borrowed anything from science or encountered diseases. There would have been no science or pestilence or phone booths at the time. He wouldn't have been an active participant in the world. We couldn't say he was responsible for good and evil. We couldn't say he was responsible for putting the alleged god-gene in anyone. We couldn't say he was responsible for writing the Bible or any other religious text. We could say the god-gene was responsible for writing the Bible and other religious texts but that does not invalidate these texts nor does it disprove the existence of God.

[JGL57]

...nor does it disprove the existence of God.

In theory, then, what possible happening or empirical fact or whatever would you say WOULD disprove the existence of a god?

Looking at it from the other angle, I disbelieve in the literal and meaningful existence of a personal god because I am completely lacking in ANY good reason to think such an entity is plausible - at all. Thus, I am a provisional atheist.

So, off the top of your head, can you state what plausible positive reasons exist FOR belief in the existence of a god that you think I may have missed?

[The Atheist]

I don't see why the option you presented has to mean 100% determinist.

Ok, this is good stuff!

I could accept an argument as you posit above - that god "kick-started" the universe and waited to see what turned up as a proposition, simply because it doesn't trample on known facts - the age of the earth and universe being at the top of the list.

If his plan was to evolve a sapient species, then I suppose you could argue that god just sat back and waited for a few billion years until they did, but it's a bit hit and miss, given little side-shows like mass-extinction to take into account. Neither intelligent nor designed as far as I can see. God would've been fairly annoyed to see earth wiped out by a random asteroid 1,000,000 years ago - he'd still be waiting for someone to send his son down to. Without a rigidly deterministic pattern set by an intelligent designer, there just isn't any intelligence in the design, so it becomes self-defeating.

[apples of gold]

Quote:
Originally Posted by apples of gold View Post
...nor does it disprove the existence of God.


In theory, then, what possible happening or empirical fact or whatever would you say WOULD disprove the existence of a god?

Looking at it from the other angle, I disbelieve in the literal and meaningful existence of a personal god because I am completely lacking in ANY good reason to think such an entity is plausible - at all. Thus, I am a provisional atheist.

So, off the top of your head, can you state what plausible positive reasons exist FOR belief in the existence of a god that you think I may have missed?

Thank you for asking JGL57. I haven't thought much about how I would approach the problem of disproving the existence of God to anyone. And I can't disprove God to myself. The statement you quoted was made to establish that the existence of God can't be proved or disproved.

Belief in God is quite a subjective experience. You would have to come up with your own reasons for wanting to believe. Even if you'd given me an exhaustive list of reasons that you'd considered, I wouldn't presume to know which ones you'd missed. I don't have any desire to persuade people to believe if they don't. It's just not necessary that they do.

[PrinceMyshkin]

If I might interject between you and JGL57, I found the part I've bolded in your response


Quote:
Originally Posted by apples of gold View Post
...nor does it disprove the existence of God.



Thank you for asking JGL57. I haven't thought much about how I would approach the problem of disproving the existence of God to anyone. And I can't disprove God to myself. The statement you quoted was made to establish that the existence of God can't be proved or disproved.

Belief in God is quite a subjective experience. You would have to come up with your own reasons for wanting to believe. Even if you'd given me an exhaustive list of reasons that you'd considered, I wouldn't presume to know which ones you'd missed. I don't have any desire to persuade people to believe if they don't. It's just not necessary that they do.

most interesting, and possibly the first time in several posts by different people, in which one of them speaks of belief as a choice that they have made. Although it takes one out of the realm of eschatology, I'm most interested in the psychology of choosing, specifically in the context of your choice.

[apples of gold]

If I might interject between you and JGL57, I found the part I've bolded in your response

most interesting, and possibly the first time in several posts by different people, in which one of them speaks of belief as a choice that they have made. Although it takes one out of the realm of eschatology, I'm most interested in the psychology of choosing, specifically in the context of your choice.


... I think that faith can be described as both a gift and a choice.

I haven't come up with much psychology for this. If I were a psychology major writing my thesis, I might consider analyzing my personal experiences to that degree. But I doubt I'd choose that topic.

I'm just finishing up quite a lengthy response to The Atheist's last post and finding my time getting a little thin. You might want to ask one of the other posters on this or one of the other religious threads to explain their choice.

Anyway, it's getting off topic a bit.

[apples of gold]

Ok, this is good stuff!

If his plan was to evolve a sapient species, then I suppose you could argue that god just sat back and waited for a few billion years until they did, but it's a bit hit and miss, given little side-shows like mass-extinction to take into account. Neither intelligent nor designed as far as I can see. God would've been fairly annoyed to see earth wiped out by a random asteroid 1,000,000 years ago - he'd still be waiting for someone to send his son down to. Without a rigidly deterministic pattern set by an intelligent designer, there just isn't any intelligence in the design, so it becomes self-defeating.

I wasn’t sure I would be but apparently I was clear about there not being influence from the designer along the way, in the evolution of the species, but that there was a particular model or blueprint in mind which was used to ensure that life did evolve. Given the IDer’s access to omniscience and omnipotence he would know how likely it was that a natural disaster could strike our planet and wipe everything out, as well as when such an event might occur. If so, our planet may have been selected for its “safe” position in the galaxy. And the fact that we have survived mutations and disease makes it look like a very intelligent design of the biological parameters within which those building blocks functioned to evolve, because man at least, as a species is thriving.

I wanted to minimize the anthropomorphic description of the designer and maybe make it sound more like a software program but your conjecture has opened the door for some leeway. Suppose the designer involved in our planet/solar system had the experience of implementing his model on another life-sustaining planet in another system that also evolved sapients that were dominated by another species or did suffer mass extinction. Perhaps he chose the planet to the best of his ability, with limited instructions given to him from a creator who wasn’t actively involved in the design. Suppose in that particular world he had full intention that a humanoid evolve to become conscious of him and/or the creator and designed it according to his empirical knowledge and understanding of the margin of chance involved, but he failed somewhere in the design. (I’m adding this because God’s qualifications are usually called into question). We agree then he could sit back a few billion years and who knows what would be happening in the meantime, perhaps not even himself; as designer, although intelligent, he would not have to be omniscient, only that he have access. I would think that if he did sense a loss in that other world scenario, he would have a lot of time to get over it. Or maybe he wouldn’t have, but he was operating with a hands-off policy in ours so it wouldn’t matter if he was feeling annoyed or depressed, or wanted to take his frustration out on the inhabitants, only that he had done his job. He could have sat back and enjoyed watching chance and nature, as well as the inhabitants wear down each other, if that is what he wanted. There is room for a hell in this definition, just in case he wanted someone to blame at some point for his past failures. Or he may have been frustrated at not being able to intervene. But I prefer a more logical character who is capable of doing his job with integrity within the established rules.

Since the identity of our IDer hasn’t been assigned exclusively to creator, it could have been this son that you suggested God was waiting to send to the world, who actually designed the model. And later the model evolved a man with a prominent god-gene capable of perceiving this creator/designer/other in such a way that it influenced events and others to the recording of historical texts; the record of course being subject to human error and control. An incredibly intelligent design I would think to have overcome the odds and produce the necessary anomaly.

I can see where your requirement for a deterministic approach to the implementation of life on our planet comes from. Although that approach isn’t evident in this particular scenario, it doesn’t preclude that intent beyond the scope of our planet to an expanding universe. Although it appears to be in the laboratory, an omnipotent observer in a system capable of taking a snapshot at any point in the space/time of that system, doesn’t have to be limited by that snapshot. Whether the snapshot may influence energy or mass somewhere, somehow in the system, I won’t say because I’ve gone as far as my limited understanding of physics will take me on that. Problems with genesis and infinity, although distracting, do not have to be solved by science before sound theory and investigation are established; neither should they have to be in our definition.

Science doesn’t dismiss probability. It is quite concerned with it. There are laws to take chance into account. Nor would a creator and/or designer of our world have to ignore the chances for random deviation. Whether the IDer was experienced or not, the omniscience and omnipotence of the creator would increase the chances that the original design* had the necessary commands to stay within the parameters of its operating system. A computer’s bios/operating system can implement its pre-programmed commands, encounter internal errors, encounter an external threat, self diagnose, self correct; and can connect itself to an external source of information for updates from that source’s domain. All without having to be replaced by the designer. Rigidity and cause and effect are built into the design, yet there is a remarkable understanding of the degree to which chance and deviation will be involved. This definition hasn’t called for any building blocks or laws that are foreign to our system. Man is able to design computers and software and has patterned their operation after the way our brains function. If we agreed on the existence of God, could we not say man’s ability was patterned after the characteristics of that creator and/or designer.

Place yourself into the environment of a man living in the middle ages and compare this definition of Intelligent Design to the idea of a functioning computer and tell me which one sounds more far-fetched.

*Gen 1:27 and God made man in His image.

[Chatworthy]

I have found another site that may be of good interest to the open-minded scientific types.

It is creationstudies.org which is an intelligent Christian site, as is Reasons.org on two different levels of understanding.

This may provide more food for thought in these invigorating discussions and I appreciate the good, healthy communications.

God bless you all in your searches for the Truth.

Chatworthy

[The Atheist]

Man is able to design computers and software and has patterned their operation after the way our brains function. If we agreed on the existence of God, could we not say man’s ability was patterned after the characteristics of that creator and/or designer.

Place yourself into the environment of a man living in the middle ages and compare this definition of Intelligent Design to the idea of a functioning computer and tell me which one sounds more far-fetched.

I see where you're coming from, but I think you'll be in a small minority view of ID working like that.

Now, just to correct some assumptions you've made in computing terms.

Computers don't work like our brains at all - this is a complete fallacy. Computers work on logical systems and are nothing more than fast abacuses. I often hear computer/human/ID analogies and they all make pretty much this same basic error - that computers in any way reflect human cognition.

Even the medieval man, while he would be quite surprised at computer technology, he would accept the evidence of his eyes once he had it explained to him. Computers and software programs are a lot simpler than people give them credit for.


I have found another site that may be of good interest to the open-minded scientific types.

It is creationstudies.org which is an intelligent Christian site, as is Reasons.org on two different levels of understanding.

This may provide more food for thought in these invigorating discussions and I appreciate the good, healthy communications.

God bless you all in your searches for the Truth.

Chatworthy

Thanks for that.

Being an open-minded, scientific type, I went to check out the first of your links.

Unfortunately, I lost the "open-minded, scientific" bit when the very first sentence on the front page reads:


It is our heart’s desire as a ministry, to serve the body of Christ by equipping you with the knowledge needed to refute the lies of evolution.

That alone convinces me that neither science nor reason play any part in their findings and I proceeded no further.

I would far rather research organisations which are interested in facts and evidence to draw conclusions from. Science takes no heed of heart's desires.

[Redzeppelin]

Science takes no heed of heart's desires.

One of its shortcomings that omits it from completely understanding humanity and God.

[JGL57]

Quote:
Originally Posted by apples of gold View Post
...nor does it disprove the existence of God.



Thank you for asking JGL57. I haven't thought much about how I would approach the problem of disproving the existence of God to anyone. And I can't disprove God to myself. The statement you quoted was made to establish that the existence of God can't be proved or disproved.

Belief in God is quite a subjective experience. You would have to come up with your own reasons for wanting to believe. Even if you'd given me an exhaustive list of reasons that you'd considered, I wouldn't presume to know which ones you'd missed. I don't have any desire to persuade people to believe if they don't. It's just not necessary that they do.

Sounds good to me. Now just convince all of your fellow theists in the world to take up your stated attitude and problem solved - the ultimate agree to disagree scenario.

Yeah - but it ain't gonna happen.

But kudos to you, anyway.

[weepingforloman]

I DO wish everyone would believe what I believe-- not b/c I hate "different people" but because I believe that I have truth. I assume you will now proceed to grind your teeth in anger.

[The Atheist]

I DO wish everyone would believe what I believe-- not b/c I hate "different people" but because I believe that I have truth. I assume you will now proceed to grind your teeth in anger.

Why would anyone gnash teeth at that?

If you believe you have the "truth" it will be backed up by analysis, evidence and review by others. If not, it probably isn't actually true. My old mum used to say, "the truth hurts". I think that's completely wrong and it should be, "the truth's often unpalatable, but it never hurts."

One thing about truth - it isn't relative. 2 + 2 always = 4.

[The Atheist]

One of its shortcomings that omits it from completely understanding humanity and God.

You're half right - science has no business with understanding or trying to understand any gods, but it is definitely and intimately concerned with understanding humanity.

[Redzeppelin]

You're half right - science has no business with understanding or trying to understand any gods, but it is definitely and intimately concerned with understanding humanity.


Well, my friend, I'll take any "right" (even partial) from you. I do agree that science is concerned with understanding humanity - but I will contend that limiting that understanding to only what can be measured (material) and ignoring the spiritual component does a disservice to the complexity of who and what we are.

[apples of gold]

I see where you're coming from, but I think you'll be in a small minority view of ID working like that.

Now, just to correct some assumptions you've made in computing terms.

Computers don't work like our brains at all - this is a complete fallacy. Computers work on logical systems and are nothing more than fast abacuses. I often hear computer/human/ID analogies and they all make pretty much this same basic error - that computers in any way reflect human cognition.

Even the medieval man, while he would be quite surprised at computer technology, he would accept the evidence of his eyes once he had it explained to him. Computers and software programs are a lot simpler than people give them credit for.

I should have equated the machine language/code itself to something like DNA and compared the neurological system and other biological functions in the analogy. But you’re right. It wouldn’t be what sold the IDers. Thank you for the interesting discussion.


Sounds good to me. Now just convince all of your fellow theists in the world to take up your stated attitude and problem solved - the ultimate agree to disagree scenario.

Yeah - but it ain't gonna happen.

But kudos to you, anyway.

Does this mean I’ve convinced all of the atheists? Heh! Heh! Never mind that. And thanks for the kudos.

ID is popular with some of the religious political right (in the U.S.) but hasn’t gotten very far. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10548320/

Perhaps the god-gene theory will really catch on. That would be good as long as the unbelievers wouldn’t use it to invalidate God/religion further. Whether it exists or not, the believers will always be with us. This will probably sound apathetic and eternity minded, but I think the problem would eventually work itself out. Matt 12:25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

(I’m not trying to offend non-Christian groups by ignoring them. I assert from this reference point because that’s my background)

This truth is evident in the scientific community, big business, politics, the family, religion.

In this context, the verse says to me that it’s the elements of religious culture who are the most insistent on refuting with dates of creation or not toning it down with their definitions that completely contradict the evidence, who will probably be the ones to fall right off the radar, have their disillusioned absorbed by atheism, agnosticism, benign eastern religions, what have you.

On the other hand, the IDers have made a start by changing some of their language and approach and I suspect that throwing out evolution from schools is not the main impetus. The movement, if truly open-minded, could benefit from some outside help. It would take some influential scientific believers to stir things up in this area. There are groups: asa3.org with good attitudes, hopefully making efforts to motivate and dispel that bit of paranoia – the upper hand is already held in the teaching of evolution! For Pete’s sake! But perhaps more interest from the non-believers and atheists should be taken to maintain a complementary approach of the ID movement (which may never go away). After all, the children of the masses attend public school.

Please permit me more long-windedness. From Einstein His Life and Universe, by Walter Isaacson, Chapter 17 Einstein’s God page 384-385:

“Yes, you can call it that,” Einstein replied calmly. “Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent, I am in fact, religious.”

As a child, Einstein had gone through an ecstatic religious phase, then rebelled against it. For the next three decades, he tended not to pronounce much on the topic. But around the time he turned 50, he began to articulate more clearly – in various essays, interviews, and letters – his deepening appreciation of this Jewish heritage and, some what separately, his belief in God, albeit a rather impersonal, deistic God.

Who knows what mutually beneficial memetics Einstein would have made about God if he hadn’t been ostracized for his theories; experienced skepticism, a divorce, the bomb.

Phil 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Well, I've used my portion of bytes for this thread. Thanks for taking the time to read my posts. I do hope the thread continues.

[The Atheist]

I do agree that science is concerned with understanding humanity - but I will contend that limiting that understanding to only what can be measured (material) and ignoring the spiritual component does a disservice to the complexity of who and what we are.

Yes, but science can only concern itself with measurable data. That's why quantum physics is so tricky and that's a snap compared to theoretical neuroscience.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, but science can only concern itself with measurable data. That's why quantum physics is so tricky and that's a snap compared to theoretical neuroscience.

Agreed. All I'm asking is that science be willing to admit that its ability to understand humanity can only extend so far because it cannot measure certain things about what it means to be human (but here is where we divide from our brief accord because the Christian acknowledges certain components of human existence that atheists generally deny...so, as we were).

[JGL57]

I DO wish everyone would believe what I believe-- not b/c I hate "different people" but because I believe that I have truth. I assume you will now proceed to grind your teeth in anger.

As long as you use the word "believe" there is hope. It is when people use the word "know" seriously that eyes begin to roll.

As to anger, I agree with the Buddha that, like greed and ignorance, anger is a bad, bad thing. However, some occasional mild righteous indignation, if focused correctly, can lead in time to a more enlightened attitude and understanding in general (IMO).


Yes, but science can only concern itself with measurable data. That's why quantum physics is so tricky and that's a snap compared to theoretical neuroscience.

I don't know - V.S. Ramachandran seems to be making some really impressive headway in cognitive neuroscience.

In any case, I am sure that if and when a scientist discovers reliably repeatable evidence of some ontological idealism - ghosts and gods and such – he or she will duly report this earth-shaking discovery and not just ignore it or try to cover it up. In fact, since such a discovery would overthrow all of modern science in one fell swoop, it would no doubt win the scientist a Nobel Prize, not to mention the grateful thanks of theists, spiritualists, mind-body dualists, New Agers, etc. the world over.

[The Atheist]

I don't know - V.S. Ramachandran seems to be making some really impressive headway in cognitive neuroscience.

In any case, I am sure that if and when a scientist discovers reliably repeatable evidence of some ontological idealism - ghosts and gods and such – he or she will duly report this earth-shaking discovery and not just ignore it or try to cover it up. In fact, since such a discovery would overthrow all of modern science in one fell swoop, it would no doubt win the scientist a Nobel Prize, not to mention the grateful thanks of theists, spiritualists, mind-body dualists, New Agers, etc. the world over.

:lol:

My worry is more the other way around!

One of the top men in theoretical neuroscience is a committed christian. I keep ribbing him about refusing to report on the "religion wiring" when he discovers it!

[weepingforloman]

You do realize, of course, that even if human beings are caused to believe in God by "wiring," God can still be real? In fact, I myself have considered this, and I would find it perfectly reasonable that such wiring was in fact part of God's election of believers... I assume you are familiar enough with Calvin to know the concept of election.

[The Atheist]

You do realize, of course, that even if human beings are caused to believe in God by "wiring," God can still be real? In fact, I myself have considered this, and I would find it perfectly reasonable that such wiring was in fact part of God's election of believers... I assume you are familiar enough with Calvin to know the concept of election.

Yep and I wouldn't expect theists to give up god overnight because of a discovery pinpointing how it works in physical terms, either. It would just be another log on the train of rationality.

[weepingforloman]

I mean, of course, that science is not God-excluding, nor is God science-excluding. God is not so simple minded as some would make Him out to be.

[NikolaiI]

Agreed. All I'm asking is that science be willing to admit that its ability to understand humanity can only extend so far because it cannot measure certain things about what it means to be human (but here is where we divide from our brief accord because the Christian acknowledges certain components of human existence that atheists generally deny...so, as we were).

Yeah, but. Science includes philosophy, psychology, epistemology, and many other ologies. The meaning of human life and morals are well within the scope of science.

[weepingforloman]

Umm... no. Philosophy is not science. Science is restricted to the quantifiable, and, for instance, the "will to rule" (Nietzsche) is nowhere near quantifiable. The same is true of love, mercy, justice, kindness, cruelty, and hatred. Morals are non-quantifiable. Therefore, humanity is non-quantifiable.

[JGL57]

... the "will to rule" (Nietzsche) is nowhere near quantifiable. The same is true of love, mercy, justice, kindness, cruelty, and hatred. Morals are non-quantifiable. Therefore, humanity is non-quantifiable.

Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't count Ramachandran out quite yet - he seems to be just now getting into second gear.

[weepingforloman]

Well, then, I'll hold my breath until someone quantifies love.

[JGL57]

Well, then, I'll hold my breath until someone quantifies love.

Which type - agape, familial or eros? I think scientists have already got a good grip on the last one.

[The Atheist]

Umm... no. Philosophy is not science. Science is restricted to the quantifiable, and, for instance, the "will to rule" (Nietzsche) is nowhere near quantifiable. The same is true of love, mercy, justice, kindness, cruelty, and hatred. Morals are non-quantifiable. Therefore, humanity is non-quantifiable.

Just so you know, weep. These are assertions - they are your own opinion and you're most welcome to hold those opinions.

I have to say that I think you're wrong in every part of the statement and suggest that maybe you should do some research before posting this type of assertion, because there is a large body of scientific opinion which disagrees with you.

[NikolaiI]

As long as you use the word "believe" there is hope. It is when people use the word "know" seriously that eyes begin to roll.

As to anger, I agree with the Buddha that, like greed and ignorance, anger is a bad, bad thing. However, some occasional mild righteous indignation, if focused correctly, can lead in time to a more enlightened attitude and understanding in general (IMO).

A lot of people interchange knowledge and belief. People who believe very strongly feel they know what they believe is true.

Buddha said holding on to anger to hurt someone is like holding onto a hot coal in order to hurt them by throwing it at them. It burns you.


Umm... no. Philosophy is not science. Science is restricted to the quantifiable, and, for instance, the "will to rule" (Nietzsche) is nowhere near quantifiable. The same is true of love, mercy, justice, kindness, cruelty, and hatred. Morals are non-quantifiable. Therefore, humanity is non-quantifiable.

It almost seems like you completely ignored my post. Psychology is science. Philosophy and psychology are most intimately connected, and psychology does in fact talk about every single one of the non-quantifiable concepts you mentioned, and quantifies them. For instance, love, compassion, anger - emotions, feelings and actions are all the basic things in psychology...like that's what it mainly deals with. Human mental health and human relationships and communication, etc. Mental and spiritual growth.

I don't claim to be well read in these fields, there's lots of authors I'd like to check out, but I highly recommend you'd read The Farther Reaches of Human Nature by Abraham Maslow, and The Road Less Traveled by Dr. Scott Peck. Both excellent books.

The latter is mainly about psychotherapy and psychology, and Dr. Peck's perspective of love, family values and spiritual growth. He says mental growth is spiritual growth, and he talks about the psyche, growth, relationships; he talks about how love is an action rather than a feeling; what commitment means and ego boundaries...I think his ideas on ego boundaries and love were the most helpful to me. And Maslow is simply great. That book I mentioned should open your eyes to a brilliant and insightful mind. Incidentally, it doesn't talk about the "hierarchy of needs" which Maslow was famous for.

Anyway, like the Atheist said, you're entitled to your own opinion. :D I just wanted to explain a little what I meant I guess, since it seemed like you didn't understand me.

Namaste,
Nikolai

[PrinceMyshkin]

How many theologians can dance on the head of a pin?

[NikolaiI]

What?

[PrinceMyshkin]

What?

That was my adaptation of the question once posed in parody of the debate amongst theologians over very literal interpretations of scripture: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

That is how so much of the debate here impresses me, re the nature of Satan, Lucifer, &c., not to mention this or that parable from the Bible.

[NikolaiI]

Hm. What time was that debate?

[quasimodo1]

To The Atheist: Just wondering if you designed your own logo and is it a registered trademark? quasimodo1

[weepingforloman]

Just so you know, weep. These are assertions - they are your own opinion and you're most welcome to hold those opinions.

I have to say that I think you're wrong in every part of the statement and suggest that maybe you should do some research before posting this type of assertion, because there is a large body of scientific opinion which disagrees with you.

I'll believe this if it can be proved to me. Then again, if all thought is merely the result of electro/chemical impulses (which would probably be tacked on to the morality issue) then I would have no reason to believe anything scientists say.

[weepingforloman]

Which type - agape, familial or eros? I think scientists have already got a good grip on the last one.

I believe there IS a difference between hormonal/instinctive attraction and romantic love. I was referring to agape, by the way.

[JGL57]

I believe there IS a difference between hormonal/instinctive attraction and romantic love. I was referring to agape, by the way.

So, I guess you are saying that love, of both the agape and eros types, exists in the spirit world, as part of your "soul", I presume, and is not therefore part of the assumed naturalistic functions of the brain? OK. Other than your naked opinion that such is so, do you have proof of such? I mean, start with proof of the soul and go from there. E.g., explain what parts of human personality are naturalistic and come from the brain, and which parts are transcendental are reside solely in the soul zone.

[Gorilla King]

So, I guess you are saying that love, of both the agape and eros types, exists in the spirit world, as part of your "soul", I presume, and is not therefore part of the assumed naturalistic functions of the brain? OK. Other than your naked opinion that such is so, do you have proof of such? I mean, start with proof of the soul and go from there. E.g., explain what parts of human personality are naturalistic and come from the brain, and which parts are transcendental are reside solely in the soul zone.

A person is body and soul....even after death. Likewise, the universe is natural and supernatural. The two flow together. I am curious though, you say that naked opinions are being stated, but what is your justification for saying their is no soul? That seems rather naked in and of itself.

[JGL57]

A person is body and soul....even after death. Likewise, the universe is natural and supernatural. The two flow together...

More naked opinions - cheaper by the dozen.


...I am curious though, you say that naked opinions are being stated, but what is your justification for saying their is no soul? That seems rather naked in and of itself.

I never said there is no soul. Reread my post. I said that those saying that souls exist are making a naked assertion. I.e., there is no proof of such, and the burden is on those who nakedly assert such.

To make my point clearer - I do not say there are no leprechauns. I do not say there is no personal, caring god. I do not say there are no extraterrestrials in flying saucers kidnapping people and anally probing them. I do not say that astrology is false.

It is that I doubt that each of the above is true due to utter lack of evidence. I don't have to prove anything, certainly not a universal negative regarding anything. That would turn logic on its head. The burden surely is on those making the extraordinary claims or assertions to give ordinary humans a good reason to accept their assertions as plausible. I don't see where you and the rest of you imaginative friends have anything to offer as proof but smoke and mirrors, and a giant basket of words. Not nearly good enough.

[NikolaiI]

Weeping, I wasn't trying to prove anything to you, but did you see my message?

Psychology and psychotherapy deal with those things you said science doesn't. Spiritual and mental growth, etc. That is the sphere of psychotherapy - to help people grow and learn; expanding the microcasm to fit the macrocosm, etc., etc. Does this help? Again, those books I mentioned are enlightening.

And I don't know what quantifiable means, I should look it up. But science DOES deal with love! :) Really! :) Dr. Scott Peck especially I thought had some good ideas about it. It's an integral part of human lives, relationships, and both God and love psychologists talk about with their patients. I mean, yes, science deals with ego, ego boundaries, emotions, behavior and all of that.

[The Atheist]

More naked opinions - cheaper by the dozen.

Argument by assertion is the friend of those lacking evidence.


To make my point clearer - I do not say there are no leprechauns. I do not say there is no personal, caring god. I do not say there are no extraterrestrials in flying saucers kidnapping people and anally probing them. I do not say that astrology is false.

It is that I doubt that each of the above is true due to utter lack of evidence. I don't have to prove anything, certainly not a universal negative regarding anything. That would turn logic on its head. The burden surely is on those making the extraordinary claims or assertions to give ordinary humans a good reason to accept their assertions as plausible. I don't see where you and the rest of you imaginative friends have anything to offer as proof but smoke and mirrors, and a giant basket of words. Not nearly good enough.

Brilliantly put! :thumbs_up

[NikolaiI]

The soul, like the ego, is non-existant. There are parts of the brain that make us talk to ourselves, in disembodied voices, etc., which chatter on aimlessly, and there's no soul. If there were such a thing as a soul, we'd have some fifteen of them.

But, it's also accurate to say there is a soul, just as there obviously is an ego. All paradoxes may be reconciled. But we don't have more of a soul than say, a rock, or a tree, or a grain of sand.

The soul is an abstraction that doesn't really..it isn't real.

[PrinceMyshkin]

More naked opinions - cheaper by the dozen.



I never said there is no soul. Reread my post. I said that those saying that souls exist are making a naked assertion. I.e., there is no proof of such, and the burden is on those who nakedly assert such.

To make my point clearer - I do not say there are no leprechauns. I do not say there is no personal, caring god. I do not say there are no extraterrestrials in flying saucers kidnapping people and anally probing them. I do not say that astrology is false.

It is that I doubt that each of the above is true due to utter lack of evidence. I don't have to prove anything, certainly not a universal negative regarding anything. That would turn logic on its head. The burden surely is on those making the extraordinary claims or assertions to give ordinary humans a good reason to accept their assertions as plausible. I don't see where you and the rest of you imaginative friends have anything to offer as proof but smoke and mirrors, and a giant basket of words. Not nearly good enough.

You are to me a clarion voice of temperate, articulate reason. Your tone - as much and sometimes even more than your sober arguments - are sufficient rebuttal to the sometimes shrill, frightened (?) voices of the believers who cry out "Believe! Believe me! Believe me, damnit!"

[PrinceMyshkin]

The soul, like the ego, is non-existant. There are parts of the brain that make us talk to ourselves, in disembodied voices, etc., which chatter on aimlessly, and there's no soul. If there were such a thing as a soul, we'd have some fifteen of them.

But, it's also accurate to say there is a soul, just as there obviously is an ego. All paradoxes may be reconciled. But we don't have more of a soul than say, a rock, or a tree, or a grain of sand.

The soul is an abstraction that doesn't really..it isn't real.

A wonderful book and one that will support your point of view is The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes

[Gorilla King]

How about this....I don't know. I know about as much about my soul as you can prove about the creation of the universe. It's unreasonable assume that everything about God can be understood so easily. I can say that I believe we all have souls, but if science could prove something like this then it would have done so already. Besides, how do you prove something that's incorporeal?

If you want to read what Aquinas wrote on the subject, here it is: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm

[PrinceMyshkin]

“God is merely the answer that you get if you do not ask enough questions.” “Why do they hate Him?” by Anthony Gottlieb, The New Yorker, May 21, 2007, paraphrasing David Hume.

[Gorilla King]

“God is merely the answer that you get if you do not ask enough questions.” “Why do they hate Him?” by Anthony Gottlieb, The New Yorker, May 21, 2007, paraphrasing David Hume.

...and a bit further down...

"In a telling passage in the “Dialogues,” Hume has one of his characters remark that a person who openly proclaimed atheism, being guilty of “indiscretion and imprudence,” would not be very formidable.

[NikolaiI]

Ah, that is a question for psychology, though.

[Dark Star]

...and a bit further down...

"In a telling passage in the “Dialogues,” Hume has one of his characters remark that a person who openly proclaimed atheism, being guilty of “indiscretion and imprudence,” would not be very formidable.

You must take into context the environment Hume was writing these dialogues in when he wrote them. You could be executed for the crime of being an atheist on circumstantial evidence, so it was necessary not to give too much support to the atheist character in the dialogues, lest he be killed for it.

[The Atheist]

How about this....I don't know. I know about as much about my soul as you can prove about the creation of the universe.

You must know an awful lot about souls then, because we have a pretty good grip on the creation of the universe as we know it, barring a bit of doubt on the first few nanoseconds and abiogenesis.

Of the 16-odd billion years so far, we're only a couple of tiny pieces of the puzzle short. Yes, they do happen to be rather crucial pieces, but from the millions of other bits we have we're able to make educated guesses about the missing bits. So far, some of those guesses have been shown to have sufficient truth-value to be realistic hypotheses and theories. The work's still ongoing and the CERN collider may answer some the questions about the Big Bang in the next couple of years.

The concepts of "soul" and "god's design" are yet to present evidence.


It's unreasonable assume that everything about God can be understood so easily. I can say that I believe we all have souls, but if science could prove something like this then it would have done so already.

Well, I think you might be showing your lack of knowledge in regard to neuroscience, which is where these things may be answered. To suggest that we'd know already would pre-suppose that we had the brain mapped out for all of its functions. We don't. We will in due course, but this is a very new science and discoveries are being made all the time.

Whether or not god itself is an understandable subject is an ontological question I no longer concern myself with. I just stick to the basis that a god would have either left a few physical clues, or will let me know in his own good time. Personally, the complete lack of evidence long ago made me accept that the likelihood is so remote as to be pointless considering it. As I often like to say: you can lead a person to evidence, but you can't make him think.


Besides, how do you prove something that's incorporeal?

Well, obviously you don't. This is why atheists get annoyed when theists ask them to disprove god. Not possible. I know a few blokes who think they can logically disprove god, but that's not possible either, but both positions require a priori positions. Neuroscience may prove where the thoughts originate, but as has been pointed out, that won't mean that the "soul" doesn't exist. Questions like that are irrelevant to science, because it's tantamount to expecting mathematics to answer: "What is blue times 17?" Science is concerned with fact and reason, not fairy tales. So far, every thing humans have encountered has been shown to have a physical origin. Even in the case of the thankfully non-deterministic uranium 238, we can happily state that we can't necessarily tell you why, but we can certainly tell you how.


If you want to read what Aquinas wrote on the subject, here it is: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm

Dear old Tommy. Boy have I dismembered that guy! I have a large rebuttal of the Summae Theologica - it really is just child's play. At the time he lived, it probably worked quite well because science as we know it didn't exist, but now that it does, it loses immediately thanks to starting with a priori knowledge, which science cannot do. I think it's also intellectually and morally dishonest to start any proposition that way and that's why it's so simple to sweep poor old Uncle Thomas back under the mat of illogicality, where he belongs.

[weepingforloman]

I believe you are not distinguishing between theology and apologetics: Aquinas was stating a system of beliefs regarding God, not trying to defend Him from atheist argument. There IS a difference, and you should bear that in mind.

[The Atheist]

Correct - to my mind theology and apolgetics are one and the same. That's precisely why I stress Tommy's a prioriposition. To me, anything which starts with a priori belongs in the same basket as the Cottingley fairies, the Loch Ness monster and Leprechauns. Whichever way you choose to argue theology, the premise commences with "god...." Illegal tactic in my book. Reason starts with "what's going on here?"

JGL is a far more tolerant type than me, I have a fairly strict dividing line which works like this:

Strong evidence>>>>>>>weak evidence>>>>>>incredibly weak evidence/No evidence.

Everything to the right of the slash receives no consideration or favour. Everything to the left will receive consideration depending on the strength of the evidence. God, paranormality, fairies and Bertrand Russell's teapot don't make the grade.

[weepingforloman]

What may not be evidence to you may be to another. Regardless, theology and apologetics are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. Theology, as a necessity, begins with the "given" (in the mathematical/logical sense) that God is existent. Theology's target audience is NOT the unconvinced, but practicing believers looking to learn more. I would not declare a science textbook a failure if it failed to convince me that evolution occurs, and you should not judge a theological book on the way it "proves" God.

[Redzeppelin]

Of the 16-odd billion years so far, we're only a couple of tiny pieces of the puzzle short. Yes, they do happen to be rather crucial pieces, but from the millions of other bits we have we're able to make educated guesses about the missing bits. So far, some of those guesses have been shown to have sufficient truth-value to be realistic hypotheses and theories. The work's still ongoing and the CERN collider may answer some the questions about the Big Bang in the next couple of years.

My, my - look at those qualifiers. (My bolding)


Whether or not god itself is an understandable subject is an ontological question I no longer concern myself with. I just stick to the basis that a god would have either left a few physical clues, or will let me know in his own good time.

Former atheists like C.S. Lewis realized - upon his conversion - that God indeed left plenty of "evidence" lying around for those willing to see it. Lewis also learned that God was indeed trying to "let him know" about His [God's] existence; many times, it takes us a long time and a lot of mistakes, missteps and bad choices to finally reach the ends of ourselves and be open to listen to the quiet voice of God. God will not "ravish" - He will only quietly "woo" us towards Him - in ways that are so subtle that we often will not realize until much later that these seemingly random and arbitrary events were actually God's drawing us towards Him. Even now, He is working on you. Trust me.


Personally, the complete lack of evidence long ago made me accept that the likelihood is so remote as to be pointless considering it. As I often like to say: you can lead a person to evidence, but you can't make him think.

In terms of sentence #2 - I feel the same way.
In terms of sentence #1 - the "evidence" thing is so, so tired. Once one decides that there isn't enough "evidence" for God (which occurred primarily because the individual already decided that God wasn't possible before examining the "evidence" -whatever that is) one must now accept whatever seemingly reasonable (no matter how great the odds) explanation as to why/how we got here. The odds against abiogenesis are significant - but once one decides God cannot be real, one must now accept the possibility of life based upon numbers that are so huge as to enter the "God-realm" of unbelievability.



Dear old Tommy. Boy have I dismembered that guy! I have a large rebuttal of the Summae Theologica - it really is just child's play.

This requires no comment - it speaks for itself.


Correct - to my mind theology and apolgetics are one and the same.

Any dictionary will nicely point out the clear difference between the two.


JGL is a far more tolerant type than me, I have a fairly strict dividing line which works like this:

Strong evidence>>>>>>>weak evidence>>>>>>incredibly weak evidence/No evidence.

Everything to the right of the slash receives no consideration or favour. Everything to the left will receive consideration depending on the strength of the evidence. God, paranormality, fairies and Bertrand Russell's teapot don't make the grade.

"Evidence" very much takes its meaning and significance from inside the frame of reference from within which we examine it - context matters, because context will often supply the "angle" from which we interpret [a subjective process, I remind you] the "evidence." Strong and weak are qualifiers that simply help us understand the nature of the "frame" you're using to interpret your evidence, because ID scientists have a different opinion on what strong and weak evidence actually is (as do evolutionary scientists). Not all evidence is objectively "strong" or "weak" - often it is termed so because it "fits" well inside the interpretive "frame" one has decided to use. Astute Christians and atheists alike see and admit to this.

[Dark Star]

Once one decides that there isn't enough "evidence" for God (which occurred primarily because the individual already decided that God wasn't possible before examining the "evidence" -whatever that is) one must now accept whatever seemingly reasonable (no matter how great the odds) explanation as to why/how we got here. The odds against abiogenesis are significant - but once one decides God cannot be real, one must now accept the possibility of life based upon numbers that are so huge as to enter the "God-realm" of unbelievability.

I love the well poisoning you've done here. It essentially amounts to "If you haven't found any evidence that God exists it's because you didn't want to find it and were already an atheist." This certainly doesn't account for I, who as a Christian searched and searched for evidence of the existence of such a being hoping it was there and came up with....absolutely nothing. And this is before the problem of evil overtook me and I lost faith in a benevolent deity. It certainly wasn't a case of not trying, or having decided the evidence wasn't there, there was just none to be found. He seemed to have left no physical traces of his existence, nor could I find a philosophical proof of his existence that wasn't easily torn apart. And, while abiogenesis is still in hypothesis form and is unproven at this point, I'd like to know why you claim that the odds against it are so high. If they were in the "God" realm of unbelievability it wouldn't even be a hypothesis.

[weepingforloman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought abiogenesis was the idea that organic life arose from inanimate matter... And furthermore, I thought this was generally discredited. Unless, of course, you choose to mean that the "primordial ooze" combined with electricity produced life.

[JGL57]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought abiogenesis was the idea that organic life arose from inanimate matter... And furthermore, I thought this was generally discredited. Unless, of course, you choose to mean that the "primordial ooze" combined with electricity produced life.

You are confusing two different concepts.

1. Complex life spontaneously springing from inanimate matter (the maggots in a jar of mud is the proverbial example) has been discredited by science. So far, so good.

2. The evidence that life evolved slowly, in stages, over billions of years, from inanimate matter is considered as obvious as any scientific understanding, by actual scientists, not creationists with an obvious agenda.

To repeat: #1 and #2 are completely different considerations.

Have a nice day.

[weepingforloman]

I was thinking of the former. I had never heard the term connected to the modern concept of evolution.

[Dark Star]

It's not connected, per se. They're two different theories (well, one is a theory and one is a hypothesis). Evolution deals with how things evolved; abiogenesis deals with how it all started.

[The Atheist]

Astute Christians and atheists alike see and admit to this.

There you go, I'll agree with this part!

Those "astute christians" do in fact exist and I know a large number of them - ones who are able to assimilate and understand the evidence.

None of them are creationists.


I love the well poisoning you've done here. It essentially amounts to "If you haven't found any evidence that God exists it's because you didn't want to find it and were already an atheist." This certainly doesn't account for I, who as a Christian searched and searched for evidence of the existence of such a being hoping it was there and came up with....absolutely nothing. And this is before the problem of evil overtook me and I lost faith in a benevolent deity. It certainly wasn't a case of not trying, or having decided the evidence wasn't there, there was just none to be found. He seemed to have left no physical traces of his existence, nor could I find a philosophical proof of his existence that wasn't easily torn apart. And, while abiogenesis is still in hypothesis form and is unproven at this point, I'd like to know why you claim that the odds against it are so high. If they were in the "God" realm of unbelievability it wouldn't even be a hypothesis.

Brilliantly stated, I'm always pleased to meet ex-christians who realised through analysis that they were on the wrong team! Very difficult to accuse you and your kind of a priori atheism.

Just regarding the odds involved in evolution, I've grown tired of explaining to Red that the numbers he is wont to quote are all completely incorrect. The people he quotes aren't even mathematicians and they are clearly not scientists as they ignore about 200 years of paleontology even before they start ignoring other parts of evolution science.

To be frank, given our current understanding of how amino acids work, and the spontaneous replication of RNA, the odds of current abiogenesis* theory being right are very, very high, not the other way around.

* Thanks to JGL for explaining the difference in perception of "abiogenesis"! It simply means that life arose from non-life, which is obvious since there was a period when no life existed on earth. No magic is required, just a little biochemistry. Also, please note that "live" things are made up of 100% "not-live" atoms.

[weepingforloman]

Regardless of the odds, or even the existence, of evolution, God is still possible. You read into the things stated by scientists and assume that there are only two options: believe what you believe the scientists have proved, or believe in God. This is simply untrue. God is not some feeble, simple minded human who cannot conceive of things like evolution. If evolution is a fact, then I will think of it simply as another example of God's intelligence and forethought.

[Dark Star]

Regardless of the odds, or even the existence, of evolution, God is still possible. You read into the things stated by scientists and assume that there are only two options: believe what you believe the scientists have proved, or believe in God. This is simply untrue. God is not some feeble, simple minded human who cannot conceive of things like evolution. If evolution is a fact, then I will think of it simply as another example of God's intelligence and forethought.

And this is fine. There are many Christian scientists who believe that God worked through evolution. Hell, the Catholic church now teaches theistic evolution. Many even argue that the idea of God working through the Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, all of these things are simply proof of how great he is....because it would take a much more intelligent designer to design all these beautiful, complex processes than to simply poof everything into being.

You seem to be looking at this from the wrong angle, though. Atheists (for the most part) don't believe that proof that we've came about through a natural means rather than simply being poofed into creation by a deity is proof
that said deity does not exist. They believe it makes the deity unnecessary, and thus, very unlikely to exist barring some evidence being given of its presence.

[weepingforloman]

Whether or not I approach the issue from the "wrong" angle, I have a new item to discuss. How could abiogenesis possibly work, given that we have no idea whatsoever what animates matter? It isn't electricity (that experiment was tried, it resulted in a few amino acids, but nothing more). It isn't oxygen (most life at the dawn of Bios is believed to have been anaerobic). So what is animation? What is life?

[Dark Star]

When you misunderstand someone's position you are looking at things from the wrong angle; you misunderstood the position of atheists. That's all I meant. The comment wasn't about agreeing or disagreeing with you.

On the topic of abiogenesis; is a good question. I'm aware that the Miller-Urey experiment managed to accomplish it, but I don't recall the specifics. I'm sadly quite far behind in books on the subject of abiogenesis and I'm not a qualified biologist (perhaps one of the board members is?) so I can't answer off-hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

This should be a good start and I'll dig up some more information on this topic as soon as I can. :)

[The Atheist]

Regardless of the odds, or even the existence, of evolution, God is still possible. You read into the things stated by scientists and assume that there are only two options: believe what you believe the scientists have proved, or believe in God. This is simply untrue. God is not some feeble, simple minded human who cannot conceive of things like evolution. If evolution is a fact, then I will think of it simply as another example of God's intelligence and forethought.

Great stuff!

This is how it should be; I keep stating that science has no interest in "disproving" god and nor do I - the key is to accept the facts, then take an ontological position based upon them. The entire Roman Catholic Church, with 2 billion adherents, accepts evolution as fact from the Pope down, yet nobody sees this as weakening their faith.

This is why I have great trouble understanding YECs - is their belief so shallow that it won't even stand up to the factual evidence we have of evolution? A sensible and astute christian is able to accept all scientific facts and still have a belief in god.


Whether or not I approach the issue from the "wrong" angle, I have a new item to discuss. How could abiogenesis possibly work, given that we have no idea whatsoever what animates matter? It isn't electricity (that experiment was tried, it resulted in a few amino acids, but nothing more). It isn't oxygen (most life at the dawn of Bios is believed to have been anaerobic). So what is animation? What is life?(bolding mine)

This is probably the greatest question there is - what is life?

The answer is actually quite simple - the difference between "life" and "not life" is a purely human construction.

Think of pure carbon. Under one set of circumstances, it becomes coal, under a different one, it becomes diamond. Viruses and prions are not alive as we understand the word, yet they behave like living organisms. Crystals grow as do trees. Which one is "alive"? Take a ponga fern (native tree of NZ). You can cut it down and cut its trunk into sections - it is as dead as a tree could be, yet put one end of a log into a bucket of water months after it's been cut up and it will return to "life", sprouting fronds and roots.

[weepingforloman]

With regards to the tree, bacteria employ a similar mechanism-- I believe it is a form of dormancy.

As to the carbon, that is a chemical, not a biological process.

However, I agree that the line between animate and inanimate is often blurred.

[Chatworthy]

A very well written scientific document I am reading right now is titled "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" by Norma L Geisler and Frank Turek. I believe this provides great insights on much of these ongoing discussions that an objective mind will find very insightful.

I recommend that any of you who say you need proof see this well constructed book as it is relevant to both those who say they are open-minded as well as those who really are open-minded to receive clearly understood TRUTH, the thing I seek the most and beleive you all do as well.

Blessings to you all in this critical search for life and legacy.

[Gorilla King]

A very well written scientific document I am reading right now is titled "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" by Norma L Geisler and Frank Turek. I believe this provides great insights on much of these ongoing discussions that an objective mind will find very insightful.

I recommend that any of you who say you need proof see this well constructed book as it is relevant to both those who say they are open-minded as well as those who really are open-minded to receive clearly understood TRUTH, the thing I seek the most and beleive you all do as well.

Blessings to you all in this critical search for life and legacy.

I haven't read the book you've mentioned, but I have studied many of Geisler's works in my classes and I second your recommendation.

[The Atheist]

A very well written scientific document I am reading right now is titled "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" by Norma L Geisler and Frank Turek. I believe this provides great insights on much of these ongoing discussions that an objective mind will find very insightful.

bolding mine.

Given that Geisler's doctorate is in philosophy and Turek's is in apologetics, where does science come into it? There's certainly some pseudo-science in it, in particular the chapters on evolution, where the authors make several mistakes about what evolution science says.

It's a very well-written book, but please don't describe it as any relation to a scientific document - it demonstrably is not.

[Redzeppelin]

I love the well poisoning you've done here. It essentially amounts to "If you haven't found any evidence that God exists it's because you didn't want to find it and were already an atheist."

No well-poisoning occured. You have greatly simplified the point I was making and called its logic fallacious. Wrong. "Evidence" for or against God does not exist in an objective form that is inarguable. Ditto for much of what evolutionists use to argue their position. The evidence takes its meaning from the context within which it is evaluated. I didn't say atheists didn't "want to find" evidence - my point was that once we have picked a philosophical position that evidence that opposes our position will often lack validity for one reason or another. Skeptics who look for God will more than likely not find Him in the way they're looking for Him. He cannot be found by the tools that agnostics and atheists wish to use because faith disappears beneath such things, and faith is really, really important to God.


This certainly doesn't account for I, who as a Christian searched and searched for evidence of the existence of such a being hoping it was there and came up with....absolutely nothing.

And what kind of "evidence" did you want? If you wanted "hard" empirical evidence, then you already had - perhaps unconsciously - decided that God isn't real. Paul tells us that our focus is not on what is seen, but what is unseen.


And this is before the problem of evil overtook me and I lost faith in a benevolent deity. It certainly wasn't a case of not trying, or having decided the evidence wasn't there, there was just none to be found. He seemed to have left no physical traces of his existence, nor could I find a philosophical proof of his existence that wasn't easily torn apart. And, while abiogenesis is still in hypothesis form and is unproven at this point, I'd like to know why you claim that the odds against it are so high. If they were in the "God" realm of unbelievability it wouldn't even be a hypothesis.

First, if there is some trial or tragedy at the heart of your current beliefs about God - I am sorry. Loss, suffering, tragedy is capable of trying us beyond what we believe our faith can absorb. I believe that is the lesson of Job - sometimes we suffer and God seems absent and un-answering - but God does eventually appear. Galatians 6:9-10 tells us "Let us do right without tiring for at its proper time we shall reap if we do not give up." C.S. Lewis said in The Screwtape Letters that Satan's kingdom is never more in danger than it is when the Christian looks around at a universe in which God seems to have disappeared and serves in obedience anyway.

The odds of abiogenesis have been calculated based upon our knowledge of molecular biochemistry. The odds are staggeringly against the development of life from random chemicals and chance.

[Dark Star]

Now, see, you're doing the same thing again. "You had already sub-consciously decided he didn't exist." I wanted a prayer to be answered, some sign from him, anything, really and I found nothing. I don't know what exactly you expect that I would have found....however, when people insist that 'the proof of God is everywhere' it seemed reasonable that I would find something whether spiritual or natural that pointed to his existence. Nothing did.

I'd also like to see your source about the odds for abiogenesis being so low.

[PrinceMyshkin]

So much of this seems circular to me, and over-ingenious, e.g.


"Evidence" for or against God does not exist in an objective form that is inarguable.

Why on earth not? Creationists claim that the whole of the universe and all livings things were created by God, which would seem to argue that there is abundant objective, material evidence of God's existence; but where and what is it?


I didn't say atheists didn't "want to find" evidence - my point was that once we have picked a philosophical position that evidence that opposes our position will often lack validity for one reason or another. Skeptics who look for God will more than likely not find Him in the way they're looking for Him. He cannot be found by the tools that agnostics and atheists wish to use because faith disappears beneath such things, and faith is really, really important to God.

Which surely applies equally to believers who want to and do find evidence of God's existence? And as for "He cannot be found by the tools that agnostics and atheists wish to use because faith disappears beneath such things" this seems to me to argue that the fact that God cannot be found is per se proof that he exists! He can only be found, therefore, when he has already been found!


And what kind of "evidence" did you want? If you wanted "hard" empirical evidence, then you already had - perhaps unconsciously - decided that God isn't real. Paul tells us that our focus is not on what is seen, but what is unseen.

Once again, the fact that He cannot be seen is of itself sufficient evidence that He exists.

[kilted exile]

I really do see the whole odds argument as completely irrelevent. Whether you believe the odds are as poor as some portray it or better as suggested by others doesnt make a difference. We use odds in a comparative sense, if there is no alternative odds to compare to it doesnt matter.

[The Atheist]

I really do see the whole odds argument as completely irrelevent. Whether you believe the odds are as poor as some portray it or better as suggested by others doesnt make a difference. We use odds in a comparative sense, if there is no alternative odds to compare to it doesnt matter.

That's almost a good point, and philosophically-speaking, it's a very good point. The only issue I have with it is plain accuracy.

Unless arguments are kept to the strictly philosophical, and YECs clearly don't*, such facts as are presented must be accurate. A view I hear expressed is that it's good that fundies and YECs use erroneous data to propel their agendas because it shows that they have no actual evidence.

I take the opposing view - that few people are significantly able to use calculus to understand whether mathematical answers given are true or false, so accuracy is important. I haven't yet met a YEC who doesn't repeat data which has been proven time after time to be incorrect.

It's not going to change anyone's mind which has already been made, but it might stop the uninitiated being sucked into a pool of deceit.

Call me pedantic. :D

*the age of the planet being top of the list.

[kilted exile]

That's almost a good point

WOOT!!! maybe if I try hard enough I might manage to make a completely good point by the end of the year;) :p :lol:

[weepingforloman]

Yeah, that's something to shoot for. If I'm lucky, maybe I'll see you there in a decade or so.

[Chatworthy]

bolding mine.

Given that Geisler's doctorate is in philosophy and Turek's is in apologetics, where does science come into it? There's certainly some pseudo-science in it, in particular the chapters on evolution, where the authors make several mistakes about what evolution science says.

It's a very well-written book, but please don't describe it as any relation to a scientific document - it demonstrably is not.
I appreciate your perspective respecting degrees, but we know degrees mean you "can be taught". Beyond a person's specificity is breadth that can have depth as well.

These authors have demonsrated clear understanding of the points of science pertaining to this discussion, at its base, and have used this accurate understanding to build from this solid foundation of reasoning, a foundation that all of us can grasp w/o too much confusion.

As you explore this book, see if some new posits come to you and also see if you are able to accept the points regarding skepticism, agnosticsm and atheism as accurately explained therein.

Along with these, see the references to well known scientists, both atheist and Christian, along with their quotes as they have come to know more of our beginnings and the actual truth of the very beginning of time/space/matter...the Big Bang. Quite exciting actually!

[Redzeppelin]

Now, see, you're doing the same thing again. "You had already sub-consciously decided he didn't exist." I wanted a prayer to be answered, some sign from him, anything, really and I found nothing. I don't know what exactly you expect that I would have found....however, when people insist that 'the proof of God is everywhere' it seemed reasonable that I would find something whether spiritual or natural that pointed to his existence. Nothing did.

*sigh* Look, I am discussing something called presuppositionalism, which basically asserts that there is no such thing as pure objectivity and that all reasoning is ultimately circular in nature. What that means is this: by the time we are able to intellectually reason, we have more than likely already "downloaded" into our brains a number of "context screens" through which we process reality - if you're over the age of 40, talk to a few teenagers and see the kinds of things that they take for granted as being true - things that perhaps your generation saw very differently. That's all I'm trying to say here. I'm sorry you didn't get your sign - but God doesn't always answer in ways we expect, want, or like. That you didn't get what you desired doesn't mean God doesn't exist - it means that you didn't get what you wanted.


I'd also like to see your source about the odds for abiogenesis being so low.

Dismantling Evolution, by Ralph O. Muncaster. ISBN #0-7369-0464-6.
Mr. Muncaster examines the mathematical odds of abiogenesis of the first cell at roughly 1 in 10 to the 33,133rd power (the equivalent of winning 4700 lotteries in a row with a single ticket for each). Borel's Single Law of Chance says that odds greater than 1 in 10 to the 50th power are zero.


So much of this seems circular to me, and over-ingenious, e.g.

Cf. above for circularity problem in my position.



Why on earth not? Creationists claim that the whole of the universe and all livings things were created by God, which would seem to argue that there is abundant objective, material evidence of God's existence; but where and what is it?

"Evidence" on both sides of the "where did we come from?" table both require interpretation - that's where the "context screens" come into play in terms of making the evidence convincing.


Which surely applies equally to believers who want to and do find evidence of God's existence? And as for "He cannot be found by the tools that agnostics and atheists wish to use because faith disappears beneath such things" this seems to me to argue that the fact that God cannot be found is per se proof that he exists! He can only be found, therefore, when he has already been found!

To a certain extent, you're right: God cannot be found by those seeking Him for the wrong reasons; He is found by those seeking Him for the right reasons.



Once again, the fact that He cannot be seen is of itself sufficient evidence that He exists.

I suppose so (?).

[Chatworthy]

bolding mine.

Given that Geisler's doctorate is in philosophy and Turek's is in apologetics, where does science come into it? There's certainly some pseudo-science in it, in particular the chapters on evolution, where the authors make several mistakes about what evolution science says.

It's a very well-written book, but please don't describe it as any relation to a scientific document - it demonstrably is not.
It’s important to understand what most businesses understand that a degree means "you can be taught". A degree does not limit understanding but is a reasonable proof that understanding can be attained.

Both of these authors have broadened their understanding and gained significant depth in the real meaning of science and its purpose.

They do a very good job of accurately explaining this and defining skepticism, agnosticism and atheism in this book.

They also have taken the work and writings of both scientists who are Christians and who are not and demonstrated the fact of "faith" being involved with these perspectives in their related studies and reasonable conclusions of life's beginnings and again, they are very reasonable in their presentation of real facts, not made up stuff, though it points to the wishful thinking of some of our well known Darwinists as well. A very insightful read.

[NikolaiI]

No well-poisoning occured. You have greatly simplified the point I was making and called its logic fallacious. Wrong. "Evidence" for or against God does not exist in an objective form that is inarguable. Ditto for much of what evolutionists use to argue their position. The evidence takes its meaning from the context within which it is evaluated. I didn't say atheists didn't "want to find" evidence - my point was that once we have picked a philosophical position that evidence that opposes our position will often lack validity for one reason or another. Skeptics who look for God will more than likely not find Him in the way they're looking for Him. He cannot be found by the tools that agnostics and atheists wish to use because faith disappears beneath such things, and faith is really, really important to God.



It's all an illusion. Everything you think and believe, none of that is real. This world, this nature, is illusion. When I say Christianity doesn't exist, it's not that I hold Christians in contempt, or anything like that. Christians don't exist. Atheists don't. Countries don't either. I know you've stopped listening, but hang on. There's no such thing as you or me. We're only parts of a whole, just like two parts of a body. Two animals in nature are two parts of a whole, and they are made up of parts themselves. Time, by Alan Watts, on youtube, is an amazingly eloquent way of talking about this.

[Gorilla King]

It's all an illusion. Everything you think and believe, none of that is real. This world, this nature, is illusion. When I say Christianity doesn't exist, it's not that I hold Christians in contempt, or anything like that. Christians don't exist. Atheists don't. Countries don't either. I know you've stopped listening, but hang on. There's no such thing as you or me. We're only parts of a whole, just like two parts of a body. Two animals in nature are two parts of a whole, and they are made up of parts themselves. Time, by Alan Watts, on youtube, is an amazingly eloquent way of talking about this.

What then is not an illusion?

[Bakiryu]

Are we in the Matrix, then? *Confused*

[NikolaiI]

I guess, it's not that everything is an illusion, it's the way we look at things where everything is an illusion. I didn't mean a matrix type thing, where we are hooked up to machines in the real world, etc. This world is real and there's not another one out there. What's before my eyes is real, but the way I look at it is decidedly delusional.

If someone wants a connection to God, they will seek it in their hearts and they will look for goodness, and good in all people. Not in the church, or words, or rhetoric or theology. Christian theology and history is all mythology, which is obvious, if you look at a larger picture. If you look at things from an unobstructed point of view, you see a world, a people, and lots of different religions fighting for dominance, all with equally legitimate claims on divine right.

You can't predict the future, and you can't change the world. I mean you can't control people. The way to affect things is to live or not live you own life as you choose.


And as for the other, if we realize we are not seperate from those around us, then doing what's right becomes easier and makes more sense. When you cut your arm you do not hesitate to bandage it, you just automatically do. And we are all part of something bigger, so why do we fight against ourselves? That's what I meant by illusion, the illusion of self and world, etc.

[Gorilla King]

Nevermind.

I know there's a philosophical system like this but I can't remember what it's called. Do you know?

[NikolaiI]

There's no such thing as a philisophical system. ;)

No, but about the other, I really meant it about Alan Watts. Check this out: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rTaklXTSDPE

It's only a couple of minutes and it's well worth it.

[Gorilla King]

There's no such thing as a philisophical system. ;)

No, but about the other, I really meant it about Alan Watts. Check this out: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rTaklXTSDPE

It's only a couple of minutes and it's well worth it.

Interesting guy. Who is he? I understand what he's saying about everything being an event, but at the same time I think he overlooks the fact that events require things to be events. For instance, to use his own kind of example, if you throw a punch then you are punching, but remove the fist and the arm and there's nothing. Therefore, action stems from existence. Moreover, existence can only be perceived by consciousness. Therefore, existence stems from consciousness. And if existence stems from consciousness, then either we would be inclined to say that prior to sentient being the universe did not exist as such because there was nothing to perceive it or we could argue that it existed in the mind of it's Creator and therefore the action which stems from existence would stem from consciousness which would stem from a Creator.

[NikolaiI]

Interesting guy. Who is he? I understand what he's saying about everything being an event, but at the same time I think he overlooks the fact that events require things to be events. For instance, to use his own kind of example, if you throw a punch then you are punching, but remove the fist and the arm and there's nothing. Therefore, action stems from existence. Moreover, existence can only be perceived by consciousness. Therefore, existence stems from consciousness. And if existence stems from consciousness, then either we would be inclined to say that prior to sentient being the universe did not exist as such because there was nothing to perceive it or we could argue that it existed in the mind of it's Creator and therefore the action which stems from existence would stem from consciousness which would stem from a Creator.


Well, I am trying to get through it now - I do remember a closed fist/open palm example, but don't remember precisely what he was saying. So I can't quite relate it to your example. But I don't quite follow your arguments.

Oh, okay, the fisting example. Personally I think he used that partially just to say fisting in an innocent way. :) I think he was still on the point of whirlpool vs. whirlpooling. We should ask JGL for a better analysis. :)


Well, I read your post a couple of times, and don't really see your argument. You are punching, but if you take the arm away, you aren't punching, so action stems from existence. This makes sense but seems off-topic. And I don't see how you connected this to consciousness. I mean, planets and stars exist. Us knowing about it applies to us, not them.

Planets and stars I am not conscious of might seem not to exist, unless I imagine them, but that's only in a subjective sense. In reality, they do exist, yet to be discovered by me. If I know about something but then somehow completely forget about it, it doesn't affect that thing, only me.

[Gorilla King]

But can you define something as reality which cannot be perceived? If yes, then you've made a very good argument for God. If not, then reality requires a perceiver which is also an excellent argument for God.

[NikolaiI]

But can you define something as reality which cannot be perceived? If yes, then you've made a very good argument for God. If not, then reality requires a perceiver which is also an excellent argument for God.

I never follow your arguments, lol. :)

There are certain things we will never perceive. For example, the texture of a planet on the other side of the universe. We'll never know what that's like.

Anyway, I guess the range of our perceptions has grown a lot over the centuries..

something which cannot be perceived, to define it as reality..

I don't think it works quite like that. If something exists, it exists. If something doesn't, it doesn't. I don't need to perceive it for it to exist or not, or even to believe it does or not. Existence is not based on perception, i.e., the stars analogy. Stars I do not know of might still exist, yet to be discovered, etc.


So, what did you mean?

[Gorilla King]

I never follow your arguments, lol. :)

There are certain things we will never perceive. For example, the texture of a planet on the other side of the universe. We'll never know what that's like.

Anyway, I guess the range of our perceptions has grown a lot over the centuries..

something which cannot be perceived, to define it as reality..

I don't think it works quite like that. If something exists, it exists. If something doesn't, it doesn't. I don't need to perceive it for it to exist or not, or even to believe it does or not. Existence is not based on perception, i.e., the stars analogy. Stars I do not know of might still exist, yet to be discovered, etc.


So, what did you mean?

Well let's take the star example. When you look in the night sky you may very well be seeing the light from thousands of visible stars. However, given the nature of light and the vastness of the universe, many of those stars may not even exist within the context of their own time and space. Therefore, you are perceiving a star where there is nothing. Similarly, you may look out and see the blackness of space. However, there may very well be a new star in that void whose light hasn't reached us yet. In both cases, our interpretation of reality is dependant on perception. Mind you, I'm not saying reality itself, merely our interpretation of it. The point being, that we as humans are limited in our ability to perceive and there may very well be things beyond our own concept of perception which are reality by nature but not by traditional interpretation.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Well let's take the star example. When you look in the night sky you may very well be seeing the light from thousands of visible stars. However, given the nature of light and the vastness of the universe, many of those stars may not even exist within the context of their own time and space. Therefore, you are perceiving a star where there is nothing. Similarly, you may look out and see the blackness of space. However, there may very well be a new star in that void whose light hasn't reached us yet. In both cases, our interpretation of reality is dependant on perception. Mind you, I'm not saying reality itself, merely our interpretation of it. The point being, that we as humans are limited in our ability to perceive and there may very well be things beyond our own concept of perception which are reality by nature but not by traditional interpretation.

An analogy that might very well apply both ways! When you study words that have come from the distant past, you may very well be hearing the words of thousands of figures from the past. However, given the nature of the oral trafition and the manual coying and recopying of texts, many of those original messages may not even be valid outside the context of their own time and space. Therefore, you are perceiving a "truth" where there is nothing... In both cases, our interpretation of reality is dependant on perception. Mind you, I'm not saying reality itself, merely our interpretation of it. The point being, that we as humans are limited in our ability to perceive and there may very well be things beyond our own concept of perception which are reality by nature but not by traditional interpretation. Or which are taken to be reality but are the product of ingrained belief.

[Gorilla King]

An analogy that might very well apply both ways! When you study words that have come from the distant past, you may very well be hearing the words of thousands of figures from the past. However, given the nature of the oral trafition and the manual coying and recopying of texts, many of those original messages may not even be valid outside the context of their own time and space. Therefore, you are perceiving a "truth" where there is nothing... In both cases, our interpretation of reality is dependant on perception. Mind you, I'm not saying reality itself, merely our interpretation of it. The point being, that we as humans are limited in our ability to perceive and there may very well be things beyond our own concept of perception which are reality by nature but not by traditional interpretation. Or which are taken to be reality but are the product of ingrained belief.

And just as telescopes enhance our own ability to perceive in space, so too do hermeneutics, exegesis and textual criticism enhance our ability to understand ancient texts within their original context. It doesn't hurt that there's far more manuscripts of the bible than any other ancient work either.

[PrinceMyshkin]

And just as telescopes enhance our own ability to perceive in space, so too do hermeneutics, exegesis and textual criticism enhance our ability to understand ancient texts within their original context. It doesn't hurt that there's far more manuscripts of the bible than any other ancient work either.

I find your analogy to be facile & false, a bit of sophistry. Hermenuetics is the art or science of the interpretation of literature. "Art or science," but hardly as precise an instrument as is the telescope. Hermeutics can never be more than guesswork, well-informed guesswork, perhaps, but guesswork all the same.

[Gorilla King]

I find your analogy to be facile & false, a bit of sophistry. Hermenuetics is the art or science of the interpretation of literature. "Art or science," but hardly as precise an instrument as is the telescope. Hermeutics can never be more than guesswork, well-informed guesswork, perhaps, but guesswork all the same.

Seems like you really turn your nose up at anything that isn't strict science. Not a fan of studying history?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Seems like you really turn your nose up at anything that isn't strict science. Not a fan of studying history?

By history do you include the Crusades? the Spanish Inquisitions? the scandalous behaviours of many of the Popes? Luther's infamous anti-Semitic diatribe? The many Church councils that legislated this or that or revised the work of previous councils?