Evolution vs. Creation

<OK. Then by that channel of thinking, that giving limitless time CANNOT make the IMPOSSIBLE happen, then I will chose to put no faith in any principle of science based on chance.>

If something happens based on chance, then it disproves its impossibility does it not? If something is impossible, it simply cannot happen, no matter what mix of chance and infinity your recipe concocts.

<When science wishes to disprove claims of anything supernatural taking place, the first thing they do is calculate the odds of it happening by mere chance.>

If something happens in nature, no matter how wild the probability of it happening, then, in my book, it ceases to be considered supernatural. In fact, I think the term supernatural seems to me to be a nonsense term. I've just looked it up in the dictionary, and fail to understand what it can mean: "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." How can something in the natural world be above or beyond nature? Its existence in our world must make it natural. Being unexplained by natural law or phenomena says more about our own understanding/ignorance of the natural world then it does about the natural world itself. So it appears to me that the term supernatural is merely used to describe ignorance. Peoples of the past must have described all kinds of natural phenomena as supernatural.

<"Eliminate the 'chance factor', and maybe we have solid fact with which to work." That seems to be the major maxim, and I do not disagree.>

I don't really know what you are talking about here.

<But it is fine to allow infinite tries to make chance take place, but not something you do not wish to believe in anyway. OK. Just so we know where we stand. >

I'm confused about this too I'm afraid. What do you mean about infinite tries and chance taking place? Chance doesn't take place. Chance is a calculation based on things that take place. Infinite tries do not an impossibility make. Supposing we say that God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. This is obviously a contradiction in terms. No matter how much time you allow, I'm afraid it will still be a contradiction in terms.

Science, as I understand it, takes the most efficient explanation for physical events. So the most sufficient explanation that requires the least amount of improbable factors will be favoured. Any physical explanation of the Universe will be more probable than a religious explanation. If only because reference will be made to evidences of what we empirically already have discovered. Any explanation relying on deism or theism, is dependent on postulations that cannot be weighed up in terms of probability. Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous. I may as well say that xfgmnsad made the Universe. It will have as much meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Science, as I understand it, takes the most efficient explanation for physical events. So the most sufficient explanation that requires the least amount of improbable factors will be favoured. Any physical explanation of the Universe will be more probable than a religious explanation. If only because reference will be made to evidences of what we empirically already have discovered. Any explanation relying on deism or theism, is dependent on postulations that cannot be weighed up in terms of probability. Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous. I may as well say that xfgmnsad made the Universe. It will have as much meaning.

---

Exactly. This should end the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

If something happens based on chance, then it disproves its impossibility does it not? If something is impossible, it simply cannot happen, no matter what mix of chance and infinity your recipe concocts.

---

That depends upon a number of factors. Many experts once contended that manned flight was "impossible."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

If something happens in nature, no matter how wild the probability of it happening, then, in my book, it ceases to be considered supernatural. In fact, I think the term supernatural seems to me to be a nonsense term. I've just looked it up in the dictionary, and fail to understand what it can mean: "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." How can something in the natural world be above or beyond nature? Its existence in our world must make it natural. Being unexplained by natural law or phenomena says more about our own understanding/ignorance of the natural world then it does about the natural world itself. So it appears to me that the term supernatural is merely used to describe ignorance. Peoples of the past must have described all kinds of natural phenomena as supernatural.

---

Something that happens once, in violation of the known laws of nature cannot be defined as "natural." If we had precise records of the sun for the last 5000 years and only once was it recorded that it traversed the sky from west to east, we would call that "supernatural." What you're suggesting is based on ignorance of perhaps an unknown law, but when things occur in opposition to known laws without any way to explain them, it seems perfectly logical to call them "beyond natural" events because they are aberrations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Infinite tries do not an impossibility make.

---

But infinity opens up the door for an inconsistent result of an experiment. Inductive reasoning tells us that because 1000 rocks thrown at 1000 windows shatter said windows that it's a pretty safe bet to say that rocks thrown at windows shatter them. However, who is to say that on the 10,345th try that the same rock thrown does not break a window? Now you have an exception. That's the nature of inductive logic: you're working with probability. An infinite number of tries opens up the possibility for exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Supposing we say that God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. This is obviously a contradiction in terms. No matter how much time you allow, I'm afraid it will still be a contradiction in terms.

---

But since your example deals with logic as applied to the system of language, you have provided an example that is not comparable to the idea that infinity makes the existence of God possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Science, as I understand it, takes the most efficient explanation for physical events. So the most sufficient explanation that requires the least amount of improbable factors will be favoured. Any physical explanation of the Universe will be more probable than a religious explanation. If only because reference will be made to evidences of what we empirically already have discovered. Any explanation relying on deism or theism, is dependent on postulations that cannot be weighed up in terms of probability. Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous. I may as well say that xfgmnsad made the Universe. It will have as much meaning.

---

Science is reassuring to us because it speaks in a limited language that we can understand. Because it is limited by the humans that create/implement it, of course it seems more reasonable because - for the most part (at least until we start discussing some of the odds for evolutionary development) - it gives us facts and numbers we can comprehend. The idea that a Supreme Being created the universe actually gives the simplest answer - it is science's answer that requires astronomical numbers and coincedences. The term "improbable" is used to describe plenty of things we can't conceive of - but many people throughout history could not conceive of many of the most basic tools we have the advantage of today. Nonetheless, science possesses it's own catelog of facts that are less than verified, and require a certain amount of faith in that they present some rather improbable numbers and statistics to prove its points - many of which are based on the speculative nature of inductive reasoning.

Science seems more believable simply because it has limits, like we do. Once we start dealing with a Being that has always existed and is all powerful, well, we wish to dismiss that because we can't conceive of it so it must not be true. How much of our modern technology could a medieval peasant conceive of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Exactly. This should end the argument.

---

Oh darn. Was I supposed to stop now?

As if it is really that difficult to be honest in spite of our inclinations and predispositions. Who does not want to be the best? Who does not want to rely on their own understanding? I think it is so very presumptuous of any man or woman to think that they have the answer to the origination of the cosmos. Some believe in a transcendent God, while others believe in the miracle of life unintended. Either way they are both clearly walks of faith. Some shroud themselves in religion, while others do the same with the covering of science; both clearly human constructs create to provide answers to questions that cannot be answered. But still, the argument continues, and the clash magnifies the human condition of the purely imperfect. In truth, I comes down to the reality that mankind longs to clean on to some understanding, even if the pursuit divides. Do we not all need to stand strong against an opponent? Our existence is the mark of a momentary lifespan riddled with unsatiation.

Theism is based on beliefs and faith...things that cannot be proven in the physical universe. Any shred of evidence given off by science is more concrete than creationism because it can be proven in the physical realm. God is imaginary...it does not physically exist...it's a conjecture. I can't believe this is even an argument.

"feed powdered cattle to cattle" and "gullibility" has to do with the validity of evolution?
Scientific theories are treated as indisputable fact by those who make science and its agents their god and priests. Some post here. Some of us are not so gullible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

Scientific theories are treated as indisputable fact by those who make science and its agents their god and priests.

---

This is nonsense. Could you please provide one example of anyone that says science is god or that the folks that dedicate their lives to better understanding the universe are its priests? Please, what tripe!

What was the last science course you had, and where did you take it? Here's what they teach at the University of Rochester, but its pretty much the same everywhere:

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

Now where does it say that scientific theories are to be treated as indisputable facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Theism is based on beliefs and faith...things that cannot be proven in the physical universe. Any shred of evidence given off by science is more concrete than creationism because it can be proven in the physical realm. God is imaginary...it does not physically exist...it's a conjecture. I can't believe this is even an argument.

---

The fact that it is an argument (and has been for a number of decades [at minimum]) should be enough to show that your simple reduction of the debate into "there's no evidence for God so there" is insufficient and does not take into account the inductive nature of science which can only prove so much and must rely upon a certain degree of educated speculation to draw its conclusions. Note that I am not arguing for the existence of God so much as I am asking you to consider the "holes" (however small) that science contains within it. To repeat myself: science can prove pretty irrefutably many, many things - but evolution it cannot. It can put forth a reasonably convincing case - but that's not definitive.

Secondly, your quick dismissal of this argument is only valid if every aspect of life can be understood and explained by scientific processes and "evidence." Please don't expect me to believe that every single aspect of the life you live, the attitudes you have, the beliefs you hold are due to "evidence." You yourself (if I recall correctly and correct me if I'm wrong) have indicated that you believe in a Divine Being - got proof (or a "shred of evidence") for that particular belief? By your own reasoning, that is an absurd belief because it cannot be proved.

I believe in a divine being but I don't base my reason off it. I don't have a divine being influencing my actions and decisions. In fact, I don't care if there is a divine being or not.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm just read it

You make it seem as if evolution is just a "guess"...as if we have no evidence whatsoever. What's "not definitive" is the fact that you base your theory of human existence off a parable/myth in the bible.

It's sick to watch some of you educated people lower yourselves down to creationism. http://anthropology.net/user/kambiz_...e_in_evolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

I believe in a divine being but I don't base my reason off it. I don't have a divine being influencing my actions and decisions. In fact, I don't care if there is a divine being or not.

---

Then why bother to believe in one at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

You make it seem as if evolution is just a "guess"...as if we have no evidence whatsoever.

---

Since you apparently didn't read my post closely, here it is again with key words highlighted and Cliff's Notes-like interpolations placed for your convenience:

Note that I am not arguing for the existence of God so much as I am asking you to consider the "holes" (however small) that science contains within it [i.e. that science must base certain conclusions on clues and educated guesses based on available evidence]. To repeat myself: science can prove pretty irrefutably many, many things - but evolution it cannot [prove irrefutably, that is, because we weren't there to see it and the theory cannot be tested]. It can put forth a reasonably convincing case - but that's not definitive [in terms of being undeniably true based on presentable evidence].

In other words: I never said it was a "guess." I said that the best science can do in terms of evolution is 90%+ (that's pretty generous of me, don't you think?).

(If JGL is reading this: 90%+ is a guess, by the way :) Let me know if my numbers are off).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

What's "not definitive" is the fact that you base your theory of human existence off a parable/myth in the bible.

---

That and some other things - some of which that occur within the human heart. Dismiss away: there is more to life than facts and that which you can see. In fact, all the great literature of the world (along with most spiritual texts) emphasize again and again that there is much more to life than what can be seen, measured, observed. Such concrete reasoning that "only what I see exists" is often considered a characteristic of infantile thinking (which, by the way, I'm not applying to present company).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

It's sick to watch some of you educated people lower yourselves down to creationism.

---

Well, I'm sure you'll get used to it someday. I've managed to tolerate evolutionists'/atheists' "lowering" of me into the crowning evolutionary step of pond scum and primates pretty well (though I will admit that it's an acquired taste :D ).

There really isn't a point in debating this. Once someone believes something (and they set their heart on it) it's very difficult to change their views (this goes for both sides of the argument).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyrwen

I don't know, guess I'm more stubborn than anything. Personally I don't see creationism as much of a choice when it comes to "versus" evolution, since it isn't even in the same league. One is about the creation of everything, the other is about the evolution of life after it existed. They've nothing to do with eachother, outside of the fact that creationists seem to enjoy proding at evolution because it is somehow a threat to their beliefs when it doesn't even involve the origin of life until one continues asking the "why" question throughout about science.

Hopefully that made some sense.

---

It doesn't get clearer than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

There really isn't a point in debating this. Once someone believes something (and they set their heart on it) it's very difficult to change their views (this goes for both sides of the argument).

It doesn't get clearer than that.

---

"Clear" doesn't necessarily = convincing.

At the risk of making you think I'm just trying to be contrary: I didn't know that the only point of debating was to change someone's mind. I was under the impression that part of debate was simply laying out the arguments and evaluating them, learning what the arguments against your position are and evaluating your own position in light of the opposition. I certainly had no illusion that any of my arguments would convert anybody here. I engage in debate here to hear what others say and see if they'll consider my position or my points. So yeah, if you're here to "win" well that is a waste of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Theism is based on beliefs and faith...things that cannot be proven in the physical universe. Any shred of evidence given off by science is more concrete than creationism because it can be proven in the physical realm. God is imaginary...it does not physically exist...it's a conjecture. I can't believe this is even an argument.

---

I think the problem of this thread is... Chrisitian idea of God, vs some form of divine, vs science is god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous.

---

Well, I really don't know how we got here, but I'll take it! It was what I was trying to say, perhaps in a terrible choice of words. Obviously, evolution is taking place still, as things adapt to an ever-changing world. The beginning was all I ever wonder about to begin with. Pure evolution, man and ape from a common ancestor, I cannot see, yet I concede the possibility, since everything is possible with God.

<Well, I really don't know how we got here, but I'll take it! It was what I was trying to say, perhaps in a terrible choice of words. Obviously, evolution is taking place still, as things adapt to an ever-changing world. The beginning was all I ever wonder about to begin with. Pure evolution, man and ape from a common ancestor, I cannot see, yet I concede the possibility, since everything is possible with God.>

Looks like I was rather slapdash in my choice of language. I was not in any way trying to suggest that evolution is on a par with religious arguments. Any argument for anything in nthe physical Universe that is not evidence-based on physical events is a fruitless argument in my opinion. You can wish all kinds of arguments into existence, but only evidence-based arguments will have any weight to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Any argument for anything in nthe physical Universe that is not evidence-based on physical events is a fruitless argument in my opinion. You can wish all kinds of arguments into existence, but only evidence-based arguments will have any weight to them.

---

I suppose I could "split a hair" and challenge the term evidence. What kind of "evidence" do you consider authoritative?

Whew. This is why the argument persists. If one endeavors to accept both science and God, the evolutionist says "Not good enough. You still have something in the mix that cannot be measured, quantified, etc., and until we can do that, we will not believe in it." And yet, the idea of infinity doesn't seem to bother you at all. Who can measure the limits of infinity? With a universe that is still expanding, who can quantify the borders? With technology making more and more of the once impossible possible, the lines between what can happen and what is pure fiction begin to blur. So, now, having made the statement that God is possible, you wish to crawfish on that statement. Why? You were right to begin with, you know...

You know that the value of PI is approximately 3.14159265358... Have you ever tried to actually prove it? It is much harder to do so than it sounds, because you must prove every step you use as you go. But there isn't a doubt in your mind that this is correct. Nor in mine. Proof isn't always easy to gain. And not everything in science is proven, some is accepted without need of proof. I don't tell science they are wrong on everything, or even the vast majority of things. But I believe in God, and for me, I require no proof. And for me, chance will never prove evolution's beginnings. You can't prove chance. Maybe it happened. Maybe it didn't. 50-50. I still accept that things evolve and change. I am not the enemy, AP. Never was, never will be. Here's to you! :thumbs_up

zeppelin, I know what you mean about debating and such, but this argument can go on forever. It's not even worth debating because the same points are brought up over again.

Good points, pendragon. Sometimes it's scary to think about how vast the universe really is. Actually most astronomers believe in God because of this. read this article: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=231

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

zeppelin, I know what you mean about debating and such, but this argument can go on forever. It's not even worth debating because the same points are brought up over again.

---

Right: the fact that it probably will go on "forever" tells me that there is no simple answer (or even definitive answer in terms of "winning") that will end it.

I think the dialogue is useful if (and only if) both sides are willing to listen to the other and consider the positions rather than rejecting them out-of-hand without even trying to see the reason behind the position. If that's going on (which happens more often than not) then, yes, the debate become two voices talking over each other.

I assume that people simply disappear from the thread when they tire of this perpetual debate.

Hi all! I believe in God the father and that he created the world in 7 days.
And...I really don't want to read the last 92 pages of argument or even the last 2 pages so could someone update me on where the argument is at it's current point (what is being currently discussed), where the argument is heading, any important questions and/or arguments have been posted? It would be helpful so that I could join "the fun".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdoreroDio

Hi all! I believe in God the father ...

---

What makes god a father - does he have a penis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdoreroDio

...and that he created the world in 7 days....

---

If god is omnipotent, then why so long? The omnipotent god down the street can create a universe in Planck time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdoreroDio

... any important questions and/or arguments have been posted? It would be helpful so that I could join "the fun"...

---

No, it's the same old same old. Apparently god can do anything except evolve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

What makes god a father - does he have a penis?

---

If it does, that makes my question of what was it doing for infinity before it decided to create the universe 13 billion years ago even more pertinant...imo. Another thing I wonder about: Is God to be considered and extraterrestrial?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdoreroDio

Hi all! I believe in God the father and that he created the world in 7 days.
And...I really don't want to read the last 92 pages of argument or even the last 2 pages so could someone update me on where the argument is at it's current point (what is being currently discussed), where the argument is heading, any important questions and/or arguments have been posted? It would be helpful so that I could join "the fun".

---

basically...science is right...no religion is right...no science is right.......:crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

If it does, that makes my question of what was it doing for infinity before it decided to create the universe 13 billion years ago even more pertinant...imo. Another thing I wonder about: Is God to be considered and extraterrestrial?

---

Well...here comes the issue, again...it seems the goal is not to attack a divine being...but the christian ideal of this divine being...where all the animosity is being directed towards christian perspectives.

Scientist are supposed to be open...well for the most part they are open to the idea of a divine...however, very closed in regards to christianity...its like they want to punish christians for the punishments delt by early christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanislaw

Well...here comes the issue, again...it seems the goal is not to attack a divine being...but the christian ideal of this divine being...where all the animosity is being directed towards christian perspectives.

Scientist are supposed to be open...well for the most part they are open to the idea of a divine...however, very closed in regards to christianity...its like they want to punish christians for the punishments delt by early christians.

---

Hi Stanislaw,

As an agnostic:

If I have any animosity, it should be directed at any group that claims with certainty to know what is going on in the universe--that includes Chrisitians, Atheists, and Scientists (although I've met few that do). In my universe, certainty leads to zealotry which leads to violence and unnecessary meanness.

Note: I reserve the right to retract this the instant I see a burning bush, hear God clearly speaking to me in the method of its choice, or witness absolute evidence that would proove that one group is right and all the rest have gone astray.

It seems to me that as science increases our knowledge of our world, life and the Universe, so those who pedalled some truth merely based on what they want to believe, recede into fuzzy areas of our knowledge, places where we do not have the full picture. As has been said, science increases our understanding, measuring things which were once immeasurable due to previous technological limits. However, science, when it unravels these mysteries, tends to move further away from religion, not nearer to it. Religion can only hide in the shadows of our knowledge, feeding off ignorance and misunderstanding. When was the last time some important religious hypothesis was proved? Of course, the ignorant will always obfuscate and mystify with unverifiable claims and untestable hypotheses.

I don't know...I'm just saying...be open minded enough to accept the possibilities...maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but, keep an open mind.

Good article, hyperborean. Thank you. I am glad that some scientists can keep their work heads and still believe in God. Thet don't let it cloud their work, but then hold to their belief. As it should be. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

What makes god a father - does he have a penis?

---

Ha ha. One may be a "father" and be missing his genitalia. The word "father" has a number of different meanings, only one of which that means "male parent." I assume you understand such things. I also assume you "get" the idea that God must speak to us in the very limited medium we call the human language. As such, He is - to an extent - "straight-jacketed" by the limits of our language to express things/concepts/Beings that transcend our temporal humanity. Please don't make me think you don't get this most basic point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

If god is omnipotent, then why so long? The omnipotent god down the street can create a universe in Planck time.

---

This idea presents the rather absurd idea that "faster" is necessarily "better." As well, this belief totally bypasses the idea that God - as a Being concerned with order - may have had a specific reason to create in a certain number of days. If human beings are sensitive to the symbolism of ritual and ceremony, I would assume that God would consider such things - especially if there was to be record of His creative actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

No, it's the same old same old. Apparently god can do anything except evolve.

---

That which is perfect need not "evolve" - only inferior creations need to "improve" (like science).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

It seems to me that as science increases our knowledge of our world, life and the Universe, so those who pedalled some truth merely based on what they want to believe, recede into fuzzy areas of our knowledge, places where we do not have the full picture.

---

Why don't you give this tired reasoning a rest? You merely assume that holy writings are merely the scribblings of deluded human beings. You don't really know - you just believe thusly. Your refusal to believe doesn't make you right - it just means you don't believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

As has been said, science increases our understanding, measuring things which were once immeasurable due to previous technological limits. However, science, when it unravels these mysteries, tends to move further away from religion, not nearer to it. Religion can only hide in the shadows of our knowledge, feeding off ignorance and misunderstanding. When was the last time some important religious hypothesis was proved? Of course, the ignorant will always obfuscate and mystify with unverifiable claims and untestable hypotheses.

---

You are free to "worship" science all you wish. That science and religion seem to contradict each other (I say "seem" because we do not know what discoveries lay around the corner that might move the two closer together) doesn't necessarily mean one is right and the other wrong. Your idolization of "evidence" and "proof" holds no real water because - as I have said before, asked you to respond to and you have ignored thus far - there are plenty of things that people (believers and non alike) believe to be true that they have no verifiable "evidence" to support that belief.

Second, science clarifies things - yes: but science also reveals new problems, new complications. It presents us with a mixed blessing. We have medications that do great things - but many of them have significant side-effects that can harm us even to the point of killing us. Cars are an important part of our lives - but they are polluting our atmosphere and are involved in one of the leading causes of death in the United States. You speak of science in glowing terms - but it has not brought about any Utopic existence here on earth. It solves problems, but creates new ones at the same time.

Again: your terming those "ignorant" who don't base their lives on "evidence" is silly - unless you wish to share how every single belief you have is based upon incontrovertible "proof." As far as Christians are concerned, those who base their idea of "truth" only on what they can see are seriously handicapped in their ability to understand reality.

I do not worship science. I would have thought it was pretty clear by now that I consider all worshippers tobe deluded. You seem to live in a world of worship, not me. I recognise science as the best range of methods we have for identifying how the universe is.

You say "seem" because we do not know what discoveries lie around the corner. What kind of argument is that? I assume you use "seem" all the time, for everything then? I say God seems to be a giraffe, after all, we don't know what we might discover just around the corner.

<Second, science clarifies things - yes: but science also reveals new problems, new complications. It presents us with a mixed blessing. We have medications that do great things - but many of them have significant side-effects that can harm us even to the point of killing us.>

Science does indeed reveal new complications, new problems. As I have send before, science unlike religion, is a living system of knowledge, a deepening understanding of our universe. If it did not reveal developments in our thought, it would not be worth spending our time on it. If you believe the only truths worth exploring or defending are absolutes, then you must be either a fool or a total sceptic, after all, everything "seems" true remember?

On the contrary, equating evidence with incontrovertible proof is naive.

So tell me, what do you base your idea of truth on? And are there any truths that do not just "seem" true?

<Can I just point out somthing sure God is kind and benevoulent but hes also a pretty harsh task masters ( by human standerds ) and theres good reason for this. Also belivieng in God includes putting your faith to test Im mean look at Job ( wait it is Job in english who lost all 12 of his chikedren and had disatser after disaster occur to him in a year so he went from a rich succesful man to practically a begger with no family?). And then there is the belief that if they die as children they go straight to heaven no questions asked, some would call tha a mercy.>

I do find it quite amazing how religious people can justify such rubbish. Listen, if it was OK for children to die and go to heaven no questions asked; if that was benevolent, then anyone who was altruistic enough not to care where they ended up (ie in hell), could go on a murderous spree killing the world's children and sending them all to heaven as innocents. When God destroys a community because he doesn't like their sexual orientation, you believers somehow justify such actions, yet if a man destroysd an equal amount of people for the same reason, he seems quite evil (or maube some of you would actually commend such an act). The fact is morality isn't relative to who does what. Either killing people is wrong or it isn't. Either homophobia is wrong or it isn't. It doesn't matter whether you are God or man, an act is either moral, immoral or amoral.

I say, a child whose skin peels of his body everyday because of a genetic deformity that will eventually kill him or her, is not blessed at all, no matter where that child goes. Only a sick mind could devise a form of torture that will lead to everlasting happiness. Only a confused or naive mind could condone such a belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

I do not worship science. I would have thought it was pretty clear by now that I consider all worshippers tobe deluded. You seem to live in a world of worship, not me. I recognise science as the best range of methods we have for identifying how the universe is.

---

Did you not see the quotation marks around the word "worship"? Do you understand what that writing convention means (when you put quotation marks around a word)? I assumed (wrongly, apparently) that it was clear I did not mean the word literally. I recognize science as one of the best range of methods we have for identifying how the universe is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

You say "seem" because we do not know what discoveries lie around the corner. What kind of argument is that? I assume you use "seem" all the time, for everything then? I say God seems to be a giraffe, after all, we don't know what we might discover just around the corner.

---

I say "seems" because science has had to reverse itself a number of times because new equipment/discoveries rendered the former scientific understanding obsolete or flat-out wrong. The argument is based on the history of scientific discovery; had science never been wrong or had to correct/contradict a former position, then my statement is absurd. As it is, it is perfectly logical.

Your idea that God "seems" like a giraffe is based on what? Because the only recorded account of what He's like is in the Bible - and nothing in it conforms to your rather absurd imagining. As well, because God is unchanging in His nature, we can assume the picture of Him (incomplete as it is) presented by the Bible is accurate and not subject to revision (except in how we understand Him).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Science does indeed reveal new complications, new problems. As I have send before, science unlike religion, is a living system of knowledge, a deepening understanding of our universe. If it did not reveal developments in our thought, it would not be worth spending our time on it. If you believe the only truths worth exploring or defending are absolutes, then you must be either a fool or a total sceptic, after all, everything "seems" true remember?

---

The Bible is a living record as well - it continues to speak to generation after generation. While its words don't change (though we do have different translations which do shed light on certain truths), their relevance continues to change with the times.

Where did I say anything about absolutes? As well, where did I indicate that "everything" seems true? I don't believe that at all. There are plenty of things that don't seem true to me and some that I don't believe to be true at all.

As far as the name-calling - depending upon who you ask in this forum, probably either term is applicable. I'm not worried about how you categorize me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

On the contrary, equating evidence with incontrovertible proof is naive.

---

That's true - but to listen to many atheists/evolutionists, you'd think that they see the two terms as synonymous. I'm only arguing for the limitations of science. It's got them, and those limitations mean that its "certainty" is up for questioning and revision. That tiny degree of uncertainty means that to dismiss my position because it doesn't provide evidence is hypocritical. The argument that you pose that "Any argument for anything in the physical Universe that is not evidence-based on physical events is a fruitless argument in my opinion" may not be arguing incontrovertibility, but it sure seems to look that direction - as if physical evidence establishes the truth of something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

So tell me, what do you base your idea of truth on? And are there any truths that do not just "seem" true?

---

I use probably the very same tools you use to assess the world and its truths. The difference is that I'm not chained to the idea that "if I can't see it, it's not real" (which your leaning on physical evidence implies). I accept that certain truths about life, love, and human nature cannot be apprehended through "scientific method." I believe that many of the greatest "truths" we accept about life (and especially human nature) are tentative at best - often reasonable, but not necessarily definitive.

Plenty of so-called "truths" do not "seem" true to me - and plenty of others do not merely "seem" but are untrue absolutely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

I do find it quite amazing how religious people can justify such rubbish.

---

Trust me, we feel the same way about some of the ideas/hypophesis/comments/arguments thrown our way from your side of the fence too. We just exchange the word "intelligent" for "religious."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Listen, if it was OK for children to die and go to heaven no questions asked; if that was benevolent, then anyone who was altruistic enough not to care where they ended up (ie in hell), could go on a murderous spree killing the world's children and sending them all to heaven as innocents.

---

But the record of God's character - the Bible - does not condone this behavior. That's why the Bible is so important - it establishes the parameters of Christian behavior. Your example is, therefore, invalid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

When God destroys a community because he doesn't like their sexual orientation, you believers somehow justify such actions, yet if a man destroysd an equal amount of people for the same reason, he seems quite evil (or maube some of you would actually commend such an act).

---

There are two errors in this logic. Number one, God is perfect in his goodness, His love, His justice and His mercy. Human beings are not. So, just on that differentiation, the two cannot be compared. We may question a human being's motives and actions - but how do you question those of a perfect Being? Number two: these kinds of comments proceed from the idea that God's justice is random, as opposed to correct and just and in response to established law. It has nothing to do with what God "likes" - the Bible clearly tells us that our greatest acts of service and holiness are mere "rags" compared to the holiness of God. Furthermore, this logic tends to imply that all behaviors (i.e. lifestyle choices) are equal and that God's justice is whim or caprice; what if His justice is based on the way things ARE? Perhaps God's justice is mercy. I think the end of Sodom was pretty harsh - but I'm not God, and I don't know all the things that went into His decision (but I do know that He would have been willing to spare the city if even 10 righteous people could be found). God's decisions are not based so much on what He "likes" or "prefers" but upon what He has established reality to be. I wonder how opposed to capital punishment you'd be for child-rapists or murderers who torture their victims? In God's eyes, all sin is equally destructive - so in His heirarchy, homosexuality is equally as destructive as murder. I'm not asking you to agree; I'm just telling you how God says He views our behaviors. Just because we may view homosexuality as a harmless non-issue does not mean that He who created everything can't see things differently.

Real Christians do not rejoice in the suffering or death of any of God's children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

The fact is morality isn't relative to who does what. Either killing people is wrong or it isn't. Either homophobia is wrong or it isn't. It doesn't matter whether you are God or man, an act is either moral, immoral or amoral.

---

This sounds pretty black/white - absolute (wasn't I getting criticized for being "absolute" a few posts ago?). Morality isn't relative, but I believe that even God understands mitigating circumstances. As well, are you saying that all killing is wrong, always? Really? I do not see my killing of the maniac intent on raping/torturing my wife as inappropriate in the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

I say, a child whose skin peels of his body everyday because of a genetic deformity that will eventually kill him or her, is not blessed at all, no matter where that child goes. Only a sick mind could devise a form of torture that will lead to everlasting happiness. Only a confused or naive mind could condone such a belief.

---

God would agree that such a life is not a blessing; but He would counter that eternity in heaven is fair compensation for the troubles we have had to endure. Don't think that means that God is cavalier or indifferent - it means that someday, all our sufferings here will vanish in the light of eternity by His side.

Again: as far as "confused" and "naive" is concerned, we Christians feel the same way about some of the thought processes we hear argued towards us from your side of the fence.

And so it goes… The horse is dead, no amount of beating will make it get up and go. Bury the poor creature; the stench is stifling. When we get reduced to name-calling, we cease to be intelligent adults, regardless of our argument, and are behaving like kindergarteners. Time-out, please. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/verschiedene/f015.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

And so it goes… The horse is dead, no amount of beating will make it get up and go. Bury the poor creature; the stench is stifling. When we get reduced to name-calling, we cease to be intelligent adults, regardless of our argument, and are behaving like kindergarteners. Time-out, please. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/verschiedene/f015.gif

---

Oh, Pen, I so agree. But the debate will go on whether you or I engage or not. If all of the current posters vanished, a new slew would take our place. Carpe diem, buddy.

(PS - I don't like the name-calling either, but I can't custom pick my opponents, so I'll just continue to put up with it :D )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

In God's eyes, all sin is equally destructive - so in His heirarchy, homosexuality is equally as destructive as murder. I'm not asking you to agree; I'm just telling you how God says He views our behaviors. Just because we may view homosexuality as a harmless non-issue does not mean that He who created everything can't see things differently.

---

Just a quick point, if I am wrong and there is a god, and if he thinks likes this I dont think I'd enjoy heaven too much, rather take my chances in the other place.

Speaking of sins...

Sin is an imaginary burden. Repenting to a priest (that believes he has some sort of special connection to God) is ridiculous. If in fact you want God's "forgiveness" then just pray...you don't have to speak with a man that thinks he's higher than you.

Instead of calling these burdens "sins", rename them "flaws". Replicate what Dante did and correct your character. Only then will you reach the stars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Just a quick point, if I am wrong and there is a god, and if he thinks likes this I dont think I'd enjoy heaven too much, rather take my chances in the other place.

---

Lightly said - because if you really believed that Hell existed, you might say differently. I find it fascinating that people will often make this statement - "I'd rather suffer in Hell than be with a God like this" as if political correctness is worth sacrificing your soul for.

Your comment is based on the idea that our idea of the implications of a homosexual lifestyle are more enlightened/informed/realistic/whatever than that of a Supreme Being. We can trumpet "politically correct" ideas all we want - what I'm asking you to entertain is the idea that our evaluation of a specific thing may not be correct.

Try this: just pretend for a minute that a Being exists that is PERFECT in its mind and heart - that it is the embodiment of all that is good and right and just and fair and merciful and compassionate - but to a degree of perfection that humans can never, ever reach. Assuming such a being exists, shouldn't we have reason to consider what this Being defines as right and wrong? To speak as you have is - in my opinion - to treat God as if He is just another person who says "I don't like homosexuals" (which, by the way is not something He would ever say). God is not a magnified human being - He is a Supreme Being - one who is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Once you accept that, then you have to consider that He may very well know better than we as to what is good and bad, right and wrong.

In fact, I think the idea that God sees all sin as equal is actually comforting - it means that none of us is better than anybody else; as well, it also means that there is no sin so terrible that places a person outside of the forgiveness of God. The bad part is that everybody now finds themselves in need of forgiveness, no matter how "virtuous" the life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Speaking of sins...

Sin is an imaginary burden. Repenting to a priest (that believes he has some sort of special connection to God) is ridiculous. If in fact you want God's "forgiveness" then just pray...you don't have to speak with a man that thinks he's higher than you.

Instead of calling these burdens "sins", rename them "flaws". Replicate what Dante did and correct your character. Only then will you reach the stars.

---

I don't believe in confessing to a priest (or other mediator) either.

But: I don't think sin is "imaginary." "Flaws"? Murder, rape, theft, manipulation - these are flaws? I doubt it. ""Flaw" implies some imperfection - "sin" implies a conscious choice. Let's not remove moral responsibility from people, please.

The fact that "God sees all sin as equal" is ridiculous. Living by that logical makes perfect sense [sarcasm added]...let me shoot a man and have it treated the same as another man who just masturbated. That's why I think the concept of "sin" is sign of individual weakness. I don't need God's opinion for the severity of my actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

The fact that "God sees all sin as equal" is ridiculous. Living by that logical makes perfect sense [sarcasm added]...let me shot a man and have it treated the same as another man who just masturbated. That's why I think the concept of "sin" is sign of individual weakness. I don't need God's opinion for the severity of my actions.

---

Great. I didn't present the idea because I thought it would meet universal approval. As the NT says - whoever breaks the least of the laws has broken them all because all sin is - at its core - rebellion against God. It's interesting that you focus on the "bad" part and skip the good part I added - which is that God equally forgives ALL. Unlike humans, He has no problem extending forgiveness to even the "worst" offenders.

Either way, the fact that God sees all sin the same does not mean He expects us to do so; what it means is that we are to be very careful about using the "severity" of sins to judge other people - it means that we Christians need to be aware that just because we (generally) don't commit "major" sins (murder, rape, theft, etc) that we are not in need of saving and of God's forgiveness; it means that our human tendency to judge those "worse" than us is mitigated by our realization that - in God's eyes - we're no better.

I don't understand the logic that a "concept" (sin) is an "individual weakness"? How can that be? And, what would you like to call moral transgressions (besides "flaws")?