Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
:lol: Come on guys. It was an analogy. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
:lol: Come on guys. It was an analogy. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas
That's a relief! You can tell me and the great nameless one thought you were serious. :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I frankly don't know why this would matter. I don't know all the tenets behind what the intelligent design people put out, but I thought they believed in evolution. I certainly do, and I believe so does the Roman Catholic Church. Why does finding a missing link add anything different?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
It has to be evolution[or analogy as Virgil suggests:lol:]. How can the whole human population be created by just two people? Think about yourself in that situation and see if it makes sense.
I can imagine that a significant other and I would need to get very busy to create the whole human race single handed (or single somethinged! :brow:).Quote:
Originally Posted by fatsaint
:lol: LOL very very busy indeed, like how many kids each day, just to fill up an entire planet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
Hey kids, I cannot see the point of the debate.
You forget that in the XX century Physics has deleted all of the ontological claims of the other sciences.
There is no place for a God, to this gnoseological extent.
The notion that we, our existance, was the unplanned result of purely materialistic causes bothers me.
The problem with the idea that our entire existance can be explained without remainder by some event which happened 15 billions ago in blind obediance to purely materialistic causes (nature, the natural world) is that it leaves no room for the very things which we really value. It may be that the universe was formed from some primeval soup at some far distant point in time. It may be that in so forming it has become what it is, in obediance to laws which were themselve formed either at that time or prior to this formation. (But what prior to means in this context is problematic.) I was going to write "prior to this creation". But of course on the hypothesis that our existance was not the product of anything other than material causes then creation is what it most certainly cannot be.
On this view before this event happened there was no time, no matter nothing. The whole show has been proceeding to some future point in obediance to the laws of physics which have are themselves part of the material universe; its organising principles Thus ultimately I am sitting here at my computer thinking like I am, believing as I do, in fact existing at all in every aspect simply as the outworking of some causeless and purposeless event. The idea of freedom that I have is surely then an allusion. My ideas of justice, beauty, love, my hopes and dreams are merely the way the initial event has worked itself out in that point of space time which I occupy. When I say that some parts of the Dylan Thomas poem "Do not go gentle into that good night" are good or beautiful it is simply the state into which certain complex energy, spatial and material relations have at worked themselves. When I say that kindness to the needy is good or exploitation of children is bad all I am doing is acting out my part in the way the whole universe was bound to go, in obediance to purposeless laws. A fart would have been as significant. Both are the end product of the same process.
Now I accept that that in one sense, the idea that all that exists is nature, on one level explains all that we can see or sense. There is no need for God to exist, to create, to plan or have purposes. The material universe, open to investigation to the scientists needs no outside interference. But one part of the universe rebells against this notion. Me, myself. The one part of existance that touches the universe, over which I have inside knowledge, will not accept that life has no more fundamental root than the blind workings out of purposeless nature.
We read a book. We say that a passage is beautiful. When I read the Count of Monte Christo I say that thirst for revenge the drove Edmond Dantes to destroy his tormentors, while understandable, was wrong. I do not want to believe, cannot believe, that these thoughts are just the outworkings of purposeless nature. If nature is all there is then my ideas of beauty and justice and stone rolling down some lost hillside have the same root cause and are just as significant.
I anyone can live with that then so be it. I cannot and will not. Justice, beauty, right and wrong are just as much part of the the world as planets, chocolates and footballs. Any explanation of existance that destroys the reality and significance that I give to the justice and beauty must be modified.
If there is no place for God then there is also no place for most of the things which really matter.
By the way the idea that in the XX century Physics has deleted all of the ontological claims of the other sciences is an interesting one. What part of physics has done this?
Chook,
I think that what really bothers you is the fact that removing God from the equation takes away the claim that humanity, and by extension you, has a special place in the universe; that we are somehow unique and here for a purpose. I will admit that this is a terrifying concept and one which most of us do our best to filter out of our daily lives.
But the question is: should we believe in God merely because we don't like the idea of the alternative? Isn't this just the metaphysical equivalent of burying our heads in the sand? To refuse the abyss won't make it go away if that is the correct view of the universe; which many of us believe it to be.
But on your other point, about the things that matter; surely the simple fact that there are atheists as well as religious believers on a forum like this, discussing great works of written art and their relevance to ourselves(occasionally, amidst all of the jokes ;) ), would imply that they find just as much beauty and significance in these works as anyone else does? My own particular take on it, is that I am here for a short time only and that after that there is nothing - sounds bleak, doesn't it? - but it is also liberating; it frees me from the notion that life is a prelude to some more significant after-existence and makes me appreciate the beauties and marvels of art and nature all the more - or at least I feel that it does. When one short life is all you have, it is worth more than if you see it as just part of an eternal process.
If there is no place for God, then the things that matter take on greater significance, because they become all that matters.
I can't imagine why this wouldn't be terrifying. One thing that needs to be clarified here, however, is whether or not people are believing that they are special and have a purpose because they are scared, or believing that they are special and have a purpose for any other reason. I won't deny that the naturalist postulation that people aren't unique, special, or inherently worthwhile is extremely powerful.Quote:
I think that what really bothers you is the fact that removing God from the equation takes away the claim that humanity, and by extension you, has a special place in the universe; that we are somehow unique and here for a purpose. I will admit that this is a terrifying concept and one which most of us do our best to filter out of our daily lives.
Imagine telling a person that they are made in the image of the Creator of the universe, that they were personally redeemed through the death of God's Son, and that they are genuine moral agents with an honorable purpose.
Contrast this to telling a person that they are a descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm floating around in an arbitrary hot soup, 3.5 billion years ago. They are a blind product of time, chance, and natural forces. They exist on a tiny planet, in a minute solar system, in an obscure galaxy in a remote and empty corner of a vast, cold, and meaningless universe. They are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba.
By no means! Any rational, logical, honest seeker needs to have real and empirical reasons for deciding to believe in, and consequently, love God. The question of God is so important! Something so ultimately and all-encompassingly crucial inherently neccesitates our complete and honest appraisal, not to mention legitimate research and consideration.Quote:
But the question is: should we believe in God merely because we don't like the idea of the alternative?
It would be. Hopefully, the majority or theists out there aren't believing in God out of dread apprehension of the unknown hereafter. Burying our heads in the sand couldn't be an option, as it relates to something so important. If there is one thing that I got out of reading Emerson (naturalist? I'm pretty sure) it is being honest with yourself. The integrity of your concious mind is something that no-one can take away from you and ought to be maintained.Quote:
Isn't this just the metaphysical equivalent of burying our heads in the sand?
It does sound bleak. I think this notion is inherently flawed, however. How is it at all rational to conclude that it would be more liberating and freeing to know that this life is all there is, and consequently, there is no after-existence; as opposed to the idea that this life is a prelude, a finite period of time, which can in no way even offer us a hint as to the eternal beauties, truths, loves, etc, etc, of heaven? I would rather appreciate brilliant and complete beauties and marvels for all eternity rather than appreciate flawed and human beauties and truths for 80 years. I feel a greater sense of liberation knowing that I (hopefully) will someday know and experience something better than this veil of tears. I wouldn't trade heaven for earth.Quote:
My own particular take on it, is that I am here for a short time only and that after that there is nothing - sounds bleak, doesn't it? - but it is also liberating; it frees me from the notion that life is a prelude to some more significant after-existence and makes me appreciate the beauties and marvels of art and nature all the more - or at least I feel that it does. When one short life is all you have, it is worth more than if you see it as just part of an eternal process.
William Lane Craig debates
Secular Web library
One thing that comforts me is that horrendously educated, brilliant, passionate people have been debating God for 3,000 years.
Sadly, any idiot with a bullet in his gun can take it away at any time. And you can also lose it through Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, CJD, any number of other diseases, or accidental brain damage without even needing to be killed. Sooner or later, that integrity is going to leave every one of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
You are assuming here that you have something to trade; I certainly don't believe that. There is neither proof nor even a reasonable expectation of eternal beauty, truth, or eternal anything else for us; or any eternity at all for that matter. Our consciousness ends when our brains stop receiving oxygenated blood - that's it. We have what there is here and now; it is ours to waste or enjoy.Quote:
It does sound bleak. I think this notion is inherently flawed, however. How is it at all rational to conclude that it would be more liberating and freeing to know that this life is all there is, and consequently, there is no after-existence; as opposed to the idea that this life is a prelude, a finite period of time, which can in no way even offer us a hint as to the eternal beauties, truths, loves, etc, etc, of heaven? I would rather appreciate brilliant and complete beauties and marvels for all eternity rather than appreciate flawed and human beauties and truths for 80 years. I feel a greater sense of liberation knowing that I (hopefully) will someday know and experience something better than this veil of tears. I wouldn't trade heaven for earth.
Call me bleak; I call me honest. Your hoping for a vague "something complete" is exactly the kind of wishful thinking I was referring to.
One thing that concerns me is that so many otherwise educated and intelligent people have been believing in glorified fairy tales for (far longer than) 3000 years - I have no idea where you got that figure from. :nod:
Otherwise educated and intelligent people have been believing in a lot of things that when examined without prejudice begin to crack somewhat around the edges. The problem becomes whether or not the person(s) doing the examining are actually being open-minded. A deeply religious person, (and recall that I am a Minister) can easily be misled down the path of "If I don't believe it, it must be false." This is not an objective viewpoint. It begins by surmising that the person is correct to begin with, so any results that do not match that pre-determined view are automatically deleted. A person who is convinced of the truth of evolution may easily take an opposite view, that no possibility exists that any data has been misreported or corrupted in a way that makes it give a false reading. This, also, is not an objective viewpoint, for science has and will continue to make mistakes. There have been documented deliberate and accidental misrepresentations made while studying evolution. So a possibility always exists either way that a person is mistaken.
I feel the truth lies with the two combined, and I ask questions about Genesis: Like how would a person trying to simplify the whole process of creation (which he certainly was incapable of understanding himself) write it down for others, for whom oral tradition was the usual way of history? Then, years later, when someone else tries to translate that into another language, did they catch the correct meanings of the words? Was there more than two people, since it never says there were only two of each animal? Was part of the manuscript missing?
With scientific evidence, can we be certain of carbon dating? Does the pieces of skull actually mean a whole race, or one creature? Does the scientific drawing really match the completed skull, or is it forensically impossible? Can you build an entire creature upon one tooth? What about data that doesn't seem to fit, such as human footprints fossilized along with dinosaur’s footprints? Haven't we all seen people who look somewhat, if not exactly, like cavemen?
I am not trying to shake anyone's faith. I just ask be more objective. ;)
Pen,
We can be certain enough about carbon dating to be quite sure that the world is far older (approximately 500,000 times older) than the 6,000 years claimed by a literal reading of Genesis. I was referring to this kind of fairy story above, not belief in general. Besides, carbon dating is not used for dating inorganic material, radioactive decay of trace elements is utilised for that purpose. But still, though both of these methods are not 100% accurate, they are certainly not out by a factor of half a billion!
A piece of skull means that a creature once lived with that skull - if that skull is unlike any creature alive today, it implies that there was a race of creatures with skulls such as that. Are you suggesting that the skulls of tyrranosaurus that have been found are actually skulls of an existing creature that were misidentified? And while you may not be able to reconstruct an entire creature from a single tooth, you can extrapolate it's size and certain of it's features. As an example, fossilised shark's teeth have been discovered that are many times the size of those in any shark today; would you suggest that these fell from the mouth of a deformed specimen of a great white, or that there was a prehistoric species that was far bigger than anything alive today at some time? Take a look.
I would love to see your evidence of human and dinosaur footprints side by side; this looks like an example of that deliberate falsification of scientific evidence that you were talking about above (and which is far more likely to be found on fundamentalist religious websites than in any scientific journal!)
My belief in the validity of scientific method is not faith; faith is belief without evidence. In the case of scientific theories, evolution included, there is ample evidence and the only lack of objectivity is to be found in the fundamentalist camp. As I have mentioned so many times that my fingers can now type it in my sleep, SCIENCE IS NOT OPPOSED TO RELIGION; scientists are NOT uniquely atheists, or even mainly atheists. However, science IS, by it's very nature, opposed to superstition and dogmatic belief without question. And so am I.
I figured if I got a response, it would be from you, XC, mon ami. We will not argue, as you once told me that you respect my beliefs, I also respect yours. So we have no quarrels, just different oppinions--Hey, I guess that makes us humans! :)
I must disagree with you, and say only that the skull fragments mean one such creature existed. It may have been a freak of nature as easily as a new species if only one is ever found. If one discovered the skeleton of say, The Elephant Man, and all they had was fragments of the skull, they might easily mistake it for another race of man. Or Andre the Giant, with his 48 teeth, not to mention his huge size. Or the world's smallest woman, who now stands 25 inches high and weighs 14 pounds at age 39. It could be another race, I am not saying it cannot be. And it could be just one creature, with a deformity. *Chuckle* Ever see Professional Wrestler "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan? There's a living Neanderthal for you! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
I won't refute the huge shark, I am well aware of its existance at some point in time, and as the ocean is very deep and wide, who knows, it may still be out there, somewhere. Misidentify a Tyranosaurus skull? No. But the Smithsonian DID fake parts of the triceratops skeleton for more than 90 years, which caused scientific drawings of the creature to be wrong. What happened was the skeleton was about 85% complete. The feet were missing, and various other bones. So they put Duckbill feet on it and scavanged bones for the missing ones. With the development of CGI, they decided to enter all known data and produce a CGI Tricereatops. Using that as a model, they then could recreate the bone structure. As I say, sometimes things get mixed up and sorted out later. Peking Man is another example.
I am afraid you would not. Unfortunately for people who should definately know better, the fossils are housed in a museum that devotes itself to disproving evolution. Bad move. Had I found such evidence in the fossil beds on the mountains where perhaps only I know, I would have invited the world to come and view them, so that people could rule out fakery at once. These people did not chose to do so, and so that is exactly what people will say. Some people never learn about how to preserve evidence if you wish it to be accepted.Quote:
I would love to see your evidence of human and dinosaur footprints side by side; this looks like an example of that deliberate falsification of scientific evidence that you were talking about above (and which is far more likely to be found on fundamentalist religious websites than in any scientific journal!)
Well, you have to accept that what you have learned about the Scientific Method is truth, and I am not really sure how you personally would test that. To me, and remember, I am always ready to admit I could be wrong, that takes at least a bit of faith. As I said in a fomer post, God resists proof, so belief requires faith. I find trouble with blind faith, however. I think questioning is the only way to learn anything. I don't toss my science books out because I believe in God. I am far too courious about this world for that!Quote:
My belief in the validity of scientific method is not faith; faith is belief without evidence. In the case of scientific theories, evolution included, there is ample evidence and the only lack of objectivity is to be found in the fundamentalist camp. As I have mentioned so many times that my fingers can now type it in my sleep, SCIENCE IS NOT OPPOSED TO RELIGION; scientists are NOT uniquely atheists, or even mainly atheists. However, science IS, by it's very nature, opposed to superstition and dogmatic belief without question. And so am I.
:nod:
Isn't 'freak of nature' supposed to mean 'one of a kind'? My point, if I understand what you're saying, there'd be too many freaks of nature in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pen