RETIRED: Creation or Evolustionists theory

[Libertarian]

No need to display a defensive condescension, Libertarian. Do you feel threatened by the question or something?

I am not attacking Science, as it is merely a vehicle to expand Man's understanding of Creation. I ask the question as further demonstration that it is impossible for the tool of Science to delve into our origin, as the Rules of Science didn't exist at the point we must understand in order to gain the knowledge.

What you say at the end is literally where I have been trying to pull this thread since I entered it: that "Science" isn't enough; it will never be enough. Metaphysics is a critical complement to "Science", and as such, so is faith.

And in exercising it, and acknowledging the need for metaphysics at all, one is compelled to acknowledge the logic of an Intelligent Designer.

I was being condescending at all..just pointing out that your question falls outside the realm of science. And while I do find metaphysical discussions interesting, I don't believe the subject is at all necessary. Like bobcat said, it's just mental masturbation.. Discussing what things "might" have been like before the big bang serves no purpose because it is beyond the possibility of our understanding. It is 100% speculation and IMAGINATION...and while I do admire the power of the human imagination when it comes to brainstorming practical ideas or writing good fiction, I think it's completely pointless to discuss and debate aspects of reality that can never be known.

[Epiphyte]

Red Herring. The concept of God is that which transcends time and space, meaning that God - by definition - always was. It has already been demonstrated through entropy that the Universe hasn't always been, nor have the Laws which govern it. They both sprang into existence simultaneously.

Has it been demonstrated that there was time before the Universe? As far as I know, "before" the universe is like "north" of the north pole. The beginning of the Universe seems to transcend space and time. We really don't know enough about it to make statements like those you're making, they are not part of the Big Bang Theory.

[IMMensaMind]

I was being condescending at all..just pointing out that your question falls outside the realm of science.

"Believe whatever you'd like, buddy", is condescending. This thread does not and should not be limited only to that which Science can understand, particularly since many on the left choose to disbelieve something particularly because they've claimed that Science hasn't established it as truth.

That means that Science cannot ever be sufficient in order to gain more understanding, just as I've been saying all along.

And while I do find metaphysical discussions interesting, I don't believe the subject is at all necessary.

Who determined what is necessary or not? It's central to this topic!

Like bobcat said, it's just mental masturbation.. Discussing what things "might" have been like before the big bang serves no purpose because it is beyond the possibility of our understanding.

This is an interesting admission from a secularist, as I've combatted in this thread - and in others - the very claim levelled against Christians that simply believing in God is something which quashes the desire to think/learn/understand more. Here, you seem to be doing that very thing.

It is 100% speculation and IMAGINATION...and while I do admire the power of the human imagination when it comes to brainstorming practical ideas or writing good fiction, I think it's completely pointless to discuss and debate aspects of reality that can never be known.

It is not pointless at all. If it can never be "known" (and my premise is that there are degrees of "unknowing"), then that admission alone is a priori evidence of the legitimacy of belief in God - and that's what I'm here to defend.

Your position is that "what came before can never be known", and mine is one which embraces the vast implications of actually encountering something which cannot be known, understanding how powerful such a force had to be in order to be such a catalyst.

We operate based upon our limited understanding of our own circumstance. In that understanding, we have come to know that time and space could not have existed prior to The Big Bang. We also understand that every action has a reaction. These are our accepted understandings.

As a result, our understanding frames the Big Bang as a re-action, because nothing else is rational; nothing else fits our physically known paradigms. God, therefore, is the name we choose to give the unknown Action. Where you attempt to fit the value null (Ø - which cannot be defended as mathematically correct, as "action" cannot be a null value), we assign a name.

We cannot fully know its nature, but that should not stop us from admiring such a force, recognizing it as the Creator. That level of admiration can certainly be worship, can it not?

That's the point of this thread.

[Mixels]

But in order to extend that concept as far as you have, you must utterly remove personal responsibility.

God gave man the capacity to be good, not just evil. It was man alone that chose not to be good. Man was created good.
The problem here is that we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about God's responsibility for the act of creating. You're talking about Adam and Eve's responsibility for eating the forbidden fruit. Each acted irresponsibly. It just happens to be the case that God's acting irresponsibly is ultimately responsible for Adam and Eve's acting responsibly because without God's mistake or whatever you'll call it, Eve would never have had any interest at all listening to the serpent. The fact remains that because of the "way" God created man, Adam and Eve were predisposed to "evil." Again, compare to God. Were Adam and Eve as good as God? Why not?

Ah, foreknowledge = responsibility. So as a parent, if you know your children will mess up (and you know they will, if you're being honest) you're responsible for all of their mistakes? :nono:
That's a very bad analogy. If, as a parent, I had complete and utter control over how my children would turn out, and if I were entirely good and all powerful, of course I'd be responsible for all of the mistakes of my children. That's because, as a responsible, good parent, it would be my aim to create them in such a way that they would be just as good and powerful as me, meaning they just plain wouldn't make mistakes unless I juked something up along the way.

You're trying to meld God's nature with man's actions. The two are separate and distinct things.
I really don't know what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure I'm drawing a very clear line between God's nature and man's. In fact, the presence of that very clear line is the big problem unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

[superdan54]

The problem here is that we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about God's responsibility for the act of creating. You're talking about Adam and Eve's responsibility for eating the forbidden fruit. Each acted irresponsibly. It just happens to be the case that God's acting irresponsibly is ultimately responsible for Adam and Eve's acting responsibly because without God's mistake or whatever you'll call it, Eve would never have had any interest at all listening to the serpent. The fact remains that because of the "way" God created man, Adam and Eve were predisposed to "evil." Again, compare to God. Were Adam and Eve as good as God? Why not?


I wouldn't say that Adam & Eve were predisposed to evil, they were simply given the instruction to trust God and his one commandment. They caved when tempted by the serpent. Christ came along several thousand years later and was likewise tempted by the same force, and yet remained faithful. The Bible says Adam was a "type of Christ", so I think its safe to say that neither were predisposed to evil, rather it was their faithfulness and obedience that determined the outcome in their lives.

[darkfrog]

That's the point of this thread.Not really. The god you describe could easily be one that deists ascribe to, one that was the first cause of the universe, set it in motion, but has no continuing influence in events after creation.
This thread is specifically about evolution by natural selection, something that can be explained by naturalistic means without the need for a god. It is this lack of necessity for a deity that has people like you get their panties in a bunch.

[bobcat255]

This thread does not and should not be limited only to that which Science can understand, particularly since many on the left choose to disbelieve something particularly because they've claimed that Science hasn't established it as truth.

That means that Science cannot ever be sufficient in order to gain more understanding, just as I've been saying all along.

Just as the definition for what science is shouldn't be limited to it's definition? Give me a break.

Who are the "many on the left?" What are you trying to say with this?

People can't disbelieve something science hasn't established as truth just like you can't believe it. However, people can use reasonable judgment and probability to arrive at a logical conclusion. Let me give you an example: I believe there are Unicorns in the Andromeda Galaxy. Prove me wrong. I'll write you a check for any number you wish if you prove me wrong. You'll never be able to. In much the same way as I can't prove it as true. You see the dilemma here?

Who determined what is necessary or not? It's central to this topic!

The subject of the thread does and we already determined that the subject is inaccurate and the two ideas aren't at odds.

This is an interesting admission from a secularist, as I've combatted in this thread - and in others - the very claim levelled against Christians that simply believing in God is something which quashes the desire to think/learn/understand more. Here, you seem to be doing that very thing.

I think he meant that in the context of this thread, not that scientists have no interest in answering questions.

It is not pointless at all. If it can never be "known" (and my premise is that there are degrees of "unknowing"), then that admission alone is a priori evidence of the legitimacy of belief in God - and that's what I'm here to defend.

In your world of making up meanings you are correct.

You may legitimately believe in God if you so choose, nobody is stopping you. In fact, there are laws to protect your beliefs. However, that's all they are... beliefs (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief). Just like my belief in Unicorns, which you can't prove as false. Unlike you, though, I don't go around trying to influence people based on my beliefs nor do I force people to believe what I believe. In fact, prior to this thread, I have never told anyone about my secret beliefs because I have absolutely no evidence to back them up. It would be foolish of me to try and convince somebody of something which is unprovable. Imagine if I went a step further and actually told you what the Unicorns think? What their intent with me is? What they want me to do here, on their behalf? How I will be reborn as a Unicorn if I follow their "Code." Etc.

I'll let you ponder on that...

[superdan54]

That's a very bad analogy. If, as a parent, I had complete and utter control over how my children would turn out, and if I were entirely good and all powerful, of course I'd be responsible for all of the mistakes of my children. That's because, as a responsible, good parent, it would be my aim to create them in such a way that they would be just as good and powerful as me, meaning they just plain wouldn't make mistakes unless I juked something up along the way.

I think it's a mistake to think that God's omnipotence equals the ability to do anything and everything. He can't make a four sided triangle, for example, nor make a rock so big he can't lift. Also, it's said in scripture that he cannot lie.

So if his omnipotence is restrained by his own nature, I feel it's folly to categorize exactly what His power is and how He should have used it in dealing with mankind. Perhaps there are things going on greater than what we can logically construct.

This thread is specifically about evolution by natural selection

Technically, yes. Historically, no.

[Mixels]

I wouldn't say that Adam & Eve were predisposed to evil, they were simply given the instruction to trust God and his one commandment. They caved when tempted by the serpent. Christ came along several thousand years later and was likewise tempted by the same force, and yet remained faithful. The Bible says Adam was a "type of Christ", so I think its safe to say that neither were predisposed to evil, rather it was their faithfulness and obedience that determined the outcome in their lives.
Still, the issue is that man was not made as good as God. Why not?

I think it's a mistake to think that God's omnipotence equals the ability to do anything and everything. He can't make a four sided triangle, for example, nor make a rock so big he can't lift. Also, it's said in scripture that he cannot lie.

So if his omnipotence is restrained by his own nature, I feel it's folly to categorize exactly what His power is and how He should have used it in dealing with mankind. Perhaps there are things going on greater than what we can logically construct.
That would be an appreciable argument if we were talking about something that were impossible by definition. The impossibility of creating a four-sided triangle, however, is dictated by human social history. Words are not relevant to what a thing is. What you're really saying is that it is impossible for a three-sided geometric shape to have the same form as a four-sided geometric shape. That's great, but it's not applicable to what we're talking about. Those are the rules you and I live by, but whether they are the rules God lives by, I don't believe the Bible is clear. Regardless, there is no inherent paradox in the idea of God creating man as perfectly good, nor is there one in the idea of God creating man as all-powerful. There is actually no inherent paradox in the idea of God creating other Gods, if everything Christianity tells us about the chum is to be held as true. Well, I suppose there is a dilemma in that it is clearly implied that God would never do such a thing, but then that begs the unthinkable question: why not?

[Phreaker47]

"Believe whatever you'd like, buddy", is condescending. This thread does not and should not be limited only to that which Science can understand, particularly since many on the left choose to disbelieve something particularly because they've claimed that Science hasn't established it as truth.


There are other reasons. When it comes to biblical creationism in particular, I think of the many other examples where the bible loses credibility... not just due to science, but common sense.

[ThatOneNotThis]

There are other reasons. When it comes to biblical creationism in particular, I think of the many other examples where the bible loses credibility... not just due to science, but common sense.

Unless you have credible proof that "common sense" is a measurable and scientifically empirical fact, maybe you should probably say "in my humble opinion" instead of trying to claim "common sense" as specifically something only like minded people hold.... Just my humble opinion...

[redmaxx]

The problem here is that we're talking about two different things.

Not so much. Wait for it...

It just happens to be the case that God's acting irresponsibly is ultimately responsible for Adam and Eve's acting responsibly because without God's mistake or whatever you'll call it, Eve would never have had any interest at all listening to the serpent.

You call it a mistake, but you offer nothing to prove the assertion. Your definition of good continues to conflate the actions of two separate beings. It doesn't really matter if God knew or not, it's not his action.

The fact remains that because of the "way" God created man, Adam and Eve were predisposed to "evil." Again, compare to God. Were Adam and Eve as good as God? Why not?

Again, they weren't predisposed to it. They were offered a choice. Would you prefer that they were automatons?

That's a very bad analogy. If, as a parent, I had complete and utter control over how my children would turn out, and if I were entirely good and all powerful, of course I'd be responsible for all of the mistakes of my children.

:nono2: That wasn't your prerequisite. Your prerequisite was foreknowledge, which, as a parent, you have. You do know they will make bad choices.

That's because, as a responsible, good parent, it would be my aim to create them in such a way that they would be just as good and powerful as me, meaning they just plain wouldn't make mistakes unless I juked something up along the way.

You've struck upon the original sin. Man thinking he's equal to God.

I really don't know what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure I'm drawing a very clear line between God's nature and man's. In fact, the presence of that very clear line is the big problem unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

They're two different things.

[IMMensaMind]

Not really. The god you describe could easily be one that deists ascribe to, one that was the first cause of the universe, set it in motion, but has no continuing influence in events after creation.

And as such, would still be a central topic of this thread - which was what I was saying. This is Creationist vs. Evolutionist. As such, a "Spinoza's" God would still be a Creationist. That's all I'm choosing to focus upon when I take up this topic.

This thread is specifically about evolution by natural selection, something that can be explained by naturalistic means without the need for a god. It is this lack of necessity for a deity that has people like you get their panties in a bunch.

Actually, it's not solely an Evolutionist thread - and my point throughout this thread has been that it is impossible to assert that Evolution can be a "natural" process without applying that same logic to what began that process, which is and always will be unknowable through any Scientific measure.

Making the claim that Evolution is a "Natural" process exactly as much an article of faith an anyone's claim that it wasn't - which has also been a central cog in my argument in this thread.

What is left, therefore, is the debate over what approach makes the most sense - and for that, my argument to Libertarian is my view. It is illogical to simultaneously know that we'll never be able to Scientifically determine that which catalyzed the Big Bang, and conclude that because we can't, we cannot - or will not - accept the concept of God as that Catalyst...

...when nothing else possibly could. That which is powerful enough to both be the catalyst of the Big Bang and exist prior to time and space must, by definition, be God.

[IMMensaMind]

There are other reasons. When it comes to biblical creationism in particular, I think of the many other examples where the bible loses credibility... not just due to science, but common sense.

I think mentioning the Bible in - at least as far as I'm concerned in the argument - is a red herring. I'm not here to defend Biblical Creationist account (though I could). I'm here to discuss with those that do not believe in the existence of God at all, why that position is, to me, illogical. I've spelled it out in the preceding posts.

Once I get to a point where I'm arguing with a person who believes in God, we can start to address the possible nature of said God, at which point discussions of the Bible may have some bearing.

[Epiphyte]

I think mentioning the Bible in - at least as far as I'm concerned in the argument - is a red herring. I'm not here to defend Biblical Creationist account (though I could). I'm here to discuss with those that do not believe in the existence of God at all, why that position is, to me, illogical. I've spelled it out in the preceding posts.

Once I get to a point where I'm arguing with a person who believes in God, we can start to address the possible nature of said God, at which point discussions of the Bible may have some bearing.

Does anyone here rule out the possibility of there being a God? I'm an atheist and I recognize that a God is possible.

I just don't see how calling whatever may have led to the creation of the Universe a "God" has much relevance to the theory of evolution which does not address the creation of life, much less creation of the Universe.

I think a comparison with the theory of plate tectonics is more applicable. Plates are moving today, life is evolving today. Yet, the theory of plate tectonics does not answer how plates initially formed and began moving, just like the theory of evolution does not address how life began. The lack of that information doesn't discredit either theory. I wouldn't call myself a "Tectonist" just as I wouldn't call myself an "Evolutionist."

[Gavica]

Does anyone here rule out the possibility of there being a God? I'm an atheist and I recognize that a God is possible.



thats not atheist, thats agnostic.

[Epiphyte]

thats not atheist, thats agnostic.

To be more accurate I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't think there is a God, at least not a God in the way that they are typically described, but I am not certain. Agnostics do not take any side in the matter.

[IMMensaMind]

Just as the definition for what science is shouldn't be limited to it's definition? Give me a break.

You're jumping in to a conversation without understanding its full context, I think. I've already contended - to no disagreement - that Science has limitations. As a control, that to which we can apply Science has to obey the Laws of Nature. Ergo: Science cannot address the condition prior to the Big Bang, as the Laws of Nature were not yet in effect.

Who are the "many on the left?" What are you trying to say with this?

Liberal Atheists. It applies to others as well, however - darkfrog and Libertarian, for instance, who cannot be described as leftists. The primary threat to Christian belief, however, is viewed by me as a leftist threat.

People can't disbelieve something science hasn't established as truth just like you can't believe it.

I agree - and yet...atheists do just exactly that. You've made one of my cases for me: I've said that to follow Atheism requires exactly as much faith as to believe in God.

However, people can use reasonable judgment and probability to arrive at a logical conclusion. Let me give you an example: I believe there are Unicorns in the Andromeda Galaxy. Prove me wrong. I'll write you a check for any number you wish if you prove me wrong. You'll never be able to. In much the same way as I can't prove it as true. You see the dilemma here?

You've constructed a False Dichotomy - I have no problem seeing that. While there is no evidence for a unicorn in another galaxy, what we're discussing here is what is evidence for God. I've already established that Science cannot delve into pre-Big Bang theory, as the control falls apart - there were no Laws of Nature (nor time, nor space) pre-Big Bang. That leaves us with - as I've quoted prominent astro-physicists pondering - "how to explain the catalyst of a Big Bang without a "Catalyzer". The short answer is: you can't. You literally have to make shit up to avoid it.

The "It", I choose to call God - and such a force would be worthy of the title.

The subject of the thread does and we already determined that the subject is inaccurate and the two ideas aren't at odds.

You're parsing - and what's inaccurate again? As you can see from darkfrog's post, so many secularists are attempting to use Science to establish "Natural" everything, and in the process, eliminate God from the equation. There is no logical basis from which to do so, but that is the attempt, nonetheless. Believing there is no God is just as much an article of faith as believing in God.

There is a construct where Evolution and Creation are not at odds - that part is correct. That correct observation, however, ignores those activists (like darkfrog, by his own admission) that are trying to get them to compete anyway.

I think he meant that in the context of this thread, not that scientists have no interest in answering questions.

I think you wish that is what he meant. He made no indication of that whatsoever. I was a definitive statement. Will he back away from that definity, now faced with such a strong argument that you had to offer this backtrack? We'll see.

In your world of making up meanings you are correct.

It's not made up at all - but if you attempt to widen the net Science can cast, you'll have made up a meaning. Science can only address that which takes place under the existing Laws of Nature. Not before.

You may legitimately believe in God if you so choose, nobody is stopping you. In fact, there are laws to protect your beliefs. However, that's all they are... beliefs (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief). Just like my belief in Unicorns, which you can't prove as false. Unlike you, though, I don't go around trying to influence people based on my beliefs nor do I force people to believe what I believe.

You're arguing with me, which is all I've ever done, so you're trying to influence belief exactly as much as I am. Failure to recognize that fact puts you in the wrong.

In fact, prior to this thread, I have never told anyone about my secret beliefs because I have absolutely no evidence to back them up. It would be foolish of me to try and convince somebody of something which is unprovable. Imagine if I went a step further and actually told you what the Unicorns think? What their intent with me is? What they want me to do here, on their behalf? How I will be reborn as a Unicorn if I follow their "Code." Etc.

This is hyperbole. You're here - as I am - defending a view. You are prosthelyzing as much as anyone in here.

Also: there is nothing whatsoever wrong, illegal, or otherwise to me attempting to convince you of the correctness of my beliefs. No one is forcing you to read - so trying to claim (incorrectly) that you're not doing so yourself is not only untrue, it's also meaningless.

There is nothing wrong with doing so, on either side. If you've twisted around rationale to attempt to convince yourself there is, you've just done what so many genocidists had to do to feel morally at peace with exterminating those who "were guilty" of expressing their views, and being what they were. I'm sure you don't want that.

I'll let you ponder on that...

Done - now you ponder on what I said.

To be more accurate I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't think there is a God, at least not a God in the way that they are typically described, but I am not certain. Agnostics do not take any side in the matter.

http://rlv.zcache.com/im_kind_of_pregnant_tshirt-p235294191241832363t5jm_125.jpg

:)

[darkfrog]

Actually, it's not solely an Evolutionist thread - and my point throughout this thread has been that it is impossible to assert that Evolution can be a "natural" process without applying that same logic to what began that process, which is and always will be unknowable through any Scientific measure.Of course it can be knowable through scientific means. Just because we haven't figured out how life began doesn't mean we won't. Just finding one possible way that life began naturally, even if it wasn't the way life on earth started, will be enough to show that life has the potential to begin naturally without a creator. You really seem to be fond of the god of the gaps argument, things that science doesn't know, you attribute to god.

Your other point, even if god made the first life, doesn't mean that evolution is not naturalistic. It occurs and moves forward without the intervention of supernatural intervention. It can be explained in completely biochemical terms. Saying it is impossible for it to be naturalistic is like saying god has a hand in every baby being born, every seedling sprouting, and every bacteria replicating.

[darkfrog]

thats not atheist, thats agnostic.Nope, agnosticism and gnosticism is about knowledge, atheism and theism is about belief. They are separate ontological questions, which unfortunately, many people misuse and misunderstand.

Agnostic simply means that you don't think it is possible to know if a god truly exists. Atheist means that you don't believe one exists. You can be an unbeliever but acknowledge it is impossible to know for sure. Agnosticism is not some middle ground between atheism and theism, even though that is what most people think it is.

[IMMensaMind]

Does anyone here rule out the possibility of there being a God? I'm an atheist and I recognize that a God is possible.

Then you are not an atheist. I am arguing not only with those who believe God isn't possible, but those who are attempting to bastardize the charter of The Sciences by harnessing them in the battle against Belief.

I just don't see how calling whatever may have led to the creation of the Universe a "God" has much relevance to the theory of evolution which does not address the creation of life, much less creation of the Universe.

It's conjoined - and I think that darkfrog's admission that this thread is "about demonstrating evolution is a purely natural phenomenon, where no God is needed" demonstrates that.

To battle such an assertion, one must consider The Origin, and determine whether it is accident, or Design. Because of the metaphysical questions, combine with the fact that certain answers are eliminated due to our knowledge of Science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics being central to this discussion), we know that all things had a Beginning.

In short, to evolve to something means that everything evolved from something. Taken to its logical origin, that something began with the Big Bang.

I think a comparison with the theory of plate tectonics is more applicable. Plates are moving today, life is evolving today. Yet, the theory of plate tectonics does not answer how plates initially formed and began moving, just like the theory of evolution does not address how life began. The lack of that information doesn't discredit either theory. I wouldn't call myself a "Tectonist" just as I wouldn't call myself an "Evolutionist."

I know of no one who parallels these two. To do so requires that the plate are moving in such a way as to improve their position/survivability or for some other aligned purpose.

Evolution takes place to heighten a species - and the phenomenon of Adaptation is evident. While there may be randomness involved in Evolution (mutation has a random element), Plate Techtonics is entirely random - there is no Adaptation whatsoever.

[Gavica]

Nope, agnosticism and gnosticism is about knowledge, atheism and theism is about belief. They are separate ontological questions, which unfortunately, many people misuse and misunderstand.

Agnostic simply means that you don't think it is possible to know if a god truly exists. Atheist means that you don't believe one exists. You can be an unbeliever but acknowledge it is impossible to know for sure. Agnosticism is not some middle ground between atheism and theism, even though that is what most people think it is.

if you acknowledge that it is impossible to know for sure, thats agnostic

[darkfrog]

I agree - and yet...atheists do just exactly that. You've made one of my cases for me: I've said that to follow Atheism requires exactly as much faith as to believe in God.Total and utter bullshit!

Do you really think all beliefs are equal? Is epi's belief in Andromeda unicorns on equal footing with the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow?

A negative belief in something that has no evidence is not the same as a positive belief in something that has no evidence. Even two different positive beliefs are not equal. Believing there's a purple dragon in my garage is not on equal footing with believing that life on earth will be wiped our by by an asteroid in the next week. The first one is a positive belief that has virtually no chance of being true, while the second belief could be true even though the probability is quite small.

Not believing in a god is not the same as belief in a god without evidence to support the existence of such a being.

[Epiphyte]

Then you are not an atheist.

So someone who believes in God but has some doubt isn't a theist?


I know of no one who parallels these two. To do so requires that the plate are moving in such a way as to improve their position/survivability or for some other aligned purpose.

Evolution takes place to heighten a species - and the phenomenon of Adaptation is evident. While there may be randomness involved in Evolution (mutation has a random element), Plate Techtonics is entirely random - there is no Adaptation whatsoever.

:confused:

Evolution does not take place for a purpose any more than gravity and plate tectonics take place for a purpose.

Plate Tectonics is not random. We can measure current plate movement, predict future plate movement, and discover evidence of past plate movement. We can also observe current evolution, predict future evolution, and find evidence of past evolution.

[Libertarian]

This thread does not and should not be limited only to that which Science can understand, particularly since many on the left choose to disbelieve something particularly because they've claimed that Science hasn't established it as truth.

I wasn't talking about things science hasn't achieved as truths. I was talking about things which science CAN NOT and CAN NEVER achieve as truths. There are very few things that qualify for this statement..and what happened before the big bang, or who/what created it are some of those questions.

our understanding frames the Big Bang as a re-action, because nothing else is rational; nothing else fits our physically known paradigms. God, therefore, is the name we choose to give the unknown Action. Where you attempt to fit the value null (Ø - which cannot be defended as mathematically correct, as "action" cannot be a null value), we assign a name.

Since you brought up what our experience teaches us...Yes, our experience teaches that something can not come from nothing. That is an irrational idea. It has also taught us the law of entropy, that over time, any system tends towards disorder unless acted upon by an outside force.. Since complex and orderly systems like machines do not emerge randomly from the rocks on earth, it is logical to assume a superior consciousness (and a being of even greater complexity) is acting on them...which is true.

The problem comes when we try applying this rational assumption to the universe. If it holds true, then any being of supreme consciousness..capable of creating an orderly universe with finely tuned laws that enable life to exist must himself/itself be ENORMOUSLY complex, and hence the product of a being of even greater complexity with a GREATER consciousness. This little snag is called the infinite regress paradox and it is a doozy. It might be fun to speculate, but the bottom line is that our knowledge ENDS once we reach the point of the big bang. There is no point in considering what exists beyond that point because any "answers" we get will be completely imaginary..which makes all "debates" on the subject exercises in futility.


That means that Science cannot ever be sufficient in order to gain more understanding, just as I've been saying all along.

It's very sufficient at some things..just not at discussing what happens outside the frakkin universe. As said above all answers to that question are 100% fiction, so no credibility can be given to any "conclusions" that get drawn, period..which is why I find the time and energy wasted by organized religion so absurd.

This is an interesting admission from a secularist, as I've combatted in this thread - and in others - the very claim levelled against Christians that simply believing in God is something which quashes the desire to think/learn/understand more. Here, you seem to be doing that very thing.

Science does have limits. If that was the point you were trying to make, I'll grant it.. But has anybody ever really attempted to deny it? :confused:

We cannot fully know its nature, but that should not stop us from admiring such a force, recognizing it as the Creator. That level of admiration can certainly be worship, can it not?

If that "force" is what you describe as God, then I am perhaps the most devoted follower on the forum. My mind is blown by the cosmos and the things within it.. The more I learn about it, the greater my sense of awed respect for the beauty, splendor, and order of "creation"..but I hold this reverence without the pretense of thinking I know the "secret" or the "man" behind it all. I don't think a neat little biblical summary is necessary to admire that which we are capable of perceiving.

Here is a recent example that made me bow my head for a few seconds..

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6254/353424.jpg

Does that chart give me a new sense of respect for the magnitude of creation? Absolutely.. Admiring the power and beauty of the universe is one thing..but worshiping it? Forming hundreds of competing versions of creation myths, all of them so obviously petty and earthbound..then forming entire religions around these myths with nothing but imagination to back them up? That's just foolishness. It is taking respect for creation too far and leads to nothing but human conflict and pointless debates with no objective truth available to either side. The only thing religion offers humanity is ancient stories, ancient dogma, and unprovable assertions that are in perpetual conflict with one another. If we are to "worship" anything as humans, it should be our capability and drive to think logically..our ability learn and understand more tomorrow than we do today, and science is the only pursuit that offers this.

[darkfrog]

if you acknowledge that it is impossible to know for sure, thats agnostic
Didn't I just say that? :bounce:

I acknowledge that it is impossible to know for sure, yet I'm still an atheist. Hmm.


I know many religious people that acknowledge they cannot know for sure. They are agnostic theists.

IOW, agnosticism doesn't put one in a category about belief therefore it isn't an intermediate between atheism and theism.

[Gavica]

Nope, agnosticism and gnosticism is about knowledge, atheism and theism is about belief. They are separate ontological questions, which unfortunately, many people misuse and misunderstand.

Agnostic simply means that you don't think it is possible to know if a god truly exists. Atheist means that you don't believe one exists. You can be an unbeliever but acknowledge it is impossible to know for sure. Agnosticism is not some middle ground between atheism and theism, even though that is what most people think it is.

Didn't I just say that? :bounce:

I acknowledge that it is impossible to know for sure, yet I'm still an atheist. Hmm.


I know many religious people that acknowledge they cannot know for sure. They are agnostic theists.

IOW, agnosticism doesn't put one in a category about belief therefore it isn't an intermediate between atheism and theism.

well the guy that I quoted said he didn't rule out the chance of there being a god, so how is that not agnostic?

[Epiphyte]

well the guy that I quoted said he didn't rule out the chance of there being a god, so how is that not agnostic?

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't think there is a God but I'm not certain.

Someone who believes in God but is not certain is an agnostic theist.

To be just agnostic is to not take any sides.

[IMMensaMind]

Total and utter bullshit!

Do you really think all beliefs are equal? Is epi's belief in Andromeda unicorns on equal footing with the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow?

Believing in God requires as much faith as believing there is no God, when you consider that we ponder this question amid a reality.

A negative belief in something that has no evidence is not the same as a positive belief in something that has no evidence.

I reject the premise - you're attempting to frame this debate to win before the arguments are even considered. You posit a false premise. There is evidence - you just reject it as such, calling it "natural", without being able to prove it.

Something with splendid design, down to the atomic level, and it's accidental to you - that's the only way that you can sidestep the question of "evidence".

My belief is that these wonders are evidence. But carry on...

Even two different positive beliefs are not equal. Believing there's a purple dragon in my garage is not on equal footing with believing that life on earth will be wiped our by by an asteroid in the next week. The first one is a positive belief that has virtually no chance of being true, while the second belief could be true even though the probability is quite small.

This is a false analogy. There is evidence througout history of God, and in our very existence. You're just choosing to reject it all, claiming it to be "natural", though you have no proof of such - and that's why this argument revolves around the fact that Science cannot and will not be able to discern those things prior to the Big Bang, because Science itself was created as well at that time!

Not believing in a god is not the same as belief in a god without evidence to support the existence of such a being.

You've restated - and I already answered.

[darkfrog]

Believing in God requires as much faith as believing there is no God, when you consider that we ponder this question amid a reality.



I reject the premise - you're attempting to frame this debate to win before the arguments are even considered. You posit a false premise. There is evidence - you just reject it as such, calling it "natural", without being able to prove it.

Something with splendid design, down to the atomic level, and it's accidental to you - that's the only way that you can sidestep the question of "evidence".

My belief is that these wonders are evidence. But carry on...



This is a false analogy. There is evidence througout history of God, and in our very existence. You're just choosing to reject it all, claiming it to be "natural", though you have no proof of such - and that's why this argument revolves around the fact that Science cannot and will not be able to discern those things prior to the Big Bang, because Science itself was created as well at that time!



You've restated - and I already answered.
You are distorting the idea of evidence. Sure you can believe that everything we see around us is evidence of the hand of god, that's what you have been arguing. But it is still merely belief. There is no actual empirical evidence that any of these processes require a god. So it really is your belief without evidence versus my lack of belief for the lack of said evidence.

[darkfrog]

Let me remind you of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html). Every argument in your arsenal (and some) has been used in attemptive defense of the drivelous rhetoric you spout and it fell flat on it's face, recognized for what it is and spanked out of court. I urge everyone who is curious about this debate to read the transcript (warning: very long read, but very rewarding). Alternatively, watch the digested version in these PBS videos: Intelligent Design on Trial (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html).
Repost (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=22350207&postcount=2121):lol:

You should watch this too: The Collapse of Intelligent Design:Kenneth R. Miller Lecture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU)

[IMMensaMind]

I wasn't talking about things science hasn't achieved as truths. I was talking about things which science CAN NOT and CAN NEVER achieve as truths. There are very few things that qualify for this statement..and what happened before the big bang, or who/what created it are some of those questions.

It is the only question, I believe. Science can operate under the rules of Nature, which only are germane to Nature's existence, which can be traced back to the Big Bang.

Since you brought up what our experience teaches us...Yes, our experience teaches that something can not come from nothing. That is an irrational idea. It has also taught us the law of entropy, that over time, any system tends towards disorder unless acted upon by an outside force.. Since complex and orderly systems like machines do not emerge randomly from the rocks on earth, it is logical to assume a superior consciousness (and a being of even greater complexity) is acting on them...which is true.

I'm with you.

The problem comes when we try applying this rational assumption to the universe. If it holds true, then any being of supreme consciousness..capable of creating an orderly universe with finely tuned laws that enable life to exist must himself/itself be ENORMOUSLY complex, and hence the product of a being of even greater complexity with a GREATER consciousness.

Nope. You lost me there. By definition, such a being has to exist outside of time and space, which means there is no valid timeline for Its appearance, as time had no bearing. It Would Have Always Been.

This little snag is the infinite regress paradox and it is a doozy.

It is irrational, and I think you've convinced yourself of it. Based upon our current research, we have concluded that both Time and Space began with the Big Bang. That is a relatively (in human terms) recent epiphany. What's interesting, is that the Bible (I'll reference it here as a footnote) has always contained the claim that God is the Alpha and Omega. The quote - attributed to God - is that "Before you were, I Am".

It's interesting how recent discoveries/theories seem to support such a pre-existing belief, not detract from it.

It might be fun to think about these things, but the bottom line is that our knowledge ENDS once we reach the point of the big bang. There is no point in considering what exists beyond that point because any "answers" we get will be completely imaginary..which makes all "debates" on the subject exercises in futility.

I reject this premise as well. Your reaction is the equivalent of this:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/5406116/2/istockphoto_5406116-hear-no-evil.jpg

You take the evidence that the Big Bang happened, and neatly tuck all the ramifications of that realization away, refusing to allow anything regarding it seep into your consciousness. I do the opposite. I deeply contemplate the obvious conclusion that must be drawn:

Everything was Created from Nothing.

which means, barring any other evidence to the contrary, that:

Something must have Caused that.

That something, will eternally remain God, and is the cornerstone of my faith. Once that realization hits, the magnificence of our Creation holds even greater meaning, as does Evolution (which Epiphyte claims has no meaning and no purpose, both of which I reject - and who will live more fulfilled? Someone who believes everything has meaning, or someone who believes nothing does?)

It's very sufficient at some things..just not at discussing what happens outside the frakkin universe.

Of course. This topic is about the validity of belief in God. Of course that leads us to what happens outside the universe. You, too, are establishing my position as the correct one. darkfrog has been attempting to assert that everything happens without God.

As I said above, all answers to that question are 100% fiction, so no credibility can be given to any "conclusions" that get drawn, period..which is why I find the time and energy wasted by organized religion so absurd.

No - not true. We all live with faith, every day - and its non-fiction. You eat your cereal in the morning, not believing that it contains poison. You exercise faith when you start your car and not worry that you'll blow up. Faith is not fiction. Contemplating that something obviously had to cause the Big Bang isn't fiction - and, in fact: it's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn at this point.

That isn't fiction. It's insurmountable.

Science does have limits. If that was the point you were trying to make, I'll grant it.. But has anybody ever really attempted to deny it? :confused:

Yes. People in this thread have been attempting to assert that Science will eventually figure it all out, and God will not be needed. That implies that (1) Science has no limits; (2) Belief in God is not valid, because we'll eventually discover that everything happens "Naturally" (whatever that means)

If that "force" is what you describe as God, then I am perhaps the most devoted follower on the forum. My mind is blown by the cosmos and the things within it.. The more I learn about it, the greater my sense of awed reverence for the beauty, splendor, and order of "creation"..but I hold this reverence without the pretense of thinking I know the "secret" or the "man" behind it all.

But you recognize something - something which I call God - behind it. You just admit to not understanding His Nature. Join the club - I don't either. From there, articles of faith (wrt religion) can be discussed - just not in this thread.

I don't think a neat little biblical summary is necessary to respect and admire that which we are capable of perceiving.

It isn't - which is why I've avoided it. I'm arguing against those whose belief systems deny God, or a god.

Here is a recent example that literally made me bow my head in pure awe:

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6254/353424.jpg

Does that chart give me a new sense of respect for the magnitude of creation? Absolutely..

Agreed. Ours is an awesome God - that's how I'd put that.

Respecting the power and beauty of the universe is one thing..but worshiping it?

Worshipping it? The universe is a Creation. That which is worthy of worship is its Creator.

Forming hundreds of competing versions of creation myths, all of them so obviously petty and earthbound..then forming entire religions around them with nothing but imagination as backing? That's just foolishness. It is taking respect for creation too far and can lead to nothing but human conflict and pointless debates with no objective truth available to either side. The only thing religion offers humanity is ancient stories, ancient dogma, and unprovable assertions that are in perpetual conflict with one another.

If you get stuck in the trappings of a religion contrived by Man, I absolutely agree. Religion is a machination of Man. I've always said that. My faith is a very personal relationship; nothing like what you describe above.

If we are to "worship" anything, it should be our capability and drive as humans to learn and understand more tomorrow than we do today..and science is the only pursuit that offers this.

Hold on - and this is a key point - how is the worship of Science any different than the worship of something else created by Man? What you describe here is Secular Humanism. It puts Man ahead of his Creator. Now, I would believe that there are those who can both believe in God and pursue Science akin to an explorer - but that's not what I'm talking about here, nor is it who I am addressing.

Didn't I just say that? :bounce:

I acknowledge that it is impossible to know for sure, yet I'm still an atheist. Hmm.


I know many religious people that acknowledge they cannot know for sure. They are agnostic theists.

IOW, agnosticism doesn't put one in a category about belief therefore it isn't an intermediate between atheism and theism.

You're a weak atheist.

[IMMensaMind]

Absolutely, the good old Wedge Strategy (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf) of the Discovery Institute (not really an institute, more of a corporation which tries to push the Creationist -- relabeled Intelligent Design -- propaganda).

I LOVE this thread; just shows how ignorant some people are despite their illusory flaunting of intelligence. I love nothing more than attacking you line-by-line ripping apart your nonsensical musings and wanna-be aphorisms, but thankfully that's already been done a million times by people far smarter than me. We are doing nothing more here than rehashing what is, by all accounts, old and disproved news. Let me help you with this, what you are trying to defend is based on illogic, fraudulence and ignorance. No matter how cleverly you veil your wording, no matter how much you try to redefine words, no matter how much you appeal to ignorance, on a macro-sense you are just plainly wrong. I will repeat myself: You Are Wrong.

Let me remind you of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html). Every argument in your arsenal (and some) has been used in attemptive defense of the drivelous rhetoric you spout and it fell flat on it's face, recognized for what it is and spanked out of court. I urge everyone who is curious about this debate to read the transcript (warning: very long read, but very rewarding). Alternatively, watch the digested version in these PBS videos: Intelligent Design on Trial (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html).

I have remained very polite and patient with you in my responses. You cannot seem to return the gesture.

You should ask yourself why that is, considering you believe you are arguing from a position of strength.

All these arguments boil down to this simple challenge:

If you can admit that the Big Bang took place, then please explain to me a more valid position for such an occurence beyond a Designer being the catalyst for it.

If you have to say "you don't know", then you aren't saying I'm wrong at all, as you've claimed above. You can then - if you're interested in open-minded debate - retract your claim.

If you have an explanation that no one on earth has produced, I'd like to hear it. I may nominate you for something.

Either way: ball's in your court.

[IMMensaMind]

You are distorting the idea of evidence. Sure you can believe that everything we see around us is evidence of the hand of god, that's what you have been arguing. But it is still merely belief. There is no actual empirical evidence that any of these processes require a god.

There certainly is, as is evidenced by the fact that no where in our history can we cite another example of something being created from nothing. The Big Bang is the only singularity which can boast that claim. That is a priori evidence that these processes require a God.

So it really is your belief without evidence versus my lack of belief for the lack of said evidence.

As I show above, that's not quite true.

[nobama]

Well done, IMMensaMind, absolutely well said and well done!! :nod: :thumbup:

[IMMensaMind]

Well done, IMMensaMind, absolutely well said and well done!! :nod: :thumbup:

Just doing the best I can to defend the rationale that led to my beliefs on this issue.

[Libertarian]

Hold on - and this is a key point - how is the worship of Science any different than the worship of something else created by Man?

Because scientific advancement is the pursuit of truth through reason. Do I worship reason and rationality? Yes, I suppose so. Those traits of humanity are my moral ideal. Superstition and the abandonment of reason are the opposite.

Saying "I don't know", is NOT an abandonment of reason. Saying "I don't know so God did it, THE END." certainly is.

Everything else you wrote rests on your belief that God just "is" and has always "been"..that the normal rules of logic do not apply to him...that contrary to our knowledge that complexity never emerges from nothing, HE somehow did. This belief is no more valid that an atheist's belief that the singularity at the center of the big bang "always existed". Both opinions are flawed and unprovable..but the atheist doesn't cling to any illusions that he has the final answer.

[Homefrrie]

Because scientific advancement is the pursuit of truth through reason. Do I worship reason and rationality? Yes, I suppose so. Those traits of humanity are my moral ideal. Superstition and the abandonment of reason are the opposite.

Saying "I don't know", is NOT an abandonment of reason. Saying "I don't know so God did it, THE END." certainly is.

Everything else you wrote rests on your belief that God just "is" and has always "been"..that the normal rules of logic do not apply to him...that contrary to our knowledge that complexity never emerges from nothing, HE somehow did. This belief is no more valid that an atheist's belief that the singularity at the center of the big bang "always existed". Both opinions are flawed and unprovable..but the atheist doesn't cling to any illusions that he has the final answer.

:iagree:

Science tells us that black/super black holes exist everywhere in our universe, including our own galaxy, yet they can't explain why some are small, and some are super massive and growing. Should we blindly assume that 'God' created them because we have no evidence as to how they formed? Eventually, we will find evidence as to why/how that happens. Same goes for the creation of what we believe to be our universe...

Hopefully, one day humans will encounter other species... if/when that happens, and that species tells us that they believe everything was created by one of them, because thousands of years ago, one of them proclaimed he was the son of such creator, and there are written records of such being existed. Who are we to believe?

[darkfrog]

There certainly is, as is evidenced by the fact that no where in our history can we cite another example of something being created from nothing. The Big Bang is the only singularity which can boast that claim. That is a priori evidence that these processes require a God.



As I show above, that's not quite true.
Lack of understanding of the singularity does not make god the only answer. We do know that things can pop into existence from 'nothing', it is called vacuum fluctuations. However, even those are based on things occurring within our universe. We cannot say that the BB singularity popped in out of nothing because the singularity IS the universe itself. Discussion of ideas or things outside of the universe is meaningless and nonsensical. You can take the metaphysical approach but that is purely a human abstraction, something to make us feel comfortable. Ascribing God to the first cause of the cosmos is the God of the gaps argument. Not knowing the answer does not automatically make the answer God.

[nobama]

Not knowing the answer does not automatically make the answer God.Not knowing the answer does not automatically make the answer not God either.

[Epiphyte]

Not knowing the answer does not automatically make the answer not God either.

Yeah. The point is that we don't know.

How does not knowing the way the Universe "began" discredit evolution? And why doesn't it discredit all the other scientific theories?

[nobama]

Yeah. The point is that we don't know.

How does not knowing the way the Universe "began" discredit evolution? And why doesn't it discredit all the other scientific theories?How does not knowing the way the Universe "began" discredit creation by Intelligent Design (a "creator" e.g. God)?

You can believe that God always was in existence and created the heaven and the earth, or

You can believe that some "matter" always existed and the universe evolved from that "matter" without Intelligent Design.

Either belief requires faith in the abscense of absolutely knowing.

[darkfrog]

How does not knowing the way the Universe "began" discredit creation by Intelligent Design (a "creator" e.g. God)?No one is discrediting ID based on how the universe began. People discredit ID as being science because it isn't.
You can believe that God always was in existence and created the heaven and the earth, or

You can believe that some "matter" always existed and the universe evolved from that "matter" without Intelligent Design.

Either belief requires faith in the abscense of absolutely knowing.
It requires faith to say that God always existed and created the heavens and teh earth.

It requires zero faith to say I don't know how the universe was started which is what us evil atheists have been saying.

If it makes you feel better to claim atheism requires as much faith as theism, go ahead, it still doesn't make it true.

[bobcat255]

Liberal Atheists. It applies to others as well, however - darkfrog and Libertarian, for instance, who cannot be described as leftists. The primary threat to Christian belief, however, is viewed by me as a leftist threat.

The primary threat to Christian belief is knowledge. It has nothing to do with political affiliation.

I agree - and yet...atheists do just exactly that. You've made one of my cases for me: I've said that to follow Atheism requires exactly as much faith as to believe in God.

I'm an atheist and my atheism isn't based on faith it's based on the fact that there's no proof that there is a "God." If there were sufficient evidence I would be forced to change my mind, however. You see, I'm the type to believe things after they're proven, I don't take the inverse approach; I leave that for Creationists and those in the psych-ward.

You've constructed a False Dichotomy - I have no problem seeing that. While there is no evidence for a unicorn in another galaxy, what we're discussing here is what is evidence for God. I've already established that Science cannot delve into pre-Big Bang theory, as the control falls apart - there were no Laws of Nature (nor time, nor space) pre-Big Bang. That leaves us with - as I've quoted prominent astro-physicists pondering - "how to explain the catalyst of a Big Bang without a "Catalyzer". The short answer is: you can't. You literally have to make shit up to avoid it.

The "It", I choose to call God - and such a force would be worthy of the title.

Really? Because I haven't seen a shred of evidence for said being or thing. In fact, your definition for God is an "Intelligent Designer." Using your very definition I may call myself God. I have designed a great many things and very intelligently I might add.

So now your argument starts with pre-Big Bang? So I literally have to make shit up to avoid "it," but for some reason the shit I may make up is not as good as the shit that you've made up? Who gave you the right to make up shit and say it's better than my shit? No, seriously...

See, if you just said your shit was the bomb, err... the force, I would agree with you. However it doesn't end there. Your shit also has a personality, it created you and me, there are even books about your shit. You also like to spread your shit to others telling them that it's better than my shit. That shit don't fly with me! :p

You're parsing - and what's inaccurate again? As you can see from darkfrog's post, so many secularists are attempting to use Science to establish "Natural" everything, and in the process, eliminate God from the equation. There is no logical basis from which to do so, but that is the attempt, nonetheless. Believing there is no God is just as much an article of faith as believing in God.

There is a construct where Evolution and Creation are not at odds - that part is correct. That correct observation, however, ignores those activists (like darkfrog, by his own admission) that are trying to get them to compete anyway.

Science is "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding."

See, I don't think darkfrog is being disengenuous here, I think you are. Darkfrog already admitted that science has nothing to say about God or faith, however it's people like you, the creationists, who believe that the scriptures should be taken literally in which case they disagree with the knowledge we have of the world. You see, science has nothing against you, YOU have something against science. (You may substitute the word "knowledge" if you'd like).

It's not made up at all - but if you attempt to widen the net Science can cast, you'll have made up a meaning. Science can only address that which takes place under the existing Laws of Nature. Not before.

You're arguing with me, which is all I've ever done, so you're trying to influence belief exactly as much as I am. Failure to recognize that fact puts you in the wrong.

I think you didn't read what I wrote. I told you that I don't care what you believe in. What I do care about is that those of your ilk try to weaken science in the public arena, try to transform it into something that it's not and more importantly you do it matter of factly. ID'ers want to teach dogma instead of established scientific facts to children.

This is hyperbole. You're here - as I am - defending a view. You are prosthelyzing as much as anyone in here.

Also: there is nothing whatsoever wrong, illegal, or otherwise to me attempting to convince you of the correctness of my beliefs. No one is forcing you to read - so trying to claim (incorrectly) that you're not doing so yourself is not only untrue, it's also meaningless.

There is nothing wrong with doing so, on either side. If you've twisted around rationale to attempt to convince yourself there is, you've just done what so many genocidists had to do to feel morally at peace with exterminating those who "were guilty" of expressing their views, and being what they were. I'm sure you don't want that.

Correctness of your beliefs? We established that your beliefs aka faith is baseless. Read the shit argument above. You're making up shit and trying to defend it. Except you didn't make up your shit, someone else made it up for you.

[IMMensaMind]

Because scientific advancement is the pursuit of truth through reason. Do I worship reason and rationality? Yes, I suppose so. Those traits of humanity are my moral ideal. Superstition and the abandonment of reason are the opposite.

As I'd hope you'd allow, what I am posting is quite reasonable. It's rational to believe that something incredibly powerful instigated the Big Bang - God. It has been given a name; one of many. That doesn't mean that we understand the Nature of God; we can never fully understand God's nature - and by any measure of Science, we will never be able to measure God's nature. It therefore falls to us to merely acknowledge the presence of such a powerful force.

Saying "I don't know", is NOT an abandonment of reason. Saying "I don't know so God did it, THE END." certainly is.

I agree. Who's doing that? Certainly not I. You're insinuating anyone worth speaking of does that - and that's a strawman.

Everything else you wrote rests on your belief that God just "is" and has always "been"..that the normal rules of logic do not apply to him...that contrary to our knowledge that complexity never emerges from nothing, HE somehow did.

Bad premise. God is not something which "emerges" - which is just a synonym for "was created". I've already explained how someone/thing which operates outside the realm of Time - which Created Time, for crissakes, cannot have a point of Origin. Even describing God as "complex" is insinuating some familiarity with His Nature, which you cannot have.

This belief is no more valid that an atheist's belief that the singularity at the center of the big bang "always existed". Both opinions are flawed and unprovable..but the atheist doesn't cling to any illusions that he has the final answer.

An atheist concluding that there is no God (strong atheism) has answered - with finality - that all that Is and Was was a natural occurence. That is just as final as anything else offered. You're bending logic and reason all over the place with your responses. I am pointing out loose reasoning and bad premises constantly - that should indicate to you that your position is not sound.

[IMMensaMind]

:iagree:

Science tells us that black/super black holes exist everywhere in our universe, including our own galaxy, yet they can't explain why some are small, and some are super massive and growing. Should we blindly assume that 'God' created them because we have no evidence as to how they formed? Eventually, we will find evidence as to why/how that happens. Same goes for the creation of what we believe to be our universe...

And in saying so, you're admitting that you follow Science as a religion: you have blind faith that such will be the outcome, though you have no way of knowing.

It's what I've been saying, and equally legitimate as any belief in God. Belief in God, and belief in Science, are not mutually exclusive. You do not hear those who believe in God attempting to crush Scientific research; you instead hear two other things:

1) You hear secularists attempting to use Science to delegitimize belief in God, as darkfrog admitted (and you also insinuate);

2) You hear those who believe in God objecting to those attempts.

Hopefully, one day humans will encounter other species... if/when that happens, and that species tells us that they believe everything was created by one of them, because thousands of years ago, one of them proclaimed he was the son of such creator, and there are written records of such being existed. Who are we to believe?

You just created - out of blind faith - something which could easily be claimed to parallel any article of faith in any religion that you deride as unsubstantiated. You, in short, just offered a tenet of a contrived secular religion.

You are no different than anyone else who believes something simply because they want to.

[IMMensaMind]

Lack of understanding of the singularity does not make god the only answer.

I never said it did. What I have been defending, with different approaches, is two things:

1) I find it rational to stick by that belief, as it is a logical answer;

2) It is the most comfortable answer at this time, barring a scintilla of evidence to the contrary.

We do know that things can pop into existence from 'nothing', it is called vacuum fluctuations.

A vacuum is not nothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy), in much the same way that 0≠Ø.

However, even those are based on things occurring within our universe.

Which is exactly why I answered as I did. It disqualifies the point.

We cannot say that the BB singularity popped in out of nothing because the singularity IS the universe itself. Discussion of ideas or things outside of the universe is meaningless and nonsensical.

Actually, it is the opposite of meaningless and nonsensical - and here is another secularist apparently unable to delve into further discovery, merely because of the metaphysical implications of the discussion, which is exactly what you claimed that believing in God would cause someone to do wrt to aborting Scientific research.

You can take the metaphysical approach but that is purely a human abstraction, something to make us feel comfortable.

It is clearly important to many. You're choosing to ignore it. Whatever suits you. Why are you still talking about it then? :dontknow:

Ascribing God to the first cause of the cosmos is the God of the gaps argument. Not knowing the answer does not automatically make the answer God.

Not knowing the answer does not automatically disqualify God as the answer either, particularly since no alternate answer will ever be forthcoming, due to the limitations of Science.

When it is realized that no other answer can ever be discovered, it can be argued that - for all eternity - God will be the only possible answer.

[IMMensaMind]

Yeah. The point is that we don't know.

How does not knowing the way the Universe "began" discredit evolution? And why doesn't it discredit all the other scientific theories?

I don't know how many possible ways I can say it but to say it again: it doesn't.

The battle here is one where Deists are on defense, attempting to fend off attacks from secularists (such as darkfrog) who are attempting to claim that, through the use of Science, full understanding will be reached which will invalidate belief in God. darkfrog has admitted that; I have highlighted it, and I have responded to it.

Atheists are on offense, attempting to battle belief in God, and they use Science in that effort. What's hypocritical are the posts in this very thread which both attempted to deny that, and then admitted it later on.

Evolution is the "tool du jour" in that effort. Propaganda revolves around it. The counter-argument, therefore, is manifold: where are the missing links? If evolution doesn't require God, how did life spring from non-life? How did non-life spring from nothing? How did such incredibly symbiotic Laws of Nature just begin to work so harmoniously?

And that's where we are.

[darkfrog]

1) You hear secularists attempting to use Science to delegitimize belief in God, as darkfrog admitted (and you also insinuate);
How do I de-legitimize God by the fact that I recognize that the world can exist without one? My lack of belief in a deity should not matter to anyone else, yet you appear to think that everyone MUST recognize the existence of a god because of the universe possibly had a beginning.

[darkfrog]

The battle here is one where Deists are on defense, attempting to fend off attacks from secularists (such as darkfrog) who are attempting to claim that, through the use of Science, full understanding will be reached which will invalidate belief in God. darkfrog has admitted that; I have highlighted it, and I have responded to it.
I have done no such thing. I have never claimed that science will eventually understand all. I do believe that science had made the belief in a god unnecessary but that is quite different than saying that it has eliminated the possibility of a god which is what you are accusing me of.

[Epiphyte]

Not knowing the answer does not automatically disqualify God as the answer either, particularly since no alternate answer will ever be forthcoming, due to the limitations of Science.

When it is realized that no other answer can ever be discovered, it can be argued that - for all eternity - God will be the only possible answer.

Why will no alternate answer never be forthcoming?? You can predict the future now?

Just because it seems impossible to find out today, does not mean it will be impossible to find out tomorrow. Just last century our understanding of space and time radically changed. Why are you absolutely certain it won't happen again?

[Epiphyte]

If evolution doesn't require God, how did life spring from non-life? How did non-life spring from nothing?

You could use the same reasoning to discredit ANY scientific theory.

As I've said, every theory has its boundaries. Evolution does not deal with the start of life any more than Plate Tectonics deals with the initial formation and initial movement of plates.

So, when you try and discredit it by pointing out something it does not address, you're not commenting on evolution at all.

Edit: Evolution deals with how life changes. If there is no life, it obviously cannot change. So, asking "how did life spring from non-life?" is not a question about evolution because it doesn't deal with life changing, it deals with life forming.

[Libertarian]

God is not something which "emerges" - which is just a synonym for "was created". I've already explained how someone/thing which operates outside the realm of Time - which Created Time, for crissakes, cannot have a point of Origin. Even describing God as "complex" is insinuating some familiarity with His Nature, which you cannot have.


FFS mensa, think about what you are saying. It is completely nonsensical.. If the rules of the universe don't apply outside the universe, WHY are you treating "God" like an engineer on earth? Engineers need to gather certain materials, then fine tune them to invent their creations. That is a distinct trait of earthbound creators. But according to you, there are no laws of reality outside the universe and everything is *radically* different outside space and time, so why do you believe someone needed to come along to "make" the big bang happen? If things outside spacetime are so different, why are you treating the big bang like a motor successfully assembled by Henry Ford? Why is a maker required? What about the materials he used to make the universe? Where did they come from? Where did his knowledge come from? Did anyone teach him how to do it?

Do you see how nonsensical issue becomes? The topic of anything existing "outside" space and time is beyond any frame of reference (real or imaginary) that we can come up with. To even attempt a serious discussion of the issue requires that we renounce reason and suspend all existing knowledge and rational thought. Every word uttered on the subject of ANYTHING existing "outside time", or "outside the universe" is meaningless...It is a blind assertion, a non-answer...an exercise in pure mental fiction. It really doesn't deserve the dignity of a response..but I'm willing to sacrifice my dignity one last time to try and explain it.

[IMMensaMind]

The primary threat to Christian belief is knowledge. It has nothing to do with political affiliation.

What knowledge have you gathered - has anyone gathered - that threatens Christian belief (and again: I'm particularly avoiding dragging a particular brand of religion into this - I'm attempting to restrain my arguments merely to the existence of a Designer/Creator/Intelligence/etc)?

I'm an atheist and my atheism isn't based on faith it's based on the fact that there's no proof that there is a "God." If there were sufficient evidence I would be forced to change my mind, however. You see, I'm the type to believe things after they're proven, I don't take the inverse approach; I leave that for Creationists and those in the psych-ward.

I'm getting sick of your insults and allusions. Can you not hold a conversation without being so rude? I should be worthy of your respect. Do you only react to that which you can see and believe? Material things? Can you only relate when you see personal stuff? Ok:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/IMMensaMind/DSC02879.jpg

This is my home.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/IMMensaMind/DSC00569.jpghttp://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/IMMensaMind/DSC00981.jpg

A couple of my favorite toys.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/IMMensaMind/Goodpic.jpghttp://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/IMMensaMind/Donaldwithus.jpg

This is my wife and I, taken before a charity event, and also with Donald Driver (a very devout Christian and a very close friend; I support his charity, and he's also my company spokesperson) - along with another good friend and his wife.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/IMMensaMind/DSC00854.jpg

My two girls. Yes - we Christians can certainly have our shit together, and maybe seeing pictures of me and my life will temper your insults and give you pause. Also: many of my neighbors have similar lives, and I know many of them are Christian as well. There's nothing wrong with the belief, and certainly nothing about it has limited my accomplishments in life.

You should do so well.

You're proud that you only believe stuff that is proven. Good for you. I find that very limiting. Humans, after all, are equipped with an incredible imagination, and - something deeper - a spirituality. That means that we're equipped to delve beyond that which is obvious. You should use that, not ignore it or look with disdain upon others who use it.

Really? Because I haven't seen a shred of evidence for said being or thing. In fact, your definition for God is an "Intelligent Designer." Using your very definition I may call myself God. I have designed a great many things and very intelligently I might add.

Strawman.

So now your argument starts with pre-Big Bang? So I literally have to make shit up to avoid "it," but for some reason the shit I may make up is not as good as the shit that you've made up? Who gave you the right to make up shit and say it's better than my shit? No, seriously...

See, if you just said your shit was the bomb, err... the force, I would agree with you. However it doesn't end there. Your shit also has a personality, it created you and me, there are even books about your shit. You also like to spread your shit to others telling them that it's better than my shit. That shit don't fly with me! :p

This shit is approaching trolling.

Science is "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding."

See, I don't think darkfrog is being disengenuous here, I think you are. Darkfrog already admitted that science has nothing to say about God or faith,

You are blind to what darkfrog said. Here's the link (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=22643145&postcount=2256) to the post in which he claimed that the effort was to explain existence without the need for God.

It's obvious that you're wrong - darkfrog actually said the opposite.

...however it's people like you, the creationists, who believe that the scriptures should be taken literally

Again, you're wrong. I've never said any such thing, and further, I've repeatedly explained that I'm attempting to restrict my scope of argument to strictly the aknowledgement of an Intelligent Designer, regardless the nature or Christian construct.

..in which case they disagree with the knowledge we have of the world.

*sigh*. Ok - please explain what is supposed to disagree with the "knowledge we have of the the world". :rolleye2:

You see, science has nothing against you, YOU have something against science. (You may substitute the word "knowledge" if you'd like).

You have yet to ascertain what exactly I have against Science. Of course, I don't want to interrupt your roll; this is your evangelization here; you're whipping yourself up into an irrational frenzy, so full are your misimpressions of my position.

I think you didn't read what I wrote. I told you that I don't care what you believe in. What I do care about is that those of your ilk try to weaken science in the public arena, try to transform it into something that it's not and more importantly you do it matter of factly. ID'ers want to teach dogma instead of established scientific facts to children.

You are attempting to influence others with your beliefs, just as anyone else is. I find reason to object to the characterizations and opinions of atheists, and I understand how they are attempting to use "Science" to discredit so much of what I believe in; so much of what the majority of Americans believe in. We are the silent majority, and we are waking up.

If that causes fear in you, so be it. Your responses are full of error, including the claim that IDers want to teach dogma instead of scientific fact. That's nonsense: not one IDer I have ever encountered wants to replace any scientific teaching at all. IDers merely want their perspective explained, and all that takes is use of a microscope, and mention of the designs found at that level, and how they're found - and repeated - elsewhere. Such realization strengthens the idea of an Intelligence behind the designs.

That seems to scare the shit out of you. We find it necessary, considering - as the post from darkfrog obviously illustrates - the effort from secularists to eliminate the need to believe in God, though no such success has been or will be forthcoming. The success of such an effort has come about through conditioning and propaganda alone. Through omission of alternatives. We will not tolerate that any longer, and are rising up to object.

Correctness of your beliefs? We established that your beliefs aka faith is baseless. Read the shit argument above. You're making up shit and trying to defend it. Except you didn't make up your shit, someone else made it up for you.

Again, your insults are pure adolescence. I believe I am correct; I'm arguing my side. You are as well. You, however, are the one doing the insulting. I am remaining patient.

[Libertarian]

damn mensa, I don't think I've insulted you yet but I feel bad about arguing with you now that I see you are a real person, lol.. ;)

[IMMensaMind]

How do I de-legitimize God by the fact that I recognize that the world can exist without one?

You cannot establish this as fact, because you cannot quantify the effect that something which you do not acknowledge has. It requires complete understanding of everything about our existence to do so, and you cannot establish that.

My lack of belief in a deity should not matter to anyone else, yet you appear to think that everyone MUST recognize the existence of a god because of the universe possibly had a beginning.

Strawman - again. I'm getting tired of the strawmen in here. If you have to conjure an argument in order to defeat it, you should instead investigate the weakness of your defenses.

I said that I stick by my beliefs because they are rational and defensible. I am the one being targeted with vitriol and disdain. I have not uttered such a tone against anyone else. It it obvious I am just defending the legitimacy of my views here.

damn mensa, I don't think I've insulted you yet but I feel bad about arguing with you now that I see you are a real person, lol.. ;)

:rofl2:

Let's see if it has additional effect. lol

[IMMensaMind]

FFS mensa, think about what you are saying. It is completely nonsensical.. If the rules of the universe don't apply outside the universe, WHY are you treating "God" like an engineer on earth?

I think you're drawing conclusions without basis. God is everywhere, and existed prior to existence. The very concept of God requires that. I have chosen to identify Him as the Designer.

Engineers need to gather certain materials, then fine tune them to invent their creations. That is a distinct trait of earthbound creators. But according to you, there are no laws of reality outside the universe and everything is *radically* different outside space and time, so why do you believe someone needed to come along to "make" the big bang happen? If things outside spacetime are so different, why are you treating the big bang like a motor successfully assembled by Henry Ford? Why is a maker required? What about the materials he used to make the universe? Where did they come from? Where did his knowledge come from? Did anyone teach him how to do it?

What's odd is your requirement to jump from not believing in God at all, directly to understanding all of it. Who says that's possible? Why is it for you?

As for why a maker is required: this reality is clearly incredibly complex, and arose from nothing. I can think of no other way to explain it except that it was developed by something far outside of our realm of understanding, and that something was required to exist prior to space or time.

Do you see how nonsensical issue becomes? The topic of anything existing "outside" space and time is beyond any frame of reference (real or imaginary) that we can come up with. To even attempt a serious discussion of the issue requires that we renounce reason and suspend all existing knowledge and rational thought. Every word uttered on the subject of ANYTHING existing "outside time", or "outside the universe" is meaningless...It is a blind assertion, a non-answer...an exercise in pure mental fiction. It really doesn't deserve the dignity of a response..but I'm willing to sacrifice my dignity one last time to try and explain it.

I think you're attempting to apply logic and reason of man to something which is beyond the grasp of any of us to fully understand. You seem unable to even accept the possibility of something great existing unless you're also able to fully understand it.

That's what I deem nonsensical.

[IMMensaMind]

I have done no such thing. I have never claimed that science will eventually understand all. I do believe that science had made the belief in a god unnecessary but that is quite different than saying that it has eliminated the possibility of a god which is what you are accusing me of.

This statement makes no sense. You think that Science has made belief in God unnecessary, but you also think that it's different than saying that it has eliminated the possibility of a God?

You're parsing, and contorting yourself. Earlier in this thread (like 70 pages ago), you and others were denying that Science was being used to this end.

Now you're contradicting what you said - and exposing that my earlier assertion was totally correct.

September 14, 2009, 1:52 pm: System Notice: This thread content has been automatically archived from another thread which reached post limit, and will be preserved for reference and archival purposes. The discussion should continue in the original thread (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=98130)