Re: Re: Re: Getting the point ...
Re: Re: Re: Getting the point ...
Yeah yeah. We know this sort of argument.
For the sake of debate, we should try to abstain from the "circular view" thing. The question which is in concern of course, is how do we know the things we think we know, and how do we discover truth.
Let us try to find out for ourselves the truth of things.
So, the only way we would have got here, is because God created us, and earth and the heavens, and all there is.
Let us suppose, just for the sake of the discussion, that would be the case. Let us futher, just for investigating that issue, suppose there would have been no God. Even if you can not imagine that.
Then, what would there have been, according to you?
A mere nothing?
So, you say there was no evolution? There were just at one time plants, who came from nowhere? And then there were animals?
And then humans. Just so? Just like that? They "popped" out of nothing, just because God blew his breath over the earth?
What is scientific about that explenation? It's the direct opposite!
Science tells us, that everything that exists, is evolving and changing. From the atom to the galaxies, and from microbes to humans. Everything that is, is always in the process of becoming, changing, transforming, etc. There is nothing that stands still absolutely. There is nothing that appears out of nothing, and nothing that disapears into nothing.
Things progress and change and transform. Always when a certain thing takes a new form, there was something(s) before, that changed into that new thing.
This is what we observe the world to be.
The first law of thermodynamics incorporates just that principle, that matter and energy are conserved quantities. You get nothing from nothing.
The Biblical perspective is only correct if it's the correct interpretation of reality. How can we find out if the Bible is true?
By investigating reality itself of course!
If I state to you, that it's raining, and that you can take my word for it, and swear to God and curse you if you not believe me, is it then raining or not? Unless you go actually outside, you will never find out if it's raining or not!
Same for the word of God. How do you know if the word of God is correct or not, and if the Bible is correct or not?
Where do the "supernatural powers of God" come from then?
And God itself?
You might use God as an explenation, but what then explains God? If we explain things in terms which we do not and can not explain, is that then an explenation at all?
If everything I do not know, is stated by me as caused by "unknown force X", then it can be used to explain everything. At the same time it doesn't explain us anything, since I have no clue as to what "unknown force X' in fact is.
I could then as well say: I don't know what caused this, and then later try to find out.
By declaring that something is caused by something, is not in itself knowledge. If I declare that the Big Bang was caused by a
"quantum hypersphere", then I only declare something.
But we have in fact not yet aquired any new knowledge, since we do not know what this "quantum hypersphere" in fact is, and neither we know, why that is the correct interpretation.
So, in fact, as you can probably understand, this is not so very easy to get in fact real knowledge. It is therefore evident that a lot of what we now know, we did not all of a sudden just invent or made up, but costs years and years of research work, and building theories, and proof them, etc. to actually arrive at knowledge. And even so, what we consider to be knowledge, is under permanent reconstruction and permanent reevalution.
Especially in new fields of knowledge, totally contradictionary ideas emerge, and sicentist battle over what is the right theory.
If you have time for this, perhaps you should look the history of science in some fields, for example the theory of gravity. Before Einstein, for more as hundred years people believed that the theory of Newton was right. Einstein however proved that the General Relativity theory was in some special circumstances, when we have to accomodate for relativistic effects, was the better theory.
In the field of science and theory and knowledge, there is no stand still, but change. Old theories are replaced with new theories. But that does not mean that the old theories were just plain wrong, without the old theory we would have never gotten the new theories. All our knowledge are just steps towards new and better knowledge.
Life can not form and exist everywhere. That is true. For life to come into existence, the right conditions are necessary. Most like water, sun, and a lot of other chemical and physcial conditions.
closed system:
What you mean with "closed" system. Can you draw a sphere (independ how large) around the universe that contains everything?
Second law of thermodynamics:
Do you know what this law states or not states?
It's applicable to "closed" systems only. Earth is not a closed system, since it gets energy from the sun. The sun is the major energy supplier that drives the eco system.
Life forms don't violate the second law of thermodynamics, cause lifeforms can arrange themselves. They can do that, because they take in new energy supplies. That is why all life forms have to "eat".
But what does it help? Does it increase knowledge to say, that the "super natural" caused a certain phenomena?
(see also above)
Human knowledge has explained more and more facts, that previously were unexplained or were seen as "supernatural".
Now they have become part of nature itself.
I think you misunderstand us. I think we have the same perceptions about the wonders of nature. I saw a deep sea film, just shortly, about the wonderlous life forms that exist in the deep sea. I we were not told this, one could have believed that they were about life forms in another galaxy or so.
Did you know there were life forms out there, deep beneath in the see (2 to 4 km deep) that don't need the sun, but use other energy sources like deep sea wells?
There is no difference between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution"! The only difference is the time scale. Mr Magic at work is: TIME!
We know about more mythology then just the Bible. Without showing disrespect, the stories of the Bible were human made stories and verses and ideas on the human perspective about life, our origin
Everyone wonders about where we come from, where we go to etc. Also the people in the ancient past. But unlike the present times, they did not yet have the tools to research the world, and to find truth.
They stated what they believed was true. There was nothing dishonest about that. They believed what they told us, and put that in writing.
But you know, knowledge is not instantanious. It's not that when you have a fully working and equipped brain, that you have knowledge, just like that. To find the truth, is hard work, costs time, and involves a lot of research and investigation.
Through science we can aquire new knowledge, which we did not have before. How can one know about the origin of life, when you don't have a microscope, and all that, to explore reality.
So, it's not surprising early manhood had no idea about that.
But what is intrinsically humanly is that we want to know. And even if we realy have no idea at all, and have nothing to base ourselves on, we will always form some idea, which can take the shape of a belief.
Let us assume you are in the middle of the desert. You can not stay there, you would die. So you have to go somewhere, in order to find water. But every direction looks the same, and you have no idea where you are. What will you do?
What will happen is, that you will at least believe something, to base yourself on. You will look for a clue, and if there is none, you will form yourself a belief, which directs you to some goal.
Hitler's and Manson's visions were intrinsically imhumane and anti-human.
How can we know if a certain value is good for us or not? We can. We are humans ourselves, and know what is good for us or not.
Humans are free. They have no obligation to anything above humanity itself. The only obligation we have, is our obligation to freedom itself.
In the human consciousness, the influence of the society is of course important.
With respect to the Christians that DID stand up, fought against the nazi's, and helped Jews and others that were prosecuted by the nazi's, and also peoples of other beliefs and conviction, the thing is then, if so many christians failed in preventing such events to take place.
Let us not forget that this all happened not in "some other countries", but happened in what was called "Christian" countries. Countries which were for centuries were under the infleunce of Christianity and Christian institutions.
So, if is is stated then that the Christian moral is Absolutely good, because it uses God for the standard, then it must be clear that if FAILED ABSOLUTELY!
That is why, at least to me, the vocation of Christians on their Absolute moral, to me makes no sense. Not that I think or know that Christians are no good, or have no moral, because I know of a lot of Christians who do, but because "calling oneself a Christian" and practicing good morals, are two different things.
A society is composed of humans. So in last instance it is the individual that must make a choice and judgement.
Life is not easy, and nobody ever said it was.
It might feel comfortable to be guided with "absolyte morals" coming from an "authority", but same as when you grow up, and go from childhood to youth to begin a full grown up adult, you can not always go back to your parents to ask for guidance. You need to be able to sustain yourself, also in the fields of morals.
That's why it is important that in your education, you develop moral guide lines for yourself, and are able to help yourself, even if your own moral guidelines, seem of no help.
Re: Re: Re: Getting the point ...
Yeah yeah. We know this sort of argument.
For the sake of debate, we should try to abstain from the "circular view" thing. The question which is in concern of course, is how do we know the things we think we know, and how do we discover truth.
Let us try to find out for ourselves the truth of things.
So, the only way we would have got here, is because God created us, and earth and the heavens, and all there is.
Let us suppose, just for the sake of the discussion, that would be the case. Let us futher, just for investigating that issue, suppose there would have been no God. Even if you can not imagine that.
Then, what would there have been, according to you?
A mere nothing?
So, you say there was no evolution? There were just at one time plants, who came from nowhere? And then there were animals?
And then humans. Just so? Just like that? They "popped" out of nothing, just because God blew his breath over the earth?
What is scientific about that explenation? It's the direct opposite!
Science tells us, that everything that exists, is evolving and changing. From the atom to the galaxies, and from microbes to humans. Everything that is, is always in the process of becoming, changing, transforming, etc. There is nothing that stands still absolutely. There is nothing that appears out of nothing, and nothing that disapears into nothing.
Things progress and change and transform. Always when a certain thing takes a new form, there was something(s) before, that changed into that new thing.
This is what we observe the world to be.
The first law of thermodynamics incorporates just that principle, that matter and energy are conserved quantities. You get nothing from nothing.
The Biblical perspective is only correct if it's the correct interpretation of reality. How can we find out if the Bible is true?
By investigating reality itself of course!
If I state to you, that it's raining, and that you can take my word for it, and swear to God and curse you if you not believe me, is it then raining or not? Unless you go actually outside, you will never find out if it's raining or not!
Same for the word of God. How do you know if the word of God is correct or not, and if the Bible is correct or not?
Where do the "supernatural powers of God" come from then?
And God itself?
You might use God as an explenation, but what then explains God? If we explain things in terms which we do not and can not explain, is that then an explenation at all?
If everything I do not know, is stated by me as caused by "unknown force X", then it can be used to explain everything. At the same time it doesn't explain us anything, since I have no clue as to what "unknown force X' in fact is.
I could then as well say: I don't know what caused this, and then later try to find out.
By declaring that something is caused by something, is not in itself knowledge. If I declare that the Big Bang was caused by a
"quantum hypersphere", then I only declare something.
But we have in fact not yet aquired any new knowledge, since we do not know what this "quantum hypersphere" in fact is, and neither we know, why that is the correct interpretation.
So, in fact, as you can probably understand, this is not so very easy to get in fact real knowledge. It is therefore evident that a lot of what we now know, we did not all of a sudden just invent or made up, but costs years and years of research work, and building theories, and proof them, etc. to actually arrive at knowledge. And even so, what we consider to be knowledge, is under permanent reconstruction and permanent reevalution.
Especially in new fields of knowledge, totally contradictionary ideas emerge, and sicentist battle over what is the right theory.
If you have time for this, perhaps you should look the history of science in some fields, for example the theory of gravity. Before Einstein, for more as hundred years people believed that the theory of Newton was right. Einstein however proved that the General Relativity theory was in some special circumstances, when we have to accomodate for relativistic effects, was the better theory.
In the field of science and theory and knowledge, there is no stand still, but change. Old theories are replaced with new theories. But that does not mean that the old theories were just plain wrong, without the old theory we would have never gotten the new theories. All our knowledge are just steps towards new and better knowledge.
Life can not form and exist everywhere. That is true. For life to come into existence, the right conditions are necessary. Most like water, sun, and a lot of other chemical and physcial conditions.
closed system:
What you mean with "closed" system. Can you draw a sphere (independ how large) around the universe that contains everything?
Second law of thermodynamics:
Do you know what this law states or not states?
It's applicable to "closed" systems only. Earth is not a closed system, since it gets energy from the sun. The sun is the major energy supplier that drives the eco system.
Life forms don't violate the second law of thermodynamics, cause lifeforms can arrange themselves. They can do that, because they take in new energy supplies. That is why all life forms have to "eat".
But what does it help? Does it increase knowledge to say, that the "super natural" caused a certain phenomena?
(see also above)
Human knowledge has explained more and more facts, that previously were unexplained or were seen as "supernatural".
Now they have become part of nature itself.
I think you misunderstand us. I think we have the same perceptions about the wonders of nature. I saw a deep sea film, just shortly, about the wonderlous life forms that exist in the deep sea. I we were not told this, one could have believed that they were about life forms in another galaxy or so.
Did you know there were life forms out there, deep beneath in the see (2 to 4 km deep) that don't need the sun, but use other energy sources like deep sea wells?
There is no difference between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution"! The only difference is the time scale. Mr Magic at work is: TIME!
We know about more mythology then just the Bible. Without showing disrespect, the stories of the Bible were human made stories and verses and ideas on the human perspective about life, our origin
Everyone wonders about where we come from, where we go to etc. Also the people in the ancient past. But unlike the present times, they did not yet have the tools to research the world, and to find truth.
They stated what they believed was true. There was nothing dishonest about that. They believed what they told us, and put that in writing.
But you know, knowledge is not instantanious. It's not that when you have a fully working and equipped brain, that you have knowledge, just like that. To find the truth, is hard work, costs time, and involves a lot of research and investigation.
Through science we can aquire new knowledge, which we did not have before. How can one know about the origin of life, when you don't have a microscope, and all that, to explore reality.
So, it's not surprising early manhood had no idea about that.
But what is intrinsically humanly is that we want to know. And even if we realy have no idea at all, and have nothing to base ourselves on, we will always form some idea, which can take the shape of a belief.
Let us assume you are in the middle of the desert. You can not stay there, you would die. So you have to go somewhere, in order to find water. But every direction looks the same, and you have no idea where you are. What will you do?
What will happen is, that you will at least believe something, to base yourself on. You will look for a clue, and if there is none, you will form yourself a belief, which directs you to some goal.
Hitler's and Manson's visions were intrinsically imhumane and anti-human.
How can we know if a certain value is good for us or not? We can. We are humans ourselves, and know what is good for us or not.
Humans are free. They have no obligation to anything above humanity itself. The only obligation we have, is our obligation to freedom itself.
In the human consciousness, the influence of the society is of course important.
With respect to the Christians that DID stand up, fought against the nazi's, and helped Jews and others that were prosecuted by the nazi's, and also peoples of other beliefs and conviction, the thing is then, if so many christians failed in preventing such events to take place.
Let us not forget that this all happened not in "some other countries", but happened in what was called "Christian" countries. Countries which were for centuries were under the infleunce of Christianity and Christian institutions.
So, if is is stated then that the Christian moral is Absolutely good, because it uses God for the standard, then it must be clear that if FAILED ABSOLUTELY!
That is why, at least to me, the vocation of Christians on their Absolute moral, to me makes no sense. Not that I think or know that Christians are no good, or have no moral, because I know of a lot of Christians who do, but because "calling oneself a Christian" and practicing good morals, are two different things.
A society is composed of humans. So in last instance it is the individual that must make a choice and judgement.
Life is not easy, and nobody ever said it was.
It might feel comfortable to be guided with "absolyte morals" coming from an "authority", but same as when you grow up, and go from childhood to youth to begin a full grown up adult, you can not always go back to your parents to ask for guidance. You need to be able to sustain yourself, also in the fields of morals.
That's why it is important that in your education, you develop moral guide lines for yourself, and are able to help yourself, even if your own moral guidelines, seem of no help.
