Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
I think that you would have to add to this the resurrection of Jesus, as that is the event on which Christianity lives or dies. Otherwise there would be a lot of people who could claim to be the failthful witness of God. Muhammed, and Joseph Smith of Mormonism, come to mind. In fact, Jesus said that the resurrection would be his final sign to Israel that he was the Christ. (Luke 11:29)
But the more important point that you have illustrated here is that salvation is not attained by works of man (generic term), but by accepting the work that Jesus did.
To the True Believers out there (Pure, Ex, Aussie, et al) I don't know why God requires a blood sacrifice. Just a rule He set up. Kind of gory to our way of thinking, but then to most people ( in industrialized lands) the slaughter of beef is pretty gory. Just because we don't fully understand it does not make it wrong.
isaiah 1:18
New member
No understanding the "40 seconds" thing posted by Tye Porter.
Anyway, be well Heino in all your affairs.
Bmyers, I just read this in you signature, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
- Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha.
What a great saying!
To all, much like Heino, I will be away for a while, what with the start of school and all, so I will not have the luxury of coming to converse with any sort of regularity. So I might as well kick the habit starting today lest it encroach upon my spare monents.
Peace.
Anyway, be well Heino in all your affairs.
Bmyers, I just read this in you signature, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
- Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha.
What a great saying!
To all, much like Heino, I will be away for a while, what with the start of school and all, so I will not have the luxury of coming to converse with any sort of regularity. So I might as well kick the habit starting today lest it encroach upon my spare monents.
Peace.
cheeezywheeezy
New member
quoting bymers:
"...the one that has always seemed to be the most troubling in this respect is Jesus' dying words (according to Mark and Matthew) - "Why have you forsaken me?" - which at least appears to indicate not only disagreement with God's plans, but doubt."
Just a comment about the statement "Why have you forsaken me?" Ironically I have been asked about this same exact thing at least three times in the past few months. So if you care here's my thoughts...
Suppose I come up to you and I say "Knock Knock"
You will more than likely respond with a "Who's there"
Why? Because everyone knows from experience and repitition of the joke that the response to "Knock Knock" is "Who's there". As an aside I use "everyone" as a figure of speech becuase obviously not every single person knows this.
I believe that similarly when Jesus was on the cross and said (Matt 27:46 and Mark 15:34)"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Everyone knew what He was talking about. No...He wasn't telling a Knock Knock joke...but in a like manner once He said that...He was telling His Jewish audience that knew the scriptures "Hey...you know what I'm quoting...think about the rest of it.
He was quoting the lyrics to a song. Or more accurately...a Psalm. In fact it was Psalm 22:1.
I think that when the Jewish audience heard Him so that line they began to think about the Psalm 22. More specifically starting with verse 12. In affect Jesus was telling the audience that that Psalm was about Him.
This is where we read about no bones of Jesus were broken etc...
So I do not believe that God left Jesus or anything along those lines. But rather He was telling them that He was fulfilling this "prophecy" written such a long time ago. Including the casting of lots for His clothing etc..."
Just my thoughts.
"...the one that has always seemed to be the most troubling in this respect is Jesus' dying words (according to Mark and Matthew) - "Why have you forsaken me?" - which at least appears to indicate not only disagreement with God's plans, but doubt."
Just a comment about the statement "Why have you forsaken me?" Ironically I have been asked about this same exact thing at least three times in the past few months. So if you care here's my thoughts...
Suppose I come up to you and I say "Knock Knock"
You will more than likely respond with a "Who's there"
Why? Because everyone knows from experience and repitition of the joke that the response to "Knock Knock" is "Who's there". As an aside I use "everyone" as a figure of speech becuase obviously not every single person knows this.
I believe that similarly when Jesus was on the cross and said (Matt 27:46 and Mark 15:34)"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Everyone knew what He was talking about. No...He wasn't telling a Knock Knock joke...but in a like manner once He said that...He was telling His Jewish audience that knew the scriptures "Hey...you know what I'm quoting...think about the rest of it.
He was quoting the lyrics to a song. Or more accurately...a Psalm. In fact it was Psalm 22:1.
I think that when the Jewish audience heard Him so that line they began to think about the Psalm 22. More specifically starting with verse 12. In affect Jesus was telling the audience that that Psalm was about Him.
This is where we read about no bones of Jesus were broken etc...
So I do not believe that God left Jesus or anything along those lines. But rather He was telling them that He was fulfilling this "prophecy" written such a long time ago. Including the casting of lots for His clothing etc..."
Just my thoughts.
Last edited:
Really Isaiah, this is not a good saying at all. It is a restating of what God rebuked Israel for: everyone was doing what seemed right in their own eyes. This gives license to all the evil people out there who want to abuse people who they see as a "problem" in their lives.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
How do you know that all the references Jesus made to being God were only metaphorical ? Did you get some special revelation ? What was the charge brought against Jesus that was worthy of death ? How about blasphemy, making himself equal to (being) God.
I will be leaving this forum, since nobody seems to be able to offer any concrete proof of where birds, or any other group of living organisms, came from.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
True, Jesus did not say "I am God", but then again Hitler did not say "kill all the Jews".
How do you know that all the references Jesus made to being God were only metaphorical ? Did you get some special revelation ? What was the charge brought against Jesus that was worthy of death ? How about blasphemy, making himself equal to (being) God.
I will be leaving this forum, since nobody seems to be able to offer any concrete proof of where birds, or any other group of living organisms, came from.
Bigotboy,
Is this the most banal, ridiculous, childish statement any one has EVER made here..
Boo Hoo poor BB.. we have told you a million times where these things come from. They evolved from earlier species. The original life was probably formed from a mix of chemicals and environmental conditions. You just choose not to listen.
Your mind is closed to anything but a mythological explanation of “God did it”
When clearly God didn’t do it..
A bird comes from its parents. One provides the Egg and the other the sperm.. God clearly does not manufacture every living creature.. we know they come about naturally.. why would anyone assume he ever did ?? It doesn’t make sense.
BTW Cya BB.. it not like you added much of any relevance anyway..LOL..jk !
Is this the most banal, ridiculous, childish statement any one has EVER made here..
Boo Hoo poor BB.. we have told you a million times where these things come from. They evolved from earlier species. The original life was probably formed from a mix of chemicals and environmental conditions. You just choose not to listen.
Your mind is closed to anything but a mythological explanation of “God did it”
When clearly God didn’t do it..
A bird comes from its parents. One provides the Egg and the other the sperm.. God clearly does not manufacture every living creature.. we know they come about naturally.. why would anyone assume he ever did ?? It doesn’t make sense.
BTW Cya BB.. it not like you added much of any relevance anyway..LOL..jk !
Bmyers,
I think we have established that BB (as if the user name wasn’t already a clue) is not the sharpest knife in the drawer !
I think we have established that BB (as if the user name wasn’t already a clue) is not the sharpest knife in the drawer !
Last edited:
PureX
Well-known member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
Now what would be the probability of some guy down the street actually being God, whether he says he is or not, do you think?
Extraordinary claims require far more justification than ordinary claims because they are so much more unlikely. And there are very good reasons that people require so much more justification. If we accept these wild claims without any supporting evidence, then we can become the victim of all sorts of lies and delusions. If we are going to accept Jesus as God without any evidence, then why not accept that space aliens are living among us disguised as humans? Or maybe that evil demons are living among us disguised as humans, and it's our job to destroy them? You can see where this is going. Skepticism is an important and necessary component of our own sanity. Religions that teach people that skepticism is against God's will are lying, and are promoting mental ill-health just so they can get people to follow their dogma blindly. If they actually cared about other people, they wouldn't do this. But instead all they care about is gaining converts that they can manipulate.
I can't know for certain that Jesus was or was not God. But then I can't know for certain that YOU are not God. What I do know is that it's very dangerous and unhealthy to call ANY man a god. Even a dead man. And I won't do so without a ton of evidence. More evidence than could ever humanly be produced. We don't even come close to having this evidence with Jesus. Stories that have certainly been exaggerated over many years of retelling do not constitute evidence. And I really doubt that God himself would expect them to.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
It's impossible for us to know. Just like it's impossible for we humans to be certain about most anything. Yet we still have to make choices, to live. And we do this all the time by extrapolating probabilities. For example: it's very probable that gravity will be in effect tomorrow. We can't actually know that it will be, but from all our past experiences, it would appear very probable that it will be. We make our decisions in life based on many of these kinds of extrapolated probabilities. We have to, because we actually know very little.
Now what would be the probability of some guy down the street actually being God, whether he says he is or not, do you think?
Extraordinary claims require far more justification than ordinary claims because they are so much more unlikely. And there are very good reasons that people require so much more justification. If we accept these wild claims without any supporting evidence, then we can become the victim of all sorts of lies and delusions. If we are going to accept Jesus as God without any evidence, then why not accept that space aliens are living among us disguised as humans? Or maybe that evil demons are living among us disguised as humans, and it's our job to destroy them? You can see where this is going. Skepticism is an important and necessary component of our own sanity. Religions that teach people that skepticism is against God's will are lying, and are promoting mental ill-health just so they can get people to follow their dogma blindly. If they actually cared about other people, they wouldn't do this. But instead all they care about is gaining converts that they can manipulate.
I can't know for certain that Jesus was or was not God. But then I can't know for certain that YOU are not God. What I do know is that it's very dangerous and unhealthy to call ANY man a god. Even a dead man. And I won't do so without a ton of evidence. More evidence than could ever humanly be produced. We don't even come close to having this evidence with Jesus. Stories that have certainly been exaggerated over many years of retelling do not constitute evidence. And I really doubt that God himself would expect them to.
Scrimshaw
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
Exactly, and what is the probability that a God would create an elaborate universe, complex lifeforms, sentient personal beings (like humans), and NOT communicate with his creation? Even yo-yo makers label their product and include instructions for how to use it. If there is a God that created an amazingly complex "product" like human life, it seems extremely probable that this God would have done no less than yo-yo makers do, and included at least some kind of instructions regarding his purpose in creating us, as well as how human life was designed to be used.
Acknowledging that probability is the basis for looking for possible ways that our Creator might have communicated those things to us......If is it highly probable that God would have communicated to his creation, (which I think it is) then we have no reason to dismiss all historical accounts of such divine communications out of hand.
Agreed, but what makes that idea somewhat meaningless is the fact that each individual may have a different idea about what is "extraordinary" and what is not. Evolutionists, for example, do not find it extraordinary to believe that the universe exploded, and from this chaotic explosion, molecules mindlessly assembled themselves into human beings over billions of years of lucky accidents. Yet, this "extraordinary" idea is taught every day in most educational institutions throughout the world.
In the realm of philosophy.....(and origins is a philosophical topic, btw) people pick and choose what they believe is "extraordinary" and what is not.
In my view, I find the molecules-to-man evolution myth to be far more "extraordinary" than the idea that there is a Creator God, and this God chose to make known Himself, and his will, through a man such as Jesus Christ. If a Creator God exists, it would be within his desire to communicate with us, and it would be within his ability to communicate to us through a human representative of His choosing. These are not extraordinary ideas at all. In fact, they are very likely possiblities if theism is true.
I agree. The "religions" that teach skepticism is wrong are usually what are called - "cults". Christianity, as well as the other world religions are not cults; but may have extremist cult-groups within them. It is important to understand that difference, lest in one's attempt to be rational they inadvertently become prejudicial by slapping a false stereotype on an entire religion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
Exactly, and what is the probability that a God would create an elaborate universe, complex lifeforms, sentient personal beings (like humans), and NOT communicate with his creation? Even yo-yo makers label their product and include instructions for how to use it. If there is a God that created an amazingly complex "product" like human life, it seems extremely probable that this God would have done no less than yo-yo makers do, and included at least some kind of instructions regarding his purpose in creating us, as well as how human life was designed to be used.
Acknowledging that probability is the basis for looking for possible ways that our Creator might have communicated those things to us......If is it highly probable that God would have communicated to his creation, (which I think it is) then we have no reason to dismiss all historical accounts of such divine communications out of hand.
Agreed, but what makes that idea somewhat meaningless is the fact that each individual may have a different idea about what is "extraordinary" and what is not. Evolutionists, for example, do not find it extraordinary to believe that the universe exploded, and from this chaotic explosion, molecules mindlessly assembled themselves into human beings over billions of years of lucky accidents. Yet, this "extraordinary" idea is taught every day in most educational institutions throughout the world.
In the realm of philosophy.....(and origins is a philosophical topic, btw) people pick and choose what they believe is "extraordinary" and what is not.
In my view, I find the molecules-to-man evolution myth to be far more "extraordinary" than the idea that there is a Creator God, and this God chose to make known Himself, and his will, through a man such as Jesus Christ. If a Creator God exists, it would be within his desire to communicate with us, and it would be within his ability to communicate to us through a human representative of His choosing. These are not extraordinary ideas at all. In fact, they are very likely possiblities if theism is true.
I agree. The "religions" that teach skepticism is wrong are usually what are called - "cults". Christianity, as well as the other world religions are not cults; but may have extremist cult-groups within them. It is important to understand that difference, lest in one's attempt to be rational they inadvertently become prejudicial by slapping a false stereotype on an entire religion.
Last edited:
PureX
Well-known member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
Another possibility is that there simply is no "reason" that we exist other than that we can. Maybe the answers we keep looking for belong to questions that are moot. Maybe being itself is the 'why'.
I have to believe that whatever "God" wants us to know. We already know. Because I can't assume that a god that could create all that exists would be so stupid or weak that he couldn't put in our minds what he wanted to be there.
If you are referring to people who generally accept the theory of evolution as the most plausable and workable concept of biomechanical change, then as one of those people I can safely say that I do find it quite extraordinary. And although the Big Bang has nothing to do with biological evolutionary theory I'm guessing that even most cosmologists find the Big Bang extraordinary, too, even though they know that chemicals "mindlessly assemble themselves" into all sorts of new compounds all the time. How much luck or accident is involved in this process, though, none of us can really say.
But I agree that human beings often do not view reality the same way, and so what one will see as unlikely, another will see as commonplace. There is nothing I can do about this, nor should I have to. I guess we will each have to decide for ourselves what we think is extraordinary, and what is not. Just as we will have to decide for ourselves what is evidence for the probable and what is not. But the fact that we are so easily confused doesn't negate the fact that the process of following established probabilities is mostly all we have to go with, and is worth trying as best we can.
When people believe that myth and magic are reality, and that science and experimentation are just fantasy and wishful thinking, they will very like view their myths as "history" and magic as commonplace. So of course to those folks science and whatever evidence it produces will always appear "wild" and "unbelievable" and too extraordinary to accept. Likewise, to people who believe that the scientific process is the most unbiased and reasonable way to learn about the world around them, myth and magic will appear to be very poor evidence for any realistic view of existence. People are different, but the difference itself doesn't make anyone more right or more wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
Except that it's obvious that God (if God exists) has not done so. At least not in a way that we have been able to grasp. How to be a human being is written into our genetic code, but why human beings exist is not; at least not that we know of. Or maybe it is there, but we haven't been able to recognize it, yet, sort of like not being able to see the forrest because of all the trees.
Another possibility is that there simply is no "reason" that we exist other than that we can. Maybe the answers we keep looking for belong to questions that are moot. Maybe being itself is the 'why'.
Well, I'm not a god, but even I know that if I want person "M" to know something, telling person "W" and expecting person "W" to convey the idea accurately to person "M" is foolish. The message will ALWAYS get garbled, and as often as not, person "W" will use the fact that he has information that person "M" needs to manipulate person "M" or to puff himself up falsely.
I have to believe that whatever "God" wants us to know. We already know. Because I can't assume that a god that could create all that exists would be so stupid or weak that he couldn't put in our minds what he wanted to be there.
First, I don't know of any "evolutionists". Evolution is a scientific theory, not a philosophical proposition. There are no "evolutionists" except maybe for scientists or historians who study the theory of evolution itself. If they exist, I have never met one.
If you are referring to people who generally accept the theory of evolution as the most plausable and workable concept of biomechanical change, then as one of those people I can safely say that I do find it quite extraordinary. And although the Big Bang has nothing to do with biological evolutionary theory I'm guessing that even most cosmologists find the Big Bang extraordinary, too, even though they know that chemicals "mindlessly assemble themselves" into all sorts of new compounds all the time. How much luck or accident is involved in this process, though, none of us can really say.
But I agree that human beings often do not view reality the same way, and so what one will see as unlikely, another will see as commonplace. There is nothing I can do about this, nor should I have to. I guess we will each have to decide for ourselves what we think is extraordinary, and what is not. Just as we will have to decide for ourselves what is evidence for the probable and what is not. But the fact that we are so easily confused doesn't negate the fact that the process of following established probabilities is mostly all we have to go with, and is worth trying as best we can.
Science is science, and philosophy is philosophy. One is not the other. Both may sometimes investigate the origins of humanity, but that doesn't mean they become the same endeavor. They don't, and they aren't.
Well, sure, if I'm right about concept "X", then it will be VERY likely that I am right about concept "X". But if I am not right about concept "X", it will be very unlikely that I am right about concept "X". But it's the "if" that carries all the weight, here, not how right I think I am.
When people believe that myth and magic are reality, and that science and experimentation are just fantasy and wishful thinking, they will very like view their myths as "history" and magic as commonplace. So of course to those folks science and whatever evidence it produces will always appear "wild" and "unbelievable" and too extraordinary to accept. Likewise, to people who believe that the scientific process is the most unbiased and reasonable way to learn about the world around them, myth and magic will appear to be very poor evidence for any realistic view of existence. People are different, but the difference itself doesn't make anyone more right or more wrong.
I do understand the difference. But I have to tell you that I have encountered so many Christians who are of the "cult" variety that I have ceased to even call myself a Christian, anymore. It's been made overwhelmingly obvious to me that what is currently being called Christianity is in reality and practice just another blind cult based on myth, magic, and willful ignorance.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
I don't think that your analogy is necessarily a good one. First of all, yo-yo makers do not include instructions for the benefit of the yo-yo, but rather for the user who will be using the product in the absence of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer of a product is going to stick around while that product is being used, then why give instructions indirectly? Why not simply continue to communicate explicitly, "training" the users at all times?
Further, though, this argument assumes a particular intent on the part of the manufacturer. Since we cannot know with certainty what God's intent was (assuming there is a God) in creating the universe, the world, or human beings, it is impossible to assign any probability to what "should" happen in the context of this creation. For one possibly disturbing, but not dismissable, example - rats in a laboratory experiment are not given instructions regarding the nature of the experiment, or how they are "supposed" to get through it.
Why do you believe these must be exclusive of one another?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?
I don't think that your analogy is necessarily a good one. First of all, yo-yo makers do not include instructions for the benefit of the yo-yo, but rather for the user who will be using the product in the absence of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer of a product is going to stick around while that product is being used, then why give instructions indirectly? Why not simply continue to communicate explicitly, "training" the users at all times?
Further, though, this argument assumes a particular intent on the part of the manufacturer. Since we cannot know with certainty what God's intent was (assuming there is a God) in creating the universe, the world, or human beings, it is impossible to assign any probability to what "should" happen in the context of this creation. For one possibly disturbing, but not dismissable, example - rats in a laboratory experiment are not given instructions regarding the nature of the experiment, or how they are "supposed" to get through it.
Why do you believe these must be exclusive of one another?
Scrimshaw
New member
Re: bribery or justice?
Re: bribery or justice?
I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, and what is the probability that a God would create an elaborate universe, complex lifeforms, sentient personal beings (like humans), and NOT communicate with his creation? Even yo-yo makers label their product and include instructions for how to use it. If there is a God that created an amazingly complex "product" like human life, it seems extremely probable that this God would have done no less than yo-yo makers do, and included at least some kind of instructions regarding his purpose in creating us, as well as how human life was designed to be used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize that you are playing the "anything is possible" card, but I recall you stating previously that you were a theist. So in that regard, I find your above arguments to be somewhat misleading. My main point, (which you didn't really dispute) is that if God exists, there is a very high probability that this God would have communicated with His creation. I made this argument in response to your "probabilities rule" sentiment. We can differ on whether or not we think God actually has communicated to us, but that doesn't change the logical probability for it.
I said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acknowledging that probability is the basis for looking for possible ways that our Creator might have communicated those things to us......If is it highly probable that God would have communicated to his creation, (which I think it is) then we have no reason to dismiss all historical accounts of such divine communications out of hand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with much of your sentiment here. However, I think you are limiting God to some degree by assuming that God would communicate with us only in one way - internally. Like most Christian philosophers, I believe God has revealed himself to us in THREE ways - 1) through Creation (there is much you can learn about a creator by studying his/her creations) - 2) human conscience, (our inbred moral compasses imply a moral agent is it's originator) - and, 3) Holy Writ (although its not a perfect method of communication, it can be useful for corporate instruction).
Since mankind is a social species, God knew that we would need organization, government, leadership, etc. While it is true that some have corrupted or misused God's message, it is ALSO true that many have not. It seems that skeptics (like yourself) tend to cynically adopt "the glass is always half empty" view when observing religion. As rationalist, I take neither the overly opimistic or overly pessimistic view; since the truth is - humans have both properly used, AND improperly misused God's written revelation.
The fact that some have misused a thing does not mean the thing wasn't worth creating. For example, many have used knives to prepare food, while many others have used knives to stab and kill other people. Does the fact that some have misused knives to stab and kill people mean that the knife should have never been invented? Likewise, does the fact that some have misused God's written word mean that God should never have given it?
I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Extraordinary claims require far more justification than ordinary claims because they are so much more unlikely."
Agreed, but what makes that idea somewhat meaningless is the fact that each individual may have a different idea about what is "extraordinary" and what is not. Evolutionists, for example, do not find it extraordinary to believe that the universe exploded, and from this chaotic explosion, molecules mindlessly assembled themselves into human beings over billions of years of lucky accidents. Yet, this "extraordinary" idea is taught every day in most educational institutions throughout the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to be kidding me. You think the theory of evolution is NOT philosophical??? More on this below......
The chance results of the Big Bang have everything to do with life on earth. If the earth was located even slightly closer or farther away from the sun, life would not exist. If the moon was larger or smaller, life would not exist; if the sun was different type of star; life would not exist; if the electromagnetic force was of a slightly different value; life would not exist; etc., etc. To say that the chance-results of the Big Bang have nothing to do with evolution, is asinine.
Furthermore, please show me an example of even ONE instance where chemical compounds were observed to mindlessly assemble themselves into a living organism. This is never been observed to occur in the natural world, and even intelligent designers ("scientists") have not been able to make living organisms out of chemicals, even employing all of their intelligence and benefits of modern technologies. Only a mythologist would suggest that blind, mindless forces accomplished a creative feat that all the world's scientists cannot.
I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the realm of philosophy.....(and origins is a philosophical topic, btw) people pick and choose what they believe is "extraordinary" and what is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps we have different ideas about what "science" is. I understand science to be a discipline that empirically satisfies the scientific method's proof criterion. This means that a scientific theory must be based on experiments that are testable, observable, and reproducable. The origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth, and the last 4 billion years of biological history of life on earth are NOT directly testable, observable, OR reproducable. Therefore, origin theories are not even remotely "scientific". Most origin theories are inductive, philosophical postulations. Some of these postulations involve some types of experiments, but these experiments are usually ASSUMED to have some correlation to a hypothesized event millions of years ago; but as long as the hypothesized event remains unobservably buried millions of years in the past, any and all correlations made to it are fancied out of *speculation*. That my friend, is philosophy; not "science".
I said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my view, I find the molecules-to-man evolution myth to be far more "extraordinary" than the idea that there is a Creator God, and this God chose to make known Himself, and his will, through a man such as Jesus Christ. If a Creator God exists, it would be within his desire to communicate with us, and it would be within his ability to communicate to us through a human representative of His choosing. These are not extraordinary ideas at all. In fact, they are very likely possiblities if theism is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm, in your attempt to sound clever you overlooked the fact that I was proposing TWO concepts, not just one. Here they are:
Concept X - God exists.
Concept Y - God communicates to creation.
My argument was this - If concept X is true, concept Y is very probable. Are we clear now?
You speak in parables my friend. WHO is claiming anything about "magic"? And just what is magic? Are black holes "magical" because all laws of physics break down at their points of singularity? Is uncaused universes popping into existence uncaused out of nothing - "magic"?
As I pointed out before, the origin theories are not "science", nor do they represent "evidence". There is no "evidence" that universes pop into existence uncaused out of nothing. No experiment has proven such a thing can occur, or ever has occured. There is no evidence of eternally existent universes, or of singularities of infinite density. All of these things are just concepts; ideas - not "evidence".........they are PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS. There is no evidence that species can hump themselves into different species, just given enough generations and the right environments. Geneticists have only discovered limitations within each species' capacity for change. Many of the naturalistic origin theories contain mythical concepts that have never been directly observed, tested, or reproduced...........therefore, those origin theories are not "science".
I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Scrimshaw I agree. The "religions" that teach skepticism is wrong are usually what are called - "cults". Christianity, as well as the other world religions are not cults; but may have extremist cult-groups within them. It is important to understand that difference, lest in one's attempt to be rational they inadvertently become prejudicial by slapping a false stereotype on an entire religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Christianity as whole opposed skepticism, or skeptical thinking, why is there numerous Christian Apologetics ministries throughout the world, not to mention tens of thousands of volumes of Christian literature that critiques other philosophical/religious ideas? Perhaps what you are saying that Christians believe in being skeptical towards other beliefs, but not their own. If that is what you mean, then I would ask you - what makes Christians different than anyone else? I have yet to encounter an individual or organization of individuals that forthrightly practices self-skepticism. It is human nature to defend one's own ideas, and attack any contrary ideas. You do it, I do, Christians do it, scientists do it, atheists do it, Muslims do it, Democrats do it, Republicans do it, etc. Perhaps everyone who believes in anything and attempts to defend it - is a "cultist"??????
Re: bribery or justice?
I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, and what is the probability that a God would create an elaborate universe, complex lifeforms, sentient personal beings (like humans), and NOT communicate with his creation? Even yo-yo makers label their product and include instructions for how to use it. If there is a God that created an amazingly complex "product" like human life, it seems extremely probable that this God would have done no less than yo-yo makers do, and included at least some kind of instructions regarding his purpose in creating us, as well as how human life was designed to be used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize that you are playing the "anything is possible" card, but I recall you stating previously that you were a theist. So in that regard, I find your above arguments to be somewhat misleading. My main point, (which you didn't really dispute) is that if God exists, there is a very high probability that this God would have communicated with His creation. I made this argument in response to your "probabilities rule" sentiment. We can differ on whether or not we think God actually has communicated to us, but that doesn't change the logical probability for it.
I said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acknowledging that probability is the basis for looking for possible ways that our Creator might have communicated those things to us......If is it highly probable that God would have communicated to his creation, (which I think it is) then we have no reason to dismiss all historical accounts of such divine communications out of hand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with much of your sentiment here. However, I think you are limiting God to some degree by assuming that God would communicate with us only in one way - internally. Like most Christian philosophers, I believe God has revealed himself to us in THREE ways - 1) through Creation (there is much you can learn about a creator by studying his/her creations) - 2) human conscience, (our inbred moral compasses imply a moral agent is it's originator) - and, 3) Holy Writ (although its not a perfect method of communication, it can be useful for corporate instruction).
Since mankind is a social species, God knew that we would need organization, government, leadership, etc. While it is true that some have corrupted or misused God's message, it is ALSO true that many have not. It seems that skeptics (like yourself) tend to cynically adopt "the glass is always half empty" view when observing religion. As rationalist, I take neither the overly opimistic or overly pessimistic view; since the truth is - humans have both properly used, AND improperly misused God's written revelation.
The fact that some have misused a thing does not mean the thing wasn't worth creating. For example, many have used knives to prepare food, while many others have used knives to stab and kill other people. Does the fact that some have misused knives to stab and kill people mean that the knife should have never been invented? Likewise, does the fact that some have misused God's written word mean that God should never have given it?
I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Extraordinary claims require far more justification than ordinary claims because they are so much more unlikely."
Agreed, but what makes that idea somewhat meaningless is the fact that each individual may have a different idea about what is "extraordinary" and what is not. Evolutionists, for example, do not find it extraordinary to believe that the universe exploded, and from this chaotic explosion, molecules mindlessly assembled themselves into human beings over billions of years of lucky accidents. Yet, this "extraordinary" idea is taught every day in most educational institutions throughout the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to be kidding me. You think the theory of evolution is NOT philosophical??? More on this below......
The chance results of the Big Bang have everything to do with life on earth. If the earth was located even slightly closer or farther away from the sun, life would not exist. If the moon was larger or smaller, life would not exist; if the sun was different type of star; life would not exist; if the electromagnetic force was of a slightly different value; life would not exist; etc., etc. To say that the chance-results of the Big Bang have nothing to do with evolution, is asinine.
Furthermore, please show me an example of even ONE instance where chemical compounds were observed to mindlessly assemble themselves into a living organism. This is never been observed to occur in the natural world, and even intelligent designers ("scientists") have not been able to make living organisms out of chemicals, even employing all of their intelligence and benefits of modern technologies. Only a mythologist would suggest that blind, mindless forces accomplished a creative feat that all the world's scientists cannot.
I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the realm of philosophy.....(and origins is a philosophical topic, btw) people pick and choose what they believe is "extraordinary" and what is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps we have different ideas about what "science" is. I understand science to be a discipline that empirically satisfies the scientific method's proof criterion. This means that a scientific theory must be based on experiments that are testable, observable, and reproducable. The origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth, and the last 4 billion years of biological history of life on earth are NOT directly testable, observable, OR reproducable. Therefore, origin theories are not even remotely "scientific". Most origin theories are inductive, philosophical postulations. Some of these postulations involve some types of experiments, but these experiments are usually ASSUMED to have some correlation to a hypothesized event millions of years ago; but as long as the hypothesized event remains unobservably buried millions of years in the past, any and all correlations made to it are fancied out of *speculation*. That my friend, is philosophy; not "science".
I said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my view, I find the molecules-to-man evolution myth to be far more "extraordinary" than the idea that there is a Creator God, and this God chose to make known Himself, and his will, through a man such as Jesus Christ. If a Creator God exists, it would be within his desire to communicate with us, and it would be within his ability to communicate to us through a human representative of His choosing. These are not extraordinary ideas at all. In fact, they are very likely possiblities if theism is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm, in your attempt to sound clever you overlooked the fact that I was proposing TWO concepts, not just one. Here they are:
Concept X - God exists.
Concept Y - God communicates to creation.
My argument was this - If concept X is true, concept Y is very probable. Are we clear now?
You speak in parables my friend. WHO is claiming anything about "magic"? And just what is magic? Are black holes "magical" because all laws of physics break down at their points of singularity? Is uncaused universes popping into existence uncaused out of nothing - "magic"?
As I pointed out before, the origin theories are not "science", nor do they represent "evidence". There is no "evidence" that universes pop into existence uncaused out of nothing. No experiment has proven such a thing can occur, or ever has occured. There is no evidence of eternally existent universes, or of singularities of infinite density. All of these things are just concepts; ideas - not "evidence".........they are PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS. There is no evidence that species can hump themselves into different species, just given enough generations and the right environments. Geneticists have only discovered limitations within each species' capacity for change. Many of the naturalistic origin theories contain mythical concepts that have never been directly observed, tested, or reproduced...........therefore, those origin theories are not "science".
I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Scrimshaw I agree. The "religions" that teach skepticism is wrong are usually what are called - "cults". Christianity, as well as the other world religions are not cults; but may have extremist cult-groups within them. It is important to understand that difference, lest in one's attempt to be rational they inadvertently become prejudicial by slapping a false stereotype on an entire religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Christianity as whole opposed skepticism, or skeptical thinking, why is there numerous Christian Apologetics ministries throughout the world, not to mention tens of thousands of volumes of Christian literature that critiques other philosophical/religious ideas? Perhaps what you are saying that Christians believe in being skeptical towards other beliefs, but not their own. If that is what you mean, then I would ask you - what makes Christians different than anyone else? I have yet to encounter an individual or organization of individuals that forthrightly practices self-skepticism. It is human nature to defend one's own ideas, and attack any contrary ideas. You do it, I do, Christians do it, scientists do it, atheists do it, Muslims do it, Democrats do it, Republicans do it, etc. Perhaps everyone who believes in anything and attempts to defend it - is a "cultist"??????
Last edited:
Scrimshaw
New member
Re: bribery or justice?
Re: bribery or justice?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Scrimshaw
Exactly, and what is the probability that a God would create an elaborate universe, complex lifeforms, sentient personal beings (like humans), and NOT communicate with his creation? Even yo-yo makers label their product and include instructions for how to use it. If there is a God that created an amazingly complex "product" like human life, it seems extremely probable that this God would have done no less than yo-yo makers do, and included at least some kind of instructions regarding his purpose in creating us, as well as how human life was designed to be used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned in my latest response to PureX, I believe God does in fact communicate with us on a regular basis - through our conscience. I also mentioned that Holy Writ is useful for corporate instruction. Humans are a social species. We need corporate instruction.........that is why we have governments, leaders, organizations, etc. Certainly if God created us as a social species, he would be aware that we would need corporate instruction, and He would have provided it to a greater or lesser degree.
I think you reading too much into my analogy. The analogy was submitted to highlight this principle - The creators of things usually communicate the purpose for their product's use/function. And to that end, my analogy was quite appropriate. If God created a product as complex as sentient human beings, he most likely would have communicated information for how human life is designed to be used. This is a very intiutive concept so I am surprised that you would be motivated to argue against it. It's common knowledge the intelligent designers communicate instructions for how their products are to be used.
What makes things tricky is the fact unlike almost all other products ever created, humans have an ability to contradict the purpose they were designed to function. They have the unique ability to *choose* not to follow the designer's instructions for how their life should be used. In fact, humans have the uncanny ability to write their own instructions for how they think their lives should be used, and their own instructions usually don't lead to lasting happiness. Most times, their own instructions for life lead to the hurt of others, either individually, or collectively. The history books show this phenomena quite thoroughly.
That example does not undercut the intent of my analogy, which was to highlight the fact that intelligent designers communicate instructions for how their products are to be used.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my view, I find the molecules-to-man evolution myth to be far more "extraordinary" than the idea that there is a Creator God,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you believe these must be exclusive of one another?
It is possible God could have directed evolutionary events/processes. However, evolution is generally defined as a wholly naturalistic theory that precludes the need/existence of any supernatural agents. The ones who created evolution theory (Darwin, and others) set out to create a theory which explains the origin of species WHOLLY by *natural* processes only. To interject a supernatural being as the "chief operator" of evolution undermines the entire purpose that the evolution theory was designed for. So in that sense, theism is exclusive of *Darwinian* evolution theory. Theistic evolution is not Darwinian evolution. They are entirely different theories.
Re: bribery or justice?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Scrimshaw
Exactly, and what is the probability that a God would create an elaborate universe, complex lifeforms, sentient personal beings (like humans), and NOT communicate with his creation? Even yo-yo makers label their product and include instructions for how to use it. If there is a God that created an amazingly complex "product" like human life, it seems extremely probable that this God would have done no less than yo-yo makers do, and included at least some kind of instructions regarding his purpose in creating us, as well as how human life was designed to be used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned in my latest response to PureX, I believe God does in fact communicate with us on a regular basis - through our conscience. I also mentioned that Holy Writ is useful for corporate instruction. Humans are a social species. We need corporate instruction.........that is why we have governments, leaders, organizations, etc. Certainly if God created us as a social species, he would be aware that we would need corporate instruction, and He would have provided it to a greater or lesser degree.
I think you reading too much into my analogy. The analogy was submitted to highlight this principle - The creators of things usually communicate the purpose for their product's use/function. And to that end, my analogy was quite appropriate. If God created a product as complex as sentient human beings, he most likely would have communicated information for how human life is designed to be used. This is a very intiutive concept so I am surprised that you would be motivated to argue against it. It's common knowledge the intelligent designers communicate instructions for how their products are to be used.
What makes things tricky is the fact unlike almost all other products ever created, humans have an ability to contradict the purpose they were designed to function. They have the unique ability to *choose* not to follow the designer's instructions for how their life should be used. In fact, humans have the uncanny ability to write their own instructions for how they think their lives should be used, and their own instructions usually don't lead to lasting happiness. Most times, their own instructions for life lead to the hurt of others, either individually, or collectively. The history books show this phenomena quite thoroughly.
That example does not undercut the intent of my analogy, which was to highlight the fact that intelligent designers communicate instructions for how their products are to be used.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my view, I find the molecules-to-man evolution myth to be far more "extraordinary" than the idea that there is a Creator God,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you believe these must be exclusive of one another?
It is possible God could have directed evolutionary events/processes. However, evolution is generally defined as a wholly naturalistic theory that precludes the need/existence of any supernatural agents. The ones who created evolution theory (Darwin, and others) set out to create a theory which explains the origin of species WHOLLY by *natural* processes only. To interject a supernatural being as the "chief operator" of evolution undermines the entire purpose that the evolution theory was designed for. So in that sense, theism is exclusive of *Darwinian* evolution theory. Theistic evolution is not Darwinian evolution. They are entirely different theories.
Last edited:
Re: Re: bribery or justice?
Re: Re: bribery or justice?
Or again - perhaps it's all just one big experiment to see how a species "designed" with the capacity for social interaction develops such things on their own. There seem to be no end of possibilities here, nor any good way to exclude at least most of them.
I do not intend to argue against it so much as to show that it is hardly the only possible conclusion, and so far I see no reason to prefer it over the other possibilities other than the fact that we would like it to be so.
Intelligent designers SOMETIMES communicate instructions on how their products are to be used; it depends on the motivation for creating the products in the first place, who the product will be used by, etc.. Hammers do not generally come with instructions, as they are assumed to be so simple as to be immediately understandable by their intended user. Puzzles generally do not come with explicit solutions (unless their so hard that you feel the customer will likely be frustrated to the extent of giving up and demanding such), since that's the whole point. Finally, I do not write instructions if I'm making something for my own use (no matter how complex), since as the designer, I expect that I will always understand the product well enough to use it.
Precluding the need for something does not disprove its existence; however, the way science operates, it is required to search for only those portions of the model sufficient and necessary to explain a given process. That there may be additional factors beyond the explanation is not disproven, it merely becomes an unanswered (and possibly unanswerable, within the context of the model under study) question.
See above. I don't see any reason to believe that Darwin or anyone else specifically set out with the goal of coming up with a theory that "denied God." That's a false characterization that has been put forth primarily by the fundamentalist/literalists on the theistic side of all this. (It is particularly unlikely that Darwin had this goal, as he was after all a clergyman in the Church of England, with a degree from Cambridge in theology.) However, the theory which logically developed from the evidence found no need to require supernatural intervention, which is another thing altogether.
Re: Re: bribery or justice?
Or again - perhaps it's all just one big experiment to see how a species "designed" with the capacity for social interaction develops such things on their own. There seem to be no end of possibilities here, nor any good way to exclude at least most of them.
I do not intend to argue against it so much as to show that it is hardly the only possible conclusion, and so far I see no reason to prefer it over the other possibilities other than the fact that we would like it to be so.
Intelligent designers SOMETIMES communicate instructions on how their products are to be used; it depends on the motivation for creating the products in the first place, who the product will be used by, etc.. Hammers do not generally come with instructions, as they are assumed to be so simple as to be immediately understandable by their intended user. Puzzles generally do not come with explicit solutions (unless their so hard that you feel the customer will likely be frustrated to the extent of giving up and demanding such), since that's the whole point. Finally, I do not write instructions if I'm making something for my own use (no matter how complex), since as the designer, I expect that I will always understand the product well enough to use it.
Precluding the need for something does not disprove its existence; however, the way science operates, it is required to search for only those portions of the model sufficient and necessary to explain a given process. That there may be additional factors beyond the explanation is not disproven, it merely becomes an unanswered (and possibly unanswerable, within the context of the model under study) question.
See above. I don't see any reason to believe that Darwin or anyone else specifically set out with the goal of coming up with a theory that "denied God." That's a false characterization that has been put forth primarily by the fundamentalist/literalists on the theistic side of all this. (It is particularly unlikely that Darwin had this goal, as he was after all a clergyman in the Church of England, with a degree from Cambridge in theology.) However, the theory which logically developed from the evidence found no need to require supernatural intervention, which is another thing altogether.
PureX
Well-known member
Re: Re: bribery or justice?
Re: Re: bribery or justice?
I'm OK with following this line of thought, but I can't ignore the gigantic "if" written across the entrance of this whole line of thinking. I will and do contemplate the universe as I know of it as an expression of what I'd call "God", but while doing so I also remain aware that what I am contemplating may be a complete fantasy. This might appear "double minded" to some, and it is, but to me it seems a lot more honest than just grabbing on to an assumption and running away with it.
You, of course are free to choose otherwise, if that's what seems the most honest thing for you to do.
However, I realize that many people have taken the most elementary aspects of the evolutionary model and used them to make philosophical claims, that they wrongly may have called some sort of "Darwinist" philosophy. I have noticed that the antagonists seem to do this more often than the protagonists do, which is truely a strange phenomena when you think about it. Philosophical "Darwinism" seems to loom much larger in the minds of those who oppose it than it does for anyone who might be asserting it.
I think what's really happened is that when Darwin used his observations of nature to present his biological model, he inadvertantly shined the light of human consciousness right on an aspect of reality that religion has difficulty dealing with, and as a result, religious people took it as an attack. And I suppose that some people who were looking for a reason to attack religion, found one in Darwin's observations, too. But all of this is superfluous to Darwin and the evolutionary model itself, as they had nothing whatever to do with religion, and never intended to.
I have found that even discussing it is basically pointless these days, as people are so completely entrenched in their respective positions that nothing at all comes from the discussion but more animosity and entrenchment. And besides that, I am not a scientist, nor a religious apologist, and do not know enough about these things to make a good case either way. For myself, I have had very bad experiences with trying to live by myth, magic, and willful ignorance, and so I have learned to become more pragmatic and skeptical as a result. I'm not a pessimist. But I'm not a chump, either.
Also like Darwin's model, I think the Big Bang accidentally focussed the light of human conscoiusness on an issue that we were already having great argument and difficulty with, and so it was drawn into a fray that it had nothing really to do with.
My suggestion would be for those who wish to continue the debate to skip Darwin and the Big Bang all together, and go directly to the original troubling issues. These issues are not evolution and the Big Bang, these issues are "is my God real, and if so (or if not), what does that mean?"
This sickness of fundamentalism has been infecting Christianity since the beginning and has warped it's doctrine to the point where it's difficult now to even find the babe in the muck that used to be bath water. And it's "fruit" is getting more rotten by the day.
Re: Re: bribery or justice?
"Anything" is not possible, and I was not intending to imply that it is. As I understand it, the universe is basically just energy. Matter and space and time are all manifestations of energy expressing itself. But the energy expresses itself only in certain ways, and does not express itself in ANY way. So clearly, anything (everything) is not possible. Only those things that can happen as an expression of energy are possible, and so only those things have occurred. So though the universe may be made of energy, existence is not just energy, but is energy and the "laws" (patterns of behavior) that all the energy follows. Those laws dictate what is or isn't possible.
I can't see any reason why we should assume this to be a high probability. And as I can easily see that we humans don't know very much about the nature of the universe or our own place within it, I'd have to say that the evidence suggests that God has not communicated such things to us. Also, reason would imply that if God exists, and if God created everything including ourselves, then God certainly would be capable of making us know whatever God wished us to know without doubt, confusion or error. Since our state is in fact one of doubt, confusion and error, I think it's reasonable to assume that this is our intended state.
I can't acknowledge that probability, however, as I don't see any evidence or reason to support it.
One and two are basically the same thing. What we are calling "human conscience" is natural and therefor a part of creation; if the concept of creation is reasonable at all. But I agree that if the common definition of God as the creator and sustainer of all that exists is accurate, then we should be able to apprehend something of this God's will, intent, character, intellect, whatever, from the nature of creation itself. And as creation includes ourselves, we should be able to see ourselves as some sort of a reflection of the God that created us.
I'm OK with following this line of thought, but I can't ignore the gigantic "if" written across the entrance of this whole line of thinking. I will and do contemplate the universe as I know of it as an expression of what I'd call "God", but while doing so I also remain aware that what I am contemplating may be a complete fantasy. This might appear "double minded" to some, and it is, but to me it seems a lot more honest than just grabbing on to an assumption and running away with it.
You're jumping way ahead of me, here. I can accept the natural world as an expression of God, I can't accept man's claims of divine revelation, however. And the reason is that I do not see how a man could know a divine revelation even if he experienced one. When I was a child, I spent an afternoon with God. I realize this is a very bizarre thing to post, but even as a reasonable person, I have no better way of conveying the experience I had then that. Yet even having been there, and having experienced something that extraordinary, I have to be honest enough to doubt my own experiece. I have to accept that whatever it was that happened, it still may not have been a day with God at all. So I can't reasonably accept anyone's assertions of divine revelation - not even my own.
You, of course are free to choose otherwise, if that's what seems the most honest thing for you to do.
No. The theory of evolution is a scientific model, and is NOT a philosophical model. I realize that lots of folks get these confused, but they were confused to begin with. Evolutionary theory is a bionechanical model that scientists use to test specific hypotheses about how biology works. It is not intended to be a philosophical proposition, and it never was.
However, I realize that many people have taken the most elementary aspects of the evolutionary model and used them to make philosophical claims, that they wrongly may have called some sort of "Darwinist" philosophy. I have noticed that the antagonists seem to do this more often than the protagonists do, which is truely a strange phenomena when you think about it. Philosophical "Darwinism" seems to loom much larger in the minds of those who oppose it than it does for anyone who might be asserting it.
I think what's really happened is that when Darwin used his observations of nature to present his biological model, he inadvertantly shined the light of human consciousness right on an aspect of reality that religion has difficulty dealing with, and as a result, religious people took it as an attack. And I suppose that some people who were looking for a reason to attack religion, found one in Darwin's observations, too. But all of this is superfluous to Darwin and the evolutionary model itself, as they had nothing whatever to do with religion, and never intended to.
I have found that even discussing it is basically pointless these days, as people are so completely entrenched in their respective positions that nothing at all comes from the discussion but more animosity and entrenchment. And besides that, I am not a scientist, nor a religious apologist, and do not know enough about these things to make a good case either way. For myself, I have had very bad experiences with trying to live by myth, magic, and willful ignorance, and so I have learned to become more pragmatic and skeptical as a result. I'm not a pessimist. But I'm not a chump, either.
The "Big Bang" tells us nothing at all about chance, or about evolution, or about the existence or non-existence of God. The "Big Bang" is a cosmological model that so far has proven to be functional in testing lots of other cosmological hypotheses. Like Darwin's biological model, however, people have wildly misunderstood it's significance, and have used it to assert all sorts of bizarre, unrelated, and unfounded philosophical propositions.
Also like Darwin's model, I think the Big Bang accidentally focussed the light of human conscoiusness on an issue that we were already having great argument and difficulty with, and so it was drawn into a fray that it had nothing really to do with.
My suggestion would be for those who wish to continue the debate to skip Darwin and the Big Bang all together, and go directly to the original troubling issues. These issues are not evolution and the Big Bang, these issues are "is my God real, and if so (or if not), what does that mean?"
Every cell in your body is made up of chemicals joining together to become those living cells, and then breaking back down into their "lifeless" components again. But I'm not going to get into this with you. If you want to live in a world of myth, magic, and willful ignorance, that's your choice, and I know that nothing I say, right or wrong, will change that.
Lots of things are not directly testable, but can reasonably be inferred by things that can be tested. So far, the models of evolution and the Big Bang have proven functional for the vast majority of those indirect tests, and so are still considered to be good working models. This could change, of course, as our ability to test the models more directly improves.
Scientific hypotheses are not philosophical propositions. They never were. This is where you keep getting caught up. Because you see them as threatening YOUR philosophical views, you consider them opposing philosophies. But they are not, and never were. What is opposing your philosophical view is that scientific observation is leading us to conclusions that are contrary to your beliefs, and you don't want to ammend your beliefs accordingly. So you see the science as a philosophical opponent: a threat. But the opposition blaming on science is inside you and your opponent is yourself. Science is just science. Scientific models are just scientific models. They work as long as they work and they get dropped when they stop working.
Everything human involves assumptions. There's nothing we can do about that. It's how we deal with the assumptions that separate science and philosophy and religion and art, etc. But I can see that you are very adament in protecting your philosophy from any admission of error, and so for you science has become a "threat" that has to be dismissed and discredited at all cost.
I see no conncetion at all between "X" and "Y" except that you believe that there is one.
"Magic" is how you are connecting "X" and "Y".
It seems to me that the whole function of "Christian apologetics" is to thwart skepticism, and to try and explain away all the contradictions and incongruities that are inevitable in any theology, so that it can pretend it is "divine revelation" rather than a man-made religious theology.
Christianity is not even skeptical toward other religions, as skepticism implies an open mind. Christianity is downright hostile toward any other view of anything, as it is claiming for itself ALL righteousness, and denying any validity whatever to any other concept of God, life or humanity.
Well, that does. With the single exception of Islam, Christianity would stand alone in the intensity of it's elitism. Even Islam can recognize Jesus as a prophet, Christianity accepts no way and no one but it's own.
It's true that people don't like change, and so won't easily accept new ideas, but it's also true that most people understand that they don't know many things, especially when it comes to God and the "right and wrong" of life. But fundamentalists (and I am separating them from Christians because fundamentalism is a sickness that can infect many other ideologies as well) can't accept being wrong about anything. And so they will ONLY fight with a new idea. They can't accept the reality of their own ignorance, or the possibility of being in error, or the need to change their beliefs according to new information. They are ideological extremists who see every issue as an absolute extreme, and since they can't be absolutely wrong, they assume they are absolutely right about everything.
This sickness of fundamentalism has been infecting Christianity since the beginning and has warped it's doctrine to the point where it's difficult now to even find the babe in the muck that used to be bath water. And it's "fruit" is getting more rotten by the day.
Communicatication
Communicatication
It should be obvious to everybody by now, after millions of words of theological wrangling with sceptics, as well as among divided theists, that nothing is ever going to be solved through furthur argument. When you recall that this has been going on for 2000 years, plus another 500 to include Greek phiolosophical theological enquiry, with no breakthrough in sight, the obvious conclusion is that God does not care to speak with us ( except in the fevered imagination of some of his devotees), and that therefore he is indifferent to us, or far more líkely, he does not exist, and never did, ( except again , in the fevered imagination of his devotees). I suggest we inform god that we humans have come of age, the gloves are off, and there will be no more mindless sychophantic, reverential grovelling and humility to him or his alleged trio of close family members: In short, we demand to know what he thinks he is up to, and to either put up ,or shut up.
Communicatication
It should be obvious to everybody by now, after millions of words of theological wrangling with sceptics, as well as among divided theists, that nothing is ever going to be solved through furthur argument. When you recall that this has been going on for 2000 years, plus another 500 to include Greek phiolosophical theological enquiry, with no breakthrough in sight, the obvious conclusion is that God does not care to speak with us ( except in the fevered imagination of some of his devotees), and that therefore he is indifferent to us, or far more líkely, he does not exist, and never did, ( except again , in the fevered imagination of his devotees). I suggest we inform god that we humans have come of age, the gloves are off, and there will be no more mindless sychophantic, reverential grovelling and humility to him or his alleged trio of close family members: In short, we demand to know what he thinks he is up to, and to either put up ,or shut up.
- Status