Originally posted by Scrimshaw
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"??????
