The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I knew he was a Behaviourist. I'm interested to hear that much of what he thought true has been found experimentally not to be the case. I'd appreciate any refs.

Thanks

That's quite a tall order, actually, in an odd kind of way. My biology A-level course in the early 1980's treated Skinner as important, but outdated - a paradigm that was useful in explaining a minority of occurrences. The majority of the material that would be relevant is not refutations of Skinner's experiments, but simply experimental work that Skinner's theories are unable to explain - which is to say nearly all psychological experiments, human, and animal, from the 1970's on. In essence, you're asking to catch up to date with about 30 years of a couple of whole fields of enquiry. No small task, that.

Games theory would be a good example of a field of psychological experimentation that has no behaviorist explanation. Cognitive dissonance would be another. A Google search on "first cognitive revolution", or "post-behaviorism" will give you some idea of the reading involved.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's quite a tall order, actually, in an odd kind of way. My biology A-level course in the early 1980's treated Skinner as important, but outdated - a paradigm that was useful in explaining a minority of occurrences. The majority of the material that would be relevant is not refutations of Skinner's experiments, but simply experimental work that Skinner's theories are unable to explain - which is to say nearly all psychological experiments, human, and animal, from the 1970's on. In essence, you're asking to catch up to date with about 30 years of a couple of whole fields of enquiry. No small task, that.

Games theory would be a good example of a field of psychological experimentation that has no behaviorist explanation. Cognitive dissonance would be another. A Google search on "first cognitive revolution", or "post-behaviorism" will give you some idea of the reading involved.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Many Thanks.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

It may be true for any god of your imagination, but it is not true of the God as revealed in the Bible. By definition, He is the source of morality. One may of course deny He exists and thus claim a universal morality that is outside of any deity; or one may take your view and say there is no universal morality. I'm comparing the Biblical version to yours.

Hmm. I'm not sure we're quite discussing the same thing here...as occasionally happens!

If I say that human beings have evolved a morality based on "what is best for humanity" then I am saying that for (non-psychopathic) humans there is a set of behavioural prompts and restrictions that are common to us all, and that it costs us some effort to ignore.

If I say that, in addition to this, humans have a socially "agreed" morality based on what is perceived to be best for their society at that time, then I am saying that the human being in that society usually (there will be exceptions) learns as a child a further set of prompts and restrictions that are common to all members of that society, and which it will cost them some effort to ignore.

So we have two sets of rules (or guidelines), each of which purport to show the best courses of action to follow. The real question is not whether these sets of rules exist, since clearly they do. The question is whether they have any particular force - whether there is any reason for me to follow them as opposed to following what appears to be my personal advantage on any particular occasion?

The reason I would frame the question this way is because it seems to me that, as Wicknight says, following God's rules is actually optional. If the Christian view is correct, then obviously you will be found out, and obviously you will be punished, and the punishment will be horrific and eternal - but does that mean that you should therefore follow God's rules?

If the certainty of detection, the certainty of punishment, and the awfulness of punishment, are the only reasons for following God's laws, then it seems to me that (a) it is still possible to disagree with God (hmm...how many people in the Bible did?), accepting the punishment as necessary, and (b) one is only following God's laws in order to avoid punishment - which robs morality of all meaning, since it does not differentiate between the man who does not murder because he might get caught and the man who does not murder because it is wrong.

So, if one refuses the validity of "might makes right" as an argument for following God's morality, then we have, instead, the argument that one should follow God's rules because God is right. How is God right? God is right either because the morality God sets forth is right, or God is right because God is God.

Now, if the morality that God sets forth is right because it is right, then morality constrains God, or does not require him, or is otherwise independent of him. If we admit this, then we find that we can perfectly well have a universal morality without God, in which case both the theist and the atheist are equally logical, and both can claim their morality equally likely to be the universal morality.

If, on the other hand, we say that the morality God sets forth is right because God is God, we have come to a rather inexplicable thing. Is there any piece of logic which purports to explain or assign a moral attribute as a property of a thing or person? Nor can we know in any way that it is true - what other test can we apply?

So it seems to me that the argument that God as a basis for morality is superior to any alternative basis rests entirely on faith, or on the argument that might makes right, or is untrue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

wolfsbane wrote:

Christian morality - or indeed any Theistic morality - is logical, because it is self-consistent.

I don't know what you mean when you write "self-consistent", but it's certainly not what I understand. I don't see anything consistent about a god who provides shrimps, then demands that people don't eat them, or demands for no reason at all that nobody should wear clothes cut from two different cloths, or claims to be a "god of love" while getting his reps on earth to massacre entire populations, or one who forgets to condemn child abuse, genocide, etc, etc. I think you really need to sit down and think this through a bit more.

wolfsbane wrote:

However, if there is no God/gods and morality is only what the individual has dreamed up, it is illogical for us to obey it if it doesn't suit.

Except, of course, nobody in the world (except the religious) think that morality is something that the "individual has dreamed up". And it's bordering on the offensive to declare without any foundation that it's only people who have acquired your religious beliefs are able to make sound moral judgments.

wolfsbane wrote:

If they have no deterent other than society's punishment, then logically they have no reason not to offend.

Huh? So you're saying for example, that ten or fifteen years in prison for rape, plus being put on the sex offenders register for life isn't a punishment?

.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

It may be true for any god of your imagination, but it is not true of the God as revealed in the Bible. By definition, He is the source of morality.

If God is the source of morality that means morality is subjective based on God's opinion.

I believe humanity is the source of morality, and as such is subjective to humanities opinion.

A universal morality would exist independently of either.

Your (rather strange) argument that universal morality is God's morality and vice-versa doesn't hold up logically. It is a paradox, coming from God at one point while constraining God at another.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I never said it absolutely deterred immorality, only that it is a powerful deterrent.

Well I see little evidence that it is either. It seems to be far easier for a criminal to convince himself that what he is doing is morally justified than to convince others. And if the criminal has convinced himself that what he is doing is justified then he won't believe that God will object either, since the concepts of what God will or will not approve are all in his head anyway, therefore the deterrent breaks down completely.

People believe in religions that suit them. A criminal will simply not believe in a religion, or interpretation of a religion, that does not suit him. You only have to look at the arguments and debates on this forum to see how even die-hard Christians get into long debates about the the most fundamental concepts of the religion, such as baptism or OSAS. So far I haven't seen an Catholic or Protestant go "You know what, I'm convinced this interpretation is completely wrong"

wolfsbane wrote: »

In the naturalistic view of the universe, neither you nor they have any rights. Things just are. As that great atheist put it:

Only if one starts with the proposition that rights can only be granted by a deity.

If humanity can grant itself rights, in the same way that humanity can be the source of morality, then that isn't an issue.

Rights, just like morality, are simply a human concept. We invented them, and we decide collectively how to establish them.

A good example is the constitution of a country. That isn't written by a deity. It isn't something that exists independently of humanity. But it does establish rights for citizens of that country.

Ultimately rights, and morals, are simply human ideas.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is indeed more of an emotional decision than a logical one, for our evolutionary emotions are just that - feelings - not objective truths. If one feels it good to kill the babies, that is no more or less than if he feels it good to save them. It just is. No ought or should.

Say it was an objective truth that people shouldn't kill babies? What then? Would that stop someone killing a baby? Nope.

Is having an object truth the only way I can say "You shouldn't kill babies?" Nope, I can say that even if the opinion is subjective.

So what exactly changes if moral issues are objective truths? Nothing much.

Even if their were objective truths in morality, how we understand them would still be subjective.

Even if one assumes that God's morality is the objective truth (which I explained is not the case), how you interpret God's commandments is again only subjective.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You have demonstrated the absence of any logic in atheistic morality.

Only because you refuse to accept that it is possible to justify a moral decision without calling on the authority of a higher power which you start off by defining as the definition of morality.

But TBH your argument is like saying that no Christian can interpret God's word because you yourself are not a god and therefore have no authority to know that what is claimed to be God's word actually is God's word.

You can say "Well I read it in this book", but since you are not a god you cannot know for certain that the book is actually God's word, nor can you know that the voice in your head is God, without yourself being a God and being incapable of being wrong. Therefore your interpretation of God's word has not authority and cannot be used.

You no doubt would strongly object to that reasoning. You will claim that it is not necessary for you yourself to be a god to believe that this stuff is the authority of God.

If you can understand that objection you will be a bit closer to understand why I don't accept your position that morality derived from man is meaningless.

wolfsbane wrote: »

God decides when their time ends and how, as they are His creation.

No doubt the children butchered to death by the Hebrews would disagree with that assessment.

wolfsbane wrote: »

From my involvement in it, we have certainly been ranging over everything from the supposed Big Bang. There is a necessary line between that and the first molecules that replicated.

I don't understand what you mean? The "theory of everything" as scientists sometimes put it, ie a unified theory that explains how everything happens in the universe, isn't the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution would simply be a component of that, as would a huge number of other theories.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you find it keeps you clear - I'm managing OK with the context as guide.

You are not though, because for some reason you think the "theory of evolution" explains how stars form and evolve. It doesn't, stars do not evolve (meaning "grow and change") anything like the way replicating systems do.

So when you say the theory of evolution what do you mean, because you are talking about a whole load of different theories

The context of this thread is the evolution of replicating systems.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It doesn't matter? Then how come you reject Creationism on the basis that its origins are supernatural?

Because it's origins are supernatural, and therefore ultimately untestable and unscientific. And because there are non-supernatural theories that explain things without resorting to guessing at supposed supernatural events to explain things. Supernatural guessing is unnecessary.

But as I said it doesn't matter to the theory of evolution. If evolution of life on Earth was started by a supernatural event the process would work in the exact same way.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sure, we can focus the debate to include only processes following the first self-replicating molecule or the mature creation of all life - if you want to ignore the obvious questions about origins.

It is nothing to do with ignoring the "obvious questions". Other theories and models will deal with these. The theory of Darwinian evolution doesn't care because it is not necessary to how the system works.

Its like ringing up your mate to find out the result of the Liverpool Man United game, asking your friend how was the game, and then stopping him in mid sentence and saying "I can't possibly understand all this until you first explain who built the stadium they played in"

You can know the result of the game, and you can know who build the football grounds. If you want to get an overall history of the team you might be interested in both. But understanding how the game last Saturday was played doesn't require that you understand how the grounds were built.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I was using logical here to refer to self-consistency. My system is self-consistent, your's is not.

Logical doesn't mean self-consistent. If a person bangs his head off a wall every day for 10 years because he says it kills the demon that grows in his head that is certainly consistent, but I'm not sure anyone would call it logical.

Neither does logical mean the outcome that favors the individual who came up with it.

By self-consistent you seem to mean "I consistently do what I interpret as my God has declared is moral" The bit you seem to be skipping over is the fact that it is necessary for you to interpret, even if God exists.

Your interpretation can try and be consistent, but then so can the moral decisions of an atheist like myself. I try to be consistent with my moral and ethical decisions. They are as logical as yours, if by logical you mean starting from a fixed starting point and working from there

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I explained above, the Biblical view of God has all morality coming from Him.

That doesn't stop it being illogical paradox. The Bible is full of illogical paradoxes. You can certainly accept the contradictions at face value, but it is a bit silly to claim that you are therefore working from a logical footing. It is only logical back to a certain point, in which case it becomes a logical nightmare.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, but if there is no universal standard then no one's opinion carries any more weight than another's
...
Indeed. You and God differ on what is immoral. The rest of us may choose which (if either) of you we believe is right.

And God's opinion carries more weight than my opinion because ....?

Because you have decided that it does, because he is the creator of the universe. So you have decided that his opinion carries more weight than mine.

Do you see the point.

God's opinion carries more weight with you because you have decided that it does

If you remove God from the equation the same system applies. The weight something carries with other people is ultimately decided by them

wolfsbane wrote: »

The point was that different rights to punish apply to different persons.

Yes, but you are ignoring that a person cannot give themselves that right. Who the person is is irrelevant, what matters is the authority given to them.

God is like a king. A king gives himself authority because of who he is and then uses his strength to enforce this authority on the people he claims authority over.

That is immoral by most peoples modern assessment.

In the modern system the people give the authority to a person, and this is independent of who the person is.

wolfsbane wrote: »

God not only owns in the sense we may own something, He owns because He is the creator of it all. Our rights are only in respect to our fellowman. We have no rights with respect to Him.

That is your subjective moral opinion. I disagree.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I appreciate your honesty in openly stating this.

For some reason you seem to view this as a flaw.

TBH I see it a much greater flaw that someone would believe in the illusion of infallibility in their own subjective moral outlook, as you apparently do.

You remind me a little of a kid I knew growing up. He used to play marbles with us. After one game he had found that he had lost all his marbles to my brother. Upset by this he argued that the game had been unfair, or that he had been tricked or something. Neither was the case, it was just a regular game of marbles. My brother, a little upset that he was being shouted at by this kid for doing nothing wrong, said he was keeping the marbles. The rest of the kids, including myself, defended my brother on the grounds that he had won the marbles fair and square. The kid eventually went running away crying. A few minutes later the kid came back with his mother. The mother damned that my bother hand back the marbles, which my brother did. The mother then went away, and to our amazment the kid hung around as if nothing had happened. When one of the other kids challenged him on what just happened the kid just explained that his mom decided that he should get the marbles back. The kid seemed to genuinely believe that his mother was an authority figure who's judgment over ruled any arguments that my brother won the marbles fair and square. He seemed to not understand how we would still continue to object after his mother had decided something.

I appreciate that it is part of the human condition to feel the safety net of a universal authority that appears to constantly back someone up. But TBH your concept of God as a universal authority is as flawed as this kid's belief that his mother's say applied universally.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If I believed in evolution, I would just be like the male lion: when it takes over a pride it kills all the cubs. Only its genes are going to be passed on.

I'm not following. Why would you do that? Why would you only want your genes to be passed on?

wolfsbane wrote: »

So what would I care about any other than my mutual defence group (nation) - and even then, if I could get through life without them, they could be ignored too.

What you care about is irrelevant to the evolution of your species, as I explained.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

If I say that human beings have evolved a morality based on "what is best for humanity" then I am saying that for (non-psychopathic) humans there is a set of behavioural prompts and restrictions that are common to us all, and that it costs us some effort to ignore.

Yes.

If I say that, in addition to this, humans have a socially "agreed" morality based on what is perceived to be best for their society at that time, then I am saying that the human being in that society usually (there will be exceptions) learns as a child a further set of prompts and restrictions that are common to all members of that society, and which it will cost them some effort to ignore.

Yes.

So we have two sets of rules (or guidelines), each of which purport to show the best courses of action to follow. The real question is not whether these sets of rules exist, since clearly they do. The question is whether they have any particular force - whether there is any reason for me to follow them as opposed to following what appears to be my personal advantage on any particular occasion?

Excellent logic.

The reason I would frame the question this way is because it seems to me that, as Wicknight says, following God's rules is actually optional. If the Christian view is correct, then obviously you will be found out, and obviously you will be punished, and the punishment will be horrific and eternal - but does that mean that you should therefore follow God's rules?

I've already said it is optional.

If the certainty of detection, the certainty of punishment, and the awfulness of punishment, are the only reasons for following God's laws, then it seems to me that (a) it is still possible to disagree with God (hmm...how many people in the Bible did?), accepting the punishment as necessary,

Yes, a crazy option, but an option nevertheless.

and (b) one is only following God's laws in order to avoid punishment - which robs morality of all meaning, since it does not differentiate between the man who does not murder because he might get caught and the man who does not murder because it is wrong.

Yes, it robs his morality of its validity - he is a murderer in his heart, and God will punish him as a murderer:
Matthew 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

So, if one refuses the validity of "might makes right" as an argument for following God's morality, then we have, instead, the argument that one should follow God's rules because God is right.

Correct.

How is God right? God is right either because the morality God sets forth is right, or God is right because God is God.

The latter. The former follows from that.

Now, if the morality that God sets forth is right because it is right, then morality constrains God, or does not require him, or is otherwise independent of him. If we admit this, then we find that we can perfectly well have a universal morality without God, in which case both the theist and the atheist are equally logical, and both can claim their morality equally likely to be the universal morality.

They could indeed.

If, on the other hand, we say that the morality God sets forth is right because God is God, we have come to a rather inexplicable thing. Is there any piece of logic which purports to explain or assign a moral attribute as a property of a thing or person? Nor can we know in any way that it is true - what other test can we apply?

It comes to us by our nature and by revelation; in our conscience. God has made us all with such an awareness that there is a Holy Judge whose laws we must keep. He has further spoken to us by the Scriptures. And His Holy spirit applies these things to our conscience. One may wish to explain conscience away as a evolutionary quirk in our brains; the reality is it is there because we are made in God's image.

So it seems to me that the argument that God as a basis for morality is superior to any alternative basis rests entirely on faith, or on the argument that might makes right, or is untrue.

Faith is the answer - but that includes the witness of our conscience. All of us are born with a sinful heart and subsequently try to silence conscience when it rebukes us. The record is given in Romans 1: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:18-32%20;&version=50;

The superiority of Christian morality consists primarily in its eternal consequences, but also - and this is the point we were debating - in the absolute assurance it gives the prospective perp that he will pay to the utmost. When society's threats fail to offer any likelihood of punishment, conscience reminds one that the Day of Wrath is certain.

J C

It is quite ironic, but I have found it nonetheless to be true, that Atheistic Evolutionists have a fascination with RELIGION.......
........while Creation Scientists tend to focus on SCIENCE!!:D

I wonder, could this be because Evolution IS a religion......and Creation Science IS ........a science???:eek::)


.....and I see that this thread has just passed 100,000 viewings!!!!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=333

......who says the Bible, Creationism and Prophecy isn't interesting???:D

wolfsbane

robindch said:

I don't know what you mean when you write "self-consistent", but it's certainly not what I understand.

OK, let's see if I can help. For a start, God demands of His followers a standard of behaviour; and being His followers, it is consistent that they observe them. A Deity who makes moral demands that may be ignored with impunity may as well not exist.

I don't see anything consistent about a god who provides shrimps, then demands that people don't eat them,

They are His shrimps, so He can do with them as He pleases. Some other god may be invented who would do differently. But the Biblical God is perfectly consistent with Himself as the sovereign disposer of all.

or demands for no reason at all that nobody should wear clothes cut from two different cloths,

Who says it was for no reason - the reason was to typify the utter separation between the holy and unholy. But again, even if there was no reason to be seen, what is inconsistent about a sovereign God ordering affairs as he sees fit?

or claims to be a "god of love" while getting his reps on earth to massacre entire populations,

If He only revealed himself as a God of love, you might have a point. But He just as firmly revealed Himself as a Holy God who will bring the wicked to judgement.

or one who forgets to condemn child abuse, genocide, etc, etc.

I'm not aware He forgot any such thing. Care to be specific?

I think you really need to sit down and think this through a bit more.

One of us certainly does.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
However, if there is no God/gods and morality is only what the individual has dreamed up, it is illogical for us to obey it if it doesn't suit.

Except, of course, nobody in the world (except the religious) think that morality is something that the "individual has dreamed up".

It's hard for me to cover all the dark corners of atheistic thought. OK, if you want to be very behaviourist about it and deny morality has personal origins, then I'm happy to say if there is no God/gods and morality is only what the evolutionary process has thrown up, it is illogical for us to obey it if it doesn't suit.

And it's bordering on the offensive to declare without any foundation that it's only people who have acquired your religious beliefs are able to make sound moral judgments.

It would be, if I had said that. I didn't. Many unbelievers come to the same sound moral judgements as myself. But they do so for less important or even nonsensical reasons.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If they have no deterent other than society's punishment, then logically they have no reason not to offend.

Huh? So you're saying for example, that ten or fifteen years in prison for rape, plus being put on the sex offenders register for life isn't a punishment?

I said that in the context of society not being able to deliver on its threats (post 7627 - I did specify that the perp was in a position to be not detected/punished by society. That being the case, he logically can have no reason not to do as he pleases.). Then the atheist has no logical reason not to offend.

wolfsbane

J C wrote: »

It is quite ironic, but I have found it nonetheless to be true, that Atheistic Evolutionists have a fascination with RELIGION.......
........while Creation Scientists tend to focus on SCIENCE!!:D

I wonder, could this be because Evolution IS a religion......and Creation Science IS ........a science???:eek::)

:D:D Reminds me of the adage "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything." Harris certainly seems to be blind to irony of what he's getting into with his non-theistic 'spirituality'.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If I believed in evolution, I would just be like the male lion: when it takes over a pride it kills all the cubs. Only its genes are going to be passed on.

I'm not following. Why would you do that? Why would you only want your genes to be passed on?


Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So what would I care about any other than my mutual defence group (nation) - and even then, if I could get through life without them, they could be ignored too.

What you care about is irrelevant to the evolution of your species, as I explained.

Just a quickie:

You are quite right. I would be behaving illogically, for the reason you give.

But being in an evolutionist's shoes, I wouldn't be too rigourous with logic.

I would probably ignore the ultimate logic and go for egoism - so even though I would know logically that nothing mattered other than me, I would willingly delude myself with the thought of MY genes continuing on in perpetuity.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

It comes to us by our nature and by revelation; in our conscience. God has made us all with such an awareness that there is a Holy Judge whose laws we must keep. He has further spoken to us by the Scriptures. And His Holy spirit applies these things to our conscience. One may wish to explain conscience away as a evolutionary quirk in our brains; the reality is it is there because we are made in God's image.

Well, you would say that, and I would say the opposite...

wolfsbane wrote: »

Faith is the answer - but that includes the witness of our conscience. All of us are born with a sinful heart and subsequently try to silence conscience when it rebukes us. The record is given in Romans 1: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:18-32%20;&version=50;

The superiority of Christian morality consists primarily in its eternal consequences, but also - and this is the point we were debating - in the absolute assurance it gives the prospective perp that he will pay to the utmost. When society's threats fail to offer any likelihood of punishment, conscience reminds one that the Day of Wrath is certain.

Which collapses the Christian position down to the level of "deterrence through fear of punishment" - the only difference being the certainty of punishment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

I guess IF you didn't accept God's Authority .......but you knew that your were an eternal Spiritual Being......then non-theistic 'spirituality' is somewhat logical!!!:D:):eek:

......otherwise it would seem to be illogical!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

I guess IF you don't accept God .......but you know that your are an eternal Spiritual Being......then non-theistic 'spirituality' is somewhat logical!!!:D:):eek:

Yes - if you're being illogical, you might as well be illogical.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

I would probably ignore the ultimate logic and go for egoism - so even though I would know logically that nothing mattered other than me, I would willingly delude myself with the thought of MY genes continuing on in perpetuity.

The Evolutionist 'Selfish Gene' Theory would claim that the Lion's genes would 'make' him kill-off the suckling cubs of other Lions .......
.........which would bring the females 'into heat' quicker because the suckling had ceased.......and this could allow him to maximise his genes in subsequent generations!!!:):D

......it certainly allows him to 'enjoy' himself by mating with all of these suddenly 'available' lionesses........a kind of 'instant gratification' for Lions ...so to speak!!!:D

.....it is actually (ultimately) due to a Fallen Creation.......because sin entered the World ......and with sin death!!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

The Evolutionist 'Selfish Gene' Theory would claim that the Lion's genes would 'make' him kill-off the suckling cubs of other Lions .......
.........which would bring the females 'into heat' quicker because the suckling had ceased.......and this could allow him to maximise his genes in subsequent generations!!!:):D

......as well as allowing him to 'enjoy' himself........a kind of 'instant gratification' for Lions ...so to speak!!!:D

.....it is actually due to a Fallen Creation.......because sin entered the World ......and with sin death!!!!:D

Yes, even though there's a perfectly good, comprehensive, and researched scientific explanation, it's always better to go with the magic one. Well, more fun, anyway. Assuming that's your thing, of course.

amused,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, even though there's a perfectly good, comprehensive, and researched scientific explanation, it's always better to go with the magic one. Well, more fun, anyway. Assuming that's your thing, of course.

amused,
Scofflaw

I accept the 'instant gratification explantion' as the 'proximate cause' of the Lion's behaviour.........but the 'ultimate cause' was The Fall.!!!:eek::D

Nerin

i dont even know where to begin now

J C

nerin wrote: »

i dont even know where to begin now

Be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord!!:)

J C

nerin wrote: »

i dont even know where to begin now

OK summary.....

1. It is illogical for Atheists (or anybody else) to believe in 'non-Theistic Spirituality'!!!:D

2. It is illogical for Theists (or anybody else) to believe in 'Atheistic Evolution'!!!:D

3. Lions like to mate with Lionesses!!!:D

Nerin

Be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord!!

oh you

It is illogical for Theists to believe in 'Atheistic Evolution'!!!

well,i believe in evolution,but im religious. and im not christian. hmmm :eek:

Scofflaw

nerin wrote: »

oh you


well,i believe in evolution,but im religious. and im not christian. hmmm :eek:

That could just be because JC doesn't discriminate between 'secular' and 'atheist'. Science is secular - god-neutral - but we can't convince JC of that, because god-neutral, by leaving out the Only True God of JC, is identical to atheism (or Satanism, but that's more wolfsbane).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nerin

meow

gillyfromlyre

totally pointless argument, "ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space", nobody can prove anyone else wrong, if we came into being through evolution. thats fascinating, if we suddenly appeared through creationism, thats fascinating, to me, both ideas are as weird and mystical as each other, both are bewildering ideas and still make no sense logically, how can the universe be an accident?, how can the universe suddenly appear, arranged by a god? I always take this debate lightly, and i dont think we are anywhere near understanding what its all about

robindch

wolfsbane wrote:

Many unbelievers come to the same sound moral judgements as myself. But they do so for less important or even nonsensical reasons.

Getting this straight -- people who share your religious beliefs are the only people who are behaving morally in the correct way? And people who make sound moral judgments (because, say, they're nice people) are simply misguided and doing the wrong thing?

wolfsbane wrote:

For a start, God demands of His followers a standard of behaviour; and being His followers, it is consistent that they observe them. A Deity who makes moral demands that may be ignored with impunity may as well not exist.

Fair enough -- I see where you're coming from. Your sole input into any decision you make is your personal interpretation of the bible. You do this because you believe (a) that your holy book was written by, or with the inspiration of, the deity who created the universe, and (b) it contains the only information that humans will need in order to make sound moral judgments and (c) you are unable to make a mistake in either (a) or (b).

This, of course, puts you in the same bracket as Warren Jeffs, the Rev Jim Jones of Guyana, the WTC hijackers, etc, etc, etc. All of them had their holy books too and interpreted them carefully, just as you do yours, and all of them are/were spectacularly immoral.

So what makes you right when you do (a), (b) and (c) above and everybody else wrong?

gillyfromlyre

Anyone disagree with me and i break your legs.

Only messing

J C

gillyfromlyre wrote: »

totally pointless argument, "ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space", nobody can prove anyone else wrong, if we came into being through evolution. thats fascinating, if we suddenly appeared through creationism, thats fascinating, to me, both ideas are as weird and mystical as each other, both are bewildering ideas and still make no sense logically, how can the universe be an accident?, how can the universe suddenly appear, arranged by a god? I always take this debate lightly, and i dont think we are anywhere near understanding what its all about

I remember reading about a leading Astronomer who said (and I am paraphrasing) "when I look into outer space and I think we are NOT alone it scares me ......but then sometimes I think that we ARE alone ....and it scares me even more!!!"

When I look into outer space, I see the handiwork of God ..... a God who loves me and wants to save me!!!

......different strokes for different folks, I guess!!!:D

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are quite right. I would be behaving illogically, for the reason you give.

Again I'm not following what you mean by "illogically"

I have to know what your goal is before I know if you are being illogical in achieving that goal. And I would imagine that logic doesn't have a whole lot to do with how you determine your actual goal in the first place.

For example if your goal is to survive for as long as you possibly can, then it is possible to logically think about how to achieve that. But as to the question of why you want to survive as long as you possibly can the only logical reason I can see for that is that you don't want to die. And not wanting to die is an emotional decision, not a logical one.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But being in an evolutionist's shoes, I wouldn't be too rigourous with logic.

Well the point you seem to be missing is that evolution doesn't have a goal to begin with, unlike your examples where you try to get the "best" out come by manipulating evolutionary processes. How "best" is measured will be decided by what goal you set yourself. Evolution doesn't have a goal, so the best outcome doesn't apply.

It is simply a process that happens, in the way that the rain water collecting into a river doesn't have a goal to reach the sea, or anything else for that matter.

So talking about the logical path of evolution to make something better or survive longer or anything like that is ultimately missing the point of this discussion.

You yourself can certainly have a goal that you wish to achieve by manipulating evolution. And you can certainly say that it is logical to proceed in a certain way to achieve that goal. But none of that is actually related to natural Darwinian evolution.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I would probably ignore the ultimate logic and go for egoism - so even though I would know logically that nothing mattered other than me, I would willingly delude myself with the thought of MY genes continuing on in perpetuity.

Again you are using the term "logic" incorrectly here.

It is not a logical conclusion that "nothing mattered other than me" unless you first define that only you matter. And the decision is a philosophical/emotional one, it has very little to do with logic.

You appear to be starting off with the grand assertion that unless God exists nothing matters. That is fine, but again that is not a logical conclusion, it is a philosophical decision.

You can draw logical conclusions from your start point, but logic has very little to do with forming the start point in the first place.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I accept the 'instant gratification explantion' as the 'proximate cause' of the Lion's behaviour.........but the 'ultimate cause' was The Fall.!!!

So because Adam eat an fruit he was told not to God decided that lions should kill the cubs of other lions when they take over a pride

Wow, your God sounds super swell .. where do I sign up :rolleyes:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

When I look into outer space, I see the handiwork of God ..... a God who loves me and wants to save me!!!

And this need to be loved by someone blinds you to the rational exploration of the universe around you.

Which is understandable, we all desire to be loved by someone.

wolfsbane

No one spotted the 'deliberate' mistake yet, in my post 7660.

My apologies for saying Dawkings when I meant Sam Harris. I've corrected it by edit now.