The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

15,002

J C

15,003

Ciaran500

Yeah yeah, it was funny. Now its just spam.

Fanny Cradock

JC, stop spamming the thread. Have a yellow.

J C

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Yeah yeah, it was funny. Now its just spam.

..sour grapes !!!!:eek::):D

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

JC, stop spamming the thread. Have a yellow.

...surely we're allowed to celebrate the 15,000th post???

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I've been busy but thought I'd drop in. From waaay back:



Again though, in the "materialist" view values, while not absolutes, are real. They are subjective, but not a choice in themselves. And if we value human life, that is not a rational stance based on what life is, it is simply a fact. We can no more choose to not value life emotionally than we can switch off a disliking for a person nor deny feelings of love for a person. These are not things that are under our control. And indeed, were we able to negate them, we would have no particular reason to act at all. Are emotions are our ultimate impetus, and the source of our meaning in life.

Non-theistic evolution leaves us in the same place we always were. With the facts, our values and our choices.

OK, though it is worth remembering that some of what you think are facts may be entirely unfactual. Anyway, that leaves the materialist paedophile in the same position as the materialist philanthrophist - their emotions cause them to value life accordingly. Evolution has produced each sort of person. None good or evil, just different emotions.

But if materialism is wrong, and evolution did not produce the individual, some other explanation is needed. The Bible gives us a coherent explanation for man in all his complexity and behaviour. Man as the image of God, but marred by sin and in bondage to it. Sinful desires restrained to some degree by conscience and the fear of consequences in this life and the next.

Acts like theft, rape, murder being real, objective immorality. Those who commit them certain to face eternal punishment. All of us able to know the difference between good and evil.

wolfsbane

toiletduck said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Evolution is a religion to some evolutionists
That's why scientists are in on it, tax exempt status!

I'm sure they're not so crass.

It's got to be something deeply psychological: an urgent need of an alternative to special creation, something to help maintain their denial of a Creator to whom they must give account?

Yes, that would explain the religious zeal with which they defend evolution.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter said:

*worships...*

Wait... wolfsbane - what am I supposed to be worshipping here?

Ego. The only meaning the universe has is the one you give it, so that makes you God.

But, as I said, you are mistaken.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Darwin, apparently. Just keep the bit about us rejecting Darwin's ideas on inheritance under your hat. It doesn't gel well with the dogma image we're going for.

Oh and....

OOOOOOONE THOOOOOUSAAAAND!

Darwin's only the Prophet. He can make a few mistakes. Ego is God, and tolerates minor failings in his servant. I'm sure you recognise these fine features in yourselves.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Darwin's only the Prophet. He can make a few mistakes. Ego is God, and tolerates minor failings in his servant. I'm sure you recognise these fine features in yourselves.

What sort of prophet is he if we'll throw out his ideas based on evidence?

Darwin elicits a more emotional response than many other revolutionary scientists because of the immediacy and relevance of his work to us as life forms. It's kinda hard to emotionally relate to relativity, or even to gravity. There's not much more to it than that.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

15,000 !!!!:D:eek:

JC's posts have taken on a new meaning in light of the fact that it was only an elaborate 3 and a half year 'get.'

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ego. The only meaning the universe has is the one you give it, so that makes you God.

We have an ego, therefore we are are God?

AtomicHorror

Right so J C, I've checked back over the pages since I last posted and it seems that the small matter of my 15 questions (14769) and your 21 (14748) questions has still not been resolved. When last we looked, I had posted 15 questions, you had replied and I had refuted your replies. So I'm waiting to hear counter arguments there. You also posted your own 21 or so questions from way back when which I have replied to in full. Waiting for your rebuttals there.

I also dismantled your probability argument as nonsense and would be most interested to hear your defence:

You don't understand probability J C- that much is painfully obvious. I notice that back in the day you used to assert that evolution was impossible based on the probability of the human genome coming into existence spontaneously. A meaningless assertion since nobody has ever claimed it did so. And now you use some "specific simple protein" as if that has anything to do with evolution or abiogenesis.

I'll try to explain it in simple terms:

1. The probability of any specified sequence coming into existence incrementally is always higher than the probability of it coming into existence in a single step. So if we assume that specified sequences are relevant to abiogenesis or evolution, your calculations are immediately incorrect. Your probabilities are automatically an over-estimation.

2. Abiogenesis and evolution are non-teleological. Function follows form. Therefore, considering the probability of existence of specified sequences is nonsensical. Instead you have to look at non-specified sequences of a given length or complexity. Again, you've failed to do this.

It's been about three weeks and you've not addressed any of this.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

We have an ego, therefore we are are God?

No, you only think you are God.

That you do so is shown by your concept of morality - a self-generated set of values, emerging from your particular emotional chemistry. The generation of morality is an essential part of the definition of God.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, though it is worth remembering that some of what you think are facts may be entirely unfactual.

Of course. But that's the great thing about testing. We can confirm facts. They can be confirmed objectively from us.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Anyway, that leaves the materialist paedophile in the same position as the materialist philanthrophist - their emotions cause them to value life accordingly.

I'm sure that there a paedophiles who also value human life and who make their decisions based on a complex balance of values, including their valuation of their freedom from imprisonment. And I'm sure that some of them are sociopathic, hence some of the horrifying behaviour we see from some people. What is your point though?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolution has produced each sort of person. None good or evil, just different emotions.

Yes, just as it produces variation in all traits. However there's a very clear common morality that has been selected for.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But if materialism is wrong, and evolution did not produce the individual, some other explanation is needed.

There's no evidence to suggest that "materialism" is wrong. We can make reproducible predictions based on the model. And we can explain things based on the model.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Bible gives us a coherent explanation for man in all his complexity and behaviour. Man as the image of God, but marred by sin and in bondage to it.

What does the image of God consist of? How was man created specifically? What is God composed of, where is He located and what are His specific capabilities? The bible doesn't give a coherent explanation at all. It gives a very vague one which it does not support with evidence.

AtomicHorror

Wolfie, we don't try to give the universe meaning at all. As far as we can establish, it has none. We think that "meaning" is a human concept and thus only applicable to beings capable of understanding it. We certainly define our own meaning though. Just as you have. You have chosen to believe in Christianity.

Soul Winner

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Wolfie, we don't try to give the universe meaning at all. As far as we can establish, it has none. We think that "meaning" is a human concept and thus only applicable to beings capable of understanding it. We certainly define our own meaning though. Just as you have. You have chosen to believe in Christianity.

How do you define your own meaning? And what is the meaning of everything as far as you are concerned?

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

How do you define your own meaning?

By finding things I like to do, things that I think are good, and dedicating as much time as I can to them. By making plans.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And what is the meaning of everything as far as you are concerned?

People, consciousnesses, have meaning. It's not a concept you can apply to the universe. At least not a far as I can see. Rocks don't have meaning, water doesn't. They just are. The only reason we feel compelled to apply meaning to these things is because that tendency promoted our survival in the past. It's the habit of several million years so it's rather difficult to get out of.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I may not be sure that culling the genetically weak, feeble-minded, etc. will accidently destroy some vitally important gene we might need a million years from now, but I can see the shorter term benefits clearly.

Evolutionarily speaking (which I assume you mean) culling the "genetically weak" (how you define who is or isn't genetically weak is anyones guess) there are not short term benefits from doing that.

Me killing you doesn't help me evolve. The very fact that you seem to be suggesting that this is how evolution works would imply you aren't following what evolution actually is.

wolfsbane wrote: »

A nation of healthy citizens, incrementally improving in mental and physical capacities, while the compassionate/religiously constrained nations around continue to be burdened with the upkeep of the less-productive, and indeed genetically weakened with the interbreeding of the less competent.

The "burden" of upkeep of the "less-productive"?

None of this has anything to do with evolution?

wolfsbane wrote: »

All natural threats - but this is where human intervention can dramatically maximize my genes survival.

Ah ok, now I see

You are saying that if the purpose of evolution is for our genes to survive then we should consciously do what ever it takes to survive, such as killing all our competitors for resources such as food etc.

We know that this doesn't actually help us very much in the long term. We need other people around us, we need a gene pool, and we don't have the ability to determine who we do need and who we don't need.

There is no way to determine the "genetically weak" Trying to second guess evolution is some what pointless. You might think a disabled person is genetically weak. They might have the mutation that saves all of humanity from a major virus outbreak in 100 years.

Say for example you kill of everyone in Norway. Ha you say, now we can have all their food and we can survive longer! So we go over to Norway and an air born disease arises that none of us have an immunity to. We all die.

Now if we have gone to Norway and instead of killing all of the people there we had instead lived with them and mated with them then our population would have picked up the genes that provided the Norwegians immunity to these disease for thousands of years.

Second guessing evolution is something humans have been trying to do for the last 100 years, from Hitler to Stalin. And it doesn't work because to believe you can second guess evolution demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what evolution actually is.

MatthewVII

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, you only think you are God.

That you do so is shown by your concept of morality - a self-generated set of values, emerging from your particular emotional chemistry. The generation of morality is an essential part of the definition of God.

Right, there is a massive difference between being a God and being rational. To suggest that making your own decisions makes you egotistical is complete nonsense. Making your own values makes you logical and independent of external forces which are not in keeping with what you view as reasonable. This ability is what makes the human mind able to resist peer pressure, challenge leaders and fight oppression. Without this ability there could exist no freedom and no independent thought.

wolfsbane

MatthewVII said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, you only think you are God.

That you do so is shown by your concept of morality - a self-generated set of values, emerging from your particular emotional chemistry. The generation of morality is an essential part of the definition of God.
Right, there is a massive difference between being a God and being rational. To suggest that making your own decisions makes you egotistical is complete nonsense. Making your own values makes you logical and independent of external forces which are not in keeping with what you view as reasonable. This ability is what makes the human mind able to resist peer pressure, challenge leaders and fight oppression. Without this ability there could exist no freedom and no independent thought.

I agree with that.

But that still leaves you at the top of the pile, the author of the only morality you recognise as valid. That is God's place, you're in it, so that makes you God. You have reasoned yourself to Deity.

The bad news is, it's all a delusion. Though you are gods, you will die like mere men.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Ah ok, now I see

You are saying that if the purpose of evolution is for our genes to survive then we should consciously do what ever it takes to survive, such as killing all our competitors for resources such as food etc.

Glad you have understood what I was trying to say.

We know that this doesn't actually help us very much in the long term. We need other people around us, we need a gene pool, and we don't have the ability to determine who we do need and who we don't need.

There is no way to determine the "genetically weak" Trying to second guess evolution is some what pointless. You might think a disabled person is genetically weak. They might have the mutation that saves all of humanity from a major virus outbreak in 100 years.

Say for example you kill of everyone in Norway. Ha you say, now we can have all their food and we can survive longer! So we go over to Norway and an air born disease arises that none of us have an immunity to. We all die.

Now if we have gone to Norway and instead of killing all of the people there we had instead lived with them and mated with them then our population would have picked up the genes that provided the Norwegians immunity to these disease for thousands of years.

Second guessing evolution is something humans have been trying to do for the last 100 years, from Hitler to Stalin. And it doesn't work because to believe you can second guess evolution demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what evolution actually is.

I can see how a reckless disposal of all but our tribe would expose us to eventual genetic failure. But there is a difference between that and culling just enough to ensure the promotion of our tribe and those whom we can happily integrate with.

If we allow the mentally and physically genetically damaged to breed, we may be ensuring the survival of an essential gene in a future crisis. But is it not more likely that the weakness passed on with be a greater burden than the risk is worth? We don't run our lives on such meagre possibilities - if we are hiking to the South Pole we will bring only the necessities, for the extra weight of carrying too many spares will more likely lead to our death than not having them in some quirky circumstance.

The rational atheist ( if he ignores the fact that nothing has a purpose anyway) will not leave it all to evolution to sort out. He has no intention of going the way of the dinosaur.

The rational Christian seeks to run things as God has commanded him, and knows that God will sort it all out.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Wolfie, we don't try to give the universe meaning at all. As far as we can establish, it has none. We think that "meaning" is a human concept and thus only applicable to beings capable of understanding it. We certainly define our own meaning though. Just as you have. You have chosen to believe in Christianity.

I appreciate that clear confession. Yes, if your premise is right, both of us are in the same position.

However, if my premise is right, you are fatally mistaken and I'm on the road to eternal life. Completely opposite positions.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I can see how a reckless disposal of all but our tribe would expose us to eventual genetic failure. But there is a difference between that and culling just enough to ensure the promotion of our tribe and those whom we can happily integrate with.

But you need to appreciate the difference between that and evolution.

The "promotion of our tribe" is not evolution, it is prosperity in terms of economics. If I kill you I can eat your food and live in your house, but that isn't going to make me evolve.

You can't evolve yourself. You can't even evolve your children. The most you could do is try to mutate your children, in the hope that one of the mutations provides an adaptation that benefits them.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If we allow the mentally and physically genetically damaged to breed, we may be ensuring the survival of an essential gene in a future crisis. But is it not more likely that the weakness passed on with be a greater burden than the risk is worth?

Possibly, but "burden" has little to do with evolution.

You carrying for your disabled sister has little to do with how adapted you are to your environment. You carrying for your disabled sister isn't going to cause a virus to strike you down and you not caring for your disabled sister isn't going to stop that happening.

Also an important point is that the instinct to care for your disabled sister is one that has proven to be helpful, evolutionarially speaking, hence its existence in the first place.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The rational atheist ( if he ignores the fact that nothing has a purpose anyway) will not leave it all to evolution to sort out.

Sort what out exactly?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The rational Christian seeks to run things as God has commanded him, and knows that God will sort it all out.

I see little evidence of that. All you have is the promise that after we all die we will all go to a happy magical place where we will live in peace and contentment. But one could just as easily say everyone should shoot themselves in the head now, they will wake up some where better. It is some what nonsensical to believe that all problems are solved some where that no one has ever been and no one has ever seen.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Anyway, that leaves the materialist paedophile in the same position as the materialist philanthrophist - their emotions cause them to value life accordingly.
I'm sure that there a paedophiles who also value human life and who make their decisions based on a complex balance of values, including their valuation of their freedom from imprisonment. And I'm sure that some of them are sociopathic, hence some of the horrifying behaviour we see from some people. What is your point though?

My point is that the paedophile and the philantrophist are equally moral if morality derives from one's emotional makeup. They are just different in their natures, none more moral than the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Evolution has produced each sort of person. None good or evil, just different emotions.
Yes, just as it produces variation in all traits. However there's a very clear common morality that has been selected for.

Not common to all - just more prevalent. Like heterosexuality. Or right-handedness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But if materialism is wrong, and evolution did not produce the individual, some other explanation is needed.
There's no evidence to suggest that "materialism" is wrong. We can make reproducible predictions based on the model. And we can explain things based on the model.

Materialism has to explain the occurance of prescience and other forms of unnatural knowledge. I'm not criticising them for being unable to do so, for it is not something that occurs in a laboratory. Materialism can account for many things in the material realm, and it shares that ability with theism. Theists work in both realms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The Bible gives us a coherent explanation for man in all his complexity and behaviour. Man as the image of God, but marred by sin and in bondage to it.
What does the image of God consist of?

Moral personhood. Not inanimate, nor non-moral animal.

How was man created specifically?

Molded by God from the dust of the ground into human flesh and implanted by Him with a spirit.

What is God composed of,

Spirit, but since Christ's incarnation, the God the Son has also a human body and nature.

where is He located

In Heaven, a place in the spiritual dimension.

and what are His specific capabilities?

Infinite in power, wisdom, goodness.

The bible doesn't give a coherent explanation at all. It gives a very vague one which it does not support with evidence.

I haven't found it vague at all on His capabilities or nature. Maybe you would be more specific?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

My point is that the paedophile and the philantrophist are equally moral if morality derives from one's emotional makeup. They are just different in their natures, none more moral than the other.

No, they aren't equally moral if universal morality doesn't exist. That is an oxymoron, the concept doesn't even apply. If there is no universal morality you can't compare the two to any universal standard, so how do you determine they are "equally" moral?

MatthewVII

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree with that.

But that still leaves you at the top of the pile, the author of the only morality you recognise as valid. That is God's place, you're in it, so that makes you God. You have reasoned yourself to Deity.

The bad news is, it's all a delusion. Though you are gods, you will die like mere men.

No, to be in God's place would be to try and force your view on others, to proclaim yourself as the one authority on everything and deplore those who do not follow you. Independent thought is just a personal code which is relevant to you.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I appreciate that clear confession. Yes, if your premise is right, both of us are in the same position.

However, if my premise is right, you are fatally mistaken and I'm on the road to eternal life. Completely opposite positions.

Sure, but similarly we could both be wrong about Zeus. On what basis do you think we can establish whether that is a serious risk? We can't directly disprove his existence, so how do you and I get ourselves to a position in which we can logically dismiss his existence?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

My point is that the paedophile and the philantrophist are equally moral if morality derives from one's emotional makeup. They are just different in their natures, none more moral than the other.

In way, but only from their own respective perspectives and only if they do not consider any other moral views than their own. Some people don't value the values of other, but this not common.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not common to all - just more prevalent. Like heterosexuality. Or right-handedness.

But hardly so trivial as either. The moral majority, if based upon evidence and understanding, has value even if it is not universal.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Materialism has to explain the occurance of prescience and other forms of unnatural knowledge.

Can you point to repoducible examples of unambiguous prescience? It appears immune to testing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not criticising them for being unable to do so, for it is not something that occurs in a laboratory.

Science is not restricted to the lab. Its only limit is the observable.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Materialism can account for many things in the material realm, and it shares that ability with theism. Theists work in both realms.

Theism does not explain anything. It offers reasons that invite no further enquirey.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Moral personhood. Not inanimate, nor non-moral animal.

But what are the characteristics of that and how do I test it? Because there seems to be practically no measurable feature of humans that is not also found in some other species. Only extent and combination of those features appears unique to us.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Molded by God from the dust of the ground into human flesh and implanted by Him with a spirit.

But how did He do that? What was the composition of the dust? What means did He use to mold the dust? What is the spirit and how was it implanted into the human? How is that trait inherited? By what means can we test these questions?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Spirit, but since Christ's incarnation, the God the Son has also a human body and nature.

What is spirit composed of? How does fit into what we know of reality or does it demand another model? How exactly has the composition of that spirit been altered by the introduction of the Son into the mix? How did God go about incarnating Himself into a corporeal form? For that matter, how does a being extant outside of time interact with a spacetime continuum? being timeless ought to mean all of his actions occur simultaneously in His own frame of reference. Is this the case? How do we test these questions?

wolfsbane wrote: »

In Heaven, a place in the spiritual dimension.

Where is that dimension located? Is it a dimension of the percievable spacetime continuum, a fourth spatial dimension, and thus causally linked to the observable universe? Or is it isolated from the observable universe? Is this isolation only an observational isolation or is it also a causal isolation? Does this dimension itself have other dimesion which allow location in spatial and chronological senses? How to we test these ideas?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Infinite in power, wisdom, goodness.

How can that be established? How does a thing of infinite complexity come to exist? Also, what about His observational capacity? Causal capacity? Again, by what means can these things be tested?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I haven't found it vague at all on His capabilities or nature. Maybe you would be more specific?

If it answers even half of the questions I've just asked above in an unambiguous manner, I revise my opinion of it as being vague.