The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Whysthat?

liamw wrote: »

Are you saying addition of new information to the genome is a mathematical impossibility? What is your definition of 'information'?

Surely information, if defined as knowledge of the environment, increases each time a mutation is selected...

...because the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on any significant scale.

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

JC: If say God were involved in abiogenesis, would it be impossible?

... God produced the one and only 'abiogenesis event' on Earth ... AKA as the Genesis Creation Week!!!:D

liamw

J C wrote: »

...because the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on any significant scale.

Apparently the assertion that anything can have specified complexity is a pile of garbage... I don't know much on the topic so I have to reference externally

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/12/id_garbage_csi_as_non-computab.php wrote:

So, what's CSI? Long-time readers will have seen my old critique of it. I'll just reiterate the key points here. CSI is something that you can never really pin down: it's a contradiction wrapped up in obfuscatory mathematics to make it appear meaningful. Nothing actually has specified complexity, because nothing can have specified complexity, because specified complexity is fundamentally self-contradictory: by looking at the basic definitions of the terms using information theory, you find that specification equals not-complex, and complex equals not-specified. So to have specified complexity is something like being both invisible and florescent pink at the same time.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...because the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on any significant scale.

You seem to think that all evoloutionary mutations are benifical and functionaly superior to the previous generation.

This is simply not true.

Every day a child is born with some kind of mutation that can cause Down Syndrome or some types of Congenital Disorder.
Then again some children in Africa are being born with sickle cell anemia, which gives them a resistance to Malaria.

Evolution is not good or bad, it is random.

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...because the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on any significant scale.

As a professional mathematician, I would like to point out that this is complete nonsense. You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to information theory (and I would guess any other area of mathematics)

You use phrases like "combinatorial space" and "singularity". Do you actually know or understand the precise defintions of these terms?

You talk about " the reciprocal of these two figures". Which two figures? You post makes prior reference to an 'infinite space' and a 'singularity'. Neither of these things are "figures" (I presume that you actually mean to say 'numbers'). Moreover, the reciprocal of infinity is undefined so it is meaningless to say it is equal to zero, if that is what you were trying to get at. Of course, you will no doubt use the fact that it is undefined to draw some spurious conclusion about 'CSI'. Please don't - mathematics doesn't work like that.

In biology, it is possible to get away with this denialist nonsense in part beacause biology is not as rigorous a discipline as mathematics. That is not a criticism of biology, it is a necessary characteristic of any science that deals with real world phenomena. However in matheamtics, it is possible to conclusively determine whether or not something is true. I think for that reason, these so called 'creation scientists' would be well advised to steer clear of mathematical reasoning as their denial of reality will quickly run aground there. JC illustrates this point neatly with his nonsense pseudo mathematics above.

Soul Winner

equivariant wrote: »

In biology, it is possible to get away with this denialist nonsense in part beacause biology is not as rigorous a discipline as mathematics. That is not a criticism of biology, it is a necessary characteristic of any science that deals with real world phenomena. However in matheamtics, it is possible to conclusively determine whether or not something is true. I think for that reason, these so called 'creation scientists' would be well advised to steer clear of mathematical reasoning as their denial of reality will quickly run aground there. JC illustrates this point neatly with his nonsense pseudo mathematics above.

I'm confused. If, in mathematics, it is possible to conclusively determine whether or not something is true, and you think that for that reason, these so called 'creation scientists' would be well advised to steer clear of mathematical reasoning as their denial of reality will quickly run aground there, then where else do you think the Darwinian Evolutionist is going to end up with their reasoning? It takes a lot of faith to believe that all lifeforms that exist on this planet today came about by the means of natural selection acting on random mutations, don't you think? How mathematically sound do you think that reasoning is in fairness?

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm confused. If, in mathematics, it is possible to conclusively determine whether or not something is true, and you think that for that reason, these so called 'creation scientists' would be well advised to steer clear of mathematical reasoning as their denial of reality will quickly run aground there, then where else do you think the Darwinian Evolutionist is going to end up with their reasoning? It takes a lot of faith to believe that all lifeforms that exist on this planet today came about by the means of natural selection acting on random mutations, don't you think? How mathematically sound do you think that reasoning is in fairness?

No it takes no faith whatsoever because it's what 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny and mountains upon mountains of evidence indicates. It's not intuitive but the mathematics are sound as is the evidence. Evolutionary algorithms run on computers regularly produce the kind of complexity that ID nonsense peddlers claim is impossible

Accepting evolution takes about as much faith as accepting the statement "the earth revolves around the sun". It's possible that we're wrong on that but only insofar as we're fallible human beings and we can be wrong about anything. The idea that the evidence for evolution is in some way shakey is a myth propagated by creationists

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not intuitive but the mathematics are sound as is the evidence. Evolutionary algorithms run on computers regularly produce the kind of complexity that ID nonsense peddlers claim is impossible

Computers are intelligently designed in fairness. :rolleyes:

chozometroid

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Evolution is not good or bad, it is random.

Are you serious?

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Computers are intelligently designed in fairness. :rolleyes:

:facepalm:

You asked about the mathematics behind evolution. The computer simulations mimic what happens in nature and produce complexity that ID people say is impossible. Think of it like a first person shooter type computer game. The designers write software to mimic gravity so the guy can jump as if it was the real world but the fact that their program mimics gravity does not mean gravity is intelligently designed. Evolutionary programming evaluates the fitness of randomly varying units just like in nature and it finds solutions much faster than other methods and can solve problems no other method can solve. These units are not "intelligently guided" because they don't have to be, they find the solution just fine through the selection of random variations. Have a read:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming?wasRedirected=true

chozometroid wrote: »

Are you serious?

How do you mean? The variations in evolution are completely random and the vast majority are bad and cause diseases or deformities such as webbed fingers. It works because a small but significant number of them are "good" for the environment and the ones that have these "good" variations survive better. A good example is the peppered moth. During the industrial revolution all the trees were covered in soot. During this time one of them had a random mutation that caused it to be born black and because the trees were black it couldn't be seen by predators, survived better and spread its genes further. There is nothing inherently better about being black, it was just better for the environment at the time

But nowadays the trees aren't covered in soot so the white ones are making a comeback in those areas. The important thing to note is that the moth 150 years ago didn't "decide" to become black and god didn't make it black either, it was a random mutation that just happened to be good for the environment. I mentioned webbed fingers before and we would consider that a deformity but if we were primitive animals living near water those webs would give an extra boost while swimming and help the person survive better.

J C

liamw wrote: »

Apparently the assertion that anything can have specified complexity is a pile of garbage... I don't know much on the topic so I have to reference externally

Originally Posted by "http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/12/id_garbage_csi_as_non-computab.php"
So, what's CSI? Long-time readers will have seen my old critique of it. I'll just reiterate the key points here. CSI is something that you can never really pin down: it's a contradiction wrapped up in obfuscatory mathematics to make it appear meaningful. Nothing actually has specified complexity, because nothing can have specified complexity, because specified complexity is fundamentally self-contradictory: by looking at the basic definitions of the terms using information theory, you find that specification equals not-complex, and complex equals not-specified. So to have specified complexity is something like being both invisible and florescent pink at the same time.

...a complete load of illogical non-sequiturs!!!

Of course, there is such a thing as Specified Complexity ... which is the 'hallmark' of functional information...and therefore intelligent activity.

simplicity = eeeeeeeeeeeeeee or aaabbbaaabbbaaabbb
non-specified complexity = ashkjwoioncvnfhkzdvndjbvsdkfl;dsvjklkbdsfkvldsk
specified complexity = the argument that Specified Complexity doesn't exist is the nadir of Materialistic denial!!!:D

...stop arguing against the patently obvious (because specified complexity obviously exists) ... and people might not believe any other points that you make ... if you continue to proclaim the logical equivalent of there being two moons in the sky!!!:D

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

You seem to think that all evoloutionary mutations are benifical and functionaly superior to the previous generation.

This is simply not true.

Every day a child is born with some kind of mutation that can cause Down Syndrome or some types of Congenital Disorder.
Then again some children in Africa are being born with sickle cell anemia, which gives them a resistance to Malaria.

Evolution is not good or bad, it is random.

...practically all mutations are deleterious ... and the few that aren't immediately deleterious, still result in a loss of CSI.

Could I gently point out that it is precisely because mutations are observed to always result in a degrading of genetic information that 'evolution from Pondkind to Mankind' is a scientific 'non-runner'!!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...practically all mutations are deleterious ... and the few that aren't immediately deleterious, still result in a loss of CSI.

Could I gently point out that it is precisely because mutations are observed to always result in a degrading of genetic information that 'evolution from Pondkind to Mankind' is a logical and scientific 'non-runner'!!!!

J C is showing quite well how to become a creationist right now

Step 1: Make a statement that has no basis in reality

Step 2: Ignore everyone who shows unequivocally that the statement has no basis in reality and/or say they're in denial

Step 3: Repeat the aforementioned unfounded nonsense

Step 4: stick fingers in ears

Step 5: la la la la la la la la

It would be funny if these people didn't have so much influence in the world. By the way, anyone who denies evolution should avoid taking the flu vaccine since evolutionary theory is central to its development and we all know it's nonsense :rolleyes:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...because the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on any significant scale.

equivariant
As a professional mathematician, I would like to point out that this is complete nonsense. You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to information theory (and I would guess any other area of mathematics)

You use phrases like "combinatorial space" and "singularity". Do you actually know or understand the precise defintions of these terms?

You talk about " the reciprocal of these two figures". Which two figures? You post makes prior reference to an 'infinite space' and a 'singularity'. Neither of these things are "figures" (I presume that you actually mean to say 'numbers'). Moreover, the reciprocal of infinity is undefined so it is meaningless to say it is equal to zero, if that is what you were trying to get at. Of course, you will no doubt use the fact that it is undefined to draw some spurious conclusion about 'CSI'. Please don't - mathematics doesn't work like that.

...I too am a qualified Mathematician!!!
...you ask me for precision ... and then don't use it yourself!!!

...I actually said that "because the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on any significant scale."
It is quite clear from the above statement that I am talking about something that is effectively infinite i.e. it is for all practical purposes infinite and therefore the reciprocal is also effectivly zero (i.e. for all practical purposes it is zero).

...the following link to a Mathematical Physicist who confirms, that for all practical purposes, the reciprocal of infinity is zero.
This Mathematical Physicist also has a distain for mathematicians who 'protest too much' over arcane and practical irrelevancies within their particular discipline!!!
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/math99/math99008.htm

Another mathematician once told me that nobody can mathematically prove that 2 + 2 = 4 !!!
...forgive me, but I will continue to use the 'working assumption' that 2 + 2 = 4 ... and the working assumption that the reciprocal of infinity is zero and vice versa!!!

... believe it of not, Pure Mathematicians don't actually know what infinity is ... even though they have a symbol for it!!!

...I can confirm that infinity is indeed a very large number ... so large that it rules out the spontaneous production of CSI!!!:D

I particularly like the following quote from the above link (because it applies to Creation Science and Biology as well as Physics):-
"The essence of physics has always been communication, rather than
mathematical rigour. The test I use for myself is that if I can't
explain a concept in language that a 4th grader can understand, then
I probably don't understand the concept very well myself."

equivariant wrote: »

In biology, it is possible to get away with this denialist nonsense in part beacause biology is not as rigorous a discipline as mathematics. That is not a criticism of biology, it is a necessary characteristic of any science that deals with real world phenomena. However in matheamtics, it is possible to conclusively determine whether or not something is true. I think for that reason, these so called 'creation scientists' would be well advised to steer clear of mathematical reasoning as their denial of reality will quickly run aground there. JC illustrates this point neatly with his nonsense pseudo mathematics above.

...yes, I know all about the denial and imprecision in Biology ... it's called 'evolution'!!!!:D

...and my maths is perfectly fine ... for all practical purposes... the reciprocal DOES approach zero as the denominator approaches infinity!!!!:D

...and the practical import of this mathematical fact is that the spontaneous production of any significant level of CSI is thereby mathematically ruled out!!!!:D

...and the more mathematical rigour that is applied to the phenomenon ... the more rigorously the spontaneous production of any significant level of CSI is mathematically ruled out!!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Sam Vimes
It's not intuitive but the mathematics are sound as is the evidence. Evolutionary algorithms run on computers regularly produce the kind of complexity that ID nonsense peddlers claim is impossible

Soul Winner
Computers are intelligently designed in fairness. :rolleyes:

...and the algorithims are also intelligently designed to produce the desired result ... and they do NOT simulate supposedly non-intelligenlty directed 'evolution' as they 'conserve' information (like 'letter strings' that are meaningless in themselves) before they become meaningful when other letters are 'added' to the 'letter strings' later on ... thereby actually illustrating one of the principal weakness in the Materialistic Evolutionary Theory ... the requirement for the spontanous emergence and retention of 'potentially useful' but currently useless genetic sequences!!!
...no know materialistic mechanism exists that can account for this phenomenon ... while intelligence is perfectly capable of such 'overview'.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Genghiz Cohen
Evolution is not good or bad, it is random

chozometroid
Are you serious?

... Evolution isn't good or bad, it is rubbish:eek:

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...and the algorithims are also intelligently designed to produce the desired result ... and they do NOT simulated supposedly non-intelligenlty directed 'evolution' as they 'conserve' information (like 'letter strings' that are meaningless in themselves) in advance of them becoming meaningful when other letters are 'added' to the 'letter strings' later on ... thereby actually illustrating one of the principal wekness in the Materialistic Evolutionary Theory (the spontanous emergence and retention of 'potentially useful' but currently useless genetic sequences!!!

Last time I checked there were well thousands of genes that serve no function what so ever yet our body continues to waste energy copying them.
Anyways, JC, care to explain (in detail) how these evolutionary algorithms do NOT simulate evolution?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

:facepalm:

You asked about the mathematics behind evolution. The computer simulations mimic what happens in nature and produce complexity that ID people say is impossible. Think of it like a first person shooter type computer game. The designers write software to mimic gravity so the guy can jump as if it was the real world but the fact that their program mimics gravity does not mean gravity is intelligently designed. Evolutionary programming evaluates the fitness of randomly varying units just like in nature and it finds solutions much faster than other methods and can solve problems no other method can solve. These units are not "intelligently guided" because they don't have to be, they find the solution just fine through the selection of random variations. Have a read:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming?wasRedirected=true

... yes, INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED systems can adapt automatically (i.e without any intelligent input) to their environments ... a simple thermostat proves this to be true!!

However, the important point is that the CSI in thermostats ... and in computer algorithms ... and in living organisms was intelligently designed.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

:
How do you mean? The variations in evolution are completely random and the vast majority are bad and cause diseases or deformities such as webbed fingers. It works because a small but significant number of them are "good" for the environment and the ones that have these "good" variations survive better. A good example is the peppered moth. During the industrial revolution all the trees were covered in soot. During this time one of them had a random mutation that caused it to be born black and because the trees were black it couldn't be seen by predators, survived better and spread its genes further. There is nothing inherently better about being black, it was just better for the environment at the time

But nowadays the trees aren't covered in soot so the white ones are making a comeback in those areas. The important thing to note is that the moth 150 years ago didn't "decide" to become black and god didn't make it black either, it was a random mutation that just happened to be good for the environment. I mentioned webbed fingers before and we would consider that a deformity but if we were primitive animals living near water those webs would give an extra boost while swimming and help the person survive better.

...like I have said before, this is merely an example of fluctuations in the wing colour ratios within an individual species ... and they now appear to be back to where they started!!!:D
...it is an example of population adaption to environmental change using pre-existing genetic diversity!!!

...and it exhibits no potential to explain the putative idea that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind'.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...I too am a qualified Matematician!!!

So you're a mathematician AND a former evolutionist AND a creation scientist. Well aren't you just the bees knees :rolleyes:

A certain phrase pops goto my mind that seems apt about now: jack of all trades, master of none

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

J C is showing quite well how to become a creationist right now

Step 1: Make a statement that has no basis in reality

Step 2: Ignore everyone who shows unequivocally that the statement has no basis in reality and/or say they're in denial

Step 3: Repeat the aforementioned unfounded nonsense

Step 4: stick fingers in ears

Step 5: la la la la la la la la

It would be funny if these people didn't have so much influence in the world. By the way, anyone who denies evolution should avoid taking the flu vaccine since evolutionary theory is central to its development and we all know it's nonsense :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes is showing quite well how to become an evolutionist right now

Step 1: Make a statement that has no basis in reality

Step 2: Ignore everyone who shows unequivocally that the statement has no basis in reality and/or say they're in denial

Step 3: Repeat the aforementioned unfounded nonsense

Step 4: stick fingers in ears

Step 5: la la la la la la la la

It would be funny if these people didn't have so much influence in the world!!

Sam Vimes wrote:

By the way, anyone who denies evolution should avoid taking the flu vaccine since evolutionary theory is central to its development and we all know it's nonsense :rolleyes:

... another illogical non-sequitur!!!!
... why am I not surprised???

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Accepting evolution takes about as much faith as accepting the statement "the earth revolves around the sun". It's possible that we're wrong on that but only insofar as we're fallible human beings and we can be wrong about anything. The idea that the evidence for evolution is in some way shakey is a myth propagated by creationists

... faith is an amazing thing ... it can save you for eternity...
... or it can have you running around telling everybody who will listen to you, that you are a 'child of pondkind'!!!!:D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you're a mathematician AND a former evolutionist AND a creation scientist. Well aren't you just the bees knees :rolleyes:

... I don't suffer from pride ... because I'm a Christian ... and I realise that the BEST of man's wisdom is but foolishness unto God!!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A certain phrase pops goto my mind that seems apt about now: jack of all trades, master of none

... a polymath would be a more accurate term ... but I'm not going to quibble!!!:rolleyes::D:)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... yes, INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED systems can adapt automatically (i.e without any intelligent input) to their environments ... a simple thermostat proves this to be true!!

However, the important point is that the CSI in thermostats ... and in computer algorithms ... and in living organisms was intelligently designed.

The "CSI" in evolutionary algorithms is not intelligently designed, that's the whole point, that's what makes it an evolutionary algorithm. Many simple units randomly vary and evaluate a fitness function until the solution is found. No intelligent guidance is necessary. Yet again you have shown the breathtaking ignorance that shows you don't have the grand qualifications you claim to

J C wrote: »

...and it exhibits no potential to explain the putative idea that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind'.

Sure it does, you just have to ignore the barrier that denialists have imagined but which doesn't actually exist that supposedly prevents new information being added and new species emerging from old ones. Contrary to popular denialist opinion it's not enough to just declare that this barrier exists over and over again. You have to actually provide evidence that it does to counter the 150 of scientific scrutiny that has found no evidence of it and mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Oh and pseudomathematics about imaginary concepts such as "CSI" don't count as evidence, partly because it's entirely based on the demonstrably nonsense idea of irreducible complexity and partly because it's just ill-defined wishy washy crap designed to confuse and look impressive. Also you have shown that you don't even understand properly what is being claimed by this ill-defined wishy washy crap by getting the maths so badly wrong a few weeks ago, for example claiming that two figures were just different ways of representing the same thing even though operations performed on the two figures produced vastly different results

philologos

This is a very interesting thread to watch in some ways. Particularly in that I disagree with the atheists about as much as I disagree with JC. In many ways I'd have more in common with JC, while not objecting to what modern science has to say about how God indeed did create the heavens, and the earth and all the life that we have in it.

The view that nothing was required for the evolutionary process to begin, is a nonsense to me. I also wouldn't be as fast as to regard YEC's as being stupid.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Last time I checked there were well thousands of genes that serve no function what so ever yet our body continues to waste energy copying them.
Anyways, JC, care to explain (in detail) how these evolutionary algorithms do NOT simulate evolution?

...this idea of so-called 'junk DNA' is a repeat of the 'vestigial organ' ideas of the 19th Century ... and is a reflection of ignorance of function rather than lack of function per se.

To properly simulate Materialistic Evolution, these programmes would need to have no pre-conceived results or pre-limited options ... and under these circumstances, the algorithm would continue to churn out 'gobbledy gook' ad infinitum!!!!:D

It certainly would never produce a book like 'The Origins of Species' ... which would be a pale reflection of the CSI in a so-called proto-cell.:eek::)

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a very interesting thread to watch in some ways. Particularly in that I disagree with the atheists about as much as I disagree with JC. In many ways I'd have more in common with JC, while not objecting to what modern science has to say about how God indeed did create the heavens, and the earth and all the life that we have in it.

The view that nothing was required for the evolutionary process to begin, is a nonsense to me. I also wouldn't be as fast as to regard YEC's as being stupid.

What it shows Jakkass is just how far people are willing to go if they really really really want to believe something. They can deny any evidence if it conflicts with what they want to be true. Think about that and then think about, for example, the apostles and ask yourself: is it so difficult to imagine that they could have believed Jesus performed miracles even if he hadn't? Could Jesus' wonderful message for humanity and promise of salvation have caused them to overlook certain inconsistencies that never made it into the bible? It's happening to this day

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

The view that nothing was required for the evolutionary process to begin, is a nonsense to me. I also wouldn't be as fast as to regard YEC's as being stupid.

You kinda jumbled our point here.
The point is that "nothing" is necessary to keep evolution going. Evolution runs all by itself.:)

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What it shows Jakkass is just how far people are willing to go if they really really really want to believe something. They can deny any evidence if it conflicts with what they want to be true. Think about that and then think about, for example, the apostles and ask yourself: is it so difficult to imagine that they could have believed Jesus performed miracles even if he hadn't?

I still have a lot of respect for J C. The main disagreement I have with J C is that I don't believe that one has to disregard science in order to believe that God brought all things to existence from non-existence. We both still believe that God created all things, and we both still believe that God has given us meaning in our lives.

I have a lot of respect for you too believe it or not (when our arguments don't get tedious, and when we actually have a decent discussion rather than descending into pedantry). I disagree with you far more than I'll ever disagree with J C. The disagreement lies in two main assumptions, some go for three, but I don't think you do:
1) All that exists is material.
2) There is no objective meaning to life.

J C and I are united in our disagreement on these two fronts.

I think it's incredibly improbable that all 12 could have been equally deluded at the same time. I think it is more a desire that you have for the Scriptures not being true, rather than a serious investigation that they might be true. This is the view I have come to.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

2) There is no objective meaning to life.

Sam : Do you really believe this?
Cos, I don't.:)

philologos

You think there is an "objective" meaning to life? If so where does it come from?

Point 1 is far more important to this debate about how the world came into existence. If you assume all things to be material, there isn't a hope that you'll ever come to believe in God as Creator because of the barrier you have placed.