Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Well if you didn't just accept the quote mine then you'd see that's exactly where he was speaking out of.
Chapter 9 of his book - The Road Ahead
He's talking about his experiences in high school and his experiences in education as a whole. He later read one book about biology and then made this statement.
If you want an authority on software you need to look at people who create new technology. Not people that were business opportunists/innovators.
So because he's an authority on computer technology / Software (I refuse to say he's an authority on computer science) he's now an authority on Biology as well ? Come on now, you don't believe that anymore than I do.
Because he's correct. Because while I'm not technically a programmer and neither am I a biologist I have a lot of interest in both fields. Because of this interest I read a lot of material on the subject and can see that they are very different indeed. I can read the views of actual experts in both fields, that of biology and computer science. DNA and computer code could be called superficially similar yes but go into any depth and they are completely different.
So basically what you're saying is this. You do not accept what Bill Gates says about the similarities between computer code and DNA because he is not qualified in Biology. But you - who are equally unqualified not only in biology but also computer programming - are quite happy to accept Wicknights assessment of the two even though he too has no qualifications in Biology. That's wonderful.The screen is a two dimensional display for human readability.
Computers, like math, model many numbers of dimensions. The display device has nothing to do with it except for how we perceive it.
Apart from the two dimensional read-out that we see on a screen, all that is really going on is an invisible set of electrical impulses on a mother board at a given time.Biology = Advanced Chemistry.
Maybe you haven't met my friend, Mr DNA.
Chemical structure of DNA. Hydrogen bonds shown as dotted lines.
You're point please?Did you ever manage to read about the proposed hypothesis' for Abiogenesis ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Yes I have read them. They are exactly what you said they were. Proposed hypothesis for Abiogenesis. Proposals that have yet to be verified. What they propose have not been tested in the lab and haven't been observed in nature. Theoretically they might make sense but they cannot be tested or observed. If you can find one that has been please outline it for us.How do you make that jump ? Isn't it possible that 'shock horror' we simply don't know yet ?
No its not. If all naturalistic explanations for how the complexity of life came about cannot adequately explain it, then why can we not infer that intelligence must have had some input? I'll tell you why will I? Because you have already rule that explanation because of your preferred world view which is strictly materialistic in its epistemology.And again, have you read about Abiogenesis yet ? Because I don't think you have.
Well you are wrong. I did read them. Please outline which theory you think explains it best. And don't just copy and paste a link. Explain it in your own words why you think it is the best explanation.0 -
-
-
... as I am qualified in multiple science disciplines ... you could be right!!!!Ghost Buster wrote: »If I were to randomly mention some sort of discipline, area of academia or interest and then introduce it to this thread as debate I get the feeling that you will claim some sort of qualification in the mentioned area....
0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »So basically what you're saying is this.
No it's not. Just to be clear.You do not accept what Bill Gates says about the similarities between computer code and DNA because he is not qualified in Biology.
No. I do not accept what Bill Gates says about the similarities between computer code and DNA because;
1. He is not qualified in biology and most importantly made the said statement after going through a particularly bad biology class in high school and reading one book on the subject afterwards.
2. He is quite clearly wrong because of my own knowledge of biology which while limited, I have at least read more than one book on the subject. And because of my knowledge of computer programming.
3. Other scientists have rejected the idea.
Again, superficially yes, there are similarities. But they are at depth very different.But you - who are equally unqualified not only in biology but also computer programming
I didn't say I was unqualified in Computer Programming, I said I wasn't technically a computer programmer, i.e. it's not my job.
I work in computer security at the moment but my qualifications are in computer science.- are quite happy to accept Wicknights assessment of the two even though he too has no qualifications in Biology. That's wonderful.
Wicknight has proven he knows a lot about biology on this very thread. Bill Gates did biology in high school and read one book about it in his 20's. He then wrote a book saying how bad his high school biology class was and he wished he had learned about biology from it but the teacher wasn't any good.
Does it sound like he is saying he knows anything about biology ? I did post the relevant chapter.Apart from the two dimensional read-out that we see on a screen, all that is really going on is an invisible set of electrical impulses on a mother board at a given time.
You are the one who mentioned 2D. I don't know why your talking about dimensions at allYou're point please?
My point is that when you generalise enough that absolutely anything is like anything else.Yes I have read them. They are exactly what you said they were. Proposed hypothesis for Abiogenesis. Proposals that have yet to be verified. What they propose have not been tested in the lab and haven't been observed in nature. Theoretically they might make sense but they cannot be tested or observed. If you can find one that has been please outline it for us.
Alright. Is there a question ?
I mean, if your asking me how did life start then my answer is going to be I don't know and we might never know.No its not. If all naturalistic explanations for how the complexity of life came about cannot adequately explain it, then why can we not infer that intelligence must have had some input?
Wow. Where to start with that.
First of all. In this same post you yourself said that the abiogenesis hypothesis' could very well be true but we haven't tested or observed it yet.
Secondly, replacing "We don't know" with "magic/god/pink unicorns" did it is pointless. It answers nothing and in fact gives us more questions.
I mean before we discovered there were other galaxies out there would it have made sense to assume our galaxy was trapped inside a giant glass ball ?
Thirdly 'inferring' something is not scientific. I'm sure the scientific method has been explained to you before.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
It's effectively an attempt to exploit the high information density of genetic code. The natural instruction sets for building lifeforms are replaced with synthetic ones. If we can ever get it to work, it will be amazing.
Basically nano-technology, manipulating the chemical relationships to do massive processing. Sounds cool, but my money is on quantum computing
Oh and by the way your use of the term "information" in that quote is coming to come back to haunt us all, mark my words :pac:0 -
... so ... you admit that the quality and quantity of information in genetic code is massive ... and yet you deny that an equally gargantuan intelligence created it.Originally Posted by Morbert
It's effectively an attempt to exploit the high information density of genetic code. The natural instruction sets for building lifeforms are replaced with synthetic ones. If we can ever get it to work, it will be amazing.
Wicknight
Basically nano-technology, manipulating the chemical relationships to do massive processing. Sounds cool, but my money is on quantum computing
Oh and by the way your use of the term "information" in that quote is coming to come back to haunt us all, mark my words :pac:
I am tempted to suggest that you could get a DNA computer by picking up a load of muck ... and repeatedly throwing it at a wall ... and hoping that some of it will stick!!!:)
... and the use of the term "information" in the quote will only haunt you ... if you continue in total denial of reality!!!:D0 -
Advertisement
-
-
You apparently aren't a programmer JC, since you want your program to crash when there is a bug because you don't want unpredictable results.
I'll put this down as another area you apparently know little about.
Any change you can get around to answering my questions?
If only all were this simple:
*N.B - This is the first computer bug
I think Wicknight's right by the way. It is way more annoying to have a bug skew your output data and not crash, than have your code crash. The former would require more testing to find.
Edit: Usually in the case of a crash the compiler / interpreter (depending on language) will tell you what line the error is on in your code. Or at least a debugger.0 -
-
Wicknight said:
Good. We make progress.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Or maybe you mean you are able to make an initial assessment of its probability, but without scientific investigation you would be unable to confirm that assessment or not?
Exactly. You can suspect that something is unlikely and worth of study.
The problem is when you don't actually do the "worth of study" bit, and just conclude that because you think it is unlikely it is. Which seems to be what you are doing with your miracles.
Yes, every miracle in the Bible and in individual's lives is beyond testing for authenticity. One can check if others witnessed it and add their weight to its credibility. But as you point out, multiple witnesses can be mistaken. One can also try to recreate the effect, seeing if it possible, and if so, how difficult it is to achieve. Then one can record its natural occurrence in similar circumstances.
I think it fair to say the Exodus events not only can be suspected to be unlikely, but one would expect to have heard if they had occurred at any time since. Only a sceptic fanatic would think such events may be not uncommon.
If it had been the Egyptian priests who prayed/commanded, then Ra would be the natural candidate to whom one would attribute the miracles. But it was Moses. The observer can continue to deny God as the cause, but only against the strange co-incidence of Moses' prayers/commands in the name of God. Seems to me the agnostic could allow the possibility it was not God, but would admit that was the unlikely case.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
How does this work in practice? If you are Moses, and the Red Sea opened overnight when you gave the command, and closed again the following day when you gave the command, do you tell yourself you are unable to say if this really happened?
I would be completely at a loss as to what really happened. I've no idea how a sea can be held back, and it would require a heck of a lot of study to establish this.
I imagine the answer I was supposed to give was I would assume it was the explanation given to me, ie God did it. This is the mistake so common among theists. You think that any explanation is good enough so long as it explains what happened, even if you have no idea if it actually is the current explanation.
So Moses says "That was God who did that" we are supposed to not question, because after all who else could do it? Well actually if we are happy to suppose that supernatural deities exist then pretty much any of them. Moses claims it is God, but the only people who would simply accept that are those who already believe. I'm sure if you talked to an Egyptian that day he would say it was Ra.
Again, who initiated the prayers/commands? Since the answers followed those, they were not just alternative explanations of the events.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That your memory was playing tricks? That maybe you just asked for something to happen and this just happened to be the next to occur?
Pretty much. If we assume it was a supernatural event why would we also assume it was the supernatural event that Moses claims it was?
For example, if you talked to an Egyptian and was told it was Ra punishing the Egyptians for mistreatment of slaves, how would you tell whether Moses or the Egyptian was telling the truth?
I see it as a fact, one that God has chosen to establish. He could have made His existence testable by scientific enquiry, but He has no need to - the human heart recognises His existence. The reason for so many denying it is not lack of proof, but antipathy to Him. Only His grace can cause us to respond to the proof of His existence we know in nature and in our conscience. We are naturally darkened in our minds, blinded by Satan and enslaved to our evil desires.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That you need to write the command down in the front of scientific witnesses and then ask God to do it all again, just to make sure?
That would be a start. Theism has always had a problem with the fact that their gods cannot be modeled and tested, and as such we still have thousands of religions, where as we have one theory of electricity.
You problem see this as a good thing, a test of faith?
The One proclaimed by the man who commanded the miracles.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Even the Egyptian experts were not so skeptical:
Exodus 8:18 Now the magicians so worked with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not. So there were lice on man and beast. 19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had said.
Which god? The Egyptians believe in many.
The trick is getting the prayer to match up with the event at the needed junction. No use the survivor of a sinking boat praying for a life-raft and getting a rain-shower. But if one was dying in the Sahara and prayed for a rain-shower, that junction would be both very unlikely and in line with the prayer. So too the life-raft amazingly coming on the scene, having fallen overboard from a liner in a storm some weeks previously. All possible naturally, of course. But the prayer makes something more of it - unless there are thousands of such people in the Sahara each day praying so, and on the ocean. Then, in the context of Christian experience, this is not a one-of occurrence - many of us have experienced it several times.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It doesn't have to be naturally impossible events to make an obvious miracle - just the event coming at the requested junction.
Nonsense. People pray all the time, there are billions of "requested junctions", the odds that a natural event will line up with one of these some where is very probable. I'm sure the Israelites were praying constantly as they tried to flee Egypt.
The Bible tells us it was the wind that separated the waters - but the miracle is in the junction of this with the command of Moses for it to occur.A far more likely explanation is that a parting of shallow water occurred through wind that allowed the Israelites to cross yet the next day when the Egyptians arrived the wind had died down. This is a natural and reasonably well understood phenomena now, but to the Israelites it would have seen just what they needed.
Certainly. But how many times has a nation stood on the seashore in need of it to split so they can escape from their enemies? This is not someone praying for a fiver and getting it in the post.Of course if it hadn't happened they would have died and you would probably be worshiping Athena now. History remembers the time when seemingly miraculous events occur and easily forgets when they don't. Just like people.
Er, most people would think escape from the pursuing army via the split sea was the desired outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If we posted recorders at the locality and measured how many times the sea opened like this over a millennia, do you think we would see anything? But let's be generous and say we get a parting once every century - that's one day in 365x100 = 36,500 to 1. Unless you insist Israel will come to that spot more than once - at bit difficult in view of the pursuing Egyptian army.
Yes but you are making the fatal mistake of retroactively assuming the particular outcome was the desired one.
What we have is a prayer/command for the sea to split; the sea splits. You want to classify that as a likely event, based on the idea that it naturally could have happened without the prayer. I say it is extremely unlikely to happen at all - the once in a century occurrence I offer as a hypothetical case is also a high odds-against event. But match that with the prayer for it, it becomes irrational to consider it as merely natural.This is exactly the sort of cognitive bias I'm talking about, the thing you say you don't do.
Take your once a century occurring "miracle". Now, what are the odds that it will happen when there is someone around to record it happening. Very high.
Narrow it down a bit, what are the odds that it will happen when someone is trying to cross. Probably not as high but still pretty high.
So the Israelites were the people trying to cross at the time. Good for them, but if it had been someone else then the story would have been written down by them as their god doing something miraculous for them. The Israelites would have perished and we would have never heard from them again.
You see what you did there, the cognitive bias I'm talking about. You assume it was very unlikely because you are trying to get one particular outcome, the one that happened, rather than looking at what outcome would still count as a "hit" rather than a "miss" in terms of pattern matching to a miraculous event.
If you do this in your own life no wonder you think you are consistently experiencing miracles.
We seem to live in different worlds!Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If I witnessed the conjunction of Moses' command and the sea parting, and the sea return at his word, I would draw the conclusion that something very unlikely had happened.
I know. That is the issue (see above)
I know what evolution says. My difficulty is understanding how you think the simplest organism is not a vastly complex information system. Maybe my ignorance is evident to you, so perhaps you would describe to me what the first life would have consisted of - how many interrelated bits of information did it need?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Seems to me the idea that some mutations have advantage and therefore the organism tends to survive better is simple enough for any one to understand.
The difficulty I have is seeing how the fully functioning organism came to be in the first place, to allow mutations any possibility of giving it an edge.
The theory of evolution doesn't say a fully functioning organism just come to be.
Says it evolved from unicellar life which itself evolved from proto-cell life which evolved from self replicating molecules.
If you don't understand what evolution actually says how can you know it is wrong?
I must have read that into it then, for I gathered he referred to both as mathematically impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It had to start with the simplest form and advance, banking each mutation until enough of them existed to make a beneficial information sequence. As JC has often pointed out, the maths for that makes the miracles of the Bible look small beer. O, Atheist, great is your faith!
No, that isn't actually wha JC is pointing out, even if what you said was correct.
JC's maths (incorrect as they are) are the odds that a protein would just randomly form. Since there is no theory of biological evolution that supposes a protein did just randomly form this is utterly irrelevant to the discussion (its like saying the theory that Jesus was a hamster is not Biblically supported). This has been pointed out to JC many many times but he continues to insist this is "proof" that God made life. That should speak to his sincerity in this debate.
I know - so that is not my implication. All the mutations happen, only the viable give advantage for survival; no design, just chance and time.As for "banking each mutation" it is true that it can be a few mutations that on their own do little but when combined have a survival advantage, but the way you put it implies that that evolution must some how know which ones to save. It doesn't work like that, evolution is not forward thinking.
I rarely look at the sign posts, for I know the way. I remember. Even when activists reversed the signs, I was not misled when I knew the way. Memory lapse is an occasional occurrence, not the norm.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It's amazing how I drive hundreds of miles every work night, and still manage to find my way home. All those possibilities that my observations and memory are faulty. But maybe you reckon only 'spiritual' matters are beyond belief.
People get lost all the time. I imagine the hundreds of miles you drive are largely helped by the numerous sign posts along the way.
Again empirical study helping human memory because human memory is poor. That is why we make maps and put up sign posts.
Agreed. Nor does it mean they are inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Again, most of these things are not open to check after the event.
That doesn't mean they are accurate.
Rejecting things you can't assess just speaks to ideological bias.Saying God can't be tested is irrelevant to whether you are accurately reporting what you have experienced. Some claim doesn't become accurate simply because you can't figure out a way to test it. Quite the opposite in fact, accepting things that you can't assess just speaks to cognitive bias.
Do the studies consider all who were prayed for, or do they just set up a group and pray for them and check the results?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
One would need to record the prayer before the answer came. Excitable people often make wild claims, but that does not address the possibility of non-excitable people being accurate in their reports.
Yes, that is exactly what one would need to do. For example this is what people do in the studies about whether prayer helps sick people.
Yes, it doesn't help those who are excitable. But those who are not, they are able to make the assessment. How does one know which one is? Perhaps by the nature of the rest of their lives. Do others find them to have made false claims, things that were known to be false?How excitable the person thinks they are is rather irrelevant since most people don't retroactively admit they were excited or being anything other than clear headed.
You seem to be for any explanation other than the obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm all for revealing the truth.
You don't appear to be. You seem all for accepting the first explanation that comes along.
Christ and the apostles performed many great signs - but imprisonment and death was their only reward. You think today's society would be different?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If one can show a claim is unsupported, then good. Society is full of bogus spiritual claims. I just point out that saying all spiritual claims are unsupported and unreliable/unknowable by those who claim to experience them is also unsupported.
Like I said, if anyone can actually demonstrate something is of significance is actually happening come forward and demonstrate it. And then collect your Nobel Prize.
Since I'm not offering my experiences as proof of God to others, I have no problem. I offer it only to let you know how I have been treated by God. You may doubt the cause of my experiences or not. What you have to face is your own need of reconciliation with God.
I don't see it as more reasonable at all. I see a materialistic explanation as being very unlikely. The followers of other religions may have real spiritual experiences - some from God in His mercy, others from Satan to deceive them. But I would not dream of suggesting they are all retrospective interpretations of their imagination. Many of these people will be sober enough to know the difference.The problem so far is that no one can, and when they can't various excuses such as God doesn't like to be tested, are rolled out. A far more reasonable explanation is that people are simply misinterpreting what they experience. They wouldn't be the first. You guys happily say that other religions are doing this, yet seem shocked at the suggestion that you probably are as well.
I see, so the nation that witnesses the miracles of Exodus are all unable to assess it. Only the atheists have that ability, knowing it was all co-incidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
A couple of examples - Others witnessed at least one of the events:
An unbeliever, who put the coincidence of my prayer and the critical outcome down to amazing 'luck'.
And? Did either of you attempt to assess what it actually was? Or are you expecting your friend to be more able to assess based on personal judgement than you are, and thus if he says it was "amazing luck" that means it was?
I did not say one or two incidents from my school-days. I said my time at school.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Could I have imagined I prayed for that outcome? Only if I can have imagined my time at secondary school, for example.
I'm pretty sure you imagine things in secondary school that didn't actually happen, this would not be uncommon at all. I remember playing a game of basket ball in the new sports hall and getting into a fight. The only problem was I remember this in 3rd year and the new hall wasn't built till 5th year. My memory is filling in details that aren't actually present and shaping how I remember them.
Only the events were very specific, the circumstances, prayers and answers.I'm not suggesting you didn't pray. But the idea that can accurately recall exactly what you prayed for is unsupported. It might be correct, but you wouldn't know if your memory is faulty, which is why in scientific studies people are asked to write down exactly what they just prayed for.
My commiserations. I assume you don't drive or do anything that requires life or death judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Your ability to know anything is determined by such scientific testing? You must live a very nebulous existence, unsure of everything you experience!
I am unsure of everything I experience, I highly recommend it. It stops you being manipulated by the first person to come along and give you an explanation.
My standards are fine: Does it work, being one of them. Does it match with the promise, is another. Unending doubt is your weakness, not strength.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, I didn't do it. God did it for me. Big difference.
That is my point. You already had to have it demonstrated to you. Your problem was that your standards weren't very high, and as such you were left with a conclusion you can't support.
There is no reason to believe that if God actually exists he won't demonstrate himself to people who have better standards than you.
No, if it were not true it would be a worthless thing to cling to. Many unpalatable things are true, and I have to accept them as being real.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Thankfully I do not have to exist in that sceptical limbo.
The fact that you consider it a bad thing again speaks to cognitive bias. You accept the answer because it is an answer that is pleasing, both emotionally and mentally. Whether or not it is true comes a distant second.
That explains a general pleasure in belief in a god. But not the specific answers to prayer I get.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
My experience of God's goodness to me is not a matter of doubtful experiences long ago or today, but of life-changing experiences then and now. It works.
Of course it works. Religion has always worked, there are thousands of religions around the world who's followers all say it works.
The issue is though that it doesn't work for the reasons the religions claim. Scientology does not make you happier because you have dead aliens in your head. Christianity does not make you happier because you enter into a relationship with God/Jesus.
They all work because all religions fit a particular pleasing and comforting narrative, a story designed to appeal to various aspects of the way we process the world around us.
You guess correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Certainly, but you will be behaving rashly if you do.
I'll take my chances. Unless you want to explain why your explanation is any better than any of the other thousand or so explanations for all the other religions?
Let me guess, they are all deluded and following Satan. Christians alone know they are following the true religion. But your scepticism does not make my assertion false. Remember, if all I assert is true, the claims and counter-claims still present as before. The problem remains for you tell which is which.
Wrong. Science is people using material means of testing. People also have spiritual means.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You seem to be confused about the nature of science and spiritual reality. Science can only speak about material things, based on physical observation and testing. Science can test scientific claims; it can even test a person's observation and memory ability. But it cannot test whether anyone's claim to a spiritual experience is true or false.
Correct. Which means neither can you. Because if you could so could science, since science is just people.
No, it is you confusing the material with the spiritual. Unless you can tell me how science can prove or disprove the existence of the spiritual world. You seem to suggest it cannot exist if it cannot be materially tested.You can continue to believe the explanation put forth by what ever religion happens to be dominate in the region you were born in, but that is not the same thing.
You don't hold these personal assessments up to the same standard because you really really want them to be true. Science doesn't have the luxury, it is trying to find out what actually is true, not what the individual scientists hope is true.
The fact that you happily use unsupportable personal assessment to accept things about the world yet rail at science for the way it opperates just speaks to the hypocracy at the heart of Creationism.
Because I operate on the spiritual dimension, and science does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
When you say such claims are unsupported, and by inference not worth considering as possibly true, you go beyond scientific capability. You are then making assessments based on your atheistic bias, not science.
Have you ever wondered why you are able to do this but science can't?
_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.0 -
Yes, every miracle in the Bible and in individual's lives is beyond testing for authenticity. One can check if others witnessed it and add their weight to its credibility. But as you point out, multiple witnesses can be mistaken. One can also try to recreate the effect, seeing if it possible, and if so, how difficult it is to achieve. Then one can record its natural occurrence in similar circumstances.
I think it fair to say the Exodus events not only can be suspected to be unlikely, but one would expect to have heard if they had occurred at any time since. Only a sceptic fanatic would think such events may be not uncommon.
That, like so many religious arguments, is an argument from ignorance. I would have expected to hear about this, I haven't, therefore I'm right.
Or you just haven't heard about them, which has multiple causes only one of which is because they don't happen.If it had been the Egyptian priests who prayed/commanded, then Ra would be the natural candidate to whom one would attribute the miracles.
How do you know there weren't?
You assume the only one you heard about was the only one praying for anything. Again this is an example the cognitive bias I'm talking about, accepting only the limited set of circumstances presented to you in the claims of people.
That works on the assumption that God did something, again displaying cognitive bias. It another god did it, in response to a different prayer that had nothing to do with Moses, then Moses' prayer had nothing to do with anything.The observer can continue to deny God as the cause, but only against the strange co-incidence of Moses' prayers/commands in the name of God.
Ah you say, but that is unlikely to occur at the same time Moses was praying. Why exactly? People pray all the time, as you admit. Moses would have been praying the whole way.
Again this is your cognitive bias on display, considering retroactive only the one conclusion after the fact.
We are told Moses prayed and the miracles happened. So we go, ah ok must have been because Moses prayed.Seems to me the agnostic could allow the possibility it was not God, but would admit that was the unlikely case.
Only if the agnostic doesn't understand the cognitive biases I keep referring to.
I appreciate that to you all this makes common sense (which is exactly what cognitive bias is) and that you also think I'm being overly dismissive because I'm an atheist and thus don't believe this happened. But I assure you I'm not and if you like we can apply this to any other neutral argument that neither of us have a vested interest in, such as a religion neither of believes in.
For example John Travolta started Scientology and then his career picked up. He naturally assumed therefore that Scientology causes his carrier to pick up. That is because it fits the narrative he had already been told, and thus he didn't consider all the other things that could have caused his career to pick up.
To you and me this probably seems ridiculous, but I'm pretty sure if you ask Travolta he would give us back the same sort of arguments you are using now.
So it is not that i have anything against Christianity per say, nor that I think only Christians do this. Heck atheists do it all the time, I was convinced my brothers car broke down because I broke a bit of floor lining as I got in. We naturally pattern match what we consider significant events if they happen close to each other, and ignore the misses.I see it as a fact, one that God has chosen to establish. He could have made His existence testable by scientific enquiry, but He has no need to - the human heart recognises His existence.
Reality suggests otherwise, one theory of electricity thousands of religions.
Even bad people accept electricity, so the argument that God's existence is clear except to those who are evil is rather illogical. You don't have to be good, or worship God, to know he exists. I accept Hitler existed but that doesn't require that I follow him or agree with him.
It is some what off topic but there is a discussion on the A&A of the illogical idea that God would make personal assessment so utterly unreliable and flawed (as opposed to empirical testing) and then choose to only reveal himself in this manner utterly ignoring empirical testing.The One proclaimed by the man who commanded the miracles.
Why would you think the Egyptian magicians even believed in Moses' god? Moses' didn't believe in their gods.
Again you are retroactively taking the story and applying it backwards as if true and then saying the story supports God being true.The trick is getting the prayer to match up with the event at the needed junction.
That isn't a trick at all when you consider Moses as just one of thousands of people praying.
You aren't doing that because of the cognative bias to consider only the pattern matched outcome.
What are the odds that Travolta's career would pick up at the same time of him starting Scientology? Must be because Scientology is true, right
No use the survivor of a sinking boat praying for a life-raft and getting a rain-shower.
No, but if a survivor of a sinking boat prayed for a life-raft and got a helicopter he would no doubt say his prayers were answered.But if one was dying in the Sahara and prayed for a rain-shower, that junction would be both very unlikely and in line with the prayer.
And? How many people in year pray for rain and none comes? And how many are in the Sahara praying for rain when a rain-shower eventually comes?
See the point? Again cognitive bias, the assumption that two events are related to each other because we pattern match them, and ignore all the times they miss.
How many Hebrews during the enslavement in Egypt prayed to God for something to happen and nothing did? Hundreds of thousands I would say.The Bible tells us it was the wind that separated the waters - but the miracle is in the junction of this with the command of Moses for it to occur.
Which is an assessment you don't have enough information to make. You make it anyway, which is my point. I imagine you are doing the same with your own experiences.We seem to live in different worlds!
Well as you Christians like to say, my eyes have been opened.
Once you realize humans do all this stuff, all this cognitive bias and assessment, it becomes a lot clearer to identify when you are doing it yourself. It is like finding out that something is an optical illusion, something you hadn't noticed before.
Of course I appreciate that before this happens you are sitting there going "How can he not agree, this is all common sense, he must be afraid of God, or afraid to face his maker or [insert generic Christian excuse for non-believers]
I appreciate that you think this is all common sense and perfectly justified. So do most people, which is why most people carry on this way with regards to most things. Taking a bad example remember the story that all asylum seekers got free hair cuts and cars from the government? Consider that is utterly untrue how did such a story get going and seem to have so much support?
The rest of the post is just going over the same point, so I will skip it. If I have missed something you think is important to be address which hasn't already please point it out and I will look at it again.
Your posts, such as the one you are about to make, suggest otherwise.I know what evolution says.My difficulty is understanding how you think the simplest organism is not a vastly complex information system.
That is probably because what you and what the theory of evolution state are the simplest form of replicating units are different.
You seem to think a modern single cell organism such as bacteria is as simple as it can get. It isn't, not according to evolution. The simplest self-replicating unit known to man is a chemical molecule made up of a few dozen atoms.
You can argue that this could not evolve into modern cells, but to say that evolution says that the simplest start of life was a fully functioning cell is to mis-represent evolution.I must have read that into it then, for I gathered he referred to both as mathematically impossible.
You didn't read anything into what JC was saying, he was wholesale misrepresenting evolution, and you accepted it because it was inline with your religious beliefs, not the actual theory of evolution. JC knows he does this, he continues to do it.I know - so that is not my implication. All the mutations happen, only the viable give advantage for survival; no design, just chance and time.
Yes but your mistake is thinking that "information sequences" have to exist before evolution starts. They don't. RNA or DNA are not required for evolution, and they certainly were not there at the start of the evolution of life. They just happen to be how evolution on Earth went based on the chemicals available to it.
The idea that you have to a cell, or genes, or DNA or even proteins before evolution can start is false, it is a misrepresentation of the theory of evolution, irrespective of whether or not you consider the theory true or false.I rarely look at the sign posts, for I know the way. I remember.
You do now, I imagine after running the route many many times with the help of maps and sign posts.Memory lapse is an occasional occurrence, not the norm.
It is the norm for events based on personal assessment, which isn't what you are describing with the route you went. You probably don't even realize it but your first trips were full of empirical testing, everything from reading a map to noticing that this building is on the same street as this building.
You would be utterly lost without this, and your memory of the route would be utterly confused without this. And I imagine you still occasionally get lost.
Ask yourself why maps and sat nav and sign posts exist in the first place if they are not needed
The rest of the post is just going over the same points. If you think I've missed anything new please let me know and I'll address it.0 -
... and here is the first full size replica of Noah's Ark ever constructed ... and it's in Hong Kong !!!!
and here is the promotional video ....
... and if you want to visit the Ark the next time you visit Hong Kong ... here are the details
http://www.noahsark.com.hk/eng/aboutus.php
http://www.discoverhongkong.com/eng/attractions/nt-noahs-ark.html
Thomas Kwok, an evangelical Christian and multi-billionaire businessman, is the main champion of the project that has been in development for over 17 years. The ark is inspired by his Christian faith, and the message being promoted is that the financial storm will soon be over and new life, represented by the animals emerging from the ark, will soon be opened up.0 -
... and here is the first full size replica of Noah's Ark ever constructed ... and it's in Hong Kong !!!!
and here is the promotional video ....
... and if you want to visit the Ark the next time you visit Hong Kong ... here are the details
http://www.noahsark.com.hk/eng/aboutus.php
http://www.discoverhongkong.com/eng/attractions/nt-noahs-ark.html
Thomas Kwok, an evangelical Christian and multi-billionaire businessman, is the main champion of the project that has been in development for over 17 years. The ark is inspired by his Christian faith, and the message being promoted is that the financial storm will soon be over and new life, represented by the animals emerging from the ark, will soon be opened up.
The Chinese also built a 40 foot Optimus Prime replica in Kunming.
0 -
... and here is the first full size replica of Noah's Ark ever constructed ... and it's in Hong Kong !!!!
and here is the promotional video ....
... and if you want to visit the Ark the next time you visit Hong Kong ... here are the details
http://www.noahsark.com.hk/eng/aboutus.php
http://www.discoverhongkong.com/eng/attractions/nt-noahs-ark.html
Thomas Kwok, an evangelical Christian and multi-billionaire businessman, is the main champion of the project that has been in development for over 17 years. The ark is inspired by his Christian faith, and the message being promoted is that the financial storm will soon be over and new life, represented by the animals emerging from the ark, will soon be opened up.
It appears not to be floating ... interesting0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
That's what the scoffers also said to Noah ... just before the Flood ... interesting!!!:eek::)0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvQrkLhQF6c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWs1pzQcb3Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs3hha_dER4
- wait, who? 
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement