The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

You ask that like I 'm defending such a position or something. In any case, is it now the goal of science to do science to address real world problems or to find out the truth about stuff? I mean, if it has become the province of science to address the world's problems then scientists should stop inventing more and more sophisticated weaponry for warfare and concentrate on finding an actual cure for cancer.

Scientists don't discover things in order to kill people, they do it because they're scientists. Politicians and armies use science to kill just like they use religion to make killers. That's why science is supported by governments and that is why religion is supported by governments; governments will use anything that serves their agendas including murder.

virmilitaris

Snowflakes and patterns in sand dunes are easily explainable and explained by natural forces. They are observable and predictable given the correct environmental conditions. There is no need to appeal to a supernatural cause for these patterns.

That's not what you were asked. I asked you if we didn't know how snowflakes formed by natural means, like our ancestors didn't, then would it be reasonable to assume intelligent design behind it.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

And you can thank evolution for that too.

It is not just physical characteristics that are subject to natural selection, mental abilities are too. Some people are more organised in their thinking than other people, some people are more analytical than other people. There is as much diversity in intellectual abilities as there is in physical ones.

And diversity supports evolution more than a purposeful Creator how again?

himnextdoor wrote: »

The fact that you would rather bury your head in the sand than face an uncomfortable truth is a naturally selected response that has been inherited by most of the population. This tendency to have faith ensures that the majority of the population will observe hierarchical protocols which is handy if you are a King who wants to build pyramids or such-like. So literally, your faithfullness is the result of your DNA.

Amazing! No, I mean, what?

himnextdoor wrote: »

Some people don't have that same genetic information and instead have another gene which again has succeeded through natural selection that makes the carrier not have faith but instead has reason. Such people design pyramids and such-like.

Have you been drinking? The general consensus about the reasons why folk designed and built pyramids was to guide, protect and speed souls (yes souls) on to the next life. Now if what you say is true then the designers of these pyramids only had reason and not faith, but if thats the case then why did they design them again? Or is this just a case of you talking out of the wrong end yet again?

himnextdoor wrote: »

If you think about it, a colony of ants is actually a colony of nuns, each of them faithfully devoted to a 'higher' cause.

Which must mean that just like the ants the Nun's 'higher' cause actually exists.

Soul Winner

virmilitaris wrote: »

That's not what you were asked. I asked you if we didn't know how snowflakes formed by natural means, like our ancestors didn't, then would it be reasonable to assume intelligent design behind it.

In the absence of any knowledge to the contrary, yes, I don't see why it wouldn't be reasonable to assume intelligent design in such a circumstance. But was there a time when we actually thought that such patterns where the result of intelligent design? I know what you're getting at though. You're gonna turn around and say, in the future we will think the very same way about living systems because we will have found out how they could have come about by themselves naturally. And I will say to you that that my friend is proceeding by faith, which is the point I've been making all along.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Scientists don't discover things in order to kill people, they do it because they're scientists. Politicians and armies use science to kill just like they use religion to make killers. That's why science is supported by governments and that is why religion is supported by governments; governments will use anything that serves their agendas including murder.

So you admit that Science is OK and Religion is OK, its just certain people's motives and agendas are bad? I agree.

virmilitaris

But what the atheists of old recognized was that life without God was purposeless, as in life wasn't purposed for anything by anyone, therefore there is no ultimate purpose in or for life except possibly what makes you happy here and now, and once you die that's it, game over, pure nothingness after that. And I agree with them.

Purposed by anyone or anything for someone or something is not purposeless. My life has purpose.

To love my wife, spend time with my friends, travel and see the beauty of this planet and see the beauty of the universe. To have a beer or a good glass of wine sitting in a cafe watching the rain outside. Those are some of the purposes to my life.

Its I who pity you. If your religion is false then you have wasted your life. Its it's true then you have spent it worshipping something. I see it as a waste in either case.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

You're right. Framing atheism in a Christian context, as a bad thing, only has validity if Christianity were true. Thank God it is true so :pac:

That is the issue though isn't it. This guy is saying Well if Christian is true atheists must be miserable, umm they aren't miserable, ah they must be being childish.

Or you know, Christianity isn't true. Just a thought

Soul Winner wrote: »

Point taken though. If I were an atheist, then to me, being a Christin would be a life wasted. I get that.

I didn't say anything about being a Christian being a life wasted. This guy is trying to get the cognitive dissonance caused by what his religion says and what reality says not matching up to go away by inventing the idea that atheists are being childish and just haven't woken up yet to the true consequences of atheism. He would no doubt make a create Creationist.

It is the same sort of nonsense that says atheists must be immoral without the belief in an all powerful authority.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But the new atheists seem to be of the impression that we can somehow give life purpose. How? Why? What could we possibly conjure up as an ideal to aim for that is higher than the concept of an all powerful, all knowing benevolent God?

That is the wrong question.

An atheists asks why exactly should I live me life based on the standards of Middle-Eastern kings, warlords and priests who lived 4,000 years ago and used (like all other ancient peoples) the authority of their deity to justify their actions?

The idea that not doing this would some how lead to despair is frankly laughable, like asking how can you get up in the morning knowing that the moon is not really Apollo's chariot racing across the sky.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If we are going to choose delusions then I choose the God Delusion, that delusion at least, has some power to calm, encourage, relieve, comfort and so on.

If you wish to live your life based on what these people held as important, what they viewed as moral and the correct way for society to be, with notions that had reasons that are irrelevant to day (eg no sex before marriage because ancestral inheritance was very important in a patriarchy tribal society that structured property and status around male heirs), go ahead.

If you want to tell yourself its all justified because these middle eastern kings warlords and priest were actually communicating with the all knowing all powerful creator of the universe in between tending to sheep and wiping out neighbouring tribes, go ahead.

But the idea that if we don't do this we will some how be miserable is again, laughable. I'm no more upset by not following the particular notions these ancient men got in their heads than I am by not following the notions of the Inca tribes of South America. And I imagine you do not loose sleep worrying about how you can go on in your life with the big hole that the absence of the Aztec religion leaves in your moral and ethical frame work

Again no one would claim that a non-religious ethical, philosophical or scientific understanding is perfect. But it really can't be much worse.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

In the absence of any knowledge to the contrary, yes, I don't see why it wouldn't be reasonable to assume intelligent design in such a circumstance.

If you genuinely think that it could certainly explain why you are having such trouble with the idea of ID not being introduced into scientific study.

Scientists care far more about how can they tell they are right or wrong than they care about what the actual explanation is. If intelligent beings did create snowflakes science would be ok with that, but it has to be able to have confidence in that theory.

Creationists on the other hand care far far more about the answer. It has to be this particular answer, the one that fits within the religious framework of their religion. How they support that claim is of far less importance to them that first accepting that the claim is the right one.

Apples and oranges so to speak.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

And diversity supports evolution more than a purposeful Creator how again?

Because if the universe and man's place in it was created purposefully then it is a botched operation. Humanity is not singing from the same hymn sheet, if you'll pardon the pun.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Amazing! No, I mean, what?

The problem for pyramid builders is that they have to cover their ears and keep their eyes closed in order keep the sand out.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Have you been drinking? The general consensus about the reasons why folk designed and built pyramids was to guide, protect and speed souls (yes souls) on to the next life. Now if what you say is true then the designers of these pyramids only had reason and not faith, but if thats the case then why did they design them again? Or is this just a case of you talking out of the wrong end yet again?

Smart people believe what Pharaoh wants them to believe and win favour by doing so. Some of them were guaranteed to live as long as their Pharaoh did by doing so.

Pharaohs used science and religion as control mechanisms too.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Which must mean that just like the ants the Nun's 'higher' cause actually exists.

Only if you take an ant's word for it. Or a nun's for that matter.

I wonder if there are 'atheist' ants who have realised that the 'higher' cause is the Queen ant: would they dare to express that view? Hmm..

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

So you admit that Science is OK and Religion is OK, its just certain people's motives and agendas are bad? I agree.

Admit it? I never denied it and also, religion and science can be reconciled but it will cost you Creationism.

It suits political agendas to have science and religion in conflict. If science and religion became friends then they would naturally end up replacing the government; they'd get all the votes between them.

But yes, on that we are agreed. :cool:

virmilitaris

Soul Winner wrote: »

In the absence of any knowledge to the contrary, yes, I don't see why it wouldn't be reasonable to assume intelligent design in such a circumstance.

And here is where we part company. You seem more than happy to stick "Someone / something supernatural did it" into any gap in our knowledge presumably because you see it as supporting your religion.

When I don't know something I simply say I don't know. I don't try and fill it in with something which is itself unfalsifiable. It answers exactly nothing.

If you really believe it's reasonable to assume an intelligence behind something like snowflakes (if we didn't know how they formed) then I don't see what possible argument anyone could present to you except when (or if) we understand how life first began and evolved to it's present form.

But was there a time when we actually thought that such patterns where the result of intelligent design?

Honestly I don't know, I remember hearing or reading something before where someone wrote / said snowflakes were carved by angels but I don't know if that was an actual belief or just some story to tell the kids. But I think you'll agree it's not relevant to my point either way.

You're gonna turn around and say, in the future we will think the very same way about living systems because we will have found out how they could have come about by themselves naturally. And I will say to you that that my friend is proceeding by faith, which is the point I've been making all along.

Nope that's not my point at all. We may never understand how life came about. I think it's highly probable (because of current progress) that we will eventually have a good idea of how it 'COULD' have come about through experimentation and I think it's probable that we will eventually be able to create life from inorganic materials but this is not the same thing as fully understanding how life DID come about.

But equally let's say we never make any more progress in abiogenesis and science never discovers how life could have come about or did come about. That's a 'we don't know' situation and I'm quite happy with 'we don't know'. It in no way infers that we must assume an intelligence behind it.

Look at it like this. Currently we don't know how to cure cancer. Would it be of any benefit whatsoever to change 'We don't know' with 'God (Some intelligence) has the cure'.

Let's talk about the watchmaker argument for a moment. If an aborigine found a watch while walking on a beach, he didn't know what it was, how it was made etc.

If I were that aborigine I would not assume intelligence behind it. I would say I don't know.

We assume intelligence behind things like walls, buildings, art etc because we know how these things are created. If I didn't know then that's what I assume. I don't know. If I didn't know how a building etc was created I would not assume an intelligence.

It's nothing but ignorance to assume an answer to something when you have no knowledge of it.

Soul Winner

virmilitaris wrote: »

Purposed by anyone or anything for someone or something is not purposeless. My life has purpose.

To love my wife, spend time with my friends, travel and see the beauty of this planet and see the beauty of the universe. To have a beer or a good glass of wine sitting in a cafe watching the rain outside. Those are some of the purposes to my life.

Its I who pity you. If your religion is false then you have wasted your life. Its it's true then you have spent it worshipping something. I see it as a waste in either case.

I agree with you, my life has been a waste if what I believe in is not actually true. But when you turn the tables around and find out that what I believed in is actually true then it is you who have wasted your life not me. So it all hinges on the truth or falsity of my belief and yours for that matter.

Oh and by the way, I too enjoy my life, in fact knowing that there is real purpose in life makes me enjoy it all the more. Only those who are at peace with their creator can know how fulfilling that really is. So it is I who feels sorry for those who flat out reject having that kind of relationship with their God and Maker and thus become what they were intended to be from the beginning. Its tragic really.

virmilitaris

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree with you, my life has been a waste if what I believe in is not actually true. But when you turn the tables around and find out that what I believed in is actually true then it is you who have wasted your life not me.

How so ? Because of the promise of an afterlife ?

So it all hinges on the truth or falsity of my belief and yours for that matter.

I have no religious or supernatural beliefs.

Oh and by the way, I too enjoy my life, in fact knowing that there is real purpose in life makes me enjoy it all the more.

I didn't say you didn't enjoy your life. Why do you feel the need to claim I don't enjoy mine as much as you ? How can you possibly know that ?

Only those who are at peace with their creator can know how fulfilling that really is.

How fulfilling what is ?

So it is I who feels sorry for those who flat out reject having that kind of relationship with their God and Maker and thus become what they were intended to be from the beginning.

A serf ? A slave to a supernatural being ?

I've asked this question dozens of times in several forums from several different religious people or different religions and no one has ever answered it with anything but the promise of reward if I obey and the threat of punishment if I do not.

Again, let's assume I believe he exists. Why should I worship / accept your god ? From the descriptions of heaven I've heard that's certainly no place I'd want to go. As Hitchens once put it, "Of course I don't believe I'm going to heaven, I wouldn't go if I was asked."

I see no benefit to worshiping or accepting your deity. Care to try and give me one ?

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Oh and by the way, I too enjoy my life, in fact knowing that there is real purpose in life makes me enjoy it all the more. Only those who are at peace with their creator can know how fulfilling that really is. So it is I who feels sorry for those who flat out reject having that kind of relationship with their God and Maker and thus become what they were intended to be from the beginning. Its tragic really.

Oh the old purpose card. See this is something I don't get, why does the direction of your life based on the whim of a bored deity have any more meaning than the purpose you would chose for yourself. You get a regression of a god being bound by a purpose so that you could have purpose in your life or else there is no reason for why a god arbitrarily picked this specific life for you except that he just did. "Just so" arguments suck! They explain nothing.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the issue though isn't it. This guy is saying Well if Christian is true atheists must be miserable, umm they aren't miserable, ah they must be being childish.

Or you know, Christianity isn't true. Just a thought

You are spectacularly missing the point. For one, nobody said atheists were miserable. The point that was being made was that the old style atheists knew the implications of a universe void of God i.e. God being defined as the planner, designer and creator of the universe and life. If there is no such being then the universe wasn't created, planned or designed by Him and hence the universe and life have no ultimate purpose. Sure you can do purposeful things in your life but ultimately when the universe either freezes over or dies in a heat death everything that went on in between didn't really mean anything, unless scientist can come up with a mechanism of how to control life and the destiny of the universe that would benefit its denizens.

Wicknight wrote: »

I didn't say anything about being a Christian being a life wasted. This guy is trying to get the cognitive dissonance caused by what his religion says and what reality says not matching up to go away by inventing the idea that atheists are being childish and just haven't woken up yet to the true consequences of atheism. He would no doubt make a create Creationist.

Even more than religion, atheism is a very dangerous doctrine if its false.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is the same sort of nonsense that says atheists must be immoral without the belief in an all powerful authority.

We've been through that several times before and nobody says that atheists can't be moral because they don't believe in God. They can. Morality is just adhering to a certain set of values that we have internalized as being good. These differ the world over and thus are subjective. The argument that was posited was that in the absence of God there is no such thing as objective moral values. There is no real right and wrong, there's just whatever works for you, whatever benefits you or your species. But as everyone even most atheists will agree, objective moral values do exist, therefore God exists. But this is a topic for another thread.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the wrong question.

An atheists asks why exactly should I live me life based on the standards of Middle-Eastern kings, warlords and priests who lived 4,000 years ago and used (like all other ancient peoples) the authority of their deity to justify their actions?

That's a valid enough question and one I think should be asked but it has nothing to do with Christianity. The message of Christianity is that Christ died for you and took the penalty for your sins so that you don't have to. But if you don't recognize your need of this work, or feel it doesn't apply to you, then fair enough, just live your life and stop bothering people who disagree with you about it.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you wish to live your life based on what these people held as important, what they viewed as moral and the correct way for society to be, with notions that had reasons that are irrelevant to day (eg no sex before marriage because ancestral inheritance was very important in a patriarchy tribal society that structured property and status around male heirs), go ahead.

There is only one rule in Christianity and that's you must have Faith i.e trust in God, i.e. living a life of trusting Him to look after you and yours. Adhering to all that other stuff i.e. the old law was a standard that died with Christ. That's what he came to destroy. The bondage that that standard had on mankind. If you knew anything about Christianity then you would know this.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you want to tell yourself its all justified because these middle eastern kings warlords and priest were actually communicating with the all knowing all powerful creator of the universe in between tending to sheep and wiping out neighbouring tribes, go ahead.

Again nothing to do with the central message of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the New Testament.

Wicknight wrote: »

But the idea that if we don't do this we will some how be miserable is again, laughable. I'm no more upset by not following the particular notions these ancient men got in their heads than I am by not following the notions of the Inca tribes of South America. And I imagine you do not loose sleep worrying about how you can go on in your life with the big hole that the absence of the Aztec religion leaves in your moral and ethical frame work

You're dead right, we shouldn't lose any sleep over that stuff.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again no one would claim that a non-religious ethical, philosophical or scientific understanding is perfect. But it really can't be much worse.

That's most debatable and if you want to start a new thread on it then I will happily participate.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

If you genuinely think that it could certainly explain why you are having such trouble with the idea of ID not being introduced into scientific study.

Scientists care far more about how can they tell they are right or wrong than they care about what the actual explanation is. If intelligent beings did create snowflakes science would be ok with that, but it has to be able to have confidence in that theory.

Creationists on the other hand care far far more about the answer. It has to be this particular answer, the one that fits within the religious framework of their religion. How they support that claim is of far less importance to them that first accepting that the claim is the right one.

Apples and oranges so to speak.

I was asked that question in the context of a circumstance where we did not know how those patterns came about. And I said that it would not be unreasonable to infer intelligent design in such cases. But now that we know better we can do away with ID as being a possible explanation for it.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Because if the universe and man's place in it was created purposefully then it is a botched operation. Humanity is not singing from the same hymn sheet, if you'll pardon the pun.

From Astronet.eu: "Specifically, present analyses of above WMAP all-sky image indicate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (accurate to 1 percent), composed of 73 percent dark energy, 23 percent cold dark matter, and only 4 percent atoms, is currently expanding at the rate of 71 km/sec/Mpc (accurate to 5 percent), underwent episodes of rapid expansion called inflation, and will expand forever. Astronomers will likely research the foundations and implications of these results for years to come."

Botched operation? Seems pretty uniform to me.

himnextdoor wrote: »

The problem for pyramid builders is that they have to cover their ears and keep their eyes closed in order keep the sand out.

Smart people believe what Pharaoh wants them to believe and win favour by doing so. Some of them were guaranteed to live as long as their Pharaoh did by doing so.

Pharaohs used science and religion as control mechanisms too.

Why don't you just admit that your original statement about faith and reason in relation to pyramid builders and designers was a load of BS?

himnextdoor wrote: »

Only if you take an ant's word for it. Or a nun's for that matter.

You're the one that said that Nun's are the same as ants. The ants's higher purpose is to protect their queen and to nurture and protect her babies. These things (queen and babies) exist, therefore if ants and Nun's are the same then the Nuns higher purpose must also exist.

himnextdoor wrote: »

I wonder if there are 'atheist' ants who have realised that the 'higher' cause is the Queen ant: would they dare to express that view? Hmm..

Any ant not acting in accordance with the protection and nurturing of the colony (which is their reason for being) is a retard and a reject. Is that what you're saying atheists are? Remember, you're the one drawing the analogies here not me.

virmilitaris

Soul Winner wrote: »

I was asked that question in the context of a circumstance where we did not know how those patterns came about. And I said that it would not be unreasonable to infer intelligent design in such cases. But now that we know better we can do away with ID as being a possible explanation for it.

Yes I think everyone understands that.

It is most certainly not reasonable to make such an assumption. That is the point.

Change the question to something which we don't know now such as a disease which we don't know the cause of. Is it reasonable to assume an intelligence behind it until we learn the cause (if ever) ?

Or how about gravity, is it reasonable to assume an intelligence behind it ? (Before you answer this, if you think we know much about gravity then I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. We know almost nothing about gravity)

Or how about what causes the effects astrophysicists see in the Universe which they currently term as caused by an unknown "dark matter". Is an intelligence manipulating the Universe in such a way as to appear as if there is some currently undetectable force (dark matter) ?

etc etc etc.

The Universe is full of things we don't know. Are you suggesting it's reasonable to assume an intelligence behind everything unless our knowledge shows us otherwise ?

Soul Winner

virmilitaris wrote: »

And here is where we part company. You seem more than happy to stick "Someone / something supernatural did it" into any gap in our knowledge presumably because you see it as supporting your religion.

When I don't know something I simply say I don't know. I don't try and fill it in with something which is itself unfalsifiable. It answers exactly nothing.

If you really believe it's reasonable to assume an intelligence behind something like snowflakes (if we didn't know how they formed) then I don't see what possible argument anyone could present to you except when (or if) we understand how life first began and evolved to it's present form.

All I said was that I don't think that it would be unreasonable to infer intelligent design in such circumstances. Don't translate that into that would be the only explanation that I would be open to. All reasonable explanations are valid until the right explanation can be borne out through testing and falsifying all the hypotheses.

virmilitaris wrote: »

Honestly I don't know, I remember hearing or reading something before where someone wrote / said snowflakes were carved by angels but I don't know if that was an actual belief or just some story to tell the kids. But I think you'll agree it's not relevant to my point either way.

I think its very relevant to your point. Your point included claim that our ancestors believed that patterns in snowflakes were the result of intelligent design and I just wanted you to give an example of that.

virmilitaris wrote: »

Nope that's not my point at all. We may never understand how life came about. I think it's highly probable (because of current progress) that we will eventually have a good idea of how it 'COULD' have come about through experimentation and I think it's probable that we will eventually be able to create life from inorganic materials but this is not the same thing as fully understanding how life DID come about.

OK,so when we have a working and testing hypotheses as to how life came about naturally then I will stop harping on about why Intelligent Design is the best explanation.

virmilitaris wrote: »

But equally let's say we never make any more progress in abiogenesis and science never discovers how life could have come about or did come about. That's a 'we don't know' situation and I'm quite happy with 'we don't know'. It in no way infers that we must assume an intelligence behind it.

I have no objection to anyone who wants to do their science based on that approach. I just think that others who want to do science based on another approach i.e. the assumption that intelligence was involved in the origin of life, should be allowed to do so with equal opportunities and resources as those who toe the purely naturalistic party line in order to get and keep tenure.

virmilitaris wrote: »

Look at it like this. Currently we don't know how to cure cancer. Would it be of any benefit whatsoever to change 'We don't know' with 'God (Some intelligence) has the cure'.

We could proceed as follows: We believe God created life and as such we believe that cures for diseases which are contrary to life will be found in nature. Basing one's approach on that faith premise is no different than someone proceeding on the faith premise that we will find the cure for cancer and don't need to infer that any God put in place a cure in nature somewhere.

it reminds me of a joke I once heard.

Man prays in a car park for a parking sopt: Lord please help me find a parking spot in this packed car park.

Then straightway he sees a lady reverse out of a parking spot right in front of him, freeing it up so that he can park his car.

Man give God the finger: Its, OK Lord I just just found one.

virmilitaris wrote: »

Let's talk about the watchmaker argument for a moment. If an aborigine found a watch while walking on a beach, he didn't know what it was, how it was made etc.

If I were that aborigine I would not assume intelligence behind it. I would say I don't know.

Really?

So why do archaeologists infer intelligent design when they find certain artifacts that they don't know who made them?

Would the scientists in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey have given the monolith they found on the moon the attention they did if they thought that it was simply an naturally occurring rock formation? Did they know who made the monolith before the inferred intelligent agency?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTE2wgT2Rmg

virmilitaris wrote: »

We assume intelligence behind things like walls, buildings, art etc because we know how these things are created. If I didn't know then that's what I assume. I don't know. If I didn't know how a building etc was created I would not assume an intelligence.

Nobody knows how the builders actually built the Great Pyramid of Egypt, or even who actually built it, so would that be an example of a structure that you would not infer intelligent design to? Did it just fall out of the sky? Or is it a naturally occurring upward protrusion of basic bedrock due to seismic activity?

virmilitaris wrote: »

It's nothing but ignorance to assume an answer to something when you have no knowledge of it.

Now you're starting to sound like himnextdoor. Just admit it, a lot of science is faith based.

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Oh the old purpose card. See this is something I don't get, why does the direction of your life based on the whim of a bored deity have any more meaning than the purpose you would chose for yourself.

I never said it did. All I said was in the absence of a creator who purposefully created the universe and life, there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to life. I'm sure your life has great meaning for you, as does mine for me but that's beside the point that was made. Plus you make the assumption that God is bored. How did you conclude that?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You get a regression of a god being bound by a purpose so that you could have purpose in your life or else there is no reason for why a god arbitrarily picked this specific life for you except that he just did. "Just so" arguments suck! They explain nothing.

I agree, but I never said that God is bound by a purpose. If He exists then He is truly free to do whatever He likes. That He chooses to create me for a purpose remains a mystery to me, but I'm not going to argue with Him. I think it is a wonderful thing to know that I've been created for a purpose. If I'm deluded in this then someone will have to demonstrate that with hard facts. Until that happens I will continue to enjoy my life. But don't take that up as though I think because there are others who don't share this same belief system that their lives mean nothing to them, I don't.

Soul Winner

virmilitaris wrote: »

Yes I think everyone understands that.

It is most certainly not reasonable to make such an assumption. That is the point.

Change the question to something which we don't know now such as a disease which we don't know the cause of. Is it reasonable to assume an intelligence behind it until we learn the cause (if ever) ?

Or how about gravity, is it reasonable to assume an intelligence behind it ? (Before you answer this, if you think we know much about gravity then I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. We know almost nothing about gravity)

Or how about what causes the effects astrophysicists see in the Universe which they currently term as caused by an unknown "dark matter". Is an intelligence manipulating the Universe in such a way as to appear as if there is some currently undetectable force (dark matter) ?

etc etc etc.

The Universe is full of things we don't know. Are you suggesting it's reasonable to assume an intelligence behind everything unless our knowledge shows us otherwise ?

Well if our universe is just a fluke then it could have taken on any number of the billions of various configurations, 99.9% which are non (advanced) life permitting. Any varying in any direction for the various forces and constants of nature in the initial conditions of our universe would have produced a universe far different and most likely non life permitting than the one we see today (obviously because we see it). So forgive me for postulating a possible Supernatural Intelligence responsible for configuring all the nobs and switches to just the right settings before executing the creation of the universe.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I never said it did. All I said was in the absence of a creator who purposefully created the universe and life, there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to life. I'm sure your life has great meaning for you, as does mine for me but that's beside the point that was made. Plus you make the assumption that God is bored. How did you conclude that?


I agree, but I never said that God is bound by a purpose. If He exists then He is truly free to do whatever He likes. That He chooses to create me for a purpose remains a mystery to me, but I'm not going to argue with Him. I think it is a wonderful thing to know that I've been created for a purpose. If I'm deluded in this then someone will have to demonstrate that with hard facts. Until that happens I will continue to enjoy my life. But don't take that up as though I think because there are others who don't share this same belief system that their lives mean nothing to them, I don't.

There is no ultimate meaning or purpose with the presence of a creator either, there are just the decisions made by the creator which are completely arbitrary if it itself doesn't have a creator to give it purpose. Whatever reasons it has for creating it certainly has no dictates from any other source accept a whim. Total control for an infinite number of possibilities yet it chose this reality. If it is bound to this one particular universe then it is not really a god(at least in the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent sense which are very difficult properties for a being to have) and tbh it is an unnecessary god that you need for that extra layer of comfortable purpose.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

From Astronet.eu: "Specifically, present analyses of above WMAP all-sky image indicate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (accurate to 1 percent), composed of 73 percent dark energy, 23 percent cold dark matter, and only 4 percent atoms, is currently expanding at the rate of 71 km/sec/Mpc (accurate to 5 percent), underwent episodes of rapid expansion called inflation, and will expand forever. Astronomers will likely research the foundations and implications of these results for years to come."

Botched operation? Seems pretty uniform to me.

So humanity is acting according to God's will?

(I take it that you accept the above characterisation of God's creation as you have posted it.)

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why don't you just admit that your original statement about faith and reason in relation to pyramid builders and designers was a load of BS?

Why don't you just deal with the point?

Some people are natural 'shepherds' and some are natural 'sheep'; from which of these groups do you think religion draws its membership from?

Soul Winner wrote: »

You're the one that said that Nun's are the same as ants. The ants's higher purpose is to protect their queen and to nurture and protect her babies. These things (queen and babies) exist, therefore if ants and Nun's are the same then the Nuns higher purpose must also exist.

Ants serve their Queen, Nuns serve their Pope.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Any ant not acting in accordance with the protection and nurturing of the colony (which is their reason for being) is a retard and a reject. Is that what you're saying atheists are? Remember, you're the one drawing the analogies here not me.

You consider atheists as retards and rejects? How Christian of you.

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

There is no ultimate meaning or purpose with the presence of a creator either, there are just the decisions made by the creator which are completely arbitrary if it itself doesn't have a creator to give it purpose.

But if He exists then you have a purpose no matter what you might think of that purpose. If He doesn't exist then yeah, there is no ultimate purpose for anything.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Whatever reasons it has for creating it certainly has no dictates from any other source accept a whim.

If that's really how it happened then you're still here aren't you? Still free to either reject or accept whatever you like.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Total control for an infinite number of possibilities yet it chose this reality.

You would need to know His motives i.e. why He created it thus, prior to making any judgments on those motives. You could be right but you simply don't know. If you believed in the revelation of His Word then you might come close to understanding what He is doing but if you throw that out at the start then you are limiting the possible answers that could other wise have been available to you. But heck, if He exists, then He gave you the freedom to do just that.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

If it is bound to this one particular universe then it is not really a god(at least in the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent sense which are very difficult properties for a being to have)

If such a Being exists then as the creator of this universe He cannot possible be bound to it in that sense unless He chooses to be.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

...and tbh it is an unnecessary god that you need for that extra layer of comfortable purpose.

Nyeaah... Possibly...

Turtwig

This thread just get's more and more depressing...:(

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

You are spectacularly missing the point. For one, nobody said atheists were miserable.

They guy in the video did.

Or to be more specific, he said they should be and will be when they realize they should be. This is what he was saying was childish about the New Atheists, that they hadn't realized that they are supposed to be missing something and miserable.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The point that was being made was that the old style atheists knew the implications of a universe void of God i.e. God being defined as the planner, designer and creator of the universe and life.

The New Atheists realize this as well. They simply reject the Christian conclusion based on that, that they should see life as having no joy or excitement simply in of itself, or the Christian conclusion that giving your own life purpose based on what matters to you is a bad thing.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Even more than religion, atheism is a very dangerous doctrine if its false.

Depends on what religion is right, doesn't it. A large percentage of religions on Earth take worshipping the wrong god as a worse thing to do than worshipping no god. If I was a betting man...

Soul Winner wrote: »

We've been through that several times before and nobody says that atheists can't be moral because they don't believe in God. They can.

Yes, that is the point (and Christians say that all the time btw). They can also be happy and content with their purposeless universe, and not feel that what is missing from their lives is the worship of a deity of middle eastern goat herders. :P

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's a valid enough question and one I think should be asked but it has nothing to do with Christianity. The message of Christianity is that Christ died for you and took the penalty for your sins so that you don't have to.

Christianity means nothing if the Jewish notions underpinning it are nonsense.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But if you don't recognize your need of this work, or feel it doesn't apply to you, then fair enough, just live your life and stop bothering people who disagree with you about it.

I'll stop bothering them when they stop doing stupid things because of their religion, such as attempting to get evolution removed from scientific classrooms. Or supporting/fighting laws based on the notion that it is what God wants.

If someone wants to come up with a religion that has no impact on society as a hole I'll happily leave them to it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is only one rule in Christianity and that's you must have Faith i.e trust in God, i.e. living a life of trusting Him to look after you and yours.

There are tons of rules in Christianity Soul Winner, the list of things that are sinful is rather long. And strangely the match up pretty well with what you would imagine 4th millennium warlords, farmers and priests would come up with if they were asked what do you think is bad.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Adhering to all that other stuff i.e. the old law was a standard that died with Christ. That's what he came to destroy. The bondage that that standard had on mankind.

You should inform the hundreds of millions of Christians around the world who regularly vote or support legislation or actions that are based on moral guidance from the Bible, including but not exclusive to divorce, abortion, marriage, gay rights, sex education, church & state, death penalty etc

Soul Winner wrote: »

Again nothing to do with the central message of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the New Testament.

So the Jews were wrong, but Christianity is right? You appreciate that makes no sense right? Christianity has no meaning if the Jews who wrote the Old Testament were just making it all up.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well if our universe is just a fluke then it could have taken on any number of the billions of various configurations, 99.9% which are non (advanced) life permitting.

The vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of the universe is non life permitting (advanced or otherwise).

It takes a special time of person to look at that and conclude "Probably made for life"

Don't get me wrong, the universe is so freaking big that the appearance of life is an inevitability. But you start getting into serious issues when you start concluded that therefore life was some how the purpose of the universe.

Its like concluding that the purpose of the United States of America is to provide protection for the paper clip sitting in Obama's desk.

That might make sense if you are the paper clip and can't imagine why any of the other stuff would exist if not for you. But again it is thinking of the egotistical human mind, not a rational conclusion.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Any varying in any direction for the various forces and constants of nature in the initial conditions of our universe would have produced a universe far different and most likely non life permitting than the one we see today (obviously because we see it).

You know that this isn't true. There are 4 fundamental forces in the universe and if one of them didn't exist the universe would be pretty similar to how it is now. So you can remove an entire 1/4 of the most fundamental forces of the universe and end up with a very similar universe.

Of course this all works on the assumption that the universe is some how trying to make life. That is frankly ridiculous. If anything the universe is trying to make stars, as there are far more stars than habitable planets.

But because that doesn't fit into the particular ego-centric thinking of religious people you find very few religions who think we are inconsequential and that the universe was really here for stars to shine. After all why would our (emphasis on the "our" bit) gods wish to make stars shine, they don't do anything.

Of course a star might ask the very same question about us.

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

Admit it? I never denied it and also, religion and science can be reconciled but it will cost you Creationism.

Religion and science have been reconciled ... and it has been scientifically established that an intelligence of Divine proportions created life.:)

Get over it ... and pull yourself together ... and prepare to meet your Creator when you die.:):D

.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

Religion and science have been reconciled ... and it has been scientifically established that an intelligence of Divine proportions created life.:)

Check out this article on The Spontaneous Production of the Meccano of Life. :cool:

virmilitaris

Soul Winner wrote: »

All I said was that I don't think that it would be unreasonable to infer intelligent design in such circumstances.

That's what I gathered.

Don't translate that into that would be the only explanation that I would be open to. All reasonable explanations are valid until the right explanation can be borne out through testing and falsifying all the hypotheses.

I didn't translate it to anything. You are the one who stated that just because you don't know how something formed that you would presume an intelligence created it until or unless proven otherwise.

I think its very relevant to your point. Your point included claim that our ancestors believed that patterns in snowflakes were the result of intelligent design and I just wanted you to give an example of that.

No my point was that you are making a positive statement about an unknown with no knowledge of that unknown. You are making an unfalsifiable claim about something which we know very little about.

OK,so when we have a working and testing hypotheses as to how life came about naturally then I will stop harping on about why Intelligent Design is the best explanation.

Regardless of if we never have a working and testable hypothesis for abiogenesis or not your assertion is first of all completely unscientific and secondly completely illogical.

I have no objection to anyone who wants to do their science based on that approach. I just think that others who want to do science based on another approach i.e. the assumption that intelligence was involved in the origin of life, should be allowed to do so with equal opportunities and resources as those who toe the purely naturalistic party line in order to get and keep tenure.

That is not science. In absolutely no form or definition can it be called science. This is not an atheist vs theist position, this is a science vs non-science position.

We could proceed as follows: We believe God created life and as such we believe that cures for diseases which are contrary to life will be found in nature.

This is not science.

So why do archaeologists infer intelligent design when they find certain artifacts that they don't know who made them?

I have explained this in detail three times now. Are you doing this on purpose ?

Archaeologists can infer intelligence behind artifacts because they have a huge amount of information regarding the artifact. If an archeologist finds a piece of stone in a stone age settlement and it appears to have been sharpened for a purpose not like similar stones formed naturally then he can run tests on it to see if it was indeed a stone age tool.

Would the scientists in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey have given the monolith they found on the moon the attention they did if they thought that it was simply an naturally occurring rock formation?

Because they know how rocks form, they know the composition of the moon, they know that the monolith was not a part of that, they know it was 'alien' to the environment they found it in.

Nobody knows how the builders actually built the Great Pyramid of Egypt, or even who actually built it, so would that be an example of a structure that you would not infer intelligent design to?

This is getting ridiculous.

Do you ever do any kind of research on any of your assumptions ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques
http://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/pyramid-building.html
http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/great-pyramid.html

We infer intelligence because we know so much about how rocks form and how weather, erosion etc affect them etc etc.

Do you assume intelligence when you look at the giants causeway ?

Now you're starting to sound like himnextdoor. Just admit it, a lot of science is faith based.

You really don't have any interest in anything besides forwarding your nonsensical beliefs do you ? All the evidence in the worlds means nothing does it ?