im convinced that when i die im going to morph into pure energy and claim my place in the cosmos. imo, the better one is at shedding the notion of material wealth and selfishness, the better prepared one is at accepting death once it hits.
damn i cant wait.
When I say hard core atheist, I am more referring to the activists that almost preach about atheism.....in the form of political agendas, student groups, etc.
Agnostics appear more apathetic, imo. I don't really hear much about agnostics rising up against In God We Trust on coins or prayer in schools.
No it's not... because I wasn't alluding to the original rebellion in Heaven... I was making the assertion that every being endowed with free will didn't necessarily end up doing evil...
My other assertion was that someone among millions eventually did.
Finally, was the point to clarify that that those two clauses are mutually exclusive.
NO... we will be perfected by the Blood of the Lamb. The desires to sin will no longer spring from our consciousness... You consider this as an afront to the definition of Free Will, whereas I believe it falls under a unique context: one that was aforded by the once-in-an-eternity redemptive act that conquered sin forever.
We will be in Heaven, we will have the Free Will to reason, create and worship GOD with all our honor and praise... but our glorified bodies will no longer have the capacity to sin. The JOY of The LORD will fill us completely... and we shall have no fleshly desires that could even compare to that JOY... hence no one will want to seek any other 'subs ute'...
The way I see it... JESUS' act of redemption and sacrifice will prevent anyone in Heaven from ever treading down the same path that got Lucifer kicked out of Heaven to begin with... without compromising their free will at all.
JESUS had Free Will as both human and GOD and yet He never sinned. GOD's Word says that in our glorified bodies we shall be like Christ... So IMO that condition will make us more GOD-like than what the angels in Heaven could hope to attain at the time when evil originally arose (Lucifer's rebellion).
But like you say... it's all a matter of doctrine... and the fact that different people see it different ways...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 09-10-2010 at 07:24 PM.
Except that the order, the "when" and "where" you happen to 'step' every morning... how long each step lasts... the sequence of your morning routine itself is trivial... utterly meaningless in the context of 'genetic instructions'.Fair enough. I enjoy debating.
My point was merely that miniscule odds of a particular sequence occurring does not in fact rule them out. I had no particular reason for stepping in the exact spot I did, or the exact time I got dressed, etc etc.
The analogy would be more complete if there were instructions conveyed by your sequence. i.e. that every time you took a step that was longer than 18" that this would represent a certain word, and that every time you turned left it would represent another, and so forth... IF the finality of your sequence managed to produce a coherent message replete full of complex structure and order, (after decoding for the 'words' coded by your sequence) THEN the odds for that exact sequence would have to be weighed and considered (due to statistical significance of the message's sudden appearance). All the other odds for random permutations that don't convey this type of order are hence ultimately meaningless no matter the length...
Allow me to clarify then... GOD doesn't want us to meet Him on physical terms, those that are dependent on our flesh (our senses). He simply wants us to trust His revelation... and to meet him in the Spiritual domain... Faith in Christ is that medium.These two sentences seem to contradict each other. If you need "faith" and appearing runs contrary, why did God choose to walk among us before? Was it to help foster belief in his words? 2000 years is a long time to go without a visit.
OTOH the context of when GOD was incarnated into human form had one purpose, and one purpose only... it was a unique period that left an eternal imprint on GOD's nature (as now He can fully relate to humans, having lived as one). While He was here, he didn't go around trying to make sure everyone crowned Him as GOD... if and when He called on His divine attributes it was usually out of compassion, but not because He was trying to make sure everyone identified Him as GOD. Obviously, JESUS never denied that He wasn't GOD but ultimately His purpose here on earth wasn't one of self-exaltation... it was one of consumate sacrifice.
Those are the two distinct cir stances I was describing.
No... I've placed my faith in that GOD does exist. Consequently if I believe the framework by which that would hold true then the possibility that other gods, or deities could even exist is automatically nullified...
Which is why athiests have developed all sorts of odds-tipping theories to try and overcome the staggering probabilities that life could have arisen solely from naturalistic processes. What I was trying to explain to redzero is that he's discarded them haphazardly because it didn't suit his arguments... Were he to acknowledge their magnitude he would essentially be forced to accept that he's built his belief structure on faith as well (considering how feeble those odds are)...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 09-10-2010 at 07:29 PM.
So how's this thread going? Is there conclusive evidence on either side yet?
EDIT: DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS. WELL, YOU CAN, BUT I WON'T RESPOND. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN THE POST AFTER MY NEXT POST.
You are just talking out of your ass. How the do you know that purpose cannot be gotten from random chance? And how do you know that it was only random chance? And how do you know that the universe couldn't have played out in any other way and still gotten "purpose"?
How is it ludicrous? All you have done is assert that something is improbable and therefore a supernatural being that we had no evidence of did it.And we’re not talking about the random chance of making a meaningful word, sentence or even a paragraph here... we’re talking about the chances that said paragraphs convey coherent substance – characters, a plot, twists, etc... it’s ludicrous to believe that the value of this information is completely irrelevant to you (or Mr. Searns for that matter). If genes were considered sets of instructions then it should follow that genomes are entire instruction manuals.
Okay.Instruction manuals have never arisen “on their own”... and this is a theory that is always confirmed and never denied (i.e. computer code has not yet become self-aware without any direction, books don’t begin to reason and printing themselves, assembly lines don’t start producing other products not programmed into their function, etc...).
It doesn't apply because we didn't make them.Why would this supposition not apply to the most complex instruction manuals known to man, that of biological organisms???
Again, I believe based on reason. You assert that there is a God because you cannot comprehend something, then do nothing when proof is asked of you.In fact, if everything we’ve managed to create thus far as a species is dwarfed in complexity by these genomes, why are we to assume that ‘poof’ they just ‘made themselves’... it’s silly and absurd. But hey, believe what you must for your denial to continue...
Bull . You are using intelligent design, which has long been debunked.Wherever genetic information came from originally... be it by a believer’s postulate that "GOD did it," or because an ancient race of aliens created it, or whatever else anyone may wish to postulate... it reeks of design.
Really? You still haven't shown that these genetic sequences couldn't have come about any other way. You haven't shown that a God did it. All you are saying is, "I can't believe this and can't find a better explanation, so God did it." That's an argument from ignorance.Genomes are like an instruction manual comprised of billions of 'words'... structured such that strings of genetic sequences can recombine to be translated in many different permutations (not just straight thru, i.e. one gene = one expression). Their location in the genome is just as critical as the code contained by their sequences (due to the discovery of introns and exons). Further still, the instructions for how certain genes are to be translated are contained elsewhere in the code. And yet somehow the translation process knows exactly "what" to produce and "when" to produce it. The biological complexity is formidable. So to those who would rather believe that ‘instruction manuals’ can actually piece themselves together, make coherent sense and produce viable products (in this case organisms)... the mathematical implications would have to be considered… and unfortunately for your belief system the odds against said premise are staggering.
You weren't listening the first time. If the universe would have played out in any other way, it would have been just as improbable. To look at something after the fact and claim that it was improbable is idiotic. Unless you know for a fact that this was the only way the universe could have come into existence, you are talking out of your ass. You don't know what could have happened, yet you assert that this is the only thing that could have happened.Even so, you insist on removing the mathematical probability from of the equation? How convenient. Some scientists have apparently come to terms with the odds against a natural earthly cause for DNA and developed other theories to incorporate that realization. For example, Nobel laureate Dr. Francis Crick promotes 'directed panspermia' (i.e., DNA originated somewhere 'out in space' and somehow made its way to Earth).
Your point?In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins assumes the number of theoretically possible planets that may exist in the universe (10^20 by his accounting) in order to provide sufficient opportunities for the highly improbable event of life to occur naturally (i.e., without intelligent direction).
Your point?In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Barrow and Tipler go far beyond Dawkins in that they invoke entire universes (theoretical, of course) as the potential arenas for (natural) life to emerge.
Or they were just trying to come to a logical explanation before throwing up their hands and saying, "God did it."In The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, Kauffman takes a different route than Dawkins, Barrow and Tipler; he introduces a hypothetical set of laws by which life may emerge here on Earth solely through a natural process. These scientists wouldn’t be trying to tip the odds in their favor (in this alleged game of chance) if they didn’t acknowledge that the odds they were trying to overcome were mind-blowingly staggering, and legitimate...
"I will sweep away everything in all your land," says the LORD. "I will sweep away both people and animals alike. Even the birds of the air and the fish in the sea will die. I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity," says the LORD. "I will crush Judah and Jerusalem with my fist and destroy every last trace of their Baal worship. I will put an end to all the idolatrous priests, so that even the memory of them will disappear. For they go up to their roofs and bow to the sun, moon, and stars. They claim to follow the LORD, but then they worship Molech, too. So now I will destroy them! And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do. They no longer ask for the LORD's guidance or seek my blessings."“only a fool says in his heart, ‘there is no GOD’”
Seems like a nice guy.
My personal metrics? No, they aren't mine. You try to discredit abiogenesis through your creationist talking points. You try to say that it is improbable for the life to form by itself, so I want you to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural.You very well know, no answer I give you here will suffice your personal metrics...
Yes, I would. After all the time you took trying to disprove abiogenesis and the big bang theory because you believe they don't follow your beliefs, you better come up with something better than this bull .---- I could answer, "because He lives in believers, and works in our lives." – but you all would scoff at that assertion.
1.) If creation is finely tuned for life, how come the vast majority of the universe is uninhabitable nothingness?---- I could answer, "because the order seen in Creation is finely tuned and structured such that even the mathematical language of Creation – is order of its own. These things don’t occur out of their own accord; it points to a Creator." – but observable order isn’t enough for those who would rather place their faith on processes which don’t exist.
2.) If these things are too complicated to form on their own, then it stands to reason that the creator must have been created as well--based on your own argument. But I bet my life that you will disregard your own premise and say that the creator didn't need to be created.
That's called special pleading.
Of course, it isn't, because it doesn't prove the existence of God. I am not being biased; the conclusion that there is a God does not logically follow from the assertions that you made.---- I could answer, "that the existence of moral capacity, the ability to reason and create points to higher order as well." – but again, none of this would be sufficient.
You can't give me what you are looking for because you can't back up your claims. Nothing will satisfy by lack of belief because there has been nothing to show that the supernatural exists. Ever.I can’t give you what you’re looking for, because nothing will ever satisfy your unbelief.
It amuses me how creationists try there hardest to use science to disprove the big bang theory, abiogenesis, and evolution, claiming that all of those theories are impossible, but then turn around and claim that there is a God without providing any evidence at all.
You can pray all you want, but prayer doesn't work.Maybe I could pray that you'd be struck by lightning and live to tell about it.
Exactly. Many people have been struck by lightning. To come to a conclusion that God exists because one was struck by lightning is absolutely absurd.But somehow you would just gravitate towards the conclusion that being hit by lightning was merely a coincidence, and that the 'eventuality' was mathematically probable ultimately proving nothing...
Of course, it wouldn't.such an event would not be able to turn your heart…
No, I wouldn't because I believe that Zeus doesn't exist. But why wouldn't you? Why couldn't it have been Zeus?you’d probably claim it was Zeus' doing…
Why not tempt your Lord? Is the best way of making somebody believe something not to demonstrate it to them? If I claimed that I could fly without by myself, would you initially believe me? No, you would want proof. Why should the claim that there is a God be excluded from having to proven?Even so, I don't make it my business to go around tempting the LORD, and hence, said type of prayer is not something I would even invoke (not that you’d worry about it either given your noted unbelief).
No, they are not. They are entirely natural.And yet, your yet unfound processes for abiogenesis are equally “miraculous” and supernatural? Please toss the double standard aside.
And I find it humorous that you are complaining about double standards when you state that things are too complicated to have existed on their own, then turn around and say that God--a being who is even more complicated--didn't need to be created. That's a double standard.
What does it matter?If ever the FSM proclaimed to have Created everything…
How do you know? The Flying Spaghetti Monster implanted the thoughts into our heads.But unfortunately for you we know the origin of the FSM and how it was conceived in parody.
Again, how do you know? And why are you using absolute certainty?We also know that no one knew of FSM’s 'existence' 'til a couple of years ago... so if it was only recently conceived (and do ented), we ABSOLUTELY know with full CERTAINTY that it hasn’t done anything, or that it isn’t capable of anything other than to fancy the mocking nature of those in your camp and those that created it...
Are you saying that the fact that all the claims of what God did thousands of years ago can never be disproven, is reason to believe in him?
And I will in turn say that you were not around when Zeus was, so why don't you believe in him?
You are breaking your own flimsy rules.
Actually, observation can be employed.Only in a very limited sense... We won’t ever see the singularity that created it all... As I stated earlier, the three immutable elements of the scientific method cannot be employed on matters concerning origins (neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement).
You clearly did not read my post. I did not assume that the processes would be discovered. Anybody else who read my post besides you would attest to that.You employ faith because your premise that GOD doesn’t exist is partially based on the assumption that the naturalistic processes that give rise to life (without the aid of a Creator) will one day be discovered.
Okay. They were found by scientists--people who do this for a living. Scientists have given us explanations on why many natural processes work. Is it really so ridiculous to look at the other occasions in which scientists were correct and give them the benefit of the doubt?WE HAVE YET TO FIND those processes and yet you openly believe that they occurred.
According to creationists like you, it is--people who take forever trying to disprove theories on the origins of life, and then shrug when asked to back up their claim that the supernatural exists.
I hope somebody else is reading this to note how you are lying.You believe in said processes with absolute certainty despite the fact that we’ve yet to find any evidence that supports their historical existence.
I have repeatedly stated that I find absolute certainty pointless. I have stated in the very post you are quoting that human beings probably won't know for sure. You are lying. Period.
It's sad, really.
Only to a liar such as you.That’s faith no matter how you slice it.
Believing scientific explanations on the origin of life that has been peer reviewed and studied for decades by people who search for the truth for a living is not the same as claiming that there is a God based on absolutely nothing.
You haven't shown that. All you have shown is that you are good at spewing out the same creationist talking points.Of course, I fully expect you to keep denying the fact that you’ve been living under the faux premise that said evidence exists...
Prove it. You can't, so shut up.That’s right, because He operates outside of the natural realm (hence the term 'Supernatural'… duh!).
Let's use what you typed earlier in your post as an example:How can one use a toolset (the scientific method) that is designed to quantify our natural world to investigate those things which by very definition fall outside of its domain???
You believe that God affect the natural world, right? Scientists can test for that, can they not?Maybe I could pray that you'd be struck by lightning and live to tell about it.
Well, unless you want to claim that God can make detectable alterations to the natural world that are incapable of being detected by our senses.
Why is it foolhardy to not believe in something because there is a lack of evidence?Based on those limitations, it’s rather foolhardy to suggest that lack of scientific evidence in favor of the supernatural is enough proof to claim that the supernatural cannot exist.
You don't believe in Zeus.
You don't believe in Zoroaster.
You don't believe in the Tooth Fairy.
You don't believe in Santa Claus.
You don't believe in Shiva.
You don't believe in countless supernatural beings.
Why is that? Going on your own logic here, it would be foolhardy to dismiss these beings because a lack of evidence.
But of course, you have a double standard are going to reply by saying that your god is an exclusion.
Light has been proven to exist; not a single god has been proven to exist.It’s like a blind man asserting that light doesn’t exist simply because he cannot sense it.
Can scientists not make claims about the orbit of Pluto? Pluto was discovered in the last one hundred or so years, yet astronomers claim that its orbit takes 200+ years. Having not seen said orbit, are they not allowed to make that claim?Obviously it does... unless a course you have access to a time-machine and quantified the singularity that gave rise to the universe... or that you were actually present to observe the moment when life allegedly created itself… either here on earth or elsewhere in the universe...
Can you say who your father is? You weren't there when you were conceived, so how would you know?
I don't take it for certain, and you have lied for a second time. If you actually read my post, you would know that. But you thought what you wanted to think, disregarding the evidence to the contrary--kind of like your belief in God.i.e. faith... because that hasn’t happened yet. You take it for certain that said processes can be found, and argue on the premise that they have been found.
If somebody states that they can reasonably believe that an explanation will be discovered, they are not claiming that they know for absolute certain that it will. It is not the same at all, and you are lying when you say that it is.I still laugh every time that someone argues on those grounds but then tosses in words like 'reasonably' or 'logical' for good measure...
I do not claim to know that evidence will be found. I think more evidence will be found based on the scientific discoveries of the past.
Faith is belief for no reason.I’ve never denied that my belief in GOD is based on Faith… or that my belief structure was based on the Special Revelation of the Scriptures… and only loosely on the General Revelation manifest in nature.
I know that you are going to claim that "scientists have faith, too" and you would be wrong. They don't have the same kind of faith that you have. They don't come to a conclusion, then go backwards and look for evidence to justify it. They look at all the evidence as a whole, and then come to their conclusion.
It's the example of a jigsaw puzzle of the Eiffel Tower that is missing ten pieces. Do we have every piece of the puzzle? No. Are we therefore incapable of coming to the conclusion that this is a picture of the Eiffel Tower? No.
Creationists go into the jigsaw puzzle with the end picture already in mind. They then try to go backwards and try to connect the pieces to match the picture they had in mind.
No, it is not.The point is getting you to understand that your belief system (on matters of origins - not the applied sciences) is based on faith as well.
Do I have to have faith to claim to know how earthquakes form? No.
Does it take faith to claim to know how rain clouds form? No.
Does it take faith to claim to know how pollination works? No.
It takes observation. I don't have to have faith to believe that an airbag will deploy if I was ever involved in a car crash. Airbags have deployed before, so it is a logical conclusion.
There is nothing logical about your claim that God exists. You have provided zero evidence to support your claim at all.
No, it is not pointless. You believe in only one supernatural being and assert that he exists. You haven't shown why he exists nor have you shown why the other supernatural beings exist.That’s why your quest for proof surrounding the GOD-question is pointless, especially when issued as taunts as you’ve done repeatedly in this thread.
I can't come to terms because you keep lying and saying that I have the same faith that you do. I know that I do not.Even your fellow agnostics can tell you your request is foolhardy... So no, the difference between you and me is simple: I’m not in denial about my faith, and you most definitely are. I mean, you can’t even come to terms with that realization.
It doesn't take faith to believe that natural explanations for natural phenomena will be attained eventually; many explanations have already been discovered, so it is only logical to believe that more will be.
Watch the video when you are not at work.I can’t watch videos from work.
How is it philosophical to assert that everything had a starting point as far as species go? There is nothing philosophical about making empirical observations and then coming to empirical conclusions.Exactly what definition of evolution are you referring to? The one that says "things change" (I would agree that 'this' is science), or the one that says "that’s how everything came to be" (this transcends science and is philosophical naturalism... a metaphysical position)? People use the two terms interchangeably without realizing the implications of either... Obviously you have chosen the latter meaning given your constant uttering of the phrase, "yet we are all here..."
No, there would not be creationist backlash if they actually looked at the evidence instead of coming to the conclusion that it is wrong, then working their way up from there.Clearly there would not be a creation-evolution controversy if it were universally agreed and adhered to that evolution meant solely "a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time..."
Wrong. Evolution is an naturalistic explanation on the origin of species. Those who believe in God can believe that he caused that change.There is a creation-evolution controversy (a major one at that) precisely because evolution means far more than what that statement entails. The controversy exists because Evolution, the full-fledged manifestation of evolution (with a capital E - including Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution), is for many a metaphysical belief that elevates the philosophy of materialistic naturalism (hailing purely natural laws and processes, including time and chance, as our "creators"), and dismissing GOD (a Creator with purpose) as an irrelevant product of supers ion...
You are the creationist, so you should know.After all, why is it that so many people are offended by the theory of Evolution to the point of fiercely opposing it???
Yes, actually. There is nothing but ignorance on your side.Why is it that emotions run so high and intellectual battles persist? Because of ignorance?
And they are in the minority.Hardly! Although there will always be uninformed people on both sides of any dispute, a great many well-educated people in science, mathematics and other disciplines are among those who disagree adamantly with the precepts of Evolution.
Are you a biologist? How do you know that it is bad science?Evolution is offensive because it is bad science and is as equally bad a metaphysic construct... in short, on close examination, Evolution fails on all counts. There is a controversy precisely because of clashing metaphysics… the same type of conflict that exists when Christian theology comes face-to-face with Islam, Buddhism, or even atheism (and each carries its own distinct world-view)...
It always amuses me when a creationist claims to know more about science than actual scientists.
It is, because almost every creationist believes that the scientific explanation is false and the religious one is correct.Despite all of this, you and others here have been promoting the view that the creation-evolution controversy is a war of 'religion versus science' or that of 'emotion versus reason.'
Hold on, who should set the standards of what cons utes science? God? He hasn't done anything, so how can you rely on him?Again, Evolution, as a manifestation of methodological naturalism (the operational version of philosophical naturalism), makes countless assertions into metaphysical areas with cosmological and biological origins representing just a few of these. Then you all venture on to assert that Evolution is "the scientific explanation for biodiversity..." This second assumption is nothing more than a tautology in the sense that it is the "scientific community" that dictates what is admissible and what is not... Is it any surprise that this same community embraces philosophical/methodological naturalism and frowns heavily upon anything that even remotely suggests anything other than material causes?
The standards in science are not perfect, but they are the only ones we have.
And no, that which is unfalsifiable cannot be useful in science.
Except it is not scientific. And again you are using the argument from ignorance when you say that an intelligent designer is the only explanation. You don't know that.I can think of no better illustration of this than the case of intelligent design theory (ID). Leaving out numerous details, ID had a difficult time being accepted into the scientific establishment as a bona fide theory simply because it has metaphysical—in fact theistic—implications. After all, if the logical conclusion is that specified and complex design is present, then a designer is the only available option and the big 'G' immediately enters the realm of possibilities. Naturalists were quick to pick up on this rather obvious and, to them, highly unpalatable conclusion and as a result ID is being treated by many as if it were advocating the practice of human sacrifices... around here, posters that bring it up get bombarded with stones from everyone else trying to debase whatever credibility you may bring to the table.
Actually, intelligent design is not a theory at all. It is an argument from ignorance that is not testable or falsifiable.The fact of the matter is that ID is as robust a theory as one should reasonably expect, having all of the components—foundation, logical/mathematical formulation, explanatory/predictive power, etc... that other widely accepted theories have... In short, it questions how the order and complexity that we see in nature could arise out of entirely natural processes... but ventures further to suggest that design is clearly present. That's the step naturalists loath...
Intelligent design is being scorned because it is not science. Period.To summarize this point, ID is not being scorned because it is illogical, but because it crosses the line that separates one metaphysical worldview from another. The "people in charge," i.e., the naturalistic scientific establishment, are unwilling to allow that to happen... naturalism must be protected and defended at all costs... This is a blatant case of deception by omission, considering the fact that Evolution crosses that same exact line...
God--oh, I'm sorry--an "intelligent designer" did it is not a scientific claim.
Evolution is not accepted because it there is no other explanation. Evolution is accepted because of the mountains of evidence to support it.As the universally recognized and accepted authority on what is admissible as 'scientifically valid', the scientific establishment (anchored in naturalism) has constructed the rules so that Evolution is the de facto answer to most questions in the natural realm... This matter may be expanded in many directions so I’ll focus on this consideration: eliminate Evolution and what are the remaining options? Naturalists know well that to eliminate Evolution is to eliminate the single possibility for a natural explanation of the origin of life and of biodiversity. Therefore, Evolution must be sustained even if this requires hypothesizing the preposterous or the unfalsifiable... The only other alternative, the supernatural, is simply not admissible...
And you again assert that the supernatural is not only the "only alternative," but a logical and scientific one. It is not, nor will it ever be. It is not scientific.
No, the transitional fossil evidence is not suspect. You only claim it is because you are a creationist.The establishment, hence is committed to defending its position at all costs... one would only have to study the incongruence surrounding transitional fossils. The transitional fossil evidence is highly suspect despite what many will claim to the contrary and a great deal of controversy exists within and outside of scientific circles... certainly not what the evolution advocates (particularly Darwin himself) ever expected considering he operated on the assumption that many such fossils would be found...
You are just spewing more bull . If there are scientific concerns with evolution, they are voiced. "This can't be correct so God did it" is not a scientific explanation.So what do the Evolution advocates do? Is the validity of the theory even questioned? Never! Instead, ingenious mechanisms such as Goldschmidt’s 'hopeful monsters,' the 'emication' idea of the Swedish botanist and geneticist Nils Heribert-Nilsson and the more palatable 'punctuated equilibria' of Gould and Eldredge have been proposed... whatever it takes to lend credibility to a theory weakened by the empirical data. There is a fine line between scientific 'ingenious mechanisms' and metaphysical ‘sorcerer concoctions’ and it is a historical fact that even reputable men of science have crossed this line many times in order to support a paradigm. So once again I must point out that if naturalists essentially have a carte blanche in what they may propose to uphold their pet theory, then it will be extremely difficult if not impossible for someone to falsify their position...
Again, naturalist claims require evidence, not faith. Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.You can fancy whatever you want on the subject of origins, develop your own 'ingenious mechanism'… ultimately however, faith would be involved in all such scenarios… especially if you honestly wanted to believe in them or had to take a stand for their defense…
I look for logical explanations and you look for supernatural ones that will support your position.See... this is where you and I will forever clash…
[quotes]The 'scientific establishment' clearly does postulate a stance before any evidence is found, (postulae a priori).[/quote]
Yes, the scientific community has standards--which are necesary.
No, that is not the stance and you are lying yet again. Atheist don't even assert that God doesn't exist. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God, not the claim that gods do not exist.The stance is that GOD doesn’t exist.
No, they do not, liar.They operate on that premise.
They use logic and reasoning. They use that which is demonstrable. They do studies. They are peer reviewed. They go the extra mile before coming to there conclusions.How is that any different from mine…
You claim to know that God exists and then shy away when somebody asks for proof.
They use logic and you use supers ion. They go out and observe the world with their own eyes, and you use a book from thousands of years ago by supers ious desert dwellers.
There premise is testable. Yours will never be.considering that this premise is equally untestable?
They toss out bad explanations because they are concerned about being wrong. You don't care whether you are wrong or not. All you care about it the inability of science to prove your God wrong, even though you don't believe in other gods that science can't prove don't exist.If any data doesn’t jive with their core premise, they simply toss it out and move on to the next theory… one that keeps the Creator perpetually out of the picture...
Science is all about using empirical evidence to come to conclusions. Your belief in God isn't. One cannot combine believing in something through observation with believing in something just because.
Last edited by redzero; 09-10-2010 at 11:04 PM.
alot of yall must really hate your daily lives to have enough time to type out entire research papers as rebuttals.
go on.
None of the stuff Phenomanul says hasn't been said before.
alot of yall must really hate your daily lives to have enough time to type out entire research papers as rebuttals.
go on.
He thinks that since the existence of God cannot be disproven, his belief is reasonable. Yet neither he nor any other creationist will explain why they don't believe in the thousands of other gods.
He complains about the standards in science, yet he doesn't show how they are inherently flawed, nor does he tell us why the supernatural shouldn't be discredited. He has not given anybody a single reason why they should believe in the supernatural.
He claims that we were created because we are too complex to have come about by chance, yet he doesn't believe that a more complex being should have had a creator as well.
His argument is full of fallacies and contradictions.
Actually, Phenomanul, you can disregard my response (which you will do anyway).
Give me a logical reason to believe in your God and your God only. Don't use faith, because it is not logical and it doesn't exclude other gods.
And you still haven't answered my question from way back: did God at one point support slavery/indentured servitude?
If so, how can he be good?
EDIT: AND KEEP IT SHORT AND ON TOPIC, PLEASE. DON'T BRING UP SCIENCE OR ANYTHING THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND.
Last edited by redzero; 09-10-2010 at 11:05 PM.
free will has been removed in thie scenario
free will taken away in this onebut our glorified bodies will no longer have the capacity to sin.
"Prevent" being the key word there.The way I see it... JESUS' act of redemption and sacrifice will prevent anyone in Heaven from ever treading down the same path that got Lucifer kicked out of Heaven to begin with... without compromising their free will at all.
Prevented from exercising the same free will as here on Earth
but the option was there.JESUS had Free Will as both human and GOD and yet He never sinned.
If the ability to sin has been taken away, free will has been removed.But like you say... it's all a matter of doctrine... and the fact that different people see it different ways...
It's pretty simple.
The fact that you have to come up with a complex theory that still ends up being contradictory confirms it that much more for me.
damn.
I think that was the longest non-troll post Ive ever seen.
My posts are not that long once you remove the spaces.
But that's probably what Phenomanul wants--to make the argument so complicated that he doesn't have to answer the original question.
I'm always amused by the atheist complete and utter contempt for the mere insinuation that they also have a belief system, and it is as faith based as any other.
Let's just take the beginning of life, for example. Sometime, somewhere along the line something inanimate, suddenly sprung forth as a living being. There are only two possible scenarios for this...a) this event is a naturally occurring phenomenon or b) some force outside of nature with the ability to create and give life, decided to give life to the inanimate object (aka - a supernatural event). Now, the atheist has already decided that the existence of such a force...a supernatural, life-giving force...God, a flying spaghetti monster, Manny...can not, and does not exist. So, by default, the stance of the atheist is that inanimate objects by natural occurrence can come to life, and naturally become alive.
This occurrence in nature has never been observed, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that it can occur, there is no relevant progression to show that it will ever occur...but by default, the atheist knows with 100% certainty that an inanimate object can become a living being as a natural occurrence. No evidence...no first hand account...all of the things you require of a person of faith to justify his or her beliefs...none of those things exist in something that you state is a undeniable fact.
The atheist has denied the existence of anything supernatural, and has placed his faith entirely in the natural occurrence of many things that have NO physical or even anecdotal evidence to have ever happened.
Tell me how that faith in nature is more well placed than a faith in a creator?
Again, atheists do not assert that gods do not exist, for the millionth time.
Nature can be observed.
Someone should tell these guys....
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
a·the·ism
/ˈeɪ
θiˌɪz
Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uh
–noun 1.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
Making inanimate things come to life?
too much effort.
I'll pass.
Bingo.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Explain to me what I'm missing....
Give you? Give YOU? I don't owe you anything... you demand answers with patronizing ultimatums, you continually yell, all whilst never, ever conceding any ground... even Blake, Random Guy, LnGrrrR, MannyIsGod, baseline bum, ElNono, ChumpDumper, Dark Reign, MiamiHeat, among other of the hardcore agnostic/athiests around here know better than to blow off entire arguments the way you do... especially when all you do is operate under the envelope of the 'devil's advocate'; you don't ever defend any ground of your own... all you do is attack other peoples stances... That's always easier to do.
at "information not being important."
and on...
and on...
and on...
I would add that you clearly don't understand the differences between applied science and origins science. Our use, and universal acceptance, of the former doesn't validate the assumptions drawn from use of the latter... You also don't understand the fact that all three elements of the scientific method are required to prove something scientifically... observation alone is not sufficient. Rain? Earthquakes? come on' dude... that's not origins science. That falls under the realm of applied science.
But I've decided I'm not going to spend any more of my time addressing anymore of your foolish
Disbelief =/= stating that something doesn't exist.
Give me a logical reason to believe in your God and your God only. Don't use faith, because it is not logical and it doesn't exclude other gods.I'm not going to spend any more of my time addressing anymore of your foolish stubborness.
And you still haven't answered my question from way back: did God at one point support slavery/indentured servitude?
Although I would hardly call that a natural setting, the Miller experiment did nothing more than create amino acids, which are just one of the pieces needed to be a living being.
For argument's sake, let's say the Miller experiment creates life at some point...wouldn't that dictate that nature needs some coaching, some coercing, some outside assistance to create life? I mean...without Miller, none of it would have happened, right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
