PDA

View Full Version : DArwinism is coming down



Pages : [1] 2

Bluesky
11-08-2012, 08:15 AM
The Berlin Wall of Darwinianism will come down You read it here, on Soonet.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/defecting_from066131.html

Barry Morris
11-08-2012, 09:33 AM
The wall coming down might be a bit of an overstatement but an interesting review.

"We are finite rational creatures whose knowledge is always going to be limited." Some just can't admit that.

bilbo79
11-08-2012, 12:40 PM
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3495/evolutionza4.jpg

Barry Morris
11-08-2012, 01:21 PM
Your cartoon shows where the writer of that book appears to be right now.

He thinks evolution is BS, but can't quite yet admit to intelligent design.

If you have any alternative ideas, I'm sure we'd be glad to hear them.

Hans
11-08-2012, 03:06 PM
We will speak again when life forms on mars have been proven to exist or still exist as we speak.
Your theory of intelligent design will be disproved for once and for all.

Bluesky
11-08-2012, 03:30 PM
What would life forms on Mars prove, Hans?

Hans
11-08-2012, 03:38 PM
The life exists on other planets besides Earth. Once we have proof of that we will have to accept that life on Earth came into existence in a similar fashion.

Barry Morris
11-08-2012, 04:54 PM
And what fashion would that be, Hans??

Barry Morris
11-08-2012, 04:58 PM
Reminds me about some theories I've read about meteorites originating as material on other planets.

No reason at all that life could not have the same source. Finding life on Mars, or any other place would prove nothing.

And why might you think that the Designer couldn't put life other places??

Hans
11-08-2012, 05:09 PM
Could, but the question should be why?
Tell me what's your definition of life?

Barry Morris
11-08-2012, 08:00 PM
Could, but the question should be why?
Tell me what's your definition of life?

Why life elsewhere?? Why ever not?? God is the Creator, and one thing we can say is that He is infinitly creative!!

Life?? Let's see, classic definitions I guess. Grows, reproduces, even adapts to environment.

NewCasa
11-08-2012, 08:22 PM
Intelligent design says zero about Christian theology. Don't get so excited SB :)

Barry Morris
11-08-2012, 08:30 PM
Intelligent design says zero about Christian theology. Don't get so excited SB :)

There you go again, "reading" too much into my words, and then stating the perfectly obvious.

Mind you, if one is honest, when considering ID, one has to ask "Who??".

NewCasa
11-08-2012, 09:45 PM
There you go again, "reading" too much into my words, and then stating the perfectly obvious.

Mind you, if one is honest, when considering ID, one has to ask "Who??".

Well, my first hint was that you were going monotheistic. Then you pretty much slammed the door when you used the word 'he'. I'm thinking you've pretty much defined in your mind the 'who'. If you'd like to deny feel free dude!

Barry Morris
11-08-2012, 09:54 PM
Monotheism?? As I've said before, there can only be one almighty, ALL-KNOWING infinite God. But it doesn't bother me if nobody sees the logic in that.

As to "He", standard terminology, which helps us understand God.

God is not a man.

Hans
11-08-2012, 10:06 PM
Why life elsewhere?? Why ever not?? God is the Creator, and one thing we can say is that He is infinitly creative!!

Life?? Let's see, classic definitions I guess. Grows, reproduces, even adapts to environment.

So a fly would be alive?

Bluesky
11-08-2012, 10:17 PM
Arggh. This happens, it seems, to every attempt I make at a serious discussion.

Barry Morris
11-08-2012, 11:13 PM
So a fly would be alive?

Yes.

NewCasa
11-09-2012, 01:02 AM
Arggh. This happens, it seems, to every attempt I make at a serious discussion.

Heh. Been there ;)


Bottom line is that I see no need for one to be right and the other wrong. Darwinism can peacefully coexist with intelligent design. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure many will not hesitate), but I don't believe Darwin ever actually said his theory disproved the existence of a higher being or beings. If he did, I could then only accept part of his teachings. Then again, I've never read Origin of the Species so what the heck would I know?

dancingqueen
11-09-2012, 05:12 AM
Monotheism?? As I've said before, there can only be one almighty, ALL-KNOWING infinite God.

You keep SAYING that, but you have yet to explain how you come to this ultimate truth of life we must simply all accept because you say so...
And even if there is only one, that does not mean this God is the God you speak of.

Bluesky
11-09-2012, 09:02 AM
Heh. Been there ;)


Bottom line is that I see no need for one to be right and the other wrong. Darwinism can peacefully coexist with intelligent design. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure many will not hesitate), but I don't believe Darwin ever actually said his theory disproved the existence of a higher being or beings. If he did, I could then only accept part of his teachings. Then again, I've never read Origin of the Species so what the heck would I know?

I believe you are right.

Barry Morris
11-09-2012, 09:29 AM
You keep SAYING that, but you have yet to explain how you come to this ultimate truth of life we must simply all accept because you say so...
And even if there is only one, that does not mean this God is the God you speak of.

Makes no sense to me that there could be two beings absolutely everywhere, knowing absolutely everything, and knowing the consequences of every action taken, and always therefore choosing the right course. It would be just like you saying you have a twin brother who thinks exactly the same as you, who knows absolutely everything you know and always does exactly the same thing as you. Oh, and by the way, he's not standing beside me, he's in exactly the same physical space as me.

And therefore is no way there could be any other God that I speak of.

dancingqueen
11-09-2012, 09:34 AM
Makes no sense to me that there could be two beings absolutely everywhere, knowing absolutely everything, and knowing the consequences of every action taken, and always therefore choosing the right course. It would be just like you saying you have a twin brother who thinks exactly the same as you, who knows absolutely everything you know and always does exactly the same thing as you. Oh, and by the way, he's not standing beside me, he's in exactly the same physical space as me.

And therefore is no way there could be any other God that I speak of.

Yet it makes sense that there is one being that can do all that?

You have not provided any relevant info to support your claim that there cannot be more than one God, all you have given is an opinion. Now that's fine, and if that's all you have, that's fine too, but if you are just making this claim off of an opinion, you need to stop stating it as a fact as you have been.

And why would an additional God have to be occupying the same physical space as the other?

Barry Morris
11-09-2012, 09:43 AM
Same space?? Because He's everywhere, remember??

Basis for alll of this is that Something started this universe. Nothing comes from nothing.

So I'll continues to state it as a fact.

(Love how you don't refute my logic, just reject. Understandable)

dancingqueen
11-09-2012, 09:57 AM
Same space?? Because He's everywhere, remember??

Basis for alll of this is that Something started this universe. Nothing comes from nothing.

So I'll continues to state it as a fact.

(Love how you don't refute my logic, just reject. Understandable)

You are misunderstanding, I am not refuting, nor rejecting. I am questioning. I'm agnostic and believe in the viability of all religions. And I certainly don't claim to know any for certain. I do, however, agree with you in the likelihood that something, or someone created this life, and it was divine, creationism if you will.
as for God being everywhere, there is one problem here, you are attributing mortal, physical attributions to an almighty being that, as you claim, lives outside of time. God cannot take up space as we know it, because he would be taking up physical space that is already occupied by people, or things. Being omnipresent does not mean being everywhere, it means all present, as in to always be present, to always be there.
Wherever you go, there you are.

Hans
11-09-2012, 01:14 PM
Yes.

So what happens to the fly when it dies?

The Left Sock
11-09-2012, 01:56 PM
"Mind you, if one is honest, when considering ID, one has to ask "Who??"."

Or, when considering ID, one may ask "What??".

A software program has intelligent design, when your spell checker fixes your document, it doesn't mean a bearded deity on a cloud swooped down and intervened.

Intelligent design can be a mechanical function of the universe, just as easily as it could be the pet project of a bored omnipotent. Doesn't mean that this is the case, or that the other possibility isn't the case, but asking 'who' when pondering the question of Intelligent Design is; premature, flawed, and therefore, misleading.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-09-2012, 02:37 PM
The Berlin Wall of Darwinianism will come down You read it here, on Soonet.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/defecting_from066131.html


Here's a better review of the book...

Remarkable Facts
Ending Science As We Know It (http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.6/elliott_sober_thomas_nagel_mind_cosmos.php)

SSMP
11-09-2012, 03:23 PM
Yes lets throw out 400 years of scientific research on the words of a layman.

" Nagel reveals that his book “is just the opinion of a layman who reads widely in the literature that explains contemporary science to the nonspecialist.” "

http://www.thenation.com/article/170334/do-you-only-have-brain-thomas-nagel?page=full#

Barry Morris
11-09-2012, 05:05 PM
You are misunderstanding, I am not refuting, nor rejecting. I am questioning. I'm agnostic and believe in the viability of all religions. And I certainly don't claim to know any for certain. I do, however, agree with you in the likelihood that something, or someone created this life, and it was divine, creationism if you will.
Thanks for that, I agree.


as for God being everywhere, there is one problem here, you are attributing mortal, physical attributions to an almighty being that, as you claim, lives outside of time. God cannot take up space as we know it, because he would be taking up physical space that is already occupied by people, or things.

God is NOT physical, God is Spirit. Exactly what that means, we don't fully understand, but it does mean that, as I have stated before, He can and does exist OUTSIDE the universe. So there is no problem with God being everywhere.


Being omnipresent does not mean being everywhere, it means all present, as in to always be present, to always be there.
Wherever you go, there you are.

Semantics. Omnipresent, as I understand it DOES mean that God is everywhere. He doesn't have to GO somewhere to be there, He IS there.

Barry Morris
11-09-2012, 05:08 PM
"Mind you, if one is honest, when considering ID, one has to ask "Who??"."

Or, when considering ID, one may ask "What??".

A software program has intelligent design, when your spell checker fixes your document, it doesn't mean a bearded deity on a cloud swooped down and intervened.

Intelligent design can be a mechanical function of the universe, just as easily as it could be the pet project of a bored omnipotent. Doesn't mean that this is the case, or that the other possibility isn't the case, but asking 'who' when pondering the question of Intelligent Design is; premature, flawed, and therefore, misleading.

My computer is not intelligent. And when my spell checker fixes my document, it DOES mean that an intelligent designer created the program and gave it data to allow it to function.

Intelligent design implies intent, IMO, which certainly rules out a mechanical function.

Barry Morris
11-09-2012, 05:11 PM
So what happens to the fly when it dies?

It dies. Ceases all the functions defining life.

Barry Morris
11-09-2012, 05:12 PM
Yes lets throw out 400 years of scientific research on the words of a layman.

" Nagel reveals that his book “is just the opinion of a layman who reads widely in the literature that explains contemporary science to the nonspecialist.” "

http://www.thenation.com/article/170334/do-you-only-have-brain-thomas-nagel?page=full#

Let's play shoot the messenger.

Barry Morris
11-09-2012, 05:15 PM
Here's a better review of the book...

Remarkable Facts
Ending Science As We Know It (http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.6/elliott_sober_thomas_nagel_mind_cosmos.php)

Looks like a good article, will read more.

But question to you:

Does/can physics provide a complete explanation of everything??

NewCasa
11-09-2012, 07:18 PM
Heh. Been there ;)


Bottom line is that I see no need for one to be right and the other wrong. Darwinism can peacefully coexist with intelligent design. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure many will not hesitate), but I don't believe Darwin ever actually said his theory disproved the existence of a higher being or beings. If he did, I could then only accept part of his teachings. Then again, I've never read Origin of the Species so what the heck would I know?


I believe you are right.

I never understood why creationism and evolution couldn't peacefully co-exist. Always been a big mystery to me. They are not incompatible at all in my view.

KDawg
11-09-2012, 08:49 PM
I never understood why creationism and evolution couldn't peacefully co-exist. Always been a big mystery to me. They are not incompatible at all in my view.
I guess that would depend on your definition of evolution. There is plenty of evidence of inter-species evolution, but where is the evidence for evolution across species?

Barry Morris
11-09-2012, 09:31 PM
I guess that would depend on your definition of evolution. There is plenty of evidence of inter-species evolution, but where is the evidence for evolution across species?

Indeed. The fossil record should show inter-species transitions 10 to one or more over others. But it doesn't.

NewCasa
11-09-2012, 09:41 PM
I guess that would depend on your definition of evolution. There is plenty of evidence of inter-species evolution, but where is the evidence for evolution across species?

Not sure I understand your point.

My point was that creationism and evolution don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive. For example, what if a superior race (aka God, if you like) 'seeded' the earth with several different species and each then evolved? To me, this is one of those places where intelligent design may come in.

Bluesky
11-10-2012, 09:45 AM
I never understood why creationism and evolution couldn't peacefully co-exist. Always been a big mystery to me. They are not incompatible at all in my view.

Creationism is a technical term that is most often used to mean that God created everything "after its own kind". Creationism has no truck with theistic evolution, the belief that God guided the process of evolution.

But yes, there are many Christians (and other theists) who believe that God Himself implemented evolution. Evolution itself cannot be used to disprove the existence of God. And furthermore, if guys like Dawkins are trying to make it look that way (i.e God is not necessary, science can explain everything) they ahve yet to posit a theory of how the first living cell occurred in such a way that all subsequent life evolved from that first moment. Otherwise know as abiogenesis.

NewCasa
11-10-2012, 11:57 AM
Creationism is a technical term that is most often used to mean that God created everything "after its own kind". Creationism has no truck with theistic evolution, the belief that God guided the process of evolution.

But yes, there are many Christians (and other theists) who believe that God Himself implemented evolution. Evolution itself cannot be used to disprove the existence of God. And furthermore, if guys like Dawkins are trying to make it look that way (i.e God is not necessary, science can explain everything) they ahve yet to posit a theory of how the first living cell occurred in such a way that all subsequent life evolved from that first moment. Otherwise know as abiogenesis.

Even given that the first living cell was an accident of chemistry, where did the first non-living thing come from? The first energy? The first rock?

Barry Morris
11-10-2012, 01:01 PM
Not sure I understand your point.

My point was that creationism and evolution don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive. For example, what if a superior race (aka God, if you like) 'seeded' the earth with several different species and each then evolved? To me, this is one of those places where intelligent design may come in.

But that doesn't help.

Where did THEY come from??

Upper Decker
11-10-2012, 09:25 PM
Nothing comes from nothing.


Brush up on quantum mechanics and this argument becomes null.

Barry Morris
11-10-2012, 09:51 PM
Brush up on quantum mechanics and this argument becomes null.

Wrongo, becaue all you read about quantum mechanics is happeneing INSIDE this universe. No way can it even CONSIDER what happens OUTSIDE.

Bluesky
11-10-2012, 11:41 PM
Where did THEY come from??

It's turtles, all the way down, silly. :)

NewCasa
11-11-2012, 05:47 AM
But that doesn't help.

Where did THEY come from??

That was my point.

Barry Morris
11-11-2012, 09:52 AM
That was my point.

Then I think it quite reasonable to think of an ultimate, outside of this universe, outside of time, Source.

Barry Morris
11-11-2012, 09:54 AM
It's turtles, all the way down, silly. :)

Ah, yes I forgot about the turtles!!!

That line of thinking must have a logical end point.

NewCasa
11-11-2012, 10:47 AM
Then I think it quite reasonable to think of an ultimate, outside of this universe, outside of time, Source.

Not necessarily, but sure. For arguments' sake that's fine. I don't think I've really said anything to contradict that, other than to say that there need not be only one being such as that. You say ultimate, but you get trapped in your words I think and take that to mean there can only be one.

Barry Morris
11-11-2012, 02:26 PM
Not necessarily, but sure. For arguments' sake that's fine. I don't think I've really said anything to contradict that, other than to say that there need not be only one being such as that. You say ultimate, but you get trapped in your words I think and take that to mean there can only be one.

Logically speaking, if there's more than one, none are omnipotent and all knowing, ie God.

Barry Morris
11-11-2012, 02:28 PM
Darwinism is coming down because Bluesky posted a link to an op-ed written by a guy who's quoting a laymen as his source. **** yeah. All witness Bluesky's power.

Maybe you can post a link to an anti-pornography or anti-abortion webpage and change the world again.

Sure as hell he contributes more than you.

Hans
11-11-2012, 03:33 PM
It dies. Ceases all the functions defining life.

So basically the same thing as what happens to humans.

Hans
11-11-2012, 03:42 PM
Wrongo, becaue all you read about quantum mechanics is happeneing INSIDE this universe. No way can it even CONSIDER what happens OUTSIDE.

Since you keep saying nothing comes from nothing, The same can be said for inside.
Inside can not exist without outside.

See, if you start thinking that way you quickly realize you have to be incorrect, since you can see the proof right all around you.

NewCasa
11-11-2012, 03:56 PM
Logically speaking, if there's more than one, none are omnipotent and all knowing, ie God.

Not sure where the logic is in that.

Barry Morris
11-11-2012, 05:46 PM
So basically the same thing as what happens to humans.

I suppose the argument about soul could come in here.

Or even self-awareness.

Barry Morris
11-11-2012, 05:48 PM
Since you keep saying nothing comes from nothing, The same can be said for inside.
Inside can not exist without outside.

See, if you start thinking that way you quickly realize you have to be incorrect, since you can see the proof right all around you.

Isn't that my point?? no inside without outside?? No universe without Something to create it?? In other words, nothing from nothing. Since we have the something of an ordered universe, then Something outside the universe created it.

Barry Morris
11-11-2012, 05:50 PM
Not sure where the logic is in that.

Because of what I said before about the all-knowing and omni-present.

NewCasa
11-11-2012, 06:21 PM
Because of what I said before about the all-knowing and omni-present.

But if a being is all powerful do your rules still apply? :)

As you said - outside space and time, etc.

Barry Morris
11-11-2012, 06:23 PM
But if a being is all powerful do your rules still apply? :)

As you said - outside space and time, etc.

My rules?? What's your specific objection??

Upper Decker
11-11-2012, 06:34 PM
There is a theory out there that is gaining a lot of ground and the math seems to be consistent with the theory. That black holes actually give birth to other universes so to speak. The singularity that was our earliest universe was actually a critical super mass center of a black hole that breached the higgs field, thus giving birth to the bubble we live in.

NewCasa
11-11-2012, 08:05 PM
My rules?? What's your specific objection??

If something is all-powerful, omni-everything, outside space and time would you say it still needs to be subject to rules of logic and physics? Do you honestly think that you know so much that you can deduce that there can only be one of these (this) being(s)?

Upper Decker
11-11-2012, 09:22 PM
You forgot to add END IF to that boolean.

lol

Upper Decker
11-11-2012, 09:40 PM
well played sir. well played.

Upper Decker
11-11-2012, 10:00 PM
Would also like to add to this conversation, from a scientific standpoint can you define nothing?

Barry Morris
11-11-2012, 11:47 PM
Would also like to add to this conversation, from a scientific standpoint can you define nothing?

You mean a useful contribution to the discussion??? Blunt's just trying to get himself booted out because of insults and off topic nonsense. He can insult me all day, if it tickles his fancy. I think he just makes himself look small and foolish.

Barry Morris
11-11-2012, 11:50 PM
If something is all-powerful, omni-everything, outside space and time would you say it still needs to be subject to rules of logic and physics? Do you honestly think that you know so much that you can deduce that there can only be one of these (this) being(s)?

I don't think it unreasonable to believe that a being that can create an ordered universe should operate under some sort of logical rules. Certainly His capabilities and characteristics are beyond our finite comprehension, but what we CAN see and understand can lead us to some reasonable conclusions.

As to the One, I'll stand with it. Makes sense to me.

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 12:11 AM
Then we know it's wrong.

Whatever, B. Thanks for the input.

NewCasa
11-12-2012, 12:33 AM
I don't think it unreasonable to believe that a being that can create an ordered universe should operate under some sort of logical rules. Certainly His capabilities and characteristics are beyond our finite comprehension, but what we CAN see and understand can lead us to some reasonable conclusions.

As to the One, I'll stand with it. Makes sense to me.

I think it would only make sense if the rules were self-imposed :)

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 01:00 AM
I think it would only make sense if the rules were self-imposed :)

It ain't me imposing any rules on the Almighty. i'm just commenting on what makes sense to me, as far as my understanding goes.

Upper Decker
11-12-2012, 02:17 AM
My comment wasnt for Blunt, it was for you SB. You have been using the "nothing cant come from nothing" argument a lot. Im curious to what you define as nothing. I just wish to know so maybe I can help you redefine that.

Bluesky
11-12-2012, 09:50 AM
Brush up on quantum mechanics and this argument becomes null.

Quantum physics involves discovering more and more about less and less until you know everything about nothing.

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 10:05 AM
My comment wasnt for Blunt, it was for you SB. You have been using the "nothing cant come from nothing" argument a lot. Im curious to what you define as nothing. I just wish to know so maybe I can help you redefine that.

Alright, interesting. But as I think about it, it seems that I am constrained to use terms that are understandable to me, and IN this universe.

One definition. Nothing would occupy a space wherein no matter existed, no electromagnetic phenomena operated, and no change of any kind could take place without outside influence.

The problem of course is that how does this apply OUTSIDE the universe. We have no way of knowing. Except the belief that God operates there.

Bluesky
11-12-2012, 12:42 PM
Arguing that the universe has self generated is far less rational than arguing that I can pull myself up off the ground by my own bootstraps. Peter Atkins believes in the Cosmic Bootstrap. So do some Soonetters.

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 01:49 PM
It's really too bad. To reject that God is in control also rejects how much He cares.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son..."

Upper Decker
11-12-2012, 02:29 PM
Keith Ward notes , “it is logically impossible for a cause to bring about some effect without already being in existence”

Not true, especially if you are familiar with how photons work. When a photon is created, it is created with defined path and end result. Meaning once it is created it goes on a predefined path until its destruction when it observed,measured or interacts with other matter. This isnt just a theory, it had been confirmed numerous times over the years. (also one of the problems that schroedinger grappled with hence resulting in the formula for the uncertainty principle to measure and observe quantum physics )

With that said here is a little bit of effect before cause. I will use something simple like our own sun. A photon is created in the center of a star. After it is created it bounces around the star for thousands upon thousands of years until it finally reaches the sun and is on its way to earth as what we see as sunlight. Now when you go outside and take a look at that sunlight, its roughly 10000 years old and was created with a definitive path and destruction - for you to see. Meaning that photons path was intended for that person or object long before that person or object came into existence.

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 02:34 PM
....How about God stuffs his platitudes and feeds some starving African babies?

What organizations do you belong to that do that??

Bluesky
11-12-2012, 02:56 PM
Keith Ward notes , “it is logically impossible for a cause to bring about some effect without already being in existence”

Not true, especially if you are familiar with how photons work. When a photon is created, it is created with defined path and end result. Meaning once it is created it goes on a predefined path until its destruction when it observed,measured or interacts with other matter. This isnt just a theory, it had been confirmed numerous times over the years. (also one of the problems that schroedinger grappled with hence resulting in the formula for the uncertainty principle to measure and observe quantum physics )

With that said here is a little bit of effect before cause. I will use something simple like our own sun. A photon is created in the center of a star. After it is created it bounces around the star for thousands upon thousands of years until it finally reaches the sun and is on its way to earth as what we see as sunlight. Now when you go outside and take a look at that sunlight, its roughly 10000 years old and was created with a definitive path and destruction - for you to see. Meaning that photons path was intended for that person or object long before that person or object came into existence.

Interesting. I shall have to read up on that. You've brought predestination/determinism to a new level. Music to a Calvinist's ears.

You are using the word "created"as if there is agency. It's hard not to.. :) But is theorizing over a predestined path for a photon really in the same ballpark as positing that something can spontaneously and randomly come into existence?

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 03:02 PM
If my motorhome built 25 years ago, runs over a 5 year old dog, does it amount to the same thing??

Of course, somebody had to create the motorhome!!

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 03:04 PM
Oops, sorry, I didn't realize God opted to NOT create food for starving babies, and instead sponsor children through the Christian Children's Fund.

Yeah, the Lord works in mysterious ways alright; stupid, ineffective, mysterious ways.

We are His hands, my friend, and His feet. If YOU choose not to help, accusing God of being uncaring is simply silly.

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 04:33 PM
Oh, so when I help, it's because of God. When I don't help, it's because of me. False attribution much?

I love how God has to be fundamentally unresponsible for anything bad, just so that you can continue to believe.

What an ignoble faith you enjoy.

As opposed to how you want God to be solely responsible when your fellow man is suffering??

Your faith is an interesting one.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-12-2012, 05:08 PM
One definition. Nothing would occupy a space wherein no matter existed, no electromagnetic phenomena operated, and no change of any kind could take place without outside influence.


Here we have another logical statement by Soundbear. First of all, how can you provide a definition to a word using the word itself in the definition? Second how could nothing occupy something ie. space? That would make me think that you think nothing is actually something with dimensions and is quatifiable. Wouldn't a better definition be the absence of everything including space and time.

NewCasa
11-12-2012, 05:27 PM
If my motorhome built 25 years ago, runs over a 5 year old dog, does it amount to the same thing??

Of course, somebody had to create the motorhome!!

Now here's a total SB'ism. If I take this statement out of context of any of the other discussion it means.....?????

Hans
11-12-2012, 06:12 PM
Arguing that the universe has self generated is far less rational than arguing that I can pull myself up off the ground by my own bootstraps. Peter Atkins believes in the Cosmic Bootstrap. So do some Soonetters.

But for that matter, so is arguing that the universe can not have created itself and therefore it had to be created by some other being.
It always brings us back to the same point : how to create something out of nothing.

You say an omnipotent being created everything, and the being was always there. The being itself can not be questioned as to where it came from, since your whole theory is based on it always being there and therefore was never created. That is your weak point.
Others say the universe started with an event that caused everything we know to be formed. It never exactly explains what was there the moment before it was formed, or where the forming matter came from. That is their weak point.

In the end there will never be an explanation, since we will always end of at the same point : How do you create something out of nothing?
We will never be able to explain it.

Bluesky
11-12-2012, 07:04 PM
In the end there will never be an explanation, since we will always end of at the same point : How do you create something out of nothing?
We will never be able to explain it.

Never say never.

Wait a minute... I just did!

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 07:46 PM
I don't blame God at all, because I don't believe in your God. Though if I did, I would have to think that he's accountable.

Your false dichotomy fails.

I love the insights into human nature I get here.

What YOU obviously want is a god who does things your way, and is your slave. Talk about making a god in your own image.

Sorry, since you don't believe in God, then you must think that every depraved thing that happens on earth is man's fault, and, by extension, yours. And whaddya know, I believe it too!!! :) :) :)

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 07:47 PM
Now here's a total SB'ism. If I take this statement out of context of any of the other discussion it means.....?????

But it is in context. Try reading.

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 07:48 PM
Here we have another logical statement by Soundbear. First of all, how can you provide a definition to a word using the word itself in the definition? Second how could nothing occupy something ie. space? That would make me think that you think nothing is actually something with dimensions and is quatifiable. Wouldn't a better definition be the absence of everything including space and time.

Though perhaps poorly worded, "Nothing" as the subject of the sentence, is NOT part of the definition.

Your "better" definition is quite acceptable.

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 07:50 PM
....We will never be able to explain it.

Christians believe we'll know the answer thirty seconds after a last breath.

You don't.

NewCasa
11-12-2012, 09:02 PM
But it is in context. Try reading.

Make you a deal: I'll take your posts seriously as soon as you start making sense and stop using asinine (look it up - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asinine), meaningless comparisons. Keep working on it.

I have to say, bringing a motorhome to a creationism discussion is pretty classic in my books :)

NewCasa
11-12-2012, 09:04 PM
Arguing that the universe has self generated is far less rational than arguing that I can pull myself up off the ground by my own bootstraps. Peter Atkins believes in the Cosmic Bootstrap. So do some Soonetters.

Not speaking for the bootstrap people, but I have to ask at this point: What created God?

Hans
11-12-2012, 09:36 PM
Not speaking for the bootstrap people, but I have to ask at this point: What created God?

You will never receive an answer besides nobody.
If you ask me, we created God in our head.

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 09:37 PM
Not speaking for the bootstrap people, but I have to ask at this point: What created God?

Created implies an event in time, for one thing. Sorry, God created time. Like the nothing can come from nothing argument, something can't be created from within itself.

Hans
11-12-2012, 09:38 PM
Christians believe we'll know the answer thirty seconds after a last breath.

You don't.

Lets just say you would be correct. You would then understand how something can come from nothing?

Hans
11-12-2012, 09:38 PM
Created implies an event in time, for one thing. Sorry, God created time. Like the nothing can come from nothing argument, something can't be created from within itself.

What was there before time?

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 09:39 PM
Make you a deal: I'll take your posts seriously as soon as you start making sense and stop using asinine (look it up - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asinine), meaningless comparisons. Keep working on it.

I have to say, bringing a motorhome to a creationism discussion is pretty classic in my books :)

Ah, well if you don't even CARE about context, I guess we'll just move on.

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 09:39 PM
What was there before time?

Read what you wrote again. Makes no sense.

Hans
11-12-2012, 09:40 PM
Read what you wrote again. Makes no sense.

You said God created time. If that is the case, what was there before He created it?

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 09:40 PM
No, I'd settle for a God who does things his own ways but is at least accredited with it.



I think a lot of it is man's fault, but I don't accept responsibility for what others do. I guess that makes me an adult. What are you? A scared animal aware it's going to die and desparately trying to salvage something beyond your mortal existence.

Understandable. Sad, but understandable.

Considering your actions, sad fits you perfectly.

Don't go away mad, Blunt, just go away.

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 09:41 PM
You said God created time. If that is the case, what was there before He created it?

The word before doesn't fit.

God is OUTSIDE time.

Hans
11-12-2012, 09:44 PM
So are you stating the outside of the universe is time?

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 09:45 PM
Nope.

Hans
11-12-2012, 09:47 PM
What are you saying? The outside of the universe has no time, and the inside does?

Barry Morris
11-12-2012, 09:50 PM
What are you saying? The outside of the universe has no time, and the inside does?

That almost sounds right, but the universe is not a box floating in more space. WHATEVER is outside it isn't "in" time.

Hans
11-12-2012, 09:53 PM
If that is the case, the universe itself could have existed outside time until an event created time. It would solve the problem of something can't come from nothing and there's no inside without an outside.

Barry Morris
11-13-2012, 12:12 AM
Lets just say you would be correct. You would then understand how something can come from nothing?

Nope, I will meet the Something, actually Someone, that created everything.

Barry Morris
11-13-2012, 12:13 AM
If that is the case, the universe itself could have existed outside time until an event created time. It would solve the problem of something can't come from nothing and there's no inside without an outside.

And what "event" would that be?? Caused by...?? :) :) :)

Barry Morris
11-13-2012, 12:15 AM
But then you would have even less purpose than you do now.

Oh Blunt, for such a well educated guy, it's really surprising how much time you spend here doing......well, nothing actually.

And when you are not here, you aren't missed.

So, if you really want to quit, get up some gumption and just do it.

dancingqueen
11-13-2012, 01:51 AM
God is NOT physical, God is Spirit. Exactly what that means, we don't fully understand, but it does mean that, as I have stated before, He can and does exist OUTSIDE the universe. So there is no problem with God being everywhere.

That is a cop-out, where is it stated specifically that God is "Spiritual" as a meaning of an alternate state of being "physical"?
If he can and does exist outside of our universe, then you cannot use our universe's understanding of spacial relation, and thus cannot conclude that two beings cannot occupy the same space, especially when you consider that the laws of science are a moot point when describing what your God can do.




Semantics. Omnipresent, as I understand it DOES mean that God is everywhere. He doesn't have to GO somewhere to be there, He IS there.
I stand corrected on the meaning of omnipresent, you are correct.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Omnipresent?s=t
Again, however, I will fall back on the idea that our understanding of spacial relations and area cannot be attributed to an existence that we cannot even comprehend, so yes, God is apparently everywhere, at all times, but so could another because we do not know if outside the universe applies the same laws of physics as our universe does.

Understand, I am not saying your belief is wrong, I am simply saying that you are wrong in passing off your belief as factual when you have facts that dictate what you are saying.

dancingqueen
11-13-2012, 01:56 AM
I don't think it unreasonable to believe that a being that can create an ordered universe should operate under some sort of logical rules. Certainly His capabilities and characteristics are beyond our finite comprehension, but what we CAN see and understand can lead us to some reasonable conclusions.

As to the One, I'll stand with it. Makes sense to me.

So let me get this straight... God exists outside of time and space as we know it, but must abide by the laws of time and space as we know it when it suits your argument?
Who makes up their religion to suit their lifestyle now?

Nihilistic Heathen
11-13-2012, 02:45 AM
Though perhaps poorly worded, "Nothing" as the subject of the sentence, is NOT part of the definition.

Your "better" definition is quite acceptable.

Actually Soundbear, my definition is "better" then your definition because it actually defines the word nothing, yours doesn't. Basically what your "definition" is stating is that nothing would occupy a space, then you describe the space that nothing would occupy. That doesn't define the word nothing. You say "though perhaps poorly worded", are you serious?

Barry Morris
11-13-2012, 09:31 AM
Actually Soundbear, my definition is "better" then your definition because it actually defines the word nothing, yours doesn't. Basically what your "definition" is stating is that nothing would occupy a space, then you describe the space that nothing would occupy. That doesn't define the word nothing. You say "though perhaps poorly worded", are you serious?

I did say, "wherein no matter existed, no electromagnetic phenomena operated, and no change of any kind could take place without outside influence." I think thats reasonable.

But it's up to you.

Barry Morris
11-13-2012, 09:34 AM
So let me get this straight... God exists outside of time and space as we know it, but must abide by the laws of time and space as we know it when it suits your argument?
Who makes up their religion to suit their lifestyle now?

Why don't you rephrase that a little closer.

Upper Decker
11-13-2012, 11:49 AM
Time = Entropy. Entropy must exist even outside our bubble we call our universe.

NewCasa
11-13-2012, 11:51 AM
Ah, well if you don't even CARE about context, I guess we'll just move on.

Dude, I'm not the one who continually comments without context. And I'm quite often not the first one to get insulting or sarcastic in my posts. Those would be the jobs of the moderator in this forum.

Barry Morris
11-13-2012, 12:38 PM
Time = Entropy. Entropy must exist even outside our bubble we call our universe.

Entropy applies to physical systems. Who knows what conditions apply outside?

Barry Morris
11-13-2012, 12:39 PM
Blunt - 1800 posts
Soundbear - THIRTY TWO ****IN THOUSAND POSTS


When I get what I want, you'll get what you'll want.

Really?? Tell us what you want.

Barry Morris
11-13-2012, 12:40 PM
Dude, I'm not the one who continually comments without context. And I'm quite often not the first one to get insulting or sarcastic in my posts. Those would be the jobs of the moderator in this forum.

Re sarcasm. Perceptions differ.

Re motorhomes. My comments were in context.

:) :) :)

dancingqueen
11-13-2012, 01:40 PM
Why don't you rephrase that a little closer.

Please, try explaining again how it is an almighty being is subject to the rules and laws of physics.
Further to the point how YOUR God who exists outside of time and outside of this universe is subject to the laws of our time, and our knowledge of the universe. This is how I came to the conclusion that you limit your God's capabilities ONLY when it suits your ideas. thus, designing your own religion.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-13-2012, 01:51 PM
I did say, "wherein no matter existed, no electromagnetic phenomena operated, and no change of any kind could take place without outside influence." I think thats reasonable.

But it's up to you.

I guess you really are serious.

Here's your definition... "Nothing would occupy a space wherein no matter existed, no electromagnetic phenomena operated, and no change of any kind could take place without outside influence."

You are describing the space that nothing would occupy, failing to define the word nothing.

Upper Decker
11-13-2012, 01:54 PM
Entropy applies to physical systems. Who knows what conditions apply outside?

You believe that a burning bush told some dude on a mountain a set of rules. You believe in a being that has gone through every single measure to hide itself from the people that die,kill, and live in its name. But wont use logic that outside of our physical system would be another physical system.

dancingqueen
11-13-2012, 03:25 PM
You believe that a burning bush told some dude on a mountain a set of rules. You believe in a being that has gone through every single measure to hide itself from the people that die,kill, and live in its name. But wont use logic that outside of our physical system would be another physical system.

Designer religions, aren't they neat?

Barry Morris
11-13-2012, 04:50 PM
I guess you really are serious.

Here's your definition... "Nothing would occupy a space wherein no matter existed, no electromagnetic phenomena operated, and no change of any kind could take place without outside influence."

You are describing the space that nothing would occupy, failing to define the word nothing.

I did say, in casre you hadn't noticed, "wherein no matter existed, no electromagnetic phenomena operated, and no change of any kind could take place without outside influence."

My question to you might be, "How does one define a hole?" The answer is obvious. By what exists around it.

Barry Morris
11-13-2012, 05:03 PM
Please, try explaining again how it is an almighty being is subject to the rules and laws of physics.
Further to the point how YOUR God who exists outside of time and outside of this universe is subject to the laws of our time, and our knowledge of the universe. This is how I came to the conclusion that you limit your God's capabilities ONLY when it suits your ideas. thus, designing your own religion.

"..our time, and our knowledge of the universe." I didn't say that.

And as to limiting ONLY when it suits my ideas, I'd be interested in knowing what happens the rest of the time, and when that might be.

Barry Morris
11-13-2012, 05:06 PM
You believe that a burning bush told some dude on a mountain a set of rules. You believe in a being that has gone through every single measure to hide itself from the people that die,kill, and live in its name. But wont use logic that outside of our physical system would be another physical system.

Your description of my beleifs is interesting, as always.

Since physical systems are subject to time (entropy), and I believe that time is a characteristic of the universe, then another physical system OUTSIDE is illogical.

Barry Morris
11-13-2012, 05:06 PM
Designer religions, aren't they neat?

True except mine is not, except to you.

dancingqueen
11-13-2012, 05:48 PM
"..our time, and our knowledge of the universe." I didn't say that.
You did not specifically say those very words, however, you are subjecting a God to the rules of our current time and knowledge of the universe. You are making God mortal, but only in some cases in regards to some situations, arbitrarily How can a being be capable of being everywhere at once (defying a law of physics) yet not able to occupy the same space as another divine being (limited to the laws of physics) Explain why God has to abide by one law, yet can defy another? What is the defining differences, what makes you say one law is moot to God, yet the very same law in another situation limits God's capabilities?


And as to limiting ONLY when it suits my ideas, I'd be interested in knowing what happens the rest of the time, and when that might be.

If you have a point you would like to make in regards to my claim about your designer religion, say it. Stop trying to sound all wise and mysteriously cryptic. Nobody buys it. If you don't wish to frankly respond to something then I will assume (along with most I imagine) that you have no idea what you are talking about and only prove Blunt's point correct. So far, you have provided nothing to this conversation except for outrageous opinions that you are presenting as facts and cryptic posts that when deciphered are not at all relevant.
Please, in all seriousness, post relevant to the topic, and stop being so intentionally cryptic. It does nothing to get your thought through to anyone, nor does it help in your argument. As a Christian, you are supposed to try and spread the word of God, and help others understand it. and yes, I am aware that you are relived from this duty when the people you are talking to will not listen, but God expects you to TRY to get people to understand you, he did not command you to spread his word in as cryptic and obscure way possible. When you do that, you are not even TRYING to get his message across.
Hey, if you want to continue what you are doing, fine, but that is between you and your God.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-13-2012, 06:30 PM
I did say, in casre you hadn't noticed, "wherein no matter existed, no electromagnetic phenomena operated, and no change of any kind could take place without outside influence."

My question to you might be, "How does one define a hole?" The answer is obvious. By what exists around it.



Yes Soundbear I had noticed, you keep reposting that. What you don't understand is it doesn't define nothing. In your definition, it explains the conditions required by space before nothing would occupy it. Now your left with the problem of nothing occupying a space, you know, like it is something. That's really impressive.

Barry Morris
11-13-2012, 06:33 PM
"You did not specifically say those very words, however, you are subjecting a God to the rules of our current time and knowledge of the universe."

You still misrepresent what I said. Let me quote: "I don't think it unreasonable to believe that a being that can create an ordered universe should operate under some sort of logical rules. Certainly His capabilities and characteristics are beyond our finite comprehension, but what we CAN see and understand can lead us to some reasonable conclusions."

Gods rules exist. I don't know completely what they may be, but the evidence I CAN see leads me to that conclusion.

" How can a being be capable of being everywhere at once (defying a law of physics) yet not able to occupy the same space as another divine being (limited to the laws of physics)"

I don't know, because I don't fully understand what God is, and I never will. I do believe he is Spirit NOT physical, and that's the way the bible describes Him, but what that means is beyond the understanding of flesh. By the way, I said nothing about being capable of occupying the same space, but that it made no sense that there should be two al powerful beings who are allknowing and omnipresent.

As to the rest of your post, I'm sorry you find it cryptic, but it's the best I can do. I honestly believe that there are many times when some don't WANT to understand what I'm saying, and there's nothing I can do about that.

Carry on.

Bluesky
11-13-2012, 07:14 PM
If I may. Often it is your abbreviated ways of expressing yourself that causes the problems.
But I have observed that when you do say something quite clearly, the mockery still comes from certain quarters. You need to not respond to the outright mockers. It only encourages them and they amplify their efforts to poke fun at you.

Hans
11-13-2012, 09:18 PM
And what "event" would that be?? Caused by...?? :) :) :)

Caused by change. Everything in the universe is subject to constant change and movement.

Barry Morris
11-13-2012, 11:44 PM
Caused by change. Everything in the universe is subject to constant change and movement.

I swear, it was never my intent to give cryptic lessons.

NewCasa
11-13-2012, 11:55 PM
Created implies an event in time, for one thing. Sorry, God created time. Like the nothing can come from nothing argument, something can't be created from within itself.

Isn't that kinda like the bootstrap argument?

NewCasa
11-13-2012, 11:56 PM
I swear, it was never my intent to give cryptic lessons.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Barry Morris
11-14-2012, 12:03 AM
I have no idea what you mean by this.

Of course not.

Barry Morris
11-14-2012, 12:04 AM
Isn't that kinda like the bootstrap argument?

Probably.

Hans
11-14-2012, 07:15 AM
I swear, it was never my intent to give cryptic lessons.

Are you stating the universe is in a static state?

Barry Morris
11-14-2012, 11:38 AM
Are you stating the universe is in a static state?

Nope, not at all. You said there is constant change. I agree. My question to you, about events, is what caused the change??

Upper Decker
11-14-2012, 11:53 AM
Gravity and density became so immense that gravity began to repel itself at the very smallest level resulting a grand chain reaction that is still going as we speak.

More than likely caused by center of a super massive black hole breaching the higgs field and giving birth to what we know as our universe.

Barry Morris
11-14-2012, 12:06 PM
Gravity and density became so immense that gravity began to repel itself at the very smallest level resulting a grand chain reaction that is still going as we speak.

More than likely caused by center of a super massive black hole breaching the higgs field and giving birth to what we know as our universe.

The science and theories behind all this is fascinating.

But it does nothing to indicate the starting points of creation.

Bluesky
11-14-2012, 12:45 PM
For that, we need an imaginary friend.

Or no answer at all. Poof. There it was. Requires even more imagination.

Bluesky
11-14-2012, 12:48 PM
1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.
3. It is true that the theistic God exists. This is evidenced by the:
a. Beginning of the universe (Cosmological Argument)
b. Design of the universe (Teleological Argument/Anthropic Principle)
c. Design of life (Teleological Argument)
d. Moral Law (Moral Argument)
4. If God exists, then miracles are possible.
5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God (i.e., as acts of God to confirm a word from God).
6. The New Testament is historically reliable. This is evidenced by:
a. Early testimony
b. Eyewitness testimony
c. Uninvented (authentic) testimony
d. Eyewitnesses who were not deceived
7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.
8. Jesus’ claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by:
a. His fulfillment of many prophecies about himself;
b. His sinless life and miraculous deeds;
c. His prediction and accomplishment of his resurrection.
9. Therefore, Jesus is God.
10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.
11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
12. Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anything opposed to it is false).

Knock yourselves out... I don't have time to engage.. this is a copy and paste job

NewCasa
11-14-2012, 06:48 PM
Once again it boils down to this: Something has always existed. If you want to believe it is intelligent that's fine. It you want to believe it was all random chance that's fine too. For me, there is more proof that it is intelligent. Others may see it otherwise. But the point is that there is at least one (and quite possibly more) that is eternal, or at least was up to the point of the beginning of the universe.

Hans
11-14-2012, 07:02 PM
Nope, not at all. You said there is constant change. I agree. My question to you, about events, is what caused the change??

The change is caused by the universe moving from an orderly to a chaotic state.

dancingqueen
11-14-2012, 07:15 PM
1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.
3. It is true that the theistic God exists. This is evidenced by the:
a. Beginning of the universe (Cosmological Argument)
b. Design of the universe (Teleological Argument/Anthropic Principle)
c. Design of life (Teleological Argument)
d. Moral Law (Moral Argument)
4. If God exists, then miracles are possible.
5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God (i.e., as acts of God to confirm a word from God).
6. The New Testament is historically reliable. This is evidenced by:
a. Early testimony
b. Eyewitness testimony
c. Uninvented (authentic) testimony
d. Eyewitnesses who were not deceived
7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.
8. Jesus’ claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by:
a. His fulfillment of many prophecies about himself;
b. His sinless life and miraculous deeds;
c. His prediction and accomplishment of his resurrection.
9. Therefore, Jesus is God.
10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.
11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
12. Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anything opposed to it is false).

Knock yourselves out... I don't have time to engage.. this is a copy and paste job

How very sondbearian of you, throw out a whole bunch of claims with no factual basis, then place tho onus on others to disprove.
If you don't have the time to engage, then don't. One Soundbear is enough.

Barry Morris
11-14-2012, 07:21 PM
The change is caused by the universe moving from an orderly to a chaotic state.

Is there a reason for this change?

Barry Morris
11-14-2012, 07:22 PM
How very sondbearian of you, throw out a whole bunch of claims with no factual basis, then place tho onus on others to disprove.
If you don't have the time to engage, then don't. One Soundbear is enough.

Your responses are expected.

Tell us what is false about them.

dancingqueen
11-14-2012, 07:54 PM
Your responses are expected.

Tell us what is false about them.

The onus is not on me.
I did not say all of them, or any where false, I am just saying that there is no basis to state these as factual.

For someone who frequently "expects" my responses, you sure do know little about what they say.

Barry Morris
11-14-2012, 08:56 PM
The onus is not on me.
I did not say all of them, or any where false, I am just saying that there is no basis to state these as factual.

For someone who frequently "expects" my responses, you sure do know little about what they say.

What's to know?? You don't make any.

Hans
11-15-2012, 07:12 AM
Is there a reason for this change?

Yes. Some event caused the orderly state to be disturbed, which was the cause for the chaotic state to begin.

Bluesky
11-15-2012, 08:47 AM
I know that for some of the skeptics, arguing with us believers is an entertaining distraction. That is why I say I have little time for this. I don't want to play that game.

For me, the big questions are serious ones.

1. Origin: Where did we come from?
2. Identity: Who are we?
3. Meaning: Why are we here?
4. Morality: How should we live?
5. Destiny: Where are we going?

The answers to each of these questions depend on the existence of God. If God exists, then there’s ultimate meaning and purpose to your life. If there’s a real purpose to your life, then there’s a real right and wrong way to live it. And if a transcendent purpose exists, then there is meaning and direction as well. That's where I am at.

If God doesn't exist, then of course we are free to define our own purpose. There is no center from which to live except how the community defines a center, unless the anarchists win the day. In that case, chaos will rule, as we see in rogue countries or rogue moments in history. But that inevitably leads to self destruction.

Barry Morris
11-15-2012, 09:12 AM
Yes. Some event caused the orderly state to be disturbed, which was the cause for the chaotic state to begin.

Who caused the event??

Barry Morris
11-15-2012, 09:13 AM
I note your post Blue, and await one more response.

The Left Sock
11-15-2012, 09:16 AM
The possibility of God existing hasn't done much to guarantee a 'higher purpose' or a clear 'right and wrong way to live', as far as I'm concerned. The fact that people believe that God exists hasn't stopped them from committing countless atrocities and acts of depraved indifference throughout the ages, so how does a belief in God's existence guarantee anything different from a belief in the existence of any other deity?

Perhaps if people stopped relying on super-imposed dogma from a supernatural source, we could get down to the business of just trying to be better human beings, on a practical level.

Barry Morris
11-15-2012, 09:28 AM
So you're saying, forget about God, and just try to be better people??

Bluesky
11-15-2012, 09:35 AM
The possibility of God existing hasn't done much to guarantee a 'higher purpose' or a clear 'right and wrong way to live', as far as I'm concerned

Yes, and you are one voice among 6 billion and counting. And so am I.



Perhaps if people stopped relying on super-imposed dogma from a supernatural source, we could get down to the business of just trying to be better human beings, on a practical level.

And that is your dogma, which you are trying to live by. But many would ask, Why should I try too be a good person? ANd what does good mean, after all? Good to you may be restrictive to me. I want to be bad. It's more fun!

That is why question, "Is there an objective good"?

dancingqueen
11-15-2012, 09:36 AM
If God doesn't exist, then of course we are free to define our own purpose. There is no center from which to live except how the community defines a center,

So if one does not believe in a God, then they are forced to live life as others tell them to? they have no free will or personal direction?
I would suggest you are off track here.

dancingqueen
11-15-2012, 09:38 AM
Yes, and you are one voice among 6 billion and counting. And so am I.



And that is your dogma, which you are trying to live by. But many would ask, Why should I try too be a good person? ANd what does good mean, after all? Good to you may be restrictive to me. I want to be bad. It's more fun!

That is why question, "Is there an objective good"?

People are quite capable of being "good" people without attributing to God, God did not invent morality.

Bluesky
11-15-2012, 09:39 AM
So if one does not believe in a God, then they are forced to live life as others tell them to? they have no free will or personal direction?
I would suggest you are off track here.

Of course. It is how we live right now. Laws, Societal order. Of course they have free will within the parameters of law and order. But even there they have the free will to disobey that law, but not without consequences. And of course they have personal direction. But it is subjectively determined.
How am I off track? Are you sure you understand what I am saying?

dancingqueen
11-15-2012, 10:07 AM
How am I off track? Are you sure you understand what I am saying?

Perhaps I am not, can you go into detail?

The Left Sock
11-15-2012, 10:36 AM
"But many would ask, Why should I try too be a good person? ANd what does good mean, after all? Good to you may be restrictive to me. I want to be bad. It's more fun!

That is why question, "Is there an objective good"?"

In order to understand basic good, you need a firm grasp on basic logic. It is illogical to take a position that is totally selfish, because we must live collectively, in order to live at all. As such, taking the position that something is 'good for me, but bad for others', is illogical, because it is unsustainable. It will only lead to resentment, retribution, and hostility. So the idea that 'being bad is more fun' is infantile, and leads to destruction.

In order to achieve basic goodness, we must realize and respect the basic needs of other human beings, in order to have any expectation that others will not impede our ability to meet our own basic needs. And to achieve that, you don't need any God; just basic human decency, and a state of reciprocity.

Barry Morris
11-15-2012, 11:05 AM
This sounds much like, "Please explain the Golden Rule, in 500 words or more!!"

The Left Sock
11-15-2012, 11:47 AM
Yeah, but without the part about 'God's chosen people', or the anticipated bit about being whisked out of your clothes and onto the magic bus to Utopia so everyone else can burn eternally, or the relentless bashing of gay people, or condemning those who worship a different rendition of your God, or... well, I could go on and on,... but you get the idea.

Barry Morris
11-15-2012, 05:35 PM
Yeah, ....

Good, so we agree that the Golden Rule makes sense. (The rest of your post was just your perceptions yapping)

dancingqueen
11-15-2012, 05:46 PM
Good, so we agree that the Golden Rule makes sense. (The rest of your post was just your perceptions yapping)

Sorry Soundbear, those aren't perceptions, those are the realities.
just because you don't feel comfortable with that does not make the comment any less valid.
Facts trump opinions

Barry Morris
11-15-2012, 05:50 PM
No, DQ, if facts trumped opinions, you'd be more open the finding out just how much Christians DO in this world, rather than condemning their sins and mistakes.

dancingqueen
11-15-2012, 05:56 PM
I am quite open to what Christians do in this world, and quite aware, I am also aware of the bad things Christians do in this world as well. The good acts do not absolve the bad acts.

Barry Morris
11-15-2012, 06:08 PM
I am quite open to what Christians do in this world, and quite aware, I am also aware of the bad things Christians do in this world as well. The good acts do not absolve the bad acts.

I never said they did. But it's obvious what your emphasis always is.

You'd be upset if I turned the tables on you. Very upset.

dancingqueen
11-15-2012, 06:14 PM
I never said they did. But it's obvious what your emphasis always is.

You'd be upset if I turned the tables on you. Very upset.

You imply that they ought to.
I don't think you can turn the tables on me, and if you could, I doubt I'd be that upset.

The Left Sock
11-15-2012, 06:24 PM
"Good, so we agree that the Golden Rule makes sense."

The logic of basic human decency makes a lot of sense, but Christians don't own the monopoly on the concept. Primitive tribes living in grass skirts and harvesting coconuts have mastered the concept, without ever hearing your version of the 'golden rule', and all the strings attached to it - you don't need a Bible, salvation or an omnipotent 'world-creator' to understand the basic elements of living like civil human beings.

NewCasa
11-15-2012, 06:52 PM
I know that for some of the skeptics, arguing with us believers is an entertaining distraction. That is why I say I have little time for this. I don't want to play that game.

For me, the big questions are serious ones.

1. Origin: Where did we come from?
2. Identity: Who are we?
3. Meaning: Why are we here?
4. Morality: How should we live?
5. Destiny: Where are we going?

The answers to each of these questions depend on the existence of God. If God exists, then there’s ultimate meaning and purpose to your life. If there’s a real purpose to your life, then there’s a real right and wrong way to live it. And if a transcendent purpose exists, then there is meaning and direction as well. That's where I am at.

If God doesn't exist, then of course we are free to define our own purpose. There is no center from which to live except how the community defines a center, unless the anarchists win the day. In that case, chaos will rule, as we see in rogue countries or rogue moments in history. But that inevitably leads to self destruction.

Feeling the need to question some assumptions here:

If God exists, then there's ultimate meaning and purpose to your life.
- Pure assumption.

If there's a real purpose to your life, then there's a real right and wrong way to live it.
- What if the purpose has nothing to do with you? What if morality is irrelevant to the purpose? I'd say you've got another assumption here - at least one, possibly two.

And if a transcendent purpose exists, then there is meaning and direction as well.
- You know what I'm going to say right? Yup - another assumption.

It is possible to believe in a 'God' or 'Gods' without making any assumptions. Patterns are all around us in this world. To then assume that God(s) is an intelligent being(s) that has taken some trouble to create the universe and all that's in it. There's a lot of patterns, laws, etc. in the universe so one could also deduce that something went to a good deal of trouble to "build" it. That would imply purpose (though there is a bit of an assumption there - a cure for boredom could be a purpose).

When you make the assumptions you have, you have, in effect, created God in your image. If you force yourself to make no assumptions or at least acknowledge the ones you have made I think it may be possible to deduce more about the actual nature - simply by observing what is around us.

NewCasa
11-15-2012, 06:55 PM
Who caused the event??

According to creationists: God.

According to atheists: Random chance / quantum mechanics. (So, not 'who' but 'what')

Hans
11-15-2012, 08:59 PM
I know that for some of the skeptics, arguing with us believers is an entertaining distraction. That is why I say I have little time for this. I don't want to play that game.

For me, the big questions are serious ones.

1. Origin: Where did we come from?
2. Identity: Who are we?
3. Meaning: Why are we here?
4. Morality: How should we live?
5. Destiny: Where are we going?

The answers to each of these questions depend on the existence of God. If God exists, then there’s ultimate meaning and purpose to your life. If there’s a real purpose to your life, then there’s a real right and wrong way to live it. And if a transcendent purpose exists, then there is meaning and direction as well. That's where I am at.

If God doesn't exist, then of course we are free to define our own purpose. There is no center from which to live except how the community defines a center, unless the anarchists win the day. In that case, chaos will rule, as we see in rogue countries or rogue moments in history. But that inevitably leads to self destruction.

I disagree with your last statement.
Most major religions in past times were directly responsible for major suffering and massive deaths of large groups on this planets, and these religions have survived until this day and have actually become stronger because of it.
I do not believe it leads to self destruction.

Hans
11-15-2012, 09:02 PM
Who caused the event??

Nobody. Events happen randomly and they lead to more and more chaos. That's the whole point of events.
I believe there's a saying for it : one event leads to another.

Bluesky
11-15-2012, 09:47 PM
Would also like to add to this conversation, from a scientific standpoint can you define nothing?

Nothing is what rocks dream about. -Aristotle

Barry Morris
11-15-2012, 09:48 PM
"Good, so we agree that the Golden Rule makes sense."

The logic of basic human decency makes a lot of sense, but Christians don't own the monopoly on the concept. Primitive tribes living in grass skirts and harvesting coconuts have mastered the concept, without ever hearing your version of the 'golden rule', and all the strings attached to it - you don't need a Bible, salvation or an omnipotent 'world-creator' to understand the basic elements of living like civil human beings.

You're the one who keeps attaching the strings of your version of Christianity to the simple explanation of the Golden Rule.

It's hilarious how some deny it simply because it's in the bible.

Barry Morris
11-15-2012, 09:51 PM
Nobody. Events happen randomly and they lead to more and more chaos. That's the whole point of events.
I believe there's a saying for it : one event leads to another.

Then you believe that something came from nothing.

Upper Decker
11-15-2012, 10:03 PM
Then you believe that something came from nothing.

Its not belief, the laws of physics allows it to happen. I said it much much earlier your lack of understanding how the universe truly works leads to your ignorance. Lots of quantum mechanics spits in the face of intuition and what we know. Its difficult to grasp at first but answers a lot of questions once you do.

Barry Morris
11-15-2012, 10:12 PM
It doesn't answer questions for me. It answers questions in the way YOU want them answered. Sorta like a "designer religion", except it's "designer science".

Tell me, where did all this quantum mechanics stuff start?? Who put it in place??

Amazing how all these complex things supposedly not only popped into being, but they "created" themselves!!!

Talk about FAITH!!!

Hans
11-15-2012, 10:28 PM
The problem is you keep insisting someone put it in place and refuse to look at the possibility something could have put it in place.

Hans
11-15-2012, 10:30 PM
Then you believe that something came from nothing.

I don't understand what that has to do with events and chaos.
Did you want me to use a glass of regular water to explain events and how they lead to more and more chaos?
It's an experiment you can do and observe for yourself in the comfort of your home with something as well known as a glass of water.

The Left Sock
11-15-2012, 10:50 PM
You're the one who keeps attaching the strings of your version of Christianity to the simple explanation of the Golden Rule.

It's hilarious how some deny it simply because it's in the bible.

"My version of Christianity"? That's a hoot, considering I am not a Christian; and without a Bible, a belief in salvation, and a belief that God created the world, neither are you.

That's what religious dogma is; baggage that prevents you from having common ground with your fellow man. You would prefer to feign superiority over those who don't adopt your beliefs. Not an equitable trade, in my estimation.

Bluesky
11-15-2012, 10:58 PM
Feeling the need to question some assumptions here:

If God exists, then there's ultimate meaning and purpose to your life.
- Pure assumption.

If there's a real purpose to your life, then there's a real right and wrong way to live it.
- What if the purpose has nothing to do with you? What if morality is irrelevant to the purpose? I'd say you've got another assumption here - at least one, possibly two.

And if a transcendent purpose exists, then there is meaning and direction as well.
- You know what I'm going to say right? Yup - another assumption.

It is possible to believe in a 'God' or 'Gods' without making any assumptions. Patterns are all around us in this world. To then assume that God(s) is an intelligent being(s) that has taken some trouble to create the universe and all that's in it. There's a lot of patterns, laws, etc. in the universe so one could also deduce that something went to a good deal of trouble to "build" it. That would imply purpose (though there is a bit of an assumption there - a cure for boredom could be a purpose).

When you make the assumptions you have, you have, in effect, created God in your image. If you force yourself to make no assumptions or at least acknowledge the ones you have made I think it may be possible to deduce more about the actual nature - simply by observing what is around us.

I am not ignoring your post. I need some time, but I'll be back <READ THAT in your best Ahnold Schwartzenegger voice.

Bluesky
11-15-2012, 11:03 PM
Upperdecker says

Its not belief, the laws of physics allows it to happen. I said it much much earlier your lack of understanding how the universe truly works leads to your ignorance. Lots of quantum mechanics spits in the face of intuition and what we know.

C'mon now. You can't seriously argue that quantum physics has proven that something can come into existence from nothing. Even Hawking admits this is more metaphysical than scientific. Have the honesty to admit some uncertainty here. If this were more than a n imaginative theory (much like the multi-verse idea) this argument would be over.

Barry Morris
11-15-2012, 11:51 PM
"My version of Christianity"? That's a hoot, considering I am not a Christian; and without a Bible, a belief in salvation, and a belief that God created the world, neither are you.

That's what religious dogma is; baggage that prevents you from having common ground with your fellow man. You would prefer to feign superiority over those who don't adopt your beliefs. Not an equitable trade, in my estimation.

Superiority over someone who doesn't understand what I believe. That makes no sense.

It's sorrow actually, and pity.

Barry Morris
11-15-2012, 11:53 PM
I don't understand what that has to do with events and chaos.
Did you want me to use a glass of regular water to explain events and how they lead to more and more chaos?
It's an experiment you can do and observe for yourself in the comfort of your home with something as well known as a glass of water.

Any experiment INSIDE this universe isn't going to prove anything about what happens OUTSIDE this universe.

The Left Sock
11-15-2012, 11:59 PM
"Superiority over someone who doesn't understand what I believe. That makes no sense."

Tell that to the priests who hid behind Latin for centuries, so they could maintain superiority over the masses who couldn't understand the language.

Telling people that they have knowledge you need is the key to every charismatic con artist who ever haunted religious circles. Why show up to church, and give people money, if you can get all the answers at home?

Adopting a position of superiority over the masses is how most organized religions survive. And yet, you claim this makes no sense to you. Interesting.

Hans
11-16-2012, 07:12 AM
Any experiment INSIDE this universe isn't going to prove anything about what happens OUTSIDE this universe.

Who says there is an outside? And if there was one, who says it has any effect on what happens on the inside?

Hans
11-16-2012, 07:17 AM
Upperdecker says


C'mon now. You can't seriously argue that quantum physics has proven that something can come into existence from nothing. Even Hawking admits this is more metaphysical than scientific. Have the honesty to admit some uncertainty here. If this were more than a n imaginative theory (much like the multi-verse idea) this argument would be over.

Can you define or describe what it means when you say "nothing"? What is nothing?

Bluesky
11-16-2012, 08:38 AM
"Superiority over someone who doesn't understand what I believe. That makes no sense."

Tell that to the priests who hid behind Latin for centuries, so they could maintain superiority over the masses who couldn't understand the language.

Telling people that they have knowledge you need is the key to every charismatic con artist who ever haunted religious circles. Why show up to church, and give people money, if you can get all the answers at home?

Adopting a position of superiority over the masses is how most organized religions survive. And yet, you claim this makes no sense to you. Interesting.

You have a tendency of over-interpreting and inflating the meaning of everything so that you can tilt the argument in your favour.

Bluesky
11-16-2012, 08:44 AM
Can you define or describe what it means when you say "nothing"? What is nothing?

umm... I don't claim there was nothing before the Universe began. It's naturalist and atheists who believe there was absolutely nothing. Ask them.

I believe there was God.

Barry Morris
11-16-2012, 09:21 AM
Who says there is an outside? And if there was one, who says it has any effect on what happens on the inside?

Simply because I beleive that, logically, nothing can be created (or even started) from within itself. Therfore there is an outside.

The Left Sock
11-16-2012, 11:34 AM
"You have a tendency of over-interpreting and inflating the meaning of everything so that you can tilt the argument in your favour."

Really? Then allow me to 'dummy it down' for you, with a simple question.

Soundbear said: "Superiority over someone who doesn't understand what I believe. That makes no sense."

So, here's the question: When a doctor shows you a bunch of squiggly lines on a piece of paper, and says, "I believe you may have a heart condition, we need to do further testing" - are they in A. a position of superiority over you, or B. a position of inferiority to you?

Religious leaders pull the same kind of stunt - they tell you that based on their beliefs, they are concerned for your 'spiritual well-being'. The difference between the doctor and the pastor? The doctor is assuming superiority based on medical, scientific research, the pastor is assuming superiority over 2000 year-old borrowed mythology.

The most stunning thing of all, is when a religious person rejects medical findings, and relies on 'faith' to deal with a serious medical condition. This happens quite frequently in the field of psychiatry, where some poor ******* will suffer endlessly because he considers religious advice superior to medical advice, and won't get treated for a condition.

We have all heard of cases where people won't let their kids get blood transfusions, because their 'faith' won't allow it. This is a clear case of someone who doesn't understand, deferring superiority to religion, over medical science. So, I'm not over-interpreting anything, and not inflating it one little bit. If this basic truth seems larger than life to you, perhaps you should take an internal look at why you have that reaction. As for Soundbear, he is either living in a thick layer of bubble-wrap, or deliberating playing games with what should be an obvious truth.

Barry Morris
11-16-2012, 12:40 PM
"You have a tendency of over-interpreting and inflating the meaning of everything so that you can tilt the argument in your favour."

Really? Then allow me to 'dummy it down' for you, with a simple question.

Soundbear said: "Superiority over someone who doesn't understand what I believe. That makes no sense."

So, here's the question: When a doctor shows you a bunch of squiggly lines on a piece of paper, and says, "I believe you may have a heart condition, we need to do further testing" - are they in A. a position of superiority over you, or B. a position of inferiority to you?

Religious leaders pull the same kind of stunt - they tell you that based on their beliefs, they are concerned for your 'spiritual well-being'. The difference between the doctor and the pastor? The doctor is assuming superiority based on medical, scientific research, the pastor is assuming superiority over 2000 year-old borrowed mythology.

The most stunning thing of all, is when a religious person rejects medical findings, and relies on 'faith' to deal with a serious medical condition. This happens quite frequently in the field of psychiatry, where some poor ******* will suffer endlessly because he considers religious advice superior to medical advice, and won't get treated for a condition.

We have all heard of cases where people won't let their kids get blood transfusions, because their 'faith' won't allow it. This is a clear case of someone who doesn't understand, deferring superiority to religion, over medical science. So, I'm not over-interpreting anything, and not inflating it one little bit. If this basic truth seems larger than life to you, perhaps you should take an internal look at why you have that reaction. As for Soundbear, he is either living in a thick layer of bubble-wrap, or deliberating playing games with what should be an obvious truth.

You still make no sense, made obvious by what you say about various so called beliefs. Lumping all so called Christians together just shows how little you know.

True Christians are servants, not superior.

The Left Sock
11-16-2012, 02:20 PM
"True Christians are servants, not superior."

Servants to your God, not to unbelievers. They will burn, remember? Keep playing word games.

Are you really that oblivious, or are you just trying to 'represent' for those you think might be following along, who are vulnerable enough to fall for this relentless campaign of denial?

Barry Morris
11-16-2012, 04:16 PM
"True Christians are servants, not superior."

Servants to your God, not to unbelievers. They will burn, remember? Keep playing word games.

Are you really that oblivious, or are you just trying to 'represent' for those you think might be following along, who are vulnerable enough to fall for this relentless campaign of denial?

What an insulated, secular world you must live in.

Just one small example, and a question. Who do you think the Salvation Army is?? And do they limit who they serve??

The Left Sock
11-16-2012, 05:03 PM
Well, I'm not secular at all... I'm a Buddhist. So once again, you're out of focus.

Salvation Army is Christian, so they serve the Christian God. The services they provide to others is their interpretation of how to do God's work, or manifest God's will, or however you want to define it, but it is primarily driven by religious beliefs. As far as Christian groups go, they are one of the more admirable organizations around but in essence, they literally consider themselves God's soldiers, so what they do is duty-driven, based on theology.

Hard to call something altruistic, when the promise of an eternity in paradise hangs in the balance.

Barry Morris
11-16-2012, 07:19 PM
Well, I'm not secular at all... I'm a Buddhist. So once again, you're out of focus.

Salvation Army is Christian, so they serve the Christian God. The services they provide to others is their interpretation of how to do God's work, or manifest God's will, or however you want to define it, but it is primarily driven by religious beliefs. As far as Christian groups go, they are one of the more admirable organizations around but in essence, they literally consider themselves God's soldiers, so what they do is duty-driven, based on theology.

Hard to call something altruistic, when the promise of an eternity in paradise hangs in the balance.

So you figure they do good stuff to earn heaven??

Wrongo.

The Left Sock
11-17-2012, 12:04 AM
You know, the constant game-play really starts to get stale after a while.

I know, I know... you're a born-again evangelical Christian, and you don't believe you can get to Heaven on good works alone.

Yawn.

Barry Morris
11-17-2012, 12:51 AM
You know, the constant game-play really starts to get stale after a while.

I know, I know... you're a born-again evangelical Christian, and you don't believe you can get to Heaven on good works alone.

Yawn.

You reveal every time you post your lack of understanding of what Christians beleieve and what I believe. Especially when you use those buzz words.

You've got nothing. Your intellect gives you nothing. Your religion gives you nothing, not hope, not life, not purpose, nothing.

You call it a game?? I never have. I never will. A soul can live forever. It can also die forever.

"Choose you this day who you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord".

The Left Sock
11-17-2012, 12:57 AM
"As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord"

Oops, there goes the 'free will' thing.

Barry Morris
11-17-2012, 12:57 AM
*Yawn*

A veritable fountain of eloquence!!! :) :) :)

Barry Morris
11-17-2012, 12:58 AM
"As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord"

Oops, there goes the 'free will' thing.

Wrongo, yet again. My choice to do so!! Missed it again!!

Barry Morris
11-17-2012, 01:01 AM
Goin' to bed boys.

Yet another part of the "dying" Christian church has bought a bigger, new building, having outgrown the old, and I am going tomorrow to consult on sound!

See ya!! :) :) :)

The Left Sock
11-17-2012, 01:02 AM
Ominous decrees of allegiance for all those under your roof. Yeah, that's 'free will' at work, all right.

Do you engage the democratic process to arrive at such decisions, or is it because you're the 'man' of the house, you automatically get to be in charge?

The Left Sock
11-17-2012, 01:04 AM
Are we seeing the resurrection of RW? Starting to look like it!

He wins! Look at him go!

Hans
11-17-2012, 02:16 PM
umm... I don't claim there was nothing before the Universe began. It's naturalist and atheists who believe there was absolutely nothing. Ask them.

I believe there was God.

Some believe there was an event that created the universe.
You believe there was God.

Why would one be more plausible than the other?

Hans
11-17-2012, 02:17 PM
Simply because I beleive that, logically, nothing can be created (or even started) from within itself. Therfore there is an outside.

If that is your belief, can you logically explain why you belief God created something?

Bluesky
11-17-2012, 04:19 PM
Some believe there was an event that created the universe.
You believe there was God.

Why would one be more plausible than the other?

Well, if you want to call a creation by God an event, then I believe an event created the universe. And that event was caused by God. I suppose the idea that because the Universe is full of evidence of intelligent design, one can reasonable infer that the universe was created by an intelligent designer, and that is more plausible than an event that occurred randomly and accidentally, from nothing - nothing at all. Or from a swirling mass of mathematical points, as Atkins would say. But that is not nothing.

Hans
11-17-2012, 11:49 PM
I don't see how it could be more plausible than a random event, since the intelligent designer theory would require a starting point event.

Barry Morris
11-18-2012, 09:12 AM
I don't see how it could be more plausible than a random event, since the intelligent designer theory would require a starting point event.

I just can't seem to think of a single eventwherein something different occurred without the intent of someone.

NewCasa
11-18-2012, 12:01 PM
I just can't seem to think of a single eventwherein something different occurred without the intent of someone.

How about rain?

Act of God right? ;)

Barry Morris
11-18-2012, 02:00 PM
How about rain?

Act of God right? ;)

Waiting for that response actually. You note I said "different"??? Rain is merely part of a larger structure.

The creation of the universe would qualify as different.

dancingqueen
11-19-2012, 09:19 PM
Soundbear, I'm also wondering if you can logically explain how someone came back to life after death?

Barry Morris
11-19-2012, 10:27 PM
Soundbear, I'm also wondering if you can logically explain how someone came back to life after death?

No. It wouldn't be God's miracle if I could.

But there's lots of proof it happened!!

dancingqueen
11-20-2012, 09:29 AM
So, when do you decide if Logic must apply to your beliefs and when it does not?

Barry Morris
11-20-2012, 09:49 AM
So, when do you decide if Logic must apply to your beliefs and when it does not?

Good question. I suppose when the belief or pivotal event falls outside of scientific knowledge. Like creation or the resurrection.

dancingqueen
11-20-2012, 10:32 AM
but you use logic to describe creationism, but not the resurrection.

Bluesky
11-20-2012, 10:42 AM
but you use logic to describe creationism, but not the resurrection.

When you can use logic to explain how absolutely NOTHING can produce inanimate matter which in turn can produce life.. randomly... spontaneously then perhaps...

Hans
11-21-2012, 03:45 AM
When you can use logic to explain how absolutely NOTHING can produce inanimate matter which in turn can produce life.. randomly... spontaneously then perhaps...

For that you would need a proper definition of the following :

- Nothing
- Life

Bluesky
11-21-2012, 07:54 AM
umm, NOTHING comes to mind.

Barry Morris
11-21-2012, 09:13 AM
For that you would need a proper definition of the following :

- Nothing
- Life

You're up Hans, go ahead.

The Left Sock
11-21-2012, 09:17 AM
DNA is the thing that boggles my mind. If DNA is the genetic blueprint for a complex organism, where did the original blueprint come from? If you make the assumption that a simple DNA evolves into a more complex form through evolution, it still does not answer the question: where did the original DNA come from?

Molecules colliding together to form more complex molecules is basic chemistry, and it is easy to see how seemingly 'nothing' can emerge into a more complex 'something', but DNA is a complex string of genetic code, that is evident in virtually all living things. So, where did the concept of DNA come from? Where does the 'chaos theory', and the Big Bang come into play, when trying to fathom the origins of DNA?

If life is an accidental series of events, how come there is a blueprint within, to create more? How do you end up with the extreme complexity that is DNA, through a random event?

Is there a scientific theory as to the origins of DNA? If so, I've never heard of it. How could something that happened accidentally plan ahead for a future generation of that accident, without prior knowledge that the accident would be significant enough to warrant replication through the use of DNA?

I double-dog dare anyone to take a shot at explaining that paradox!

Barry Morris
11-21-2012, 09:40 AM
Thanks Sock, well done!!

Nihilistic Heathen
11-21-2012, 01:15 PM
DNA is the thing that boggles my mind. If DNA is the genetic blueprint for a complex organism, where did the original blueprint come from? If you make the assumption that a simple DNA evolves into a more complex form through evolution, it still does not answer the question: where did the original DNA come from?

Molecules colliding together to form more complex molecules is basic chemistry, and it is easy to see how seemingly 'nothing' can emerge into a more complex 'something', but DNA is a complex string of genetic code, that is evident in virtually all living things. So, where did the concept of DNA come from? Where does the 'chaos theory', and the Big Bang come into play, when trying to fathom the origins of DNA?

If life is an accidental series of events, how come there is a blueprint within, to create more? How do you end up with the extreme complexity that is DNA, through a random event?

Is there a scientific theory as to the origins of DNA? If so, I've never heard of it. How could something that happened accidentally plan ahead for a future generation of that accident, without prior knowledge that the accident would be significant enough to warrant replication through the use of DNA?

I double-dog dare anyone to take a shot at explaining that paradox!

The only paradox is the one you are creating, this looks like something Soundbear would write.

"So, where did the concept of DNA come from?" A concept is an idea , so are you inferring an intelligent being came up with the concept of DNA prior to it's creation?

"How could something that happened accidentally plan ahead for a future generation of that accident, without prior knowledge that the accident would be significant enough to warrant replication through the use of DNA?" Again you appear to be inferring that there is an intelligent mind behind it.

The only way you could arrive at this so called paradox is by anthromorphising the universe.

As for the scientific theory of the origins of DNA, it's still somewhat of a mystery. Although some scientists hypothesis that RNA came first and DNA later.

Hans
11-21-2012, 02:04 PM
DNA is the thing that boggles my mind. If DNA is the genetic blueprint for a complex organism, where did the original blueprint come from? If you make the assumption that a simple DNA evolves into a more complex form through evolution, it still does not answer the question: where did the original DNA come from?

Molecules colliding together to form more complex molecules is basic chemistry, and it is easy to see how seemingly 'nothing' can emerge into a more complex 'something', but DNA is a complex string of genetic code, that is evident in virtually all living things. So, where did the concept of DNA come from? Where does the 'chaos theory', and the Big Bang come into play, when trying to fathom the origins of DNA?

If life is an accidental series of events, how come there is a blueprint within, to create more? How do you end up with the extreme complexity that is DNA, through a random event?

Is there a scientific theory as to the origins of DNA? If so, I've never heard of it. How could something that happened accidentally plan ahead for a future generation of that accident, without prior knowledge that the accident would be significant enough to warrant replication through the use of DNA?

I double-dog dare anyone to take a shot at explaining that paradox!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

Hans
11-21-2012, 02:07 PM
You're up Hans, go ahead.

No, you are up. I am not the one who keeps saying "something can not come from nothing". You are the one who keeps saying that.
Therefore, you must know what nothing is. You can never make a statement that something can not come from nothing if you don't know how to define nothing.

Hans
11-21-2012, 02:11 PM
umm, NOTHING comes to mind.

Exactly my point. As soon as you define nothing, it is something.
Therefore, nothing is actually something.
It will also answer your question how something can come from nothing. The correct question would be "how can something come from something"?

Little interesting tidbit of information :

How much do you weigh in outer space? The answer is 0, which we would refer to as nothing.
How much do you weigh on earth? The answer is not 0, which would we refer to as something.
But does this mean we created something from nothing? No, we did not...

Barry Morris
11-21-2012, 02:21 PM
Exactly my point. As soon as you define nothing, it is something.
Therefore, nothing is actually something.
It will also answer your question how something can come from nothing. The correct question would be "how can something come from something"?

Little interesting tidbit of information :

How much do you weigh in outer space? The answer is 0, which we would refer to as nothing.
How much do you weigh on earth? The answer is not 0, which would we refer to as something.
But does this mean we created something from nothing? No, we did not...

My question in return would be, "How do you define a hole??"

And by the "weigh", as long as gravity is affecting you, you weigh something. And there's no place in the universe that isn't true. Local conditions may cause you to THINK your weight is 0, buts it's never nothing.

Hans
11-21-2012, 02:24 PM
And you know there's no place in the universe where that is not true how? A guess?

Barry Morris
11-21-2012, 02:31 PM
And you know there's no place in the universe where that is not true how? A guess?

Because gravity doesn't have a limit. You can't say thet the earth's gravity stops at a certain point, because it doesn't.

One mass will attract another. Distance reduces the effect, but there is no point at which it stops.

dancingqueen
11-21-2012, 02:44 PM
When you can use logic to explain how absolutely NOTHING can produce inanimate matter which in turn can produce life.. randomly... spontaneously then perhaps...

I'm not the one claiming I can, but thanks for trying to change the words that are comming out of my mouth in an effort to save Soundbear's ludicrous assertions, It's kinda cute really.

Barry Morris
11-21-2012, 02:45 PM
I'm not the one claiming I can, but thanks for trying to change the words that are comming out of my mouth in an effort to save Soundbear's ludicrous assertions, It's kinda cute really.

Too bad you have nothing to counter with.

The Left Sock
11-21-2012, 02:48 PM
"As for the scientific theory of the origins of DNA, it's still somewhat of a mystery. Although some scientists hypothesis that RNA came first and DNA later."

To summarize, scientists have no bloody idea where DNA came from.

"The only way you could arrive at this so called paradox is by anthromorphising the universe"

At what point did I give human attributes to DNA? I did no such thing.

Is logic the sole domain of humans? I contend it is not. Math exists 'a priori', which is to say, math existed, before humans discovered it. Since logic is an integral part of mathematics, I would say that logic is 'a priori' as well.

So, logic existed before man did. Math existed before man did. DNA existed before man did. Organisms had extremely complex DNA structures before man existed. In fact, a lot of intelligence existed before man came around. With all of our knowledge, science, and technology, we still don't have a clue where DNA comes from... or math, or logic, for that matter.

Given all of this, can you really say, with any certainty at all, that life on earth was created by a bunch of molecules accidentally crashing into each other, until we got the vast complexity you see around us, or are you willing to concede that there is an intelligence evident here, that is not of human origin, that might be a much more plausible explanation for what you see before you?

You have no idea where you came from, how you were created, how even the simplest microscopic life on earth came into being, yet you are willing to claim with confidence that all of it is due to 'advantageous accidents'? And even more, you are willing to scoff and ridicule those of us who ask, 'Wait a minute, this looks too complicated to be purely accidental"?

Picture a man from the 1800's driving a horse and carriage filled with tools and supplies over the side of a cliff, and 200 years later, a Dodge Viper lands on the beach. How ridiculous would it be for someone to claim, 'look, it's evolution at work'! But you expect people to buy into the same kind of argument for how we started off as single cell organisms, and ended up posting in a thread on the internet, sometime later? Evolution, you say? I say it's nothing more than a feeble guess, at best.

I am not anthropomorphizing reality by suggesting there is an intelligence at work in the universe that we do not understand, because it is self-evident that we do not understand the origins of our own DNA. Rather, you are anthropomorphizing reality by trying to claim that it is nothing more than a collection of advantageous accidents.

I am stating a known fact, while you are flailing away at gross conjecture.

dancingqueen
11-21-2012, 02:51 PM
Too bad you have nothing to counter with.

Do you think I'm playing a game.... who can counter the best?
You think it's okay to make wild assertions so long as you have some kind of witty "counter"?
Me: How can you use logic on one aspect of God, yet disregard it on another aspect?
Soundbear: ah, but if no one is in a forest and a tree falls does it make any sound?
Me: I never said anything about that
Soundbear: Oh, you have no counter?

This is what JUST happened. As intellectually stimulating as conversing with you is, I think I need to move the next level up.... perhaps a rotten cabbage leaf or a rock.....

The Left Sock
11-21-2012, 02:52 PM
Taken from the link posted by Hans, in response to my earlier post:

"The synthesis of DNA building blocks from RNA precursors is a major argument in favor of RNA preceding DNA in evolution. The direct prebiotic origin of is theoretically plausible (from acetaldehyde and glyceraldehyde-5-phosphate) but highly unlikely, considering that evolution, as stated by F. Jacob, works like a tinkerer, not an engineer..."

Even the experts admit, they have no idea. So, I fail to see how posting an enormous dose of scientific circular reasoning does anything to validate the origins of DNA. Did you even take the time to read the article?

Nihilistic Heathen
11-21-2012, 07:18 PM
"As for the scientific theory of the origins of DNA, it's still somewhat of a mystery. Although some scientists hypothesis that RNA came first and DNA later."

To summarize, scientists have no bloody idea where DNA came from.

You could summarize that way if you like.



"The only way you could arrive at this so called paradox is by anthromorphising the universe"

At what point did I give human attributes to DNA? I did no such thing.

I didn't say you did.



Is logic the sole domain of humans? I contend it is not. Math exists 'a priori', which is to say, math existed, before humans discovered it. Since logic is an integral part of mathematics, I would say that logic is 'a priori' as well.

So, logic existed before man did. Math existed before man did. DNA existed before man did. Organisms had extremely complex DNA structures before man existed. In fact, a lot of intelligence existed before man came around. With all of our knowledge, science, and technology, we still don't have a clue where DNA comes from... or math, or logic, for that matter.

Given all of this, can you really say, with any certainty at all, that life on earth was created by a bunch of molecules accidentally crashing into each other, until we got the vast complexity you see around us, or are you willing to concede that there is an intelligence evident here, that is not of human origin, that might be a much more plausible explanation for what you see before you?

You have no idea where you came from, how you were created, how even the simplest microscopic life on earth came into being, yet you are willing to claim with confidence that all of it is due to 'advantageous accidents'? And even more, you are willing to scoff and ridicule those of us who ask, 'Wait a minute, this looks too complicated to be purely accidental"?

Math and logic being an a priori is a philosophical discussion I'm not about to get into. I'm not sure how you get from that to DNA, nice stretch though.

It requires a lot of intelligence to understand what we do about the universe, our planet and how life evolved on Earth. If you choose to figure it's all hogwash and advocate for intelligent design that's your prerogative.



Picture a man from the 1800's driving a horse and carriage filled with tools and supplies over the side of a cliff, and 200 years later, a Dodge Viper lands on the beach. How ridiculous would it be for someone to claim, 'look, it's evolution at work'! But you expect people to buy into the same kind of argument for how we started off as single cell organisms, and ended up posting in a thread on the internet, sometime later? Evolution, you say? I say it's nothing more than a feeble guess, at best.


I don't see any logic in your argument. You want to talk about feeble. ^^^^ LOL


I am not anthropomorphizing reality by suggesting there is an intelligence at work in the universe that we do not understand, because it is self-evident that we do not understand the origins of our own DNA. Rather, you are anthropomorphizing reality by trying to claim that it is nothing more than a collection of advantageous accidents.


I had to look up the definition of anthropomorphizing after reading that to see if meant something other than what I thought, it doesn't. LOL

Oh and I never said anthropomorphizing reality, why you keep putting words in mouth?


I am stating a known fact, while you are flailing away at gross conjecture.

Really, why then is this discussion ongoing, and not just here on soonet. Seems you must be privy to facts that a lot of people in the world aren't.

Hans
11-21-2012, 08:30 PM
Because gravity doesn't have a limit. You can't say thet the earth's gravity stops at a certain point, because it doesn't.

One mass will attract another. Distance reduces the effect, but there is no point at which it stops.

That's interesting, because gravity is an effect of something we can't explain.
We can see the influence, but we don't know what is causing it.
Except you, because you just explained gravity to us and how it never stops.

Barry Morris
11-21-2012, 08:38 PM
That's interesting, because gravity is an effect of something we can't explain.
We can see the influence, but we don't know what is causing it.
Except you, because you just explained gravity to us and how it never stops.

I missed where we were talking about the cause of gravity. Perhaps you could show me.

The Voice
11-21-2012, 09:11 PM
This much I know for sure.

I don't have the answer to any of these questions.

I am also quite certain that you don't either.

I will state for the record one more time you have NO-PROOF that your god exists.

The Left Sock
11-21-2012, 11:01 PM
"Oh and I never said anthropomorphizing reality, why you keep putting words in mouth?"

The nature of who we are, how we came into being, which is what we are discussing, is the philosophy of metaphysics, otherwise known as classical reality. I just used the term 'reality', because a lot of people aren't familiar with metaphysics.

Barry Morris
11-22-2012, 12:57 AM
This much I know for sure.

I don't have the answer to any of these questions.

I am also quite certain that you don't either.

I will state for the record one more time you have NO-PROOF that your god exists.

Look around you.

Believe it's all a crap shoot.

Or believe that Somebody planned it.

Your choice.

NewCasa
11-22-2012, 01:10 AM
Look around you.

Believe it's all a crap shoot.

Or believe that Somebody planned it.

Your choice.

And then there's that whole 'The Lord is my Shepherd stuff.' Yeah believe that too.

Hans
11-22-2012, 03:14 AM
I missed where we were talking about the cause of gravity. Perhaps you could show me.

You said gravity does not have a limit. How do you know that without being able to explain what causes gravity?

Barry Morris
11-22-2012, 09:29 AM
Han's we can see the effects of many things without knowing the cause.

Seems to me that you, DQ and NH(who I really expected better of) really have no answers to what the Christian side proposes. All you can do is have faith that believing we're wrong is the right thing to do.

You can't even respond to Left Sock with any content. Maybe it's because he's right?? :) :) :)

And it's not about winning an argument, boys, Eternal souls are in the balance.

The Left Sock
11-22-2012, 09:40 AM
Well, I haven't bought into the 'eternal souls' part of the equation, but that 'Sock might be right' thing has a nice ring to it!

Barry Morris
11-22-2012, 11:37 AM
I have a hard time believeing that this self-awareness I have is limited to this body. One more reason.

The Left Sock
11-22-2012, 11:53 AM
You're a fan of the whole 'cosmic consciousness' thing?

Barry Morris
11-22-2012, 05:41 PM
You're a fan of the whole 'cosmic consciousness' thing?

Not really. Don't know much about that, but if submission to Almighty God is not included, definitely not.

Really seems to me that so many beliefs like that are not so much for something as against Christianity. Which tells me where the real power is.

Hans
11-22-2012, 06:34 PM
So you believe the Christian view to be the correct view?
Does that mean there is only 1 correct view?

Hans
11-22-2012, 06:35 PM
I have a hard time believeing that this self-awareness I have is limited to this body. One more reason.
Who else has self-awareness besides humans?

Hans
11-22-2012, 06:40 PM
"As for the scientific theory of the origins of DNA, it's still somewhat of a mystery. Although some scientists hypothesis that RNA came first and DNA later."

To summarize, scientists have no bloody idea where DNA came from.

"The only way you could arrive at this so called paradox is by anthromorphising the universe"

At what point did I give human attributes to DNA? I did no such thing.

Is logic the sole domain of humans? I contend it is not. Math exists 'a priori', which is to say, math existed, before humans discovered it. Since logic is an integral part of mathematics, I would say that logic is 'a priori' as well.

So, logic existed before man did. Math existed before man did. DNA existed before man did. Organisms had extremely complex DNA structures before man existed. In fact, a lot of intelligence existed before man came around. With all of our knowledge, science, and technology, we still don't have a clue where DNA comes from... or math, or logic, for that matter.

Given all of this, can you really say, with any certainty at all, that life on earth was created by a bunch of molecules accidentally crashing into each other, until we got the vast complexity you see around us, or are you willing to concede that there is an intelligence evident here, that is not of human origin, that might be a much more plausible explanation for what you see before you?

You have no idea where you came from, how you were created, how even the simplest microscopic life on earth came into being, yet you are willing to claim with confidence that all of it is due to 'advantageous accidents'? And even more, you are willing to scoff and ridicule those of us who ask, 'Wait a minute, this looks too complicated to be purely accidental"?

Picture a man from the 1800's driving a horse and carriage filled with tools and supplies over the side of a cliff, and 200 years later, a Dodge Viper lands on the beach. How ridiculous would it be for someone to claim, 'look, it's evolution at work'! But you expect people to buy into the same kind of argument for how we started off as single cell organisms, and ended up posting in a thread on the internet, sometime later? Evolution, you say? I say it's nothing more than a feeble guess, at best.

I am not anthropomorphizing reality by suggesting there is an intelligence at work in the universe that we do not understand, because it is self-evident that we do not understand the origins of our own DNA. Rather, you are anthropomorphizing reality by trying to claim that it is nothing more than a collection of advantageous accidents.

I am stating a known fact, while you are flailing away at gross conjecture.

You are proposing intelligent being(s), not of human origin, who created life as we know it.
The problem with that will bring you back to the same problem you face with the origin of DNA : where did the intelligent, not of human origin, creator(s) come from?

If you believe they were always there, you might as well believe DNA was always there also.
If you don't believe they were always there, how were they created?

No matter how you twist and turn it, whatever it is that created what we know, had to appear out of "nothing" in order to exist.