NationStates Jolt Archive

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.

Life has no meaning. There are no promises, there are no signs. The only things that you truly can take as granted are the facts that you will make mistakes, and that you will suffer. Perhaps, if you are lucky and keep an open eye, you may find yourself an island of hapiness in the middle of this black ocean, but only perhaps. And on that island, remember of Atlantis. Shit happens, things fall apart.

Oh... yea, i've thought about evolution. I don't like it, but i have to live with it. Tough, but life goes on.

I know the ramifications. I really don't care, though. Being as we are conscious and sentient, we have the opportunity to break the purposeless bonds of our accidental creation. We can make our own purpose. Point being, human beings are here, and, regardless of whether that was an "accident" (which has such a negative connotation, by the way), we define the reasons for our own existence.

Suppose creationism is true. That still doesn't give life a purpose. We were created by whatever...I still don't see any purpose there.

Life never had a meaning. Evolution doesn't change that.

:rolleyes: Have you ever considered that evolution can be true AS WELL as being caused by something similar to your God? I personally don't subscribe to that Deity, but why wouldn't it be ok for you to accept 'evolution' and still place Him at the top of it all? After all, the emergent property of evolution is a pretty 'miraculous' thing if you think about it hard enough. That way, you can have all the morality you want, and yet not appear to be a crazy person.

Life has what meaning we give to it. It always gets to me that so many theists think that without an invisible man in the sky we can't have meaning for our lives or morality and ethics to stand for. Humanist values are just fine, and because they're not based on the idea that a sky wizard is holding a carrot in one hand and a stick in the other it seems to me that they're more advanced.

I know the ramifications. I really don't care, though. Being as we are conscious and sentient, we have the opportunity to break the purposeless bonds of our accidental creation. We can make our own purpose. Point being, human beings are here, and, regardless of whether that was an "accident" (which has such a negative connotation, by the way), we define the reasons for our own existence.

A fan of Nietzsche, are we?

I'm glad you passed his test.

I have a pencil sharpener and a bowl of sugar and I'm not afraid to use them!

Life has no meaning. There are no promises, there are no signs. The only things that you truly can take as granted are the facts that you will make mistakes, and that you will suffer. Perhaps, if you are lucky and keep an open eye, you may find yourself an island of hapiness in the middle of this black ocean, but only perhaps. And on that island, remember of Atlantis. Shit happens, things fall apart.

I read your post while listening to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, and it TOTALLY LINED UP!

I don´t think life needs a meaning. I mean... just live... that´s all... enjoy the best of life without hurting anyone. That´s good enough for me... also, the fact that your children will one day grow up is more then reason to make the world a better place.

A fan of Nietzsche, are we?

I'm glad you passed his test.

I'm pretty sure it takes a lot more than that...

Life has no real reason, but that's no exuse to be miserable.

Be happy, you nihilists.

A fan of Nietzsche, are we?

I'm glad you passed his test.what test is that? how to take the advice of a hopelessly opium addicted soul who lived with his sister after his mom kicked him out until he died and celebrated all of the virtues of which he had none?

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.
We understand the consequences

And understand us … we don’t need to make things up in order to feel needed or have purpose … we can do as we please

Like Joey said … life has the meaning we give it.


We just detest having to make things up to make purpose for ourselves … seems so hollow …
On one side you have supposed happiness in a creator and and after life

And those like me agnostic are like “what if that is not true …”

Sorry I am babbling … most of us are on a quest for truth … weather that is something that we find personally detesting … I am not happy staying limited to a faith to make my own existence seem more meaningful

Regardless of what you do or do not believe, The Meaning of Life is this:
Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try to live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.

I'm pretty sure it takes a lot more than that...

Mentholyptus seems to have escaped Nihilism. I'd say that's all it takes, for him.

Unless you're talking about all of humanity, which is a different story. In order for humanity to pass the test, all of us would have to escape nihilism.

How does it follow that just because life is the result of chemical reactions and random combinations that it has no meaning? Just being an accident does not make it meaningless.
Life is only meaningless if YOU choose to percieve it so.

what test is that? how to take the advice of a hopelessly opium addicted soul who lived with his sister after his mom kicked him out until he died and celebrated all of the virtues of which he had none?

Nope. You're thinking of a different test. That may be a test that Mentho has also passed, but it wasn't what I was referring to.

I'm a christian and I believe in the Big Bang! They aren't mutually exclusive. Christian Fundamentalists are wrong about evolution and they are dangerous in their attempts to try to change scienctific theory. Science is based on fact and observable results. Creation is not. Therefore, creation should not be put on science syllabuses! Quod erat demonstrantum!

I don´t think life needs a meaning. I mean... just live... that´s all... enjoy the best of life without hurting anyone. That´s good enough for me... also, the fact that your children will one day grow up is more then reason to make the world a better place.
What if there's more? Would you want to know if there was a bigger meaning to life than the one you put forward? Not a reason manufactured by human imagination, but a reason built into the fabric of reality?
Would you want to know about it?

Regardless of what you do or do not believe, The Meaning of Life is this:
Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try to live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.

Okay, several problems:

1) I see too many texts that disagree with you on this. Being nice to people is not a requirement of enjoying life. I find being very evil to people quite enjoyable and fulfilling. Plus, animals are only required to be nice to others when it is an advantage.

2) If you don't eat fat, you whither and die. Your body needs fat in certain levels for its natural processes. This definitely goes against any possible meaning of life. And among animals, fat is simply part of the diet in some cases or how they survive winter in others.

3) Not everyone can read. Nor is reading a natural thing. It is limited to humans and not even universal among them.

4) Boy, all those people without legs and paralyzed are unable to lead happy, fulfilling lives. And I bet the fish are pissed as being gypped of their ability to enjoy life.

5) The last one is contrary to human nature and survival. Humanity requires conflict to advance itself, control its population, keep it adaptive, and to weed out the bad apples. It also needs it to feel fulfilled and to say it accomplished something. Conflict is part of what drives humanity forward.

Mentholyptus seems to have escaped Nihilism. I'd say that's all it takes, for him.

Still sounds like nihilism to me. He's merely a self hating Nihilist. But then again, I'm pretty crazy, really. :headbang:

what test is that? how to take the advice of a hopelessly opium addicted soul who lived with his sister after his mom kicked him out until he died and celebrated all of the virtues of which he had none?

ooh, don't forget possibly siphilis induced brain tumor-y goodness!

Life has what meaning we give to it.


Well said. You want meaning? Volunteer at a homeless shelter or a battered womens shelter. Visit (regularly) an old folks home and adopt someone who doesn't have any family around them. Become a Big Brother or Big Sister. Teach someone to read who doesn't know how to. Spend a year in the Peace Corps. Hell, give a sandwich and a blanket to a homeless person who can't get into a shelter. We can find meaning in our lives from such a wide variety of good works where the only desired return is a sense of purpose and having helped another person. Doesn't matter if you believe in creationism, evolution or nothing at all. Don't blame something as divisive and argueable as how we all got here on living a meaningless life. God only gets you so far. After that it's up to you. It's up to all of us.

What if there's more? Would you want to know if there was a bigger meaning to life than the one you put forward? Not a reason manufactured by human imagination, but a reason built into the fabric of reality?
Would you want to know about it?No.

Okay, several problems:The most important which is that people haven't seen Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (often enough (in the near enough past)).

The most important which is that people haven't seen Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (often enough (in the near enough past)).

I try to keep Python out of serious discussions, such as this one.

What if there's more? Would you want to know if there was a bigger meaning to life than the one you put forward? Not a reason manufactured by human imagination, but a reason built into the fabric of reality?
Would you want to know about it?
Don't you think that atheists have looked at the possibility of a god's existance? For the most part we have, and have found the "evidence" lacking. If real evidence comes to light, and if the deity makes it's plan known our position is open to revision. At least mine is. For now we have Google (PBUH)

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.

So you don't suppose God could have been clever enough to create the universe, and let life evolve up from there on in?

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.

Have you considered that evolution has nothing to do with anything you are saying?

For the 50th time in two days, Evolution != Abiogenesis

Evolution has to do with the way in which species diverge. Abiogenesis, while interesting and partially based on evolutionary theory, is a completely different thing!

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that one has to believe that "life is an accident" or that there is no God simply because they accept the fact that scientific evidence points towards the idea that evolution occurred.

I try to keep Python out of serious discussions, such as this one.Wait wait wait... You're telling me a thread about how life, or anything that follows from it, can have no meaning for people who believe(/"believe") in evolution is a "serious discussion"?

I dont see evolutionism and God as mutulaly exclusive. I do see the idea of life purely as an acident and a meaning as mutulally exclusive. That is one of the reasons why I believe life was not an acident. And while many people have said things like doing good works brings meaning into life I ask then precisely where we got our moralls from according to evolution. How exactly did we develop into such complex social creatures with morals and the ability to empathise. No other creature has these capacities. And if it is just evolution, why havent other creatures done the same?

I try to keep Python out of serious discussions, such as this one.
I just think you are covering up for not knowing it :p

What meaning would a Diety give life?

That is one of the reasons why I believe life was not an acident.

Which has nothing to do with evolution.

And while many people have said things like doing good works brings meaning into life I ask then precisely where we got our moralls from according to evolution.

Look into any social animal. They all have moral codes of a type.

How exactly did we develop into such complex social creatures with morals and the ability to empathise. No other creature has these capacities.

WRONG! See great apes, dolphins, etc. Hell, even dogs have some idea of right and wrong and definitely have the ability to empathise.

And if it is just evolution, why havent other creatures done the same?

Some have. Those that haven't have developed in a niche where it is unncessary.

I dont see evolutionism and God as mutulaly exclusive. I do see the idea of life purely as an acident and a meaning as mutulally exclusive. That is one of the reasons why I believe life was not an acident. And while many people have said things like doing good works brings meaning into life I ask then precisely where we got our moralls from according to evolution. How exactly did we develop into such complex social creatures with morals and the ability to empathise. No other creature has these capacities. And if it is just evolution, why havent other creatures done the same?
Because other creatures are not up to our level of intelligence … but they do have social structures of their own

Look at wolfs … fine to attack members of another pack for food but only in certain situations within the pack (male competition for a female) just one example of simpler social interactions

I dont see evolutionism and God as mutulaly exclusive. I do see the idea of life purely as an acident and a meaning as mutulally exclusive. That is one of the reasons why I believe life was not an acident. And while many people have said things like doing good works brings meaning into life I ask then precisely where we got our moralls from according to evolution. How exactly did we develop into such complex social creatures with morals and the ability to empathise. No other creature has these capacities. And if it is just evolution, why havent other creatures done the same?
Morality and Ethics have survival value to a gregarious social species. Those that played well with others were supported and assisted by their tribe the others were probably the first to be starved to death and eaten in times of famine.

I fail to see how you could define evolution as pointless. You are missing the point, and it's right in front of you!
Evolution would be it's own purpose. Improvement is a great purpose to life (as opposed to a big guy in the sky who tells us we are all sinners and will never, ever get any better at this "Life" thing as a species).
Also, you assume too much that's still unknown-- "Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes."
What makes you think that evolution only implies this one perspective? There are several implications, one being that evolution would point to exactly the opposite conclusion... That the creation of intelligent life is indeed the "purpose" of the universe, and through a grand system of replicating replicators, occurs naturally as a consequence of universal design.
There are the facts, and there are interpretations of them. They are not the same. Evolution happens, and it's up to us how we'll choose to view it from our perspectives. This doesn't make it any more or any less probable. You might have to get a bit more creative to find meaning in your life, since we're not given all the philosophical answers to science in unreliable "Bibles".
We have to be, well, EVOLVED enough to figure it out for ourselves.
Instead of thinking about the science/religion dichotomy, you should educate yourself on the science part, and perhaps you'll find that science isn't so empty. I think the universe of modern String Theorists is FAR more Godlike than any bible has ever defined it.

What meaning would a Diety give life?
to serve them

what test is that?The International Test. Duh!

It's nice to have a sensible discussion about these issues for a change, and actually focus on people's reaction to the consequences of the evolutionary argument. After all, this is the main factor that determines whether they stand for evolution or not; I think those creationists claiming that the evidence for a creator outweighs that compiled by scientists are strongly deluded, and they would be far more honest if they raise a simple philosophical objection. My personal view on the matter is, however, quite opposed to an intepretation of evolution as leading to a souless and meaningless existence. Think of all the magnificent diversity of life on this planet; think of all the ways life triumphs over disorder and entropy; consider the sheer elegance and refinement of every tiniest detail of living systems. To think that this arose from nothing, from inert stupid matter; that sapient creatures can arise spontaneously; and that this can happen, if the conditions are correct, at any time, on any world; I believe is a truly life-affirming thought. And to assert that life must have a point, must have a meaning, is a utilitarian sentiment - why should life have to explain itself? Life is a beautful, marvellous thing, and beauty is its own justification. Whenever I'm down, I just remember that there are components of me the patterns of which are 2 billion years old. Screw being one with nature; my view is humans are so entirely natural, we are quite inseperable from it. Unlike my arguments for evolution, these are, of course, just my opinions ;)

Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes.
it it's an accident, a series of coincidences, then why not enjoy it. if this is all there is, may as well make the best of it for all involved.

I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now?
i don't know about you, but i'm living.

Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance?
chance isn't really a reason for being here. chance would be a reason for how we got to be here.
and live has whatever meaning you give it. everyone makes their own choices in life. it is up to the individual to figure out what they want their life to mean. just because you can't get it from some book somewhere that gives you all the answers doesn't make it any less real. if anything, i think it's more real.

I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.
well, it doesn't matter that they have a problem with it. the evidence suggests that evolution happened.

i'm sorry you don't like that. but hey, i'm sure some people don't like that the world is round, but that's how it is.

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.
The ramification of Einstein's relativity was atom bombs.

We can't just distinguish between "good" scientific truth and "bad" scientific truth.

to serve them
With gravy and mashed potatos?

Wait wait wait... You're telling me a thread about how life, or anything that follows from it, can have no meaning for people who believe(/"believe") in evolution is a "serious discussion"?

Yes. Someone brought up a misconception they had and others are answering it. All of it has the markers of seriousness.

just think you are covering up for not knowing it :p

<.<
>.>

<stabs UpwardThrust to death and hides the body>

>.>
<.<

With gravy and mashed potatos?
Damn it now I got to go to kfc after work!

It's nice to have a sensible discussion about these issues for a change, and actually focus on people's reaction to the consequences of the evolutionary argument. After all, this is the main factor that determines whether they stand for evolution or not; I think those creationists claiming that the evidence for a creator outweighs that compiled by scientists are strongly deluded, and they would be far more honest if they raise a simple philosophical objection. My personal view on the matter is, however, quite opposed to an intepretation of evolution as leading to a souless and meaningless existence. Think of all the magnificent diversity of life on this planet; think of all the ways life triumphs over disorder and entropy; consider the sheer elegance and refinement of every tiniest detail of living systems. To think that this arose from nothing, from inert stupid matter; that sapient creatures can arise spontaneously; and that this can happen, if the conditions are correct, at any time, on any world; I believe is a truly life-affirming thought.
i could not agree more with this statement. :)

Don't you think that atheists have looked at the possibility of a god's existance? For the most part we have, and have found the "evidence" lacking. If real evidence comes to light, and if the deity makes it's plan known our position is open to revision. At least mine is. For now we have Google (PBUH)
Don't get me started on the concept of worshipping an automated search engine (except as a running in-joke, which I have a lot of time for :D ). Even Jedi makes more sense.
I don't know what proportion of atheists have seriously examined their belief system, and neither do you. Also, plenty of supposedly religious people from all faiths are functionally atheist, because even though they profess to believe in God/gods, they don't let that select category of beliefs affect the rest of their life.
I'm a Christian, I've been one for over 4 years now, and before I converted, I thought my belief system (existentialist humanism with doubt as the only certainty) was the obvious way to go.
God changed my mind, literally, so now I follow Jesus, talk to Him about everything, meet regularly with other Christians, and accept God's direction for my life.
I didn't see this coming, didn't plan to get a faith at university, but God had plans other than mine.
It could happen to you, if you're genuinely open to discovering the truth about reality.

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.

This means you can be anything you want to be. Each day is something new and all of your actions are your own. Your life has not been laid out before you by an all powerful, all seeing God. God has provided evolution so that we can live our own life not beholden to God.

Think of evolution as free choice writ large.

Don't get me started on the concept of worshipping an automated search engine (except as a running in-joke, which I have a lot of time for :D ). Even Jedi makes more sense.
I don't know what proportion of atheists have seriously examined their belief system, and neither do you. Also, plenty of supposedly religious people from all faiths are functionally atheist, because even though they profess to believe in God/gods, they don't let that select category of beliefs affect the rest of their life.
I'm a Christian, I've been one for over 4 years now, and before I converted, I thought my belief system (existentialist humanism with doubt as the only certainty) was the obvious way to go.
God changed my mind, literally, so now I follow Jesus, talk to Him about everything, meet regularly with other Christians, and accept God's direction for my life.
I didn't see this coming, didn't plan to get a faith at university, but God had plans other than mine.
It could happen to you, if you're genuinely open to discovering the truth about reality.
Dude, I've examined many religions. Heard countless arguments for god's existance. I havent found any of them convincing. I can't beleive without evidence.

i could not agree more with this statement. :)

Thanks :) - I think evolutionary arguments get quite hard done by in the philosophy department. I have never seen how just assuming something as complex as life was just created, piecemeal, is ever really appreciating its richness. I suppose one of the reasons I find evolution so compelling is we don't have to assume some authority figure - just quiet, modest evolution.

i'm sorry you don't like that. but hey, i'm sure some people don't like that the world is round, but that's how it is.

Evidence for evolution, not abiogenesis. Remember they are diffrent.

Still sounds like nihilism to me. He's merely a self hating Nihilist. But then again, I'm pretty crazy, really. :headbang:

How did all this speculation about me being a Nihilist come about? My post was meant to be optimistic. Life is what you make it, and since we have no pre-determined purpose, we have to give our own lives purpose by doing what we enjoy, and helping others accomplish the same.

Dude, I've examined many religions. Heard countless arguments for god's existance. I havent found any of them convincing. I can't beleive without evidence.

There is no evidence for God's non existance either. Why so ready to believe that.

There is no evidence for God's non existance either. Why so ready to believe that.
Because there's also no evidence for the non-existance of unicorns, dragons, leprechauns, etc. Do you beleive in them?

Life has what meaning we give to it. It always gets to me that so many theists think that without an invisible man in the sky we can't have meaning for our lives or morality and ethics to stand for.
Booya, Joey!

Life, and religion, and science, and every endeavour man makes has what meaning he gives it. Man imparts meaning to the universe.

evolution has to be one of the ludricus ideas that i have ever heard of. look up the statisics of the earth forming out of no where from an explotion, not to mention the protiens of just ONE single enzime forming in order to form life and u will see that it is literally mathimaticaly imposible that evolution is true. the only true explanation to the begining of life is God.

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.

Yeah, I'd rather be a "meaningless" person who has a grasp of science that someone who feels they have meaning because some old book told him that an invisible omnipresent bloke with a bad temper made some people and got them to populate the world through incest.

Evidence for evolution, not abiogenesis. Remember they are diffrent.
there's evidence that abiogenesis can occur and could have occured in the early earth.

and the way you were posting your first post, you were using evolution synonymously as abiogenesis. in order to pick through your statements, i had to go along with your terminology.

There is no evidence for God's non existance either. Why so ready to believe that.
so any arguments against being an agnostic in your bag of tricks?

Evidence for evolution, not abiogenesis. Remember they are diffrent.

Actually, they are not. Evolution occurs in any system whereby

i. Information can be conveyed to daughter generations
ii. A diversity a characteristics exists
iii. There is some competition to create daughter generations

These conditions can occur in abiotic systems, both in the lab and naturally. Evolution can be made to occur on computer programs, complex mathemtical problems, or on single molecules in test tubes. And these molecules can be produced by simple chemical reactions which do not involve life, only the input of energy. Although we shall never know the exact origin of life (oddly enough there is no record), evolution and "abiogenesis" intersect considerably.

evolution has to be one of the ludricus ideas that i have ever heard of. look up the statisics of the earth forming out of no where from an explotion, not to mention the protiens of just ONE single enzime forming in order to form life and u will see that it is literally mathimaticaly imposible that evolution is true. the only true explanation to the begining of life is God.
The mechanics of the formation of the universe after the big bang are pretty well known. Also supported by math and observations. The odds of any enzyme forming are much better than trying to pick a specific one. The building blocks (amino acids) exist throughout the universe. They've found them in comets for fuck's sake.

God changed my mind, literally, so now I follow Jesus, talk to Him about everything, meet regularly with other Christians, and accept God's direction for my life.
I didn't see this coming, didn't plan to get a faith at university, but God had plans other than mine.
It could happen to you, if you're genuinely open to discovering the truth about reality.
so what happens when something happens that points a person in a direction other than christianity?

does that make the christian viewpoint any less valid?

There is no evidence for God's non existance either. Why so ready to believe that.

You can never prove something doesn't exist. You can't prove there are no gnomes, no elves, no pink unicorns, that you have no wmd...

Not being able to prove that something doesn't exist is not sufficient a cause to believe in its existence. It is the one who claims the existence of something that has the burden of proof.

evolution has to be one of the ludricus ideas that i have ever heard of. look up the statisics of the earth forming out of no where from an explotion, not to mention the protiens of just ONE single enzime forming in order to form life and u will see that it is literally mathimaticaly imposible that evolution is true. the only true explanation to the begining of life is God.

Gosh, someone who can spell "enzyme", and is both literate and mathematical surely knows what they're talking about. :) You're kinda missing the point of evolution, my friend.

Because there's also no evidence for the non-existance of unicorns, dragons, leprechauns, etc. Do you beleive in them?

I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me

Gosh, someone who can spell enzyme surely knows what they're talking about. :)

Yeah, I don't know why people who can't even spell expect us to trust their statements on science.

Dude, I've examined many religions. Heard countless arguments for god's existance. I havent found any of them convincing. I can't beleive without evidence.
What evidence would you find convincing?

I mean that seriously. If, deep down, you are pretty sure that there is no God, then that belief will affect the way you perceive your surroundings. It will affect the way you respond to ideas presented to you. It will affect the way you interpret apparent coincidences.

If you really want to know whether God is there or not, you have to approach the question from an agnostic perspective, rather than an atheist one. Maybe that's what you did, and something about the endless arguments presented to you led you to atheism (this assumes I am fairly characterising you as an atheist, so if I'm wrong on that, I apologise). Examining the question of God's existence as an atheist is philosophically questionable, if your mode of thought will automatically disregard one of the possible answers.

It sounds like you believe the existence of God needs proving, a belief common in Western secular society. That assumption is not universal throughout the world, and is not inherently more or less valid than the assumption that God exists, and that it is necessary, if desired, to disprove His existence.
So again, my question: What evidence would you find convincing?

evolution has to be one of the ludricus ideas that i have ever heard of. look up the statisics of the earth forming out of no where from an explotion, not to mention the protiens of just ONE single enzime forming in order to form life and u will see that it is literally mathimaticaly imposible that evolution is true. the only true explanation to the begining of life is God.
1. evolution is not the same as the big bang.
2. the big bang was not quite an explosion so much as the expansion of space-time. learn a little about the theory before you try to critique it.
3. and as pointed out already, abiogenesis is not the same as evolution. and abiogenesis can happen. all the dna base pairs have been formed from molecules consistent with what would be on early earth. furthermore, prions have been formed abiogenetically. they are a very, very basic form of life. it's a start.
4. you haven't really got any evidence to support your god idea.

What evidence would you find convincing?

I mean that seriously. If, deep down, you are pretty sure that there is no God, then that belief will affect the way you perceive your surroundings. It will affect the way you respond to ideas presented to you. It will affect the way you interpret apparent coincidences.

If you really want to know whether God is there or not, you have to approach the question from an agnostic perspective, rather than an atheist one. Maybe that's what you did, and something about the endless arguments presented to you led you to atheism (this assumes I am fairly characterising you as an atheist, so if I'm wrong on that, I apologise). Examining the question of God's existence as an atheist is philosophically questionable, if your mode of thought will automatically disregard one of the possible answers.

It sounds like you believe the existence of God needs proving, a belief common in Western secular society. That assumption is not universal throughout the world, and is not inherently more or less valid than the assumption that God exists, and that it is necessary, if desired, to disprove His existence.
So again, my question: What evidence would you find convincing?
A miracle. Something with an unmistakable message that couldn't be easily generated by man. That would get me to admit the possibility. Also if it could be fairly conclusively demonstrated that the universe or life couldn't possibly be formed without a divine creator.
I actually approached the idea first as a catholic, then as a non-denominational christian, then I explored some eastern religions, taoism, buddhism, bahai, then I listened to the arguments atheists made. I found that their arguments were more convincing.

You can never prove something doesn't exist. You can't prove there are no gnomes, no elves, no pink unicorns, that you have no wmd...

Not being able to prove that something doesn't exist is not sufficient a cause to believe in its existence. It is the one who claims the existence of something that has the burden of proof.

Well, science can't prove anything. However, gnomes, elves, pink unicorns, etc. would all be subject to the rules of the universe. Therefore, if they exist, there *is* evidence for them which science can find. Therefore, the viewpoint that there are not pink unicorns *could* be disproven.

However, an omniscient God would, by definition, *not* be subject to the rules of the universe. Therefore, belief in the existence or non-existence of God is nothing more than an axiomatic statement, which can never be proven or disproven.

Well, science can't prove anything. However, gnomes, elves, pink unicorns, etc. would all be subject to the rules of the universe. Therefore, if they exist, there *is* evidence for them which science can find. Therefore, the viewpoint that there are not pink unicorns *could* be disproven.

However, an omniscient God would, by definition, *not* be subject to the rules of the universe. Therefore, belief in the existence or non-existence of God is nothing more than an axiomatic statement, which can never be proven or disproven.
Proving a negative is almost impossible. Because of that the burden of proof is always placed on he who makes the positive statement. You claim god exists, prove it. Also, disbeleif is the default position. To move from the defaulty position it's reasonable to ask for some evidence.

so what happens when something happens that points a person in a direction other than christianity?

does that make the christian viewpoint any less valid?
Since we can never know what reasons people really have for changing their beliefs, it's very difficult to even attempt a speculative answer to the first question.
As for the second, the answer is no, because I believe that truth is independent of the number of people who believe in it (with the exception of silly logical games like "Does anyone believe this is a sensible question?"), so truth will always be true; if Christianity is true, it is true independent of the number of Christians in the world.

Heat death of the universe = final answer to everything.

You are worthless, you are meat, your very existance serves no purpose and, in the end, you will be utterly forgotten, the very atoms that make up your body will be scattered across the universe, becoming nothing. Particals that float on endlessly, forever alone, a universe of floating matter and black holes.

And even the black holes will, eventually, break down.


What a wonderful universe we live in, eh? Assuming none of the religions are correct, then we are not an 'accident', but rather a 'happening', a mere chance occurance. One that's likely occured elsewhere, though the likelihood of it still BEING there is quite poor. The possibility for life is incredibly small, the likelihood of it surviving for any amount of time is smaller. So, we're probably very, very alone. In a cold, uncaring universe, with nothing to look foreward to but our own, inevitable demise. So, I ask you....


...why do you keep living? You are useless MEAT, according to your own beliefs, what can you possibly do? You're DOOMED, wandering aimlessly through a universe that, in the end, won't even 'exist' in the same sense that we're used to, one whose contents will break down and scatter across it. There is NOTHING you can do, it's impossible to stop, everyone and everything you ever loved will DIE horribly, their very atoms scattered on the astral winds!

It is inevitable, mister Anderson.

So, then, why don't you just give up? You are, after all, doomed to nothingness. It's not as though, in death, your memory will live on. It won't. You will be forgotten, and your mind will be erased. Y'know what nothingness is? No, you don't, you probably can't even begin to fathom it. It's NOTHING, no mind, no anything.

Of course, the obvious reply is "Then I won't miss living!" which is true. But it also begs the question, "Why do you conform to laws, why not simply break down to feral behavior, living by nothing but instinct? You have no reason not to. What reason do you have to even FEED yourself, with such an assured extinction looming before you in the near future? Why not cease all activity, and wait for death?"

This is where you come up with your own answer, but don't bother posting it, I've already got a satisfactory one lined up. It's sort of a "Free thinking exercise", wherein you try to justify your own existance to yourself before the religious fellow justifies it for you.




Now, of course, the answer's rather obvious. If living is purposeless, then not living is equally purposeless. It makes no difference either way, and with the mere possibility of being wrong, it is better to have lived and then continued existing, in ANY state, with pleasant memories, than it is to have not lived at all with the intent of ceasing to exist, only to find that one was wrong.

Better safe than sorry, as they say. But, still, those who don't believe in anything should still die. If only to ease my headache, and give me a few moments of joy in my sea of bitterness.


I suppose I should note, though (to be contrary, if nothing else) that life does not, in fact, have whatever meaning you give it. Either it has the above meaning (read that as: none) or it has some religious meaning or another. Just because you say that munchkins and rainbows are the meaning of life doesn't make it true, and is not sufficient justification for one's continued existance.

And before you ask, no, not even if the munchkins are carrying pots of gold.

Yeah, I don't know why people who can't even spell expect us to trust their statements on science.

Yes, good spelling is at the centre of all knowledge.

what test is that? how to take the advice of a hopelessly opium addicted soul who lived with his sister after his mom kicked him out until he died and celebrated all of the virtues of which he had none?

I don't know who you are trying to describe here, but it certainly isn't Nietzsche.

Proving a negative is almost impossible. Because of that the burden of proof is always placed on he who makes the positive statement. You claim god exists, prove it. Also, disbeleif is the default position. To move from the defaulty position it's reasonable to ask for some evidence.
I really think Dempublicents makes a good point, Joey. If God exists, as I believe He does, he is not necessarily bound by the scientific theories of the early 21st century, particularly since those scientists responsible for most of those theories were functionally atheist, so disregarded His existence when they formed said theories.
This means you can't expect to apply the scientific method to God and get philosophically sound results, just as measuring sound waves with a microscope is prone to failure.
On your reply to my post, I have experienced several miracles, but if I really wanted to explain them away as either psychological or, more generally, paranormal phenomena, I could. If you've already decided that God doesn't exist, then only the end of the world will change your mind, and it may be too late by then. If you are still prepared to be undecided on the issue, and you would like to know the truth, then I believe God will make Himself known to you.
This, of course, comes with a caveat, and a warning. I don't know how long He'll take, and if He does show up, it's not for your amusement, but for your transformation, and if you don't go along with it, there are heavy consequences.

Proving a negative is almost impossible. Because of that the burden of proof is always placed on he who makes the positive statement. You claim god exists, prove it. Also, disbeleif is the default position. To move from the defaulty position it's reasonable to ask for some evidence.

1) The Bible. It is not as unreliable as people think. Many people forget that the Gospels were written in the lifetimes of those who saw and knew of Jesus. None of them went around saying "This is clearly wrong" else if they had, why would there be no record of it and how would have the Bible survived the early secpticism. Simmilar things can be said of the Old testement. Often throught it, there are refernces to kings of non Isralite nations knowing of the power of the Isralites God.

2) The first law of Thermodynamics. Basicly energy cannot be created or destroyed. So how did the unvierse begin. Where did the energy for the big bang come from if it was not created?

3) The second law of Thermodynamics. All systems left to themselves move from order to chaos. We do not see this in nature. We see chaos to order. How does this work without an interviening power/influence

4) The third law of Thermodynamics. Entropy is zero at absolute zero tempreture. So therefore at some point the primeaval atom or whatever it was that started the universe would have had to have been at absolute zero. Where did the energy come from to rise its tempreture and thus its disorder.

3) The second law of Thermodynamics. All systems left to themselves move from order to chaos. We do not see this in nature. We see chaos to order. How does this work without an interviening power/influence


Second law only applies to closed systems. Being a closed system is not the same as 'being left to themselves' and life on Earth is not isolated from the rest of the cosmos. Therefore it is not a closed system and so the law doesn't apply.

Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.

Yes, I have. Yes, it probably is.

We're here by chance, but that doesn't mean it has no meaning. Our lives mean what we make them mean, by what we do in our lives.

3) The second law of Thermodynamics. All systems left to themselves move from order to chaos. We do not see this in nature. We see chaos to order. How does this work without an interviening power/influence


Ummm...because there's an external influx of energy? I eat food. There is energy in food. I use that energy to grow, maintain structures, etc. But the entropy of the Universe as a whole increases until the heat death. (All things at equilibrium)

The mechanics of the formation of the universe after the big bang are pretty well known. Also supported by math and observations. The odds of any enzyme forming are much better than trying to pick a specific one. The building blocks (amino acids) exist throughout the universe. They've found them in comets for fuck's sake.

Building blocks are one thing. The complex processes for getting them to come together as DNA is another. DNA is extremely complicated. We only just understand what its structure is and what each gene is for. How exactly do we get from the building blocks to DNA?

I really think Dempublicents makes a good point, Joey. If God exists, as I believe He does, he is not necessarily bound by the scientific theories of the early 21st century, particularly since those scientists responsible for most of those theories were functionally atheist, so disregarded His existence when they formed said theories.
This means you can't expect to apply the scientific method to God and get philosophically sound results, just as measuring sound waves with a microscope is prone to failure.
On your reply to my post, I have experienced several miracles, but if I really wanted to explain them away as either psychological or, more generally, paranormal phenomena, I could. If you've already decided that God doesn't exist, then only the end of the world will change your mind, and it may be too late by then. If you are still prepared to be undecided on the issue, and you would like to know the truth, then I believe God will make Himself known to you.
This, of course, comes with a caveat, and a warning. I don't know how long He'll take, and if He does show up, it's not for your amusement, but for your transformation, and if you don't go along with it, there are heavy consequences.
If god exists and has any desire to make himself known to mankind, I'm sure he will find a way. As for god existing, why don't you beleive in multiple gods? Why just one? You can't disprove their existance. If your standards of evidence are so low, then you must admit the existance of an infinite number of gods.

2) The first law of Thermodynamics. Basicly energy cannot be created or destroyed. So how did the unvierse begin. Where did the energy for the big bang come from if it was not created?


Question for you: imagine for a moment that the big bang actually occured, now did the first law of thermodynamics exist prior to this moment?

Second law only applies to closed systems. Being a closed system is not the same as 'being left to themselves' and life on Earth is not isolated from the rest of the cosmos. Therefore it is not a closed system and so the law doesn't apply.

Closed system means untouched by human hands. The law doesnt apply if humans keep interfearing. I can tidy my desk every week to keep it in order. However if I leave it be, the moniter will get dusty, the papers will be unorganised and the sandwich i prepared will go mouldy. However the Universe (according to evolutionists) is a closed system because there was no Human hands to influence it. How exactly do you achieve a "Closed system" by your accounts? You cannot control every variable, so why bother writing the law?

1) The Bible. It is not as unreliable as people think. Many people forget that the Gospels were written in the lifetimes of those who saw and knew of Jesus. None of them went around saying "This is clearly wrong" else if they had, why would there be no record of it and how would have the Bible survived the early secpticism. Simmilar things can be said of the Old testement. Often throught it, there are refernces to kings of non Isralite nations knowing of the power of the Isralites God.

2) The first law of Thermodynamics. Basicly energy cannot be created or destroyed. So how did the unvierse begin. Where did the energy for the big bang come from if it was not created?

3) The second law of Thermodynamics. All systems left to themselves move from order to chaos. We do not see this in nature. We see chaos to order. How does this work without an interviening power/influence

4) The third law of Thermodynamics. Entropy is zero at absolute zero tempreture. So therefore at some point the primeaval atom or whatever it was that started the universe would have had to have been at absolute zero. Where did the energy come from to rise its tempreture and thus its disorder.
1 Sorry, the earlies one was written 70 years after Jesus' death. People didn't live that long back then.
2 I'll leave that to a physicist. I can't answer that one.
3 You are misstating the second law of thermodynamics. All CLOSED systems tend toward chaos. The earth is not a closed system. Energy is being pumped in from the sun. Energy is counteracts entropy in the equation.
4 No. The universe, according to the big bang model began with a discharge of energy and matter. The first thing that was was energy.

Proving a negative is almost impossible. Because of that the burden of proof is always placed on he who makes the positive statement. You claim god exists, prove it. Also, disbeleif is the default position. To move from the defaulty position it's reasonable to ask for some evidence.

There is no proof for an axiom. When choosing an axiom from which you start, you must have a reason for choosing that particular axiom. This means that *both* sides, if they wish to convert the other, must provide a reasoninig for their choice of axiom.

If god exists and has any desire to make himself known to mankind, I'm sure he will find a way. Think about this one really hard.

Building blocks are one thing. The complex processes for getting them to come together as DNA is another. DNA is extremely complicated. We only just understand what its structure is and what each gene is for. How exactly do we get from the building blocks to DNA?
You said it yourself. We only just started to understand what it's structure is. In time we may understand the mechanics of the formation of life.

Question for you: imagine for a moment that the big bang actually occured, now did the first law of thermodynamics exist prior to this moment?

It wasnt written down or anything if thats what you mean, but it did aply. Unless you are saying that the big bang breaks the laws of physics, in which case we are in a completly diffrent game here.

Question for you: imagine for a moment that the big bang actually occured, now did the first law of thermodynamics exist prior to this moment?
nope. Nothing existed.

1) The Bible. It is not as unreliable as people think. Many people forget that the Gospels were written in the lifetimes of those who saw and knew of Jesus. None of them went around saying "This is clearly wrong" else if they had, why would there be no record of it and how would have the Bible survived the early secpticism. Simmilar things can be said of the Old testement. Often throught it, there are refernces to kings of non Isralite nations knowing of the power of the Isralites God.

The old testement was written after the Isrealites left Egypt, so it is not an eye witness account. Not to mention, there are tons and tons of interpretations into what the old testiment really means, look up some quabbalism.

The new testiment was written by Paul, origionally Saul, so any "eye-witness" accounts must be taken with a grain of salt

there are thousands of these "eye witness" accounts of divine intervention spilling out of Greek, Roman, Chinese and Muslum culture, how does God become the default and not Allah, who also has a book about him.

2) The first law of Thermodynamics. Basicly energy cannot be created or destroyed. So how did the unvierse begin. Where did the energy for the big bang come from if it was not created?

firstly, evolution claims not to answer the origins of the universe, or even the origins of life, but the progress of one species of life to another

second, just because science cant PROVE what happened minutes before the big bang, or even the big bang, doesnt mean that the default answer is God. The default answer is I dont know, as there is no evidence that god has done something.

finally, please read idas like quantum mirrors, collapasable time (i think those are the theories). They are very difficult and i really dont understand them that well, but they are physically plausable ideas for what happened before the big bang. So, if we can concieve of it, it cant be god.

3) The second law of Thermodynamics. All systems left to themselves move from order to chaos. We do not see this in nature. We see chaos to order. How does this work without an interviening power/influence

no, in nature we see order to chaos. Evolution specifically, one species began which spurned millions and millions of other species. In the universe, it began as uniform, solid matter until it grew big enough for it to divide down into very (if not identical) galaxy clusters, then similar galixies, then somewhat differant systems to very differant planets. order to chaos, less to more.

4) The third law of Thermodynamics. Entropy is zero at absolute zero tempreture. So therefore at some point the primeaval atom or whatever it was that started the universe would have had to have been at absolute zero. Where did the energy come from to rise its tempreture and thus its disorder.

again, the answer is "i dont know" not "god" because there is no evidence that god did it.

You said it yourself. We only just started to understand what it's structure is. In time we may understand the mechanics of the formation of life.

But untill then, what reason is there to believe abiogenesis occoured. What evidence do evolutionists have? How can they support any of the rest of their ideas with evidence if they cant support abiogenesis.

Closed system means untouched by human hands. The law doesnt apply if humans keep interfearing. I can tidy my desk every week to keep it in order. However if I leave it be, the moniter will get dusty, the papers will be unorganised and the sandwich i prepared will go mouldy. However the Universe (according to evolutionists) is a closed system because there was no Human hands to influence it. How exactly do you achieve a "Closed system" by your accounts? You cannot control every variable, so why bother writing the law?
Bullshit. Chemistry creates order. Heat and light from the sun provide the energy to do so.

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.

I think that's the point. Why does life HAVE to have a point? Also, evolution has no moral consequences, it is amoral in that it is neither positive or negative in terms of it's intent- nature doesn't mean to be good or bad, it simply IS. Any human moral interpretation is just that- a human interpretation.

You may see the complete lack of meaning as a terrifying thing- I see it as freeing me from any sort of personal constraints, in a slightly nihlistic way maybe. If you MUST take a moral from evolution, it's probably best to take this- Make yourself happy, kid.

Think about this one really hard.
I meant a way that clearly expresses his message, not a hodgepodge of different interpretations by different people with different religions.

It wasnt written down or anything if thats what you mean, but it did aply. Unless you are saying that the big bang breaks the laws of physics, in which case we are in a completly diffrent game here.
You're wrong. According to the big bang model there was NOTHING before the big bang. No time, no space, no matter, no energy, no constants, no physical laws.

If god exists and has any desire to make himself known to mankind, I'm sure he will find a way. As for god existing, why don't you beleive in multiple gods? Why just one? You can't disprove their existance. If your standards of evidence are so low, then you must admit the existance of an infinite number of gods.
I believe He turned up in person, about 2000 years ago. That was His way. Hundreds of millions through history have been convinced of this. That's not conclusive, of course.
I don't believe in multiple gods because I believe God has told me that the Bible is accurate, and the Bible says there is only one God, all the others are demons pretending to be gods. I'm not just a generic theist, I'm a Bible-believing Christian; I use my mind to try to understand the message of the Bible (known in the trade as 'exegesis') and apply that message to my life (known as 'hermeneutics').
I don't know how my standards of evidence compare to yours, I just know that we have very different fundamental assumptions/axioms/beliefs by which we order our perceptions, so at the moment, we come up with different conclusions.

Closed system means untouched by human hands. The law doesnt apply if humans keep interfearing.

1.) No it doesn't, not in this context.
2.) Even if it did, humanity is part of nature and as such your claim that it is a closed system would fall down.

... However the Universe (according to evolutionists) is a closed system because there was no Human hands to influence it. How exactly do you achieve a "Closed system" by your accounts? You cannot control every variable, so why bother writing the law?

A closed system is one in which there is no interchange of energy or information between that which is inside and that which is outside. The cosmos as a whole is a closed system, but life on earth is not. Despite an increase in extropy on Earth there is a greater increase in entropy throughout the cosmos: thus the system balances out.


Side note: it is also possible for chance events to temporarily act against the second law. Imagine that all the molecules of oxygen in the room in which you are sitting by chance all move to one side of the space due to a chance alignment of their Brownian motion. Order has been increased in the room due to chance. For short periods it is possible to descrease entropy, but in the long term the tendency described by the second law appears to hold true.

1) The Bible. It is not as unreliable as people think. Many people forget that the Gospels were written in the lifetimes of those who saw and knew of Jesus. None of them went around saying "This is clearly wrong" else if they had, why would there be no record of it and how would have the Bible survived the early secpticism. Simmilar things can be said of the Old testement. Often throught it, there are refernces to kings of non Isralite nations knowing of the power of the Isralites God.

None of the Gospels were written withing the lifetimes of those who knew Jesus. The latest, John - I believe, wasn't written until at least 150 years after Christ's death. Just thought I'd point that out.

2) The first law of Thermodynamics. Basicly energy cannot be created or destroyed. So how did the unvierse begin. Where did the energy for the big bang come from if it was not created?

Wrong. The total of mass + energy cannot be changed. However, in certain circumstances, mass can be converted to energy and vice versa. Now, I don't know much about, say, the big bang theory - but I believe it starts with incredibly compressed, nearly infinte mass.

3) The second law of Thermodynamics. All systems left to themselves move from order to chaos. We do not see this in nature. We see chaos to order. How does this work without an interviening power/influence

Nothing in nature is a closed system. Meanwhile, we do see the *total* amount of energy in the entire system moving to chaos.

4) The third law of Thermodynamics. Entropy is zero at absolute zero tempreture. So therefore at some point the primeaval atom or whatever it was that started the universe would have had to have been at absolute zero. Where did the energy come from to rise its tempreture and thus its disorder.

Where does this claim come from?

It wasnt written down or anything if thats what you mean, but it did aply. Unless you are saying that the big bang breaks the laws of physics, in which case we are in a completly diffrent game here.

No, I'm not claiming that the Big Bang breaks the laws of physics, instead it brings them into being.

Bullshit. Chemistry creates order. Heat and light from the sun provide the energy to do so.

That's entropy, man.
Heat can not (of itself) be passed from one body to a hotter body.

As Flanders and Swann sang-

"Heat is work and work's a curse
And all the heat in the Universe
Is gonna cooool down 'cos it can't increase
Then there'll be no more work and there'll be perfect peace
Really?
Yeah - that's entropy, man! "

But untill then, what reason is there to believe abiogenesis occoured. What evidence do evolutionists have? How can they support any of the rest of their ideas with evidence if they cant support abiogenesis.
Occam's razor. Adding god is adding an extra step of complexity.
Evolution is independent of abiogenesis. Even if it one could prove that there was a god and he created the universe and the first life, it wouldn't have any impact on evolution. There's way too much evidence for evolution. We are in the infancy of our understanding of abiogenesis.

What evidence would you find convincing?

I mean that seriously. If, deep down, you are pretty sure that there is no God, then that belief will affect the way you perceive your surroundings. It will affect the way you respond to ideas presented to you. It will affect the way you interpret apparent coincidences.


Sure - there are certainly ways we could test. I would need God's cooperation for this. I work with spectrometers: they measure the absorption of a liquid, and this indicates the concentration of dissolved substances in it. I am going to place water in a cuvette, and put it in the spectrometer, and adjust it to give no reading. I will then take it out, and politely ask God to put an absorptive substance into the solution. I will then place it back in the spectrophotometer, and record the result. I will do this several hundred times, in different machines, using different wavelengths. I will then analyse the results using statistical methods to determine significance. If my incantation gives a statistically significant result, I will publish the results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Once other scientists have verified this is repeatable, I will unreservedly believe in God

The new testiment was written by Paul, origionally Saul, so any "eye-witness" accounts must be taken with a grain of salt


Eh?

1) The Bible. It is not as unreliable as people think. Many people forget that the Gospels were written in the lifetimes of those who saw and knew of Jesus. None of them went around saying "This is clearly wrong" else if they had, why would there be no record of it and how would have the Bible survived the early secpticism. Simmilar things can be said of the Old testement. Often throught it, there are refernces to kings of non Isralite nations knowing of the power of the Isralites God.
the earliest new testament gospels were written quite some time after the events are supposed to have happened.
there's also strong evidence that the gnostics actually held the truth about the events in question, however, they were persecuted, nearly wiped out and their gospels weren't included in the bible.
not to mention that the one whose words are given the most emphasis are pauls', the last written works. also, the ones that diverge most from the whole loving bit.

2) The first law of Thermodynamics. Basicly energy cannot be created or destroyed. So how did the unvierse begin. Where did the energy for the big bang come from if it was not created?
there are many theories on this, there are a couple with multiverses wherein there was already matter, not the universe, what was to become our universe got compressed enough to form a singularity, singluarlity expands and you know the rest.
there's also a vacuum fluctuation theory...

3) The second law of Thermodynamics. All systems left to themselves move from order to chaos. We do not see this in nature. We see chaos to order. How does this work without an interviening power/influence
you're misinterpreting the law of thermodynamics.

for one thing, yes it does only apply to closed systems.

for another, ordered energy is becoming chaotic, unusable energy. listen to the keys click on your keyboard. that's energy being lost, turned into unusable sound energy. the sun is releasing heat, that's energy descending into chaos. i haven't got my thermodynamics class until next semester... so you'll have to wait until then for a better explanation.

4) The third law of Thermodynamics. Entropy is zero at absolute zero tempreture. So therefore at some point the primeaval atom or whatever it was that started the universe would have had to have been at absolute zero. Where did the energy come from to rise its tempreture and thus its disorder.
i'm confused here. the big bang started extremely hot, not cold.

The old testement was written after the Isrealites left Egypt, so it is not an eye witness account. Not to mention, there are tons and tons of interpretations into what the old testiment really means, look up some quabbalism.

The new testiment was written by Paul, origionally Saul, so any "eye-witness" accounts must be taken with a grain of salt


The most important part wasnt, see the Gospels.


firstly, evolution claims not to answer the origins of the universe, or even the origins of life, but the progress of one species of life to another


But Abiogenesis does, and it is this that evolutionists use to start off life. My point is if that is it, just random chemicals then where does meaning come from.


second, just because science cant PROVE what happened minutes before the big bang, or even the big bang, doesnt mean that the default answer is God. The default answer is I dont know, as there is no evidence that god has done something.


Why cant we take God at his word from the Bible. Isnt it far more sensable to believe that someone or something crafted and made us for a purpose instead of an acident.


finally, please read idas like quantum mirrors, collapasable time (i think those are the theories). They are very difficult and i really dont understand them that well, but they are physically plausable ideas for what happened before the big bang. So, if we can concieve of it, it cant be god.


But these break the laws of themodynamics. If your going to break them you may as well throw physics out the window.


no, in nature we see order to chaos. Evolution specifically, one species began which spurned millions and millions of other species. In the universe, it began as uniform, solid matter until it grew big enough for it to divide down into very (if not identical) galaxy clusters, then similar galixies, then somewhat differant systems to very differant planets. order to chaos, less to more.


This is my point. Instead of order to chaos, we see vice versa. So either the second law of thermodynamics is wrong (in which case physics goes too) or the idea of a non created universe has flaws. I agree with you that the default answer is not God. Belief in God requires faith. But what I am saying here is that science should not be so arrogent to portray itself as above God when rearly we dont know.

That's entropy, man.
Heat can not (of itself) be passed from one body to a hotter body.

As Flanders and Swann sang-

"Heat is work and work's a curse
And all the heat in the Universe
Is gonna cooool down 'cos it can't increase
Then there'll be no more work and there'll be perfect peace
Really?
Yeah - that's entropy, man! "
heat and light from the sun provide the energy to run the chemical processes that fuel life. Plants get light, convert it into sugars and fats, animals eat them and replicate themselves.

You're wrong. According to the big bang model there was NOTHING before the big bang. No time, no space, no matter, no energy, no constants, no physical laws.

not quite

that is how the origional model was based, but since then it has matured a little

especially with Hawking and his preposition of a spherical, expanding yet boundless universe due to gravity bending and attracting into one point.

Again, all these claims you make about what wasn't there before the big bang, we dont know that.

ya, we have no proof that there was space, matter or time before the big bang, but there is no reason to assume there wasnt.

No, I'm not claiming that the Big Bang breaks the laws of physics, instead it brings them into being.
excellent point.

what are the laws of our universe without spacetime afterall?

Bullshit. Chemistry creates order. Heat and light from the sun provide the energy to do so.

How does that work when the sun doesnt exist yet (Big bang) and how does it work with the second law of thermodynamics in place.

Neo-Cannen, did you read the list of biblical self-contradictions I posted yesterday? Some of them were found in the gospels. Here's that link again.
How do you rely on a book that contradicts itself?
www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

But Abiogenesis does, and it is this that evolutionists use to start off life. My point is if that is it, just random chemicals then where does meaning come from.

Again, ackowledgement of the fact that all evidence points towards evolution (which I would assume is what you mean by "evolutionist" - which isn't really even a word) *in no way* indicates an equal acceptance of the theories of abiogenesis. So, no, those who talk about evolution do not necessarily talk about abiogenesis as well.

This is my point. Instead of order to chaos, we see vice versa. So either the second law of thermodynamics is wrong (in which case physics goes too) or the idea of a non created universe has flaws.

Wrong. Overall, we see order to chaos. In small areas, we may see chaos to order, but this is balanced by the entropy created when energy is used in creating order.

I agree with you that the default answer is not God. Belief in God requires faith. But what I am saying here is that science should not be so arrogent to portray itself as above God when rearly we dont know.

Science in no way "portrays itself as above God."

So therefore at some point the primeaval atom or whatever it was that started the universe would have had to have been at absolute zero. Where did the energy come from to rise its tempreture and thus its disorder.

Actually, at absolute zero some energy still remains: this is the zero point energy and results from Hiesenberg's undercertainty principle; that if the particles are still, they have an exactly specified momentum and so can be at every point in the universe at once. And don't give us that sad old trash about the laws of thermodynamics defying evolutionism : this has been done one too many times. Has it occured to you you simply do not understand them, sir?

But Abiogenesis does, and it is this that evolutionists use to start off life. My point is if that is it, just random chemicals then where does meaning come from.

within.

Why cant we take God at his word from the Bible. Isnt it far more sensable to believe that someone or something crafted and made us for a purpose instead of an acident.

how do we know it's god's word?

How does that work when the sun doesnt exist yet (Big bang) and how does it work with the second law of thermodynamics in place.
Sigh...


Energy can be added to increase order in a open system, at the expense of creating disorder in the system as a whole.This is what happens on earth, light is used up as heat energy to provide energy for the creation of complex, ordered macromolecules. The second law of thermodynamics has diddlyshit to do with what you are talking about.

How does that work when the sun doesnt exist yet (Big bang) and how does it work with the second law of thermodynamics in place.
Gravity pulls matter together. Hydrogen was the first matter. Massive ammounts of hydrogen under intense gravitational pressure begin to fuse. Heavier elements are created. The star absorbs more mass through gravity but remains stable due to the energy released through fusion. As elements heavier than iron develop they take in more energy than they put out when they fuse. The star collapses and the remaining light fuel fuses in large ammounts. The star explodes, expelling the elements it created. Gravity draws those elements together to form planets and other stars.

Why does life have to have a reason? Cant we just plod along being happy and living in the moment and looking forward to the future?

heat and light from the sun provide the energy to run the chemical processes that fuel life. Plants get light, convert it into sugars and fats, animals eat them and replicate themselves.

And how does Abiogeneis start. How do a group of chemicals randomly come togther to create something as complex as life. Life (as i think anyone will agree with) is far more than just breathing, reproducing, excreting, moving, growing etc.

The most important part wasnt, see the Gospels.

lol, ok, whatever. Still, the people writing the gospels werent objective, they obviously had a point they were trying to get accross. If those writings can be considered as true than anything that anyone has ever written must be taken as true without skepticism.

anyways, i think this is a little off topic,

But Abiogenesis does, and it is this that evolutionists use to start off life. My point is if that is it, just random chemicals then where does meaning come from.

ok, so you dont think there can be meaning to life? Why does scientific interpretation have to have biblical meaning. Sorry if it turns out your religion was dead wrong on its creatin story, how do you think the Greeks felt when someone climbed mount olympus?

Why cant we take God at his word from the Bible. Isnt it far more sensable to believe that someone or something crafted and made us for a purpose instead of an acident.

no, there is no proof of any design. As unlikly as life forming is, it did. Why should one just then default to God? there is no explination for it.

also, if we can take god at his word, then we must also take Allah, Zeus, and Thor.

But these break the laws of themodynamics. If your going to break them you may as well throw physics out the window.

1) not necessarily, please read the theories

2) as the universe is a closed system, there could be compleatly differant laws of physics outside it as within it.

This is my point. Instead of order to chaos, we see vice versa. So either the second law of thermodynamics is wrong (in which case physics goes too) or the idea of a non created universe has flaws. I agree with you that the default answer is not God. Belief in God requires faith. But what I am saying here is that science should not be so arrogent to portray itself as above God when rearly we dont know.

order - everything is the same
chaos - everything is differant

evolution - everything starts the same then becomes different.

Closed system means untouched by human hands.
no, that is not what a closed system means.

a closed system means that it's self contained. no energy coming in, no energy going out.

the earth constantly has energy coming in.

The law doesnt apply if humans keep interfearing. I can tidy my desk every week to keep it in order. However if I leave it be, the moniter will get dusty, the papers will be unorganised and the sandwich i prepared will go mouldy.
this isn't the thing...

However the Universe (according to evolutionists) is a closed system because there was no Human hands to influence it. How exactly do you achieve a "Closed system" by your accounts? You cannot control every variable, so why bother writing the law?
the universe itself would be a closed system.

please try defining your terms correctly.

Gravity pulls matter together. Hydrogen was the first matter. Massive ammounts of hydrogen under intense gravitational pressure begin to fuse. Heavier elements are created. The star absorbs more mass through gravity but remains stable due to the energy released through fusion. As elements heavier than iron develop they take in more energy than they put out when they fuse. The star collapses and the remaining light fuel fuses in large ammounts. The star explodes, expelling the elements it created. Gravity draws those elements together to form planets and other stars.

What about elements that stars do not create. Stars do not create every element on the periodic table. How do those elements not in stars come about. And you havent explained the Big bang as yet. What caused it. Cause and effect are laws that apply throught the whole universe regardless of time. Why is it so impossible that God caused the Big bang? I wont say its a ceritaity, all Christans need faith, but is it not a posibility?

Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance?

You seem to be implying that if lfe is not and accident then there is a purpose to the cosmos, yes? Explain it to me if you would be so kind, please.

And how does Abiogeneis start. How do a group of chemicals randomly come togther to create something as complex as life. Life (as i think anyone will agree with) is far more than just breathing, reproducing, excreting, moving, growing etc.
I have a hypothesis that may well prove to be wrong, but I'll state it anyway. Amino acids occur naturally. We have observed them on comets and the like. It's probable that they existed on earth before life. Amino acids form proteins. Some proteins can influence the folding of other nearby proteins (prions). This is an early version of natural selection. The best prions converted many of the nearby proteins into imperfect copies of themselves. Some proteins may have joined together. A union between change-resistant proteins and proteins that were good at converting others would have made a resilient, reproductive pseudo organism. More proteins joining together may have made primitive cell-like structures. RNA could have been shaped around these proteins (the reverse of what modern cells do). This RNA could then have been used by the primitive cells to replicate more efficiently.

And how does Abiogeneis start. How do a group of chemicals randomly come togther to create something as complex as life. Life (as i think anyone will agree with) is far more than just breathing, reproducing, excreting, moving, growing etc.

Right. For one time only I will go over ONE way in which "abiogenesis", which is not a scientific term, starts.

1. Get water, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, hydrogen cyanide
2. Stick some energy into it. Could be sunlight, could be lightening, both work
3. Over time you get a lovely contail of chemicals- nucleotides, amino acids, small metabolites. This has been done in the lab, and could certainly occur over time. Due to the reducing atmosphere, and lack of any life to get rid of them, these accumulate in seas/puddles/whatever.
4. Nucleotides can spontaneously couple to give more complex polymers resembling RNA
5. RNA has a particular sequence, which allows it convey genetic material. It can be replicated by simple base pairing, which allows it to pass that information to new copies. And it will spontaneously change (mutate), especially under these circumstances. RNA has a particular shape which will give it particular chemical/physical properties according to sequence
6. Once the raw materials begin to be depleted, there will be competition for nucleotides to produce new daughter RNAs
7. You have all the ingredients for evolution ie.

i. a diverse population
ii. transmission of genetic material
iii. competition to survive.

8. And there you go. Happy? :)

Cause and effect are laws that apply throught the whole universe regardless of time.

No, cause and effect are at best an assumption: they remain as an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

What about elements that stars do not create. Stars do not create every element on the periodic table. How do those elements not in stars come about. And you havent explained the Big bang as yet. What caused it. Cause and effect are laws that apply throught the whole universe regardless of time. Why is it so impossible that God caused the Big bang? I wont say its a ceritaity, all Christans need faith, but is it not a posibility?

Since your problem is obviously with the Big Bang and with Abiogenesis, perhaps you should change the topic name?

Nothing at all you have brought up has anything to do with evolution.

And how does Abiogeneis start. How do a group of chemicals randomly come togther to create something as complex as life. Life (as i think anyone will agree with) is far more than just breathing, reproducing, excreting, moving, growing etc.
by definition, life is just that. respiring, reproducing, eating, excreting, moving, responding to stimulus, is growing one of the qualifications too?

at any rate, that is what defines an organism.

and they have formed simple life from non-living molecules.

What about elements that stars do not create. Stars do not create every element on the periodic table. How do those elements not in stars come about. And you havent explained the Big bang as yet. What caused it. Cause and effect are laws that apply throught the whole universe regardless of time. Why is it so impossible that God caused the Big bang? I wont say its a ceritaity, all Christans need faith, but is it not a posibility?
What? Man-made elements? Super massive stars, the ones that are widely regarded as the first massive objects in the universe, could have cranked out very dense elements before exploding. There are a number of theories about what caused the big bang. Look into brane theory.

Science in no way "portrays itself as above God."
While there are many scientists who do not indeed attempt to claim that the advance of scientific knowledge has disproved God, there are some who do (Richard Dawkins springs to mind), and there are a great number of atheists of different varieties who claim that belief in the scientific method is more valid than, and supercedes, belief in God.
'Science' is not a person. Science is a concept defined differently by many different people, some of which worship God, some of which deny His existence.

What about elements that stars do not create. Stars do not create every element on the periodic table. How do those elements not in stars come about.

Example of one such element, please?

I have a hypothesis that may well prove to be wrong, but I'll state it anyway. Amino acids occur naturally. We have observed them on comets and the like. It's probable that they existed on earth before life. Amino acids form proteins. Some proteins can influence the folding of other nearby proteins (prions). This is an early version of natural selection. The best prions converted many of the nearby proteins into imperfect copies of themselves. Some proteins may have joined together. A union between change-resistant proteins and proteins that were good at converting others would have made a resilient, reproductive pseudo organism. More proteins joining together may have made primitive cell-like structures. RNA could have been shaped around these proteins (the reverse of what modern cells do). This RNA could then have been used by the primitive cells to replicate more efficiently.

Nice idea, but perhaps a little flawed. How do you explain

1. The universality for the the use of nucleic acids as the genetic material across life on this planet
2. That nucleic acids have a fairly intuitice method of replication, where as this is not the case (even in modern life forms) for proteins
3. How do amino acids spontaneously couple?
4. The formation of a protein that influences the folding of another protien is perhaps a little more complex, especially as polypeptides tend to fold according to sequence.

Not that I'm arguing with your basic point. As for ideas about the origins of life, the more the merrier ... I just reckon RNA is the slightly more likely explanation :)

You're wrong. According to the big bang model there was NOTHING before the big bang. No time, no space, no matter, no energy, no constants, no physical laws.

Just a technicality, but you should probably think that before the big bang there was EVERYTHING. Even empty space isn't "space" (it's material, albeit undetectable dark matter).
Without the restrictions of time and space, there could be no concept of nothingness. Everything would exist at the same place, at the same time.
Is that God? I don't know, but as a Buddhist I don't believe in a "big guy in the sky". Also, being religious, I don't find that Buddhism has EVER gotten in the way of my understanding of science. Usually, it confirms and strengthens it.
You don't hear the Dalai Lama publicly denying scientific evidence.
This seems to be a factor only in religions that believe in a "God".
So I don't like to be grouped with other "religious people" who refuse to accept what's been proven by scientific method.
Evolution is an important part of my spiritual belief system. Not all religions believe in creationism, and not all scientists believe in Evolution.

Nice idea, but perhaps a little flawed. How do you explain

1. The universality for the the use of nucleic acids as the genetic material across life on this planet
2. That nucleic acids have a fairly intuitice method of replication, where as this is not the case (even in modern life forms) for proteins
3. How do amino acids spontaneously couple?
4. The formation of a protein that influences the folding of another protien is perhaps a little more complex, especially as polypeptides tend to fold according to sequence.

Not that I'm arguing with your basic point. As for ideas about the origins of life, the more the merrier ... I just reckon RNA is the slightly more likely explanation :)
I said it was likely to be false. Just showing that there are possible explanations that don't include god

What about elements that stars do not create. Stars do not create every element on the periodic table. How do those elements not in stars come about.
i'll field that one.

you see, there is something called an s-process in which some protons are fused to elements heavier than iron in the star. then you've got the r-process and p-processes which occur during a supernova, since a supernova involves throwing off a lot a material really quickly, many loose protons and neutrons are flying about. these collide with the heavier elements already in the debris and form stable isotopes of heavier elements.

And you havent explained the Big bang as yet. What caused it. Cause and effect are laws that apply throught the whole universe regardless of time.[/qutoe]
but there was no universe before the big bang.

there was no space, no time. at least not as we understand it.

you are talking about an event that exists outside our universe, it doesn't necessarily have to follow the same laws as the objects in our universe.

[quote]Why is it so impossible that God caused the Big bang? I wont say its a ceritaity, all Christans need faith, but is it not a posibility?

so you say that this event could not have happened because it violates physical laws. then you invoke a being that is not subject to the laws of the universe to fix this?

do you find anything off there?

Since your problem is obviously with the Big Bang and with Abiogenesis, perhaps you should change the topic name?

Nothing at all you have brought up has anything to do with evolution.

lol

christians - from microbiology to astrophyscs, they know it all

You seem to be implying that if lfe is not and accident then there is a purpose to the cosmos, yes? Explain it to me if you would be so kind, please.

With pleasure

- God created the universe and us to live in it
- He created us with a purpose in mind, to be like him as much as possible
- With this in mind he created a universe and with it there were four key concepts

1) The people would be his people (IE loving and obeying him not out of fear but choice)
2) They would be in the place he gave them
3) They would be living under his rule (Not dictator style but obeying his laws)
4) They would be enjoying his blessing

these concepts can be abrivated to
1) God's people
2) Living in God's place
3) Under God's rule
4) Enjoying God's blessing

- When this broke down, God set up a long term plan to make sure it would return to how it was. He sent his son to Earth as a part of that plan. Eventually the plan will be fufilled (Neo Jeursleum, Heaven and Earth as one)

The question I would like to put, why did humanity invent the concept of god/ gods? was it a tool to explain the unknown? to help us on path to full enlightenment? drawing from personal experaince, people do seem to fall into their star sign characters, this may be due to me being an old hippy, there does seem to be an attaction to things spiritual, not sure what that encompasses, I have no believe in a grey bearded person sitting in judgement on what I do, life is always struggling to bring order from choas.
The other question is, is it the arrogance of man, that makes us think we are better than, say dolphins? what can we use as a measure of intellence?

With pleasure

- God created the universe and us to live in it
- He created us with a purpose in mind, to be like him as much as possible
- With this in mind he created a universe and with it there were four key concepts

1) The people would be his people (IE loving and obeying him not out of fear but choice)
2) They would be in the place he gave them
3) They would be living under his rule (Not dictator style but obeying his laws)
4) They would be enjoying his blessing

these concepts can be abrivated to
1) God's people
2) Living in God's place
3) Under God's rule
4) Enjoying God's blessing

- When this broke down, God set up a long term plan to make sure it would return to how it was. He sent his son to Earth as a part of that plan. Eventually the plan will be fufilled (Neo Jeursleum, Heaven and Earth as one)
Who get's to decide god's laws? Have you entertained the idea that there may be many gods? What blessings would they confer?

and they have formed simple life from non-living molecules.

I would like to see a creadable shread of proof of this as it has NEVER BEEN DONE. No one has created life from non living matter.

With pleasure

- God created the universe and us to live in it
- He created us with a purpose in mind, to be like him as much as possible
- With this in mind he created a universe and with it there were four key concepts

1) The people would be his people (IE loving and obeying him not out of fear but choice)
2) They would be in the place he gave them
3) They would be living under his rule (Not dictator style but obeying his laws)
4) They would be enjoying his blessing

these concepts can be abrivated to
1) God's people
2) Living in God's place
3) Under God's rule
4) Enjoying God's blessing

- When this broke down, God set up a long term plan to make sure it would return to how it was. He sent his son to Earth as a part of that plan. Eventually the plan will be fufilled (Neo Jeursleum, Heaven and Earth as one)

OK, fair enough - I'm not going to argue about what you believe here.

Basically you are stating that life has a purpose because it is given one by God.

This just leads to another question - what purpose does God have?

With pleasure

- God created the universe and us to live in it
- He created us with a purpose in mind, to be like him as much as possible
- With this in mind he created a universe and with it there were four key concepts

1) The people would be his people (IE loving and obeying him not out of fear but choice)
2) They would be in the place he gave them
3) They would be living under his rule (Not dictator style but obeying his laws)
4) They would be enjoying his blessing

these concepts can be abrivated to
1) God's people
2) Living in God's place
3) Under God's rule
4) Enjoying God's blessing

- When this broke down, God set up a long term plan to make sure it would return to how it was. He sent his son to Earth as a part of that plan. Eventually the plan will be fufilled (Neo Jeursleum, Heaven and Earth as one)


wow, you sound like an extremeist jewish terrorist from the 40s in Isreal.

While there are many scientists who do not indeed attempt to claim that the advance of scientific knowledge has disproved God, there are some who do (Richard Dawkins springs to mind),

Any who claim such are not truly using a scientific viewpoint.

and there are a great number of atheists of different varieties who claim that belief in the scientific method is more valid than, and supercedes, belief in God.

Something which is the personal opinion of some atheists, and has nothing whatsoever to do with science itself.

'Science' is not a person. Science is a concept defined differently by many different people, some of which worship God, some of which deny His existence.

Exactly my point. A true scientist practices science, and thus doesn't "place herself above God," or claim that she has "disproved God." The idea of a God is intrinsicly outside the realm of science. Thus, it has nothing to do with science.

I don't believe in multiple gods because I believe God has told me that the Bible is accurate, and the Bible says there is only one God, all the others are demons pretending to be gods.
then why is it that in the original hebrew version of the bible, many gods created existence? (the god used is masculine and plural)
why is it that the 10 commandments don't even deny the existence of other gods?
what's with the numerous mentions of other gods in the old testament? they don't get called demons or false gods until much later.

Neo-cannen, why do you persist in trusting the bible when it contradicts itself? Even if you could prove that a divine force was necessary for life, how do you know there's only one such force? How do you know what it wants?

Who get's to decide god's laws? Have you entertained the idea that there may be many gods? What blessings would they confer?

I am simply stating the one idea (the Christian one). Evolutionists dont have any faith (doubt) despite the fact that their ideas are far from certian.

then why is it that in the original hebrew version of the bible, many gods created existence? (the god used is masculine and plural)
why is it that the 10 commandments don't even deny the existence of other gods?
what's with the numerous mentions of other gods in the old testament? they don't get called demons or false gods until much later.
Yeah, isn't Elohim plural?

I would like to see a creadable shread of proof of this as it has NEVER BEEN DONE. No one has created life from non living matter.

It depends on how you define life. Some define viruses and prions as primitive life. Both have been created in the lab.

I would like to see a creadable shread of proof of this as it has NEVER BEEN DONE. No one has created life from non living matter.


Bingo, we have never been able to replicate it

AND

we have not witnessed God do it

SO

we can neither conclude that God did it or that it happened naturally.

HOWEVER

all previously observed evidence points to the fact that it was probably a natural process

I would like to see a creadable shread of proof of this as it has NEVER BEEN DONE. No one has created life from non living matter.
they've created prions, which are arguably, very simple life from non living materials.

this was discussed in another thread you took part in yesterday.

Yeah, isn't Elohim plural?
it certainly is.

I would like to see a creadable shread of proof of this as it has NEVER BEEN DONE. No one has created life from non living matter.

This is an extremely dishonest argument. Define "life", sir, and I will show you why ;)

The question I would like to put, why did humanity invent the concept of god/ gods? was it a tool to explain the unknown? to help us on path to full enlightenment? drawing from personal experaince, people do seem to fall into their star sign characters, this may be due to me being an old hippy, there does seem to be an attaction to things spiritual, not sure what that encompasses, I have no believe in a grey bearded person sitting in judgement on what I do, life is always struggling to bring order from choas.
The other question is, is it the arrogance of man, that makes us think we are better than, say dolphins? what can we use as a measure of intellence?
The question that I would like to put is, why do some people assume that God does not exist? And why do they ask questions with this assumption at their heart, without acknowledging the possiblility that their assumption may be wrong?

I am simply stating the one idea (the Christian one). Evolutionists dont have any faith (doubt) despite the fact that their ideas are far from certian.

Could you please define this word you have made up (evolutionist).

I thought at first that it might be "someone who acknowledges evolution as a valid theory that is probably true."

However, in your mind, it appears to mean "militant atheist who holds a fervent belief in the Big Bang and Abiogenesis and feels that God is bunk that science has disproved."

Please, which is it?

I am simply stating the one idea (the Christian one). Evolutionists dont have any faith (doubt) despite the fact that their ideas are far from certian.
Actually there's a lot of evidence in support of evolution. Faith isn't required. There's significantly less evidence for abiogenesis, but considering it relies on chemistry, something we know exists, I think it's just more likely than creation.

what can we use as a measure of intellence?

The ability to use capital letters and to spell 'intelligence' correctly?

:)

OK, fair enough - I'm not going to argue about what you believe here.

Basically you are stating that life has a purpose because it is given one by God.

This just leads to another question - what purpose does God have?

Specificly to each individual is a question only answered by a great deal of prayer and bible study. However as a gereral rule to obey the commands God has given them and to spread his message and word to as many people as they can.

Evolutionists dont have any faith (doubt) despite the fact that their ideas are far from certian.
because speaking stricktly about evolution. we know it happened.

whether or not there was something (a god for instance) that caused evolution, or that caused abiogenesis or hell, caused the formation of the universe is not a matter for science.

and abiogenesis is not evolution, nor is the big bang. there is concrete evidence that either evolution occured or there's an asshole of a deity out there playing a trick on us.

but then you've got nylon bugs and the like that evolved to eat man made fibers...

This is an extremely dishonest argument. Define "life", sir, and I will show you why ;)

oh, oh, oh

isnt it anything that moves/grows and reproduces?

Actually there's a lot of evidence in support of evolution. Faith isn't required. There's significantly less evidence for abiogenesis, but considering it relies on chemistry, something we know exists, I think it's just more likely than creation.

Where do probablities come into it. How do you make the probablity that God did or did not do something. And what kind of proof would you expect from God? A signiture or something?

Specificly to each individual is a question only answered by a great deal of prayer and bible study. However as a gereral rule to obey the commands God has given them and to spread his message and word to as many people as they can.

No, I'm not asking what purpose God gives to individual human beings, but rather what purpose does God have himself.

then why is it that in the original hebrew version of the bible, many gods created existence? (the god used is masculine and plural)
why is it that the 10 commandments don't even deny the existence of other gods?
what's with the numerous mentions of other gods in the old testament? they don't get called demons or false gods until much later.
'Elohim' is indeed a plural word, and plural pronouns are used of God as well. I think this is a hint at the plural nature of God; God the Father is God, God the Son is God, and God the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not three Gods, but one God. It's the Trinity, and I don't claim I can explain the concept properly, because I think God is more than my finite mind can describe.
As to the 10 commandments, and the mentions of other gods in the OT, I see that as a semantic difference. God is the real god, the other 'gods' fulfil the role of God in their various religions, but are not God.

oh, oh, oh

isnt it anything that moves/grows and reproduces?

Well done, you get a gold star! :) Actually, there are plenty of things that don't move or grow; aren't yeast spores a form of life? The reproduces is a good start though. Actually if we strip down our definition of what life is to encompass every single thing of living origin, reproduction is effectively what is left. What about virii? Or prions? They sure as hell didn't just appear at random, and so must be products of life.

I know the ramifications. I really don't care, though. Being as we are conscious and sentient, we have the opportunity to break the purposeless bonds of our accidental creation. We can make our own purpose. Point being, human beings are here, and, regardless of whether that was an "accident" (which has such a negative connotation, by the way), we define the reasons for our own existence.

As Nietzsche would say: Genau.

Originally Posted by Joey P
Yeah, isn't Elohim plural?

--------------
Yup. For some reason, there seems to be multiple Gods in the beginning of the Old Testament, and just One God later. Most believers DO NOT know this.
The whole book starts off rocky with two opposing stories about "Creationism" in Genesis. From page one of the Bible, there's one story about the creation of our universe, followed by an opposing story that differs from the first (like Adam and Eve being created at different times with the rib, etc.).
Very strange that most believers don't notice these obvious inconsistencies. If the bible were a new book, it would be torn to pieces by critics as a hackpiece for it's inconsitencies, historical inaccuracies and, let's face it, absence of coherent plot.

Neo,

Please to be defining "evolutionist" and/or changing the title to fit your actual question.

[QUOTEThe ability to use capital letters and to spell 'intelligence' correctly?

Not if you use sonar and eat fish, are you using your own value system?

Where do probablities come into it. How do you make the probablity that God did or did not do something. And what kind of proof would you expect from God? A signiture or something?
Given two hypotheses, one that involves processes that are familiar to us and observable, and one that involves processes caused by a being that operates outside the laws of science, is untestable, and has never been observed, I just think it's more reasonable to be on the side of the former.

'Elohim' is indeed a plural word, and plural pronouns are used of God as well. I think this is a hint at the plural nature of God; God the Father is God, God the Son is God, and God the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not three Gods, but one God. It's the Trinity, and I don't claim I can explain the concept properly, because I think God is more than my finite mind can describe.
As to the 10 commandments, and the mentions of other gods in the OT, I see that as a semantic difference. God is the real god, the other 'gods' fulfil the role of God in their various religions, but are not God.

Not in the vision of the writers of this part of the bible. The writers, jews, did not believe in the trinity. However, they do define god as a plural symbol. That means that god is a composite of all the existing (and possibly infinite) gods that make the allpowerful nature of god. That is, if there are 'many' and not one, which constitute the one.

No, I'm not asking what purpose God gives to individual human beings, but rather what purpose does God have himself.
Ooooh, a deep one!
This is open to debate, but I believe God's purpose is to be Himself. He's self-defining, He's the only one who has the right to be an existentialist, His given name is "I AM", after all.
His purpose as far as the human race is concerned is to bring all of us back into a right relationship with Him, and with each other, and with the world He created. We can opt in, or opt out, because I believe He gives us the choice.

[QUOTEThe ability to use capital letters and to spell 'intelligence' correctly?

Not if you use sonar and eat fish, are you using your own value system?

Smiley indicates joke.

Anyway, to continue (computer died) -

Mountains grow and change. Soil moves. These are things that are definetely not alive. Our only definition of a living thing is therefore a complex thing that passes on its complexity to make replicates. And there are plenty of molecules that can do this, and have done this under observation in the lab. I have no problem calling them "life", and they indeed and the precursors to what we normally consider life. It was a dishonest argument because the definition of life was left out. If I'd said "sure it has, look at RNA", he'd say "but that's not life!". Odd ... now I've shown he was wrong should adopt the other viewpoint, if he intended to use the argument honestly ... :)

Ooooh, a deep one!
This is open to debate, but I believe God's purpose is to be Himself. He's self-defining, He's the only one who has the right to be an existentialist, His given name is "I AM", after all.


So, in the end life is purposeful only because God, who has no natural purpose, decides one for himself? Thus the point of life is as arbitrary as if we were to chose one for ourselves?

Not in the vision of the writers of this part of the bible. The writers, jews, did not believe in the trinity. However, they do define god as a plural symbol. That means that god is a composite of all the existing (and possibly infinite) gods that make the allpowerful nature of god. That is, if there are 'many' and not one, which constitute the one.
I've never met any Jews who defined God the way you describe.
This use of plural for God has also been described as the plural of majesty, or of potentiality, used of God because He's much, much bigger than us, in ways we can only barely imagine the edges of.

Well done, you get a gold star! :) Actually, there are plenty of things that don't move or grow; aren't yeast spores a form of life? The reproduces is a good start though. Actually if we strip down our definition of what life is to encompass every single thing of living origin, reproduction is effectively what is left. What about virii? Or prions? They sure as hell didn't just appear at random, and so must be products of life.

how dont they grow, dont they have to come from somewhere?

'Elohim' is indeed a plural word, and plural pronouns are used of God as well. I think this is a hint at the plural nature of God; God the Father is God, God the Son is God, and God the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not three Gods, but one God. It's the Trinity, and I don't claim I can explain the concept properly, because I think God is more than my finite mind can describe.
As to the 10 commandments, and the mentions of other gods in the OT, I see that as a semantic difference. God is the real god, the other 'gods' fulfil the role of God in their various religions, but are not God.
the trinity isn't multiple gods though, it's one god, therefore would be singular.

aside from that, it's always the one principle deity who addresses the hebrews in the bits about not worshipping the other gods.

furthermore, it never says that the gods of the egyptians are false for quite some time in the bible. it just tells the hebrews not to worship them.

I personally don't believe in God and creation, but I've been studying Biology for a year now and heard a lot about evolution. It ain't all that clear as some people want it to be. First we have some primitive amino acids and proteins floating aroud in the "primeordial soup", then we make a jump to bacteria with DNA, ribosomes, a working inner life. You know, it makes me wondering. Also, I understand how blood is moved through the human body, but how does a cell know when to make a vesicle from its Golgi-apparatus to store some proteins... It may have an explanation, but how did it get this complex?
Time can't explain everything...

Well done, you get a gold star! :) Actually, there are plenty of things that don't move or grow; aren't yeast spores a form of life? The reproduces is a good start though. Actually if we strip down our definition of what life is to encompass every single thing of living origin, reproduction is effectively what is left. What about virii? Or prions? They sure as hell didn't just appear at random, and so must be products of life.

Certainly according to this definition, God is not alive, but computer virii are.

'Elohim' is indeed a plural word, and plural pronouns are used of God as well. I think this is a hint at the plural nature of God; God the Father is God, God the Son is God, and God the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not three Gods, but one God. It's the Trinity, and I don't claim I can explain the concept properly, because I think God is more than my finite mind can describe.
As to the 10 commandments, and the mentions of other gods in the OT, I see that as a semantic difference. God is the real god, the other 'gods' fulfil the role of God in their various religions, but are not God.
The key word in your post seems to be "I think". How can you beleive in a god you KNOW nothing about. It seems to be based on imagination and speculation.

So, in the end life is purposeful only because God, who has no natural purpose, decides one for himself? Thus the point of life is as arbitrary as if we were to chose one for ourselves?
No, that's not what I said. I believe God's natural purpose is to be Himself, which isn't really a decision, because God doesn't decide His own nature and character, they just are.
You may consider the nature of God to be arbitrary, but given that I believe everything that exists, including you, derives from that nature, I feel that the use of the term 'arbitrary' may be inappropriate in this case.

What about elements that stars do not create. Stars do not create every element on the periodic table.How do those elements not in stars come about.


OH (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/heavy_metal_010823.html) NOES! (http://ultraman.ssl.berkeley.edu/nucleosynthesis.html)

All elements are produced by stars.


And you havent explained the Big bang as yet. What caused it. Cause and effect are laws that apply throught the whole universe regardless of time.


Fallacy of composition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html). On what basis to you apply laws you observe within the universe to the universe itself or beyond it? I'm also curious how you can have cause and effect without time, please explain.


Why is it so impossible that God caused the Big bang? I wont say its a ceritaity, all Christans need faith, but is it not a posibility?

It's also possible it was:
Aliens
Unicorns
Elves
Batman

Of course there's not a shred of evidence to support their ideas and, of course, we have to take your word on it that this God exists and it can do the things you say it can. All in all, that makes for a pretty weak claim.

Anyway, to continue (computer died) -

Mountains grow and change. Soil moves. These are things that are definetely not alive. Our only definition of a living thing is therefore a complex thing that passes on its complexity to make replicates. And there are plenty of molecules that can do this, and have done this under observation in the lab. I have no problem calling them "life", and they indeed and the precursors to what we normally consider life. It was a dishonest argument because the definition of life was left out. If I'd said "sure it has, look at RNA", he'd say "but that's not life!". Odd ... now I've shown he was wrong should adopt the other viewpoint, if he intended to use the argument honestly ... :)


dont both fire and radiation behave in ways to be considered life?

Certainly according to this definition, God is not alive, but computer virii are.

i have no problem with that

how dont they grow, dont they have to come from somewhere?

Hehe ... depends on what you mean by grow. The yeast that produce the spores grow from the previous generation (by producing more cytoplasm); various changes occur in these to produce the spores, which are then essentially inert; but can be reactivated to yield new haploid yeast cells. Ok, that's pretty shaky, but get this: a photosynthetic bacterial coloney doesn't move, and no growth is required for continuous division; the cells just get smaller; obviously this cannot continue indefinitely, but some individuals will never experience growth. And virii certainly never grow. On the other hand there are inorganic things that do; mountains is (still) the best one I can think of..

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.You are confusing evolution with atheism.

Evolution does not deny, out of hand, the existence of God. It also doesn't insist on the existence of God. Evolution looks at the array of living things, and postulates a theory about how those living things came to exist in such diversity. There is room in evolution for God. As I see it, God CAUSED this all to happen - in the manner described as the theory of evolution. The random combination of amino acids and various other chemicals you describe is HOW God choose to make life. As to "here" - we don't yet know if it's ONLY here, or if here is just one of the places where life exists. I'm betting on MANY "heres" - a vast number of places in the universe where life exists.

Atheism is the belief that there is no God - and atheism does not, in and of itself, postulate evolution. I would guess that most atheists believe in evolution - but I would also guess that there are some who believe in other theories of creation.

Creationists seem to frequently make the mistake that everyone who believes in evolution is an atheist. There is another thread in NS where the assumption is that you must believe in creationism to be a Christian. Pooh. Not so. Creationists simply believe that the book of Genesis is a word for word news report of the creation of the world. Other Christians, such as myself, view Genesis more as a poetic expression of how God created the world.

that Neo is ignoring me.

I feel so hurt.

No, that's not what I said. I believe God's natural purpose is to be Himself, which isn't really a decision, because God doesn't decide His own nature and character, they just are.

He's self-defining, He's the only one who has the right to be an existentialist, His given name is "I AM", after all.

So you are claiming that God is defined by his essence, despite claiming earlier that he had the right to be an existentialist (ie. to recognise that it is our existence that defines us instead of our essence)? Contradiction, no?

Hehe ... depends on what you mean by grow. The yeast that produce the spores grow from the previous generation (by producing more cytoplasm); various changes occur in these to produce the spores, which are then essentially inert; but can be reactivated to yield new haploid yeast cells. Ok, that's pretty shaky, but get this: a photosynthetic bacterial coloney doesn't move, and no growth is required for continuous division; the cells just get smaller; obviously this cannot continue indefinitely, but some individuals will never experience growth. And virii certainly never grow. On the other hand there are inorganic things that do; mountains is (still) the best one I can think of..

awesome

however, under my definition the virii would move ;)

dont both fire and radiation behave in ways to be considered life?

Interesting point. I don't quite see how radiation causes generation of other radiation, or transmits any sense of "complexity" or "information" even if it can (I am not a physicist); I suppose fire can be seen to reproduce .. if the fire could contain some sort of information, and pass that to daughter fires, then in theory evolutionary processes could be started, and yep, we'd have to refer to it as a form of life. And why not? Once you have evolutionary processes, you can have a lot of things. There was an interesting theory about the origin of life that described it as being generated from crystal formations being washed in river beds. If you have a complexity replication, you have the the capacity for life. You could even consider data on a computer hard disk as a form of life, or thoughts in a brain...

Interesting point. I don't quite see how radiation causes generation of other radiation, or transmits any sense of "complexity" or "information" even if it can (I am not a physicist); I suppose fire can be seen to reproduce .. if the fire could contain some sort of information, and pass that to daughter fires, then in theory evolutionary processes could be started, and yep, we'd have to refer to it as a form of life. And why not? Once you have evolutionary processes, you can have a lot of things. There was an interesting theory about the origin of life that described it as being generated from crystal formations being washed in river beds. If you have a complexity replication, you have the the capacity for life. You could even consider data on a computer hard disk as a form of life, or thoughts in a brain...


man, life is such an ambiguous term :)

The key word in your post seems to be "I think". How can you beleive in a god you KNOW nothing about. It seems to be based on imagination and speculation.
Our difference here may be in language, or it may be in philosophy.
I use the list of verbs following: {think, know, believe, assume, feel}
as virtual synonyms when talking about these matters, because we can never know anything absolutely in the way you refer to. All knowledge is based on assumptions we have made about the nature of reality, the nature of our senses, the nature of our minds, the nature of logic, to name but a few.
For instance, you cannot disprove the scenario suggested in the "Matrix" trilogy, neither can I, because it challenges the assumption that the information our senses provide to our minds is basically accurate concerning the real world around us.
I know God is real, and that He loves me, and that He has a purpose for my life;I know these things as much as I know that I am alive. I can also speculate about God, without the same degree of certainty that I have for the preceding three beliefs; my comments on the use of "Elohim" probably fall under the category of speculation.

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.

Does there need to be a point? Those looking for a point won't find it and even if they did they would argue and argue over it.

accidents in nature happen... it's life.

Interesting point. I don't quite see how radiation causes generation of other radiation, or transmits any sense of "complexity" or "information" even if it can (I am not a physicist); I suppose fire can be seen to reproduce .. if the fire could contain some sort of information, and pass that to daughter fires, then in theory evolutionary processes could be started, and yep, we'd have to refer to it as a form of life. And why not? Once you have evolutionary processes, you can have a lot of things. There was an interesting theory about the origin of life that described it as being generated from crystal formations being washed in river beds. If you have a complexity replication, you have the the capacity for life. You could even consider data on a computer hard disk as a form of life, or thoughts in a brain...
Radiation can generate more radiation. A neutron spit out by a U235 nucleus as it splits could be captured by another U235 nucleus causing it to split.

accidents in nature happen... it's life.

thats an amazing pun

well done

Our difference here may be in language, or it may be in philosophy.
I use the list of verbs following: {think, know, believe, assume, feel}
as virtual synonyms when talking about these matters, because we can never know anything absolutely in the way you refer to. All knowledge is based on assumptions we have made about the nature of reality, the nature of our senses, the nature of our minds, the nature of logic, to name but a few.
For instance, you cannot disprove the scenario suggested in the "Matrix" trilogy, neither can I, because it challenges the assumption that the information our senses provide to our minds is basically accurate concerning the real world around us.
I know God is real, and that He loves me, and that He has a purpose for my life;I know these things as much as I know that I am alive. I can also speculate about God, without the same degree of certainty that I have for the preceding three beliefs; my comments on the use of "Elohim" probably fall under the category of speculation.
My point is how can you know anything about god? If god exists, don't you think he would make himself known in no uncertain terms? You don't sound like a deist.

It's crazy really ... I'm a study biological sciences, but it scares me how often the things I learn in relation to biological systems apply to computers, or buildings, or any unnatural or man-made things. I think this is one of the strongest arguments for evolution: life is special, but life is really an inherant property of the universe, something that occurs whenever we have certain properties in the matter we look at. And I do think virii (and computer virii) have a better case for life than god... :)

So you are claiming that God is defined by his essence, despite claiming earlier that he had the right to be an existentialist (ie. to recognise that it is our existence that defines us instead of our essence)? Contradiction, no?
Look, I'm pretty tired, alright? I may have contradicted myself here, although I'm a bit shaky on the distinction you are drawing between existence and essence. I probably screwed up by calling God an existentialist. Sorry.
:(

Radiation can generate more radiation. A neutron spit out by a U235 nucleus as it splits could be captured by another U235 nucleus causing it to split.

Ok, but how is any information conveyed by this process? Actually, we can probably put another restriction on life: life requires the replication of complexity; this requires energy in order not to defy the second law; and so life must must result in the release of this energy, and occur seperate to this release of energy. Fission and fire are this release; although they are self susaining, they are characterised by an increase in entropy and so (it is difficult to see) how they convey information. Just a thought :)

Ok, but how is any information conveyed by this process? Actually, we can probably put another restriction on life: life requires the replication of complexity; this requires energy in order not to defy the second law; and so life must must result in the release of this energy, and occur seperate to this release of energy. Fission and fire are this release; although they are self susaining, they are characterised by an increase in entropy and so (it is difficult to see) how they convey information. Just a thought :)
I don't think it can convey information. I was just addressing reproduction.

Look, I'm pretty tired, alright? I may have contradicted myself here, although I'm a bit shaky on the distinction you are drawing between existence and essence. I probably screwed up by calling God an existentialist. Sorry.
:(

OK, we'll let that one past then - but as a sidenote it was Sartre that claimed "Existence precedes essence": that we define ourselves by the choices we make and the lives we lead, not on the basis of some pre-defined essence.

You are claiming that God's purpose is defined by his essence, then, yes? In other words 'God's purpose just is'. I fail to see how this is not an arbitrary purpose, otherwise we enter into a circular position where God's purpose is defined by his essence and his essence is defined by his purpose.

I don't think it can convey information. I was just addressing reproduction.

Aaah, but that's the important bit. Darwin's first law of natural selection

1. Must be capable of conveying characteristics to daughter generations

We cannot get anything more complex if evolutionary processes cannot occur. And all current life convery sinformation, not just making random progeney

My point is how can you know anything about god? If god exists, don't you think he would make himself known in no uncertain terms? You don't sound like a deist.
My point, Joey, is that I know that God has called me to follow Him as much as I know that I really am sitting at a desk with a computer on it, having an online conversation with you and the others on this thread.
I choose not to call that absolute knowledge, on a very specific philosophical ground that I don't believe absolute knowledge is technically possible by any human being right now, because all deductive chains require axioms at the start, which are by definition unproveable.
God has made himself known to me as much as any other 'knowledge' that I possess, and more than most. In the age to come, when God remakes His creation, and everything and everyone that accepts Him as God is made good again, He'll sort out this logical trap I get myself into by permanently determining my axioms so that they are true forever, absolute truth as defined by God, and I'll know that in the depths of my being, so it will never be a problem again. I'm on the path to that already, but not all the way there yet.

Aaah, but that's the important bit. Darwin's first law of natural selection

1. Must be capable of conveying characteristics to daughter generations

We cannot get anything more complex if evolutionary processes cannot occur. And all current life convery sinformation, not just making random progeney
I wasn't really arguing any point with that post. Just correcting something in yours.

OK, we'll let that one past then - but as a sidenote it was Sartre that claimed "Existence precedes essence": that we define ourselves by the choices we make and the lives we lead, not on the basis of some pre-defined essence.

You are claiming that God's purpose is defined by his essence, then, yes? In other words 'God's purpose just is'. I fail to see how this is not an arbitrary purpose, otherwise we enter into a circular position where God's purpose is defined by his essence and his essence is defined by his purpose.
Very gracious of you. :)
"God's purpose just is" is about as far as I get, yes. My point was that, in this particular case, the use of 'arbitrary' is unhelpful, since Christianity is only attempting to describe God based on information we believe He has given us, not define Him, determine Him, or otherwise speculate on what the universe would be like if God were different than He is.
I don't think the essence and purpose of God are circularly defining, just eternally co-existing.

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.

Where is it written that life should have a purpose?

Aaah, but that's the important bit. Darwin's first law of natural selection

1. Must be capable of conveying characteristics to daughter generations

We cannot get anything more complex if evolutionary processes cannot occur. And all current life convery sinformation, not just making random progeney

True, but at the time of Darwin, nobody knew of the real functioning of reproduction; of genetic mutation, crossing over,... I could go deeper, but I won't. So, progeny isn't just a mixing of the genetic material of the parents, but also adding a lot of variety. Evolution is not a historical process; it still happens as we speak. The point is it's too slow for us to persieve, and without this perseption we cannot fully understand it. (Same with the Big Bang, by the way. We live in a far too little world to understand the laws that may have made this event occur.)

On the other hand, Darwin has just as many critics as supporters, and not just under the creationists. It has it's leaks, but since it became a scientifical dogma (like the energy-preservation theory; I read a book on perpetuum-mobili and it was quite convincing...) nobody wants to meddle with it.

OK, we'll let that one past then - but as a sidenote it was Sartre that claimed "Existence precedes essence": that we define ourselves by the choices we make and the lives we lead, not on the basis of some pre-defined essence.

You are claiming that God's purpose is defined by his essence, then, yes? In other words 'God's purpose just is'. I fail to see how this is not an arbitrary purpose, otherwise we enter into a circular position where God's purpose is defined by his essence and his essence is defined by his purpose.
If I may take this off-topic a moment:
Is this existentialist philosophy about predestination?
How exactly is 'essence' defined here? and what does it have to do with choice? :confused:

"God's purpose just is" is about as far as I get, yes. My point was that, in this particular case, the use of 'arbitrary' is unhelpful, since Christianity is only attempting to describe God based on information we believe He has given us, not define Him, determine Him, or otherwise speculate on what the universe would be like if God were different than He is.

Well, firstly, 'arbitrary' from 'arbiter' or 'judge' which it is not unknown to use as a term refering to God. Secondly, Christianity has a long tradition of attempting to define God, either metaphorically or through a more rigid system of terms, such as the classical 'omniscient/omnipotent/all loving and righteous' or 'the being greater than which none can be imagined'.


I don't think the essence and purpose of God are circularly defining, just eternally co-existing.

It seems to me then that what you are arguing, without directly stating it as such is that God is necessary (in a philosophical sense) and so too is his purpose, yes? No?

The problem I find with this position is that it doesn't grant us any useful information: merely claiming that God exists and has a particular purpose because he must exist and his purpose must be of a particular nature doesn't tell us anything useful about the world or our selves. If anything it just makes me want to ask why God's purpose has to be such-and-such.

If I may take this off-topic a moment:
Is this existentialist philosophy about predestination?

Nope. Not at all, the core of existentialist thought is that we are free to make our own choices and have to live with the consequences. Certainly we are shaped by historical accidents (such as being born at a particular time or place or with a certain genetic heritage), but they do not rule us.


How exactly is 'essence' defined here? and what does it have to do with choice? :confused:

In the context of existentialism essence (the defining characteristics and purpose of a human being) are not given by God, but instead created by the individual themself.

Well, firstly, 'arbitrary' from 'arbiter' or 'judge' which it is not unknown to use as a term refering to God. Secondly, Christianity has a long tradition of attempting to define God, either metaphorically or through a more rigid system of terms, such as the classical 'omniscient/omnipotent/all loving and righteous' or 'the being greater than which none can be imagined'.

It seems to me then that what you are arguing, without directly stating it as such is that God is necessary (in a philosophical sense) and so too is his purpose, yes? No?

The problem I find with this position is that it doesn't grant us any useful information: merely claiming that God exists and has a particular purpose because he must exist and his purpose must be of a particular nature doesn't tell us anything useful about the world or our selves. If anything it just makes me want to ask why God's purpose has to be such-and-such.
I feel it appropriate to re-emphasize that I am now very, VERY tired, and am going to bed. It has been great fun, BWO and Joey P. and all the rest of you, I hope to catch you again on similar threads.
I think 'arbitrary' has shifted meaning away from it's derivation, to now imply 'random' or 'happenstance' (a lovely word not used often enough).
I see the characteristics of God that you mention as descriptions rather than definitions, but it's a fine line.
The stuff about God's purpose and essence being self-defining (or whatever ;) ) is only abstract philosophy. If you want real-world application, try reading one of the Gospels in the New Testament, and asking God what it means. The useful information about the world and ourselves contained within the accounts of the life of Jesus Christ in the Bible is literally life-changing.

I feel it appropriate to re-emphasize that I am now very, VERY tired, and am going to bed. It has been great fun, BWO and Joey P. and all the rest of you, I hope to catch you again on similar threads.

Later, it's been a pleasure.

I think 'arbitrary' has shifted meaning away from it's derivation, to now imply 'random' or 'happenstance' (a lovely word not used often enough).

No, I'm still using it in the same sense I was earlier: with reference to God's purpose being a given with no actual reason behind it.

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.Well, then that's those people's "problem". And what exactly would be their problem? That they have no "purpose" and thus no "value"? How is that a problem?

"what are we doing here now?" already is the wrong question and follows no real target. Existence is enough in itself, there is no need for a purpose.

True, but at the time of Darwin, nobody knew of the real functioning of reproduction; of genetic mutation, crossing over,... I could go deeper, but I won't. So, progeny isn't just a mixing of the genetic material of the parents, but also adding a lot of variety. Evolution is not a historical process; it still happens as we speak. The point is it's too slow for us to persieve, and without this perseption we cannot fully understand it. (Same with the Big Bang, by the way. We live in a far too little world to understand the laws that may have made this event occur.)

On the other hand, Darwin has just as many critics as supporters, and not just under the creationists. It has it's leaks, but since it became a scientifical dogma (like the energy-preservation theory; I read a book on perpetuum-mobili and it was quite convincing...) nobody wants to meddle with it.

You are quite right in saying that Darwin had very little, or maybe even no, understanding of the mechanisms by which hereditry are coferred. Despite Darwin's failings, the central core of his thoery; that natural selection occurs under certain circumstances; still stands not because it is a dogma, but becuase under the circumstances and with no external interfearance adaptation must occur - those individuals that exist will be those that are best adapted for existing. It is a mathematical necessity, and so no more dogma than pythagoras' theorum. This has always been at the core of the argument: something like Crick's central dogma is dogmatic: Crick states that the flow of information from DNA->RNA->Protein is universal; this is an assumption that is not implicitely true in itself; in time it was shown to be false. And since the debate is about the possible pre-biotic origin of life, the complicating genetic factors are unimportant; prokaryotes, and certainly RNA molecules, replicate their information with only mutation and replication errors being the source of modifications. I'm not really sure what your point is: I was arguing that a fundamental property of life was the transfer of information from one generation to the next. This occurs in all forms of life, no?

A perpectual motion machine could exist for a process that works completely reversibly. However, that process could be made to do no work and would be useless. This has nothing to do with life or anything else.

Personally, I think evolution/science SUPPORTS religion, not cancels it.

Don't you think the way things work is so amazing and coincidental that maybe it's not an accident?

I don't think there's an old guy with a white beard sitting on top of a cloud, but I do believe there is a uniting force in humanity.

And that leads me to raise the question "creationists? have you ever considered the ramifications of your ideas by calling everyone who proves/thinks them wrong a sinner?"

Geez, for all you bible thumpin' people who hate non-bible thumpin' people get over yourselves. Please. For the greater good.

Personally, I think evolution/science SUPPORTS religion, not cancels it.

Don't you think the way things work is so amazing and coincidental that maybe it's not an accident?

I don't think there's an old guy with a white beard sitting on top of a cloud, but I do believe there is a uniting force in humanity.


I actually don't have a problem with that - I respect anyone who can make independent philosophical headway without resorting to circular arguments. And yes, maybe you can use it as subjective evidence for a deity - subjectively, personally I prefer not to - but each to their own :)

This is going to be long.

Darwin's thoery of evolution revolved around natural selection. According to that theory, in any population there is a small percentage of organisms that have a mutation, an unusual trait. For the vast majority of circumstances, the mutation is no advantage, and so the entire population continues to reproduce and that small percentage remains small. But if a certain environmental change occurs, then that small percentage's mutated trait gives them an advantage that allows them to survive the change while the rest of the species dies off. Suddenly only that small percentage of the species remains, but all offspring will have the mutation and so the entire population will have the mutation. Evolution, right?

Most evolutionistists will say that bacteria were the first organisms, since they are the simplist in every respect. (Some say viruses should be first because they are simpler, but viruses must have come after cells since viruses require cells to live.) According to evolutionary theory, then, a small percentage of the bacteria had a mutation that made them slightly more advanced. That percentage would remain small and indistinct and would not become widespread unless an environmental change killed off the larger percentage and only left the mutated ones behind.

Why are there still bacteria left? Shouldn't they all have been killed off in the environmental change that caused the evolution from prokaryotic organisms to eukaryotic organisms? And why are there unicellular organisms? Shouldn't they have been killed off in the change to multicellular organisms? If evolution makes life more advanced and more able to survive through environmental change, why are bacteria, the simplest organisms on the planet, the most successful and largest population of all organisms? The process of evolution requires killing off the unmutated percentage of a population to bring out the new trait.

And that leads me to raise the question "creationists? have you ever considered the ramifications of your ideas by calling everyone who proves/thinks them wrong a sinner?"

Geez, for all you bible thumpin' people who hate non-bible thumpin' people get over yourselves. Please. For the greater good.

Don't stereotype Christians. I know no Christians who think that way.

This is going to be long.

Darwin's thoery of evolution revolved around natural selection. According to that theory, in any population there is a small percentage of organisms that have a mutation, an unusual trait. For the vast majority of circumstances, the mutation is no advantage, and so the entire population continues to reproduce and that small percentage remains small. But if a certain environmental change occurs, then that small percentage's mutated trait gives them an advantage that allows them to survive the change while the rest of the species dies off. Suddenly only that small percentage of the species remains, but all offspring will have the mutation and so the entire population will have the mutation. Evolution, right?

Most evolutionistists will say that bacteria were the first organisms, since they are the simplist in every respect. (Some say viruses should be first because they are simpler, but viruses must have come after cells since viruses require cells to live.) According to evolutionary theory, then, a small percentage of the bacteria had a mutation that made them slightly more advanced. That percentage would remain small and indistinct and would not become widespread unless an environmental change killed off the larger percentage and only left the mutated ones behind.

Why are there still bacteria left? Shouldn't they all have been killed off in the environmental change that caused the evolution from prokaryotic organisms to eukaryotic organisms? And why are there unicellular organisms? Shouldn't they have been killed off in the change to multicellular organisms? If evolution makes life more advanced and more able to survive through environmental change, why are bacteria, the simplest organisms on the planet, the most successful and largest population of all organisms? The process of evolution requires killing off the unmutated percentage of a population to bring out the new trait.
the non-mutated bacteria wouldn't have to be killed off.

the mutated bacteria would have to posess advantages to the non-mutated bacteria (by the way, there are a large number of bacteria species... as there are a large number of animal species or plant species or fungal species) and this new bacteria might occupy another niche in the ecosystem, leaving the other bacteria alone. or it may drive the other bacteria to destruction, outcompeting them for resources and all that.

the principle difference between bacteria and single celled organisms is that the bacteria dont' have nuclei and the single celled organisms do, the development of the nuclei and other cellular structure (chloroplasts for instance) would allow different species to develop, occupying different nieches (something with chloroplasts isn't competing for the same food as something without them) and since photosynthesis creates oxygen, yet another group of cells can develop, ones which respire using oxygen et c. clump together, form symbiotic relationships with oneanother, specialize, become multicellular organisms, et c.

i'm not a bio major, i haven't taken a biology class in 4 years, so if i'm wrong somewhere, i'm wrong. *shrugs*

When you get taught creationism what do they say?

I imagine the lesson consists of a long lecture on how evolution is wrong - citing numerous examples of how to poke holes in evolutionary theory.

And then right at the end - an explanation: God did it.

I haven't quite read this entire thread, but there was a mention of belief in God and belief in evolution and the big bang not being mutually exclusive. Again, i am not sure if this point has been made, but this may be an intresting quote for some to read:

"Here is a 1996 quote from Pope John Paul II:

Today, almost half a century after the publication of [Pius XII's] Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory. "

The Pope himself was one of the first major figures to endorse the Big Bang theory, a stance that the Catholic Church has now made official.

"Here is a 1996 quote from Pope John Paul II:

Today, almost half a century after the publication of [Pius XII's] Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory. "

The Pope himself was one of the first major figures to endorse the Big Bang theory, a stance that the Catholic Church has now made official.

Interesting, but it should be noted that the theory of evolution is just that - a theory - rather than a hypothesis.

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.
you realize that none of that is what the theory of evolution states, right?

according to science, life could ONLY have arrisen on Earth in the way that it did. there were certain conditions present on the planet, and those conditions led to life evolving as we know it; if those conditions had been different, life would be different. there's nothing random or accidental about it...life evolved based on the lawed of physics and the very nature of reality, and we exist in our current form because we are the most stable solution based on the combination of factors present in our reality.

that said, there is no objecive meaning to life. if you need for there to be one, then by all means make up an imaginary friend (or borrow somebody's elses) and have him tell you a nice story about how special you are.

Evolutionists, have you considered the ramifications of your ideas?
Yes.

you realize that none of that is what the theory of evolution states, right?

according to science, life could ONLY have arrisen on Earth in the way that it did. there were certain conditions present on the planet, and those conditions led to life evolving as we know it; if those conditions had been different, life would be different. there's nothing random or accidental about it...life evolved based on the lawed of physics and the very nature of reality, and we exist in our current form because we are the most stable solution based on the combination of factors present in our reality.

that said, there is no objecive meaning to life. if you need for there to be one, then by all means make up an imaginary friend (or borrow somebody's elses) and have him tell you a nice story about how special you are.
Right then! Prove to me that life could not be as it is now other than by this unsubstantiated theory of amino acids and elecricity. No well then you can't make a statement saying life could only be brought about by this set of events. Science does not know enough to make such sweeping statements and no scientist I know would ever make a statement based on the loose facts we have that rules out any other solution. thye may say it is less likley to happen with current knowledge.
I am no creationist but it boils my p*ss when supposed scientist make such sweeping satement based on such thin evidence.

We seem to be stuck with two theories,
either God made us or evolution did. What about other ideas?

How do we know that the Big Bang wasn't initiated by God and then evolution did the rest? or that evolution isn't a creation of God?

It may be that the whole purpose of the seemingly random creation and evolution of life on Earth is heading towards some kind of goal, like a machine the universe has a purpose but as components we don't understand what it is.

Just a thought

We seem to be stuck with two theories,
either God made us or evolution did. What about other ideas?

How do we know that the Big Bang wasn't initiated by God and then evolution did the rest? or that evolution isn't a creation of God?

It may be that the whole purpose of the seemingly random creation and evolution of life on Earth is heading towards some kind of goal, like a machine the universe has a purpose but as components we don't understand what it is.

Just a thought
It's that either/or that gets me, but in a different way. Creationists will point to gaps in evolution to say that they are right, but that's just silly. It is entirely possible that at some point some scientist will make a discovery and determine we had the whole thing wrong, but then it will be a new theory, not creationism. The least likely cause is a magic wand. If it's not evolution then it's something else.

The implication of the thread is sort of silly, at any given time it could have been:
"Round Earthers: Have you thought of the implications?," "Gallealeans: Have you thought of the implications?" If we're not the center of the universe than what are we? I mean, come on....

This is where my patience runs out. It is entirely possible to believe in god and all that other voodoo without having to be a flatearther. If you insist on being a flatearther, thats your call but I shouldn't have to entertain your twisted voodoo. The rest of us would like to progress. Kindly step off the bus, set up your tents and let the rest of us get on with things.

Come along people there are only two theories for the creation of everything that need be considered...

1. The universe was sneezed out of the great god arkelseizure's nose

or

2. By the unfortunate detonation of hydrogen fuel from a time travelling space vehilcle which went back TOO far....

....well they're no stranger than someone getting everything done on six days and in the wrong order too.......

surely everyone knows Jesus was a TimeLord by now !

Originally Posted by FutureExistence
I think 'arbitrary' has shifted meaning away from it's derivation, to now imply 'random' or 'happenstance' (a lovely word not used often enough).
No, I'm still using it in the same sense I was earlier: with reference to God's purpose being a given with no actual reason behind it.
God's purpose, as demonstrated in the Bible, is Creation. If God is the uncaused cause, and the universe the effect of his being, then isn't God the universe?

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.

I'm not going to answer the question, but i do find that the start of the thread showed us the divide between religious and areligious belief systems (everyone has a beliefsystem, implicit or explicit;a religion is not just a system of beliefs). This seems to be written from a religious stance and the author doesn't see how an areligious life can have meaning at all.

This is a reason why agnosticism is rather unacceptable if you want to go into deeper philosophical questions. The difference between religious and areligious views on the world is so great that you will have to chose in order to try to formulate an answer to these questions. I've seen agnostics saying they believe there is something out there, which basicly means they are not agnostic, but religious, and i have seen even more agnostics say they just don't know and live their lives without really caring, which basicly means they are areligious. (i try to avoid theism vs atheism as not all religions have god(s).)

Nope. Not at all, the core of existentialist thought is that we are free to make our own choices and have to live with the consequences. Certainly we are shaped by historical accidents (such as being born at a particular time or place or with a certain genetic heritage), but they do not rule us.

In the context of existentialism essence (the defining characteristics and purpose of a human being) are not given by God, but instead created by the individual themself.
Ah, so it's anti-soul. I see.

I consider every experience to justify itself.

Life is self justified and the purpose of life is to live, no external raison d'etre is needed for me, I am happy just experiencing the world and everything I can within it.

Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance?Of course we've considered it - we're not stupid you know!

We just don't see why it's a problem that we have to invent our own reasons for existing rather than have them handed to us by priests.

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.

Yes. The meaning of your life is what you *make* it.

God's purpose, as demonstrated in the Bible, is Creation. If God is the uncaused cause, and the universe the effect of his being, then isn't God the universe?
Only if you accept the word of religion.

Ah, so it's anti-soul. I see.

In short form - yes.

In longer form - not necessarilly, it would be possible to redefine th soul so that it is of the nature of a coming-into-being through the lives that we lead, rather than a given that the corporeal body with is embued with at conception.

God's purpose, as demonstrated in the Bible, is Creation. If God is the uncaused cause, and the universe the effect of his being, then isn't God the universe?
Only if you accept the word of religion.

Well, technically only if you are a polytheist. However, certain polytheists, such as Spinoza, argued that if God is everywhere and in all things he becomes rendered irrelevant: his being everywhere and everything is ultimately equivalent to his being nowhere and nothing.

I wish I could explain this somewhat better - it takes a certain conceptual leap to understand it.

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.

I would rather have a life without meaning than to belive in a fairy tale creation story that is full of holes

Don't stereotype Christians. I know no Christians who think that way.

I thought I said bible thumpers who hate non bible thumpers. I didn't say bible thumpers. They can thump the bible all they want as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights.

And there are good and bad people in every religion. I wasn't stereotyping Christians.

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.

If life has no meaning, it means that you make your own meaning, and that nobody, whatever frock or uniform of office they wear, can tell you what your meaning is.

A good thing I would have thought.

I don't know if the person that posted this will ever see my posting, but...some "evolutionists" can be offended by "creationists" claiming that because we are here by chance (not exactly accidentaly) that it means we are accidents and life has little or no meaning. I feel that human beings, when given time and the right tools can be gods themselves! Our earth is so beautiful it's hard to imagine the scenery could be much better in heaven, and the geniuses and the athletes, and great leaders are perfect examples of our capabilities and potential. Contrary to what "creationists" may believe my time on the beautiful earth will be spent as happily as possible, and never again will I ever devote time, emotion, love, hate, to something that may or may not exist. And certainly the race of humans would be a lo further along if there wasn so much wasted time, life, and energy into something thats never proven itself to exist. Interaction with the fantastic people, appreciating man or woman made art architecture writing and limitless other facets of life is enough for me to be happy without wondering where I go when my brain and heart stop working. :headbang:

I really wish I could say more than that but I dont want to offend anyone. Im not a bad person, I volunteer, Im charitable, but I can be awfully shory tempered and even mean when it comes to discussing religion.

Why are some christians against evolution? Why is it unbelievable that God would make a system of life that changes?

Change is what makes life interesting. We all attempt to cause change in our surroundings. We are meant to be made in Gods image, so it follows that God likes to see change as well. If you decided to watch TV for several aeons would you be happy watching re-runs of MASH and never change the channel?

The simplest of systems to make is one that does not change. Do some christians believe that God would settle for the simple?

In the world every tree is different, no two snowflakes are the same ;) and we can see all this variation as we look. We can only see in 3 dimmensions, God can see all of time and so can see in at least 4 dimmensions. God would make all this variation in the three dimmensions and make no variations in the 4th?

We can only see in 3 dimmensions, God can see all of time and so can see in at least 4 dimmensions. God would make all this variation in the three dimmensions and make no variations in the 4th?
Silence! I don't think some of the creationists here will be able to tolerate that level of logic...you might be responsible for mass homicide!

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance? I think that this is the problem many people have with your perspecive.

I'm not going to bother reading every single little post in this entire thread because as I've learned from the other threat where creationists were asked to prove their beliefs and what not, it just became a jumbled mess of people here and there not knowing a damn thing about anything at all. Just turned out to be a long list of failed reasons to support a religious belief and blah blah, etc etc. A lot of misjudgings, a lot of incorrect information, etc etc etc. Was not pretty, even so for the evolutionist side at times, but anyway.

My to you is, you don't have to believe evolution. It isn't required in school for you to believe it really happened. If someone teaches it that way they should lose their license. Whether evolutionists believe it is in fact the truth, or the opposite for creationists, or any group for that matter, it is only a theory filled with evidence. We'll never prove long term evolution (such as the evolution of mankind, or life in general) happened. We can only show and prove short term evolution. That's it. Nevertheless, evolution as a whole and a lot of things in science are just theories, evidence is there, but they are theories and should be taught that way, I was taught that way, it was never referred to as truth in my highschool classes, etc.
Then I have to say, why do you have this drive for meaning in life? Does anyone know the meaning of life? Anybody? The real meaning, not something you made up for yourself, or someone else made up and spread around. Is there documentation of it? Did God come down or Jesus or somebody speak for God and say "hey the meaning of life is ..."? Why do you bother looking for it? You'll never know for certain if the meaning is there, or if there really is one. How does evolution destroy the morals of the world? How? Contrary to what some religious people may think, most of us don't think about the meaning of life. It's either beyond us, or we are too preoccupied with the rigors of survival, though survival has changed significantly from our more primitive times. If there is a meaning of life, then shouldn't we be doing extensive research to find out where exactly we came from? If you think about it, if evolution is true, completely utterly true, and some off chance we can prove it, wouldn't you want to know? What if evolution was set up by God? Scientists can never explain why we exist, in fact that's something nobody can explain in detail, we don't know, we don't know exactly how matter came to be, we can't ever know, your brain would probably explode if you tried to actually think it through. What if God started the small little burst of whatever that made everything as it is? What if God was responsible for Evolution? Would that mean we are an accident? A lot of scientists believe in God, they see God as the only way to explain how the events before the Big Bang could have ever happened. Why? Because we just don't know, it's beyond us. Evolution in no way says there is no God, nor does it say that we were an accident. It only gives the process by which life adapts and evolves.

This whole big spout about evolution and creationism started with people wanting creationism taught in schools. You can't do that. No matter how hard you want to, applying any form of religious belief in a school setting is against the law. Creationism requires a faith in God to believe. There are many who do not want their children exposed to religion in such a fashion. If they did they'd send them to catholic or christian schools. Even some of those schools teach evolution. Creationism is not a science. That debate has practically ended. There is no way creationism can exist as science. It is barred by religion. Evolution is not. It is a scientific theory. To take Evolution from science, you'd have to take out the Big Bang, almost every theory of physics known to man, you'd have to take out the theory of gravity, since we can't prove gravity really exists, we only observe it. Science would be devoid of anything. And without science we'd never learn about the wonders of this planet, or devise new technologies, etc. Then you have to think, if you were to start making it mandatory to learn creationism is schools, you'd have to include all the other religions too who want a say in the creation of life and the world. All would want an equal say.
Everyone is entitled to have whatever religious belief they want, as long as it harms nobody, hell even Satanists can have their belief. But you can't force that belief onto someone else. Maybe many of you don't see it as forcing, but I know if I had a child, I wouldn't want him or her exposed to religion in a school environment. That should be left to the church and religious schools, or classes on religion, there are such classes out there.
Maybe neither side will ever see eye to eye on this. Who knows....

Originally Posted by Sploddygloop
Originally Posted by Willamena
God's purpose, as demonstrated in the Bible, is Creation. If God is the uncaused cause, and the universe the effect of his being, then isn't God the universe?
Only if you accept the word of religion.Well, technically only if you are a polytheist. However, certain polytheists, such as Spinoza, argued that if God is everywhere and in all things he becomes rendered irrelevant: his being everywhere and everything is ultimately equivalent to his being nowhere and nothing.

I wish I could explain this somewhat better - it takes a certain conceptual leap to understand it.
Why necessarily polytheistic? Do you mean pantheism?

Do you mean made redundant in the sense of white noise, where constant patterns would tend to fade into the background? In that case, god is anything but redundant, because its for the individual human who perceives him (Man, The Observer) to give him meaning.

Why necessarily polytheistic? Do you mean pantheism?


I do indeed. My mistake. Apologies.

Do you mean made redundant in the sense of white noise, where constant patterns would tend to fade into the background? In that case, god is anything but redundant, because its for the individual human who perceives him (Man, The Observer) to give him meaning.

If all things are God, then nothing is more or less holy than anything else, and the individual human itself is as equally embued with Godhead as a twig or a snail or a cloud or a graphics card. If all things are holy and divine, then there becomes nothing for a sentient believer to specifically focus upon and place themselves in relation to which is more or less valid than anything else.

As I say, I can't really explain this too well. Parallel example: if all things were blue, and never changed their shade, then the quality blue would lose its meaning.

If all things are God, then nothing is more or less holy than anything else, and the individual human itself is as equally embued with Godhead as a twig or a snail or a cloud or a graphics card. If all things are holy and divine, then there becomes nothing for a sentient believer to specifically focus upon and place themselves in relation to which is more or less valid than anything else.

And it's really cool when you realize it. I think this is why people fixate on their navels. To center themselves.

There is no God. Accept it, dudes. No Allah, no Buddha, none of the others ... humans create their own gods and fixate their own beliefs on them. Of course the world wasn't created in seven days! Of course creationism isn't a science? How stupid would anybody have to be to believe that?

Cosmic Idea - Evolution was how God planned things to develop.

As for "morality" - feh.

Well, redshift basically proves the universe is currently expanding. It will likely collapse in on itself at some point way down the road, probably back into the single atom from which it formed. What gets me, though, is what if our current universe, estimated to be around 19ish billion years, I believe, is nothing more than one of infinite processes of expansion and contraction, nothing more than a breath in the body of eternity? Man, you thought we were insignificant in our current universe....what if our universe itself is naught but an insignificant nanosecond in the greater course of things? Then you have Hawking's multiverse....

It seems possible to me that time (which doesn't exist in the sense we think of, only in relativity) could never end, that it could simply go on indefinitely, but what about beginning? How can it have begun, and if it didn't, how can it simply have been, for all time? How can space end, how can it not end? If it does, what is beyond it, just "dark matter?" If that's so, where does THAT end. I considered myself in the realm of skepticism (a largely ignored field of thought between agnosticism and atheism) until I really found that there is seemingly no possible explanation for these questions. I suppose the only possible answers are the existence of infinity and eternity so far beyond the grasp of human comprehension that they are simply inconceivable, or some sort of force with a varying level of direction on it all. I'll cut and paste my particular theory on God in modern life from another thread, the topic of which was "Can God Destroy Himself?":


Sort of a moot point. There is no God in the sense that people generally conceive of. Even most orthodoxists have gotten past the image of the bearded Giant residing in a clouded astral plane, but all the other traits given to God in general are nonsensical. It is not a being, it does not make value judgments, it does think or act. Such are only anthropomorphic traits lent by those whose erstwhile mindset can be displayed by the dominance of Geocentric theory. Primitive religions mixed the concept of the force creating the universe with a supervisory being which thinks we should act kind and fair, largely in order to have sway over the sheep who followed them. The Ten Commandments are the word of man misrepresented as that of God, an innocent and well-intentioned lie but no less a lie than Jesus's apotheosistic delusions. Jesus was a nice Jew who let his fame get to his head, eventually becoming a self-deluding demagogue who was able to persuade very impressionable and somewhat dull people into following his warped con-man megalomania. There were about 500 billion such mystery cults at the time, Christianity was simply one that succeeded. That people still believe such primitive explanations and blindly explain with "faith" that which can accurately be explained by science is only indicative of the general need of belonging and purpose, one of man's great weaknesses.

Atheism is equally foolish; the complexity of the human body, the unimaginable amount of factors that were required for life to exist on this planet and a host of other "coincidences" prove general chaos unlikely. Diseases, the innate desire for war and territoriality are largely here to prevent overpopulation, an innate desire sadly lacking from our collective psyche. The adaptation of animals, their existence in general has a purpose. Something is making it all work, but it's an unexplainable and inconceivable force, not some infallible human-like being with fatherly nurturing instincts. It cannot act, it cannot speak, it cannot lift an apple one inch off a table, it works in aeons and epochs, very slowly, and with discretion. It has not created limbo, heaven, and hell to punish or reward us based on the good or evil we do in our lives. Those are human concepts, not universal ones.

Our universe (or multiverse) is a fascinating amalgam of events, and the 18 billion year age given to it is incorrect. Red shift proves the universe is expanding, but it will also contract into the single atom from which it has expanded and contracted, much like a star's cycle, probably an infinite amount of times. Something makes it happen, something beyond what anyone living 15-2000 years ago in Arabia can certainly explain, but people throughout time cling to their misdirected beliefs because they seem to make sense after they are told to believe them enough, or they find their life a void and want to fill it with meaning, regardless of "I heard the voice of God" self-delusion. So, to answer the question, God cannot destroy itself because it is not a being which takes specific actions, or thinks in the sense that humans think, or even exists in a tangible sense. "God" is a construct from human minds to explain a much more powerful AND less powerful force which exists in entirely different terms than what has been incorrectly theorized by the various religions of the world to this point. The concept of God in the modern world is no more correct or legitimate than Jupiter, Zeus, Odin, or any of the other manmade creations. Sad that so many waste so much time and energy professing a remarkably translucent, man-made belief system; that so many have died from quarrels over who is right when every religion to date is essentially no more than a widespread cult, when our energies could be devoted to so much more worthwhile and accuracy-seeking ventures. Faith simply for the sake of faith is a dangerously misleading and fruitless institution.
Religion when used as a tool of good is fine, when it helps the inmate in jail find God and better his life, when it spreads charity and such, regardless of its inaccuracy. Too often, unfortunately, it becomes my God vs. your God (to this day, obviously) and turns into the Thirty Years' War, for example.

Well, hate to end on such a negative note, regardless of its unfortunate truth, but the cut and paste broke my train of thought so I can't really put a summarizing conclusion to it right now.

There is no God. Accept it, dudes. No Allah, no Buddha, none of the others ...


Claiming that there is no Buddha as an argument against Buddhism just shows that you have missed the point entirely: Buddhism is a non-theistic 'religion'.