Cambrian Explosion - Proof of Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

Among physicists belief in god is almost non-existent. Not that that’s the point I was making, but it’s slightly relevant. Why is it that physicists that understand the true nature of the origin of time and space far better than you don’t believe in god?

But the problem is you think you know fundamentally how the true nature of the universe must be. You don’t think these physicists have grappled with the idea you’re mentioning. Why does it not convince them?..
[/quote]

Just in case anyone was wondering, there is not an ounce of truth in any of this post. Actually, I take that back. SM might actually think that he understands the universe, I don’t really know that, but the rest about physicists is not.

182

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

Among physicists belief in god is almost non-existent. Not that that’s the point I was making, but it’s slightly relevant. Why is it that physicists that understand the true nature of the origin of time and space far better than you don’t believe in god?

But the problem is you think you know fundamentally how the true nature of the universe must be. You don’t think these physicists have grappled with the idea you’re mentioning. Why does it not convince them?..
[/quote]

Just in case anyone was wondering, there is not an ounce of truth in any of this post. Actually, I take that back. SM might actually think that he understands the universe, I don’t really know that, but the rest about physicists is not.[/quote]

Well I am to some degree taking the word of a renowned physicist. Lawrence Krauss quoting Stephen Weinberg who said that most physicists don’t give god enough thought to know whether they believe or not, or something like that. They both know far more physicist than you or me, so I think their word has some merit.

183

[quote]darsemnos wrote:
They both know far more physicist than you or me, so I think their word has some merit.
[/quote]

I highly doubt this.

184

[quote] Sloth wrote:

So you lie to yourself, and know it. You don’t believe in good and evil. You’ve done no “wrong.”

darsemnos wrote:

No. There seems to be so much hatred for atheists by people who claim to be loving. It’s been proven that atheists are the single most hated group in this country. Why do you hate us so much? What would you do to us if you were in charge?[/quote]

Anything I wanted, I suppose. I could do no wrong. Not really. /muhahaha.

That you’ve committed some evil you have to make amends for, when your skeptical outlook doesn’t include evil being a reality. Why are you acting out spaghetti-morality you know doesn’t exist? Does the lion make amends for killing the cubs of the rival he’s deposed?

Narrow? You don’t believe in right or wrong at all. Wait, or, do you? Ok, point the telescope or microscope at “right” or “wrong.” Can’t? Fables! So, I live by and believe in “fables” I actually believe in…You live by personally constructed fables you don’t even believe in. I’m not convinced the latter is any more “reasonable.”

[quote] I have standards for myself that I impose on myself. They probably derive from the fact that we’re social animals that must cooperate in order to survive[/quote].

Well, not totally. For instance, the one half of infant studies that get trotted out to demonstrate how inherently good and cooperative we are (I suppose religion is then the original sin that corrupted us). Yet, somehow, the ones showing that the vast majority of infants want an “other” punished for as little as different taste in food are conveniently left out. The “morality found in man’s genes” crowd…

Man could cooperate. Or, he could compete for resources. Even up to the use of violence. Man could cooperate only with direct neighbors. Man could cooperate only with members of his own tribe/ethnicity/race. Man could kill family, neighbors, etc for something they have. Man can only kill outsiders of his in-group. Etc. None of these actually, in reality, being a right or wrong way of being. Great, you imposed upon yourself standards. However, by your own worldview you must admit these are self-deluding lies. Sort of like telling yourself your favorite color is “the good choice of favorite color.”

So this isn’t about some greater intellectual position, but your emotionalism.

185

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I have no idea why creationism/evolution is always the target when pondering Genesis. Read the description of the sky and the celestial bodies. Now ask yourself how we landed on the moon instead of crashing into the firmament/dome. A dome that separates the water below (on Earth) from the water…above?! You guys are so fixated on evolution you forget the low-hanging fruit…Every. Single. Time.

Oh, and literal-sola scriptura-agnostics?[/quote]

You’re way too smart to be making these silly statements. There’s no way this is what you are really getting hung up on. No freaking way.

Instead of the dome stumbling block please deal with the following:

"theist view – conventionally accepted evolution (macro), of course, posits that death has existed since the first life and was part of the original (secular) “plan;” it is inherent that life forms die – trillions of deaths over billions of years.

Judaism/Christianity/Islam teaches that creation was originally perfect and all death is a direct result of man’s original sin. For one to mix the two (macro-evolution and creation) is to pull the legs out from under the creation model. In other words, how could Adam – fully formed, perfect and sentient – have committed the original sin which began the cascade of death ever since…and yet be the result of billions of years of prior death?" [/quote]

Been here, done it.

Not interested in evolution vs young earth creationism. Again.

I’m just flabbergasted why it’s always the young earth/Man-immediately-formed bits that get the spotlight? Where are the debates about the dome? About how the “lights” are placed IN the dome…etc., etc.

I personally don’t care if a Christian is a young-earth creationist.
And, I wouldn’t care if I was an atheist, either. It’s not like there’s some moral value either way on the issue in a godless/purposeless universe. One could live/believe any way one chooses, and not be morally wrong. Therefore, I wouldn’t be “morally outraged” as others are here, despite my own conclusions.
[/quote]

Because these people are trying to prevent us from teaching evolution and the Big Bang in school.
[/quote]

So? Do you have some kind of inherent right to a secular public education, or something? What moral rule are they breaking? There is no objective universal law in your worldview as to how they must behave. Where is the commandment of the universe stating that humans beings should conduct themselves socially, politically, etc., according to science?

People lobby/fight for what they want.
[/quote]
There is no objective universal law in your worldview. See if you can figure out why. I’ll be happy to explain if you want. [/quote]

God is my final judge. That is my claim.

But let’s talk about you. “Religion is ridiculous.” So, that’s just your meaningless subjective opinion. And if there is a predisposition to religious thought (possibly on a sliding; Not------Devout) how can it be “ridiculous?” You’re Captain Empiricism, so you have no room for faith or belief. So, you must reject notions of good and evil, inherent rights, etc. Frankly, I’d be terrified of a society that actually came to believe such things in their hearts. Seems incredibly naive to think such a society would “do things better.”
[/quote]

Either religions are true or they are false. Thus they are all either fundamentally ridiculous or one of them might not be.

God is subjective. How do you know he’s good? Oh, he says so. How do you know he isn’t evil? Because he says so. How do you KNOW he’s not lying about these things? Because he says so. Ummm, how do you REALLY know?
[/quote]

If man has a propensity for religious thought, then religion can’t be ridiculous. Instead of “fundamentally ridiculous” it is “fundamentally human.”

How do I know God isn’t “evil?” How could God be “evil?” My worldview is that good and evil is separated out only by God. If God was “evil,” that is what would be “good.” The prerogative of an all powerful inescapable creator. I

You’re not one of those atheists who will on the one hand tell me that “good” and “evil” doesn’t exist (i.e. no action is in reality good or evil), and then turn around and tell me that God does “evil” stuff in the bible are you?

“There is no moral law. No moral obligations. No inherent rights. If so, stain it, put it on a slide, an put it under a microscope.”

10 minutes later.

“God did evil stuff.”

15 minutes after that.

“Christians are infringing upon my rights!”

[/quote]

If torturing people forever isn’t bad, the word bad has no meaning. [/quote]

It has no meaning in your worldview at all.

186

[quote]darsemnos wrote:
God in your worldview has a literal blank check.

[/quote]

You don’t say?!

187

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

Your worldview is no different than saying if Hitler won WWII the Holocaust would have been a moral good.

[/quote]

Your worldview is that the Holocaust wasn’t, in reality, an evil…

188

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote] Sloth wrote:

So you lie to yourself, and know it. You don’t believe in good and evil. You’ve done no “wrong.”

darsemnos wrote:

No. There seems to be so much hatred for atheists by people who claim to be loving. It’s been proven that atheists are the single most hated group in this country. Why do you hate us so much? What would you do to us if you were in charge?[/quote]

Anything I wanted, I suppose. I could do no wrong. Not really. /muhahaha.

That you’ve committed some evil you have to make amends for, when your skeptical outlook doesn’t include evil being a reality. Why are you acting out spaghetti-morality you know doesn’t exist? Does the lion make amends for killing the cubs of the rival he’s deposed?

Narrow? You don’t believe in right or wrong at all. Wait, or, do you? Ok, point the telescope or microscope at “right” or “wrong.” Can’t? Fables! So, I live by and believe in “fables” I actually believe in…You live by personally constructed fables you don’t even believe in. I’m not convinced the latter is any more “reasonable.”

[quote] I have standards for myself that I impose on myself. They probably derive from the fact that we’re social animals that must cooperate in order to survive[/quote].

Well, not totally. For instance, the one half of infant studies that get trotted out to demonstrate how inherently good and cooperative we are (I suppose religion is then the original sin that corrupted us). Yet, somehow, the ones showing that the vast majority of infants want an “other” punished for as little as different taste in food are conveniently left out. The “morality found in man’s genes” crowd…

Man could cooperate. Or, he could compete for resources. Even up to the use of violence. Man could cooperate only with direct neighbors. Man could cooperate only with members of his own tribe/ethnicity/race. Man could kill family, neighbors, etc for something they have. Man can only kill outsiders of his in-group. Etc. None of these actually, in reality, being a right or wrong way of being. Great, you imposed upon yourself standards. However, by your own worldview you must admit these are self-deluding lies. Sort of like telling yourself your favorite color is “the good choice of favorite color.”

So this isn’t about some greater intellectual position, but your emotionalism.

[/quote]
And you obey Hitler because otherwise he’ll put you in the ovens like the Jews.

I can live with ambiguous morality. Morality that is based on care for the well-being of conscious creatures. Morality that I can’t fully justify but that I’m still compelled to obey. But doing something just because some tyrant says so? That’s a non-starter.

189

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

Your worldview is no different than saying if Hitler won WWII the Holocaust would have been a moral good.

[/quote]

Your worldview is that the Holocaust wasn’t, in reality, an evil…
[/quote]

If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can.

But it’s not truly evil in your worldview. It was part of god’s plan and his plan can’t be evil. And nothing in the world can happen that is not according to his plan. And no matter what, god will correct every injustice, so in the end, no one who doesn’t deserve evil to happen to them will be harmed. Every tear will be wiped from their eyes. Except your god will torture forever some people in his ovens. Even Hitler couldn’t do that to the Jews.

190

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

Your worldview is no different than saying if Hitler won WWII the Holocaust would have been a moral good.

[/quote]

Your worldview is that the Holocaust wasn’t, in reality, an evil…
[/quote]

Well-being of conscious creatures. Your god cares not for it. I do. Is it better to not care or to care?

191

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I have no idea why creationism/evolution is always the target when pondering Genesis. Read the description of the sky and the celestial bodies. Now ask yourself how we landed on the moon instead of crashing into the firmament/dome. A dome that separates the water below (on Earth) from the water…above?! You guys are so fixated on evolution you forget the low-hanging fruit…Every. Single. Time.

Oh, and literal-sola scriptura-agnostics?[/quote]

You’re way too smart to be making these silly statements. There’s no way this is what you are really getting hung up on. No freaking way.

Instead of the dome stumbling block please deal with the following:

"theist view – conventionally accepted evolution (macro), of course, posits that death has existed since the first life and was part of the original (secular) “plan;” it is inherent that life forms die – trillions of deaths over billions of years.

Judaism/Christianity/Islam teaches that creation was originally perfect and all death is a direct result of man’s original sin. For one to mix the two (macro-evolution and creation) is to pull the legs out from under the creation model. In other words, how could Adam – fully formed, perfect and sentient – have committed the original sin which began the cascade of death ever since…and yet be the result of billions of years of prior death?" [/quote]

Been here, done it.

Not interested in evolution vs young earth creationism. Again.

I’m just flabbergasted why it’s always the young earth/Man-immediately-formed bits that get the spotlight? Where are the debates about the dome? About how the “lights” are placed IN the dome…etc., etc.

I personally don’t care if a Christian is a young-earth creationist.
And, I wouldn’t care if I was an atheist, either. It’s not like there’s some moral value either way on the issue in a godless/purposeless universe. One could live/believe any way one chooses, and not be morally wrong. Therefore, I wouldn’t be “morally outraged” as others are here, despite my own conclusions.
[/quote]

Because these people are trying to prevent us from teaching evolution and the Big Bang in school.
[/quote]

So? Do you have some kind of inherent right to a secular public education, or something? What moral rule are they breaking? There is no objective universal law in your worldview as to how they must behave. Where is the commandment of the universe stating that humans beings should conduct themselves socially, politically, etc., according to science?

People lobby/fight for what they want.
[/quote]
There is no objective universal law in your worldview. See if you can figure out why. I’ll be happy to explain if you want. [/quote]

God is my final judge. That is my claim.

But let’s talk about you. “Religion is ridiculous.” So, that’s just your meaningless subjective opinion. And if there is a predisposition to religious thought (possibly on a sliding; Not------Devout) how can it be “ridiculous?” You’re Captain Empiricism, so you have no room for faith or belief. So, you must reject notions of good and evil, inherent rights, etc. Frankly, I’d be terrified of a society that actually came to believe such things in their hearts. Seems incredibly naive to think such a society would “do things better.”
[/quote]

Either religions are true or they are false. Thus they are all either fundamentally ridiculous or one of them might not be.

God is subjective. How do you know he’s good? Oh, he says so. How do you know he isn’t evil? Because he says so. How do you KNOW he’s not lying about these things? Because he says so. Ummm, how do you REALLY know?
[/quote]

If man has a propensity for religious thought, then religion can’t be ridiculous. Instead of “fundamentally ridiculous” it is “fundamentally human.”

How do I know God isn’t “evil?” How could God be “evil?” My worldview is that good and evil is separated out only by God. If God was “evil,” that is what would be “good.” The prerogative of an all powerful inescapable creator. I

You’re not one of those atheists who will on the one hand tell me that “good” and “evil” doesn’t exist (i.e. no action is in reality good or evil), and then turn around and tell me that God does “evil” stuff in the bible are you?

“There is no moral law. No moral obligations. No inherent rights. If so, stain it, put it on a slide, an put it under a microscope.”

10 minutes later.

“God did evil stuff.”

15 minutes after that.

“Christians are infringing upon my rights!”

[/quote]

If torturing people forever isn’t bad, the word bad has no meaning. [/quote]
It has no meaning in your worldview at all.
[/quote]
It has far more meaning than it does in yours.

192

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:
They both know far more physicist than you or me, so I think their word has some merit.
[/quote]

I highly doubt this.[/quote]

Maybe I should note your username and icon (tesseract)…

193

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote] Sloth wrote:

So you lie to yourself, and know it. You don’t believe in good and evil. You’ve done no “wrong.”

darsemnos wrote:

No. There seems to be so much hatred for atheists by people who claim to be loving. It’s been proven that atheists are the single most hated group in this country. Why do you hate us so much? What would you do to us if you were in charge?[/quote]

Anything I wanted, I suppose. I could do no wrong. Not really. /muhahaha.

That you’ve committed some evil you have to make amends for, when your skeptical outlook doesn’t include evil being a reality. Why are you acting out spaghetti-morality you know doesn’t exist? Does the lion make amends for killing the cubs of the rival he’s deposed?

Narrow? You don’t believe in right or wrong at all. Wait, or, do you? Ok, point the telescope or microscope at “right” or “wrong.” Can’t? Fables! So, I live by and believe in “fables” I actually believe in…You live by personally constructed fables you don’t even believe in. I’m not convinced the latter is any more “reasonable.”

[quote] I have standards for myself that I impose on myself. They probably derive from the fact that we’re social animals that must cooperate in order to survive[/quote].

Well, not totally. For instance, the one half of infant studies that get trotted out to demonstrate how inherently good and cooperative we are (I suppose religion is then the original sin that corrupted us). Yet, somehow, the ones showing that the vast majority of infants want an “other” punished for as little as different taste in food are conveniently left out. The “morality found in man’s genes” crowd…

Man could cooperate. Or, he could compete for resources. Even up to the use of violence. Man could cooperate only with direct neighbors. Man could cooperate only with members of his own tribe/ethnicity/race. Man could kill family, neighbors, etc for something they have. Man can only kill outsiders of his in-group. Etc. None of these actually, in reality, being a right or wrong way of being. Great, you imposed upon yourself standards. However, by your own worldview you must admit these are self-deluding lies. Sort of like telling yourself your favorite color is “the good choice of favorite color.”

So this isn’t about some greater intellectual position, but your emotionalism.

[/quote]
And you obey Hitler because otherwise he’ll put you in the ovens like the Jews.

I can live with ambiguous morality. Morality that is based on care for the well-being of conscious creatures. Morality that I can’t fully justify but that I’m still compelled to obey. But doing something just because some tyrant says so? That’s a non-starter.
[/quote]

Oh, you can’t justify it. What an intellectual position! Where’s reason?! Where did it go? Cool, you’re “compelled” to obey. Then, how is that a better position? “It’s not, it’s just my personal compulsion! I’m a bio-machine carrying out different orders than the next guy!”

So your bio-machine software is, what? Compared to the bio-machine software of a Puritan? “Better?” “Has more worth?” “The right software/compulsion?”

194

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:
They both know far more physicist than you or me, so I think their word has some merit.
[/quote]

I highly doubt this.[/quote]

Maybe I should note your username and icon (tesseract)… [/quote]

Dr.Matt581 is a particle physicist iIrc

195

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

Well I am to some degree taking the word of a renowned physicist. Lawrence Krauss quoting Stephen Weinberg who said that most physicists don’t give god enough thought to know whether they believe or not, or something like that. They both know far more physicist than you or me, so I think their word has some merit.
[/quote]

Would you mind providing a link to this quote? I am familiar with Dr. Weinberg’s views on religion, he has never really kept them a secret, but I am not aware of him claiming to know what most physicists’ personal beliefs are.

196

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can. [/quote]

Now show me that rule of the universe through a telescope. Can’t? Then you created your own fable. And you don’t even believe in your own fable.

197

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

It has far more meaning than it does in yours.
[/quote]

Um, no. It can’t. Prove it empirically. You have no room for faith or belief. And, you just made a positive claim. Show me where the deaf, dumb, cold universe agrees with your meaning.

198

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can. [/quote]

Now show me that rule of the universe through a telescope. Can’t? Then you created your own fable. And you don’t even believe in your own fable.

[/quote]
So disregard for the well-being of creatures, which is an objective feature of the Biblical god is good?

199

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

Your worldview is no different than saying if Hitler won WWII the Holocaust would have been a moral good.

[/quote]

Your worldview is that the Holocaust wasn’t, in reality, an evil…
[/quote]

And no, you’re self-imposed standards don’t make it reality.

200

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can. [/quote]

Now show me that rule of the universe through a telescope. Can’t? Then you created your own fable. And you don’t even believe in your own fable.

[/quote]

I chose to define it that way. Your choice is “the boss says so.” My choice is, let’s see what actual effect actions have on conscious entities.