Maybe smh will include answers to the questions in this video when he gives his proof of (macro)evolution.
[/quote]
I tend not to watch the “hey look, we found some people and they’re dumb!” videos, because they’re worthless, but I promise I’ll watch the video and respond to the questions–just as soon as we settle that point about whether or not any direct evidence whatsoever supports Genesis 2:7-8.
By the way, I think we all know that, whether you like the evidence or not, there is months’ worth of evidence for the evolutionist’s analogous claims of abiogenesis and evolution. I mean enough to fill entire PhD programs at the best research universities [the kind that are responsible for many of the miraculous scientific and technological wonders of which you avail yourself in your day to day life] run by some of the most intelligent people on the planet.
In other words, in my little thought experiment, you and I both know very well that old Mr. Dawkins would be talking for a great deal of time and showing off a great deal of discovered and experimental evidence. Yes, you absolutely know this. But anyway, I’ll prove it, just as soon as you give me a single shred, a hint, a morsel, a little excerpt of the evidence you would use to support your claim.
You get up there, you read the passage–it takes you about 23 seconds–and then what? That’s it? A 23-second presentation that consisted entirely of reading from a book that is filled with fantastical claims in which nobody has any logical reason to believe?
Does the intelligent design equation also say that the prime mover (represented as God, Allah, Ilúvatar depending on which writer one believes in) first popped up from nowhere, with the capability to create this universe, then waited the millions of years for the planet to form, for life to eventually get to the stage that we are humans, then wait another some 200000 years, to then send his son to be slaughtered in one of the most ilitterate places on the planet? I would like to see the equation for a prime mover screwing a jewish woman in palestine, then having the resulting kid killed to forgive some supposed mistake made by his own creation hundreds of years prior.
If we go the scientific route, is evolving bacteria and viruses excempt from the evolution debate? Does a designer intelligently design new flu viruses for us every year? Some would say the CIA made AIDS, but that is another debate.
Maybe smh will include answers to the questions in this video when he gives his proof of (macro)evolution.
[/quote]
I tend not to watch the “hey look, we found some people and they’re dumb!” videos, because they’re worthless, but I promise I’ll watch the video and respond to the questions–just as soon as we settle that point about whether or not any direct evidence whatsoever supports Genesis 2:7-8.
[/quote]
People already ran from that question and have decided to attempt to move the debate again. No believer is going to tackle that because they never do when you ask them.
The evidence is out there they say, it’s just up to YOU to find it. LMAO.
What are the odds that things–the particulars of physical constants and parameters, the happenstances of evolutionary history–turned out so well for us, without “god?”
Most calculations I have seen put the odds at 1 in 4 x 10^17 chance of happening accident.
And they are darts launched by blind men at invisible targets in the pitch dark. The odds that the universe would be as it is are incalculable without our old friends, grossly monumental assumption and groundless guessing.
[/quote]
Sure there are assumptions in place, for instance that there was a pool of ‘material’ to work with in the first place, but I wouldn’t consider it blind guessing. It’s actually a pretty well thought out theory. It considers the amount of variables given the initial conditions of the early universe and calculates the various possible outcomes given the amount of possible variations of those conditions.It’s basal premises are that which science agrees on with regards to the initial conditions of the universe. Sure assumptions are in play, but they are not monumental or made up assumptions. The assumptions on which it’s based are scientific assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless.
Well your question was asked in such a way that the existence of God was affirmed as true in the question. It wasn’t a question whether God exists, but whether or not He ‘…caused things to turn out so well for us’.
As an aside, God’s existence is not an ‘enormous assumption’. There are still valid arguments for the existence of God which have not been disproven.
That does not mean that objections have not been made, or that everyone holds the arguments in high regard, only that they have not been disproven.
The calculation does not assume God’s existence, agency, or causal input. It only calculates the amount of possible outcomes based on the initial conditions of the universe. At least considering the initial conditions which have thus far been determined as scientifically likely.
It doesn’t consider the cause of it at all.
Well, I am no statistician. But I don’t think you can really calculate odds on two separate variables that are related to each other at the same time. I think you would have to work out one then the other.
The calculation that was done, just took into account the probability of this universe occurring the way it did given the initial conditions of the universe and their potentialities.
It actually makes no prediction on God. It just states that there is a 1 in 4 x 10^17 chance the universe turn out the way it did. The idea that it was then intelligently designed based on those odds is inferred. But it’s a good inference, because the only option to counter that is the infinite multiverse, which is mathematically possible, but neither likely nor has any evidence whatsoever of any kind of actuality.
I don’t think you could calculate the odds the way you are implying.
Well we have to look at the premises to make that judgement. It’s not only that the arguments are sound in structure, the premises are also sound. To the point that the contradiction of the premises are generally unsound.
For instance, taking a partial premise:
Everything has a cause
Everything has no cause.
or Nothing has a cause.
The study was about calculating the possibility that the universe, given it’s initial conditions could have ended up this way by chance alone. Giving weight to the probability that it was designed, rather than happened by chance. It does posit that the universe could have happened by chance, but the odds are so infinitesimally small, that its not likely.
This is the argument for intelligent design. It does not deal with existence itself, or where the initial conditions came from in the first place. It makes the assumption that the initial conditions were there, but not their origin.
What it does is take the best information science has to offer regarding the origin of the universe and calculate it’s probability for turn out this way versus the several quadrillion other ways it could have turned out. And based on the calculations design is more likely, but no it’s not a slam dunk. It actually doesn’t deal with God’s existence explicitly, it does not make a statement about God himself.
I will try to find the study again. I happened to have some notes from previous research. But there is an enormous sea of bullshit you have to sift through with intelligent design theories to find the ‘good one’. When I have more time I will try to find the ‘good one’ and post the link.
I chimed in because I have no idea why non-believers are solely fixated on evolution/age-of-earth stuff while there are certain matters a bit easier to demonstrate. It’s true, I can’t point to a man and say “watch, he’ll evolve a vastly larger head and eyes.” Or, while I can view a series of fossils, I can’t point out an ape evolving right before our eyes into a human being. But they could say “well, do the shuttles have to pass through rain gates or whatever in the dome in order to reach the vacuum of space?” Buuuut, noooo, it’s always evolution vs creationism. Always.[/quote]
This I wonder about too. Why to non-believers think that all believers are all young-earth creationists when the majority of believers are not young-earth creationists, at all. There is, of course a segment of the Christian population that are young-earth creationists, but they are in the minority.
Non-believer: “The earth is 4.5 billion years old and evolution is a sound scientific theory”
Believer: “I aggree”
Non-believer: “See! You’re wrong! Your are idiot and your religion is stupid”
Believer: “Uh, I thought I said I agree?”
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Pat,
If I understand things correctly, I see that based on metaphysics you’re able to come to the conclusion that a God must exist, how do you bridge the gap to be able to say the Christian God is the one that exists and not a different one? or is this not what you say/believe?[/quote]
Well to clarify, first, there is no such thing as a ‘Christian God’. There can be the Christian understanding of God, but there is no claim of ownership by one faith over another. There is no Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Christian, etc. God. There is only God. God is not the possession of a faith.
So as far as the metaphysics and the faiths are concerned there is no conflict. Faiths that understand the concept of God as being the agent of creation, or the reason for existence, or in short ‘The Creator’ as does the conclusion of a priori arguments for God’s existence.
What we are concerned with more than just ‘God in name’. We are concerned with the conceptual understanding of God as the creator of what is. Or in the atemporal sense, the reason for being.
So if a faith claims God as “creator” or “reason for being” as object of worship or understanding, then that religion is worshipping the ‘same God’ as God is understood to be by Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.
If the basis for a religion is something other than ‘The Creator’ then they are not worshiping the same God as the typical monotheistic faiths.
Now none of this speaks to the validity of the faith itself or whether that faith is ‘right’ with regards to it’s methods or theology. But they are all right when it comes to the object of the faith being ‘God the Creator’.
If a faith worships God as the Earth, the Sun, the Universe, a rock, a drawing, a number, or anything save for the Creator of Being, then they are not worshipping the same God as Christians.
[/quote]
So would that essentially mean you’re a deist?[/quote]
No, I am a Roman Catholic and I confess to it absolutely. I was trying to clarify what is meant when we are talking about God. God isn’t the sole possession of the Catholic Church or any church. God as derived by reason is the same God we center our faith around. The faith posits that you can interact and have a relationship with God. Philosophy merely establishes existence.
Whether or not religion is right or wrong about God has no impact on whether or not He exists. Religion can technically be completely wrong and God still exist. I don’t think religion is wrong, but I also don’t necessarily think we have it all correct either. But I do think we have a good bit of it right.
What it does is take the best information science has to offer regarding the origin of the universe and calculate it’s probability for turn out this way versus the several quadrillion other ways it could have turned out. And based on the calculations design is more likely, but no it’s not a slam dunk. It actually doesn’t deal with God’s existence explicitly, it does not make a statement about God himself.[/quote]
And as I said, this kind of thing is enormously problematic. It gets into the philosophy of causation, the philosophy of physical “law,” Laplace, QM, all of it. But I will save that, because I’ll wait for this:
…before I make my judgement and criticism. If you can find it, I mean. And no rush. The longer it takes you, the more actual, paid work I get done!
Holy shit I have never laughed louder following a theological debate than I did having read this line.
Too perfect[/quote]
That’s because you are unintelligent. Those things called words have meanings. Did Jesus prove he was the son of God? No, he did not. He may have performed miracles but they were not done to prove anything. Everything he did still required faith in order for them to be seen as acts of a divine being. In fact, when asked to prove he was the Messiah he refused. [/quote]
What else did he need to do, in your eyes, to “prove” he is the son of God?
The way your comment reads it sounds like he could of create a person right in front of you and you still wouldn’t be convinced.
‘It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity[infinite regression], because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be G-d.’ - Thomas Aquinas
‘The being which has absolute existence, which has never been and will never be without existence, is not in need of an agent.’ - Maimonides
Holy shit I have never laughed louder following a theological debate than I did having read this line.
Too perfect[/quote]
That’s because you are unintelligent. Those things called words have meanings. Did Jesus prove he was the son of God? No, he did not. He may have performed miracles but they were not done to prove anything. Everything he did still required faith in order for them to be seen as acts of a divine being. In fact, when asked to prove he was the Messiah he refused. [/quote]
What else did he need to do, in your eyes, to “prove” he is the son of God?
The way your comment reads it sounds like he could of create a person right in front of you and you still wouldn’t be convinced. [/quote]
This is very true. If you accept the Gospels as truth then really what more could he have done. Turned water to wine - check, walked on water - check, cured the blind - umm, check again, raised the dead - checkity check check, CAME BACK FROM THE DEAD!! - yup. Not sure what else there is.
It’s been far too long since I’ve thought about how original sin is compatible with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis so I’m not going to jump into that debate. But as you alluded to, there are certainly theological arguments for it.
[/quote]
I’d like to hear them.
[/quote]
I thought you were gonna be tied up?
[/quote]
Yes, but she always turns me loose after she gets what she wants.
Leaving in morning. Why is it important to you, BeetEater? Why?
I’ll be relatively close to you while I’m in North Dakota next week. Drive up and meet me there and we’ll eat some beets together while we share a bottle of fine chardonnay. OK, darling? RSVP
[/quote]
I was deeply interested in seeing what evidence you would produce in support of your claim, but you slunk out the back door claiming that you were too busy to continue the discussion. Yet, here you are engaging in “ye ol’ CvE debate.” I wanted to see where that discussion went but, as smh predicted, nothing became of it.
‘It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity[infinite regression], because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be G-d.’ - Thomas Aquinas
‘The being which has absolute existence, which has never been and will never be without existence, is not in need of an agent.’ - Maimonides[/quote]
There was a very long and very good thread fairly recently that dealt with this and arguments like it, both their strengths and weaknesses. Proof of God Continued, or something to that effect.
Holy shit I have never laughed louder following a theological debate than I did having read this line.
Too perfect[/quote]
That’s because you are unintelligent. Those things called words have meanings. Did Jesus prove he was the son of God? No, he did not. He may have performed miracles but they were not done to prove anything. Everything he did still required faith in order for them to be seen as acts of a divine being. In fact, when asked to prove he was the Messiah he refused. [/quote]
What else did he need to do, in your eyes, to “prove” he is the son of God?
The way your comment reads it sounds like he could of create a person right in front of you and you still wouldn’t be convinced. [/quote]
But why would those acts prove he was the son of God/Messiah? Were there stone carvings on some wall saying he who does…is?
He could have said he was a wizard, demon, or some kind of alien life form.
‘It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity[infinite regression], because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be G-d.’ - Thomas Aquinas
‘The being which has absolute existence, which has never been and will never be without existence, is not in need of an agent.’ - Maimonides[/quote]
There was a very long and very good thread fairly recently that dealt with this and arguments like it, both their strengths and weaknesses. Proof of God Continued, or something to that effect.[/quote]
Just reading it now. I missed it while I was in hospital.
BTW - Dawkins criticises cosmological arguments by saying they rely on infinite regress(turtles all the way down) from which G-d is unjustifiably immune. However the quote above from Maimonides addresses that.
Holy shit I have never laughed louder following a theological debate than I did having read this line.
Too perfect[/quote]
That’s because you are unintelligent. Those things called words have meanings. Did Jesus prove he was the son of God? No, he did not. He may have performed miracles but they were not done to prove anything. Everything he did still required faith in order for them to be seen as acts of a divine being. In fact, when asked to prove he was the Messiah he refused. [/quote]
What else did he need to do, in your eyes, to “prove” he is the son of God?
The way your comment reads it sounds like he could of create a person right in front of you and you still wouldn’t be convinced. [/quote]
But why would those acts prove he was the son of God/Messiah? Were there stone carvings on some wall saying he who does…is?
He could have said he was a wizard, demon, or some kind of alien life form.
[/quote]
Well, he did xy & z (as Beef pointed out) while saying he’s the son of God. Has anyone else done xy & z, ever? Did they claim to be something else?
I just want to know what exactly constitutes proof in a non-believers eyes?
Hell, I can’t “prove” Jesus wasn’t in fact Satan mind fucking us, so I guess there’s that.
Hell, I can’t “prove” Jesus wasn’t in fact Satan mind fucking us, so I guess there’s that. [/quote]
This conversation is extraordinarily close to the “unforgivable sin” episode.
Interesting.
[/quote]
Absolutely.
“Rather than acknowledging the obvious fact that Jesus was exercising divine powers, the Pharisees were so spiritually depraved that they attributed his power to Satan”
‘â??Their problem was not blind ignorance, but willful rejection,â?? pointed out Cornish. â??That deliberate refusal to believe, even though knowing the truth, seems to be what Jesus called the unforgivable sin.â??’