Author Topic: I'm back again, with a question on origin  (Read 3563 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I'm back again, with a question on origin
« Reply #116 on: January 30, 2014, 11:00:34 AM »
It's one of them chicken egg things. We view things like that from our tiny point of view. The question is nonsensical, so there is no answer at all, let alone a chicken and egg answer.

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: I'm back again, with a question on origin
« Reply #117 on: January 30, 2014, 04:59:09 PM »

Quote
Modern science however, as it is taught in schools and by famous naturalists, does assume such a thing, and that is the science I am referring to. That since science is correct, and our scientific findings 'contradict' a creator, that that must mean God doesn't exist.

Do you have anything you can reference for this?
I emphatically second that request. As a current student, this is not even remotely what I have experienced, so I'd be very interested in seeing how my school measures up.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: I'm back again, with a question on origin
« Reply #118 on: February 18, 2014, 04:46:48 AM »
I know truth trumps opinion, but that doesn't mean that somebody is forced to believe the truth over a non-truth.

We both have very different views on how fundamentalist christians act. I know many fundamentalist christians and not a single one believes that humans can behave perfectly.

We may be talking about two different kinds of fundy's. The ones that show up around here say that the only reason that people are not all warm and fuzzy is because of Adam and Eve and their transgression, which made all of us sinners, and that's the only reason that people do bad things.

Quote
Creationism does not contradict the majority of science. Macro-evolution, a purely naturalistic origin and the age of the earth are the most hot debated topics and while there might be a few things here or there they aren't as large.

The only dispute between creationism and science are these areas, not science in general.

That's cute, but picking and choosing the science you like and the science you don't like based on differing opinions means that unwise choices are being made.

Creationism contradicts genetics and geology, organic and inorganic chemistry, astronomy, physics, paleontology, anatomy, anthropology, botany, zoology, climatology, crystallography, ecology, plate tectonics, linguistics, archaeology, geophysics and hydrology, among others. To pretend that the differences are minor is to take pretense way too far.

No, we do not know how life started. We're working on that. In the mean time, there is good reason to believe that it may be ubiquitous in the universe. Life may be as natural as stones and ice. Again, we don't know that yet, but our instruments will be good enough within the next decade or two to look directly at the new planets that we're finding around other stars, and if there is life there, we should be able to detect it. And if we detect life (even if it is only single celled organisms) elsewhere, then we cease to be as special as we had hoped. No matter how we started.

There is so much evidence for both a 4.5 billion year old earth and evolution it isn't funny. We don't even need fossils to prove evolution. DNA is quite adequate. So those the want to pretend our knowledge is lacking in those two areas first have to redefine voluntary ignorance as genius and solid evidence as fiction, and then pretend they didn't just do that.

We've learned too much in the last few centuries to justify depending on 2-3,000 year old tales for our knowledge. If wild-assed claims don't match reality, there is no need to consider them.
Did you forget any field of science at all? I can only assume you had specific totally not biased examples in mind as you typed each of those? Not really asking for a deep explanation for each field, but I highly doubt that those fields are as contradictory with creationism as they are just contradictory with your view on creationism.

What does life on other planets mean about humans being special? Why does the fact that it would be on another planet belittle the idea that man is special to a creator? Wouldn't any life other than humans also achieve that goal? So humans aren't special if we discover fungus on other planets? Why does it have to be on another planet, and why would the discovery of life on other planets mean that God must not love humans like he said?

I also hope you aren't just referring to natural selection and micro-evolution, as yes I acknowledge that those things are real. Is there any way to not go back and forth between separating macro evolution and micro evolution to just lumping them together as the exact same thing?

If there are any wild-ass claims, it is that existence was spawned from non-existence, life was spawned from non-life and free will was spawned from determinism. We can argue about evolution all day, but really it relies upon vagueness and interpretations, while black and white "No meeting in the middle" topics like origin are much more productive. Of course, atheists just say "We don't know yet." which is the wrong answer. Origin was also the topic of the thread, and I know I have been absent a bit but it seems this thread has gone off topic. Shall we get back onto the topic at hand?

Stop trying to turn this around as if this is an assumption made by others, when it is your assumption that is the starting point. We are just highlighting the repercussions of such an assumption. If anything can be evidence of god, then it is beyond our scope of investigation to conclude whether or not god takes constant action to keep nature in existence because god is indistinguishable from random behaviour.
Just because God keeps everything in existence doesn't mean that everything that happens ever is done by God. I think that answered the question, not really sure what you are stating honestly. I think that there is far too much credit given to the notion of randomness.

No, I'm not reflecting my 'beliefs' onto you.  I think it matters, but if you aren't interested in finding out, then there's no reason you should have to.  However, if you're going to engage me, or anyone else who has an active sense of curiosity, in a discussion regarding something like this, then saying, "I don't think it matters, so why bother trying to figure it out" is not going to fly.  In short, if you want other people to take your opinions seriously, then you have to be willing to do the same.  The problem is that you're focused on trying to show that other people's opinions are "a priori pre-suppositions", effectively saying that they're based on preexisting biases, and using that as an excuse to arbitrarily dismiss what they say without so much as considering it.  As far as I can tell, that's the whole reason you started this topic, so you could pigeonhole anything you disagreed with as "not worth considering, because it already dismissed God, therefore I'm dismissing it".  It's like coming in with a chip on your shoulder, then wondering why other people are reacting badly to you.
The problem isn't asking questions, it's asking loaded questions like asking me to define something I don't believe exists, or asking me to explain something that doesn't exist in my beliefs. There is obviously a difference between this world and the world of the supernatural, however I see no reason in setting arbitrary standards on what either can or cannot do. I guess I could deviate from my beliefs and theory craft, but in the end it would be pure conjecture.

An honest answer on the difference between the natural and the supernatural? I don't think there is a brick wall between the two where they can't share a single aspect of the other, so generalities will fall short. Perhaps the best answer is that our world, the natural world, is tainted and corrupted by sin, while the supernatural world is not. But then there is also satan, who is sinful but would be considered supernatural still, as he is a fallen angel. It is difficult to set a solid definition, especially when we are also considering the scientific point of view that the natural world is our observable world limited by laws and what not. While not all laws would apply to the supernatural, some would as many laws are truth by definition, although I can't really know that as a fact.

I just don't think we have the means to provide a sufficient sensible answer, especially when our knowledge of the supernatural 'world' in general is so limited. We also have to remember that while the supernatural world will make sense, it won't be making the same sense that we have come to expect from our natural world. All I can do is guess, but that inability to know falls in line with the limited knowledge of man unable to know what we are not programmed to completely understand.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 05:12:22 AM by Spinner198 »

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: I'm back again, with a question on origin
« Reply #119 on: February 18, 2014, 06:28:19 AM »

An honest answer on the difference between the natural and the supernatural? I don't think there is a brick wall between the two where they can't share a single aspect of the other, so generalities will fall short. Perhaps the best answer is that our world, the natural world, is tainted and corrupted by sin, while the supernatural world is not. But then there is also satan, who is sinful but would be considered supernatural still, as he is a fallen angel. It is difficult to set a solid definition, especially when we are also considering the scientific point of view that the natural world is our observable world limited by laws and what not. While not all laws would apply to the supernatural, some would as many laws are truth by definition, although I can't really know that as a fact.

I just don't think we have the means to provide a sufficient sensible answer, especially when our knowledge of the supernatural 'world' in general is so limited. We also have to remember that while the supernatural world will make sense, it won't be making the same sense that we have come to expect from our natural world. All I can do is guess, but that inability to know falls in line with the limited knowledge of man unable to know what we are not programmed to completely understand.

Well, really, are you still making claims you can't support?

1. You say there is another world - the supernatural out there. How do you know this to be true? How can we also know if it is true? no one so far has managed to track it down.

2. Satan? Really? How do you know? Has he popped up to talk to you?

3. Natural laws are juts what we measure and then we call them laws. How do you know that they differ in this supernatural you talk about? Form where does this information come?

It's fine to say that your religion  tells you various things about the afterlife, heaven and such, but you seem to be claiming that these things are real and, frankly, I have no idea of the source of your information. How about posting your sources?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2091
  • Darwins +374/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: I'm back again, with a question on origin
« Reply #120 on: February 18, 2014, 10:19:36 AM »
The problem isn't asking questions, it's asking loaded questions like asking me to define something I don't believe exists, or asking me to explain something that doesn't exist in my beliefs. There is obviously a difference between this world and the world of the supernatural, however I see no reason in setting arbitrary standards on what either can or cannot do. I guess I could deviate from my beliefs and theory craft, but in the end it would be pure conjecture.
There is obviously a difference between this world and the non-existent.

The problem that I keep bumping into is that you claim that there is this supernatural world, and, so far as I can tell, there is no obvious difference between the supernatural and the non-existent.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: I'm back again, with a question on origin
« Reply #121 on: February 18, 2014, 07:52:33 PM »

Quote
Modern science however, as it is taught in schools and by famous naturalists, does assume such a thing, and that is the science I am referring to. That since science is correct, and our scientific findings 'contradict' a creator, that that must mean God doesn't exist.

Do you have anything you can reference for this?
I emphatically second that request. As a current student, this is not even remotely what I have experienced, so I'd be very interested in seeing how my school measures up.

It was quite nice of you to return and address some of the questions pending for you, but I noticed that you did not respond to either request for a reference or citation of some sort to substantiate your claim in the quote box above. I'm still waiting...
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I'm back again, with a question on origin
« Reply #122 on: February 18, 2014, 08:42:24 PM »
The problem isn't asking questions, it's asking loaded questions like asking me to define something I don't believe exists, or asking me to explain something that doesn't exist in my beliefs. There is obviously a difference between this world and the world of the supernatural, however I see no reason in setting arbitrary standards on what either can or cannot do. I guess I could deviate from my beliefs and theory craft, but in the end it would be pure conjecture.
What's wrong with speculation?  I mean, as far as I can tell, that's what you do with the "world of the supernatural" since you can't produce evidence for it.  I mean, without evidence that you can share with others, anything you say is by definition speculation.

Quote from: Spinner198
An honest answer on the difference between the natural and the supernatural? I don't think there is a brick wall between the two where they can't share a single aspect of the other, so generalities will fall short. Perhaps the best answer is that our world, the natural world, is tainted and corrupted by sin, while the supernatural world is not. But then there is also satan, who is sinful but would be considered supernatural still, as he is a fallen angel. It is difficult to set a solid definition, especially when we are also considering the scientific point of view that the natural world is our observable world limited by laws and what not. While not all laws would apply to the supernatural, some would as many laws are truth by definition, although I can't really know that as a fact.
Do you know any of this factually, or is it all essentially speculative?

Quote from: Spinner198
I just don't think we have the means to provide a sufficient sensible answer, especially when our knowledge of the supernatural 'world' in general is so limited. We also have to remember that while the supernatural world will make sense, it won't be making the same sense that we have come to expect from our natural world. All I can do is guess, but that inability to know falls in line with the limited knowledge of man unable to know what we are not programmed to completely understand.
If by limited, you mean practically nonexistent, then I agree with you.  But that's the problem.  If we have essentially no evidence to support the existence of a supernatural world, then anything anyone says about it is purely speculative.  Indeed, its very existence is speculative, unless we have some way to reliably observe it.