I don't imply anything. But the mere fact you do not kill little babies with pleasure, shows you have a moral innate conscience. If God would not exist, it would not exist. You would do anything, that you held morally objectible, and have no objection at all. And so neither others would.The fact that you believe this does not make it true.
Then bring a strong reason, why we, humans, do have a conscience, while all animal world has not, but survives, as we do. To have a conscience is not necessary for survival.
Even by your own theology, it is not correct. God did not give humans consciences; they came from eating the apples, which bestowed the knowledge of right and wrong. What God wanted, according to the Old Testament, was essentially thinking robots who would do what they were told, no questions asked.
If he wanted robots, he could have created them. He created beings with free will, and gave them the oportunity to obey him, or not.
What gave humans consciences, again according to your own theology, was the snake that convinced Eve to eat the apples.
They had already a conscience, but it wake up only, after they sinned.
And yet you believe that we wouldn't have innate consciences if it weren't for God? According to Genesis, God's the one who wanted humans to not be able to understand right and wrong for ourselves.
But they did understand it, since God told them, it was wrong to eat from the three of knowledge, and if they would eat from it, they would die.
He ordered Adam and Eve to stay away from that tree. He didn't want humans to have consciences. He wanted us to be able to do anything without caring about whether it was right or wrong
non sequitur. he did not order them to stay away from the tree, but not to eat from its fruit. Of course he wanted us to do the right thing, which was not to eat from the tree.
Everything is made of the same atomic elements. So what? Those same elements make up everything. This is an utterly meaningless statement.
Do you live following this line of thougt ? that a human being is not worth more than a amoeba ?
As far as people not having trouble killing other people without morality, you are aware that through most of history, most people had no real trouble slaughtering other people (even children and babies) outside of their extended tribe, right? Such a thing should not happen with some universally-objective morality.
The conscience of morals does not prevent humans to to bad things. Its just a signal of alert, that something is wrong.
It wouldn't matter at all? Ridiculous. Of course it matters.
following your line of reasong, it does actually not. One day we will be all dead, and then it will not make any difference at all. We will not be charged.
Egotistical idiots don't do anything worth remembering, and they don't build anything either.
why should someone want to be remembered ? what difference does it make ? one day, humanity, and our world will not exist anymore. So what we do today, makes no difference at all in the end.
Did George Washington not matter, if there was no God? Did Abraham Lincoln not matter, if there was no God? Both of them, and countless others, saw injustice and did what they could to stop it. And they are remembered and honored for it, by the people who live today. They are remembered regardless of the existence of God.
that will past. And it does not any good to them. They are dead.
civilization, and many who fought to stop the really bad ones. It is those people to whom we owe a debt of honor for making the life we live today possible.
they don't care if we honor them or not. They are dead. And so we will be one day. In the end, if god does not exist, it makes no difference at all, what we did on earth.
The fact that an explanation which depends on something supernatural is enormously more complicated than one that does not
You rely again on a negative. God that ? You are not able to present a case of its own ? And : might explain, why God is a complicated explanation ?
, and simple explanations are much more likely to be true, per [wiki]Occam's razor[/wiki].
might wanna present yours ? so far, you have not.
Here in brazil where i live, 90% of the homicides are unsolved crimes. That means, in most cases, the assassins will never be charged for what they did.
In fairness, I was referring to my country, America. Most people who commit crimes here are actually caught and punished for them. The fact that many criminals get away with crimes in your country is tragic, but it is not irreparable.
well, if in fact these people will never been charged, its indeed irreparable. Unjustice is done.
And the way to fix things is not to imagine that God punishes people for crimes or sins, but to work to make justice better in your country, here and now.
that does not change the fact, that if God does not exist, Hitler and many others like him will never be charged for his crimes. Do you think that is just ?
It is far more important that Hitler's actions are seen for what they are, namely the despicable actions of a tyrant who sought a scapegoat to 'punish' for the wrongs that had been committed against his country, than it can ever be for Hitler himself to suffer any punishment.
Its also important, that justice is done. If God does not exist, evil in the end, wins.
And if we are not automatically guilty, why then does everyone deserve hell regardless of what they did or didn't do?
where does the bible say that ?
Don't feed me this line about how God just can't tolerate sins in the afterlife and has to toss everyone in hell unless they believe in Jesus as savior. God's justice according to your belief is the equivalent of throwing everyone into this truly awful prison and keeping them there, except for the ones who plea bargain their way out by accepting Jesus as their savior. How in any way can this be considered justice?
its not just about begging bargain. A truly born again christian repents from his sins, and begins a new life, where the will of God is parameter, and is followed.
Okay, then. Hitler was a Christian. He believed in Jesus as his savior.
If he were a true christian, he would have never commited the atrocities he did.
It has everything to do with the fact that by your theology, the one who was responsible for all of their deaths would get away with it as long as he believed in Jesus as savior. Yet all of those victims face nothing but eternal damnation for the mere fact of not believing in Jesus as savior. The mass murderer gets an eternal reward in heaven, and his victims get to face eternal punishment in hell
that is a real possibility.
This. Is. Not. Justice.
it would not be just, if Jesus sacrifice was not real, and would have no effect. But Jesus suffering was real, and since he never sinned, he was capable of taking upon him the sin of all humanity, and pay its price for it, which was his death.
Actually, you can't prove something to be true beyond any doubt in operational/experimental science either. No matter how many times you perform an experiment under controlled conditions, you can't absolutely be sure that you won't come up with a different value the next time.
what is relevant however, is, that if you perform a experiment one hundred times, and the result is always the same, then you can confidently deduce something about it, and use it for certain things. If you follow your line of reasoning, you will end with absolute nihilism, where you never will be able to know something. Maibe i am a robot, that writes here, not a human being. How do you know ? In historical science, you cannot test the age of the earth....
neither did i say so.
No, but you're implying it, since religion is a branch of philosophy.
So, how many times did this pastor's predictions not come true?
I don't know. All i know that this one happened EXACTLY the way he predicted.
Are you sure he didn't know of you
absolutely. I never met him before. I actually did not even live yet in the city, where i met my wife. I was completely new in town.
Are you sure that he hadn't done research on the person he came to visit and found out about the stomach surgery
He did not even know where my farm was, even less, who my worker was.......
, when it happened, etc, or that someone didn't simply tell him about it beforehand?
Those are questions you need to ask and have real answers to before you can honestly claim that divine intervention was responsible.
i am not naiv on that......but you will doubt of course, since it does not fit your agenda.......
Yes, you most certainly do. And citing a blog post at me doesn't cut it. Blog posts are nothing more than someone's opinion, and they certainly are not held to any kind of standard of evidence
we are talking about religious issues, where the only thing we can discuss is interpretation. nothing more.
, as opposed to, say, a research paper published in a peer-reviewed science journal. And in any case, Gödel's incompleteness theorem most certainly doesn't prove your contention either. All that the incompleteness theorem proves is that we have to make assumptions of certain things being true in order to be able to do anything. It does not, as you claim, prove a beginning to the universe, or even suggest a beginning, because it's talking primarily about mathematical concepts.
neither did i claim that. But since you agree , that all we believe, is based on assumptions, you neither can claim, that you stick to a standpoint only, after you have absolute proofs on hand.
And i've shown you why i cyclic universe is highly unlikely to exist , and therefore not a good answer.
No, you haven't.
Wrong. Actually i have. You just don't agree with me.
You've made unsupported speculative claims that what you say is true.
nope. I have made a claim, which is supported by science.
But we've discovered things that are actually far weirder and more unlikely than a cyclical universe. Personally, I find the idea of stars producing complex organic compounds to be far less likely than a cyclical universe
did stars exist beyond our univese ?
, and moreover, scientists did not even believe it was theoretically possible before they observed it. That is exactly why you can't say, "I believe this thing is the only possible explanation for something despite not having observed it". If we don't have actual evidence, then we have to abide by Occam's razor, until we do have evidence.
which is which explanation, you refere to ?
But the very fact that it is indeed finely tuned to life demands for a explanation. Any better one on hand, than God ?
It isn't finely-tuned at all.
if you want to troll, now, go ahead.....
I've said this several times, and you keep going back and using the term, and throwing various opinions and unsubstantiated quotes at me to try to prove it.
If you want to discard scientific evidence, go ahead. dawkins, hawking, davies, stenger, and many more disagree with you......
Leaving that aside, it is far simpler to postulate that all of the various constants in the universe derive from just one constant which means it could easily have been simple chance of it coming out as it did;
any evidence, or you just speculate ?
and given the nature of the universe as defined by those constants, there are so many galaxies and so many more stars that there are plenty of candidates for life-bearing worlds, even if 99.999% of all galaxies are irredeemably hostile to life of any sort.
the chance of a other life permitting plante has been calculated, and its beyond a reasonable number. Its a almost infinitely small chance, this to happen, that it can be discarded as a valid or probable hypotheses.
Why does it ? it remains the fact, that the odds, that we would be here by random chance, is still so big, that its very unlikely , that it would ever happen by chance.
You need to study probability before you make statements like that.
Its said that a probability less than one to 10^50 is most likely to never happen.
Not so. It shows, that if the parameters of the physcial values would be altered very slightly, life would not exist. That demands a explanation.
So you're saying that scientists don't use fine-tuning to refer to the adjustment of their own theoretical models?[/sarcasm]
the fine tune argument has nothing to do with that.
Look, the fact that some people say that the universe seems finely-tuned doesn't mean that it actually was.
So you should doubt about everything then. Even about the fact, that you eventually exist. you cannot prove that. You might be a hallucination.
What you need to understand is that if the universe is cyclical in nature, and if most of the physical constants are derivative, and if the value of the integral for those derivatives can change from cycle to cycle, then random chance could easily be responsible for those cycles which resulted in a situation where life was possible. And the rest wouldn't matter from our perspective.
even lets say the universe is cyclical. It does not eliminate the fact that it has to have a beginning. So you throw the quest just further back.
Go study probability before you start telling me that something can't happen by chance, or that it's impossible.
done that already. http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/20-typing.htm
Just how logical is this monkey story? In simple terms, if every square foot of the earth's surface was covered with monkeys randomly typing on typewriters, at the rate of ten characters per second (about 5 times the realistic speed) they could not do the job. Even if they typed non-stop for 30 billion years there would not be the slightest chance that one of them would type even a single five word sentence of 31 characters, with spaces and punctuation in the correct place. The probability for them to achieve this is less than one chance in a trillion.
Richard Dawkins also appeals to the monkeys to convince his readers that evolution by natural selection is plausible. He believes that a thousand such monkeys could type Shakespeare's sentence, "Methinks it is like a weasel." However, the probability of them typing this six-word sentence (including spaces), is one chance in 1039.
It has been calculated that it would be statistically impossible to randomly type even the first 100 characters in Shakespeare's "Hamlet". If the monkeys typed only in lower case, including the 27 spaces in the first 100 characters, the chances are 27100 (ie. one chance in 10143).
You have bad cards on hand.... really.
and it gets even worse. A cell is irreducibly complex. Popper, K.R., Scientific reduction and the essential incompleteness of all science; in: Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T. (Eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270, 1974.
the decoding machinery is itself encoded on the DNA. The leading philosopher of science, Karl Popper (1902–1994), expressed the huge problem:
‘What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
‘Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.
You do know that Einstein was a physicist, right? Even assuming this is an accurate statement by Einstein taken in context and not simply quote-mining, it's a little much to expect me or anyone to believe that Einstein had thoroughly studied the subject in the detail he would have needed to in order to be considered an expert on it.
You don't need to rely on a expert to understand, that from apples, never strawberries will be produced. They are after all quit different. So is information and conscience. Information can be destroid. Matter cannot.
Of course Darwinians think that consciousness came into being via random mutation and selection. But this is not because we have any specific ideas about the evolution of consciousness per se. Rather, it's because we believe the theory, and we are using it deductively. All biological traits came into being via random mutation and selection. Consciousness is a biological trait. QED.
Science has little understanding of what consciousness is, how it works, or what it is for. So it seems unfair to expect Darwinians to have any specific theory of how it evolved.
It seems you don't know what you are talking about.
More likely you're just assuming the concept of irreducible complexity is accurate because it supports your belief.
no, because there is plenty of scientific evidence to back up this claim. Its actually the atheists, that assume its a false concept, because they do not want it to be true.
And you have a lot of nerve accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about, given your apparent lack of knowledge about things such as probability
well , you have actually shown, that you think, random chance is a better explanation than god, to explain our existece. I honestly admire your enormous faith in chance.
Just for curiosity : would you bet a thousand dollars, that odds bigger than one to 10^50 could be considered as a real possibility to win ?