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.
Do you even know what you're talking about? The conscience is about what is good or not good
for the survival of the group. And there's plenty of examples of this in the wild, where an animal that is part of a group will provide food or protection for other members of that group. That is most certainly evidence of a conscience, and it enhances the survival prospects of the group as a whole. So you are simply wrong about humans having consciences but animals not having consciences.
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.
And what makes you think that thinking robots would not have free will? If something is able to think, it is able to exercise initiative, and the exercise of initiative is essentially free will (doing things that one was not told to do). And what he did, was tell them they would surely die if they ate the apples. When you essentially tell someone that they'll die if they do something, it's hardly giving them the 'opportunity' to obey. I reiterate, God wanted thinking robots that would do as they were told regardless of whether it was 'good' or 'bad', but who could act without precise directions.
They had already a conscience, but it wake up only, after they sinned.
Wrong! Genesis explicitly states that the apples were from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That means right or wrong, that means they didn't have consciences before they ate the apples, since the conscience is what tells us something is right or wrong. Eating the apples is what gave Adam and Eve consciences; claiming that God gave them consciences that weren't active until after they ate the apples is pure sophistry. Your theology makes this quite clear, and your attempt to deny the plain fact that it does is nothing but denial.
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.
No, they did not 'understand' it. God gave them an order and expected that it would be obeyed, because they didn't have consciences to tell them that it would be right or wrong to do so. It was just a matter of obeying his command. They didn't question it or even think about it, until the snake talked them into it. And even then, it wasn't about whether it was right or wrong to eat the apple, it was about whether they would die if they did (in other words, whether the statement God had made was correct).
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.
Now you're just nitpicking; you plainly know what I meant. If you want to play that game, we can play that game. Or we can focus on actually discussing stuff that matters.
And in any case, you're wrong here. He didn't want Adam and Eve to do the right thing, he wanted them to do whatever he told them to do. He wanted them to obey. If you want someone to do the right thing, you don't order them to, you explain the reasons and convince them that it is the right thing to do. God only wanted blind obedience.
Do you live following this line of thougt ? that a human being is not worth more than a amoeba ?
Of course not. But I don't believe that way because of some imaginary objective morality. I believe that way because I was taught to by my parents and by society, ala subjective morality. If I had been born in, say, Edo period Japan, in one of the noble samurai families, then I might believe that ordinary peasants were nothing more than beasts of burden, to be beheaded on a mere whim. Again, subjective morality. The fact that morality differs so much between cultures is proof positive that there's no objectivity to it.
The conscience of morals does not prevent humans to to bad things. Its just a signal of alert, that something is wrong.
Which is my point. If someone does not believe something is wrong to do, if they believe it is the way things should be, then their conscience will not 'alert' them of anything. The conscience is based on subjective morality, not on some pretend objective morality.
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.
This is not following my line of reasoning, this is nothing more than you applying the same tiresome repetitive line of 'reasoning' that you've been spouting all along and then claiming that it's mine - which, by the way, is a very deceitful and dishonest way to argue, and I'll ask you once not to do so again.
Of course it makes a difference! It makes a difference to the people who live after us. Not by pretending that evildoers are going to be punished in some eternal hell (except for the evildoers who 'repent' and beg forgiveness, who then get rewarded in some eternal heaven), but by working to make sure that other evildoers don't get the opportunity to repeat their mistakes. Even if there is no afterlife, what happens on this world matters to everyone who lives after us. It means we'd better not screw things up beyond repair, cause there's no second chances and no consolation prizes.
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.
I'm sorry that you believe this, but it doesn't make that true at all. In fact, you're projecting your own bleak nihilistic view of a universe without God onto people who don't believe in God, except that they don't hold that view, so you end up needlessly making a fool of yourself. So what if it doesn't matter at the end, however long it takes? It matters to the people who will live their lives in tomorrows yet to come, and I believe that it's only right to do what we can to make sure those people get to live their lives.
that will past. And it does not any good to them. They are dead.
And there'll be new heroes who have done what they could to help human civilization along. Most of them didn't do what they did out of some desire to be remembered in posterity, they did what they did because it was the right thing to do for all the people who had not yet lived.
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.
But I care if I honor them. And countless generations yet to come will care about honoring their heroes, even though those heroes are long dead and gone. Yes, everyone dies in the end. Again, so what? Pretending that nothing matters if there is no God is pure selfishness. The people who don't yet live are only potential at this point, but it's our obligation to give them the opportunity to live their lives, just as we were given the opportunity to live our lives by those who came before us. That's worth doing regardless of anything else.
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 ?
An explanation which includes God is a more complicated explanation than one that does not include God, the same way as an equation that adds variables or constants is more complicated than one that does not. It only seems the opposite because the one who uses God to explain everything can just say "God did it" and not have to attempt to come up with a real explanation. And as for presenting my own speculative explanation, I already have several times, and you've dismissed them without even a serious attempt at consideration. Why should I keep coming up with more merely so that you can continue dismissing them?
[qu
might wanna present yours ? so far, you have not.
I already did. Several times. The fact that you're still claiming that I have not suggests either that you do not understand that you can't rule out another person's speculative explanations by saying that they're 'impossible', or that you are deliberately being deceitful about what I've been saying. There really isn't any point in considering another alternative, considering the fact that you keep doing it despite my calling you on it.
well, if in fact these people will never been charged, its indeed irreparable. Unjustice is done.
So work to improve justice in your country, instead of pretending that God will punish the criminals for you. Because the real injustice is the fact that you're presumably content to let God 'fix' things in the afterlife instead of making a real effort to fix them in this world.
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 ?
Justice is about the living, not the dead. Since Hitler and those others are dead, what is the point in sitting here complaining because they won't be punished for them? Dead is dead. I prefer to focus on the living. We can't change what happened in the past, but we can do our best to make sure that it doesn't continue to happen in the future.
Its also important, that justice is done. If God does not exist, evil in the end, wins.
Nonsense. Evil isn't the result of some malign supernatural entity, anymore than morality is the result of some benevolent supernatural entity. If there is no Go(o)d, there's no (d)Evil, either. In that case, the worst that can happen is that everything winds down once the universe dies its heat death. That is hardly "evil winning".
where does the bible say that ?
You're the one that said that. You're the one that said, quite explicitly, that we are all on a "highway to hell". So either you got that from the Bible and your theology, or you made it up. Either way, you don't get to sit here and play dumb about it now.
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.
Yes, it most certainly is about a plea bargain. Even born-again Christians screw up, but as long as they're earnest about being "obedient to God", it doesn't matter what they do or who they hurt after the fact anymore than it matters what they did or who they hurt beforehand.
If he were a true christian, he would have never commited the atrocities he did.
No True ScotsmanWiki? Please. Christians have slaughtered both nonbelievers and other Christians in job lots because they felt God commanded them to do it. You cannot disavow Hitler as "no true Christian" simply because those atrocities are no longer acceptable.
that is a real possibility.
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.
It is completely and utterly unjust in every way, shape, and form, for a criminal to get out of paying for the crimes they committed merely by "turning over a new leaf". And your statement that a mere passion play could expiate all crimes that everyone in the future would ever commit is ludicrous. It gives the lie to your claims about how 'unjust' it is that someone like Hitler never got 'charged' for his crimes, because as far as you're concerned he could completely get out of being 'charged' simply by having a sincere belief in Jesus as savior, but someone else who lived an overall good life has to pay a 'penalty' that is both vile and monstrous merely because they do not have that belief.
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....
Quit trying to pin your nihilistic theorycrafting on me. It is your belief, not mine, and you do not get to claim that it is mine merely because you are incapable of imagining anyone who disagrees with you believing any different. If you are not even competent enough to understand how utterly dishonest this tactic is, you have no business in this discussion in the first place.
What I actually said was that you can't be absolutely sure that the result will always come out the same, because absolute certainty is impossible to obtain. Yes, once you are reasonably sure and have had it confirmed by others, then you can deduce things from it. But it is foolishness to assume that just because it's always come up one way, that it always will come up that same way. And historical science is the same way. They have methods that can be used to date the Earth, the Sun, fossils, etc, and they can get to a reasonable level of certainty by performing the tests a sufficient number of times, exactly the same as in experimental science. You can't sit here and claim that the testing methods used with experimental science give a reasonable amount of certainty, while the same testing methods used with historical science cannot give any certainty at all. That only shows a basic lack of understanding and proves that you don't know what you're talking about.
I don't know. All i know that this one happened EXACTLY the way he predicted.
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.
He did not even know where my farm was, even less, who my worker was.......
In other words, you don't know at all, do you? You're simply assuming that he can't have known anything about you simply because you hadn't met him.
impossible.
i am not naiv on that......but you will doubt of course, since it does not fit your agenda.......
I would rather doubt a statement by someone who has tacitly admitted that he doesn't know for sure despite claiming that it's impossible, than be the one who credulously believes it had to be a divine miracle without bothering to confirm it.
we are talking about religious issues, where the only thing we can discuss is interpretation. nothing more.
Sorry, but trying to claim that the only thing we can discuss about religion is how it's interpreted is incorrect. If you cannot demonstrate that your religion is correct to someone, then why should they accept your interpretation of things? You're putting the cart before the horse.
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.
Just because we have to assume certain things true in math in order to get anywhere doesn't mean it is at all reasonable to assume God simply because you want him to be real.
Wrong. Actually i have. You just don't agree with me.
I don't agree with you because your so-called 'proof' is nothing more than saying it's impossible and throwing quotes at me from blog posts, creationist web sites, and stuff taken way out of context to try to support your statement. That isn't proof, it's opinion, and not even convincing.
nope. I have made a claim, which is supported by science.
Not hardly. The only way you can say something is supported by science is if it has actual evidence to support it. If it does not, it's speculation.
did stars exist beyond our univese ?
What does that have to do with anything?
which is which explanation, you refere to ?
You've arbitrarily tossed out every speculative explanation I've said. You don't now get to pretend I haven't actually offered one.
if you want to troll, now, go ahead.....
Nope, I don't troll. You, on the other hand, have presented nothing but ignorant and biased statements that are predicated on the assumption that your belief is true even though it can't be proven, and you've constantly dismissed and disregarded everything that everyone in this topic has said to the contrary. So I would think twice before trying to suggest that people are trolling against you.
If you want to discard scientific evidence, go ahead. dawkins, hawking, davies, stenger, and many more disagree with you......
They use the term for convenience's sake, but you might notice that they generally use it in a colloquial sense, not in actual scientific research. And you of all people have no business trying to call anyone on "discarding scientific evidence", given your tendency to dismiss anything that you don't like or that you can't answer.
any evidence, or you just speculate ?
Of course I'm speculating. The difference is, I'm being honest about it in saying that I don't have actual evidence to support my speculations. Unlike you, who constantly says that you have evidence, except that your 'evidence' depends on being interpreted in a very specific manner, and if it's interpreted even slightly differently, it doesn't work. Dare I say that your speculations are fine-tuned, since you're so fond of that term?
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.
It's been 'calculated' by people who don't actually know for sure what the real odds are, let alone how they might work together. But since they have a vested interest in 'proving' that it's excessively improbable, they pretend they can actually come up with the odds just by multiplying a bunch of arbitrary values together. So the only safe conclusion to make is that the calculation is worthless for actually figuring anything out. It's just a way for them to use 'statistics' to lie.
Its said that a probability less than one to 10^50 is most likely to never happen.
Go study actual probability before you make any more statements like the above. Seriously, you're just making a fool out of yourself by speaking from uneducated ignorance about it.
the fine tune argument has nothing to do with that.
Proving only that you can ape the creationist line. It's extremely convenient for creationists to claim that the parameters of the universe had to have been finely-tuned in order to come out how they did. What most actual scientists say is that it seems like the constants might have been fine-tuned, because they aren't sure yet what might have caused it. It could easily be something like what I said, that the constants are all derivatives and thus only one matters, or it could be a self-organizing principle based on the ways physical laws work, or any one of a number of other ideas. There is no evidence that any "fine-tuning" actually occurred.
So you should doubt about everything then. Even about the fact, that you eventually exist. you cannot prove that. You might be a hallucination.
I think I can reasonably say that the universe actually exists and that I'm not a hallucination. I can't absolutely prove it, but absolute proof is impossible to obtain. But the fact that there isn't absolute proof doesn't mean that I'm going to disappear in a puff of logic sometime down the line.
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.
So, where is the beginning of a circle? Where's the end of a circle? If the universe is cyclical, and the end feeds into the beginning, then it always existed, with no true End nor Beginning.
done that already.
No. You haven't. I don't mean go look at the conclusions of someone equally uneducated about probability and assume you know how it works. I mean go actually study how it really works. Probability is very nontuitive (non-intuitive), and it is difficult to get right even if someone is properly educated about it. It's immensely more difficult if all you're doing is looking at random web sites which argue from ignorance.
You have bad cards on hand.... really.
Yeah? Coming from someone who obviously doesn't know how probability works, you'll excuse me for not believing you.
and it gets even worse. A cell is irreducibly complex.
All that quote really says is that scientists don't currently understand how it can work without being recursive. It most certainly doesn't prove the ridiculous statement that a cell is irreducibly complex.
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[1], 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.
This has nothing at all to do with your earlier statement about Einstein or my response to it. As for information, it can be lost, but to say it can be destroyed is patently ridiculous. If you burn a book that contains information, the information is lost, but it can be discovered again. So it isn't 'destroyed'. Even if you were to throw all the copies of some book, and everyone who knew anything about the copies, down a black hole or into the sun, the information therein wouldn't be destroyed, it would be lost. Nothing stopping someone from independently coming up with it again.
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.
There isn't any actual scientific evidence to favor "irreducible complexity". It is only based on a patent and possibly deliberate misunderstanding of how biology actually works, and is only used as an attempt to 'disprove' certain concepts of evolution that don't neatly fit into a religious belief.
no kidding....kkkkk
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 ?
And here you go again, with another banal attempt to put your words in my mouth. I have no faith in chance. At all. I understand how probability works in general, and I understand that if you widen the scale or the timeframe enough, what you might think of as 'improbable' is anything but. I also understand that trying to come up with 'odds' of something when one can't even accurately evaluate what it is that they're trying to predict is a fool's errand. Any attempt to calculate the odds of life occurring naturally is pretty much a waste of time until we get good enough observations of other galaxies to be able to actually determine their real conditions, rather than conditions millions or billions of years ago. If someone in a galaxy five billion years away were to look at the Milky Way, they might well conclude that our galaxy was not hospitable to life either, because it may well not have been at that point in time.
As for your question, I wouldn't want to take your word for the odds at this point until I was sure that you actually had even a basic understanding of probability.
