Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Beliefs- GDR
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 1036 of 1324 (705453)
08-27-2013 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1024 by GDR
08-24-2013 11:34 AM


Cause
Straggler writes:
However you phrase it, however you try to re-define the issue, we will always come back to the same simple fact.
You are invoking the existence of an entity for which there is no objective evidence, an entity which is necessarily a subjective human creation.
This is an epistemological approach that we know to have been an abject failure and one which we most definitely should not adopt in in place of a scientific approach if we are remotely interested in either accuracy or reliability of conclusion.
History tells us this unequivocally.
GDR writes:
I just don’t see it that way.
But it remains the case that one side is invoking un-evidenced entities and the other isn't. This is just indisputable.
GDR writes:
We are both invoking something which is non-evidenced...
What un-evidenced entity do you think I am invoking?
GDR writes:
Scientifically we know that everything is caused.
You need to read Message 165 again. Because you are applying common sense notions of caulsaity where they just don't belong.
GDR writes:
If you stop the turtles at the point that is objectively evidenced and say that there is no Tom then you are putting in Tom’s place something else which is not objectively evidenced..
No. I am saying that applying causality to the origins of the universe if causality is an emergent and internal property of the universe makes no sense at all.
The turtles literally stop at that which is objectively evidenced.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1024 by GDR, posted 08-24-2013 11:34 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1038 by GDR, posted 08-27-2013 6:29 PM Straggler has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 1037 of 1324 (705460)
08-27-2013 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by GDR
08-26-2013 11:01 PM


Not without human help which once again shows that for that to happen a designer is required.
It shows nothing of the sort.
You;re trying to make the argument that compelxity implies design, and it flatly does not. For an example all you need do is look at a snowflake, or any crystal - complex, ordered structures that occur without the involvement of any intelligent agency.
An even better example is the pulsar - a stellar phenomenon so structured that scientists hypothesized that they might actually be intelligently generated. Until they discovered their true nature - they're spinning dead stars emitting radio and other radiation from their poles, like a cosmic lighthouse.
There is a very strong difference between intelligent engineering and the sort of thing that evolution and other natural processes result in. All of them can bear the appearance of design...but in fact only one subset was actually designed.
I don’t know. My dogs seem to have a sense of self-awareness but who knows what goes on in their minds. How would anyone know that animals don’t have a sense of self-awareness.
If you admit that you don;t know that your dogs are self-aware, you don;t know what's going on in their heads, and you don;t even know how anyone would ever obtain that information, how can you even say that they appear self-aware?
Let me make an analogy. I have no idea who committed the murder, and I have no idea how we could possibly learn who committed the murder. But it looks to me like Jim did it.
You're making massive logical leaps, GDR. You're reasoning based on gut feeling and personal preference, but you can't actually identify why you think you know things. This is, again, a major red flag that your conclusions in these arenas are baseless.
I came up with that off the top of my head as you asked for my definition of life. Here is a fuller one. You’ll have to ask a biologist for their definition.
1/ a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2/a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual
b : one or more aspects of the process of living
More than half of your definition of "life" is "that which is alive," or "that which is not dead." That's not a definition - you couldn't possibly use such a definition to actually distinguish whether a subject is alive or not, if you were uncertain in the first place. The biological definition is closest to "c" - "an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction."
And yet there are things that seem to blur the distinction between life and death. A virus cannot procreate by itself, it does not grow, it does not metabolize...but it does reproduce when infecting a host cell, it does pass heritable information, and so on.
It is an answer, which keeps getting repeated as I keep getting asked the same question. If you are looking for objective scientific evidence we both know I don’t have any which is no different than the individual who claims that there are only naturalistic causes, and that natural processes are simply the result of an infinite number of preceding natural processes.
It's NOT and answer, GDR. Not even a little. It might be the closest you can give, but it's not an answer to the question.
You;re saying that A suggests B. In order to make that claim, ever, there has to be a reason that A suggests B.
For example, if I say that the presence of gun residue on Jim's hands suggests that he recently fired a gun, there is a reason for that connection. When you fire a gun, chemical residue from the combusting cordite winds up on the clothing and hands of the person who fired the gun. That residue is specific and only comes from burning the cordite used in ammunition, and it is deposited in a specific pattern that we can recognize after test-firing many guns in laboratories. Because it is extremely unlikely that Jim was covered in that saame chemical residue in that same pattern by any means other than by firing a gun, the residue is strongly suggestive that he has, in fact, recently fired a gun.
You should be able to give me a similar explanation for why you think that the mere existence of curiosity about origins is suggestive of an intelligent agent's involvement in those origins. You should be able to show me, as I did above with gunshot residue, why that specific curiosity would be less likely in a world where no intelligent agent was involved in our origins, but more likely in a world where one was.
The fact that you can't even sufficiently understand the question beyond "I think A suggests B" is itself strongly suggestive that your reasoning is completely baseless.
Ok then, put it the other way around. Would you expect lifeless elements without any intelligent planning to happen to come together in such a way that life is formed, evolution happens, and we wind up with at least one creature who has a curiosity about these things with the intelligence to consider and discuss it?
I expect that any intelligent species, regardless of its origins, would be curious about those origins.
I imagine that you will say I’m repeating myself again but I am not trying to make a scientific argument. I am only giving the reasons that I think the way I do. None of it is conclusive. They are simply my opinions based on what I know, or at least think I know.
Yet "opinion" is not a justification for irrational argument, GDR. The logic you describe as driving you to your conclusions is terrible. It's inconsistent, and usually just outright incomplete.
What appears to be happening in your head, GDR, is that you have already pre-established what you believe, and now you're going back and trying to fill in the reasons. Those reasons are incomplete and inconsistent because they didn't exist until recently - they're post-hoc rationalizations being used to justify a pre-existing belief.
You;ve written down your conclusion, "humanity is the result of intelligent design," at the bottom of the paper, and now you're going back up to the top and filling in clever reasons that ought to be true - reasons like "we're curious, and that is suggestive of intelligent design."
But that's not how rational thought works, GDR. Rational thought can only ever be used to decide which position to take int he first place - it cannot be used to go back and justify one that already existed. As soon as you wrote down "human beings are intelligently designed," that conclusion was either right or wrong, and all your clever post-hoc justifications are irrelevant.
When you notice that you cannot fully answer a question like "why does A suggest B," the proper response is not to continue repeating that A suggests B, or to say "well it's just my opinion," The former is just stubborn irrationality, and the latter would only be appropriate if we were discussing favorite colors.
The proper response when you are unsure of why you believe a thing is to question that belief.
If you hold a belief, any belief about the way the world really is, and you cannot determine the real root causes for that belief, or if your root causes are falsified, the proper response is to give up that belief, or at least to hold it under suspicion pending additional evidence.
And yet this is not what you do.
You've already written your conclusion. You have no intention of changing it - there is no argument that could ever exist that would cause you to change that belief, as it stands today - rational argument and logic are used by you only to create those clever post-hoc justifications, but the simple fact is that you refuse to change even if it is appropriate to do so. In that stubbornness, you refuse to ever hold a more accurate view of the world than the one you hold today. Every improvement is a change; every time we embrace a more accurate view of the real world, we change our old, less accurate beliefs. And you've drawn a line and said "I'm not changing this one."
That's the real bottom line of this thread, GDR, 1000+ messages in. You believe that life is intelligently designed. This conclusion is not at all the result of careful consideration, logical reasoning, or examination of evidence. You don't even honestly consider alternate hypotheses, you don't have any internal conception of relative probabilities, and you really don't even care whether you're right or how you would ever know that. Because your belief is not based on rational thought, rational argument cannot dissuade you.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
Nihil supernum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by GDR, posted 08-26-2013 11:01 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1040 by GDR, posted 08-28-2013 2:59 PM Rahvin has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1038 of 1324 (705481)
08-27-2013 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1036 by Straggler
08-27-2013 12:51 PM


Re: Cause
Straggler writes:
But it remains the case that one side is invoking un-evidenced entities and the oth er isn't. This is just indisputable.
And one side is invoking an endless series of processes that were ultimately uncaused without evidence. That too is indisputable. However read on.
Straggler writes:
What un-evidenced entity do you think I am invoking?
You aren’t invoking any entity. You are invoking an uncaused existence.
GDR writes:
Scientifically we know that everything is caused.
Straggler writes:
You need to read Message 165 again. Because you are applying common sense notions of caulsaity where they just don't belong.
In post 165 you referred to an early post by cavediver. Here was that quote:
quote:
Cause and Effect is a concept born of our anthropocentric experience. We drop a cup, it falls to the floor and smahes into thousands of shards. It is easy to assign the dropping as cause and the smashing as effect; it is utterly counterintuitive to reverse those roles. And so we learn to assign causes and effects, and feel that behind those things we call effects should lie something to which we can assign the term cause.
But this is only true at the macroscopic level. At the quantum level, everything is time reversible. What appears as cause can just as easily appear as effect. An electron and a positron annihilate to create two photons. Two photons pair-create an electron and positron out of the vacuum. The exact same process viewed in two opposite directions through time.
In fact, as we build up these interactions into something much more complex, we realise that there is no cause and effect as such, but simple consistency. One can say that the effect requires the cause, but there is just as much validity to say that the cause required the effect. Causality is simply a constraint on what parts of the interaction have to be consistent with what other parts.
So what would you make of that then? Would you say that evolution is the effect that initiated the cause that caused evolution for example? However, all that aside, what cavediver talks about could be another process that preceded all of the other processes that resulted in the world as we know it today, but maybe not.
What cavediver is saying is consistent with other material I have read in that it appears that our universe should flow either backward or forward in time. Obviously we don’t perceive it that way. We are unable to grow younger or go back and change the past. I was conceived at a specific time and prior to that there was no evidence I existed but I was born as a result of cause. All life that we know of, at least as far as I know, had a cause. You however are suggesting that the first life was uncaused.
It seems to me that gives us a paradox. If first life did not need a cause as the effect, which is the first life, is indistinguishable from the cause of that life or in essence they are one and the same. If that is true then we should be able to make the same point for all life, and for that matter all death. Yet, our life appears that we have causes for absolute beginnings and absolute ends. We are born and we die.
If cavediver is correct, and as far as I know all evidence is supportive of that, then I’d say ok life doesn’t need cause. The case is then that birth is a cause for death which can then be turned around to say that death is the cause of birth. At the quantum level birth and death are pretty much interchangeable.
If then life is essentially uncaused because at the quantum level particles pop in and out of existence and time flows either way isn’t that evidence that the universe that we experience is not all that there is? If death and birth are both cause and effect isn’t that an indication that death is not simply ceasing to exist?
Frankly I find the whole concept indicative of the idea that this life that we know is not all that there is. If we are uncaused then the implication is that we are eternal beings, which then raises the question of why are we here.
Starggler writes:
No. I am saying that applying causality to the origins of the universe if causality is an emergent and internal property of the universe makes no sense at all.
That is why I had quite talking about causality of the universe and was talking about causality of life which I see as a separate issue.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1036 by Straggler, posted 08-27-2013 12:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1039 by Straggler, posted 08-28-2013 9:05 AM GDR has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1039 of 1324 (705514)
08-28-2013 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1038 by GDR
08-27-2013 6:29 PM


Re: Cause
Do you accept that time is an internal aspect of our universe?
GDR writes:
You are invoking an uncaused existence.
Can you explain how cause and effect applies in the absence of time?
GDR writes:
If we are uncaused then the implication is that we are eternal beings, which then raises the question of why are we here.
You've lost me here. Obviously we are the product of a causal chain within our universe and I have no idea why you think we would be eternal........?
GDR writes:
Would you say that evolution is the effect that initiated the cause that caused evolution for example?
What? No. The existence of imperfect replicators are the 'cause' of evolution (if you insist on applying this sort of terminology)
GDR writes:
That is why I had quite talking about causality of the universe and was talking about causality of life which I see as a separate issue.
What I think is unclear is why you think life requires a supernatural cause any more than (for example) a volcano (or indeed any other observable phenomenon) requires a supernatural cause?
Is it just the gap thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1038 by GDR, posted 08-27-2013 6:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1041 by GDR, posted 08-28-2013 9:05 PM Straggler has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1040 of 1324 (705543)
08-28-2013 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1037 by Rahvin
08-27-2013 1:52 PM


Rahvin writes:
It shows nothing of the sort.
You;re trying to make the argument that compelxity implies design, and it flatly does not. For an example all you need do is look at a snowflake, or any crystal - complex, ordered structures that occur without the involvement of any intelligent agency.
An even better example is the pulsar - a stellar phenomenon so structured that scientists hypothesized that they might actually be intelligently generated. Until they discovered their true nature - they're spinning dead stars emitting radio and other radiation from their poles, like a cosmic lighthouse.
There is a very strong difference between intelligent engineering and the sort of thing that evolution and other natural proce sses result in. All of them can bear the appearance of design...but in fact only one subset was actually designed.
How do you know all of those things aren’t designed? Sure we can see natural processes that result in snowflakes etc but we don’t know whether or not the processes themselves are designed. It’s like looking at a car built by robotics and saying that the robotics didn’t need a designer.
Rahvin writes:
If you admit that you don;t know that your dogs are self-aware, you don;t know what's going on in their heads, and you don;t even know how anyone would ever obtain that information, how can you even say that they appear self-aware?
Let me make an analogy. I have no idea who committed the murder, and I have no idea how we could possibly learn who committed the murder. But it looks to me like Jim did it.
You're making massive logical leaps, GDR. You're re asoning based on gut feeling and personal preference, but you can't actually identify why you think you know things. This is, again, a major red flag that your conclusions in these arenas are baseless.
I am not saying that I know these things. I am saying I believe them although I contend that it is a reasonable point of view. And I did identify why I believe what I do.
In the case of the murder you probably have good reason to believe that Jim committed the murder even though you don’t have the evidence to prove it in court.
Rahvin writes:
More than half of your definition of "life" is " that which is alive," or "that which is not dead." That's not a definition - you couldn't possibly use such a definition to actually distinguish whether a subject is alive or not, if you were uncertain in the first place. The biological definition is closest to "c" - "an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction."
And yet there are things that seem to blur the distinction between life and death. A virus cannot procreate by itself, it does not grow, it does not metabolize...but it does reproduce when infecting a host cell, it does pass heritable information, and so on.
I’m more than happy to accept your definition but I’m afraid that your point is going over my head.
Rahvin writes:
It's NOT and answer, GDR. Not even a little. It might be the closest you can give, but it's not an answer to the question.
You;re saying that A suggests B. In order to make that claim, ever, there has to be a reason that A suggests B.
For example, if I say that the presence of gun residue on Jim's hands suggests that he recently fired a gun, there is a reason for that connection. When you fire a gun, chemical residue from the combusting cordite winds up on the clothing and hands of the person who fired the gun. That residue is specific and only comes fr om burning the cordite used in ammunition, and it is deposited in a specific pattern that we can recognize after test-firing many guns in laboratories. Because it is extremely unlikely that Jim was covered in that saame chemical residue in that same pattern by any means other than by firing a gun, the residue is strongly suggestive that he has, in fact, recently fired a gun.
You should be able to give me a similar explanation for why you think that the mere existence of curiosity about origins is suggestive of an intelligent agent's involvement in those origins. You should be able to show me, as I did above with gunshot residue, why that specific curiosity would be less likely in a world where no intellige nt agent was involved in our origins, but more likely in a world where one was.
To use your example we can show that Jim fired a gun but we don’t know which gun it was from. It might be the murder weapon and it might not. We know that we are curious obout our origins, we know that we have an understanding of morality and can make moral choices, we have intelligence, we experience love and hate etc. That is the equivalent of the gun residue. We know these things exist but we can only come up with a subjective view on whether or not the abiogenesis or evolutionary gun was fired by a designer or by additional natural processes.
Rahvin writes:
I expect that any intelligent species, regardless of its origins, would be curi ous about those origins.
What is the evidence for you coming to that conclusion?
Rahvin writes:
You've already written your conclusion. You have no intention of changing it - there is no argument that could ever exis t that would cause you to change that belief, as it stands today - rational argument and logic are used by you only to create those clever post-hoc justifications, but the simple fact is that you refuse to change even if it is appropriate to do so. In that stubbornness, you refuse to ever hold a more accurate view of the world than the one you hold today. Every improvement is a change; every time we embrace a more accurate view of the real world, we change our old, less accurate beliefs. And you've drawn a line and said "I'm not changing this one."
That's the real bottom line of this thread, GDR, 1000+ messages in. You believe that life is intelligently designed. This conclusion is not at all the result of careful consideration, logical reasoning, or examination of evidence. You don't even honestly consider alternate hypotheses, you don't have any internal conception of relative probabilities, and you really don't even care whether you're ri ght or how you would ever know that. Because your belief is not based on rational thought, rational argument cannot dissuade you.
There are two levels to this. I am a theist of which my sub-set is Christianity. Essentially it is my theistic beliefs that you are talking about.
Also, over the time that I have been a theist and a Christian I have changed my views considerably. As I continue to learn I adapt my beliefs in accordance with what to me is new information.
We are here for a reason. That fundamental reason is either intelligent or mindless. We don’t know but we can look at what we know and form our subjective opinions or beliefs. You come to your opinions in the same way that I do but you have simply come to a different subjective opinion. Everything that you criticize about my beliefs could equally be applied to yours.
What I do have that supports my belief are the experiences I have had, and the changes that have resulted from my belief to my own nature and worldview.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1037 by Rahvin, posted 08-27-2013 1:52 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1043 by Rahvin, posted 08-30-2013 2:04 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1041 of 1324 (705549)
08-28-2013 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1039 by Straggler
08-28-2013 9:05 AM


Re: Cause
Straggler writes:
Do you accept that time is an internal aspect of our universe?
I don’t know it but it is my opinion that it is.
Straggler writes:
Can you explain how cause and effect applies in the absence of time?
If time is an internal aspect of our universe then we must be part of something more that contains our universe where change or time is multi-dimensional. That brings us back to cavediver’s point about cause and effect. I’ll repeat it here so that it is easier to reference.
quote:
Cause and Effect is a concept born of our anthropocentric experience. We drop a cup, it falls to the floor and smahes into thousands of shards. It is easy to assign the dropping as cause and the smashing as effect; it is utterly counterintuitive to reverse those roles. And so we learn to assign causes and effects, and feel that behind those things we call effects should lie something to which we can assign the term cause.
But this is only true at the macroscopic level. At the quantum level, everything is time reversible. What appears as cause can just as easily appear as effect. An electron and a positron annihilate to create two photons. Two photons pair-create an electron and positron out of the vacuum. The exact same process viewed in two opposite directions through time.
In fact, as we build up these interactions into something much more complex, we realise that there is no cause and effect as such, but simple consistency. One can say that the effect requires the cause, but there is just as much validity to say that the cause required the effect. Causality is simply a constraint on what parts of the interaction have to be consistent with what other parts.
In other words what looks like cause to us who are locked in time can really be effect and vice versa. This seems to me to strongly indicate that existence isn’t temporal and that abiogenesis can just as easily be the effect of life as it can be the cause for life. If you stretch that further then presumably death can be a cause for birth. If you take that further then it does provide evidence that our physical death doesn’t lead to oblivion but to birth.
In the end I think that we can come to one of two conclusions. If cavediver is right I contend that it should lead us to believe that our temporal life in this universe is actually one aspect of a life that isn’t bounded by birth and death. If however, cavediver is wrong in his conclusions about cause and effect then we are back to needing a first cause for life.
Straggler writes:
What? No. The existence of imperfect replicators are the 'cause' of evolution (if you insist on applying this sort of terminology)
But if you go back to what cavediver said then why couldn’t evolution be the cause of imperfect replicators? If you are applying one set of rules to the origins of life and another set to life itself.
Straggler writes:
What I think is unclear is why you think life requires a supernatural cause any more than (for example) a volcano (or indeed any other observable phenomenon) requires a supernatural cause?
Is it just the gap thing?
It may not require a cause but if it doesn’t then, as I say, it follows that our life only appears to be bounded by birth and death. If that is the case we still require a reason for experiencing life the way we do in one time direction only. This all reminds me of Abbot’s book Flatland.
So maybe it isn’t cause that we require but a reason that life as we perceive it exists, but from our time bound perception it looks the same.
This is all getting very esoterical and all this thinking has exhausted me or is it the exhaustion that had me thinking?
Straggler writes:
Is it just the gap thing?
Nope. Just looking for answers whatever they are.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1039 by Straggler, posted 08-28-2013 9:05 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1042 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2013 8:10 AM GDR has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1042 of 1324 (705650)
08-30-2013 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1041 by GDR
08-28-2013 9:05 PM


Re: Cause
Frankly your response is both pretty confused and confusing.
I think the thing you are missing about time and common conceptions of cause and effect relate to the following:
Cavey writes:
But this is only true at the macroscopic level. At the quantum level, everything is time reversible.
When you talk about life and death and abiogenesis etc. you need to realise that these are macroscopic phenomena that are not time reversible in then same way that quantum effects are.
GDR writes:
If you are applying one set of rules to the origins of life and another set to life itself.
No I'm not. Entropy means that time is directional at the macroscopic level in a way that it is not at the quantum level. Entropy and the arrow of time
So any macroscopic phenomena will follow the arrow of time.
GDR writes:
In the end I think that we can come to one of two conclusions.
In the end I think we should heed cavediver's words - But you cannot talk about a "cause" for the Universe without first appreciating "causes".
GDR writes:
Just looking for answers whatever they are.
OK. But however you phrase it, however you try to re-define the issue, we will always come back to the same simple fact. You are invoking the existence of an entity for which there is no objective evidence, an entity which is necessarily a subjective human creation.
We can talk about causation all you like (and I have tried to explain to you why causation as commonly conceived is an internal aspect of our universe rather than something which should be applied to the origins of the universe itself) but the bottom line here is that we know the universe exists.
There is no objective evidence for the existence of an uncaused being who causes the universe (or indeed anything else). It remains the case that one side is invoking un-evidenced subjectively derived entities and the other isn't.
This is just indisputable.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1041 by GDR, posted 08-28-2013 9:05 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1045 by GDR, posted 08-31-2013 12:44 PM Straggler has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 1043 of 1324 (705688)
08-30-2013 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1040 by GDR
08-28-2013 2:59 PM


How do you know all of those things aren’t designed? Sure we can see natural processes that result in snowflakes etc but we don’t know whether or not the processes themselves are designed. It’s like looking at a car built by robotics and saying that the robotics didn’t need a designer.
You;re just falling for infinite regression again - turtles, or in this case "designers," all the way down. If I were to prove to you that the processes were not designed, then you'd move the goalposts back further and claim design of the Universe itself.
The simple answer is that we can see snowflakes form, we can model the mechanisms behind that formation with high accuracy, and there does not appear to be any designer involved. Ice crystals (and indeed all crystals) form due to the molecular structure of their constituents, in this case water. Water ice crystals, salt crystals, sugar crystals - devoid of a mold forcing them into a specific form, they will grow in specific shapes. The process happens by itself. Nobody carves out the sugar crystals, nobody specifically places each piece of the snowflake, the formation of crystals is a consequence of basic chemistry and physics.
Since you're trying to move it farther back and claim the design was performed on the natural laws themselves...well, that's just yet another of your many logical leaps. We know the laws of physics exist. We even know what some of them are to a degree of accuracy sufficient to develop advanced technology.
But there's no reason at all to presume that some intelligent agency specifically made those laws of physics. "Laws" in this sense aren't the type made up by conscious beings in a legislative body, or edicts from a king - they're the consistent, generalized behaviors of the Universe itself. We make up these "laws" to represent those behaviors to the best of our current understanding.
Yes, this Universe happens to have the correct conditions to allow for human life...at least on one planet.
But That doesn;t really mean much. And in fact, if the Universe was made just so in order to make it habitable for human beings, well...the "designer" did a really shitty job. Humans have a hard time surviving in most of the environments on this planet, let alone anywhere else in the Universe.
If I were a designer trying to make up natural laws so that intelligent life would form, I wouldn't make the vast majority of the Universe empty space. If I wanted humans specifically to form, I'd make a lot more planets like Earth and a lot fewer binary and trinary star systems, super-Jupiters, supernovae, and so on. If I could just make up the root behaviors of the Universe itself, I wouldn't even bother with evolution - why waste all that time? Just pull the "I dream of Jeanie" method and poof them into existence.
It just doesn't add up.
But even if we were speaking from absolute uncertainty, GDR, the basic proposition of a designer would still be irrational from the perspective you're taking. You're violating Occam's Razor, the Principle of Parsimony, just for a start.
I am not saying that I know these things. I am saying I believe them although I contend that it is a reasonable point of view.
More nonsense about the validity of opinion. Nobody "knows" much of anything, GDR. Certainty is denied us, as we can only know what we observe, and our observations and even our memories are easily fooled.
But reasonable is the absolute opposite of your line of thinking. It's simply irrationa, full stop. It's a matter of logical leaps and fallacies, nothing more.
And I did identify why I believe what I do.
You tried.
In the case of the murder you probably have good reason to believe that Jim committed the murder even though you don’t have the evidence to prove it in court.
I specifically said in my analogy that I have no evidence, and that I have no way to gather evidence. By definition I cannot have any "good reason" to believe Jim did anything. I have exactly as much "good reason" to believe Jim committed murder in that scenario as I do that magic fairies push the Earth around the Sun. That was the point of the analogy.
To use your example we can show that Jim fired a gun but we don’t know which gun it was from. It might be the murder weapon and it might not. We know that we are curious obout our origins, we know that we have an understanding of morality and can make moral choices, we have intelligence, we experience love and hate etc. That is the equivalent of the gun residue. We know these things exist but we can only come up with a subjective view on whether or not the abiogenesis or evolutionary gun was fired by a designer or by additional natural processes.
You compeltely missed the point.
The point of that section was that I was showing you specifically why observation A suggested hypothesis B. I was showing you the causal and probabilistic justification for why B was the hypothesis most likely to be accurate. I wasn;t talking about murder in this case - this was separate from the analogy above. The hypothesis said nothing about murder - only that we hypothesize that Jim recently fired a gun. That was all.
The point was to show you what I was asking for from you. I can show you in great detail specifically why a given observation increases the probability of a given hypothesis.
I was trying to get you to do the same. You've said that the observation of human curiosity over origins increases the probability that humans were designed. I've tried, repeatedly and at length, to get you to explain just how you get from A to B in that statement.
WHY, specifically, does the observation that humans are curious about origins mean that we are more likely to be designed? Why does that observation positively affect the probability of that particular hypothesis? Why do you think that observation does not also increase the probability of competing hypotheses, such as the hypothesis that human beings were "designed" only by natural selection, and not any intelligent agent?
What is the evidence for you coming to that conclusion?
100% of the intelligent species we have observed are curious regarding their origins.
The sample size is small, but when that's the only relevant evidence in existence, it's all you can use as a basis for a hypothesis.
So the question really is "given that every single intelligent species we've ever encountered has been curious regarding it's own origins, why do you think that species that was not intelligently designed would not also have the same curiosity?"
I can't think of a reason. Can you?
There are two levels to this. I am a theist of which my sub-set is Christianity. Essentially it is my theistic beliefs that you are talking about.
Also, over the time that I have been a theist and a Christian I have changed my views considerably. As I continue to learn I adapt my beliefs in accordance with what to me is new information.
We are here for a reason. That fundamental reason is either intelligent or mindless. We don’t know but we can look at what we know and form our subjective opinions or beliefs. You come to your opinions in the same way that I do but you have simply come to a different subjective opinion. Everything that you criticize about my beliefs could equally be applied to yours.
What I do have that supports my belief are the experiences I have had, and the changes that have resulted from my belief to my own nature and worldview.
You;re creating aa specific exception for your theistic beliefs where none should exist.
Your theistic beliefs are a subset of the total set of beliefs you hold regarding the way the Universe actually is. These are not "opinions" on the level of personal preference, like a favorite color. You simply give your theistic beliefs special immunity, while your nontheistic beliefs, which have less emotional connection, are denied that special immunity.
But that's irrational, GDR. Our beliefs are the sum total of our personal models of the way the world actually is - our internal maps of the single, objective territory. When you observe territory you can update your map - and yet you are creating maps of regions you've never observed, and refusing to update other regions after you've observed that the territory is different.
It's not a matter of "rights." You have every right to believe that the Sun is made of swiss cheese.
But when it comes to logical validity, your theistic beliefs are simply invalid Even after having the logical fallacies pointed out to you, you still insist otherwise. Your beliefs are irrational.
Given your responses I can only conclude that your arguments are post-hoc rationalizations of your pre-existing beliefs. You didn't arrive at your theistic beliefs by observing the Universe and then making careful, logically consistent extrapolations.
Which is why this conversation is nearly pointless. There is no argument, no observation, no matter how accurate or provable, that would dissuade you from your present conclusion that humanity is the result of an intelligent designer. Oh, you might shift around a little - you might change where you think the design took place - from the genetic code itself, to the evolutionary process, to physics and chemistry, or even to the Universe itself. But nothing will dissuade you from the root conclusion of design itself.
Because rational thought cannot be used to justify a given position; it can only be used to determine which position to take in the first place. A conclusion arrived at rationally can be changed through the introduction of new evidence or argument. But rationalization doesn't seek to improve accuracy - the point of rationalization is to find excuses to maintain belief.
And that's all you're doing here.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
Nihil supernum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1040 by GDR, posted 08-28-2013 2:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1044 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2013 2:17 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 1046 by GDR, posted 09-01-2013 4:08 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1044 of 1324 (705689)
08-30-2013 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1043 by Rahvin
08-30-2013 2:04 PM


Rahvin writes:
If I were a designer trying to make up natural laws so that intelligent life would form, I wouldn't make the vast majority of the Universe empty space. If I wanted humans specifically to form, I'd make a lot more planets like Earth and a lot fewer binary and trinary star systems, super-Jupiters, supernovae, and so on. If I could just make up the root behaviors of the Universe itself, I wouldn't even bother with evolution - why waste all that time? Just pull the "I dream of Jeanie" method and poof them into existence.
Ah, you mean exactly like what is described in the bible? Now there's a coincidence, I wonder how anyone would arrive at that idea ;-)

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1043 by Rahvin, posted 08-30-2013 2:04 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1045 of 1324 (705726)
08-31-2013 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1042 by Straggler
08-30-2013 8:10 AM


Re: Cause
Straggler writes:
Frankly your response is both pretty confused and confusing.
In my defence it is a confusing subject in a field with not much absolute knowledge and a great deal of speculation.
Straggler writes:
When you talk about life and death and abiogenesis etc. you need to realise that these are macroscopic phenomena that are not time reversible in then same way that quantum effects are.
This is a lot like the discussion about micro-evolution and macro-evolution where the argument is that there is no macro-evolution but only a long history of micro-evolution. In the end everything is made up of particles and so QM is fundamental to all life, and in the end what we call macro is made up of virtually infinite quatum events.
I’ll repeat again what cavediver said just so I can refer to it.
quote:
Cause and Effect is a concept born of our anthropocentric experience. We drop a cup, it falls to the floor and smahes into thousands of shards. It is easy to assign the dropping as cause and the smashing as effect; it is utterly counterintuitive to reverse those roles. And so we learn to assign causes and effects, and feel that behind those things we call effects should lie something to which we can assign the term cause.
But this is only true at the macroscopic level. At the quantum level, everything is time reversible. What appears as cause can just as easily appear as effect. An electron and a positron annihilate to create two photons. Two photons pair-create an electron and positron out of the vacuum. The exact same process viewed in two opposite directions through time.
In fact, as we build up these interactions into something much more complex, we realise that there is no cause and effect as such, but simple consistency. One can say that the effect requires the cause, but there is just as much validity to say that the cause required the effect. Causality is simply a constraint on what parts of the interaction have to be consistent with what other parts.
Cavediver says that EVERYTHING at the quantum level is time reversible. If that is the case we have to ask why isn’t that true at the so called macroscopic level. He starts off by saying that our concept of cause and effect comes from our anthropocentric experience. Our perception of reality, or our anthropocentric experience, is that the arrow of time only flows in one direction. However at the quantum level, which in reality is everything, time is reversible.
The question becomes why is our experience different that the reality. IMHO it is reasonable to suggest that the difference is based on our consciousness. It is consciousness that makes our universe what it is, and from what cavediver says it appears that our study of QM indicates that our perception is limited to just one aspect of it.
If you are going to do away with a cause for the universe and a cause for life then you can no longer then argue against theism by asking the question of a cause for Tom.
Straggler writes:
No I'm not. Entropy means that time is dir ectional at the macroscopic level in a way that it is not at the quantum level. Entropy and the arrow of time
So any macroscopic phenomena will follow the arrow of time.
I watched the videos and read the article. I’ll likely order the book. There are two things that strike me. Firstly because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics his sand castle will break down but on the other hand there is nothing in the laws of physics that says the sand can’t on reform back to a sand castle. However the natural state of being is that things are entropic so we only see the sand castle break down.
I understand that life appears to go against that but from what I understand that isn’t the case due to the heat generated from the food we eat. However that does not explain life arising in the first place. Entropy would have had to flow in a negative direction for life to arise which is consistent with what cavediver is talking about at the quantum level. This then would be one example of entropy flowing in the opposite direction at the macro level and not just the quantum level.
Straggler writes:
In the end I think we should heed cavediver's words - But you cannot talk about a "cause" for the Universe without first appreciating "causes".
OK., but then again you can’t talk about a cause for Tom without first appreciating causes.
Straggler writes:
OK. But however you phrase it, however you try to re-define the issue, we will always come back to the same simple fact.
You are invoking the existence of an entity for which there is no objective evidence, an entity which is necessarily a subjective human creation.
We can talk about causation all you like (and I have tried to explain to you why causation as commonly conceived is an internal aspect of our universe rather than something which should be applied to the origins of the universe itself) but the bottom line here is that we know the universe exists.
There is no objective evidence for the existence of an uncaused being who causes the universe (or indeed anything else).
There may be no objective evidence as such that Tom exists, but without going through all that again, IMHO what we do know about life and the world as we perceive it, very strongly suggests that the most reasonable subjective conclusion is that we are the result of an intelligent planner.
We know that the universe that we perceive is finite and yet we have a sense of purpose. We have an instinct for survival that we can override to an ideal or even for a puppy as we talked about. Within our consciousness we know that our lives individually and collectively should make a difference, yet against all that we still struggle to overcome the pull of personal gratification and desire for power. Just to say that this all stems from mindless processes that began with base elements is mental stretch that you have been able to make that I can’t. You can say that is an argument from incredulity but then that is also true of you finding the idea of an intelligent planned incredulous.
By faith I go beyond that and find that Christianity, as understood through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, (not through an inerrant Bible), to provide the answer for purpose and direction of life. This faith has impacted my life in ways that I find inexplicable on their own without some explanation beyond my own consciousness. I frankly have very little doubt about my basic Christian faith, however it is not science.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1042 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2013 8:10 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1058 by Straggler, posted 09-03-2013 6:13 AM GDR has replied
 Message 1059 by Straggler, posted 09-03-2013 6:30 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1046 of 1324 (705741)
09-01-2013 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1043 by Rahvin
08-30-2013 2:04 PM


Rahvin writes:
You;re creating aa specific exception for your theistic beliefs where none should exist.
Your theistic beliefs are a subset of the total set of beliefs you hold regarding the way the Universe actually is. These are not "opinions" on the level of personal preference, like a favorite color. You simply give your theistic beliefs special immunity, while your nontheistic beliefs, which have less emotional connection, are denied that special immunity.
But that's irrational, GDR. Our beliefs are the sum total of our personal models of the way the world actually is - our internal maps of the single, objective territory. When you observe territory you can update your map - and yet you are creating maps of regions you've never observed, and refusing to update other regions after you've observed that the territory is different.
It's not a matter of "rights." You have every right to believe that the Sun is made of swiss cheese.
But when it comes to logical validity, your theistic beliefs are simply invalid Even after having the logical fallacies pointed out to you, you still insist otherwise. Your beliefs are irrational.
Given your responses I can only conclude that your arguments are post-hoc rationalizations of your pre-existing beliefs. You didn't arrive at your theistic beliefs by observing the Universe and then making careful, logically consistent extrapolations.
Which is why this conversation is nearly pointless. There is no argument, no observation, no matter how accurate or provable, that would dissuade you from your present conclusion that humanity is the result of an i ntelligent designer. Oh, you might shift around a little - you might change where you think the design took place - from the genetic code itself, to the evolutionary process, to physics and chemistry, or even to the Universe itself. But nothing will dissuade you from the root conclusion of design itself.
Because rational thought cannot be used to justify a given position; it can only be used to determine which position to take in the first place. A conclusion arrived at rationally can be changed through the introduction of new evidence or argument. But rationalization doesn't seek to improve accuracy - the point of rationalization is to find excuses to maintain belief.
And that's all you're doing here.
But all of the arguments you use against me can be applied to atheism. Atheism requires the acceptance of the belief that as all that science has learned about life has involved natural processes and that we have not discovered any evidence for an intelligent designer, that natural processes, as we understand them, are all that there is and there is no need to invoke any intelligent planner. What science does tell us though is that our universe isn’t all that there is. We have no idea what other processes or reality that might exist as a result of being part of something greater than what we perceive.
I suppose I didn’t arrive at my theistic beliefs by observing the Universe and then making careful, logically consistent extrapolations’. Frankly I read CS Lewis which led me to believe that I might be wrong about my previous beliefs and then went from there. In over 30 years of being a Christian my specific beliefs have evolved considerably and they continue to evolve.
Yes I am confident that my theistic beliefs are broadly accurate and I’ve heard many arguments against them, which I have found unconvincing. I doubt very much that I could be persuaded otherwise, which I would think is pretty much exactly the position that you are in.
When you say that the conversation is nearly pointless because I’m not going to be convinced that my beliefs are in error, I have to assume that we have a different idea of the point. My goal is not to convince you to convert to Christianity or even to theism. My goal is to explain as best I can how I have come to my beliefs.
I am told on this thread that my beliefs are irrational, ridiculous etc. Frankly it is my view that it is irrational and ridiculous to believe that consciousness that includes intelligence, emotions and morality can emerge from mindless non-dimensional or uni-dimensional particles. However I don’t normally see any need in saying that. In your view though it does seem that disagreeing with your view is irrational, and that it is only your view that is rational. It certainly does not prove me right, but there are many highly qualified people in the world of science who agree with the rationality of my position.
AbE I thought I'd quickly reply to this point seeing as how Tangle respondsed.
Rahvin writes:
If I were a designer trying to make up natural laws so that intelligent life would form, I wouldn't make the vast majority of the Universe empty space. If I wanted humans specifically to form, I'd make a lot more planets like Earth and a lot fewer binary and trinary star systems, super-Jupiters, supernovae, and so on. If I could just make up the root behaviors of the Universe itself, I wouldn't even bother with evolution - why waste all that time? Just pull the "I dream of Jeanie" method and poof them into existence.
The size of the universe is irrelevant. It is simply large from our perception and don't forget that at one point it was simply a tiny point of what was presumably energy. What you are doing is painting your own anthropomorphic view of what you believe a god should be.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1043 by Rahvin, posted 08-30-2013 2:04 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1047 by Tangle, posted 09-01-2013 5:11 PM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1047 of 1324 (705744)
09-01-2013 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1046 by GDR
09-01-2013 4:08 PM


GDR writes:
Atheism requires the acceptance of the belief that ....
Nope. Atheism require nothing but a disbelief in god.
Personally I saw through the god thing well before I knew anything about evolution.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1046 by GDR, posted 09-01-2013 4:08 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1048 by GDR, posted 09-01-2013 8:10 PM Tangle has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1048 of 1324 (705753)
09-01-2013 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1047 by Tangle
09-01-2013 5:11 PM


Tangle writes:
Personally I saw through the god thing well before I knew anything about evolution.
Obviously another well thought out conclusion. One of the better arguments against atheism on the forum.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by Tangle, posted 09-01-2013 5:11 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1049 by kjsimons, posted 09-01-2013 11:16 PM GDR has replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 1049 of 1324 (705764)
09-01-2013 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1048 by GDR
09-01-2013 8:10 PM


We know you realize that atheism and evolution are not in cahoots to undermine theistic beliefs, so stop misrepresenting what atheism is! I too rejected religion long before I fully understood evolution. I was only ten and I could clearly see that religion required believers to wear blinders to keep them from experiencing reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1048 by GDR, posted 09-01-2013 8:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1050 by GDR, posted 09-02-2013 2:10 AM kjsimons has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1050 of 1324 (705767)
09-02-2013 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1049 by kjsimons
09-01-2013 11:16 PM


kjsimons writes:
We know you realize that atheism and evolution are not in cahoots to undermine theistic beliefs, so stop misrepresenting what atheism is! I too rejected religion long before I fully understood evolution. I was only ten and I could clearly see that religion required believers to wear blinders to keep them from experiencing reality.
This is an example of why there are so few theists left around here.
I had actually tried to come up with a definition for atheism as part of a discussion with Rahvin that would be acceptable to atheists and I get this response from Tangle.
Tangle writes:
Personally I saw through the god thing well before I knew anything about evolution.
I do get a little tired of being treated like an imbecile who's been duped so sure I responded somewhat sarcastically and of course I get jeered. Normally I just don't respond to that kind of post but I guess this time it just particularly bugged me.
Now of course we have kjsimons telling us how he was so much smarter at age 10 than others who have spent a considerably longer life time considering these things.
You guys can sit around puffing up your egos by congratulating yourselves on how clever you are not to be duped like simple minded people like myself, if it makes you feel good. I saw recently on another thread that this was essentially a forum for atheists and if that is what you want then just let me know and I'm out of here.
I normally haven't paid much attention to posts like this as I am grateful for many our conversations, and I have learned a lot from many of you. However, I had been asked about my beliefs so I started a thread on the topic. After posting as much as what I have done on this thread to try and explain what I believe and how I came to those beliefs, I simply found these rather juvenile posts particularly frustrating.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1049 by kjsimons, posted 09-01-2013 11:16 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1051 by Tangle, posted 09-02-2013 8:24 AM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024