Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 1:53 PM
27 online now:
Diomedes, Faith, JonF, Meddle, PaulK, ringo, Stile (7 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,200 Year: 5,237/19,786 Month: 1,359/873 Week: 255/460 Day: 7/64 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   God caused or uncaused?
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 61 of 297 (416504)
08-16-2007 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by mark24
08-16-2007 3:25 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mark 24:
As far as you are concerned it is perfectly possible for reality to exist without god. Reality is everything, therefore it is uncaused. Your logic, not mine.

Yes, and Reality is God...

For example, when you said:

There could be evidence of god, there just isn't.
You are making an absolute assertion that (if true), there is nothing I can do to change it. And any position contrary to that, would put me in conflict with reality. The point is... reality is sovereign.

I think what your trying to say is that reality cannot be known, therefore we cannot know what is sovereign. Which brings another problem (usually for the postmodernist)... how can you know that if reality cannot be known?

Yours is almost a Bart Simpson-like perspective... 'You can't prove it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything.'

mark24:

I have given you a standard of empirical evidence that I & science would accept as valid evidence of god. There could be evidence of god, there just isn't. ID as it stands just doesn't meet the standard.

But neither does gravity, the quantum, the earth's electromagnetic field etc... we don't understand how they work, they just do (reality).

You can't see them, but we see their effects. It's the same with God, particularly in the moral realm. We see the pain resulting from sin, and get a clue as to God's purpose being contrary to the result. But for this discussion, the quantum will do. I notice you don't like talking about the quantum. Your material panacea isn't very material...

The fact is, you can deny all day that lack of understanding is proof of God's sovereignty, but you'll never prove it.. which is what you say science does.

It's true I can't prove anything. But this lie that science can is equally disturbing. Science is really only a sophist exercise in doubt as practiced by the likes of you. It gives you something to believe in, that cannot be proven but only demanded, so as to not to believe in God.

I gotta go to work for a day or so...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by mark24, posted 08-16-2007 3:25 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 08-16-2007 8:17 AM Rob has responded
 Message 66 by bluegenes, posted 08-16-2007 4:38 PM Rob has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 62 of 297 (416505)
08-16-2007 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by pbee
08-15-2007 10:21 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
pbee: As for the unknown quote you provided:
Proteins do self-assemble without DNA.

There is no known self-organizing mechanism in nature. That is a myth. At the very least, laws exist to guide certain processes. But the mechanism itself cannot have created of the laws. There is a great quote from Issac newton to this effect, but I have to go for now.

The only documented theory for the self-organizing and self sustaining assembly of life is not a scientific one. It is the doctrine of the Trinity. And it was made up by a few fishermen who got lucky I guess...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by pbee, posted 08-15-2007 10:21 PM pbee has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by sidelined, posted 08-16-2007 7:09 AM Rob has responded
 Message 67 by Doddy, posted 08-16-2007 8:34 PM Rob has responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 297 (416508)
08-16-2007 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Rob
08-16-2007 6:09 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
rob

There is no known self-organizing mechanism in nature. That is a myth. At the very least, laws exist to guide certain processes. But the mechanism itself cannot have created of the laws

The laws{which are human constructs describing observations} are the result of the mechanism not the reason for it.
The mechanism is a result of the physics of the atom which in turn govern the properties of the different elements which in turn form the chemical processes that occur between elements which under the influence of fundamental forces produce the phenomena in nature including self-assembly of proteins.

Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.


"The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss."

Thomas Carlyle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Rob, posted 08-16-2007 6:09 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 3:07 AM sidelined has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 64 of 297 (416510)
08-16-2007 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Rob
08-15-2007 5:00 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
I've argued this one before, but not here at EVC.

God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. How can he be all three?

i'm sorry, that has nothing to do with my point. my point is that the god of the bible is not logically consistent -- this is actually a good example. in some places, god is more omni-whatever than in other places.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 5:00 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 3:00 AM arachnophilia has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 65 of 297 (416512)
08-16-2007 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
08-16-2007 6:01 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob,

mark writes:

As far as you are concerned it is perfectly possible for reality to exist without god. Reality is everything, therefore it is uncaused. Your logic, not mine.

Yes, and Reality is God...

Baseless assertion. I repeat, it is perfectly possible for reality to exist without god, this has as much evidential support as "god is reality". You seem to choose the latter over the former, the only thing that can inform you of which is better is evidence, & there is none.

No evidence = no deal.

My logic is as good as yours, ie. baseless. My evidence & logic is as good as yours, it is internally consistent & therefore MUST be true, according to you. This is why you are illogical, you are inconsistent in how you apply logic, inconsistency is illogic.

I think what your trying to say is that reality cannot be known, therefore we cannot know what is sovereign.

No, I am saying exactly the opposite, reality can potentially be known. But if thewre is no evidence, then we can't have evidentially supported premises in order to infer evidentially supported conclusions. It's your bad if you come to conclusions based on evidentially vacuous premises.

That said, something may be beyond our ken at the moment. But that's tough on us.

You can't see them, but we see their effects.

Yes, we see an effect called gravity & call it gravity. We don't leap to ridiculous conclusions as to the cause without evidence.

It's the same with God, particularly in the moral realm.

No, it's the exact opposite with god, without any evidence whatsoever you assert the cause is god. When scientists associated gravity with mass, they did so without any leap of faith, they used evidence.

As for the moral realm, killing people because they just happen to try to convince you of another religion isn't moral, nor is stoning people to death for trivial reasons such as working on the sabbath, or executing children for cursing at their parents. Exhorting the Israelites to murder, rape & slave taking isn't moral, either. Job's trials weren't moral, they were nasty & vindictive. The new testament is hardly better, where we are supposed to be grateful that god required the torture & grisly execution of his only son. Why would a loving god require an execution at all, let alone for something he could snap his vaporous fingers together to achieve. Sick bastard. I would be leery of making any claims of your gods morality, if I were you.

It's true I can't prove anything. But this lie that science can is equally disturbing.

1/ Who said science can prove anything? The process of science provides evidence that reduces the tentativity of a proposition. If there is no evidence available of something that is actually true, then it can't even do that, as it should be. Leaping to conclusions without evidence is not the answer.

Technically speaking, an experiment can be repeated 100 times with the same result, but since we can't 100% rule out human or equipment error in all 100 cases, we can't be absolutely sure that the result is the correct one. In other words, there will always be a level of tentativity about a conclusion, no matter how small.

2/ You can't provide any evidence for your claims, let alone enough to be considered "proof".

Science is really only a sophist exercise in doubt as practiced by the likes of you.

Bollocks, coming from someone who thinks a dictionary definition is evidence of the fact that god is everything is just too rich.

Empirical evidence is the only way to get closer to reality, your particular brand of baseless & vacuous premises only leads to baseless & vacuous conclusions.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 08-16-2007 6:01 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 3:11 AM mark24 has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 66 of 297 (416556)
08-16-2007 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
08-16-2007 6:01 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob writes:

Of course God exists... it is not possible for reality not to exist. And that is the context of 'the God' of the Bible. The creator of all things. Like logic, He is axiomatic or self evident. Not some being that exists in reality, but is what it is.

Yes, and Reality is God...

Just bringing some gentle questioning I was doing on another thread (Deism on Trial) over to this one, as it's more on topic here.

Rob's form of Christianity seems to involve the belief that his God is reality, and that his God was definitely not designed or created.

Rob also believes in the design inference in relation to life forms on earth, and that all life, unlike God/reality, was created.

Reality (God) of course was not created, and therefore the implication is that biological life is not part of reality. It's not real.

Rob seems to think on that thread that life has become only partially real after the (Genesis) fall. I point out that in his system, it never was real as, unlike reality (God), it was created/designed.

I find this fascinating, partly because Rob and I are both life forms, so it conjures up the idea that, according to Rob's religion, two non-real entities are having an unreal internet dialogue about reality.

It's an interesting and, in my experience, new and original creationist departure. Here, evolutionary biologists are simply being told that they are non-real entities studying non-real phenomena.

If life on earth were part of Rob's reality (God) then there's no reason why it should show any real appearance of design, as it would be part of non-designed reality. This lack of real design is, of course, what evolutionists claim (that any appearance of design is superficial, and that on closer examination, life forms do not appear to be designed, but to have evolved).

Thus far, I have to come to the conclusion that Rob must believe that life is not part of non-designed reality (his God), but is, in fact, a non-existent illusion, which makes me wonder why he bothers posting, or, for that matter, living.;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 08-16-2007 6:01 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 3:14 AM bluegenes has responded

Doddy
Member (Idle past 4020 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 67 of 297 (416586)
08-16-2007 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Rob
08-16-2007 6:09 AM


Switching terms
Rob, notice the quote said
Proteins do self-assemble without DNA.

But you said
Rob writes:

There is no known self-organizing mechanism in nature.


and
Rob writes:

..self sustaining assembly...

I hope you just accidently used those terms, because they're not the same thing as the original comment.

And another thing:

Rob writes:

It is the doctrine of the Trinity. And it was made up by a few fishermen who got lucky I guess...


The Trinity wasn't made up by fishermen. It was made up by various theologians around the fourth century AD, after the First Council of Nicaea.

Edited by Doddy, : No reason given.

Edited by Doddy, : plurals


Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Rob, posted 08-16-2007 6:09 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 2:58 AM Doddy has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 68 of 297 (416835)
08-18-2007 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by pbee
08-15-2007 10:21 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
pbee:
Rob, I don't mean to be the party basher but I would like to know what you think of this comment regarding the Video in question.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proteins do self-assemble without DNA. Saying otherwise is a lie or a falsehood. These people are ignoring known biochemistry. It happens. It sounds like another version of "irreducible complexity", which we already know is creationist-speak for "too difficult for me to envisage". Just like mousetraps. Good things these guys are not engineers. Natural selection operates before Life. These guys just are not intelligent enough to cope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry it took so long... but I wanted to say more for you to think over. But it has already been said, so I'll just provide the links.

Another member suggested this 'maginary' self replicating scenario that you are asking about. Listed 1st below is his claim, 2nd my response, 3rd molbiogirls response, and 4th my response to her. Of course you can read the rest of the thread, before and after to your onw satisfaction.

1.http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=120#119

2. www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=120#120 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=120#120">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=120#120

3. www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=121#121 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=121#121">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=121#121

4.http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=121#123

You may also find nosyned's response to this last post interesting. He is the same one who a short time later suspended me indefinitely from all 'Origin of Life' threads. In his defense, I did lose my cool in another thread and resorted to the blasphemy of preaching a little hellfire.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by pbee, posted 08-15-2007 10:21 PM pbee has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 69 of 297 (416836)
08-18-2007 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Doddy
08-16-2007 8:34 PM


Re: Switching terms
The Trinity wasn't made up by fishermen. It was made up by various theologians around the fourth century AD, after the First Council of Nicaea.

No... they just gave the name to the already existing concept affectionately known as God.

As for the terms, I believe they are the proper way to distinguish between what is being claimed, and what the reality is. Anything can self assemble if it has the instructions. But who organized the instructions be they physical laws or DNA?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Doddy, posted 08-16-2007 8:34 PM Doddy has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 70 of 297 (416837)
08-18-2007 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by arachnophilia
08-16-2007 7:58 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
my point is that the god of the bible is not logically consistent

Where so?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 08-16-2007 7:58 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by arachnophilia, posted 08-27-2007 12:40 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 71 of 297 (416838)
08-18-2007 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by sidelined
08-16-2007 7:09 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
The laws{which are human constructs describing observations} are the result of the mechanism not the reason for it.

So the universe is not actully logical? We invented logic to describe it?

The mechanism is a result of the physics of the atom which in turn govern the properties of the different elements which in turn form the chemical processes that occur between elements which under the influence of fundamental forces produce the phenomena in nature including self-assembly of proteins.

You mean the 'Stong Nuclear Force', and the weak Nuclear Force' etc...? In other words, the laws of physics that we invented?

So these 'philsophical constructs' that are assumed to be, and expected to be coherent, to which we affix the name science really are only philsophical constructs afterall?

I'm shocked!

You know, there's a lot of boys out there that actually believed that it was real concrete stuff... but hank you Sidelined.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by sidelined, posted 08-16-2007 7:09 AM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by sidelined, posted 08-18-2007 10:18 PM Rob has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 72 of 297 (416839)
08-18-2007 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mark24
08-16-2007 8:17 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mark24:
Empirical evidence is the only way to get closer to reality

Can you prove that emperically, or is it a philosophical assumption?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 08-16-2007 8:17 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by mark24, posted 08-18-2007 5:33 AM Rob has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 73 of 297 (416841)
08-18-2007 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by bluegenes
08-16-2007 4:38 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
bluegenes:
Thus far, I have to come to the conclusion that Rob must believe that life is not part of non-designed reality (his God), but is, in fact, a non-existent illusion, which makes me wonder why he bothers posting, or, for that matter, living.

To find those who are interested in becoming real.

And you've got some major confusion as to what I said, but you are funny...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by bluegenes, posted 08-16-2007 4:38 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by bluegenes, posted 08-18-2007 5:54 AM Rob has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 74 of 297 (416846)
08-18-2007 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Rob
08-18-2007 3:11 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob,

Can you prove that emperically, or is it a philosophical assumption?

If you have two equally valid (or invalid) contradictory propositions, how else will you tell between them?

Mark

Edited by mark24, : No reason given.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 3:11 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 11:31 AM mark24 has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 75 of 297 (416849)
08-18-2007 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rob
08-18-2007 3:14 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob writes:

To find those who are interested in becoming real.

And you've got some major confusion as to what I said, but you are funny...

So we're not part of reality, then, in your system. Or, at least, I'm not. Unreal, man, as the hippies would say.:)

Perhaps I should change my site name from bluegenes to "nowhere man".

No major confusion, I assure you. I'm taking you literally. When you say that God is not himself created, and that he is reality, it's perfectly reasonable to come to the conclusion that all aspects of reality are not created. Reality (God) is not intelligently designed.

Therefore it's surprising that you don't agree with all the evolutionary biologists who regard life on earth, on close examination, as being un-designed.

Most people perceive this planet and its life forms as being "real", and very much part of reality. The apparent lack of design would seem to fit your view of an un-designed reality.

Yet you seem to be a supporter of the William Paley/Michael Behe type of "I.D." view of life on earth. Paley and Behe perceive design in your un-designed reality, so you seem to be contradicting yourself here.

That's why I've suggested that you must believe that life is not real. That it's not part of reality.

As I said in the earlier post, this seems to be a departure in a new direction for creationism, and I give you 10/10 for originality.

Can we call this the "life cannot have evolved because it isn't really there" hypothesis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 3:14 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 12:09 PM bluegenes has responded

Prev1234
5
67
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019