Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith and belief - The Almighty God revealed through his grandness
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 106 of 224 (497973)
02-06-2009 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Peg
02-06-2009 8:51 PM


we assume that everything has a beginning because that is what we see in the natural material world
So cause and effect doesn't apply now? make up your mind.

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Peg, posted 02-06-2009 8:51 PM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 107 of 224 (497975)
02-06-2009 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Huntard
02-06-2009 8:21 PM


im sorry Huntard, but your reasoning is skewiff
scientific knowledge confirms that life does not arise from non living material
therefore, it got here by another way
the only logical explanation for life is that it was created by a life maker...one with the power to create something as unique and complex as life.
The bible says that 'with God is the source of life' It acknowledges a lifemaker... it says that he created life on earth. So yes, there was a time when there was no life on earth, then God created it.
i am not saying that life on this earth is eternal or has always been, im not sure why you keep saying that???
perhaps its an argument for arguments sake?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Huntard, posted 02-06-2009 8:21 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-06-2009 9:01 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 111 by bluescat48, posted 02-06-2009 11:38 PM Peg has replied
 Message 113 by Capt Stormfield, posted 02-07-2009 12:34 AM Peg has replied
 Message 116 by Huntard, posted 02-07-2009 3:02 AM Peg has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 108 of 224 (497976)
02-06-2009 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Peg
02-06-2009 8:57 PM


scientific knowledge confirms that life does not arise from non living material
It does? Can you elaborate? Where does it show this?
And what is your definition of "living material"?

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Peg, posted 02-06-2009 8:57 PM Peg has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 109 of 224 (497978)
02-06-2009 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Peg
02-06-2009 7:12 PM


Re: Modulous
Peg writes:
Myself writes:
Is what God dictates as moral because it is moral, or is behavior moral because God commands it. That is is morality independent of God. If so then God himself is subject to a higher law, that of morality. If not, than God can call murder or anyother attrocity "good" and we would could not question his intentions and thus in essense subject and commanded to perform cruel, brutal vicious actions in the name of morality.
there is no dilemma.
as the creator, God has the right to decide the standard for what is good and what is bad. And his standards ARE Moral because He is Morally excellent himself.
Circular reasoning much? God's standards are moral because God is moral. God is moral because his standards are moral. The problem is there is no independent way of determining if God is moral or not.
Furthermore how have you determined he is excellent and moral? In other words it is only through God himself (or rather scripture which describes God) that you have determined this. So how do you know that God is not evil rather than good? Hypothetically, what if God told you to kill your child, would that be considered good or evil?
And God doesnt just make laws and expect humans to live by them...he lives by the same laws himself.
This is why it was his very dearest Son (Jesus) whom he sent to die for mankind. He could have sent any other angel to do the job, but he didn't, he sent his firstborn, the one who he was most fond of as the bible says.
So yes you are right, God is subject to his own laws of morality.
However, Jesus does not obey all the laws originally given by his himself, the Father and the Holy Spirit (as part of the Trinity he was present at the beginning of the universe and during the presentation of the Law to Moses) and in facts blatantly violates several of them, so he himself is morally inconsistent with the commands given by God in the Torah.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Peg, posted 02-06-2009 7:12 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Peg, posted 02-07-2009 2:59 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 110 of 224 (497980)
02-06-2009 10:13 PM


Morality
With a history of almost two thousand years of bloody-minded butchery, Christians still talk about morality? Bit like Pol Pot saying he only wiped out his countrymen to help the Red Cross.

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 111 of 224 (497988)
02-06-2009 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Peg
02-06-2009 8:57 PM


scientific knowledge confirms that life does not arise from non living material
No it does not. What is known is that rotting meat doesn't turn into maggots nor does horsehair turn into worms. It does not state that life cannot come from non living matter.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Peg, posted 02-06-2009 8:57 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Peg, posted 02-07-2009 3:02 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 112 of 224 (497993)
02-07-2009 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Peg
02-06-2009 8:51 PM


this argument shows that our minds cannot comprehend some things about eternity
This seems to be an odd point to raise when it is you who repeatedly attempts to use the argument from incredulity. Like you said, your mind cannot comprehend everything. Therefore it seems safe to assume that your incredulity about the universe is a poor basis from which to explain it.
we assume that everything has a beginning because that is what we see in the natural material world
So you're saying that life, which is clearly natural and material (if you wish to argue this, please allow me to drive an entirely material wooden stake through your head and then we'll discuss it at greater length), had a beginning. Life from non-life. That is known as abiogenesis.
All you have to do to end it is disrupt the chemistry with a stick. Ergo all you need to do to start it is mix together some chemistry with a stick. Or absent a stick, a random eddy near a thermal vent.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Peg, posted 02-06-2009 8:51 PM Peg has not replied

Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 113 of 224 (497995)
02-07-2009 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Peg
02-06-2009 8:57 PM


scientific knowledge confirms that life does not arise from non living material
This is completely wrong. Scientific knowledge has confirmed that the mechanism of life is quite ordinary, and that the kinds of chemistry involved can arise in naturally occurring circumstances. We can dissect the machine, see the working parts, and confirm that the machine quits working when the physical, material parts are disrupted. Simply moving the material apart a couple inches turns it from living to non-living. Same stuff, just not stuck together right. No invisible parts required.
The bible says that 'with God is the source of life' It acknowledges a lifemaker... it says that he created life on earth. So yes, there was a time when there was no life on earth, then God created it.
Then we are agreed. Abiogenesis took place on earth. If I claimed that 7 gods were required to cause it, would you accept that? I think not. Why not? Because your claim explains it without the need for 6 of those gods. Well here's a news flash: Since we understand the chemistry that defines life, and have plausible explanations for how it might have arisen through the natural behavior of the stuff from which the universe is made, god #7 isn't required either.
To paraphrase a old standby: If you can understand why life doesn't need 6 extra gods, you should be able to understand why it doesn't need any.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Peg, posted 02-06-2009 8:57 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Peg, posted 02-07-2009 3:06 AM Capt Stormfield has not replied

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


Message 114 of 224 (497996)
02-07-2009 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Peg
02-06-2009 8:01 PM


your right
life arising from non living matter has NEVER been observed. That is the reality.
Yet you still reason that it must have happened at some point because there was a time on earth when there was no life, then suddenly there was. That reasoning is silly and goes against scientific knowledge about how life is formed. Its formed from pre existing life.
Not just on Earth, Peg - from the conditions of the Universe at various points in the past, we know that no life could have existed. We know that there was a point in time where even atoms didn't exist as we know them because the universe was too hot and dense.
This means that at some point life in the Universe came to exist. parsimony suggests that, barring a mechanism preventing it, life arose from nonliving matter. Preliminary experimentation has shown this to be still plausible if not yet demonstrated.
Further, the so-called "Law of Biogenesis" that your argument is based around (despite you not having said as much - it's the same argument) refers only to extant forms of life. As in, maggots do not spring from rotten meat, they are rather the offspring of flies. It has no relevance to the origin of life itself.
In order to disprove abiogenesis, you need to provide a mechanism that prevents it from occurring. You have not done so - you've simply said "we haven't seen it happen, so it's impossible."
My own diety has been observed...that what the bible is, a book of his communication with mankind.
Preposterous. In the same way, one can say that Harry Potter has been "observed." The foolishness of your statement is boundless.
It matters not to me that this communication took place thousands of years ago, it only matters that i have something in my hand that tells me about it... You have nothign in your hand that tells you that life arises from non living matter, yet you believe it.
I don't believe it. I accept it as the most likely occurrence in the absence of a better explanation for the existence of life.
1) Life has not always existed
2) Life now exists
3) Without invoking an extraneous entity, abiogenesis is the only remaining option
4) Preliminary testing has shown that the processes of living things are simply chemical reactions, and have shown that many of the steps required for abiogenesis are plausible in an abiotic environment similar to the early earth.
5) Ergo, I think abiogenesis was probably the source of life on Earth.
I could be wrong - but the other answers posited thus far either only move the date for abiogenesis back (aliens seeding Earth still had to have come from somewhere else), and require the existence of an extraneous entity for which there is no other supporting evidence (a deity, aliens from "another universe," etc). Parsimony dictates that abiogenesis is the most likely solution.
That's different from saying "I believe this occurred."
I hear the Pot calling the kettle black!
I don't know that your deity doesn't exist Peg, and I don't claim his existence is impossible. i simply don't believe in him becasue I see no evidence suggesting that he does exist.
You, on the other hand, believe that abiogenesis has never happened without a shred of evidence to support such a claim. This is different from saying "maybe, I need more evidence to convince me." You affirmatively believe in the existence of your deity with less evidence and logical support than you require for your own dismissal of abiogenesis. That makes you a hypocrite.
And yet, if it were not for these natural laws, you and I would not exist. So not only are they necessary for life, but they are purposeful in sustaining life.
Apparently you believe that the pothole was formed specifically for the shape of the puddle.
Life arose as it did because of the behavior of the Universe and evolved to fit its pre-existing mold. Your claim requires that the unvierse be purpose-built to support our specific form of life. That's rather arrogant, and logically fallacious to boot.
About these laws Einstein wrote: “The scientist’s religious feelings take the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of Natural law, which reveals an Intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
And so your response to being called out on appeals to authority and arguments from incredulity is to actually appeal to the authority of a person making an argument from incredulity.
Bravo, Peg. Did you have to take classes to fail so hard?
There is no intelligence without personality.
Irrelevant. You've still failed to show that intelligence guides the universe.
Im sure he does because “God is a Spirit,” and therefore he dwells in a spirit realm. Spirit carries the meaning of 'wind', breath, blow, force. Its not tangible its immaterial.
The spirit realm is not governed by the same laws that govern the material world because there is nothing material in the spiritual realm, therefore, God is not governed by the natural laws of the universe... rather, he created these natural laws to house the material world
whereas he lives outside of it in a realm that we can never venture into.
There's a funny thing about existing - if it doesn't exist in our Universe, you can't really say that it exists.
The reason you know that a given object exists is by interacting with it. If you look at your keyboard, for example, light is reflecting off of its surface and being detected by your eyes. If something interacts with out Universe, it exists in our Universe. You can't have it both ways, where God just magically gets to bypass logic by existing "outside," and yet still has the ability to interact with things "inside" the Universe.
Think of it like a mathematical equation:
"2+2=4" represents the Universe.
But what about "5?"
The number "5" is outside of this equation - it cannot affect the equation. It is irrelevant. It doesn't exist in the Universe.
Saying that something "exists outside of the Universe" is utterly meaningless. If it's not part of the Universe, it cannot interact with the Universe. If it cannot interact with the Universe, a) you'd have no way of knowing about it, and b) everything in the Bible would be false anyway.
More to the point of your causality argument, causality is relevant only when time is a meaningful variable. You need a "before" and an "after" to have a "cause" and an "affect." Time is part of the Universe, just like Space and mass/energy. It would be rather difficult to apply the concept of causality to an entity for whom time is not a meaningful variable. How can you have a "cause" when time itself the the effect? It's utter nonsense, like asking what's North of the North Pole. Something "outside the Universe" cannot cause anything - the entire concept of causality becomes meaningless without one of the main components of the Universe.
But all of your statements still show that you utterly fail to comprehend that words mean different things depending on context. It's the reason we use little numbered definitions in the dictionary. A scientific law is an observation of the Universe - it's descriptive. A legal law is written by an intelligent entity to dictate human behavior - it's prescriptive. The two are completely different, and simply because the two concepts share the same word doesn't mean both definitions are relevant at the same time in the same context. You can break human laws; go ahead and try to break the law of Gravity. The two have no relationship to each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Peg, posted 02-06-2009 8:01 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Peg, posted 02-07-2009 3:31 AM Rahvin has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 115 of 224 (497998)
02-07-2009 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by DevilsAdvocate
02-06-2009 9:38 PM


Re: Modulous
Devils advocate writes:
However, Jesus does not obey all the laws originally given by his himself, the Father and the Holy Spirit (as part of the Trinity he was present at the beginning of the universe and during the presentation of the Law to Moses) and in facts blatantly violates several of them
what laws did Jesus violate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-06-2009 9:38 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-07-2009 8:07 AM Peg has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 116 of 224 (497999)
02-07-2009 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Peg
02-06-2009 8:57 PM


Peg writes:
im sorry Huntard, but your reasoning is skewiff
scientific knowledge confirms that life does not arise from non living material
No it doesn't. In fact, it tells us that it MUST have come from non living matter at some point in time.
therefore, it got here by another way
If it got here, it got here from non living matter, the ONLY other option is that it always existed. As pointed out, even the bible says this isn't the case.
the only logical explanation for life is that it was created by a life maker...one with the power to create something as unique and complex as life.
So you say. While I disagree with you on this point, you just contradicted the point you made about life only coming from other life. If it was created, and therefore came out of "thin air" (or whatever other option you want to choose) it STILL came from NON-LIVING matter.
The bible says that 'with God is the source of life' It acknowledges a lifemaker... it says that he created life on earth. So yes, there was a time when there was no life on earth, then God created it.
Yeah, and a lot of other holy books claim it was their deity of choice. That doesn't mean it's true.
i am not saying that life on this earth is eternal or has always been, im not sure why you keep saying that???
Becasue you say that life can only come from other life. That means it MUST have always existed. Since we know it hasn't (remember, even the bible says it didn't), it MUST have come from non-living matter at some point in time.
perhaps its an argument for arguments sake?
I'm just pointing gout your flawed logic.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Peg, posted 02-06-2009 8:57 PM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 117 of 224 (498000)
02-07-2009 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by bluescat48
02-06-2009 11:38 PM


bluescat48 writes:
rotting meat doesn't turn into maggots nor does horsehair turn into worms. It does not state that life cannot come from non living matter.
and the sky has never fallen, therefore i cannot say that the sky will not ever fall...
perhaps it could fall because no one has ever proven that it cannot.
that is your reasoning???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by bluescat48, posted 02-06-2009 11:38 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 118 of 224 (498001)
02-07-2009 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Capt Stormfield
02-07-2009 12:34 AM


so scientists have created life in the lab.
hmmm, interesting...
and when did that happen exactly?
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Capt Stormfield, posted 02-07-2009 12:34 AM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Huntard, posted 02-07-2009 3:11 AM Peg has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 119 of 224 (498002)
02-07-2009 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Peg
02-07-2009 3:06 AM


Peg writes:
so scientists have created life in the lab.
hmmm, interesting...
and when did that happen exactly?
He didn't say that.....

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Peg, posted 02-07-2009 3:06 AM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 120 of 224 (498003)
02-07-2009 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Rahvin
02-07-2009 1:44 AM


Rahvin writes:
n order to disprove abiogenesis, you need to provide a mechanism that prevents it from occurring. You have not done so - you've simply said "we haven't seen it happen, so it's impossible."
and i will request the same from you...in order to prove abiogenesis, you need to be able to demonstrate the mechanism which causes it. If you cant, why should i believe it?
Rahvin writes:
Parsimony dictates that abiogenesis is the most likely solution.
parsimony is not a very scienific way of looking at things. Making as few assumptions as possible and eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions seems to be a sure way of deleting all possibilities.
Abigenesis is a theory that has never been reproduced therefore it is not the most likely solution.
Rahvin writes:
You, on the other hand, believe that abiogenesis has never happened without a shred of evidence to support such a claim.
if abiogenesis occurred, then it should be able to reoccur and if it really is just a combination of chemical reactions, then it should not be impossible for it to be reproduced.
until it is reproduced, abiogenesis belongs to science fiction and there is no point discussing it further
You say the same about God. If you cannot be shown God, then he does not exist and you close your mind to it....well i do the same with abiogenesis. If you cannot show me abiogenesis in action, then i have no need to believe that it actually happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2009 1:44 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Huntard, posted 02-07-2009 3:36 AM Peg 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