Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evolution of an atheist.
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 76 of 280 (574948)
08-18-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by crashfrog
08-18-2010 2:41 PM


quote:
I don't see how we can say that "Jesus Christ was real" if what was real was a man who wasn't named Jesus Christ, didn't perform miracles, wasn't king of the Jews, wasn't crucified by Rome, and didn't rise from the dead.
What about one of many revolutionary Jewish 'prophets' who was perhaps called Jesus (I don't see any reason to invent that part since it offers no advantage to do so), didn't perform miracles, was perhaps crucified and didn't rise from the dead? That basically is my hypothesis...
quote:
And most importantly I'd have this guy say what a bad person you were if you needed evidence to believe instead of "faith", and that if this whole thing sounded like nonsense it was you who were the idiot, not me.
Absolutely - the important point being 'have this guy say...' in other words build it into the later narrative..no argument.
quote:
After all where did all this shit come from, eh, smart guy?
But none of that would be considered evidence. The only relevance is the inclusion of the name Killroy and that offers no evidence for the existence of an actual individual at that point in spacetime, nor does it tell us anything about that individual...
Smartguy? No, just a dumb guy trying to get a bit smarter...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2010 2:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2010 5:38 PM Bikerman has replied

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


Message 77 of 280 (574981)
08-18-2010 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dr Adequate
08-18-2010 3:08 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
But you have, I wager, never heard anyone say anything remotely like that about the formation of atoms.
Evolution is one thing. Nucleosynthesis is another. They are different things.
I'll use any word that you think is correct. Atoms are made of their component parts that had to combine at some point. Is that be design or not? It's one or the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-18-2010 3:08 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Bikerman, posted 08-18-2010 4:44 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 78 of 280 (574986)
08-18-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Woodsy
08-18-2010 7:42 AM


woodsy writes:
In any case, you have left out the "we don't know just now" option.
It may be an option but it isn't an answer. This world either exists because of external developer or it doesn't. To say that we can't know doesn't change the fact that one of those two positions is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Woodsy, posted 08-18-2010 7:42 AM Woodsy has not replied

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


Message 79 of 280 (574988)
08-18-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by bluescat48
08-18-2010 9:29 AM


bluescat48 writes:
You brought out the point yourself when yo say "I believe." The evolutionist accepts natural selection & random chance, they do not believe this. the difference is one of falsifiability. The reason it is a false dichotomy is that you are saying either it is A or it is B with no other alternatives, ie: if you can't prove it is A then it must be B.
Yes I believe that there is an external intelligence that has brought everything into existence. That is correct or it is wrong. Two choices. I can't prove I'm right but you can't prove I'm wrong.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by bluescat48, posted 08-18-2010 9:29 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by bluescat48, posted 08-18-2010 10:33 PM GDR has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 80 of 280 (574990)
08-18-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by GDR
08-18-2010 4:30 PM


It is simply inevitable given the underlying physical laws.
Now you will probably say 'ahh...but who designed those laws?'.
In other words classic argument from first cause - which is and always was a bogus one. We can solve it, say the theists. We can stop the infinite regress by positing a deity. Problem solved.
It is dishonest. It 'solves' the regression by writing it out of existence. We don't need to regress further than the designer and ask who designed the designer, BECAUSE THE DESIGNER IS INFINITE.
Spot the sleight of hand here? Introduce another step in the problem which actually doesn't help, then make it AXIOMATIC that the problem vanishes....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by GDR, posted 08-18-2010 4:30 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by GDR, posted 08-18-2010 5:55 PM Bikerman has replied

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


Message 81 of 280 (574991)
08-18-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by John 10:10
08-18-2010 10:24 AM


Re: My testimony in a nutshell
John 10:10 writes:
This is my testimony in a nutshell.
I am not suggesting that we can't and don't experience a God that we have relationship with and that works with us in this life. I do however think that the historical study of Jesus and His times is important. Remember that His ministry was addressed to 1st century Jews and we should hear what he has to say with that in mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by John 10:10, posted 08-18-2010 10:24 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by John 10:10, posted 08-18-2010 7:10 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 82 of 280 (574995)
08-18-2010 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Bikerman
08-18-2010 10:31 AM


Bikerman writes:
It was still a very significant event - thousands of people worshipping the new messiah; the officials of Judaism clearly extremely worried by the new phenomenon. Yet not a word about it in any contemporary record.
The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem was not a new phenomenon. I'm sure it would pale in comparison to Herod returning to the city. In the case of Jesus the whole story of His entry became a non-issue within 2 days when He was executed. They weren't printing the Jerusalem Post at that time.
Bikerman writes:
He is appearing constantly hither and thither and the idea that the apostles could hush this up is a non-starter - the whole point is to publicise it, hence the appearance to the 500.
It is clearly a yarn and I'm astonished that you think it holds any water...
To the best of my knowledge there were at least 16 messianic movements during the 200 year period prior to the Bar Kokhba rebellion. The vast majority of information we have on any of those movements was based on battles that were fought. That was considered newsworthy. There is far more information on the actual messianic movement led by Jesus than the rest of them combined.
I don't know how much of the literature from that time has survived but I doubt that it's a very high percentage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Bikerman, posted 08-18-2010 10:31 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Bikerman, posted 08-18-2010 6:02 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 83 of 280 (575009)
08-18-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Bikerman
08-18-2010 10:41 AM


Bikerman writes:
Nobody intelligent calls evolution 'random' - only ignorant people and creationists (if you believe the two are distinct). The only random part is the mutation of the gene(s).
I have already demonstrated in another thread how a process with a random element can produce highly ordered and highly complex outcomes, using just a couple of simple rules. In fact I showed that such a system could produce an infinitely complex pattern - a fractal called Sierpinski's triangle. Producing different species from a similar set of simple rules and including 1 random element is no big thing - the only part which is still unknown to any extent is the starting point - abiogenesis (which creationists wilfully conflate with evolution even though the two are distinct. Evolution kicks in when abiogenesis has done its work).
There are many proposed mechanisms for that first 'life' to appear. Good candidates (IMHO) are the clay hypothesis; the panspermia hypothesis; the deep sea volcanic vent hypothesis and the old 'soup' hypothesis (Miller et al). Any of these could account for abiogenesis - the trick is narrowing down the evidence and working out which is the most likely.
I did have a misconception on the use of random chance as it applies to evolution. Thanks. However that does not answer the question of is evolution a guided process or not.
If I say that the fact that we don't know how abiogenesis came about means that God did it you would rightly accuse me of bringing in a "god of the gaps" argument. I suggest that your points add up to a "science of the gaps" argument. We don't know the answer so you just insert the thought that there is a naturalistic answer to the question, it is just that science hasn't figured it out yet.
Even if one of your theories is proven is still does not disprove a designer. No matter how much we find about how something is done, it tells us nothing about how it became possible in the first place. Was it by design or not, and if by design was there a designer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Bikerman, posted 08-18-2010 10:41 AM Bikerman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2010 5:35 PM GDR has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 84 of 280 (575014)
08-18-2010 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by GDR
08-18-2010 5:27 PM


If I say that the fact that we don't know how abiogenesis came about means that God did it you would rightly accuse me of bringing in a "god of the gaps" argument. I suggest that your points add up to a "science of the gaps" argument.
"God of the gaps" is a corny argument because of the direction of its trend - God is invoked to explain something science can't, science does, the gap is closed and God is crowded out. The scope of behavior God is required to personally administer becomes smaller and increasingly trivial, to the point where God's sole function in the universe is collapsing quantum superpositions humans haven't gotten around to personally observing yet.
Science, on the other hand, can fairly reliably be assumed to eventually fill gaps in our knowledge because it has been, for 200 years or more. Scientific knowledge in most fields is doubling over a period of 3-4 years, at this point; it's absurd to think it won't increase in the future. Of course, there's little reason to wonder about how we're going to explain something. The useful thing to do is get to work finding the explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by GDR, posted 08-18-2010 5:27 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by GDR, posted 08-18-2010 6:08 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 85 of 280 (575016)
08-18-2010 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Bikerman
08-18-2010 2:53 PM


What about one of many revolutionary Jewish 'prophets' who was perhaps called Jesus (I don't see any reason to invent that part since it offers no advantage to do so), didn't perform miracles, was perhaps crucified and didn't rise from the dead? That basically is my hypothesis...
Ok, so what's the evidence that a Jewish prophet called Jesus was crucified by the Romans?
But none of that would be considered evidence.
Exactly right, just as widespread Christian belief isn't evidence either.
I'm not trying to bust your balls, and I think you've largely come over to my position, yes? I think we agree that there's just no real evidence for anyone who could be the "historical Jesus Christ."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Bikerman, posted 08-18-2010 2:53 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Bikerman, posted 08-18-2010 6:18 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 86 of 280 (575021)
08-18-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Bikerman
08-18-2010 4:44 PM


Bikerman writes:
It is simply inevitable given the underlying physical laws.
ahh...but who designed those laws.
Bikerman writes:
Now you will probably say 'ahh...but who designed those laws?'.
Rats! Still it does beg the question. There is an order to the universe that does suggest intelligence.
Bikerman writes:
We don't need to regress further than the designer and ask who designed the designer, BECAUSE THE DESIGNER IS INFINITE.
I agree that this answer is a simplistic cop-out. It is more accurate and honest to say that we don't know the answer and that it a faith issue.
However I will add this. I love reading about the nature of time. My understanding is that time most simply put is the way that we experience change. Time is the only way that we know of to experience change and we have no idea of what other way there might be that change can be experienced.
I've used this snippet from an interview with Penrose on this forum before but maybe it will help you to understand what I'm getting at.
quote:
Roger Penrose : Yes I think physicists would agree that the feeling of time passing is simply an illusion, something that is not real. It has something to do with our perceptions.
Narrator : Illusion or not, our perceptions emerge somewhere between the cosmic scale of Relativity where the flow of time is frozen and the quantum scale, where flow descends to uncertainty.Our world is on a scale governed by a mixture of chance and necessity.
Roger Penrose : My view is that there is some large scale quantum activity going on in the brain.Physics does not say that Quantum Mechanics takes place in small areas, but also take place over larger areas. I think this has to do with the consciousness. I think we need a new way to look at time, not either Quantum Mechanics or Relativity.
Narrator : If Quantum Mechanics is taking place in the brain then the same randomness of outcome and unpredictability might explain our ability to make sometime random choices. Opening up the future to the possibility of change would provide the first step of restoring to physics the flow of time it currently denies.
Physicist : I don't think time flows, I feel that time flows, but I feel we can only understand this if we have a better understanding of how consciousness works. I think human consciousness probably has the secrets as to how and why we think of time as going by.
Roger Penrose : I don't think we have the tools, I don't think we have the physical picture to accommodate these things yet. We're not very close to it.
This however is all conjecture and there is no definitive answer to your question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Bikerman, posted 08-18-2010 4:44 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Bikerman, posted 08-18-2010 6:06 PM GDR has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 87 of 280 (575025)
08-18-2010 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by GDR
08-18-2010 5:03 PM


Well, let's see.
Josephus has:
47BC: banditry of Ezekias et al
37BC: banditry of Galilean cave bandits
37BC-4BC: (reign of Herod)
4BC: protest to Archelaus about taxes and prisoners
4BC: messianic claims of Judas in Galilee, of Simon in Perea,
and of Athronges in Judea
26AD: protest to Pilate about icons
c30AD: protest to Pilate about use of Temple funds
c30AD: prophetic claims of John the Baptist
35-55AD: banditry of Eleazar
36AD: prophetic claims of 'Samaritan Prophet'
40AD: protest to Petronius about statue in Temple
45AD: prophetic claims of Theudas
45AD: banditry of Tholomaeus et al
50AD: protest to Cumanus about soldiers' impiety
50AD: banditry near Beth-horon
c55AD: prophetic claims of unnamed prophets
c55AD: prophetic claims of 'Egyptian Prophet'
61AD: prophetic claims of unnamed prophet
61AD: banditry of unnamed bandits
65AD: protest to Cestius Gallus about governor
65AD: banditry of unnamed bandits
66AD: banditry of Josephus et al in Galilee
No King of the Jews entering Jerusalem or claiming to be son of God in Josephus then, but a mention of many others...
Remember Jesus is different from other messianic movements - he is SEEN by hundreds of witnesses, after being crucified. That makes this a whole different level of story - the biggest story you can imagine.
Now, let us imagine for a moment that Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum is authentic. What does it say about Jesus:
quote:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man...For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was the teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews [and many Greeks?]. He was [called] the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him...And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
No mention of a resurrection. Isn't that strange? You would think it worthy of at least a couple of lines.
Of course there is a reasonable consensus that this is not what was written and that it was later added to/edited by Christian sources. Even more strange, then, that there is no mention of that central dogma of the Christians....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by GDR, posted 08-18-2010 5:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by GDR, posted 08-18-2010 6:50 PM Bikerman has replied
 Message 97 by dwise1, posted 08-18-2010 6:50 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 88 of 280 (575028)
08-18-2010 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by GDR
08-18-2010 5:55 PM


Penrose is talking about a speculative hypothesis on quantum consciousness. I know it well because I have read most of what he has to say on the matter. It is entirely irrelevant to the points in question - his hypothesis is simply that consciousness requires more than an algorithmic device and is dependent on quantum superposition within 'micro tubules' in the brain.
What that has to do with the historicity of Jesus escapes me....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by GDR, posted 08-18-2010 5:55 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by GDR, posted 08-18-2010 6:14 PM Bikerman has replied

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


Message 89 of 280 (575029)
08-18-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by crashfrog
08-18-2010 5:35 PM


crashfrog writes:
"God of the gaps" is a corny argument because of the direction of its trend - God is invoked to explain something science can't, science does, the gap is closed and God is crowded out. The scope of behavior God is required to personally administer becomes smaller and increasingly trivial, to the point where God's sole function in the universe is collapsing quantum superpositions humans haven't gotten around to personally observing yet.
I know I sound like a broken record but all that science can do is to observe and experiment with things the way they are. It doesn't deal with the philosophical or theological questions.
crashfrog writes:
Science, on the other hand, can fairly reliably be assumed to eventually fill gaps in our knowledge because it has been, for 200 years or more. Scientific knowledge in most fields is doubling over a period of 3-4 years, at this point; it's absurd to think it won't increase in the future. Of course, there's little reason to wonder about how we're going to explain something.
In the reading that I've done it does occur to me that every time science makes a new discovery it brings up more unanswered questions. As I said earlier, I am in awe of the minds of those that are on the leading edge scientifically. (I wish I could even have the trailing edge in sight. )
crashfrog writes:
The useful thing to do is get to work finding the explanation.
I think that we all agree on that. I would also suggest that Christian scientists are just as devoted to that as are atheistic scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2010 5:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2010 6:28 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 90 of 280 (575031)
08-18-2010 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Bikerman
08-18-2010 6:06 PM


Bikerman writes:
Penrose is talking about a speculative hypothesis on quantum consciousness. I know it well because I have read most of what he has to say on the matter. It is entirely irrelevant to the points in question - his hypothesis is simply that consciousness requires more than an algorithmic device and is dependent on quantum superposition within 'micro tubules' in the brain.
What that has to do with the historicity of Jesus escapes me....
When you asked the question of who created God I agreed that there is no answer, however, any answer to that question, if there is one, would have to involve our concept of time or the way that we experience change.
By the way, don't think that I don't know that I am in way over my head in any discussion on physics that we might have. I don't qualify as the rankest amateur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Bikerman, posted 08-18-2010 6:06 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Bikerman, posted 08-18-2010 6:34 PM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024