quote:Not at all. I don't think anyone questions the idea that this world has the appearance of design. That however is not the same thing as it actually be designed. If you like I'll rephrase things that way. The question then is, does the world just have the appearance of being designed or is it actually designed. I have my opinion or belief, and you have yours which is the opposite of mine.
No. You sort of get there and lose it at the end. Yes, we have the appearance of desig, no it isn't actually design. That's not just an opinion. Evolution can't accomodate directed evolution and it is the only theory around. It is a straight case of Occam, the God hypothesis explains/predicts nothing, doesn't solve the imaginary first-cause problem and involves introducing a new infinite, or at least massively complex, entity. It cannot be logically sustained.
quote:Hmmmm...maybe. I would consider that it is possible that science could prove God, but I can't see how it is possible to disprove Him but I have a hunch you might disagree.
How many times?....science doesn't do proof.
quote:There are a large number of people far brighter than me, and possibly even brighter than you that do believe as I do, which doesn't prove anything except to demonstrate that it is an accepted belief for a number of thoughtful people. Is it evidence? No. The Bible exists and purports to tell us about God. Is it evidence? Yes, but only if we are prepared to give it credibility. I have emotions and am self aware. Is that evidence? It's evidence of something but we can't be sure what.
Well, the appeal to authority is of course useless because there IS no authority. It is also dangerous ground to move onto because a hell of a lot more smartpeople don't believe. The bible isn't evidence unless you are prepared to take third party unwitnessed accounts, which contain inconsistencies & fabrications, and have no historical support. It isn't a case of credibility, it is blind faith. Emotions and self-awareness is evidence that we have emotions and are self-aware. Why would be it evidence for something else? Is the fact that I have 2 ears and a left hand signify something special? Or is it simply a series of evolutionary adaptations? I see no reason to believe otherwise.
I think the case you really have is summarised in a sentence.
"I am self-conscious and I cannot accept that this 'me' can one day just stop.."
It is human and understandable - anyone who cannot empathise probably hasn't thought about it enough. There is no good reason to think it is true and lots of reasons to think otherwise. We know that the 'you' that is so wonderfully unique in all of us - that 'You' can be switched off at will with the right drugs. We also know a great deal about what happens to that 'you' when different physical brain damage occurs. There is no possible mechanism for storing memory, consciousness and personality after death, so it is left as 'a matter of faith' but it is absurd. Once the brain is dead then anything that was or could be considered 'you' is gone. It cannot be otherwise - there is no storage device in a body suitable for duplicating consciousness. As far as we know the minimum complexity of such a container would be brain-like. So the notion of a soul is a nice little myth, but it always had problems and modern science renders it completely redundant.
quote:The study of evolution is the study of what happened. Why can't it be designed or directed? Occam is just a principle. When you are looking for solutions you should first consider the simplest one. It has nothing to do with what the actual solution is. You keep invoking occam has if it's evidence.
Occam is the best way to select which hypothesis you adopt - I have never known it to be wrong.. As for guided evolution - as I have previously repeated many times - it is not a solution to anything since it doesn't address the issue of who designed the designer. In scientific terms it is simply a theory in search of a purpose. It is completely unnecessary to existing theory, so why add a needless complication? Sure, I can argue that it is also flawed on many counts* but why bother since the argument itself is redundant?
* a) Directed evolution supposes that we are the endpoint (or if it doesn't then it is useless to the theist who proposes it). This is simply not the case - as can easily be demonstrated by examining genetic evidence b) Directed evolution presupposes a master geneticist. Why would such a designer build obsolete, redundant and positively harmful code into the DNA molecule? Why build inelegant and flawed solutions when it is possible to do better? Those very flaws are a result of the unguided nature of evolution. This alone defeats the notion. The normal counter is that these deficiencies may be inherent in the solution (ie using DNA at all). That is a nonsense argument for two reasons - firstly we can already improve on the 'design' ourselves in some cases and secondly any sufficiently advanced designer would not select a flawed basis for his creation unless he were a fool, or incapable of better. Either way the crown begins to slip past the ears.
quote:This is your version of the old condescending Marxist "opiate of the masses" view. What I'm interested in is the truth. I happen to believe that there is more to this world than we are able to perceive with our 5 senses.
Nothing condescending about it. It is the human condition.
quote:All of that is absolutely true, but only if the materialistic view of the world is correct. If there is a spirtitual or other-dimensional aspect to our existence then there are other possibilities.
What if there are little daffodils growing on Jupiter? Proposing something doesn't make it either valid or sensible. Deal with what we have, not with what you think we might have had. This is just one long appeal to ignorance fallacy.
quote:Ephesians 1: 9-10 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillmentto bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
Where does it mention evolution to a new state? Where does it mention development? It seems to me that the meaning is clear - he will us what it was all about at the endtime. That's it. The whole Christian message focusses on the resurrection of the physical as well as the spirit. It has nothing to say about evolving into a new physical state to my knowledge. Indeed we are created in the image of God and I fail to see how God can evolve - it would imply a rather less than optimum starting point and I think it would probably be considered blasphemous in most Christian sects to suggest that God is subject to natural selection - for a start who would he mate with?
The idea of evolving Gods is interesting from the point of view that it tells us much about religion. We do indeed see an evolution of Divitinities over history. The first Gods were almost certainly natural phenomena - the Sun, the stars, a particular rock formation etc. As societies become more complex then the basic questions also become more complex and we see the previous emphasis on iconic objects shift towards the Shamen-type religious leader who has something to say about individual human problems, rather than generalisations about weather, war etc. From this point religion becomes focussed on mankind so we get increasing sophistication of the Shamanic theme, until we eventually arrive at the ultimate anthropocentric God - Jesus - who actually IS human.
None of this has anything to do with the case in point, however, that evolution is certainly NOT part of Christian dogma in any physical sense.
quote:I do not have any idea of how that will come about and only a very basic idea of what it will be like.
You have a basic idea? Do tell, because as far as I can see there is no way to imagine (or perform) a physical resurrection of a body that may, by now, be rendered almost down to base elements, let alone the personality/memories which we know originate in the brain and we also know do not survive death.
I cannot conceive of any way in which it could be done, so I would be fascinated to hear any hypothesis, no matter how bizarre...
It cannot be anything like an evolutionary process since evolution is unguided and does not converge on a particular point/species. In any case that would, at best, be a copy and there is nothing special about producing a copy from dead material - we call it cloning. The point is that in a few decades I will be a collection of elements and compounds with no trace of brain or DNA, so to reconstruct 'me' is quite out of the question scientifically. It is also questionable philosophically whether any such reconstruction would be 'me' in any real sense.
This is, of course, what comes of trying to put sense onto a nonsense concept. Resurrection is an old religious idea - Achilles and Memnon immediately spring to mind, as do the Egyptians to whom the Christian version probably owes the most - particularly the myth of Horus, as the following comparison from religioustolerance.com shows:
Event
Horus
Yeshua of Nazareth, a.k.a. Jesus
Conception:
By a virgin. There is some doubt about this matter
By a virgin.
Father:
Only begotten son of the God siris.
Only begotten son of Yehovah (in the form of the Holy Spirit).
Mother:
Isis-Meri.
Miriam (now often referred to as Mary).
Foster father:
Seb, (a.k.a. Jo-Seph).
Joseph.
Foster father's ancestry:
Of royal descent.
Of royal descent.
Birth location:
In a cave.
In a cave or stable.
Annunciation:
By an angel to Isis, his mother.
By an angel to Miriam, his mother
Birth heralded by:
The star Sirius, the morning star.
An unidentified "star in the East."
Birth date:
Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of thewinter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human.
Born during the fall. However, his birth late is now celebrated on DEC-25. The date was chosen to occur on the same date as the birth of Mithra, Dionysus and the Sol Invictus (unconquerable Sun), etc.
Birth announcement:
By angels.
By angels.
Birth witnesses:
Shepherds.
Shepherds.
Later witnesses to birth:
Three solar deities.
An unknown number of wise men. They are said to have brought three gifts; thus the legend grew that there were three men.
Death threat during infancy:
Herut tried to have Horus murdered.
Herod tried to have Jesus murdered.
Handling the threat:
The God That tells Horus' mother "i>Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child."
An angel tells Jesus' father to: "Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt."
Rite of passage ritual:
Horus came of age with a special ritual, when his eye was restored.
Taken by parents to the temple for what is today called a bar mitzvah ritual.
quote:I don’t know what you are using for a reference
I cited the reference - twice. It has a bibliography which you can check, and it was Horus I meant.
quote:You have a lot of "knows" in there that are your beliefs. The only model we have for a resurrected body is Jesus. If you take the gospels as factual as I do, then the resurrected Jesus was something that the disciples didn't expect and something that was different from normal human experience. About the only other thing we can know about new creation is that there is an end to suffering and Jesus is Lord.
No, we have established the difference between scientific acceptance of theory and religious belief. I use the word 'know' because it is appropriate - it is backed up by evidence and does not contradict either known theory or observartion/experiment. It is not a belief that the sense of self is generated by the brain - it just is, the evidence is overwhelming. Likewise it is not a belief that the body decays and is distributed after death - we know it to be the case, especially when cremated.
Whay YOU have is faith, not a belief. Faith goes further than belief because faith is thinking something to be true in spite of evidence, not just lacking evidence. All the evidence points to the fact that the 'self' cannot survive after death. There is no reliable evidence that it can. The only evidence you have is a disputed account in a disputed book about a disputed event which seems to many of us to be entirely different to your interpretation. That would be laughed out of court. I can quote neuroscience, medical and clinical trials, observational and experimental data and any number of scientific papers to support the things that I say I know...that it not reciprocal...
The dictionary is a rough tool, but : ... Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence ....Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. It is the belief and the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared, based on the declarer's authority and truthfulness Both of which are consistent with my own definition. Just think for a moment about how you generally use the word. Son : Dad, I came last again in maths. Dad: Don't worry son, I have faith in you - you will do better next time.
The word doesn't apply where there is evidence. I have faith that there are floorboards under my feet..... not quite right is it?
Anyway...
quote:I would contend that there is no reliable evidence either way. What happens to the self after physical death is beyond physical knowledge. I agree it is faith but I also believe it to be a resonable faith, knowing that we won't be in agreement on that.
No, it isn't reasonable. Another word for reasonable is rational. Belief in the supernatural is antithetical to rationality.
quote:But so would the atheistic POV be laughed out of court. There isn't that kind of evidence for either case.
You think so? Let's see M'Lud, the prosecution contend that my client, after his death, was actually floating around the cosmos as a disembodied spirit, rather than, as we contend, planted firmly 6ft under. As evidence I would like to offer the testimony of the medical doctors who pronounced my client dead, the neurologist who measured no brain activity, the physicist who looked for any trace energy traces leaving the corpse and found only the rapidly diminishing heat trace one would expect. I would further enter in evidence the following 25 thousand cases of charlatans, crooks, criminals and liars who have profitted from keeping this belief in the supernatural going. I would ask that M'Lud rule the priests and clerics are NOT expert witnesses as they claim - since they have no special expertise in ANYTHING that could be relevant to deciding this issue. Finally I move that the charges be thrown out of court and a charge laid against the prosectution for wasting everyone's time. Case dismissed.
quote:They work with what can be measured, tested and observed physically, and they do it well. But so what? All anyone can say is that when someone dies there is nothing left that can be measured, tested or observed. If there is a soul, consciousness, or self that carries on in another dimension then it is beyond our ability to examine.
Appeal to ignorance again. We can measure energy at almost any level (certainly WAY more sensitively than would be needed for some 'soul' to leave the body. Appealing to other dimensions is as reasonable as just saying 'God did it innit?' - ie not at all reasonable or rational. Having the cheek to try and cast an equivalence of ignorance is highly dishonest. There is a huge amount of evidence on the materialist side. Not one reliable piece of anything on the supernaturalist side.
Well, I actually agree with Chris Hitchens on this one, I'm really quite relieved that there is no significant evidence for God, because I would then have to change from an atheist to an anti-god member. What I mean is that if God does indeed exist and he is anything like the God of the bible, then I would feel compelled to condemn him, knowing full well what it would cost. Not having to make that choice is a profound relief
There are 10 types of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. Chris
™ Version 4.2