Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   My Beliefs- GDR
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1241 of 1324 (708000)
10-03-2013 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1237 by GDR
10-03-2013 9:56 AM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
Let us say that you are right and that all the things that you talked about happened naturally. Firstly you have to go right back and believe that this all evolved as the result of mindless processes or it is the result of Tom the intelligent planner. That leaves you at a point of choosing either atheism or deism.
Not at all, with Evolutionary/Molecular Biologist Kennith Miller who is both a Christian and understands the evolutionary record.
His knowledge of the evolutionary account of human history, to include altrusim, has not made him choose either or. His beliefs are separate from the facts surrounding evolution.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1237 by GDR, posted 10-03-2013 9:56 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1243 by GDR, posted 10-04-2013 12:03 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1245 of 1324 (708087)
10-04-2013 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1243 by GDR
10-04-2013 12:03 PM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
Your link showed that there is a genetic component to altruism.
Also, the link I provided you that showed the actual genes that affect altruism. Not a component, but the actual genes. Lets be specific.
The question is about whether it is designed by Tom or not.
That is not the question, but I get that it's what you'd like the question to be. However, it remains a fact that there is zero evidence for Tom. So before we can ask whether Tom designs anything, we must first have evidence that there is a Tom.
So again, whether Tom designed it the way science has discovered it to work is irrelevant UNTIL there is actual evidence that Tom exists.
You showed me on study without any peer review.
I'm refering to the evidence of the genes they found that work on our altruistic behavior. That was perr reviewed.
Is it possible also that those traits that evolve socially can ultimately become part of our genetic makeup? (I’m only asking as I have no idea what the answer to that question is.)
No. The genes will be there before it is a social component. At that point, if it is beneficial then it will be selected.
As far as an involved Tom is concerned, here is a quote from a debate between Millar and Chris Hitchens.
Yes, he is a theist. That's why I presented him. No matter what you quote from him, he has admitted that it is only his beleif and not a fact. He makes that distinction. I do respect him for that honesty.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1243 by GDR, posted 10-04-2013 12:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1249 by GDR, posted 10-04-2013 10:10 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1250 of 1324 (708181)
10-06-2013 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1249 by GDR
10-04-2013 10:10 PM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
There is no scientific evidence for or against so we will come to our own conclusions
There is no objective evidence, scientific or any other way.
The truth is always relevant even if we can't know for sure what the truth is.
Sure, but you can't jump ahead. You need to start with the evidence for Tom, then go from there. It's the cart before the horse fallacy again. And again. And again.
I agree it is a faith or belief, however I do maintain that my beliefs, which are actually as near as I can tell essentially the same as Miller's, are reasonable.
Miller's beliefs about God might be similar to yours, in that you both believe there is a God. But Miller has never said God gave us morality, or altruism. In fact, he never replaces science for belief. Which you have done countless times in this thread.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1249 by GDR, posted 10-04-2013 10:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1251 by GDR, posted 10-06-2013 6:00 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 1259 of 1324 (708240)
10-07-2013 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1251 by GDR
10-06-2013 6:00 PM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
We subjectively come to our conclusion as to what is the motive force behind this.
No, WE don't. I use whatever objective evidence there is available to determine how these things came to be. There is nothing subjective about my conclusion.
Is there nothing more than an natural processes or is there an intelligent agency. Nobody knows absolutely the answer to that question but we all have an opinion.
There could be a god, sure. Who works using all the natural forces. But you need to establish the existence, the actual existence of god, BEFORE you can skip ahead to what god did. It is the only logical way without committing any fallacies.
What my theistic belief does lead me to conclude is that if our morality is evolutionary in a similar manner to physical evolution then OK, so that is how God did it, whereas you presumably would conclude that the most likely reason is that there are only natural processes at work.
Still confused about our opinion.
I would conclude no such thing, per se. The objective evidence supports natural processes and there remains no objective evidence for god. So, before I can say 'this is how god did it' I need evidence for the existence of god.
So my conclusion is, given the objective evidence we have it seems as though there is only natural processes at work. However, if ever there is any objective evidence supporting a god, I would GLADLY change that conclusion to include god.
But I have no issue with you looking at all the objective evidence and saying god did it naturally. It's when you deny the evolutionary history of things like altruism for 100's of posts, when there is plenty of evidence to support it, that it becomes a bother. Something Ken Miller would never do.
It is a really interesting account and well worth the read.
Cool, I glanced at it. But I did read Miller's book so I understand his position very well.
My views are absolutely consistent with all I’ve been able to find on Miller.
When it comes to belief, yes. But not when it comes to accepting science.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1251 by GDR, posted 10-06-2013 6:00 PM GDR has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 1260 of 1324 (708241)
10-07-2013 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1258 by GDR
10-07-2013 1:53 PM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
Religions are human’s fallible attempts at understanding God.
You believe in Jesus. You can't separate your god from religions when your concept of god is the basis for the entire Christian religion.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1258 by GDR, posted 10-07-2013 1:53 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1263 by GDR, posted 10-07-2013 3:22 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1266 of 1324 (708257)
10-07-2013 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1263 by GDR
10-07-2013 3:22 PM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
I use objective evidence as to how these things came to be.
No you don't when you kept making statements about your subjective conclusions in regards to altruism when we kept telling you there is a perfectly good evolutionary account of altruism.
You can re-read your posts.
I’m talking about the root cause of why these things came to be which is an entirely different question.
And when we look into how these 'things' came to be, like altruism, mammals, the planets, the solar system, the sun, we see natural processes at work. It is the same question.
The only thing you can do is separately prove there is a god. At that point, we can intelligently discuse what this god did. Otherwise you're just musing about the way you believe things to be, that is subjective and irrelevant.
We know I can’t establish as a fact that God exists with what we currently know. I’m much more interested in what it means to my life if He does exist as opposed to what He has done.
Seems like you're missing the key element: Does he exist to begin with?
I do not deny that there is an evolutionary history for things like altruism.
That's ridiculous. You literally said there was no objective evidence for the evolution of altruism. Just re-read your posts.
I didn’t see any statement of science of his that I disagreed with.
I didn't say that. I said you had a problem accepting scientific evidence. Something Miller would not do. That is the difference.
God, IMHO, is a constant whereas religions evolve in their understanding of the nature of God.
You have this very very wrong. People's understanding of the nature of god evolves, as does yours, and religions are borne from that. God is not a constant however, god is an unknown.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1263 by GDR, posted 10-07-2013 3:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1267 by GDR, posted 10-07-2013 9:14 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1286 of 1324 (708704)
10-12-2013 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1284 by GDR
10-12-2013 12:37 PM


Re: How would you ever know
Science simply tells us that natural laws as we currently understand them precludes it happening, but it does not tell us that those natural laws can never be suspended. Maybe they can and maybe they can’t.
I wonder, would you be willing to test that, say, by stepping off a tall building? Maybe they can and maybe they can't!
The point is, because you already believe in god, you hold this maybe they can, maybe they can't position for the resurrection. But if YOUR life was on the line, there would be NO maybe.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1284 by GDR, posted 10-12-2013 12:37 PM GDR has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1287 of 1324 (708705)
10-12-2013 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1267 by GDR
10-07-2013 9:14 PM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
I accept that there is an evolutionary account of altruism.
Good, then we can move past that.
I agree that there is no scientific evidence to come to a conclusion on that question. I also agree that there is no scientific evidence that points to an intelligent planner subtly influencing our thoughts.
Good, then we can move past that as well.
This thread is about what I believe, which although it is subjective does make it relevant to the discussion.
You missed my point. The only reason your belief wasn't relevant in this particular string of posts is because I'm explaining how you've put the cart before the horse.
I was not however saying that your belief in god is not relevant to the entire thread.
In my opinion — yes.
Again, not the point I was making. It is not yet relevant to this discussion whether or not god guides evolution when there is not yet any evidence for god.
Because you have side tracked us into discussions about altruism and god's role in evolution, you have forgotten that one continuous point. You've already jumped ahead to assuming god is real and he acts upon nature. But, when I show you evidence for a natural evolution of altruism, you will jump over the "Where's the evidence for god" question and immediately tell me that doesn't disprove god didn't cause evolution.
Yes, you're right, it doesn't disprove that. But, if you're going to slip that in after you've been shown the evidence for altruism when you were claiming there wasn't any just to make a point. Then I have to remind you that there is no evidence for god, so whether or not he plays a role in evolution is irrelevant.
I believe subjectively that there is more to it than just that though.
Ok, but I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
What scientific evidence am I rejecting?
Sure, now you say you accept the scientific explanation for altrusim. So none, I guess, at this particular point in the discussion. But before, you did reject it. We told you it exists, and you continued to say it didn't.
But it seems as though you have conceded on all that so again, we can move past it.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1267 by GDR, posted 10-07-2013 9:14 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1292 by GDR, posted 10-13-2013 5:26 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1302 of 1324 (708855)
10-15-2013 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1296 by GDR
10-15-2013 11:43 AM


We have already agreed that there may be a genetic copmponent
No! There IS a genetic basis for altruism. It is gene driven.
there is definitely a social component
The genetics comes before any type of social component.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1296 by GDR, posted 10-15-2013 11:43 AM GDR has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1312 of 1324 (708942)
10-16-2013 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1292 by GDR
10-13-2013 5:26 PM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
The discussion though is about what I believe and why I believe it.
Yes, and I am debating that. I am questioning the method used, the logical fallacies and the poor reasoning that is being used to get to those beliefs.
In my view our evolutionary history with its natural selection, the DNA trail is all so elegant that it gives the subjective appearance of being designed.
And as we continue to point out, your logic is fallacios, your reasoning is poor, and you have no method by which you get to this conclusion.
it does become relevant in my life.
You missed the point, again. I'll try to explain it, again.
In regards to what we were discussing, as far as god taking part in evolution, there is no evidence for god so there is no question as to what he did or didn't do. First you must establish evidence. And no, saying "I believe he does" is not evidence.
Now, you can keep saying "It's either natural processes or god did it" all you want. It remains a fact however that your logical is fallacious, and that you continue to put the cart before the horse. This makes your reasoning for concluding anything about god, before you have established evidence for god, to be very, very poor.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1292 by GDR, posted 10-13-2013 5:26 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1321 by GDR, posted 10-18-2013 12:04 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 1313 of 1324 (708943)
10-16-2013 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1311 by Theodoric
10-16-2013 3:53 PM


Re: Reasonable Ramblings
I mean this is Faith crazy stuff you are spouting.
Not really. Many addicts relate this passage to the struggles one goes through battling with addiction.
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do
That particular passage is what it literally feels like to be an addict, according to addicts I had a chance to talk to for an interview thing I was doing.
In one AA meeting, I remember this passage on a posted up on a wall.
So I don't think Phat is spounting Faith level crazy stuff. For what it's worth, I too see that passage as refering to some form of addiction.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1311 by Theodoric, posted 10-16-2013 3:53 PM Theodoric 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