Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 107 of 187 (604291)
02-10-2011 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Dr Adequate
02-10-2011 8:36 PM


Spiritual, or Natural?
Dr. Adequate,
the computer was produced by intelligent beings and the tree was produced unintelligently by natural causes.
Could we say that your second clause is a product of naturalistic dogma? Whether or not a computer is a good comparison or not in my own mind, I believe your quibble with the analogy to be dogmatic. Consider points nos. 1, 2, and 3.
  • 1. - You observe the traits of a computer - that it performs basic to complex calculations, stores data by encryption, processes and interprets incoming data, obeys certain commands, etc. - and think, "what an incredible product of science" (perhaps). You do not consider the possibility that it
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    was produced unintelligently by natural causes"
    but, in the face of overwhelming evidence, believe that
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    the computer was produced by intelligent beings
  • 2. - You then observe the traits of a tree - that it has a basic to complex transportation system, stores information via DNA, discerns between beneficial and non-beneficial nutrients, and reproduces - and think "I wonder how this complex thing came about". You do not consider (or at least do not seriously consider) the possibility that it
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    was produced by intelligent beings
    but, in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence, believe that the tree
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    was produced unintelligently by natural causes
  • 3. - So suppose that another man follows the line of reasoning in point #2, only he switches the conclusions around and, observing a tree, he does not consider the possibility that it
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    was produced unintelligently by natural causes
    but, in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence, believes that the tree
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    was produced by (an) intelligent being(s)
Yet you label point #3 religious dogma, and label point #2 sensibility. Why not vice versa? Why not label point #2 naturalistic dogma, and label point #3 sensibility? You assume a natural source, and the man in point #3 assumes a spiritual source.
If you wish to fantasize that at some point some tree was produced in a manner like that in which a computer was produced rather than in the manner in which trees are actually produced
Could we say yet again that your statements are a product of Uniformitarian dogma?
  • 1. - You observe a tree in the present: you observe the process of survival and reproduction, of evolution and extinction, and determine that all trees throughout all time were produced by the same basic principles that were used to produce the one you were looking at. At this point, being naturalistic, it is a foregone conclusion to you that the tree
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    was produced unintelligently by natural causes
    and you then set out to determine the basic natural mechanism that produced it. You determine this basic natural mechanism to be uniformity + time.
  • 2. - Another man observes a tree in the present, observing precisely the same processes that you observed in point #1. At this point, being spiritual, it is a foregone conclusion to him that the tree
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    was produced intelligently
    and so he sets out to determine the basic, spiritual mechanism that produced it. He determines this basic spiritual mechanism to be creation.
Yet you label point #2 religious dogma, and point #1 sensibility. Once again: why not vice versa?
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : Title addition.
Edited by sac51495, : Bulletation (word coined by sac51495, 2-10-11, 11:40 P.M.)
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the LORD. (I Cor. 1:21,27-31)
"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-10-2011 8:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2011 11:53 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 12:01 AM sac51495 has replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 108 of 187 (604292)
02-10-2011 11:27 PM


Formatting
I haven't been on here in a while, so I forgot how to do bulleting. I couldn't find any help on the Posting Tips thread by RAZD, so hopefully someone here can help me out.

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by AdminModulous, posted 02-10-2011 11:33 PM sac51495 has replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 110 of 187 (604296)
02-10-2011 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by AdminModulous
02-10-2011 11:33 PM


Re: Formatting
Oooh...thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by AdminModulous, posted 02-10-2011 11:33 PM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 113 of 187 (604301)
02-11-2011 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Blue Jay
02-10-2011 11:53 PM


Re: Spiritual, or Natural?
Bluejay, (what happened to the bluejay?)
However, since the process by which trees were originally produced is not so well documented, Dr A has attempted to use the characteristics of computers as a means of diagnosing whether trees were produced by the same process as computers.
When I said, "in the face of overwhelming evidence", I had specifically in mind just what you said: the documentation. I was not however thinking of the inherent design features of a computer. The point in my message is not to highlight the strength or weakness of given evidences, but to highlight the differing interpretations thereof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2011 11:53 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


(1)
Message 114 of 187 (604302)
02-11-2011 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dr Adequate
02-11-2011 12:01 AM


Dr. Adequate,
I think maybe you have missed the point of my message. You dealt only with my accusations toward you of employing naturalistic and uniformitarian conceptions in your interpretation of the world around you. You did not however deal with the point of my message, the point being that what I call your naturalistic dogma and uniformitarian dogma is no less dogmatic than the supposed religious dogma of him who believes in a Creator God.
Well, that's because I know how computers are in fact produced. If they grew on trees, I'd think that they grew on trees.
I'm afraid you missed the point a little bit. This is primarily because you only responded to point #1, and said nothing of points #2 and #3, point #3 containing the crux of the matter.
But if indeed you are saying that - were you to see a computer growing off of a tree - you would assume the computer to have been "produced unintelligently by natural processes", you prove doubly that you have naturalistic preconceptions, in that you once again would not consider the possibility of an intelligent and spiritual source. You assume again that a tree is "produced unintelligently by natural processes", and label as religiously dogmatic any one who assumes the that the tree is "produced intelligently by spiritual processes".
We know how trees originate. They grow from seeds. They are not carved by intelligent sculptors out of wood.
You know how trees originate? Or do you mean how they reproduce? I have never denied that trees grow from seeds; the argument is from where did the first seed come? Was it produced unintelligently by natural processes, or intelligently by spiritual processes? If you claim presumption of an intelligent and spiritual source to be dogmatic, than how much more is presumption of an unintelligent and natural source dogmatic? I say that trees as a whole were created intelligently and spiritually: God merely created them with the ability to reproduce themselves, just as any slightly intelligent computer scientist would program the ability into a computer to perform certain tasks on its own.

Hume is quite insightful, isn't he? As for me though, having had the scales removed from my eyes by Jesus Christ, I cannot say that I would have any hope of surviving were it not for Him. Having known the true source (logos) of the universe, I know that were I to fall away from Him and be separated from His power and wisdom, and know then that I was completely reliant on a naturalistic universe, I would live in constant fear of those foundationless laws being violated at every turn, and would be unable - despite even years of experience - to place my faith in those laws which, without their Creator Jesus Christ, are wavering constructs of man's wicked heart, which itself is the most inconsistent pile of dung that the world has ever seen. In shorter terms, my faith being founded upon Jesus Christ, I see no alternative but to keep my faith in Him.
Now, to prevent an objection: I do not consciously think every step I take that "ooh, I would not be able take this step were it not for Jesus Christ". This would be foolishness. Jesus Christ is not our protection from natural laws, but He is the foundation of those laws. Do you see that the foundation of Jesus Christ is secure and unshakeable? Would anyone dare to reach for Him and change Him? Could anyone reach for Him and change Him? No. He is eternal, immutable, spiritual, independent, and necessarily unreliant on His Creation for sustenance or survival.
So you say that natural laws are, ultimately, the logos. I do not deny that natural laws do exist, but I do deny that they are the logos: Jesus Christ is the logos. This relates to why John famously wrote the words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". John was defying a Greek culture filled with Stoics which believed the logos to be essentially all and in all. The Stoics believed the logos was what animated the universe, and gave it life. They knew of it...how? From their own conjecture. John says, emphatically, "no", particularly by stating later in the chapter that he knows who the logos is because it "became flesh and dwelt among us". He says then, "Jesus Christ is the logos all you Stoics; you have been searching for the logos and have not found; you have blindly groped around in the abstract searching for it, and have not come to know it; here, I present it to you: Jesus Christ!".
Edited by sac51495, : Grammatical error.

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the LORD. (I Cor. 1:21,27-31)
"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 12:01 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 2:37 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 3:46 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 4:03 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 126 of 187 (604531)
02-12-2011 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Dr Adequate
02-11-2011 2:37 AM


Diversion?
Dr. Adequate,
Let me restate my point: if you ridicule goldrush for spiritual dogmatism, can you not be ridiculed for naturalistic and uniformitarian dogmatism? Or do you concede - as you seemed to in all of Message 117 - that belief in a spiritual and intelligent source (with regard to a tree) is not dogmatic? Your quibbling over whether or not the Creator "is perfectly intelligent", or whether or not "there was one creator of life and the universe", or other such specific issues, is mere diversion of the issue at hand, the issue being whether or not, to put in your own words from Message 105, "the tree was produced unintelligently by natural causes". This is the issue highlighted by you in Message 105. You referred to
Dr. Adequate writes:
the question of how the computer and the tree came into being
clearly highlighting thereby the dichotomy that lies between you and me: I believe God created the tree, you believe nature created (or "produced") it (ultimately). What is the logos?
you too rely on this supposed "dogma" for all practical purposes
This dogma you speak of is uniformitarian dogma. But to expand the meaning of "uniformitarian" to all experiences which do not deviate from rationally understood principles is to (putting it in your own words) "broaden the scope of the word until it becomes vacuous". Uniformitarian philosophy says "the present is the key to the past". You have accused me of relying "on this supposed 'dogma' for all practical purposes", except, "when it interferes with your faith". When I do not "live in fear that next time I put my shoes on they'll bite my feet off", I do not rely on uniformitarian philosophy (which says the present is the key to the past).
Talking about an issue as silly as your shoes biting your feet off though, I cannot say for sure that they won't. There is absolutely no way for me or you to know for sure. It's possible, but is it probable? It's absolutely possible that a meteor will fall on you right where you are sitting (or standing), and that you will die as a result: does this mean that you should be living in fear of it?
Once again, you have diverted the issue at hand by redefining "uniformitarian". Never in reliance upon the basic principles (which do not include shoes biting off feet) of this universe have I found assurance in believing that "the present is the key to the past". Uniformitarianism is completely inapplicable in this regard anyway: do you rely on the present being the key to the past in your everyday life? You would only rely on such a philosophy to explain past events anyway, so why rely on it for future events (such as your shoes biting your feet off)?
What you have done is expanded the meaning of the word 'uniformitarian' 'till it has become vacuous, in order that you might accuse me of doing the same to the word 'dogma'. You've taken one word (yes, one) - uniformitarian - and blown up its meaning so that you could accuse me of doing the same to you. You've chopped off your right leg in order to chop mine off. But it ain't gonna work cause you already fell on the floor, yo'.
our experience is that [trees] grow from seeds or by vegetative cloning
Correct. But what was the point of what I said? Was it not that all trees have a common source? Or did I claim that trees grow by a means other than natural reproduction? I am not saying that one tree out of a billion was created via a miracle, and that the other 999,999,999 were created "unintelligently by natural causes". My default position is that all things are created by God (logos), while your default position is that all trees have been produced unintelligently by natural causes (your own idolized logos). No tree exists in this world that was not created by God. You object and say, "no they weren't, because I went out there and watched the seeds germinate, so I know where they came from". But do you know where the seed came from?..."The tree it fell off of, duh"...where did that tree come from?...Sabe?
Once again, you have diverted the issue at hand, this time by setting up a straw man. The issue is this: did God create the tree, or did nature create (or "produce") the tree?
how can you get your faith in the constancy of the laws of nature from the Bible, of all places?
"Hereafter seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and Summer and Winter, and day and night shall not cease, so long as the earth remaineth." (Gen. 8:22) I know that one as faithful as Jehovah God holds in His hand their maintenance, and that being a righteous God as He is, He will not rescind His promise, but will maintain it as long as the earth remains. Did He not create them? Is it not in His power to establish or rescind them? To rescind them for sake of man's wickedness would be righteous, (as God did in the flood). But why then do I not live in fear? My assurance lies in (once again) Jesus Christ, for the promise of God through Him is that "all things work together for good, to them that love God". But to Him who is not in Jesus Christ: he should live in constant fear knowing that God would be righteous to pour out His wrath upon him. So to you I say: live in fear. I have a much stronger foundation for my faith, one that is stronger than human experience, and human reasoning, which is weak as one can readily see.
As to your ramblings about Pharaoh, and the resurrection of the dead, and of Satan tempting Jesus: they are mere diversions. The issue is not [i]was the status quo violated?", but "was the status quo violated outside of the will of God?". Indeed, it was not, for it was by the will of God alone that all those things happened.

In conclusion: let me present the primary issue that we are running circles around: did an intelligent and spiritual source produce the tree, or did an unintelligent and natural source produce the tree?
To inflate my use of the word dogma is to divert.
To focus on seeds and vegetative cloning is to divert.
To accuse me of holding dearly to uniformitarian dogma is to divert.

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the LORD. (I Cor. 1:21,27-31)
"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 2:37 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-12-2011 11:42 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 02-14-2011 11:29 AM sac51495 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