My Beliefs- GDR

Right. Hence you raising the example of saving puppies in the first place. Raising it as an example of moral behaviour that, in your view, falsifies "an evolutionary view of morality that only has mindless and non-moral underpinnings".So (again) - We have an evolutionary account of morality which explains human moral behaviour as observed in terms of entirely natural processes. A scientific account where "Tom" and his influence is entirely superfluous.And we have your account of morality in which human behaviour as observed cannot be accounted for by natural processes alone and in which "Tom" is thus a necessary requirement.The scientific view of morality and your view of morality are obviously completely at odds in terms of moral behaviours that can and cannot be accounted for by natural processes and how superfluous or necessary "Tom" thus is.You say you accept science whilst maintaining that the scientific conclusion here has been falsified. The point is that unless one is applying a method of knowledge acquisition that actually works the chances of any conclusion being correct are a matter of odds. Why?Your subjective "view" is utterly and completely irrelevant when assessing whether or not the method of knowledge acquisition you are applying to conclude "Tom" is any more likely to yield accurate and reliable results than blind random chance. What leads you to this conclusion? What method of knowledge acquisition are you applying to draw this conclusion? What track record of demonstrable success does this approach to knowledge have?What objective reason is there for me to give any more credence to the notion that "Tom" is the causes of morality than the notion that ethereal crabs are the cause of male cancer?

Then until we do, Tom can't be the answer to any question IF the question of Tom's existence itself is unknown.That way you prevent making logical fallacies. Well if it's not objective then you have no way of knowing if there even exists a Tom. Therefore it is NOT equivalent to saying natural process are at work, since for natural processes we have an endless supply of objective evidence. Well no, it leaves us with you having all your work ahead of you BEFORE you can suggest that any phenomena (ie. life, solar systems, even the Big Bang) is caused by Tom.Your subjective evidence doesn't get rejected, it simply isn't actual evidence by any standard. That's not correct. The reason is because it is not objective and therefore not actual evidence by any standard. You do realize this makes your whole position fall apart?- Oni

IMHO it dropped on its own by natural processes, but as I believe that Tom is the reason for life then the natural process that caused the apple to fall owes its existence to Tom.

Are natural processes intelligent then? The question is the same for life as it is with the stone. Was it started with intelligent intent or did it start as a result of nothing but non-intelligent mindless processes. I’m not sure if that addresses your point or not. Surprisingly I disagree. All it would show is that it took intelligence to make it happen this time. Ergo, the only example we have did take intelligence. Also, of course it required the cocktail of chemicals to all be found in the same place with all of the right temperatures, gravitational forces or whatever else might be required, all at just the right time. Co-incidence — I think not.

You do understand that scientist would be REPRODUCING an ACTUAL event in which these specific elements created life naturally, right?What it says is it took an intelligence to understand how it happened. Yes, GDR, it took an intelligent person (or group of people) to figure out what elements were around in the early days of the Earth. And by reproducing those conditions we can understand how they react to each other naturally and bring about life.Although, let me note something very important, that it wasn't a single event that brought about life. It was the accumulation of many small events that collectively makes life emerge.I don't know how or why you tried to twist all that around to make it look like evidence that an intelligence did it. When clearly all the intelligence (ie. us) is trying to do is re-create the original event so that we understand how it functions naturally.I haven't figured out who you are trying to be dishonest to, us or yourself...? If by "same place" you mean Earth, and by "tempurature" you mean the well known conditions of the Earth's surface, and by "the right time" you mean billions of years then coincidence seems fine. But, it looks more like an inevitable chemical reaction given the conditions, that probably happened many time before it took off and survived till today.I mean, there are billions and billions of planets out there. It makes sense that it happens eventually. It is absolutely inevitable that, given what we know about life, it eventually emerges and survives.God, if anything, made planets, not life.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

So there are some natural processes that are completely natural and material in their causes. Good. At least that saves us from absurd positions like Dawn's.I can't help but wonder though, how you were able to discount the possibility of God's involvement. What criteria did you use to reach this conclusion? So what is different about the origin of life exactly? You say that you're not using the GotG argument, so by what criteria do you judge this event divine where you call other events mundane?Mutate and Survive

Ok. Here I went back and found your scientific account of how altruism developed. That is not a scientific account. It is a theory made up to fit with your beliefs. It is all the things I get accused of. It is circular reasoning. It is the cart before the horse.You asked this. And my answer wasNow you are suggesting that because small hunter gatherers formed the genetic basis for altruism that it leads us to risk our lives to save a puppy. Do you really think that the care of puppies was a big concern for those early tribes of hunter gatherers? For that matter, even aside from puppies those early hunter gatherer tribes were constantly at war with each other. But you don’t have a scientific account. You have a theory that has been invented to be consistent with materialistic beliefs that actually flies in the face of the selfish genes of evolution. Francis Collins who knows a thing or two about biology and evolution says this:

quote:

---

Agape, or selfless altruismcannot be accounted for by the drive of individual selfish genes to perpetuate themselves. Quite the contrary: it may lead humans to make sacrifices that lead to great personal suffering, injury, or death, without any evidence of benefit.

---

As is your subjective view. I have outlined previously several times how I have come to my conclusions. There is no track record of success as there is no track record for success for atheism. There has been a considerable track record for success by science, where the work was done by scientists who held a wide range of theistic beliefs and where those beliefs were irrelevant to their work.

But I would also say that there is no evidence that can point objectively to strictly materialistic beliefs.So until there is, materialism can’t be the answer to any question IF the question of materialistic belief itself is unknown, thus avoiding logical fallacies. You just keep repeating this like a mantra. I don’t argue the fact that there is objective evidence for the existence of natural processes. All I can do is keep repeating the same answer. There is no objective evidence as to whether the natural processes came into existence either with an intelligent plan or by non-intelligent materialistic forces. Tell that to the philosophers. However, by your criteria the same is true for materialistic beliefs. II just don’t believe that what can be proven empirically is able to provide us with all that is true about our existence. We are at an impasse on that issue. I just don’t see science proving that my wife loves me although subjectively I believe she does. I can look at what she does and says but in the end maybe it is all self-interest as her quality of life would be negatively affected if I wasn’t kicking around.

Well it would be science producing a possible albeit likely actual event.It would also take the intelligence of scientists to reproduce the event as well as discover it. So what you are postulating is a natural process, that caused the natural process, that caused the natural process............ and it's turtles all the way down. Well if God made the planets then He created the situation out of which life could arise. From the little I know there is only one evolutionary chain leading back to single celled life. Has this planet existed for a long enough period to have had it happen several times?

Belief. I’m a Christian but I have considerable problem with the concept of an inerrant Bible on all sorts of levels. I agree with Paul when he essentially tells us that we can learn about God from our natural world. This is from Romans 1 and is consistent with all of Paul’s letters in context.

quote:

---

20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,

---

I view science as a natural theology and it is as a result of that that I came to my conclusion. Good question, and I wish that I could come up with a short snappy answer. You can say that it is an argument from incredulity, but IMHO the theory that something with the complexity of s single cell being the product of a mindless series of processes from basic elements borders on the absurd.Even within evolution Paley had a point but he picked the wrong target. He made the claim that the eye couldn’t have evolved and of course now we know that it very well could have. The greater complexity is all of the natural processes that led up to natural selection so that the eye could form. In the end, no matter how many natural processes we trace back the question still remains. I know that I won’t get agreement on this around here but I still contend that by Occam’s Razor the simpler solution is that life is the result of an intelligent agent.However, let’s say I was wrong and that life did just happened to have happened. If I were to actually believe that it wouldn’t end my Christian faith. I pointed out early on in this thread that as far as my theistic beliefs were concerned the only essential is that God is good, that God is just and that He asks the same thing of us. (Yes my Christian beliefs go beyond that in the person of Jesus but that isn’t what I am talking about here.)Of course theism is not deism. Theism requires a Tom who remains active in the world.There are a number of scientific theories about consciousness including the belief that it is fundamental to the existence of the universe. I believe that God does interact with us through our consciousness in ways that are indistinguishable from our own thought processes. I suggest that it is something along the lines of the idea that our conscience is the still small voice of God as I have said previously.I branched out from the question you gave me but I thought it would be answered better by expanding on the answer.

Speaking as a natural process, yeah, some of us are. That is not in fact all it would show.

...some are definitely more adequate than others. No doubt. What did you have in mind?

And yet you have a morass of evidence that tells you that if Tom exists he's anything but good and just.In order to believe he's good and just you have to reject the Old Testament - His opinion of himself as an angry and jealous God - the history of Christianity as a violent, hellfire preaching and power loving organisation and the world around you which is full of pain and injustice and has been for billions of years.You just NEED it to be different.

AKA making it up as you go along. I could not find that satisfying. Making things up is fun, but it is not an acceptable means of finding truths about the world. Belief is not evidence, except for crazy people. But Wait! You immediately contradict yourself! Here you seem to be claiming some sort of evidence from the natural world. This is not belief. This is empiricism.So I have to ask you, if you have some kind of evidence from the natural world, what is it? How would it apply to the dropped apple? Upthread you were claiming that we couldn't tell if God is involved in natural events or not, now you say you can, so how do you tell except for an ad hoc, feels good whim?The truth is that you are not working from observation of the natural world, or else you wouldn't ignore the evidence we discussed earlier in the thread that God tortures and murders children. You have all the evidence anyone could need on that topic, yet you ignore it. That is an argument from incredulity.Pointing out the logical fallacy you're committing doesn't stop it from being bad logic. Makes it worse even, since you know you're being irrational, but refuse to change. No, Paley did not have a point. He claimed that because he could not imagine how the eye evolved, then it could not have evolved. What arrogant piffle! He failed to consider the real answer to his question; that William Paley just wasn't bright enough to reach the correct answer.Are you so arrogant that you imagine yourself to be able to come up with the correct explanation every time? No matter how complex? And do so even when you don't understand the field of study in question? Really What a monstrous ego you must have!Of course, I don't really think you arrogant, I just think that you've failed to think through what the argument from incredulity is really saying. A grotesque abuse of the razor. Occam's Razor tells us not to add unnecessary entities to an argument. You are invoking an invisible magic man, before even trying to engage with the science. This is an especially bad example of how to misapply the Razor. Why bother propping up the notion with such awful arguments then? Just drop it if it's not necessary, because you sure as heck haven't provided a logical argument for divine creation of life. What you have given us so far is;1) I believe it because I want to believe it,
2) I believe it because of personal incredulity regarding subjects that I do not personally understand,
3) I believe it because I have misapplied Occam's Razor.I could not find that satisfying myself.Mutate and Survive

I don't have to reject the OT. I just have to understand the OT through the lens of the teaching of Jesus in the NT. For example this is in Exodus 21:

quote:

---

23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

---

Jesus corrects the author of Exodus when He says this in Matthew 5:

quote:

---

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'

---

There have indeed been many abuses by the Christian organizations over the years. Many of the abuses happened as a result of the church becoming a route to power. The church and individual Christians have also done a great deal of good over the years as well. However just because people who call themselves Christian do terrible things does not mean that they are accurately reflecting what God would actually want them to do. That's true on one level anyway. If I had to believe in an inerrant OT to be a Christian then I pretty much would have to reject it as I would have trouble worshipping a deity that sanctioned stonings and genocide. Fortunately we can see through the teachings of Jesus that the Bible is not to be understood that way.