Sapiens
Polymathematician
If you have no problem with the idea of a god "always" existing why do you have trouble with the idea of the universe "always" existing ... basically the same issue.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Intelligent Design?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
An opinion based on emotions, on what is "in your heart" is an invalid opinion. A valid opinion must be based on evidence.
We 'evolutionists' do not try to measure emotions. We do not care about emotions. We dismiss them as irrelevant. The same with good and evil. Good and evil have nothing to do with evolution. "Calculating behavior?" What does that mean? Why would creationists need to calculate behavior?
It's creationists who are obsessed with emotions and good and evil, not evolutionists.
Evolutionists are reasonable people with a reasonable theory/
We 'evolutionists' do not try to measure emotions. We do not care about emotions. We dismiss them as irrelevant. The same with good and evil. Good and evil have nothing to do with evolution. "Calculating behavior?" What does that mean? Why would creationists need to calculate behavior?
It's creationists who are obsessed with emotions and good and evil, not evolutionists.
How to choose what?
Evolutionists are reasonable people with a reasonable theory/
Scientists say the universe had a beginning. So does the Bible.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
You are confused. A fact is based on evidence, not an opinion.
And evolutionary psychologists, and Darwin, do and did assert they can, could, measure emotions as fact. Darwin wrote a whole book about emotions.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
What is the name of the book?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
SOME scientists ... dumb ones, smart ones say we don't know. The Bible is meaningless on the topic.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
On the expression of emotion etc.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Thanks. I was not aware of the book. Its a neat find and shows another great understanding that Darwin had far before his time. He observed and understood that temperament seemed to be inherited. This has been substantiated and understood as fact today.
I think the scientists who believe the universe had a beginning are basing their conclusions on scientific research. Interesting the Bible was right, after all, and Aristotle and Einstein were not. (Genesis 1:1) That means a great deal to me.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Aristotle is the one who came up with the uncased first cause argument. So I don't know what you are referring to here when you mention Aristotle.
I understand that Aristotle believed the earth is subject to decay, while the universe is eternal.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
He didn't have a concept of there being "nothing". But he followed the logical concept that every action had a cause and if you track it back far enough there must have been a first cause that was uncased. He saw god almost as a force or at least this is what his writings seem to indicate.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
I'm glad you think that the bible is right when the answer is not known ... pretty easy to guess, however, you've a 50:50 shot, and if you're wrong you just look for a difference bible quote ... there always is one. Basing your opinion on unreferenced papers, that you are unlikely to understand even if you had the reference (pretty technical and math intensive stuff) is about akin to taking the bible's word for it. Oh, I forgot, you do take the bible's word for if and then back-fill your position with all the science you are able to misunderstand.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Darwin's whack book where he focused on his own neurotics, perfectly in line with modern neurology which also regards emotions as fact. It is just social darwinism again.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Nothing in the book is social Darwinism. Darwin himself was not a social Darwinist. All it said is that temperament is genetically linked. Do you deny this?
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
What emotions people have is a matter of opinion because it is relevant to the agency of decisions.
To then state as fact what emotions are in terms of natural selection theory is social darwinism.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
So you deny that anger issues can be inherited? Then you sir deny reality.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
It is a bit close to nazi ideology.
I make no apologies for my faith in the Bible as God's Word and the truth. Your personal attacks do you no credit.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Except its not.
You see the Nazi party did have some people that supported evolution. On the opposing side in France, England and America they also accepted evolution. Evolution was not the cause of Nazi ideology. However I find it interesting that you, as a Muslim, would be ignorant to the fact that the vast majority of the Islamic world during WWII supported Hitler. In fact he was known in some parts as "Muhammad Haidar". It seemed that Islam was far more suited for Nazi ideology than evolution. Especially since evolution has proven time and time again that racism isn't based in science, its based in ignorance.