Imagine going to a university where "gods are allowed". Serious discussions of causes for earthquakes would have to include Poseidon. Serious discussions of causes for storms would have to include Thor. No thank you...
-
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!
Just Accidental?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- Status
That's impossible. The god of the Christian Bible is easily ruled out a few ways. For one, it is described in mutually exclusive terms like the famed married bachelor of philosophy.
For another, the evidence that underlies the theory of evolution only permits two possibilities: the "kinds" evolved naturalistically from the last common ancestral population as Darwin suggested, or life was created by a deceptive intelligent designer or designers. There is no place for a god with infinite power and knowledge that wants to be known, loved, obeyed, believed, and worshiped. Such a creature would have accomplished that goal.
The most likely fate for minds after death is their extinction.
But in the unlikely event that we awaken to an afterlife, all that we can know for certain is that no impossible gods will be there. Most likely, there would be no gods at all - just the minds of the deceased awakening to another world as they did once before in this life, and beginning a second journey of discovery.
If there are agents that weren't in the same boat that we were in - some kind of much more powerful being among us - it would likely be a multitude of beings, and there is no reason to believe that they would judge or punish us.
And if we were slated for some kind of sorting out process, no human being has any idea what that would be like, what would be its purpose, or what would be the criteria used, that is, what are they looking for.
So, the plain truth is that there is no chance that one day we will be forced to believe you, but there is a non-zero chance that you will be forced to believe that you have made a mistake. The good news is that you probably won't be penalized for it.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Again Deeje, you stated yourself that you could not ever compromise on this issue because if you did, the Jehovah's Witnesses would ruin your life. It's not exactly a stretch to conclude that that situation plays a major role in your behaviors in this thread.And of course this is not a total distraction from the fact that this pathetic bit of amateur psychoanalysis is showing us what you've got by way of addressing the topic of this thread.Nice try.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You're dodging. You claimed that I was under the same threat of personal ruin as you. Show where that's the case or retract your accusation.
Well duh....one's beliefs influences what one believes. Who ever would've thought that?
IOW, you're losing. Even those within your own faith reject your nonsense.
Well yeah, just like you would if you taught holocaust denial in history or flat-earthism in geography.
Then how are people like Michael Behe still employed at universities?
Sure there is. You're using one of the fruits of the scientific method to make your claim almost instantaneously from halfway around the world, and are undoubtedly surrounded by and benefiting from dozens if not hundred more. That is objective evidence that the methods of science are valid and fruitful.
Religion has nothing at all like that to show for its millennia of faith based and unsupported pronouncements. We would expect some successes if there were any merit to the methods of Christianity. That is objective evidence that they are incorrect.
That's all we need to know to decide if either, neither, or both methods are valid. Science is, faith is not.
Scientists came up with the theory of evolution using their method. Faith based thinkers have creationism. Same outcome. One works, the other doesn't. The scientific theory unifies mountains of observations, makes predictions about what can and cannot be found that have never been falsified after over 150 years, and has had technological applications that have improved the human condition. Creationism is an unsupported hypothesis that has produced nothing of value.
Exactly what we would expect if one method were valid and the other not.
Human beings have always been omnivores, even the ones today that choose to avoid meat. We know this by examining the dentition in hominan (sic) skulls, especially the types of teeth, the number of cusps, and the enamel thickness.
"Carnivores, the meat eaters of the animal world, have very defined canine teeth for tearing at meat, combined with a sometimes limited number of molars. Omnivores, because they eat both meat and plants, have a combination of sharp front teeth and molars for grinding." The Teeth of Herbivores, Carnivores and Omnivores
You pretty much have to if you believe that an omniscient, omnipotent god exists.
Omniscience and omnipotence create omniresponsibilty. That doesn't change because you argue that a particular act was good rather than evil.
Nor does it remove what a Christian would agree is evil from the world. That would also be this same agent's fully cognizant choice and responsibility. Sin and evil would be the god's creation by choice.
According to Christian doctrine, who made Satan? Who is responsible for unleashing Satan on the earth? Who gave Satan his powers, allows Satan to keep them, and to use them to torment and harm humanity?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
You should take your own advice, every time you are faced with a tough question of clear evidence of your wrong thinking, that issue disappears off of your radar.Oh boo hoo metis.Seriously, what is with the continual appeals to emotion. This is a debate forum...for goodness sake....I don't care about your accusations.......they are water off a ducks back. Discuss the topic!
Do we see a bit of megalomania creeping into your argumentation?It is not hypocrisy to tell the truth. Didn't Jesus do this? Did he tip-toe around people so as not to hurt their itty bitty feelings?
If you are so offended by my posts.....don't read them.Simple solution....right?
But there is a major difference between how we support our claims. You use logical fallacy, most often argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance, we use integrative and mutually supportive data and findings. To pretend that these disparate approaches display the same objectivity is sheer folly.
The explanation is rather simple, you are providing great amusement to many ... since everyone love a train wreck.
Yes, there is a bias toward what has been clearly demonstrated in the past. But that is not absolute and can be overcome (witness Marian Diamond's neurobiology findings on the effects to the brain of an enhanced environment and on the brain's plasticity). What do you offer? Just incredulity and ignorance.I think we all understand what "delusional" means and who is exhibiting it. You don't think there is bias in science? Now that is funny.The "scientific method" is what scientists use to add their own flavor to the pot. It's about "interpretation" of evidence, not what the evidence itself is saying. Bias is at work there.
There is your problem, all wrapped up in the phrase, "according to the Bible." How do we know the bible is accurate, despite much evidence to the contrary? Why, the bible says that it is. Even a fool can make an equally good argument for any conceivable flight of fancy as you make for your bible.
Once again here is failure of your intellectual approach ... the fallacies of incredulity and ignorance.
I agree, some of what is published does not deserve to be, but we have tools to deal with that, Citation Analysis being one of the most powerful as well as reliance on a Journal's reputation which is also measurable via Citation Analysis.Under the heading....
Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science
Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed.
Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science | David Colquhoun
That's the thing about con artists and their practices.....the con looks like the truth. They present themselves as completely trustworthy.
Actually, what's bizzare is the fact than none of you have anything substantial to offer by way of unbiased evidence. Everything that has been presented so far has been shown to be the same 'educated guesswork' and 'assumption' masquerading as facts by the same people who are still here pretending that they proved something....they proved nothing.
Just flogging the same dead horse.
We are all choosing sides metis......our choices reflect where our heart is. I believe this is decision time and we had better make the right choice. This is no time for indecision.
How did you word the options? Wasn't it just like someone marketing their own product by making it sound credible whilst denigrating the opposition's product by inferring that only idiots would buy it? How do you think advertising works?
The first two options demonstrate the basis for the whole argument.....the assumption that it is "either / or" when there is no real evidence for either except for what scientists "believe" to be true. Who said there had to be only those options? ...oh wait! it was the gods of science. Right?
What if I reworded it to say...."There are four possible explanations for this observation. Science proposes that either the species are closely related and both might have inherited their antifreeze genes from a common ancestor (which option we have already ruled out), or the antifreeze glycoproteins somehow evolved independently in the two lineages (by some fortuitous mechanism for which we have no explanation or evidence) or we can conclude from the evidence at hand that there was an intelligent designer of unknown origin who deliberately coordinateded the mechanisms to operate independently in different species of fish who inhabit opposite polar regions of the earth, to facilitate the continuation of life in two frozen environments"?
What then?
What if he gave all of his intelligent creatures free will and decided that he would choose not to know the outcome? What if he simply allowed these free willed beings to determine their own future by their own choices? Just because God CAN know the future, doesn't mean that he always chooses to.
The example of the locksmith demonstrates this.....if he had a key to unlock every lock in the world, would he have to unlock every lock, just because he could? It appears as if God can exercise his foreknowledge selectively.
Satan is the god and ruler of this world because he made accusations about the Creator that were simply not true...he was "a liar and the father of the lie" according to Jesus. He made himself a "resister" (satan) and a "slanderer" (devil). To destroy the rebels would have only proven that he God is more powerful ....so God had two choices...to eliminate the rebels from existence, without proving that his sovereignty is right and just, or allow them to prove their case by stepping out of the picture and allowing things to play out naturally as he knew they would without his intervention. (Hence the illustration of the painful surgery.) God sees the pain and suffering of his earthly creatures and knows that he can undo every bit of it.....but if he wants no rebels to interfere with his plans in the future, (either angel or human) he has to allow the devil to rule mankind because they chose him. Here we are at the end of the line and human rulership under the devil's influence has proven to be a complete disaster.....we have brought all life on this planet to the brink of extinction by our own stupid decisions.
By allowing all of his intelligent creatures to see firsthand the consequences of making independent choices, precedents are set for all time to come, and no rebel will ever be able to spoil God's plans again.
The story in Job tells us some very interesting details about why humans suffer and to what extent.
If you read the account in the first two chapters of Job, can you tell me what it says according to your understanding. What is the lesson for us?
If you claim to believe other than what is taught in almost all school science curriculums and dared to tell your students that there is an alternative to "scientific" knowledge in that arena that involved "God". or "Intelligent Design"...you would not have your job for long.
LOL.....the "losers" I'm afraid are the ones compromising on their belief in God as Creator and Intelligent Designer. They are not of my faith, and in fact, Christendom has nothing in common with us. They accept a lot of 'nonsense' that we do not.
According to Wiki, the University where Michael Behe teaches, as a Professor of Biochemistry does not necessarily support his assertions about ID as his disclaimer says....
"I am interested in the evolution of complex biochemical systems. Many molecular systems in the cell require multiple components in order to function. I have dubbed such systems "irreducibly complex." (Behe 1996b, 2001) Irreducibly complex systems appear to me to be very difficult to explain within a traditional gradualistic Darwinian framework, because the function of the system only appears when the system is essentially complete. (An illustration of the concept of irreducible complexity is the mousetrap pictured below, which needs all its parts to work.)
Official Disclaimer
My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them."
You can't argue with his overall premise though, even if you disagree with him on other aspects of biology.
But Pensylvania University is known for its attachment to religion. Perhaps this is why they are more tolerant than universities in other states?
"Dating back to 1857, The Christian Association (a.k.a. The CA) is the oldest religious organization at the University and is composed primarily of students from Mainline Protestant backgrounds.[115] When the University moved to its current campus in the 1880s the CA was based out of Houston Hall. After moving around several times it relocated to its new building at 36th and Locust Streets (now the ARCH Building), which it occupied from 1928 until 2000. During its most active period it ran several foreign missions as well as a camp for socio-economically disadvantaged children in Philadelphia.[116] At present the CA occupies part of the parsonage at Tabernacle United Church of Christ.[117]
The Rohr Jewish Learning Institute's Sinai Scholars Society Academic Symposium is a prestigious event that brings together Jewish college students with noted Jewish academics for a day of in-depth discussion and debate at the university.[118][119]
The Penn Newman Catholic Center (the 'Newman Center') was founded in 1893 with the mission of supporting students, faculty and staff in their religious endeavors. The organization brings prominent Christian figures to campus, including James Martin in September 2015.[120] During the 2015 World Meetings of Families, which included a visit from Pope Francis to Philadelphia, the Newman Center hosted over 900 Penn students and alumni.[120]
Pensylvania is also the place where Jehovah's Witnesses got their modern day start....as "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pensylvania".
Looking through that lens, and making those kinds of damning assumptions....its any wonder you have no understanding of any of it.
You are peeking through a crack and making judgments about 95% of what you cannot see.....and 100% of what you don't want to understand. There is a valid reason for everything. But God owes no one an explanation.....
Who made satan? He made himself "satan". He made himself the "devil" too. Read my response to PopeADope for a little more insight into that scenario. And this:
Where is God when awful things happen?
The locksmith is not absolved of responsibility for his choices because he opts not to act. Nor is a god for choosing not to know what the master demon it created and unleashed on man wants to do or is doing.
Do you disagree?
Can I be the god and ruler of this world if I make false accusations about the Creator? Those seem like attainable qualifications.
Thank you. Jesus.
There is no lesson apart from the idea that Job's god was willing to torment him for no better reason than to show Satan that Job would take it and smile.
You seem to object. What happens if you teach evolution in Sunday school? How long would you keep that job?
I understand it perfectly. Is it any wonder that you don't?
See how easy that is.
Incidentally, evading the questions was a good choice:
"According to Christian doctrine, who made Satan? Who is responsible for unleashing Satan on the earth? Who gave Satan his powers, allows Satan to keep them, and to use them to torment and harm humanity?"
< crickets chirping >
Let me answer for you since you decline to answer for yourself: Jehovah
You can't conclude but you can propose from the evidence at hand that there was an intelligent designer of unknown origin. Suppose some scientists proposed from the evidence at hand that there was an intelligent designer of unknown origin. How would they go about finding evidence for the existence of this unknown designer? Be specific.
So you have an omniscient god who doesn't know everything? That is logically impossible.
Already answered......he made himself "satan" (resister) by challenging God's right to rule his creation. He lied about death and made independence from God seem like a very attractive prospect. Humans have been experimenting with self rule now for thousands of years and they still can't find a system that works. That's because power always corrupts us....we were never designed to rule ourselves, but to be ruled by our Maker. (Jeremiah 10:23)
A knowledge of good and evil has never benefited anyone. We obviously can't be told, so we had to be shown where an independent spirit would lead us.
Satan made accusations about God's right to set reasonable limits for his intelligent creation. Were those limits reasonable or were they an abuse of his power? Would humans be better off knowing these things for themselves? How could anyone know? God allowed the devil to prove his case. He allowed him to be the god and ruler of the human race since they chose to obey him. In order to settle the issue once and for all time, we were permitted to live through the greatest object lesson in history. This is the painful operation that fixes the original defect, permanently.
Satan was created with the same power that all angelic creatures have. He abused it. In the end when all the issues raised in Eden are settled, God will reverse everything, having set precedents concerning rebellion, for all time to come. He will even erase the memory of any suffering.
“Here I am creating new heavens and a new earth; and the former things will not be called to mind, neither will they come up into the heart.” (Isaiah 65:17)
For those who have not abandoned God, the pain will have been so worth it.
A reducibly complex mousetrapAccording to Wiki, the University where Michael Behe teaches, as a Professor of Biochemistry does not necessarily support his assertions about ID as his disclaimer says....
"I am interested in the evolution of complex biochemical systems. Many molecular systems in the cell require multiple components in order to function. I have dubbed such systems "irreducibly complex." (Behe 1996b, 2001) Irreducibly complex systems appear to me to be very difficult to explain within a traditional gradualistic Darwinian framework, because the function of the system only appears when the system is essentially complete. (An illustration of the concept of irreducible complexity is the mousetrap pictured below, which needs all its parts to work.)
Despite much general progress by science in the past half century in understanding how complex biochemical systems work, little progress has been made in explaining how such systems arise in a Darwinian fashion. I have proposed that a better explanation is that such systems were deliberately designed by an intelligent agent. (Behe 1996b, 2001) The proposal of intelligent design has proven to be extremely controversial, both in the scientific community (for example, see Brumfiel, G. 2005. Nature434:1062‑1065) and in the general news media. (Behe 1996a, 1999, 2005) My current work involves: 1) educating various groups to overcome mistaken ideas of what exactly intelligent design entails, so that they can make informed judgments on whether they think it is a plausible hypothesis; and 2) trying to establish a reasoned way to determine a rough dividing line between design and non-design in biochemical systems.
Official Disclaimer
My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them."
You can't argue with his overall premise though, even if you disagree with him on other aspects of biology.
Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on Intelligent Design
Irreducible Complexity Demystified
He can choose to know whatever he wishes. Omniscient means "all knowing" and that is true, but where free will is concerned, he allows the choices to be ours and then he responds to them. He demonstrated this in the Bible when he decreed the destruction of the city of Nineveh, but when the people repented at Jonah's judgment message, he spared the city. He allowed the people to respond to the message, then he responded to their actions.
In the Revelation, John saw two groups.....one numbered group in heaven with Jesus, and a great crowd, who were declaring that they owed their salvation to God and to the Lamb. (Revelation 7:4, 9,10, 13,14) The second group was infinite, no man was able to number them....."like the sands of the sea".
God foreordained the number of the first group, but not the second.....why, because he allowed these ones to choose their own destiny through obedience.
- Status