The creator did it.

[We Never Know]

God is the uncaused mover of the universe. To include God along with His creation is to miss the point that is understood by those who believe in a being who is transcendent, eternal and self existing. By nature He is that He is and need not a cause.

Nothing but a belief statement that you have no evidence to support.

 

[Polymath257]

Once again...

From F.F. Bruce,
The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.

Once again, that is a claim. But the actual evidence doesn't show this claim. In fact, while we hear of Christians from the Roman historians, we only see claims of witnesses in the Christian witings that were written well after the supposed facts on the ground. The authors of the Gospels are *traditionally* thought to be among the Disciples, but that isn't born out upon investigation. In other words, your claim that the author of John was an eyewitness of the events is far from being proven. the claims of massive numbers of people being fed are also suspect.

What I would suggest is that you take exactly the same amount of skepticism that you would give to, say, the Iliad and its stories about the Greek gods and apply that level of doubt to your Bible. I think you would find your Bible wanting, to say the least.

 

[Polymath257]

God is the uncaused mover of the universe.

Really? Prove such a being exists. How does God manage to 'arrive' here through infinite time? I seem to recall you having an issue with the universe doing so. Why not for God?

To include God along with His creation is to miss the point that is understood by those who believe in a being who is transcendent, eternal and self existing.

OK, so you think that it is possible for something to be 'self-existing'? Why do you think that is possible? And, if it is possible, why isn't it possible that that self-existing thing is actually the universe?

By nature He is that He is and need not a cause.

I see. So you are giving up the claim that everything has a cause, right? So now the universe doens't need a cause? maybe it is the nature of the universe that it doesn't have a cause either.

And as for eternal, why is it OK for God to be eternal, but you have issues with the universe being so? What's the difference? At least we know the universe actually exists. But I have yet to see an argument that any deities do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

An intelligent designer, made of matter? Then I’ll wonder, “Who created him?”

Exactly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think the word is "conflicted", or just having mutually inconsistent opinions. I mean no disrespect to you as a person. I am only commenting on the validity of your assertions, and the rationality of your assumptions. Even very rational people can have irrational thoughts and beliefs. Our brain is not a rational brain. It is an incomplete irrational brain. It can only gives us its best-guess-interpretation to perceptualize what our true reality really is. Just enough to navigate through it to survive.

I think that you see me as conflicted or inconsistent. Perhaps that is true, but it is not a description of the feeling I got from reading your words. Nor does it answer the question I asked. Do you think that scientists are all atheists?

I think a valid comment about my personal views would best be described as compartmentalization.

I am not claiming that any scientist would let their religious beliefs(or any personal beliefs) cloud their judgement, and cause them to ignore/disregard their own findings, observations and results. That is an assumptive remark that you are claiming.

I am not assuming anything. I am stating that I have no reason to mix my religion and science and do not and know others with religious beliefs that I feel do the same in their work. I do not follow or support intelligent design. It is not science.

How scientist behave in the lab, has little to do with their religious beliefs. Scientists are hardwired(if you will) to find tangible evidence to support tangible hypotheses. Their results are always subjected to peer review, Institutional oversight, other fellow researchers, and senior project leaders. Competition for research grants, far outweighs personal beliefs.

I agree with all of this.

I think that you are creating a paranoid assumption(or straw man), based on the false assumption that ones religious beliefs can adversely effect the outcome of ones scientific research.

Wow. You really read a lot out of what I wrote. A lot that is not there or even hinted at. It is almost as if you were creating a straw man yourself.

You must first establish if your claim is valid or not valid, and then ignore all the simple checks and balances in place to prevent that from happening.

I will have to check back. I thought I asked a question and followed it with an observation. Now it is a claim. I amaze me at my ability to hide claims even from me.

Compared to the general population, it is true that there are more scientist that do not believe in God. This would be the expected outcome for those trained in the discipline of critical thinking, and objective scientific inquiry. It seems irrelevant to me what any scientist disbelieves in.

Again, I agree with all of this and fully agree and support your final statement.

Maybe you can give me a relatively recent example(not during the Dark Ages) of where any scientific findings or results were skewed or ignored in any way, because of the researchers religious beliefs? Or, was passed through peer review because of it religious underpinnings?

It might be an interesting diversion to look for something like that, but why? I am not looking to support a claim I never made. A claim I have no reason to make. I am not trying to support a religious agenda in science, even if you seem bent on manufacturing one for me. I only wanted an answer to my question. I believe I have it, though it took a few paragraphs and I had to obtain it indirectly. So. You do recognize that there are scientists that are Christian. I know some that are Sikh, Muslim and Hindu as well. If I cared, I would probably find I know some Buddhist scientists as well. Most are, as you say, atheist.

I am enjoying these discussions, but you are letting your bias rewrite what I have written. I think you have trouble believing a Christian could be a scientist and keep his religious views out of discussions of science.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Exactly.

If a designer is material, ie., physical....she / he / it had a beginning. But if an intelligence is composed entirely of invisible energy... no mass... there’s a possibility that they had no beginning. As it is our understanding that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Only converted into other forms.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So, in conclusion, I am a Christian and believe in God. My evidence is that I am a Christian and I believe in God. Do you see any problem with that logic? Since you are claiming that you believe in a Son of a God, and a God, you have no burden of proof. But if you claim that you know your beliefs are true, then you DO have a burden of proof.

You admit that,

You believe that the Bible is errant and inconsistent.
You believe that the Bible is not a science or history book, especially its reference to flying insects.
You do not disavow the logic and reasoning of your academic training.
You accept the evidence, explanations, and knowledge derived from science academia
You claim, "Claiming something I believe, but cannot demonstrate, is evidence for a natural phenomenon is ridiculous. I am not going to do something ridiculous". Yet you clam a belief in God.
You believe life is an emergent property towards sentiency, but don't accept that those very properties are emergent.
You do not believe in the Creationist concept of Genesis, or in magic.
You believe in cause and effect, and the consistency of the laws of logic
You criticize the clearly scientific and logical inconsistencies that believers posit.
You don't believe that the Bible is the word of God.

This is not the resume or the characteristic of someone that avoids critical thinking, or the rules of logic. One might also consider you an Atheist, or maybe an Agnostic or a Pantheist? I'm sure how a Christian can not believe in the Bible as the word of God, and still be a Christian.

Your answer was that you did not know if a virus was classified as living or non-living. But that you had learned more since. I simply answered the question for you. You are certainly correct, that I am biased on the side of reason, and tend to read more than is necessary into a post. But unfortunately that is also part of the my human condition. It is how Spontaneous generation was being used by Creationist that was my concern. It is NOT a creationist belief or a creationist concept. it is simply the terms they use to discredit abiogenesis(something from nothing). Their own cognitive dissonance prevents them from seeing how that affects their own beliefs. I usually respond to the person, not the thread, but ok.

I also appreciate your posts. They are refreshingly different.

When I took my first biology class in 1980, I was taught following the model of what life is that is based on Schwann I think. I could be wrong on whose list we were using, but you may recognize it as including, growth, metabolism, response to stimuli, adaptation, reproduction and evolution (a partly complete list, but I am sure you will recognize it). In any event, under those criteria and how I was initially introduced to virus biology, they were not considered to alive. Incidentally, the teacher that taught me this was a PhD zoologist that was also a lay speaker in my church.

Later, in college, I was surprised to learn that the paradigm had changed and viruses were being studied under the view that they are living organisms.

Of course, there is no agreed upon view of what life is, but it certainly must include most of the criteria I listed. To include viruses, all one has to do is extend and modify the view of reproduction.

I disagree with you on spontaneous generation. I consider it a creationist belief (discredited by science) and I think that history and the evidence support my view.

Now it is a ploy used by creationists to abuse and reject science.

I did not get the meaning of your last line about responding to the person and not the thread. I will have to review our conversation to see what you mean here. It may be obvious, but I am not going to credit myself with always seeing that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If a designer is material, ie., physical....she / he / it had a beginning. But if an intelligence is composed entirely of invisible energy... no mass... there’s a possibility that they had no beginning. As it is our understanding that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Only converted into other forms.

Is energy not part of the physical universe? If energy and matter are interconvertable, then a designer of energy would lead you to ask who created it as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They are dry rubbed with secret ingredients overnight. They are brown sugar, bourbon, and pineapple based. And they have supported me though most of my academic career.

That sounds fantastic! If we can agree on nothing else, I think we have found some vast common ground here.

When are you making your next batch? I am not going to ask where you are, just get me within 500 miles and I will let my rib senses finish the trip. LOL!

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The claim that death is the cessation of life is scientifically consistent and falsifiable. The claim that death is it, is not.

I was responding to another poster, and repeating his own words(Rapture era #543), "When we die (and none of us knows when that will be) that's it, your eternity is sealed. Good luck!". I took "that is it" as an idiom for the cessation of life forever. Not, as a scientific statement of fact. I also disagree that the only true dichotomies are conceptual. I think pregnant, not pregnant, dead, not dead, living, non-living, are all true logical dichotomies. But you are correct, and I do accept that death is the cessation of life. I also accept that when you die, that's it, as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So, in conclusion, I am a Christian and believe in God. My evidence is that I am a Christian and I believe in God. Do you see any problem with that logic? Since you are claiming that you believe in a Son of a God, and a God, you have no burden of proof. But if you claim that you know your beliefs are true, then you DO have a burden of proof.

You admit that,

You believe that the Bible is errant and inconsistent.
You believe that the Bible is not a science or history book, especially its reference to flying insects.
You do not disavow the logic and reasoning of your academic training.
You accept the evidence, explanations, and knowledge derived from science academia
You claim, "Claiming something I believe, but cannot demonstrate, is evidence for a natural phenomenon is ridiculous. I am not going to do something ridiculous". Yet you clam a belief in God.
You believe life is an emergent property towards sentiency, but don't accept that those very properties are emergent.
You do not believe in the Creationist concept of Genesis, or in magic.
You believe in cause and effect, and the consistency of the laws of logic
You criticize the clearly scientific and logical inconsistencies that believers posit.
You don't believe that the Bible is the word of God.

This is not the resume or the characteristic of someone that avoids critical thinking, or the rules of logic. One might also consider you an Atheist, or maybe an Agnostic or a Pantheist? I'm sure how a Christian can not believe in the Bible as the word of God, and still be a Christian.

Your answer was that you did not know if a virus was classified as living or non-living. But that you had learned more since. I simply answered the question for you. You are certainly correct, that I am biased on the side of reason, and tend to read more than is necessary into a post. But unfortunately that is also part of the my human condition. It is how Spontaneous generation was being used by Creationist that was my concern. It is NOT a creationist belief or a creationist concept. it is simply the terms they use to discredit abiogenesis(something from nothing). Their own cognitive dissonance prevents them from seeing how that affects their own beliefs. I usually respond to the person, not the thread, but ok.

I also appreciate your posts. They are refreshingly different.

If I find a strictly religious discussion that interests me, I would participate, but I am here mainly to discuss science and the attempts to subvert it using religion. In discussions about science, my personal views have no context and standing and considering my proclivity to keep them out of science, that fact fits well with me. Yet, it seems it is a subject that cannot be avoided in more detail.

What I have noticed in forums like this is that those with a religious position, generally have a problem with the answer "I or We do not know". They have, what I would describe as a need in an uncertain world, for absolutes. They live by it and cannot accept anything short of it in their personal world views. I think this puts them beyond the ability to fully understand the world around them or limits that understanding. A fancy way of describing the condition called a closed mind perhaps.

On the other hand, I do not regularly see this need expressed by atheists or even agnostics and I think that I should have expected it to be of lower incidence in those groups before I even started taking note. Though, it is not completely absent, since we are talking about people here. These groups generally support intellectual curiosity, discovery and conclusion based on evidence and not on belief. You may not agree that I am complete in my description of those groups, but I think you would agree that the points I capture here would be included in some much fuller description.

What I wonder is, if there is room for another group with a religious philosophy and the ability to say "I do not know", coupled with the intellectual curiosity and honesty to look beyond for answers and not lie to themselves so that they can cling to dogma. People that believe there may be something more than this world, the universe and the physical laws that govern it, but also recognize that they do not have all the answers and see no threat to their personal belief in seeking those answers.

As I set here writing this, my mind is wandering through ideas and how to articulate them, but this may be the best I can do now without trying to write a book or drift off on tangents that are possibly interesting, but not to the point.

I have some ideas, but all I can say is "I do not know". But I am willing to find out. That may be the best that I can say about my interest here. It is another place to explore. To learn. To gain knowledge and change or reinforce that which I already have obtained.

One last remark, before I close and this will get me in hot water with the creationist Christians on this forum, but I have found it to be true almost everywhere I have looked. For a Christian to have discussions like this, he or she must turn to the atheists and agnostics, because as a group they have the characteristics I mentioned and are often, though not absolutely always, willing to join in a discussion like this. They have their biases like I do, but they tend to speak in facts, known information, and are clear when speculating and do not so often turn that speculation into facts. I have found this in some other Christians, but much more rarely and never on an internet forum. I await to be surprised there as well and have my absolute on that shattered to, perhaps.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was responding to another poster, and repeating his own words(Rapture era #543), "When we die (and none of us knows when that will be) that's it, your eternity is sealed. Good luck!". I took "that is it" as an idiom for the cessation of life forever. Not, as a scientific statement of fact. I also disagree that the only true dichotomies are conceptual. I think pregnant, not pregnant, dead, not dead, living, non-living, are all true logical dichotomies. But you are correct, and I do accept that death is the cessation of life. I also accept that when you die, that's it, as well.

I have no problem that you accept it, I just do not know it as an objective fact. As I said, or I hope I said this, I recognize the physical conditions associated with death and have a reasonable awareness of what we know about consciousness and the brain, but I do not know that we are seeing a complete picture and not just the physical side only. Maybe that is it. Maybe I have misinterpreted personal experiences that I thought meant one thing, but were only manifestations of emotion and physiology. I do not know and I think of the possibilities. If it turns out that I am wrong, I am not so sure that I would be that bothered by it either. Not much I could do about it in anyway.

This goes to that view of absolutes that I was meandering around about in my previous post.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That sounds fantastic! If we can agree on nothing else, I think we have found some vast common ground here.

When are you making your next batch? I am not going to ask where you are, just get me within 500 miles and I will let my rib senses finish the trip. LOL!

My next batch will be grilled(not boiled) for my community's Easter bash. They are always a hit. It is just one of my secular contributions to a sea of mixed beliefs. I'm not that good with words, so I let my ribs do all the talking for me. Maybe we can discuss this more, outside of general forum?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I agree with everything you say here, except I would not have thought to include hay as a potential precursor to life. Of course, it is non-living. Take this with the humor that is intended. I assume all the recent discussion of spontaneous generation creationism probably lent a little contamination to your list.

I find the current penchant of creationist to swap out evolve with the word adaptation, and basically accept examples of evolution as long as adaptation is used, to be very amusing. The adaptation they are accepting is evolution.

As far as can be determined using science, all living organisms are examples of living things that cannot be linked to an intelligent designer.

It is a strange notion that lack of full understanding of a phenomenon automatically assumes the creationist default position and without need of evidence to demonstrate it either.

I see no reason that Christians should feel threatened by valid knowledge of the universe, when the only stipulation on their belief is acceptance of Christ. Biology and the study of it do not say anything about Christ at all. It is the creationist variety of Christian that has added a whole bunch of restrictions to their religion, and against their own claims of how the Bible should be viewed, that cause them a lot of problems. It is a self-induced feeling of threat.

Totally agree.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My next batch will be grilled(not boiled) for my community's Easter bash. They are always a hit. It is just one of my secular contributions to a sea of mixed beliefs. I'm not that good with words, so I let my ribs do all the talking for me. Maybe we can discuss this more, outside of general forum?

I cannot say what kind of public speaker you are, but I do not find any fault with your ability to use words here. You have executed your ideas very well.

It's possible. Not something I do often, but that is because it is rarely suggested. I've only had one other personal invite and I still need to do something about that (an unrelated topic, but also one dear to my heart).

I love Easter, but I find the co-evolution with pagan origins amusing given how it is embraced as a 'purely' Christian holiday, but then I think...Christmas.

Shoot me a message when you have the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My next batch will be grilled(not boiled) for my community's Easter bash. They are always a hit. It is just one of my secular contributions to a sea of mixed beliefs. I'm not that good with words, so I let my ribs do all the talking for me. Maybe we can discuss this more, outside of general forum?

You could start a thread in the food and beverage forum. My next food related purchase is apt to be smoker.

 

[Misunderstood]

@Misunderstood , I thought you'd like this:

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist/

Thanks for that. I had not seen that before, so thanks for sharing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for that. I had not seen that before, so thanks for sharing.

Can you tell me why you would trust a source that has been shown to be dishonest and has never corrected their past behavior?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

If I find a strictly religious discussion that interests me, I would participate, but I am here mainly to discuss science and the attempts to subvert it using religion. In discussions about science, my personal views have no context and standing and considering my proclivity to keep them out of science, that fact fits well with me. Yet, it seems it is a subject that cannot be avoided in more detail.

What I have noticed in forums like this is that those with a religious position, generally have a problem with the answer "I or We do not know". They have, what I would describe as a need in an uncertain world, for absolutes. They live by it and cannot accept anything short of it in their personal world views. I think this puts them beyond the ability to fully understand the world around them or limits that understanding. A fancy way of describing the condition called a closed mind perhaps.

On the other hand, I do not regularly see this need expressed by atheists or even agnostics and I think that I should have expected it to be of lower incidence in those groups before I even started taking note. Though, it is not completely absent, since we are talking about people here. These groups generally support intellectual curiosity, discovery and conclusion based on evidence and not on belief. You may not agree that I am complete in my description of those groups, but I think you would agree that the points I capture here would be included in some much fuller description.

What I wonder is, if there is room for another group with a religious philosophy and the ability to say "I do not know", coupled with the intellectual curiosity and honesty to look beyond for answers and not lie to themselves so that they can cling to dogma. People that believe there may be something more than this world, the universe and the physical laws that govern it, but also recognize that they do not have all the answers and see no threat to their personal belief in seeking those answers.

As I set here writing this, my mind is wandering through ideas and how to articulate them, but this may be the best I can do now without trying to write a book or drift off on tangents that are possibly interesting, but not to the point.

I have some ideas, but all I can say is "I do not know". But I am willing to find out. That may be the best that I can say about my interest here. It is another place to explore. To learn. To gain knowledge and change or reinforce that which I already have obtained.

One last remark, before I close and this will get me in hot water with the creationist Christians on this forum, but I have found it to be true almost everywhere I have looked. For a Christian to have discussions like this, he or she must turn to the atheists and agnostics, because as a group they have the characteristics I mentioned and are often, though not absolutely always, willing to join in a discussion like this. They have their biases like I do, but they tend to speak in facts, known information, and are clear when speculating and do not so often turn that speculation into facts. I have found this in some other Christians, but much more rarely and never on an internet forum. I await to be surprised there as well and have my absolute on that shattered to, perhaps.

I apologize if I have missed any of your posts. I will hopefully get to them all. I respect the beliefs of others, even though I may not always agree with them. I personally believe in a universal consciousness. That is, an objective reality that can only exist if a subjective mind exists. Reality will use any subjective mind to maintain its existence. Therefore, reality must always maintain and use a subjective perspective. This seems logically sound to me, but not so sound to others. But it is still my belief. If I am right, then when I die, I will simply inherit another subjective consciousness to maintain the existence of an objective reality. If I am wrong, well we have all been there before, that is, before we were born. Haven't we?

I think the addition of hay as a precursor to life, was indeed a senior's moment. And, I waited too long to change it. In hindsight, I have no idea where that came from. It may have been a mouse-hay association.

Again, I couldn't agree more. And you certainly have the right to your own beliefs. What I find refreshing is, unlike other believers, you do not pretend to justify your belief, by using fallacious arguments, contorted reasoning, attacking science, or creating imaginary facts(Bible) to support it. You simply are a Christian that believes in Jesus and God, because you want to, and simply believe that you are right to do so. You do not claim to have any special knowledge, or special revelations, that many others do. You do not proselytize to convince others that they are wrong to disbelieve. And, you are willing to speak out against superstitions, mythical, paranormal, and supernatural claims. It is also true that you are not threatened by the advancement of knowledge by science, that only addresses certainty, not absolutes. I would not only say that your views are refreshing, but that they are honest.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

When I took my first biology class in 1980, I was taught following the model of what life is that is based on Schwann I think. I could be wrong on whose list we were using, but you may recognize it as including, growth, metabolism, response to stimuli, adaptation, reproduction and evolution (a partly complete list, but I am sure you will recognize it). In any event, under those criteria and how I was initially introduced to virus biology, they were not considered to alive. Incidentally, the teacher that taught me this was a PhD zoologist that was also a lay speaker in my church.

Later, in college, I was surprised to learn that the paradigm had changed and viruses were being studied under the view that they are living organisms.

Of course, there is no agreed upon view of what life is, but it certainly must include most of the criteria I listed. To include viruses, all one has to do is extend and modify the view of reproduction.

I disagree with you on spontaneous generation. I consider it a creationist belief (discredited by science) and I think that history and the evidence support my view.

Now it is a ploy used by creationists to abuse and reject science.

I did not get the meaning of your last line about responding to the person and not the thread. I will have to review our conversation to see what you mean here. It may be obvious, but I am not going to credit myself with always seeing that.

There are two points to address. Where in the creationist Doctrine is spontaneous generation even mentioned as being part of their system of belief? I doubt if any creationist would claim anything as their belief, that has already been discredited by science. Maybe we are confusing the terms belief and understanding. They use spontaneous generation erroneously as a creationist soundbite to discredit and deflate the validity and influence of science. They certainly don't believe that something did come from nothing(except by the will of God). It is not their belief in the "Cambrian Explosion", the transitional fossils, or the different radiometric dating methods, that they use to exploit any margins of error in science. It is their understanding of these ideas that they use to exploit these uncertainties. This includes using spontaneous generation to demonstrate, insinuate, imply, and infer why science is not reliable. Of course they are falsely assuming that they can create a false dichotomy, that if science is wrong, then the supernatural is the only other alternative. "I don't know" for them, is not a rational option.

Secondly, when I was saying that I respond to the person, and not the thread, I am saying that I respond only to the comments that a person makes. This means that if you were talking about the freedoms guaranteed to us by our constitution to illustrate your point, then my comments will include your illustrations. Regardless, if it is consistent with the thread. This would be impolite, as well as intellectually dishonest to ignore its relevance. I understand that we sometimes need to use facts, data, and other information, to prove, or give clarity to our ideas.

Hope my message is clearer.