The Miracle of Water.

[nPeace]

I never said I do not like youtube videos. What I said is that I do not debate youtube videos.

So, you will have to use your own words and brain.

Ciao

- viole

Thank you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree that faith does enhance knowledge, but I am almost certain they are not telling you that faith precedes knowledge. There are things that faith follows.

Well, that would make you wrong. The poster has said many times that, “God reveals himself only to those with faith.” Sorry.

The Bible says, "without faith it is impossible to please God well, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him." Hebrews 11:6

Another text says, "For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!”

Nevertheless, they did not all obey the good news. For Isaiah says: “Jehovah, who has put faith in the thing heard from us?” So faith follows the thing heard. In turn, what is heard is through the word about Christ. Romans 10:13-17

One thing is made clear here. Faith is based on knowledge gained through the senses - what one sees, perceives, experiences (tastes - Psalms 34:8), hears, understands, reasons on, etc.

So going back to the high vaulter.

Through the use of his senses, he has knowledge of physics, and he uses his experience gained from what he sees, or have seen, which gives him faith in the reality, though at present he does not see it.

Hebrews 11:1-3

1 Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen. 2 For by means of it, the men of ancient times had witness borne to them. 3 By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God’s word, so that what is seen has come into existence from things that are not visible.

Great! This is opinion number 8,765 about what someone thinks God says or wants. How can we really know?

Can you point out how any of this shows that faith actually enhances knowledge? All I’m seeing here is, “just have faith and it will become clear to you that God exists and created everything.” You have managed to back up the Poster’s claim about faith preceding “knowledge.”

Here, we don't assume that something came from nothing, but the evidence of an intelligent creator is seen in the design in nature.

Funny how nobody has ever been able to show that any creator exists at all. It’s not like Christians haven’t been trying for centuries, right? What’s the problem?

I don’t see design in nature. Others see Allah’s design in nature. Others see Vishnu’s design in nature. What tests can we carry out to determine who is right? Quoting the Bible doesn’t get us there.

I'm sure you will not understand the statements to follow, but there is only one way you will, and that's entirely up to you.

I’m usually pretty good at understanding the written word, but thanks for your vote of confidence.

Quote...

For I am not ashamed of the good news; it is, in fact, God’s power for salvation to everyone having faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it God’s righteousness is being revealed by faith and for faith, just as it is written: “But the righteous one will live by reason of faith.” Unquote... The apostle Paul - Romans 1:16, 17


However, the following should be easier to grasp. It connects the above, and clarifies, but still...

For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles. - Romans 1:18-23

That’s pretty funny. The Bible doesn’t offer any more evidence than you do.

I’m not sure what the Bible study is all about. Especially since I don’t put any stock in it. You believe a different thing about faith than someone else who practices religion. So what else is new?

What we see, and perceive, coupled with what we hear, taste - our experiences, along with our use of reason and logic, we arrive at conclusions that are in line with fact - such as cause and effect.

Hebrews 3:4

You see God, I don’t. How do we determine who is actually right, and how does faith help in that determination?

Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

Oh boy, more empty assertions. “Houses are built by people, therefore the universe has a creator.” Come on now.

These allow us to have faith in God, and the more our faith is enhanced, the more our knowledge is enhanced, and the more our knowledge is enhanced, .... well, you get the picture.

It sounds like faith is absolutely useless in a knowledge-seeking quest.

Can you demonstrate that your “knowledge is enhanced” by having faith? In what way(s)? No Bible quotes please.

To summarize,

Like the vaulter, we do not see the reality, but our knowledge of law of causality, along with the other laws, which the facts show, require a law maker. Laws are fixed, not random. What accounts for them?

That’s all fine and dandy until I ask a Christian where God comes from. Then suddenly, causality goes out the window.

This discussion is about faith being a pathway to knowledge. Does faith answer the question about where laws come from? Nope.

What accounts for the orderly system? What accounts for the information directing living systems? There are more questions than answers in the naturalist corner, it seems.

What we know from experience, past and present, and what we have learned, and come to accept as truth... all allow us to have faith.

Just further inquiry and investigation. Faith adds nothing in terms of knowledge.

How does having faith answer any of those questions in any way? Other than “I don’t know, it must be God!” that is. That’s not an answer that has any kind of explanatory power whatsoever. Never mind how you’d go about demonstrating it’s the actual God you personally believe in.

You told me that I misinterpreted your argument when I pointed out that it was nothing more than a fallacious argument from incredulity, and here you are making it again.

Is faith a pathway to truth? Definitely.

How?

However, an understanding and acceptance of the truth is also a pathway to faith.

Do you understand that, though?

I don’t see how you’ve demonstrated how. I mean, you’ve just added more unsubstantiated assertions. I don’t care where they’re from – Bible or not – they’re still just assertions.

I find that skeptics are reluctant to say they have the faith they accuse Christians of having, yet they do not see any reality of what they hope for, and believe in.

Because I don’t have that kind of faith - that’s how I can say I don’t have it.

I’ve discovered all kinds of things about the world; all without any faith in God whatsoever.

How do you explain that you don't have, as they put it, "blind faith"?

I don’t have it. What’s to explain?

 

[SkepticThinker]

But SkepticThinker, reproduction and adaptation has been going on for how long now, and has been a fact for centuries before modern science. What has changed now? Is it that a fancy name was given to the processes?

What?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Laws are fixed, not random.

That's probably a necessary condition of life and mind evolving in a godless universe. A universe governed by a divine puppetmaster doesn't need laws at all, much less regular ones.

What we know from experience, past and present, and what we have learned, and come to accept as truth... all allow us to have faith.

What we learn from experience - justified belief - should not be embellished with unsupported beliefs. Also, the two should not both be called by the same word, faith. Doing so no more makes them the same thing than naming two daughters Faith makes them the same person. It merely creates confusion and ambiguity.

Is faith a pathway to truth? Definitely.

This is what faith does to truth:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

However, an understanding and acceptance of the truth is also a pathway to faith.

Not a journey I care to take. I consider faith (unjustified belief) a logical error that predisposes us to making physical errors as we wend our way through the landscape of life. Like any pilot or navigator, one need an accurate map of reality to navigate it successfully.

I find that skeptics are reluctant to say they have the faith they accuse Christians of having

Because we don't.

Part of my transition from Christian to secular humanist entailed reexamining the things I believed to see which if any were unjustified beliefs. If a belief was unjustified, it was no longer believed. I am not aware of any belief about reality that I presently possess that isn't justified by evidence, which is sometimes merely experience that an idea works. I discarded the practice of prayer because there was no evidence to support its efficacy and plenty against.

Our unwillingness to believe by faith is also why most secular humanists are not climate deniers. One can only ignore the evidence and believe that it is wrongly interpreted by faith.

Believing by faith is not a virtue. It is a logical error. It's like drawing roads on your internal map of life that aren't out there, or omitting ones that are based only on your desire that reality be that way. It's not difficult to see how that can mislead one.

yet they do not see any reality of what they hope for, and believe in.

Perhaps you should ask what we see, what we hope for, and what we believe, rather than telling us. You might have a better understanding of who we really are, and how we decide what is true and what is morally right. Many others have told these threads what that is, and likely will again.

I see exactly what I expect to see. The world is working as I understand it to work. My hope is for life to get better on earth for all sentient creatures. My personal hope is to continue life as is. Right now, I'm anticipating a turkey and stuffing dinner for Thanksgiving, but no faith is required. Experience is the evidence that under these circumstances, when invited to a traditional holiday dinner described as a turkey dinner with stuffing, I can expect turkey and stuffing. That's not faith as in unjustified belief. The belief is justified.

Being a student of reality, I am also aware that this may not come to pass for a variety of foreseeable and unforeseeable reasons, but that such things all together probably don't add up to a 5% chance of my prediction not coming to pass.

This has been a successful way of viewing and interacting with reality. Religion took me on a different path, one that was less intellectually and morally satisfying

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's probably a necessary condition of live and mind evolving in a godless universe. A universe governed by a divine puppetmaster doesn't need laws at all, much less regular ones.



What we learn from experience - justified belief - should not be embellished with unsupported beliefs. Also, the two should not both be called by the same word, faith. Doing so no more makes them the same thing than naming two daughters Faith makes them the same person. It merely creates confusion and ambiguity.



This is what faith does to truth:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa



Not a journey I care to take. I consider faith (unjustified belief) a logical error that predisposes us to making physical errors as we wend our way through the landscape of life. Like any pilot or navigator, one need an accurate map of reality to navigate it successfully.



Because we don't.

Part of my transition from Christian to secular humanist entailed reexamining the things I believed to see which if any were unjustified beliefs. If a belief was unjustified, it was no longer believed. I am not aware of any belief about reality that I presently possess that isn't justified by evidence, which is sometimes merely experience that an idea works. I discarded the practice of prayer because there was no evidence to support its efficacy and plenty against.

Our unwillingness to believe by faith is also why most secular humanists are not climate deniers. One can only ignore the evidence and believe that it is wrongly interpreted by faith.

Believing by faith is not a virtue. It is a logical error. It's like drawing roads on your internal map of life that aren't out there, or omitting ones that are based only on your desire that reality be that way. It's not difficult to see how that can mislead one.



Perhaps you should ask what we see, what we hope for, and what we believe, rather than telling us. You might have a better understanding of who we really are, and how we decide what is true and what is morally right. Many others have told these threads what that is, and likely will again.

I see exactly what I expect to see. The world is working as I understand it to work. My hope is for life to get better on earth for all sentient creatures. My personal hope is to continue life as is. Right now, I'm anticipating a turkey and stuffing dinner for Thanksgiving, but no faith is required. Experience is the evidence that under these circumstances, when invited to a traditional holiday dinner described as a turkey dinner with stuffing, I can expect turkey and stuffing. That's not faith as in unjustified belief. The belief is justified.

Being a student of reality, I am also aware that this may not come to pass for a variety of foreseeable and unforeseeable reasons, but that such things all together probably don't add up to a 5% chance of my prediction not coming to pass.

This has been a successful way of viewing and interacting with reality. Religion took me on a different path, one that was less intellectually and morally satisfying

Great points. I'd rather go with this than with what I said.

 

[nPeace]

Well, that would make you wrong. The poster has said many times that, “God reveals himself only to those with faith.” Sorry.



Great! This is opinion number 8,765 about what someone thinks God says or wants. How can we really know?

Can you point out how any of this shows that faith actually enhances knowledge? All I’m seeing here is, “just have faith and it will become clear to you that God exists and created everything.” You have managed to back up the Poster’s claim about faith preceding “knowledge.”




Funny how nobody has ever been able to show that any creator exists at all. It’s not like Christians haven’t been trying for centuries, right? What’s the problem?

I don’t see design in nature. Others see Allah’s design in nature. Others see Vishnu’s design in nature. What tests can we carry out to determine who is right? Quoting the Bible doesn’t get us there.



I’m usually pretty good at understanding the written word, but thanks for your vote of confidence.



That’s pretty funny. The Bible doesn’t offer any more evidence than you do.

I’m not sure what the Bible study is all about. Especially since I don’t put any stock in it. You believe a different thing about faith than someone else who practices religion. So what else is new?



You see God, I don’t. How do we determine who is actually right, and how does faith help in that determination?




Oh boy, more empty assertions. “Houses are built by people, therefore the universe has a creator.” Come on now.



It sounds like faith is absolutely useless in a knowledge-seeking quest.

Can you demonstrate that your “knowledge is enhanced” by having faith? In what way(s)? No Bible quotes please.



That’s all fine and dandy until I ask a Christian where God comes from. Then suddenly, causality goes out the window.

This discussion is about faith being a pathway to knowledge. Does faith answer the question about where laws come from? Nope.



Just further inquiry and investigation. Faith adds nothing in terms of knowledge.

How does having faith answer any of those questions in any way? Other than “I don’t know, it must be God!” that is. That’s not an answer that has any kind of explanatory power whatsoever. Never mind how you’d go about demonstrating it’s the actual God you personally believe in.

You told me that I misinterpreted your argument when I pointed out that it was nothing more than a fallacious argument from incredulity, and here you are making it again.



How?



I don’t see how you’ve demonstrated how. I mean, you’ve just added more unsubstantiated assertions. I don’t care where they’re from – Bible or not – they’re still just assertions.



Because I don’t have that kind of faith - that’s how I can say I don’t have it.

I’ve discovered all kinds of things about the world; all without any faith in God whatsoever.



I don’t have it. What’s to explain?

First of all, SkepticThinker you dogmatically assume that you are right about what the poster believes. I am almost certain that the person doesn't believe that an empty brain led them to faith.

Secondly, I am not trying to convince anyone that God is, as skeptics are trying to convince themselves and others that God doesn't exist.
I politely answer questions asked, but seeing that you are asking for someone to convince you, I think you are going about it the wrong way.
God is not a dog that someone can or will fetch for you.
Like I said, you would not understand the text in Romans, and it's clear you didn't. So there is nothing I can say to help you.

God is not physical, and subject to you or your demands. Nor is he subject to man's puny instruments.

You can't answer or explain anything, only ask questions? Okay. Your questions have been satisfactorily answered.

 

[nPeace]

That's probably a necessary condition of live and mind evolving in a godless universe. A universe governed by a divine puppetmaster doesn't need laws at all, much less regular ones.

All that to say laws do not require a lawgiver?

What we learn from experience - justified belief - should not be embellished with unsupported beliefs. Also, the two should not both be called by the same word, faith. Doing so no more makes them the same thing than naming two daughters Faith makes them the same person. It merely creates confusion and ambiguity.

unsupported beliefs? I agree.

This is what faith does to truth:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

Funny. That sounds more like evolution theory -
"There is design in nature, but it needs no designer."
" Laws exists in the universe, but it does not require a lawgiver."
"Life required precisely guided instructions, following precise rules, but no intelligence was responsible."

On the other hand, the Bible is not the only means of knowledge. It is just one.
Nature reveals so much truth.

Not a journey I care to take. I consider faith (unjustified belief) a logical error that predisposes us to making physical errors as we wend our way through the landscape of life. Like any pilot or navigator, one need an accurate map of reality to navigate it successfully.

unjustified belief? Well that's the faith I mentioned skeptics talk about, but it's not the faith mentioned in the scriptures.

Because we don't.

Part of my transition from Christian to secular humanist entailed reexamining the things I believed to see which if any were unjustified beliefs. If a belief was unjustified, it was no longer believed. I am not aware of any belief about reality that I presently possess that isn't justified by evidence, which is sometimes merely experience that an idea works. I discarded the practice of prayer because there was no evidence to support its efficacy and plenty against.

Our unwillingness to believe by faith is also why most secular humanists are not climate deniers. One can only ignore the evidence and believe that it is wrongly interpreted by faith.

Believing by faith is not a virtue. It is a logical error. It's like drawing roads on your internal map of life that aren't out there, or omitting ones that are based only on your desire that reality be that way. It's not difficult to see how that can mislead one.

Perhaps you should ask what we see, what we hope for, and what we believe, rather than telling us. You might have a better understanding of who we really are, and how we decide what is true and what is morally right. Many others have told these threads what that is, and likely will again.

I see exactly what I expect to see. The world is working as I understand it to work. My hope is for life to get better on earth for all sentient creatures. My personal hope is to continue life as is. Right now, I'm anticipating a turkey and stuffing dinner for Thanksgiving, but no faith is required. Experience is the evidence that under these circumstances, when invited to a traditional holiday dinner described as a turkey dinner with stuffing, I can expect turkey and stuffing. That's not faith as in unjustified belief. The belief is justified.

Being a student of reality, I am also aware that this may not come to pass for a variety of foreseeable and unforeseeable reasons, but that such things all together probably don't add up to a 5% chance of my prediction not coming to pass.

This has been a successful way of viewing and interacting with reality. Religion took me on a different path, one that was less intellectually and morally satisfying

You are on a different path apparently. I had none of that in mind.

 

[Polymath257]

All that to say laws do not require a lawgiver?

Human laws require a lawgiver. Such laws are not descriptive, but are proscriptive: they say what should or should not be done as opposed to describing how things are.

Natural laws, on the other hand, are descriptive, not proscriptive. They describe how things work. No intelligence is required for there to be natural laws: the only requirement is that things have properties that determine how they act.

And, the fundamental laws *cannot* have a cause. Why not? Because any cause would have to explain the origin of the laws and would then be a *more* fundamental law. All we can say about fundamental laws, if such exist, is simply that they are how they are.

 

[Deeje]

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Who shouts the loudest or who has the biggest stick is not a good way to ascertain truth....is it?
Science, like other branches of human study is by and large ego driven....the more educated one becomes, the bigger the ego becomes, and the less likely one is to suffer "fools" (anyone who disagrees) gladly....the trouble is, its sometimes hard to figure out who is the bigger fool......and money figures in there too I think, so there is a lot of incentive to drive what generates the most acclaim and the biggest financial reward.

I am not presuming. I am considering the full range of possibilities. I said it *may* be the case that time is infinite into the past and it *may* not be the case. Both possibilities need to be considered. In the first case, there *may* be an infinite sequences of causes with no first cause. These are some of the logical possibilities and they need to be considered before making a conclusion.

I see that scientists like those words "may be"...."might have"...."could have"...."leads us to the conclusion that..." This is not the language of fact, but the language of supposition. Facts are truth, not "maybe's"

Humans are 'spiritual' because they like to attribute causes to actors. They invent deities to explain natural phenomena when they cannot: thunder gods, storm gods, etc and even invent a one-god to narraw the range of supplications they need to make.

All that means is that collectively, no matter what culture or in what continent, humans have the need to worship. If humans evolved, at what point did they become "human" enough to develop this need?

I don't know when animals began to worship. Most likely when they came to be aware of death. We have evidence of purposeful burials before there were even modern humans.

Animals do not worship like humans do. They never have. It has never been observed. As for their awareness of death, that could be attributed to a challenge to their instinctive programming. Animals that live in family troupes like monkeys, apes and elephants are all programmed to operate as a troupe, each as part of a collective forming relationships with the whole "family", they do not act as individuals. Each has their place in the arrangement. When one of them dies, the arrangement is altered. Awareness of death in those animals is nothing like ours. We are the only creatures who can contemplate our own death or the potential death of loved ones, even before it happens.

Can I have references for purposeful burials before there were modern humans? What does science consider to be "modern humans"? At what point did they stop being apes? Does science have a test for that?

In that case, the possibility can be ignored by scientists. No testing, no science.

Oh, so that just wipes out the whole second part of the evolution theory then. There is no way to test for macro-evolution....all of the science is based on micro-evolution and anything outside of what is testable and demonstrable is nothing but educated guesswork. No testing, no science...you said it.

But proving ideas wrong is good enough for many situations. There was no global flood, for example. That is an idea that has been proved wrong.

There is a thread on here at the moment about that.

The universe is billions of years old, not thousands.

We agree. Not being YEC's we can see clearly that the universe is indeed ancient, being created by a Being who is outside of time. We also see the creative periods as being perhaps millions of years in length, long enough for the Creator to experiment with life forms within that period, till he had worked it out to his satisfaction.....hence the declaration at the end of each "day" that everything was "good". He must have been especially pleased after the creation of man because his declaration was enhanced to "very good" at the end of the 6th day.

The 7th day saw God rest from his creative works and was reserved for ironing out the bugs that would naturally flow on from giving his human creation free will.......and it is still in progress according to our beliefs.

Species change over geological time (which is called evolution).

Adaptation sees many more varieties added to specific taxonomic families, but I am unaware of any proof that one species can evolve into a completely different taxa. There is no way to test that......so no testing, no science. Right? This is where you need to separate assumptions from facts.

No, being alone doesn't prove you wrong. Being against the facts does.

There are no "facts" in macro-evolutionary science....so what facts are you talking about? All the facts are seen in micro-evolution which we have no problem with at all. You can't use one to prove the other.

 

[Deeje]

You got the timing backwards. The Babylonian myths are what gave rise to Genesis.

LOL who told you that? The writer of Genesis was given information about the creation of the universe....I seem to recall it saying that Babylon was not even built until the second rebellion began with Nimrod...the founder and builder of that city, which is synonymous with false worship. Most of the beliefs in many different religious cultures can trace their practices and teachings back to ancient Babylon...including Christendom.

If there was proof for a deity, evolution would stay exactly as it is. So would cosmology, etc. All that would change is that there would be a deity mixed into consideration.

You make me smile.....proof for a deity would make scientists look like fools. Evolution would be proven to be a huge mistake. It would make them realize how infantile they really are in the big scheme of things. The Emperor would realize that he is naked.

What would it take to prove it? For creation of the universe? How about a message in the cosmic background radiation, clearly present at a variety of wavelengths that encodes the first book of Genesis? That would be quite convincing. Or perhaps a collection of pulsars that are perfectly in synchrony as viewed from the Earth that spell out alpha and omega in our sky? That would be pretty dramatic.

God is not one to have to prove himself to anyone. His creation is proof enough for many of us....more proof than we need even....so the spiritually minded do not need any more proof than that......its the old story.....for some, no proof is necessary...for others, no proof is enough. We are in different camps is all.

The timing of the radioactive decay of a nucleus is uncaused. Most quantum level events are uncaused (in the sense that nothing happened just before them that made them happen).

Decay is a process that is caused is it not? The process has to have a beginning, in order to have an end.....doesn't it? Who said the timing of radioactive decay of a nucleus is uncaused? Who knows for sure that quantum level events are uncaused.....or could it be a matter of simply not yet knowing the cause?

And I see it as a good thing that we have gotten away from superstitions and fairy tales.

Yes, the fairy tales and superstition had to go.....but since the Creator was never party to any of that, throwing him away too is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There have been other times in the past and other cultures where 'godlessness' was common. Typically those times when people are well educated. Hmmm...makes sense.

References for these too please. What educated cultures of the past were there that had no deities? They are rare and relatively modern AFAIK, and not terribly successful in other areas of human activity....dreadful dictatorships with despots at the helm and lots of disposable slave labor. Is that a good trade?

Yes, I know that many theists love their little persecution myths. They can feel special because their deity will save *them* and everyone else won't be in their club. They comfort themselves by being in this persecuted club and saying their deity favors them.

I wouldn't put it quite like that...but lets just say that the Bible acknowledges two camps, each with their own god. It says that those in one camp will live, whereas those in the other will not. But we choose which camp to live in. That sounds fair to me. God does not eliminate us arbitrarily, but allows us to choose our own path to life or death.

And creationists don't see that there are no barriers to adaptation to the degree new species are formed and new capabilities will arise. It is *all* adaptation, but over more generations than you are willing to consider.

But there are. Genetic barriers exist in all species. Adaptation never alters the taxonomy. There never were land-bound walking whales.....and you cannot prove that they ever existed. All you have a similar looking creatures, millions of years apart that are assumed to be related. There is no proof that they are not separately created creatures.

If you have an actual objection to the conclusion of science, propose a specific test that will show them wrong.

There is no test designed by puny humans that will reveal the existence of the Creator. He is immaterial, invisible and more intelligent than anything he created either in heaven or on earth. He gave humans his qualities in a mortal body so that they could act as his representative here.....caretakers of all that he made......what a horrible disappointment we must be to him. This is why we have to prove ourselves to qualify for citizenship in his Kingdom. He is seeking only certain kinds of people to become citizens of planet earth for all eternity to come. The qualifications have to include the ability to humbly do as he instructs.....to love him for the generous benefactor that he is and to care for the planet and each other unselfishly. You can see why that excludes a lot of people. It isn't forced, but comes from exercising free will in the right way.

This is how I see the big picture.

 

[Polymath257]

LOL who told you that? The writer of Genesis was given information about the creation of the universe....I seem to recall it saying that Babylon was not even built until the second rebellion began with Nimrod...the founder and builder of that city, which is synonymous with false worship. Most of the beliefs in many different religious cultures can trace their practices and teachings back to ancient Babylon...including Christendom.

Too bad actual history disagrees with this view.

You make me smile.....proof for a deity would make scientists look like fools. Evolution would be proven to be a huge mistake. It would make them realize how infantile they really are in the big scheme of things. The Emperor would realize that he is naked.

If you really think that, you don't have any real understanding of how science works. The existence of a deity would not disprove evolution. it would not show the Big bang theory to be false. All it would do (at most) is show some intelligence put evolution and cosmic expansion into play.

God is not one to have to prove himself to anyone. His creation is proof enough for many of us....more proof than we need even....so the spiritually minded do not need any more proof than that......its the old story.....for some, no proof is necessary...for others, no proof is enough. We are in different camps is all.

Decay is a process that is caused is it not? The process has to have a beginning, in order to have an end.....doesn't it? Who said the timing of radioactive decay of a nucleus is uncaused? Who knows for sure that quantum level events are uncaused.....or could it be a matter of simply not yet knowing the cause?

No, there are actual uncaused events. The atom of uranium that decays today is indistinguishable in every way from the atom that won't decay for a billion years. There is no difference here to *be* a cause for one and not have the other have the same effect.

Furthermore, *most* quantum events are like this. It is *not* simply that a we don't know a cause. We know there is not a cause because causality itself leads to testable predictions. Those predictions have been shown to be wrong.

Yes, the fairy tales and superstition had to go.....but since the Creator was never party to any of that, throwing him away too is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I disagree. Fairy tales of deities and super powers and universe creation are *exactly* what need to go. In addition, the false morality that is simply self-promotion in the eyes of an imaginary superman needs to go.

I wouldn't put it quite like that...but lets just say that the Bible acknowledges two camps, each with their own god. It says that those in one camp will live, whereas those in the other will not. But we choose which camp to live in. That sounds fair to me. God does not eliminate us arbitrarily, but allows us to choose our own path to life or death.

of course it sets it up like that. It was written to uphold the power of those promoting a particular set of superstitions.

But there are. Genetic barriers exist in all species.

Well, now, *this* is a testable thing. Remembering that mutation can provide new variation, I would *love* to see evidence for a genetic barrier to the degree of adaptation over many generations.

Adaptation never alters the taxonomy. There never were land-bound walking whales.....and you cannot prove that they ever existed. All you have a similar looking creatures, millions of years apart that are assumed to be related. There is no proof that they are not separately created creatures.

Well, we know animals reproduce. To ask for as many different 'separate creations' over so many different periods of time, all having similar characteristics to previously existing species, seems a bit shall we say, illogical given that we know species reproduce, thay they have natural variations in populations, that natural selection and mutation can provide large scale changes over many generations, etc.

There is no test designed by puny humans that will reveal the existence of the Creator. He is immaterial, invisible and more intelligent than anything he created either in heaven or on earth. He gave humans his qualities in a mortal body so that they could act as his representative here.....caretakers of all that he made......what a horrible disappointment we must be to him. This is why we have to prove ourselves to qualify for citizenship in his Kingdom. He is seeking only certain kinds of people to become citizens of planet earth for all eternity to come. The qualifications have to include the ability to humbly do as he instructs.....to love him for the generous benefactor that he is and to care for the planet and each other unselfishly. You can see why that excludes a lot of people. It isn't forced, but comes from exercising free will in the right way.

Sorry. No testability. No science. It is really that easy. if you ideas about your deity cannot be tested, then they are your opinions and only that.

This is how I see the big picture.

OK, have fun. Playing with such myths has never appealed to me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science, like other branches of human study is by and large ego driven

There are actually noble people who have no ego problems. You seem to be unaware of this, as well as the ethics of academia. Something has made you excessively cynical.

the more educated one becomes, the bigger the ego becomes

That same something seems to have made you anti-intellectual as well. Where could a disdain for humanity and education come from?

money figures in there too I think

Of course you do. You might benefit to know that there are people in this world who can't be made to betray themselves or others for money.

I see that scientists like those words "may be"...."might have"...."could have"...."leads us to the conclusion that..." This is not the language of fact, but the language of supposition

It is the language of knowledge. Science works. It is useful. The alternative you offer is not, and does not. What else does one need to know to choose between these two methods of understanding reality? Which one can predict reality? Which can be used to improve the human condition? Show us how scripture helps us predict or explain the tides, put telescopes into space, or find vaccines.

Religion can't compete with that.

All that means is that collectively, no matter what culture or in what continent, humans have the need to worship

The uneducated ones, perhaps. Plenty of well-educated, physically and financially secure modern people have transcended that. They consider worshiping unbefitting mankind.

Can I have references for purposeful burials before there were modern humans?

Yeah. Google.

At what point did they stop being apes?

Still? You still can't answer this?

proof for a deity would make scientists look like fools

The way that the complete lack of evidence for deities makes those who believe in them anyway look like fools? Yeah, probably.

God is not one to have to prove himself to anyone

No evidence, no belief. Those are the terms for all alleged gods.

There is no test designed by puny humans that will reveal the existence of the Creator.

There are no tests for puny gods.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Before I thought no one would defend the 2 + 2 = 5 reference, if it was written in the bible. Now I am convinced that religious people will. Cognitive and confirmation biases are very powerful motivators for certain vulnerable mindsets.

 

[Deeje]

Too bad actual history disagrees with this view.

Actual history was recorded by people who have been known to lie through their teeth. American history is rife with things that are not true. Australian history is likewise told to make the white men look like the good guys. We know they weren't. Indigenous people tell a completely different story. Its just that no one wanted to burst the good white guy bubble.

Egyptian rulers were notorious for never recording their defeats...only their victories. You really want to rely on history?

If you really think that, you don't have any real understanding of how science works.

How science works?......I know how science works all too well. I know that the word "theory" in science is completely different to a dictionary definition.....I wonder why?

"THEORY: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion;
opinion, view, belief, thinking, thought(s), judgement, contention."

You want to cry "foul" on that one?

The existence of a deity would not disprove evolution. it would not show the Big bang theory to be false. All it would do (at most) is show some intelligence put evolution and cosmic expansion into play.

Are you serious? If that deity was the God of the Bible....you know, the one that scientists disparage as a myth or a superstition....if that deity, who claims to have directly created all the lifeforms that exist on this planet (and indeed in the whole Universe) is real.....then he would give them back the ridicule that they have given him...in spades....and then I believe he will terminate their membership of the human race for the damage they have done to his name and reputation. You don't have to believe that of course....but its what the Bible says is true? I have no reason to doubt it.

Fairy tales of deities and super powers and universe creation are *exactly* what need to go.

I agree that fairy tales need to go....but you assume that the Creator is a mythical creation of man....I believe he is as real as you and I are....but smarter than all the scientists on this planet put together.

In addition, the false morality that is simply self-promotion in the eyes of an imaginary superman needs to go.

False morality? What do you define as false morality? Not being able to do as you please? Having no rules or standards? Behaving like animals who have no moral sense? Please define what you mean.

It was written to uphold the power of those promoting a particular set of superstitions.

You are free to believe that if you wish....but what if the Bible's God is evaluating all of us without directly intervening in our lives to sway us one way or the other? Isn't that the best way to catch people in the act of being themselves? He doesn't get interested in us until we make some genuine effort to get interested in him.....why would he?

Well, now, *this* is a testable thing. Remembering that mutation can provide new variation, I would *love* to see evidence for a genetic barrier to the degree of adaptation over many generations.

"Mutations" providing variations? Beneficial ones? To suggest that mutations, which happen at random are the cause of so many beneficial outcomes, billions of them in fact, for all the species that exist....when science already knows that mutations are invariably detrimental to any species, is to fly in the face of its own research.

Google beneficial mutations in humans and tell me how many there are and how life altering they are for our species?

Genetic barriers are what prevent two different but related species from breeding beyond their own reproduction. The offspring are invariably sterile because that is the end of the genetic line. Lions and tigers are an example. They are capable of interbreeding if forced by man (though it would never happen in the wild) but the offspring are invariably sterile. That is the end of that genetic line...it can go no further.

Horses and donkeys are bred for the desirable characteristics of both, but the mule that is produced by crossing these related species is also sterile.
How can you suggest that there is no genetic barrier? Reproduction can only occur within a taxonomic family....there is no real evidence that a whale was once a four legged ,land dwelling animal. It is suggested, surmised, proposed, postulated, believed....

To ask for as many different 'separate creations' over so many different periods of time, all having similar characteristics to previously existing species, seems a bit shall we say, illogical given that we know species reproduce, thay they have natural variations in populations, that natural selection and mutation can provide large scale changes over many generations, etc.

The large scale changes are imagined. The adaptive capability of all species is reduced to color changes or changes in any feature that facilitates a change in diet or environment....like Darwin's finches. No matter what shape the beak ended up being, these did not alter their family identity....they were all just varieties of finches....as were the tortoises and the iguanas.

No testability. No science. It is really that easy. if you ideas about your deity cannot be tested, then they are your opinions and only that.

No testability, no science....means that since science cannot test for macro-evolution, there is no real science to support what is a theory, not a provable fact. You are condemning your own belief system.

Playing with such myths has never appealed to me.

Can't say that myths ever appealed to me either....but then the God I worship is only a myth to you because you have never met him.

Most people never understand the substitution that has taken place over time....from worshipping their god(s), they now worship idols of sport, or academia, or stars of the entertainment world. Everyone worships something...they just don't identify it as such. They have their 'temples' and their 'scripture' and their 'devotees'. I see it as worship, pure and simple.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If that deity was the God of the Bible....you know, the one that scientists disparage as a myth or a superstition

Science makes no comment disparaging or otherwise about gods. It ignores them all, not just yours.

then he would give them back the ridicule that they have given him...in spades....and then I believe he will terminate their membership of the human race for the damage they have done to his name and reputation.

Sounds like a pretty small and petty god. Sounds like Donald Trump.

False morality? What do you define as false morality? Not being able to do as you please?

Christian morality is inadequate. It places too much emphasis on submission and not enough on autonomy. There is nothing blessed about being meek, and their lives are certainly not blessed.

It defines love in terms of a bloody murder. There is no provision for democracy, limited government, or guaranteed personal rights. Instead, it promotes monarchy. And slavery.

There is no respect for other life or the environment. Faith is not a virtue.

I don't even know what honoring ones parents means (with a banquet or certificate of achievement? obey, regardless of the parent, and regardless of your age? if so, there's that submission again), or why it made the top ten.

There is nothing immoral about working seven days a week or being an atheist. Nor extramarital sex, nor homosexuality. Bans against all of these are irrational and based on superstition and ancient received moral values many of which never were or are no longer constructive.

science cannot test for macro-evolution, there is no real science to support what is a theory, not a provable fact. You are condemning your own belief system.

No, he is condemning yours, or more accurately, rejecting it. Science disagrees with you, and science has the credentials. It has been wildly successful and productive.

And l'll give you another chance to evade this question:

"Why we would trade in a theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture for an idea like creationism that can do none of that?"

Let me answer for you since you seem to be at a loss for words: We wouldn't. We won't.

 

[Polymath257]

Actual history was recorded by people who have been known to lie through their teeth. American history is rife with things that are not true. Australian history is likewise told to make the white men look like the good guys. We know they weren't. Indigenous people tell a completely different story. Its just that no one wanted to burst the good white guy bubble.

Egyptian rulers were notorious for never recording their defeats...only their victories. You really want to rely on history?

There's a lot more to history than just written records. Archeology provides wonderful insights into what people have wanted to hide.

How science works?......I know how science works all too well. I know that the word "theory" in science is completely different to a dictionary definition.....I wonder why?

"THEORY: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion;
opinion, view, belief, thinking, thought(s), judgement, contention."

You want to cry "foul" on that one?

Yes, of course. The difference has been explained to you multiple times and you insist on using the non-technical definition. I wonder why?

Are you serious? If that deity was the God of the Bible....you know, the one that scientists disparage as a myth or a superstition....if that deity, who claims to have directly created all the lifeforms that exist on this planet (and indeed in the whole Universe) is real.....then he would give them back the ridicule that they have given him...in spades....and then I believe he will terminate their membership of the human race for the damage they have done to his name and reputation. You don't have to believe that of course....but its what the Bible says is true? I have no reason to doubt it.

Sorry, but the existence of such a deity would not change the basics of the science: at most it would add a single new factor that needs to be considered. And, I might add, a very interesting object of study *if* there could be some form of verification of hypotheses (testing).

I agree that fairy tales need to go....but you assume that the Creator is a mythical creation of man....I believe he is as real as you and I are....but smarter than all the scientists on this planet put together.

I don't *assume* that it is a myth. I *conclude* it is a myth. There is a difference. I look at the range of religious beliefs and find that the Christian one just isn't so different in kind from all the others. And I find it *far* more likely that all religions are wrong than that any one is correct.

False morality? What do you define as false morality? Not being able to do as you please? Having no rules or standards? Behaving like animals who have no moral sense? Please define what you mean.

No, that is definitely *not* what I mean. I mean a morality that is based on the well-being of people as opposed to following orders from a priest. I mean a morality that is based on decrying actual harms to actual people as opposed to worrying what people are doing in their bedrooms. I am talking about a morality that is appalled when differences of religious opinion lead to wars and killings that are then justified by statements that their deity said it was expected of them.

You are free to believe that if you wish....but what if the Bible's God is evaluating all of us without directly intervening in our lives to sway us one way or the other? Isn't that the best way to catch people in the act of being themselves? He doesn't get interested in us until we make some genuine effort to get interested in him.....why would he?

Again, I see your deity as just as much a myth as Thor or Zeus. Putting humans emotions and motivation onto the myth only makes it less convincing, not more.

"Mutations" providing variations? Beneficial ones? To suggest that mutations, which happen at random are the cause of so many beneficial outcomes, billions of them in fact, for all the species that exist....when science already knows that mutations are invariably detrimental to any species, is to fly in the face of its own research.

Google beneficial mutations in humans and tell me how many there are and how life altering they are for our species?

beneficial in what situations? Something as simple as brown eyes versus blue eyes and can beneficial when there are too many UV rays around.

Genetic barriers are what prevent two different but related species from breeding beyond their own reproduction. The offspring are invariably sterile because that is the end of the genetic line. Lions and tigers are an example. They are capable of interbreeding if forced by man (though it would never happen in the wild) but the offspring are invariably sterile. That is the end of that genetic line...it can go no further.

Horses and donkeys are bred for the desirable characteristics of both, but the mule that is produced by crossing these related species is also sterile.
How can you suggest that there is no genetic barrier? Reproduction can only occur within a taxonomic family....there is no real evidence that a whale was once a four legged ,land dwelling animal. It is suggested, surmised, proposed, postulated, believed....

Sorry, the species barrier that you talk about is a very, very different thing than what would prevent large scale change via adaptation over many generations. We have already seen the development of new species by the rising of species barriers (with the resulting species fertile, by the way). But that doesn't change the fact that the populations still have variety relevant to survival.

And I'm sure you have been informed that evolution happens within taxonomic groupings. For example, Cats are vertebrates, they are mammals, they are carnivores, and they are felids. Their immediate ancestors were still carnivores, but not yet felids. The ancestors of those carnivores were still mammals, just without the characteristics of carnivores. Evolution happens by branching and adaptation based on characteristics that already exist, not by sudden changes in singular individuals.

The large scale changes are imagined. The adaptive capability of all species is reduced to color changes or changes in any feature that facilitates a change in diet or environment....like Darwin's finches. No matter what shape the beak ended up being, these did not alter their family identity....they were all just varieties of finches....as were the tortoises and the iguanas.

But different types of finches. So, yes, we *expect* them to maintain the characteristics of their ancestors in many ways. They are also birds, and vertebrates, etc. Your understanding of what happens in evolution is faulty.

No testability, no science....means that since science cannot test for macro-evolution, there is no real science to support what is a theory, not a provable fact. You are condemning your own belief system.

Except that it *has* been tested many times and passes those tests. Species change over biological time. There are mechanisms in place that show *why* those changes happen.

Can't say that myths ever appealed to me either....but then the God I worship is only a myth to you because you have never met him.

And that is the way with *all* myths: the characters in the myth aren't real unless you believe in them. I see no real difference here.

Most people never understand the substitution that has taken place over time....from worshipping their god(s), they now worship idols of sport, or academia, or stars of the entertainment world. Everyone worships something...they just don't identify it as such. They have their 'temples' and their 'scripture' and their 'devotees'. I see it as worship, pure and simple.

Sorry, not everyone thinks like you do.

 

[ecco]

Because someone has faith, doesn't mean what they have faith in isn't reality.
A person can have faith that they can vault a high bar. They don't see that reality, but they have the evidence of achieving it.

Perhaps you need a refresher course in the definitions of the word "faith".

faith
/fāTH/
noun

1. 1.
   complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
   
   
2. 2.
   strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Perhaps you have been made aware in the past that it is deceptive to intentionally intermingle the two definitions.

 

[ecco]

I have heard many in the scientific world say that disagreeing with what is generally held by the majority to be true, is a waste of time and effort. It is better to just hold your opinions quietly than bring them up and have your integrity, intelligence and educational training questioned.

Perhaps you can list the names of a couple of the "many" people in the scientific world who have stated this.


Surely this would not include Einstein who challenged the concepts of gravity. Nor would it include Hubble who challenged the Steady-state theory. Nor would it include the folks who first proposed continental drift.

Perhaps you are thinking of people like Behe. But I shouldn't have to guess. I'm sure you can name some.

 

[ecco]

Isn't it also true that science needs to provide "proof" for the fact that living things evolved from microscopic organisms into all the life forms we see on earth, both past and present? Where is the burden of proof there?

No. It isn't true that science needs to provide "proof". Science provides evidence. But you know this because you have been told this - repeatedly.


So, in the interest of truthfulness, why do you keep demanding proof?



Just to add - in the case of evolution, the evidence is overwhelming from many different areas of expertise. You also have been told this.

The only reason you reject the evidence because it conflicts with your ingrained religious beliefs.

 

[ecco]

So going back to the high vaulter.
Through the use of his senses, he has knowledge of physics, and he uses his experience gained from what he sees, or have seen, which gives him faith in the reality, though at present he does not see it.

Nonsense. What do you even mean when you say "at present, he does not see it"? Through his knowledge, based on experience, he does see it. He will make the attempt if he believes he has a chance of being successful.