Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 31 of 33 FirstFirst ... 21 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 LastLast
Results 601 to 620 of 655
  1. #601
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,636
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Someone put it quite aptly: "If you can't show it, you don't know it".

    The general idea is that, since it's in our interests to believe things which are true, then belief in claims which have not been demonstrated to be true is not rationally justified.

    We operate on certain standards of evidence which have been demonstrably proven to be the most reliable method available to us currently when determining what is true or what to believe (to varying degrees of certainty, of course). Further, it has also been demonstrably proven that not applying or disregarding these standards leads to results which are incompatible with the truth.

    Using faith instead of these standards, is one such example of a method that provides results which are demonstrably incompatible with the truth.

    If our goal is to have as accurate an understanding of reality/truth as possible (by believing as many true things, and as few false things, as possible), then by definition we must apply the same proven standards to all claims when deciding what to believe in order for our belief/knowledge to be rationally justified.

    Disregarding those standards in order to believe something which does not meet them is nothing more than special pleading and intellectual dishonesty.
    Of course not applying that standard to the belief that God does not exist is also engaging in special pleading.

    If we withhold judgment on whether X exists or does not exist until we see valid scientific evidence that support either conclusion, the only honest statement we can hold is that we don't know if X exists or not.

    And if X is God, then agnosticism is the only logical choice.

  2. #602
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Yes, it does indeed work through the form. So why don’t many people not feel and experience the Spirit in their life if it exists? This would solve so many problems and address so many questions … right? If we only could experience our existence (Spirit) instead of just existing as a bleep on the radar, there might be far less confusion about God's existence?
    YES!!!



    (that this isn't the case makes the Christian idea suspect. not proving it wrong to be sure, but grounds for honest skepticism.)

    ---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    There actually is a good, logical reason for our lack of sensitivity to the experience of the divine in our life. We’re discussing that on the other thread.
    That being the case, why is it not expressed more often?

    I look forward to getting to it.

    ---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    And how are you reasonably sure the love you feel for your family/partner, friends is real? Does love leave ashes or do our loved ones somehow experience its invisible existence when we bleep off the radar?
    "Love" is a mind state/emotion. It doesn't exist independent of a mind does it? Is it not a feeling and/or thought? When your mind can no longer experience it, it no longer exists...

  3. #603
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,520
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    That being the case, why is it not expressed more often?
    One short answer to consider is that our senses are somewhat conditioned to our environment and our state of being (consciousness). So just as when our nose is clogged up from the effects of a cold, we can’t smell the garlic or the flowers. That doesn't mean those fragrances are not present. As far why can’t we more often experience the essence of existence ... we do have a certain amount of freedom to change (clear out clutter/unconform) our limited state of awareness and perception. The longer answer I will address in the other thread later this weekend.


    "Love" is a mind state/emotion. It doesn't exist independent of a mind does it? Is it not a feeling and/or thought? When your mind can no longer experience it, it no longer exists...
    We experience emotions through our feelings. We have no idea what happens to the love humans feel once we stop existing. All we know, using instruments that can only measure physical things, is that the matter that comprised our physical body is no longer a bleep on the radar of existence.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  4. #604
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    One short answer to consider is that our senses are
    Limited in overall ability to perceive, at God's will.

    ---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    One short answer to consider is that our senses are somewhat conditioned to our environment and our state of being (consciousness).
    1. It would be natural to generally look to what you know affects your life more than what might affect your life. I think we agree here.
    2. You seem to be saying consciousness is different than our soul. I think you said the mind and brain are separate. The mind basically being the soul and the brain kind of processing/receiving those thoughts (I may be thinking of MT or Squatch, my apologies if so)?.
    Could you expand on this?

    ---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    We experience emotions through our feelings. We have no idea what happens to the love humans feel once we stop existing.
    Is there reason to think that a feeling or thought may exist independent of a mind?
    When love fails (think divorce for instance), do the earlier thoughts of love still exist?

    ---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    All we know, using instruments that can only measure physical things, is that the matter that comprised our physical body is no longer a bleep on the radar of existence.
    1. Agreed, I know of no instrument that measures the non-physical.
    2. The "matter" that was our body didn't bleep out of existence. Not trying to quibble over insignificant matters, but this needs clarification.

    ---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The longer answer I will address in the other thread later this weekend.
    I look forward to it. You are much calmer than most participants here on ODN
    I'm guessing your motivation for being here is different than most people that are posting??
    Last edited by Belthazor; February 8th, 2019 at 06:04 PM.

  5. #605
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But the aliens in this scenario are the product of the same evolutionary forces that we are. Evolution (natural selection via environmental pressure and genetic mutation) isn't an Earth only process, it would be fundamental to the basic chemistry of our universe. Thus the aliens are just a part of this 'family' as we are.
    Yet they are just NOT part of the evolution of life on Earth! Unless they and we were directly related, they would be observing Earth's evolution, not be a part of it, which kinda by definition makes them more objective than a participant (even if they evolved under similar "rules" as us).

    ---------- Post added at 06:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'd like to first, reground this point that regardless of the process or any of these points, we can't use the possibility of the asteroid not striking earth as a valid rebuttal of God's existence. That was the fundamental point you brought up and while I'm happy to move on to mitochondrial DNA, I want to lay that particular objection to bed.
    Unless you are positing God made that asteroid some billions of years ago and then waited till the reign of dinosaurs to direct it toward Earth it does have implications?

    If dino's hadn't (mostly) died off, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but God could still exist in this scenario. I believe we were discussing life evolving on Earth on this point, not as evidence that God doesn't exist?
    Last edited by Belthazor; February 12th, 2019 at 01:16 PM.

  6. #606
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I want to lay that particular objection to bed.
    Still awake
    (though not the objection you are thinking I think?...)



    ---------- Post added at 02:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    On to genetic lineages, I do remember us having a good discussion on the subject (though I don't recall where). I can't recall what your suggested rebuttal of mitochondrial Eve was or the basic point I was making that wandered onto the subject. The only other context I have was that we ended up talking a bit about speciation and definitions in biology. Given that we are fairly certain, given current genetic understanding, that all humans descended from a single female ancestor about 200,000 years ago I'm not sure how the link didn't support my point.
    It was a lively part of our discussion!
    I said if Adam and Eve were the first two human's ever, all other humans are a product of incest. You said that I (leaning toward materialism) believed that as well and provided a link.
    This issue is, I believe your support stated something like (bad paraphrase):
    "though this is a mitochondrial Eve to all living humans, this isn't to say she was the first human ever"

    Two very different points to be sure.
    MT tried to show inbreeding two humans/mammals won't have major genetic flaws, even after many generations, but didn't cut the mustard (nor ketchup/catsup and relish for that matter).
    Also, could you support:
    1. the genetic diversity we see today in humans could have originated from only two people
    1a. since Adam and Eve would have the same DNA as she was made of Adam, not distinct from him, where would genetic diversity come from

    ---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, I'm not stating my opinion here.
    Why not? You give your opinion on everything else

    Also, you believe the BB, so you do believe we can conceptually roll time backward and forward.

    ---------- Post added at 02:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That depends greatly on the geometry of the universe. If the universe is, in fact, a sphere or something like it, with us on the outside of that sphere, by travelling another 15 billion light years you would just come back to your original spot.
    Agreed on geometry.
    Is there any reason to believe we can see all the edges of our universe (manifold thingy) or that it's a "sphere"?

    ---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Perhaps applying the same reasoning to a slightly different set of circumstances will help illustrate the issuse. Imagine I made the argument that we could go from a rational belief n zero gods to a rational belief in 1 with no underlying argument. I think I would be rightly pilloried for invoking an irrational claim. That is essentially what is being done here. We are adding other beings to the conclusion absent any rational reason to do so. Because an argument allows for a possible state does not make all possible states warranted or rational.
    I don't see a rational reason to pick any number based on the KCA. You see 1 as virtually a given, I don't see reason to do that.

    How is more than 1 "irrational"?
    The KCA pretty much says "something sufficiently powerful" created the universe (manifold thingy) with no other conditions what that something might be.

    You rule out ALL other possibilities based on what?

    ---------- Post added at 03:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Could you elaborate why you think that that is the case? Where did I state that or why is it a logical inference from what I said?

    My specific statement was:
    [indent]We can find my initial review of why it requires an aphysical, atemporal, powerful intentful cause here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post486297
    Note the bold above.
    Must be atemporal with respect to our universe (manifold thingy).
    You have not given a reason why the first cause necessarily has to be unaffected by time in any way. Telling me about entangled particles is just not like a conscious being thinking, making a decision, and then acting on that decision
    Also, I don't think the KCA shows the first cause must necessarily exist after our universe was created, just before (or since you keep saying this cause is atemporal it didn't have to exist prior to the universe' creation, because affect one entangled particle and the other one "feels" it with no time passing...).

    ---------- Post added at 03:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes. How did my response not cover that question? If what we mean by being doesn't require a temporal component, how would it be illogical for a being to "be said to exist or act absent a temporal component?"
    You said it isn't required. We are exploring that possibility, cause it really makes no sense.
    Last edited by Belthazor; February 12th, 2019 at 05:16 PM.

  7. #607
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The original argument presented by me is in post 574 (http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post562974)

    My specific statement was:
    We can find my initial review of why it requires an aphysical, atemporal, powerful intentful cause here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post486297

    To whit:

    The first cause described above must by definition be [intentful], if it were a simple mechanical cause we cannot have a situation where the universe (the effect) does not exist while the cause does. The statement is If A then B for a mechanical cause/effect. You cannot by definition have A and not B.

    This Cause must obviously be transcendent beyond space and time since it creates those dimensions.

    This leaves the personal part of the conclusion. This logical necessity arises from the observation of effects within the universe that are, by logical necessity, not present within the First Cause. Only a sentient cause can produce an effect in a dimension it does not inhabit. IE a pencil that can only move on the X axis is not going to create a line along the Y axis.
    By the way Scooter, Twit, God (first cause) could not have existed prior to T-0 cause there isn't a before,... per you, remember?...

  8. #608
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,720
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Yet they are just NOT part of the evolution of life on Earth!... which kinda by definition makes them more objective than a participant (even if they evolved under similar "rules" as us).
    This conclusion doesn't seem to follow. Why would them being part of a different instance of the same process make them more objective as to the process?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Unless you are positing God made that asteroid some billions of years ago and then waited till the reign of dinosaurs to direct it toward Earth it does have implications?
    But how does the possiblity matter? Why are we considering an alternate state in which it didn't strike the Earth when we know that it did? God created a universe such that such an event actually occurred. That you and I can imagine a scenario where He created a universe that it didn't doesn't really have any material bearing on that fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    It was a lively part of our discussion!
    I said if Adam and Eve were the first two human's ever, all other humans are a product of incest. You said that I (leaning toward materialism) believed that as well and provided a link.
    This issue is, I believe your support stated something like (bad paraphrase):
    "though this is a mitochondrial Eve to all living humans, this isn't to say she was the first human ever"
    Which is irrelevant. If all of humanity can trace it's lineage back to a single female, we are all the product of incest anyway. [I also recall that not being my only objection to the incest point].

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    1. the genetic diversity we see today in humans could have originated from only two people
    1a. since Adam and Eve would have the same DNA as she was made of Adam, not distinct from him, where would genetic diversity come from
    I'm not sure why that would be incumbant on me to support since the scientific consensus is that human beings did come from a single female. It would seem to be a problem for the peer-reviewed publications, and given that there doesn't seem to be a peer led objection, I think we can be confident it isn't an issue. I think this is an even firmer conclusion given the paper referenced discussed known and agreed rates of genetic drift.

    Why would Adam and Eve have the same DNA? She is a woman after all, so her DNA should be, at least, somewhat different chromosonaly. The diversity's origin would depend a lot on the specifics of how God intervened. Was He using existing hominids that He breathed life into? Was he creating a de novo human from raw material? In either case, I don't see any issue with God altering DNA as part of the creative process. It would certainly seem an odd stumbling block for a being that can create human sentience, order quantum mechanics, and create life to not be able to alter DNA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Also, you believe the BB, so you do believe we can conceptually roll time backward and forward.
    Conceptually =/= in reality. Because we can imagine it going backwards does not mean we can imagine it going backwards and then replay it afresh. It simple means we can trace causality chains back.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Agreed on geometry.
    Is there any reason to believe we can see all the edges of our universe (manifold thingy) or that it's a "sphere"?
    The opposite in fact. [The sphere example was for illustrative purposes.] Rather (as WMAP showed), the universe is likely to be flat (or very nearly flat) and circular in shape. https://www.space.com/24309-shape-of-the-universe.html

    Now of course, when we say "flat" here we don't mean it exactly in the way that we usually use it. The universe is still a three spatial dimensional object. Rather, what we are referring to is the curvature of the underlying spacetime that matter and energy exist in. This is where it gets a little technical. In Relativity gravity can warp or bend spacetime. Mass doesn't just affect other mass, it affects the underlying dimensions, bending them. The question is what shape were those dimensional sets in before mass affeced them? Did they bend back on themselves (sphere), continue on parrallel, diverge? The answer, we think, is that they are parrallel. Two particles moving parrallel to each other would, in fact, never get further apart or converge.

    So what does this mean for your underlying point? That we need to distinguish between the observable universe and the global universe. The first is the "light cone" we live in (ie what ligh from where has reached Earth) and the second is the extant of the underlying dimensions. The light cone is what I think you initially brought up. There are parts of the universe not accessible to us in a sense. For example, the Andromeda galaxy as it existed in 1948, is not accessible to us. Light hasn't been able to travel from there to here in that time. Within the 13.8 billion light year observable universe, the further you go out the older the images you see to the edge, where you see matter and energy at its very earliest states.

    So what would happen if you could magically travel 12 Billion light years out? You would see something very similar to what we see, a circle of about 13.8B light years, with earlier images as you got further away.

    This has been a pretty fun digression, I haven't read about some of this stuff in a while. :-)


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I don't see a rational reason to pick any number based on the KCA.
    Occam's Razor, one is sufficient to elicit the effect and satisfies the law of parsimony.

    If you came across a man with a bullet wound to the chest, would you assume dozens or hundreds of murderers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Note the bold above.
    Must be atemporal with respect to our universe (manifold thingy).
    Ahh, I see the issue now, thanks. Atemporal doesn't mean that it can't interact with our time, only that it lacks a temporal component as one of its descriptive features. A as a prefix means "without" or "none" so an Asymptomatic patient lacks symptoms typical of a certain disease. In parrallel, an atemporal cause lacks a temporal component.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You said it isn't required. We are exploring that possibility, cause it really makes no sense.
    What I pointed out is that the concept we have of being doesn't necessarily have a temporal component. Just like it doesn't necessarily have a gender, even if we commonly associate gender as a descriptive element of being.

    I get that it is unintuitive because of our experience, but that doesn't mean it is an essential element of the concept. If we are to include it we need a better justification as to why.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    By the way Scooter, Twit, God (first cause) could not have existed prior to T-0 cause there isn't a before,... per you, remember?...
    :-) Ok, but I didn't say prior in that quote did I? And perhaps you'll remember that I also noted that prior means causally prior too, not just temporaly prior.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  10. #609
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This conclusion doesn't seem to follow. Why would them being part of a different instance of the same process make them more objective as to the process?
    You and I are contemporaries. I assume English (more accurately "American English") is both our first languages? Yet we struggle to get our ideas across effectively don't we? If I didn't know you better I might think you were purposefully "misunderstanding" what I am saying. However, we have talked quite a while now, and I don' think you would consciously do this, but being human maybe still on a subconscious level...???
    I am going with:
    I am not forwarding my ideas clearly enough, so:

    Assuming aliens evolved from the same "processes" doesn't mean they would know it. If they did suspect it, they might be trying to confirm it. None of that really matters cuase they aren't a part of life's evolution on earth (unless they interfered with it. If they did interfere with it, then natural processes no longer apply!). If they were here to study life's evolution on earth, by definition means they don't already know
    So they would see dino's mostly dying off and mammals "taking over". They would see these mammals evolve into humans (among vast others of courses) and then see how/when religion started (if they had enough time to watch thousands/millions of yrs of course).

    Or maybe,
    they would watch life evolve from a cell to vastly more complex life forms,.....and then humans "appeared" with no kind of explanation or connection to the already existing life (well, except for our DNA connection???...)...

    ---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But how does the possiblity matter? Why are we considering an alternate state in which it didn't strike the Earth when we know that it did? God created a universe such that such an event actually occurred. That you and I can imagine a scenario where He created a universe that it didn't doesn't really have any material bearing on that fact.
    Again sir, because if not for that particular event we would not be talking. Dino's or ? would be dominating earth instead of humans.
    This is the evolution of life on earth.

    ---------- Post added at 07:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not sure why that would be incumbant on me to support since the scientific consensus is that human beings did come from a single female. It would seem to be a problem for the peer-reviewed publications, and given that there doesn't seem to be a peer led objection, I think we can be confident it isn't an issue. I think this is an even firmer conclusion given the paper referenced discussed known and agreed rates of genetic drift.
    You provided one source that again I believe said NOT the first human ever, just related to all currently living homo sapiens. Hardly the claim you are making unless I grossly misunderstand "not the first human ever" which I remember your source stating.

    Now, if you want to speculate that two humans can produce the genetic diversity we currently enjoy without support...um, ok...

    There was no "first chicken nor egg". A beginning of life, sure. How it started ???. Maybe God, maybe not.

  11. #610
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,720
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Or maybe,
    they would watch life evolve from a cell to vastly more complex life forms,.....and then humans "appeared" with no kind of explanation or connection to the already existing life (well, except for our DNA connection???...)...
    Setting aside the objectivity question that prompted this, I think this section is the most relevant to our discussion. If aliens existed, and if they were able to travel to Earth a billion or so years ago (these are some ridiculously big ifs by the way), I'm not sure why a human species, absent any predecessors, would be what is required for Christianity to be true. There are certainly those in the Christian community who think that is the prediction, but they are by no means the plurality of Christians, and are certainly not justified by Biblical or theological requirements. There are generally four views held by Christians as to how to interpret Adam and Eve: https://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2018...our-views.html

    1)Ancient Traditional View: In my previous post this was called the sole-genetic progenitorship, that Adam and Eve lived about 500 to 700 thousand years ago and were the genetic ancestors of all humans and also of all other close relatives of humans like Neanderthals and Denisovans.
    2)Modern Traditional View: In my previous post this was called the genetic-interbreeding progenitorship, that Adam and Eve were the genetic ancestors of all humans and that some of Adam and Eve's ancestors interbred with non-human species. Most scientists would say this would have to be about 200,000 years ago. However, my proposal that this could have been as recent as 50,000 years ago would also fall within this category. This view would be held by Reasons to Believe, a progressive creation organization that would affirm Adam and Eve as God's special creation with no evolutionary ancestors.
    3)Genealogical View: In my previous post this was called the sole-genealogical progenitorship, that Adam and Eve are the genealogical ancestors of all humans and could have lived as recent as 6000 years ago, but were not the genetic ancestors of all humans.
    4)Federal View: Adam and Eve could have lived as recent as 6000 years ago and were a representative couple among a population of humans. They are not the genetic ancestor of all humans and not necessarily even the genealogical ancestors of all humans.

    So why isn't the Bible more clear on which genetic view I hear you asking? Because it isn't really the point. The Bible, like all documents has to chose what to recount and what to leave out, it doesn't include hair color, or blood type, or other information not critical to its point. There are good reasons when giving lineages it skips generations, because not every generation has a memorable person whose example can elucidate a moral point. Remember that Torah literally means teacher, it is an instruction manual for what it means to be a human vis a vis God. Any of the four interpretations above could be the case without it affecting that underlying message.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Again sir, because if not for that particular event we would not be talking. Dino's or ? would be dominating earth instead of humans.
    But that doesn't really answer the question of why a possibility that we know wasn't realized matters to a God who would care about what actually occurs, not what we can dream up. It is entirely possible that people could have spontaneously existed an astronomically unlikely quantum event, which wouldn't be evolution. They didn't though, so how does that possibility relate to evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You provided one source that again I believe said NOT the first human ever, just related to all currently living homo sapiens. Hardly the claim you are making unless I grossly misunderstand "not the first human ever" which I remember your source stating.
    I hope the earlier discussion helps clarify this point as well. The paper says that it might not be the first member of the biological species, a term the paper also notes is relatively poorly defined. But that isn't the point I was making. It was that we can trace ourselves back to a single set of ancestors, which is what the paper was saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Now, if you want to speculate that two humans can produce the genetic diversity we currently enjoy without support...um, ok...
    I'm not speculating that, we know that. Remember, all genetic diversity came from this female, regardless of her being the first member of the species or not, she was a bottleneck for the species. And, as I pointed out, genetic diversity arises out of a host of factors (some of which are described in the paper) including well measured drift and external inputs (think denosovians and neanderthals and viruses).
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #611
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Setting aside the objectivity question that prompted this, ...
    Fine, but my point stands in that case.

    ---------- Post added at 04:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If aliens existed, and if they were able to travel to Earth a billion or so years ago (these are some ridiculously big ifs by the way),
    Perhaps I will PM you on this as it is soo off Op...

    Is it faster than light travel that is your issue here or ?
    There are suns billions of yrs older than our Sun. If humans (I suppose that is a big if, but maybe other life forms wouldn't be all about violence) survive a billion/s yrs we would probably visit another planet (robot or satellite most likely).

    ---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If aliens existed, and if they were able to travel to Earth a billion or so years ago (these are some ridiculously big ifs by the way), I'm not sure why a human species, absent any predecessors, would be what is required for Christianity to be true.
    You do take a funny take on my takes

    I'm not sure "absent any predecessors" is an answer to my point:
    "they would watch life evolve from a cell to vastly more complex life forms,.....and then humans "appeared" with no kind of explanation or connection to the already existing life"

    This is where the objectivity comes into play. Note:
    Aliens watch life progressing from one cell to many in a vast and varied way. One day two humans inexplicably appear! They are unrelated to other Earth life and "posses" unique qualities that the other life does not. This would not be a natural occurrence to an observer. Among vast other things, they would eventually see an unexplainable world wide flood wiping out all land based life forms (why did God spare water life anyway?) except one tiny little boat that had some humans and two of each land animal. They would see the water recede with no cause, another unnatural occurrence. I would love to hear/understand the communique from these observers back to their home planet!...

    More to your point though, ALL we need to prove Christianity is true, is a Christian God that is willing to.

    ---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1)Ancient Traditional View: In my previous post this was called the sole-genetic progenitorship, that Adam and Eve lived about 500 to 700 thousand years ago and were the genetic ancestors of all humans and also of all other close relatives of humans like Neanderthals and Denisovans.
    2)Modern Traditional View: In my previous post this was called the genetic-interbreeding progenitorship, that Adam and Eve were the genetic ancestors of all humans and that some of Adam and Eve's ancestors interbred with non-human species. Most scientists would say this would have to be about 200,000 years ago. However, my proposal that this could have been as recent as 50,000 years ago would also fall within this category. This view would be held by Reasons to Believe, a progressive creation organization that would affirm Adam and Eve as God's special creation with no evolutionary ancestors.
    3)Genealogical View: In my previous post this was called the sole-genealogical progenitorship, that Adam and Eve are the genealogical ancestors of all humans and could have lived as recent as 6000 years ago, but were not the genetic ancestors of all humans.
    4)Federal View: Adam and Eve could have lived as recent as 6000 years ago and were a representative couple among a population of humans. They are not the genetic ancestor of all humans and not necessarily even the genealogical ancestors of all humans.

    So why isn't the Bible more clear on which genetic view I hear you asking? Because it isn't really the point. The Bible, like all documents has to chose what to recount and what to leave out,
    I think the Bible is fairly clear on this point.

    Adam was the start of the human race. Eve was made "from/of" Adam, and was the 2nd human ever.

    The controversy above is of "Christians" making, not the Bible.

    ---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that doesn't really answer the question of why a possibility that we know wasn't realized matters to a God who would care about what actually occurs, not what we can dream up. It is entirely possible that people could have spontaneously existed an astronomically unlikely quantum event, which wouldn't be evolution. They didn't though, so how does that possibility relate to evolution?
    What you keep missing is, God choosing an asteroid to form billions of yrs earlier that will just happen to kill off dinosaurs so humans can eventually evolve is bizarre.
    Occam is shaving a different direction for you this time Scooter.....

    ---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I hope the earlier discussion helps clarify this point as well. The paper says that it might not be the first member of the biological species, a term the paper also notes is relatively poorly defined. But that isn't the point I was making. It was that we can trace ourselves back to a single set of ancestors, which is what the paper was saying.
    Because Genesis does not account for countless generations of humans prior to Eve being born!
    The female ancestor you are referring to already possessed genetic diversity from previous generations and your source made that clear. She was not the first human female ever!
    The male side is still quite diverse after this one female mates. So when her children mated it was not incest as you propose.

    So we are definitely NOT OF TWO ANCESTORS by your own source.

    Though I do see it likely humans all share common ancestry, I mean we are all share a single cell life form in common, as does all other life on earth.

    Clearly, you have not shown ALL humans have descended from just two original humans.

    ---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not speculating that, we know that. Remember, all genetic diversity came from this female, regardless of her being the first member of the species or not, she was a bottleneck for the species. And, as I pointed out, genetic diversity arises out of a host of factors (some of which are described in the paper) including well measured drift and external inputs (think denosovians and neanderthals and viruses).
    Hopefully the above will help you understand my position more clearly, cause this statement isn't working for me.

    Now when you say:
    "regardless of her being the first member of the species or not, she was a bottleneck for the species."

    Uh,..wow……..

    1. Eve is/was the 1st female human EVER??!!
    2. A "bottleneck" only for humans since she was born, not prior, because clearly humans lived prior to her birth.
    3. "(think denosovians and neanderthals and viruses)". Oh, so no Adam and Eve in this case then.
    Take two puppies and breed them for a thousand generations (and they currently already have genetic diversity). What do you get? Can you even make a thousand generations live?
    3a. There is no genetic diversity between Adam and Eve.

    4. The role viruses play in evolution (though controversial I suppose) are staggering!!!...

  13. #612
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Of course it is.
    You asserted that, "from an early age, you were indoctrinated into a belief in the rightness of science, probably as early as kindergarten or first grade". I can honestly tell you that I received no scientific education in kindergarten or first grade. Nobody tried to indoctrinate me to believe science was right.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Yes.
    Then you agree that science education, when done properly, is taught from a perspective of promoting rational consideration of its principles and not from a perspective of irrefutable dogma?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Hold on. Your indoctrination into a faith in science began waaay before the 6th grade. Probably as early as kindergarten or first grade, you were exposed to science "facts", theories and how smart scientists were at discovering and proving things, during classroom activities such as reading books and watching movies.
    I'm sorry, but none of what you're describing could be rationally considered to be indoctrination into scientific beliefs, although I fully understand why you attempt to describe it this way. Nobody asserts that whatever scientists say is true (newsflash: they don't need to assert it - the scientists can demonstrate it).

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    That doesn't even include what you may have seen at home on tv and at the movies. It was indoctrination, early and often.
    In what way is being exposed to, whether intentionally or not, a world in which scientific facts are presented and discussed on television or in movies the same as indoctrination? You seem to think that the "facts", as you unsurprisingly scare-quoted them, whenever they're presented to anyone, are asserted incontrovertibly in an attempt to indoctrinate. Being exposed to scientific facts which are supported as true before one is able to fully understand the details of why the fact is true does not mean one is being indoctrinated. Whenever scientific facts are presented, it's always together with a wealth of support available to anyone who wishes to question the facts. It goes back to why children's science education usually begins only when they're older and are better able to rationally consider and discuss the concepts being presented to them, which clearly proves that it's exactly not indoctrination.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I'm stopping here until you reassess and modify your position on this issue, because otherwise any further continuation is pointless.
    Indeed. If you want to compare the religious indoctrination children receive from parents and other theists around them any scientific information which they may experience before they can fully process it, then it's clear further continuation is pointless.

    ========================================

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    It’s not my burden to convince you that the Bible is true, or that my inner knowing is true, or that I’ve received guidance when praying. I’ve only claimed that I believe those things, and have not claimed you should.
    Nor have I stated that you need to convince me. This thread is about you claiming to have rational justification for your beliefs. You have not provided any, therefore your beliefs are not rationally justified.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Can and did.
    Then you admit that you're claiming they are justified without actually having provided any rational justification. Fine by me.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Already answered. It happens all the time.
    Ok, then your answer is that you consider other theists, with theistic beliefs contradictory to yours, to be just as rationally justified in believing them as you are in believing yours. Next question: Do you think their justification is the same as yours, or do you think they have other, different justification?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Pick virtually any subject, and there will be people who come to different opinions or beliefs in that area, whether using the same or different information and experiences.
    This is not a matter of opinion. You have made claims about the nature of reality, and you have not provided support for those claims, nor rational justification for why you believe them.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Your expectation that there should be no differences in theistic beliefs, in contrast with most any other subject, is the real special pleading in this thread.
    I've explained the difference: one is a mundane preference about a product choice, the other is a truth claim about the nature of the universe and reality in general. Until you provide a valid rebuttal, the difference stands, and your comparison remains invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I’ve given my response, and explained that my belief in God is reasoned on my experiences and assessments.
    To which I've responded with an explanation of why your statements don't serve as the "reason" you claim they do. Further, you've stated here that your belief is based partly on assessments which themselves requires justification, and failing to provide that justification, the assessments are merely just more unsupported claims. Please provide the rational justification for the claims you've made. Otherwise, they remain without rational justification. Until you provide valid responses to my rebuttals of the claims which you made, they stand as rebutted and do not count as rational justification, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    That is an extraordinary claim.
    This is nothing more than an assertion. Citing 6bill or 80% of people (who make contradictory claims) doesn't mean a thing. I guess next you'll be claiming that our use of anno domini has some significance. There have been quite many instances when a vast majority of the population has believed something which turns out to be wrong and/or irrational. Therefore, there is nothing extraordinary about a majority believing in something without justification and being wrong in doing so, especially when their beliefs directly contradict each other, and especially when they fail to provide rational justification for their beliefs (free tip: just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean it's true or that it's rational for you to believe it, too).

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    So far, you’ve offered only some flimsy logic
    Simply name-calling it "flimsy logic" doesn't magically mean you've addressed someone's arguments. You've had every chance to respond directly to the logic I've offered, but have failed to do so, instead making flawed comparisons, failed tu quoques, and wildly incorrect ad hominem assessments of my past. Talk about kneejerk.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    kneejerk rejections of the reasons people have offered for their beliefs.
    Again, this is nothing more than name-calling. Simply calling the rejections "kneejerk" does nothing to address the arguments I've made to point out why the reasons given fail to provide rational justification.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Unless and until you provide legitimate, powerful and persuasive support for your extraordinary claim, your op fails for lack of support.
    And unless you support your claim that it is extraordinary, this is a bare assertion with no effect on the OP, and your theistic beliefs remain without rational justification until you do.

    Sadly, it appears that the assessment at the end of my last post was quite accurate.

  14. #613
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,720
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Fine, but my point stands in that case.
    How so? If I've been convicted of robbing a liquor store, am I really objective about someone else robbing that liquor store even if I wasn't involved in that incident?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Is it faster than light travel that is your issue here or ?
    There are suns billions of yrs older than our Sun. If humans (I suppose that is a big if, but maybe other life forms wouldn't be all about violence) survive a billion/s yrs we would probably visit another planet (robot or satellite most likely).
    We can take it to another discussion for brevity's sake, but my short answer (to prepare you) is both yes about FTL and that I don't think the Drake equation is inclusive of all the relevant factors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I'm not sure "absent any predecessors" is an answer to my point:
    "they would watch life evolve from a cell to vastly more complex life forms,.....and then humans "appeared" with no kind of explanation or connection to the already existing life"
    I thought that what you were describing was some kind of 'poof' humans are walking around scenario. I don't think that Judaism or Christianity describe that (though I think there are definitely portions of the public that think they do including believers). Rather, and I think this is very relevant to later discussions, it depends on what you mean by human. We've discussed the problem of speciation in biology somewhere, though I can't remember where. Biology itself doesn't have a really firm definition, but if we are talking about a species of primate that is basically the same as us physically, that would be one use of that term. Genesis isn't using it that way. It doesn't describe our physical attributes in the creation account (and interesting point, it does do that for other aspects of creation), but describes our sentience. That we are made in the image of God, which (as we also discussed) clearly isn't referring to physical appearance since God is without physical form. That is how Genesis defines human beings and how it echoes it throughout the Old and New Testaments. It is why when Exodus describes not bearing false witness to your neighbor it adds, "who is like you." Exodus, Leviticus, and a host of other places emphasize the point that your neighbor is all fellow humans because they are like you in that they have been created in the image of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    What you keep missing is, God choosing an asteroid to form billions of yrs earlier that will just happen to kill off dinosaurs so humans can eventually evolve is bizarre.
    Why? Are you saying you could create the same world we live in absent that set up? We wouldn't have hydrocarbons, we definitely wouldn't understand genetic drift and some of the finer points of biology. We wouldn't be able to order the plant and animal kingdoms (which is how we've discovered aspects of medical treatments related to blood and nerve functions). There are a host of consequences to simply making us the first species to show up on the planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Because Genesis does not account for countless generations of humans prior to Eve being born!
    Because, as described above, Genesis isn't referring to people based on our genetic code. It specifically sets humans out as being defined by something other than our physical traits (as it describes the other elements of creation).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    The female ancestor you are referring to already possessed genetic diversity from previous generations and your source made that clear.
    How can a single person contain genetic diversity? Are you proposing there is some kind of "pure" human genome that then wanders over time? I don't think your objection fits what we know about how genomes change over time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    1. Eve is/was the 1st female human EVER??!!
    2. A "bottleneck" only for humans since she was born, not prior, because clearly humans lived prior to her birth.
    3. "(think denosovians and neanderthals and viruses)". Oh, so no Adam and Eve in this case then.
    Take two puppies and breed them for a thousand generations (and they currently already have genetic diversity). What do you get? Can you even make a thousand generations live?
    3a. There is no genetic diversity between Adam and Eve.

    4. The role viruses play in evolution (though controversial I suppose) are staggering!!!...
    1) See above about equivocation. You are using a different understanding of that term than the text you are objecting too.
    2) Which addresses your genetic diversity question. Regardless of the state pre-bottleneck, the fact that there was a bottleneck means that genetic diversity is wiped out. That is literally what that term means.
    3) I'm not sure how you get to this conclusion. Are you arguing that there are no external inputs to our genetic drift over time?
    3a) Why not? We discussed this a bit earlier. Why would a God who is able to create a spatio-temporal universe and implement quantum mechanics not be able to introduce genetic diversity between the two? Especially in light of the fact, as I described earlier, of how Genesis is describing what makes us human?
    4) Sure, but if we stick to a purely reductionist viewpoint that means that we (or mitochondrial eve) weren't humans right? We have distinctly different genetic codes after all. There is a reason this is a thorny issue within biology.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #614
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Futureboy, you've demanded in another thread that I come back here and continue debating you, and you have reposted a very early "rebuttal" (which was more dismissal than anything else). Why? You've clarified that the supposed God of your op will send all nonbelievers to Hell. I don't believe that is the case, as I've explained. I don't subscribe to the premise of your op, so what is it that you expect of me?
    I think you might be confusing this thread with the divine hiddennness thread, since this OP makes no reference to a specific deity, or whether it sends nonbelievers anywhere. Could you confirm?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    WHY must I continue this debate with you?
    You don't have to - by all means feel free to abandon any exchange at any time without responding to rebuttals of your arguments. If you don't want to continue the discussion, then don't continue it, and your arguments will remain rebutted. But when you later try to continue the discussion by making an invalid comparison between an OP and what you feel is flawed argumentation based on opinion in a fake thread, I have no choice to but to point to you why the comparison fails and why it doesn't serve as an excuse for ignoring rebuttals.

  16. #615
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Future, I deleted my earlier post because I did mix two threads. But you've insisted I come back, and you have reposted an earlier rebuttal.

    I believe this is where I left things in post #483:

    I’ve given my response, and explained that my belief in God is reasoned on my experiences and assessments. That you disagree is no real surprise and, frankly, of no consequence, because you are not a neutral expert whose opinion on what constitutes rational thought must be respected.

    Now let’s examine your burden. Your claim is that “Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified.” You are claiming that the beliefs of nearly 6 billion people, more than 80% of the world’s population, are irrational. That is an extraordinary claim. And every time an atheist hears an extraordinary claim, they insist that the claim be accompanied by extraordinary evidence. So that must apply to your claim here.

    That is your burden, Futureboy, to provide extraordinary evidence that all theistic beliefs are irrational. So far, you’ve offered only some flimsy logic and kneejerk rejections of the reasons people have offered for their beliefs. Unless and until you provide legitimate, powerful and persuasive support for your extraordinary claim, your op fails for lack of support.


    From what I can see, you still have not supported your extraordinary claim with anything more than your personal opinions and dismissals of the rationale others have provided for believing in God.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  17. #616
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Future, I deleted my earlier post because I did mix two threads. But you've insisted I come back, and you have reposted an earlier rebuttal.
    Again, I have not insisted anything - if you don't want to continue a discussion, then don't continue it, which includes not making attempts to continue the discussion via fake threads. If you do so regardless, then don't be surprised when I point out the flaw in such an approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    From what I can see, you still have not supported your extraordinary claim with anything more than your personal opinions and dismissals of the rationale others have provided for believing in God.
    I already refuted your statement about my "extraordinary claim", and I have provided arguments explaining why the rationale you provided fails as rational justification for your theistic beliefs. Again, feel free to respond to rebuttals directly. Claiming that your counterpart's support is mere personal opinion doesn't count. Alternatively, and as I've repeatedly supported your right to do, you can simply choose to not continue the discussion. You've already said elsewhere that you don't really care what arguments your counterpart presents, so that seems to be the simplest option.

  18. #617
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    How so?
    Because you "set the point aside" doesn't rebut it.

    ---------- Post added at 04:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We can take it to another discussion for brevity's sake, but my short answer (to prepare you) is both yes about FTL and that I don't think the Drake equation is inclusive of all the relevant factors.
    Perhaps on the first, it is a monumental task, but not absolutely necessary at all...
    To the second, Drake doesn't really apply to the scenario at all.

    I will try to get a PM to you tonight and will drop this line here.

    ---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I thought that what you were describing was some kind of 'poof' humans are walking around scenario. I don't think that Judaism or Christianity describe that (though I think there are definitely portions of the public that think they do including believers).
    Indeed, that is more or less what I meant per typical Christina teaching.
    "On day one God created"
    since you say you take the Bible literally (which again, is always an issue cause a lot of Christians "see" metaphor etc...).
    No I am not thinking this means "24 Earth hours" per a day. Just one "day" there was something.
    It does sound "poofy" to me, at least how it is typically presented to me.

    ---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Rather, and I think this is very relevant to later discussions, it depends on what you mean by human. We've discussed the problem of speciation in biology somewhere, though I can't remember where. Biology itself doesn't have a really firm definition, but if we are talking about a species of primate that is basically the same as us physically, that would be one use of that term. Genesis isn't using it that way. It doesn't describe our physical attributes in the creation account (and interesting point, it does do that for other aspects of creation), but describes our sentience. That we are made in the image of God, which (as we also discussed) clearly isn't referring to physical appearance since God is without physical form. That is how Genesis defines human beings and how it echoes it throughout the Old and New Testaments. It is why when Exodus describes not bearing false witness to your neighbor it adds, "who is like you." Exodus, Leviticus, and a host of other places emphasize the point that your neighbor is all fellow humans because they are like you in that they have been created in the image of God.
    Well since "speciation" is of human origin, no big surprise the definition is vague.

    I'm not sure where you are going here?
    Genesis describes only human "sentience" so the physical part doesn't matter?
    You are agreeing with evolution of the physical but not the "mind"?

    Please expand a bit????

    ---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why? Are you saying you could create the same world we live in absent that set up? We wouldn't have hydrocarbons, we definitely wouldn't understand genetic drift and some of the finer points of biology. We wouldn't be able to order the plant and animal kingdoms (which is how we've discovered aspects of medical treatments related to blood and nerve functions). There are a host of consequences to simply making us the first species to show up on the planet.

    Where did I suggest humans needed to be the first "species"?

    ---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because, as described above, Genesis isn't referring to people based on our genetic code. It specifically sets humans out as being defined by something other than our physical traits (as it describes the other elements of creation).
    I don't believe I said it was based on "genetic code" or anything similar?
    Genesis says "first two humans" basically, your support goes more in line with evolution.

    I'm good with evolution, but MT (not unlike a vast number of Christians) would disagree.
    You seem to be saying our bodies evolved like other life on Earth, then one day (Genesis) "poof", God gave sentience to what was prior, "just another primate"?

    ---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    How can a single person contain genetic diversity?
    Because of all the prior diverse ancestry.

    You "Squatch" carry DNA from all sorts of previous ancestry.
    "Adam", no such previous ancestry. No diversity at all by definition.

    ---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Are you proposing there is some kind of "pure" human genome that then wanders over time? I don't think your objection fits what we know about how genomes change over time.
    This is confusing? I "proposed" nothing of the kind.

    ---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) See above about equivocation. You are using a different understanding of that term than the text you are objecting too.
    2) Which addresses your genetic diversity question. Regardless of the state pre-bottleneck, the fact that there was a bottleneck means that genetic diversity is wiped out. That is literally what that term means.
    3) I'm not sure how you get to this conclusion. Are you arguing that there are no external inputs to our genetic drift over time?
    3a) Why not? We discussed this a bit earlier. Why would a God who is able to create a spatio-temporal universe and implement quantum mechanics not be able to introduce genetic diversity between the two? Especially in light of the fact, as I described earlier, of how Genesis is describing what makes us human?
    4) Sure, but if we stick to a purely reductionist viewpoint that means that we (or mitochondrial eve) weren't humans right? We have distinctly different genetic codes after all. There is a reason this is a thorny issue within biology.
    1. Fail. Please try again.
    2. No. Diversity existed prior to your "Eve" on the male side as well as female side. After "your Eve" was born, there was still massive diversity on the male side.
    3. If there were humans before Adam an Eve, then they were not the first humans.
    3a. Ok, "god did it"....

    4.Huh? Your statement makes 0 sense to me? "Different genetic codes than who?...
    Sorry, I'm totally missing the "thorns"?

  19. #618
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,720
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Because you "set the point aside" doesn't rebut it.
    What I set aside what that you hadn't addressed therebuttal and seemed to be taking the discussion in a new direction. That's fine to do, of course, but it doesn't mean that the conclusion you reached earlier about aliens being more objective now follows from the premises you offered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I'm not sure where you are going here?
    Genesis describes only human "sentience" so the physical part doesn't matter?
    There were two relevant points my text was attempting to address. The first was that we need to be careful in conflating what biologists are saying when they say "human" (which as we noted is a vague concept within speciation) and what Genesis is saying when it says "human." Though we are using the same word, it isn't entirely clear we mean the same thing, especially since Biology can't agree with itself on what it means.

    The second point relates to your questions here. Humans, like any categorical description, are defined as a series of traits or descriptors. Let's take the definition of a cube, just to highlight what I mean: "a solid bounded by six equal squares, the angle between any two adjacent faces being a right angle." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cube

    Notice that the definition is made up by a series of criterian. To be a cube, an object must match all of those criterian. If we assembled six equal squares that are solid, but in a line, it wouldn't be a cube. Not until they are assembled properly does it become a cube.

    I would apply a similar logic to what we are talking about. We aren't humans until all the necessary components are in place, of which sentience is one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Where did I suggest humans needed to be the first "species"?
    I didn't imply that you did. Rather, I was pointing out that what you found bizzare only seems that way because there is an implicit comparison to something more simple. But that comparison has issues becuse the more simplistic variant wouldn't have the same outputs we have today. This is a flavor of another conversation we had earlier. If we are going to argue that God "should have done Y" we have to show that Y actually produces a similar or better result. That is a pretty complex case to show, and, as I mentioned earlier, perhaps outside our knowledge set to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Genesis says "first two humans" basically, your support goes more in line with evolution.
    I think you might be seeing more disagreement than is present (though I won't speak for MT) because you see Genesis/Evolution as a dichotomy. I think that is a false dichotomy and that, as long as we stop inserting our partricular limited imagination into it, Geneis comports very well with what we know about the early universe and biology. I'm not, of course, arguing that Genesis teaches us physics or biology, that wasn't the point of Genesis of course. But rather, that no conflict exists between those fields and the text.

    I think I already forwarded Dr. Strauss's discussion of cosmology and Genesis, but if not it is here (https://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017...-creation.html) and (https://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2018...econciled.html). Sufficed to say, the physical descriptions in genesis follow a chronological order with the early expansion of the universe and this planet.

    A very similar explanation is available for biology. It isn't entirely clear to me that we have a fully flushed out biological model for how life evolves in the same we have a fully flushed out standard model. That isn't to say cross species evolution doesn't occur, or anything of that sort. Rather, it is that the explanatory power of the theory has some shortcomings (and these aren't shortcomings you only find in places like answers in genesis, but in reputable biology journals) that we need to continue to expand our knowledge in. Given our current, limited understanding I don't see how evolutionary theory contradicts the Genesis account. The arguments I've seen to that end usuall result from a misundersanding of Dawinian, post-darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium evolution. Usually they are of some sort of the error of saying that evolution is a random process, which isn't an evolutionary tenent (the confusion arises fom conflating random with "without a predefined goal, which are two different concepts). https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...od-in-mankind/


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Because of all the prior diverse ancestry.
    Genetic diversity refers to the range of DNA differences across a given population, not the accumulation of genetic history. That is why incest causes issues, because there no genetic diversity across the population of children.

    If we relied on the accumulated diversity from our history, inbreeding wouldn't be a concern. We wouldn't get issues because we would have diversity from past generations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    1. Fail. Please try again.
    That isn't the most helpful response. Let's try it this way. When you say "human' how do you define it? How would you distinguish between a human and a closely related primate? What is the criteria/measure you are using to make that categorical distinction?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    2. No. Diversity existed prior to your "Eve" on the male side as well as female side. After "your Eve" was born, there was still massive diversity on the male side.
    But, as I elaborated above, this isn't how diversity is defined. If it were, incest wouldn't cause medical problems because the children of incest would still have all the diversity from their generations prior to their parents. Rather, it is the diversity that exists across a population. Given that, any objection to Genesis Eve would also need to explain Mitochondrial Eve. I'd suggest there isn't really an issue there, which is why it isn't addressed vis a vis Mitochondrial Eve.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    3. If there were humans before Adam an Eve, then they were not the first humans.
    This would definitionally be true, but it is also a begging the question fallacy (since it assumes the conclusion in the premise). The question is, were Eve's ancestors humans (and I need your definition for that question) or were they a preceeding ancestor in the same way that homo habilis was a preceeding ancestor?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    4.Huh? Your statement makes 0 sense to me? "Different genetic codes than who?...
    Sorry, I'm totally missing the "thorns"?
    The question gets back to issue 1. How do you define humans? What is your definition of speciation. This is very complex and unresolved issue in biology. Biologists have a hard time defining what a species is with any real empirical value. It used to be (and this is what I learned in highschool) was that two creatures were the same species if they could breed and produce viable offspring capable of reproducing. The problem is that that definition runs into a host of problems. Neanderthals (for example) are clearly a different species from Homo Sapien Sapien, but they were able to interbreed and produce offspring that could breed.

    If we rely on similarity in genetic codes it becomes somewhat arbitrary. Is it 75% the same? 99%? 99.999%? There isn't a clear, objective cut off point and it quickly devolves into lots of problems (such as Africans being a different species than Euro/Aisiatic peoples, which doesn't seem very defensible since melanin content in the skin doesn't seem a very good measure of speciation). This is a huge problem within biology with no clear answer, which is one reason I'm arguing that the purely reductionist viewpoint is insufficient.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #619
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What I set aside what that you hadn't addressed therebuttal and seemed to be taking the discussion in a new direction.
    you said:
    "Setting aside the objectivity question that prompted this"

    so the "objectivity" point is still unrebutted.

    Aliens watching life on a planet evolve is a more objective position than the life that is evolving has an opportunity to have. Aliens would compare Earth's life to their own. Something Earth life can not do (in this scenario).

    I admit this point takes on a bit less importance since you think humans were just another ape till God granted them sentience.
    (I will again submit, this is an issue I have with Christianity as everyone gets their own version of it, so they can just say "well, I don't believe that is what the Bible meant, it was really this". Which gets back to why God would choose such a method to communicate such an important message???)

    Come to think of it, maybe that is why all the human abductions by aliens. They are probably trying to learn how "we" became sentient instead of one of the other apes!





    ---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There were two relevant points my text was attempting to address. The first was that we need to be careful in conflating what biologists are saying when they say "human" (which as we noted is a vague concept within speciation) and what Genesis is saying when it says "human." Though we are using the same word, it isn't entirely clear we mean the same thing, especially since Biology can't agree with itself on what it means.
    I see no reason for biologists opinions here.
    You are literally the only person I have ever talked with that promoted that life evolved from simple to complex and then God gave only one of the Great Apes sentience and that was the "first humans"!....

    ---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There were two relevant points my text was attempting to address. The first was that we need to be careful in conflating what biologists are saying when they say "human" (which as we noted is a vague concept within speciation) and
    Pfffifff to biologists (at the moment).
    This is kinda like pornography. The ole "I know it when I see it" is easier than to define it legally.

    "Speciation" is a human construct is it not?
    Our alien friends likely would not classify Earth life in the same way as humans.
    Last edited by Belthazor; March 12th, 2019 at 03:39 PM.

  21. #620
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think you might be seeing more disagreement than is present (though I won't speak for MT) because you see Genesis/Evolution as a dichotomy. I think that is a false dichotomy and that, as long as we stop inserting our partricular limited imagination into it, Geneis comports very well with what we know about the early universe and biology. I'm not, of course, arguing that Genesis teaches us physics or biology, that wasn't the point of Genesis of course. But rather, that no conflict exists between those fields and the text.
    On this point I am thinking you are right..?...

    You see Evolution basically as true. The difference seems, when God picks one of the Apes to be sentient (human).

    I will wait to comment on this line further till you have had a chance to say agree/don't agree (in one of your kinda cryptic/esoteric responses... )

    ---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Genetic diversity refers to the range of DNA differences across a given population, not the accumulation of genetic history. That is why incest causes issues, because there no genetic diversity across the population of children.

    If we relied on the accumulated diversity from our history, inbreeding wouldn't be a concern. We wouldn't get issues because we would have diversity from past generations.
    Basically I agree, save this "Eve" has a more diverse DNA pool than a truly "first" human, and the point you are missing, is all of the males she and her children had sex with would not be directly related so no incest issue and no "Adam".

    Your Eve was not the first human woman (pre your source), and no Adam (first human man) is even speculated on.

    So:
    1. your source does not lend any credibility to Genesis
    2. your source does not lend any credibility to your claim that "all humans are the product of incest".

    ---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That isn't the most helpful response.
    You are of course correct here, my apologies.

    ---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This would definitionally be true, but it is also a begging the question fallacy (since it assumes the conclusion in the premise). The question is, were Eve's ancestors humans (and I need your definition for that question) or were they a preceeding ancestor in the same way that homo habilis was a preceeding ancestor?
    Um no fallacy Scooter. You gave the premise, "Adam & Eve" being the "first two humans", but also suggested they had "ancestors". I was commenting on that thought.

    Again I will say, you are the ONLY person ever to suggest to me that Eve had ANY ancestors.

    I know you are saying this does not conflict with Genesis (though I think this is a minority position for a Christian), though does it square with
    "created in the image of God"?
    If God had picked a different Great Ape to grant sentience to, they would be the "human"?
    Since all us apes are related thru evolution we all must be in the "image" or is sentience all that matters to be the "image"?

 

 
Page 31 of 33 FirstFirst ... 21 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophy: Does a necessary beng exist, and is it consistent with the theistic God?
    By cstamford in forum Member Articles & Essays
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 15th, 2015, 05:02 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 25th, 2015, 08:37 AM
  3. The Theistic Definition Thread
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2007, 01:13 PM
  4. Theistic Evolution????
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: April 13th, 2006, 05:53 AM
  5. Theistic Death
    By Iluvatar in forum Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2005, 07:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •