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 33 of 34 FirstFirst ... 23 29 30 31 32 33 34 LastLast
Results 641 to 660 of 674
  1. #641
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Because the Earth/universe is here because A&E fell from Heaven as I recall.
    Hmm, not in any mainstream Christian theology I know about. I'm not aware of any theology that puts them in Heaven before the fall. The way I'm reading your response is that you seem to think that we live in Heaven, then are born, then die? Christians don't hold that souls pre-exist in Heaven before birth. Physical life is the first part of your existence.

    I think more to your point though, you are concerned about why there would be such a complex material universe when individual humans live for only a short period of time.

    I would point out that individual life spans aren't the right metric. It isn't as if each generation starts anew, we learn from prior generations, so the life span of humanity has to be in the picture if we are talking about how should a universe be created. Fully granted that this particular universe is pretty complex. The question is, how could it have been done "better?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I really don't see the relevance to this comment. We are here 100yrs give or take.
    Sure, but I live in a world that stands on a hundred previous generations and use resources that take millions of years to form. If it had been created differently a lot of that could not happen. If mammals arise first for example, even during my short lifespan, I wouldn't have all those things, nor the learning that came from discovering them. Regardless of my short lifespan, those pre-existing criteria and conditions have a large impact on me and on any other generations before or after.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    An alien observer that had the advantage of seeing Earth go from lifeless, to simple cells, to much more complex structure, then SUDDENLY, a sentient creature "appeared" would have a MORE objective view of life on Earth (evolution) than humans can possibly have.

    You have not responded to my point at all after several attempts now
    Maybe I have and you haven't quite grasped the metaphor? :-)

    Your hypothetical alien would still be burdened with all the baggage of their own evolutionary understanding. The alien wouldn't be observing us as some kind of blank slate with no background, no prior assumptions, no philosophic framework. They would be interpreting that data (life evolving) with all of those in tow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    And I think they take a culture, make a suitable habitat for the bacteria (simple life) to thrive and watch what happens.
    Not at all. That would be a pretty boring experiment. Rather, they are usually invoking some kind of environmental stress on the bacteria (or more often, fruit fly) to observe how the organisms change to the external stress. That is similar to how the natural ecosystem works, even if the stresses here are controlled so we can measure the results. I also think it would be pretty poor experimental design if the evolutionary biologist wasn't thinking about something as basic as external stressors.

    The point though is, even if their experiments completely sucked and were without merit, we don't hold a hypothesis as true until we get confirmatory evidence (and specifically, when we get experiments that fail that should have failed).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Life on Australia started as life near by. Now separated, Australia has life seen no where else. How do you explain this if not evolution?
    Genetic diversity. Poodles and Mastiffs have a lot of genetic diversity in them that do not rely on genetic mutation.

    I think it would be one thing if we could trace those unique individuals back in ancestoral line to shared ancestors with other traits. IE we saw that a Kangeroo and a deer could both trace their lineage to a joint ancestor. The problem is that we can't really do that. The "Island Effect" that creates all these weird animals in Australia (as well as micro elephants and possibly homo florensis) doesn't rely on macro-evolution, it relies on exentuating traits from pre-existing genetic diversity. Similar to how we've been able to transform wolves into all kinds of weird little animals without actually relying on genetic modification or mutation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Dark matter we have NO idea what it is and the BB which we KNOW we don't have right yet, really???
    Can you point out a piece of validated evidence that is contradictory to the Big Bang hypothesis? Remember there are areas where the Big Bang hypothesis doesn't make definitive predictions (like expansion rate), and that sub-theories are developed to understand. Some (or maybe all) of those theories are wrong for sure. It is similar to light. We've had a pretty good understanding that light emits from charged particles for a very long time. The fact that one of the sub-theories of how it travels (Flogiston) was ridiculously incorrect doesn't change our holding to the theory that light is an emission of a charged particle. We still have a large amount of confirming evidence (and no conflicting evidence) that the emission theory of light is true.

    Likewise, we have a ridiculously large amount of evidence that the Big Bang group of theories is true, that the universe began roughly 13.8 Billion years ago. We have literally thousands of data points and theorems related to the expansionary nature of the universe and its beginning at a singularity (or at least that it had a leading edge in time and space). Now, there is uncertainty on some of the details in how it got to where it is (how did the forces seperate in the early universe for example, what is the expansion rate of the universe in the earliest moments). That latter section is where dark matter lives, the inner working discussion of how the universe went from very small to very large, not a question of whether it went from very small to very large.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    It isn't compatible with ANY current theory
    I'm not sure that that is true. Regardless, it is incompatible with darwininan macro-evolutionary theory and so that theory is incorrect. There doesn't necessarily have to be a suitable replacement to discard a hypothesis, even if the new state is unsettling.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Out of time.
    Till another night to finish, have a great evening
    No worries. I'm looking forward to it.
    "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.


  2. #642
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The point being that that set of evidence (the Cambrian explosion) is incompatible evidentiary-wise with the macro-evolutionary model. Thus, the model is wrong.

    That is all that is required to dismiss a theory.
    Ok, then pretty much all current models/theories are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We didn’t need a coherent theory of the dual nature of light (I’m not sure we even have one now) in order to reject Phlogiston as an explanation, for example.
    You don't suppose this "dual nature" is really a single nature that we don't fully understand? As in, it may not really be a particle part of the time and a wave the rest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    When we talk about the kinds of changes that macro-evolution would need to change, we are talking about traits that are controlled by genes that are activated very early in a creature’s development. Add to that that we know that virtually all random mutations are fatal, and it would seem to be a very high hurdle to overcome.
    Ya, seems bizarre huh?
    Yet, here we all are, so it happened somehow?
    I propose a natural answer and you are proposing what again???

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2) and much smaller of a note. I don’t think you are correct that all eyes developed from common ancestors. Eyes seem to have developed on multiple occasions in history. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781862/
    I have seen the eye theory go both ways as well. however, humans do share a common ancestor with all other life on Earth do we not?

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...mmon-ancestor/
    "Despite the difficulties of formally testing evolution—especially back across the eons to the emergence of life itself—Theobald was able to run rigorous statistical analyses on the amino acid sequences in 23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life (eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea). By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models, he found that a universal common ancestor is at least 10^2,860 more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequence variances than even the next most probable scenario (involving multiple separate ancestors).*"

    Just looking for some kind of common ground here between us.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But we also wouldn’t care what a bird thinks about our biological taxonomy. If our hypothetical aliens are smart enough for us to care what they think, they will have to have some form of categorization and differentiation.
    Well, I was more thinking about them differentiating all the "homo's" more than all life forms. IOW, would they see/notice/observe sentience in these humans suddenly appearing or would they just see another "monkey"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, I'm not sure that is what the historical evidence says. It would seem to indicate the opposite, that humans have very rarely engaged in multiple-partner relationships or had multiple partners throughout their lives. And I think we are ok with the primary point being that when humans do engage in that behavior as a norm within society, the historical evidence is that those societies are not stable.
    Show me support that most humans have had only one sexual partner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Related to your point on the OP and selecting a specific version of theism rather than the concept as a whole, I would say that this section of our argument would indicate that a version of theism that supports these kinds of relationships as societal preference would be questionable given the outcomes.
    You don't think a god would approve of promiscuity?
    (god worries a lot about sex it seems. wonder why?.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The reason I'm picking my language so carefully is because it is easy to (and we have done it earlier) conflate homosapien sapien and human. Those are related, but not identical concepts. Hence, how you get to this point;
    I would like to meet your wife. An INCREDIBLY patient angel to be sure!!


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is why we need to be careful in conflating humans and homosapien sapiens. Those are concepts from two different fields that are describing different traits. Nothing about sentience is required to be a homosapien sapien. Though some of their definitional traits are correlated with sentience. If I were to reword your statement to use the correct vergabe it would say:
    Ok, semantics again. I appreciate your "correctness" but I sense it only serves to give your world view wiggle room. God doesn't seem to play word games. He created "man" (humans). All these little categories you seem to think are sooo important, are clouding my understanding of what you mean....

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Soooo, these two homosapien sapiens you refer to, I guess after how ever many generations of sentient humans here on Earth, these two were picked to be "Adam and Eve" for all future humans.
    Ok. Per you:
    There had been generations of "homosapien sapiens" until one day God picked two of them to be "sentient".

    Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And I would generally agree with that if we are proposing that this was, in fact, a 1:1 concordance. In fact, if we replace the last word with homosapien sapiens, that is exactly what the science is telling us. That these two are the ancestors of all homosapien sapiens today. The point where the account and the evidence conceptually overlap for sure is that there was a male and a female from whom all humans are descended. And that is the point that both the evidence and the account agree on.
    (Now just "humans" instead of Squatch/techno garble humans??)

    1. I thought Adam was created from "dust" and Eve was created from Adams rib?

    2. Science tells us absolutely nothing of when humans/homo sapien sapien/what the hell ever, became sentient

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It was BG Anthony McAuliffe, commander of the 101st Airborne during the battle of Bastone. And I don't think an intellectual Patton is coming to relieve your encirclement this time. ;-)
    YES!!
    That is the guy. It would be DAMN funny, if it wasn't just soooooo tragically sad (WWII and that battle)

    I appreciate your humor (I wish more of ODN members engaged in such a way. I think it helps reduce tension in conflict).

    However sir, me thinks it is you that seems to be treading water with little land in site and using overly technico garble to shield your point. Again, feel free to make as technical a statement as you like, but also translate into terms the average reader can understand.

  3. #643
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Hmm, not in any mainstream Christian theology I know about....
    Sorry, working way tooo fast that post I guess...

    I meant the Garden of Eden, not Heaven, my stupid, I usually try to proof read after I post to avoid such embarrassment



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think more to your point though, you are concerned about why there would be such a complex material universe when individual humans live for only a short period of time.

    I would point out that individual life spans aren't the right metric. It isn't as if each generation starts anew, we learn from prior generations, so the life span of humanity has to be in the picture if we are talking about how should a universe be created. Fully granted that this particular universe is pretty complex. The question is, how could it have been done "better?"
    Even so, we do not always learn well (as in "history repeats") and many seemingly notable things (like who made the great pyramids) are easily forgotten. Eternal beings should have ample time to learn whatever they "need" to with out this little (get out that big calculator of yours - show the numbers comparing a 100yr life span to an eternal one) lifespan on Earth.
    In and of itself probably nothing. It's just one more in the really odd column.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Sure, but I live in a world that stands on a hundred previous generations and use resources that take millions of years to form. If it had been created differently a lot of that could not happen. If mammals arise first for example, even during my short lifespan, I wouldn't have all those things, nor the learning that came from discovering them. Regardless of my short lifespan, those pre-existing criteria and conditions have a large impact on me and on any other generations before or after.
    It only takes "millions of years" cause God made it that way.

    Look, God could have made gravity "weaker" and the universe still have matter/galaxies/life/etc just like now!
    Our universe' current laws of physics would not allow this of course, but that doesn't mean anything at ALL would it? God would just have made the laws allow for matter to form at "weaker" gravity levels.
    IOW, God makes the laws, He can make them whatever he wants. He could have chosen our life here on Earth to be totally immaterial could He not?
    IOW, saying what qualities a universe like ours needs to have based on only our universe seems naïve.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Maybe I have and you haven't quite grasped the metaphor? :-)
    Perhaps professor, but if your intellect allows you to grasp the whole idea so well, it should be little problem explaining it.
    IOW, the easiest way to know if you know what you are talking about on a given subject, is being able to explain/teach it


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your hypothetical alien would still be burdened with all the baggage of their own evolutionary understanding. The alien wouldn't be observing us as some kind of blank slate with no background, no prior assumptions, no philosophic framework. They would be interpreting that data (life evolving) with all of those in tow.
    My concern here is, they were witnessing life "evolve" (from nothing to sentience). Something humans can not do.
    To them the sudden appearance of sentience would be significant would it not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not at all. That would be a pretty boring experiment. Rather, they are usually invoking some kind of environmental stress on the bacteria (or more often, fruit fly) to observe how the organisms change to the external stress. That is similar to how the natural ecosystem works, even if the stresses here are controlled so we can measure the results. I also think it would be pretty poor experimental design if the evolutionary biologist wasn't thinking about something as basic as external stressors.
    My point is, life on Earth interacts in ways not replicated in these experiments.
    Sure, the make "stressors" in a controlled way (one or a few at a time, trying to limit outside influence), not at all as in nature.
    This happens all the time with pharma making drugs. We test in a controlled way, looks good, and then a cholesterol drug we knew soooo, well killed people in clinical trials to the point trials were stopped.


    I will try to finish tomorrow

  4. #644
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Ok, then pretty much all current models/theories are wrong.
    That is a much stronger statement that I'm not sure is correct. I think it would depend on what you mean by "all current theories." Sufficed to say that this specific mechanism cannot, by itself, explain the evidentiary set we are presented with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You don't suppose this "dual nature" is really a single nature that we don't fully understand? As in, it may not really be a particle part of the time and a wave the rest?
    It depends on which interpretation of quantum mechanics you adopt. Its a great philosophy of science question. It really does seem to act as a wave in some instances and a particle in others. And I think (though that shouldn't carry much weight here) that the Copenhagen interpretation is probably right here, as much as it is non-intuitive and weird.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Yet, here we all are, so it happened somehow?
    I propose a natural answer and you are proposing what again???
    Agreed, we are here, and as such need an explanation. But, if we are going to stick to the scientific method, we need to reject a purely macro-evolutionist account of us being here since it doesn't explain the evidence.
    And not to be condescending, but you aren't proposing a natural explanation, you are proposing no explanation. I don't think you've offerred up a position on this topic.

    I think we both agree that the mechansim currently proposed is evidentially inadequate. The difference in our two positions, as I see it, is that I'm open to whatever other hypotheses are out there as long as they are coherent and supported by the evidence. You hold the same position, but with an additional clause, it has to also fit into a preconception of naturalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I have seen the eye theory go both ways as well. however, humans do share a common ancestor with all other life on Earth do we not?
    Maybe? I'm not sure that has been completely demonstrated. There are theories (though I have no idea what support level hey garner) that life evolved on several different occassions on Earth.

    Regardless, the shared common ancestor we are referring to in the last post isn't the origin of eyes. They evolved seperately after the split. And that seems a remarkably improbable event to even happen once, let alone half a dozen times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    EVERYTHING about life that we know is "ridiculously complex"!!!
    I don’t disagree, hence my skepticism that pure accidental chance can govern ridiculously complex systems. We don’t know of a single other instance where that occurs and tend to be naturally skeptical of scenarios where complex outcomes arise from pure chance. Not applying that to this is a bit of a tax cab fallacy imo.
    It reminds me of that joke about the man who found his wife in bed with another man and she explained that he had simply tripped on the curb and tumbled upstairs to her bed, snagging all his clothes on the banister and doorway as he fell. We wouldn’t except such a tortured explanation there, nor should we here. The odds of her story being true are far, far higher than the 1 in 10^37 odds of forming a single viable genetic mutation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Well, I was more thinking about them differentiating all the "homo's" more than all life forms. IOW, would they see/notice/observe sentience in these humans suddenly appearing or would they just see another "monkey"?
    I think it depends on your conception of what they are. Are they some kind of space born alien whales a la Star Trek, or are they highly advanced beings with a complex understanding of physics, chemistry, etc.?

    If the latter, it would be hard for them not to see us as different. Now, we might not rise to some determined level of theirs that is on part with what they think of as sentience given their perspective. But they would definitely have to recognize that homosapien sapiens are intellectually different than all other hominids. No other hominid had the kind of intellectual life and ability to form complex abstract thoughts that we did. None produced representative art. Probably none produced jewlrey. Surveying the landscape they would have seen a species radically different than its peers in intellectual capacity, concept of self, and mental complexity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Show me support that most humans have had only one sexual partner.
    I don't think that that is what I said. Rather, I was referring to multiple-partner relationships, which are pretty rare (and just to clarify I mean a single relationship with more than two individuals). Mating for life doesn't mean that you only engage in one relationship in your entire life. Birds that "mate for life" will form new bonds if a partner dies. The question is whether the majority of human history has had a fluid understanding of marriage (ie change partners essentially at will) or a more structured view of marriage. I would argue, citing the source from earlier, that those societies with a fluid view tended to have less stable and less enduring societies. Stable relationships with two parents is better for child rearing after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You don't think a god would approve of promiscuity?
    Given its negative impacts on societal stability, I would presume not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I would like to meet your wife. An INCREDIBLY patient angel to be sure!!
    There is no doubt about that. You can tell that from her posts here. You can also tell from her posts here that she is very precise in her language when she is making an argument. A lot of disagreements end up being because people aren't being precise in their language imo, which means they talk past each other because there isn't a shared understanding of what is being discussed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Ok, semantics again. I appreciate your "correctness" but I sense it only serves to give your world view wiggle room.
    Labelling it as 'semantics' would seem to imply that the distinction doesn't really serve a purpose, but it clearly does. When Hamlet says:
    What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
    infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
    admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
    a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
    to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
    nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
    https://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-q...piece-work-man
    He clearly is referring to us, but he isn't meaning the same thing that a biologist means when he is talking homosapien sapien. These ae distinct, though related concepts. Kind of similar to describing the court system either as "courts" or "justice." Not perfectly synonymous, but generally referring to the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    God doesn't seem to play word games. He created "man" (humans).
    I think a good review of any of the books of the Torah would seem to call this assumption into question. Take Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." A simple enough verse that we can grasp the meaning of pretty easily. But it has some deeper Hebrew word play. It can also be read as "In the beginnng God created אֵת. That term can be either "the" in preperation for "heavens and the earth" OR it can represent totality since it has the first and last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. So in the one sentence Genesis is implying in two different forms that God created all things. We don't see that as revolutionary because we have 3000 years of transcedent diety experience. The Hebrews didn't have that, religions before that had the gods organizing pre-existing chaos, so a double emphasis on God being transcendent was important. This also leads to the second word play in the next verse, "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." In this verse the term "Deep" can mean things like waters or abyss, which is how we read it here, an unformed abyss. But it also is a reference to Tiamat (the word is the Hebrew version of that name), a direct call to the Babylonian creation myth which the Hebrews would have been familiar with. This is a subtle dig that God is the creator of the universe, not Tiamat.

    And this is far from unique. If you listen to podcasts, Torah Means Teacher does an excellent job teasing these out being Hebrew speakers. For a quicker study: http://www.electrummagazine.com/2015...nt-literature/

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Ok. Per you:
    There had been generations of "homosapien sapiens" until one day God picked two of them to be "sentient".

    Correct?
    I think that is more or less my understanding of the text. I don't pretend it is the only one, but it is the one most consistent with the text, imo, and with the most explanatory power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    1. I thought Adam was created from "dust" and Eve was created from Adams rib?
    Sure, and I'm happy to go into this in detail, but the word "dust" also means "fine matter" or "material used to create or form something." That doesn't seem to be too far off (the rib is a similar construct wordplay as I mentioned earlier). As I mentioned earlier, this text isn't supposed to be describing a biology textbook, it is forming a series of lessons that would both be useful to Hebrews learning monotheism for the very first time and still be accurate for us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    2. Science tells us absolutely nothing of when humans/homo sapien sapien/what the hell ever, became sentient
    I think this misses the point a bit. Science tells us that there was a single male and a single female that all living people can trace their ancestory back to genetically. The Bible also tell us that all peoples can trace their ancestory back to a single male and a single female via their inheritance of the "breath of life" and the knowledge of "good and evil." I think the most likely explanation, the one that would fit Occam's Razor is that these are describing different aspects of the same thing.

    Like if you heard two different acounts of a football game with one saying that Dante Pettis scored the game winning touchdown and one saying that Pettis scored the touchdown that put them up 21-14. Two different phrasings and focusing on two different aspects of the touchdown, but describing the same event.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    YES!!
    That is the guy. It would be DAMN funny, if it wasn't just soooooo tragically sad (WWII and that battle)

    I appreciate your humor (I wish more of ODN members engaged in such a way. I think it helps reduce tension in conflict).

    However sir, me thinks it is you that seems to be treading water with little land in site and using overly technico garble to shield your point. Again, feel free to make as technical a statement as you like, but also translate into terms the average reader can understand.
    I'd be embarrassed if I didn't know that reference being a military historian and all. Also having watched Band of Brothers a dozen times or so.

    Ditto here on the humor. I think it helps me keep the tone light when I've just read a joke you made. And that helps charitable reading of my technobable I would hope. ;-)

    If I'm treading water, you must be in the belly of Jonah's Leviathan by now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Sorry, working way tooo fast that post I guess...

    I meant the Garden of Eden, not Heaven, my stupid, I usually try to proof read after I post to avoid such embarrassment
    Ha, no worries. I just wanted to be sure, we've had a couple of conversatins where my impression was that, sadly, poorly informed Christians put out some odd theology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Even so, we do not always learn well (as in "history repeats") and many seemingly notable things (like who made the great pyramids) are easily forgotten.
    That's fine, the point is that we do learn and we do expand. It doesn't make much sense to have a ridiculously simplistic universe if humanity is going to grow. It doesn't give us much room (physical or intellectual) to expand. Not to mention a lot of the data we use to formulate that understanding requires a pretty complex underpinning. Hard to experience gravity waves if we don't have large, complex, and dense galaxies very far away from us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    It only takes "millions of years" cause God made it that way.
    Yep, and the outstanding question is, if He made it different, what kind of impacts would that have? It isn't as simple as just saying "voila petroleum now forms in 100 years." That would require wholesale changes to basic chemistry, biology, and physics. The kind of basic changes that impact how stars form, how planets form, and how DNA works. Those are important and need to be considered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Look, God could have made gravity "weaker" and the universe still have matter/galaxies/life/etc just like now!
    Our universe' current laws of physics would not allow this of course, but that doesn't mean anything at ALL would it? God would just have made the laws allow for matter to form at "weaker" gravity levels.
    IOW, God makes the laws, He can make them whatever he wants.
    I think the last sentence is the crux of this issue. It isn’t that God can do whatever He wants, it is that He can do whatever is logically possible and is feasible for His goals. Sure God could well have changed the laws of physics so that gravity is different. But it isn’t clear to me that that change is better or would lead to a more simplistic world or one that you felt was more intuitive. If anything, it is more likely to create a lot more complexity as there would need to be all kinds of additional mechanisms to counteract the impacts of making gravity lower or changing how gravity works. I think in your view it is a simple change and everything else is easy, but it is far more likely (given how complex a system like universal physical laws are) that this would mean God would need to create a dozen or a hundred new forces or constants, or particles so that the change in the laws of gravity were catastrophic.
    It reminds me a little of when we talk about healthcare or public policy. It is easy to say “we could change the law about how much people are paid” it is far more complicated in practice. And those complications are meaningful. It is tempting to dismiss them because of God’s omnipotence and omniscience, but there are still very real constraints in those conditions. God isn’t creating a round square, He has to deal with the logically possible and, importantly, what is feasible given His goals and nature. I think we owe it to the argument to take those realities seriously, and analyze how the changes might change things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    My concern here is, they were witnessing life "evolve" (from nothing to sentience). Something humans can not do.
    To them the sudden appearance of sentience would be significant would it not?
    I would think so, but I’m not sure it would be obvious initially. A sentient person living on a desert island is going to be doing a lot of the same things a non-sentient hominid would be. Both are going to be going through a similar scrape through survival. Even if that sentient being is able to think of the “concept” of a lion rather than just an actual lion, it is still going to avoid them.

    There is also the issue of the lens they are seeing it through. That lens or framing is governed by their baggage, which is why I would be cautious assuming their objectivity. This point might be moot given the response in the previous paragraph, but it could matter in how you would imagine them noticing or not noticing sentience. If you’ve ever read Ender’s Game the premise of the ‘Bugger’ invasion was that they didn’t understand we were sentient because we were very different anatomically and communicated in a way they didn’t grasp at all. Their evolutionary process led them to communicate non-verbally exclusively and so they assumed we weren’t sentient, they didn’t notice the expressions of our sentience because it didn’t categorically match the expressions of their sentience (which was also collective rather than individual).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    My point is, life on Earth interacts in ways not replicated in these experiments.
    Sure, the make "stressors" in a controlled way (one or a few at a time, trying to limit outside influence), not at all as in nature.
    And we wouldn’t want it to exactly replicate the complex interactions of life on Earth because it wouldn’t be possible to isolate causal mechanisms. Rather, we want to hold all other variables steady so that we can be sure the stressor we are applying is actually doing the change we think it is.
    More importantly, even if the stressors on life are complex and hard to reproduce, you would think that we could, at a very minimum, replicate a single mutation that wasn’t fatal right? We can create mutations pretty well, but we can’t create non-fatal ones. And it looks like using the most recent research that we can’t produce non-fatal mutations, at least in fruitflies.
    The problem with appealing to the more complexity of biospheres is that it doesn’t make it more likely to produce a non-fatal mutation. It makes the kind of stressors that determine whether a gene mutation kills you or not more lethal, not less.
    And again, to the point, if the data is contradictory to what the model says it should say, then we can’t hold that model as correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I will try to finish tomorrow
    I’m out until Wednesday, so I published my initial responses so you’ll have something to work on while I’m gone, :-) I added the parts I don’t think you responded to below, there has been a lot of back and forth since I haven’t been letting you finish lately, and I wanted to make sure we were both tracking what was outstanding.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Life on Australia started as life near by. Now separated, Australia has life seen no where else. How do you explain this if not evolution?
    Genetic diversity. Poodles and Mastiffs have a lot of genetic diversity in them that do not rely on genetic mutation.

    I think it would be one thing if we could trace those unique individuals back in ancestoral line to shared ancestors with other traits. IE we saw that a Kangeroo and a deer could both trace their lineage to a joint ancestor. The problem is that we can't really do that. The "Island Effect" that creates all these weird animals in Australia (as well as micro elephants and possibly homo florensis) doesn't rely on macro-evolution, it relies on exentuating traits from pre-existing genetic diversity. Similar to how we've been able to transform wolves into all kinds of weird little animals without actually relying on genetic modification or mutation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Dark matter we have NO idea what it is and the BB which we KNOW we don't have right yet, really???
    Can you point out a piece of validated evidence that is contradictory to the Big Bang hypothesis? Remember there are areas where the Big Bang hypothesis doesn't make definitive predictions (like expansion rate), and that sub-theories are developed to understand. Some (or maybe all) of those theories are wrong for sure. It is similar to light. We've had a pretty good understanding that light emits from charged particles for a very long time. The fact that one of the sub-theories of how it travels (Flogiston) was ridiculously incorrect doesn't change our holding to the theory that light is an emission of a charged particle. We still have a large amount of confirming evidence (and no conflicting evidence) that the emission theory of light is true.

    Likewise, we have a ridiculously large amount of evidence that the Big Bang group of theories is true, that the universe began roughly 13.8 Billion years ago. We have literally thousands of data points and theorems related to the expansionary nature of the universe and its beginning at a singularity (or at least that it had a leading edge in time and space). Now, there is uncertainty on some of the details in how it got to where it is (how did the forces seperate in the early universe for example, what is the expansion rate of the universe in the earliest moments). That latter section is where dark matter lives, the inner working discussion of how the universe went from very small to very large, not a question of whether it went from very small to very large.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    It isn't compatible with ANY current theory
    I'm not sure that that is true. Regardless, it is incompatible with darwininan macro-evolutionary theory and so that theory is incorrect. There doesn't necessarily have to be a suitable replacement to discard a hypothesis, even if the new state is unsettling.
    "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.


  5. #645
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is a much stronger statement that I'm not sure is correct. I think it would depend on what you mean by "all current theories." Sufficed to say that this specific mechanism cannot, by itself, explain the evidentiary set we are presented with.
    Regarding the topic at hand, your standard pretty much removes all contenders that I am aware of until further explanations can be provided.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It depends on which interpretation of quantum mechanics you adopt. Its a great philosophy of science question. It really does seem to act as a wave in some instances and a particle in others. And I think (though that shouldn't carry much weight here) that the Copenhagen interpretation is probably right here, as much as it is non-intuitive and weird.
    Huh? IOW, you are saying some human version of QM IS the one that is true (otherwise why "adopt" it)?
    I more meant that, perhaps "particles" aren't one or the other and we are not "seeing" it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Agreed, we are here, and as such need an explanation. But, if we are going to stick to the scientific method, we need to reject a purely macro-evolutionist account of us being here since it doesn't explain the evidence.
    And not to be condescending, but you aren't proposing a natural explanation, you are proposing no explanation. I don't think you've offerred up a position on this topic.
    1. Nothing but "god did it" explains the evidence at the moment!
    2. You seem to be advocating evolution to a VERY small degree and God intervening and directly creating each and every time a new "species" appears??
    3. I offered, that it is entirely possible for life to have "evolved" (changed over the course of Earth's history), without the direct intervention of deity! Even IF, God created the first life. The specific mechanics of how that may take place not withstanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think we both agree that the mechansim currently proposed is evidentially inadequate. The difference in our two positions, as I see it, is that I'm open to whatever other hypotheses are out there as long as they are coherent and supported by the evidence. You hold the same position, but with an additional clause, it has to also fit into a preconception of naturalism.
    WTH????
    Wow, I think you tipped your picnic basket and a couple sandwiches fell out there...though I am sure you do see it that way... we all have the same kinds of biases don't we?

    You are Christian. Your world view depends on the outcome of this conversation. You have already decided or you couldn't be a Christian! Now you may be willing to consider new info, it would have to overcome you already pre conceived notions.
    I OTOH, have no such preconceived notions and am just searching for truth. Finding out there is a god would not necessarily alter my world anywhere near what a theist would endure where they to find out no god exists.

    to be continued

  6. #646
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don't think that that is what I said. Rather, I was referring to multiple-partner relationships, which are pretty rare (and just to clarify I mean a single relationship with more than two individuals).
    You said:
    "Well, I'm not sure that is what the historical evidence says. It would seem to indicate the opposite, that humans have very rarely engaged in multiple-partner relationships or had multiple partners throughout their lives.....

    My mom still gets a pass on this one, but the rest of you all are still suspect


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Given its negative impacts on societal stability, I would presume not.
    God of the Bible does seem to have a great interest in human sex...


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There is no doubt about that. You can tell that from her posts here. You can also tell from her posts here that she is very precise in her language when she is making an argument. A lot of disagreements end up being because people aren't being precise in their language imo, which means they talk past each other because there isn't a shared understanding of what is being discussed.
    I haven't read any of her posts I don't think.
    However, being the correctnest of language can fail to express your idea if no one understands what you are saying
    IOW, you could have made the mostest perfect, most correct post ever, and if it was in German, it would mean little to me (or most readers)….

    I have mentioned this a number of times in different ways, hopefully this time you may understand what I am getting at...


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Labelling it as 'semantics' would seem to imply that the distinction doesn't really serve a purpose, but it clearly does.
    Does it? What is the meaningful difference between the homo's 6 million yrs ago to the homos 5 million yrs ago?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    He clearly is referring to us, but he isn't meaning the same thing that a biologist means when he is talking homosapien sapien. These ae distinct, though related concepts. Kind of similar to describing the court system either as "courts" or "justice." Not perfectly synonymous, but generally referring to the same thing.
    I don't think I hear anyone discussing what a biologist thinks in regards to a conversation about God/religion except you...

    Using current depths of human knowledge to justify a point leaves open new knowledge to counter he previous, just as gods don't throw lighting anymore.
    IOW, explain to me why all the homo's matter. I am trying to find the start of humans in Genesis with regards to Earth, and you are sapien sapien sapien…..evading the question.

  7. #647
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think a good review of any of the books of the Torah would seem to call this assumption into question. Take Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." A simple enough verse that we can grasp the meaning of pretty easily. But it has some deeper Hebrew word play. It can also be read as "In the beginnng God created אֵת. That term can be either "the" in preperation for "heavens and the earth" OR it can represent totality since it has the first and last letter of the Hebrew alphabet.
    Ahh, the ole it's in the translation routine again.
    We have spoke of this before. When a tough point comes up, there is always a translation "situation".
    Which just adds strength to the idea that the Bible is inadequate to convey the message!
    It seems improbably that the God that created the universe and life with such exactness would pick such a willy nilly way to communicate such an important message.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Sure, and I'm happy to go into this in detail, but the word "dust" also means "fine matter" or "material used to create or form something." That doesn't seem to be too far off (the rib is a similar construct wordplay as I mentioned earlier). As I mentioned earlier, this text isn't supposed to be describing a biology textbook, it is forming a series of lessons that would both be useful to Hebrews learning monotheism for the very first time and still be accurate for us.
    Except "dust" and "fine matter" aren't alive!
    Homo's (whichever homo you want this time, "sapien" whatever) are living beings/animals that the sentient were born from. A significant distinction.

    Eve coming from Adams "rib" means she was made from/of Adam, not dust.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think this misses the point a bit. Science tells us that there was a single male and a single female that all living people can trace their ancestory back to genetically.
    You only speak of the "people" after this "couple" as if those before didn't matter. There is no way of considering this couple were the "first sentient" homo/whatever or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The Bible also tell us that all peoples can trace their ancestory back to a single male and a single female via their inheritance of the "breath of life" and the knowledge of "good and evil." I think the most likely explanation, the one that would fit Occam's Razor is that these are describing different aspects of the same thing.
    Doesn't the Bible generally stick with male heritage?
    Since this couple was here on Earth, and were born from earlier homo's, how does this square with the Garden of Eden and sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'd be embarrassed if I didn't know that reference being a military historian and all. Also having watched Band of Brothers a dozen times or so.
    BoB was one Hell of a movie! Fortunately for me, I can only imagine combat back then (or now) would be like, but it seems that they took "pain" to portray a lot of the reality of that war. The selfless acts of these men, so we can sit in abject comfort and argue about a soul is humbling.

    But, "I don't need no f**king intellectual Patton to come save me!".
    After all, I don't disagree that a deity could exist, so mostly just exploring your ideas here so far. The real issue is choosing a religion in my opinion.

    Soon, not yet, perhaps we should just agree that some deity exists and see where that conversation would go


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ditto here on the humor. I think it helps me keep the tone light when I've just read a joke you made. And that helps charitable reading of my technobable I would hope. ;-)


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If I'm treading water, you must be in the belly of Jonah's Leviathan by now.
    Again Skippy, we haven't even gotten to the part that actually bothers me. So far we are just mostly discussing physics and general ideas about god.
    Your water is going to get deeper and farther from shore as we progress. I hope you brought your life jacket (and wear it) just in case


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ha, no worries. I just wanted to be sure, we've had a couple of conversatins where my impression was that, sadly, poorly informed Christians put out some odd theology.
    Misinformation does abound does it not...

  8. #648
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    Misinformation does abound does it not...
    Answersingenesis.com for instance...

  9. #649
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Huh? IOW, you are saying some human version of QM IS the one that is true (otherwise why "adopt" it)?
    I more meant that, perhaps "particles" aren't one or the other and we are not "seeing" it.
    This gets into a much larger discussion, but one that is fun to have. A lot of full time physicists (Sean Carroll not included here) seem to dismiss philosophy as irrelevant to their field, but QM is a great example of why it is incredibly relevant. The exact same set of equations in QM can have at least 17 different physical interpretations. IE, the math could be turned into 17 different stories of what is going on.
    My point is that the Copenhagen interpretation seems to be the most philosophically coherent to me and thus most likely the correct interpretation of the math. That the math is correct is hardly doubtable at this point, the level of experimental verification is pretty robust. It would take some kind of basic overturning of how we interpret reality that is even more radical than the QM interpretation to really overturn it (something like cause and effect aren’t actually related for example).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    1. Nothing but "god did it" explains the evidence at the moment!
    I don’t think I’ve proposed any specific model of intervention. What I’ve pointed out, and as far as we’ve gotten is for me to say that “random mutation and natural selection” are insufficient mechanisms to explain observed results. Thus the options (from where I sit anyway) are either: 1)A complete new mechanism set not yet proposed or 2)That mechanism set plus an additional mechanism that conforms them to observed evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    3. I offered, that it is entirely possible for life to have "evolved" (changed over the course of Earth's history), without the direct intervention of deity!
    It depends a lot on what you mean when you say “evolved” here. The vernacular usage of that word and the technical usage of that word are not identical.
    What do you mean when you say “evolved” what is the mechanism you are imagining that word is invoking?
    If it is purely random mutation and natural selection we run back into all the evidence posted in earlier posts. Those mechanisms, by themselves, don’t get us the observed results.
    If it is some other process or some other addition to those processes and you think that you can show how it could explain the evidence observed in a purely materialist way, I’m all ears on your explanation and defense. So far, you’ve only asserted it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Wow, I think you tipped your picnic basket and a couple sandwiches fell out there
    Maybe, though I’d point out none of the rest of this response has anything to do with the topic at hand. I offered some evidentiary reasons that conflict with a purely “random mutation and natural selection” explanation. In post 640, you stated “it isn’t compatible with ANY theory” (and you repeated it at the beginning of this response) which would seem to me to be an agreement that the evidence isn’t compatible with a purely “random mutation and natural selection” explanation. Now, maybe you meant something else by that, but I was doing my best to be charitable to read that as exasperation with my conclusion rather than a suggestion that there is an issue with the evidence.

    If you don’t agree with me that the evidence isn’t compatible with a “random mutation and natural selection” explanation then how do you square the two?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You said:
    "Well, I'm not sure that is what the historical evidence says. It would seem to indicate the opposite, that humans have very rarely engaged in multiple-partner relationships or had multiple partners throughout their lives.....
    Fair enough, I was generally referring to multiple people relationships, but I see why you read it that way. If we are talking about a man remarrying after his wife dies in childbirth or a woman remarrying after her husband dies in fighting, sure I think that is probably somewhat common historically. If you are referring to a more “free love” kind of multiple partner, no commitment type of thing as I was, then no the historical evidence is that societies generally don’t tolerate that because it is really bad for society and that families don’t tolerate it because it is really bad for their offspring.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    God of the Bible does seem to have a great interest in human sex...
    God has a great interest in our lives and whether we are pursuing activities that make us better or worse. Sex is obviously part of that being a major part of our lives. I don’t think your perception of the Bible being overly emphasized on sex is accurate though. The discussion of sexual activity is relatively limited in the Bible. It takes up far less textual space than other governing codes or contemporary works. Don’t confuse social obsession with the relative importance discussed in the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    IOW, you could have made the mostest perfect, most correct post ever, and if it was in German, it would mean little to me (or most readers)….
    Learn German. ;-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Does it? What is the meaningful difference between the homo's 6 million yrs ago to the homos 5 million yrs ago?
    This is a misapprehension of what I was saying. While there were quite a few differences between homo genus of 6 million and 5 million years ago (including that there weren’t any of the homo genus 5 million years ago), you are measuring along the wrong scale.
    My point in the distinction is that the criteria and aspects being described through empirical anthropology and the description of homosapien sapien are different than the criteria and aspects being described by other fields, including Genesis. But because those two fields are describing different aspects doesn’t mean they are talking about to different things.
    Geologists talk about the crystalline structure and morphology of a rock. Archeologists talk about its placement relative to an artifact. Both are talking about the same rock.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    IOW, explain to me why all the homo's matter. I am trying to find the start of humans in Genesis with regards to Earth, and you are sapien sapien sapien…..evading the question.
    As I pointed out earlier in the thread. The point is that the narrative of Genesis and the narrative of biology overlap in one aspects, even if they are focusing on different areas of the development of us. The point where they conceptually overlap is that there was a male and a female from whom all humans are descended. And that is the point that both the evidence and the account agree on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Ahh, the ole it's in the translation routine again.
    We have spoke of this before. When a tough point comes up, there is always a translation "situation".
    But as you just pointed out a minute ago, even in our own language it isn’t always possible to get every idea across to every single person. If we are really going to plumb the depths of the meaning in a work, we have to adopt some more sophisticated tools than simple plain text reading. If we want to confine ourselves to simple plain text reading, that is fine, but then it means we need to do that for the nature of our objections too. We can’t use a subtle linguistic distinction to point out a “contradiction” then refuse to acknowledge an analysis of that linguistic distinction.
    It also seems a bit incongruous that a being of such immense knowledge wouldn’t use a communication style that works both on the surface level, and on a more subtle level. I think we would be far more surprised if the God of the universe conveyed His message and truth through a cat in the had level of vocabulary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Except "dust" and "fine matter" aren't alive!
    You skipped the third part of that definition, which is the relevant one here: “material used to create or form something."

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Eve coming from Adams "rib" means she was made from/of Adam, not dust.
    This isn’t correct. The idea of being formed out of Adam’s rib is part of the narrative of progressive creation within Genesis. If you read the first couple of chapters the overall narrative is of God creating from simple to complex. Then of living things from baser living things to more complex, to those that can move and fly, to those that can think (male) and finally to those that also have a less animalistic nature (female). The point of Eve coming from a rib isn’t a biology point, it is that she is a later creation of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You only speak of the "people" after this "couple" as if those before didn't matter. There is no way of considering this couple were the "first sentient" homo/whatever or not.
    As you said, science has no opinion on the matter, one way or the other. The point I was making was that there is an area both science and Genesis speak to, and on that point they agree; that there was a male and a female from whom all humans are descended. In other areas science will talk about certain aspects and Genesis different aspects. But in this area the only one they are talking about the same aspect of humanity, they agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Doesn't the Bible generally stick with male heritage?
    In some aspects yes, in some aspects no. Jewish ethnicity, for example, is tracked via the matrilineal line. It is a bit more of a mixed bag.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    BoB was one Hell of a movie! Fortunately for me, I can only imagine combat back then (or now) would be like, but it seems that they took "pain" to portray a lot of the reality of that war. The selfless acts of these men, so we can sit in abject comfort and argue about a soul is humbling.
    Very much so. “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.” John Adams

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Soon, not yet, perhaps we should just agree that some deity exists and see where that conversation would go
    Very intriguing. I wonder where that would lead us. Perhaps best for other thread though?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Again Skippy, we haven't even gotten to the part that actually bothers me.
    You’re a tease. I’m excited, let’s get there.
    "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.


  10. #650
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Very intriguing. I wonder where that would lead us. Perhaps best for other thread though?
    Why another thread? I have consistently maintained theistic belief is reasonable, it is only when a specific religion is there an issue. Still seems to apply to the Op and at the moment, Sharmak appears to have left the bldg. so I don't see an objection from that way.
    However, if you prefer I would be happy to discuss it somewhere else

    ---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You’re a tease. I’m excited, let’s get there.
    Well, see above and lets do it!

    Ok, for the rest of this conversation (unless you want to start a new thread):

    A deity exists that created our universe is a given premise and will not be challenged.

    Are we good?

  11. #651
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    A deity exists that created our universe is a given premise and will not be challenged.
    I think so, yeah.
    "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. #652
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think so, yeah.
    As you like, we shall just continue on as we have been then.

    ---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This gets into a much larger discussion, but one that is fun to have. A lot of full time physicists (Sean Carroll not included here) seem to dismiss philosophy as irrelevant to their field, but QM is a great example of why it is incredibly relevant. The exact same set of equations in QM can have at least 17 different physical interpretations. IE, the math could be turned into 17 different stories of what is going on.
    My point is that the Copenhagen interpretation seems to be the most philosophically coherent to me and thus most likely the correct interpretation of the math. That the math is correct is hardly doubtable at this point, the level of experimental verification is pretty robust. It would take some kind of basic overturning of how we interpret reality that is even more radical than the QM interpretation to really overturn it (something like cause and effect aren’t actually related for example).
    I'm not sure
    I am not sure how this relates to the quote you are responding to. No current model/theory explains all of what we observe.
    So going by your criteria, we should wait for further insight.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don’t think I’ve proposed any specific model of intervention. What I’ve pointed out, and as far as we’ve gotten is for me to say that “random mutation and natural selection” are insufficient mechanisms to explain observed results. Thus the options (from where I sit anyway) are either: 1)A complete new mechanism set not yet proposed or 2)That mechanism set plus an additional mechanism that conforms them to observed evidence.
    For this discussion I think I said it more better Scooter:
    either God is directly involved in the "progression" (evolution) of life or He is not.

    You are proposing direct involvement (as in God creates each species individually).



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It depends a lot on what you mean when you say “evolved” here. The vernacular usage of that word and the technical usage of that word are not identical.
    What do you mean when you say “evolved” what is the mechanism you are imagining that word is invoking?
    If it is purely random mutation and natural selection we run back into all the evidence posted in earlier posts. Those mechanisms, by themselves, don’t get us the observed results.
    If it is some other process or some other addition to those processes and you think that you can show how it could explain the evidence observed in a purely materialist way, I’m all ears on your explanation and defense. So far, you’ve only asserted it.
    I don't see how this matters at all (here)?

    I don't have to show life is here. It got here somehow. It has evolved/progressed/changed/(how many ways do I have t say things to keep semantics from becoming the topic instead of the idea?).
    That we have not yet explained "the mechanism" of this evolution does not necessarily mean it is of supernatural origin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Fair enough, I was generally referring to multiple people relationships, but I see why you read it that way.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Learn German. ;-)
    Ok Professor. I hope this was an attempt at humor.

    Not all are able nor capable of what you ask, but all should be afforded the level of understanding they desire should the Christian God exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is a misapprehension of what I was saying. While there were quite a few differences between homo genus of 6 million and 5 million years ago (including that there weren’t any of the homo genus 5 million years ago), you are measuring along the wrong scale.
    My point in the distinction is that the criteria and aspects being described through empirical anthropology and the description of homosapien sapien are different than the criteria and aspects being described by other fields, including Genesis. But because those two fields are describing different aspects doesn’t mean they are talking about to different things.
    Geologists talk about the crystalline structure and morphology of a rock. Archeologists talk about its placement relative to an artifact. Both are talking about the same rock.
    I get your point, though you could be correct here, I think you are stretching a bit....


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As I pointed out earlier in the thread. The point is that the narrative of Genesis and the narrative of biology overlap in one aspects, even if they are focusing on different areas of the development of us. The point where they conceptually overlap is that there was a male and a female from whom all humans are descended. And that is the point that both the evidence and the account agree on.
    I think not. Genesis describes the beginning of life. Creating man from non-life and woman from/of man. You continued attempts to over complicate that which is simple is interesting.
    Maybe if you translated your German explanations into Japanese I might understand better

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But as you just pointed out a minute ago, even in our own language it isn’t always possible to get every idea across to every single person. If we are really going to plumb the depths of the meaning in a work, we have to adopt some more sophisticated tools than simple plain text reading....
    Translation (your German to Amurican):
    Another reason it is quite odd the maker of our precision universe would use such an ambiguous method to convey such an important message.
    Especially considering the message means EVERYTHING!


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You skipped the third part of that definition, which is the relevant one here: “material used to create or form something."
    Ya exactly "material". Non living material. Definitely not a monkey that has not been granted sentience!

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This isn’t correct. The idea of being formed out of Adam’s rib is part of the narrative of progressive creation within Genesis. If you read the first couple of chapters the overall narrative is of God creating from simple to complex. Then of living things from baser living things to more complex, to those that can move and fly, to those that can think (male) and finally to those that also have a less animalistic nature (female). The point of Eve coming from a rib isn’t a biology point, it is that she is a later creation of God.
    I will need support of that opinion. It seems pretty clear to me that Eve was made from/of Adam:

    1 Corinthians 11:8
    "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man."

  13. #653
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post567479

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    As you like, we shall just continue on as we have been then.
    Sorry if that sounded like I wasn't agreeing. I'm willing to move the discussion forward under that premise to explore another issue if you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    So going by your criteria, we should wait for further insight.
    I don't think I've said anything of that sort. The closest I've said is that we shouldn't adopt a theory that is directly contradicted by evidence. That is not the same thing as being explanatorily deficient.

    There is a world of differene between a theory that says "I don't know why that happened" and one that says "That shouldn't happen."

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You are proposing direct involvement (as in God creates each species individually).
    What have I said that makes you think that?

    What I've said is that this particularly naturalistic expanation is directly contradicted by the evidence. That is the extent to which we have gotten.

    Dividing up the options for replacement of that explanation based on preconceptions of how they might affect our ideological outcome is just begging for confirmation bias (and in this case it presents a false dichotomy). Rather, we would need to evaluate additional hypotheses, whatever they are, based on the evidence available, not on how those hypotheses might affect our ideological position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I don't see how this matters at all (here)?
    It matters a lot if we are going to presume a naturalstic dismissal of the observed evidence. It also matters a lot if we are going to keep our justified intellectual curiousity. Something exists, life, we should be seeking out how it came to exist. We wouldn't say "yeah everest exists, but who cares if we can explain how mountains are formed." Why would we adopt that posture here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    That we have not yet explained "the mechanism" of this evolution does not necessarily mean it is of supernatural origin.
    Of course not. Nor does it mean it is of naturalistic origin. Until we have a model that satisfactorily explains the evidence we can't conclude anything about origin. Doing so simply imparts our bias into the question. (This is the basis for all the bad "of the gaps" type arguments that come up, either God or Atheism variants are equally fallacious).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Ok Professor. I hope this was an attempt at humor.

    Not all are able nor capable of what you ask, but all should be afforded the level of understanding they desire should the Christian God exist.
    Don't worry, it was. My german is attrocious and I took three years of it in college. My spanish is equally bad. I am not a languages guy. I lived, essentially by myself, with Iraqis for six months, interacting with them daily and I picked up like 6 words of arabic. Believe me when I say that I know not every field is right for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Another reason it is quite odd the maker of our precision universe would use such an ambiguous method to convey such an important message.
    Especially considering the message means EVERYTHING!
    You're presuming there is a better method that would accomplish His aims. That is a heck of an assumption and one that seems to be based on gut feel. Let me ask this. How would you write Genesis 1?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Ya exactly "material". Non living material. Definitely not a monkey that has not been granted sentience!
    Whoa there. You added the non-living part, that isn't part of the definition. Nor does the word material add that kind of conotation (even in english). We use the word material to refer to living matter all the time. We refer to living skin grafts as "the material placed over a burn wound" or "this tumor is made of cancerous material" etc. etc. The same word is used in the Old Tesament to refer to the descendents of Jacob who "make" the nation of Israel. Or when refering to the masses in "when I raised you from the masses to make you a great people."

    But then, aren't you also you also saying that life came from non-living material?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I will need support of that opinion.
    Sure, listen to the 18 min mark here: http://torahmeansteacher.com/tmt-147-genesis-218-223/

    He also discusses it a lot in Genesis 1 as well. He cites Nahum M. Sarna, Jacob Milgrim, Dennis Prager, Leon Kass, and a few others as making that argument. It isn't a particularly new strain of thought.

    I think when you read genesis 1 you see a pretty clear progression from simple to complex to holy. The order of creation is pretty clearly from the simplistic and base to the complex and holy. I think to clarify a bit, again we translate it as rib because English lacks a word for it, but the Hebrew term really has a broader meaning, something more like "a part of" or "the side of." Adam (the post Eve creation name, Adamah (mankind) being used before) is essentially a being who part is taken from, refined, and then built upon to form Eve). Also important to note that the verb changes. God "forms" Adamah, but he "makes" Eve. The latte is a more refined word implying more than simple lumping together by imparting more meaning or using more intent. You form a pile, you make a house.

    There is a lot in here if you are willing to go deep enough.
    "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.


  14. #654
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Sorry if that sounded like I wasn't agreeing. I'm willing to move the discussion forward under that premise to explore another issue if you want.
    No worries.
    As you like, here or in forum is fine with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don't think I've said anything of that sort.
    Seems a common comment in these types of conversations....



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The closest I've said is that we shouldn't adopt a theory that is directly contradicted by evidence. That is not the same thing as being explanatorily deficient.
    Fair enough I suppose, but I believe my thoughts, leaned toward:
    "since the beginning of life on Earth till now, life's progression has been the result of divine intervention or it has not (whether or not other natural processes are involved as well)."

    That humanity has not figured out how this could have happened in detail without divine intervention has no affect on this point. Obviously it has happened, either the divine was involved or it was not.
    You seemed to be implying that since we don't know how "speciation" comes to be, as support that there is something supernatural involved in this evolutionary process?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What have I said that makes you think that?
    Well, it is a thread about God for god's sake, and you are on the affirmative side soooooooooo……..
    &
    If your take on evolution is not support of god, why are we discussing it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It matters a lot if we are going to presume a naturalstic dismissal of the observed evidence. It also matters a lot if we are going to keep our justified intellectual curiousity. Something exists, life, we should be seeking out how it came to exist. We wouldn't say "yeah everest exists, but who cares if we can explain how mountains are formed." Why would we adopt that posture here?
    My definition of evolution in this conversation is like:
    "no life. then one cell life. then many cell life..."

    The "mechanism" you speak of (for this conversation) only matters to the extent that life and it's progression was the direct result of God's actions or not (regardless of other natural processes also being involved).

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Of course not. Nor does it mean it is of naturalistic origin. Until we have a model that satisfactorily explains the evidence we can't conclude anything about origin. Doing so simply imparts our bias into the question. (This is the basis for all the bad "of the gaps" type arguments that come up, either God or Atheism variants are equally fallacious).
    Meaning this topic is not support for theistic belief at the moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You're presuming there is a better method that would accomplish His aims. That is a heck of an assumption and one that seems to be based on gut feel. Let me ask this. How would you write Genesis 1?
    Hmmmm. You funny hairy guy you....
    Read that question again!

    We are discussing that the written loses context and understanding as languages come/go and (like in Amurica) morph over time that the meaning of a word changes over time.
    IOW, God communicating such an important message in such an ambiguous manner is odd and your question is:
    "How would I write Genesis 1?"

    Seriously?....
    I think the written word from thousands of yrs ago is an inefficient way for God to communicate to the present population, and your question is "how would I write it better"?

    Written yesterday in a language I understand would be immeasurably better than what we have currently but the point was it is not sufficient to easily accurately convey the message (coming from the maker of our universe). God would know this.

    Or better yet (as we have discussed earlier in this thread I believe):
    How about a book that appears in the language of who ever reads it understands at whatever level they are capable of?

    That would be worthy of the God of this universe!

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Whoa there. You added the non-living part, that isn't part of the definition. Nor does the word material add that kind of conotation (even in english). We use the word material to refer to living matter all the time. We refer to living skin grafts as "the material placed over a burn wound" or "this tumor is made of cancerous material" etc. etc. The same word is used in the Old Tesament to refer to the descendents of Jacob who "make" the nation of Israel. Or when refering to the masses in "when I raised you from the masses to make you a great people."
    Perhaps, but it seems a stretch to me. When reading it the more likely intended idea was from non living to living otherwise it isn't so miraculous. Doesn't genesis mean the beginning basically? It is describing the beginning of the universe and life, not the changing of an existing universe and changing existing life. If Genesis was describing Adam being born/chosen/whatever from existing homo's/apes/whatever I would think it would be more descriptive of that.
    Another point to the "odd column", not necessarily anything in and of itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But then, aren't you also you also saying that life came from non-living material?
    That is how it appears to me no matter how the origin of life came to be. The alternative (life coming from life) seems less likely.



    Gotta go, I will get to your last point shortly.
    Last edited by Belthazor; September 21st, 2019 at 04:37 PM.

  15. #655
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Sure, listen to the 18 min mark here: http://torahmeansteacher.com/tmt-147-genesis-218-223/

    He also discusses it a lot in Genesis 1 as well. He cites Nahum M. Sarna, Jacob Milgrim, Dennis Prager, Leon Kass, and a few others as making that argument. It isn't a particularly new strain of thought.

    I think when you read genesis 1 you see a pretty clear progression from simple to complex to holy. The order of creation is pretty clearly from the simplistic and base to the complex and holy. I think to clarify a bit, again we translate it as rib because English lacks a word for it, but the Hebrew term really has a broader meaning, something more like "a part of" or "the side of." Adam (the post Eve creation name, Adamah (mankind) being used before) is essentially a being who part is taken from, refined, and then built upon to form Eve). Also important to note that the verb changes. God "forms" Adamah, but he "makes" Eve. The latte is a more refined word implying more than simple lumping together by imparting more meaning or using more intent. You form a pile, you make a house.

    There is a lot in here if you are willing to go deep enough.

    I listened to quite a bit of this and just don't see it helping/supporting your point even a little bit. Per your source:

    Different words are used when describing the creation of the Earth and animals than that which is used when referring to the creation of man and also woman. So man is created differently than other animals and the Earth, and Eve is created differently than man.
    He says that the Earth was God's greatest creation prior to man. Man the greatest creation prior to woman. In that, man was created from the "dust" of the Earth and woman created from "mans side". So no rib being taken out, but still a part of man was used to create woman.

    I don't see how this lends itself to man was just another animal until one day given sentience by God.

    You (in post #649) state:
    " The point of Eve coming from a rib isn’t a biology point, it is that she is a later creation of God. "

    Then above you state:
    "... something more like "a part of" or "the side of." Adam (the post Eve creation name, Adamah (mankind) being used before) is essentially a being who part is taken from, refined, and then built upon to form Eve)."

    So it is DEFINATLEY a "biology point" since Eve was literally made from "Adamah" per you and your source. The only reason " that she is a later creation of God, is because Adam has to exist first so she can made of/from/whatever him.

    Either way this leaves no room I can see at all for man to have come/evolved/changed/whatever from other animals unless Genesis is a metaphor.
    (It also gives "Adamah" the same DNA as Eve or why use that "material").

    You will need to reconcile how Eve came/created/whatever from existing life and from "Adamah" both. That is mutually exclusive or again, this is a metaphor...

  16. #656
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Seems a common comment in these types of conversations....
    Well it should be an easy matter to quote me making such a statement then. I suspect (as is common for anyone on one of these debates) that you are assuming the conclusion I've come to without me actualy coming to it.

    The fact is I don't think we need to "wait for all the evidence" that would be nonsensical as it is the process of developing hypotheses that guides us in collecting evidence. But we need to be careful, once we've gathered that evidence, to not stick to models that are contradicted by it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You seemed to be implying that since we don't know how "speciation" comes to be, as support that there is something supernatural involved in this evolutionary process?
    I don't think this conversation has gotten anywhere near to that point (nor has Squatch personally either, this is not an area I spend a lot of intellectual time). This genetic conversation arose as a kind of side point to the more germane point about mitochondrial eve. It was a question raised by you to that main point that invoked progressive evolution that generated this discussion. The end of which was, we can't rely on purely progressive evolution to explain the variation we observe so that original objection doesn't quite follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    My definition of evolution in this conversation is like:
    "no life. then one cell life. then many cell life..."

    The "mechanism" you speak of (for this conversation) only matters to the extent that life and it's progression was the direct result of God's actions or not (regardless of other natural processes also being involved).
    That definition is the biological equivilant of saying something like "hunter-gather, factories, internet" what you leave out in the gaps is more than what is covered in the explanation. There is a massive world of difference (and this is something Darwin couldn't have known) between inorganic compounds and the ridiculously complex workings of even the simplest cells.

    How you get from A to B does matter here if it is going to be appealed to as an explanatory mechanism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Meaning this topic is not support for theistic belief at the moment.
    Or for a rejection of evidence in support of that belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I think the written word from thousands of yrs ago is an inefficient way for God to communicate to the present population, and your question is "how would I write it better"?
    Fine then what, precisely would you use to convey your message? If it is the book that appears to be whatever language the reader reads then you are appealing to magic, which is exactly the message th Old Testament is attempting to overturn. Hard to really create a new people by using the same methods and raw material as the old one.

    There is also something to be said here for us shifting the burden. You're asking God to babysafe theology. But there is a point where you have to let your growing children assume some risk or they don't grow. If God is giving us an impossible to question message how are we really, freely making a choice? And how does that affect our development as individuals? If I don't have to explore concepts because it is laid out in "see jane run" language, how am I getting better? I think your proposal is kind of the universal basic income of spirituality with all the same intendent problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Perhaps, but it seems a stretch to me. When reading it the more likely intended idea was from non living to living otherwise it isn't so miraculous.
    It isn't? You're talking about a book that was present at a time when every culture on the planet had a creation story about their gods fighting and waring to form man from non-living matter as slaves. It would be hard to call mimicing that story line revalotory or revolutionary. Instead, this is the first (and to my knowledge only) origin story that involves a progressive creation from pure will of the creator. That is miraculous.

    This is the only origin story where the universe is created ex nihlio and then ordered. In all other ancient creation stories it is the ordering of a primordial chaos hat pre-exists with the gods. That God would take a creature that He already created and transform it is the ho hum part. The shocking part is that He created them in His image and established value in them. That is a massive departure from the universal slaves motif present in all other contemporary accounts.

    I'm also not sure I find your objection that it "should cover it in more detail" a valid one. This isn't a science text book, why would it cover those details? Science textbooks don't, generally, talk about the metaphysical or moral or legal implications of their topics, why would expect this work to stray off track here? It doesn't cover a lot f the intricate details of creation because they fundamentally aren't the point. That God created fusion before fision is completely irrelevant to the fact that God created.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Doesn't genesis mean the beginning basically? It is describing the beginning of the universe and life, not the changing of an existing universe and changing existing life.
    It does, but that is a name appended onto the book much later by Christian scholars and means more "the beginning of the story." The Jews originally didn't use those book names, its just Torah with individual parshas. I would be wary of reading too much into a later organizational method used by Christian monks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    That is how it appears to me no matter how the origin of life came to be. The alternative (life coming from life) seems less likely.
    True. As long as we are positing that there is a beginning to life, we are arguing that life came from non-life and that state change requires some explanation. (This sounds familiar ;-) )

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I listened to quite a bit of this and just don't see it helping/supporting your point even a little bit...I don't see how this lends itself to man was just another animal until one day given sentience by God.
    I think during the gap you might have conflated two different points. My point in that citation wasn't that this progression was evidence for a graduated biological evolution (my point remains that that is not the purpose of this work). It was that the formation of Eve from Adam was part of an arc about the movement from base to holy. That point was exactly what you paraphrased. God goes from simplistic to complex, from crawling detestable things to beings in the image of God.

    Given that that is the clear arc of that narrative, it is hard to argue that this is making a technical biological point. Especially when the work refuses to make any technical points anywhere else, I'm not sure why we would expect to see them made here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You will need to reconcile how Eve came/created/whatever from existing life and from "Adamah" both. That is mutually exclusive or again, this is a metaphor...
    As I mentioned before in this thread, you are conflating biological anthropology with philosophical anthropology. The Genesis account is not talking about biological anthropology. It isn't concerned with DNA or other biological aspects. It isn't talking about, nor even vaguely references, changes in physical forms. It is talking about philosophical anthropology, the progression of what we usually call "mankind" (adamah) not a homosapien male (Adam). The work certainly does become confusing when you try to read it in a genre it wasn't written in, just as moby dick would be confusing if you were trying to read it as an economics text book or a marine biology text book.
    "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.


  17. #657
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well it should be an easy matter to quote me making such a statement then. I suspect (as is common for anyone on one of these debates) that you are assuming the conclusion I've come to without me actualy coming to it.
    Calm down there Professor, I didn't mean to stir your cool aid there....

    Our conversations (as is very common among any two people talking) are rife with me saying one thing and you hearing another. Communication is a difficult thing (especially when one insists on making terminology purposefully, needlessly, overly complex. *Note here I almost used a number of words that probably 90% of English speaking people would have to look up to understand what I was actually saying so I would be using "exacting language"! Would this have made my point clearer? I think not).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That definition is the biological equivilant of saying something like "hunter-gather, factories, internet" what you leave out in the gaps is more than what is covered in the explanation. There is a massive world of difference (and this is something Darwin couldn't have known) between inorganic compounds and the ridiculously complex workings of even the simplest cells.

    How you get from A to B does matter here if it is going to be appealed to as an explanatory mechanism.
    Will some one please cut down all of the trees so we can actually see the forest instead of just all these damn trees?.....

    That definition was for "this conversation" Skippy, not biology in general. IOW:
    God is directly involved in the progression of non life, to life, to the current life we enjoy, or He is not (regardless of other natural processes that may also be involved).

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Or for a rejection of evidence in support of that belief.
    Which is fine since I am not forwarding the "truth", just exploring what others claim it to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Fine then what, precisely would you use to convey your message? If it is the book that appears to be whatever language the reader reads then you are appealing to magic, which is exactly the message th Old Testament is attempting to overturn. Hard to really create a new people by using the same methods and raw material as the old one.
    1. God uses "magic" a lot so says the Bible. Parting of a Sea, Virgin birth, a loaf of bread feeding thousands, oh and the Resurrection!!, etc.
    2. I am not an OMNI, but a method God knows will be easily copied and used to obscure the truth makes little sense indeed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If God is giving us an impossible to question message how are we really, freely making a choice?
    The free will argument holds no water whenever I have heard it invoked.

    1. How is knowing truth, negatively affecting your ability to "choose freely"?
    1a. Indeed, how can one make a free will choice if the choices are unknown?
    2. If you don't know the truth, how can you make a "free will choice"?
    3. How does faith enhance this decision making process?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And how does that affect our development as individuals? If I don't have to explore concepts because it is laid out in "see jane run" language, how am I getting better? I think your proposal is kind of the universal basic income of spirituality with all the same intendent problems.
    A bldg. foundation needs stable ground to rest on. Same with intellect. Religion needs a solid foundation does it not?
    Faith is not stable...
    I don't consider the KCA and similar arguments as a useful way to presume a god exists in the way humans see religion.
    I see no reason, and have never been presented one, that God would not allow His existence to be known in fairly certain terms.

    I will get to the rest later...
    Last edited by Belthazor; October 18th, 2019 at 07:24 PM.

  18. #658
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Our conversations (as is very common among any two people talking) are rife with me saying one thing and you hearing another. Communication is a difficult thing (especially when one insists on making terminology purposefully, needlessly, overly complex. *Note here I almost used a number of words that probably 90% of English speaking people would have to look up to understand what I was actually saying so I would be using "exacting language"! Would this have made my point clearer? I think not).
    This is probably a broader conversation, but let me ask a question. Why do you think that distinction in language exists? Why are there such complex words and structures?

    And a follow up question, have you ever read 1984? Do you remember why Winston was involved in a project to simplify the dictionary?

    We can simplify the language, and in multiple instances here, I have. But that has only led to confusion as well as what you think I mean when I say "red" and what I think I mean when I say "red" are two very different shades. And, as I pointed out somewhere, I'm happy to drop subtle or complex answers, but then you can't invoke objections that entail subtle or complex concepts. If we are going to to say the shades of my socks and shirt don't match, don't be surprised when I point out that chartreuse and vermillion do match [note: I have no idea if they match in real life].

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    1. God uses "magic" a lot so says the Bible. Parting of a Sea, Virgin birth, a loaf of bread feeding thousands, oh and the Resurrection!!, etc.
    I think you misundestand magic a bit then. Magic is the use of ritual or human action to command supernatural power. Magic is the concept that we can control God (or the gods for them) by our actions. It isn't just a big catchall for "stuff we can't explain." That we can harness that power for our own ends.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    2. I am not an OMNI...
    Ok, then with what knowledge are you basing your objection on? IE if you are going to argue that this isn't the optimal method, you should be able to point out which method is better and why. Simply saying "God should know of one better" doesn't really give us much to go on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    1. How is knowing truth, negatively affecting your ability to "choose freely"?
    But you aren't positing that we simply know the truth. You are positing that we know it in such overwhelming, compelling, irresistible terms that no one could doubt it. And if no one is capable of doubting it, then in what sense are we freely able to choose it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    A bldg. foundation needs stable ground to rest on. Same with intellect. Religion needs a solid foundation does it not?
    Faith is not stable...
    Religion, like Science is a series of dogmas based on some initial assumptions. Even if we were just going off of pure, blind faith, the assumption "in the beginning God..." is just as much an assumption as "Every non-empty set x contains a member y such that x and y are disjoint sets" or "my senses apprehend reality." All structures of human knowledge rest on basic assumptions from which other truths are derived. No axiom is stable, it relies on the evidentiary support and logical arguments supporting it. Doesn't matter if that axiom is related to set theory or atonement.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I will get to the rest later...
    Looking forward to it.
    "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.


  19. #659
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There is also something to be said here for us shifting the burden. You're asking God to babysafe theology. But there is a point where you have to let your growing children assume some risk or they don't grow.
    I am suggesting that a communication medium that is easily duplicated/manipulated, hard to understand, prone to translation errors, is completely one way communication, and only doing that thousands of yeas ago, is an odd way to forward such an important message if the one communicating that message is an OMNI....

    Again, allowing the people (that want) to know He exists is a basic starting place. Your stance of (to paraphrase): "we can never really be sure about anything, as in we can not even be sure the moon exists" rings a bit hollow when:
    1. CLEARLY, we can have more evidence to God's existence than we currently have (assuming He exists)! We certainly would be able to be as sure of God's existence as the moon's if God so chose.
    2. Once His existence is established, there is still soooooooooo much more to learn/discern, I don't even see your point applying in the way you are trying.

    ---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm also not sure I find your objection that it "should cover it in more detail" a valid one. This isn't a science text book, why would it cover those details?
    You get sooo carried away Skippy. Not every situation needs your extreme stance. By detail, I meant something more like:
    If life on Earth was just a progression since it appeared (evolution) and humans were just another animal (that God added sentience to) it would probably read that way. As it is, man is said to be created different from other animals which as different words were used for the creation of each. And again, Eve was created differently than Adam and other animals (per your source) so your idea that Genesis is saying man came from already existing animals makes little sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think during the gap you might have conflated two different points. My point in that citation wasn't that this progression was evidence for a graduated biological evolution (my point remains that that is not the purpose of this work). It was that the formation of Eve from Adam was part of an arc about the movement from base to holy. That point was exactly what you paraphrased. God goes from simplistic to complex, from crawling detestable things to beings in the image of God.

    Given that that is the clear arc of that narrative, it is hard to argue that this is making a technical biological point. Especially when the work refuses to make any technical points anywhere else, I'm not sure why we would expect to see them made here.
    Whether Adam and Eve were created separately from other animals, or was just part of the evolution of life on Earth is hardly a "technical point" and has ramifications of its own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As I mentioned before in this thread, you are conflating biological anthropology with philosophical anthropology. The Genesis account is not talking about biological anthropology. It isn't concerned with DNA or other biological aspects. It isn't talking about, nor even vaguely references, changes in physical forms. It is talking about philosophical anthropology, the progression of what we usually call "mankind" (adamah) not a homosapien male (Adam). The work certainly does become confusing when you try to read it in a genre it wasn't written in, just as moby dick would be confusing if you were trying to read it as an economics text book or a marine biology text book.
    Huh? Something happened while you were away...
    Your "citation" clearly says Eve is created of/from/a piece of Adam. She can not be part of the natural progression (evolution) of life on Earth. There is no room here for you to wiggle with complex words. Adam and Eve were created separately from other animals (as evidenced by other words being used when describing their creation) and lived in Heaven or they were part of the natural progression of life on Earth.

    also

    Genesis is certainly showing God's decisions for all of creation. It gives time frames for these decisions.
    I am not seeing how Adam and Eve in Heaven, then being cast down to Earth fits with your narrative here.

    ---------- Post added at 06:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is probably a broader conversation, but let me ask a question. Why do you think that distinction in language exists? Why are there such complex words and structures?
    Look Professor, there is certainly a time for exactness, but we are not building a nuclear bomb here, this is pretty simple, basic stuff. My issues so far are only "complicated" because a simple answer from you will probably invalidate your point/s.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And a follow up question, have you ever read 1984? Do you remember why Winston was involved in a project to simplify the dictionary?
    I did read it in high school, and to this day am TOTALLY amazed that "double think" is so prevalent in our society!
    I don't remember the "project" you reference though, sorry...

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We can simplify the language, and in multiple instances here, I have. But that has only led to confusion as well as what you think I mean when I say "red" and what I think I mean when I say "red" are two very different shades.
    Save complex language for complex thoughts/ideas/concepts.
    How man was "created" does not require, nor is enhanced by:
    purposefully, needlessly, overly complex language being used in place of just stating basic, simple facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think you misundestand magic a bit then. Magic is the use of ritual or human action to command supernatural power. Magic is the concept that we can control God (or the gods for them) by our actions. It isn't just a big catchall for "stuff we can't explain." That we can harness that power for our own ends.
    The use of supernatural power using only ones mind/will is magic to me, but little matter.
    Point is, God has done lots of things that defy natural law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, then with what knowledge are you basing your objection on? IE if you are going to argue that this isn't the optimal method, you should be able to point out which method is better and why. Simply saying "God should know of one better" doesn't really give us much to go on.
    Soooooo, you think I can only show a deficiency of given idea if I can also show a better method? Absolutely ridiculous!

    If I see a bridge I believe will fall down if traffic is allowed to travel on, I really don't think I need to design a "better" bridge to make that assumption...


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But you aren't positing that we simply know the truth. You are positing that we know it in such overwhelming, compelling, irresistible terms that no one could doubt it. And if no one is capable of doubting it, then in what sense are we freely able to choose it?
    Are you sure you don't want to concede religion is just a personal thing and not a logical conclusion given current evidence? This response is....well,...... unlike you...….?????????

    I have not said anything like what you are shoveling here.

    I am suggesting some simple truths being available to be known....

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Religion, like Science is a series of dogmas based on some initial assumptions. Even if we were just going off of pure, blind faith, the assumption "in the beginning God..." is just as much an assumption as "Every non-empty set x contains a member y such that x and y are disjoint sets" or "my senses apprehend reality." All structures of human knowledge rest on basic assumptions from which other truths are derived. No axiom is stable, it relies on the evidentiary support and logical arguments supporting it. Doesn't matter if that axiom is related to set theory or atonement.
    Sure we must have some initial assumptions (like "I exist").

    How does this comment of yours relate to a foundation for religious belief?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Looking forward to it.

    Have a great night, happy you are back from your adventure

  20. #660
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But you aren't positing that we simply know the truth. You are positing that we know it in such overwhelming, compelling, irresistible terms that no one could doubt it. And if no one is capable of doubting it, then in what sense are we freely able to choose it?
    I must say this comment is just soo off your usual style...

    You seem to be saying at the moment we get to "choose what is true". With regards to truth, in what sense are you ever "freely able to choose it?"?
    This seems a nonsensical position....

    and

    1. I was positing God making His existence available to be known. Not that every single human that ever lived must be instructed it is so.

    2. Even if God were to make His existence known "in such overwhelming, compelling, irresistible terms that no one could doubt it" so what?? Why/how is that possibly a free will issue?

    3. So I ask again, how does the availability of a truth limit your free will?
    Being able to know a truth is an issue? If you hit your head with a rock, it hurts (most people anyway...). That is a truth. Now that you know that, what part of your free will has been robbed/taken from you?

 

 
Page 33 of 34 FirstFirst ... 23 29 30 31 32 33 34 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, 06:02 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 25th, 2015, 09:37 AM
  3. The Theistic Definition Thread
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2007, 02:13 PM
  4. Theistic Evolution????
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: April 13th, 2006, 06:53 AM
  5. Theistic Death
    By Iluvatar in forum Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2005, 08:01 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
  •