# Christianity and science



## reformedpastor (Mar 4, 2009)

Are they compatible? Are they in conflict? Must one abandon one or the other to be a Christian or scientist? 

These are not new questions and it might do those interested some good to travel back about 100 years and examine the struggle ensuing among Christians in the early 20th century.  

This is a quote by Gresham Machen who really lead the charge against the encroaching error of liberalism or naturalism in the church. Particularly the Presbyterian Church. 

"However the question may be answered, it presents a serious problem to the modern Church. Attempts are indeed sometimes made to make the answer easier than at first sight it appears to be. Religion, it is said, is so entirely separate from science, that the two, rightly defined, cannot possibly come into conflict. This attempt at separation, as it is hoped the following pages may show, is open to objections of the most serious kind. But what must now be observed is that even if the separation is justifiable it cannot be effected without effort; the removal of the problem of religion and science itself constitutes a problem. For, rightly or wrongly, religion during the centuries has as a matter of fact connected itself with a host of convictions, especially in the sphere of history, which may form the subject of scientific investigation; just as scientific investigators, on the other hand, have sometimes attached themselves, again rightly or wrongly, to conclusions which impinge upon the innermost domain of philosophy and of religion. For example, if any simple Christian of one hundred years ago, or even of today, were asked what would become of his religion if history should prove indubitably that no man called Jesus ever lived and died in the first century of our era, he would undoubtedly answer that his religion would fall away. Yet the investigation of events in the first century in Judea, just as much as in Italy or in Greece, belongs to the sphere of scientific history. In other words, our simple Christian, whether rightly or wrongly, whether wisely or unwisely, has as a matter of fact connected his religion, in a way that to him seems indissoluble, with convictions about which science also has a right to speak. If, then, those convictions, ostensibly religious, which belong to the sphere of science, are not really religious at all, the demonstration of that fact is itself no trifling task. Even if the problem of science and religion reduces itself to the problem of disentangling religion from pseudo-scientific accretions, the seriousness of the problem is not thereby diminished. From every point of view, therefore, the problem in question is the most serious concern of the Church. What is the relation between Christianity and modern culture; may Christianity be maintained in a scientific age?"—From his book, Christianity and Liberalism


Could it be we have the atheism we have because we have the Church we have???? Just asking a scientific question.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 4, 2009)

This is an interesting subject and you have proposed numerous interesting questions. Scientists, no matter what their religion, practice practical atheism when they enter the lab. When they exit the lab, they become their normal religious beings again. What do I mean by this? I mean that when scientists are attempting to answer questions, they act under the assumption that God is not there. Therefore, God cannot be an answer to their scientific questions. Why is this so? Because God is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. To include a supernatural deity in a theory would make it unscientific since the one of the qualifications of a scientific theory is that the theory must be falsifiable. How would you ever disprove that God did it? You cannot, he is unfalsifiable.

This is the current dilemma of the Intelligent Design movement. They want creationism taught in science classes. However, creationism is not scientific because it relies on an unfalsifiable and unverifiable supernatural creator as the core of it's theories. Therefore to teach Intelligent Design in science classes would be to teach non-science in science classes. It's really an attempt to teach kids that if something looks designed that must mean it has a designer. Of course, natural selection shows us otherwise, but many creationists don't even recognize natural selection as a theory due to cultural influences and religious motivations.

I think your first question is a difficult one to answer. My thinking is this: The more stuff that a religion claims to know or that the specific religion's God has claimed to have done, the less likely that religion will be compatible with science.

So, with that in mind, I think deism is perfectly compatible with science. It makes no claims about how or when or where a supernatural creator created the universe. It simply says that a creator created the universe. Notice the lack of specifics in this claim? Now compare it to other religions creation myths. Let's look at Christianity. The Bible says that the world was created in 6 days and scholars have calculated this creation to have occurred around 6,000 years ago. So the Bible has made at least two specific statements about creation. But with science has come an understanding that the world is much older than 6,000 years old and that the world took much longer than 6 days to form. So are the two explanations compatible? Only if one side makes a compromise. This is almost always on the theist's side. They usually rely on looser interpretations to fit the scientific theories into the scripture. "Well 6 days means 4.5 billion years. Who knows what a day is to God?" and other various compromises are found in the explanations offered by moderate/liberal Christians today. Remember the 2008 pre-election debates with Huckabee?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n-BFEhkIujA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n-BFEhkIujA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Such a wide, broad answer. I'm assuming he does this to appeal to a wide, broad base of voters.

So to answer your question, I think religion and science are compatible, but only religions that make minimal claims to absolute knowledge of questions that can also be answered through science.

Science and Christianity are not compatible unless one side makes compromises or simply refuses to acknowledge scientific theories. Both of which are occurring in America today.

Great thoughts thanks for posting RF.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 4, 2009)

I think yes (to the atheism created by liberalism in the church)....because as you stray from a more conservative approach to the Bible, you open yourself up for attack.

In other words, as you bend on your convictions in one area, you have to bend more and more.  Then, at the end of the road, you realize that what you've ended up with isn't at all in the likeness of what you started with.

You can be a scientist and a religious person.  You can be a conservative Christian and be a scientists.  I know a few brilliant scientists that are conservative Christians and believe in a literal 6 day creation.  It takes more faith to believe in carbon dating than it does the Bible.


----------



## SBG (Mar 4, 2009)

footjunior said:


> This is the current dilemma of the Intelligent Design movement. They want creationism taught in science classes. However, creationism is not scientific because it relies on an unfalsifiable and unverifiable supernatural creator as the core of it's theories.



But the same argument could be used against evolution.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 4, 2009)

> So to answer your question, I think religion and science are compatible, but only religions that make minimal claims to absolute knowledge of questions that can also be answered through science.
> 
> Science and Christianity are not compatible unless one side makes compromises or simply refuses to acknowledge scientific theories. Both of which are occurring in America today.





This is a good response. 

Several questions. Creationism isn't science? Explain. 

Even though the Intelligent Design movement claims its not religious, you disagree. Can you justify this disagreement? 

Personally, as a Pastor, I don't support that movement as being Christian. 

In your view, all science, disproves creationism at every point, or only some points? 


Machen again, 

"As a matter of fact, however, it may appear that the figure which has just been used is altogether misleading; it may appear that what the liberal theologian (evolutionist) has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to be long in a distinct category. It may appear further that the fears of the modern man as to Christianity were entirely ungrounded, and that in abandoning the embattled walls of the city of God he has fled in needless panic into the open plains of a vague natural religion only to fall an easy victim to the enemy who ever lies in ambush there.

Two lines of criticism, then, are possible with respect to the liberal attempt at reconciling science and Christianity. Modern liberalism (the one has adopted principles of evolution) may be criticized (1) on the ground that it is un-Christian and (2) on the ground that it is unscientific. We shall concern ourselves here chiefly with the former line of criticism; we shall be interested in showing that despite the liberal use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of religions. But in showing that the liberal attempt at rescuing Christianity is false we are not showing that there is no way of rescuing Christianity at all; on the contrary, it may appear incidentally, even in the present little book, that it is not the Christianity of the New Testament which is in conflict with science, but the supposed Christianity of the modern liberal Church, and that the real city of God, and that city alone, has defenses which are capable of warding of the assaults of modern unbelief. 

However, our immediate concern is with the other side of the problem; our principal concern just now is to show that the liberal attempt at reconciling Christianity with modern science has really relinquished everything distinctive of Christianity, so that what remains is in essentials only that same indefinite type of religious aspiration which was in the world before Christianity came upon the scene. In trying to remove from Christianity everything that could possibly be objected to in the name of science, in trying to bribe off the enemy by those concessions which the enemy most desires, the apologist has really abandoned what he started out to defend. Here as in many other departments of life it appears that the things that are sometimes thought to be hardest to defend are also the things that are most worth defending."—Christianity and Liberalism


Written almost a hundred years ago and still relevant and applicable. 

I think you know what I think of Huckabee.

See, I would have to change my Christianity in order to make you say I am scientific. This is unacceptable. The quote says why.


Has modern Christianity compromised? I think......so 


We have the atheism we have because we have the Christianity we have?


----------



## pnome (Mar 4, 2009)

I would say that science and faith are incompatible. 

Science accepts nothing on faith.  Religions are all about having faith.

Does that make Christianity and Science incompatible?  Perhaps.  I guess it depends on how one defines Christianity.  If it's "absolute faith in the bible as the ultimate truth" then they are certainly not compatible.   If it's "Accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior" then I don't think there will be many conflicts.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 4, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Creationism isn't science? Explain.



It isn't not science because the core part of the theory is that a supernatural creator was involved. This part of the theory is not testable and therefore not falsifiable. Therefore, it is not science. It is a theory, but it is not a scientific theory.



> Even though the Intelligent Design movement claims its not religious, you disagree. Can you justify this disagreement?



Well... I don't remember saying that it is religious. At it's very core it is deistic, and therefore not inherently based on a religion. However, most of the time it's really an attempt to get a specific version of creationism into the classrooms. In America this variation is commonly called Young-Earth Creationism. It is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. So in theory Intelligent Design is deistic. However, in practice Intelligent Design is usually a version of creationism based upon a particular culture's religious beliefs.



> Personally, as a Pastor, I don't support that movement as being Christian.



Many Christians do and many do not. Many that do support it realize that it is a compromise. You get to teach kids that intelligent design is a possibility but you cannot teach them a certain kind of creationism. They realize that young-earth creationism will most likely never be allowed in science classrooms, so they take the next best thing: Intelligent Design.



> In your view, all science, disproves creationism at every point, or only some points?



It depends on which variation of creationism you're talking about. For example, Old-Earth Creationism is much more... science friendly, if you will. As long as there are Christians who are also scientists and find themselves unable to practice practical atheism in the lab, there will always be a twisting of the evidence towards a preferred variation of creationism.

To answer your question directly: Science will never be able to disprove all the points of creationism because it will never be able to disprove an intelligent designer. The intelligent designer will always be an unfalsifiable agent for whomever wants to believe in him. There may in fact be some evidence which could be viewed as evidence for young-earth creationism, but overwhelmingly the evidence points toward an earth that is 4.5 billion years old, where life originated sometime very shortly thereafter, and where evolution via natural selection has led to the diversity of life that we see today. Likewise, there may be evidence that points towards the creationism in other religions such as Hinduism, but when looking at the entire spectrum of evidence that we have available it is clear that overwhelming support lies on the side of non-creationism.



> Written almost a hundred years ago and still relevant and applicable.
> 
> I think you know what I think of Huckabee.
> 
> ...



I also think many have compromised. They do this under the guise of loose interpretations. Were there any Christians who thought of the 6 days mentioned in Genesis as anything more than 6 days before science came to the conclusion that the world took much longer to form that just 6 days? I think not.

Many moderates and liberals today want to have their cake and eat it too. As science progresses, compromising Christians take every opportunity to stretch their scriptural interpretations to resolve the cognitive dissonance between scientific theories and the absolute truth provided by The Bible. Those Christians who don't compromise are often ridiculed the most. They are ridiculed by secularists for believing in such ridiculous creation myths, and they are ridiculed by compromising Christians because they view uncompromising Christians as giving a "bad image" of Christianity.



> We have the atheism we have because we have the Christianity we have?



I think we have the atheism we have today because science and Christianity are growing apart. In order to believe that they are compatible you must have very loose interpretations or (even worse) accept that the Bible is not infallible. This often leads to atheism.

Here's my guess as to what's going to happen. As science progresses, religions will be pushed towards pure deism on an asymptotic function. That is: As the knowledge provided by science approaches infinite on an asymptotic scale, religions will approach deism.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 4, 2009)

SBG said:


> But the same argument could be used against evolution.



How so? Explain.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 4, 2009)

pnome said:


> I would say that science and faith are incompatible.
> 
> If it's "absolute faith in the bible as the ultimate truth" then they are certainly not compatible.   If it's "Accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior" then I don't think there will be many conflicts.



Well then Pnome....I'd agree with you.  *Based on your definition*, Science and Christianity are incompatible.  

Like you've said before, how can you believe what is in the back of the Bible if you don't believe what is in the front


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 4, 2009)

Jesus lives forever. 

Science dies with the human race. 

All humans will die. 

I will stick with Jesus.


----------



## pnome (Mar 4, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Jesus lives forever.
> 
> Science dies with the human race.
> 
> ...



I have to say I prefer science.  

It delivers measurable improvements to the human condition.   Religion only holds us back.


----------



## pnome (Mar 4, 2009)

To illustrate my point.  A graph....


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 4, 2009)

Science can only Measure and prove what it can see and touch.
How can it then test and prove what they cannot see or touch ?


----------



## pnome (Mar 4, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> How can it then test and prove what they cannot see or touch ?



Extrapolation my dear friend.  Extrapolation.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 4, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> You can be a scientist and a religious person.  You can be a conservative Christian and be a scientists.  I know a few brilliant scientists that are conservative Christians and believe in a literal 6 day creation.  It takes more faith to believe in carbon dating than it does the Bible.




As true a statement as has ever been.  
Many of the so-called absolutes of science are not absolutes at all.  Carbon dating is one of them.  The very idea that a scientist believes he can date something billions of years old has always seemed a far stretch to me.

Science is a great study.  But it has logical limits.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 4, 2009)

pnome said:


> I would say that science and faith are incompatible.
> 
> *Science accepts nothing on faith*.  Religions are all about having faith.
> 
> Does that make Christianity and Science incompatible?  Perhaps.  I guess it depends on how one defines Christianity.  If it's "absolute faith in the bible as the ultimate truth" then they are certainly not compatible.   If it's "Accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior" then I don't think there will be many conflicts.



Science is mostly about faith.  But if three scientist agree on something, it pretty much become fact.


----------



## pnome (Mar 4, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Science is mostly about faith.



Um, no it isn't.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 4, 2009)

As a Christian who takes the dominion mandate in Genesis seriously, I prefer all of life, which includes science.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 4, 2009)

> I think we have the atheism we have today because science and Christianity are growing apart. In order to believe that they are compatible you must have very loose interpretations or (even worse) accept that the Bible is not infallible. This often leads to atheism.
> 
> Here's my theory. As science progresses, religions will be pushed towards pure deism on an asymptotic function. That is: As the knowledge provided by science approaches infinite on an asymptotic scale, religions will approach deism.



Whenever the Church neglects or compromises her God given role atheism comes front and center. God allows His people to taste the various ills of atheism to cause her to long for the truth again. Which is on His Son Jesus Christ. 

I think you have spoken naively and should learn from those atheist in the past who have made similar claims. They are all gone and Christianity remains. Science will never be able to account for love, hate, loyalty or trust, for all of these transcendent facts of life that are very important to every one. 

There will be a time when folks look back on this time period and shack their heads in astonishment, how could anyone ever consider evolution as a valid theory for life and the bases for legitimate science.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 4, 2009)

pnome said:


> I have to say I prefer science.
> 
> It delivers measurable improvements to the human condition.   Religion only holds us back.



Only a moron would believe this.


----------



## earl (Mar 4, 2009)

[atheist in the past who have made similar claims. They are all gone and Christianity remains.]
[Only a moron would believe this. ]
I like this copy and paste thingy.


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 4, 2009)

Only a moron would believe this.


----------



## ToLog (Mar 4, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> Only a moron would believe this.



thank God for the Morons. we have the moron tax and all.
it's for those who are willing to pay a tax in order to have a chance at winning a MotherLoad.

Morons are helping in the financing of a great part of our public school expenses.  

Long live the Morons.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 4, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Science will never be able to account for love, hate, loyalty or trust, for all of these transcendent facts of life that are very important to every one.



Evolutionary biology along with psychology can explain many of those "transcendent facts" right now.



> There will be a time when folks look back on this time period and shack their heads in astonishment, how could anyone ever consider evolution as a valid theory for life and the bases for legitimate science.



Well the reverse can also be said. People will look back on this time period and wonder how people could ever consider creationism as a valid theory for our origins. The sad part for you is that many more moderate and liberal Christians are coming to this conclusion. The world has been shifting towards secularism for a while, even well before the Enlightenment. Fundamentalist Christianity is dying. More and more moderate and liberal Christians are evidence of a move towards deism.

Only time will tell.


----------



## jason4445 (Mar 4, 2009)

"Science delivers measurable improvements to the human condition. Religion only holds us back." 

This is true beyond truth, except you need to add the term fundamental before  religion.  Whenever the fundamental aspect of any religion is in control progress in any country or area progress is not only held back but most all progress they have achieved is practically destroyed.

That is why America has achieved so much and quickly in its development for we brought forth the law separating church and state.

The Founding Fathers  fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between church and state." John Adams wrote that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast.

That graft by pnome is certainly correct - when the fundamentalist arm of the Catholic Church ruled both church and government it plunged western civilization into what we call now the Dark Ages, but when the more liberal aspects of the church emerged and then broke off into Protestantism, the Renaissance developed and Western Civilization flourished.

Look at the Islamic countries, where the liberal arm of Islamic faith rules they are countries stable in their governments, and loved by their people - where the fundamental arm of the faith is present the people live in fear and poverty.

Look at the south where the fundamental arm of Christianity took root and held - it has kept the south 30 to 50 years behind the rest of the county and although its influence was waned the States still greatly influenced by fundamental Christianity still rank lowest in their schools, poverty level, and government services.

Can religion and science co exist - most certainly.  Science creates nothing - it just discovers what God has created.  God created the elements, the atoms and molecules, the chemical and physical reactions and laws, then science discovers these things, combines them together to make something new.  They did not create it - it was already there.  Science just found it. 

So teach what ever religion you want in your fundamental churches with its fear and condemnation -  let the schools teach the bounty and discovery of science , then let the individual in their physical, emotional, and spiritual development decide what they wish to believe, or combination of both.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 4, 2009)

jason4445 said:


> So teach what ever religion you want in your fundamental churches with its fear and condemnation -  let the schools teach the bounty and discovery of science , then let the individual in their physical, emotional, and spiritual development decide what they wish to believe, or combination of both.




  (these smilies are like the secular "amen")


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 4, 2009)

footjunior said:


> *People will look back on this time period and wonder how people could ever consider creationism as a valid theory for our origins.* The sad part for you is that many more moderate and liberal Christians are coming to this conclusion. The world has been shifting towards secularism for a while, even well before the Enlightenment. Fundamentalist Christianity is dying. More and more moderate and liberal Christians are evidence of a move towards deism.
> Only time will tell.



You are in for a really big surprise.
A big surprise one of these days.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 4, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> You are in for a really big surprise.
> A big surprise one of these days.



...



			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> Only time will tell.


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 4, 2009)

roothog said:


> thank God for the Morons. we have the moron tax and all.
> it's for those who are willing to pay a tax in order to have a chance at winning a MotherLoad.
> 
> Morons are helping in the financing of a great part of our public school expenses.
> ...



That's a different kind of moron, we all fall into that category.LOL


----------



## pnome (Mar 4, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Only a moron would believe this.




The best you could do?  

No passionate defense of religion?  Just a simple, "I think you're a moron."?

Maybe you could start a rebuttal by providing some historical examples where religion has helped us to better understand our universe.   Maybe some instance where religion has _discovered_ _something_ that we humans can use to better our lives in a measurable way.

Science works.  The fact that you are reading these words should be proof enough of that.


----------



## SBG (Mar 5, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Fundamentalist Christianity is dying. More and more moderate and liberal Christians are evidence of a move towards deism.



You are correct. The Bible got it right again, as usual.


2 Timothy      

4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;  

4:4
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 5, 2009)

This movement the "new atheism" is a movement within the atheist community and isn't at all indicative to the whole. 

You are right FJ, as a six day creationist, I am in the minority. But so are you. Dawkins and his sheep are labeled the "fundamentalist" wing of the atheist, and rightly so.

If one thinks, like pnome, that science is going to replace, remove, make null and void religion,  and create a utopia society, where science has a answer for all our ills, they are not being scientific. Rather they are only demonstrating a prejudice that ignores history and the limitation of true science. The new atheist are in the minority on this one. 

Dismissing all the ill's of mankind is another tactic that proves nothing. Everything wrong is blamed on religion in general and Christianity in particular. I can respond with one word.............convenient!!!!!!!! But far from proven. At least I can see ebb and flow of inconsistency in the church through out history. But I am not a fundamentalist either who is blind to failures. It doesn't look that way with pnome and others in the "new atheist' revival. They are truly dogmatic in the bad sense of the word. 

Dawkins will continue to isolate himself and his congregation from the rest of the atheist community. Watch and see! Its happening now!


----------



## footjunior (Mar 5, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> This movement the "new atheism" is a movement within the atheist community and isn't at all indicative to the whole.
> 
> You are right FJ, as a six day creationist, I am in the minority. But so are you. Dawkins and his sheep are labeled the "fundamentalist" wing of the atheist, and rightly so.



We're labeled that by theists in their vain attempt to make atheism fit into the mold of religion. I don't think many atheists are labeling New Atheism as "fundamentalist." If you're an atheist, you're an atheist. But if you are part of New Atheism, you are an atheist activist of whatever degree you would like to be.



> If one thinks, like pnome, that science is going to replace, remove, make null and void religion,  and create a utopia society, where science has a answer for all our ills, they are not being scientific. Rather they are only demonstrating a prejudice that ignores history and the limitation of true science. The new atheist are in the minority on this one.



There was once a time where there was no religion, and there might be a time in the future where there will be no religion. I think religion and science together will bring about the end of religion.



> Dawkins will continue to isolate himself and his congregation from the rest of the atheist community. Watch and see! Its happening now!



More like he's been very successful in recruiting more and more atheists to be a part of New Atheism.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

Let's see... Most homicide bombers are young people. Most Atheists are young people... Might there be a connection?

Yep. You can talk your age group into just about anything.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 5, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Let's see... Most homicide bombers are young people. Most Atheists are young people... Might there be a connection?
> 
> Yep. You can talk your age group into just about anything.



Statistics?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

You are living it. Look out your dorm room door.

As far as the homicide bombers. Let's see probably could find that on almost any al jazeera site but the FBI flagged me after buying a Quran in 01 on 9/12. So you go look. But you never see an old man blowing himself up in the mall in Jerusalem.

And statistics are the least viable argument. So you really need to find another one.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 5, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Let's see... Most homicide bombers are young people. Most Atheists are young people...



...



			
				celticfisherman said:
			
		

> And statistics are the least viable argument. So you really need to find another one.



By using the word "most" you are attempting to draw a statistical correlation between two variables. If statistics are the "least viable argument," then why did you use them? I sometimes wonder if you think before you post.

Define "young" and "old".


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

footjunior said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most is not statistical. Most is just a description. Back away from the smoke cloud take a breathe of fresh air and go back to your homework. Because you KNOW the answers to all of those questions. Unless you believe CNN is biased towards Christians and Jews. Cause Jihad Granny and the explosive walker ain't showed up yet!


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 5, 2009)

And sorry Reformedpastor for getting this off topic. My part since my point is well made before is done.


----------



## earl (Mar 5, 2009)

Sic Semper Tyrannis   Forum rules call for an english translation ,I believe. The biggest reason the young get the blame is because the old guys can't do it any more. Pick any modern war and have a look. As far as the atheist comment , that is ignorance talking. Sme of the things ya'll take fj to task for is just plain stupid. I AM GLAD TO SEE A YOUNG MAN PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES.


----------



## pnome (Mar 5, 2009)

earl said:


> Sic Semper Tyrannis   Forum rules call for an english translation ,I believe.




Google is your friend.  

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Sic+Semper+Tyrannis&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=


----------



## pnome (Mar 5, 2009)

footjunior said:


> there might be a time in the future where there will be no religion. I think religion and science together will bring about the end of religion.



Well, FJ, we're gonna have to disagree on that point.  I can't say I share your optimism.  I don't think you give enough credit to human  thirst for comfort.  We humans all too readily believe what we want to be true, regardless of it's validity.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 5, 2009)

> footjunior- We're labeled that by theists in their vain attempt to make atheism fit into the mold of religion. I don't think many atheists are labeling New Atheism as "fundamentalist." If you're an atheist, you're an atheist. But if you are part of New Atheism, you are an atheist activist of whatever degree you would like to be.



"The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist" Micheal Ruse author of Darwinism and It's Discontents



> There was once a time where there was no religion, and there might be a time in the future where there will be no religion. I think religion and science together will bring about the end of religion.



In the beginning God.......




> More like he's been very successful in recruiting more and more atheists to be a part of New Atheism.



Yes, he has been successful. But FJ, men before him have made similar if not bolder claims and nothing. History is a good teacher on this point.



Have you ever read Darwin's Origin of Species? Who on here has read it?


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 5, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> And sorry Reformedpastor for getting this off topic. My part since my point is well made before is done.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 5, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist" Micheal Ruse author of Darwinism and It's Discontents



I had a feeling that you were going to use anecdotal evidence. Where in here are does he say that New Atheism is the "fundamentalist branch" of atheism?



> In the beginning God...



What came first: Hinduism or Judaism?



> Yes, he has been successful. But FJ, men before him have made similar if not bolder claims and nothing. History is a good teacher on this point.



I understand your point, but things have changed since then. Now everyone has access to tons of information for free, and it is changing people. The information age along with 9/11 has produced an environment that is receptive to skeptical thought about religion. People are actually "coming out" about their atheism much the same way homosexuals have been coming out for the past few decades. History happens all the time. Am I saying that this New Atheism will bring about the end of religion? Of course not. I'm simply saying that it is a possibility. There's a first time for everything.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 6, 2009)

> footjunior said:
> 
> 
> > I had a feeling that you were going to use anecdotal evidence. Where in here are does he say that New Atheism is the "fundamentalist branch" of atheism?
> ...




Well......you don't think that past generations didn't have elements that caused them to rethink things? Like the war of independence of 1861. How many times worse was that compared to 9/11??? 

Maybe in your worldview there is a first time for everything but not in mine.


Just curious, have ever read the orgin of species?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I mean that when scientists are attempting to answer questions, they act under the assumption that God is not there.



This is odd.  Could you explain it further.  Sorry for jumping in late...didn't realize I could post.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 6, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> ???? Why is this important to this discussion? If you want an answer you will have to define the two terms.



The two terms are already well defined. Both are religions. One is older than the other.

My point is that there was once a time where there was no religion. Religion sprung up as a creation of man. We've had it ever since. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that there was never a time before religion because you believe that God created the world and it had religion right off the bat? This is based on the Judaism creation myth (Garden of Eden 6k years ago). I'm saying that Hinduism is much older than Judaism. I'm also saying that there was a time long before Hinduism where there was no religion. There could also be a time in the future where there is no religion. Am I saying that its certain or even probable? No. I'm just stating the possibility.



> Well......you don't think that past generations didn't have elements that caused them to rethink things? Like the war of independence of 1861. How many times worse was that compared to 9/11???



I think you're missing the point. 9/11 would not have happened if it were not for the religious beliefs of the hijackers. This has led to many atheists becoming New Atheists. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens were for the most part _just_ atheists before 9/11. Were they well-known atheists? Yes (except for Sam Harris). But they weren't extremely active in promoting atheism. This all changed after 9/11. 9/11 (along with the presidency of George Bush) is what spurred atheists to become a part of New Atheism.

Was the War of Independence in 1861 directly caused by someone's religious beliefs?



> Maybe in your worldview there is a first time for everything but not in mine.



There's a first time for everything. There was once a time where there was no religion. Then people created one. That's the the "first time" for religion. In the future we might go back to having no religion. Maybe, maybe not.



> Just curious, have ever read the orgin of species?



I've never actually sat down with the purpose of the reading the Origin of Species from front to back, but I have used it for references and quotes so much that I have practically read the entire thing. For example I have read the entirety of Chapter 6 and chapter 9, but almost none of chapter 4. Chapter 6 is often the source of quotes by creationists hoping to use Darwin's own words against him. And chapters 6 and 9 often contain the quotes which answer these creationists. However, chapter 4 is like evolution 101. If you have a basic understanding of evolution, then you understand chapter 4.

I think one reason that I have not read it is just the language he uses and the long, drawn out explanations of things. I think it is unnecessary for people who have a basic knowledge of evolution already. Obviously the way he explained things was very much a necessity when it was published, as it was the first time the world had heard natural selection explained in a scientific sense. I'm glad that Darwin was very rigorous when explaining things, but I cannot sit down and read long drawn out explanations of what I already know.

Why do you ask?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 6, 2009)

Because I am sure he has read it. As have I.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 6, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> This is odd.  Could you explain it further.  Sorry for jumping in late...didn't realize I could post.



I've explained it above. They do this because God is an unfalsifiable agent. If you introduce unfalsifiable components into your theory, then it is not a scientific theory. For your theory to be scientific, it must be testable and falsifiable.

Let me use a dumb hypothetical situation. You're a scientist trying to figure out why a teapot whistles when it gets hot on the stove. You also happen to be a believer in the Teapot God, which is an unfalsifiable God. During your experiment, for whatever reason, you find that you cannot explain why the teapot whistles. Therefore, you write down that it must be the Teapot God getting angry because his holy teapots are being heated up and so he makes the teapot whistle. Now, in order for this to be a scientific theory, the theory must be falsifiable. Is this theory falsifiable? No. Even if another scientist discovers a natural explanation for why the teapot whistles, it does not falsify your theory that it is the Teapot God making the teapot whistle because he is angry. Your theory remains unscientific because there is no way to falsify the main component in your theory: The Teapot God.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable. Evolution via natural selection is a falsifiable theory due to (among other things) the possibility of finding irreducible complexity.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I've explained it above. They do this because God is an unfalsifiable agent. If you introduce unfalsifiable components into your theory, then it is not a scientific theory. For your theory to be scientific, it must be testable and falsifiable...
> 
> Scientific theories must be falsifiable. Evolution via natural selection is a falsifiable theory due to (among other things) the possibility of finding irreducible complexity.



You're not describing science (not this post in particular, but your posts on the subject in general), you're describing philosophical naturalism.  I don't blame you, the line between philosophical naturalism and popular science is incredibly blurry due to the vocal philosophical naturalists that are prominent in the scientific community.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 6, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> You're not describing science, you're describing philosophical naturalism.  I don't blame you, the line between philosophical naturalism and popular science is incredibly blurry due to the vocal philosophical naturalists that are prominent in the scientific community.



Philosophical naturalism is a part of science.

Intelligent design, or whatever brand of creationism you believe in (or do not believe in), is not science. How could you ever prove or disprove that a God did something? You cannot. Therefore it is not science. Just because something looks designed does not mean it is designed.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 6, 2009)

What does my belief about origins have to do with my ability to practice pathology (for instance)?  You seem to insinuate that origins permeate all of science?  That's why I say the statement is odd.

I could just as easily say that evolution isn't science because it isn't repeatable and I wasn't around to observe its proposed speciation.  Further, the lack of transitional species in the fossil record could lead one to conclude that the theory lacks credible evidence as a theory for the origin of species.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Philosophical naturalism is a part of science.



Could you support this claim?  Historically, that's not the case.  I know quite a few very successful scientists who are not philosophical naturalists.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 6, 2009)

MAN!!! YOU GOT TO LOVE THAT AVATAR!!!

The Duck Commander!!! What a cool guy!


----------



## footjunior (Mar 6, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:
			
		

> What does my belief about origins have to do with my ability to practice pathology (for instance)?



It does not have anything to with your ability to practice pathology. I'm talking about scientists creating theories to explain natural phenomenon. My statement was about scientists who attempt to include their preferred God into any (un)scientific theories they come up with.



> You seem to insinuate that origins permeate all of science? That's why I say the statement is odd.



I'm not insinuating that at all.



> I could just as easily say that evolution isn't science because it isn't repeatable and I wasn't around to observe its proposed speciation. Further, the lack of transitional species in the fossil record could lead one to conclude that the theory lacks credible evidence as a theory for the origin of species.



You could not as easily say that. The very fact that you are coming up with ways to falsify evolution means that it is a scientific theory. Who can falsify God?

The theory of evolution via natural selection is repeatable. Look at any journal of evolutionary biology and you will see experiments that you yourself can repeat in your lab that demonstrate speciation. There have been studies done which demonstrate speciation in nature, outside of the confines of the laboratory.

Just because you were not around to observe it doesn't mean that you cannot observe it now.

There will always be gaps in the fossil record because not every single skeleton fossilizes. Darwin noted this himself in the Origin of Species. If you can look at the transitional fossils noting the evolutionary transition to the modern horse and still do not believe that evolution is possible, then go right ahead not believing it.

Furthermore, transitional fossils are found all the time. They will continue to be discovered. Then again, I'm not sure if there will ever be enough of them to convince _some_ people.



johnnylightnin said:


> Could you support this claim?  Historically, that's not the case.  I know quite a few very successful scientists who are not philosophical naturalists.



I'm saying that scientists practice practical atheism while doing science. Do scientists let their personal religion permeate into their theories? Most do not, as it is not science. Some do. I fully understand that many scientists are religious.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> 1. It does not have anything to with your ability to practice pathology. I'm talking about scientists creating theories to explain natural phenomenon. My statement was about scientists who attempt to include their preferred God into any (un)scientific theories they come up with.
> 
> 2. You could not as easily say that. The very fact that you are coming up with ways to falsify evolution means that it is a scientific theory. Who can falsify God?
> 
> ...



1. Scientists creating theories to explain natural phenomenon rarely dip into the area of cosmology.  

2. Just because something is falsifyible doesn't mean it is science.

3. Evolution as the origin of the species is NOT repeatable.  I'm not denying micro-evolution as legitimate science.

4. See #3.

5. Again, "evolution" from the ancient horse to the modern horse is a far cry from single living cell (whose origin is not accounted for) to the current number of species.

6. Not in the numbers that would be required to offer significant support to the theory.

7. I understand that you're saying that, I'm saying you've not provided sufficient support for that.  You've basically just said that only philosophical naturalism is an essential part of science which is question begging.  As far as letting personal religious beliefs (or lack there of) permeate their work in the lab, you're statement about practical atheism denies your later point.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 6, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> 1. Scientists creating theories to explain natural phenomenon rarely dip into the area of cosmology.



I agree, which is why I said, "Do scientists let their personal religion permeate into their theories? Most do not, as it is not science."



> 2. Just because something is falsifiable doesn't mean it is science.



Never said it was the only requirement, just one of the requirements.



> 3. Evolution as the origin of the species is NOT repeatable.  I'm not denying micro-evolution as legitimate science.



Evolution as the origin of species is very repeatable. I'm sorry if you cannot see this. Scientists have witnessed speciation in animals in nature. They have also purposefully caused it in the lab. Speciation results in 2 different species, and thus is the "origin" of a new species.



> 5. Again, "evolution" from the ancient horse to the modern horse is a far cry from single living cell (whose origin is not accounted for) to the current number of species.



Are you implying that in order for you to recognize evolution you require that we grant you immortality and a time machine so you can go back 4.3 billion years ago to witness evolution at work all the way up til now? Is it so hard to connect the dots between the macroevolution that we see today and the fossil record that we have available?

The evolution from







to






is very much a demonstration of macroevolution. With the amount of fossils we have available for horse ancestors and the clear similarities between the two, can you see this as an example of macroevolution?



> 6. Not in the numbers that would be required to offer significant support to the theory.



How many would be enough? Do we have to find every transitional fossil that still remains intact to convince you?



> 7. I understand that you're saying that, I'm saying you've not provided sufficient support for that.  You've basically just said that only philosophical naturalism is an essential part of science which is question begging.



Please quote me where I said that "only philosophical naturalism is an essential part of science." There is much more to developing scientific theories than just philosophical naturalism. However, philosophical naturalism is a big part of creating scientific theories.

If you are not a philosophical naturalist, AND you decide to include a God as part of your theory, then it is not scientific. How can anyone falsify the God? In other words, your theory will always be correct because no one will be able to falsify it. Now again, I'm not saying that falsifiability is the only qualification for a scientific theory, but it is one requirement.

Notice the AND above? That is to differentiate between religious people who create scientific theories and religious people who create theories which include a God as a component in their theories. Obviously there are many religious people and people who are not philosophical naturalists who create very good scientific theories.

This is really my entire point. Scientists do not put unfalsifiable claims in their theories unless they just don't care about their theories being unscientific.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> 1. I agree, which is why I said, "Do scientists let their personal religion permeate into their theories? Most do not, as it is not science."
> 
> 2. Never said it was the only requirement, just one of the requirements.
> 
> ...



1. Cosmology (which IS science) was the wrong word.  I should have used origins...the two are sometimes connected.  My point still stands.

2. You used my attempt to falsify evolution (or what you interpreted as my attempt to falsify evolution) to validate it as science.  So, if it's not the only criteria, then my efforts of falsification prove nothing in particular about evolution.

3. Scientists setting up an experiment to cause speciation sounds a lot like intelligent design...that's all such an experiment could prove.  It could not prove natural evolution via random mutation.

4. No, I'm not claiming that.  I'm merely saying that science is not about making leaps of faith (gotta love that) between apparent fossils over gaps to solidify a theory that is not observable.  That's my only point.  

5. Those are artists renditions of apparent ancestors.  Without all the links from one to the other, we don't have macro-evolution.

6. See #5.

7. My fault, I started typing something and didn't delete completely.  It should've read, you've only said that philosophical naturalism is an essential part of science.  That is my interpretation of what you've said.  Do you believe that it is essential?

If you do believe that philosophical naturalism is an essential part of science (even if it is temporary...just when in the lab), you are question begging with your point that all scientists practice practical atheism in the lab.


----------



## ToLog (Mar 6, 2009)

So, to try or attempt to catch up, and find the local playing field, we've come to the conclusion that Science and God doesn't always agree on everything, but there is some commonality, here and there?

that is, in the beginning, God was used to describe any and all things that occurred, that we couldn't directly explain.

later, after we figured out how to start fire by mechanical means, we decided we had something to share with God..an ability to start fire, for example.

further on, he (God) shared with us enough of the secrets of the Universe (his creation) to allow us to build an atomic bomb to eliminate or annihilate the loyal oppositiion.

then, he said, we'll let you go into outer space and visit the moon, but you can't come back down here on Earth and say you "saw" God.  we don't want to be seen, Ok?

we're giving you a "chance" to evolve past the borderlines, into outer space, but it has to be one step at a time.  Get it?

that means Mars is on the Agenda, but it won't be scheduled for tommorrow. it'll be scheduled later on, depend upon NASA for the exact calendar of events. 

Now, if the Springtime is a time of regeneration, then let's all go forth and plant a garden, or two, and eat fresh vegetables.

I hope this post isn't seen as blasphemous. in fact, though, if it is, then the readers will have to post their reasons as to why it is so. 

this forum is all for free, ok?


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 6, 2009)

> roothog said:
> 
> 
> > So, to try or attempt to catch up, and find the local playing field, we've come to the conclusion that Science and God doesn't always agree on everything, but there is some commonality, here and there?
> ...




It's free for now!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 6, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> This is odd.  Could you explain it further.  Sorry for jumping in late...didn't realize I could post.



Glad to have ya.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 6, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> 1. Cosmology (which IS science) was the wrong word.  I should have used origins...the two are sometimes connected.  My point still stands.



And my answer still stands. Your belief in whatever brand of creationism you prefer does not hinder you in practicing pathology, nor would it hinder a plumber in fixing pipes. However, if you're a scientist and you are creating a scientific theory and you are unable to create theories without relying on the supernatural, then you are in fact hindered by your beliefs. If you're an evolutionary biologist and your only way of explaining our origins is "God did it," then any theories you create on that assumption will not be scientific because no other scientists will be able to disprove your assumption that "God did it." God is an unfalsifiable agent.



> 2. You used my attempt to falsify evolution (or what you interpreted as my attempt to falsify evolution) to validate it as science.  So, if it's not the only criteria, then my efforts of falsification prove nothing in particular about evolution.



I used your attempt at falsification draw a distinction between Intelligent Design and evolution. Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, and therefore that one fact means that it is not a scientific theory. Evolution on the other hand is falsifiable, and while that is not the only qualification of scientific theory, it is one requirement.



> 3. Scientists setting up an experiment to cause speciation sounds a lot like intelligent design...that's all such an experiment could prove.  It could not prove natural evolution via random mutation.



It is very different than ID and you know that. Did you read the fruit fly speciation that I posted before?



> 4. No, I'm not claiming that.  I'm merely saying that science is not about making leaps of faith (gotta love that) between apparent fossils over gaps to solidify a theory that is not observable.  That's my only point.



First off again, it is observable. Scientists have recorded speciation outside of the lab. Secondly, if you consider gaps between transitional fossils to be "leaps of faith", then science will always be making leaps of faith. No matter how many transitional fossils we find, there will always be gaps. They may be very small in the future, but there will always be gaps, and therefore science will be "leaping" over them.

Consider the phyla of worms. They leave no skeletons, and therefore we have no transitional fossils of them.  With just this fact alone should we conclude that worms have never evolved?



> 5. Those are artists renditions of apparent ancestors.  Without all the links from one to the other, we don't have macro-evolution.



You want fossils from every stage?

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

I have a feeling this will not be enough. You will always require n+1 fossils to be satisfied. Let me guess, all these fossils were planted there by heathen scientists?

Now before you claim that this is just microevolution, let me remind you that microevolution is defined as changes within a species. Macroevolution is defined as changes above the species level. The transitions during the evolution of the horse represent a transition between genera, that is genus, which is a level above species. Therefore this is macroevolution.



> 7. My fault, I started typing something and didn't delete completely.  It should've read, you've only said that philosophical naturalism is an essential part of science.  That is my interpretation of what you've said.  Do you believe that it is essential?



Philosophical naturalism is not essential to do good science and create scientific theories as long as you are able to explain things without resorting to the supernatural. Now you can resort to using the supernatural to explain something, but your resulting theory will not be scientific. It will still be a theory and it may even be correct, but it will not be scientific. Am I making this clear? What am I not clarifying?

For example, Francis Collins is a brilliant scientist who has made great discoveries in diseases and also is former head of the Human Genome Project. He is also a Christian and is also not a philosophical naturalist, yet none of his theories use God as an answer or even part of the answer. He is the perfect example of a religious person doing good science by practicing practical atheism in the lab.

On a side note, he also recognizes evolution as being true...

"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things." - Francis Collins


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 6, 2009)

No, I haven't read anything about fruit flies...I'm new.  The horses are interesting, but even there you see large gaps of millions of years (at least from the most credible link).  That's a huge leap.  Without more concrete evidence, faith is required.

As far as the Collins quote, relatedness and common ancestry, is NOT Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution.  Perhaps Collins does buy into non-directed mutation as a means of evolution, but those quotes don't show that.  

Kurt Wise got his PhD under Stephen J. Gould...ever heard of him or any of his work?


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 6, 2009)

> footjunior said:
> 
> 
> > The two terms are already well defined. Both are religions. One is older than the other.
> ...




Darwin wasn't the first to use that term scientifically. I ask because I was personally curious. I plan on posting some biographical stuff on Darwin here soon.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 6, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> The horses are interesting, but even there you see large gaps of millions of years (at least from the most credible link).  That's a huge leap.  Without more concrete evidence, faith is required.



As I thought. If a gap of only a few million years between two obviously related fossils is enough for you to claim that it requires faith to believe that the fossils are linked, then no amount of fossils will be enough.



> Kurt Wise got his PhD under Stephen J. Gould...ever heard of him or any of his work?



Unfortunately yes. He is a great example of what a scientist should not be.

Here's my favorite quote from Wise.

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." - Kurt Wise

Talk about seeking the truth  . ReformedPastor isn't this what you were talking about? He already has his stance settled, and he's going to stay that way even if "all the evidence in the universe" has turned against his cherished beliefs. Not exactly very scientific, if you ask me.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> As I thought. If a gap of only a few million years between two obviously related fossils is enough for you to claim that it requires faith to believe that the fossils are linked, then no amount of fossils will be enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How in the world could they be "obviously related" if there is a 3 million year gap between the two?  Science is about observation.  3 million years is a significant gap in which no observation is possible.  There's quite a bit of faith required to believe two species that lived 3 million years apart from each other are obviously related.

Everybody loves to drag out this quote by Wise, but what is ignored is the fact that he said he would be the first to admit that the evidence pointed another way.  He's yet to do that and he's more qualified that the both of us to make that call.  

My favorite Dawkins quote, "Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Aren't out of context quotes fun?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 6, 2009)

I don't know if this deserves it's own thread or not.  
This is an evolutionary argument against philosophical naturalism.  The author is Alvin Plantinga.

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/alspaper.htm


----------



## footjunior (Mar 6, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> How in the world could they be "obviously related" if there is a 3 million year gap between the two?  Science is about observation.  3 million years is a significant gap in which no observation is possible.  There's quite a bit of faith required to believe two species that lived 3 million years apart from each other are obviously related.



It requires faith if you don't know what to look for. Stark similarities in skeletal structures alone could tell evolutionary biologists that these two species are obviously related. And it has, which is why the evolution of horses is considered one of the clearest examples of macroevolution. Your refusal to recognize it leads me to wonder if you aren't like Kurt Wise.



> Everybody loves to drag out this quote by Wise, but what is ignored is the fact that he said he would be the first to admit that the evidence pointed another way.  He's yet to do that and he's more qualified that the both of us to make that call.



The point of the quote is to show his ridiculous bias towards his preferred brand of creationism and his admittance that he would never accept any other explanations even if all the evidence in the universe pointed another way. I don't know how anyone could ever view him as intellectually honest after that.



> My favorite Dawkins quote, "Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer."
> 
> Aren't out of context quotes fun?



Yes, I watched that horrible movie as well. Thankfully I know the context of the answer and the question by Ben Stein. The difference between these quotes is that Dawkins is actually correct in what he said and not being intellectually dishonest at all. He indeed answered Ben Stein's question, but of course the directors decided to twist his words all around by using Stein to give a purposefully misguided interpretation of Dawkins' answer. Dawkins indeed answered Stein's question and his answer was valid. There was nothing intellectually dishonest in what he said, he was simply giving a possible scenario of how intelligent design could have led to the origins of life on earth (since that was the specific question). Dawkins did not know that the interview was for a creationist film and had he known that, he would have understood that by "intelligently designed" Stein meant "intelligently designed by God" and his answer would have been much, much different.

On the other hand, Wise is openly admitting his intellectual dishonesty by saying that no amount of evidence will sway his stubborn, indoctrinated mind. I don't see how he nor anyone who supports him can deny it.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 7, 2009)

The A footjunior guy says "for your theory to be scientific, it must be testable and falsifiable".  How do scientists test the origin of the universe when they weren't there to test?? That, my friend, is their leap of faith.  Science has a "theory" of how the universe came to exist but it's not proven - THAT IS SOME MAJOR FAITH!!


----------



## SBG (Mar 7, 2009)

connorreid said:


> The A footjunior guy says "for your theory to be scientific, it must be testable and falsifiable".  How do scientists test the origin of the universe when they weren't there to test?? That, my friend, is their leap of faith.  Science has a "theory" of how the universe came to exist but it's not proven - THAT IS SOME MAJOR FAITH!!



This is a great point that I brought up to junior and his answer was "I don't know," yet he insist that bible believers must know.

BTW, why does junior, when confronted with things he cannot refute, immediately resorts to ad hominem attacks?


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 7, 2009)

connorreid said:


> The A footjunior guy says "for your theory to be scientific, it must be testable and falsifiable".  How do scientists test the origin of the universe when they weren't there to test?? That, my friend, is their leap of faith.  Science has a "theory" of how the universe came to exist but it's not proven - THAT IS SOME MAJOR FAITH!!



This has been pointed out several times. But, again, they cannot bring themselves to admit this. Scientific? Dishonest? Or other.................? You decide. That is why I personally engage in this discussion. 

To promote your revolution you discredit your enemy by labeling them, as ignorant, diabolical, conspiratorial, slave owners, baby killers..................etc.  Then never intend to support one comment with one shred of evidence, but act like you are by using broad swiping historical comments.This will make you look intelligent, which is highly important to the scientific community.  Then at the end of your critique say something good about your enemy and this will throw everyone on the other side off. This will make the critic look scholarly and sincerely compassionate, and truly humanitarian plus it will be generally affective in causing the masses just slapped in the face, who generally give the benefit of the doubt, a favorable opinion of the critic. 

This is style is very affective and is the pattern of many critiques, against creationism,  I have read lately. Creationism is dismissed with only belittling comments, not with scientific argument,  this should be alarming to all who seek to know truth. Evolution is a religion not science.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

Most folks don't care one way or the other.  
Neither Atheism nor a religious belief system pays the mortgage, unless you are actively making money off the endeavor.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 7, 2009)

SBG said:


> This is a great point that I brought up to junior and his answer was "I don't know," yet he insist that bible believers must know.
> 
> BTW, why does junior, when confronted with things he cannot refute, immediately resorts to ad hominem attacks?






Fundamentalist Darwinian.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 7, 2009)

SBG said:


> This is a great point that I brought up to junior and his answer was "I don't know," yet he insist that bible believers must know.
> 
> BTW, why does junior, when confronted with things he cannot refute, immediately resorts to ad hominem attacks?



Good question.  He has to retreat and break out into personal attacks b/c there is no other argument for him.  As a Christian, I just try to expose the foolishness of people like him and silence them b/c that's what we are to do.  He is just frustrated b/c he knows in his heart he can't live out his silly worldview.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Most folks don't care one way or the other.
> Neither Atheism nor a religious belief system pays the mortgage, unless you are actively making money off the endeavor.



Then why is their 480 something posts on it? Why is it mandated in school? 

Most folks do care. Most DON't care until it is too late but most do care.

For some reason it seems atheists are more adamant about their being "right" with no evidence and rejecting of any other discussion which is intellectually dishonest and a foolhardy proposition. The lack of knowledge in Christianity today is appalling on this aspect and IMO has lead to the falling away of many many "christians" due to this "evangelism" by atheists.


So yes most people do care.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

No, worldwide, most people don't care.  Fact.
It is OK for people to follow whatever they want to believe.  It gets them through life and helps answer the hard questions.
Most do not look much further than whatever they are born into.
Yes, there are evangelists out there for both Atheism as well as other religious belief systems.
Bottom line, no one knows anything for sure until they are dead.  And then they might not know.


----------



## SBG (Mar 7, 2009)

connorreid said:


> Good question.  He has to retreat and break out into personal attacks b/c there is no other argument for him.  As a Christian, I just try to expose the foolishness of people like him and silence them b/c that's what we are to do.  He is just frustrated b/c he knows in his heart he can't live out his silly worldview.



My point was that he seemed so incredulous that no one could provide more than a speculative answer in regards to his "chimera" question, yet he hides behind "I don't know" answers, or he resorts to personal invective when he can't surf and find a canned answer to other member's questions here.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 7, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Then why is their 480 something posts on it? Why is it mandated in school?
> 
> Most folks do care. Most DON't care until it is too late but most do care.
> 
> ...


The so called "Christian" community is awful today and that's what these atheists see when they think of "Christianity".  I can't blame them.  The reason a lot of these people don't care is b/c God has blinded them and handed them over to their sins to judge them.  The church today is  mainly full of PRACTICAL atheists - although they profess God w/ their mouths, they live lives that are contrary to His ways.  What I have found ironic is that the THEOLOGICAL atheists (the ones who say God does not exist) is always putting down the so called "Christian" community but doesn't even realize they are putting down PRACTICAL atheists.  See where any kind of atheism leads..........to foolishness and confusion.


----------



## SBG (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No, worldwide, most people don't care.  Fact.
> It is OK for people to follow whatever they want to believe.  It gets them through life and helps answer the hard questions.
> Most do not look much further than whatever they are born into.
> Yes, there are evangelists out there for both Atheism as well as other religious belief systems.
> Bottom line, no one knows anything for sure until they are dead.  And then they might not know.



That is a statement that you are not qualified to make.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No, worldwide, most people don't care.  Fact.
> It is OK for people to follow whatever they want to believe.  It gets them through life and helps answer the hard questions.
> Most do not look much further than whatever they are born into.
> Yes, there are evangelists out there for both Atheism as well as other religious belief systems.
> Bottom line, no one knows anything for sure until they are dead.  And then they might not know.



Then explain why religion is so bad according to you guys atheistic worldview? Those two don't fit together no matter how you whittle them out. Be consistent.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

SBG said:


> That is a statement that you are not qualified to make.




Sure I am.  Just as qualified as you are.  The fact neither of us has died (yet) makes it so.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 7, 2009)

connorreid said:


> The so called "Christian" community is awful today and that's what these atheists see when they think of "Christianity".  I can't blame them.  The reason a lot of these people don't care is b/c God has blinded them and handed them over to their sins to judge them.  The church today is  mainly full of PRACTICAL atheists - although they profess God w/ their mouths, they live lives that are contrary to His ways.  What I have found ironic is that the THEOLOGICAL atheists (the ones who say God does not exist) is always putting down the so called "Christian" community but doesn't even realize they are putting down PRACTICAL atheists.  See where any kind of atheism leads..........to foolishness and confusion.



Reformedpastor made the statement that is in my opinion a great summation of it. We have the atheism we have today because of the church we have today.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 7, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Reformedpastor made the statement that is in my opinion a great summation of it. We have the atheism we have today because of the church we have today.


Roger!


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Then explain why religion is so bad according to you guys atheistic worldview? Those two don't fit together no matter how you whittle them out. Be consistent.



Not every Atheist belives that to be the case, just like not every follower of a religious belief system thinks their system is exclusionary or exclusive.


----------



## SBG (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Sure I am.  Just as qualified as you are.  The fact neither of us has died (yet) makes it so.



Unfortuntely, you are so wrong in this regard. I have died, but have been born again. I understand things now that you can only speculate about. I say this with all sincerity and sadness for that fact.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No, worldwide, most people don't care.  Fact.
> It is OK for people to follow whatever they want to believe.  It gets them through life and helps answer the hard questions.
> Most do not look much further than whatever they are born into.
> Yes, there are evangelists out there for both Atheism as well as other religious belief systems.
> Bottom line, no one knows anything for sure until they are dead.  And then they might not know.


How can you live life on the premise of "no one knows anything for sure until they are dead"? Fact is you can't and you don't.  You know lots of things for sure, one being that you are alive.  If you take up the mentality that you can't know anything until you are dead, then how in the world could you live life? How could you ever make a decision about anything?  See how absurd it gets!


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

SBG said:


> Unfortuntely, you are so wrong in this regard. I have died, but have been born again. I understand things now that you can only speculate about. I say this with all sincerity and sadness for that fact.




That's your opinion, and your interpretation of what you have been shown/taught/read/felt.  We each make our own choices based on our interpretations.  That is completely individual, and I repsect your right to believe as you wish.
I wish you continued happiness.  So, please waste no time worrying over me.  Things are just fine in my house!

You and I have not physically died.  When that happens, we'll know for sure.  Or not at all.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

connorreid said:


> How can you live life on the premise of "no one knows anything for sure until they are dead"? Fact is you can't and you don't.  You know lots of things for sure, one being that you are alive.  If you take up the mentality that you can't know anything until you are dead, then how in the world could you live life? How could you ever make a decision about anything?  See how absurd it gets!



No, the absurdity is wasting time worrying over what is set in motion.  We know we exist, so we should focus on being what we want to be.  Worrying over the unknown or speculative is not productive at all.
The answers to life after death reveal themselves at that time.  Or they might not reveal themselves at all.
Do you remember anything from before you were born?


----------



## connorreid (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That's your opinion, and your interpretation of what you have been shown/taught/read/felt.  We each make our own choices based on our interpretations.  That is completely individual, and I repsect your right to believe as you wish.
> I wish you continued happiness.  So, please waste no time worrying over me.  Things are just fine in my house!
> 
> You and I have not physically died.  When that happens, we'll know for sure.  Or not at all.


What is happiness in an atheistic world and who would define it and how could it exist? I didn't think you could know anything for sure in this world according to some previous statements by you, and now you can know something for sure? You must lead one confused life.....or maybe not..or maybe........or maybe not.?????


----------



## SBG (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That's your opinion, and your interpretation of what you have been shown/taught/read/felt.  We each make our own choices based on our interpretations.  That is completely individual, and I repsect your right to believe as you wish.
> I wish you continued happiness.  So, please waste no time worrying over me.  Things are just fine in my house!
> 
> You and I have not physically died.  When that happens, we'll know for sure.  Or not at all.



It is not opinion when it can be verified. 

I can do none other than worry over you. It is a marching order from One that worries over you even more than I.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

Circular argument, CR.

Happiness is as individual as the concept of a deity, how a person sees a color, or what a person can grasp regarding the idea of eternity.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No, the absurdity is wasting time worrying over what is set in motion.  We know we exist, so we should focus on being what we want to be.  Worrying over the unknown or speculative is not productive at all.
> The answers to life after death reveal themselves at that time.  Or they might not reveal themselves at all.
> Do you remember anything from before you were born?


I can't even remember some things that happened last week!! If we should focus on being what we want to be, then is it OK if somebody wants to be a murderer and rapist? That wouldn't even be wrong in your worldview.  Funny you mention not worrying over the unknown or speculative which is not productive, yet you are doing it.......


----------



## connorreid (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Circular argument, CR.
> 
> Happiness is as individual as the concept of a deity, how a person sees a color, or what a person can grasp regarding the idea of eternity.


How can your definition be dogmatic.......Are you making definitions for me?  What if I say happiness is sadness? That would make since in your ambiguous worldview b/c everything would be relative.  Who gave you the authority to make definitions?


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

SBG said:


> It is not opinion when it can be verified.
> 
> I can do none other than worry over you. It is a marching order from One that worries over you even more than I.




Then please, do whatever you feel you must.  I'm not making any attempt at breaking anyone's faith here.
What I am trying to say is any person can live as happy and as full a life as an Atheist, a Buddist, a Daoist, a Christian...


----------



## SBG (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Then please, do whatever you feel you must.  I'm not making any attempt at breaking anyone's faith here.
> What I am trying to say is any person can live as happy and as full a life as an Atheist, a Buddist, a Daoist, a Christian...



Again, your post is speculative and you are not qualified to make it. Are you a Daoist, Buddist, Christian?


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

connorreid said:


> I can't even remember some things that happened last week!! If we should focus on being what we want to be, then is it OK if somebody wants to be a murderer and rapist? That wouldn't even be wrong in your worldview.  Funny you mention not worrying over the unknown or speculative which is not productive, yet you are doing it.......



We establish laws based first and foremost on the most fundamental and basic requirement of survival.  Outlawing and punishing for the crimes of murder and rape are so fundamental they really are out the window here.  You know that.  Makes no difference regarding a deity belief or disbelief.

I'm not worrying over anything.  For me, it was a great relief to find out that was wasted energy.  At least in my case.  That may be entirely different for other people.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 7, 2009)

Be back later....going to lunch.. Great discussions!!!


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

connorreid said:


> How can your definition be dogmatic.......Are you making definitions for me?  What if I say happiness is sadness? That would make since in your ambiguous worldview b/c everything would be relative.  Who gave you the authority to make definitions?



Not at all.  I only make definitions for myself, and they are as individual as how deep a breath I take, or how much energy my body produces from the food I intake.
Happiness to you may be quite different than happiness is to me.  Same with any other emotion.
I think we all grow up learning how to use those emotions to our best benefit.
I have no authority outside my own choices and actions.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

SBG said:


> Again, your post is speculative and you are not qualified to make it. Are you a Daoist, Buddist, Christian?



Does not matter what I believe, or what you believe, or what others believe.  My statment stands as truthful and factual.  Outside of individual faith and the individual emotional feeling of confidence and dedication to a chosen religious belief system, we do not have factual knowledge for independant belief in an afterlife.  We have to either accept the story/evidence/idea/concept based on faith and a personal conviction, or we accept the fact we just don't know for sure until that time comes.
And, we just might not get an answer then.


----------



## SBG (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Does not matter what I believe, or what you believe, or what others believe.  My statment stands as truthful and factual.  Outside of individual faith and the individual emotional feeling of confidence and dedication to a chosen religious belief system, we do not have factual knowledge for independant belief in an afterlife.  We have to either accept the story/evidence/idea/concept based on faith and a personal conviction, or we accept the fact we just don't know for sure until that time comes.
> And, we just might not get an answer then.



It does matter what we believe. Your statement is not accurate since you cannot know for sure if you can live a full and happy life outside of faith, or in regards to an afterlife-again, you do not have the necessary evidence to make that statement. It would be analogous to if I made the statement that I knew how it felt to be pregnant.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

SBG said:


> It does matter what we believe. Your statement is not accurate since you cannot know for sure if you can live a full and happy life outside of faith, or in regards to an afterlife-again, you do not have the necessary evidence to make that statement. It would be analogous to if I made the statement that I knew how it felt to be pregnant.



My statement is not in-accurate either.  The analogy you gave here is a good one.  And, it can be used to support the premise that belief involving faith is very individual and hard to explain/express.  We have to take other's descriptions of how it makes them feel as a baseline.
I say faith is as good for a believer as a lack of faith replaced with logic is for a non-believer.  Each can find happiness to their own definitions.  Happiness is as individual as a believer's idea of their deity.  We have not gotten to the point of mind reading, yet!


----------



## SBG (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> My statement is not in-accurate either.  The analogy you gave here is a good one.  And, it can be used to support the premise that belief involving faith is very individual and hard to explain/express.  We have to take other's descriptions of how it makes them feel as a baseline.
> I say faith is as good for a believer as a lack of faith replaced with logic is for a non-believer.  Each can find happiness to their own definitions.  Happiness is as individual as a believer's idea of their deity.  We have not gotten to the point of mind reading, yet!



I hate to sound like a broken record...but, you keep making definitive statements that you can only surmise through speculation. You can't say "as full" and then claim that it is relative to one's own experience.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

How about "as full as their individual goals and expectations."
I think that states it better.

I might require a different level of happiness than you, based on my own interpretation of happiness.  And, vice-versa.

You will have to admit, followers of religious belief systems tend to make such a statement often of non-believers being un-happy or un-fulfilled.

To each his own.


----------



## SBG (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> How about "as full as their individual goals and expectations."
> I think that states it better.
> 
> I might require a different level of happiness than you, based on my own interpretation of happiness.  And, vice-versa.
> ...



Copy that...thanks for yakking amigo.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

I like such conversation!  I learn from others daily!
It is sometimes a challenge to communicate efficiently through this box of electronics and keyboard!

And, I'll openly concede, you might be accessing a level of happiness in your life which I have not achieved yet!  I'm always making a concerted effort to listen for comprehension and learn for personal growth!


----------



## footjunior (Mar 7, 2009)

connorreid said:


> The A footjunior guy says "for your theory to be scientific, it must be testable and falsifiable".  How do scientists test the origin of the universe when they weren't there to test?? That, my friend, is their leap of faith.  Science has a "theory" of how the universe came to exist but it's not proven - THAT IS SOME MAJOR FAITH!!



If you're speaking of the Big Bang Theory, CERN is testing the theory right now. The theories are both testable and falsifiable.



			
				SBG said:
			
		

> This is a great point that I brought up to junior and his answer was "I don't know," yet he insist that bible believers must know.



I said "I don't know" to the question of "Where did the singularity come from?" If you are talking about from the singularity onwards, then we do know: The Big Bang.



			
				SBG said:
			
		

> BTW, why does junior, when confronted with things he cannot refute, immediately resorts to ad hominem attacks?



Please quote an ad hominem attack by me. Thanks.



			
				ReformedPastor said:
			
		

> To promote your revolution you discredit your enemy by labeling them, as ignorant, diabolical, conspiratorial, slave owners, baby killers..................etc. Then never intend to support one comment with one shred of evidence, but act like you are by using broad swiping historical comments.



We usually back up those claims with scripture. You usually just say that anything that God commands is perfect because he is perfect. I don't consider killing babies, beating slaves, or taking virgin girls to be moral things to do. Thankfully I'm not forced to just assume that everything God commands is perfect.



			
				ReformedPastor said:
			
		

> This will make you look intelligent, which is highly important to the scientific community. Then at the end of your critique say something good about your enemy and this will throw everyone on the other side off. This will make the critic look scholarly and sincerely compassionate, and truly humanitarian plus it will be generally affective in causing the masses just slapped in the face, who generally give the benefit of the doubt, a favorable opinion of the critic.
> 
> This is style is very affective and is the pattern of many critiques, against creationism, I have read lately. Creationism is dismissed with only belittling comments, not with scientific argument, this should be alarming to all who seek to know truth. Evolution is a religion not science.



This is nonsense. Creationism is refuted with scientific theories. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and people use it to go against certain forms of creationism.



			
				connorreid said:
			
		

> Good question. He has to retreat and break out into personal attacks b/c there is no other argument for him. As a Christian, I just try to expose the foolishness of people like him and silence them b/c that's what we are to do. He is just frustrated b/c he knows in his heart he can't live out his silly worldview.





I have to retreat to personal attacks? Did you just call me foolish?



			
				SBG said:
			
		

> My point was that he seemed so incredulous that no one could provide more than a speculative answer in regards to his "chimera" question, yet he hides behind "I don't know" answers, or he resorts to personal invective when he can't surf and find a canned answer to other member's questions here.



Your assumption is wrong. The fact that no one had a real answer to the chimera question was perfectly fine with me. And again your assumption is wrong. I don't "surf" to find a canned answer. I know the answers. They're the same answers that have been used for years.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 7, 2009)

Cern cannot test the big bang. You have something to work with. Your claim is something came from nothing. No way to test that.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 7, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Cern cannot test the big bang. You have something to work with. Your claim is something came from nothing. No way to test that.



Where have I ever said that something came from nothing? Please quote.

The singularity is very much something. Something came from something. That is my claim when regarding the Big Bang.

However, when asking the question of where the singularity came from. That is where I say I don't know. There is a big difference between the two questions.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 7, 2009)

footjunior said:


> However, when asking the question of where the singularity came from. That is where I say I don't know. There is a big difference between the two questions.



Done. The test you want to mention cannot answer your question.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Not at all.  I only make definitions for myself, and they are as individual as how deep a breath I take, or how much energy my body produces from the food I intake.
> Happiness to you may be quite different than happiness is to me.  Same with any other emotion.
> I think we all grow up learning how to use those emotions to our best benefit.
> I have no authority outside my own choices and actions.


You switch sides too much.  Earlier you defined happiness and assumed it applied to everyone.  Now you say your definition just applies to you.  Very inconsistent.  You don't live your life that way b/c you can't.  You couldn't know anything in your worldview, hence the absurdity of it.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 7, 2009)

footjunior said:


> If you're speaking of the Big Bang Theory, CERN is testing the theory right now. The theories are both testable and falsifiable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why waste your time debating and arguing in an atheistic world? It's pointless.....Remember, why would any of this matter? Again, life is meaningless from an atheistic point of view.......so why even open your mouth?


----------



## connorreid (Mar 7, 2009)

footjunior said:


> If you're speaking of the Big Bang Theory, CERN is testing the theory right now. The theories are both testable and falsifiable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why would killing babies, beating slaves or taking virgin girls be morally wrong or right in your worldview? What is wrong or right in your worldview (and I might not agree with your definition).  Why would an atheist care what happens to people - there would be no ulitmate accountability to anyone, so who would care.  Again, this is the foolishness of the atheists.  Anytime an atheist wants to talk about morals, I want to know where in the world they get them from???


----------



## earl (Mar 7, 2009)

Why do you think [wrongfully ] that an atheists nonbelief in god precludes them from being moral.If that were the case the only place you could find an atheist would be on murderers row ..According to your logic. I would imagine that most atheists are taught their morals starting with their parents . Whether the parents were also atheists would be immaterial. If they are moral or not would have a great deal to do with it.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 7, 2009)

earl said:


> Why do you think [wrongfully ] that an atheists nonbelief in god precludes them from being moral.If that were the case the only place you could find an atheist would be on murderers row ..According to your logic. I would imagine that most atheists are taught their morals starting with their parents . Whether the parents were also atheists would be immaterial. If they are moral or not would have a great deal to do with it.


I am asking the atheist to make sense of his worldview.  Why would there be morals in an atheistic world? From a godly perspective we can make sense of morals b/c God tells us what is right and wrong (the ten commandments which is a SUMMARY of the moral law).  However, from an atheistic standpoint, who defines the morals? The atheist cannot justify morals.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 7, 2009)

earl said:


> Why do you think [wrongfully ] that an atheists nonbelief in god precludes them from being moral.If that were the case the only place you could find an atheist would be on murderers row ..According to your logic. I would imagine that most atheists are taught their morals starting with their parents . Whether the parents were also atheists would be immaterial. If they are moral or not would have a great deal to do with it.


Earl, please answer this for me - In an atheistic world one is born, he lives, then dies with no accountability for his life when he passes so what is good or bad in an atheistic world? What he might call "good", you might call "bad" so how could we truly know anything?  See the absurdity........I think the atheist is moral b/c he lives in a world created by God and he can't escape the image he was created in.  Like trying to hold a beach ball under water and it resurfacing, so the atheist does.  He tries to escape the image he was made it but can't do it.  That's why atheist do believe in right or wrong, good and bad, etc.  What he does is borrow or steal from the Christian's worldview in order to make sense of this world.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 7, 2009)

connorreid said:


> I am asking the atheist to make sense of his worldview.  Why would there be morals in an atheistic world? From a godly perspective we can make sense of morals b/c God tells us what is right and wrong (the ten commandments which is a SUMMARY of the moral law).  However, from an atheistic standpoint, who defines the morals? The atheist cannot justify morals.


Don't you understand it's evolutionarily important so it MUST have happened that way. 

Sit and listen and you understand why in the old days Atheists were not allowed to testify in court.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

connorreid said:


> You switch sides too much.  Earlier you defined happiness and assumed it applied to everyone.  Now you say your definition just applies to you.  Very inconsistent.  You don't live your life that way b/c you can't.  You couldn't know anything in your worldview, hence the absurdity of it.



I'll partake of the freedom to believe and do as I wish.  I'll take whatever side or view I care to, and I have no qualm in doing so.  I have no reason to do anything but be respectful of others and follow what I care to persue.
May you do the same.
I gave my definition of happiness.  I added the disclaimer that it is an individual emotion that is highly left to individual interpretation.  That is a further refinement of my definition.  

I've got a pretty firm world view, as I'll bet a silver dollar I've seen a little more of it than you.  You are coming into the discussion a little late to be making an attempt to point out any "absurdity" of my views.  I'd suggest more reading of previous postings before you spill ink with the poisioned pen.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

connorreid said:


> I am asking the atheist to make sense of his worldview.  Why would there be morals in an atheistic world? From a godly perspective we can make sense of morals b/c God tells us what is right and wrong (the ten commandments which is a SUMMARY of the moral law).  However, from an atheistic standpoint, who defines the morals? The atheist cannot justify morals.



It is plainly obvious you have no experience in any readings regarding the subject being discussed outside of the Bible.
CF and others who give good discussion points at least have done their homework and understand the fundamentals of each side.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> It is plainly obvious you have no experience in any readings regarding the subject being discussed outside of the Bible.
> CF and others who give good discussion points at least have done their homework and understand the fundamentals of each side.



Hey can I frame this or at least post it so everyone else can see it???

Thank you.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 7, 2009)

Meant as a compliment.  I strive to do just that myself, to understand where each view comes from.  That way, the discussion is relevent, accurate and applicable.
Ultimately, each person makes their own decisions in life.
I just want to make mine with as much understanding as I can find.


----------



## earl (Mar 7, 2009)

The good and bad in an atheists world is the same as any one elses .To think other wise doesn't make sense.  All people don't even believe in the same god. Nor are all countries moral standards the same. Pick a country with another god, muslim,hindu, buddist etc. and you will also find different moral standards. As far as I know atheist are not a majority any where so there is no atheist world as you describe it. You and the atheist live in the same world.  Christianity world wide is in the minority. Just google world religion by population.


[Sit and listen and you understand why in the old days Atheists were not allowed to testify in court]
Care to explain why it was ''the old days'' instead of the modern times we currently live in ?


----------



## footjunior (Mar 8, 2009)

connorreid said:


> Why waste your time debating and arguing in an atheistic world? It's pointless.....Remember, why would any of this matter? Again, life is meaningless from an atheistic point of view.......so why even open your mouth?



Explain how it is pointless. If I really thought my life was meaningless I wouldn't be living.



> Why would killing babies, beating slaves or taking virgin girls be morally wrong or right in your worldview? What is wrong or right in your worldview (and I might not agree with your definition). Why would an atheist care what happens to people - there would be no ulitmate accountability to anyone, so who would care. Again, this is the foolishness of the atheists. Anytime an atheist wants to talk about morals, I want to know where in the world they get them from???



This has been discussed before. Our morals are shaped by our nature and nurture. Altruistic instincts play a major role in what we consider morally right and wrong.

Many Nazi's were Christians, and that didn't stop them from killing millions of Jews.

Yes, morals can come from religion, but religion comes from man. Therefore the religion usually carries the morals of the religion's creators. The Bible was written over thousands of years by many different authors. Therefore it contains a spectrum of morality. In the Old Testament, God seems to have the morals of a Middle-Eastern, slave beating, woman raping, male. This is likely because large portions of the Old Testament were written by Middle-Eastern males who were living in a time where slavery was common and taking virgin girls was acceptable.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 8, 2009)

> footjunior said:
> 
> 
> > Explain how it is pointless. If I really thought my life was meaningless I wouldn't be living.
> ...



Help me with this passage that you think is advocating the rape of any women? I find this hard to believe when rape was punishable by death. I want the text that you think justifies this. 




I will be posting more on science later.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 9, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Help me with this passage that you think is advocating the rape of any women? I find this hard to believe when rape was punishable by death. I want the text that you think justifies this.



Numbers 31: 17-18


----------



## connorreid (Mar 9, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Explain how it is pointless. If I really thought my life was meaningless I wouldn't be living.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why would Hitler (or other Nazis) be wrong in an atheistic world? See how you borrow from the Christian worldview of wrong and right in order to make sense of your world? Again, whatever comes out of your mouth (from an atheistic perspective) would have no meaning.  How would your definition of Religion make sense in your worldview? Just that statement itself presupposes a factual basis and in an atheistic world you COULDN'T have that.  By the way, who gave you athority to make up definitions?  How do you know for a FACT that man created religion (in your worldview it wouldn't matter anyway)?


----------



## connorreid (Mar 9, 2009)

earl said:


> The good and bad in an atheists world is the same as any one elses .To think other wise doesn't make sense.  All people don't even believe in the same god. Nor are all countries moral standards the same. Pick a country with another god, muslim,hindu, buddist etc. and you will also find different moral standards. As far as I know atheist are not a majority any where so there is no atheist world as you describe it. You and the atheist live in the same world.  Christianity world wide is in the minority. Just google world religion by population.
> 
> 
> [Sit and listen and you understand why in the old days Atheists were not allowed to testify in court]
> Care to explain why it was ''the old days'' instead of the modern times we currently live in ?


I agree with the fact that the majority are not atheists and yes I know in the "old days" in America atheists couldn't testify in court b/c they were considered untrustworthy.  BUT, you are missing the simple, fundamental principle I am talking about and it's this - HOW, in an atheistic world can something be good or bad? I'm not saying it IS that way in the world we live in b/c it's NOT.  I am asking (how, philosophically) that could be possible in an atheistic world.  In regards to your statements about other religions and world populations, I have no use for b/c they don't pertain to what I'm talking about.  Ask yourself where MORALS come from anyway and why would they make sense in an atheistic world???


----------



## connorreid (Mar 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> It is plainly obvious you have no experience in any readings regarding the subject being discussed outside of the Bible.
> CF and others who give good discussion points at least have done their homework and understand the fundamentals of each side.


It's also plainly obvious that someone as smart as you think you are can't answer a simple question.  My point is so simple yet you dismiss it.  Looks like you haven't done your homework either (and elementary homework at that).


----------



## connorreid (Mar 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> I'll partake of the freedom to believe and do as I wish.  I'll take whatever side or view I care to, and I have no qualm in doing so.  I have no reason to do anything but be respectful of others and follow what I care to persue.
> May you do the same.
> I gave my definition of happiness.  I added the disclaimer that it is an individual emotion that is highly left to individual interpretation.  That is a further refinement of my definition.
> 
> I've got a pretty firm world view, as I'll bet a silver dollar I've seen a little more of it than you.  You are coming into the discussion a little late to be making an attempt to point out any "absurdity" of my views.  I'd suggest more reading of previous postings before you spill ink with the poisioned pen.


I'm just asking you to make sense of your atheistic world and to live consistently with it.  Problem is you can't.  Why would you need a FIRM WORLDVIEW in an atheistic world? NOTHING WOULD MATTER!!  What is RESPECTFUL in an atheistic world? I know what it is in the world created by God because it is a reflection of God's character.  You claim to give respect but PLEASE MAKE SENSE OF THAT in an atheistic world - you can't. Why or how could you give respect in a worldview where nothing is right or wrong and everything is relative????


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 9, 2009)

Numbers 31:17-18   17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.  18 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.


Is this is the comment you interpret as God given permission to rape?


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 9, 2009)

Connorreid, you have a LOT of reading to catch up on.  Start with the beginning of the posts here on this website regarding the subject being discussed.
I'll not start all over for your sake.  Simply because you can not comprehend life without a belief in a deity does not result in the hypothesis that those who do not believe in a deity have no reason to live life fully and with purpose.

By the way, I'm not an Atheist.  I guess you have missed that in your reading of the previous posts, huh?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 9, 2009)

connorreid said:


> I'm just asking you to make sense of your atheistic world and to live consistently with it.  Problem is you can't.  Why would you need a FIRM WORLDVIEW in an atheistic world? NOTHING WOULD MATTER!!  What is RESPECTFUL in an atheistic world? I know what it is in the world created by God because it is a reflection of God's character.  You claim to give respect but PLEASE MAKE SENSE OF THAT in an atheistic world - you can't. Why or how could you give respect in a worldview where nothing is right or wrong and everything is relative????



Everybody wants to live.  Its easier and more beneficial for people to live together in groups.  There needs to be peace within groups to maintain order.  Religion was created to maintain order.  Once you realize that its better to have order, for its own sake, then you don't need the religion anymore.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 9, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Everybody wants to live.  Its easier and more beneficial for people to live together in groups.  There needs to be peace within groups to maintain order.  Religion was created to maintain order.  Once you realize that its better to have order, for its own sake, then you don't need the religion anymore.



The last several post' are 

This is a thread dealing with science and christianity. Your post should relate to this theme. 

Such as was Darwin a real scientist? What was his education? Does christianity-creationism, contradict real science? 

Christianity provides the ONLY solid bases for true science. Evolution, which is paganism dressed up. Created by men who had one common interest, hatred for the Christian God. Evolution is man made with one agenda- TO RID THE EARTH OF THE VIRUS OF RELIGION. 

This scientism is highly elaborate, it hides behind and in the shadows of true science taking credit for discoveries that given their worldview contradict their beliefs. 

In my opinion Darwin was a drop out theology student that was manipulated by men much smarter than him.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 9, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> The last several post' are
> 
> This is a thread dealing with science and christianity. Your post should relate to this theme.
> 
> ...




Your opinion is only focused on one scientific axiom, Darwin and Evolution.  That hardly addresses science as a whole, and that it is only based on Biblical principles.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 9, 2009)

Darwinism fails to ask the basic scientific question. How can we know? 

Christianity provides an answer to this question. The world is knowable because God made it knowable. God put into place universal laws that provide a basis for science.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Your opinion is only focused on one scientific axiom, Darwin and Evolution.  That hardly addresses science as a whole, and that it is only based on Biblical principles.



That's the discussion of this thread. Feel free to start your own.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 9, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> That's the discussion of this thread. Feel free to start your own.



OK.  I'm sensing an attitude here.  I'm not trying to derail your thread.  I do not want to start a different one.  Are we on the same page? 
What I said was the work done by Darwin is not the only scientific research done that is not founded on a Biblical basis.  Just because it is not in full agreement with the Bible does not make it any less scientific.

If a person has the Bible as their fundamental basis for everything, then there will be obvious differences found between the two that are sometimes inexplainable.  Therefore, the need for individual faith in believing the Bible.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 9, 2009)

> WTM45 said:
> 
> 
> > OK.  I'm sensing an attitude here.  I'm not trying to derail your thread.  I do not want to start a different one.  Are we on the same page?
> ...



Between Christianity and science? It that what you are referring to? If it is, that's the discussion. Darwinism requires faith too since it tries to explain the origin of life.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 9, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Between Christianity and science? It that what you are referring to? If it is, that's the discussion.



Indeed.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 9, 2009)

Remember, not all Atheists follow the teachings of Darwin.  Not all Christians exclude evolution in some form.
So, it becomes hard to make blanket statements regarding both.  It is a hard comparison/contrast to make.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Does not matter what I believe, or what you believe, or what others believe.  My statment stands as truthful and factual.  Outside of individual faith and the individual emotional feeling of confidence and dedication to a chosen religious belief system, we do not have factual knowledge for independant belief in an afterlife.  We have to either accept the story/evidence/idea/concept based on faith and a personal conviction, or we accept the fact we just don't know for sure until that time comes.
> And, we just might not get an answer then.


You accept what scientists tell you on GREAT FAITH.....what is truth in your atheistic world? You just said that "it does not matter what I believe or what you believe or what others believe" and if you TRULY believe that then why are you debating and arguing and STANDING FOR SOMETHING?


----------



## connorreid (Mar 9, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Everybody wants to live.  Its easier and more beneficial for people to live together in groups.  There needs to be peace within groups to maintain order.  Religion was created to maintain order.  Once you realize that its better to have order, for its own sake, then you don't need the religion anymore.


Again, I will ask a SIMPLE question - Why would you need order in an atheistic world and HOW would you get it? In my worldview order comes from God b/c it's a characteristic of His.  In your atheistic worldview, who would determine order? This is another example of how you steal from the Christian worldview to make sense of your own.  You still cannot escape the image of God that you were made in (no matter how hard you try it rises to the surface).


----------



## connorreid (Mar 9, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Everybody wants to live.  Its easier and more beneficial for people to live together in groups.  There needs to be peace within groups to maintain order.  Religion was created to maintain order.  Once you realize that its better to have order, for its own sake, then you don't need the religion anymore.


If everybody wants to live then why do people commit suicide? What kind of statement was that?


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 9, 2009)

connorreid said:


> You accept what scientists tell you on GREAT FAITH.....what is truth in your atheistic world? You just said that "it does not matter what I believe or what you believe or what others believe" and if you TRULY believe that then why are you debating and arguing and STANDING FOR SOMETHING?




I give full freedom to all believe in what they wish.  That is what this country is based on.
We come here to go over the talking points, and to make attempts to express what we perceive, interpret, observe, believe and study. 

I want you to stop addressing me personally, and give the original poster the credit he deserves by discussing the subject at hand.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Connorreid, you have a LOT of reading to catch up on.  Start with the beginning of the posts here on this website regarding the subject being discussed.
> I'll not start all over for your sake.  Simply because you can not comprehend life without a belief in a deity does not result in the hypothesis that those who do not believe in a deity have no reason to live life fully and with purpose.
> 
> By the way, I'm not an Atheist.  I guess you have missed that in your reading of the previous posts, huh?


Are you whining? Please answer the simple questions I have put forth.  You are caught up in your intellectualism yet fail to deal with the fundamentals of life.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> I give full freedom to all believe in what they wish.  That is what this country is based on.
> We come here to go over the talking points, and to make attempts to express what we perceive, interpret, observe, believe and study.
> 
> I want you to stop addressing me personally, and give the original poster the credit he deserves by discussing the subject at hand.


What you are condemning in me, you are doing.  I am arguing against what you propose.  I can't help it if you can't handle it.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 9, 2009)

Connor, start another thread regarding your question.  You are derailing this one, and that is openly insulting to the original poster.

If you can not do that, I'll just have to ignore you.  That's not my preference.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Connor, start another thread regarding your question.  You are derailing this one, and that is openly insulting to the original poster.
> 
> If you can not do that, I'll just have to ignore you.  That's not my preference.


This forum is for adults, not children.......my questions concern this topic, yet I still get no answer.  (And you just get mad and don't play anymore).  Sorry.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 9, 2009)

connorreid said:


> This forum is for adults, not children.......my questions concern this topic, yet I still get no answer.  (And you just get mad and don't play anymore).  Sorry.



Emotions have nothing to do with my posts.  They are plainly obvious in yours.  Start a new thread, and I'll play along.  Here you are derailing the original poster's subject.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 9, 2009)

You are not truthful!! You said you would ignore me and you didn't.  Later.  Got to go.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Remember, not all Atheists follow the teachings of Darwin.  Not all Christians exclude evolution in some form.
> So, it becomes hard to make blanket statements regarding both.  It is a hard comparison/contrast to make.



I am not asking for contrast between science and Christianity. Remember, I think christianity is fully compatible with real science, though, I don't think evolution is. I think it steals from ours to make sense of theirs. This is nothing new at all.  

The discussion is Christianity and science. Does Christianity provide the preconditions for solid science? Contrast that with evolution and science. Does the theory of evolution provide the preconditions for solid science. 

Maybe the thread should have been Religion and science. This may have been more accurate since I think evolution is a religion as well as secular humanism and all of its various forms.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 9, 2009)

RP, I can not argue the definition of a religious belief system with you.  Your interpretation and opinion regarding it is not in agreement with the common definition.

I believe religion and science have to be seperate, as religion places too many parameters, pre-conceived ideas and notions on the testing and results.
But I believe those who study science with a religious foundation and implication are as serious in their studies as any other scientist.

It will come down as to how the results are made to fit their agenda or pre-conceived notions.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> RP, I can not argue the definition of a religious belief system with you.  Your interpretation and opinion regarding it is not in agreement with the common definition.
> 
> I believe religion and science have to be seperate, as religion places too many parameters, pre-conceived ideas and notions on the testing and results.
> But I believe those who study science with a religious foundation and implication are as serious in their studies as any other scientist.
> ...





Hopefully, we can agree on this simple definition of religion? Everyone serves something or someone. It can be anything or anyone. From that commitment life unfolds. 

Another thing that I think has been confused in much our discussion broadly, is defining what this thread is referring to when the word science is used. It's true that broadly, hard science is done by all. This is tangible and "scientific" in the very hard meaning of the word and the bible is not in conflict with this.  But, science and scientist don't stop there. When they begin try and answer the question of origin then science has overstepped it's boundaries, that is, something that can be verified in a controlled setting. 

This is where Christianity steps in to fill in that information that science cannot answer. Its beyond science but not contradictory to science. Nothing is science that has been learned from hard cases has disproved anything taught in scripture. Take the area of archaeology. The bible, time and time again has been proven accurate in ancient cities like the Hittite empire which was believed to be myth before it's discovery in the late 1800's. 

Geology, Mount St. Helen's eruption discredited much of the evolutionist claims that it takes untold periods of time to do what this volcano did in a couple of days. 

Just take the claim, with larges amount of time anything is possible. Is this a statement of faith? Has that statement ever been proven? Is that a scientific statement at all? 


We cannot let things like this pas as hard science because it's not.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 9, 2009)

But neither is complete faith in a universal creation story that can not be proven unless the deity in charge of it makes himself/herself known to the individual.  That's not hard science either.

I'll not take the stance that a person can not have such a revelation in their own conciousness.  But the holy book of choice can be the strongest influence that controls the experiments and the outcomes.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 9, 2009)

connorreid said:


> If everybody wants to live then why do people commit suicide? What kind of statement was that?



They have overridden the biological desire for self preservation; intellectually.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 9, 2009)

connorreid said:


> Again, I will ask a SIMPLE question - Why would you need order in an atheistic world and HOW would you get it? In my worldview order comes from God b/c it's a characteristic of His.  In your atheistic worldview, who would determine order? This is another example of how you steal from the Christian worldview to make sense of your own.  You still cannot escape the image of God that you were made in (no matter how hard you try it rises to the surface).



I'm with WTM,  This is a thread derailment.  I would love to discuss this in another thread, though.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> But neither is complete faith in a universal creation story that can not be proven unless the deity in charge of it makes himself/herself known to the individual.  That's not hard science either.
> 
> I'll not take the stance that a person can not have such a revelation in their own conciousness.  But the holy book of choice can be the strongest influence that controls the experiments and the outcomes.



I think you are answering me? Please point to particular statements that you are addressing so we can keep it clear. This will keep the redundancy lower. Thanks.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 9, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Hopefully, we can agree on this simple definition of religion? Everyone serves something or someone. It can be anything or anyone. From that commitment life unfolds.



I can not agree on that definition.
I think we are at an impasse.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> I can not agree on that definition.
> I think we are at an impasse.



Ok, no problem- I understand. 

For me the institutional definition of religion lacks real substance.

I think devotion would also describe it.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> But neither is complete faith in a universal creation story that can not be proven unless the deity in charge of it makes himself/herself known to the individual.  That's not hard science either.
> 
> I'll not take the stance that a person can not have such a revelation in their own conciousness.  But the holy book of choice can be the strongest influence that controls the experiments and the outcomes.


God reveals Himself in His holy word, the bible - you just reject it.  Science, apart from God, would not make sense or even exist.  Math, geology, biology, english literature and everything out there could not be nor can be understood apart from God.  He is truth.  He sustains all things.  An atheistic world could not have science because everything would be relative and no scientists could agree on anything.  You and RP can't even agree on the simplest definition of religion in this God created world (b/c you are a relativist) so imagine the other way.  In an atheistic world of meaningless, why would anybody need science anyway??


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 9, 2009)

connorreid said:


> God reveals Himself in His holy word, the bible - you just reject it.  Science, apart from God, would not make sense or even exist.  Math, geology, biology, english literature and everything out there could not be nor can be understood apart from God.  He is truth.  He sustains all things.  An atheistic world could not have science because everything would be relative and no scientists could agree on anything.  You and RP can't even agree on the simplest definition of religion in this God created world (b/c you are a relativist) so imagine the other way.  In an atheistic world of meaningless, why would anybody need science anyway??




There really can be no common ground. Not even in defining a word like 'religion.' Relativism. What ever is the most convenient at the time, Utilitarianism.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 9, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> There really can be no common ground. Not even in defining a word like 'religion.' Relativism. What ever is the most convenient at the time, Utilitarianism.


Precisely,RP


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 9, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Geology, Mount St. Helen's eruption discredited much of the evolutionist claims that it takes untold periods of time to do what this volcano did in a couple of days.



What did Mt. St. Helen do that science can't explain that the Bible can?


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 9, 2009)

connorreid said:


> God reveals Himself in His holy word, the bible - you just reject it.  Science, apart from God, would not make sense or even exist.  Math, geology, biology, english literature and everything out there could not be nor can be understood apart from God.  He is truth.  He sustains all things.  An atheistic world could not have science because everything would be relative and no scientists could agree on anything.  You and RP can't even agree on the simplest definition of religion in this God created world (b/c you are a relativist) so imagine the other way.  In an atheistic world of meaningless, why would anybody need science anyway??



You know nothing about me, yet you personally address me in your posts.  And, now the namecalling/labeling?  I fail to see why.  You have made no attempt to read anything that has been discussed here previously by me, or in other threads I have responded to, so I will not re-hash out my thoughts due to your laziness.

Plenty of accomplishments have been made outside the realm of a personal belief in a deity, as well as many accomplishments by people who have chosen a religious belief system outside of Christianity.

I assure you, that Atheists, Agnostics and Deists alike value life and find it has meaning.  Some might find it more meaningful than those who feel it is secondary to the eternal hereafter.  Believe what you will.

I have not put down anyone's personal beliefs here.  I discuss the talking points and issues regarding the differences.  It can be difficult when discussing such subjects with  those who hold a religious belief that is  fundamentally exclusive.

RP and I have discussed previously where we find the difference in opinion when defining a religious belief system.  Atheism is not a religious belief system.  It is a lack of belief in a deity.  There is no need to go through that discussion again.  He believes a deity is replaced with the individual.  I do not.  We have agreed to disagree.  It will be impossible for us to discuss much beyond that.

No matter what you wish to believe, everyone serves themselves at the basic level.  That is self preservation, and it is a trait found in all living creatures.  Those who wish to end it have made that decision themselves.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 9, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> There really can be no common ground. Not even in defining a word like 'religion.' Relativism. What ever is the most convenient at the time, Utilitarianism.



So, no, to Webster because its secular.  How about no to thermometers or scales?  

I think that may be exactly the point.  You are using an undefined system to explain measurable phenomenon.  There really is no reason to discuss it further.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> You know nothing about me, yet you personally address me in your posts.  And, now the namecalling/labeling?  I fail to see why.  You have made no attempt to read anything that has been discussed here previously by me, or in other threads I have responded to, so I will not re-hash out my thoughts due to your laziness.
> 
> Plenty of accomplishments have been made outside the realm of a personal belief in a deity, as well as many accomplishments by people who have chosen a religious belief system outside of Christianity.
> 
> ...


You really don't get it or listen.  The only reason an atheist can value life and have meaning is b/c he lives in a world created by God.  Again - in an atheistic world one would be born, live and die.  Nothing would matter b/c nobody would answer to God or be accountable to Him.  Answer this simple question and I will leave you alone - Is what Hitler did to the Jews good or bad in an atheistic world? Why would it be either?
You also know nothing about me and you personally keep attacking me - so quit. Also, it is amazing how you have jumped into my head and know what I have read.  I have read all the comments on this thread for your info.  Have a great night and God bless you and take away your hostility.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 9, 2009)

connorreid said:


> The only reason an atheist can value life and have meaning is b/c he lives in a world created by God.



An Atheist does not believe in a deity.  You must believe what you will, the Atheist believes what he/she will.

It is impossible to discuss anything of this realm with a person who refuses to even consider the documented and open thoughts that are the Atheist's alternative to creation, God and the Bible.
I'm not saying you have to believe, convert or even understand.  It might just be outside your ability to fathom.
That's OK.

RP, sorry this got so out of hand and off track.  We'll have more time to discuss things on different threads I'm sure!


----------



## connorreid (Mar 10, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> An Atheist does not believe in a deity.  You must believe what you will, the Atheist believes what he/she will.
> 
> It is impossible to discuss anything of this realm with a person who refuses to even consider the documented and open thoughts that are the Atheist's alternative to creation, God and the Bible.
> I'm not saying you have to believe, convert or even understand.  It might just be outside your ability to fathom.
> ...


Wow......you still can't answer a simple, elementary question.  That's amazing to me.  So simple.  Also, I have been asking you to think about what it would be like if the world was atheistic, not that it is.  You can't even think hypothetically.  You also keep apologizing to RP for "getting off topic", yet you continue to talk about what we are discussing (although I don't think we ever got off topic - you just can't answer anything).  Have a great  day.  Thank God that you live in this THEISTIC world.  A world you can only make sense of b/c God has revealed truth, reason, science and everything else to you.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 10, 2009)

CR, start another thread.  We'll talk about your question there.
RP deserves respect for his topic on this thread.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 10, 2009)

Another thought. If we are going to able to make sense of science as it relates to the origin of life, we need to recognize that its a philosophical question, not a scientific one. 

Here in lies the problem and much of the confusion as we debated this vital issue. 

Christians want to produce evidence, hoping to sway the atheist in to accepting their evidence as proof of God. And, in turn, the atheist provides evidence to the christian, trying to prove the contrary. 

But the this kind of debate always implodes. Both walk away usually thinking the other is stubborn and blind. We have to wrestle with the fruit of our worldviews. Science is only one part of our complex and wonderful existence. 

As Christians we are not forcing any narrow definition on our atheist friends. We are simply repeating what other atheist and evolutionary scientist have said about their on craft. They have admitted to evolution as being a metaphysical, philosophical approach to the origin of life, not a scientific one. 

I know some atheist or other may disagree with this but it would be silly and dishonest to Christianity to ignore their own claims. I do think any on here are more qualified to speak than those scientist. 

So let this discussion begin here. 

More later................


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 10, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> ...As christians we are not forcing any narrow definition on our atheist friends. We are simply repeating what other atheist and evolutionary scientist have said about their on craft. They have admitted to evolution as being a metaphysical, philosophical approach to the origin of life, not a scientific one.
> ...



Oh, science is a part of the evolutionary discussion as well.

What Christians (and some other deist religious belief systems do as well) is push the idea of a mandatory and unquestioning faith in the writings of the chosen holy book.  Not very scientific there at all.

So, by the nature of exclusivity, anything deemed outside the holy book of choice is not pure science to the believer.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 10, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Oh, science is a part of the evolutionary discussion as well.
> 
> What Christians (and some other deist religious belief systems do as well) is push the idea of a mandatory and unquestioning faith in the writings of the chosen holy book.  Not very scientific there at all.
> 
> So, by the nature of exclusivity, anything deemed outside the holy book of choice is not pure science to the believer.





Explain??????????


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 10, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> What did Mt. St. Helen do that science can't explain that the Bible can?



Where did I say science can't explain what happened at Mt. ST. Helen?


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 10, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> So, no, to Webster because its secular.  How about no to thermometers or scales?
> 
> I think that may be exactly the point.  You are using an undefined system to explain measurable phenomenon.  There really is no reason to discuss it further.



Please, explain your comments, Not sure I understand your point. 

If we are talking about thermometers or scales then we may have common ground??????? Because we are dealing with measurements. But we are not talking about that are we??? 

How am I using an undefined system? Help me understand what you are saying.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 10, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> CR, start another thread.  We'll talk about your question there.
> RP deserves respect for his topic on this thread.


Thanks for answering my question.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 10, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Oh, science is a part of the evolutionary discussion as well.
> 
> What Christians (and some other deist religious belief systems do as well) is push the idea of a mandatory and unquestioning faith in the writings of the chosen holy book.  Not very scientific there at all.
> 
> So, by the nature of exclusivity, anything deemed outside the holy book of choice is not pure science to the believer.


Atheists, like Richard Dawkins, push the idea of science (their brand of science and their faith in science) on others and laugh at religious people.  There is no NEUTRAL ground for arguing like many want.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 11, 2009)

Watching a news clip on the rise of atheism in america, it was clear that although the atheist don't consider themselves to be a religion they have no problem using religious terminology to explain and promote there cause. 

Of course, all of this is tongue in cheek, but, if they were serious and adamant about NOT being a religion, why would they stoop so low???????????


----------



## connorreid (Mar 11, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Watching a news clip on the rise of atheism in america, it was clear that although the atheist don't consider themselves to be a religion they have no problem using religious terminology to explain and promote there cause.
> 
> Of course, all of this is tongue in cheek, but, if they were serious and adamant about NOT being a religion, why would they stoop so low???????????


They definitely have a religion / belief system.  They say they aren't religious but it's obvious they are (they just don't believe in God).  Dawkins and other scientists think that if they don't know the answer now to something that they one day will (some have said this) - That proves they have GREAT FAITH b/c they don't know the future.  Jokes on them.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 12, 2009)

connorreid said:


> They definitely have a religion / belief system.  They say they aren't religious but it's obvious they are (they just don't believe in God).  Dawkins and other scientists think that if they don't know the answer now to something that they one day will (some have said this) - That proves they have GREAT FAITH b/c they don't know the future.  Jokes on them.



I wouldn't exactly consider this GREAT faith. History repeats itself. There was once a time when we did not understand many things in science, now we understand them better. We still do not understand many things, but if current trends continue we will understand most of them much better in the future. No where in here did I say that we will, for certain understand everything completely. I'm simply using current trends to make a prediction about the future.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 12, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Watching a news clip on the rise of atheism in america, it was clear that although the atheist don't consider themselves to be a religion they have no problem using religious terminology to explain and promote there cause.
> 
> Of course, all of this is tongue in cheek, but, if they were serious and adamant about NOT being a religion, why would they stoop so low???????????



"Stoop so low" as to do what?


----------



## connorreid (Mar 12, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I wouldn't exactly consider this GREAT faith. History repeats itself. There was once a time when we did not understand many things in science, now we understand them better. We still do not understand many things, but if current trends continue we will understand most of them much better in the future. No where in here did I say that we will, for certain understand everything completely. I'm simply using current trends to make a prediction about the future.


How do you know history repeats itself? That is a statement based on assumption (faith).  It's also very obvious you didn't read my statement b/c I didn't say you said you will for certain understand everything completely.  I said Dawkins and some other scientists think that if they don't know the answer now to something that they one day will. That my friend is GREAT, GREAT FAITH (and extremely pompous).  If you are using current trends to make a prediction about the future, what if you are wrong? Again, you have GREAT FAITH in your past and current trends in order to PREDICT the future.  You have more faith in something than you realize. Later.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 12, 2009)

footjunior said:


> "Stoop so low" as to do what?



To use christian lingo to promote atheism. Stuff like "I am a born again Atheist"


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> "I am a born again Atheist"


----------



## footjunior (Mar 12, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> To use christian lingo to promote atheism. Stuff like "I am a born again Atheist"



What's so wrong with this?


----------



## earl (Mar 12, 2009)

fj, it does smack of plagiarism. If you are going to make a statement at least be original.


----------



## FishingAddict (Mar 12, 2009)

In some manner, science to me proves there is a God.

For instance, take the reality of the universe: Entropy.  

The theory of entropy states  (in a nut shell) that ALL energy (and mass with energy) tries to spread its self out equally as possible in a random fashion.  In other words, put hot water in one side of a bucket, and cold in the other, and they will mix to become equal. Or look at lightning or any type of electricty that will try to equal out the positive and negative charges thru electricity. 

Also, the another general rule is that NOTHING will take action unless it has another object act on it.  In other words, if you have all things equal, molecules will do nothing but do the same thing they were doing before.   A rock sitting on the ground will just sit there.  A planet in orbit will spin forever until the star collapes or something hits it.

Then you have life.  The molecules in the body should follow the same pattern as the rest of nature...in other words, just sit there...and rot away as the elements act on it.

But, as it turn out, something completly different happens in life.  First- they organize to work in harmony with each other- 

Not only do these molecules not search for entropy -waiting for another source of energy to act upon them, they actually ACTIVELY search out for their OWN energy...this just does not occur any other time in the universe.

Then look at the advancement of life up until the human.  The abilty of these molecules to learn not only learn thru a binary digit code of sodium and calcuim atoms passing thru a neruon, to remeber things...and then to create art, music, technology....and develop a sense of self...and to give up the sense of self and self protection and greed for what we call love.  All from $10 worth of elements you could buy at a lab store.

All from a bunch of molecules, that are supposed to be totally totally random.

I call that God's work.  To think this happened on it's own is just silly...

And what about the 7 day story in the Bible? Personally, I believe that it's Gods way to help us realize that creation of the world IS a process and its HIS work.  The "days" that it give are just arbitray units of time....why do I say that? Everything is a process in the way God does things.  Jesus came to live in a human body, walked with us, had to die, and came back to life to rise.  

I'm quite sure that God's most important message to us in the first part of genisis was that He created everything.  He also designed us to want to learn.  There sure would not be alot of learning to be done if he gave us the cliff notes of how it all happened up front.

In summary- I'm not gonna condem God for doing it his way! He did it on his own time, in his own process.







Oh, and Pnome- the "Christain Dark Ages" is not limited to Christains. That's incorrectly labeling it.  The Moors were also involved.  

Let's also keep in mind that the most of the advancements of the latter part of your chart were made by mostly Christian/Religious societies.

Also- while some people use religion in the wrong way- like the "Christian Crusades"- it does not mean that it was GOD's will. That was MANs will.


And one more thing.  We call everything we know in science "fact" sometimes.

Fact is, the only theories that have NEVER changed is MATH theories, which have no argument with creation.

In other words- if you don't believe in God becuase of what we "KNOW" now, you are making your mind up with something that will surely change in the next 100 years, as have all our theories on the world.  Remeber, it was fact that the world was round from the current observations.  As we observe more thru the passage of human kind, we will surly change more of our  "theories."

For instance- take the big bang theory that is so popular. First of all, if that's the way God did it, so be it.

However- recent info tells me, at least- that it is way off base.  If the big bang theory was correct, the speed at which the outside of the universe is traveling away from the center would be DECELERATING due to the gravitational pull from the center's mass.

However- we have recently discovered that it is actually ACCELERATING away from the center.  That directly contridicts the big bang theory.

So what's the next solution? I don't know, I figure I'll never know in my life time how God decided to do it, I just know He did!


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 13, 2009)

Wow... FA is here??? And with the same avatar...

WHAZ UP!


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 13, 2009)

footjunior said:


> What's so wrong with this?



I don't think it's wrong. But it is interesting to me that atheist would stoop so low as to use religious phrases on hats, shirts and bumper stickers to tell the world their atheist. That's all. 

Actually, I find it funny. I would have thought that such an highly educated and enlightened group as atheist tend to be.  Could have easily come up with something more original and better than well worn christian "platitudes." 

Listen FJ, if you have some of this stuff, don't stop wearing it. Wear it with pride. But remember, you are using our worldview to promote yours. Have a good day.


----------



## FishingAddict (Mar 13, 2009)

What up, Celtic. Yup, I cruise around here once and a while.  This thread caught my eye, as I feel it's just silly to think that God and science don't intersect. God made science..it's ours to discover and oodle and aw at his wonder.


----------



## FishingAddict (Mar 14, 2009)

FishingAddict said:


> In some manner, science to me proves there is a God.
> 
> For instance, take the reality of the universe: Entropy.
> 
> ...



Come on, surely this made someone think....what do you think of these thoughts??


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 14, 2009)

FishingAddict said:


> Come on, surely this made someone think....what do you think of these thoughts??



The bible says He spoke it all into existence. Is that to hard to believe? 

Psalm 33:8-9  8 Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.  9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.


----------



## FishingAddict (Mar 14, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> The bible says He spoke it all into existence. Is that to hard to believe?
> 
> Psalm 33:8-9  8 Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.  9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.





I don't see where I said that he did not make everything and all come into existance.  

I'm saying that there is no exact calander time line given- it does not say that he said it and there was a "poof" and it was there. God simply does not work that way...again, He works in proccesses.

In fact, he made me, and my body was no where around back when Jesus walked the earth.  And my kid's great great great great grandchildren will be created by God, and I'll never see them.  Not everything is created at once with God.

It's a process.  

Oh, and as far as "spoke"- I do not believe that He actually "spoke" like we humans would.  Why?  Well, as stated many times in the Bible, God is SPIRIT, and speaking, as we think of how humans can do it, would not be possible.  Speaking requires lungs, vocal cords, and air found on earth.

It's pretty evident that God is not built like us in a PHYSICAL way, as it would be pretty hard to be everywhere at once in a body.  And breathing in outerspace...man.  And no sound in space either, to speak in the way humans do.  

He "spoke" in the way He "speaks"...not the way we do...

Which really, is great news for us.  More proof that we don't need our body to exist past it's experation date.  Our spirit lives on.

So, to sum it up- ABSOLUTLY- God made everything.  And if someone is not in awe of what surrounds us- they ain't right in the head.
I'm just saying some people may be predisposed to their own timeline (not his) of how he made it come around.

Make any sense?


----------



## earl (Mar 14, 2009)

What didn't make sense to me was the physical. Doesn't the bible say man was made in gods image ?


----------



## FishingAddict (Mar 15, 2009)

earl said:


> What didn't make sense to me was the physical. Doesn't the bible say man was made in gods image ?



Great question, many people get tripped up on this, as did I.

As the Bible says many times...God is Spirit.  Not body. That's why Jesus came down in to HUMAN flesh to comunicate on our level.

The "image" part that he created is our spirt.  You can have God's likness in you if you are tall, short, brown, white, old or young.  It's hard to wrap your head around, since most of the "images" we think of are "seen" physical properties...thus the hard time some people have believing in God.

Make sense?


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 20, 2009)

FishingAddict said:


> Great question, many people get tripped up on this, as did I.
> 
> As the Bible says many times...God is Spirit.  Not body. That's why Jesus came down in to HUMAN flesh to comunicate on our level.
> 
> ...






Not really! I think the image of God is more than being invisible. The bible say's that when God breathed into man he became a living SOUL. 

The image of God encompasses  knowledge, righteousness and holiness.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 20, 2009)

FishingAddict said:


> I don't see where I said that he did not make everything and all come into existance.
> 
> I'm saying that there is no exact calander time line given- it does not say that he said it and there was a "poof" and it was there. God simply does not work that way...again, He works in proccesses.
> 
> ...





What's wrong with the time line given in Genesis?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> What's wrong with the time line given in Genesis?



I have reread the first 3 chapters of Genesis countless times in the last couple of weeks. And I have got to say I am coming close to changing my opinion on the age of the earth.


----------



## PWalls (Mar 20, 2009)

I have come to the realization that I do not have to "lean on my own understanding". 6 days is fine with me. It's a God thing.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 21, 2009)

PWalls said:


> I have come to the realization that I do not have to "lean on my own understanding". 6 days is fine with me. It's a God thing.



Feet planted firmly in revelation is solid ground!


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 21, 2009)

PWalls said:


> I have come to the realization that I do not have to "lean on my own understanding". 6 days is fine with me. It's a God thing.



Why would God put so much evidence in place that would indicate a much longer process?


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 21, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Why would God put so much evidence in place that would indicate a much longer process?



What evidence ya have in mind?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 21, 2009)

FishingAddict said:


> And what about the 7 day story in the Bible? Personally, I believe that it's Gods way to help us realize that creation of the world IS a process and its HIS work.  The "days" that it give are just arbitray units of time....why do I say that? Everything is a process in the way God does things.



And you came to that conclusion, how?   

I would assume that you have an understanding of the workings of the physical world and realized that 7 literal days is quite a fantastic feat (not out of the abilities of a God, mind you).  But for you to disregard the literal 7 days and conclude that it is a "metaphor", based on your understanding of physics, geology, reason (for which I commend you), then where does it end?  There are many things in the Bible that cannot be reconciled with science.  Why stop there?   Maybe all the fantastic  happenings in the Bible are just "metaphors"?

And what do you say to those who have conviction and this "discernment" business equal to your own and they say that it was 7 days?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 21, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> What evidence ya have in mind?



I would have to cut and paste stuff from science books.  And we both know that they don't hold water around here.

Silly stuff about geology and physics and bending light....


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 21, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I would have to cut and paste stuff from science books.  And we both know that they don't hold water around here.
> 
> Silly stuff about geology and physics and bending light....



OUCH! Someone who has not followed this thread all the way through might take your comment to mean we (Christians) reject hard science as a legitimate discipline. You react as if there is only one voice in science. Even evolutionary scientist are not all agreed on everything, particularly, how life began and the age of the earth. A bit dishonest. 


But, hey, this may be what your trying to do. I don't know.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 21, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> And you came to that conclusion, how?
> 
> I would assume that you have an understanding of the workings of the physical world and realized that 7 literal days is quite a fantastic feat (not out of the abilities of a God, mind you).  But for you to disregard the literal 7 days and conclude that it is a "metaphor", based on your understanding of physics, geology, reason (for which I commend you), then where does it end?



I don't generally like to wade into the age of the earth debate because I don't have a firm position on it personally.  But, I will say that you don't HAVE to go to your knowledge of the workings of the physical world (read scientific discoveries/theories) to know that a metaphorical reading is indeed a possibility.  Just the fact that there are some portions of the Bible that are metaphor (speaking of God having humanesque body parts for one) allow for the possibility of a metaphorical reading.

Where it ends is where it would end with any other work of literature.  When there is clearly no metaphor/figurative language being used, you know that it's not a metaphor.  Where there is ambiguity, you must study the text and see what is most probably the authors intent.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 21, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> OUCH! Someone who has not followed this thread all the way through might take your comment to mean we (Christians) reject hard science as a legitimate discipline. You react as if there is only one voice in science. Even evolutionary scientist are not all agreed on everything, particularly, how life began and the age of the earth. A bit dishonest.
> 
> 
> But, hey, this may be what your trying to do. I don't know.



Foot Junior gave you abundant evidence that conflicts with creationist theory.  He just about gave a High School level lecture on how evolution works.  

"General Mustard did it with the candlestick in the Library"  The jig is up.  

Its clear that there is some ridiculous amount of evidence that you will need to have presented to you to get you to accept what 95% of the scientific community accepts as true and operates by.   The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 21, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> I don't generally like to wade into the age of the earth debate because I don't have a firm position on it personally.
> 
> This issue may not matter to you, but it might be a subject that just sits in someone else's craw like a fish bone.  I matters to me for the reasons I discussed in my previous post.
> 
> ...



Still a matter of "discernment" or opinion or interpretation....All flawed systems applied by flawed men to a text created by flawed men.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 21, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Still a matter of "discernment" or opinion or interpretation....All flawed systems applied by flawed men to a text created by flawed men.



Like it or not, evolution is a faith not a true science.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 21, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Still a matter of "discernment" or opinion or interpretation....All flawed systems applied by flawed men to a text created by flawed men.



RP is right that much of science is interpretation of data.  Many things come down to interpretation and discernment, that doesn't make them false or untrue, it just makes it a little bit more difficult to find the truth.  Scientific questions are to be answered by the scientific method.  History and literature require different approaches to come to the truth.  That doesn't mean there isn't truth, just that we may not know it absolutely.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 22, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> RP is right that much of science is interpretation of data.  Many things come down to interpretation and discernment, that doesn't make them false or untrue, it just makes it a little bit more difficult to find the truth.  Scientific questions are to be answered by the scientific method.  History and literature require different approaches to come to the truth.  That doesn't mean there isn't truth, just that we may not know it absolutely.



Agreed.   History deals with an event that occurred once and was either recorded or passed down by oral tradition.  Science, as it applied to evolution, can replicate some of the system by which it operates or directly observe those processes at work in the present.  At very least, science  interprets data that is purely objective, in and of itself, not having been manipulated or filtered through an individual.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 23, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Like it or not, evolution is a faith not a true science.


that sounds right to me.........how do you start off WRONG with anything, then get it RIGHT??  If these EVOLUTIONARY, ATHEISTIC scientists today build on their beliefs, then look what you get.........It is amazing that people just take something like this for granted and never question the "intellectuals", don't you think??? And these folks think Christians are crazy???


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2009)

connorreid said:


> that sounds right to me.........how do you start off WRONG with anything, then get it RIGHT??  If these EVOLUTIONARY, ATHEISTIC scientists today build on their beliefs, then look what you get.........It is amazing that people just take something like this for granted and never question the "intellectuals", don't you think??? And these folks think Christians are crazy???



The act of being "intellectual" is strongly rooted in critical thinking.

Which hunting guide would you follow?  One that studied the game, looked at aerial and topo maps, tried to understand the movements and patterns of the game or the one who says "lest go over yonder.  The games over there I just know it in my bones!"?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 23, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> At very least, science  interprets data that is purely objective, in and of itself, not having been manipulated or filtered through an individual.



Objective data in the hands of subjective scientists can lead to manipulation.  All numbers have been filtered to some extent by the individual who "interprets" them.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 23, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> The act of being "intellectual" is strongly rooted in critical thinking.
> 
> Which hunting guide would you follow?  One that studied the game, looked at aerial and topo maps, tried to understand the movements and patterns of the game or the one who says "lest go over yonder.  The games over there I just know it in my bones!"?


I would follow the hunting guide that studied the game that's why I am a Christian.  How can an atheist make sense of this world apart from God? They are the ones that trust in scientists' theories of origins (and yet still do not have any concrete answers).  I have a belief system that is derived from God's word, so I can make sense of life.    "Critical thinking" apart from God's word is in vain....


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 23, 2009)

Its ironic how the evolutionist will quickly dismiss christianity as superstitious without thought. They are implying that creationism cannot be supported at all with scientific data which is another falsehood. 

Evolution is a myth. Contrived by men who would rather have a world with no meaning than bow to a holy God who will one day judge the affairs of men. It's that simple. This makes the presupposition approach the only affective method of pointing out this faulty stance.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 23, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Its ironic how the evolutionist will quickly dismiss christianity as superstitious without thought. They are implying that creationism cannot be supported at all with scientific data which is another falsehood.



You're right. It is a falsehood. Scientific data could very well point towards a specific version of creationism...

but it doesn't.



> Evolution is a myth. Contrived by men who would rather have a world with no meaning than bow to a holy God who will one day judge the affairs of men. It's that simple. This makes the presupposition approach the only affective method of pointing out this faulty stance.



Oh yes, let me tell how much evolution has to do with living a morally wrong or right life: NONE.

The theory of evolution via natural selection is a scientific theory which explains the diversity of life on Earth. That's all it is folks. For some reason Christians love to attach "bad" things to evolution...

"If you're an evolutionist you're evil and have no morality!", "You can't be a Christian and recognize macroevolution!", "Evolutionists think life has no meaning and that you can do whatever you want."

There are Christians who have the ability to recognize evolution and yet still be a Christian. Many are not able to do so.



> Objective data in the hands of subjective scientists can lead to manipulation. All numbers have been filtered to some extent by the individual who "interprets" them.



And objective data in the hands of non-scientists can lead to manipulation as well. I guess all those Christian scientists who recognize evolution were "indoctrinated by their evil atheistic college professors."


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 23, 2009)

footjunior said:


> And objective data in the hands of non-scientists can lead to manipulation as well.



True.  Saying one is objective and one is not is opinion and doesn't reflect facts.  That was my point.  I said nothing about evil biologists...that's your editorializing.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 23, 2009)

footjunior said:


> You're right. It is a falsehood. Scientific data could very well point towards a specific version of creationism...
> 
> but it doesn't.
> 
> ...




First of all. Grow up. All I and others have said is that an evolutionist can't account for his morality. To him it is a social invention. At best good for living together as a community and at worst arbitrary sentimentalism, which can change at any second.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 23, 2009)

footjunior said:


> You're right. It is a falsehood. Scientific data could very well point towards a specific version of creationism...
> 
> but it doesn't.
> 
> ...


In dealing with the process of natural selection, in particular the "survival of the fittest", would it be OK to go to your neighbor's house, knock on the door, shoot them when they answer and take all of their possessions? After all, it would be evident that the "strongest" survived and looted the "not so strong"......If all of these genius scientists out there who support the "survival of the fittest" model, then does it apply to humans also??  One could go and kill their neighbor and take their possessions but as soon as the police found out they would come and arrest that person b/c he violated the law.  This begs the question - Why would you need laws in the "survival of the fittest" model?? How could laws even exist in that system?? IT IS OVERWHELMINGLY OBVIOUS THAT WE DON'T LIVE ACCORDING TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST MODEL (animals might, but humans don't).  So, this is one example of how darwinian followers can't make sense of or apply his model to human life.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 23, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> First of all. Grow up.







> All I and others have said is that an evolutionist can't account for his morality. To him it is a social invention. At best good for living together as a community and at worst arbitrary sentimentalism, which can change at any second.



RF, we have dealt with this before. I am an evolutionist. I CAN account for my morality. It is not simply a social invention.

I continue to point to this article from Stanford University as the most comprehensive:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" also explains the evolutionary basis for biological altruism. I think Dawkins does a fine job explaining how genes are "selfish". You should give it a read if you'd like to know more about biological altruism, it's very interesting.

When bacteria are put into a petri dish filled with food, the bacteria rapidly expands, multiplying very quickly. When the amount of food decreases beyond the amount needed to feed the bacteria, some of the bacteria "self-destruct" and therefore make it easier for the bacteria around them to live. This in turn helps keep the collective bacteria alive. Which in turn keeps the "selfish" genes going. Of course, in a closed-system such as the petri dish, all of the bacteria die regardless of the biological altruism displayed by the exploding bacterium. However, in real environments this behavior leads to increased gene frequencies of genes carried by the bacteria.

There is a popular misconception about evolution: it's all about the self and the survival of the individual. This misconception is often carried by people who think Darwin's theories were absolutely correct and have not been improved upon since The Origin of the Species. They are incorrect. Evolution is centered around genes. It's about selfish genes and how they are able to guide their hosts (humans and other organisms) to do things that may not benefit the individual but yet benefit the particular gene frequency. This is biological altruism.

If you can understand the above material (including the link), then you will understand how evolutionists "account" for their morality.


----------



## ToLog (Mar 23, 2009)

oh my, i think i have just recievd an epiphany. or maybe it came sooner, but i wasn't able to articulate it.

bi0logical beings inside a petri dish, and there were observable moments?

that's kinda like the Hebrews inside the barrios in Poland, back in the big War?

but, to project the concept, it's like everyone down here on Earth, as we grow, develop, and mulitply?

Please, say it ain't so, and i'm totally wrong.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 23, 2009)

footjunior said:


> RF, we have dealt with this before. I am an evolutionist. I CAN account for my morality. It is not simply a social invention.
> 
> I continue to point to this article from Stanford University as the most comprehensive:
> 
> ...


Please make sense of "morality" in your worldview - you can't.  First of all, you would not NEED it.  Secondly, everything would be relative, so how could you define it?? Lastly, you have tremendous faith in Richard Dawkins and what he says.  Christians believe God's word (the bible) and you believe your bible (Dawkin's book - S Gene).......how do you reconcile Dawkins when he says in RIVER OUT OF EDEN: A DARWINIAN VIEW OF LIFE, that the universe has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference" ??  If that is the case that your god has revealed to you, then who would care about anything in his world, especially genes?


----------



## footjunior (Mar 24, 2009)

connorreid said:


> Please make sense of "morality" in your worldview - you can't.



I just did. Please address specific arguments in my post.

Please make sense.



> First of all, you would not NEED it.



How so? Need it for what? Explain.



> Secondly, everything would be relative, so how could you define it?



Define morality? The morality of what animal? Humans? It's explained through evolutionary altruism. I've explained it above. Please address specific arguments in my post.



> Lastly, you have tremendous faith in Richard Dawkins and what he says. Christians believe God's word (the Bible) and you believe your Bible (Dawkin's book - S Gene)



Yet again theists try to fit atheists into their little theist mold.

I don't have "faith" in Dawkins. I agree with some things he says and disagree with other things. Evolutionary altruism is continuously being explored and many of Dawkins' ideas are being confirmed by experiments, like the petri dish example I gave above. It's hard to disagree with something he says when other scientists are building up evidence for his theories every day.



> How do you reconcile Dawkins when he says in RIVER OUT OF EDEN: A DARWINIAN VIEW OF LIFE, that the universe has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference"??  If that is the case that your god has revealed to you, then who would care about anything in his world, especially genes?



I agree with Dawkins on this point. The universe is indifferent. And I also agree that there isn't any ultimate, absolute purpose, evil or good in the universe. There is only the purpose we give ourselves. Atheism doesn't reduce to pure nihilism. There is existentialism, among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

You may, for example, say that since I'm an atheist and I believe my life has no purpose, then I am unable to care about anything. You would be incorrect. I care about many things because I have chosen to care about them. I care about my family. I care about my girlfriend. I care about my education. I care about many things. Likewise, I have many purposes that I have given myself. One of my current goals is to graduate from Georgia Tech. Now, will my graduating Georgia Tech mean anything in a thousand years? No. There is no ultimate purpose for me to graduate GT, but I have given myself this purpose because as a human individual I am able to assign local purposes.

Having no absolute, objective overarching purpose does not prohibit you from having purposes that are individual and local.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 24, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Objective data in the hands of subjective scientists can lead to manipulation.  All numbers have been filtered to some extent by the individual who "interprets" them.



Do you think its possible to age a rock?


----------



## connorreid (Mar 24, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I just did. Please address specific arguments in my post.
> 
> Please make sense.
> 
> ...


You have purpose b/c you were created in the image of God and you can't escape that image.  That's why you can make sense of life.  How can you say life has no ulitmate purpose then turn around and say you give yourself purpose???  What in the world does that mean???   That's the most absurd statement I think I have ever heard - That would be like making a statement saying "I hate the color red", then turning around and saying "I love the color red"......  I find it extremely curious that you believe all the garbage about genes from Dawkins and also believe life is pointless - do you see the contradiction?? How illogical - How can such a man like Dawkins go on a spill about genes and so on, then believe life is pitiless and means nothing??? Is this where science leads us.........Boy, that is genius.......................you are really getting your money's worth at GT.....


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 24, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think its possible to age a rock?



What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## footjunior (Mar 24, 2009)

connorreid said:


> How can you say life has no ultimate purpose then turn around and say you give yourself purpose?



What that means is that you have no intrinsic purpose. You only have the purpose that you give to your life. Do you see the difference?

The only thing that I could possibly see as an intrinsic purpose is to reproduce, but even that becomes an intellectual choice.



> I find it extremely curious that you believe all the garbage about genes from Dawkins and also believe life is pointless - do you see the contradiction?



No. I do not see the contradiction. Maybe if you could elaborate more on it using your amazing intellect then I could see it.

Secondly, the "garbage" from Dawkins is not Dawkins' idea. He simply put it in a book that non-academics could read.



> How illogical - How can such a man like Dawkins go on a spill about genes and so on, then believe life is pitiless and means nothing?



This is how it works: Dawkins writes a book dealing with evolution and explaining it in terms of gene frequencies. Then Dawkins says that the universe is pitiless and indifferent towards humans and that life has no ultimate purpose.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

connorreid, you're not elaborating your points. I would love to hear why you think these things. So far all I have heard is hyperboles and you repeating the same things over and over.

I would like for you to calmly explain this quote and why this is a contradiction:



> I find it extremely curious that you believe all the garbage about genes from Dawkins and also believe life is pointless - do you see the contradiction? How illogical - How can such a man like Dawkins go on a spill about genes and so on, then believe life is pitiless and means nothing?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 24, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> What does that have to do with anything?



This thread is about science and Christianity.  Aging rocks is a scientific proposition.  My question has everything to do with this thread.  Literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis contradicts what science has observed in terms of the age of certain rocks.

Is it possible to age rocks?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Mar 24, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> This thread is about science and Christianity.  Aging rocks is a scientific proposition.  My question has everything to do with this thread.  Literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis contradicts what science has observed in terms of the age of certain rocks.
> 
> Is it possible to age rocks?



That has nothing to do with my post which you quoted.  Where have I advocated a strict, literal 24-hour/day explanation of Genesis?


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 24, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> This thread is about science and Christianity.  Aging rocks is a scientific proposition.  My question has everything to do with this thread.  Literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis contradicts what science has observed in terms of the age of certain rocks.
> 
> Is it possible to age rocks?



This thread is about Christianity and science but more about the philosophy of life than hard science. We can all agree on the temperature it takes to boil water etc. 

I am a literal six day creationist so the aging of rocks may very well be important if you are trying to discount the an young earth, say around 6000 years. Can we really date rocks?? I don't know. How would you know your right? I have read several articles on the science of dating and they are not without their problems. 

I could quote evolutionist after evolutionist who agree with what I am saying. 

Again, how important are our presuppositions?


----------



## connorreid (Mar 24, 2009)

footjunior said:


> What that means is that you have no intrinsic purpose. You only have the purpose that you give to your life. Do you see the difference?
> 
> The only thing that I could possibly see as an intrinsic purpose is to reproduce, but even that becomes an intellectual choice.
> 
> ...


My intellect is simple and you can't grasp it...so how can we move on to more complex issues.  From your worldview you can not justify morals - they would be illogical b/c nothing would be right or wrong.  What you call "right", I might purposely call "wrong" so how could we even come together and agree on anything? We would not be able to.  However, since you live in a theistic world, you can make sense of things (that's why we are even debating in the first place).  In your atheistic worldview where life is pointless (there would be no ultimate purpose), there would not even be a need for debating.  I like how you twisted what Dawkins said about the universe is pitiless and indifferent towards humans - he never said "towards humans".  You made that up to fit your scheme.  Is that wrong??? Or maybe you can't account for "wrong" in your worldview.....you could make up anything b/c you'd never be held accountable.  Those teachers at Tech better watch you.............


----------



## connorreid (Mar 24, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> This thread is about science and Christianity.  Aging rocks is a scientific proposition.  My question has everything to do with this thread.  Literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis contradicts what science has observed in terms of the age of certain rocks.
> 
> Is it possible to age rocks?


God could speak everything into existence in 1 second.  He chose 6 days instead.  How do you know that what science has observed in terms of the age of certain rocks is true?  They can't even tell you where we come from and they can age rocks???  What great faith you have.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 24, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> That has nothing to do with my post which you quoted.  Where have I advocated a strict, literal 24-hour/day explanation of Genesis?



You haven't.  So you think we can age rocks.  Can you explain it to these guys?



reformedpastor said:


> This thread is about Christianity and science but more about the philosophy of life then hard science. We can all agree one the temperature it takes to boil water etc.
> 
> I am a literal six day creationist so the aging of rocks may very well be important if you are trying to discount the an young earth, say around 6000 years. Can we really date rocks?? I don't know.
> 
> ...





connorreid said:


> God could speak everything into existence in 1 second.  He chose 6 days instead.  How do you know that what science has observed in terms of the age of certain rocks is true?  They can't even tell you where we come from and they can age rocks???  What great faith you have.



One thing has nothing to do with the other.  How old are you if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## footjunior (Mar 24, 2009)

connorreid said:


> From your worldview you can not justify morals - they would be illogical b/c nothing would be right or wrong. What you call "right", I might purposely call "wrong" so how could we even come together and agree on anything? We would not be able to.  However, since you live in a theistic world, you can make sense of things (that's why we are even debating in the first place).  In your atheistic worldview where life is pointless (there would be no ultimate purpose), there would not even be a need for debating.



Objective and subjective morality, local morality vs. absolute morality, the origins of morality, biological altruism, etc. has been discussed in great detail on these forums before. Quite recently actually. I am not going to repeat myself nor will I search for the thread for you. Rest assured that I have answered all of these questions before. There is a search button at the top of this page if you really care to hear the answers.



> I like how you twisted what Dawkins said about the universe is pitiless and indifferent towards humans - he never said "towards humans".  You made that up to fit your scheme.



I thought what Dawkins was implying was obvious to see. Maybe not. Of course he was talking about humans. What else would he be talking about?  He was talking about everything, and humans are included. Was the universe pitilessly indifferent to the dinosaurs? Yes. Is the universe pitilessly indifferent to us? Yes.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 24, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> You haven't.  So you think we can age rocks.  Can you explain it to these guys?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One thing has nothing to do with another????? Are you kidding me?? Surely you want to retract that statement before more egg gets on the face........????


----------



## connorreid (Mar 24, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Objective and subjective morality, local morality vs. absolute morality, the origins of morality, biological altruism, etc. has been discussed in great detail on these forums before. Quite recently actually. I am not going to repeat myself nor will I search for the thread for you. Rest assured that I have answered all of these questions before. There is a search button at the top of this page if you really care to hear the answers.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought what Dawkins was implying was obvious to see. Maybe not. Of course he was talking about humans. What else would he be talking about?  He was talking about everything, and humans are included. Was the universe pitilessly indifferent to the dinosaurs? Yes. Is the universe pitilessly indifferent to us? Yes.


Junior - Again, in regards to Dawkins, you twist matters.......you specifically said "humans" not everything (so you excluded everything other than humans --)......and you think I'm crazy - go back and read your words (you might want to reread your posts as a "refresher" before you respond).......you also mentioned absolutes - give me a few examples of "absolutes" in your worldview if you don't  mind......gracias.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 24, 2009)

connorreid said:


> One thing has nothing to do with another????? Are you kidding me?? Surely you want to retract that statement before more egg gets on the face........????



Where we come from has nothing to do with being able to age rocks.  Seriously, how old are you?


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 24, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Where we come from has nothing to do with being able to age rocks.  Seriously, how old are you?



You know what you are absolutely right 1+1 does not equal 2 

The more you try and live according to your irrationalism the more absurd you will become.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 25, 2009)

connorreid said:


> Junior - Again, in regards to Dawkins, you twist matters. You specifically said "humans" not everything (so you excluded everything other than humans --)



By saying "humans" I did not exclude everything else. Dawkins was implying that the universe is indifferent towards everything. Surely you agree that "humanity" is a subset of "everything"?

I wonder if you honestly cannot see what he was implying or if you are purposely twisting my words.



> You also mentioned absolutes - give me a few examples of "absolutes" in your worldview if you don't  mind......gracias.



There are absolutes, but none that I know of for certain. Obtaining absolute truth is a myth relegated to people who believe in myths: theists.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 25, 2009)

> There are absolutes, but none that I know of for certain. Obtaining absolute truth is a myth relegated to people who believe in myths: theists.



On the surface myth is the illusion of an age or a culture whereby life and its origins or interpreted. As such, the myth has an axiomatic truth to the age and is its criterion for judging and assessing reality. 

A myth is the attempt of a society to overcome history. The myth helps man set himself free from reality. Thus evolution is the myth of our age. Men trying to escape the reality of God's world through "scientific" language and explanation. 

This myth of evolution is detrimental to any society because it perpetuates a lie. This lie is equivalent to the magic of past ages that was used to control the masses. Christianity set science free from the art of magic and brought to a modern age. True science is what it is because of the absoluteness of God. His is. Without this absolute standard there could never be any objective knowledge of anything. The fact is there could never be anything period. 

So evolution promotes the mythical and magical art that given enough time anything can happen. I think that might be a quote for FJ.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 25, 2009)

footjunior said:


> > There are absolutes, but none that I know of for certain. Obtaining absolute truth is a myth relegated to people who believe in myths: theists.
> 
> 
> Do you not see the ABSURDITY of your statement??  For you to make a statement saying "absolute truth is a myth" you are presupposing that TRUTH exists..........What you stated, is that TRUE????  Please don't say "yes" b/c you just said truth is a myth.......You have a VERY CONFUSING OUTLOOK ON LIFE


----------



## footjunior (Mar 25, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> A myth is the attempt of a society to overcome history. The myth helps man set himself free from reality. Thus evolution is the myth of our age. Men trying to escape the reality of God's world through "scientific" language and explanation.
> 
> This myth of evolution is detrimental to any society because it perpetuates a lie. This lie is equivalent to the magic of past ages that was used to control the masses. Christianity set science free from the art of magic and brought to a modern age. True science is what it is because of the absoluteness of God. His is. Without this absolute standard there could never be any objective knowledge of anything. The fact is there could never be anything period.



A myth is the attempt of a society to overcome history. The myth helps man set himself free from reality. Thus theism is the myth of our age. Men trying to escape reality through the belief that you exist after you die.

This myth of Christianity is detrimental to any society because it perpetuates a lie. This lie is equivalent to the magic of past ages that was used to control the masses. Science set humanity free from the art of magic and brought us to a modern age. True science is what it is because of people who want to know the truth, even if it goes against their religious beliefs.



> Do you not see the ABSURDITY of your statement?? For you to make a statement saying "absolute truth is a myth" you are presupposing that TRUTH exists.



First off, you are misquoting me. I said, "Obtaining absolute truth is a myth". This is very different than what you said, "absolute truth is a myth."

Do you see the difference between:

1 - Obtaining absolute truth is a myth.

2. Absolute truth is a myth.



> You have a VERY CONFUSING OUTLOOK ON LIFE



You're just easily confused.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 25, 2009)

footjunior said:


> A myth is the attempt of a society to overcome history. The myth helps man set himself free from reality. Thus theism is the myth of our age. Men trying to escape reality through the belief that you exist after you die.
> 
> This myth of Christianity is detrimental to any society because it perpetuates a lie. This lie is equivalent to the magic of past ages that was used to control the masses. Science set humanity free from the art of magic and brought us to a modern age. True science is what it is because of people who want to know the truth, even if it goes against their religious beliefs.
> 
> ...



Do you read before you push enter?


----------



## footjunior (Mar 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Do you read before you push enter?



Do you write anything of substance before you push enter?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 25, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Do you write anything of substance before you push enter?



Quite often. Not my fault it is over your head. But your last post was quite ridiculous.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Quite often. Not my fault it is over your head. But your last post was quite ridiculous.



Care to quote specifics? I thought not.

It was most likely over your head. When you can move past ad hominem attacks and bring up my actual arguments and then refute them please reply back.

When you grow up maybe you'll understand.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 25, 2009)

footjunior said:


> A myth is the attempt of a society to overcome history. The myth helps man set himself free from reality. Thus theism is the myth of our age. Men trying to escape reality through the belief that you exist after you die.
> 
> This myth of Christianity is detrimental to any society because it perpetuates a lie. This lie is equivalent to the magic of past ages that was used to control the masses. Science set humanity free from the art of magic and brought us to a modern age. True science is what it is because of people who want to know the truth, even if it goes against their religious beliefs.
> 
> ...


Thanks for putting this in writing so everyone can see.  You say "obtaining absolute truth is a myth", yet you continue to talk. If there is no absolute truth, how can we trust what you say.  As a matter of fact you have already proven that you don't trust it b/c it is NOT ABSOLUTELY TRUE......How can you call something a "lie" if you can't obtain absolute truth??? Is it absolutely a lie or just partially a lie???  You might want a refund from GTech b/c it doesn't look like the knowledge is getting through........


----------



## connorreid (Mar 25, 2009)

footjunior said:


> > A myth is the attempt of a society to overcome history. The myth helps man set himself free from reality. Thus theism is the myth of our age. Men trying to escape reality through the belief that you exist after you die.
> 
> 
> A myth like evolution?? Do you know if we exist after we die?? Have you been there and back??
> ...


----------



## footjunior (Mar 25, 2009)

connorreid said:


> Thanks for putting this in writing so everyone can see. You say "obtaining absolute truth is a myth", yet you continue to talk. If there is no absolute truth, how can we trust what you say?



Because as Josh McDowell, a popular Christian apologetic and author of "Evidence That Demands a Verdict", says:



			
				JoshMcDowell said:
			
		

> Many times during conversations relating to truth, particularly religious truth, someone asks the question, 'Can you prove Christianity to be true?' Most often, however, the question is phrased, "Can you say 100% for certain that Christianity is true?" The answer to the first question is, "Yes, Christianity can be proven to be true." This of course does not mean that everyone will accept the evidence, however good it is. But the answer to the second question is, "No, not 100% for certain."... Everybody makes the decisions of life based on probability, not certainty.



I certainly agree with Josh here. Early on in his book he also says something else that I agree with, "When attempting to find truth, one must enter the realm of probability." In other words, we as humans can come to conclusions about reality. However, our conclusions are based upon probabilities that we assign to the particular thing which we are assessing. We will never know the absolute truth about anything.

Also Christian apologetics Norman Geisler and Frank Turek say this: "As limited human beings, we do not possess the type of knowledge that will provide us with absolute proof of God’s existence or nonexistence. Outside of the knowledge of our own existence . . . we deal in the realm of probability.”

Do you see what they are saying? There are a few possible absolute truths that are presented here as an example: 

1 - The Christian God exists.
2 - The Christian God does not exist.

Now lets say you believe that the Christian God exists and have therefore chosen absolute truth #1. Lets also assume for this example that the Christian God exists (ie. absolute truth #1 is correct). What that means is that you have chosen the correct absolute truth. However, as Josh, Geisler, and Turek note, you are not capable of being 100% certain that the Christian God exists. In other words, even though you have chose the correct absolute truth, as a human you are not able to be absolutely 100% certain that you have chosen the correct absolute truth.

Do you see where I am coming from now?

That is the difference between 

1 - Acknowledging that there are absolute truths.

and

2 - Realizing that we are not able to be absolutely certain about anything.

But to answer your question directly...

Again, I believe there are absolute truths. However, you are correct, you have the right to not trust anything I say. You have the right to not trust anything the Biblical authors say. You have the right to not trust anything anybody says, even if that person is yourself.

If, however, you are like myself, you will believe something when you have acquired enough evidence to support your belief. This goes back to my cell phone analogy. An absolute truth exists. Either the cell phone exists or it does not. I build up evidence for one way or the other and when I reach an adequate level of evidence I make my choice. I will never be 100% certain that my choice represents the absolute truth. This is what I mean when I say that absolute certainty is a myth.

Am I being redundant enough?


----------



## footjunior (Mar 25, 2009)

connorreid said:


> Do you know if we exist after we die? Have you been there and back?



The part in red above implies that you indeed think you know the answer to your own question.

To answer your question: No. I do not know if we exist after we die. However, findings in psychology and neurology seem to point to the idea that our consciousness is intrinsically tied to our brain. Alter the brain and you can alter consciousness. Kill the brain, and you kill consciousness. Create the brain (birth), and you create consciousness.

I have seen no scientific evidence for any sort of human entity (soul, spirit, etc.) that exists after the brain dies. To me, such concepts of the soul are merely primitive explanations of human consciousness. They continue to exist because they are wrapped up in the memetic structure of various religions.



> You said you can't obtain absolute truth, so what is true science and how would people know the truth? I think your words and hodge podge of ideas have confused you.



They seem to have confused you. You have been asking the same questions and I have been giving the same answers.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 25, 2009)

footjunior said:


> > Because as Josh McDowell, a popular Christian apologetic and author of "Evidence That Demands a Verdict", says:
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## connorreid (Mar 25, 2009)

Footjunior


> To answer your question: No. I do not know if we exist after we die.


 Are you absolutely certain about that?? You said we can't be absolutely certain about anything, yet you give an answer???? You are not living consistently with what you profess........



> I have seen no scientific evidence for any sort of human entity (soul, spirit, etc.) that exists after the brain dies. To me, such concepts of the soul are merely primitive explanations of human consciousness. They continue to exist because they are wrapped up in the memetic structure of various religions.


Do you have any scientific evidence of having a "mind".  You say you have a physical brain but isn't the mind a sort of human entity?? Do you use that mind at GTech?? If you have one??



> They seem to have confused you. You have been asking the same questions and I have been giving the same answers.


I ask the same questions so I can see how inconsistent your answers are and so that everybody who reads this thread can see for themselves......


----------



## footjunior (Mar 25, 2009)

connorreid said:


> I would refute these guys.  I do not believe what they say.  If you knew my Reformed Presbyterian background you surely wouldn't be quoting Josh McDowell and Norman Geisler at all...(this shows your weakness.....you try to lump all Christians into one category and it's not so. I'm sure you wouldn't want Christians to lump all atheists into one category.)



I had no idea that quoting a Christian meant that I was lumping all Christians together. Glad to know that's how you take it.



> If we are not able to be absolutely certain about anything as you propose, then how can you debate and defend anything.



I just answered that in the previous post. Probabilities. Evidence.



> I say we can be absolutely certain about many things.  Examples:  I am a male.  I love my family.  My car is blue.  You sure don't live your life like you can't be certain of anything.  Again, your arguments are arbitrary.



I think you are misunderstanding the concept of absolute certainty.



> Are you absolutely certain about that? You said we can't be absolutely certain about anything, yet you give an answer? You are not living consistently with what you profess.



Just because you don't know something for certain does not mean that you cannot make a decision about it or speak about it. You make the best decision possible based on the available evidence.



> Do you have any scientific evidence of having a "mind". You say you have a physical brain but isn't the mind a sort of human entity?



Yes. Your "mind" is your conscious. There is plenty of scientific evidence for consciousness (among many animals).



> I ask the same questions so I can see how inconsistent your answers are and so that everybody who reads this thread can see for themselves......



Anyone who can actually understand the content will surely see your one consistent attribute: confusion. (and the use of many punctuation marks)


----------



## connorreid (Mar 25, 2009)

footjunior said:


> > I had no idea that quoting a Christian meant that I was lumping all Christians together. Glad to know that's how you take it.
> 
> 
> Your assumption was that since they are professing Christians then the "Christian camp" must accept their statements.  I don't accept McDowell's and Geisler's approaches.
> ...


----------



## footjunior (Mar 25, 2009)

connorreid said:


> Your assumption was that since they are professing Christians then the "Christian camp" must accept their statements.  I don't accept McDowell's and Geisler's approaches.



No. That was not my assumption. That was your assumption about what I was saying.



> Do you know things that are absolutely certain? For example, the color of your hair, what your favorite food is, your hobbies, etc?



I am 99.9999999999% certain that my hair is black. That means that I am not absolutely certain that my hair is black. What it does mean is that it would take some good evidence for me to change my mind about my hair color.



> You mean, scientific speculation....please show me the "mind".  You believe there is no proof of a "soul" but you do see proof of a "mind".....interesting b/c one minute you seem to reject immateriality then the next minute you accept (or see evidence of) it.  Is there any such thing as "immaterial" in your worldview?



You are confusing the definition of these words. Taking psychology classes would show you the mind. Obviously the mind is not a physical entity, but rather an abstraction of our brain. It is another word for "our consciousness." Now, there are two colloquial definitions of "immaterial" that are being thrown about here. One means "not physical", the other is "not real." The mind is obviously a real entity, but it is not a physical entity. It is a concept, or an abstraction of a physical entity: the brain.

For example an idea is a real entity, however it is not a physical entity. Don't you agree? Must entities be physical to be real? Of course not.



> You are right.  I am showing how inconsistent and confusing your view of the world is.  Again, from someone like you who professes we can't "absolutely know for certain anything", one must wonder how you can make sense of life.



How many times must I say it? Realizing that we cannot know anything for certain does not prevent us from making sense of life. The Christians I quoted above realize that absolute certainty is a myth and yet they make sense of life.

Some people get it. Some do not. You evidently do not get it. Please keep repeating yourself.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 25, 2009)

footjunior said:


> > I am 99.9999999999% certain that my hair is black. That means that I am not absolutely certain that my hair is black. What it does mean is that it would take some good evidence for me to change my mind about my hair color.
> 
> 
> Are you 99.99999999% sure or 100% sure that you are a student at Georgia Tech?  Very simple question......(just so everybody reading can see - Can you people believe this guy can't be 100% sure what color his hair is.......how can he even put down an answer on a test and believe it is right???)
> ...


----------



## footjunior (Mar 26, 2009)

connorreid said:


> Are you 99.99999999% sure or 100% sure that you are a student at Georgia Tech?  Very simple question......(just so everybody reading can see - Can you people believe this guy can't be 100% sure what color his hair is.......how can he even put down an answer on a test and believe it is right???)



I'm so close to 100% that I'm practically certain. However, I am not absolutely certain that I am a student at Georgia Tech nor that my hair is black. I put down an answer on a test because I believe it is right. I might even say that, "Oh, I know that answer." However, this is merely a belief. I have said that in the past and have been wrong, so I in fact did not know the answer for certain.

The colloquial use of the word certain is very different from the epistemological meaning of it. When I'm carrying on everyday conversations about mundane topics, I'll often say that I am certain of something. "I heard the professor say it. I am certain of it." In this context, I obviously do not mean that I have true, absolute knowledge of the truth in a epistemological sense. Don't you agree?

connorreid, the questions you are asking are basic epistemological questions. They are basic questions and you act as if I am some sort of weird, rare specimen. Many people (like the ones I linked above) have come to the same conclusion as I about absolute certainty. Maybe if you would read up on what exactly absolute certainty means in a philosophical and epistemological sense then you would understand what people mean when they speak of absolute certainty and the impossibility of reaching it.

Maybe it is my insufficient diction that inhibits you from understanding what I mean. Maybe quotes from other people will help you.

Carl Sagan once said of absolute certainty, "Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science—by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans—teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us."

Bertrand Russell said something that is very useful in the discussion we are having, "When one admits that nothing is certain, one must also add that some things are more nearly certain than others.” Do you see his point?

Voltaire says, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition but certainty is an absurd one.”

Again, Bertrand Russell, “The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice.”

Descartes said, "When it is not in our power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable."

David Hume said, "In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence."

Baron Reed, a professor at Northwestern University, has written a great article about certainty, degrees of knowledge, and most importantly about the distinction between the two. Give it a read.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/



> Would theology classes show you the soul?  By the way, if you are not 100% sure about anything, how can you make a definition of something? Aren't definitions based on absolute facts?



No 

Definitions are based upon perceived facts. You know this. I hope.



> Not in my worldview.  Entities don't have to be physical to be real.  I'm just trying to see if you can make sense of that.  You can't even agree if something physical (your hair) is black so how can you believe in "concepts" or "abstractions"? Your laws of logic have been broken down for a while.



I answered this above. Me coming to the conclusion (based on evidence) that my hair is indeed black is very different from me claiming to have obtained an absolute truth about the color of my hair. I hope that you will begin to see the difference between the two.



> Do you truly believe that you are not 100% certain that you are a student at GTech?



Correct. I am not claiming to have absolute knowledge about something material such as me being a student at GT. However, I feel justified, based on the evidence, for making the claim that I am a student at GT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism#Absolute_certainty


----------



## connorreid (Mar 26, 2009)

footjunior said:


> > I'm so close to 100% that I'm practically certain. However, I am not absolutely certain that I am a student at Georgia Tech nor that my hair is black. I put down an answer on a test because I believe it is right. I might even say that, "Oh, I know that answer." However, this is merely a belief. I have said that in the past and have been wrong, so I in fact did not know the answer for certain.
> 
> 
> Again, thanks for putting this in writing so all may see.  Your view of the world makes no sense.  What you profess is not how you live.  I'm just pressing you to the ABSURDITY of your view.  And still.....you make no sense.  And why 99.9999%? How do you know that?? Why not 86.2 % or 76.1%......how much, in your world view, is "so close"?
> ...


----------



## footjunior (Mar 26, 2009)

connorreid said:


> Again, thanks for putting this in writing so all may see.  Your view of the world makes no sense.  What you profess is not how you live.  I'm just pressing you to the ABSURDITY of your view.  And still.....you make no sense.  And why 99.9999%? How do you know that?? Why not 86.2 % or 76.1%......how much, in your world view, is "so close"?



Again, thanks for keeping this at the top of the forum so that all may see.

I was using the 99.9999999% as a sort of lesson on absolute certainty. In a epistemological sense, I don't believe that I can truly know, for certain, the color of my hair. Yet, I have enough evidence to make a decision on the color of my hair. So much so that I am almost certain of it, hence the 99.999999%.



> Definitions are based on absolute truth.



Explain that statement.



> I believe you are making things too hard.  Same with the so-called "intellectuals" of the day.  They keep people distracted with "complex" matters, yet can't answer simple questions.



 I, nor do intellectuals, actually go about our day discussing things in the manner in which you and I have been discussing things in this thread. However, when philosophers and intellectuals enter into epistemological discussions about knowledge and absolute certainty, they put their philosopher hats on and completely change their vocabulary to reflect the change of context.

If a friend and I were walking to class and the friend asked, "Is that a bird there on the sidewalk?" I may answer, "Yes. Absolutely. I see him right there." However, if the friend were to ask, "How are you absolutely certain that there is a bird on the sidewalk? Could it be an illusion?" Obviously, he has changed the context of the conversation. Therefore, I would change my diction. I would answer, "Well. I am fairly sure that there is a bird there. However, since I am a human being and since my human sense sometimes fail me, I cannot be absolutely certain that the bird exists. It may in fact be an illusion, but I am almost certain that it exists."



> They have many, many words but they say nothing.  They are like politicians of our day....they talk a lot, but their words are empty.



For you to understand the words you must understand the context: epistemology. If you don't understand the many philosophical stances concerning epistemology then you will most likely be confused by the philosopher's words.

The same goes for politics. If you do not understand the topics being addressed by the politicians, you will most likely be confused by their words. Maybe if you actually understood the topics in depth, you would understand what they're saying.



> What is so obvious about this statement is that Sagan PRESUPPOSES absolute certainty in making his statement.  If he, himself, made a statement, then surely he believes it is true. What I don't think you understand is simple as well - in order to make statements, the underlying principle/fact is that of being "100% certain".  An example of what Sagan is doing would be like this - A man claims there is NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE TRUTH.  This begs the question - IS THAT TRUE?



No. That is not true. There in fact could be absolute truth. When Sagan says that he does not believe that humans can reach absolute certainty, it's just that, a belief of Carl Sagan. Some of the stuff you say is ridiculous. Of course Sagan believes it is true. Philosophical skepticism is a philosophical stance against, among other things, absolute certainty. Obviously philosophical skeptics realize that they could be wrong (absolute certainty is possible). If philosophical skeptics believed that they were absolutely certain about absolute certainty, then they would not be philosophical skeptics. Do you see?



> If nothing is certain and some things are more certain then how in his worldview can he even make a definition? It would never be certain, even if it is "almost" certain.  See, in his view definitions could change for every person b/c there would be no universal standard.



That is already the case. For example, many dictionaries off many standards. Obviously these are not universal standards. If they were, then every dictionary and every person would have the same definition for every word, which is not the case. Definitions are indeed subjective. Definitions are different for every person.

What is  your definition of the Trinity? Now do you think that definition is the same for everyone else?


----------



## connorreid (Mar 26, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Again, thanks for keeping this at the top of the forum so that all may see.
> 
> I was using the 99.9999999% as a sort of lesson on absolute certainty. In a epistemological sense, I don't believe that I can truly know, for certain, the color of my hair. Yet, I have enough evidence to make a decision on the color of my hair. So much so that I am almost certain of it, hence the 99.999999%.
> 
> ...


Junior - go back to class.....you have a lot of learning to do.  And you accuse me of repitition?? If definitions are subjective, then how do we make sense of all the words that you have written above?


----------



## footjunior (Mar 26, 2009)

> Junior - go back to class.....you have a lot of learning to do.



When did you stop going to class? When you graduated high school?



connorreid said:


> If definitions are subjective, then how do we make sense of all the words that you have written above?



Are we both speaking the same language on an online discussion board? Yes. We are speaking english. If you and I both have at least a partial understanding of english, then we agree (to some degree) on the definitions of words which we are speaking. If you would like to not "make sense of all the words that have been written above," then go ahead. It seems you have done that already.


----------



## cjwellz (Mar 26, 2009)

FJ, I haven't had time to read the entire thread, but have you guys discussed the difference between "scientific proof" and "legal-historical proof"? I have seen a few mentions of scientifically proving things such as the mind and the soul, which we know is impossible because of the lack of test subjects, controlled environments, emperical verification, etc... Some of the authors you have quoted have conceeded that if nothing is certain then reality as we know it can not be certain either. (we may all be the figment of another beings imagination or dream type thing). I would say that any reasonable being who accepts what he/she sees as reality can accept some forms of absolute truth. Reasonably, if you are not absolutely sure your hair is black then you must have some question as to the reality of what you can see and observe. May what we see as black be construed as blonde in another reality?


----------



## footjunior (Mar 26, 2009)

cjwellz said:


> FJ, I haven't had time to read the entire thread, but have you guys discussed the difference between "scientific proof" and "legal-historical proof"?



I don't believe we have.



> I have seen a few mentions of scientifically proving things such as the mind and the soul, which we know is impossible because of the lack of test subjects, controlled environments, emperical verification, etc...



I disagree on the mind part.

Let us define the mind as a conceptual abstraction of the physical brain. This thing we call the mind therefore has attributes which we can test via experiments. In fact, we have developed theories on the mind. These theories are part of an interrelated network of theories known as psychology.



> Some of the authors you have quoted have conceded that if nothing is certain then reality as we know it can not be certain either. (we may all be the figment of another beings imagination or dream type thing).



Exactly. I agree.



> I would say that any reasonable being who accepts what he/she sees as reality can accept some forms of absolute truth.



I accept that there are many absolute truths in the universe. However, I am claiming that we as humans will never be able to realize if we have found those absolute truths or not. In other words, I am claiming that absolute certainty is a myth, while absolute truths are very real. Absolute truths exist. We will never know if we have found them.



> Reasonably, if you are not absolutely sure your hair is black then you must have some question as to the reality of what you can see and observe.



Being absolutely sure and practically sure are two different things. I am practically sure that my hair is black. Claiming to have absolute certainty that my hair is black would be going against what I think is possible for human senses. There are only degrees of certainty. The degree of certainty that my hair is black is very high.



> May what we see as black be construed as blonde in another reality?



I agree. "In another reality" anything is possible that's part of that reality. Therefore black could be construed as blonde in another reality. My point is that anything is possible "in another reality" because we do not know that other reality.

Again, please remember that I'm not saying that there are not absolute truths in the world. I'm saying that you, as a human, cannot claim absolute certainty about knowing any of those absolute truths.

This is something that I think my help people see it. Remember in math where you studied limits? Remember asymptotic functions? Remember the simple limit of where as x approaches infinite, n approaches a certain limit? That is the same concept as absolute certainty.

Let "knowledge" be x. Let the limit be "absolute certainty".  Let "n" be our degree of certainty. As x increases, n approaches the limit. Or in english: As our knowledge increases, our degree of certainty approaches absolute certainty.

However, remember the concept of limits? "n" never reaches the limit. Our knowledge will never reach absolute certainty. That is what Sagan means when he says, "Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science—by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans—teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us."


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 27, 2009)

cjwellz said:


> I would say that any reasonable being who accepts what he/she sees as reality can accept some forms of absolute truth. Reasonably, if you are not absolutely sure your hair is black then you must have some question as to the reality of what you can see and observe. May what we see as black be construed as blonde in another reality?



If you are color blind and my hair is red then you see it as some shade of gray. Another reality.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> When did you stop going to class? When you graduated high school?
> 
> 
> 
> Are we both speaking the same language on an online discussion board? Yes. We are speaking english. If you and I both have at least a partial understanding of english, then we agree (to some degree) on the definitions of words which we are speaking. If you would like to not "make sense of all the words that have been written above," then go ahead. It seems you have done that already.


Junior:  I'll use your own reasoning, OK.  How do you know we are speaking English b/c you are not absolutely certain about anything?  You have even said you aren't 100% sure if you are a student at GTech. So by YOUR OWN REASONING, how can you make sense of what you are saying?  My point has already been proven in dealing with you.  Now it's all written down for everyone to see.  I have pressed you to live consistently with what you profess and you can not.  You have to "steal" from a worldview of logic in order to make sense of your chaos.  Again, you are the one who can't be absolutely certain about anything b/c your worldview will not and can not allow it.   
Junior - start making those tuition checks out to me, b/c it looks like you are wasting a lot of money........at least I could teach you about the basics of life which you obviously have not gotten.


----------



## connorreid (Mar 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> > Let us define the mind as a conceptual abstraction of the physical brain. This thing we call the mind therefore has attributes which we can test via experiments. In fact, we have developed theories on the mind. These theories are part of an interrelated network of theories known as psychology.
> 
> 
> Is this your defintion of the "mind"?  If so, the same could be applied to a "soul". This statement you have made contradicts your earlier explanation of the "mind".  Are you absolutely, 100% certain of this definition?  In your view, you can't be so you don't even TRULY believe what you write.......wow,
> ...


----------



## footjunior (Mar 27, 2009)

connorreid said:


> Junior:  I'll use your own reasoning, OK.  How do you know we are speaking English b/c you are not absolutely certain about anything?



Because the evidence lends a high degree of certainty to the idea that we are speaking English.



> My point has already been proven in dealing with you.  Now it's all written down for everyone to see.  I have pressed you to live consistently with what you profess and you can not.



You have yet to explain how I cannot live consistently within my worldview.



> You have to "steal" from a worldview of logic in order to make sense of your chaos.



Again, you have yet to explain how I "steal" from a "worldview of logic."



> Junior - start making those tuition checks out to me, b/c it looks like you are wasting a lot of money........at least I could teach you about the basics of life which you obviously have not gotten.



I highly recommend that you take a few introductory philosophy classes at your local college. Or just begin reading philosophy books. There's no reason that a person like you should not be able to grasp these concepts seeing that philosophical skepticism is such a widely-held view.

Also, I don't make tuition checks. The people who play the lottery make them for me.



> Is this your defintion of the "mind"? If so, the same could be applied to a "soul".



If the soul has the same definition as the mind, then we have theories which explain the soul. However, I disagree with you. When religious people talk about their "souls", I do not believe they think it is the same thing as their mind. Many believe that the soul is a separate entity. Don't you agree?



> This statement you have made contradicts your earlier explanation of the "mind".



How does it contradict my earlier statements? Would you mind actually quoting me? Or is this another case of you making a statement and not backing it up?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 27, 2009)

Foot- You might want to sit in on those same classes one day. You have long since lost the philosophy debate. See once you say you can't be certain... Why listen to you anymore?


----------



## footjunior (Mar 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Foot- You might want to sit in on those same classes one day. You have long since lost the philosophy debate.



Or could it be that you are not a philosophical skeptic and therefore we have a simple disagreement on epistemology?



> See once you say you can't be certain... Why listen to you anymore?



You have a right to not listen to me. However if you are basing the decision not to listen to me upon my claims that I cannot be absolutely certain about something, then I would ask if you do this to everyone?

When the Christian apologist Josh McDowell says, "Many times during conversations relating to truth, particularly religious truth, someone asks the question, 'Can you prove Christianity to be true?' Most often, however, the question is phrased, 'Can you say 100% for certain that Christianity is true?' The answer to the first question is, 'Yes, Christianity can be proven to be true.' This of course does not mean that everyone will accept the evidence, however good it is. But the answer to the second question is, 'No, not 100% for certain.'... Everybody makes the decisions of life based on probability, not certainty."

Josh is saying that he cannot be absolute certain that Christianity is true. However, Josh believes it is true because he has a high degree of certainty about Christianity being true. And get this, people actually listen to him! His books sell like crazy. Even I have his books, and I'm not a Christian.

When a politician says, "Based upon the evidence, I believe my idea on this issue is the best idea," that statement in and of itself confirms that he is not absolutely certain that his idea is the best idea. Yet many people continue to listen to him because they recognize that while he is not absolutely certain that his idea is the best idea, the politician at least shows a high degree of certainty that his idea is correct.

The whole of science is based around philosophical skepticism. When a scientists says, "I believe that this model is the best model we currently have that represents the data," he is implying that he is not absolutely certain that this model is the best model. He is saying he believes its the best one that we currently have. However, people continue to listen to the scientist and even use the model because the scientists shows a high degree of certainty that it is the best model.

I ask you, celticfisherman: Who claims to have absolute certainty about something? What do you claim to have absolute certainty about? My only request is that you answer the questions honestly and with a firm understanding of what absolute certainty truly is.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 27, 2009)

I have absolute CERTAINTY that God exists. He sent his son to die on the Cross for our sins. There is no doubt in my mind. 

You quote plenty of people yet have yet to answer a few simple questions. And they are simple. Ocam's Razor for instance says that the simplest answer is the correct one. Yours is not simple. It requires more chance and more unproven circumstances to all line up than anything a religion has ever produced. 

Go watch the movie The Watchmen. That is an atheistic world view. I am sure you will agree with much of it. And like I and many others have said. There is no common ground when you cannot state something is UNEQUIVOCALLY good or bad.  

You have convoluted the discussion on absolute certainty by making absurd and ridiculous statements like not being able to ascertain the color of your hair. The vast majority of people are not philosophical skeptics. We have gathered our views of law and morals FROM an absolute God. You borrow from it and then deny it. It is intellectually dishonest and foolhardy. And an idea you have proven to be unsustainable and weak.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 27, 2009)




----------



## connorreid (Mar 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> > Because the evidence lends a high degree of certainty to the idea that we are speaking English.
> 
> 
> What you call "evidence" I call "proof" (in terms of speaking English).  I am absolutely certain I am speaking English b/c that's all I know.
> ...


----------



## footjunior (Mar 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I have absolute CERTAINTY that God exists. He sent his son to die on the Cross for our sins. There is no doubt in my mind.



Which is why I said, "Obtaining absolute truth is a myth relegated to people who believe in myths: theists."

And also why Carl Sagan said, "Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science—by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans—teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us."



> You quote plenty of people yet have yet to answer a few simple questions.



Such as?



> Occam's Razor for instance says that the simplest answer is the correct one.



That's not completely what Occam's Razor says. It says when multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.

It does not say that the simplest answer is always the correct one.



> Yours is not simple.



I agree. It is not simple, which is evidently why a lot of people have such a hard time grasping it.



> Go watch the movie The Watchmen. That is an atheistic world view. I am sure you will agree with much of it.



I've watched it. What leads you to believe that it is an atheist world view? Just because Dr. Manhattan is an atheist means the entire movie has an atheist worldview? I'm not sure how I would "agree with much of it". Agree in what respect? I enjoyed the movie, but so did my girlfriend, and she's a Christian.



> And like I and many others have said. There is no common ground when you cannot state something is UNEQUIVOCALLY good or bad.



I disagree. There is much common ground because we are humans. When our nature and nurture are common, then our morals will be common. Don't you agree?



> You have convoluted the discussion on absolute certainty by making absurd and ridiculous statements like not being able to ascertain the color of your hair.



connoried asked me the color of my hair and got us into this entire epistemological discussion. I would rather not discuss it, but I feel obligated to answer people's questions that they ask me.

Secondly, I can and have ascertained the color of my hair. I have stated this in the past, but for some reason people such as yourself are incapable of seeing the difference between having absolute certainty on the color of my hair and having practical certainty on the color of my hair.

Furthermore, although I don't think conneried realizes it, but the hair analogy is in fact a good example to use when attempting to explain absolute vs. practical certainty in an epistemological sense.



> We have gathered our views of law and morals FROM an absolute God.



You have gathered them through a Bible with many subjective translations, which then require subjective interpretations. What is left is definitely not absolute. Such is the product of religion: everyone claims to be absolutely certain about their beliefs, yet almost none of their beliefs match up entirely.

If there is an absolute God and he was easy to see, then there would be no religions. There would be no denominations. There would be no schisms.


----------



## cjwellz (Mar 27, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> If you are color blind and my hair is red then you see it as some shade of gray. Another reality.



Maybe the fact that your hair is red, and I am color blind are two separate truths in the same reality; not two different realities.


----------



## cjwellz (Mar 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I accept that there are many absolute truths in the universe. However, I am claiming that we as humans will never be able to realize if we have found those absolute truths or not. In other words, I am claiming that absolute certainty is a myth, while absolute truths are very real. Absolute truths exist. We will never know if we have found them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## footjunior (Mar 28, 2009)

cjwellz said:


> My problem with the absolute truth without absolute certainty point of view is the identification of an "absolute" truth. If I am not certain that said truth is absolute, then how can I reasonably identify it as absolute.



Exactly. If you are not absolutely certain that said truth is an absolute truth, then you cannot claim that it is. You can only say that you think there is a high degree of certainty that said truth is the absolute truth. You "reasonably" conclude that it is probably the absolute truth by evaluating the evidence.

For example, since I'm not absolutely certain that my hair is black, then I cannot say that I am sure that my hair is black. However, I can determine (with a high degree of certainty) that it is black by evaluating the evidence using my human senses.



> In other words the truth would be more accurately identified as almost absolute; unless these absolute truths are unobtainable and at best theory.



I'm in complete agreement. 



> If this is the case then we get back to the question of reality (whether it certainly exists), and if you have not reached an absolute certainty as to your own existence then there is no possibility that you can accept the certain existence of deity.



I agree.

A slight variation of this question came up in a Veritas Forum held here at Georgia Tech a few weeks ago. The two speakers were Ed Buckner (president of American Atheists), and a Christian apologetic (can't remember his name) from a ministry based in Duluth. Unsurprisingly, they both agreed upon the same answer, which is the one I agree with.

So the question is: Does reality certainly exist?

Or as the moderator from the Veritas Forum put it:  How do we know that any actual thing exists outside of us?

Simply put: We don't. Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. We can only be sure of one thing, and that is that we think. The simple fact that we think means that we can be sure that our thoughts exist, for we are thinking them. That doesn't mean that our physical bodies exist or even that we have a physical brain. It just means that we think, and therefore our thoughts exist. Everything other thing other than our thoughts is an external experience, and therefore gathered from our subjective senses. What we call reality may be nothing more than a conjuration of thoughts. We make a choice to accept this reality. Most implicitly make the choice. They go through life never actually thinking about this possibility. Quite frankly, I don't think that is such a bad thing. Discussions on epistemological matters ("does reality exist?", absolute certainty, etc.) are rarely productive in a practical sense.



> How silly does this sound; you hold out that there is the possibility, no matter how slight, that you may not actually exist? Surely you can see how some may call this line of reasoning absurd.



My physical self may not exist. However, I'm thinking right now. Therefore _my thoughts_ exist. I can see how people may call it absurd if they don't actually think about it for a while. What can you be sure of when dealing with the human senses? Can you be absolutely sure of anything when using your senses? I think not.


----------



## Win270Brown (Mar 28, 2009)

cjwellz and footjunior,

I honestly have not read this whole thread, but find some of your thoughts here very interesting. In particular your statements that: "If you are not absolutely certain that said truth is an absolute truth, then you cannot claim that it is." In that statement you are saying both that an absolute truth cannot exist, however, you are saying an absolute statement you believe is true; the sentence is self-defeating. 

I certainly believe in absolute truths, we cannot function without them. You may say the sky is green, but it is blue. Just because you say it is not true does not mean it is not true. This is a MAJOR problem in our country today. I believe that we all as humans base our conclusions on empirical evidence and faith, but I have to say that evolutionists are using a lot more faith than I am; I have never seen something come from nothing and don't believe it can happen without a Creator.


----------



## Israel (Mar 28, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Exactly. If you are not absolutely certain that said truth is an absolute truth, then you cannot claim that it is. You can only say that you think there is a high degree of certainty that said truth is the absolute truth. You "reasonably" conclude that it is probably the absolute truth by evaluating the evidence.
> 
> For example, since I'm not absolutely certain that my hair is black, then I cannot say that I am sure that my hair is black. However, I can determine (with a high degree of certainty) that it is black by evaluating the evidence using my human senses.
> 
> ...



You are not sure about physical reality...but you are sure _your thoughts exist?_
Now that's funny right there, no matter who you are.
You would like to deny deity, whom you say you cannot see, touch, quantify, spectrum analyze, categorize, digitize nor do a rectal exam upon.
So, then, show us your "thoughts"...
I can read what you type, I can see how you dress, I can see where you spend your money, I can hear the compressions and attenuations of the air that comes out of your mouth, I can see what you eat, I can watch what books you read, I can handle the clay candy dish you made for your mother in kindergarten...perhaps all a derivative of your thoughts...but I cannot, even when picking your brain apart cell by cell, neuron by neuron, see them.
In like manner, although many here cannot show you "God", we are totally convinced by observation that we also believe in thought...and the outworking thereof in the universe is his candy dish. A bit more sophisticated perhaps, but the handiwork of someone, nonetheless.

In fact, it is precisely because I, too, believe in thought that I have no doubt about the existence of what I have yet to "see" to your satisfaction is far more real than mere dependence upon these aging eyes could verify.
In fact, to go a step further, I find (and I do make a strong presumption here...that knowability exists) that when you express your thoughts...it inspires similar thoughts in me, and perhaps many others, either in contradiction to what I perceive I have received from you, or agreement.

See, I believe without God, there is no such thing as communication. For communication assumes an objective standard to which we both appeal for the groundwork of exchange. If you don't speak English, and are not aware in some rudimentary sense of its rules of grammar, then it is fruitless for me to speak to you...but, if we both are able to say...ok...this is the framework in which we will communicate, and it is not malleable by either you nor I, its existence and structure is independent of both of us, then we can, by expressing and comparing such expression against that structure, communicate. I say dog, and a four legged thing wagging it's tail and barking may come to your mind...(or indeed a myriad of other images of what we could both point at and say "dog"...nodding our heads) But if you see/imagine/visualize/conceptualize whatever, a big white thing that has a light that goes on when you open the door to keep your food cold...then we have a problem...do we not?

See, if you are not able to agree communication is possible...and I am willing to grant you that assumption if you want to go the reductio ad absurdem route...then I would have to ask (Only if you care to go there)...you seem morally corrupt (from my point of view) to spend so much time trying to engage in what you deny.
So, back to "thought"...because if you are willing to believe thought is the only thing of which you are convinced...have you ever considered the intrusion (just like I'm doing now) of someone elses "thoughts" into your own...someone you may not be able to see, feel, take their wallet?

Do you separate thoughts into good/bad...noble/ignoble...worthy/unworthy? Is the idea of feeding that fellow holding the sign that says "will work for food" of the same weight and value to you as following the neighbor girl home and doing her harm? Again, if you care to go that route...that's your business...and I don't have much to say, but I would tell you the God you deny will have plenty to both say and show about it.

And because I believe not only in the existence of a deity, but one with very particular attributes that I believe are wholly knowable even according to the rudiments of some of the above contentions, I'll say this:

Because communication is not only possible/real/true...relationship is just as real. And to deny relationship by our deeds, which, as in the above example declares moral or  equivalency of "rightness" in both feeding a hungry man and harming a child...is wrong. Simply put, some things are right, some are not. If you deny you have that inward "rightness" meter that most (if not all) admit to, then either one of us is lying or my whole premise is wrong, in which case I must shut up, or you must tell the truth. Now, that thing that sits in judgment on those thoughts and consequent actions...which many call conscience...I would say is the very matter which is to bring you into the fulllness of the knowledge of God. 

For even if one contends that that thing which is above our thoughts (and independent of them to the extent is "sits" over them, dividing them into the "good" or "bad" group) is defective to the extent that it is not fully informed, it at least...even in the most depraved individual, exists. 

I may find a total wreck of an airplane, completely burned out and useless, but as I come across the altimeter, even if charred and non-functioning, it testifies of the existence of a useful altimeter. Every man is equipped with such, the spark of God, which even though it is entirely blackened, seared, and blistered,  by "the fall" (a much deadlier crash than any flaming jumbo jet could allegorize)...testifies of the existence of a whole and perfectly functioning one.
That is God.
Whole and perfectly functioning.

Now, having said all that I would like to say this.

Since you sound like a reader, I would ask if you ever read Grendl, by John Gardner. Since it does not try and pitch an evangelical viewpoint, you might find it more accessible to your sensibilities. And far be it from me to try and "convert" you using the bible. 

For if I am limited to the use of the bible alone, then the bible itself makes itself out to be a liar. For in the bible it is declared:
Romans 1: 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This God I believe, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, would be a very poor God if the only thing that testified of him was a book. Of himself he says, more or less, he is impossible to miss..._unless one willingly sets out to do so_.

And that is the horror of the fall, men willingly, with purpose, seeking to hide from God and the knowledge of him. That they have a very willing accomplice does not mitigate their culpability. We try to dodge the general acceptance of the reality of the little voice of conscience, for we recognize by that admission we can and will be brought into a court whose judge has no choice but to convict us...and none of us in our "conversation" wants to relinquish our own life for such a deserved condemnation...most men prefer to be called evil before they willingly submit to the accusation of hypocrisy. For even in that...the dissonance of character is far more odious for the hypocrite than the evildoer. 

But God concludes them, one in the same.


Be true, be consistent, be of same substance in thought, word, and deed...and you will see God. It has to do with hot and coldness which Jesus can handle...he hates lukewarmness.
But try to be tricky and clever to save your own skin and devilish delights, and God will show the poverty of your being to all.
I cannot conclude without saying this...if you find the faith and boldness to follow that conscience...and thereby find not only communication with all, and therefore relationship with all...and press through to identity with all, and for the sake of that reality allow yourself to be dragged into that court where a fully informed and Holy conscience holds sway...you will discover you've got a great Defender, who has not only silenced every voice of accusation, but thrown the prosecutor completely out of the proceedings for unlawfully exceeding his jurisdiction in your entrapment.

Just plead for mercy, and watch how willingly, bountifully, gladly it is given.

Then go get a bible to learn of your brother's journeys in boldness and not so boldness toward the creator of all. You will be surprised at its verity.
And informative value to clearly limn the lover of your soul.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 28, 2009)

Win270Brown said:


> "If you are not absolutely certain that said truth is an absolute truth, then you cannot claim that it is." In that statement you are saying both that an absolute truth cannot exist, however, you are saying an absolute statement you believe is true; the sentence is self-defeating.



This has been addressed earlier I believe. Philosophical skeptics do not claim absolute certainty about there being no absolute certainty. If they did, they would not be philosophical skeptics. Do you see?

When I say that I don't believe that absolute certainty is possible, that is my belief. I am not certain about there being no absolute certainty. Therefore, the sentence is not self-defeating. Philosophical skepticism is a philosophical position on epistemology. Believing something is much different than claiming absolute certainty. It is the same difference between that thread I posted earlier that had a poll with values 1 through 7. 1 means that "You know God exists." 2 represents "You're not absolutely certain, but you believe God almost certainly exists. Many people on these forums chose 1, thus claiming absolute certainty about God. That is what Carl Sagan means when he says that certain patrons of religion claim absolute certainty.



> I certainly believe in absolute truths, we cannot function without them. You may say the sky is green, but it is blue. Just because you say it is not true does not mean it is not true.



I agree. I think the sky is blue as well and people who say it is green are wrong. The sky being blue is probably an absolute truth. However, as a philosophical skeptic, I cannot claim that something I gathered from my human senses (in this case, sight) is absolutely correct.

I also agree that we probably cannot function without absolute truths. However, we can function without absolute certainty. And actually, I think that absolute certainty leads to us functioning worse as a species. This is one of the main complaints by atheists about religion: Religion tends to lead to absolute certainty. The Christian fundamentalist KNOWS that his God exists and the Muslim God does not. Likewise, the Muslim fundamentalist KNOWS that Allah exists and the Christian God does not. Obviously, someone with absolute certainty that their God exists can do some pretty crazy things, such as flying a jet full of people into a building at 400 mph or blowing up an abortion clinic because they KNOW that the doctors in the clinic are baby-killers. I'm not saying that nothing but evil comes from religion. Religious people tend to be very giving, caring, etc. However, would these acts of terror have occurred if the people who committed them would not have had absolute certainty that when they died they would go to the highest level of Heaven? I don't think they would have. Religion leads to absolute certainty, and absolute certainty leads to the confidence necessary to do just about anything, whether it is good or bad.



> This is a MAJOR problem in our country today. I believe that we all as humans base our conclusions on empirical evidence and faith, but I have to say that evolutionists are using a lot more faith than I am; I have never seen something come from nothing and don't believe it can happen without a Creator.



Evolutionists have never claimed that "nothing came from something." This is one of the most prominent misconceptions of what evolution is. There are other threads dealing with evolution and how it is different from abiogenesis. If you would like to read a discussion about evolution by members of this forum, then you can use the search function on the top of this page, or just start a new thread and I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

I thank you for your well-formed thoughts and lack of emotional outbursts while discussing this. It is refreshing.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 28, 2009)

Israel said:


> You are not sure about physical reality...but you are sure _your thoughts exist?_
> Now that's funny right there, no matter who you are.



Care to explain how that's funny or how it's illogical? Hopefully you realize that I'm saying that my thoughts exist to me. That is not an external physical reality, it is an internal reality. I think that's the entire point of cogito ergo sum. Physical reality may not exist, but even if that were the case, your thoughts would still exist because you are thinking them.



> You would like to deny deity, whom you say you cannot see, touch, quantify, spectrum analyze, categorize, digitize nor do a rectal exam upon.
> So, then, show us your "thoughts"...



My thoughts are a product of my mind. You cannot "see" my thoughts, since they are not physical entities. You can only see evidence of them: My words, my actions, etc. Don't you agree?

Secondly, I don't want to deny a deity. However, the lack of evidence has left me with no choice. Maybe you could provide me with some evidence?



> I can read what you type, I can see how you dress, I can see where you spend your money, I can hear the compressions and attenuations of the air that comes out of your mouth, I can see what you eat, I can watch what books you read, I can handle the clay candy dish you made for your mother in kindergarten...perhaps all a derivative of your thoughts...but I cannot, even when picking your brain apart cell by cell, neuron by neuron, see them.



I agree.



> In like manner, although many here cannot show you "God", we are totally convinced by observation that we also believe in thought...and the outworking thereof in the universe is his candy dish. A bit more sophisticated perhaps, but the handiwork of someone, nonetheless.



I completely understand how some may think that he exists. I once KNEW he existed.  

However, I think that if you critically look at the universe and especially life here on earth, you will see that it is not designed at all. Look through the cosmos, what do you see? Bodies of rock formed by gravity. Where is the design in that? Everything in the universe looks designed because gravity has pulled clumps of matter together to form planets, stars, galaxies, etc. When I look at a galaxy I do not see design, I see the result of billions of years of gravity pulling matter into clumps, and that's it. When I look at a leaf I do not see design, I see the result of billions of years of natural selection leading to what could easily be mistaken as design. 



> See, I believe without God, there is no such thing as communication. For communication assumes an objective standard to which we both appeal for the groundwork of exchange. If you don't speak English, and are not aware in some rudimentary sense of its rules of grammar, then it is fruitless for me to speak to you...but, if we both are able to say...ok...this is the framework in which we will communicate, and it is not malleable by either you nor I, its existence and structure is independent of both of us, then we can, by expressing and comparing such expression against that structure, communicate. I say dog, and a four legged thing wagging it's tail and barking may come to your mind...(or indeed a myriad of other images of what we could both point at and say "dog"...nodding our heads) But if you see/imagine/visualize/conceptualize whatever, a big white thing that has a light that goes on when you open the door to keep your food cold...then we have a problem...do we not?



Yes, we would have a problem, and I understand what you're saying. However, going back to your first statement in that quote where you said, "See, I believe without God, there is no such thing as communication. For communication assumes an objective standard to which we both appeal for the groundwork of exchange." What leads you to the belief that without God there is no such thing as communication? Secondly, how do you know that God is not merely a conjuration of your thoughts?



> See, if you are not able to agree communication is possible...and I am willing to grant you that assumption if you want to go the reductio ad absurdem route...then I would have to ask (Only if you care to go there)...you seem morally corrupt (from my point of view) to spend so much time trying to engage in what you deny.



I am confused by this. I have always agreed that communication is possible. Where have I stated otherwise? Secondly, people engage in discussions all the time about stuff they deny. Christians apologists engage in discussions about Allah. Atheists engage in discussions about all Gods. 



> So, back to "thought"...because if you are willing to believe thought is the only thing of which you are convinced...have you ever considered the intrusion (just like I'm doing now) of someone elses "thoughts" into your own...someone you may not be able to see, feel, take their wallet?



Of course. However, I'm not absolutely certain that your thoughts exist because they are an external reality. They must be because they are your thoughts. In the same sense, I do not know that you exist. However, it could be that what I perceive as "your thoughts" could in fact be a conjuration of my own thoughts which I apply to a person I know as Israel. In that case, they would in reality be my thoughts, but I would see them as your thoughts.



> Do you separate thoughts into good/bad...noble/ignoble...worthy/unworthy? Is the idea of feeding that fellow holding the sign that says "will work for food" of the same weight and value to you as following the neighbor girl home and doing her harm? Again, if you care to go that route...that's your business...and I don't have much to say, but I would tell you the God you deny will have plenty to both say and show about it.



Yes. I separate thoughts into those categories. I have a feeling that those categories are probably very similar to your categories and the categories of many others on the forums. I think what you're really asking is do I have morality? I would say yes.



> And because I believe not only in the existence of a deity, but one with very particular attributes that I believe are wholly knowable even according to the rudiments of some of the above contentions, I'll say this:
> 
> Because communication is not only possible/real/true...relationship is just as real.



I think we must go back to the previous discussion about whether or not we can be sure that communication really exists. Communication must involve at least 2 entities. Here, you are claiming that God is the first entity, and you are the second. Correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that. Therefore, you are claiming that you know for certain that something outside of your thoughts exists, namely God. My question is: How do you know for certain that this communication with this perceived entity (God) is not really just an illusion of communication generated by your mind? In other words, how do you know you're not just talking to yourself?



> And to deny relationship by our deeds, which, as in the above example declares moral or  equivalency of "rightness" in both feeding a hungry man and harming a child...is wrong. Simply put, some things are right, some are not. If you deny you have that inward "rightness" meter that most (if not all) admit to, then either one of us is lying or my whole premise is wrong, in which case I must shut up, or you must tell the truth. Now, that thing that sits in judgment on those thoughts and consequent actions...which many call conscience...I would say is the very matter which is to bring you into the fulllness of the knowledge of God.



We all have "rightness meters". However these rightness meters are not all the same. This is because each person is unique, and therefore has a unique nature and nurture. This leads to differing values on morality. Now at the same time I fully understand that if there is an objective absolute God and you believe he has set up absolute objective morality domains, then you are fully justified for believing in objective morality domains. However, the previous statement assumes two things: God is a real, objective entity. And secondly it assumes that God has set up absolute objective morality domains. I would think that these two assumptions would need to be proven before they can be used as premises. Don't you agree? Lastly, even if there is a God who sets up morality domains, how do we have absolute certainty what those domains are? I say we don't know. This is why theists have varying views on morality.



> I may find a total wreck of an airplane, completely burned out and useless, but as I come across the altimeter, even if charred and non-functioning, it testifies of the existence of a useful altimeter. Every man is equipped with such, the spark of God, which even though it is entirely blackened, seared, and blistered,  by "the fall" (a much deadlier crash than any flaming jumbo jet could allegorize)...testifies of the existence of a whole and perfectly functioning one.



I think what you're trying to say is that God provides morality to men, and that even though some men may stray from God, they still have that spark of morality within them, however weak it may be. You believe that this "spark of morality" is evidence of a whole flame, of which the spark is merely a remnant of.

Did I get that right?

I would say that our morality is the product of our nature and nurture. As our nature and nurture vary, so does our morality. Also, biological altruism explains what we call morality and also explains the origins of our morality.



> Now, having said all that I would like to say this.
> 
> Since you sound like a reader, I would ask if you ever read Grendl, by John Gardner. Since it does not try and pitch an evangelical viewpoint, you might find it more accessible to your sensibilities. And far be it from me to try and "convert" you using the Bible.



I have never read it.



> And that is the horror of the fall, men willingly, with purpose, seeking to hide from God and the knowledge of him. That they have a very willing accomplice does not mitigate their culpability. We try to dodge the general acceptance of the reality of the little voice of conscience, for we recognize by that admission we can and will be brought into a court whose judge has no choice but to convict us...and none of us in our "conversation" wants to relinquish our own life for such a deserved condemnation...most men prefer to be called evil before they willingly submit to the accusation of hypocrisy. For even in that...the dissonance of character is far more odious for the hypocrite than the evildoer.



I do not "hide from God". I do not "want to believe that he does not exist". I simply do not believe he exists. Now obviously people can claim that I'm lying and that I want to deny God so I can live an immoral lifestyle (which they have done), but I promise you that is not the case. Recently a friend of about 4 years found out I was an atheist. He is a Christian youth minister (one of two Christian youth minister friends  ) and we hang out all the time. Upon me telling him that I was an atheist, he was dumbfounded. "You're an atheist? Well... I guess... I guess I just never thought that you would be. You don't live crazy and immoral, and all of your friends are Christians. Not that all atheists are immoral, it's just that is kind of a stereotype." I completely understood where he was coming from. It is a stereotype that is built up within the Church.


----------



## Israel (Mar 28, 2009)

Well, I sure do appreciate your thoughtful reading of my post, and just as surely hope you did not mistake my flippancy for disdain...which you seem not to.
Also, I did not mean to imply I thought you a scoundrel, and you need not give me any justification for your behavior. But, we have reached the end of our discussion I believe, if you can of a surety know that you exist, but are willing to question my own existence. In that case how could anything, anyone, make itself, himself known to you with such strict (or loose depending upon your view point) parameters for proof of existence?
In truth I know God is well able to even get behind/go far deeper past whatever criteria you even presently now use to satisfy your own question as to whether you exist or not.
I was gonna say "believe me, God knows how to go right down to your molecules and shake them in such a way as to bring forth your  wholehearted acknowledgment that he not only is, but that he alone is in control"
But I guess I won't say that. 
Or did I just say that? 
Did I just say that despite my saying I wasn't going to say that?
What else have I said by not purposing to say it?
Am I just a figment of your imagination?
Or my own?

The certain cure for this is simple. Test reality. That's pretty much what Grendl's about...a rather existential monster unsure of anything except his own will till he kisses a wall...then reality intrudes.

I am not one who declares all unbelievers are by default child molesters. Sometimes the taxpaying, law abiding, library book returning drone is far more insidious.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 28, 2009)

Israel said:


> But, we have reached the end of our discussion I believe, if you can of a surety know that you exist, but are willing to question my own existence. In that case how could anything, anyone, make itself, himself known to you with such strict (or loose depending upon your view point) parameters for proof of existence?



Anything can make itself known by presenting itself. Have no doubt, I do not need absolute certainty in God to believe he exists. The same goes for Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler, Frank Turek and many other Christians who are also philosophical skeptics. They themselves have said that they do not know for certain that God exists, but based on the evidence they are fairly sure that he does, and therefore they have chosen to believe.

Likewise, if I were presented with enough evidence to believe in God, then I would become a Christian. So far, I have not seen adequate evidence.

Much like the color of my hair, I am 99.99999999% sure that you exist. Therefore, I am practically certain that you do exist. These are things that I do not question except when discussing things in a epistemological context (like the discussion we're now having). In day to day life I do not question what color my hair is. I do not question whether or not my physical body exists. I'm so certain that I do physically exist that I don't bother myself with the possibility that I do not exist. I have chose to believe in this external reality.



> I was gonna say "believe me, God knows how to go right down to your molecules and shake them in such a way as to bring forth your wholehearted acknowledgment that he not only is, but that he alone is in control."



Well if God is real and if he is capable of doing so, then he hasn't chosen to do so yet. Of course, I don't require this sort of evidence to believe in God, but I can't deny that this would certainly do the trick. 



> The certain cure for this is simple. Test reality.



 I agree!



> That's pretty much what Grendl's about...a rather existential monster unsure of anything except his own will till he kisses a wall...then reality intrudes.



I'll have to read it sometime.


----------



## Win270Brown (Mar 28, 2009)

footjunior,
I appreciate the reply. I would have to agree with Strobel, McDowell, Geisler, etc. My main points are that:
1) You can be so philosophically entangled as to be removed from reality. 
2) Everyone operates on faith. I don't really think it is a misconception that evolutionists believe something came from nothing; depending on which argument we are referring to (Darwanism, big bang, etc.) the first molecule, premordial soup, etc. had to have a preceding material or what have you. Have you seen the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"? If not it is a very well done documentary by Ben Stein-check it out. 

I also appreciate cordiality. Also, I simply urge you to seek TRUTH-there is nothing more powerful and liberating than knowing and accepting the Truth.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 29, 2009)

Win270Brown said:


> You can be so philosophically entangled as to be removed from reality.



I agree.



> I don't really think it is a misconception that evolutionists believe something came from nothing; depending on which argument we are referring to (Darwanism, big bang, etc.) the first molecule, premordial soup, etc. had to have a preceding material or what have you.



Evolutionists are people who recognize evolution, but not necessarily primordial soup (abiogenesis), the big bang, etc. For example, there are plenty of Christian evolutionists. There are also evolutionists who do not see the Big Bang theory as a plausible explanation of the origin of the universe.

The only people that I see who claim that something came from nothing are people who claim that the singularity just appeared from nowhere. Those people are not necessarily evolutionists.

Could you explain how evolutionists claim that something came from nothing?



> Have you seen the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"? If not it is a very well done documentary by Ben Stein-check it out.



I have seen it, however I strongly disagree about it being well done. It was full of anecdotal evidence and the choice by the directors at the end to portray Dawkins as some sort of evil incarnate was just ridiculous. Stein was sarcastic and cynical throughout the entire movie and they really only interviewed a couple of people. I was hoping for statistics and also hoping that Ben Stein would be a little bit more open-minded.

Besides, there's plenty of creation "colleges" handing out Ph.D's to just about anyone who claims to be a creationist. Look at Kent Hovind's extensive "education". Wish I could get a Ph.D that easy in Computer Science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind#Education


----------

