The Messiah

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Odemus:

So to clarify my question. Why is it that no matter what effort we put toward living a guilt free life are we totally incapable of doing so?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadly, Odemus, the answer to this question will require you to do some work. The answer is not straight forward or obvious. To begin with one must begin by examining what we consider to be morality and where it comes from. Human beings recognise the value of co-operation or symbiosis. Co-operation for mutual gain has been the benefit that resulted in cells containing organelles, multicelleular organisms, packs of animals and even communities of people. We consider people that act selfishly as immoral becuase it conflicts with the conditions of the co-operation, try looking into the concept of Prisoners Dilema. Mankind created the concept of God and used it as a method of convincing masses of people that cheaters would ultimately be punished. This has succesfully resulted in continual co-operation between vast communities. Unfortunately, as more and more people see the flaws in religion, though education, this gel is starting to fail.

To understand why we chose God, why we act in the way we do and where we are going one must look for the answers. If you want to believe in God and hope that everything else goes away then you can. Join the ignorant masses, for vast numbers of people ignorance IS bliss so by all means join them I'm sure its very cosy. If you want to obtain some genuine understanding you will have to start looking and understanding the world in which we live.

Steven Carr

The Messiah is right, and perhaps I can strengthen his case by pointing out that immoral acts are often called 'anti-social' acts, indicating that cooperation for the benefit of society is an evolutionary advantage for us.

HRG

For me it is like "color (gold metal) from the colorless (gold atoms)". Life is not a metaphysical substance; it is simply a property of some complex configuration of elementary particles. A carbon atom inside my body is totally identical to one in CO2.
[/quote]

You can downplay the significance of not being able to know the circumstances under which something like this could happen all you want. The fact is it requires a tremendous leap of faith to believe.
[/quote]
Please speak for yourself. The mechanism you propose for the origin of life (a disembodied mind speaking it into existence) has no parallel whatever in our observed reality; no wonder that you need faith that it nevertheless happened.

The mechanism that I propose is but an extrapolation of well-established chemistry and physics. I do not need faith (= believing something without evidence).
You are wrong. I realize that there is the slight possibility of your great designer. I also realize the slight possibility that my cat created the universe last Thursday. Both hypotheses cannot be absolutely refuted and thus are logically possible.

IOW, I can live with the possibility of your hypothesis. I just don't see any objective evidence for it; in the case of feline creation I have at least independent evidence for the existence of my cat.

That we cannot fully explain phenomenon X is no reason to postulate a supernatural maker/creator/designer of X. Example: turbulence, a phenomenon which undoubtedly exists. We are unable to explain it from more basic principles; yet no one felt the need to postulate a Divine Turbulator.
Only by a very narrow concept of "empirical", which would exclude everything which doesn't happen in front of us or which we cannot observe with our naked senses.

Regards,
HRG.

Ryanfire

So to go back to your original thought, and also reviewing your replies to the board:

You use faith to explain everything. Yet truth provides all the answers. You offer nothing by means of proof, like many others of the religious world, you just belong to a group of people, closing yourself from the truth.

Why are we here? Goddidit..
Why do humans love? Goddidit..
Why are plants green? Goddidit..
Am I a bad person?... well.. goddidn'tdoit.. I am to blame.
Why did I kill that person? Goddidit... at least he told me to.

Quit using faith and god as your scapegoat for reality, and existence.

Faith by no means has progressed the world, in fact, it makes a mockery of it.

Good luck on your quest for knowledge and truth (Even though you'll just use faith).


Ryan.

Koyaanisqatsi

Remember, Odemus, that I was responding specifically to your questions:

Your questions were to why "we" fealt that it was, in essence, more reasonable to accept Evolution over "Goddidit."

And this is believable for you; more "reasonable" than a natural explanation for existence? A "king" who, through his (meaning he's got a penis) "spoke everything into existence" just to demonstrate how great he is.

This is what you are seriously positing as being at least equivalent, I suppose, to a natural explanation for the hundreds of trillions of planets and stars and black holes and the like?

That a guy in some sort of pre-universe void, simply spoke and then *poof*, one hundred billion trillion stars of such immense proportions that the mind literally snaps contemplating just one of them, simply appear in this void?

You are saying that this scenario is at least as possible--as likely--as the complex interactions of elements that we see as a foundation of life literally on a second to second basis; everytime you convert oxygen to carbon dioxide?

Before you answer in the affirmative to this, a more pertinent question. Have you studied any non-cult biased evidence/information regarding Evolution, or are you just regurgitating apologist propaganda?

No offense, but whether or not you are overwhelmed by the evidence is hardly relevant. After all, you believe that magical "kings" spoke the universe into being in order to eternally worship him.

If you believe that, then what would something trivial like "evidence" matter?

Yes, you do. You know exactly what I am referring to.

A fictional creature like a magical "king" that speaks the universe into existence in order to eternally worship him, perhaps? Wouldn't that be an excellent example of a fictional character from say, ancient Middle Eastern warrior-deity cult mythology?

I know you're capable of recognizing fictional characters of this nature in books such as The Lord of the Rings, right?

So, what stops you from recognizing it in this other book?

Yet you believe it's possible, yes? Even likely?

Yet, you would "dare to presume" that a magical King spoke the entire universe into existence in order to worship him.

How do you draw that line?

Because Jesus and the authors of the New Testemant did! Because without a literal Adam as the very first "son of God," Jesus has no claim to divinity and humanity has no "fall" for Jesus to save us all from:

Ring any bells?

Without a literal interpretation of Genesis there is no purpose for Jesus' death.

Oh, but that's right, you selectively edit the bible to make it fit your personal beliefs, yes?

And what do you base this "belief" upon? Who told you that the universe is "incredibly old" or that the earth is "billions and billions of years old" (actually, currently I think the number is around four billion)?

Where did you get this and why do you believe it and not the Bible? Again, where (and how) do you draw the line? Wherever you want to whenever things don't "jibe" with what you want them to be?

Forgive my tone, but do you see how this necessarily means that you actually have no real beliefs at all, just a vague sense of some sort of King out there and an inculcated story of this King murdering his own son as an illogical sacrifice of himself to himself to save all of us from himself for not obeying him?

You don't even accept Genesis as true, so how can you accept that Jesus/God died for your sins? Or is it that you accept God made Adam out of dirt and a talking snake somehow turned perfection into imperfection and then God punished them for his own design flaw, because if you do, then you have to accept the Geneology of Luke that establishes Jesus as a direct descendant of that Adam (then God) and further that the Earth can therefore only be about 6,000 years old, based on that geneology!

Pull one thread and the whole thing collapses, but, again, why would such an obvious thing like this dissuade you? You believe a magical King spoke the universe into existence in order to worship him.

Provided in spades. Without a literal interpretation of Genesis, there is no divinity of Jesus and no salvation from Jesus/God "dying for our sins" to give us eternal life as a necessary payment for Adam's fall in the garden.

This is why we call these fictions "myths" and not "historically accurate documentaries."

I'll take that literally to mean you have not seen it, because if you ever did, you would see that the evidence proves the theory beyond a reasonable doubt, with the noted acception of "whence consciousness," but then, the theory does not set out to discover "whence consciousness," so for anyone to include that question into the discussion clearly does not understand the intent of the theory or the purpose of scientific investigation.

Could you please define "most reasonable" for us? We already know that "evidence" and "logic" do not concern you, nor for that matter, does the "inspired word of God" concern you too much; in fact, as I pointed out earlier, there really is no discernable reason behind any of the things you posted, so please, if you wouldn't mind, just exactly what are your qualifications for the phrase "most reasonable?"

All we have so far is: What is "most reasonable" is that a magical King spoke the universe into existence in order to worship him.

As you should be able to tell, that is far from anything "reasonable" to most people here, so if you could elaborate on precisely why and how you find that to be "most reasonable" (or even just "reasonable") it would help.

DarkBronzePlant

Odemus,

Quick question: you seem to be implying that belief in God as the truth relies on faith, but so does belief that science reveals the truth. Am I understanding you correctly?

DBP

Odemus

I believe that God is the natural explanation for existence.

I am saying God is the catalyst for the existence of all matter and life and the natural laws that govern them.

I am a product of the public school system.Does that answer your question? I'm not much into apologetics but I do love C. S. Lewis.Unlike many Christians I have no problem accepting that it is impossible to logically argue God into existence.

That evidence would need to clearly contradict The Bible and my faith.For example if some men in lab coats did in fact recreate the scenario by which life sprang from the inanimate I would be forced to reconsider my faith.I am assured that this will never happen.

I believe That God created Adam and Eve the first man and woman. I do not however believe that God created the earth in six literal days. The notion that the earth is actually much older than the 6,000 years a literal translation of the Genesis account would allow has been accepted by many Christians for as long as the scientific evidence has shown it to be a probablity.

So in summary, the earth billions and billions of years old, Adam and Eve are created the first man and woman.

No not at all.I just don't think the Genesis account is meant to give all the answers about creation.Unfortunately many Christians do.


Again, I have absolutely no problem believing that the universe, the earth, and even life were all here long before God created Adam and Eve.

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Odemus ]</p>

Mageth

Assuming there can only be one single explanation for the origin of everything then they can't all be true.
I believe in the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible because to me it is most reasonable to put my faith there.

In the first place, reason and faith aren't exactly bedfellows. Faith implies a suspension of reason.

And why "most reasonable?" You have implied such things are "empirically unprovable," yet here you're implying that there may be some empirical way, or perhaps a logical way, to distinguish among the various gods/creation myths.

If you can't test any of them, how can you reach a "reasonable" distinction among them?

How have you determined what is the 'simplest' explanation for the origin of life. As I understand it, both abiogenisis and supernatural creation are empirically unprovable.

A bit of a non sequitor. What does the allegation that both are unprovable have with the comparative complexity of the two "theories?"

Any time you add the supernatural, you're adding an extra layer to the universe. Making things more complex, not less complex. Life arising as an emergent property of the universe, self-organizing from matter and a set of laws and principles inherent to that matter, is a simpler explanation than posing a creator god, external to and greater than the universe.

And abiogenisis, being an emergent property of the universe, [i]can[/] be empirically studied. We (as of yet) cannot go back in time to witness an abiogenisis event on the earth 4 billion years ago, but we can 1) test abiogenisis theories in the laboratory; 2) look for possible abiogenisis events on the earth today; and 2) perhaps someday, witness, find evidence of, or even generate abiogenisis events on other worlds.

Odemus

I thank you for acknowledging that.I would go one step further and say that we both have the same empirical impass, but a difference in our belief of a default state.

The athiest by default lacks belief in a God or Gods (thanks DarkBronze), whereas God is the very starting point for my journey.

You may very well be satisfied with those explanations.I am not.

Again, it comes down to a difference in default states.I approach my life and all explanations about it with the preexisting notion that God exists.

The basis for my default state:
That right there is as close to proof as a Christian will ever be able to come.

Odemus

Yes, that is exactly what I mean to say.

I mean to address these things because this issue gets to the heart of my faith. When time allows I'll get back to you.

I just want to thank all of you for allowing me to ramble on here, it has been a pleasure.

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Odemus ]</p>