there are a lot of chemical reactions where "life can arise from non-life" given the proper conditions, conditions which were present on *gasp* early earth!
Name one.
Miller-Urey did *not* emulate early conditions on earth. It emulated what was thought at the time to be early conditions - but that is known not to be the case now. Recent attempts to duplicate the results of Miller-Urey in more probable early earth conditions have produced much less fruitful results. Even granting these results as useful, all that the Miller-Urey experiment produced was amino acids.
Did you read the article you linked to?
Evolution describes how life changes, it has NOTHING to do with how life began.
This is true, but you miss an important point: If abiogenesis cannot take place then atheists are without foundation in believing life can form through natural processes only.
If life did not form through natural processes, then we have a supernatural origin for life.
Define evolution as "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time". If we agree that this is evolution, then Creationists are evolutionists. What they disagree with is that all living things share a common ancestor. And that common ancestor is the one which abiogenesis attempts to describe. Without that, we cannot have a naturalistic explanation for life.
It is foolish to think that abiogenesis is irrelevant to the debate.
That's nothing like the blind belief that god created the universe with a word.
Nor like the blind belief of those who claim that something (the big bang) came from nothing. And when we say nothing, we mean no space *or* time. You know, the kind of people who post badly hidden Atheistic propaganda on Slashdot, using their stupidity and disrespect for learning as a cover for their atheistic agenda.
I have not once made a support call for faulty hardware - it's the retailer who gets calls. And I've never returned a piece of 'faulty' hardware that it turned out to be the software at issue. Maybe I'm not representative, but I can't see how this ability to 'not work' when running unauthorised software will help.
Actually, in philosophy the term "universe" is generally used to refer to "all possible universes". You don't seem to understand how this blows your argument of a 'causeless cause'. If God exists in a universe outside of the "mainstream" universe this begs the question of the creation of THAT universe.
Actually, the cosmological argument answers that question. It might be worth me repeating it here so you can see:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
As you can see, only those things which begin to exist have a cause. Traditionally, atheists argued that the universe had no beginning, and therefore it had no cause. However, modern science (and other philosophical objections) make the belief in a universe that had no beginning very unreasonable. So what we are left with is a universe that had a beginning, and the need for a cause for that beginning. No longer is the universe the "uncaused cause", but instead something else.
Add to that one thing that modern science tells us - that time itself began with the big bang. That leads us to conclude that the cause of the universe was itself timeless.
That means that the cause itself had no beginning, and therefore no cause. God needs no cause, because He exists outside of time. Only those things which have a beginning require a cause.
Atheists understood this - and their causeless entity was an infinitely old universe. Now that we know the universe had a beginning, the causeless entity must be God - that timeless, spaceless cause that is outside this spacio-temporal relam.
Of course it is, mainly because modern philosophers have READ the earlier philosophers and know what they knew. Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Descartes, Kant, etc.
What I meant when I said "our argument here is that the knowledge of philosophers today is much greater than that of those in the past" - was the philosophical meaning of the word 'knowledge'. We certainly possess more knowledge of the writings of philosophers than our ancestors. But do we have more 'knowledge' in the sense of justified true beliefs?
For example, we certainly have the knowledge that "Augustine taught that God existed", knowledge which Aristotle lacked (he lacked knowledge of Augustine's teachings). However, do we have now knowledge that "God exists"? Or "God does not exist"?.
Because it seems to me that we humans differ in our beliefs as much as we ever have. If philosophy had advanced since the times of our ancients, we should abound in more knowledge. And we still disagree even on the basics (is there a God?).
Very briefly, you mention the fact that a "rational discussion" was unknown before the Enlightenment. In the medieval ages and such, I certainly agree this is true. But rational discussions were had in times more ancient to that. These things have come and gone, depending on the culture and the age.
But they're FUNCTIONALLY identical. If there is no knowledge of something it might as well not exist. If you don't know what the plan is, how can you follow it?
I agree they can be functionally identical - but this is not a necessary state. I can also conceive of circumstances where a lack of knowledge about something does not mean that the "something" lacks power. For example, not knowing God's reasons for creating us does not mean that those reasons lack power. Not knowing the motives of your leader in a battle does not mean that his motives lack power.
skipping pride discussion
That's an interesting speculation. But it's just speculation.
My point was, simply, that if his reasons are aesthetic then we who cannot understand why our neighbour likes a specific painting will be even far less able to understand why God created this universe.
Though if God created the universe for aesthetic value, that does not answer the qu
My overriding thought at this moment is that for us to discuss further, we are going to branch wider and wider. There's a lot here for us to discuss, so I'm going to be short on some points. It may even be worth us leaving this discussion alone - slashdot I find it a poor medium for these discussions.
Anyway...
By definition, the universe is everything including any hypothetical god(s). To say one can't find meaning in the universe is to say that there is no meaning in anything because the universe is EVERYTHING.
My understanding is that philosophers talk about "possible worlds". And these "possible worlds" includes the universe.
When I refer to universe, I refer to that spacial/temporal realm in which we humans are confined. Anything that is outside of space and time (for example, I contend, numbers) is not contained purely within the universe. A timeless and spaceless creator would be outside the universe.
God, as defined as timeless and spaceless, is within a "possible world" but is outside our universe.
You're confusing issues of "What is The Truth?", as in the absolute truth for anyone, with issues of motivation "Why should I keep going?". I'm talking about the latter. A "reason for being" is a reason not to jump off the nearest cliff, not "the truth".
I knew you were talking about motivations. What I am saying is that ultimately a reason for not jumping of a cliff is no different for a reason to jump off the cliff. Ultimately, in a godless universe, these reasons are subjective, and can never truly satisfactoraly answer the question "why should I not jump?".
Sure, people have motivations and justifications for their reasons - but not good justifications. Just subjective ones that fail if put up to a different subjective standard.
Climb out of your denial and actually read the text of Genesis. ALL early Jews, Christians, prophets, etc. believed that Genesis was either entirely or mostly factual...
I hate to keep harping on this, but Christianity (and Judism and Islam) are based WHOLLY on Genesis. If Genesis is fictional, these religions are clearly nonsense. And Genesis is clearly fictional.
I never said that I believe Genesis is not fictional, I just said that any such debate is destined to go nowhere. Especially on a public forum like slashdot. I agree with you wholeheartedly that if Genesis is just an allegory for events that never occurred, that it loses all meaning.
You and I differ on a much more fundamental point - is there a God? We can discuss that without getting into the questions of whether the Christian God is the true God, or whether we should offer praise to Zeus instead. Let us first establish whether there is a God.
Though in the case of Christianity you don't have to infer this because, despite the best efforts of the church, we still have fragments of contemporary criticism of early Christians by Roman skeptics. And, funny enough, they say EXACTLY the same things skeptics of modern "prophets" do today.
I would very much like to read these documents, if you can recall what they are (esp. if you have weblinks).
Regarding motivations - Paul, and all the Apostles, had little to gain from Christianity. Paul lived out his days under house arrest, and other apostles met horrible deaths as Martyrs. If I was creating a new religion for fun and profit, I would hardly be willing to die for its cause. That to me says, at least, that Paul believed what he wrote.
Why do you consider a heretical 1st century Jew's opinions of morality and spirituality definitive? Do you follow 1st century medicine? When was the last time you got an exorcism for a toothache?
So, your argument here is that the knowledge of philosophers today is much greater than that of those in the past?
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing what you see. Obviously our understanding of medicine has changed - b
Personally, I'm a bit of a nihilist when it comes to this question. It's up to each of us to find
our OWN reason for being.
Thought I'd start with the end. I hope you don't mind discussing this - I assume by your reply that
you don't.
If there is no reason to being external to this universe, then all we have is subjectivity. And if
all that remains is subjectivity, then nothing is of any value beyond how it relates to something
else.
To say it's up to us to find our own reason for being is not really accurate. If the universe is
all that there is, then the truth is that there is no reason for being.
People yearn to know why, and they ask the somewhat vague question of "what is the meaning of
existence?" If you say it's up to us to find our own reason for being, then you are trying to give
an answer to that appeal which doesn't really satisfy. You make it sound like there is an answer
(within ourselves) when in fact you believe that there is no reason, there is no meaning.
Yet if there is a God, then we suddenly have grounds for a reason for being. Not only that, but
that reason for being is external to us, and external to the universe itself. As a consequence,
then, it is not up to us to find our own reason for being. That reason exists external to us.
Back to the beginning, literally...
Things which simply did not happen. This is a fantasy, or more properly, a myth. Genesis is a
collection of myths, many of which have moral instructions, but myths just the same. The Garden of
Eden did not exist. Adam and Eve did not exist. "Original sin" does not exist. These are simple
facts, as much as Jews/Christians/Muslims might not like it to be so.
Rather than getting into a debate about origins, which is destined to go nowhere, there is a much
more basic question here which can be answered - is there a God? If that can be satisfied, then
most or all of the other points you are making (about our reason for being, about the nature of
morality, etc) will be addressed.
The Christian fixation on guilt is simply a method of social control. By telling people they are
worthless and "fallen", and that the only way to be happy/prosperous/immortal/etc. is through
following THEM and doing what THEY say, you can control them.
Well, that's certainly one theory. Obviously if there is no God, then a case like that could be
made. But another equally compelling argument is that we evolved to have a sense of an archetypal
entity that doesn't really exist - and that social control was just a nice side effect.
Or perhaps we feel guilt naturally, and religion was designed to explain why we feel guilt, rather
than being the cause. Or perhaps any number of other things that ultimately lack any meaning in a
godless universe.
It's very hard to predict or justify any ulterior motives, that were unrecorded, of men long dead.
Guilt is a feeling we get when we know we have done something we ought not to have done. Do you
have a problem with guilt? Or do you merely believe that Christians "cause" people to feel guilt
about things of which they shouldn't?
Perhaps to help you understand the Christian "fixation" on guilt it would help you to consider the
existence of our Maker. For example, I find a $20 note on the ground, and pick it up - and am asked
2 minutes later by someone if I happened to find their $20 note they dropped around the corner. I
tell them no, and keep it.
If I compare my actions to those of others around me, I might consider it wrong, but not that bad.
I may remember the time my friend did the same when he found $10. Or how another friend took home a
computer mouse from work. I may still judge these actions as wrong (including my own), but I won't
lose much sleep over it.
If, however, I lived in a society where everyone was always honest, then my actions would seem that
much worse. I would have no friend with whom to co
No, it's about telling people how to live their lives.
It's not. We already have, within ourselves, an understanding of what in most cases we ought and ought not do. Anyone who cares to measure themselves will find themselves far less than what they ought to be. Someone who claims to have no fault or to do no wrong is a fool, and we recognise them easily as such.
Christianity tells us about our state as creatures that rebelled against their Maker, and it tells us our Maker's plan to redeem us.
Christians use blithe excuses like "everyone's a sinner" to excuse their hypocracy, or even worse, designate a few "sins" that they don't like to personally engage in as being "the ultimate evil" and focus on those. Christians are heroin addicts warning people about the dangers of drinking.
I know the reputation we Christians have of being judgmental. I have three things to say to your statements.
First is that it is not a "blithe" excuse to say we are all sinners. Paul states in the Scriptures that those who were chosen by God were the despised and the fools of the world. If one who calls himself a Christian can find himself proud because of his faith, then he is a fool. We of all people should be most acutely aware of our failings - and be humble as a result, not finding pride in anything.
Second is that we all find hypocricy sickening and loathesome. Jesus said to take the plank out of our own eye before we try to remove the speck from our brother's. No Christian should accuse others when he himself suffers from the same thing.
Third, is that Christians were only ever commanded to judge each other. The ministry of Jesus involved calling and preaching to those who were outside the faith. He taught and loved them. Those who claimed to be the religious leaders at the time were judged and condemned by Him. You will see that theme throughout Scriptures. Paul said that he told the believers not to eat with someone who was a sinner. He wrote back a correction, saying that he had meant that they should not eat with someone named a brother who is sinning - but that they should certainly still eat with those outside the faith who were sinners. Paul also says at another part that we should judge those inside the faith, but those outside the faith God will judge. And in yet another it says that God will judge His church first in this age, and those outside will be judged afterwards.
The fact that those who are called Christians have, according to you, the same crime and divorce rates is a very saddening thing. But it doesn't change anything about the truth. It would be a very rare person who I would consider beyond redemption. Every single human alive is a creation of God, and has within him a great potential. None is beyond God's redemptive hand, and I personally have no idea who will and will not be redeemed. Therefore I will condemn none, and consider all as someone who could be a brother or sister in the next life.
The fact is that there are things that we ought not to do. We all have a rough idea what those things are. However, just like our physical senses and perceptions of the physical world can be wrong and misguided, so can our senses of the moral laws of the universe. Thus there is not a universal understanding among humans of right and wrong - but there are common threads, and most people share understanding on the basics. And from this, we are all aware we fail.
In fact, these same studies show that atheists and agnostics are consistently more "moral" than theists. Probably because they're also more intelligent (on average) and perhaps think things through a bit more.
How can an atheist be more "moral"? Morality isn't just about actions, but also a state of mind and an attitude. The atheist must believe that all morality is just socio-biological evolved mores that are mere conventions. They are neutral actions that hold no inherent value
There is no objective evidence other than poorly-interpreted excerpts from the Bible that having sex with someone of the same gender is "what we ought not to do."
The same cannot be said for, say, murder.
While I disagree, and believe that sex with someone of the same gender is something we ought not to do, I won't press the point. It is obvious that there are things we ought not to do. And if there are things we ought not to do, then these are things we should disapprove of in others if we have any care for them.
That is the point I was making in my first response.
This poor woman has lumped all of the wild indelicacies of her past into one horrible thing to be avoided at all costs. That's not logical or even ethically sound, it's emotional backlashing.
You only hold this view because you believe there is nothing wrong with the actions of her past. If she had committed other evils, such as torturing another human, or raping a child, then I am sure that you would feel no disagreement with her seeing that as a "horrible thing to be avoided at all costs". You wouldn't say what you'd said above.
My basic point being - if you're wrong about sex with the same gender, then you're wrong saying that her current view is "not logical or even ethically sound". The great question is whether or not the actions of her youth were something that she ought not to have done. Saying her reaction to her past is "not logical or even ethically sound" is assuming the point - that she did no wrong - and you will only convince those that already agree with you.
Being a Christian isn't about telling people how to live their lives. It's telling people the truth about who we are and our condition.
You're hardly an agnostic regarding telling others how to live their lives. In fact, your entire post comes across as very condemning of "right-wing Christian" attitudes. Isn't that doing the very thing that you condemn? Telling others how to live their lives? The truth is that there are ways we ought and ought not to live - from the simplistic "don't do anything that affects someone else" right through to the specific "don't have sex with people of the same gender".
We *all* know that there are ways we ought and ought not to live. Even the atheist claims some values (and justifies them as useful socio-biologically evolved norms) that we ought to live by. None of us would feel any problem with telling a mass murderer that they are not living how they ought to. So, if we can think of one action that deserves condemnation, then it seems highly probable there are others. You can't condemn a Christian with a philosophy of being "completely permissive towards other people's rights to do whatever they want" - because you don't really believe that. So don't condemn us Christians for what you do yourself.
There are certain things we ought and ought not to do. Some people will tell you what they are, and some don't have a clue what they are.
Both percieve those who do not fit their view as "Evil" and want to either destroy or convert them.
Speaking as a fundamentalist Christian I can assure you that we do _not_ want to destroy those who disagree with us. Our Saviour Jesus at the time was harshest against the religious leaders of the time, and kindest towards the unbelievers. There are commandments in the New Testament to love your neighbour, to teach the gospel, and make disciples. There is absolutely no instruction to destroy those who disbelieve. Such a statement shows ignorance.
Paul instructed Christians to eat and live with unbelievers, but not live as them in sin.
Ugh. That example you provided is nothing like what I said. It's obvious you have no clue what you are talking about.
If I've presented you with a tautology then point it out. Don't make up "if you say that" statements. Present something I actually said.
1) I have a rock in my pocket.
2) I have never been attacked by a tiger.
3) Therefore, this rock in my pocket protects me from tigers.
What is this? What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to demonstrate to me that you have no idea about logic and the path it follows? Looking at assumptions 1&2, 3 simply does not follow. Seriously - take a look at what I said. If you assume 1&2, then 3 is the conclusion. Not so in your case here. Your argument does not follow, while mine did.
Not much more to say, really. I suggest you learn something about philosophy & logic before you try to engage in a discussion on it - because you've just seriously embarrassed yourself.
Axiological argument can be summarised as:
1. If God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The most common objection to this argument would be, I believe, that objective moral values and duties do not exist. Which, if accepted, leads us to the conclusion that there is no such thing as right or wrong - which leads to its own set of conclusions. But I consider (2) to be true. Take this example (which is not my own):
To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independent of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good, and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won WOrld War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them. On classical theism God's own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God's moral nature is what Plato called the "Good." He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind and so forth.
I do respect your faith in God, and would consider you a brother in Christ - even if it doesn't sound that way.
If I'm not answering your question, it's because I don't really understand what you're asking (and also haven't had a chance to reply to your "imagine I'm a raving atheist" post).
In all honesty you confuse me with your approach. You say "I need no proof. I see God all around me. I see Him in the lives of the people around me." - Yet that is proof! You see proof of God all around you, and you see proof of Him in the lives of people around you. So it feels to me that you are saying two very contradictory things - that you believe God has established His existence beyond doubt, but also that He hasn't.
And so I ask myself, "why do I need to convince this person that God exists when already he (or she) has seen enough proof of His existence. This person's problem is not a lack of proof of God's existence, but rather an inability to recognise that he has accepted proofs."
And don't think I'm trying to cop out of arguments of God's existence. It's just that it's saturday and I'd rather be doing other things right now. I'll post in reply to your other post with the summarised version of the axiological argument.
My belief in God is an article of faith, and requires no proof.
It seems that you have fallen prey to one of the greatest misunderstandings in Christianity - that faith means believing in that which we cannot know. The word faith can have two meanings in English:
1. A belief or trust in that which you cannot know. You have faith because you have no proof - this, while existing in English, is not what Biblical faith is.
2. A belief or trust in that which has been demonstrated to be trustworthy and true. This is the case that God is in. We believe, not because we have no proof, but because He has demonstrated Himself beyond all doubt countless times throughout history.
An example of Biblical faith that you have probaby heard before. A tightrope walker goes along a tightrope over a ravine. He then takes a wheelburrow across, without sweating. He then fills the wheelburrow with bricks and again walks over and back without trouble. He then asks the crowd if they think he could take a person across. They all shout back yes. He then asks if any would volunteer.
If someone does volunteer, they put their faith in this man. They have seem him prove himself trustworthy and capable. That is true faith - putting your trust in God to do what He has promised, because He has demonstrated Himself as trustworthy and good in the past. Which answers your next question...
I have faith in God because of all the times His works have demonstrated His love and trustworthiness to His people. From Genesis, from the very beginning, until this very day, when He has fulfilled all that He promised He will.
Having proof of God does not remove the need for faith. It strengthens faith.
If you can accept that there is no such thing as right or wrong, how does that argument fare?
If you believe there is no such thing as right or wrong, then the argument quite simply fails. However, most people believe that right and wrong do exist external to any human measurements.
For example, raping a child is considered "wrong" - no matter what the culture or time, we consider it as absolutely wrong independent of human reasons. We can invent reasons *why* it is wrong, but even in the absence of these reasons we still consider it wrong. For example, we may say it is because children are innocent and unable to defend themselves. But even if a child was elevated above that (was neither innocent or unable to defend itself) we would still consider it wrong.
For me it's not a difficult problem. Most people do accept that certain things are absolutely and objectively "wrong", even if they don't realise. There are a few exceptions, and these people in my experience tend to be guided by their own philosophy. Usually a Darwinist "I follow the law and do good to others because ultimately it is better for both myself and the evolution of the race"...but any reasons for doing "good" beyond that are absent.
I didn't provide it because it seemed rather strange and irrelevant to discuss the proofs for God with someone who already believes in Him.
Among others I consider the Axiological argument to be powerful. It forces people to either accept the existence of God, or accept that there is no such thing as right or wrong.
Why do you think I'm an agnostic? Seems like you are prone to making unwarranted assumptions. You might want to be careful of that. I've been a confirmed, practicing Methodist for 20 years. (That's since I was twelve.)
Well, if you check my post I said "it sounds to me", which is no more presumptuous than you saying "seems like you are prone to". I realised full well when I wrote it that you may not be agnostic. You sounded agnostic because you were talking about it being impossible to prove God's existence (a claim which in itself is absurd since you can't prove a negative). You sounded unchristian because you talked about the Genesis accounts being contradictory, and sounded less respectful of Scriptures than I'm used to (again, 'sounds' like. I don't know you or your view on Scripture)
Your entire attitude towards belief in God is very different from my own, but not unsurprising. It is my firm belief that God asked people to believe *with* proof. He demonstrated His graciousness and love towards Israel on many occasions.
Tell me, if you don't believe that God's existence can be demonstrated, why do you believe in him?
Ontological argument...that which is greater than the greatest thing of which I can conceive....bleh. That is a tired crutch.
Then remember that you were the one who brought it up. The ontological argument is not the only one, nor was it one of the ones I had in mind. I've never given this one an in depth look.
If you believe in God, believe in God. If you need proof of God's existence to believe in God, don't believe in God. God.
Is this supposed to make sense? Why do you claim it it foolish in God's eyes to require proof of something before you accept it? It is a most natural thing to require something to be demonstrated. Of course, quite often people choose not to require proof and put their faith in tales and untruths...but such are called fools.
It sounds to me that you are an agnostic. You are wrong about being unable to demonstrate the existence of God. And I'm not sure why you think that requiring proof is such a wrong thing.
Answering the spirit behind your post:
I never claim that Creationism or religion is scientific. Science is an empirical process, whereas religious claims are philosophical.
Philosophy describes what science is, but philosophy is not science. I believe it is logical and rational to state:
a. God exists
b. Christianity is the one true religion
And providing proofs for each is ultimately a philosophical process, not a scientific one.
I do not appreciate attitudes that condescend religion as a useful but ultimately misguided crutch by which the weaker minded can cling to what is good. Ie, those who say that religion is untrue, but serves as a useful means to keep people in line.
There are "proofs" that God exists, and these are logical/philosophical "proofs". Darwinists in my experience are the most likely to elevate science to a level that it does not approach in reality. Science is a very useful process for understanding our universe, but it is not the sole means of discerning truth.
Anyway, I need to get back to work, so I'll hold off other thoughts. Basic summary of my post: I am aware of the difference of science and philosophy and how they apply to the creation/evolution debate. I do not think it is foolish, or a sacrifice of reason, to accept God and reject Darwinism.
Why do you need a model? Isn't everything contained right there in the first two chapters of Genesis?
What makes you think that Christian Creationists aren't allowed to participate in the scientific process? The first two chapters of Genesis only describe what is important for purposes of understand God, His will for mankind and His plan of salvation. Genesis does give us the human genome, nor does it tell us which genes control height, how different species arose, or many other things.
Oh yeah, and while we're on the subject, which of the two contradictory creation stories do you discount?
They do not contradict. I doubt you can tell me anything on this topic I haven't already heard. And a simple google search will show many different ideas on how the two chapters complement each other and do not necessarily contradict. They only contradict if you take one set of assumptions.
Or perhaps you're just someone with a serious lack of understanding of the Creationist model.
No surprise there though - people like that are a dime a dozen.
The Creationist model includes Neanderthals as just another species of human. Natural selection just played a lot heavier on humans, possibly due to our tendencies towards genocide. So Neanderthals, among others, were removed from the pool.
(cue now surprise that a young earth creationist accepts natural selection)
Bookmarks are one of those things I just don't need. I take them occasionally, but find that I never look them up again. Instead, I just search google for a page that I need.
The rare exception may be a specific portion of a website, or keeping quick links to the websites I visit every day.
Otherwise, google is the new "bookmark" system.
I've never played these soccer games, but I'd guess that not needing a physics engine to make a good game (neither do FPS's...) that any cloth like appearance of a net is just tricks that programmers use. It would be relatively easy to code a flexible moving net that looks right when a soccer ball hits it without making a real physics engine that handles cloth. So yes, there's every chance that this fabric stuff in this physics engine is far more powerful and "real" than in a soccer game.
What I'm wondering is about the drain that such a system would place on your mind. In order to receive the signals, these probes are taking...electricity (excuse my ignorance)...from the brain without, I assume, replacing it.
Will this have a negligible effect on the day to day running of the brain or will it be significant enough to show a drop in intelligence through tests?
Slashdot Mirror
Name one.
Miller-Urey did *not* emulate early conditions on earth. It emulated what was thought at the time to be early conditions - but that is known not to be the case now. Recent attempts to duplicate the results of Miller-Urey in more probable early earth conditions have produced much less fruitful results. Even granting these results as useful, all that the Miller-Urey experiment produced was amino acids.
Did you read the article you linked to?
This is true, but you miss an important point: If abiogenesis cannot take place then atheists are without foundation in believing life can form through natural processes only.
If life did not form through natural processes, then we have a supernatural origin for life.
Define evolution as "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time". If we agree that this is evolution, then Creationists are evolutionists. What they disagree with is that all living things share a common ancestor. And that common ancestor is the one which abiogenesis attempts to describe. Without that, we cannot have a naturalistic explanation for life.
It is foolish to think that abiogenesis is irrelevant to the debate.
Nor like the blind belief of those who claim that something (the big bang) came from nothing. And when we say nothing, we mean no space *or* time. You know, the kind of people who post badly hidden Atheistic propaganda on Slashdot, using their stupidity and disrespect for learning as a cover for their atheistic agenda.
I have not once made a support call for faulty hardware - it's the retailer who gets calls. And I've never returned a piece of 'faulty' hardware that it turned out to be the software at issue. Maybe I'm not representative, but I can't see how this ability to 'not work' when running unauthorised software will help.
Actually, the cosmological argument answers that question. It might be worth me repeating it here so you can see:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
As you can see, only those things which begin to exist have a cause. Traditionally, atheists argued that the universe had no beginning, and therefore it had no cause. However, modern science (and other philosophical objections) make the belief in a universe that had no beginning very unreasonable. So what we are left with is a universe that had a beginning, and the need for a cause for that beginning. No longer is the universe the "uncaused cause", but instead something else.
Add to that one thing that modern science tells us - that time itself began with the big bang. That leads us to conclude that the cause of the universe was itself timeless.
That means that the cause itself had no beginning, and therefore no cause. God needs no cause, because He exists outside of time. Only those things which have a beginning require a cause.
Atheists understood this - and their causeless entity was an infinitely old universe. Now that we know the universe had a beginning, the causeless entity must be God - that timeless, spaceless cause that is outside this spacio-temporal relam.
What I meant when I said "our argument here is that the knowledge of philosophers today is much greater than that of those in the past" - was the philosophical meaning of the word 'knowledge'. We certainly possess more knowledge of the writings of philosophers than our ancestors. But do we have more 'knowledge' in the sense of justified true beliefs?
For example, we certainly have the knowledge that "Augustine taught that God existed", knowledge which Aristotle lacked (he lacked knowledge of Augustine's teachings). However, do we have now knowledge that "God exists"? Or "God does not exist"?.
Because it seems to me that we humans differ in our beliefs as much as we ever have. If philosophy had advanced since the times of our ancients, we should abound in more knowledge. And we still disagree even on the basics (is there a God?).
Very briefly, you mention the fact that a "rational discussion" was unknown before the Enlightenment. In the medieval ages and such, I certainly agree this is true. But rational discussions were had in times more ancient to that. These things have come and gone, depending on the culture and the age.
I agree they can be functionally identical - but this is not a necessary state. I can also conceive of circumstances where a lack of knowledge about something does not mean that the "something" lacks power. For example, not knowing God's reasons for creating us does not mean that those reasons lack power. Not knowing the motives of your leader in a battle does not mean that his motives lack power.
skipping pride discussion
My point was, simply, that if his reasons are aesthetic then we who cannot understand why our neighbour likes a specific painting will be even far less able to understand why God created this universe.
Though if God created the universe for aesthetic value, that does not answer the qu
Anyway...
My understanding is that philosophers talk about "possible worlds". And these "possible worlds" includes the universe.
When I refer to universe, I refer to that spacial/temporal realm in which we humans are confined. Anything that is outside of space and time (for example, I contend, numbers) is not contained purely within the universe. A timeless and spaceless creator would be outside the universe.
God, as defined as timeless and spaceless, is within a "possible world" but is outside our universe.
I knew you were talking about motivations. What I am saying is that ultimately a reason for not jumping of a cliff is no different for a reason to jump off the cliff. Ultimately, in a godless universe, these reasons are subjective, and can never truly satisfactoraly answer the question "why should I not jump?".
Sure, people have motivations and justifications for their reasons - but not good justifications. Just subjective ones that fail if put up to a different subjective standard.
I never said that I believe Genesis is not fictional, I just said that any such debate is destined to go nowhere. Especially on a public forum like slashdot. I agree with you wholeheartedly that if Genesis is just an allegory for events that never occurred, that it loses all meaning.
You and I differ on a much more fundamental point - is there a God? We can discuss that without getting into the questions of whether the Christian God is the true God, or whether we should offer praise to Zeus instead. Let us first establish whether there is a God.
I would very much like to read these documents, if you can recall what they are (esp. if you have weblinks).
Regarding motivations - Paul, and all the Apostles, had little to gain from Christianity. Paul lived out his days under house arrest, and other apostles met horrible deaths as Martyrs. If I was creating a new religion for fun and profit, I would hardly be willing to die for its cause. That to me says, at least, that Paul believed what he wrote.
So, your argument here is that the knowledge of philosophers today is much greater than that of those in the past?
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing what you see. Obviously our understanding of medicine has changed - b
Thought I'd start with the end. I hope you don't mind discussing this - I assume by your reply that you don't.
If there is no reason to being external to this universe, then all we have is subjectivity. And if all that remains is subjectivity, then nothing is of any value beyond how it relates to something else.
To say it's up to us to find our own reason for being is not really accurate. If the universe is all that there is, then the truth is that there is no reason for being.
People yearn to know why, and they ask the somewhat vague question of "what is the meaning of existence?" If you say it's up to us to find our own reason for being, then you are trying to give an answer to that appeal which doesn't really satisfy. You make it sound like there is an answer (within ourselves) when in fact you believe that there is no reason, there is no meaning.
Yet if there is a God, then we suddenly have grounds for a reason for being. Not only that, but that reason for being is external to us, and external to the universe itself. As a consequence, then, it is not up to us to find our own reason for being. That reason exists external to us.
Back to the beginning, literally...
Rather than getting into a debate about origins, which is destined to go nowhere, there is a much more basic question here which can be answered - is there a God? If that can be satisfied, then most or all of the other points you are making (about our reason for being, about the nature of morality, etc) will be addressed.
Well, that's certainly one theory. Obviously if there is no God, then a case like that could be made. But another equally compelling argument is that we evolved to have a sense of an archetypal entity that doesn't really exist - and that social control was just a nice side effect.
Or perhaps we feel guilt naturally, and religion was designed to explain why we feel guilt, rather than being the cause. Or perhaps any number of other things that ultimately lack any meaning in a godless universe.
It's very hard to predict or justify any ulterior motives, that were unrecorded, of men long dead.
Guilt is a feeling we get when we know we have done something we ought not to have done. Do you have a problem with guilt? Or do you merely believe that Christians "cause" people to feel guilt about things of which they shouldn't?
Perhaps to help you understand the Christian "fixation" on guilt it would help you to consider the existence of our Maker. For example, I find a $20 note on the ground, and pick it up - and am asked 2 minutes later by someone if I happened to find their $20 note they dropped around the corner. I tell them no, and keep it.
If I compare my actions to those of others around me, I might consider it wrong, but not that bad. I may remember the time my friend did the same when he found $10. Or how another friend took home a computer mouse from work. I may still judge these actions as wrong (including my own), but I won't lose much sleep over it.
If, however, I lived in a society where everyone was always honest, then my actions would seem that much worse. I would have no friend with whom to co
It's not. We already have, within ourselves, an understanding of what in most cases we ought and ought not do. Anyone who cares to measure themselves will find themselves far less than what they ought to be. Someone who claims to have no fault or to do no wrong is a fool, and we recognise them easily as such.
Christianity tells us about our state as creatures that rebelled against their Maker, and it tells us our Maker's plan to redeem us.
I know the reputation we Christians have of being judgmental. I have three things to say to your statements.
First is that it is not a "blithe" excuse to say we are all sinners. Paul states in the Scriptures that those who were chosen by God were the despised and the fools of the world. If one who calls himself a Christian can find himself proud because of his faith, then he is a fool. We of all people should be most acutely aware of our failings - and be humble as a result, not finding pride in anything.
Second is that we all find hypocricy sickening and loathesome. Jesus said to take the plank out of our own eye before we try to remove the speck from our brother's. No Christian should accuse others when he himself suffers from the same thing.
Third, is that Christians were only ever commanded to judge each other. The ministry of Jesus involved calling and preaching to those who were outside the faith. He taught and loved them. Those who claimed to be the religious leaders at the time were judged and condemned by Him. You will see that theme throughout Scriptures. Paul said that he told the believers not to eat with someone who was a sinner. He wrote back a correction, saying that he had meant that they should not eat with someone named a brother who is sinning - but that they should certainly still eat with those outside the faith who were sinners. Paul also says at another part that we should judge those inside the faith, but those outside the faith God will judge. And in yet another it says that God will judge His church first in this age, and those outside will be judged afterwards.
The fact that those who are called Christians have, according to you, the same crime and divorce rates is a very saddening thing. But it doesn't change anything about the truth. It would be a very rare person who I would consider beyond redemption. Every single human alive is a creation of God, and has within him a great potential. None is beyond God's redemptive hand, and I personally have no idea who will and will not be redeemed. Therefore I will condemn none, and consider all as someone who could be a brother or sister in the next life.
The fact is that there are things that we ought not to do. We all have a rough idea what those things are. However, just like our physical senses and perceptions of the physical world can be wrong and misguided, so can our senses of the moral laws of the universe. Thus there is not a universal understanding among humans of right and wrong - but there are common threads, and most people share understanding on the basics. And from this, we are all aware we fail.
How can an atheist be more "moral"? Morality isn't just about actions, but also a state of mind and an attitude. The atheist must believe that all morality is just socio-biological evolved mores that are mere conventions. They are neutral actions that hold no inherent value
That is the point I was making in my first response.
You only hold this view because you believe there is nothing wrong with the actions of her past. If she had committed other evils, such as torturing another human, or raping a child, then I am sure that you would feel no disagreement with her seeing that as a "horrible thing to be avoided at all costs". You wouldn't say what you'd said above.
My basic point being - if you're wrong about sex with the same gender, then you're wrong saying that her current view is "not logical or even ethically sound". The great question is whether or not the actions of her youth were something that she ought not to have done. Saying her reaction to her past is "not logical or even ethically sound" is assuming the point - that she did no wrong - and you will only convince those that already agree with you.
Being a Christian isn't about telling people how to live their lives. It's telling people the truth about who we are and our condition.
You're hardly an agnostic regarding telling others how to live their lives. In fact, your entire post comes across as very condemning of "right-wing Christian" attitudes. Isn't that doing the very thing that you condemn? Telling others how to live their lives? The truth is that there are ways we ought and ought not to live - from the simplistic "don't do anything that affects someone else" right through to the specific "don't have sex with people of the same gender".
We *all* know that there are ways we ought and ought not to live. Even the atheist claims some values (and justifies them as useful socio-biologically evolved norms) that we ought to live by. None of us would feel any problem with telling a mass murderer that they are not living how they ought to. So, if we can think of one action that deserves condemnation, then it seems highly probable there are others. You can't condemn a Christian with a philosophy of being "completely permissive towards other people's rights to do whatever they want" - because you don't really believe that. So don't condemn us Christians for what you do yourself.
There are certain things we ought and ought not to do. Some people will tell you what they are, and some don't have a clue what they are.
Speaking as a fundamentalist Christian I can assure you that we do _not_ want to destroy those who disagree with us. Our Saviour Jesus at the time was harshest against the religious leaders of the time, and kindest towards the unbelievers. There are commandments in the New Testament to love your neighbour, to teach the gospel, and make disciples. There is absolutely no instruction to destroy those who disbelieve. Such a statement shows ignorance.
Paul instructed Christians to eat and live with unbelievers, but not live as them in sin.
If I've presented you with a tautology then point it out. Don't make up "if you say that" statements. Present something I actually said.
What is this? What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to demonstrate to me that you have no idea about logic and the path it follows? Looking at assumptions 1&2, 3 simply does not follow. Seriously - take a look at what I said. If you assume 1&2, then 3 is the conclusion. Not so in your case here. Your argument does not follow, while mine did.Not much more to say, really. I suggest you learn something about philosophy & logic before you try to engage in a discussion on it - because you've just seriously embarrassed yourself.
1. If God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The most common objection to this argument would be, I believe, that objective moral values and duties do not exist. Which, if accepted, leads us to the conclusion that there is no such thing as right or wrong - which leads to its own set of conclusions. But I consider (2) to be true. Take this example (which is not my own):
If I'm not answering your question, it's because I don't really understand what you're asking (and also haven't had a chance to reply to your "imagine I'm a raving atheist" post).
In all honesty you confuse me with your approach. You say "I need no proof. I see God all around me. I see Him in the lives of the people around me." - Yet that is proof! You see proof of God all around you, and you see proof of Him in the lives of people around you. So it feels to me that you are saying two very contradictory things - that you believe God has established His existence beyond doubt, but also that He hasn't.
And so I ask myself, "why do I need to convince this person that God exists when already he (or she) has seen enough proof of His existence. This person's problem is not a lack of proof of God's existence, but rather an inability to recognise that he has accepted proofs."
And don't think I'm trying to cop out of arguments of God's existence. It's just that it's saturday and I'd rather be doing other things right now. I'll post in reply to your other post with the summarised version of the axiological argument.
It seems that you have fallen prey to one of the greatest misunderstandings in Christianity - that faith means believing in that which we cannot know. The word faith can have two meanings in English:
1. A belief or trust in that which you cannot know. You have faith because you have no proof - this, while existing in English, is not what Biblical faith is.
2. A belief or trust in that which has been demonstrated to be trustworthy and true. This is the case that God is in. We believe, not because we have no proof, but because He has demonstrated Himself beyond all doubt countless times throughout history.
An example of Biblical faith that you have probaby heard before. A tightrope walker goes along a tightrope over a ravine. He then takes a wheelburrow across, without sweating. He then fills the wheelburrow with bricks and again walks over and back without trouble. He then asks the crowd if they think he could take a person across. They all shout back yes. He then asks if any would volunteer.
If someone does volunteer, they put their faith in this man. They have seem him prove himself trustworthy and capable. That is true faith - putting your trust in God to do what He has promised, because He has demonstrated Himself as trustworthy and good in the past. Which answers your next question...
I have faith in God because of all the times His works have demonstrated His love and trustworthiness to His people. From Genesis, from the very beginning, until this very day, when He has fulfilled all that He promised He will.
Having proof of God does not remove the need for faith. It strengthens faith.
If you believe there is no such thing as right or wrong, then the argument quite simply fails. However, most people believe that right and wrong do exist external to any human measurements.
For example, raping a child is considered "wrong" - no matter what the culture or time, we consider it as absolutely wrong independent of human reasons. We can invent reasons *why* it is wrong, but even in the absence of these reasons we still consider it wrong. For example, we may say it is because children are innocent and unable to defend themselves. But even if a child was elevated above that (was neither innocent or unable to defend itself) we would still consider it wrong.
For me it's not a difficult problem. Most people do accept that certain things are absolutely and objectively "wrong", even if they don't realise. There are a few exceptions, and these people in my experience tend to be guided by their own philosophy. Usually a Darwinist "I follow the law and do good to others because ultimately it is better for both myself and the evolution of the race"...but any reasons for doing "good" beyond that are absent.
Among others I consider the Axiological argument to be powerful. It forces people to either accept the existence of God, or accept that there is no such thing as right or wrong.
Your entire attitude towards belief in God is very different from my own, but not unsurprising. It is my firm belief that God asked people to believe *with* proof. He demonstrated His graciousness and love towards Israel on many occasions.
Tell me, if you don't believe that God's existence can be demonstrated, why do you believe in him?
Then remember that you were the one who brought it up. The ontological argument is not the only one, nor was it one of the ones I had in mind. I've never given this one an in depth look.
Is this supposed to make sense? Why do you claim it it foolish in God's eyes to require proof of something before you accept it? It is a most natural thing to require something to be demonstrated. Of course, quite often people choose not to require proof and put their faith in tales and untruths...but such are called fools.It sounds to me that you are an agnostic. You are wrong about being unable to demonstrate the existence of God. And I'm not sure why you think that requiring proof is such a wrong thing.
Answering the spirit behind your post: I never claim that Creationism or religion is scientific. Science is an empirical process, whereas religious claims are philosophical. Philosophy describes what science is, but philosophy is not science. I believe it is logical and rational to state: a. God exists b. Christianity is the one true religion And providing proofs for each is ultimately a philosophical process, not a scientific one. I do not appreciate attitudes that condescend religion as a useful but ultimately misguided crutch by which the weaker minded can cling to what is good. Ie, those who say that religion is untrue, but serves as a useful means to keep people in line. There are "proofs" that God exists, and these are logical/philosophical "proofs". Darwinists in my experience are the most likely to elevate science to a level that it does not approach in reality. Science is a very useful process for understanding our universe, but it is not the sole means of discerning truth. Anyway, I need to get back to work, so I'll hold off other thoughts. Basic summary of my post: I am aware of the difference of science and philosophy and how they apply to the creation/evolution debate. I do not think it is foolish, or a sacrifice of reason, to accept God and reject Darwinism.
No surprise there though - people like that are a dime a dozen.
The Creationist model includes Neanderthals as just another species of human. Natural selection just played a lot heavier on humans, possibly due to our tendencies towards genocide. So Neanderthals, among others, were removed from the pool.
(cue now surprise that a young earth creationist accepts natural selection)
Bookmarks are one of those things I just don't need. I take them occasionally, but find that I never look them up again. Instead, I just search google for a page that I need. The rare exception may be a specific portion of a website, or keeping quick links to the websites I visit every day. Otherwise, google is the new "bookmark" system.
Here's your answer:
Please don't make me use gaim over sim-icq.
Please don't make me use openoffice over koffice.
I prefer the latter in both cases.
I've never played these soccer games, but I'd guess that not needing a physics engine to make a good game (neither do FPS's...) that any cloth like appearance of a net is just tricks that programmers use. It would be relatively easy to code a flexible moving net that looks right when a soccer ball hits it without making a real physics engine that handles cloth. So yes, there's every chance that this fabric stuff in this physics engine is far more powerful and "real" than in a soccer game.
What I'm wondering is about the drain that such a system would place on your mind. In order to receive the signals, these probes are taking...electricity (excuse my ignorance)...from the brain without, I assume, replacing it. Will this have a negligible effect on the day to day running of the brain or will it be significant enough to show a drop in intelligence through tests?