Two Gods or One

Quote: Nareed

(see Niven's Law: nature doesn't care if you're having fun).

Don't forget one of Heinlein's Axioms:

'One mans religion is another mans belly laugh.'

Quote: TheCesspit

You say this like the scientific method is not a form of reasoning and logic (higher or otherwise). All logic is testable. That's the point. Logic IS testable under the scientific method.

It is a form of reasoning and logic that is arrived at not by the scientific method but science. Some people seem to think that the only things we can know is by the use of the scientific method, but that argument is self-defeating. The scientific method is not the fruit of an experiment but by philosophical reasoning and logic.

Quote:

You can't appeal to God through logic, then throw out science from the discussion.

That's, ahem, illogical.

God is only reached through logic. Science can only provide evidence to the likelihood of the universe having a beginning, that the universe is seemingly fine tuned for the existence of life as we know it, that something cannot come from nothing (apparently up for debate), etc. But science cannot possibly prove or disprove the existence of an infinite spiritual supernatural all-powerful being. I'm not saying throw science out of the discussion, but rather use science for the reason it exists. Throw out the idea that somehow science is going to provide the answers we need to this discussion.

Quote: rxwine

Random physical, chemical interactions are going on in the Universe everywhere today. This enables lots of variation. This doesn't make complexity of inanimate objects automatic, but nor does it rule it out.

Also, once a simple lifeform exists, reproduction variation and interactions and adaption to different environments makes possible new variations. This process doesn't lead to more intelligent beings coming into existence, but neither does it lead away from more intelligent beings being the result of variation.

Isn't there a purpose behind this variation that leads to that which is more adaptable or suitable to its environment to thrive and grow and continue to develop.

Quote:

Even a modern human brain could result after enough time and variation of lifeforms. In fact, it only apparently took the Universe almost the entire 14 billion years minus about 50,000 for the modern human brain to develop.

Does that sound like intelligent design? Sound's like brute force solution similar to chess programs which just run through millions of moves.

So your argument is that an infinite eternal being took too much time to allow the development of the human brain and so it is more likely attributable to astronomical odds of sheer luck and accident that made us?

Quote: FrGamble

God is only reached through logic.

You mean circular logic.

'Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.'

In your case, you start with the faulty premise
that god exists. After that assumption, you can
logically build whatever suits you and the logic
will always work.

Quote: Nareed

It is precisely why the design of cars shows intelligence that we can conclude the "design" of living beings does not.

I'm sorry I am at a loss to understanding your point here or what you mean.

Quote:

It's not sad that I get answers you don't like,

No, its sad you get answers that aren't logical and don't fit the evidence around us.

Quote:

Who can tell. "The most exciting utterance in the course of scientific discovery is not 'Eureka!' but rather 'That's funny'," Isaac Asimov PhD. You know as in "That's funny, These galaxies are spinning at speeds that ought to tear them apart, yet they hold together." Or "That's funny, Maxwell's equations determine the speed of light when the source is on non-moving object, but out efforts to determine the motion of the Earth shows it's not moving at all!" Or "That's funny, this film I left unexposed on a drawer with this chunk of rock is fully exposed."

I agree.

Quote:

I'm sorry. I should have taken into account science's dismal record in explaining the world and universe around us... No, wait. I was thinking of abstract philosophizing. My bad.

Science does a great job of explaining the world and universe around us. It has a dismal and downright scary record when it attempts to philosophize. When science is not checked by morality or ethics it is the worst thing possible.

Quote: FrGamble

Science can only provide evidence to the likelihood of the universe having a beginning, that the universe is seemingly fine tuned for the existence of life as we know it,

Again?

Ok. Life exists despite the conditions in the universe, not because of them. Most places in the Solar System, never mind the universe, are hostile to life as we know it. To call it fine tuned for life because here and there we find pockets suitable for it, is to miss the forest because you bumped into a tree.

Quote:

that something cannot come from nothing (apparently up for debate), etc.

I need to re-read (or re-listen) To Dr. Lawrence Krauss' book, but he makes a good case that nothingness is so unstable it must perforce produce something.


Science teaches us that arguments need to be backed by evidence, obtained by rigorous observation. You can argue that evolution by means of natural selection is not possible, but you cannot back that up with evidence. Science also teaches us to distrust anecdotal evidence..

Here's an entirely related question: is MSG (monosodium glutamate) bad for most people?

Quote: Evenbob

In your case, you start with the faulty premise
that god exists. After that assumption, you can
logically build whatever suits you and the logic
will always work.

You must be projecting yourself unto me. You are the only that begins with a faulty premise. You always state unequivocally that God does not exist, even though you have no evidence, no logic, or no reason to state such a ridiculous claim.

My argument right now begins with: "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause." Is that faulty logic? Or put another way, "Something that does not necessarily exist must be contingent on something else for its existence." Is that a fair statement?

Quote: FrGamble

You must be projecting yourself unto me.

Nope, I'm sure there is no god, and without
god, you have no logic at all.

Quote:

"Everything that begins to exist must have a cause."

The universe has been here forever, there
is no beginning. You have trouble with
this because nothing in your faulty logic
deals with it.

Quote: FrGamble

I'm sorry I am at a loss to understanding your point here or what you mean.

If you had nothing but over-brewed coffee made in dirty machines with faulty filters, you wouldn't know you were drinking bad coffee, until you had some freshly brewed on a clean machine with a good filter.

Living beings are the bad version of the former. A car designed by a reputable firm is like fine, silky espresso freshly brewed at a high-end coffee house.

Quote:

No, its sad you get answers that aren't logical and don't fit the evidence around us.

You really take disagreement hard, don't you?

Quote:

Science does a great job of explaining the world and universe around us. It has a dismal and downright scary record when it attempts to philosophize.

Philosophizing is a wretched activity to begin with. Fortunately science doesn't usually engage in it. Philosophizing is making broad philosophical generalization contrary, or without regard, to evidence.

Quote:

When science is not checked by morality or ethics it is the worst thing possible.

You ought to know. The church has been unencumbered by ethical or moral considerations for most of its existence.

Quote: Nareed

On evolution and Christianity.

The central belief of Christianity involves the "fall" of Man (which always begs the question of why Man dragged Woman along to his ignominy, but I digress(*)) This involves a belief that two ever-virginal human beings existed for an indefinite time in some other-worldly corner of Mesopotamia, or somewhere in the Middle East, along with all life forms on Earth (or at least those visible to the naked eye).

Leaving the latter to the side for now (along with the talking snake and the magical tree and the lack of aging and the lack of sex, etc.), even the most cursory study of any biological population will tell you species don't evolve into exactly one couple at any time. It also tells you there are ancestors gong back eons, and that these can often be traced with a fair degree of precision.

So, how does a species of hominines in Africa produce a single couple of h. Sapiens who then live out their lives thousands of miles away? Even if the Garden of Eden was in Africa, how did two people who produce only two sons and lose one, manage to be the basis of today's billions-strong population?

Okay, first of all I do believe as I think science points out that we all have a common ancestor as a primordial Eve and Adam. Now I know the science is not saying that there was some primordial couple and many scientists point out that these common ancestors to every human being alive today might never have met. I believe that out of the developing humanoid species that were growing and moving about mostly in Africa there was a first couple that reached the point where God gave to them a human soul. There relationship with God at that time was perfect and they had committed no sin. Their friendship with God and closeness to Him spiritually meant there was no shame or guilt and they communed perfectly with nature and those around them. Eventually they broke that perfect relationship with God and each other through the temptation for power, control, and dominance. This temptation came from the devil who is real and the master of such lies and deceptions leading us to selfishness. This sin caused rifts between them and with nature and with God. They rebelled and were the first rebels without a cause. This spiritual perfectness was lost and the spiritual brokenness caused by their sin was inherited by their children. It is a mystery how this stain on our souls is indeed passed down, it might have to do more with our parents not being able to provide us with that perfect example of trust in God any longer that it passes unto to us in our upbringing as much as any type of "spiritual biology".

Jesus is not only our savior, who as God fulfills the justice that is due because of our sin, but at the same time the fulfillment of love who models for us the perfect obedience and proper use of freedom. This proper use of our freedom is to serve others and reject the strong temptations we still feel to dominate and control others and even God Himself.

Quote:

(**) As the "fall" consists of human beings attaining and exercising their rational faculties, I'm flabbergasted as to why 1) it's considered a "fall," and 2) why would anyone cherish a belief that requires we beg forgiveness for being rational.

It is a misuse of our greatest gifts of freedom, reason, and will. It is a fall back into animal status from which God elevated us from. It is not rational to chose to be led by our passions, emotions, and desires. It is the opposite of being rational and the height of folly to dominate or control others and to seek power that is not ours. We are here to help and serve each other.