Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 166 of 3694 (897258)
09-01-2022 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Phat
08-28-2022 12:42 PM


Re: Welcome Back GDR
Phat writes:
Percy writes:
And as soon as you start talking about evidence, those of us who have well-defined ideas of what constitutes actual evidence are going to chime in. For instance, Jesus's appearing to more than 500 people at once after his resurrection is often cited as evidence by believers, but these are just words on a page, just like the Book of Mormon is words on a page.
If we can't use words, what do you propose we use? Rocks? Or numbers?
You have cognitive issues.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 08-28-2022 12:42 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 167 of 3694 (897259)
09-01-2022 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by GDR
08-31-2022 7:09 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Sure, but we can observe evolutionary process, but we have no archeological record of how the property of caring for others came into existence.
Of course we do: the archeological record of evolution.
Evolution changes things - physical things, mental things, all parts of living things.
There is not a single part of living things that's "immune" to evolution. All parts of living things evolve and change.
For you to say "caring could not evolve" is, well, laughable in the face of the evidence.
You're free to have your opinion, but I don't think there's much further we can go if you insist something cannot be, when clearly it can.
There is no evidence to support a materialistic process or processes that initiated that property.
All the evidence of evolution is evidence that supports a materialistic process can initiate that property. Why wouldn't it be?
Yes it helps humans in general to survive but what evolutionary process would cause us to care if humans in some far off continent survive?
The evolutionary process where anything about living creatures can change as time and generations pile up.
This is a fact.
If you think there's something that's blocking "the ability to care" from evolving - it's up to you to show why it's impossible. When all the evidence clearly shows it is entirely possible.
At one point "breathing" was not possible - no living creature on the planet breathed air.
Now - breathing certainly is possible.
At one point "legs" didn't exist.
Now - legs exist.
At one point "brains" didn't exist (thinking - at all, about anything didn't exist.)
Now - brains exist and thinking exists.
At one point thinking existed, but "abstract thinking" did not exist.
Now - abstract thinking exists.
At one point "fear" didn't exist.
Now - fear exists.
At one point "anger" didn't exist.
Now - anger exists.
At one point "caring" didn't exist.
Now - caring exists.
At one point "love" didn't exist.
Now - love exists.
All done through evolution - the change in species over time.
There is nothing preventing any of this, and the evidence shows that it has all occurred naturally due to evolution.
People have scoured the planet looking for any other source of evidence for this sort of thing - and none has every been found except for evolution. And evolution explains everything we see. There is nothing we see that tells us "wow - evolution couldn't possibly do that!" There used to be... until we learned more and more and more... and now we understand how evolution did all the things we thought it couldn't. And now - we know that it's responsible for all changes to living creatures as they are not exact copies from their ancestors.
The following two statements are equally justified by evidence in Science:
"I understand how gravity keeps things falling down and pulled to the centre of the Earth. But I don't understand how the Sun's gravity pulls on Earth enough for Earth to orbit the Sun. The Sun is just so far away and doesn't look that big in the sky. There's no way the Earth orbits the Sun due to gravity alone."
"I understand how evolution creates different kinds of beaks in finches in the Galapagos islands. But I don't understand how evolution can change things enough to create "caring" when it didn't exist before. Caring is just such a mental aspect and seems so much more intricate than physical properties like beaks. There's no way that "caring" came about due to evolution alone."
In fact... there is more scientific evidence and confidence behind the Theory of Evolution that there is for the Theory of Gravity. That is... we know there are more areas about gravity where "our current understanding does not fill the gaps" then we have gaps in our knowledge for evolution.
Your personal unawareness (due to whatever reasons) doesn't make a difference to the progress that Science has made (and continues to make.)
How does sacrificing our own resources by sending our personal money to the impoverished in Africa help us individually survive, which is how raw evolution works?
I don't know if sacrificing our own resources to help Africa helps us individually survive. But I do know that this is irrelevant to how evolution works "raw" or otherwise.
What makes you think that sacrificing resources to help others requires a "survival" evolutionary reason?
The only way this requires a survival-evolutionary-reason is if it was the only way we survived. Since it's clearly not - then it's doesn't require such a reason. This could simply be a by-product of some-other trait that is required for survival. Or it could be "just a by-product" not attached to anything else at all.
We exist now - which means we survived - which means "we've done things that have helped us survive."
-this does not mean that all things we do must help us survive
-this does not mean that evolution only makes changes that are going to help us survive
I think you're very confused about how evolution works.
GDR writes:
Stile writes:
There was no plan for humans to care.
There wasn't even a plan for "humans."
..and you know that how?
Because there's no reason for there to be a plan.
And because we look a lot more like "just a by-product" in this universe than we do as "part of a plan."
If there's a plan - the plan is to make stars.
Agreed, and so the question is – why are we able to.
I don't know. I know "how" we're able to: evolution. But why? I don't know.
Maybe there is no answer to this question, and looking for an answer is foolish and immature.
Maybe there's an answer but we just don't know it (possibly "yet.")
Maybe... it's just a happy (for us... perhaps not so happy for all the things humans have caused to go extinct...) by-product. That's all.
And that's fascinating.
I mean, it's makes us all a hell of a lot more "special" than if a God made us - that's for sure.

Edited by Stile, : Grammars


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by GDR, posted 08-31-2022 7:09 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by GDR, posted 09-01-2022 3:29 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 168 of 3694 (897260)
09-01-2022 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by GDR
08-31-2022 8:09 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
The thing is the discussion is about having a moral or loving motivation as opposed to a discussion about simply the best course of action.
My point for all this was to show that "having a moral or loving motivation" can come from a mundane, or "materialistic" (if you prefer) environment.
If we want "positive outcomes" and put our motivation into "attempting to get the most positive outcomes... as defined by the ones affected by those outcomes" then this is a mundane way to create a "loving motivation" or to "follow Love." No inner conscience telling us what's Right/Wrong is necessary - we just ask those we are going to affect. And if we can't ask, we guess, and be humble enough to allow those who are affected to correct our assumptions for future situations.
In one sense it is about what does this so called consciousness want from us and I suppose my signature is a not bad partial answer - humble justice and mercy. However, the broader answer is simply sacrificial love.
I'm really lost on what you're referring to as the "so called consciousness" - God?
My point is that there is no "so called consciousness".
My descriptions show that there's no need - it's all internal to us anyway.
It's quite possible that someone goes through this process without understand that they're actually doing each step... just as you agreed with my description after I wrote it all out. And then, such a person may ascribe certain aspects of this process to some sort of "so called consciousness" - but that isn't proof of anything other than "not all humans are interested in the details of morality" and "humans are very creative and imaginative."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by GDR, posted 08-31-2022 8:09 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by GDR, posted 09-01-2022 4:25 PM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 169 of 3694 (897265)
09-01-2022 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Phat
08-31-2022 8:04 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Phat writes:
Idolatry.
Nothing wrong with that.
Phat writes:
Incest. Like all Ancient Near East (ANE) pantheons, the Canaanite pantheon was incestuous.
There are biological reasons to avoid incest. I don't see how that applies to a pantheon.
Phat writes:
Adultery.
Ever hear of David, the adulterer and one of God's best buddies? Ever hear of Solomon, with his 700 wives and 300 cocubines? That's somewhere in the neighborhood of adultery, isn't it?
Phat writes:
Child sacrifice.
Ever hear of Abraham? (Genesis 22)
Phat writes:
Homosexuality.
Nothing wrong with that.
Phat writes:
Bestiality.
*shrug* Other than consent, what's the problem? (And we don't ask for consent when we eat the animals either.)
Phat writes:
Probably the ultimate sexual depravity is intercourse with animals.
I'd be interested in seeing how that probability is calculated.
Phat writes:
It is not morally wrong for a holy, lawgiving God to punish those who willfully, flagrantly, and unrepentantly break His laws and pollute and degrade human society.
Of course it is.
And it's also morally wrong for Him to let his buddies go scot free for the same behavior.
Phat writes:
Men are quick to call for justice when they are offended, but they hypocritically criticize God for exercising justice against sinners.
Nothing hypocritical about it. "Sinners" is a concept made up by an arbitrary and hypocritical God.
Phat writes:
The reprobate nations had to be destroyed because they were polluting the innocence and purity of the chosen ones.
But the "chosen ones" were neither innocent nor pure. That's practically the theme of the whole Bible.
Phat writes:
I know you will use Nazi Germany or even America herself in order to show that such an attitude towards other nations and practices is simply a prelude to nationalism and exclusivism, for example.
Yes. Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot so we don't have to do it.
Phat writes:
So there are arguments both pro and con.
So make some. Go ahead and tell us how Hitler had to punish the Jews for polluting Aryan society.
Phat writes:
Consider, however, if there were a city of men (humans) who demanded to have sexual relations with your guests. Would they have that right?
Consider the corollary question: Would you be justified in destroying every man, woman and child in that city?
Phat writes:
And as for child sacrifice, thats downright evil no matter what culture you are from.
See Abraham (Genesis 22).
You've done a fine job of showing what idiots your apologists are.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Phat, posted 08-31-2022 8:04 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 170 of 3694 (897266)
09-01-2022 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Phat
08-31-2022 8:17 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Phat writes:
You can't know God without knowing Jesus.
And you can't know Jesus by rejecting everything the Bible says about Him.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Phat, posted 08-31-2022 8:17 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Phat, posted 09-01-2022 10:42 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 171 of 3694 (897267)
09-01-2022 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Phat
09-01-2022 7:48 AM


Re: Phat still does not understand basics of argument
Phat writes:
This is a Faith topic. I shall proudly and loudly proclaim my faith...
quote:
Rule 4. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
That doesn't let faith topics off the hook. You need reasoned arguments, not just loud proclamations.
Phat writes:
scientific proof
Don't say proof.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Phat, posted 09-01-2022 7:48 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 172 of 3694 (897268)
09-01-2022 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Phat
08-31-2022 8:17 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Phat writes:
You can't know God without knowing Jesus.
Hi Phat
That statement is contrary to my reason for starting this thread. I had looked at a thread on this forum and was troubled by the ideas expressed in the thread about choosing which god to follow.
My point was that God as we call him reaches out to everyone, regardless if you are Muslim, Jew, Christian, atheist and then added that even Hitler loved his dog. (I was not claiming that Hitler was an atheist. I doubt he ever thought about any deity.)
I used the term "cosmic intelligence" simply so that it would apply to everyone.
For that matter even when we look at Jesus we have seen many different understandings of what God is telling us through Jesus. It ranges from so-called holy wars to absolute pacifism.
I contend that the scriptural message is reasonably clear. Having faith in God or Jesus is not about giving intellectual assent to any particular doctrine but about giving heart assent to loving sacrificially. That is where our faith should lie.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Phat, posted 08-31-2022 8:17 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by AZPaul3, posted 09-01-2022 3:00 PM GDR has replied
 Message 177 by Taq, posted 09-01-2022 3:39 PM GDR has replied
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 09-02-2022 8:59 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 173 of 3694 (897269)
09-01-2022 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Tangle
09-01-2022 4:52 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
Tangle writes:
You've made a number of unevidenced and/or evidentially wrong assertions, but your your core claim seems to be that altruism can't be explained by the natural forces that have shaped all life - including all human life - here.
I don’t believe that I have said that there isn’t an explanation, or that it can’t be explained. I do contend though that the explanations aren’t scientific. They are observations that altruism has spread, at least in many cases, within various populations. We disagree about whether that has occurred through completely materialistic means, or whether in addition there is a cosmic intelligence that influences the result. It looks the same either way so it comes down to belief.
Tangle writes:
You say - without evidence - that altruistic behaviour is a supernatural, ie god given, human trait. And by god, you mean the Christian god of your particular born-into belief.
The point I’m trying to make in this thread is that altruistic behaviour comes from cosmic intelligence. Yes, I’m a Christian. I grew up in a middle of the road Christian family and was taken to church however, I grew away from all of that and decide over 20 years later to sort what I believed about it all. Incidentally, my Christianity has evolved considerably the deeper I got into the subject. I guess I’m now sort of a cross between a John Polkinghorne – Rob Bell kind of Christian. CS Lewis and NT Wright among numerous have also influenced my thinking.
Tangle writes:
In making this claim, you dismiss the obvious problem that altruistic behaviour is caused by brain activity that can be observed. And like all our other behaviours, this is governed by genetics, environment and culture. There is absolutely no reason to believe that altruism is the result of a different process to all other biological processes.
OK, but none of that precludes the possibility of a god meme influencing our altruistic ideas. The observations would still look the same.
Tangle writes:
Altruistic behaviour is seen in many animals particularly our close evolutionary relatives so, there's no doubt that it's an evolved trait like all others.
I’m really glad you brought that up. I have no problem with that except once again my belief is that there is an external intelligent consciousness that influences that as well. I recently read a book called Where is Love by Hugh Broadent, who was a British vicar very involved in the animal rights movement to the degree he became a vegetarian. (I figure I should be doing the same but so far there is no indication of that happening.) Animals have consciousness and IMHO the god meme touches all consciousness. Also I believe, as Paul says in his letter to the Ephesians, that the renewal of our world is for all of creation.
Tangle writes:
The wiki article shows how altruism has been adopted by many religions, it is not simply a Christian claim and of course it's not even a religious claim. Atheists are not devoid of altruism. Altruism is a behaviour spectrum found - with exceptions and varying strengths - in all humans (and other animals.) universally. It's an emotion like all others.
That is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make.
Tangle writes:
(It's also interesting to note that you make no claim over the negative motions - anger, hate, fear etc.)
I believe that we have been given free will which means we have to take the bad with the good.
Tangle writes:
So the only religious argument left is that some supernatural being way back at the beginning of creation forced evolution along a path that would develop animal brains to incorporate emotions such as empathy and altruism. (And hate, greed, anger, prejudice, acquisitiveness, selfishness, competitiveness, contempt, shame etc)
OK, but that still doesn’t preclude the possibility of that supernatural entity continuing to influence us to choose love over hate.
Tangle writes:
Rationalists would simply apply Occam's Razor and cut the god intervention out of the equation as unnecessary. All other emotions have evolved naturally, why is a god needed?
They would also point to the total lack of evidence for the existence of any god(s).
Let’s look at Occam’s Razor. You contend that a nearly infinite number of mindless processes essentially by chance has evolved into conscious sentient life. I contend that there is one creative intelligence, not restricted by the one dimension of time as we know it, that alone is responsible for our existence. Which is the simplest explanation.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Tangle, posted 09-01-2022 4:52 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by PaulK, posted 09-01-2022 3:00 PM GDR has replied
 Message 178 by Tangle, posted 09-01-2022 3:45 PM GDR has replied
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 09-02-2022 9:02 AM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 174 of 3694 (897270)
09-01-2022 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by GDR
09-01-2022 2:29 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
quote:
I don’t believe that I have said that there isn’t an explanation, or that it can’t be explained. I do contend though that the explanations aren’t scientific.
There are certainly scientific elements there, even if you discount the cultural factors.
quote:
The point I’m trying to make in this thread is that altruistic behaviour comes from cosmic intelligence
And where does this cosmic intelligence get it’s morality from? Or doesn’t it have one?
Regardless, I think we would want rather better evidence than your refusal to understand the alternatives.
quote:
Let’s look at Occam’s Razor. You contend that a nearly infinite number of mindless processes essentially by chance has evolved into conscious sentient life. I contend that there is one creative intelligence, not restricted by the one dimension of time as we know it, that alone is responsible for our existence. Which is the simplest explanation
The “nearly infinite” is something you made up in an attempt to rig the argument. In reality, by Occam’s Razor known natural processes should be preferred over any number of assumed entities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by GDR, posted 09-01-2022 2:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by GDR, posted 09-01-2022 4:41 PM PaulK has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 175 of 3694 (897271)
09-01-2022 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by GDR
09-01-2022 1:09 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Having faith in God or Jesus is not about giving intellectual assent to any particular doctrine but about giving heart assent to loving sacrificially
Again, please, "loving sacrificially", what is that?
And "giving heart assent to loving sacrificially" means to do what?
And I don't follow the doctrine part. If one agrees with whatever this "heart assent" line means, is that not assenting intellectually to a very specific position?
That whole sentence seems at odds with the usual pronouncements of the priests who insist faith is to make the deity the center of action and worship. You seem to take that away.
Salvation by faith or works? Are you starting your own cult?

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by GDR, posted 09-01-2022 1:09 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by GDR, posted 09-01-2022 6:01 PM AZPaul3 has not replied
 Message 2932 by Phat, posted 09-16-2023 3:16 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 176 of 3694 (897272)
09-01-2022 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Stile
09-01-2022 10:23 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
Stile writes:
Of course we do: the archeological record of evolution.
Evolution changes things - physical things, mental things, all parts of living things.
There is not a single part of living things that's "immune" to evolution. All parts of living things evolve and change.
For you to say "caring could not evolve" is, well, laughable in the face of the evidence.
You're free to have your opinion, but I don't think there's much further we can go if you insist something cannot be, when clearly it can.
I pretty much dealt with this in my reply to Tangle which I just finished. I believe that caring does evolve but I also believe that there is an external loving intelligence that is the root behind it and continues to influence us in that direction. However ,I see the evolution of caring as distinct from physical evolution.
Stile writes:
All the evidence of evolution is evidence that supports a materialistic process can initiate that property.
What is the physical evidence for that other than just the observation that it happened? With Darwin’s evolutionary theory we have all the archeological evidence to go on.
Stile writes:
The evolutionary process where anything about living creatures can change as time and generations pile up.
This is a fact.
If you think there's something that's blocking "the ability to care" from evolving - it's up to you to show why it's impossible. When all the evidence clearly shows it is entirely possible.
I haven’t said that it’s not possible. I can’t show that it’s impossible. Can you show that it’s not possible for there to be an outside influencer?
Stile writes:
At one point "breathing" was not possible - no living creature on the planet breathed air.
Now - breathing certainly is possible.
At one point "legs" didn't exist.
Now - legs exist.
At one point "brains" didn't exist (thinking - at all, about anything didn't exist.)
Now - brains exist and thinking exists.
At one point thinking existed, but "abstract thinking" did not exist.
Now - abstract thinking exists.
At one point "fear" didn't exist.
Now - fear exists.
At one point "anger" didn't exist.
Now - anger exists.
At one point "caring" didn't exist.
Now - caring exists.
At one point "love" didn't exist.
Now - love exists.
All done through evolution - the change in species over time.
There is nothing preventing any of this, and the evidence shows that it has all occurred naturally due to evolution.
People have scoured the planet looking for any other source of evidence for this sort of thing - and none has every been found except for evolution. And evolution explains everything we see. There is nothing we see that tells us "wow - evolution couldn't possibly do that!" There used to be... until we learned more and more and more... and now we understand how evolution did all the things we thought it couldn't. And now - we know that it's responsible for all changes to living creatures as they are not exact copies from their ancestors.
Yes, evolution is an incredible process. I simply contend that when we look at it in whole it gives the appearance of design, which requires a designer. All of the evidence is physical and you presumably, (I could be wrong about this), that there is nothing but the physical. I concept of their being a cosmic intelligence does not present physical evidence.
Stile writes:
I think you're very confused about how evolution works.
I don’t pretend to know how evolution works. I just accept that it does. We can see physical things happening and changing in a material sense. We can see that societies, families and individuals do impact the ideas and behaviours of others. However, you and others simply keep presenting that as evidence that there is nothing outside of our physical world.
I have had a subscription to Scientific American for years . I have a copy from several years back in which the headline on the cover read: “Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter – An entire universe may be woven silently with our own”. On the front page of the article itself claims that: “A shadow cosmos, woven silently into our own, may have its own rich inner life”.
The article approaches it with scientific evidence, that primarily results from their study on WIMPS. (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles.) The science beyond that went over my head, but there is evidence that there is more than what we are able to perceive with our 5 senses.
Stile writes:
Because there's no reason for there to be a plan.
And because we look a lot more like "just a by-product" in this universe than we do as "part of a plan."
If there's a plan - the plan is to make stars.
We perceive the universe as pretty much infinitely large. However, science also tells us that it was once infinitely small. I can’t prove that there is a plan. I do think that the world appears to be designed requiring a designer, that the world is governed by physical laws such as gravity requiring a law giver, that we have beings that understand right and wrong requiring something beyond ourselves etc. Based on those beliefs it seems to me that there most likely is a plan.
GDR writes:
Agreed, and so the question is ��� why are we able to.
Stile writes:
I don't know. I know "how" we're able to: evolution. But why? I don't know.
Maybe there is no answer to this question, and looking for an answer is foolish and immature.
Maybe there's an answer but we just don't know it (possibly "yet.")
Maybe... it's just a happy (for us... perhaps not so happy for all the things humans have caused to go extinct...) by-product. That's all.
And that's fascinating.
I mean, it's makes us all a hell of a lot more "special" than if a God made us - that's for sure.
Maybe there is an answer, and the starting point would be a greater reality than we are able to observe. I remember reading at one point that we are an emergent property of a greater reality.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Stile, posted 09-01-2022 10:23 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Stile, posted 09-01-2022 4:40 PM GDR has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 177 of 3694 (897273)
09-01-2022 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by GDR
09-01-2022 1:09 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
That statement is contrary to my reason for starting this thread. I had looked at a thread on this forum and was troubled by the ideas expressed in the thread about choosing which god to follow.

My point was that God as we call him reaches out to everyone, regardless if you are Muslim, Jew, Christian, atheist and then added that even Hitler loved his dog. (I was not claiming that Hitler was an atheist. I doubt he ever thought about any deity.)

I used the term "cosmic intelligence" simply so that it would apply to everyone.
I would describe these more as bald assertions instead of points.
What exactly are we supposed to say? A person says they believe X, Y, and Z. Ok, good on ya. Now what? Either you choose to believe the assertions made by a religion or you don't. I don't see any path that leads to these assertions, just a blunt acceptance that they are true.
What we are seeing is humans telling other humans what God wants. We don't hear from God himself, or any other gods, deities, or supernatural entities. We just hear other people. What to do with this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by GDR, posted 09-01-2022 1:09 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by GDR, posted 09-02-2022 4:52 PM Taq has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 178 of 3694 (897274)
09-01-2022 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by GDR
09-01-2022 2:29 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
So your entire argument comes down to this
OK, but that still doesn’t preclude the possibility of that supernatural entity continuing to influence us to choose love over hate.
To get this far you've accepted evolution and discarded Christianity as the necessary answer, yes? Any god will do but you have a preference for yours?
So we have Deism. A god that created everything billions of years ago and created a program to make people from base chemicals over a few billions of years, on a single planet amongst unknown trillions of others. Gosh we're special, but it does seem like a waste of an infinite universe doesn't it?
Well ok, no one can prove that wrong, it's just that there's no evidence for it. We're an awful long way from a god that intervenes in everyday life, but we're past that specific theism now.
Let’s look at Occam’s Razor. You contend that a nearly infinite number of mindless processes essentially by chance has evolved into conscious sentient life. I contend that there is one creative intelligence, not restricted by the one dimension of time as we know it, that alone is responsible for our existence. Which is the simplest explanation.
If you invoke an intelligent creator to explain the complexity of life, the universe and everything, you make something necessarily more complex. Hence Occam slices it away.
He can do that because he knows that every other process ever discovered in our universe occurs naturally. There have been no godlike interventions. Also, since the enlightenment, at every point where god was required by religious to step in and explain something science proved it wrong, geocentrism, immutability of species, age of earth etc.
And in any case, the causeless cause is no answer to anything. It leaves the question unanswered.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by GDR, posted 09-01-2022 2:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by GDR, posted 09-02-2022 5:16 PM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 179 of 3694 (897275)
09-01-2022 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Stile
09-01-2022 10:44 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
Stile writes:
My point for all this was to show that "having a moral or loving motivation" can come from a mundane, or "materialistic" (if you prefer) environment.
If we want "positive outcomes" and put our motivation into "attempting to get the most positive outcomes... as defined by the ones affected by those outcomes" then this is a mundane way to create a "loving motivation" or to "follow Love." No inner conscience telling us what's Right/Wrong is necessary - we just ask those we are going to affect. And if we can't ask, we guess, and be humble enough to allow those who are affected to correct our assumptions for future situations.
I agree that moral or loving motivation can be passed along to others. The example again, that I’ve used several times, is the idea of letting someone into traffic ahead of yourself and then they are more likely to do the same thing for someone else. Also, as in this example we don’t really have the opportunity. If we see someone drowning do we jump into try and save them risking our own life? Again, no time to ask. Again, that does not exclude an external toot.
Stile writes:
I'm really lost on what you're referring to as the "so called consciousness" - God?
I assuming that term as I'm trying to stay away from specific faiths. God implies Christianity or even Judaism.
Stile writes:
My point is that there is no "so called consciousness".
Yes, that is your belief.
Stile writes:
descriptions show that there's no need - it's all internal to us anyway.
It's quite possible that someone goes through this process without understand that they're actually doing each step... just as you agreed with my description after I wrote it all out. And then, such a person may ascribe certain aspects of this process to some sort of "so called consciousness" - but that isn't proof of anything other than "not all humans are interested in the details of morality" and "humans are very creative and imaginative."
I agree. The idea of an external loving consciousness is non-scientific but much more philosophical.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Stile, posted 09-01-2022 10:44 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Taq, posted 09-01-2022 5:41 PM GDR has replied
 Message 192 by Stile, posted 09-02-2022 9:18 AM GDR has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 180 of 3694 (897276)
09-01-2022 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by GDR
09-01-2022 3:29 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
I believe that caring does evolve but I also believe that there is an external loving intelligence that is the root behind it and continues to influence us in that direction. However ,I see the evolution of caring as distinct from physical evolution.
I don't have a problem with you believing whatever you'd like.
But this sort of idea is a discussion-ender for me.
If you don't want to deal with reality - what the evidence is telling us - then I'm not going to be able to say anything on a simple forum that will ever convince you otherwise.
What you're saying is equivalent to:
"I do believe rocks crumble from mountains and some end up underwater but I also believe that there is an external intelligence that is the root behind rocks being underwater and it continues to influence rocks in that direction."
That, as well, is something that I cannot argue with.
What is the physical evidence for that other than just the observation that it happened?
Over 160 years of archeological evidence.
Even more, really... but at least that last 160 years (since Darwin) has been focused in the more-correct direction.
I can't explain this to you in a forum post.
All I can say is that all this evidence shows that evolution occurs, it affects living things and it affects all aspects of living things.
Consider gravity - you've likely heard about Dark Matter and Dark Energy? These are aspects of gravity that currently have us stumped. We know they have "something" to do with gravity, but they don't fit "well" within our current understanding. This doesn't mean Newton's Theory or Einsteins Theory is wrong... it means there's more to learn, and once we learn it a bunch of other "kind of strange" areas of the Theory of Gravity will fall into place.
Now consider evolution - there is no more Dark Matter or Dark Energy in The Theory of Evolution. There used to be areas like this... but we figured them out and grew the theory accordingly. Which is why Darwin's theory is only a pale shadow of the one we use today.
If you type "mechanisms of biological evolution" into Google Scholar... you don't get 10 articles or 1000. There are over 4 million hits to this. Understand all that, and I'm sure you'll see. But I don't understand all that. I'm sure that no single person on the planet is an expert in all of it.
Here's the basic concept:
quote:
Mechanisms of evolution
Key points:
  • When a population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for a gene, it is not evolving, and allele frequencies will stay the same across generations.
  • There are five basic Hardy-Weinberg assumptions: no mutation, random mating, no gene flow, infinite population size, and no selection.
  • If the assumptions are not met for a gene, the population may evolve for that gene (the gene's allele frequencies may change).
  • Mechanisms of evolution correspond to violations of different Hardy-Weinberg assumptions. They are: mutation, non-random mating, gene flow, finite population size (genetic drift), and natural selection.

Do you understand what's going on there? It's easier to say when evolution is not happening than it is to list all the ways it can happen.
All the ways evolution can happen are listed by identifying when "evolution is not happening because we don't see this".
And these are only categories of the ways evolution can happen. There's no room to list them all here.
But, each and every single one of them, with their evidence, is written about, studied, and understood within those 4 million scholarly hits.
People dedicate their entire lives to studying and being-an-expert in a small fraction of those papers.
At some point, either you trust the self-correcting and corruption-protecting ways of science to be correct... or you can start to believe in conspiracy theories. It's up to you.
Remember... USA has scientists. Europe has scientists. China has scientists. Japan, Australia, Iran, Turkey.... Probably every country on the planet. All with differing religious beliefs, politics and family values. Yet they all agree on science. If that's not a reason to trust in science... I don't know what is.
Can you show that it’s not possible for there to be an outside influencer?
Can you show that it's not possible for there to be an outside influencer moving rocks underwater?
Of course not - buy why would anyone have any reason to do this, if we understand how rocks get underwater so well? (Plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions, other geological mechanics...)
Why would anyone have any reason to suggest there's an outside influencer acting on biological evolution when we understand evolution so well?
I'll tell you what, though: If you ever do find evidence that suggests an outside influencer exists, or is even needed... there's a Nobel prize in it for you and you'll become the most famous scientist of them all!
-this goes for evolution, rocks-being-underwater, and all other aspects of reality as well
Simply put, this point exists - but has no persuasive power.
Just like considering Santa Claus puts rocks underwater has no persuasive power. Sure - can't disprove it... but with what we know there's no need to suggest it.
All of the evidence is physical and you presumably, (I could be wrong about this), that there is nothing but the physical. I concept of their being a cosmic intelligence does not present physical evidence.
I think you're maybe using the wrong word. But science deals with the non-physical all the time.
Types of forces
Please note the two main categories "Contact" and "Action-at-a-Distance"
Those listed in the Action-at-a-Distance are non-physical forces. That is, they do not contact things. They affect physical objects, but the forces themselves are non-contact... non-physical.
However, you and others simply keep presenting that as evidence that there is nothing outside of our physical world.
Science has been dealing with things outside our physical world (Gravity, Magnetism...) for centuries.
Science is well aware that things exist outside the physical world.
Science doesn't care if something is physical or not. It only cares is there's evidence to show that it actually exists. That's all.
The science beyond that went over my head, but there is evidence that there is more than what we are able to perceive with our 5 senses.
Only a tiny amount of extremist-atheists would limit themselves to thinking that "the physical is all there is!" When, clearly, it is not.
Scientists have also known that we have more than 5 senses for a long time. There's no consensus yet... but scientists have evidence-based arguments for humans having between 22 and 33 senses.
Perhaps it is not science that is stuck on a single idea and refusing to move into uncharted territory as new information comes to light?

Edited by Stile, : Heh... forgot the words "no more" in "Now consider evolution - there is no more Dark Matter or Dark Energy"... and it made reading that area very confusing. So I added in the words.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by GDR, posted 09-01-2022 3:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by GDR, posted 09-02-2022 6:10 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024