The God Vacuum: America and the barbarian hordes

[Gunny]

Science simply doesn't have the tools to prove/disprove a Deity.

It's a bit like using a hammer to put in a new windsheild, it just won't really work out all that well.

I understand, and that is my point. If you look at my posts, I have not argued against science nor for religion. My argument is against those who attempt to misuse science to support an argument that it does not.

 

[no1tovote4]

I understand, and that is my point. If you look at my posts, I have not argued against science nor for religion. My argument is against those who attempt to misuse science to support an argument that it does not.

My post was in support of that point, not in counterpoint to a perceived point. I was attempting to buttress and strengthen your position with support.

 

[Nienna]

Not necessarily. It depends on the idea of the 7 days. How long is a day to somebody who one blink passes in 2000 years?

I don't know how long it takes God to blink. I rather think He doesn't blink. However, a day is a day. The context of Genesis makes it perfectly clear that He is talking about 24-hour days.

Could evolution have been the tool used by a Deity to create life? Could the description of 7 days have been a mistranslation of time compared to an infinite and a temporal being? I think it could, one does not disprove the other.

It depends on if one is willing to compromise what is clearly stated in the Bible. People are not willing to compromise "science," but are always looking for other ways to "translate" or "interpret" the Bible. If one accepts the Divine Authority of the Bible, it seems to me that one would not be willing to mold it to fit another theory. The Bible, as is, does contradict many of the popularly-accepted scientific theories.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't know how long it takes God to blink. I rather think He doesn't blink. However, a day is a day. The context of Genesis makes it perfectly clear that He is talking about 24-hour days.



It depends on if one is willing to compromise what is clearly stated in the Bible. People are not willing to compromise "science," but are always looking for other ways to "translate" or "interpret" the Bible. If one accepts the Divine Authority of the Bible, it seems to me that one would not be willing to mold it to fit another theory. The Bible, as is, does contradict many of the popularly-accepted scientific theories.

How one "interprets" many of the things in the Bible changes many of their processes in belief.

Anyway, the context doesn't "make that clear". It simply states a separation between dark and light. It doesn't state that it was a 24 hour period. In the Bible it does state that 2000 years pass in a "blink of an eye" for the Deity. It therefore may place in context the length of time in another place of the Bible.

Clearly a Deity of such power could, in a "24 hour period" make billions of years pass if It wished to do so. So even being strictly interpretive it may just be a descirption of evolution, sped up... It is entirely possible that such evidence of evolution could simply be evidence of the tool the Creator used rather than supposed evidence that the Bible was inaccurate or they were being "tricked" somehow.

One cannot "prove" the existence or non-existence of the Deity in such a way. One cannot even "prove" to me, a person who is not a Christian, that it is evidence that the Deity as described in the Bible doesn't exist.

 

[Gunny]

My post was in support of that point, not in counterpoint to a perceived point. I was attempting to buttress and strengthen your position with support.

Understood. Just wasn't sure how far back you read.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Nienna
I have thought long and hard about this argument. As you say, it is truly a powerful one.

Nienna, I’m glad to see you find it so thought provoking : )

And since you thought so much about it you deserve a more detailed explanation of the argument.

You know... when people think about intelligent life, they immediately think of the brain. But the human nervous system is only one of the many organic system required for us to do our most human activity: think.

Complex, intelligent beings also need a lot of auxiliary systems to keep them alive: the cardiovascular system, the respiratory system, etc etc.

All this highly sophisticated biological systems that give support to life are required for intelligent life to exist, as far as humans know. Only much lower forms of life can exist without them.

Theists posit that an intelligent being can exist without a brain, heart, lungs, stomach, etc etc, and this is an extraordinary claim that is in disagreement with everything we humans know about intelligent life.

Such statement needs to be backed up by facts.

But this is not the end of the story, Nienna. The claim made by theists is even more extraordinary than that of intelligent life without any organic system.

They posit the existence of an intelligent being who is not made up of matter.

The bizarre nature of the former claim pales in comparison with this one.

All life forms, from virus to humans are made up of matter.

Scientist cannot even conceive any life form without the high degree of molecular organization provided by matter.

The statement that life (let alone intelligent life) can exist without being made up of matter is absolutely shocking. This is also an extraordinary statement that needs to be backed up.

But there is even more to this story Nienna (this is getting a bit tiring isn’t it? ).

Theists make an even more extraodinary statement than that of life without matter.

They say this intelligent being isn't even made up of energy.

The universe is composed of matter and energy. Everything found in our universe is either in the form of matter or energy.

God is not made up of matter. God is not made up of energy. Then, the logical conclusion is that God is made up of nothing.

Can there be another element in the Universe, besides matter and energy, still undetected by humans?

Of course it can, but to posit the existence of an intelligent being made up of that element before the element itself is detected is absolutely irresponsible and cannot be taken seriously.

And the real problem here is that theists argue that this kind of spiritual substance will never be detected by human technology because it does not belong in our physical universe.

This is the point where skeptics like Bully and I seriously suspect that when theists talk about spiritual substances they are in fact talking of nothing.

They talk about spiritual substances but they might just as well be talking about substances made of nothing.

To conceive an intelligent being made up of energy like electromagnetic radiation (light), electricity or magnetism is already far beyond the wildest scientific speculation, so to concieve an intelligent being made up of an unknown “substance” that doesn’t even belong in our physical Universe cannot be taken seriously, Nienna.

If theists want to be taken seriously on rational grounds they have to present evidence to back up their series of extraordinary claims that intelligent life can exist without being composed of:

1) - sophisticated biological systems like the human nervous system,

2) – matter,

3) - energy

and also present some evidence regarding the spooky substance this being is made of.

 

[José]

As I said before, the fact that such a powerful argument remains almost entirely forgotten in debates like this is mind-boggling.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Nienna
Your presentation of the two opposing points was outstanding, in my opinion.

Even if only you understood them, the series of posts have already served their purpose, Nienna : )

Originally posted by Nienna
However, I do disagree with your conclusion, that materialistic "ontology" (see, I can learn! ) is a proven fact. If all morality has its basis in the human desire for survival, how does one account for acts of altruism? Given a famine, and humanistic morality, why would a young man feel that it is "right" to give up a rare portion of food to an elderly woman?

Nienna

I also reject all these recent exagerations made by evolutionary biologists who affirm that every little thing a human being does in his life has to be explained by an evolutionary trait.

From eating habits to saving the life of a relative, everything must have a specific gene explaining that particular behavior.

Humans strive much more to save the life of a first cousin than a second one because the former is more closely related.

I reject all these exagerations of evolutionary biology in the strongest terms possible.

So you are (more or less) barking up the wrong tree : )

But I do believe the ontological origin of human morality resides in ourselves.

I believe human morality is a natural outgrowth of our ability to reason.

As our prehistoric ancestors started reasoning about the events that surrounded them they started making value judgements on these events and these value judgements led to the development of the first moral codes followed by ancient human societies.

I kindly ask you to notice the stark difference between my claim that morality is an outgrowth of our rational minds and the extreme genetic determinism preached by many evolutionary biologists. In fact, it's not even the same subject : )

 

[José]

Originally posted by Nienna
The other issue I would like to address here is the issue of intelligence and/or information. These things exist outside of matter, are not dependent upon matter for their existence, are not, themselves material. What is an "idea"? You cannot hold it in your hand, smell it, taste it. Yet, would you claim that ideas do not exist?

If you believe intelligence can exist outside of matter you’re going against two centuries of development in neurology, Nienna.

All the evidence gathered in modern neurology indicate that our personal selves cannot survive our deaths.

My personal self (the “José” who is debating with you here) is an extraordinarily complex electrochemical phenomenon that happens inside my brain whose details we still don't fully understand and that will be destroyed at the moment of my death (in a process called decerebration).

The end of this electrochemical phenomenon will mean, almost certainly, the end of my personal self, since it is a manifestation of this electrochemical phenomenon. So life probably cannot exist outside matter.

All neurological evidences point to this direction, Nienna.

I doubt there is an immaterial substratum of my personal self that will survive the death of my body and continue to exist somewhere in the Universe. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I doubt there is an immaterial substratum of my personal self that will survive the death of my body and continue to exist somewhere in the Universe. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

But though science cannot prove it, science cannot disprove it either.

 

[dilloduck]

If you believe intelligence can exist outside of matter you’re going against two centuries of development in neurology, Nienna.

All the evidence gathered in modern neurology indicate that our personal selves cannot survive our deaths.

My personal self (the “José” who is debating with you here) is an extraordinary complex electrochemical phenomenon that happens inside my brain whose details we still not fully understand and that will be destroyed in the moment of my death (in a process called decerebration).

The end of this electrochemical phenomenon will mean, almost certainly, the end of my personal self, so life cannot exist outside matter.

All neurological evidences point to this direction, Nienna.

I doubt there is an immaterial substratum of my personal self that will survive the death of my body and continue to exist somewhere in the Universe. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Energy cannot be destroyed.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Theories are made up of facts and the relationships between facts. However, they are not facts in and of themselves.

I don't think that Darin was arguing that mystical revelation is "fact"; he was, I think, asserting that evolution is not fact, yet people call it such. Why do materialists have such a problem understanding people who believe in God (who is not empirically observed), when they themselves have faith in the supposition that matter is ALL there is. This supposition is equally unobserved.

Evolution is a fact. Its processes and the relationships between them have been observed, repeatedly, over time. Evolutionary theory has been validated, independently and repeatedly over time.

But facts are not fixed in stone. With the discovery of new information and knowledge, they can be, and frequently are, subject to change. This is a basic requirement for the validation of human knowledge. To insist otherwise is to insist upon absolute certainty which, given the limits of human conception and perception, is beyond our grasp.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Very interesting, and I agree that, many times, we attempt codify "rights" based on our observation of what has been wrongly done to people.

However, I disagree that "rights" come from "wrongs." Rights stand alone. Wrongs can only be understood in the light of rights. Wrongs are the perversion or opposition of rights.

If we did not have an innate understanding of what is right, we would have no basis for considering something to be wrong.

As a species, we have no moral instinct...an "innate understanding of what is right". Morality is learned, to a greater extent by some, a lesser extent by others.

Ground breaking work regarding moral development was done in the late 1950's and early 1960's by <a href=http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm>Lawrence Kohlberg</a>, which has since been expanded upon.

 

[Bullypulpit]

But, when new discoveries are made, new experiences... um... experienced , what really changes? Our knowledge changes; what IS does not change.

New knowledge can change our perception of what IS. Which is why we can't really be certain we know a thing as it truly IS. We can, however, know things as they have COME TO BE, with a reasonably high degree of confidence. But with the knowledge that that can change with new discoveries.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

New knowledge can change our perception of what IS. Which is why we can't really be certain we know a thing as it truly IS. We can, however, know things as they have COME TO BE, with a reasonably high degree of confidence. But with the knowledge that that can change with new discoveries.

Right, our perceptions may change, but reality remains the same. This "perception is reality" stuff is postmodernist dreck.

 

[dilloduck]

Evolution is a fact. Its processes and the relationships between them have been observed, repeatedly, over time. Evolutionary theory has been validated, independently and repeatedly over time.

But facts are not fixed in stone. With the discovery of new information and knowledge, they can be, and frequently are, subject to change. This is a basic requirement for the validation of human knowledge. To insist otherwise is to insist upon absolute certainty which, given the limits of human conception and perception, is beyond our grasp.

So with facts that are not fixed in stone and subject to change, we just pretend that we know what's going on for awhile until we learn something else? Sounds similar to the criticism of religion. Desperate people pretending to understand that which cannot be understood.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So with facts that are not fixed in stone and subject to change, we just pretend that we know what's going on for awhile until we learn something else? Sounds similar to the criticism of religion. Desperate people pretending to understand that which cannot be understood.

No, it simply understands and accepts the limitations of human perception and conception. With this understanding, we avoid the trap of absolutism.

 

[theHawk]

Evolution is a fact. Its processes and the relationships between them have been observed, repeatedly, over time. Evolutionary theory has been validated, independently and repeatedly over time.

Can you give an example of when a mutation has given a species a new beneficial trait never before present?

 

[Eightball]

I can't believe people not only read this stuff, but actually believe it...

Rather than rebuttle your foolish comment.....I'll let a much greater Intellect do it for me, as He has much better credentials..........

Romans Chapter 1, verses 18-22.......Read it and repent, or read it and stick your fingers in your ears, and live in denial.


18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Man thinks of every possible reason for existence, but supernatural...as Man inherently in his sinful nature must be the "center" of all meaning, and existence.).

21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Yep, according to this ominous piece of scripture, the more that man/woman denies the obvious, the more they become darkened in their minds to actually having a possible spiritual break-through that leads them to their Maker......That again is scarey and ominuous, and very sad.).

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,(Self explanatory....as evidenced on this message board by so many self sufficient, highly intelligent beings, who ought to know better.)

 

[Dr Grump]