Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> You say that things don't appear out of nothing.
> Fine, so what did God use to create the universe?
>

I don't get this objection. Isn't it baked into the definition of God in the first place - an uncreated being that by definition answers issues of causality, priority, creation, first movement, etc.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss,
>
> In the end, it just keeps coming down to what YOU
> want to believe vs. what someone else wants to
> believe.

I don't hold beliefs because they comport to my wishes.

> You search the Interweb looking for some
> nutty scientific explanation for whatever
> conundrum you face and throw it out like it has
> any more credibility than what is in the Bible
> because it came from "a scientist".

Specific examples would be nice.

> Your faith is
> scientific theories is understandable but it
> requires no more and no less faith to believe in a
> higher intelligence than some of the disjointed
> theories you post. It is no more silly to think
> you don't know something therefore God didn't do
> it than the reverse. Just so ya know

This is asserted without evidence and can be dismissed without evidence.

snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > You say that things don't appear out of nothing.
>
> > Fine, so what did God use to create the
> universe?
> >
>
> I don't get this objection. Isn't it baked into
> the definition of God in the first place - an
> uncreated being that by definition answers issues
> of causality, priority, creation, first movement,
> etc.


It's generally assumed, but I don't think it's thought through - you seem to be targeting 'what created god', which isn't what I was talking about.

The argument is that out of nothing, nothing comes, right?

Well, okay, so let's say God exists - what did he use to create the universe? Himself? but he's immaterial, non spatial, non temporal.

So what did he use? Nothing...

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> It's generally assumed, but I don't think it's
> thought through - you seem to be targeting 'what
> created god', which isn't what I was talking
> about.
>
> The argument is that out of nothing, nothing
> comes, right?
>
> Well, okay, so let's say God exists - what did he
> use to create the universe? Himself? but he's
> immaterial, non spatial, non temporal.
>
> So what did he use? Nothing...


Right, nothing. I don't see how that's a problem either, the one "exception to the rule" of something can't come out of nothing based again on definitions of God in the first place.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> snowdenscold Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > You say that things don't appear out of
> nothing.
> >
> > > Fine, so what did God use to create the
> > universe?
> > >
> >
> > I don't get this objection. Isn't it baked into
> > the definition of God in the first place - an
> > uncreated being that by definition answers
> issues
> > of causality, priority, creation, first
> movement,
> > etc.
>
>
> It's generally assumed, but I don't think it's
> thought through - you seem to be targeting 'what
> created god', which isn't what I was talking
> about.
>
> The argument is that out of nothing, nothing
> comes, right?
>
> Well, okay, so let's say God exists - what did he
> use to create the universe? Himself? but he's
> immaterial, non spatial, non temporal.
>
> So what did he use? Nothing...

Isn't this the point? We (humans) have no idea how everything (matter, space, etc.) came to be, it is beyond explanation. The whole notion of causality and the "beginning" of the universe defies our understanding. The idea that God created everything is no less viable than any other explanation. Of course, this, in itself, is not proof there is a God. It is not scientifically testable, at least in no way anyone has thought of to date. And yes, people could create any number of magical explanations for where everything came from, as they have throughout human existence.

I think the point is, the view that God created everything is a highly credible metaphysical worldview, as credible as any other metaphysical worldview, including leading current theories by cosmologists. If you think about it, it almost seems that there can be no other explanation than that there is something that defies our notion of time/space/causality to explain where everything came from. In the Bible God called himself "I am", the being that always is, always was, defies explanation, etc. How could it be otherwise, where did it all come from?

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> This is asserted without evidence and can be
> dismissed without evidence.


Prof, you must remember your multidimensional string theory nonsense or your hidden quantum universe theory nonsense or any other number of silly nonsensical theories that you've posted to try and explain stuff. Sure, there's theories that explain just about everything. And most of the ones you cite take more faith to believe and stretch credulity for more than what is in the Bible. Dismiss as you will, but that's the truth.

snowdenscold Wrote:
> Right, nothing. I don't see how that's a problem
> either, the one "exception to the rule" of
> something can't come out of nothing based again on
> definitions of God in the first place.

It's special pleading, it also invalidates the 'from nothing, nothing comes'.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't this the point? We (humans) have no idea how
> everything (matter, space, etc.) came to be, it is
> beyond explanation.

That is not the point - the point of cosmological arguments is to go from the universe needing a cause to it needing a creator. If you say 'I don't know how it all came about', then I applaud you for your honesty - but you can't then say 'therefore God did it'.

> The whole notion of causality
> and the "beginning" of the universe defies our
> understanding.

I would agree here.

> The idea that God created
> everything is no less viable than any other
> explanation.

For what you are trying to say, I agree. I qualify this because I think there are some interesting arguments that do make God less viable - but I get what you are saying here.

> Of course, this, in itself, is not
> proof there is a God. It is not scientifically
> testable, at least in no way anyone has thought of
> to date. And yes, people could create any number
> of magical explanations for where everything came
> from, as they have throughout human existence.

Yes, it's not proof of God - that is what I was trying to show. I wasn't trying to show that God couldn't have done it.

> I think the point is, the view that God created
> everything is a highly credible metaphysical
> worldview, as credible as any other metaphysical
> worldview, including leading current theories by
> cosmologists.

I do not feel that God is on par with our current cosmological theories, even if our current theories are wrong, since our current theories posit models. In short, they give us more than 'God did it', more to explore, so to speak. You seem to be speaking strictly from a metaphysical point of view though, so perhaps what I bring up is not pertinent, but I do think it makes a difference.

> If you think about it, it almost
> seems that there can be no other explanation than
> that there is something that defies our notion of
> time/space/causality to explain where everything
> came from. In the Bible God called himself "I am",
> the being that always is, always was, defies
> explanation, etc. How could it be otherwise, where
> did it all come from?

Perhaps. It's true that something that defies everything we know seems likely - but I do not think that means that a personal God is that something.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof, you must remember your multidimensional
> string theory nonsense or your hidden quantum
> universe theory nonsense or any other number of
> silly nonsensical theories that you've posted to
> try and explain stuff. Sure, there's theories
> that explain just about everything. And most of
> the ones you cite take more faith to believe and
> stretch credulity for more than what is in the
> Bible. Dismiss as you will, but that's the truth.


*My* multidimensional string theory? Frankly speaking, I my metaphysics does not require string theory. I think it's interesting, but irrelevant to my view of the universe.

All you've done here is blown fluff up our butts. You say that most of these cosmological models require more faith than the Bible - and by that I suspect you mean God speaking existence into existence. I simply disagree.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:

>
> All you've done here is blown fluff up our butts.


How so?
*************************************************

Professor Pangloss Wrote:

> You say that most of these cosmological models
> require more faith than the Bible - and by that I
> suspect you mean God speaking existence into
> existence.

What I say is that the Bible has never been proven wrong. Not archaeologically, not historically and not scientifically. Science is wrong often. More often than it is right. That is the nature of science. To put faith only in science or what one can see, feel and touch is myopic IMO. And, in the end, sad.
******************************


Professor Pangloss Wrote:

> I simply disagree.

Of course. That is why we're engaged in this debate. If we agreed, we'd be over disagreeing on something else in another thread.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> >
> > All you've done here is blown fluff up our
> butts.
>
>
> How so?
> *************************************************



Because all you did was handwave away scientific models. This is blowing fluff.



> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> > You say that most of these cosmological models
> > require more faith than the Bible - and by that
> I
> > suspect you mean God speaking existence into
> > existence.
>
> What I say is that the Bible has never been proven
> wrong. Not archaeologically, not historically and
> not scientifically. Science is wrong often. More
> often than it is right. That is the nature of
> science. To put faith only in science or what one
> can see, feel and touch is myopic IMO. And, in
> the end, sad.
> ******************************

This is a statement of faith - and hey good for you. I'm sure that any error I brought up you would find *some* justification, no matter how convoluted, to make it right. It wouldn't be rational, it would be 'faith' and as such, it would be a waste of time to engage you in it.

As for science, you dismiss it while typing up on it's fruits. Not a very strong argument.

You should read Asimov's relativity of wrong.

In any event, my reasons for rejecting God are mainly philosophical, not scientific, so your approach here is wrong-headed to begin with.


>
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> > I simply disagree.
>
> Of course. That is why we're engaged in this
> debate. If we agreed, we'd be over disagreeing on
> something else in another thread.


When you dismiss cosmological models in favor of contradictory magic, there's not much to discuss.

Trooth Wrote:

>
> What I say is that the Bible has never been proven
> wrong. Not archaeologically, not historically and
> not scientifically.

Tosh! By the same argument, Homer's never been proved wrong.

The bible has been categorically proved wrong - the genesis story is a prime example which doesn't stand up to archeology (those pesky dino bones and homo habibili), cosmology (earth is nothing special), geology (its all very old) and genetics (earth-based is very closely related and you can track it the dna).

The rest is just the mythology and pre-literate history of a particularly unlucky tribe and has no more validity than Homer, Beowolf or the Koran.

Complaiming that the current state of science doesn't explain everything in perfect detail doesn't get you off the hook of explaining why your favorite book of fairy tales should have any more credence than the vikings or the hindus


>Science is wrong often. More
> often than it is right. That is the nature of
> science. To put faith only in science or what one
> can see, feel and touch is myopic IMO. And, in
> the end, sad.
> ******************************
>
>



By its very nature science is not 'wrong' in the same way as religion

Science tries to produce the best possible explanation of observations at any given time and proposes experiments to explore gaps in our understanding. Religion ignores inconvenient observations and explain everything by magic emmanating from a shrinking corner of the darkness - avoiding examination and evidence like an old spiriualist

To deliberatly ignore the observations of the universe around you is deliberatly and unforgivably ignorant

Start with the recent measurements of the Hubble and the Planck e.g. on continuous and current star and planet foundation - after that genesis looks a bit wimpy as an explanation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8571418.stm

70 sextillion stars (17 followed by 22 zeros)
...spread amongst 170 billion galaxies
...some containing upto a trillion stars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy

and god has time for a personal relationship with members of ffxu?

That's even without thinking about the complex dynamics of a system containing ...10 to the power 80 atoms,
...operating at dramatically varying temperatures
...over 13.7 billion years
...and a current diameter of about 16 Billion light years

don't forget, every atom heavier than hydrogen has been through the middle of at least one star (that's the only way they get made - well if you ignore the elves chipping away at them in santa's grotto)

so lets really think about this...

if you think that god or gods are still behind all of this - god presses the button 16.7 Billion years ago, massive quantum mechanical ferment, star formation blah blah blah - all so he can chat to you over breakfast one thursday? Everything we know about physics and complex systems tells us that you are delusional - unless maxwell's little daemons are busy herding those high energy particles into place

I forgot to mention that in the middle of all of this god took time to bury fake dino bones to test the unwary - that old joker :)

finito benito,

Dinosaurs, hee hee. This has all been discussed a couple of pages back. Please catch up before rehashing old ideas and arguments that have already been sent packing.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito,
>
> Dinosaurs, hee hee. This has all been discussed a
> couple of pages back. Please catch up before
> rehashing old ideas and arguments that have
> already been sent packing.


I haven't seen anything on this thread (or elsewhere) that convincingly argues againat the fossil record (including dinosaurs) as one of a number of very good sources of evidence for evolution rather than creationism - or against the observation that the scale, diversity and complexity (in its technical and popular senses) of the cosmos, and what we know about its mechanisms (at all lengths scales from the quantum to the cosmic, energy levels from the electron to ths stellar and complexity from the physics to the ecological), precludes intelligent design as an explanation for the world we see around us

Religion, especally but not exclusively christianity, fail entirely to provide explanations which fit our observations, They are based on the concepts of human and earth exceptionalism and the idea that you can either create something like the earth in its current state in isolation from the rest of the universe, or that you can set up the starting conditions at the start of the universe to end up with precisely the lifeform you want to talk to. We know that these are childish ideas entirely at odds with our observations

if "Dinosaurs, hee hee" (the Beavis and Butthead of arguments) is your best shot then, yet again, the religious argument has lost, as it always does and will

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
...precludes intelligent design as an explanation for the world we see around us

How is that? Other than the complete silliness of "new earth creationists" or whatever the people are called who ridiculously believe in a 6000-year old earth, how are science and Christianity incompatible? How has science precluded the notion of a God who set that creation in motion, or of a man who died on a cross and rose from the dead?

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------



Prof. Pangloss, thanks as always for your thoughtful comments. Even though we've disagreed on the fundamental question at hand (now and in the past on this thread), I've always enjoyed your thoughtful commentary and treating the subject with respect.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> ...precludes intelligent design as an explanation
> for the world we see around us
>
> How is that? Other than the complete silliness of
> "new earth creationists" or whatever the people
> are called who ridiculously believe in a 6000-year
> old earth, how are science and Christianity
> incompatible? How has science precluded the notion
> of a God who set that creation in motion, or of a
> man who died on a cross and rose from the dead?

Absolutely

Science shows us the scale and complexity of what has happened since the big bang,

Since you disavow the young earthers, I assume that you would accept that the present and local are connected to the past and the distant in a continuous fashion e.g. the same physics and math applies over time and space

For a period after the big bang, the energy levels were so high that particles as we know them did not exist - only as the expanding universe cooled did the fundamental sub-atomic particles that we see around us stabilise.

Since that time, every atom around us has passed through the dying supernova of at least one, and probably many stars. That's the only point at which heavy elements are formed from lighter components.

Each of those stages is a fundamentally complex (in the science/math sense not the emotional sense) and characterised by emergent outcomes. This complexity propogates through the entire universe as we see it.

It is impossible to predict the state of such a large complex, largely quantum system without another quantum system with the same degrees of freedom over the same period of time - e.g. you would need a quantum computer the size of the universe to predict the state of your desired universe. For example, given a set of physical constants, its would be impossible to predict the precise shape of the coast of maine, let alone the genome of an elephant from initial state.

At the quantum level, the universe, depending on whether you think that there reallyis a degree of randomness/underlying statistical behaviours or not, at or below the quantum level, is either
- deterministic but unpredictable (e.g. from a given start point, you'll always get to the same point, but its fundamentally computationally impossible to predict very far ahead)
- non-deterministic and unpredictable (e.g. from a given start point, you may get to different points, and still not be able to look ahead)

This complexity, plays out at the scale of life - DNA provides an effective method for generating and propogating diversity within and between species. Its the random mating, random coding errors and random demises of individuals and pairs within species that determines the survival and evolution of those species. Coupled with the huge changes we've seen in the surface of the earth since its first cooling - oceans come and go, mountains grow and erode, continents move and change shape, it would have been impossible (in the technical, not comparative sense) to predict which particular pre-dinosaurs would go on to become sparrows.

The current state of science gives us a rich and pretty convincing, although not yet complete, picture of how the complexity around us - including our bodies, minds and societies came about - no divine intervention required

This is one of the arguments that precludes the idea of a creationist and interventionist god

This is not a failure of scope and vision, rather a result of the math and the observations around us

On the issue of dying and coming back to life - this is typical of a whole range of mythology and superstition which has pervaded human history. There is no more proof for any of it than there is for orpheus's trip to save euridice, grendel's assault on the mead-hall or rama's excusrsions with the monkeys. christianity is just another one of the thousands of religions, cults and movements that have propogated through human life. Its had moderatly interesting historical impacts but that's about it - its not even the largest or most interesting of current religions, although papal infallibility is a great job if you can get it

finito benito Wrote:

>
> Religion, especally but not exclusively
> christianity, fail entirely to provide
> explanations which fit our observations, They are
> based on the concepts of human and earth
> exceptionalism and the idea that you can either
> create something like the earth in its current
> state in isolation from the rest of the universe,
> or that you can set up the starting conditions at
> the start of the universe to end up with precisely
> the lifeform you want to talk to. We know that
> these are childish ideas entirely at odds with our
> observations
>
> if "Dinosaurs, hee hee" (the Beavis and Butthead
> of arguments) is your best shot then, yet again,
> the religious argument has lost, as it always does
> and will


You don't understand Christian doctrine. Nowhere does the Bible tell us how old the earth was or when it was created. For all we know, Adam and Eve hung around for 1 billion years with God before falling.

Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth has not or will not change. Species go extinct all the time. Why are dinosaurs the proof of anything other than that a mass extinction occurred (a giant flood perhaps?)?

You don't seem to have taken the time to go back and read what was previously posted on this and thus, you restate points that have already been made and countered.

As for comparing a religion that has been around in one form (Judaism) or another (Christianity) for thousands of years to Nordic tales whose sole purpose is to entertain, not teach, is kind of nonsensical.

You base everything on what you can understand or choose to believe. You are no different than believing Christians. What's the DNA of a rock? Where did it all come from? Why do thousands of people who experience clinical death and come back to life swear they saw something on the other side? Scientists couldn't even get the theory of global warming correct and that was with 95% of them and hundreds of billions of dollars behind it trying very hard to prove it over just a couple dozen decades.

Do you know who came up with the theory of intelligent design? It was scientists who could not reconcile the ridiculous odds that would be required to have random chance create the world we live in. You have better odds of winning every lottery drawing that has ever been than of this world and the universe evolving naturally into what it is. So scientists developed a theory that allowed for a creator and designer.

When Darwin postulated his theory of macro-evolution, one of the most troubling things he could not reconcile is the millions and millions of years that would be required to account for the time needed to create the present state of the world. He died never resolving this. But lo and behold, after secular science embraced evolution, they had to address it. So they came up with a method of dating objects that "proved" the earth was billions of years old. Recently, radiation dating has proven problematic as it is not as stable as originally thought. Nor can science prove that an global event (asteroid or perhaps a flood?) would not totally skew the decomposition of elements.

Finally, your silly condensing tone does not help your argument. In fact, it hurts it. Agree or not with the Professor, and while he might be dismissive when stumped, he keeps it civil. Perhaps you can take a lesson from him.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:

Which rock have you been hiding under?

>
> You don't understand Christian doctrine. Nowhere
> does the Bible tell us how old the earth was or
> when it was created.

well apart from all that 'on the next day' stuff etc - leaving aside all the evidence that shows how the earth, along with the other planets in our solar system developed rather than being created

For hundreds of years, christian doctrine was based explicitly on the descent of biblical and contemporay figures from adam from 'documented' decent - drawing mostly on old testament sources. Many a ruler claimed direct line of descent from adam and co

Its only in the face the scientific evidence that the world is substantially more than 6,000 years old that newer varients of christianity have sought to finesse the glaring fairy story

> For all we know, Adam and
> Eve hung around for 1 billion years with God
> before falling.
>

This is what I love - you really have to jump though hoops to make this story hang together at all

We have very good fossil evidence for the evolution of hominids and their migration - but that's not good enough for you, you have adam hanging out in a bar for a billion years just waiting to take over from the locals

> Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth has not
> or will not change. Species go extinct all the
> time. Why are dinosaurs the proof of anything
> other than that a mass extinction occurred (a
> giant flood perhaps?)?
>

Dinosaurs - like other fossils form a very detailed record of the gradual evolution of life on earth. They serve no other purpose other than they flumoxed victorian christians and brought about the intellectal death of creationism. You're right species have died out throughout much of the earth's history - but they have also evolved into new species at an impressive rate

Are you agreeing with evolution (presumably excluding people in your model )or are you suggesting that all species co-existed with some dead ending as we went? That doesn't really line up with the fossil record. Or are you suggesting that god tops up the gene pool when ever the number of species gets a bit sparse?


> You don't seem to have taken the time to go back
> and read what was previously posted on this and
> thus, you restate points that have already been
> made and countered.
>

As you'll be aware, I've been involved in the thread for quite a while. I only reiterate points that you clearly chose to ignore


> As for comparing a religion that has been around
> in one form (Judaism) or another (Christianity)
> for thousands of years to Nordic tales whose sole
> purpose is to entertain, not teach, is kind of
> nonsensical.
>

So why do you think that every other religion is or was meant solely to entertain? Have you tried suggesting that to your Hindu or Buddhist friends?

I think its fair to assume that the vikings, ancient greeks and romans and asian animists believed in their gods just as much as you do in yours. They had their saints, mystics and prophets just as you have yours. Why should anyone believe your myths any more than Homer's?

You assume some exceptionalism purely on the basis that you assert it - sorry that doesn't fly


> You base everything on what you can understand or
> choose to believe. You are no different than
> believing Christians.

That's a complete mistatement of the difference in the basis of science and the basis of christianity. Science takes observations of gravity on earth and uses them to make models of the movement of planets - and then actively searches for the unexpected allowing it to predict and then find new planets. Religion clings to bronze age superstitions until forced to abandon them in the face of science - flat earth, young earth, sun orbiting around the earth etc et

> What's the DNA of a rock?

What?

That's like saying what's the DNA of a star - its a nonsensical question.


> Where did it all come from? Why do thousands of
> people who experience clinical death and come back
> to life swear they saw something on the other
> side?

Those experiences can be replicated my simple manipulation of the brain with chemicals such as ketamine. As Minsky points out 'mind is what the brain does', no more, no less

>Scientists couldn't even get the theory of
> global warming correct and that was with 95% of
> them and hundreds of billions of dollars behind it
> trying very hard to prove it over just a couple
> dozen decades.

I'm not sure what your point is here. The science of climate change is pretty well accepted everywhere except in the American Right funded by the energy lobby and supported by the doctrine of 'dominion' sects of conservative christianity. Modelling is always a tricky business - but the core science has been confirmed, compared and reviewed by many independent governmental review worldwide. I can't help it if you don't like the message

I'd like to see your evidence for hundreds of billions being spent on climate change research by the way

Do you really believe that the oil companies doubt climate change? Have you ever spoken to their scientists or the independent researchers involved? Opposition to climate science is political, religious and economic, not scientific.

>
> Do you know who came up with the theory of
> intelligent design? It was scientists who could
> not reconcile the ridiculous odds that would be
> required to have random chance create the world we
> live in. You have better odds of winning every
> lottery drawing that has ever been than of this
> world and the universe evolving naturally into
> what it is. So scientists developed a theory that
> allowed for a creator and designer.

I call BS on this one - intelligent design is, and never has been part of mainstream or peer reviewed science. Its origins are solely as a way of bringing religion and creationism into schools despite the constitutional ban - hece why the courts have repeatedly refused to allow it in schools.



>
> When Darwin postulated his theory of
> macro-evolution, one of the most troubling things
> he could not reconcile is the millions and
> millions of years that would be required to
> account for the time needed to create the present
> state of the world. He died never resolving this.

Why so hung up on darwin? He had some of the breakthough ideas but is by no means the only scientist involved in evolutionary biology - and he did not have access to much of the information that we now have about physics, chemistry and biology.


> But lo and behold, after secular science embraced
> evolution, they had to address it. So they came
> up with a method of dating objects that "proved"
> the earth was billions of years old. Recently,
> radiation dating has proven problematic as it is
> not as stable as originally thought.

Are you mad or just stupid? So let me get this right - the dangerous left wing athiest conspiracy at the turn of the 20th century was so scared that they invented quantum mechanics and all of modern physics just to confuse the righteous?

OHHH - stop - my sides are hurting

Dating of geological samples isn't done just by measuring one element - there are a whole set of overlapping and error checking measurements. Even ignoring the radio-chemistry - you can start by counting the strata and looking at their make up. Layers of sandstones, limestones, igneous and metamorphic rocks show that the earth is much more than 6,000 years old. Let alone the fossil record. IS it perfect, no, Is it damned good, yes.

Unless you have a better theory? Oh yes, santa did it.

>Nor can
> science prove that an global event (asteroid or
> perhaps a flood?) would not totally skew the
> decomposition of elements.
>

Of course it does!

Let me get this right - you're suggesting that an asteroid large enough to affect every fossil and rock strata worldwide would be able to distribute itself evenly through the earth without disturbing any of the layers or remains? To get a full merging, you have to melt eveything and that wouldn't half mess everything up

do you see any evidence of that? do you have a proposed mechanism?

Floods - that's an even better suggestion - you seem to have forgotten that most of the world is covered in water at the present time and that large areas of land (including anywhere with limestone) were covered in the past. Do you see any evidence of the radio-chemical tampering you suggest? We know how water moves through the shallow crust - we can see it doing it

Typical of religious nuts trying to jump through their own a*sses - you just have to resort to making things up

I'll have a go - maybe it was magic unicorn farts


> Finally, your silly condensing tone does not help
> your argument. In fact, it hurts it. Agree or
> not with the Professor, and while he might be
> dismissive when stumped, he keeps it civil.
> Perhaps you can take a lesson from him.

I never set out to be as clever, witty or patient as Pangloss, and his kids are probably cleaner and better at baseball than mine. I certainly have never seen you stump him - he's just seems very restrained in sticking to the point.

Personally, I find civility over-rated when deaing with fools and frauds.

Mclean has so many church whores they almost made me go gay.

Instead I just stopped going there.

THe girls there are nasty!!!

More name calling finito benito. I have to say, you name is pretty apropos. I can see you there with your arms crossed like benito mussonlini pronouncing your opinion as fact then glaring wide eyed like you've just won WWII while your troops are in full retreat. Sorry, FAIL.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More name calling finito benito. I have to say,
> you name is pretty apropos. I can see you there
> with your arms crossed like benito mussonlini
> pronouncing your opinion as fact then glaring wide
> eyed like you've just won WWII while your troops
> are in full retreat. Sorry, FAIL.

Really? science in full retreat - HaHa, that's a good one - tell that to the NSF, DARPA and the whole of US industry - they'll be suprised when their steel and plastic stop working, or the elderly when their pharmaceuticals no longer work or wall street when their computers don't compute

At some point you just have to call them as you see them.

Its impossible for someone to believe the things that you claim to believe and not be either a delusional fool or a fraud. The intellectual gymnastics and willful disregard for evidence are truly amazing.

One thing I've noticed is that the last resort of creationists in discussions is always either "atheists/scientists/red-heads/,,, hate america" or "atheists/scientists/red-heads/,,, are so mean to us"

Get over it, religion and creationism are outdated and intellectually bankrupt ways of explaining the world and rely solely on ofbuscation and fear. They entirely fail to provide a satisactory self-consistent model and continuously back themselves into smaller and smaller corners as science explains more and more about the universe around us - only attempting to occasionally sally forth from their shrinking shadows by ignoring whole swaths of human knowledge

Faith in the face of reason is intellectually bankrupt and advocating it is morally corrupt

You're still condescending and your postings are without merit. So when I point out that your coming across as a condescending bore, it's not that I'm saying you're mean, just that you're coming across as a condescending bore. For all I know, your just a peachy fellow, but you come across as a condescending bore.

And just for the record, MBC doesn't suck.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're still condescending and your postings are
> without merit. So when I point out that your
> coming across as a condescending bore, it's not
> that I'm saying you're mean, just that you're
> coming across as a condescending bore. For all I
> know, your just a peachy fellow, but you come
> across as a condescending bore.
>
> And just for the record, MBC doesn't suck.

I see that your feeble justifications for creationism and religious BS have dried up

That's merit enough for me - I'm a simple person

And, as you say. 'just for the record', all churches suck (whilst still used for the propogation of religion, rather than the more useful post-religious purposes that many of them have been put in more mature countries)- its just that some of them get some credit for decent old architecture and a suitably bloodsoaked, internecine and exploitative history - MBC has neither.

No finito, you see only what you want to see. It is of no use to try and discuss things with someone who can't go more than one sentence without calling names or coming across as a pompous punk. Sure, the professor sometimes falls into this as well, but it is the rare occasion, not constant like you. There is no benefit to me to engage with someone who thinks they're smart because what they believe. Not what they know, but what they believe. Stating that civility is overrated kinda says it all.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No finito, you see only what you want to see. It
> is of no use to try and discuss things with
> someone who can't go more than one sentence
> without calling names or coming across as a
> pompous punk. Sure, the professor sometimes falls
> into this as well, but it is the rare occasion,
> not constant like you. There is no benefit to me
> to engage with someone who thinks they're smart
> because what they believe. Not what they know,
> but what they believe. Stating that civility is
> overrated kinda says it all.

You have no evidence, no rational argument, no sensible model of how everything (or even anything) fits together - you expect people to jump through bizarre intellectual hoops in the face of observable evidence - just to keep alive some weird obsession with trying to explain things that are already well understood with supernatural clap-trap. You leap from irrational talking point to irrational talking point throwing out 'facts' that are easily and instantly refuted

When that fails, like most fools, frauds and charletons, you run away and resort to the time tested argument of petulant 5 years olds and religous extremists - "they're all being mean to me"

Frankly, when you spout such errant and inconsistent tosh so deliiberatly and consistently, you can't expect to be treated civilly

The big difference between science and religion is that you can test science, you can replicate it, you can identify and reconcile ambiguities and inconsistencies, you can follow a trail of evidence and explanation - but religion relies on people being dumb enough not to look at the evidence or the math but to accept self appointed witch-doctor's views just because the claim them with no evidence. Any glaring inconsistencies that the witch-doctor can't explain away are simply filed under 'god moves in mysterious ways'. I stand by my previous assertion - religion is intellectually bankrupt and its deliverate propogation morally corrupt

benito, it must be a horrible strain to be such a intellectual giant living with all the rest of us. You disdain of civil discourse continues to be on prominent display with every post. Yes, we all get it, you hate religion in general and apparently evangelical Christians in particular.

Why not use science to disprove the Bible? Folks much smarter than anyone you or I will ever know believe what is in the Bible. And no matter how hard the humanists have tried, no one has disproved any of it. Weird huh?

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> benito, it must be a horrible strain to be such a
> intellectual giant living with all the rest of us.
> You disdain of civil discourse continues to be on
> prominent display with every post. Yes, we all
> get it, you hate religion in general and
> apparently evangelical Christians in particular.
>
>
> Why not use science to disprove the Bible? Folks
> much smarter than anyone you or I will ever know
> believe what is in the Bible. And no matter how
> hard the humanists have tried, no one has
> disproved any of it. Weird huh?

You have this the wrong way round

Science proves itself through observation and prediction - and has shown itself to be extremely damned good at doing so

Science doesn't have to prove that any given religion is wrong. By exclusion if you have two explanations one of which is shown to be right based on the evidence, then the other is wrong - especially when it provides no counter evidence, evidence for which fills a gap not well explained or deliberatly ignores evidence.

Proving the bible wrong is like proving shakespeare, beowolf, the maharabaratar, robin hood, the brothers grimm or the epic of gilgamesh wrong - unnecessary - they're just cultural artifacts, expressions of their time. They're mutually exclusive and, apart from vague historic references, collections of embroidery, campfire tales. Even Homer was right when he talked about troy - was he also right when he talked about apollo and achilles?

You have never explained why we should accept your christian book of folk tales rather than those of other religions which also build myths around elements of a cultures history, Why christianity, rather than zoroastrism, janism, voodoo, druidism, scientology, greek mythology, mesopotamian panthesism, aztec, mayan, pastafarianism or mithrism? Just because you say so?

Any religion or supernatural cult faces two questions

- Does it stand up against scientific explanations which do not rely on supernatural fudges?
- Does it provide any evidence which distinguishes it from other religions and cults?

Christianity (not just evangelical) continues to fail on both of those questions - relying on appeals to faith in the face of evidence

Its a failed doctrine - it needs to prove its validity and it has been unable to do so since the enlightenment began to give us tools to examine our surroundings in a detailed and rigorous way

Until the enlightenment, people spend 40-70,000 years worshipping a vast range of deities from snakes onwards. There really is no excuse any more

Are you flying your anti-science flag just for your particular strain of christianity (with blood soaked history of schism, massacre, torture and invasion) or for mithrism and voodo as well? if not, why not?

Frankly, religion needs to put up or shut up

finito

You don't have to accept anything. Frankly, I don't really care. That is between you and God. You continue to state your opinions as though they are facts. If the Bible were so full of glaring and ridiculous things, then they should be easily proven wrong. Yet, with the OT being two to three thousand years old and the NT being close to that, science has no been able to disprove any of yet. It's a free country. Believe as you wish. However, your incivility speaks of deeper issues than simple disagreement with another's opinion. Are you always so hostile and unreasonable when it comes to anything that doesn't agree with your opinion?

The burden of proof doesn't lie with science but with any given religion. Science and the scientific method prove themselves by their ability to explain and predict.

Take Bose-Einstein condensates as an example - a form of matter which had never existed in the universe because it has always been too hot (even in the deep vacuum of space). Predicted in the 1920's - produced and directly observed by scientists in recent years (ketterle and colleagues). Just one of the predictions of science that lead to the development of new instruments to observe the predictions and new tools for engineering. No magic or incantations required, just good math, good science, good engineering and thoroughness,

There's a nobel prize waiting for any religion that can do something similar - or if you prefer a lower bar, James Randi still has a million unclaimed dollars in cash for anyone who can demonstrate ANY supernatural phenemomena

Okay, I'll humour you for a second.

Take two simple religions and related stories

Example 1:
homer + vigil
= fall of troy, founding of rome, trashing of carthage, battles, lots of sex (some of it very naughty), loads of drinking, a tiny bit of regret, cute nymphs
= some real historical context (definitly a city of troy) + a lot of embrodiery
= variety of work - not clear who the real authors were
= no evidence for a pantheon of gods and assorted hangers on (titans, mymphs, cantaurs, harpies etc)

Example 2:
old + new testaments
= fall of jericho, founding of jerusalem, trashing of sodom and gomorrah, a bit of sex (some pretty naughty), a fair bit of drinking, a huge amount of regret, not enough nymphs
= some real historical context (definitly a city of jerusalem) + a lot of embrodiery
= variety of work - not clear who the real authors were
= no evidence for a unitary god and assorted hangers on (angels, demons)


Could you explain why one should be given more credence than the other? just because you say so?

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Take two simple religions and related stories
>
> Example 1:
> homer + vigil
> = fall of troy, founding of rome, trashing of
> carthage, battles, lots of sex (some of it very
> naughty), loads of drinking, a tiny bit of regret,
> cute nymphs
> = some real historical context (definitly a city
> of troy) + a lot of embrodiery
> = variety of work - not clear who the real authors
> were
> = no evidence for a pantheon of gods and assorted
> hangers on (titans, mymphs, cantaurs, harpies
> etc)
>
> Example 2:
> old + new testaments
> = fall of jericho, founding of jerusalem, trashing
> of sodom and gomorrah, a bit of sex (some pretty
> naughty), a fair bit of drinking, a huge amount of
> regret, not enough nymphs
> = some real historical context (definitly a city
> of jerusalem) + a lot of embrodiery
> = variety of work - not clear who the real authors
> were
> = no evidence for a unitary god and assorted
> hangers on (angels, demons)

The fact that you go out of your way to pass these two off as comparable is laughable at best. I don't even know where to begin with the false equivalence here...

snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Take two simple religions and related stories
> >
> > Example 1:
> > homer + vigil
> > = fall of troy, founding of rome, trashing of
> > carthage, battles, lots of sex (some of it very
> > naughty), loads of drinking, a tiny bit of
> regret,
> > cute nymphs
> > = some real historical context (definitly a
> city
> > of troy) + a lot of embrodiery
> > = variety of work - not clear who the real
> authors
> > were
> > = no evidence for a pantheon of gods and
> assorted
> > hangers on (titans, mymphs, cantaurs, harpies
> > etc)
> >
> > Example 2:
> > old + new testaments
> > = fall of jericho, founding of jerusalem,
> trashing
> > of sodom and gomorrah, a bit of sex (some
> pretty
> > naughty), a fair bit of drinking, a huge amount
> of
> > regret, not enough nymphs
> > = some real historical context (definitly a
> city
> > of jerusalem) + a lot of embrodiery
> > = variety of work - not clear who the real
> authors
> > were
> > = no evidence for a unitary god and assorted
> > hangers on (angels, demons)
>
> The fact that you go out of your way to pass these
> two off as comparable is laughable at best. I
> don't even know where to begin with the false
> equivalence here...



Okay - so this really isn't hard

If they are so clearly not equivilant, explain the basis on which they are fundamentally different - a real basis, not just your comparative 'faith' in one rather than the other

If you don't like that pair, try christianity vs hindusim, christianity vs buddhism

You don't because you can't,

That's because religions live in their own self-contained self referential-bubbles of fairy tales. At one point they may have been the best explanation we had - that's just no longer true

That's why I said that religion has to either put up or shut up

finito,

It is your OPINION that a religion must provide proof. You are entitled to that opinion. If proof is what you require to believe something, then anything that requires faith isn't going to cut it. But you seem to put faith in nonsensical scientific theories because of the thousands of thousands of them, SOME theories are proven correct. You irrational hatred of religion doesn't seem to be because it requires faith, so it must be something else. I could hazard to guess, but I think that would be counter productive.

To try and correlate Jewish and Christian faith with the work of two poets is a stretch not worthy of consideration. The Bible was written by dozens of different authors over the course of several thousand years. Homer and Virgil wrote their poems in a period of their adult lifetime. And the Greeks had a King of the gods (Zeus) and Hades and other beliefs that parallel some aspects of the Bible. Other than their gods who were represented in constellations and planets, the Romans worshiped themselves, their state and their leaders, much like today's human secularists.

Of course you are free to adopt the belief system of your choosing. What is interesting isn't the convoluted pretzel logic you post to defend your position, but rather it is the disdain and apparent hatred with which your posts are dripping with. Wonder why.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito,
>
> It is your OPINION that a religion must provide
> proof. You are entitled to that opinion. If
> proof is what you require to believe something,
> then anything that requires faith isn't going to
> cut it.

You see - this is errent BS of an argument

If you assert things and expect to be taken seriously you have to offer proof or predictive power

If you don't offer proof and assert that faith is adequate, then you have at least to give some indication of why your faith is more relevent than someone else's faith

You do neither - you just align yourself with one of hundreds of assorted imcompatible religions, cults and mystics and expect people to take you seriously

Exactly how do you expect that to work?


>But you seem to put faith in nonsensical
> scientific theories because of the thousands of
> thousands of them, SOME theories are proven
> correct.

This makes no sense - science has an vast and extremely strong core of theories (in th scientific rather than miss marpel sense), math, models and laws which correlate extrenely well with observations - and which make extremely good predictions (from previously unobserved planets to forms of mateter which have never been observed before to the science that underpins material and biollgical engineering). Sciemce always has a more exploratory edge as it expands outwards - but that has certainly passed beyond anything that might have been contested effectively by religion

>You irrational hatred of religion
> doesn't seem to be because it requires faith, so
> it must be something else. I could hazard to
> guess, but I think that would be counter
> productive.

Its a rational dislike of religions, it may well be an irratinal dislike of people who proposgate and abuse it - I'm not a huge fan of fools and frauds


>
> To try and correlate Jewish and Christian faith
> with the work of two poets is a stretch not worthy
> of consideration. The Bible was written by dozens
> of different authors over the course of several
> thousand years. Homer and Virgil wrote their
> poems in a period of their adult lifetime. And the
> Greeks had a King of the gods (Zeus) and Hades and
> other beliefs that parallel some aspects of the
> Bible. Other than their gods who were represented
> in constellations and planets, the Romans
> worshiped themselves, their state and their
> leaders, much like today's human secularists.
>

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that the faith of teh greeks and romans was any less strong than your own? certainly the rate of sacrifices. the pervasive nature of domestic alters and cost of temple building seems to throw some doubt on your assertion.

To suggest that romans and greeks were secularists is one of the most bizarre suggestions I've ever seen.

Are you saying that concepts of hierachy and good/bad make religions interchangeable? Were the greeks secret christians? Or unwitting Jews? Did they have some kings and emporers who claimed divinity or a more direct line to their pantheon? Sure - but christianity hasn't exactly been short of would be messiah's, popes, amtipopes, female popes, heretics, schisms, bloodbaths etc

Are you suggesting that buddhist, hindu, animist or druid faith is any less valid than yours?

You are still failing to give any kind of line which seperates any onf of the many christian sects, cults and heresies from their peers in other religions

0/10 - must try harder

> Of course you are free to adopt the belief system
> of your choosing. What is interesting isn't the
> convoluted pretzel logic you post to defend your
> position, but rather it is the disdain and
> apparent hatred with which your posts are dripping
> with. Wonder why.

There's no pretzel - its very simple

science has shown that it can provide an extremely good explanation of natiral phenomena aithout recourse to the supernatural - and one which has substantial predictive powers, so much that our modern world depends upon it

Religion, on the other hand, avoids evidence and proof and claims recourse to unjustified faith. When asked to compare one religion's faith to anothers, it completely folds.

When it is restricted to academic discussion, religion is mildly amusing, when its used to drive public behaviour and policy its dangerous. It has no place in the modern world, its intellectually bankrupt and its proposagtion morally corrupt.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Pangloss, thanks as always for your
> thoughtful comments. Even though we've disagreed
> on the fundamental question at hand (now and in
> the past on this thread), I've always enjoyed your
> thoughtful commentary and treating the subject
> with respect.

Thanks, I enjoy these conversations.

Trooth Wrote:

>
> Do you know who came up with the theory of
> intelligent design? It was scientists who could
> not reconcile the ridiculous odds that would be
> required to have random chance create the world we
> live in. You have better odds of winning every
> lottery drawing that has ever been than of this
> world and the universe evolving naturally into
> what it is. So scientists developed a theory that
> allowed for a creator and designer.

This isn't true. The intelligent design movement started with biblical creationists altering text books in the 80's in order to get their material into schools. This was then spear headed by a lawyer named Philip Johnson, in the early 1990's with his 'Darwin on Trial'.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory - it's an idea that has support by creationists. A theory in science is an over-arching explanation of facts, laws, and phenomenon. Intelligent design does not actually explain any of the diverse facts. It might *appear* to, in one sense (what did all this?), but it does not do this from a scientific point of view (how has this all occurred).

Compare natural selection with intelligent design. Natural selection would purport to explain how traits get selected and how speciation occurs. Intelligent design does none of this because *anything* is compatible with intelligent design. Why do we have blind spots? Because the Intelligent Designer wished us to have them. This is not an explanation - natural selection would say something to the effect that the eye has evolved from simpler structures and as a result, it essentially jury-rigged an eye from what was available. So if the structure of the eye is adequate, but has a defect (say a blindspot), then it gets passed on because some sight is better than no sight.

Trooth Wrote:>
> When Darwin postulated his theory of
> macro-evolution, one of the most troubling things
> he could not reconcile is the millions and
> millions of years that would be required to
> account for the time needed to create the present
> state of the world. He died never resolving this.

Stop - Darwin didn't postulate a theory of 'macro-evolution'. Darwin postulated a theory of change, natural selection, which accounts for speciation. Darwin was not aware of Mendel's heritability and as a result had to rely on a semi-lamarkian conception of genetic change.

Further, during Darwin's time the earth was thought to be millions of years old already.

> But lo and behold, after secular science embraced
> evolution, they had to address it. So they came
> up with a method of dating objects that "proved"
> the earth was billions of years old. Recently,
> radiation dating has proven problematic as it is
> not as stable as originally thought. Nor can
> science prove that an global event (asteroid or
> perhaps a flood?) would not totally skew the
> decomposition of elements.

This, of course, is not true. As I said, prior to Darwin the earth was already thought to be millions of years old. Baron Kelvin, a devout Christian, calculated the earth to be between 20 and 400 *million* years old. He based this on his calculations of the energy lost by the Sun (erroneously, since he was not aware of nuclear fusion).

Also, it's radiometric dating, not 'radiation dating'. It is not problematic and there is not *one* type of radiometric dating, but several. As to your remarks about an asteroid skewing the decomposition of elements, is there any reason to believe this? Further, the accumulation of meteors that have hit the earth actual demonstrate quite conclusively that the earth cannot be anywhere near 10k years old. It *has* to be a great deal older.

finito benito:

Aren't we all agreeing that Science and Religion are not things to prove or disprove one-another?

As you have already noted, scientific "proof" is not available to show Christianity to be infallibly true. It cannot be demonstrated as a scientific theory or law (with repeatable, testable propositions, etc.). Christianity and science can support each other, though. As an example pointed out by Trooth, some see the absolute wonder of existence as evidence of an omnipotent God, not as the result of gazillions of random events that fell out of billions of years of chance. Science is not going to (and never could) prove or disprove Christianity, and it cannot answer the "Why?" or "Where did it all come from?" questions, just as Christianity is not likely to disprove many, or any, scientific principles.

It has been noted that modern scientists seem to hold the authors of the Bible to some very (unfairly) strict and literal interpretations of things they wrote, though they were using terms, language, and concepts appropriate for 2000- 3000 years ago. For example, if someone wrote in the Old Testament about the earth being "immovable" or having "four corners", then some modern folks will want to yell, "See! The bible says the earth is flat, so it's all untrue!" But of course the person who wrote that account in the Old Testament was not saying anything about astrophysics, they were making a different point entirely.

The evidence (not all scientific) for Christianity is there, though: archaeological, historical, testimonial, prophetical, etc. It does require faith as a component, which in itself makes it non-provable, by definition. As I've said before, if it was as in-your-face-obvious and scientifically provable as 1+1=2, there would probably be a lot more Christians around. God/Christ did work many miracles witnessed first-hand by ancient people, and still many refused to believe in him or the people fell away, over time. It is those that believe without witnessing first-hand nowadays that are blessed with salvation.

What you see as Christians jumping through ever-contrived hoops to defend against evolving scientific understanding, many Christians see as a "So what?" view that the Bible was never written as a scientific tome to be scrutinized as such. As an example, you mentioned how the sheer complexity of the universe precludes predetermination -- Christians would shrug and say that nothing is beyond the power of God that had the ability to create existence in the first place. Yes, it's "convenient" I guess you could say, but that doesn't make it any less true.

I would also say that of the comparative religions you listed, Christianity is alone in putting itself out there for critical examination and yet standing the test of time. They are not just stories. Things were written in the Bible that were contradictory, knowing that it would invite criticism, but included nonetheless for the sake of truthfulness and completeness. Some religions don't even attempt it (Buddhism, for example), while others have been demonstrated to be (provably) false accounts (failed prophecies or false historical claims, as an example).

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito:
>
> Aren't we all agreeing that Science and Religion
> are not things to prove or disprove one-another?
>

I don't think we are - the two are entirely mutually exclusive

Science posits an entirely natural universe. It starts with what can be observed, develops theories and laws that consistently explain what's been observed - and then looks at the predictions which the revised models make and looks for evidence of them, in parallel it continuously looks for new obsevations that are not well explained and grows the models

From those base level observations and analysis it has provided a highy coherent, detailed and predictive set of tools which
- have no earth or human exceptionalism.
- explain the emergence of the human race through geology, archeology, biology and genetic

That approach has left no realistic gaps which can only be explained by a supernatural force, hence it does not accept the existence of unobserved supernatural entities, forces or places

On the other hand, Christianity posits an interventionist creator and is extremely earth/human centric, Its explanations for the emergence of the human race are based entirely on the divine intentions of a deity. It has a strong emphasis on souls, angels, heaven etc but declines to provide any evidence

If christianity were true, we would see its implications in the real world and we do not

The two are just not compatible - they clash in too maany important regards

> As you have already noted, scientific "proof" is
> not available to show Christianity to be
> infallibly true. It cannot be demonstrated as a
> scientific theory or law (with repeatable,
> testable propositions, etc.). Christianity and
> science can support each other, though. As an
> example pointed out by Trooth, some see the
> absolute wonder of existence as evidence of an
> omnipotent God, not as the result of gazillions of
> random events that fell out of billions of years
> of chance. Science is not going to (and never
> could) prove or disprove Christianity, and it
> cannot answer the "Why?" or "Where did it all come
> from?" questions, just as Christianity is not
> likely to disprove many, or any, scientific
> principles.
>


Science does provide very good explanations of 'where does it all come from questions".

It starts from the basis that, unless there is good evidence, the mechanisms of the past are the same as the mechanisms of today - for example it doesn't like explanations which on "then some magic occurs". This has been pretty well validated by atronomical and geophysical observations.

What science has shown us is that "gazillions of random events that fell out of billions of years of chance" (within the rules of physics and following laws of causality e.g. planets don't just pop into existence fully formed, so random isn't really random - you could argue that random only really exists at the quantum mechanical level, all other kids of randomness are actually a result of complexity, so determinsitic) is a very good explanation indeed. You have to be very careful with the meaning of 'chance' and 'random' when you start talking about biological systems with codes and error correction.

In addition, as we've previously discussed, our understanding of quantum mechanics, the energy/scale of the early universe and computational nature of complexity show that just setting the starting conditions, pressing the button and waiting a few billion years until a catholic pops out is not a practical explanation

Occam's razor would suggest that if you have something that explains what you can see now, what you can see of the past shows that the past was like the present, and the mechanisms you understand pretty much explain the path to where you are, then you don't need to invent another actor and any insertion of an 'intelligence' should be treated with great suspicion - even Maxwell's little daemons were just part of a thought experiment.

Given this, science asserts that 'why' (in the religous sense of purpose) is not a valid question.

Christianity (well at least many of the posters here) ignores the fact that things have already been explained well as an excuse for keeping the bronze age concept of a deity.

For example, its pretty hard to dismiss the fossil record as showing progressive (and initially slow) increases in biological complexity and a path through many extinct species to the flora and fauna we see around us - including modern humans



>
It has been noted that modern scientists seem to
> hold the authors of the Bible to some very
> (unfairly) strict and literal interpretations of
> things they wrote, though they were using terms,
> language, and concepts appropriate for 2000- 3000
> years ago. For example, if someone wrote in the
> Old Testament about the earth being "immovable" or
> having "four corners", then some modern folks will
> want to yell, "See! The bible says the earth is
> flat, so it's all untrue!" But of course the
> person who wrote that account in the Old Testament
> was not saying anything about astrophysics, they
> were making a different point entirely.
>

The problem with this line of argument is that (ignoring the biblical lieratists, who are frankly delusional), Christians refuse to sort the wheat from the chaff and explain which bits they feel are 'true' and which are 'embroidery'.

Given how much is clearly embroidery, there needs to be some sort of test which says "here's a reason why this isn't embroidery" - which boils down to evidence

Just saying, "we know a lot of this is tosh, but some of its true - we're not going to tell you which bits and we're not going to give you any evidence" really doesn't cut it.

You still have to explain why your claimed 'not-tosh' is more credible than anyone else's claimed 'not-tosh'



> The evidence (not all scientific) for Christianity
> is there, though: archaeological, historical,
> testimonial, prophetical, etc. It does require
> faith as a component, which in itself makes it
> non-provable, by definition. As I've said before,
> if it was as in-your-face-obvious and
> scientifically provable as 1+1=2, there would
> probably be a lot more Christians around.
> God/Christ did work many miracles witnessed
> first-hand by ancient people, and still many
> refused to believe in him or the people fell away,
> over time. It is those that believe without
> witnessing first-hand nowadays that are blessed
> with salvation.
>

Reporting miracles in the ancient and modern worlds is just not rare. From vikings explaining volcanos to philipino spirit healers and the Angels of Mons - its just not unusual. None of them turn out to be miracles. Every religion claims aincient miracles or revelations - are you saying their's are all true as well or were you going to provide some kind of mirac-litmus test to weed out the pagans?

The ancient world is full of prophesy - its all very run of the mill. Biblical prophesy is all very post hoc, very editorial - feels like Homer or Nostradamus. Just not credible

You say stuff like "It is those that believe without witnessing first-hand nowadays that are blessed with salvation " but all religions spout this kind of stuff. To be taken seriously, you have to be able to distingiosh yourself with some kind of evidence




> What you see as Christians jumping through
> ever-contrived hoops to defend against evolving
> scientific understanding, many Christians see as a
> "So what?" view that the Bible was never written
> as a scientific tome to be scrutinized as such. As
> an example, you mentioned how the sheer complexity
> of the universe precludes predetermination --
> Christians would shrug and say that nothing is
> beyond the power of God that had the ability to
> create existence in the first place. Yes, it's
> "convenient" I guess you could say, but that
> doesn't make it any less true.

Things are not just true because you say they are - you have to show evidence or mechanism, especially in the face of strong counter evidence and demonstrated mechanisms. Otherwise, you're with the pink unicorn, alien probing, millenialists, hindhu/buddhist/mormon/adventist/shintoists and suicidal cults

If you could carve out a space and say 'science doesn't and can never explain this, and I can show ou why this space is distinct and why my faith is better than Bob's' then you might have chance - but you have failed to do this.



>
> I would also say that of the comparative religions
> you listed, Christianity is alone in putting
> itself out there for critical examination and yet
> standing the test of time. They are not just
> stories. Things were written in the Bible that
> were contradictory, knowing that it would invite
> criticism, but included nonetheless for the sake
> of truthfulness and completeness. Some religions
> don't even attempt it (Buddhism, for example),
> while others have been demonstrated to be
> (provably) false accounts (failed prophecies or
> false historical claims, as an example).

Christianity has never 'put itself out there for critical examination' - the enlightenment came as a very nasty shock to the church(s). Christianity has a rich and bloody history of supresssing dissent including much early science

Try telling copernicus that the religion put itself out there for critical examination.

As science grew in strength and reach, christianity and other religions have been backing progressively back into smaller and smaller corners and stronger and stronger denial.

There's just no wriggle room left - science and religion are just not compatible. If you want religion, then you can't have science - and engineering is a pretty good proof point for virtually every branch of science

finito,

So, as I wrote, if Christianity is so devoid of any reason, why can the contents of the Bible stand the test of time? I don't assert science is wrong. Science is based on theory and observation. Theories can be right, theories can be wrong. I assert that some theories are wrong IMO. You assert that the entire faith of Christianity is wrong. Yet can not disprove any of Bible, the foundational element of the faith. And somehow it is now incumbent on Christians to prove they are right in your view. That is pretzel logic.

Basic tenets of Christianity:

Love one another and treat each other as you would like to be treated
Judge not, lest you be judged
Help those who need help
Hold yourself accountable for your actions
Serve God

Now which of these tenets are dangerous or corrupting? Is the world better off with human secularists telling us what is morally right and wrong? Not by a long shot.

You are having this argument in the 21st Century? Nice.

Professor P.,

The theory of Intelligent Design was developed by scientists who could not reconcile the astronomical odds required to believe random chance created all that is. You confuse those who adopted the theory to try and get creationism taught in school with those who developed the theory.

I don't believe the earth is only 10,000 years old. Why do you think that I would? I have no idea how old the earth is. My point was that current methods of dating the earth all have problems and there are variables that can skew any of them to provide incorrect information leading to incorrect conclusions. No one knows how old the earth is. But evolutionist must have the earth be billions of years old to support their theory. Science has therefore decreed it so. Maybe they're right. But, like the recent global warming scam, main stream science decides which theories they will accept and which they won't and then close ranks to stomp out any dissent. I have no problems with the theory of evolution being taught in school. Of course, it is no longer taught as a theory, but now as a scientific fact. And any other theory is completely shut out. Close minded humanists who replace God with scientists show their true colors. They can not stand to be challenged. And with humanist, there is no absolute morality. Dangerous indeed.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito,
>
> So, as I wrote, if Christianity is so devoid of
> any reason, why can the contents of the Bible
> stand the test of time? I don't assert science is
> wrong. Science is based on theory and
> observation. Theories can be right, theories can
> be wrong. I assert that some theories are wrong
> IMO. You assert that the entire faith of
> Christianity is wrong. Yet can not disprove any
> of Bible, the foundational element of the faith.
> And somehow it is now incumbent on Christians to
> prove they are right in your view. That is
> pretzel logic.
>
> Basic tenets of Christianity:
>
> Love one another and treat each other as you would
> like to be treated
> Judge not, lest you be judged
> Help those who need help
> Hold yourself accountable for your actions
> Serve God
>
> Now which of these tenets are dangerous or
> corrupting? Is the world better off with human
> secularists telling us what is morally right and
> wrong? Not by a long shot.

Firstly, you have chosen a very humanistic subset of tenets which do not represent the core beliefs of many christians (and mainstream doctrine).

For example, you have missed out core tenets around creationism, sin, souls, afterlife, supernatural beings, prayer, social behaviours, miracles etc - as well as many of the common practices such as the power and privileged role of priests and who's power comes a claimed special relationship with God.

The first 4 sound pretty much like marxism to me and are pretty much norms in most stable societies (although different societies draw their edges in different places - Christianity has not always been that generous in its treatment of anyone else - for example the role of the church in the colonalisation of latin america, africa and the pacific islands, or widespread church covered-up sexual abuse)

I certainly don't think that these 4 sum up the most visible proclamations of many of the US's christian right - just a quick example

"(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." –Pat Robertson

"the ACLU has to take a lot of blame for this" ... "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians [who have] helped [the terror attacks of September 11th] happen." Jerry Falwell

The poison creeps in with your no 5 - 'serve god'. In most sub-cults of christianity this means deference to the power of the church, its ministers and hierarchy - which is where private ideas begin to corrupt the public square. Scaring people into submisison with threats of a non-existent hell and promises of a non-existent heaven is corrupt

Christianity and its adherents constantly demand special treatment in civil society - from tax and planning breaks to the christian right who demand that America is a christian nation DAMMIT and anyone who doesn't submit clearly hates america.

You see it in the creationists who try to force religion into schools and the (unconstitutional) inclusion of god in the pledge our chldren recite everyday. It comes out strongly in our foreign policy, particularly regarding the middle east, where biblical literalists and lobbyists have skewed our approach to the whole region and the palestinians in particular

The US cannot be trusted with religion - its not a neutral doctrine, particularly as implemented here.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor P.,
>
> The theory of Intelligent Design was developed by
> scientists who could not reconcile the
> astronomical odds required to believe random
> chance created all that is. You confuse those who
> adopted the theory to try and get creationism
> taught in school with those who developed the
> theory.

You seem to be referring to the anthropic argument - which is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. This is not what is known as 'intelligent design' and it's also not a scientific theory.

> I don't believe the earth is only 10,000 years
> old. Why do you think that I would?

In fairness, you seem to have been pointing this way with your references towards radiometric dating and the age of the earth comments (regarding evolution).

> I have no
> idea how old the earth is. My point was that
> current methods of dating the earth all have
> problems and there are variables that can skew any
> of them to provide incorrect information leading
> to incorrect conclusions.

These aren't 'problems'. If you input improper data into something you are not going to get good results. So, if you are wearing a lead vest while you are getting your chest X-Rayed the inability for the machine to function properly is not indicative of it's inaccuracy.

We can trust radiometric dating because various types of radiometric dating converge on the same date for items. Further, they are consistent with other types of dating we have. The probability of them all being false is astronomical.

> No one knows how old
> the earth is. But evolutionist must have the
> earth be billions of years old to support their
> theory.

Not necessarily - all it supports is the rate of change, not the change itself.

> Science has therefore decreed it so.

I'm sorry but this is deceptive - science has not 'decreed it so'. The evidence for the age of the earth is independent of the theory of evolution. Science does not work off of 'decrees'.

> Maybe they're right. But, like the recent global
> warming scam, main stream science decides which
> theories they will accept and which they won't and
> then close ranks to stomp out any dissent.

This seems to beg the question - it's an appeal to motive, not an appeal to any evidence or argument, so there's not much to comment on here.

> I have
> no problems with the theory of evolution being
> taught in school. Of course, it is no longer
> taught as a theory, but now as a scientific fact.

That's because evolution refers to two different things. One is common descent, which is a scientific fact. The other is the explanation of how organisms diverge - this is the *theory* of evolution.

Theories connotate explanations, not uncertainties, in science. You seem to be confusing the layman's use of the term theory (akin to a 'guess') with how scientists use the term theory (an overarching explanation of facts, laws, and phenomenon).

You wouldn't quibble with gravity being taught as a fact, yet it's still a scientific theory (general theory of relativity).

> And any other theory is completely shut out.

There are no other non falsified scientific theories that compete with evolutionary theory. In the past there was Lamarkianism and Lysenkoism, but both of those have been firmly disproven.

> Close minded humanists who replace God with
> scientists show their true colors.

This is another appeal to motive.

> They can not
> stand to be challenged. And with humanist, there
> is no absolute morality. Dangerous indeed.

This begs the question and appeals to motive.

Nothing to respond to there since there's no arguments.

finito benito:

Hmmm, I can understand and even appreciate how you see science and Christinity as mutually exclusive, but I'm just not there with you. I don't see the two at odds, I see them as living harmoniously together.

You've raised a lot of good points about "picking and choosing" the pieces from Christianity and the Bible that seem to support that faith, but I have yet to see any scientific observation to date that has shown God and Christ to be myths. Just as scientific theories are refined over time (and sometimes entirely discarded), we refine our understanding of what the Bible says over time, particularly in relation to creation or historical and archaeological findings. I don't see that as convenient picking and choosing, any more than I do when it happens in the scientific context.

Newton's laws worked very well for our every-day existence for a couple of hundred years, then we found it to be incomplete and had to refine things. Einstein's relativity theory expanded our understanding for situations beyond our normal experience (for velocities approaching the speed of light, etc.), but left some problems that are yet to be worked out. Quantum theory threw a wrench in many things, and we continue to work those problems out to attempt to harmonize the various fields. Those refinements I do not consider picking and choosing, and neither is it in the theological context.

There are many things we still do not understand, and possibly (probably?) may never. Is light made of particles or waves, or both? Can anything exceed the speed of light? That question is being worked out right now, and it could turn many things/theories upside down. How does an electron get from once position to another without ever being observed in between?

You seek a "natural" explanation for everything, and I appreciate that. I am not a Christian from birth or upbringing, and I was educated in scientific fields and appreciate that discipline. We are all left, though, with the natural question of "where did it come from?" Did it come from nothing? How will science ever rectify that question?

You asked for evidence of why Christianity is true or any more true than other religions. Here's what I can offer, though it is not "proof" like dropping a ball from a tower and observing its rate of descent:

1) Many people died testifying to the truth of what they witnessed, including Jesus himself. Not for a cause, mind you, like blowing themselves up because they were told to do so by a religious leader, but because they firmly believed in what they witnessed and would not recant their story, even under torture/death. Christianity spread like wildfire in the face of a very repressive environment.

2) The separate accounts, by different authors, of Christ's life all converge in the same fundamental way. We don't know with 100% certainty how many distinct authors there were, but safe to say it is more than one.

3) There is a mountain of archaeological and historical evidence that firmly supports the existence of Jesus Christ and his time on Earth, as well as the other Biblical histories. Even if people do not accept that Jesus was the Christ, anyone would be very hard pressed to deny his existence or the veracity of so many other historical claims made in the Bible.

4) There are so many Biblical prophecies that were made before the fact, and later were proven true (often hundreds or thousands of years later). These were not the claims of whack-job religious nuts who make a bunch of claims and eventually get something right, or eventually just go away because they are shown to be frauds. They are well-documented, specific, prophetic claims that have held true. The arrival and importance of Jesus himself was prophesied in the Old Testament.

5) The life of Jesus Christ had a profound impact on the world, arguably the most profound impact any person has ever made in the history of mankind. How did that happen? Was he just a smooth, charismatic person that was also able to do magic tricks? Was he able to fake bringing people back to life, bringing himself back to life, healing people known in their communities to be infirm or diseased for years, providing prophecies that were later proved true (including his own crucifixion and the destruction of the temple, for example), working miracles, speaking some of the most profound and revolutionary teachings ever known, successfully arguing/debating deeply held religious teachings against the leading theologians of his day? Who can fake all that?

6) Humans have a natural curiosity, and one of those curiosities that seems to be very prevalent in just about everyone is a feeling or hope that there is "something" else out there beyond life-death-worm food. Where does that curiosity or desire come from? Are our brains just big enough to contemplate these metaphysical questions, but not big enough to answer them with certainty? Or is that curiosity/desire a strictly human trait put there by a creator?

7) Not much for you to hold on to since it's just my word, but I've seen God work in my life in countless, observable ways. If I was doing a scientific experiment, I could have put forth the testable proposition, prayed about it, and then observed the results, and compared that against the non-praying propositions and outcomes. The result would be somewhere in the 90% range, far beyond "chance" or the power of positive thinking. The other missing 10% I expect will be answered in time, just as some that I thought went unanswered for a while later occurred in outcomes I had not even considered and with far better results. There will probably be a few percent that will seemingly go unanswered forever, for reasons I may never understand.

There have been many charlatans and abuses and distortions in the history of Christianity; I hope you won't commit the fallacy of throwing out the fundamental message or truth because of those things, even though I completely get how people draw that conclusion. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the Pope, etc. do not speak for me or millions of other Christians.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You seem to be referring to the anthropic argument
> - which is a philosophical argument, not a
> scientific one. This is not what is known as
> 'intelligent design' and it's also not a
> scientific theory.
>

This hits the nail on the head. I suspect a lot of people would not have a problem with teaching 'Intelligent Design' in a religion or non-science class with the requisite "this is not science" warning -- if those kinds of classes were taught at all. But to teach it as a scientific theory alongside evolutionary theory does not seem appropriate. Where are the testable propositions?

Schools could stick to the evolutionary and natural selection mechanics that are well known and not in (reasonable) dispute, and they could leave the "How did it all start?" question as a thought exercise for the students.

At the same time, schools ought to make plain the difference between the high certainty we have about evolution theory and natural selection, and the much less certainty we have with the question of whether humans evolved from apes.

These things all get lumped together in the sloppy language of the "evolution vs. intelligent design" debate to the detriment of us all.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito:
>
> Hmmm, I can understand and even appreciate how you
> see science and Christinity as mutually exclusive,
> but I'm just not there with you. I don't see the
> two at odds, I see them as living harmoniously
> together.
>
> You've raised a lot of good points about "picking
> and choosing" the pieces from Christianity and the
> Bible that seem to support that faith, but I have
> yet to see any scientific observation to date that
> has shown God and Christ to be myths. Just as
> scientific theories are refined over time (and
> sometimes entirely discarded), we refine our
> understanding of what the Bible says over time,
> particularly in relation to creation or historical
> and archaeological findings. I don't see that as
> convenient picking and choosing, any more than I
> do when it happens in the scientific context.
>
> Newton's laws worked very well for our every-day
> existence for a couple of hundred years, then we
> found it to be incomplete and had to refine
> things. Einstein's relativity theory expanded our
> understanding for situations beyond our normal
> experience (for velocities approaching the speed
> of light, etc.), but left some problems that are
> yet to be worked out. Quantum theory threw a
> wrench in many things, and we continue to work
> those problems out to attempt to harmonize the
> various fields. Those refinements I do not
> consider picking and choosing, and neither is it
> in the theological context.
>
> There are many things we still do not understand,
> and possibly (probably?) may never. Is light made
> of particles or waves, or both? Can anything
> exceed the speed of light? That question is being
> worked out right now, and it could turn many
> things/theories upside down. How does an electron
> get from once position to another without ever
> being observed in between?
>
> You seek a "natural" explanation for everything,
> and I appreciate that. I am not a Christian from
> birth or upbringing, and I was educated in
> scientific fields and appreciate that discipline.
> We are all left, though, with the natural question
> of "where did it come from?" Did it come from
> nothing? How will science ever rectify that
> question?

I appreciate your point of view and it's interesting. I don't fault you for attempting to harmonize your beliefs with science. Certainly millions of Christians attempt to do just that. I would contend that, at the end, it's faith and I'm fine with that.

To be sure, there are some rational arguments that could favor religion - if you accept their premises. So religion can be rational. I don't accept the premises (obviously) and therefore I do not feel that to be religious is rational - but am I correct? It's possible that I'm wrong with regard to these premises, which is why I say religion can be rational.

In any event, I think that if something can come from nothing that the only way this could happen would be without a cause. I'm not sure that we actually have warrant for this though, as I favor the view of a block universe, so in my estimation, the universe never came into existence from nothing.


> You asked for evidence of why Christianity is true
> or any more true than other religions. Here's what
> I can offer, though it is not "proof" like
> dropping a ball from a tower and observing its
> rate of descent:
>
> 1) Many people died testifying to the truth of
> what they witnessed, including Jesus himself. Not
> for a cause, mind you, like blowing themselves up
> because they were told to do so by a religious
> leader, but because they firmly believed in what
> they witnessed and would not recant their story,
> even under torture/death. Christianity spread like
> wildfire in the face of a very repressive
> environment.

The problem with this argument is two fold:
1. We don't have any solid basis to believe the disciples were killed for their beliefs - it's Church tradition. This is outside of Paul - who did not witness Jesus's life. Jesus did not die for the truth, even according to the Gospels, he died because of the mob. His death, as a matter of fact, goes against our historical records - people were not crucified for pretending to be the messiah (nor were they crucified for being thieves).
2. We have no evidence that if the 'true believers' did recant that this recantation would have alleviated their sentence. It's possible that they all admitted that they were lying and they died anyway.

So their beliefs are not relevant to their torturous deaths.

> 2) The separate accounts, by different authors, of
> Christ's life all converge in the same fundamental
> way. We don't know with 100% certainty how many
> distinct authors there were, but safe to say it is
> more than one.

Actually most scholars accept the two source hypothesis: Q (early sayings of Jesus) and Mark (which the other Gospels rely on). Mark was not an eye witness and came decades after the fact.

So what we have is anonymous, not eye witness accounts, and came years after the fact.

> 3) There is a mountain of archaeological and
> historical evidence that firmly supports the
> existence of Jesus Christ and his time on Earth,
> as well as the other Biblical histories. Even if
> people do not accept that Jesus was the Christ,
> anyone would be very hard pressed to deny his
> existence or the veracity of so many other
> historical claims made in the Bible.

I think Jesus, most likely, existed. I do not think the evidence 'firmly supports' his existence though. I think his existence is the most parsimonious explanation of the early Church. As to the veracity of the historical claims of the Bible - I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. Just because the Bible mentions historical figures does not lend any credence to the miracle claims within. Stephen Kings new book mentions JFK, but that doesn't mean that time travel is occurring.

> 4) There are so many Biblical prophecies that were
> made before the fact, and later were proven true
> (often hundreds or thousands of years later).
> These were not the claims of whack-job religious
> nuts who make a bunch of claims and eventually get
> something right, or eventually just go away
> because they are shown to be frauds. They are
> well-documented, specific, prophetic claims that
> have held true. The arrival and importance of
> Jesus himself was prophesied in the Old
> Testament.

The prophecies are no more convincing than Nostradamus's prophecies. They are not all specific nor are they all well documented. As to Jesus, I'd say most of those prophecies are retrofitted - in fact, the bit about the virgin and the riding of two donkeys are a result of mistranslations in the Septuagint. The early Christians (Justin Martyr in particular) had to answer to these criticisms. So this issue has been around for a LONG time.

> 5) The life of Jesus Christ had a profound impact
> on the world, arguably the most profound impact
> any person has ever made in the history of
> mankind. How did that happen? Was he just a
> smooth, charismatic person that was also able to
> do magic tricks? Was he able to fake bringing
> people back to life, bringing himself back to
> life, healing people known in their communities to
> be infirm or diseased for years, providing
> prophecies that were later proved true (including
> his own crucifixion and the destruction of the
> temple, for example), working miracles, speaking
> some of the most profound and revolutionary
> teachings ever known, successfully
> arguing/debating deeply held religious teachings
> against the leading theologians of his day? Who
> can fake all that?

The impact of Jesus is remarkable, but not supernatural. I don't see much of a difference between him and other religious founders. Further, some of the claims you make presuppose the accounts are genuine.

As a matter of fact, there were other Messiah's running around during the time of Jesus and there were other miracle workers who did the exact same miracles that Jesus did. Vespasian, for instance, cured blind people with spit - just like Jesus did.

Jesus was not well known during his day. In fact, none of the contemporary historians mention him at all. His first mention comes decades after the influence of his early church.

> 6) Humans have a natural curiosity, and one of
> those curiosities that seems to be very prevalent
> in just about everyone is a feeling or hope that
> there is "something" else out there beyond
> life-death-worm food. Where does that curiosity or
> desire come from? Are our brains just big enough
> to contemplate these metaphysical questions, but
> not big enough to answer them with certainty? Or
> is that curiosity/desire a strictly human trait
> put there by a creator?

This inclination is because we are pattern seeking creatures. We see patterns and infer design. We see faces in the clouds, we believe that celestial bodies influence our behaviors.

> 7) Not much for you to hold on to since it's just
> my word, but I've seen God work in my life in
> countless, observable ways. If I was doing a
> scientific experiment, I could have put forth the
> testable proposition, prayed about it, and then
> observed the results, and compared that against
> the non-praying propositions and outcomes. The
> result would be somewhere in the 90% range, far
> beyond "chance" or the power of positive thinking.
> The other missing 10% I expect will be answered in
> time, just as some that I thought went unanswered
> for a while later occurred in outcomes I had not
> even considered and with far better results. There
> will probably be a few percent that will seemingly
> go unanswered forever, for reasons I may never
> understand.

I can't really argue with this, but I do not find it very persuasive. I've met Muslims and people of other faiths with similar claims.

> There have been many charlatans and abuses and
> distortions in the history of Christianity; I hope
> you won't commit the fallacy of throwing out the
> fundamental message or truth because of those
> things, even though I completely get how people
> draw that conclusion. Pat Robertson, Jerry
> Falwell, the Pope, etc. do not speak for me or
> millions of other Christians.

I don't find the fundamental message of Christianity all that different from other religious leaders. Rabbi Himmel distilled the Old Testament laws down to the golden rule, for instance.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This hits the nail on the head. I suspect a lot of
> people would not have a problem with teaching
> 'Intelligent Design' in a religion or non-science
> class with the requisite "this is not science"
> warning -- if those kinds of classes were taught
> at all. But to teach it as a scientific theory
> alongside evolutionary theory does not seem
> appropriate. Where are the testable propositions?

Exactly.

To go further, I have no problem with religion being taught in schools - I support religious education and education in philosophy - I just don't want it to be mistaught as science.

> Schools could stick to the evolutionary and
> natural selection mechanics that are well known
> and not in (reasonable) dispute, and they could
> leave the "How did it all start?" question as a
> thought exercise for the students.
>
> At the same time, schools ought to make plain the
> difference between the high certainty we have
> about evolution theory and natural selection, and
> the much less certainty we have with the question
> of whether humans evolved from apes.

?

What's the difference in certainty? According to some definitions, *humans are apes*.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >

> Schools could stick to the evolutionary and
> natural selection mechanics that are well known
> and not in (reasonable) dispute, and they could
> leave the "How did it all start?" question as a
> thought exercise for the students.
>
> At the same time, schools ought to make plain the
> difference between the high certainty we have
> about evolution theory and natural selection, and
> the much less certainty we have with the question
> of whether humans evolved from apes.

At the risk of being acused of being rude...

This is a great example of magical thinking. Exactly the same evidence applies to people, whales, birds and horses. In each of these you have an excellent (but, by definition, incomplete) fossil record as well as the exceptional evidence in the DNA.

In the case of humans and other apes, you have both a strong fossil record of homonids (and their precursors) and you can also map the relative genetic differences wihin and between modern apes and amongst other related species.

What you are suggesting is intellectually dishonest (or more charitably, intellectually lazy)- especially if you accept that the mechanisms of 'evolutionary and natural selection mechanics that are well known and not in (reasonable) dispute', Do you have any evidence to suggest that evolution applies to every living thing apart from homo sapiens? Or is this a faith thing again?

So are you suggesting that the homonid line evolved through to the neanderthal's and then the angels turned up and wiped them out to make space for modern humans? Are you suggesting that we're not mammals? That we were build to look sneakily like mammals at the genetic level to confuse the unwary?

Or did you have some other specific historical point of divine intervention in the evolutionary record?

You insist on hanging on to some unjustified homo-centralist or homo-exceptionalist ideas, presumably to sustain the concept of man in god's image and a god of personal chats.

To make this work, you have to jump through so many hoops with out evidence that Occam's razor has to come into play. You have two explanations - one simple and lines up with evidence - the other has all of this baroque frippery added sans evidence

This is typical of religion backing itself into a corner and then having to make something up which makes no sense - that's not even self consistent

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Believe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This hits the nail on the head. I suspect a lot
> of
> > people would not have a problem with teaching
> > 'Intelligent Design' in a religion or
> non-science
> > class with the requisite "this is not science"
> > warning -- if those kinds of classes were
> taught
> > at all. But to teach it as a scientific theory
> > alongside evolutionary theory does not seem
> > appropriate. Where are the testable
> propositions?
>
> Exactly.
>
> To go further, I have no problem with religion
> being taught in schools - I support religious
> education and education in philosophy - I just
> don't want it to be mistaught as science.

This is one place where the prof and I disagree

I am strongly opposed to religious education in our schools on a number of grounds.

The main one being that it has no basis in fact and makes assertions that are demonstrably misleading.

A second is that all religions are equally valid yet make completely different claims. Why should we teach christianity when other people's faith in Bahai, Shintoism, animism, driudism or satanism is equally strong - just because of believe's particular faith?

Yet another is that, especially but not exclusively in this country. religion comes with a lot of very nasty pre-dispositions - subservience, homopobia, xenophobia, sectarianism, misogeny, racial exceptionalism. Which bits are you going to teach? Would you teach a red in tooth and claw fundamentalist jerry falwall christainity or an usama bin laden rejectionist variant of islam - or would you pick a nice cuddly version of both? Are we teaching papal infallability or speaking in tongues?

Local kids already do a short elementary school session on comparative religions and mythologies - I suspect that's mostly about helping them to deal with diversity in the classroom. That seems about enough.

Religion is a blood soaked left over from an earlier age of conquests, crusades and colonisations - it has no place in the modern world

finito,

As usual, you confuse what Christianity is (read the NT and get it straight from the Source), with the actions that people who call themselves Christians. What preachers and churches do in the name of Christ is (sadly) often different than the teachings of Christ. Jesus never tried to get special tax breaks or planning (whatever that means) or set Himself above anyone. In fact, He died for everyone, including you. You have shaped your warped view based on prejudices and those things that support your prejudice. So be it. As I've said before, it really makes no nevermind to me. But you have never set foot into MBC, so anything you have to say about that church is irrelevant.

I think what you really mean is that the US (and all humans) can not be trusted with power. Especially the power to decide what is morally right and wrong. History is replete with examples, even those who do it in the name of their religion, including Christianity.

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is one place where the prof and I disagree
>
> I am strongly opposed to religious education in
> our schools on a number of grounds.
>
> The main one being that it has no basis in fact
> and makes assertions that are demonstrably
> misleading.

This is going to sound strange, but I'm not sure how this is relevant. I'd like religion, as in a comparative religion course, taught in schools to basically inform students of what other people believe. I'm not sure how it would be misleading, although, certainly, there is the ability to corrupt it.

> A second is that all religions are equally valid
> yet make completely different claims. Why should
> we teach christianity when other people's faith in
> Bahai, Shintoism, animism, driudism or satanism is
> equally strong - just because of believe's
> particular faith?

I'm not in favor of just teaching one religion. I'm in favor of teaching the most popular ones: Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc, etc. Ideally I'd also have the most popular ones historically, taught as well (greek, egyptian, etc).

> Yet another is that, especially but not
> exclusively in this country. religion comes with a
> lot of very nasty pre-dispositions - subservience,
> homopobia, xenophobia, sectarianism, misogeny,
> racial exceptionalism. Which bits are you going to
> teach? Would you teach a red in tooth and claw
> fundamentalist jerry falwall christainity or an
> usama bin laden rejectionist variant of islam - or
> would you pick a nice cuddly version of both? Are
> we teaching papal infallability or speaking in
> tongues?

I would teach the basics as a start. I would not shy away from the controversial bits, as they often differentiate various religions. I wouldn't be teaching any of the religions as right, merely as what people believe.

> Local kids already do a short elementary school
> session on comparative religions and mythologies -
> I suspect that's mostly about helping them to deal
> with diversity in the classroom. That seems about
> enough.

Yes, 10+ years ago when I was in school I took an elective comparative religion course. I'm in favor of something like that taught as one of the general courses.

> Religion is a blood soaked left over from an
> earlier age of conquests, crusades and
> colonisations - it has no place in the modern
> world

Maybe so, but people need to be aware of what other people believe.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito,
>
> As usual, you confuse what Christianity is (read
> the NT and get it straight from the Source), with
> the actions that people who call themselves
> Christians. What preachers and churches do in the
> name of Christ is (sadly) often different than the
> teachings of Christ. Jesus never tried to get
> special tax breaks or planning (whatever that
> means) or set Himself above anyone. In fact, He
> died for everyone, including you. You have shaped
> your warped view based on prejudices and those
> things that support your prejudice. So be it. As
> I've said before, it really makes no nevermind to
> me. But you have never set foot into MBC, so
> anything you have to say about that church is
> irrelevant.
>
> I think what you really mean is that the US (and
> all humans) can not be trusted with power.
> Especially the power to decide what is morally
> right and wrong. History is replete with
> examples, even those who do it in the name of
> their religion, including Christianity.


I would agree that you can't always make generalizations of a philosophy (religion) based on what the adherents practice. As to what the religion actually teaches, there could be some discussion there.

In any event, I'm curious, Jesus died for everyone, including me, correct?

What do you think this means, exactly?

The reason I ask is, do you think it matters whether we accept him or reject him? After all, our sins are all forgiven regardless, right?

Prof. P,

I know what I am referring to and it is the theory of Intelligent Design. Perhaps you should research it a little more than the apparent Google/Wikipedia search you've done. I recommend that you read some of the dozens of books on the subject from scholars, scientists, researchers and theologians. In fact, you're embrace of scientific theory as "scientific fact" makes me think you should read more on many of the theories you've embraced, especially those articles and books that challenge your notions and presumptions.

You seem to have a naive view of modern science as some pristine and pure quest for knowledge without any agendas or prejudices and immune to human frailties that effect every other area of human existence, including the church and religions. Of course, as has been demonstrated time and time again, this is nonsense. But your conclusions assume that theories exist in stovepipes and that scientific hypotheses are distinct and discreet instances of thought that aren't related to those of another theory. I don't think you believe that, but you deflect using this tactic when challenged.

You've admitted that, in the end, your POV is based on those assumptions you accept and those assumptions you reject. So, your conclusions are skewed thus. This is true of all of us of course. Unfortunately for some, in the end, either the Bible is right or it is not. If it is not, then the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a fairy tale. It it is the word of God, then it is ALL the word of God and those who pick and choose what they wish to believe or follow are as lost as those who reject it all.

Why don't you go to MCB and sit through a few services. Better yet, watch it live on the Internet (not as good as being there IMO, but less hassle for the hassle-averse). You have nothing to lose and much to gain.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. P,
>
> I know what I am referring to and it is the theory
> of Intelligent Design. Perhaps you should
> research it a little more than the apparent
> Google/Wikipedia search you've done. I recommend
> that you read some of the dozens of books on the
> subject from scholars, scientists, researchers and
> theologians. In fact, you're embrace of
> scientific theory as "scientific fact" makes me
> think you should read more on many of the theories
> you've embraced, especially those articles and
> books that challenge your notions and
> presumptions.

Apparently not - as I stated, you are referring to the anthropic argument, the universe is 'finely tuned'. It is not a scientific theory. You have not presented the 'scientific theory' of intelligent design, despite saying that ID is a proper theory. Please present it.

I've also done more than a 'google/wiki' search. I've read a few books on the topic, from both ID proponents and science proponents.

As to scientific theory/fact - you seem to be confusing 'fact' with certainty, which I do not do.

It's hypocritical that you chide me for my presumptions when your post is filled with them.

> You seem to have a naive view of modern science as
> some pristine and pure quest for knowledge without
> any agendas or prejudices and immune to human
> frailties that effect every other area of human
> existence, including the church and religions.

More presumptions.

Science is a method, scientific 'truth' is tentative based on the data we have, as a result it's conclusions are not certain.

> Of
> course, as has been demonstrated time and time
> again, this is nonsense. But your conclusions
> assume that theories exist in stovepipes and that
> scientific hypotheses are distinct and discreet
> instances of thought that aren't related to those
> of another theory. I don't think you believe
> that, but you deflect using this tactic when
> challenged.

Even more presumptions. How is burning those strawmen going?

I noticed that you ignored vast swaths of my posts in order to lampoon views I do not hold. Do you think this strategy is effective?

> You've admitted that, in the end, your POV is
> based on those assumptions you accept and those
> assumptions you reject. So, your conclusions are
> skewed thus. This is true of all of us of course.

This is fluff - it makes sweeping claims with no specifics.

> Unfortunately for some, in the end, either the
> Bible is right or it is not.

Wrong, it can be mostly right, 1/2 right, etc, etc. It can contain true facts about historic figures AND falsehoods about historic figures. It's not black and white as you presuppose.

> If it is not, then
> the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a fairy
> tale. It it is the word of God, then it is ALL
> the word of God and those who pick and choose what
> they wish to believe or follow are as lost as
> those who reject it all.

This is your opinion.

> Why don't you go to MCB and sit through a few
> services. Better yet, watch it live on the
> Internet (not as good as being there IMO, but less
> hassle for the hassle-averse). You have nothing
> to lose and much to gain.


I have no need to do this, despite your assertion, I have nothing to gain and I do have something to lose - my time, which is better spent elsewhere.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> ?
>
> What's the difference in certainty? According to
> some definitions, *humans are apes*.

Ha, good point, I suppose it does depend on your definition not to mention your every-day experience. I guess I was referring to the loose idea that the Theory of Natural Selection, for example, is pretty well proven and not really in dispute. It deserves its Capital T "Theory" status and has a rightful place in science class. But, the general proposition that humans descended from a common ancestor shared by modern apes is not proven, and certainly provokes creationists to want to throw out the whole "evolution" baby with the bath water. It could be presented to students, but not as scientific fact or Theory with a capital T. Maybe give it the same "intelligent design" treatment in the classroom -- it's an unproven idea that some believe.

I'm not saying we should shy away from teaching controversial scientific ideas, I'm just saying that we do not have irrefutable evidence that the DNA of humans descended directly from the DNA of a common ancestor shared by modern apes. That idea does not enjoy Capital T Theory distinction, and is currently an untested proposition. It could very well prove true, but the evidence isn't there yet. Either way, personally it would not threaten my religious convictions, so I don't care if it eventually deserves "Proven Theory of How Man Descended From Apes" status one day.

Honestly I don't know why creationists get so threatened by evolution being taught in schools in the first place, unless they are clinging to some pretty ignorant ideas.

finito benito Wrote:
>
> So are you suggesting that the homonid line
> evolved through to the neanderthal's and then the
> angels turned up and wiped them out to make space
> for modern humans? Are you suggesting that we're
> not mammals? That we were build to look sneakily
> like mammals at the genetic level to confuse the
> unwary?
>
> Or did you have some other specific historical
> point of divine intervention in the evolutionary
> record?
>

Yes, I am saying it is entirely possible that God created a man right there in the middle of ancient hominids, and that homo sapiens shared some of the same DNA as its contemporary hominids, but he had enough different DNA to make it a modern man. I don't know the mechanism God used -- maybe the mechanism was what we call natural selection creating/descending a man (Adam) out of an ancient ape-like ancestor. Maybe it was angels as you said. Maybe God plopped Adam and Eve right there out of nothing into the Garden of Eden, alongside ape-like ancestors living nearby, and they flourished because of their superior intellect and opposable thumbs and other God-given abilities, while neanderthals, etc. eventually died off because they could not compete. None of these scenarios would be beyond the power of a God who created the universe, and I wasn't around to witness it to say how it happened. We only have the archaeological evidence left behind, and it can't tell us definitively.

Just like the discussion of where did the universe come from, I am not threatened by the idea that God put it all in motion, or that he put natural selection in motion as a means for creating a species called Man. This seems to be a simple explanation that satisfies Occam's Razor, even if it is not an explanation for which I can provide definitive proof.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In any event, I'm curious, Jesus died for
> everyone, including me, correct?
>
> What do you think this means, exactly?
>
> The reason I ask is, do you think it matters
> whether we accept him or reject him? After all,
> our sins are all forgiven regardless, right?


You didn't ask me, but I will attempt an answer: Yes, Jesus died for everyone. It DOES matter, gravely, whether we accept or reject him. Our sins are forgiven only for those that choose to accept that forgiveness by accepting Christ as their savior. Those that reject Christ are not forgiven, they are not given eternal life (or their eternal life is unpleasant). Christ is the "last chance" God gave people to reconcile themselves to him.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> In any event, I'm curious, Jesus died for
> everyone, including me, correct?
>
> What do you think this means, exactly?
>
> The reason I ask is, do you think it matters
> whether we accept him or reject him? After all,
> our sins are all forgiven regardless, right?

Yes it matters.

But to answer your first/second question, it depends on your view of the scope of the atonement. Calvinists will say he didn't die for you as a non-believer (assuming you do not come to faith in Christ before you die). Arminians (or 4-point Calvinists) will argue he died for all, but his saving work is not applied until you profess faith. They would also say his death opens the door to make your response possible in the first place.

Either way, neither group believes in universal salvation (i.e. since Christ died for all, all are saved regardless of their faith). That much is clear. The rest is just a debate of the mechanics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2011 06:15PM by snowdenscold.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Apparently not - as I stated, you are referring to
> the anthropic argument, the universe is 'finely
> tuned'. It is not a scientific theory. You have
> not presented the 'scientific theory' of
> intelligent design, despite saying that ID is a
> proper theory. Please present it.
>
> I've also done more than a 'google/wiki' search.
> I've read a few books on the topic, from both ID
> proponents and science proponents.

If you're too hung up on the term theory vs. some other term such as hypothesis or principle, I can change the term. It does not matter regarding the point I was making, which was the the concept of ID was developed within the scientific community because it was a more plausible (numerically speaking) answer to how things are than evolution.

I'll tell you what, when you start presenting the theories you cite rather than one sentence summaries of what they are void of any empirical data or actual research, I'll consider it. Let's start with this one:

You stated, "We can trust radiometric dating because various types of radiometric dating converge on the same date for items. Further, they are consistent with other types of dating we have. The probability of them all being false is astronomical." So, please provide us with all the various types of radiometric dating and peer reviewed research that shows they all converge on the same date and how they can not be influenced by outside events. Also, please provide us with what the odds are that they could be wrong. Please cite an authoritative source that has had their conclusions peer reviewed. Up until 25 years ago, we thought the universe was expanding at a constant rate and therefore, the method of dating the age of stars and the universe itself could be derived by how far they were from the origin. Now we've learned that the universe's expansion is NOT constant and that parts of the universe are contracting.

Regarding your assertion that you've read a few books on ID: If you say so. IMO, you posts don't reflect that, but since you are either purposefully or unintentionally missing the whole point of why I brought up ID, it really doesn't matter anyway.

>
> As to scientific theory/fact - you seem to be
> confusing 'fact' with certainty, which I do not
> do.
>
> It's hypocritical that you chide me for my
> presumptions when your post is filled with them.

Perhaps. But I don't profess that science proves my point. That is what you are doing. My entire "theory" that there is a God and that He created the universe and that the Bible is the Word of God is based on faith and what I know personally. Good science is unpresuming, allowing the observations and data to go where they will. Presumption is bad science. When I start relying on science in my arguments, I would expect that you will hold me to the same level of scrutiny.

> More presumptions.
>
> Science is a method, scientific 'truth' is
> tentative based on the data we have, as a result
> it's conclusions are not certain.

Not so much a presumption as an observation. But I concede that you would find my observation presumptive from your perspective
.

>
> Even more presumptions. How is burning those
> strawmen going?
>
> I noticed that you ignored vast swaths of my posts
> in order to lampoon views I do not hold. Do you
> think this strategy is effective?

That was not my intent. I don't ignore the swaths. I respond to what interests me and what I feel like responding to. I personally don't like the method you use to respond (the one I am currently using where you go line by line making long winded and usually repetitive posts). I don't feel it my responsibility to answer you point by point.

The views I think you hold are based on how I interpret your posts. Since I have no idea what views you actually hold, everything I think about you is distilled from what you post on this thread. If it isn't true, so be it.

>
>
> This is fluff - it makes sweeping claims with no
> specifics.

Fluff? LOL, now that is the tried and true Prof P. deflection. You stated in a post above that you don't accept the premise and therefore, can not arrive a that conclusion and then acknowledge that you could be wrong. How then is it fluff to call you out that your conclusions are based on what you choose to accept? You do this all the time. Go back a read the times you've written that something is fluff because you're called out on what you post.

>
> Wrong, it can be mostly right, 1/2 right, etc,
> etc. It can contain true facts about historic
> figures AND falsehoods about historic figures.
> It's not black and white as you presuppose.

I should have been more clear. Either the Bible is the Word of God or it is not. That was what I meant. I was not referring to the hundreds of places in the Bible that are supported by historical artifacts and archeological finds.

>
> > If it is not, then
> > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a fairy
> > tale. It it is the word of God, then it is ALL
> > the word of God and those who pick and choose
> what
> > they wish to believe or follow are as lost as
> > those who reject it all.
>
> This is your opinion.

No, this is what the Bible says. And either this is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your inability to see that clearly is puzzling. This is logic, not science.

>
> I have no need to do this, despite your assertion,
> I have nothing to gain and I do have something to
> lose - my time, which is better spent elsewhere.

I don't assert you have a need. You don't have a need to invest $1 in a $1,000.000 lottery with 2 to 1 odds either. Your statement comes across as irrational. Whether you do it or not is up to you. If was a suggestion, not an assertion. You're seem to be getting a little prickly Prof.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> >

>
> Yes, I am saying it is entirely possible that God
> created a man right there in the middle of ancient
> hominids, and that homo sapiens shared some of the
> same DNA as its contemporary hominids, but he had
> enough different DNA to make it a modern man. I
> don't know the mechanism God used -- maybe the
> mechanism was what we call natural selection
> creating/descending a man (Adam) out of an ancient
> ape-like ancestor. Maybe it was angels as you
> said. Maybe God plopped Adam and Eve right there
> out of nothing into the Garden of Eden, alongside
> ape-like ancestors living nearby, and they
> flourished because of their superior intellect and
> opposable thumbs and other God-given abilities,
> while neanderthals, etc. eventually died off
> because they could not compete. None of these
> scenarios would be beyond the power of a God who
> created the universe, and I wasn't around to
> witness it to say how it happened. We only have
> the archaeological evidence left behind, and it
> can't tell us definitively.


This is a really dumb argument - it sounds like the death gasps of the victorian church in Britain after Darwin, its just that religion in the US has been locked in its bubble for an extra century. It's the 'what's the most ridiculous thing we can make up with no evidence' strategy?

What you're saying is "well its clear that the universe works this way - well apart from this bit over here that stops me feeling special, so I'll just make up some magic unicorn farts - in fact I'll tell you what colour my unicorn was because that's what my faith says, and anyone who says its a different color hates america"

Why do you think that opposable thumbs required divine intervention - would that be why they are so common amongst primates - and why we can see the variations of the genes responsible through the primate family?

What you're saying makes no sense, you have no evidence, no mechanism, nothing.

Its like saying "gravity works everywhere except, one time I think it worked differently in my kitchen, I know there's no egg on the ceiling and I wasn't there but, you know, nothings beyond god"

Sorry, but frankly that's retarded.




>
> Just like the discussion of where did the universe
> come from, I am not threatened by the idea that
> God put it all in motion, or that he put natural
> selection in motion as a means for creating a
> species called Man. This seems to be a simple
> explanation that satisfies Occam's Razor, even if
> it is not an explanation for which I can provide
> definitive proof.

It clearly doesn't satisfy anything. As you we've discussed before, to predict the state of a complex quantum system, you need another quantum system with at least the same number of degrees of freedom over at least the same length of time. To do that at the scale of the universe over the age of the universe

Specifically, it doesn't satisfy occam's razor as you're now asserting at least two similar systems, and realistically the infinite number needed to get the starting conditions right. Its a silly argument.

Claiming that god set up the big bang so that every quantum of energy that we see embodied in heavy elements went through the vast energies of the post-big bang and the cores and supernovae of stars (which is where they are formed) in exactly the right way to end up with a pope to chat with over dinner is just ridiculous - and its just not necessary

We've moved beyond the idea that the universe is a small place which rotates around christians and christendom and is subject to arbitrary fiddling and miracles- we now know how huge the universe is, the kinds of timescales involved and conditions that have existed and still exist, the processes that underly complex emergent systems, the way physics computes, the way chemistry builds and the way biology develops and uses information

Our understanding of physics, chemistry and biology shows that a divine hand is not necessary to explain the complexity of the universe - time, energy, scale and complexity are enough - at least in the case of our universe

At some point you have to face up to the fact that human's are just not that special, and in the scale of things, the earth is not that special either. We're just blips - both in space and time.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > If it is not, then
> > > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a fairy
> > > tale. It it is the word of God, then it is
> ALL
> > > the word of God and those who pick and choose
> > what
> > > they wish to believe or follow are as lost as
> > > those who reject it all.
> >
> > This is your opinion.
>
> No, this is what the Bible says. And either this
> is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> inability to see that clearly is puzzling. This
> is logic, not science.
>

Trooth - meet Believe. Believe - meet Trooth

You both claim to be the true christians but there seems to be a mismatch

'Take it or leave it all creationist literalism' vs 'pick and choose based selective choice of evidence'

They don't seem to be particularly compatible

Just sayin

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ha, good point, I suppose it does depend on your
> definition not to mention your every-day
> experience. I guess I was referring to the loose
> idea that the Theory of Natural Selection, for
> example, is pretty well proven and not really in
> dispute. It deserves its Capital T "Theory" status
> and has a rightful place in science class. But,
> the general proposition that humans descended from
> a common ancestor shared by modern apes is not
> proven, and certainly provokes creationists to
> want to throw out the whole "evolution" baby with
> the bath water. It could be presented to students,
> but not as scientific fact or Theory with a
> capital T. Maybe give it the same "intelligent
> design" treatment in the classroom -- it's an
> unproven idea that some believe.

Humans and modern apes show a common ancestor - this is 'proven' as far as science goes. That is to say that scientists have a high degree of certainty about this. Our closest living relative is the chimp.

> I'm not saying we should shy away from teaching
> controversial scientific ideas, I'm just saying
> that we do not have irrefutable evidence that the
> DNA of humans descended directly from the DNA of a
> common ancestor shared by modern apes.

That depends on what you mean by 'irrefutable'. We have strong evidence, in many forms, that we share a common ancestor with modern apes. This includes DNA evidence. We are 99% genetically similar with chimps, for instance.

> That idea
> does not enjoy Capital T Theory distinction, and
> is currently an untested proposition. It could
> very well prove true, but the evidence isn't there
> yet. Either way, personally it would not threaten
> my religious convictions, so I don't care if it
> eventually deserves "Proven Theory of How Man
> Descended From Apes" status one day.

There are tests we have regarding our common ancestors - one is a broken gene that, if it worked, would enable us to produce our own vitamin C. We share this broken gene, in the same fashion, with chimps and other apes.

> Honestly I don't know why creationists get so
> threatened by evolution being taught in schools in
> the first place, unless they are clinging to some
> pretty ignorant ideas.

Some creationists believe in biblical literalism and to them that means a certain thing. Common descent and being a glorified ape (as opposed to glorified mud) is somehow an insult.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You didn't ask me, but I will attempt an answer:
> Yes, Jesus died for everyone. It DOES matter,
> gravely, whether we accept or reject him. Our sins
> are forgiven only for those that choose to accept
> that forgiveness by accepting Christ as their
> savior. Those that reject Christ are not forgiven,
> they are not given eternal life (or their eternal
> life is unpleasant). Christ is the "last chance"
> God gave people to reconcile themselves to him.

So his forgiveness has conditions?

snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes it matters.
>
> But to answer your first/second question, it
> depends on your view of the scope of the
> atonement. Calvinists will say he didn't die for
> you as a non-believer (assuming you do not come to
> faith in Christ before you die). Arminians (or
> 4-point Calvinists) will argue he died for all,
> but his saving work is not applied until you
> profess faith. They would also say his death opens
> the door to make your response possible in the
> first place.

I can understand the view that Jesus only died to redeem a select few's sins. It doesn't strike me as very merciful, but I can understand that idea.

The idea that he died to redeem all sins, yet some people still go to hell, doesn't make sense to me.

> Either way, neither group believes in universal
> salvation (i.e. since Christ died for all, all are
> saved regardless of their faith). That much is
> clear. The rest is just a debate of the
> mechanics.

Yes, I realize that. I just don't have a clear understanding as to *why*.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're too hung up on the term theory vs. some
> other term such as hypothesis or principle, I can
> change the term. It does not matter regarding the
> point I was making, which was the the concept of
> ID was developed within the scientific community
> because it was a more plausible (numerically
> speaking) answer to how things are than
> evolution.

Words have meanings and it's easy to switch back and forth between how layman use a term and how scientists use a term. There is a dismissive 'it's just a theory' as though it had no credence to it that creationists often use as an argument against accepting modern science. This is why I make a distinction.

Plus, if you say that intelligent design is a theory and you mean 'guess', then that's fine, but it gets conflated with the scientific usage. Many creationists want intelligent design taught in science class as though it were an actual scientific theory - this is wrong, since it's conflating the term. It misleads people into thinking that intelligent design is scientifically credible, which it is not. It might be philosophically credible, but that's a whole different ball of wax.

As to ID, I am specifically referring to intelligent design held by creationists - I frankly do not know what you are talking about. As I have said, it seems that you are talking about a philosophical argument - the fine tuning argument - which is not a scientific theory.

This is the timeline of intelligent design - you'll notice that creationists began using the term AFTER losing a influential law case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_intelligent_design#Pandas_revised.2C_DI_meets_ID


> I'll tell you what, when you start presenting the
> theories you cite rather than one sentence
> summaries of what they are void of any empirical
> data or actual research, I'll consider it. Let's
> start with this one:

The 'theories' I cite?

Fine, here's an article I wrote a long time ago - I cite from text books and leading authorities on evolutionary science: http://www.allyourfaitharebelongtous.com/content.php?page=view_article.php%3FarticleID%3D13


I'm not asking for citations for a theory of intelligent design - I'm asking you for the actual theory. You won't be able to give me one though, since the ID proponents don't have one. They have no models, no testable data, no explanation. In short, no theory.

> You stated, "We can trust radiometric dating
> because various types of radiometric dating
> converge on the same date for items. Further, they
> are consistent with other types of dating we have.
> The probability of them all being false is
> astronomical." So, please provide us with all the
> various types of radiometric dating and peer
> reviewed research that shows they all converge on
> the same date and how they can not be influenced
> by outside events.

Gee, I thought you were trying to say you were well versed in this stuff! IN any event, I'll provide you with *a* source and then you can do your own homework:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html


> Also, please provide us with
> what the odds are that they could be wrong.

Do your own math on it.

> Please cite an authoritative source that has had
> their conclusions peer reviewed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html
Check the references.

This references peer reviewed journals:
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
More:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

> Up until 25
> years ago, we thought the universe was expanding
> at a constant rate and therefore, the method of
> dating the age of stars and the universe itself
> could be derived by how far they were from the
> origin. Now we've learned that the universe's
> expansion is NOT constant and that parts of the
> universe are contracting.

You realize this is completely irrelevant to radiometric dating, don't you?

> Regarding your assertion that you've read a few
> books on ID: If you say so. IMO, you posts don't
> reflect that, but since you are either
> purposefully or unintentionally missing the whole
> point of why I brought up ID, it really doesn't
> matter anyway.

Your opinion is noted and discarded - I could claim the exact same thing to you. The only difference is that I've actually backed up what I've said with citations and arguments and you've ignored vast swaths of arguments and all you seem to be able to do is 'speculate' on what I've put forward.

> Perhaps. But I don't profess that science proves
> my point. That is what you are doing.

More assumptions - Science is not in the game of 'proving' things - I've stated this before in this thread. Scientific facts, theories, laws, etc are all based on current data and the conclusions are reasonable, yet tentatively held.

Read Asimov's relativity of wrong before you go assuming things about what I 'profess':

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

> My entire
> "theory" that there is a God and that He created
> the universe and that the Bible is the Word of God
> is based on faith and what I know personally.

That's not a scientific theory - that is your opinion.

> Good science is unpresuming, allowing the
> observations and data to go where they will.
> Presumption is bad science. When I start relying
> on science in my arguments, I would expect that
> you will hold me to the same level of scrutiny.

I hold you to the same level of scrutiny because of your claims - most of which you have not brought up. You say that God created the universe, but where's your evidence/arguments for this? You say you have faith - good. You say you base it on things you know personally - again, good.

If you mean to influence anyone else's opinion then you are going to need arguments and evidence, not assertions.


> Not so much a presumption as an observation. But
> I concede that you would find my observation
> presumptive from your perspective

Then your observation about my perspective is flawed in some way, since you clearly have my perspective wrong.

> That was not my intent. I don't ignore the
> swaths. I respond to what interests me and what I
> feel like responding to.

In other words, you ignore the difficult bits and hope no one notices.

> I personally don't like
> the method you use to respond (the one I am
> currently using where you go line by line making
> long winded and usually repetitive posts). I
> don't feel it my responsibility to answer you
> point by point.

You can favor many different styles in debates/discussions, you do not have to hold to mine, but the way you are (or were) currently going about it is very ineffective, IMO, since it leaves a litany of unanswered points.

> The views I think you hold are based on how I
> interpret your posts. Since I have no idea what
> views you actually hold, everything I think about
> you is distilled from what you post on this
> thread. If it isn't true, so be it.

I've listed my views many times throughout this thread - now, i don't expect you to go reading all the way through it, but I do expect you to ask as opposed to simply assume things about my views - especially when I've told you before that I do not hold certain views (such as epistemic certainty in science).

> Fluff? LOL, now that is the tried and true Prof
> P. deflection.

If you say so - you made general sweeping claims - what, specifically, is there to respond to?

That my position is 'skewed' simply because you say it is?

> You stated in a post above that
> you don't accept the premise and therefore, can
> not arrive a that conclusion and then acknowledge
> that you could be wrong. How then is it fluff to
> call you out that your conclusions are based on
> what you choose to accept? You do this all the
> time. Go back a read the times you've written
> that something is fluff because you're called out
> on what you post.

It is fluff because you are suggesting my viewpoint is skewed without demonstrating that it is. In short, it's handwaving - as though admitting that I could be fallible is a *bad* thing.

Positions cannot be reasonably avoided simply because there is a chance they could be wrong - they have to be dealt with. This is why your statement is fluff, it seeks to avoid rather than dealing with my position.

> I should have been more clear. Either the Bible
> is the Word of God or it is not. That was what I
> meant. I was not referring to the hundreds of
> places in the Bible that are supported by
> historical artifacts and archeological finds.

Well, it's clearly not the word of God since it doesn't claim to be - it's, at best, a transcribed account of God's words that have since been copied and recopied.

We do not have the originals.

> No, this is what the Bible says. And either this
> is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> inability to see that clearly is puzzling. This
> is logic, not science.

Where does it say this? I realize that Paul says that if you don't believe that Jesus was raised from the dead then the faith is in vain, but this is not the same thing that you are suggesting here.

> I don't assert you have a need. You don't have a
> need to invest $1 in a $1,000.000 lottery with 2
> to 1 odds either. Your statement comes across as
> irrational. Whether you do it or not is up to
> you. If was a suggestion, not an assertion.
> You're seem to be getting a little prickly Prof.


The odds of your religion being correct are not 2 to 1. Further, the odds that I would get something from MBC that is not available elsewhere has not been established.

I've suggested that it would not be worth my time - you have provided nothing to counter that. So the rational thing to do would be to not waste my time.

As to being a little 'prickly', perhaps earlier when you were making sweeping claims of positions I do not hold - but not in regards to what you are saying here. What you are saying here is very close, in feeling, to Pascal's Wager and it's simply wrong that I have nothing to lose.

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is a really dumb argument...

You can call these arguments dumb that God created the universe, set things in motion, and created humans either directly or through natural selection, but I find them no less compelling or believable than, say, the proposition that the universe sprung out of nothing/nowhere and that everything we experience today -- the complexities of life, biology, birth, physics, gravity, etc. -- are all just the result of random sequences with no meaning. And to say the least, I would not be alone in believing these things. There are billions of people who believe it, probably many tens of millions of those people highly educated, with doctorates in science, etc.

>
> Claiming that god set up the big bang so that
> every quantum of energy that we see embodied in
> heavy elements went through the vast energies of
> the post-big bang and the cores and supernovae of
> stars (which is where they are formed) in exactly
> the right way to end up with a pope to chat with
> over dinner is just ridiculous - and its just not
> necessary

This proposition you've repeated several times is simply not supported, and obviously does not rule out the "magic" of a God capable of creating it.

> At some point you have to face up to the fact that
> human's are just not that special, and in the
> scale of things, the earth is not that special
> either. We're just blips - both in space and time.

I disagree with this conclusion -- whether or not you believe in God, I'm sure you are aware that, in fact, there are apparently very, very few (relatively speaking) solar systems with planets capable of supporting life, and certainly life as we know it. The earth is, in fact, quite special in this regard. Perhaps not unique, but certainly special. What is the current estimate, that there could be maybe a few dozen planets out of billions in nearby galaxies even capable of supporting life (and capability does not mean they do)? And humans do seem to hold a "special" place on the earth, for better or worse depending on your view.

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > >
> > > > If it is not, then
> > > > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a
> fairy
> > > > tale. It it is the word of God, then it is
> > ALL
> > > > the word of God and those who pick and
> choose
> > > what
> > > > they wish to believe or follow are as lost
> as
> > > > those who reject it all.
> > >
> > > This is your opinion.
> >
> > No, this is what the Bible says. And either
> this
> > is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> > inability to see that clearly is puzzling.
> This
> > is logic, not science.
> >
>
> Trooth - meet Believe. Believe - meet Trooth
>
> You both claim to be the true christians but there
> seems to be a mismatch
>
> 'Take it or leave it all creationist literalism'
> vs 'pick and choose based selective choice of
> evidence'
>
> They don't seem to be particularly compatible
>
> Just sayin


Probably like many things in life, there are shades of gray, it is not a take-it-or-leave-it choice between strict, literal creationsm and 'selectively picking and choosing'. Even if Trooth and I do not see eye to eye on every small detail, his fundamental message is probably pretty close to mine. In fact, we seem to share the same desire to focus on the bigger question at hand (what about my eternal life?), rather than the smaller details.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > This is a really dumb argument...
>
> You can call these arguments dumb that God created
> the universe, set things in motion, and created
> humans either directly or through natural
> selection, but I find them no less compelling or
> believable than, say, the proposition that the
> universe sprung out of nothing/nowhere and that
> everything we experience today -- the complexities
> of life, biology, birth, physics, gravity, etc. --
> are all just the result of random sequences with
> no meaning. And to say the least, I would not be
> alone in believing these things. There are
> billions of people who believe it, probably many
> tens of millions of those people highly educated,
> with doctorates in science, etc.
>
> >
> > Claiming that god set up the big bang so that
> > every quantum of energy that we see embodied in
> > heavy elements went through the vast energies
> of
> > the post-big bang and the cores and supernovae
> of
> > stars (which is where they are formed) in
> exactly
> > the right way to end up with a pope to chat
> with
> > over dinner is just ridiculous - and its just
> not
> > necessary
>
> This proposition you've repeated several times is
> simply not supported, and obviously does not rule
> out the "magic" of a God capable of creating it.
>
> > At some point you have to face up to the fact
> that
> > human's are just not that special, and in the
> > scale of things, the earth is not that special
> > either. We're just blips - both in space and
> time.
>
> I disagree with this conclusion -- whether or not
> you believe in God, I'm sure you are aware that,
> in fact, there are apparently very, very few
> (relatively speaking) solar systems with planets
> capable of supporting life, and certainly life as
> we know it. The earth is, in fact, quite special
> in this regard. Perhaps not unique, but certainly
> special. What is the current estimate, that there
> could be maybe a few dozen planets out of billions
> in nearby galaxies even capable of supporting life
> (and capability does not mean they do)? And humans
> do seem to hold a "special" place on the earth,
> for better or worse depending on your view.


This didn't involve me, but I did want to say a few things:

1. I do not think cosmological arguments for God's existence are dumb. I think they are wrong. I do not accept their premises, HOWEVER, they do appear to be logical and rational if you do (well, I'm speaking primarily of the KCA here, some cosmological arguments are simply invalid).
2. The argument from scale seems compelling to me, perhaps it's not as deductively certain as other atheological arguments seem to try to be, but nevertheless I think it does present a question that theists need to grapple with, if not come up with an adequate answer to.
3. Personally I do not agree with the notion that something really did come from nothing. I hold to the notion of block time. That said, it seems to me that the more rational position is that if something can come from nothing then it would seem to be causeless as there would be nothing for an agent to act upon. That's not to say that the alternative is impossible, it's just it doesn't seem as rational to me because there seems to be a problem with it (agent acting upon nothing).

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Humans and modern apes show a common ancestor -
> this is 'proven' as far as science goes. That is
> to say that scientists have a high degree of
> certainty about this. Our closest living relative
> is the chimp.

Agree our closest living relative from a DNA perspective is the chimp. I'd say whether this is because we descended from a common ancestor is less clear, but certainly could be the case.
>
>
> That depends on what you mean by 'irrefutable'. We
> have strong evidence, in many forms, that we share
> a common ancestor with modern apes. This includes
> DNA evidence. We are 99% genetically similar with
> chimps, for instance.
>
Yes, but we cannot say whether or not that is by design or from a common ancestor. I could make a cake, then make another cake that is 99% similar to the first one using almost all the same ingredients, but then add 1% different ingredients. It would not mean the second cake descended from the first cake. I realize this is a pretty fast and loose analogy here since biological processes are not like making cakes, but just trying to make a point about design/creation.

>
> There are tests we have regarding our common
> ancestors - one is a broken gene that, if it
> worked, would enable us to produce our own vitamin
> C. We share this broken gene, in the same fashion,
> with chimps and other apes.

Yes, I agree this is one piece of evidence suggesting we could share a common ancestor. But as above, who can say whether that gene was broken, for a purpose, by a designer, or broken in both species separately? I'm not trying to jump through hoops, and I acknowledge some of these scenarios are less credible than others. Again, it could absolutely be the case that we descended from a common ancestor.
>
> > Honestly I don't know why creationists get so
> > threatened by evolution being taught in schools
> in
> > the first place, unless they are clinging to
> some
> > pretty ignorant ideas.
>
> Some creationists believe in biblical literalism
> and to them that means a certain thing. Common
> descent and being a glorified ape (as opposed to
> glorified mud) is somehow an insult.
>
Yes, sadly you are probably right

>So his forgiveness has conditions?

I think the only "condition," if you want to call it that, is that you have to accept/acknowledge it. Forgiveness/salvation is offered to all, only some will choose to accept it. As though if my father offered me a gift for christmas, I can choose to accept it or refuse it (and probably hurt and disappoint him in the process).

Yes, no doubt we can find reasons to be skeptical of the claims of the Christian faith, and you have raised many or most of the primary reasons (whether or not I agree with them). I understand and can respect the conclusion you've reached -- it's a natural and highly reasonable humanist conclusion -- even if one day you discover you are wrong and are forgoing the most important gift ever offered. I could be wrong too. People will look at the evidence in totality and must decide what to make of it.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Believe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > finito benito:
> >
> > Hmmm, I can understand and even appreciate how
> you
> > see science and Christinity as mutually
> exclusive,
> > but I'm just not there with you. I don't see
> the
> > two at odds, I see them as living harmoniously
> > together.
> >
> > You've raised a lot of good points about
> "picking
> > and choosing" the pieces from Christianity and
> the
> > Bible that seem to support that faith, but I
> have
> > yet to see any scientific observation to date
> that
> > has shown God and Christ to be myths. Just as
> > scientific theories are refined over time (and
> > sometimes entirely discarded), we refine our
> > understanding of what the Bible says over time,
> > particularly in relation to creation or
> historical
> > and archaeological findings. I don't see that
> as
> > convenient picking and choosing, any more than
> I
> > do when it happens in the scientific context.
> >
> > Newton's laws worked very well for our
> every-day
> > existence for a couple of hundred years, then
> we
> > found it to be incomplete and had to refine
> > things. Einstein's relativity theory expanded
> our
> > understanding for situations beyond our normal
> > experience (for velocities approaching the
> speed
> > of light, etc.), but left some problems that
> are
> > yet to be worked out. Quantum theory threw a
> > wrench in many things, and we continue to work
> > those problems out to attempt to harmonize the
> > various fields. Those refinements I do not
> > consider picking and choosing, and neither is
> it
> > in the theological context.
> >
> > There are many things we still do not
> understand,
> > and possibly (probably?) may never. Is light
> made
> > of particles or waves, or both? Can anything
> > exceed the speed of light? That question is
> being
> > worked out right now, and it could turn many
> > things/theories upside down. How does an
> electron
> > get from once position to another without ever
> > being observed in between?
> >
> > You seek a "natural" explanation for
> everything,
> > and I appreciate that. I am not a Christian
> from
> > birth or upbringing, and I was educated in
> > scientific fields and appreciate that
> discipline.
> > We are all left, though, with the natural
> question
> > of "where did it come from?" Did it come from
> > nothing? How will science ever rectify that
> > question?
>
> I appreciate your point of view and it's
> interesting. I don't fault you for attempting to
> harmonize your beliefs with science. Certainly
> millions of Christians attempt to do just that. I
> would contend that, at the end, it's faith and I'm
> fine with that.
>
> To be sure, there are some rational arguments that
> could favor religion - if you accept their
> premises. So religion can be rational. I don't
> accept the premises (obviously) and therefore I do
> not feel that to be religious is rational - but am
> I correct? It's possible that I'm wrong with
> regard to these premises, which is why I say
> religion can be rational.
>
> In any event, I think that if something can come
> from nothing that the only way this could happen
> would be without a cause. I'm not sure that we
> actually have warrant for this though, as I favor
> the view of a block universe, so in my estimation,
> the universe never came into existence from
> nothing.
>
>
> > You asked for evidence of why Christianity is
> true
> > or any more true than other religions. Here's
> what
> > I can offer, though it is not "proof" like
> > dropping a ball from a tower and observing its
> > rate of descent:
> >
> > 1) Many people died testifying to the truth of
> > what they witnessed, including Jesus himself.
> Not
> > for a cause, mind you, like blowing themselves
> up
> > because they were told to do so by a religious
> > leader, but because they firmly believed in
> what
> > they witnessed and would not recant their
> story,
> > even under torture/death. Christianity spread
> like
> > wildfire in the face of a very repressive
> > environment.
>
> The problem with this argument is two fold:
> 1. We don't have any solid basis to believe the
> disciples were killed for their beliefs - it's
> Church tradition. This is outside of Paul - who
> did not witness Jesus's life. Jesus did not die
> for the truth, even according to the Gospels, he
> died because of the mob. His death, as a matter of
> fact, goes against our historical records - people
> were not crucified for pretending to be the
> messiah (nor were they crucified for being
> thieves).
> 2. We have no evidence that if the 'true
> believers' did recant that this recantation would
> have alleviated their sentence. It's possible that
> they all admitted that they were lying and they
> died anyway.
>
> So their beliefs are not relevant to their
> torturous deaths.
>
> > 2) The separate accounts, by different authors,
> of
> > Christ's life all converge in the same
> fundamental
> > way. We don't know with 100% certainty how many
> > distinct authors there were, but safe to say it
> is
> > more than one.
>
> Actually most scholars accept the two source
> hypothesis: Q (early sayings of Jesus) and Mark
> (which the other Gospels rely on). Mark was not
> an eye witness and came decades after the fact.
>
> So what we have is anonymous, not eye witness
> accounts, and came years after the fact.
>
> > 3) There is a mountain of archaeological and
> > historical evidence that firmly supports the
> > existence of Jesus Christ and his time on
> Earth,
> > as well as the other Biblical histories. Even
> if
> > people do not accept that Jesus was the Christ,
> > anyone would be very hard pressed to deny his
> > existence or the veracity of so many other
> > historical claims made in the Bible.
>
> I think Jesus, most likely, existed. I do not
> think the evidence 'firmly supports' his existence
> though. I think his existence is the most
> parsimonious explanation of the early Church. As
> to the veracity of the historical claims of the
> Bible - I'm not quite sure what you are referring
> to. Just because the Bible mentions historical
> figures does not lend any credence to the miracle
> claims within. Stephen Kings new book mentions
> JFK, but that doesn't mean that time travel is
> occurring.
>
> > 4) There are so many Biblical prophecies that
> were
> > made before the fact, and later were proven
> true
> > (often hundreds or thousands of years later).
> > These were not the claims of whack-job
> religious
> > nuts who make a bunch of claims and eventually
> get
> > something right, or eventually just go away
> > because they are shown to be frauds. They are
> > well-documented, specific, prophetic claims
> that
> > have held true. The arrival and importance of
> > Jesus himself was prophesied in the Old
> > Testament.
>
> The prophecies are no more convincing than
> Nostradamus's prophecies. They are not all
> specific nor are they all well documented. As to
> Jesus, I'd say most of those prophecies are
> retrofitted - in fact, the bit about the virgin
> and the riding of two donkeys are a result of
> mistranslations in the Septuagint. The early
> Christians (Justin Martyr in particular) had to
> answer to these criticisms. So this issue has
> been around for a LONG time.
>
> > 5) The life of Jesus Christ had a profound
> impact
> > on the world, arguably the most profound impact
> > any person has ever made in the history of
> > mankind. How did that happen? Was he just a
> > smooth, charismatic person that was also able
> to
> > do magic tricks? Was he able to fake bringing
> > people back to life, bringing himself back to
> > life, healing people known in their communities
> to
> > be infirm or diseased for years, providing
> > prophecies that were later proved true
> (including
> > his own crucifixion and the destruction of the
> > temple, for example), working miracles,
> speaking
> > some of the most profound and revolutionary
> > teachings ever known, successfully
> > arguing/debating deeply held religious
> teachings
> > against the leading theologians of his day? Who
> > can fake all that?
>
> The impact of Jesus is remarkable, but not
> supernatural. I don't see much of a difference
> between him and other religious founders. Further,
> some of the claims you make presuppose the
> accounts are genuine.
>
> As a matter of fact, there were other Messiah's
> running around during the time of Jesus and there
> were other miracle workers who did the exact same
> miracles that Jesus did. Vespasian, for instance,
> cured blind people with spit - just like Jesus
> did.
>
> Jesus was not well known during his day. In fact,
> none of the contemporary historians mention him at
> all. His first mention comes decades after the
> influence of his early church.
>
> > 6) Humans have a natural curiosity, and one of
> > those curiosities that seems to be very
> prevalent
> > in just about everyone is a feeling or hope
> that
> > there is "something" else out there beyond
> > life-death-worm food. Where does that curiosity
> or
> > desire come from? Are our brains just big
> enough
> > to contemplate these metaphysical questions,
> but
> > not big enough to answer them with certainty?
> Or
> > is that curiosity/desire a strictly human trait
> > put there by a creator?
>
> This inclination is because we are pattern seeking
> creatures. We see patterns and infer design. We
> see faces in the clouds, we believe that celestial
> bodies influence our behaviors.
>
> > 7) Not much for you to hold on to since it's
> just
> > my word, but I've seen God work in my life in
> > countless, observable ways. If I was doing a
> > scientific experiment, I could have put forth
> the
> > testable proposition, prayed about it, and then
> > observed the results, and compared that against
> > the non-praying propositions and outcomes. The
> > result would be somewhere in the 90% range, far
> > beyond "chance" or the power of positive
> thinking.
> > The other missing 10% I expect will be answered
> in
> > time, just as some that I thought went
> unanswered
> > for a while later occurred in outcomes I had
> not
> > even considered and with far better results.
> There
> > will probably be a few percent that will
> seemingly
> > go unanswered forever, for reasons I may never
> > understand.
>
> I can't really argue with this, but I do not find
> it very persuasive. I've met Muslims and people of
> other faiths with similar claims.
>
> > There have been many charlatans and abuses and
> > distortions in the history of Christianity; I
> hope
> > you won't commit the fallacy of throwing out
> the
> > fundamental message or truth because of those
> > things, even though I completely get how people
> > draw that conclusion. Pat Robertson, Jerry
> > Falwell, the Pope, etc. do not speak for me or
> > millions of other Christians.
>
> I don't find the fundamental message of
> Christianity all that different from other
> religious leaders. Rabbi Himmel distilled the Old
> Testament laws down to the golden rule, for
> instance.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > This is a really dumb argument...
>
> You can call these arguments dumb that God created
> the universe, set things in motion, and created
> humans either directly or through natural
> selection, but I find them no less compelling or
> believable than, say, the proposition that the
> universe sprung out of nothing/nowhere and that
> everything we experience today -- the complexities
> of life, biology, birth, physics, gravity, etc. --
> are all just the result of random sequences with
> no meaning. And to say the least, I would not be
> alone in believing these things. There are
> billions of people who believe it, probably many
> tens of millions of those people highly educated,
> with doctorates in science, etc.
>

set back a second - what I explicitly called dunb was your proposition that evolution was beyond reasonable doubt and responsible for al of nature that we see around us - but that it didn't apply to people who were magically teleported in after billions of years

I'll just repeat what you said because frankly its so dumb that it bears repeating...

>Yes, I am saying it is entirely possible that God
> created a man right there in the middle of ancient
> hominids, and that homo sapiens shared some of the
> same DNA as its contemporary hominids, but he had
> enough different DNA to make it a modern man. I
> don't know the mechanism God used -- maybe the
> mechanism was what we call natural selection
> creating/descending a man (Adam) out of an ancient
> ape-like ancestor. Maybe it was angels as you
> said. Maybe God plopped Adam and Eve right there
> out of nothing into the Garden of Eden, alongside
> ape-like ancestors living nearby, and they
> flourished because of their superior intellect and
> opposable thumbs and other God-given abilities,
> while neanderthals, etc. eventually died off
> because they could not compete. None of these
> scenarios would be beyond the power of a God who
> created the universe, and I wasn't around to
> witness it to say how it happened. We only have
> the archaeological evidence left behind, and it
> can't tell us definitively.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Trooth Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > If it is not, then
> > > > > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a
> > fairy
> > > > > tale. It it is the word of God, then it
> is
> > > ALL
> > > > > the word of God and those who pick and
> > choose
> > > > what
> > > > > they wish to believe or follow are as
> lost
> > as
> > > > > those who reject it all.
> > > >
> > > > This is your opinion.
> > >
> > > No, this is what the Bible says. And either
> > this
> > > is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> > > inability to see that clearly is puzzling.
> > This
> > > is logic, not science.
> > >
> >
> > Trooth - meet Believe. Believe - meet Trooth
> >
> > You both claim to be the true christians but
> there
> > seems to be a mismatch
> >
> > 'Take it or leave it all creationist
> literalism'
> > vs 'pick and choose based selective choice of
> > evidence'
> >
> > They don't seem to be particularly compatible
> >
> > Just sayin
>
>
> Probably like many things in life, there are
> shades of gray, it is not a take-it-or-leave-it
> choice between strict, literal creationsm and
> 'selectively picking and choosing'. Even if Trooth
> and I do not see eye to eye on every small detail,
> his fundamental message is probably pretty close
> to mine. In fact, we seem to share the same desire
> to focus on the bigger question at hand (what
> about my eternal life?), rather than the smaller
> details.

sorry, I'm just not getting this...

the difference between

a) the natural universe being billions of years old and governed by physical forces, with life on earth being driven by natural selection and evolution apart from man who is dropped in at the last minute, with the bible being a collection of some facts and some myths (conveniently selected)

vs

b) strict biblical literalism of the bible being the absolute word of god - and of a one-shot creation of nature fully formed

is a small detail?

Wow - then sorting out all the simple schisms across christianity shouldn't take more than a couple of days then

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> >
> > Claiming that god set up the big bang so that
> > every quantum of energy that we see embodied in
> > heavy elements went through the vast energies
> of
> > the post-big bang and the cores and supernovae
> of
> > stars (which is where they are formed) in
> exactly
> > the right way to end up with a pope to chat
> with
> > over dinner is just ridiculous - and its just
> not
> > necessary
>
> This proposition you've repeated several times is
> simply not supported, and obviously does not rule
> out the "magic" of a God capable of creating it.
>

I think you'll find that this is well supported both by quantum physics, astronomy and our understanding of formally complex systems - the computational nature of the universe is slowly becoming better understood (seth lloyds book is more approachable than many) and the nuclear chemistry of stars is reasonably well understood - I don't think you'll find anything contentious in what I've said, it implicit in the fine and large grain structure of the universe as we observe it

I find your continual introduction of moments of "magic" which never shows up anywhere else as somewhat bizarre. If 'magic' was used, then you'd see lots of real discontinuities around us, and they just don't exist.





> > At some point you have to face up to the fact
> that
> > human's are just not that special, and in the
> > scale of things, the earth is not that special
> > either. We're just blips - both in space and
> time.
>
> I disagree with this conclusion -- whether or not
> you believe in God, I'm sure you are aware that,
> in fact, there are apparently very, very few
> (relatively speaking) solar systems with planets
> capable of supporting life, and certainly life as
> we know it. The earth is, in fact, quite special
> in this regard. Perhaps not unique, but certainly
> special. What is the current estimate, that there
> could be maybe a few dozen planets out of billions
> in nearby galaxies even capable of supporting life
> (and capability does not mean they do)? And humans
> do seem to hold a "special" place on the earth,
> for better or worse depending on your view.

So, I'm very much of the other persuasion. Scientsts have continually been extremely cautious in their estimates of planets suited to the emergence of life, preferring to up their estimates step by step. I think this is largely a cultural bias.

My, unproven, view is that in a universe of
- 70 sextillion stars (7 followed by 22 zeros)
- spread amongst 170 billion galaxies
- some containing upto a trillion stars
- an estimated 10 to the power 80 atoms,
- operating at dramatically varying temperatures and energies
- over 13.7 billion years
- and a current diameter of about 16 Billion light years
life will be relatively common

so even if you said that only 1 in a million, million stars had planets which supported life at some point (which I suspect is very pessimistic), that would still leave 700,000,000

The shame is that inter stellar, and inter galactic, distances are so large compared to the likely lifetimes of species that we are unlikely ever to encounter any other lifeforms

The irony is that, yes we are 'alone', but surrounded by a sea of life

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I can understand the view that Jesus only died to
> redeem a select few's sins. It doesn't strike me
> as very merciful, but I can understand that idea.
>
> The idea that he died to redeem all sins, yet some
> people still go to hell, doesn't make sense to me.

Then perhaps you will be happy in the company of our Reformed brethren =)

Honestly, I can see both sides of the argument. The "Christmas gift" analogy stated above is fairly accurate though. Jesus's death on the cross is a gift that makes your salvation possible, but only if you choose to accept it (through faith). It's not forced on you (unless of course, you hold to pre-faith regeneration / irresistible grace).

>
>
> Yes, I realize that. I just don't have a clear
> understanding as to *why*.

Just to be clear, what is your 'why' in reference to?

- Why faith is the agent for salvation (and all that goes along with it - forensic justification, imputed righteousness, etc.) as opposed to something else (e.g. 10 jumping jacks), or perhaps nothing at all?

Christ's death is the basis of salvation. Faith is the requirement for salvation. The object of our faith is God. (and I'll stop here to avoid any dispensational / covenant arguments)

- Or why the natural outcome of the atonement isn't universal salvation?

See above.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agree our closest living relative from a DNA
> perspective is the chimp. I'd say whether this is
> because we descended from a common ancestor is
> less clear, but certainly could be the case.

I'm afraid I don't see what is unclear here. Why should we view mankind's evolutionary path any different? We actually have better fossil evidence for humanities transitions than we do for the transition of chimps.

> Yes, but we cannot say whether or not that is by
> design or from a common ancestor. I could make a
> cake, then make another cake that is 99% similar
> to the first one using almost all the same
> ingredients, but then add 1% different
> ingredients. It would not mean the second cake
> descended from the first cake. I realize this is a
> pretty fast and loose analogy here since
> biological processes are not like making cakes,
> but just trying to make a point about
> design/creation.

I'm not seeing the dichotomy between a common ancestor and *design*. It could be both or neither. I don't think design is a scientific conclusion, but putting that aside, I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

Are you suggesting that human beings were made, essentially from scratch? As opposed to a creator influencing (designing) the accumulation of mutations that human beings have?

If it's human beings from scratch, I would say the overwhelming evidence is against this. Is it certain? No, but nothing in science is. We can be reasonably confident of that conclusion though.

> Yes, I agree this is one piece of evidence
> suggesting we could share a common ancestor. But
> as above, who can say whether that gene was
> broken, for a purpose, by a designer, or broken in
> both species separately? I'm not trying to jump
> through hoops, and I acknowledge some of these
> scenarios are less credible than others. Again, it
> could absolutely be the case that we descended
> from a common ancestor.

I would actually say this detracts from a 'designer' since anything can then be attributed to it. What would falsify a designer?

> Yes, sadly you are probably right

I don't know - I don't see the need of some religious people to deny scientific conclusions. Let's say that human beings evolved from a common ancestor - does that take anything away from the Christian message? The "difference" between humans and other animals, according to religious people, is the *soul*. It's not the physical body, really. God breathed a soul into man, not animals. Presumably the soul is outside of the material and as such would not evolve.

>
> >So his forgiveness has conditions?
>
> I think the only "condition," if you want to call
> it that, is that you have to accept/acknowledge
> it. Forgiveness/salvation is offered to all, only
> some will choose to accept it. As though if my
> father offered me a gift for christmas, I can
> choose to accept it or refuse it (and probably
> hurt and disappoint him in the process).

I'm not sure I read it like this - It's through God's grace that Jesus died for our sins. He paid the price, right? It's not a matter of accepting that he did or not - it's not like if we reject it, that sin rematerializes.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, no doubt we can find reasons to be skeptical
> of the claims of the Christian faith, and you have
> raised many or most of the primary reasons
> (whether or not I agree with them). I understand
> and can respect the conclusion you've reached --
> it's a natural and highly reasonable humanist
> conclusion -- even if one day you discover you are
> wrong and are forgoing the most important gift
> ever offered. I could be wrong too. People will
> look at the evidence in totality and must decide
> what to make of it.

Fair enough.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not sure I read it like this - It's through
> God's grace that Jesus died for our sins. He paid
> the price, right? It's not a matter of accepting
> that he did or not - it's not like if we reject
> it, that sin rematerializes.


To clarify on my post above, the atonement only legally pays for the sins of those who believe. It does NOT pay the penalty for those who deny faith (i.e. there is no substitutionary atonement for those people).

It is universal in scope, and limited in application. Christ’s atonement was offered for the whole world, but it must be applied on the condition of faith in order to be efficacious.

(This is all what most Arminians would say - Calvinists would be more sympathetic to your objections)

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Believe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> I don't know - I don't see the need of some
> religious people to deny scientific conclusions.
> Let's say that human beings evolved from a common
> ancestor - does that take anything away from the
> Christian message? The "difference" between humans
> and other animals, according to religious people,
> is the *soul*. It's not the physical body, really.
> God breathed a soul into man, not animals.
> Presumably the soul is outside of the material and
> as such would not evolve.
>

The 'soul' is another place where religion has real problems - starting with the complete lack of evidence

I can slice/dice a brain, electrically/magnetically or chemically stimulate it, turn bits on or off, or a whole heap of things - these directly affect both externally observed behaviour/personality and the internally reported cognition and perception. For example I can use magnetic stimulation to stave off depression or deep brain implants to treat parkinsons - if the soul was 'not of of our physical universe' then we would certainly not expect it to be affected by fields or pulses. We can even watch the effect of brain development or damage on capabilities - strokes are a good example, they can substantially affect the cognitive abilities which we think of as distinctly human

There's no evidence that human cognition and conciousness is anything other than an effect of brain function. Brain and cognitive sciences are not yet at the level of maturity of other disciplines but they seem to rule out distinct souls pretty effectively. Sure, the brain is an equisitely complex piece of biological equipment but there's no reason to doubt minsky's statement that 'mind is what the brain does'

Souls are another prey to occam's razor - there's no evidence for them and there are better and simpler explanations that are supported by evidence and experimentation

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 'soul' is another place where religion has
> real problems - starting with the complete lack of
> evidence

Yes, it has problems, philosophical problems. It's, supposedly, immaterial, so it's difficult to envision scientific tests for it. Does this mean it exists? Of course not.

I was not arguing that the soul exists, only that this is the key ingredient, if you will, that makes humans different from animals from a Christian point of view.

> I can slice/dice a brain,
> electrically/magnetically or chemically stimulate
> it, turn bits on or off, or a whole heap of things
> - these directly affect both externally observed
> behaviour/personality and the internally reported
> cognition and perception. For example I can use
> magnetic stimulation to stave off depression or
> deep brain implants to treat parkinsons - if the
> soul was 'not of of our physical universe' then we
> would certainly not expect it to be affected by
> fields or pulses. We can even watch the effect of
> brain development or damage on capabilities -
> strokes are a good example, they can substantially
> affect the cognitive abilities which we think of
> as distinctly human

While I agree with most of your reasoning, I'm not sure it effectively eliminates the possibility of the soul. Keep in mind, I'm not actually advocating a soul, but I can envision a soul being similar to a radio signal and the body (brain) being akin to a car radio. You can tear apart the car radio without actually effecting the radio signal. Certainly the car radio may no longer be able to play the radio signal, or the signal is distorted, or what have you. So while the music has the appearance of being generated by the car radio, we both know it's not actually generated by the radio. So it's at least conceivable, in some sense, that the soul acts upon the brain in some fashion.

To be sure, there are problems with this - the chief being if this is the case, what keeps the soul tethered to the body?

> There's no evidence that human cognition and
> conciousness is anything other than an effect of
> brain function.

I would agree with this.

> Brain and cognitive sciences are
> not yet at the level of maturity of other
> disciplines but they seem to rule out distinct
> souls pretty effectively. Sure, the brain is an
> equisitely complex piece of biological equipment
> but there's no reason to doubt minsky's statement
> that 'mind is what the brain does'

I would also agree with this.

> Souls are another prey to occam's razor - there's
> no evidence for them and there are better and
> simpler explanations that are supported by
> evidence and experimentation


Again, I would agree with this.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----

>
> While I agree with most of your reasoning, I'm not
> sure it effectively eliminates the possibility of
> the soul. Keep in mind, I'm not actually
> advocating a soul, but I can envision a soul being
> similar to a radio signal and the body (brain)
> being akin to a car radio. You can tear apart the
> car radio without actually effecting the radio
> signal. Certainly the car radio may no longer be
> able to play the radio signal, or the signal is
> distorted, or what have you. So while the music
> has the appearance of being generated by the car
> radio, we both know it's not actually generated by
> the radio. So it's at least conceivable, in some
> sense, that the soul acts upon the brain in some
> fashion.
>
> To be sure, there are problems with this - the
> chief being if this is the case, what keeps the
> soul tethered to the body?
>

I must admit that I don't find this line of reasoning particularly compelling.

It smacks a bit of elves hiding the thimbles at night or tiny daemons pushing molecules through membranes.

Its much more reasonable to think of human brain, mind and behavior as being primarily different in degree rather than function from many other species. Desmond Morris' observation that much of our behavior is best explained by thinking of us as naked apes seems well made.

One of the most compelling arguments against human exceptionalism in this regard is that Neaderthals in particular are increasingly thought to have had complex social behaviours and rituals - perhaps simpler forms of spoken language (they seem to have shared a similar version of FOXP2 to modern humans). Certainly cro-magnon man in europe, while morphologically still only on the way to modern man left sophisticated and elegant art behind. While we don't have any neanderthal or cro-magnon brains to play with, we do have dna, skeletons and artifacts, and the argument for he gradual co-evolution of facial characteristics, brain, language and cognitive skills does seem pretty strong.

This inevitably leaves the exceptionalism implicit in arguments for a human soul on a very slippery historical slope - I'm not sure of the theological implications of neanderthal's having half a soul - did lucy have a 64th?

Similarly the whole field of cognition and conciousness in different non-hominid species (especially great apes, corvids and whales) is clearly an area of active research and quite a lot of disagreement, but many of the core capabilities behind what we think of as being human and present to some greater or lesser degree in other species.

Do all species have souls of a greater or lesser degree? I could sympathise with puppies but I find the poor souls of bacteria a little hard to cope with (although I do like the theory of modern man, human speech and domesticated dogs having co-evolved - but that's more for the poetry of it than any real evidence)

As a result of these and the other factors I mentioned earlier, I find the arguments for a soul very weak.

I do find a certain appeal in Minsky's hierachical models of conciousness which suggest a clear evolutionary advantage and a much more incremental, organic framework which lines up well with what we know about the actual fabric of the brain - although not everyone agrees with his model

One interesting question is why we only appear to have one highly conscious species at the moment. My take on this is that it confers such an evolutionary advantage that in a relatively short period, that species grew to global dominence. The path to human-level conciousness is clearly a complex one and its clearly a threshold event for competitveness - you do have to wonder both how human consiousness will evolve (perhaps we'll coopt artificial intelligence prosthetics - who knows) - or how long after our demise it will take for a species of comparable abilities, but perhaps very different to appear

On a lighter note. on the subjects of the souls of insects, I meant to add a pointer to

http://ccmixter.org/files/jacindae/20280

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > >
> > > > If it is not, then
> > > > the Judeo-Christian faith is built on a
> fairy
> > > > tale. It it is the word of God, then it is
> > ALL
> > > > the word of God and those who pick and
> choose
> > > what
> > > > they wish to believe or follow are as lost
> as
> > > > those who reject it all.
> > >
> > > This is your opinion.
> >
> > No, this is what the Bible says. And either
> this
> > is right or it is wrong, true or false. Your
> > inability to see that clearly is puzzling.
> This
> > is logic, not science.
> >
>
> Trooth - meet Believe. Believe - meet Trooth
>
> You both claim to be the true christians but there
> seems to be a mismatch
>
> 'Take it or leave it all creationist literalism'
> vs 'pick and choose based selective choice of
> evidence'
>
> They don't seem to be particularly compatible
>
> Just sayin

Yep, you are correct finito. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. If you start picking and choosing what is and what isn't, it's a very slippery slope? A large schism in the faith to be sure. Granted, there are God's laws and then there are man's laws, even in the Bible. God's laws are pretty specific (there are 10 of them). The punishments (stoning your cheating wife as an example) came from the religious leaders of the time. So, while I agree that there are sections of the Bible that can be filtered out as not coming straight from God, rejecting entire chapters or a Book (i.e. Genesis 1-7) is irreconcilable with being a Christian IMO. But, to paraphrase the Good Book, judge not, lest ye be judged. I can only speak for myself, not anyone else.

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I must admit that I don't find this line of
> reasoning particularly compelling.

Well, remember, I'm not actually arguing *for it*.

> It smacks a bit of elves hiding the thimbles at
> night or tiny daemons pushing molecules through
> membranes.

Yes, I'd agree.

> Its much more reasonable to think of human brain,
> mind and behavior as being primarily different in
> degree rather than function from many other
> species. Desmond Morris' observation that much of
> our behavior is best explained by thinking of us
> as naked apes seems well made.
>
> One of the most compelling arguments against human
> exceptionalism in this regard is that Neaderthals
> in particular are increasingly thought to have had
> complex social behaviours and rituals - perhaps
> simpler forms of spoken language (they seem to
> have shared a similar version of FOXP2 to modern
> humans). Certainly cro-magnon man in europe, while
> morphologically still only on the way to modern
> man left sophisticated and elegant art behind.
> While we don't have any neanderthal or cro-magnon
> brains to play with, we do have dna, skeletons and
> artifacts, and the argument for he gradual
> co-evolution of facial characteristics, brain,
> language and cognitive skills does seem pretty
> strong.

Yes, I'd agree here to and I think introducing neanderthals brings up a good point. I believe they had bigger brain cases than we do, but the difference between them and us had something to do with their throat structure. So they couldn't vocally articulate as well as we do.

I'd also point out that Bonobos and chimps share very rudimentary societal structures. They have what could be classified as the beginnings of morality.

> This inevitably leaves the exceptionalism implicit
> in arguments for a human soul on a very slippery
> historical slope - I'm not sure of the theological
> implications of neanderthal's having half a soul -
> did lucy have a 64th?
>
> Similarly the whole field of cognition and
> conciousness in different non-hominid species
> (especially great apes, corvids and whales) is
> clearly an area of active research and quite a lot
> of disagreement, but many of the core capabilities
> behind what we think of as being human and present
> to some greater or lesser degree in other species.
>
>
> Do all species have souls of a greater or lesser
> degree? I could sympathise with puppies but I find
> the poor souls of bacteria a little hard to cope
> with (although I do like the theory of modern
> man, human speech and domesticated dogs having
> co-evolved - but that's more for the poetry of it
> than any real evidence)

I think Christian dogma is that only humans have souls. I'm not entirely sure though.

> As a result of these and the other factors I
> mentioned earlier, I find the arguments for a soul
> very weak.

I'd say that most arguments for the soul relegate themselves to our ignorance. We don't know X, therefore it's a result of the soul. That sort of thing.

> I do find a certain appeal in Minsky's hierachical
> models of conciousness which suggest a clear
> evolutionary advantage and a much more
> incremental, organic framework which lines up well
> with what we know about the actual fabric of the
> brain - although not everyone agrees with his
> model
>
> One interesting question is why we only appear to
> have one highly conscious species at the moment.
> My take on this is that it confers such an
> evolutionary advantage that in a relatively short
> period, that species grew to global dominence. The
> path to human-level conciousness is clearly a
> complex one and its clearly a threshold event for
> competitveness - you do have to wonder both how
> human consiousness will evolve (perhaps we'll
> coopt artificial intelligence prosthetics - who
> knows) - or how long after our demise it will take
> for a species of comparable abilities, but perhaps
> very different to appear


I'd also think that we killed off our competitors - which is why other hominids were not as advanced as we are.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, you are correct finito. I believe that the
> Bible is the Word of God. If you start picking
> and choosing what is and what isn't, it's a very
> slippery slope?

I would actually think that you already pick and choose which verses you accept - you just rationalize your choices.

A question would be is why you feel you must do so. After all, you don't have the original copies, so what you have is the result of fallible human hands, right?

If you deny this, then just why are there different copies of Biblical books floating around? Also, how are errors, changes, etc *prevented* from creeping in?

> A large schism in the faith to be
> sure. Granted, there are God's laws and then
> there are man's laws, even in the Bible. God's
> laws are pretty specific (there are 10 of them).

There are two sets of '10' commandments, are you aware of this?

> The punishments (stoning your cheating wife as an
> example) came from the religious leaders of the
> time.

Who were speaking for God...

I thought the Bible was supposed to be God's word? How can you go back and then say that the specific prescriptions in the Bible were simply from "religious leaders"?

> So, while I agree that there are sections
> of the Bible that can be filtered out as not
> coming straight from God, rejecting entire
> chapters or a Book (i.e. Genesis 1-7) is
> irreconcilable with being a Christian IMO. But,
> to paraphrase the Good Book, judge not, lest ye be
> judged. I can only speak for myself, not anyone
> else.

Isn't this the very example of picking and choosing?

Why cling to Genesis 1-7 if you can filter out problematic texts? Why not filter out the literalness of that account and simply refer to it as a metaphor? Certainly it makes much more sense to do so than to take it literally.

If you take it literally you run into absurdities within the text and in order to get around such absurdities you have to *reinterpret* the text anyway.

Jesse,

You have consistently demonstrated misunderstandings about the Christian faith and the key tenets thereof. That is the benefit for you to attend a couple of services at MBC. To gain a better understanding so that the opinions your offer here are better educated and informed.

You expect the rest of us to read books of uber-boring science-babble to gain an understanding of radiometric principles but you won't even take an hour or two to watch a couple of Lon's sermons on the Internet. Right now he is doing a series on why the first 7 chapters of Genesis are true. While the series is geared towards Christians who questions those chapters, it might serve you well too.

I could offer arguments on the flaws of radiometric dating, but I don't see the point. You have your beliefs, I have mine and neither can be proven beyond the doubts we both have. As you have pointed out, science can only offer explanations based on observations. So that which can not be observed will always be in question.

For the record, you haven't offer anything in your posts that I consider too hard to address or answer. I just don't see the point in going line by line to address them. If you make 10 points and I refute the logic that lead to all 10, then what is the benefit of going through all 10?

Go to church, it'll do you good.

Jesse,

I can filter out some things in the OT because of what Jesus said in the NT. Read it, go to a good Bible-based church and all will be revealed.

Your Pal,

Trooth

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesse,
>
> You have consistently demonstrated
> misunderstandings about the Christian faith and
> the key tenets thereof. That is the benefit for
> you to attend a couple of services at MBC. To
> gain a better understanding so that the opinions
> your offer here are better educated and informed.

You act as though there is only one standard 'Christian faith'. There isn't.

> You expect the rest of us to read books of
> uber-boring science-babble to gain an
> understanding of radiometric principles but you
> won't even take an hour or two to watch a couple
> of Lon's sermons on the Internet. Right now he is
> doing a series on why the first 7 chapters of
> Genesis are true. While the series is geared
> towards Christians who questions those chapters,
> it might serve you well too.

I don't expect anything - however if you engage in these sorts of discussions, then don't be surprised when your assertions don't just get a pass. You asked me to provide references on radiometric principles - I did, and now you are complaining they are 'uber-boring'?

Really?

What reason should I take Lon seriously? What are his credentials? What journal articles has he published? I'm not even talking about scientific journal articles, to be clear. If he's published something in Biblical scholarship, I think that would be relevant to our discussion on him.

> I could offer arguments on the flaws of
> radiometric dating, but I don't see the point.

I'm sure you could - the question is the accuracy of those arguments and if there is any reason to believe them.

I suspect on that measure you couldn't, since if you could, you would be involved in scientific publications throughout the world and you presumably wouldn't have time to argue on an internet message board.

> You have your beliefs, I have mine and neither can
> be proven beyond the doubts we both have. As you
> have pointed out, science can only offer
> explanations based on observations. So that which
> can not be observed will always be in question.

I don't seek to prove my beliefs to any certain degree. I hold my beliefs based on reasonable conclusions of the available evidence. I am willing to change my beliefs with the introduction of new evidence/arguments. I *have* changed significant metaphysical beliefs throughout my life time. So the subtle implication that I'm close-minded is unfounded. As to your own self incrimination - I can only take your word on it although I would suspect that if you carefully went over your life you would discover that you had changed your beliefs significantly.

> For the record, you haven't offer anything in your
> posts that I consider too hard to address or
> answer. I just don't see the point in going line
> by line to address them. If you make 10 points
> and I refute the logic that lead to all 10, then
> what is the benefit of going through all 10?

Of course - I'm sure you say the same thing to people vastly more qualified than I am about such subjects. You'd, presumably, say the same thing to Ernst Mayr (at least while he was alive).

It's arrogant. It's "I'm right, your wrong, *just believe me*".

I'm not asking you to participate in this discussion, however, since you ARE participating in it, I find it remarkably shallow that you are just standing back assuring us all that you are right and we are wrong.

> Go to church, it'll do you good.

I doubt it. I've been to church - several of them over a sustained period of time - and I've always gotten A LOT more out of independent reading/discussions than I ever did at church. So until I'm presented a good reason to do so, I will assume that going to MBC or checking out their videos are a waste of my time.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesse,
>
> I can filter out some things in the OT because of
> what Jesus said in the NT. Read it, go to a good
> Bible-based church and all will be revealed.
>
> Your Pal,
>
> Trooth

You mean the part where Jesus affirms all the laws, that not one jot or tittle is to be changed?

I would say that there is not just 'one' Jesus presented in the New Testament, but that's an entire different kettle of fish.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> I hold to the notion of block time.

I had not heard this term before, although it sounds similar to concepts I've seen described in programs on TV. Wish my brain could wrap itself around concepts like time or infinite space (or bounded space for that matter). Also not sure how to square this against the intuitive notion we all have about "moving forward" through time or why I can't experience one second into the future, or observe things happening in reverse or in the past.

finito benito and Professor Pangloss:

We've spent a lot of text discussing why, in your opinions, God could not have created the universe (or to summarize Prof. P, God could have, but there's no evidence for it). My question then is, in your opinions, where *did* the universe come from? Does it have an origin? If not, why not, and how do we square that with our human conceptions of cause/effect/time?

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jesse,
> >
> > I can filter out some things in the OT because
> of
> > what Jesus said in the NT. Read it, go to a
> good
> > Bible-based church and all will be revealed.
> >
> > Your Pal,
> >
> > Trooth
>
> You mean the part where Jesus affirms all the
> laws, that not one jot or tittle is to be
> changed?
>
> I would say that there is not just 'one' Jesus
> presented in the New Testament, but that's an
> entire different kettle of fish.

Wrong AGAIN Jesse. You really don't know of what you speak. I mean the parts where Jesus says that the laws have been misinterpreted and that the keepers of the laws were corrupt. But, being uneducated on the subject, you can not be expected to know these things. Better that you go learn the message before dismissing it.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jesse,
> >
> > You have consistently demonstrated
> > misunderstandings about the Christian faith and
> > the key tenets thereof. That is the benefit
> for
> > you to attend a couple of services at MBC. To
> > gain a better understanding so that the
> opinions
> > your offer here are better educated and
> informed.
>
> You act as though there is only one standard
> 'Christian faith'. There isn't.
>
> > You expect the rest of us to read books of
> > uber-boring science-babble to gain an
> > understanding of radiometric principles but you
> > won't even take an hour or two to watch a
> couple
> > of Lon's sermons on the Internet. Right now he
> is
> > doing a series on why the first 7 chapters of
> > Genesis are true. While the series is geared
> > towards Christians who questions those
> chapters,
> > it might serve you well too.
>
> I don't expect anything - however if you engage in
> these sorts of discussions, then don't be
> surprised when your assertions don't just get a
> pass. You asked me to provide references on
> radiometric principles - I did, and now you are
> complaining they are 'uber-boring'?
>
> Really?
>
> What reason should I take Lon seriously? What are
> his credentials? What journal articles has he
> published? I'm not even talking about scientific
> journal articles, to be clear. If he's published
> something in Biblical scholarship, I think that
> would be relevant to our discussion on him.
>
> > I could offer arguments on the flaws of
> > radiometric dating, but I don't see the point.
>
> I'm sure you could - the question is the accuracy
> of those arguments and if there is any reason to
> believe them.
>
> I suspect on that measure you couldn't, since if
> you could, you would be involved in scientific
> publications throughout the world and you
> presumably wouldn't have time to argue on an
> internet message board.
>
> > You have your beliefs, I have mine and neither
> can
> > be proven beyond the doubts we both have. As
> you
> > have pointed out, science can only offer
> > explanations based on observations. So that
> which
> > can not be observed will always be in question.
>
> I don't seek to prove my beliefs to any certain
> degree. I hold my beliefs based on reasonable
> conclusions of the available evidence. I am
> willing to change my beliefs with the introduction
> of new evidence/arguments. I *have* changed
> significant metaphysical beliefs throughout my
> life time. So the subtle implication that I'm
> close-minded is unfounded. As to your own self
> incrimination - I can only take your word on it
> although I would suspect that if you carefully
> went over your life you would discover that you
> had changed your beliefs significantly.
>
> > For the record, you haven't offer anything in
> your
> > posts that I consider too hard to address or
> > answer. I just don't see the point in going
> line
> > by line to address them. If you make 10 points
> > and I refute the logic that lead to all 10,
> then
> > what is the benefit of going through all 10?
>
> Of course - I'm sure you say the same thing to
> people vastly more qualified than I am about such
> subjects. You'd, presumably, say the same thing to
> Ernst Mayr (at least while he was alive).
>
> It's arrogant. It's "I'm right, your wrong, *just
> believe me*".
>
> I'm not asking you to participate in this
> discussion, however, since you ARE participating
> in it, I find it remarkably shallow that you are
> just standing back assuring us all that you are
> right and we are wrong.
>
> > Go to church, it'll do you good.
>
> I doubt it. I've been to church - several of them
> over a sustained period of time - and I've always
> gotten A LOT more out of independent
> reading/discussions than I ever did at church. So
> until I'm presented a good reason to do so, I will
> assume that going to MBC or checking out their
> videos are a waste of my time.


Wow Jesse, you're starting to sound more and more like finito. Typing your opinions over and over and then not having them accepted is not fluff or shallow or hypocritical or arrogant. I am none of those things. I don't accept your OPINIONS and your CONCLUSIONS. That is all. It is not personal. I know what I know. I believe what I believe. Same with you I suppose. Keep it civil Jess. No need to huff and puff is there?

Now go to MBC's website and watch a couple of videos. If you have time to waste on this site, you have time to enrich your being with some good news.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> > I hold to the notion of block time.
>
> I had not heard this term before, although it
> sounds similar to concepts I've seen described in
> programs on TV. Wish my brain could wrap itself
> around concepts like time or infinite space (or
> bounded space for that matter). Also not sure how
> to square this against the intuitive notion we all
> have about "moving forward" through time or why I
> can't experience one second into the future, or
> observe things happening in reverse or in the
> past.


The weird thing is that it's consistent with relativity and makes better sense of it then presentism. Yet no one (practically) ever talks about it. Here's a good resource on it: http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_universe.asp

Your question - why do we perceive time as we do - is a good one. There are many ideas with regard to this. The most prevalent is that it's simply an illusion. We know our brains do not process reality as it is, it is a filter that is relatively trustworthy, but not completely so. This is why quantum physics is so utterly alien to us.

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito and Professor Pangloss:
>
> We've spent a lot of text discussing why, in your
> opinions, God could not have created the universe
> (or to summarize Prof. P, God could have, but
> there's no evidence for it). My question then is,
> in your opinions, where *did* the universe come
> from? Does it have an origin? If not, why not, and
> how do we square that with our human conceptions
> of cause/effect/time?

In my opinion the universe always was. This piggy backs off of the block universe idea. If that reality/metaphysics of time is correct, then God could not have created the universe.

Trooth Wrote:

> Wow Jesse, you're starting to sound more and more
> like finito. Typing your opinions over and over
> and then not having them accepted is not fluff or
> shallow or hypocritical or arrogant. I am none of
> those things. I don't accept your OPINIONS and
> your CONCLUSIONS. That is all. It is not
> personal. I know what I know. I believe what I
> believe. Same with you I suppose. Keep it civil
> Jess. No need to huff and puff is there?
>

Prof. P. (Jesse???) certainly doesn't need me to jump to his defense, but it seems to me he's been completely civil and has backed his assertions, far more patiently than others would. He's also made clear where he's relying on scientific evidence vs. philosophical or personal beliefs, even if we don't agree with his assertions or conclusions.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong AGAIN Jesse. You really don't know of what
> you speak. I mean the parts where Jesus says that
> the laws have been misinterpreted and that the
> keepers of the laws were corrupt. But, being
> uneducated on the subject, you can not be expected
> to know these things. Better that you go learn
> the message before dismissing it.


Well, these are certainly *assertions*, I'll grant you that.

Not much else though.

> Wow Jesse, you're starting to sound more and more
> like finito. Typing your opinions over and over
> and then not having them accepted is not fluff or
> shallow or hypocritical or arrogant. I am none of
> those things. I don't accept your OPINIONS and
> your CONCLUSIONS. That is all. It is not
> personal. I know what I know. I believe what I
> believe. Same with you I suppose. Keep it civil
> Jess. No need to huff and puff is there?

I've typed more than just my opinions - you just chose to ignore those parts of my responses where I did so.

I do think I made a good case for challenging you on each of those things - you are attempting to come off as though you are 'correct' and that everyone else is wrong, yet when asked to back up any of it, you don't.

Now, you could very well BE CORRECT, but you aren't going to convince anyone of it by merely stating that you are.

As to huffying and puffying, I agree, but I would ask that you follow your own advice and stop calling others uneducated or assuming their positions.

> Now go to MBC's website and watch a couple of
> videos. If you have time to waste on this site,
> you have time to enrich your being with some good
> news.

I don't feel that I waste time on this site - I have constructive conversations on here. Which is why I participate. I won't be having such conversations while watching youtube videos. Further, as I've repeatedly stated, I see no reason to defer to Lon on any of these issues and you've given me precious little reason to do so.

It's kind of curious that you defer to him as an expert on, well, something (Christianity? Origins?), but you won't give solid reasons for me to waste my time scouring out his videos and watching them. As far as I can tell he does not hold a doctorate from an accredited university (he got a doctorate in divinity from Liberty). He has done no formal work in any of the sciences that would give him credence (he has a B.S. in chemistry and no peer reviewed papers) and I can't find anything he's done in the Biblical community (peer review/scholar-wise).

So, again, why should I pay attention to him? For Biblical reasons? if so, I think N.T. Wright (as a brief example) would be a better source. For science reasons? He's never done anything of note in the science community.

So, again, why should I pay attention to him? Better yet, since he's not some sort of omniscience salve that will cure whatever questions that trouble me, why don't you recommend a video instead of simply referring me to his panacea of material?

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. P. (Jesse???) certainly doesn't need me to
> jump to his defense, but it seems to me he's been
> completely civil and has backed his assertions,
> far more patiently than others would. He's also
> made clear where he's relying on scientific
> evidence vs. philosophical or personal beliefs,
> even if we don't agree with his assertions or
> conclusions.


As a point of reference, he got my first name from an article I wrote that I referenced him when he asked for references.

Thanks

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In my opinion the universe always was. This piggy
> backs off of the block universe idea. If that
> reality/metaphysics of time is correct, then God
> could not have created the universe.

I don't think there's a QED for that conclusion -- even in a reality where the universe always was, and all moments in time always were (both things beyond our ability to organically comprehend or experience), how would that not square with the notion of some multidimensional, omnipotent being who is beyond even all of that? To follow the premise, if we humans do not have the sensory perception to experience or "see" block time, then why would it be any less hard to imagine that there are things we cannot understand or see about a God that is beyond an infinite or "always was" universe?

You agin!

Believe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think there's a QED for that conclusion --
> even in a reality where the universe always was,
> and all moments in time always were (both things
> beyond our ability to organically comprehend or
> experience), how would that not square with the
> notion of some multidimensional, omnipotent being
> who is beyond even all of that? To follow the
> premise, if we humans do not have the sensory
> perception to experience or "see" block time, then
> why would it be any less hard to imagine that
> there are things we cannot understand or see about
> a God that is beyond an infinite or "always was"
> universe?

Technically speaking, a block universe would make a deity superfluous. Your question centered around creation, not the existence of God. So, God could still exist, despite not having created the universe.

I don't see any particular reason to believe in a deity. I have some metaphysical reasons for rejecting certain conceptions of God, but I don't think there is a bullet proof all-in-one deductively certain argument against God's existence. Maybe there could be one, but I suspect this is not the case since there are so many different conceptions of what God is.

Jesse,

I think you are adequately educated. I don't think I called you uneducated. If I did, then it was wrong of me to do. But this isn't about education. It isn't about knowledge. It is about what conclusions are drawn from education and knowledge and what we end up believing

As I have said quite a few times, belief in God requires faith. I don't think you can reconcile this fundamental principle with the way you see things. You are what you are. And you seem to be perfectly happy that way and don't want to explore other possibilities that don't conform to your view of how things are and how to learn new things. Have you ever felt uplifted by listening to a song or viewing an incredible vista? This isn't knowledge or education. But you felt better for the experience. If someone suggests that you go to the Grand Canyon, do you dismiss that because, in the end, it's just a big hole in the ground? That is my reason for suggesting that you actually go to MCB, listen to the songs, listen to the sermon and just see if you learn anything. Maybe about Christianity, maybe about yourself.

Churches aren't universities and pastors aren't professors. I recommend you listen to Lon because he has an incredible gift to distill Biblical truths in an interesting and thoughtful way (at least for me and the tens of thousands of others who listen to him every week).

I will try and find a video to recommend. As I said earlier, the past several weeks have covered the first 7 chapters of Genesis and why they can be relied on as true.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I will try and find a video to recommend. As I
> said earlier, the past several weeks have covered
> the first 7 chapters of Genesis and why they can
> be relied on as true.


Perhaps you could just summarise because frankly you and believe have done a half-assed job of convincing anyone of anything (although you don't even seem to belong to the same religon but that's a different matter

The religious posters here have continually jumped from implausible idea to implausable idea, wringling through ridiculous self referrential knots before retreating into 'its all about faith' and 'nothings beyond gods magic'

A while back I suggested that the religous posters "either put up or shut up" - and the suggestion still stands. As the self avowed talibanic biblical literalist you have the most clearly indefensible position and have done the least to effective job of defending it.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the comparison of MBC and the Grand Canyon. Both 6,000 years old? Both full of hot air?

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Perhaps you could just summarise because frankly
> you and believe have done a half-assed job of
> convincing anyone of anything (although you don't
> even seem to belong to the same religon but that's
> a different matter
>
> The religious posters here have continually jumped
> from implausible idea to implausable idea,
> wringling through ridiculous self referrential
> knots before retreating into 'its all about
> faith' and 'nothings beyond gods magic'
>
> A while back I suggested that the religous posters
> "either put up or shut up" - and the suggestion
> still stands. As the self avowed talibanic
> biblical literalist you have the most clearly
> indefensible position and have done the least to
> effective job of defending it.
>

I think I started with the premise, and repeated it a few times, that no one could show scientific or definitive proof of God's existence. If anyone could, there would be no back and forth discussion, and no choice for people to make. In that scenario, the only people who would deny God's existence would be a few fringe lunatics, like holocaust and moon landing deniers, or flat earth believers. The Bible says that even Satan acknowledges God's existence, though he is happy when others carry his message that there is nothing out there to believe in, just move along folks, nothing to see here.

I have offered several reasons why I and others find the evidence to be believable, compelling, and true enough for us -- if not scientifically provable. And our faith has cemented that belief, as we've seen God work in our lives in ways that are not reasonably or statistically explainable by non-supernatural means. And we've also found our lives enriched by it, not to mention peace in knowing that we don't have to fear death.

I don't mean to offend, but the evidence was not really offered for your direct benefit, though it would be great if you did accept it. I did not honestly expect you to have a change of heart, but my hope has been that even one other person reading this exchange would hear the message and do something with it to save their eternal life. Christ gave himself for us, it's up to us to make that leap of faith and accept him without the benefit of scientific proof. We will all know on our deaths if it's true, and if Trooth and I are right about the message, then those that rejected the message will have a very painful discovery indeed.

Folks should find out a little about the story of Christ, then ask him if it's true and if they can believe in him. You might feel dumb praying to someone if you haven't yet made the choice to believe in the thing you're praying to, but just do it.

_______________________________________________________________________________

> If you don’t want to spend money on the church then don’t. And if you have questions about him why don’t you ask him (Lon). I went there three times and no one tried to make me pay anything and I did not.

> What do you believe in??
> How did you get here??
> Why are you here??

>Whether or not Lon is a good or bad pastor or if the religion is real or not. You should try to answer these questions above and do some research to find out.
_______________________________________________________________________________