Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Jim And Penny Caldwell's Archaeological Findings:


BlackCat

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

Hello BC.

 

Well, you've got me now! 

The life sciences aren't my field of interest, so I can't really say that much about things biological.  Physics, Astronomy and Geology...Yes. smile.png  Evolutionary Biology... No. sad.png

Perhaps Falemon can step into the breach here?

 

All I'll say at this point is that legitimate science can be seen for what it is by it's explanatory and predictive power.  Where is the predictive power of IC?  What does it explain?  What tests does it make that can be falsified?  I don't know but maybe the more we learn about how biological systems are formed, IC will be proven or disproven.  For example, it may be that as we know more about cells etc, and with powerful computers, we may be able to reverse engineer a process in order to determine how it evolved?  I'm hoping they will figure this out in my life time.   

 

I find Judge Jones' final rulings quite damning.

IC... does not actually address "the task facing natural selection."  No explanatory or predictive power!  Yet- maybe......? 

 

Legitimate science makes predictions about reality, based upon the methodology of observation and hypothesis.  Scientists observe reality, formulate a hypothesis about how they think it works and then test this experimentally.  If the experiment confirms the hypothesis, the results are peer-reviewed and then published, so that other scientists can independently perform their own checks.  It may turn out that these other scientists will discover something that eventually that challenges the original hypothesis.  Either because the original was incomplete (e.g.,Einstein's work on gravity, superceding Newton's) or because it was flawed. In both cases science advances because it is self-testing and self-correcting.  That which is a better, more accurate description of reality is accepted, that which is superceded is incorporated under the new, over-arching theory and that which is falsified is discounted.  That which is new and better must always have greater explanatory and predictive power than that which came before it.

 

Now, do you see the above happening within the sphere of IC, Blackcat?

Is IC capable of testing and correcting itself?

Does it make positive explanations about how things work or negative ones about how they don't?

Does it make positive, pro-active predictions about what will be discovered or negative, re-active ones about past discoveries?  It's inference will surely be shown to be real or not, the more we learn about how these molecular machines evolved and so because of it's inferred nature, it may be harder to apply these 'tests' that you mention??  I don't know.  If you watch that short video I linked to, you'll understand why some molecular biologists take the inference of design seriously and interpret their data in favour of design.  Please watch that short video and let me know what you think.  wink.png

 

BC, if you haven't already done so, please go to message #15 in this thread...

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/54804-aarons-resurrection/

...where I reply to Aaron.

 

The points I made to him hold good, when it comes to invoking IC.  By requiring a Super-Natural explanation for the apparent Irreducible Complexity of molecular machines, IC has stepped outside of the Naturalistic paradigm of legitimate science.  Anything that moves beyond the remit of science cannot call itself science.  It's that simple.  It's comparing apples to oranges and the judge saw that.  I read your reply to Aaron, and you make some good points.  I'm happy for us not to jump to a supernatural explanation just yet.  Let's determine if something has been designed.  Surely a design, can be determined via scientific means?  When I first saw an image of the flagellar motor (the real image, not a drawing), I was blown away at how it exactly represented a machine.  I showed it to my atheist husband, and asked him what he thought it was, with my poker face.  He thought it was a plane engine or something like that.  He and I saw design in this molecular structure, and we're not alone of course.  When a multi-part system comprising thousands of multi-part machines, that all have to be callibrated, is examined and found to be even more complex than you could imagine, then 'design' does seem to be a logical and plausible explanation.

Behe was shooting himself in the foot, when he took the stand and tried to appeal to Supernaturalistic IC to take down Naturalistic science.  It just can't be done.  Science is the study of the natural, not the supernatural.  Therefore, only one naturalistic explanation can falsify another.  Where no current naturalistic explanation is available for something, the only acceptable answer to the question is... "currently unknown".  Saying that a supernatural, Intelligent Designer is the cause of anything is unacceptable and impossible within science.  Behe and his ID colleagues are in an impossible position it seems: due to the 'terrible' ramifications of what a designed biological system suggests, it seems that anyone wanting to explore these design inferences, are deemed kooky in some way.  It may be true that Behe and the others have tried to go too far too soon.

 

If someone wants to make that claim, they're perfectly free to do so.  But they MUST ensure that they distinguish between the natural (which science can study) and the supernatural (which science cannot study), when they do.  Behe failed to do so, claiming that IC was science, when it isn't.  Nothing that relies on the supernatural to explain or predict something, can be science. What that film I linked to demonstrates, is a bunch of scientists, merrily doing their science, and in various ways observing processes or outcomes that infer design.   They can't surely deny these inferences exist.   Maybe this 'Designer' is perfectly natural and 'supernatural' is a red herring......tongue.png

 

 

BC, I know you'll find this message difficult to take.  I haven't answered your questions about molecular machines and evolution.  Nor can I.  I don't have the werewithall to do so.  But what I can do is to ask you the following.

 

When the answer to a question is... "currently unknown" ...can you see how this conclusion is the most honest one?  Yes.  But.......mayabe we don't know enough about molecular biology to know for sure if ID is an illusion.  It may well turn out to have only been an illusion and that the increased complexity of molecular systems will have a perfectly simple explanation. 

 

Can you look past what you want to be true and find the inner strength to accept the "truth as we currently understand it", no matter how emotionally unsatisfying that may be?  Yes.  I will accept the truth, whatever it is and wherever it leads to. 

 

Do you remember how the Caldwell's claims panned out, in the cold light of reality?

 

And how well you took that not-so-welcome news, on the chin?

 

You see, sometimes the pursuit of the truth asks a great deal of us, BC and isn't it better that I be open and honest with you about this, rather than equivocate or treat you with kid gloves?  Of course! wink.png  I appreciate your forthright but honest approach. 

 

With all due respect and sincerity,

 

BAA.

 

Sorry I have to remark like this.  My memory is getting bad.   wacko.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Falemon- I would be interested to see the film you mention. biggrin.png

 

BAA- I'll respond to your three points regarding an intelligent designer tomorrow.  They're very good points which I ponder often. cool.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BC, we know a lot about evolution, it is mostly a few specific questions, though I suspect we may be overlooking the use of rare occurrences of astronomical proportions. You have to remember that our planet has been alive for billions of years, providing more than enough opportunities for chance events to play a role.

 

I'm sure you might have some preconceptions about "chance", and there are far too many misconceptions about it, so I expect some thoughts purely about the role of chance, but it is something that you will find drives a great deal of this universe, it is the driving force behind engines (well, the chaos aspect of it anyway). That is another topic in itself though.

 

Even the moon's convenient positioning that allows us to see the Sun's corona. The moon plays a massive role in earth's species, and yet the moon is just the result of a collision with a stray planet that was roughly the same size of Earth. It could have smashed the planet to bits and we wouldn't even exist.

 

Introduction to the computer science part

This topic is very deep though (when you want to fully understand it) because some of the key topics belong to fields in computer science, which are difficult in themselves (though understandable with a little patience). I will do my best to provide you with the relevant information, feel free to ask me any questions as I expect there will be many things for you to ask.

 

What I am going to quickly do here is give you a brief understanding of algorithm* complexity in a very short space of time smile.png

*= an algorithm a pretty much a program performing a calculation, task or solving a problem. This could be a problem such as figuring out your route on a Sat Nav.

 

Grab a sheet of paper and write down the numbers, 1, 2, and 3. Figure out how many ways to arrange those numbers, and then how many ways to arrange the numbers where you can find the numbers listed in such a way that the two statements are true:

  1. one number is equal to the number next to it + 1 (e.g. 1,3,2 because 2 = 3 + 1, or 3,1,2 because 2 = 1 + 1)
  2. one number is equal to the number next to it + 2 (e.g. 1,3,2 because 3 = 1 + 2, or 3,1,2 because 3 = 1 + 2)

This seems easy at first, but when I ask you to increase the number to all the numbers from say, 1-5 you find that there are 120 ways to arrange the numbers (so you probably wouldn't want to try that exercise but 1-4 isn't too bad) and doing it with the numbers 1-10 gives you 3 million ways to arrange it.

 

Now you will find that if that question was changed to finding a sequence where:

  1. only one number is equal to the number next to it + 1 (e.g. 1,3,2 because 2 = 3 + 1, or 3,1,2 because 2 = 1 + 1)
  2. only one number is equal to the number next to it + 2 (e.g. 1,3,2 because 3 = 1 + 2, or 3,1,2 because 3 = 1 + 2)

... you will find that the problem is very difficult to solve because if you had to solve it with the numbers 1-20 the universe would have died before you had even written down a percentage of the combinations (and that's if you were producing them at a rate of 1 combination per second).

 

Now let us imagine that there is a world where life is nothing but a game of sequences whereby the "strength" of your sequence (say, 5,1,4,3,2) determines how long you live and how many children you have each year. In this world your "strength" would come by all the little patterns it has, so the number of patterns where "one number is equal to the number next to it + 3", and so on. In this world some sequences will over populate and survival of the fittest will come into play.

 

What is interesting is that in the beginning you could have very weak organisms existing and you just have absolutely no idea of how strong they could get. You might discover that some strengths are mutually exclusive, for example lots of +7s means less +2's or something of that nature. There can be other "strength" indicators. Keep this visualisation in mind as this is at the heart of many complex problems including Chess, Tetris and the algorithms that allow delivery men to take the shortest overall route to deliver packages. For now you can take my word on it that that is the case smile.png

 

Genetic algorithms

 

The videos I'm about to show you demonstrate the use of what is known as genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms basically use evolution to solve difficult and complex problems that can be gradually solved (like the sequences above). There are two key types of evolutionary steps, massive leaps and tiny steps. A tiny step might be a slight change in height, such as an increase in a millimetre every 1000 years. They can be introduced by mutations during the DNA replication stage which are slowly phased in through the process of natural selection. Massive leaps can be good or bad mutations such as the introduction of an arm or the repositioning of the anatomy. We see this all the time in defects, since most of the massive leaps have detrimental effects.

 

Both types of evolutionary steps are necessary and accommodated by DNA, namely because it stores lots of data that is yet to be used. So in us could be a partially constructed gene that makes our skin glow and it just needs 50 more changes before it is produced. It may never be produced, and could turn into something else completely, that is the nature of DNA.

 

Here are some videos of genetic algorithms being used to solve complex problems with a little commentary from me.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Str0Rdkxxo

Note: look at the text at the bottom of the video, it lists:

  1. Genome: this is basically which candidate is being shown driving, in this video there are 15 different candidates
  2. Generation: basically it says which generation you are viewing, so the first generation would be generation 1, and as the generations increases you should see improvements
  3. Fitness: this is basically a rating of the genome in terms of its survival strengths (for the survival of the fittest), the weakest genomes will be killed off and the strongest will be mated, to form the next generation of candidates.

You can see how the genes gradually encode the ability to complete the track over time. In real life this could have been the development of the giraffes long neck, where each increase allowed it to reach branches that the shorter giraffes could not, meaning it has more exclusive access to the higher placed leaves.

 

This could be the development a babies natural instinct to swim in water. At first the sequence would barely propel the baby, but it gave it a teeny advantage over the babies that did not kick appropriately. Slowly the sequence improves, slowly improving survival rates of the babies. It might also indicate that water births were more common in the distant past.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP035M_w82s

Observe how the genes develop behaviours and eventually learn how to score a goal. This is very much the same way that complex behaviours in humans would have developed. The entire team evolved to work together, much like our in instinctive understanding of body language and facial expression. The meaning is a meaning that has evolved and only has meaning to us. If we met with a being from another planet their entire set of expressions could be reversed or even non existent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Falemon.  Thanks for getting back to me.  It's quite late now and as I've imbibed a few glasses of port (leftovers of Christmas) and my brain is befuddled, I'll read your reply tomorrow. wink.png

 

BAA- I found this article which covers many of the points you have raised regarding ID and explains things I struggled to convey to you :

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/minnich_vs_harvey_the_witness001301.html

 

Scott Minnich is the scientist who is speaking in the short film I linked to earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Josh P - these hypotheses seem to make sense, so I'll look into this more deeply.  Thank you for linking to these films.  I'd not heard of this before now and it certainly seems to make sense of some things I'd wondered about before.  I'll let you know how my studies go.  biggrin.png

Good, I'm glad you're getting some exposure to this archaeological info now. I was anticipating that you probably haven't faced any of this data head on yet, judging by previous posts. There's actually a large body of information dedicated to looking at the evidence and then drawing conclusions based on the evidence, instead of the old way of starting with a pre-determined conclusion and looking for ways of trying to make it work out. That's the difference between what Finkelstein is doing as a professional archaeologist verses what people like the Caldwell's are doing as amateur Biblical proponents / literalism apologists. 

 

I look forward to hearing how it goes as you look deeper and deeper into these archaeological issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello BC.

Haven't got much time left today, but I'll respond with more, sometime tomorrow.  For now, why don't you read my latest reply to Aaron and  then look at these questions?

 

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? 

Or putting it another way, did the relevant ID/IR scientists start out as Atheists and/or Agnostics and were then persuaded of the hand of an Intelligent Designer, just by the data itself?  Or, did they bring any personal preferences and biases into their work, allowing these personal and private beliefs to sway their judgement?

 

Why is it that orthodox, mainstream science takes such an unfavorable view of the ID/IR lobby?

 

Why is it that bona fide science cannot draw super-natural conclusions from natural science?

 

Do peer-reviewed, pro-ID/IR scientific papers appear in accredited scientific journals?

 

Do you see a parallel between the Caldwells and the ID/IR lobby?  (In both cases, are the people making the claims NOT personally or religiously involved in the subject of the claims?)

 

 

Please note that I am not making any kind of ad hominem attacks against anyone here, BC.  It's just that scientists are expected to be objective, dispassionate and detached about their work.  If they align themselves with something outside of science, which their scientific work also supports, isn't there a conflict of interest?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello BC.

Haven't got much time left today, but I'll respond with more, sometime tomorrow.  For now, why don't you read my latest reply to Aaron and  then look at these questions?

 

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? 

Or putting it another way, did the relevant ID/IR scientists start out as Atheists and/or Agnostics and were then persuaded of the hand of an Intelligent Designer, just by the data itself?  Or, did they bring any personal preferences and biases into their work, allowing these personal and private beliefs to sway their judgement?

 

Why is it that orthodox, mainstream science takes such an unfavorable view of the ID/IR lobby?

 

Why is it that bona fide science cannot draw super-natural conclusions from natural science?

 

Do peer-reviewed, pro-ID/IR scientific papers appear in accredited scientific journals?

 

Do you see a parallel between the Caldwells and the ID/IR lobby?  (In both cases, are the people making the claims NOT personally or religiously involved in the subject of the claims?)

 

 

Please note that I am not making any kind of ad hominem attacks against anyone here, BC.  It's just that scientists are expected to be objective, dispassionate and detached about their work.  If they align themselves with something outside of science, which their scientific work also supports, isn't there a conflict of interest?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Very good points BAA.  I hear what you're saying.  I'm aware that my beliefs in God and the supernatural have pre-disposed me to being swayed by ID.   ID seems to be my one last hope that there is something beyond this temporary existence and so I'm trying my best to prove it- but I realise that in doing so, it may well disprove ID.  I haven't had a chance to respond to your three points about God in your previous post, as I've been watching a series of youtube films by a former Christian who is now an atheist.  Josh P posted one of his films in a previous post.  Wow!  What I am learning is amazing, and I don't hold out much hope of retaining any belief in the supernatural once I finish watching them.  I don't know if he will cover ID, and so I'm still hoping ID will survive this journey into the cold reality of truth that I am sure I am entering.  My mind doesn't want to let go of the simulations I have been running all these years.  Some of their pathways have been knocked out over the past four years, as I realise the doubts growing over this time, and the tower is now tottering well and truly!   It may turn out that all reality and matter is intelligent but we are nevertheless temporary minds within this eternal intelligence.  I am excited and scared at how this guy will deal with ID (if he does).  We shall see.  I'll let you know............ sorry smilies not working......scared face; happy face;

 

Here's the first film in his journey for anyone interested:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's 3vid3nc3.    on youtube and his series is VERY good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love that series! He talks a lot about various things, but I don't remember him going far into ID itself. Here are some nice videos about ID itself; they should keep you busy for a bit.

 

The Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial -- must-see viewing. Do look for the PDF about the judge's findings, which go into the copious arguments about ID in excruciating detail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hTZ5AYzs8o

 

Aron-Ra, a Youtube-famous science wonk, did this series too:

 

The Penn & Teller "Bullshit!" episode about creationism, which has a lot of jumping-off points you can play with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OOYLEDKDh0&list=PL1C7F3C947B68195A

 

The classic playlist from Thunderf00t, "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?":

(PS: Anybody who doesn't want to fuck Thunderf00t's voice has no soul.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's 3vid3nc3.    on youtube and his series is VERY good.

 

 

Is he a member of this forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love that series! He talks a lot about various things, but I don't remember him going far into ID itself. Here are some nice videos about ID itself; they should keep you busy for a bit.

 

The Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial -- must-see viewing. Do look for the PDF about the judge's findings, which go into the copious arguments about ID in excruciating detail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hTZ5AYzs8o

 

Aron-Ra, a Youtube-famous science wonk, did this series too:

[url=

 

The Penn & Teller "Bullshit!" episode about creationism, which has a lot of jumping-off points you can play with:

[url=

]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OOYLEDKDh0&list=PL1C7F3C947B68195A

 

The classic playlist from Thunderf00t, "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?":

[url=

]

(PS: Anybody who doesn't want to fuck Thunderf00t's voice has no soul.)

 

 

Thank you Akheia- that should keep me very busy for a while......lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Falemon-  I posted a reply yesterday, to the films you linked to but I lost it as I went to post it...... Thank you for sharing them, but they are way too technical and mathematical for me.  I hope some one here gets to watch them and appreciates them.  Thank you again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most welcome smile.png I don't think Evidence is a member of this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Falemon-  I posted a reply yesterday, to the films you linked to but I lost it as I went to post it...... Thank you for sharing them, but they are way too technical and mathematical for me.  I hope some one here gets to watch them and appreciates them.  Thank you again. 

My bad. I will keep on the look out though as there have been a lot of documentaries on lately discussing some interesting topics near to your question, just that I don't recall any of them showing things like genetic algorithms, which to me it is the simplest way to demonstrate the theory of evolution.

 

 

Given your interest right now is to find answers I wouldn't give up on understanding this just yet as this it seems quite valuable to your journey (well there may be other ways). Perhaps my first explanation was in depth, so ask questions because unless you have a severe deficiency in logical reasoning I am certain you will be able to understand enough to be able to have an informed perspective on evolution and ID *.

 

 

I did take a very mathematical looking route (my bad, that is my background and I always take it for granted that everyone else will find it really easy, I guess that is something I need to bear in mind), but there are a few basic concepts you ought to be aware of in some way and maybe there is a better method of illustrating that with something more palatable :)

 

 

 

*=maybe I need to bite the bullet and make my own presentation :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MATH IS HARD! TEE-HEE!

 

Falemon, you do it the way that makes the most sense to you, sweetie smile.png I'm a math idiot but I've had to learn a lot along the way just to make sense out of the stuff I've learned. This morning I watched a video by that one white-haired hot Japanese scientist dude (wtf is his name, Mikao? Always shows up in astronomy documentaries and he looks just like an anime scientist) that I had to see twice to make sense out of about curved numbers and shit and gravity and what is this I don't even

 

The other day I totally re-read the transcript of the Dover trial.. here is the linkie, looked it up again for BC--

Linkie. What's really amazing is that you know the judge didn't have a huge background in science, but the people involved really walked him right through everything he needed. TalkOrigins has the full trial transcripts day to day and the careful, painstaking way the judge went over everything is just astounding to behold. Before an expert was accepted, the court first established what kind of expert this was, why s/he was qualified to give testimony, and what limits were to be placed upon that testimony (ie, a biologist wasn't an expert on the geologic record necessarily). In one case, a historian's science and theology background was in dispute, but in the end, she wasn't testifying about either of these, but about the ID movement itself and its own history, and that was what she was an expert in and so that was what her testimony involved. It really was eye-opening to me, who lacks a legal background. The ID movement is generally made up of people with little-to-no real background in geology or biology, and the trial made that painfully clear.

 

One other thing really sprang out at me in the transcript, and that was how dishonest ID people really are. The judge flat-out called a number of the Dover school board members liars and frauds after they kept getting caught in their own lies (in the transcript, check out Bonsell's and Buckingham's sections.. the judge actually questioned one of these guys himself over one discrepancy). Most of the board just went along with the two main culprits; several didn't even understand ID. One didn't even know its correct name and called it "intelligence design." (!) None of them had actually consulted with actual education organizations or science-based orgs like the NSA, which have strongly-worded positions about ID (like this one from the Botanical Society of America) that anybody can access; their main consultation about ID was with legal orgs and religious groups. Over and over again, the ID proponents called to testify were unaware or hostile toward established research that contradicted their guesses about the origins of life (can't really call 'em "hypotheses," because, well, hypotheses are testable and draw upon previously established facts). The Dover school board's leaders were way more concerned with jamming unaccredited books and unverified opinions down kids' throats. All of them constantly harped about Christianity and how teaching evolution would conflict with their religious ideas. The only conclusion I could draw, coming away from all of this, was that the ID movement is duplicitous and dishonest and far more concerned with indoctrination than with real science.

 

If they had anything, they'd have brought it in that trial, don't you think? One guy who'd initially been crowing about his eagerness to testify and stomp all over those "evolutionists," William Dembski, claims to have foolproof "proof" of design. He mysteriously pulled out of the trial entirely right before he could give his deposition (though he did make a blog entry bad-mouthing the judge later, complete with fart noises he'd recorded of his own flatulence). Being that he's one of the movement's golden children, and being that this trial was one that the ID movement was desperately hoping for and gunning for to prove ID worthy of being taught in public schools, isn't that just a little peculiar?

 

You know how Christians show up here and insist they have "proof" of Jesus and God, and then spend their time avoiding the question or rationalizing away how subjective their "proof" is? That's ID in a nutshell. And despite their efforts to unhitch it from its Christian creationist origins, that's precisely what it is. The trial also brought out a number of pieces of evidence tying the two together--and even more damning, evidence that they just changed the name to "ID" to weasel out of being called "creationists." They talk about "well we just don't know who the designer is" with a wink and a nudge, because everybody listening knows exactly who they mean.

 

These were the things I myself had to navigate as I assessed ID, and maybe these musings will be of some kind of use to someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not doubting that the ID Movement has its faults.  Once I've watched all Evid3nc3's vids, I'll check out the links to it.  I want to leave the ID movement behind and focus on determining if something that for all intents and purposes looks designed e.g the flagellar motor, is in fact designed, or is the end result of laws and forces that have no intelligent mind behind them.  I accept that all matter and life is being affected gradually, by the cause and effect of the Big Bang:  just as the planets, stars etc have taken billions of years to form and allow life, so too, molecules have evolved over time to bring forth all the life we have. 

 

Why are there laws or restrictions that exert an influence on everything?  What is keeping gravity in place?  What is keeping our universe in place?  What keeps me from disintegrating and all the 'strings' that make me up from flying off (like going up in a puff of smoke).  Why do things last like they do?  This unseen inferred guidance or influence, must be responsible for life coming about, e.g it allows molecules to last long enough to form different things, which lead to life forms.   I have not made contact with any kind of Mind, other than other humans and animals, and so I must conclude on the evidence, that it is unlikely and implausible to imagine a Mind that is running the show.....but I'm still hoping there is....I can't shake off that hope.  I want to lay it to rest and what will be will be, but it runs through my veins, or rather lives in every synapse of my brain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear BlackCat,

 

Please believe me when I say that I empathize and sympathize with you. 

 

Putting aside my rationality for a moment and writing on a purely emotionally level, of course I hope that I'll see my parents and older brother, my aunts, uncles and deceased friends again.  But whole and healthy again, too!  Not ravaged by Parkinson's disease (my Dad), nor Dementia (my Mom), nor heart problems (my brother Paul), nor stomach cancer (my uncle Jim) ...and so on.

 

However, all that makes me what I am, is not just emotion.  I also have the capacity to reason - so I must try to balance my emotions with what my mind understands to be true and real.  This leads me to conclude that I won't ever see my loved ones again.  I tend their graves - but the mature and realistic realization that I must live with is they are gone forever.

 

But if that's so, why did they ever live? 

Why is it that this reality seems to give us happiness for a short time and then it takes it away forever? 

 

I don't know. 

But I do know that there is more to life and existence than what we can currently see and comprehend.  Here I agree with Josh.  Not fully, but mostly.  There does seem to be some underlying tendency for the universe to organize complex things out of simpler components.  Something happens to make life out inert materials.  As you put it...there's an, 'unseen inferred guidance or influence'.   I've come to understand that it isn't something religious or solely humanocentric.  But just what IT is, I don't know.  I wish I DID know, BC! Wendyshrug.gif

 

However, there is one part of your last post that I think I can address. 

 

"Why are there laws or restrictions that exert an influence on everything?"  "What is keeping gravity in place?"  "What is keeping our universe in place?"  "What keeps me from disintegrating?"  "Why do things last like they do?"

 

All of these excellent and worthwhile questions inexorably draw me back to post #65, on page 4 of this thread. 

Please return there for a quick re-read, BC.  This was where I gave a quick overview of why this universe seems to be broken-and-winding-down. As best as I understand it, everything we now experience as 'reality' was set into motion then, in the Big Bang.  All the laws and restrictions that 'keep' things as they are, ultimately derive from that event. 

 

Now, if you recall, in message #70, I broke down your reply into 8 questions.  So far, we've skipped over 1 thru 7 and looked at #8.  But maybe it's time to go back and look at these seven?  Doing that might help us tackle the five questions I've highlighted in red, above.

 

Does that sound ok to you?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

that's 3vid3nc3.    on youtube and his series is VERY good.

 

 

Is he a member of this forum?

 

 

Not to my knowledge.  

 

However,  PrplFx is.

 

 

 

Thunderf00t is another good one

 

 

This guy just combined all of thunderf00t's series of Why do people laugh at creationists into one video.   On Thunderf00t's channel you can find all the parts for easier digestion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear BlackCat,

 

Please believe me when I say that I empathize and sympathize with you. 

 

Putting aside my rationality for a moment and writing on a purely emotionally level, of course I hope that I'll see my parents and older brother, my aunts, uncles and deceased friends again.  But whole and healthy again, too!  Not ravaged by Parkinson's disease (my Dad), nor Dementia (my Mom), nor heart problems (my brother Paul), nor stomach cancer (my uncle Jim) ...and so on.

 

However, all that makes me what I am, is not just emotion.  I also have the capacity to reason - so I must try to balance my emotions with what my mind understands to be true and real.  This leads me to conclude that I won't ever see my loved ones again.  I tend their graves - but the mature and realistic realization that I must live with is they are gone forever.

 

 

Does that sound ok to you?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Well my personal opinion on this is that you will and won't see them again.   Their bodies are done, if they are dead.  The personality that went with the bodies is gone as well.  The soul behind it you will "see" again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA- that sounds good to me.  biggrin.png

 

Stryper- thanks for the links.  I'll check them out.    I'd be interested to know why you believe we have a 'soul'.  huh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Stryper- thanks for the links.  I'll check them out.    I'd be interested to know why you believe we have a 'soul'.  huh.png

 

well it's very off topic from what is being discussed, however, the question was asked. 

 

I have nothing that could be considered proof.  

 

The michael teachings state that when you are in a body your personality is in control.  Growing and learning.  When the body dies, the personality is reintegrated into the essence that spawned it.  

 

As a personality, you can communicate with your essence.  I have.  

 

That's the short version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Stryper- thanks for the links.  I'll check them out.    I'd be interested to know why you believe we have a 'soul'.  huh.png

 

well it's very off topic from what is being discussed, however, the question was asked. 

 

I have nothing that could be considered proof.  

 

The michael teachings state that when you are in a body your personality is in control.  Growing and learning.  When the body dies, the personality is reintegrated into the essence that spawned it.  

 

As a personality, you can communicate with your essence.  I have.  

 

That's the short version.

 

Yes, we've got off topic quite a bit during all the conversations, but it's all good stuff.  wink.png

 

The kind of 'Christianity' I had believed, was one that taught there is no separate 'soul' or part of you that is conscious after you die.  I was taught that the spirit is the life force that is needed to animate the physical matter and thus you have a 'living soul' ie body plus spirit.  When the life force leaves the body at death, the 'soul' disintegrates and is no more, but what made you 'you' was safe with God, so that at a future time, at the resurrection, 'you' would be awakened into an immortal body, that will never die.  It did always strike me as the most fantastical 'story' to place any hope in.  My atheist husband would look at me as if he felt sorry for me, to believe in such a fairy story.  It really is just a fairy story, based on what we want but not on what is possible.............sad.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

BC, that sounds strangely close to the "soul sleep" doctrine taught in Seventh Day Adventism, which I belonged to as a youth. But it's slightly different. They believe nothing goes off to God until the resurrection, rather everything that is you rests in the grave until the resurrection. So when you die there's no sense of time or consciousness, just closing your eye's at death and the next thing you know it's the second coming. Strange theology, I know.

 

I'm glad you decided to delve into the deconversion series I linked earlier, a very good series indeed. I think a lot of people can relate to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

BAA:

But I do know that there is more to life and existence than what we can currently see and comprehend. Here I agree with Josh. Not fully, but mostly. There does seem to be some underlying tendency for the universe to organize complex things out of simpler components. Something happens to make life out inert materials. As you put it...there's an,'unseen inferred guidance or influence'. I've come to understand that it isn't something religious or solely humanocentric. But just what IT is, I don't know. I wish I DID know, BC!

I'm sure that you understand this influence as natural, as I do. And since BC keeps saying that she wants to isolate this away from the ID movement, which is errant, then I see no real harm in where she's trying to go with this line of inquiry. The main thing is that this line of inquiry is a work in progress, we truly don't know with any certainty. I couldn't agree more.

 

That's the most important thing BC. Where people usually go wrong is when they take their speculation as hard fact. I have suspicions about existence itself (as in the entire realm thereof)and consciousness as being interconnected, inseparable and I drift off into Idealist Pantheism in certain ways. But I also fully understand that I could be completely wrong too. These things are less than certain, but worthy of exploration for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BC, that sounds strangely close to the "soul sleep" doctrine taught in Seventh Day Adventism, which I belonged to as a youth. But it's slightly different. They believe nothing goes off to God until the resurrection, rather everything that is you rests in the grave until the resurrection. So when you die there's no sense of time or consciousness, just closing your eye's at death and the next thing you know it's the second coming. Strange theology, I know.

 

I'm glad you decided to delve into the deconversion series I linked earlier, a very good series indeed. I think a lot of people can relate to it. 

 

I was raised a Roman Catholic but nearly 'became' a Jehovah's Witness in my teens, so most of my understanding of the bible is from the JW teachings and for the last few years influenced by end times, Hebrew roots and preterist positions.  eek.gif

 

I've watched all the deconversion vids now, and I've emailed the guy, to ask him about IC/ID as he doesn't really go into it in any of his videos.  I'm now going to read my Karen Armstrong book 'A History of God'.  I bought it several years ago and it sat on my shelf all this time.  What a stroke of luck.  I'm absolutely fascinated by the idea that El and Yahweh are different gods.  It's such a radical idea.  Once I've done the research, I'll maybe start a new thread to discuss it.  biggrin.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.