Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[Shyone]

What do you mean by 'holistic'? It doesn't sound anything like what I mean.

 

 

Therein lies the problem.

 

 

So, you accept my use of the word holistic in the way I was using it?

I read "holistic" and I think "holistic medicine" and that means quackery = Bullshit.

 

I realise that you mean something else, but by the time I've finished reading the last letter of the word "holistic" definitions and experience take over and I will never be able to use that word. I don't even know what your definition is. No offense, but I'd rather not know.

 

To me, holistic is a bad word. I can't get past that.

 

To clarify, I don't feel terribly strongly about it. It's a black hole in my vocabulary. It's not that I don't accept your definition, there is no way I can understand your definition. I have my own definition, and I'm not up for a paradigm shift in definitions today.

[NotBlinded]

Let's say there is a set of five things: car, table, chair, salt shaker and human. Is this collection of things intelligent? I would say that since we define intelligence based on thought that only one of the set is intelligent, but the set itself is not intelligent.

 

The universe is the "set of all there is." We are intelligent. The rest is dumb matter. Conflating our intelligence to something attributable to the universe as a whole is meaningless.

So intelligence arises from dumb matter? That is really no different at all from the Creationist view of God having to breath life into "dumb matter". At least in their view, it isn't just some freak of random occurences that lead to intelligence being in the universe. You both agree that matter is dumb.

 

It would be fallacy of compisition to claim that the set is intelligent because a "part" of the set is intelligent. This is not what is being said. What is being said is that intelligence is a part of every part of the set.

Intelligence does arise from dumb matter. Absolutely. From the joining of the egg to the sperm, to the acquisition of matter for the reproduction of cells, to the development of systems, to the use of those systems to gather information, it's dumb matter. Any single chemical in our body is nothing but dumb matter. It is the organization, chemistry and energy that makes us more than dumb matter. And when we die, we will return to the chemicals that accumulated during life, but life itself is a chemical reaction, and every thought relies on the chemistry that has resulted from eons of trial and error.

 

Intelligence is a part of every part of the set? A chair is intelligent?

 

Since when is lifeless matter intelligent?

What is a chair? What makes it a chair? What are the atoms "doing"? Does "doing" require intelligence?

[Shyone]

As for our effect on the universe, it would be egotistical to say that a wave of my arm has gravitational effects instantly on the most distant galaxy or particle, but then it would be true. It's just insignificant - as insignificant as the effect of the universe (outside of our planet, moon and sun) is to us. Astrologers would have us believe that the planets have effects on personality, destiny and luck. I don't think so.

You have heard about the Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory and Sensitive Dependence on Initial Condition? If not, please read it and summarize it for me please. I'm too lazy to read about it myself.

I'm sure you know more about it than I do. But I see no reason to exterminate all of the butterflies in China to reduce the number of hurricanes in the Carribean.

[Deva]

Whoeve said that he was influenced by Eastern Mysticism is off-base. Schopenhauer was a committed pessimistic atheist. He saw hope in the future as a denial of the will to live.

 

The two positions are not necessarily incompatible. The term "eastern mysticism" can cover a lot of territory.

 

It has been many years since I read "The World as Will and Representation" but it was obvious upon reading it that Schopenhauer was influenced by Eastern religion/philosophy and I think particularly the Upanishads. There is no god in the western sense of that word in it.

[Shyone]

 

What is a chair? What makes it a chair? What are the atoms "doing"? Does "doing" require intelligence?

Actually, that's a really good question. We tend to anthropomorphize things we see, but attributing human motivation to particles and atoms doesn't make them intelligent.

 

Have you ever seen Brownian Movement? Ever want to call it a ballet?

 

Defining life, intelligence, purpose, intent and things like that too vaguely will lead you down the road to unintelligibility.

 

Live humans are intelligent. Dead humans are not.

[NotBlinded]

As for our effect on the universe, it would be egotistical to say that a wave of my arm has gravitational effects instantly on the most distant galaxy or particle, but then it would be true. It's just insignificant - as insignificant as the effect of the universe (outside of our planet, moon and sun) is to us. Astrologers would have us believe that the planets have effects on personality, destiny and luck. I don't think so.

You have heard about the Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory and Sensitive Dependence on Initial Condition? If not, please read it and summarize it for me please. I'm too lazy to read about it myself.

I'm sure you know more about it than I do. But I see no reason to exterminate all of the butterflies in China to reduce the number of hurricanes in the Carribean.

I'm sorry Shyone. That sounded sarcastic, but I was serious. I really am too lazy to read about it. It has something to do with nonlinear calculations. But, that is a major brain-strain for me and I don't want to read it.

 

I'm sorry I sounded so snooty!

[NotBlinded]

Whoeve said that he was influenced by Eastern Mysticism is off-base. Schopenhauer was a committed pessimistic atheist. He saw hope in the future as a denial of the will to live.

 

The two positions are not necessarily incompatible. The term "eastern mysticism" can cover a lot of territory.

 

It has been many years since I read "The World as Will and Representation" but it was obvious upon reading it that Schopenhauer was influenced by Eastern religion/philosophy and I think particularly the Upanishads. There is no god in the western sense of that word in it.

Yes...what Deva said.

[NotBlinded]

 

What is a chair? What makes it a chair? What are the atoms "doing"? Does "doing" require intelligence?

Actually, that's a really good question. We tend to anthropomorphize things we see, but attributing human motivation to particles and atoms doesn't make them intelligent.

 

Have you ever seen Brownian Movement? Ever want to call it a ballet?

 

Defining life, intelligence, purpose, intent and things like that too vaguely will lead you down the road to unintelligibility.

 

Live humans are intelligent. Dead humans are not.

Now, I see it just the opposite. I see wanting to define intelligence by human terms anthropomorphizing. You want a chair to present human intelligence in order to call it intelligent. I see "doing" as requiring some sort of intelligence, yes. AM calls it creating which is a good word to use. A tree is "created" by the actions of the molecules of the tree. There is nothing in me that can see matter as dead and dumb if we came out of it.

[Shyone]

As for our effect on the universe, it would be egotistical to say that a wave of my arm has gravitational effects instantly on the most distant galaxy or particle, but then it would be true. It's just insignificant - as insignificant as the effect of the universe (outside of our planet, moon and sun) is to us. Astrologers would have us believe that the planets have effects on personality, destiny and luck. I don't think so.

You have heard about the Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory and Sensitive Dependence on Initial Condition? If not, please read it and summarize it for me please. I'm too lazy to read about it myself.

I'm sure you know more about it than I do. But I see no reason to exterminate all of the butterflies in China to reduce the number of hurricanes in the Carribean.

I'm sorry Shyone. That sounded sarcastic, but I was serious. I really am too lazy to read about it. It has something to do with nonlinear calculations. But, that is a major brain-strain for me and I don't want to read it.

 

I'm sorry I sounded so snooty!

At least you knew the name of the theory!

 

By the time you get mathematics that are so complicated that they impinge on philosophy, I'm really out of my league. I'm reading A Brief History of Time (the illustrated edition for those that need pictures). It's like philosophy, because the mathematics have been stripped leaving what would almost appear to be unsubstantiated conclusions.

 

I'm also no philosopher, and trying to speak philosophese is a real brain strain for me. I read a few books, gained some understanding, read more, and it was interesting. It's not something I feel comfortable with, especially when words find completely different uses from the way I use them.

 

But I do have thoughts. Perhaps even novel ones at times.

[NotBlinded]

At least you knew the name of the theory!

 

By the time you get mathematics that are so complicated that they impinge on philosophy, I'm really out of my league. I'm reading A Brief History of Time (the illustrated edition for those that need pictures). It's like philosophy, because the mathematics have been stripped leaving what would almost appear to be unsubstantiated conclusions.

 

I'm also no philosopher, and trying to speak philosophese is a real brain strain for me. I read a few books, gained some understanding, read more, and it was interesting. It's not something I feel comfortable with, especially when words find completely different uses from the way I use them.

 

But I do have thoughts. Perhaps even novel ones at times.

Yes you do!

 

I'm afraid that mathematical formulas look like the Chinese characters to me. Trying to understand them would be the death of me!

[Rev R]

SCHOPENHAUER AND BUDDHISM

 

Oh I loathe that method of transliterating Pali.

[NotBlinded]

SCHOPENHAUER AND BUDDHISM

 

Oh I loathe that method of transliterating Pali.

You know Rodney. Something didn't seem right when I was reading through it, but I couldn't really pinpoint it. Is it because they are not really understanding the essence of Buddhism when making the comparison? Are they being literalists?

 

Of course that probably isn't what you mean at all because I have no clue about what Pali is.

[Antlerman]

What do you mean by 'holistic'? It doesn't sound anything like what I mean.

 

 

Therein lies the problem.

 

 

So, you accept my use of the word holistic in the way I was using it?

I read "holistic" and I think "holistic medicine" and that means quackery = Bullshit.

 

I realise that you mean something else, but by the time I've finished reading the last letter of the word "holistic" definitions and experience take over and I will never be able to use that word. I don't even know what your definition is. No offense, but I'd rather not know.

 

To me, holistic is a bad word. I can't get past that.

 

To clarify, I don't feel terribly strongly about it. It's a black hole in my vocabulary. It's not that I don't accept your definition, there is no way I can understand your definition. I have my own definition, and I'm not up for a paradigm shift in definitions today.

If you have a black hole in your thinking for information like this, then how can you conclude against what I'm saying in favor of your point of view without being able to consider this?

 

I actually provided the link three times for a brief explanation of what it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism It isn't some new-agey sort of pseudoscience.

 

From Wiki:

 

"Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, entire, total) is the idea that all the properties of a given system (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.

 

The general principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" (1045a10).

 

Reductionism is sometimes seen as the opposite of holism. Reductionism in science says that a complex system can be explained by reduction to its fundamental parts. For example, the processes of biology are reducible to chemistry and the laws of chemistry are explained by physics.

[shyone's position]

 

 

<snip>

 

In the latter half of the 20th century, holism led to systems thinking and its derivatives, like the sciences of chaos and complexity.

Systems in biology, psychology, or sociology are frequently so complex that their behavior is, or appears, "new" or "emergent": it cannot be deduced from the properties of the elements alone

.

[3] [My position. You can also reference LR's favorite biologist Robert Rosen, '

Life Itself

']

 

Holism has thus been used as a catchword. This contributed to the resistance encountered by the scientific interpretation of holism, which insists that there are ontological reasons that prevent reductive models in principle from providing efficient algorithms for prediction of system behavior in certain classes of systems.

 

Further resistance to holism has come from the association of the concept with quantum mysticism. Recently, however, public understanding has grown over the realities of such concepts, and more scientists are beginning to accept serious research into the concept

.[citation needed]

 

Scientific holism holds that the behavior of a system cannot be perfectly predicted, no matter how much data is available. Natural systems can produce surprisingly unexpected behavior, and it is suspected that behavior of such systems might be computationally irreducible, which means it would not be possible to even approximate the system state without a full simulation of all the events occurring in the system. Key properties of the higher level behavior of certain classes of systems may be mediated by rare "surprises" in the behavior of their elements due to the principle of interconnectivity, thus evading predictions except by brute force simulation. Stephen Wolfram has provided such examples with simple cellular automata, whose behavior is in most cases equally simple, but on rare occasions highly unpredictable.[4]

 

Complexity theory (also called "science of complexity"), is a contemporary heir of systems thinking. It comprises both computational and holistic, relational approaches towards understanding complex adaptive systems and, especially in the latter, its methods can be seen as the polar opposite to reductive methods. General theories of complexity have been proposed, and numerous complexity institutes and departments have sprung up around the world. The Santa Fe Institute is arguably the most famous of them."

 

And this comes back to what started this side shoot where we talked about Beauty in the Universe, the aesthetic, and that article I linked to. In that article he talked about Bio-cultural feedback loops. It is in things like this, and language systems in particular defining reality for us, shaping our perceptions and choices, etc, etc, etc, etc, where I personally find the reductionist evaluation pretty 'flat'. It oversimplifies and seems to pretty much gut out the enormous, unpredictable complexities that all go into shaping and influencing this unbelievably dynamic bubbling soup of emergent creativity that comprises our Universe, our Existence. Chemicals and material are not all that exist. That is irrational, IMHO.

[Rev R]

SCHOPENHAUER AND BUDDHISM

 

Oh I loathe that method of transliterating Pali.

You know Rodney. Something didn't seem right when I was reading through it, but I couldn't really pinpoint it. Is it because they are not really understanding the essence of Buddhism when making the comparison? Are they being literalists?

 

Of course that probably isn't what you mean at all because I have no clue about what Pali is.

 

Pali: the language of the Theravedan canon. The article uses an older form of transliteration (ex. sa.msaaraa rather than just samsara). It's just a pain in the ass to try to read. I wasn't looking out for "correct interpretation", I'd have to dig deeper into it to answer your questions.

[Shyone]

That is irrational, IMHO.

Sorry, you hit another black hole. "Quantum" when not referring to the mathematics of Quantum theory is like listening to Depak Chopra expound on feely good medicine.

 

 

There are mathematical systems that use these words, and perhaps your ideas come from those kinds of meanings, but the entanglement of indeterminate properties of quantum objects hardly relates to the concepts you are discussing. Or I'm not seeing it.

 

Relational Holism in Quantum Mechanics isn't about just philosophy. But read the paper and see if you can explain to me how quantum mechanics relates to our discussion. I understand their definitions of holism and agree with them, so perhaps we are on the same page of music.

[rayskidude]

Scientific holism holds that the behavior of a system cannot be perfectly predicted, no matter how much data is available. Natural systems can produce surprisingly unexpected behavior, and it is suspected that behavior of such systems might be computationally irreducible, which means it would not be possible to even approximate the system state without a full simulation of all the events occurring in the system. Key properties of the higher level behavior of certain classes of systems may be mediated by rare "surprises" in the behavior of their elements due to the principle of interconnectivity, thus evading predictions except by brute force simulation. Stephen Wolfram has provided such examples with simple cellular automata, whose behavior is in most cases equally simple, but on rare occasions highly unpredictable.[4]

 

Complexity theory (also called "science of complexity"), is a contemporary heir of systems thinking. It comprises both computational and holistic, relational approaches towards understanding complex adaptive systems and, especially in the latter, its methods can be seen as the polar opposite to reductive methods. General theories of complexity have been proposed, and numerous complexity institutes and departments have sprung up around the world. The Santa Fe Institute is arguably the most famous of them."[/indent]

 

And this comes back to what started this side shoot where we talked about Beauty in the Universe, the aesthetic, and that article I linked to. In that article he talked about Bio-cultural feedback loops. It is in things like this, and language systems in particular defining reality for us, shaping our perceptions and choices, etc, etc, etc, etc, where I personally find the reductionist evaluation pretty 'flat'. It oversimplifies and seems to pretty much gut out the enormous, unpredictable complexities that all go into shaping and influencing this unbelievably dynamic bubbling soup of emergent creativity that comprises our Universe, our Existence. Chemicals and material are not all that exist. That is irrational, IMHO.

 

Please allow me to add a hearty "Amen" to what A-man has stated. And given what we know about these highly complex, intricate, aesthetic, symbiotic, etc behaviors within a myriad of systems >> this is what many Christian scientists refer to when they speak of the "irreducible complexity" in LIFE. To the degree that from this point of irreducible complexity you cannot get "less complex" and have any collection of bio-molecules that could even remotely have the natural ability to develop into LIFE. Ergo, the only rational conclusion is the Great Uncaused Cause. Then as we consider this universe - and as we think logically & rationally & thoroughly thru what or who this Uncaused Cause is >> i.e.; what we perceive must be the characteristics, attributes, etc then this "God" must exist - being all-powerful, all-wise, omnipresent AND be Personal. There is simply no way no how no time that you can arrive at personality apart from a prior equal or greater personality.

 

Thus, as we continue to think thru all the core and collateral issues - we arrive at the Biblical God. And in this process - thankfuly, we have not been simply left to ourselves to deduce the truth.

Act 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,

Act 17:25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Act 17:27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, Act 17:28 for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.'

Act 17:29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.

Act 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,

Act 17:31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

Act 17:32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this."

 

Act 14:15 "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.

Act 14:16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways.

Act 14:17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness."

[rayskidude]

I don't quite understand what it means to develop things in someone else. If someone wishes to develop a certain gift, I see the good in supporting them in that development, working together. I don't see working together as one "ruling" over the other, man or woman. I do see this as her teaching him (the man), fostering his opportunities to lead where he shows promise, and taking the lead (yes, even as a woman!) if that is where she is strong. To suppress herself, to bend over backwards to get him in the position of authority when he is deficient or otherwise inclined is extremely artificial and forced.

 

Developing skills, attitudes, motivations, etc in others is simply mentoring or dsicipling someone = happens all the time in a variety of scenarios. And yes - God does instruct women to voluntary submission to male leadership in marraige & Church. And all believers are instructed to iad, mentor, admonish, etc other believers - this also applies to those being led having the responsibility to offer their gifts, talents, energies, to serve the entire community >> but also having the responsibility to hold leadrers accountable and offering their expertise in areas where they are strong. It's the duty of leaders to set the environment for the "shep" to know and have the freedom adn encouragement to hold those leaders accountable and humble to accept counsel from the sheep.

 

But ultimately, the responsibility to lead and make decisions and set direction reside in the leaders. As well as the consequences for any and all their leadership.

 

All people who view ideal gender roles narrowly and are willing to ignore the difficulties and absorb the consequences that living against the actual natural dynamic of these two specific people causes.

 

There certainly are challenges in any personal relationships - but there are no narrow roles in Christianity. There are only 2 restrictions - how do you get "narrow" from that?

 

You seem to be equating the one who is lead as being less respected. So, on some level, you must see the power differential of the lead vs. the leading, the ruled vs. the ruler. We can certainly bend to our partner's wisdom and talent, and I often have.

 

You are drawing your own inference re: leading and respect - leadership may offer more opportunities, but cannot deliver more respect.

 

I am grateful when a partner is a sound authority on something I find difficult or am unskilled in, and I don't pay a mind to what "realm" it's in --household, childcare, spirituality, mechanics, financial. I am thankful for what is natural to him, or what he has developed, and I love him and revere him for it. I expect equal treatment in return. Decisions are made jointly, with no one person always bending to the other (to one God-given, gender-based "authority"). It is give and take.

 

And I have never stated anything to the contrary - we are simply speaking of which individual ultimately has the responsibility for all decisions, and must deal primarily accept all the consequences. A leader cannot blame his followers for decisions he made - though others may have counseled and convinced him to do it - the decision was his.

 

We can say all we want re: the psyche of the female species, but we are also who we are, and women need respect, and we respond to respect, and we will pursue a path that we believe leads to the respect we're seeking, especially from our partner, but also from others. Men need love, Ray; and they will pursue a path (even sometimes an unwise path) that they see as providing them with love from a woman. And especially from a woman they respect.

 

Nothing I said should be made to imply that I don't think men don't need love or women don't need respect. I was obviously speaking our what their greatest need is - and I would maintain from Scripture, from personal experience in a myriad of scenarios, and from my observations of many others - that men primarily need respect & admiration, while women primarily need to be loved & valued (cherished). Nothing wrong with this - men and women are just different!

[thechosenone]

Because their ignorant retards thats why!lol O yeah by the way not all christians beleive the Bible is %100 truth or God's word your referring to orthodox christians. Peace!

[NotBlinded]

Please allow me to add a hearty "Amen" to what A-man has stated. And given what we know about these highly complex, intricate, aesthetic, symbiotic, etc behaviors within a myriad of systems >> this is what many Christian scientists refer to when they speak of the "irreducible complexity" in LIFE. To the degree that from this point of irreducible complexity you cannot get "less complex" and have any collection of bio-molecules that could even remotely have the natural ability to develop into LIFE. Ergo, the only rational conclusion is the Great Uncaused Cause. Then as we consider this universe - and as we think logically & rationally & thoroughly thru what or who this Uncaused Cause is >> i.e.; what we perceive must be the characteristics, attributes, etc then this "God" must exist - being all-powerful, all-wise, omnipresent AND be Personal. There is simply no way no how no time that you can arrive at personality apart from a prior equal or greater personality.

 

Can you explain how you got from a Great Uncaused Cause to the biblical God as you described in the last part of your paragraph above? It doesn't follow necessarily. Where does this understanding separate God from from the bio-molecules? Actually, what you quote below gives reference that God isn't separate from creation. They do indeed develop into life because "In him we live and move and have our being." It's not separate from it issuing some sort of command to the bio-chemicals to come alive. It is the bio-chemicals.

 

Thus, as we continue to think thru all the core and collateral issues - we arrive at the Biblical God. And in this process - thankfuly, we have not been simply left to ourselves to deduce the truth.

Act 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,

Act 17:25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Act 17:27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, Act 17:28 for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.'

There are so many places in what is said above that is contradicted by Christians all the time. 17:15 goes against many that think they are doing something to serve God. Aren't you the one that stated that you sometimes forget to look Godward when you are enjoying life?

 

I know that most don't consider themselves children of God unless it's by adoption. They will never state they are children of God just like Jesus was. Actually, this is what the Hindus believe. Thou art That. You too are are God along with everything else. It's there in the bible too, but it's confounded so much it's hard to see it. This is probably due to many factors, including taking stories and words too literal and people like Paul not completely understanding what Jesus was saying. Probably a little bit of politics involved there too.

 

Yes, there are truths in the bible as with other religions. It's a matter of interpretation and understanding and it's easier to see in some other religions.

[RiverDale]

Mr Ray, you might have gotten your sweeping generalizations of men and women from the holy bible, but your depictions of those characteristics seem to have come from the covers of Romance Novels.

[Antlerman]

Scientific holism holds that the behavior of a system cannot be perfectly predicted, no matter how much data is available. Natural systems can produce surprisingly unexpected behavior, and it is suspected that behavior of such systems might be computationally irreducible, which means it would not be possible to even approximate the system state without a full simulation of all the events occurring in the system. Key properties of the higher level behavior of certain classes of systems may be mediated by rare "surprises" in the behavior of their elements due to the principle of interconnectivity, thus evading predictions except by brute force simulation. Stephen Wolfram has provided such examples with simple cellular automata, whose behavior is in most cases equally simple, but on rare occasions highly unpredictable.[4]

 

Complexity theory (also called "science of complexity"), is a contemporary heir of systems thinking. It comprises both computational and holistic, relational approaches towards understanding complex adaptive systems and, especially in the latter, its methods can be seen as the polar opposite to reductive methods. General theories of complexity have been proposed, and numerous complexity institutes and departments have sprung up around the world. The Santa Fe Institute is arguably the most famous of them."[/indent]

 

And this comes back to what started this side shoot where we talked about Beauty in the Universe, the aesthetic, and that article I linked to. In that article he talked about Bio-cultural feedback loops. It is in things like this, and language systems in particular defining reality for us, shaping our perceptions and choices, etc, etc, etc, etc, where I personally find the reductionist evaluation pretty 'flat'. It oversimplifies and seems to pretty much gut out the enormous, unpredictable complexities that all go into shaping and influencing this unbelievably dynamic bubbling soup of emergent creativity that comprises our Universe, our Existence. Chemicals and material are not all that exist. That is irrational, IMHO.

 

Please allow me to add a hearty "Amen" to what A-man has stated.

Why is it I feel played here?

 

And given what we know about these highly complex, intricate, aesthetic, symbiotic, etc behaviors within a myriad of systems >> this is what many Christian scientists refer to when they speak of the "irreducible complexity" in LIFE. To the degree that from this point of irreducible complexity you cannot get "less complex" and have any collection of bio-molecules that could even remotely have the natural ability to develop into LIFE.

Nothing I have said lends credence to the nonsense that Creationists wish to place upon Behe's notion of "irreducible complexity". Dynamic systems theory has nothing to do with this.

 

Ergo, the only rational conclusion is the Great Uncaused Cause. Then as we consider this universe - and as we think logically & rationally & thoroughly thru what or who this Uncaused Cause is >> i.e.; what we perceive must be the characteristics, attributes, etc then this "God" must exist - being all-powerful, all-wise, omnipresent AND be Personal. There is simply no way no how no time that you can arrive at personality apart from a prior equal or greater personality.

All I hear in this is a great desire to justify your beliefs. Truth is beyond your beliefs, and mine. What are you interested in?

 

Thus, as we continue to think thru all the core and collateral issues - we arrive at the Biblical God.

No we don't.

 

We arrive at your desire to justify that belief.

 

And in this process - thankfuly, we have not been simply left to ourselves to deduce the truth.

Full circle back to looking externally for truth. If it's external, then it's not spiritual. Is it? It's scientific. No need for that inner truth, is there? Convenient, if passed off as plausible, but ultimately as flat as reductionism itself.

 

Too sad. Is that all you have to say?

[rayskidude]

Nothing I said should be made to imply that I don't think men don't need love or women don't need respect. I was obviously speaking our what their greatest need is - and I would maintain from Scripture, from personal experience in a myriad of scenarios, and from my observations of many others - that men primarily need respect & admiration, while women primarily need to be loved & valued (cherished). Nothing wrong with this - men and women are just different!

 

So, as a woman, you believe I do (or should) crave love more than I crave respect?

 

Phanta

 

I would say that men are primarily seeking for respect, while women are primarily seeking to be loved. This does not preclude the desire for other emothions, responses, goals, etc. Just what is the primary ingredient.

[rayskidude]

Can you explain how you got from a Great Uncaused Cause to the biblical God as you described in the last part of your paragraph above? It doesn't follow necessarily. Where does this understanding separate God from from the bio-molecules? Actually, what you quote below gives reference that God isn't separate from creation. They do indeed develop into life because "In him we live and move and have our being." It's not separate from it issuing some sort of command to the bio-chemicals to come alive. It is the bio-chemicals.

 

Because only the Biblical God sufficiently satisfies and answers the questions re: orogin of the universe. Only a wise, all-powerful Creator could be reponsible for what we see everyday in Creation. And everything I've said establishes that God is separate from HIs Creation. God's power and will are the reason that we exist - and that we're sustained in our existence. However, God's existence or sustenance is not dependent on Man - this is the aseity of God. As opposed to the false God's who required human hands to "keep them going." and the transport them around, and to keep them upright (many idols were nailed down so as not to topple over). So God creates and sustains all - while not being created (as His existence is inherent in His nature) nor is He sustained by anything outside of Himself. But all of Creation is dependent on "something else" for its existence and sustenance.

 

You're interpretation of Acts 17 is off-base. And bio-molecules within the vast universe have no likelihood to collide from random Brownian motion and the preponderance to achieve maximum entropy >> and there are also a plethora of physical phenomena (extremely cold temps, UV radiation, oxygen, nuclear transformations, cosmic radiation, etc) which work against the formation and/or would destroy any bio-molecules serendipitously formed! This is well established in our understanding of science. Are you ignorant of these physical phemomena?

 

Act 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,

Act 17:25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Act 17:27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, Act 17:28 for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.'

There are so many places in what is said above that is contradicted by Christians all the time. 17:15 goes against many that think they are doing something to serve God. Aren't you the one that stated that you sometimes forget to look Godward when you are enjoying life?

 

The fact that God is glorified and people are most joyful as they serve God and their fellow-man >> that's an entirely different issue than God being dependent on man's worship for His Being. Yes, God desires to be worshipped >> as He is fully worthy of worship; and He enjoys the proper functioning of the Creator/creation relationship. But neither God's Being nor His ultimate joy are threatened by the fact that people don't worship Him.

 

I know that most don't consider themselves children of God unless it's by adoption. They will never state they are children of God just like Jesus was. Actually, this is what the Hindus believe. Thou art That. You too are are God along with everything else. It's there in the bible too, but it's confounded so much it's hard to see it. This is probably due to many factors, including taking stories and words too literal and people like Paul not completely understanding what Jesus was saying. Probably a little bit of politics involved there too.

 

Wha????? This makes no sense whatsoever - what are you trying to say? That the Bible teaches essentially the same thing as Hinduism? If so, I can only say that your powers of reading comprehension are severely limited. Other than both believing in an after-life, where's the similarity? There are so many significant differences between Christianity and Hinduism that I am shocked anyone could think such a thing.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Because only the Biblical God sufficiently satisfies and answers the questions re: orogin of the universe. Only a wise, all-powerful Creator could be reponsible for what we see everyday in Creation.

 

 

 

Since when is the bible a science textbook? Did such a wise god create a universe where rain comes from out of the ground even though all our science now points to the clear evidence that rain comes from the sky even though the bible says rain comes from the ground?

 

I would say that men are primarily seeking for respect, while women are primarily seeking to be loved. This does not preclude the desire for other emothions, responses, goals, etc. Just what is the primary ingredient.

How do you know what men and women are primarily seeking? Weren't you the one telling me before that we shouldn't guess people's motives?

[NotBlinded]

Can you explain how you got from a Great Uncaused Cause to the biblical God as you described in the last part of your paragraph above? It doesn't follow necessarily. Where does this understanding separate God from from the bio-molecules? Actually, what you quote below gives reference that God isn't separate from creation. They do indeed develop into life because "In him we live and move and have our being." It's not separate from it issuing some sort of command to the bio-chemicals to come alive. It is the bio-chemicals.

 

Because only the Biblical God sufficiently satisfies and answers the questions re: orogin of the universe. Only a wise, all-powerful Creator could be reponsible for what we see everyday in Creation. And everything I've said establishes that God is separate from HIs Creation. God's power and will are the reason that we exist - and that we're sustained in our existence. However, God's existence or sustenance is not dependent on Man - this is the aseity of God. As opposed to the false God's who required human hands to "keep them going." and the transport them around, and to keep them upright (many idols were nailed down so as not to topple over). So God creates and sustains all - while not being created (as His existence is inherent in His nature) nor is He sustained by anything outside of Himself. But all of Creation is dependent on "something else" for its existence and sustenance.

I guess I just don't see where anything you said establishes God is separate from creation. You may think that, but the evidence you are giving says no such thing. Does you saying God is all powerful prove this? Not at all. This "Being" can just as easily work from the inside as well as the outside if not better. Saying we are sustained in our existence by God's power does nothing to prove a separate entity either. Saying God's power and existence is not dependant on man, again, does nothing to prove a separate entity.

 

You're interpretation of Acts 17 is off-base.

Why?

 

And bio-molecules within the vast universe have no likelihood to collide from random Brownian motion and the preponderance to achieve maximum entropy >> and there are also a plethora of physical phenomena (extremely cold temps, UV radiation, oxygen, nuclear transformations, cosmic radiation, etc) which work against the formation and/or would destroy any bio-molecules serendipitously formed! This is well established in our understanding of science. Are you ignorant of these physical phemomena?

And this proves that God is separate from creation...how? What does this have to do with anything I said? I'm not a materialist that thinks nature is a stupid mechanism. You see the Christian God sitting back issuing orders to the bio-chemicals. I see the bio-chemicals being an aspect of God.

 

The fact that God is glorified and people are most joyful as they serve God and their fellow-man >> that's an entirely different issue than God being dependent on man's worship for His Being. Yes, God desires to be worshipped >> as He is fully worthy of worship; and He enjoys the proper functioning of the Creator/creation relationship. But neither God's Being nor His ultimate joy are threatened by the fact that people don't worship Him.

What? Where did I say that God was dependent on man for it's being or joy? What I said is that you don't even need to look "Godward" in order to praise God. That is quite the opposite of saying that one should knowingly worship God as if looking "Godward" were to please him more, which is what you are saying.

 

And, if he is not threatened by people that don't worship him, why do Christians believe that he will damn them for it? If his happiness is not threatened, then why the judgement on those that don't?

 

I know that most don't consider themselves children of God unless it's by adoption. They will never state they are children of God just like Jesus was. Actually, this is what the Hindus believe. Thou art That. You too are are God along with everything else. It's there in the bible too, but it's confounded so much it's hard to see it. This is probably due to many factors, including taking stories and words too literal and people like Paul not completely understanding what Jesus was saying. Probably a little bit of politics involved there too.

 

Wha????? This makes no sense whatsoever - what are you trying to say? That the Bible teaches essentially the same thing as Hinduism? If so, I can only say that your powers of reading comprehension are severely limited. Other than both believing in an after-life, where's the similarity? There are so many significant differences between Christianity and Hinduism that I am shocked anyone could think such a thing.

Of course you are shocked and won't be able to see it at all. I didn't used to be able to see it either. It matters from what frame of mind/state of understanding/worldview you are looking at it from. My powers of comprehension have indeed changed and expanded.

 

You, on the other hand, are a literalist and that kills the entire thing. You can't move beyond the symbol in order to notice the metaphysical truths that are there in many religions. You worship the symbols.

 

You said this:

 

"However, God's existence or sustenance is not dependent on Man - this is the aseity of God. As opposed to the false God's who required human hands to "keep them going." and the transport them around, and to keep them upright (many idols were nailed down so as not to topple over)."

 

Now, nail that idol down in your mind because this is where you have created God. If there were no Christians, the symbols they carry around in their heads about what God is would vanish. What then would God be? You just use your mind instead of your hands to transport it around and keep it going. A mental idol is still an idol.

 

(Edited to remove Schopenhaur references)