Humanity And Earth

[bornagainathiest]

OrdinaryClay, you said, "I also have faith, and a testimony from the Holy Spirit that can never be replaced by evidence."

 

Just what is this "testimony from the Holy Spirit?" Did the spirit speak to you, or give you some sort of feeling? What?

 

Sorry Sage!

 

Clay's just played the ultimate trump card - subjective experience.

 

Whatever he says in his reply, so long as it's true for him, that's all that matters. Evidence can go f**k itself.

 

Just as nobody can dispute the fact that I'm currently feeling hungry, so nobody can dispute/refute/counter/challenge or call into question Clay's subjective experience of the Holy Spirit. It's an unassailable position which he feels totally secure and comfortable in. It's also supremely convenient that this agent of spiritual certainty is invisible, intangible, inaudible and undetectable, hence there being no need for any kind of objective evidence to back up his claim.

 

You'll have the same amount of success (zilch!) when it comes to tackling him over the authorship of certain books of the Bible. Accordingly to Clay, it wouldn't matter if Paul hadn't written any of the letters attributed to him. Somehow (mechanism unknown... The Holy Spirit again?) Clay KNOWS they are the word of God.

 

How do I know this?

 

MEA CULPA! Yes, it's all my fault that OC's here. I was debating him in another forum and happened to mention Ex-Chr.net.

 

Sorry!

 

BAA.

[Shyone]

To be honest, I'd think it if I were a materialist or a theist. We are on a very bad course.

 

Being a Christian I believe in Christ's second coming and the tribulation talked about by Christ.

Every life is filled with "tribulation." We all die, and people have always died, so there is nothing new to consider in the potential disasters of the future.

 

History will continue as long as there is someone to record it, but I can envision a future that is as primative as the past. "There is nothing new under the sun." Well...

 

The people of the first century were scared out of their wits contemplating the "second coming." Now as we approach 100 generations later here is this generation. All those except the current generation who feared that they would "suffer" during the tribulation have already suffered and died.

 

I guess you could say that all of the deceased in the past couple of thousand years were "raptured."

 

At any rate, they aren't around any more.

[Dagan]

Great, another apocalyptic biblical literalist.

 

The only difference between those and the "dark green" environmentalists is how often they say "Jesus."

[OrdinaryClay]

OrdinaryClay, you said, "I also have faith, and a testimony from the Holy Spirit that can never be replaced by evidence."

 

Just what is this "testimony from the Holy Spirit?" Did the spirit speak to you, or give you some sort of feeling? What?

I've never heard an audible voice if that is what you mean, but yes I believe the Spirit communicates to me.

 

The testimony of the Holy Spirit is internal. Suppose there was someone in your life that you loved deeply. Your feeling of love is an internal state of mind. The testimony I feel from the Holy Spirit is an internal state of mind. I don't expect you to accept that as evidence. Some may, for example my loved ones, because of there trust in me and my judgment, but I don't expect an arbitrary person to accept it as evidence for their belief. My belief based on this internal state of mind is valid and true for me. This is not objective evidence for God. It is evidence for me though.

[OrdinaryClay]

I think you missed the point of my analogy. The chances of us being here is 1:1 because it happened. It's only our perspective that makes us think the world was somehow "made" for us. We are not the most successful species on the planet, that would most likely be a bacteria of some sort.

 

My point was the question itself is based on (in my opinion) a biased premise - that humans are somehow "special", above and beyond all the other species on the planet. And that the planet seems to be "tuned" to promote humanity.

 

I believe you have it backwards, we are who we are BECAUSE of the conditions that existed on the earth at the time of our development. We "fit" because we've been put through the filter of our environment.

Our likelihood of existence is not 1:1. That is like saying if I flip a coin and get heads the chances of getting heads is 1:1 because I have a heads in my hand. A probability of an event (us) is relative to the total possible alternatives. While we can not actually calculate our probability of existence it certainly is not 1:1.

 

We are special in many ways. We are the only species to have discovered physics and pondered the origin of the universe and our origins. This is a deeply profound and distinct specialness.

 

 

How do you know a society didn't exist millions of years ago that has already used up some resource we aren't even aware of?

Palaeontology and archeology.

[OrdinaryClay]

If Homo Sapiens were to last another 500 years, unlikely, but let's assume. Then any species capable of mining resources would have nothing left to exploit just as we would have had nothing to exploit had a species capable of mining existed prior to us. For example, had all the oil been drawn before us it can be argued we would not have developed technologically as we have.

 

This is just one among many many ways we are special and very unique. It is like the planet was preloaded for Humanity. Of course, I believe that was part of God's plan.

So your argument is "There must be a God, because we're fucking up this planet so it will be no use to anyone when we're done"?

No this is not my argument. My point would stand independent of whether we were good or bad stewards of the environment. The time frame may be different but the outcomes would eventually be the same.

[OrdinaryClay]

Civilization is on a trajectory of catastrophe.

Maybe and maybe not.

 

How do you know this? Do you have a sufficient understanding to make specific predictions and give explanations? Or do you just feel this in your gut?

I'm not claiming I can prophecy or anything. I'm also not basing this on a gut feeling. It is a simple reading of history, our nature and the current trajectory. An example, do you honestly think we can sustain 9 or 10 billion people with very limited oil supplies? Do the numbers. Alternative fuels only take us so far and it is not far enough. There will be wars the likes we have never seen over resources. Do you honestly believe that our knowledge of genetic engineering in 50 or 100 years from now will not allow the engineering of nightmares? Combine beliefs like this with capabilities like this and we have human misery on a massive scale. Technology will not be our savior. Technology will be the grease on the slope toward our demise.

[OrdinaryClay]

I also have faith, and a testimony from the Holy Spirit that can never be replaced by evidence.

Checkmate.

 

A rational discussion is out of the question. You win.

You've posited a false dilemma. I can both claim to believe with no objective evidence and still provide objective evidence. IOW, just because a person says they believe because of Y does not mean X is invalid per se. X still needs to be evaluated on it merits.

[Shyone]

OrdinaryClay, you said, "I also have faith, and a testimony from the Holy Spirit that can never be replaced by evidence."

 

Just what is this "testimony from the Holy Spirit?" Did the spirit speak to you, or give you some sort of feeling? What?

I've never heard an audible voice if that is what you mean, but yes I believe the Spirit communicates to me.

 

The testimony of the Holy Spirit is internal. Suppose there was someone in your life that you loved deeply. Your feeling of love is an internal state of mind. The testimony I feel from the Holy Spirit is an internal state of mind. I don't expect you to accept that as evidence. Some may, for example my loved ones, because of there trust in me and my judgment, but I don't expect an arbitrary person to accept it as evidence for their belief. My belief based on this internal state of mind is valid and true for me. This is not objective evidence for God. It is evidence for me though.

Has "the holy spirit" ever made a mistake? Has it ever changed "its" mind?

 

Someone said that a girl told him God told her that she would marry him. Then later, God told her to go with another guy. Has this kind of change ever happened to you?

 

Or, if the spirit moved you to do something that later proved to be impossible, and then the spirit gave you a solution to how to rectify the bad situation, then the spirit would have had to have been wrong in the first place, no?

 

The internal nature of the spirit is strikingly similar to a person "working throught their problems" and coming to conclusions based on the best available evidence. I used to say, "God helps those who help themselves", but then I noticed that God always suggested what I decided was the best course of action. Even though sometimes I was wrong.

[Phanta]

To be honest, I'd think it if I were a materialist or a theist. We are on a very bad course.

 

Being a Christian I believe in Christ's second coming and the tribulation talked about by Christ.

 

The people of the first century were scared out of their wits contemplating the "second coming." Now as we approach 100 generations later here is this generation. All those except the current generation who feared that they would "suffer" during the tribulation have already suffered and died.

 

And all the generations in between, the millions and millions of Christians come and now long dead over centuries sure the tribulation was imminent. They believed Christ was coming in their lifetime! They were sure of it! In their hovels, their castles, their huts, their fortresses. Now is the time...in devoted prayer...hunched...waiting...sure at any moment Christ wold return...off to the Crusades, off to churn butter, off to fight the Civil War, off to plow the field, just on more row, because any moment He will come! So many Christians, sure it was in their lifetime, living long lives, dying, and no Rapture.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the first century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the second century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the third century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the fourth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the fifth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the sixth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the seventh century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the eighth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the ninth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the tenth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the eleventh century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the twelfth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the thirteenth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the fourteenth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the fifteenth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the sixteenth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the seventeenth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

I'm noticing a pattern.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the eighteenth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the nineteenth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Was it true that the rapture came in the twentieth century, as Christians believed it would?

 

No.

 

Is is true that the strong belief that "The rapture is coming any minute and there are signs everywhere that affirm it!" has served centuries of dear believers in some way unrelated to the rapture ever actually happening?

 

Yes.

 

Phanta

 

Edit - I'm not saying this is your view, Clay (though maybe it is). It's on one of those placards in front of a church near my home and I've noticed it in comments by Christians in news stories on the internet lately, so this particular belief of many Christians is on my mind.

[florduh]

I also have faith, and a testimony from the Holy Spirit that can never be replaced by evidence.

Checkmate.

 

A rational discussion is out of the question. You win.

You've posited a false dilemma. I can both claim to believe with no objective evidence and still provide objective evidence. IOW, just because a person says they believe because of Y does not mean X is invalid per se. X still needs to be evaluated on it merits.

Yet you fail to provide that objective evidence. If you had evidence you would not need faith. In fact you couldn't have faith as it would be overshadowed by knowledge.

 

I believe you aren't here for honest discussion since you admit your faith and special knowledge from God need no supporting evidence and are impervious to contradictory evidence. I think you are appealing to fence-sitters who may be lurking here trying to sort out their failed religious experience.

 

Now I shall go join bdp. Enjoy yourselves, everyone.

[Legion]

Civilization is on a trajectory of catastrophe.

Maybe and maybe not.

 

How do you know this? Do you have a sufficient understanding to make specific predictions and give explanations? Or do you just feel this in your gut?

I'm not claiming I can prophecy or anything. I'm also not basing this on a gut feeling. It is a simple reading of history, our nature and the current trajectoryAn example, do you honestly think we can sustain 9 or 10 billion people with very limited oil supplies? Do the numbers. Alternative fuels only take us so far and it is not far enough. There will be wars the likes we have never seen over resources.

I'm not suggesting that the future will always be smooth sailing for us. Calamities have struck civilizations in the past, and indeed the whole Earth. I don't know what size of a human population the Earth can sustain. It's certainly limited, but I don't know what those limits are.

 

Burning oil is just one means of energy production. Fission is available and fusion looks like it might not be far off.

 

Do you honestly believe that our knowledge of genetic engineering in 50 or 100 years from now will not allow the engineering of nightmares? Combine beliefs like this with capabilities like this and we have human misery on a massive scale. Technology will not be our savior. Technology will be the grease on the slope toward our demise.

On some intuitive level I can agree. But I can admit that it's only a gut feeling. Technology is the control of natural systems in my view. And the excertion of control often has unforeseen and unintended consequences. I think humanity's future well being will depend more on a growing understanding rather than growing control.

[Shyone]

I also have faith, and a testimony from the Holy Spirit that can never be replaced by evidence.

Checkmate.

 

A rational discussion is out of the question. You win.

You've posited a false dilemma. I can both claim to believe with no objective evidence and still provide objective evidence. IOW, just because a person says they believe because of Y does not mean X is invalid per se. X still needs to be evaluated on it merits.

Yet you fail to provide that objective evidence. If you had evidence you would not need faith. In fact you couldn't have faith as it would be overshadowed by knowledge.

 

I believe you aren't here for honest discussion since you admit your faith and special knowledge from God need no supporting evidence and are impervious to contradictory evidence. I think you are appealing to fence-sitters who may be lurking here trying to sort out their failed religious experience.

 

Now I shall go join bdp. Enjoy yourselves, everyone.

That is an eloquent and cogent statement. Where there is evidence, there is no need of faith.

 

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

The elders were mistaken.

[par4dcourse]

If Homo Sapiens were to last another 500 years, unlikely, but let's assume. Then any species capable of mining resources would have nothing left to exploit just as we would have had nothing to exploit had a species capable of mining existed prior to us. For example, had all the oil been drawn before us it can be argued we would not have developed technologically as we have.

 

This is just one among many many ways we are special and very unique. It is like the planet was preloaded for Humanity. Of course, I believe that was part of God's plan.

 

Of course it was. We are part of god's plan and will worship him forever. Now will you go away?

I'm with bdp, you're a waste of time.

[OrdinaryClay]

I also have faith, and a testimony from the Holy Spirit that can never be replaced by evidence.

Checkmate.

 

A rational discussion is out of the question. You win.

You've posited a false dilemma. I can both claim to believe with no objective evidence and still provide objective evidence. IOW, just because a person says they believe because of Y does not mean X is invalid per se. X still needs to be evaluated on it merits.

Yet you fail to provide that objective evidence. If you had evidence you would not need faith. In fact you couldn't have faith as it would be overshadowed by knowledge.

 

I believe you aren't here for honest discussion since you admit your faith and special knowledge from God need no supporting evidence and are impervious to contradictory evidence. I think you are appealing to fence-sitters who may be lurking here trying to sort out their failed religious experience.

 

Now I shall go join bdp. Enjoy yourselves, everyone.

Neither of your statements are necessarily true. I may still need faith in order to believe in the things which have not been revealed through objective evidence, and I could clearly have faith in addition to knowledge acquired through other sources. They can be complementary and additive.

 

Honest discussion can involve both faith, subjective evidence and objective evidence.

[bornagainathiest]

I also have faith, and a testimony from the Holy Spirit that can never be replaced by evidence.

Checkmate.

 

A rational discussion is out of the question. You win.

You've posited a false dilemma. I can both claim to believe with no objective evidence and still provide objective evidence. IOW, just because a person says they believe because of Y does not mean X is invalid per se. X still needs to be evaluated on it merits.

Yet you fail to provide that objective evidence. If you had evidence you would not need faith. In fact you couldn't have faith as it would be overshadowed by knowledge.

 

I believe you aren't here for honest discussion since you admit your faith and special knowledge from God need no supporting evidence and are impervious to contradictory evidence. I think you are appealing to fence-sitters who may be lurking here trying to sort out their failed religious experience.

 

Now I shall go join bdp. Enjoy yourselves, everyone.

 

Anyone else care to quit Clay's, 'no evidence needed' game? I know I'm out.

 

Btw, if you think you can wear him down or outlast him - think again.

Googling "ordinaryclay" shows that he's been active at Commonsenseatheism.com, Richarddawkins.net, Rationalresponders.com, Rfforum.com, Juliasweeney.com, Athiestforums.com, Christianforums.com, Rationalskepticism.org and Infidelguy.com. Bear in mind, that's just using his current moniker. He could be in active on a lot of other sites too.

 

Good luck and goodbye!

 

BAA.

[Kuroikaze]

Neither of your statements are necessarily true. I may still need faith in order to believe in the things which have not been revealed through objective evidence, and I could clearly have faith in addition to knowledge acquired through other sources. They can be complementary and additive.

 

Honest discussion can involve both faith, subjective evidence and objective evidence.

 

I think the problem is that your faith causes you to see the evidence in a skewed way. Thus favoring interpretations of the evidence which are less than reasonable.

 

I know you THINK they are reasonable, that is kind of the point.

[GraphicsGuy]

If Homo Sapiens were to last another 500 years, unlikely, but let's assume.

 

So we're special enough to make ourselves extinct?

 

Then any species capable of mining resources would have nothing left to exploit just as we would have had nothing to exploit had a species capable of mining existed prior to us.

 

Yes, exploit and dominate and overpopulate the earth instead of living in harmony with nature. I'm sure that's exactly what God had in mind...

 

For example, had all the oil been drawn before us it can be argued we would not have developed technologically as we have.

 

Perhaps we would have developed other technologies to compensate and not been so dependent on plastics and such...???

 

This is just one among many many ways we are special and very unique. It is like the planet was preloaded for Humanity. Of course, I believe that was part of God's plan.

 

So we rule the planet by divine right?

 

If Orcas had opposable thumbs and could alter their environment humans would be in a load of trouble...

[OrdinaryClay]

Neither of your statements are necessarily true. I may still need faith in order to believe in the things which have not been revealed through objective evidence, and I could clearly have faith in addition to knowledge acquired through other sources. They can be complementary and additive.

 

Honest discussion can involve both faith, subjective evidence and objective evidence.

 

I think the problem is that your faith causes you to see the evidence in a skewed way. Thus favoring interpretations of the evidence which are less than reasonable.

 

I know you THINK they are reasonable, that is kind of the point.

Actually you raise a good point. This is possible, but how do you know your view of the evidence is not skewed?

[Shyone]

Neither of your statements are necessarily true. I may still need faith in order to believe in the things which have not been revealed through objective evidence, and I could clearly have faith in addition to knowledge acquired through other sources. They can be complementary and additive.

 

Honest discussion can involve both faith, subjective evidence and objective evidence.

If you see a light shining, you don't need faith to tell you it is shining. Instead, you know it is shining.

 

Are you going to argue that 1) we have faith that our senses are delivering correct information, 2) we have faith that our brains accurately remember and process information, and 3) we have faith that reality itself exists? This approach is nothing but disguised solipsism. We trust our senses because they reliably and predictably tell us what is real. We can confirm our observations by mutual verification. Experience informs our senses and is universally verifiable.

 

Reason is careful analysis to uncover truth, while faith is the acquiescence to belief without evidence of truth. Faith assumes truth, while reason assumes that truth necessitates evidence.

 

The need for evidence derives from skepticism, and most people are inherently skeptical. Science exists to provide one type of standard for acceptance of evidence. Our legal system has established another type of standard for acceptance of evidence.

 

To put it in terms that even a Christian would understand, Thomas was right to demand evidence.

 

Unfortunately the written testimony of someone that heard about Thomas' experience does not meet standards of evidence for anything - not legal, not scientific, and not public.

 

In fact, even if Thomas were alive today, his testimony would be insufficient to establish that something impossible happened. I don't believe that Oral Roberts saw a 700 foot Jesus, and neither should anyone else.

[OrdinaryClay]

If Homo Sapiens were to last another 500 years, unlikely, but let's assume.

 

So we're special enough to make ourselves extinct?

Possibly.

 

 

Then any species capable of mining resources would have nothing left to exploit just as we would have had nothing to exploit had a species capable of mining existed prior to us.

 

Yes, exploit and dominate and overpopulate the earth instead of living in harmony with nature. I'm sure that's exactly what God had in mind...

If we assume any level of technology beyond stone tools then we must exploit resources. There is no way around it. Also, given our current population levels we have no choice but to exploit resources. We can not feed the people alive today with out doing so. Using our environment is the humane thing to do. I do agree we should do it wisely and with strong consideration of the environment.

 

 

For example, had all the oil been drawn before us it can be argued we would not have developed technologically as we have.

 

Perhaps we would have developed other technologies to compensate and not been so dependent on plastics and such...???

 

Possible, but the real value in oil are the carbon polymers. You can not have modern technology with out long chain carbon polymers. There are other sources of these polymers, but they all compete with our food supply and/or stress the environment in many ways. I doubt very strongly we would have developed any where nearly as fast or as expansively had we not had access to such a cheap and highly plentiful source. They fueled the industrial age which fueled the technological age.

[ShallowByThyGame]

Could intelligent carbon based life arise on a planet without oil reserves? I don't think so, because intelligent life requires millions of years of evolution, in which time our ancestors all the way down to the first single cell organisms died and were buried and became oil.

 

We exist because the oil is there, because the oil represents the biological experiments that came before us. If God just made us, then there would be no need for oil, because he wouldn't have needed a hundreds of millions of years for us to evolve naturally.

 

So God is not necessary here at all, and in fact, becomes even more unlikely. By the time any life form is smart enough to use the oil created by dead creatures, there will be millions of years of it in the ground. The fact that oil is in the ground is no more fascinating then the fact that there is oxygen in the atmosphere, which was created by early life forms before oxygen breathers appeared. The first fish could have made the same argument. "See, there is oxygen in the water because God put it there for us to use." But the truth is that the oxygen was there because of plants, and the fish would not exist if it was not there, because plants had to come first in the evolutionary tree. This is all a natural process, and can be explained through natural process. Why add unnecessary complexity in the form of a supernatural creator.

[Shyone]

Could intelligent carbon based life arise on a planet without oil reserves? I don't think so, because intelligent life requires millions of years of evolution, in which time our ancestors all the way down to the first single cell organisms died and were buried and became oil.

 

We exist because the oil is there, because the oil represents the biological experiments that came before us. If God just made us, then there would be no need for oil, because he wouldn't have needed a hundreds of millions of years for us to evolve naturally.

 

So God is not necessary here at all, and in fact, becomes even more unlikely. By the time any life form is smart enough to use the oil created by dead creatures, there will be millions of years of it in the ground. The fact that oil is in the ground is no more fascinating then the fact that there is oxygen in the atmosphere, which was created by early life forms before oxygen breathers appeared. The first fish could have made the same argument. "See, there is oxygen in the water because God put it there for us to use." But the truth is that the oxygen was there because of plants, and the fish would not exist if it was not there, because plants had to come first in the evolutionary tree. This is all a natural process, and can be explained through natural process. Why add unnecessary complexity in the form of a supernatural creator.

I would imagine that oxygen was poison to the early life forms. It was necessary for early forms to adpat to it or die, and in the process of adapting by evolution, life forms not only survived the oxygen "poison" but began to use it to their advantage - in the sense that biochemical mechanisms that use oxygen were more efficient than those that use CO2.

 

The transformation of the atmosphere was perhaps a fluke, and the particular transformation to oxygen rather than hydrogen sulfide is just how the chips landed.

[chefranden]

This is just one among many many ways we are special and very unique. It is like the planet was preloaded for Humanity. Of course, I believe that was part of God's plan.

 

There being abundant resources for bacteria, it is like the planet was preloaded for bacteria. And humans would be part of that load, being that we are a resource for bacteria.

 

As a resource for bacteria, I'm not all that impressed with God's plan.

[Dagan]

I figure that even without oil reserves people would have found ways to advance technologically.

 

There's an awful lot you can do with wood and wood fibre, if the incentive is there to be creative.