The Problem of evoL

[TheRedneckProfessor]

47 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

That is very much different than being overall adequate....adequate per the entire picture.

How many snowflakes does it take to turn a hillside white?  How many blades of grass does it take to stem the flood tides and keep erosion from washing the field away?  Is the enough-ness of one snowflake enough for the whole?  Or is it that the total is greater than the sum of its parts?

 

I submit that, if there is a god, he does not require any of us individually to be enough for the big picture, precisely because the big picture is us--our individual enough-ness in collective form.  Again obviating the need for the cross.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Edgarcito, you have mentioned "grace" several times.  It is late and I may miss the whole point here, but didn't Jesus more or less sum up "grace" in the second part of his answer about the greatest commandment?   Love neighbor as self.  But that original idea didn't come from god.  The golden rule concept came before Jesus ever came along (if he actually did).  I'm not sure anyone knows from whom, from where, from when it originated.  But it is definitely "good news", and in my way of thinking, evidence based advise for the good of the world, if people would put it in practice.  But you don't need god and the christian bible for that profound concept. 

[Johnny]

On 6/30/2022 at 12:29 AM, Astreja said:

 

Um, no.  That's not what science currently says about abiogenesis - a more accurate portrayal of modern biology's position is "We don't know... yet.  We're working on it.  Stay tuned."

That's it. You have nothing to offer so the typical -- "We don't know... yet.  We're working on it.  Stay tuned."--

 

Actually, they've been working on it for a long time and the more they work on it, the more they see it CAN'T happen. It's very common how you want ignore science. Life is so complicated, how so many things had to be just right by mere chance from the start, that includes information, replication, having ways to have it nourished, get rid of waste, have energy to do this, ATP synthase, etc. 

 

 

[Johnny]

On 6/30/2022 at 12:31 AM, Weezer said:

Johnny, I think everyone here was a christian for years, many of us from the cradle , as the saying goes.  And several were ministers.  We were and are very interested in truth.  And we left our minds open to new truths, and explored other options.  We know your arguments.  Will you do like I asked in the other forum, pray to god to help you discern truth, listen to our arguments, and study the history of gods and religions.  How do you know you have the "true" religion until you study them all?  You may decide there is no one and only true religion.

I came here to show evidence of a supernatural creator is needed. If you're not convinced there is such a creator, and then want to skip to things that are ignoring the few of the many evidences, you can do that. Then on top of ignoring the evidence, you make assumptions about me as if I never looked into religions. 

 

"We know your arguments."

 

Then why can't you deal with creation and life? Just a few things that came up and what do I get, science fiction. You're fooling yourself that you covered these things and have reasonable answers, you don't. You have typical excuses. 

 

I left churches but I didn't leave thinking. Your group has. 

 

"Will you do like I asked in the other forum, pray to god to help you discern truth, listen to our arguments..."

 

Where did I show I'm not listening? I keep on hearing but don't see it. 

 

Look at this one going on here about life how I'm getting the law of biogenesis is not a law and it is and I showed why, I also got how we don't know yet but they're working on it. Do any of you give reasonable evidence that life came about on its own? Haven't seen any. Yes, I do know the arguments and the reasonable evidence is that you don't have any. it's science fiction. 

 

You're asking me to pray to my God? Here's your prayers that are so typical...

 

"Oh, god of nothing, we deny you exist, and you don't, but we have no choice to declare you our true god if we're honest, but we're not. Please god of nothing, help us to continually grow in offering no science to support you because there is none, but nonetheless, we devote our lives to you and will do the best act we can, no matter how absurd, no matter how embarrassing, no matter how much evidence is against us, we will use the various tactics to deny the CLEAR science against us like our biggies:

---"god-of-the-gaps",

---"that's your opinion",

---"invincible man in the sky", "sky daddy", etc.

---"we don't know yet but science is working on it"

---"no reputable scientists believe that"

---"religion vs science"

---"the bible says...."

---"creationist/creatard"

---"people used to believe the flat earth"

---"you're a troll"

---"that's not part of evolution"

---"atheism is not a belief"

---"burden of proof is on you"

---"religion causes most wars"

---"I used to be a Christain"

---"you're brainwashed"

---"Do you have a photograph of this creator?"

---and our great tactic of changing the topic because we can't answer what is the topic so we then can say the others are ignoring us, no matter how clear it is we're the ones stuck and can't handle the topic. Who cares about fairness and honesty. Our god of nothing must be protected at ALL costs!"

 

 

"We praise you god of nothing for such phrases (and whatever else we can make up) that answer nothing, but you gave us these bowel gas words to help us deflect what we refuse to face because all of us are really weak and don't want to think, we want to be lazy and act as if we're smart, all thanks to our god of nothing that makes us all a somehow important yet our brains came from the god of nothing all by random chance from the chaos we evolved from that we just made up."

 

[RankStranger]

There are a lot of instances in life where "I don't know" is a far more honest answer than some childish just-so story.

[Edgarcito]

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Edgaricto,

 

Six days ago the Professor elegantly took the idea of Occam's Razor and applied to how grace works between people and then how it applies between god and people.  Like this...

 

 

Another way of looking at Walt's suggestion above is to look at a scenario in which I have done you wrong.  In this scenario, we have two possible means of redressing the wrong I have done. 

 

The first way is for me to admit that I was wrong, acknowledge the specific wrong, and offer to make amends.  My grace, my enoughness, allows me to do this.  You, then, have a choice of forgiveness, absolution, both, or neither.  Your grace, your enoughness, will guide you to make the best decision.

 

Alternatively, I have done you wrong; but rather than seek to address the wrong between you and I, I appeal to jesus and the cross for forgiveness and absolution.  I may, or may not, come directly to you; because the grace and enoughness of the cross is enough for me and overrides whatever grace I might have otherwise shown.  You, in turn, go to the cross and jesus seeking to forgive.  You, also, may or may not come directly to me; and for the same reasons.

 

Which of these is the simpler solution to the problem at hand?  A meeting of grace between the two of us; or both of us having an inanimate intermediary between us that may not ever result in us talking about the situation and truly resolving it?  Which solution is more likely to result in the kind of grace and enoughness that you have been longing for and preaching about since I've known you?  

 

 

Now that the dialogue between you and the Prof has resumed I notice that his questions to you in the last paragraph have gone unanswered.  Assuming that he agrees, would you please be so good as to answer his questions?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

I essentially did answer the question.  From a human standpoint, yes, that simple solution is pretty much all we have....and it functions at some level to resolve issues.  This I see as Jesus the man demonstrating grace as a human.

Resolving all sin or the lack of understanding by humans, due to subjectivity, to fix the larger picture, is resolved by Jesus, God, on the Cross.  

 

I think we can catch glimpses of this existence, but not in entirety.

 

Woodstock comes to mind....individuals cooperating and the larger whole working on that same level.  

 

 

[Edgarcito]

8 hours ago, Weezer said:

Edgarcito, you have mentioned "grace" several times.  It is late and I may miss the whole point here, but didn't Jesus more or less sum up "grace" in the second part of his answer about the greatest commandment?   Love neighbor as self.  But that original idea didn't come from god.  The golden rule concept came before Jesus ever came along (if he actually did).  I'm not sure anyone knows from whom, from where, from when it originated.  But it is definitely "good news", and in my way of thinking, evidence based advise for the good of the world, if people would put it in practice.  But you don't need god and the christian bible for that profound concept. 

Thanks.  It's just an interesting thought for me per my discussion with the Prof......the difference between the simple solution, grace between individuals, and the complete solution, in this scenario, Jesus curing sin on a larger scale. 

[Johnny]

19 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, in other words, @Johnny, you cannot provide a direct quote wherein I state that god is the cause of suffering. 

In the stance you took, you did. You can try to weasel out of it, but you must go by what you gave overall and I showed that. I'm not making ANY assumptions. You have to learn to live with the words you let out.  Come on, you wanting a direct quote when your various quotes make it clear what you're doing, shows what a low standard of integrity you have no matter how much you try to hide it. 

 

You clearly showed that it is your stance. You're referring to the bible that God created everything. I already stated that. If God created everything that included satan and his angels that followed the same, then God would be the 'cause' by giving free will to follow Him or not. Adam and Eve also had that same free will but sinned that allowed evil to the humans God created. If God never created, there would be no source of evil. The God of the bible can't do the evil because the God of the bible says one of the things He is, is love. As I already stated all this. You don't get it both ways. You are clearly referring to the God of the bible. As I already showed, you want to use the bible for your case of evil, but you don't even know what the bible says. 

 

It's was shown before.....

 

You..."I had an epiphany this afternoon whilst arguing in the Twitter-verse.  When presented with Epicurus' Problem of Evil, most people want to say that god is able to prevent evil but free will blah blah... which amounts to able but not willing. 

 

Here's the lightening bolt, though.  When you present the Problem of Evil to a person, you are essentially asking them to choose between a god of power and a god of love.  And which god they choose speaks a lot about their own personal character.  Hmm...

 

What might it say that most choose the god of power?  Serious question, by the way; not rhetorical."

 

Me...What belief system says such things? The belief system based on the bible, as far as I know.

 

YOU..."It's almost as if, subconsciously, christians know the loving father routine is just a facade and god really is a tyrannical autocrat.  This is why, given the option of defending god's omnipotence versus defending his omnibenevolence, they almost invariably choose to leave god's power intact and try to explain evil away with mysterious ways, free will, or some other magical pile of apologist horseshit."

 

Me...What do Christians base their belief on? The bible.

 

YOU..."And the 10-year-old girl who gets raped, what about her free will?  What does god's refusal to intervene tell us about himself?  If he consistently enables evil, then he is also evil."

 

Then you have the gall to say....Not once have I said that god is the cause of our suffering.

 

You clearly took this from a biblical perspective, "choose between a god of power and a god of love," "christians know the loving father routine is just a facade and god really is a tyrannical autocrat," "most people want to say that god is able to prevent evil but free will blah blah...," "what about her free will?", "What does god's refusal to intervene tell us about himself?  If he consistently enables evil, then he is also evil."

 

What does the bible teach that you are clearly referencing from, that God created all. That God gave us free will. That from that there were those that didn't want to follow God and did evil. 

 

Then I supply a video that shows that God is not all-powerful to stop what was given in free will. You though still want to blame God. Then do that. Do it to your heart's content and IGNORE what the bible YOU are referencing to, actually SAYS. Ignore it. It's clear that is your desire, to make assertions on a book that you don't even know, but you want to claim you know no matter how you're shown to be wrong.

[Edgarcito]

26 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

There are a lot of instances in life where "I don't know" is a far more honest answer than some childish just-so story.

Certainly, but you have to come to that place in time because of your own reasoning....and be comfortable/confident enough to permit challenges.  Otherwise, it's threatening.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

17 minutes ago, Johnny said:

You have to learn to live with the words you let out.

Neither myself, nor Epicurus, referred to the god of the bible. 

[RankStranger]

31 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Certainly, but you have to come to that place in time because of your own reasoning....and be comfortable/confident enough to permit challenges.  Otherwise, it's threatening.

 

Not quite sure what you're getting at, but I'm not here to bust your ballz.  I'm just here for the discussion.

 

To me, a lot of what Christians call "faith"... from an outside perspective, it looks more like 'false certainty'.  IMO it's one thing to have faith in something.  It's another thing to claim it as fact and defend it as such, despite a lack of any real proof.  IMO that's confusing faith with knowledge.  I'm sure you'd agree that those are not the same thing.

 

Conflation of those two is IMO dishonest... even self-defeating where faith is concerned.  For instance, there are an awful lot of Christians out there claiming all manner of crackpot archeological "evidence" that routinely turns out to be untrue when examined closely.  Quite a few ExChristians can tell you what happened to their 'faith' once such 'christian' falsehoods became obvious.

 

There is a point at which defense of ones' faith crosses a line into dishonesty (supporting claims that turn out to be false when closely examined).  IMO if faith is real and strong... people wouldn't have to turn to untruths to support it.

[Edgarcito]

56 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

Not quite sure what you're getting at, but I'm not here to bust your ballz.  I'm just here for the discussion.

 

To me, a lot of what Christians call "faith"... from an outside perspective, it looks more like 'false certainty'.  IMO it's one thing to have faith in something.  It's another thing to claim it as fact and defend it as such, despite a lack of any real proof.  IMO that's confusing faith with knowledge.  I'm sure you'd agree that those are not the same thing.

 

Conflation of those two is IMO dishonest... even self-defeating where faith is concerned.  For instance, there are an awful lot of Christians out there claiming all manner of crackpot archeological "evidence" that routinely turns out to be untrue when examined closely.  Quite a few ExChristians can tell you what happened to their 'faith' once such 'christian' falsehoods became obvious.

 

There is a point at which defense of ones' faith crosses a line into dishonesty (supporting claims that turn out to be false when closely examined).  IMO if faith is real and strong... people wouldn't have to turn to untruths to support it.

I don't disagree.  Just think that at points in our lives, the solution to our problems was 3 o'clock.  And because 3 o'clock was the solution, then 3 o'clock become near fact as you say.  Takes awhile for 5 o'clock to become a possibility.  Haven't read his stuff, but betting 3 o'clock is near fact to him....not just faith.

 

Haven't seen you here in years sir.  It's END3.  I changed to Edgarcito after quitting for awhile.  Hope all is well with you.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I essentially did answer the question.  From a human standpoint, yes, that simple solution is pretty much all we have....and it functions at some level to resolve issues.  This I see as Jesus the man demonstrating grace as a human.

Resolving all sin or the lack of understanding by humans, due to subjectivity, to fix the larger picture, is resolved by Jesus, God, on the Cross.  

 

I think we can catch glimpses of this existence, but not in entirety.

 

Woodstock comes to mind....individuals cooperating and the larger whole working on that same level.  

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Thanks.  It's just an interesting thought for me per my discussion with the Prof......the difference between the simple solution, grace between individuals, and the complete solution, in this scenario, Jesus curing sin on a larger scale. 

Here again, though, I'm awfully tempted to apply Occam's Razor.  In this instance, in dealing with what we can reasonably be certain of, in light of our subjective perceptions.  We perceive that there is an awful lot wrong with the world.  We perceive that things often go awry between us as individuals.  What is the solution?

 

One solution would be for one to make peace within oneself and then seek to spread that peace to those around one's sphere of influence.  We know (as much as can be known) that one exists, that one's sphere of influence can be reliably measured, that being at peace reduces conflict, and that a peaceful outlook changes one's perception of the world as a whole.  Assuming enough ones are willing to participate, the amount of individual conflict reduction and perception alignment could impact the overall.

 

Another solution, which you seem to be leaning toward, involves one first making peace with jesus, then with oneself.  Said peace in a limited application may be extended to others; but for real change to take place requires the jesus kind of peace.  Two pluralities arise from this solution, though.  The first is that we don't know that jesus actually exists; and for this solution to be viable, we need to be able to show that he does AND that his existence is necessary for world peace.  Which brings us to the second plurality, to wit: 2,000 years worth of historical data that seem to demonstrate the idea of jesus as more destructive than constructive.  Somehow, in order to make this solution work, we have to explain the conflicting (contradicting) data.

 

It seems to me that, based on what we reasonably know, the higher grace to which you refer, if it is ever to exist at all, is going to have to be a function of humanity.  Certainly a humanity more enlightened than we are now; but we cannot assume there is a god who is going to come and do all of the work for us.  At some point, we have to simply accept it is our responsibility.  Again, a single snowflake... one blade of grass.  Versus billions all doing their part.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

3 hours ago, Johnny said:

I came here to show evidence of a supernatural creator is needed. If you're not convinced there is such a creator, and then want to skip to things that are ignoring the few of the many evidences, you can do that. Then on top of ignoring the evidence, you make assumptions about me as if I never looked into religions. 

 

"We know your arguments."

 

Then why can't you deal with creation and life? Just a few things that came up and what do I get, science fiction. You're fooling yourself that you covered these things and have reasonable answers, you don't. You have typical excuses. 

 

I left churches but I didn't leave thinking. Your group has. 

 

"Will you do like I asked in the other forum, pray to god to help you discern truth, listen to our arguments..."

 

Where did I show I'm not listening? I keep on hearing but don't see it. 

 

Look at this one going on here about life how I'm getting the law of biogenesis is not a law and it is and I showed why, I also got how we don't know yet but they're working on it. Do any of you give reasonable evidence that life came about on its own? Haven't seen any. Yes, I do know the arguments and the reasonable evidence is that you don't have any. it's science fiction. 

 

You're asking me to pray to my God? Here's your prayers that are so typical...

 

"Oh, god of nothing, we deny you exist, and you don't, but we have no choice to declare you our true god if we're honest, but we're not. Please god of nothing, help us to continually grow in offering no science to support you because there is none, but nonetheless, we devote our lives to you and will do the best act we can, no matter how absurd, no matter how embarrassing, no matter how much evidence is against us, we will use the various tactics to deny the CLEAR science against us like our biggies:

---"god-of-the-gaps",

---"that's your opinion",

---"invincible man in the sky", "sky daddy", etc.

---"we don't know yet but science is working on it"

---"no reputable scientists believe that"

---"religion vs science"

---"the bible says...."

---"creationist/creatard"

---"people used to believe the flat earth"

---"you're a troll"

---"that's not part of evolution"

---"atheism is not a belief"

---"burden of proof is on you"

---"religion causes most wars"

---"I used to be a Christain"

---"you're brainwashed"

---"Do you have a photograph of this creator?"

---and our great tactic of changing the topic because we can't answer what is the topic so we then can say the others are ignoring us, no matter how clear it is we're the ones stuck and can't handle the topic. Who cares about fairness and honesty. Our god of nothing must be protected at ALL costs!"

 

 

"We praise you god of nothing for such phrases (and whatever else we can make up) that answer nothing, but you gave us these bowel gas words to help us deflect what we refuse to face because all of us are really weak and don't want to think, we want to be lazy and act as if we're smart, all thanks to our god of nothing that makes us all a somehow important yet our brains came from the god of nothing all by random chance from the chaos we evolved from that we just made up."

 

We, or perhaps I should say I, think I know most of your arguments about religion.  I am no scientist, but don't believe there is any solid evidence for a creation like described in the bible.  I don't know how things came into being, thus am agnostic, and having that information is not high on my list of priorities.  I am concerned about what we do with what we got.  

 

But you seem totally obsessed with proving your points.  ARE YOU TRYING TO CONVINCE US?  OR YOURSELF?   The intensity of your posts tells me it is the latter.  If you are comfortable with your beliefs, why not go on with life outside this forum??  I am almost certain you are not going to "convert" anyone here.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I essentially did answer the question.  From a human standpoint, yes, that simple solution is pretty much all we have....and it functions at some level to resolve issues.  This I see as Jesus the man demonstrating grace as a human.

Resolving all sin or the lack of understanding by humans, due to subjectivity, to fix the larger picture, is resolved by Jesus, God, on the Cross.  

 

I think we can catch glimpses of this existence, but not in entirety.

 

Woodstock comes to mind....individuals cooperating and the larger whole working on that same level.  

 

 

 

Thank you for this thoughtful reply, Ed.

 

You'll see that I've divided your reply into two parts, red and blue.  The red part is the evidence that your senses tell you about grace.  You only see and hear yourself and other people giving and receiving grace.

 

The blue part is not what your senses tell about grace.  You do not see or hear Jesus, you do not see or hear sin and you do not see or hear the Cross.  Instead, you believe that these things exist by faith.  Not by actual experience or any kind of physical evidence, but only by faith.

 

Your claim that we catch glimpses of this faith-based reality is also a faith-based statement.  In reality, you cannot know that we see these glimpses and most of us sceptics and atheists would deny that we do.  

 

Going back to what the Prof said about Occam's Razor...

 

The simpler part of your reply is the red part, where human-to-human grace is seen and heard and felt and experienced.

 

The more complex part of your reply is blue part, where you invoke additional things that are not seen, heard or experienced and are accepted as real only by those who have faith in them.  Jesus, sin and The Cross.

 

Therefore, on the balance of probability, your complex, faith-based example of grace is less likely to be correct than the simpler, evidence-rich example of human-to-human grace.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[RankStranger]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't disagree.  Just think that at points in our lives, the solution to our problems was 3 o'clock.  And because 3 o'clock was the solution, then 3 o'clock become near fact as you say.  Takes awhile for 5 o'clock to become a possibility.  Haven't read his stuff, but betting 3 o'clock is near fact to him....not just faith.

 

Haven't seen you here in years sir.  It's END3.  I changed to Edgarcito after quitting for awhile.  Hope all is well with you.

 

Thanks End3- things are good out here.  I remember you from the old days, hope things are good on your end.  Interesting that you're still around- not a lot of Christians stick around here as I recall.

 

Do you think that 'faith' can cross a line into dishonest false certainty?  How/where would one draw that line?

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Thank you for this thoughtful reply, Ed.

 

You'll see that I've divided your reply into two parts, red and blue.  The red part is the evidence that your senses tell you about grace.  You only see and hear yourself and other people giving and receiving grace.

 

The blue part is not what your senses tell about grace.  You do not see or hear Jesus, you do not see or hear sin and you do not see or hear the Cross.  Instead, you believe that these things exist by faith.  Not by actual experience or any kind of physical evidence, but only by faith.

 

Your claim that we catch glimpses of this faith-based reality is also a faith-based statement.  In reality, you cannot know that we see these glimpses and most of us sceptics and atheists would deny that we do.  

 

Going back to what the Prof said about Occam's Razor...

 

The simpler part of your reply is the red part, where human-to-human grace is seen and heard and felt and experienced.

 

The more complex part of your reply is blue part, where you invoke additional things that are not seen, heard or experienced and are accepted as real only by those who have faith in them.  Jesus, sin and The Cross.

 

Therefore, on the balance of probability, your complex, faith-based example of grace is less likely to be correct than the simpler, evidence-rich example of human-to-human grace.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

I don't know if that holds Walter given the bubble of what we think we know vs. the bubble of what we don't.  My contention is the latter is larger and could easily swing the likeliness.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

 

Thanks End3- things are good out here.  I remember you from the old days, hope things are good on your end.  Interesting that you're still around- not a lot of Christians stick around here as I recall.

 

Do you think that 'faith' can cross a line into dishonest false certainty?  How/where would one draw that line?

 

 

 

Affirmative on the false certainty, but not positive on the dishonest part.  Kind of like fundamentalism....  If three hymns and a prayer are the way to holiness, then that creates the false certainty.  I.e, we are CERTAIN this is how God works.  Not sure dishonesty plays a large role in that process.  Just thinking age and wisdom would tell us who is just going through life and the religious process.  Not certain how you are using dishonesty....as in intentional dishonesty or not being honest with yourself.  Thx.

 

[walterpthefirst]

26 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't know if that holds Walter given the bubble of what we think we know vs. the bubble of what we don't.  My contention is the latter is larger and could easily swing the likeliness.

 

So, in both cases your argument relies on what we don't know.

 

When it comes to Jesus, sin and The Cross, those things are accepted as true by faith, because they are not known by evidence to be true.

 

And now you claim, because there are many more things that we don't know than we do, the things which we don't know about are more likely to be true.

 

 

Ten logical extensions of your argument would therefore run like this.

 

Because we don't know if there is an eternal multiverse, it's more likely that there is.

Because we don't know if Atlantis existed, it's more likely that it did.

Because we don't know if reptilian aliens control the world, it's more likely that they do.

Because we don't know if robots have souls, it's more likely that they do.

Because we don't know if we are living in a simulation, it's more likely that we are.

Because we don't know if the planet Jupiter is a sophisticated hologram, it's more likely that it is.

Because we don't know if Flight 19 was abducted by aliens, it's more likely that they were.

Because we don't know if Jimmy Hoffa travelled back to the year 3,000 B.C, it's more likely that he did.

Because we don't know if Allah is the true god, it's more likely that he is.

Because we don't know if Jesus is the true god, it's more likely that he is.

 

 

Are you sure that you want to stand by this argument, Ed?

[Wertbag]

8 hours ago, Johnny said:

Actually, they've been working on it for a long time

No they really haven't.  The famous Urey/Miller experiment was in the 50's, within my living parents lifetime.  Within their lifetime we have gained computers, phones, TV, launched people into space...  its only within my grandparents lifetime that we got electricity to homes.

To look at the massive advancements in the last century, and to think that we should have the most complex and hard to study questions of the universe wrapped up with a neat bow, is asking a hell of a lot from a relatively new field of study.  We didn't have electron microscropes a century ago, and we didn't have space telescopes or space stations.  To look at the exponential growth of human knowledge and to say "we will never know X" is pushing incredulity to great heights.  Not knowing the hardest questions in the universe right now is not the same as we can never know.

 

And when it comes to these kinds of questions, they are not ones that either Christians or atheists are basing their beliefs on.  A Christian can quite easily say they believe in the big bang, in abiogenesis and in evolution, simply saying those are the tools god used to get the world as He wanted.  An atheist can either believe in those ideas, or equally say "I don't know", because their lack of belief in a god is not contingent on these incredibly hard to know questions.  That means these scientific questions are of intellectual interest, but less so of theological interest.  Someone could convince you today of abiogenesis and I would doubt that would shake your faith, it would just mean you would realign with the new information.

The things that push atheists away from religion are subjects like divine hiddenness, the problem of suffering, the horror of the bible, the lack of unity within Christianity or numerous other problems.  You would be more likely to change minds if you tackle questions such as these that directly lead to people losing their faith, rather than focusing on such hard to know scientific questions that you need a PhD to fully understand.

 

8 hours ago, Johnny said:

the law of biogenesis

I've seen the confusion about biogenesis verse abiogenesis before, the truth is these two ideas are answering two completely different questions and don't overlap.

Biogenesis was the study of whether fully formed life could arise from decaying organic material.  The claim had been made that as things such as meat rotted, it would chemically create maggots.  Biogenesis worked to prove that this idea was false.  The main experiment being to separate two pieces of meat, one sealed and one open, to show that the maggots only formed on the exposed piece.  Biogenesis therefore showed fully formed life only came from reproduction cycles.

Some three centuries later, once we gained an understanding of the microscopic world, the question was then asked as to how you can go from chemistry to a self replicating cell.  Abiogenesis is the study of that question.  What chemicals are required, under what environment, using what power source and following what process.  

Becaue these two ideas, biogenesis and abiogenesis, answer two different questions, it is understood that both can be correct at the same time.  There maybe a way for a self replicating cell to be created through a natural process, and also it is confirmed that fully formed lifeforms do not spontaneously generate from organic material.

 

[Edgarcito]

29 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

So, in both cases your argument relies on what we don't know.

 

When it comes to Jesus, sin and The Cross, those things are accepted as true by faith, because they are not known by evidence to be true.

 

And now you claim, because there are many more things that we don't know than we do, the things which we don't know about are more likely to be true.

 

 

Ten logical extensions of your argument would therefore run like this.

 

Because we don't know if there is an eternal multiverse, it's more likely that there is.

Because we don't know if Atlantis existed, it's more likely that it did.

Because we don't know if reptilian aliens control the world, it's more likely that they do.

Because we don't know if robots have souls, it's more likely that they do.

Because we don't know if we are living in a simulation, it's more likely that we are.

Because we don't know if the planet Jupiter is a sophisticated hologram, it's more likely that it is.

Because we don't know if Flight 19 was abducted by aliens, it's more likely that they were.

Because we don't know if Jimmy Hoffa travelled back to the year 3,000 B.C, it's more likely that he did.

Because we don't know if Allah is the true god, it's more likely that he is.

Because we don't know if Jesus is the true god, it's more likely that he is.

 

 

Are you sure that you want to stand by this argument, Ed?

Lol, Walter, why do my senses allow for your argument but not mine?  Maybe you can share the origins of grace with us?

You watched Woodstock, you watch the olympics and see how people rejoice at unity?  Why would we not expect some grand grace/unity?  My senses point to it?

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Lol, Walter, why do my senses allow for your argument but not mine?  Maybe you can share the origins of grace with us?

You watched Woodstock, you watch the olympics and see how people rejoice at unity?  Why would we not expect some grand grace/unity?  My senses point to it?

 

Ed,

 

In this thread I've made no argument for or against grace except to apply Occam's Razor.  Since your faith-based model is more complex than simple, human-to human grace, your model is less likely to be true.

 

I've also said nothing about the origins of grace in this thread and I've no intention of doing so, since you have been the one promoting it.

 

Re: Woodstock, the Olympics and unity - these are examples of human-to-human grace which your senses are aware of and which count as proper evidence.

 

Whereas anything your senses cannot be aware of, like Jesus, sin and the Cross, can only be accepted by faith.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

It should also be pointed out that our senses are subjective and flawed.  So, in applying Occam's Razor, it's important to take that into account. 

 

The simpler solution relies on sensory perception with known and knowable faults, which can be corrected for as is systemic and random error in a science experiment. 

 

But, how would one know if one's faith is flawed?  And what correction factors could be applied to perceptions of faulty faith?  More faith?

 

Again, removing the plurality of faith simplifies the solution.

[Johnny]

3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Actually, they've been working on it for a long time

Well, maybe you haven't got the memo, they've been going at this at least from the 1600s. I even gave a bit of history on it already. I do understand though that it is hard to catch everything is saying in a thread but dang, you direct this at me who already gave the history of it.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/the-law-of-biogenesis-part-i-4165/

 

3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

is asking a hell of a lot from a relatively new field of study. 

No, it's not "new."

 

3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Not knowing the hardest questions in the universe right now is not the same as we can never know.

It's the SAME old tired story with your type. There's a showstopper to what you want to believe and the more they find out about life it does not get better, so.....the famous forget what we know, let's believe what we don't know because you don't want to believe what we know. We know 2 + 2 = 4, but we don't know everything about math, so let's go that we don't know that either. It can be done with anything. We'll call it, the Forget What We Know Because We Don't Know Everything game. 

3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Someone could convince you today of abiogenesis and I would doubt that would shake your faith

Look how convincing the evidence is against abiogenesis and how we have a law of biogenesis, look at how that does not affect you all here fighting against biogenesis. In other words, look who's calling the kettle black.

 

3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

The things that push atheists away from religion are subjects like divine hiddenness, the problem of suffering, the horror of the bible, the lack of unity within Christianity or numerous other problems.  You would be more likely to change minds if you tackle questions such as these that directly lead to people losing their faith, rather than focusing on such hard to know scientific questions that you need a PhD to fully understand.

God is not "hidden" since His handiwork is ALL over. People made the choice to ignore it.

 

"the problem of suffering,"

 

I covered that already. People want to act as if the go by the bible to show God is involved in the suffering somehow but as I showed, they don't even know the bible.

 

"the horror of the bible"

 

From what I've seen here, people can't even get past the first verse about God creating so they make up science fiction to show we got all this naturally. 

 

"the lack of unity within Christianity"

 

I've had exchanges with a lot of atheistic types and they admit there is no unity in all their beliefs with other atheistic types. 

 

And for the record, churches drove me away. I've stayed out of them for a long time now.

3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Becaue these two ideas, biogenesis and abiogenesis, answer two different questions, it is understood that both can be correct at the same time.

I don't see how that is possible. 

 

3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

There maybe a way for a self replicating cell to be created through a natural process, and also it is confirmed that fully formed lifeforms do not spontaneously generate from organic material.

"There maybe a way for a self replicating cell to be created through a natural process"

 

It's been shown that way can't happen.

 

"and also it is confirmed that fully formed lifeforms do not spontaneously generate from organic material."

 

We have fully formed life forms that didn't spontaneously generate. It's the only way that it can happen. Life only comes from life.

[RankStranger]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Affirmative on the false certainty, but not positive on the dishonest part.  Kind of like fundamentalism....  If three hymns and a prayer are the way to holiness, then that creates the false certainty.  I.e, we are CERTAIN this is how God works.  Not sure dishonesty plays a large role in that process.  Just thinking age and wisdom would tell us who is just going through life and the religious process.  Not certain how you are using dishonesty....as in intentional dishonesty or not being honest with yourself.  Thx.

 

 

To be honest (and don't get me started on what we humanzees mean by that word), I'm not 100% sure on the presence of dishonesty there... but it's something I suspect.  Something I smell.   Do you think there's such a thing of a dishonest sort of faith?  Or even a selfish sort of faith?  Are all faiths conceived equally?  Or a faith is a faith is a faith?

 

False certainty.  Claiming belief as if it were knowledge... while knowing deep down in one's heart that those two are not the same thing.  Claiming to know things that one does not in fact know.  I don't know if that's tantamount to a lie, but it looks mighty close to me.  Close enough that I'm not impressed with the people who do this.

 

That problem wouldn't exist if ignorant Christians were actually humble like their (supposed) savior tells them to be.  Not saying all Christians are ignorant, but the ignorant ones sure ain't humble

 

For what it's worth, I don't exactly consider myself an Atheist anymore.  I have some ideas, but it wouldn't be honest to call them 'belief'.  Let alone 'faith'.  Let alone knowledge