BioLogos does a very good job of explaining science to Christians. It, for the most part, is remarkably true in its descriptions of science. That is, BioLogos does not 'adjust' science but rather offers ways to interpret the Bible in a manner that is not contradictory to the findings of modern science.
Here we have their introductory videos on evolution. Well done, IMO.
does not 'adjust' science but rather offers ways to interpret the Bible in a manner that is not contradictory to the findings of modern science.
I heard some discussions where the attempts to bridge the differences between science and faith can be pretty interesting.
One debate I hears was about God parting the Red Sea for Moses. Obviously it would seem to that make no sense from a scientific POV. But here's an interesting attempt at explaining it "scientifically" that someone cnme up with.
They raise the possibility that in ancient times the climate was different, so the Red Sea was actually very shallow back. In addition, there were extreme climate changes at the time-- some very wet and very dry seasons. And that sometimes for brief periods during the dry season it was so shallow you could actually walk across-- or that sometimes the area were the seabed was actually exposed. And so on...
I'm not interested in going into that in more depth (pun intended) but the point is-- there have been past attempts to reconcile the differences between science and religion.
A differing approach and probably a more commonn one is that "you can't understand it rationally, just have to "take it on faith". At first glance that sound like such as obvious cop out..but I can see that there may be some merit to that.
Don't know exactly how evolution works, though I do have a basic understanding of it. But one thing I do know for sure is that the parting of the Red Sea does not have a damn thing to do with evolution. To bring it up in this discussion is simply an attack on religion. The cartoon is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Thus, this discussion thread has been rendered entirely irrelevant in my opinion. (Nobody has to agree with me or my opinion, okay? Nobody is forcing anyone to. Just want to make that clear.)
How about going over to the discussion on Trump's Newsweek Magazine Cover? Or maybe discuss the question as to why Trump is still the president. Just saying, that in my opinion those discussions are more relevant than this. (Again, no one has to agree with my opinion, I'm just putting it out there. Just like somebody decided to post a cartoon about parting the Red Sea. Non-evolutionary.)
You can, as long as the author doesn't object. Some authors don't want any links to other articles on NT, but most do not object. I don't. So, I'll keep looking...
You are being cautious and a very courteous member to think that maybe the author would be ticked off. Kudos!!!
Well, just trying to not get in trouble. I know each site has it's own rules, and switching back and forth between a few different sites makes it a little tough to remember which sites have which rules. Better safe than sorry. I think what I can do is maybe post a comment on the other articles and that should put a note on The NewsTalkers Front Page. That way you can see that and know where the articles are. I'll try that. (Hope it works.)
How about going over to the discussion on Trump's Newsweek Magazine Cover? Or maybe discuss the question as to why Trump is still the president. Just saying, that in my opinion those discussions are more relevant than this
Well I don't necessarily agree that they're more important. That's your opinion. (Other folks may feel other things are important than you do. There's no right or wrong-- people have different values)
And BTW, I do feel that Newsweek magizine cover is very Importnat-- if I didn't feel that way,why would I go to the trouble of seeding it eh?.
Don't know exactly how evolution works, though I do have a basic understanding of it. But one thing I do know for sure is that the parting of the Red Sea does not have a damn thing to do with evolution.
Correct.
In fact, as far as I know, people disagree as to whether t actually even happened. (Probably the ones that do are those that take the Bible and/or other religious teachings literally. But I'm not much of an authority on western religions.
I could be wrong, but most people probably don't believe it to be fact.
To bring it up in this discussion is simply an attack on religion.
I'm sorry you feel that way-- that was not my intention.
BioLogos takes a different route. They are not engaging in wild speculation trying to explain religious beliefs or the Bible. They are doing the opposite - explaining science (correctly for the most part) in a way that a Christian could accept.
They are doing the opposite - explaining science (correctly for the most part) in a way that a Christian could accept.
That approach does appeal to me.
I would quibble with minor point though-- I wouldn't have said "a Christian". I would have preferred "most Christians" or even "many Christians". IMO that more accurate-- but perhaps I'm being too nit-picking.
A differing approach and probably a more commonn one is that "you can't understand it rationally, just have to "take it on faith". At first glance that sound like such as obvious cop out..but I can see that there may be some merit to that.
Sorry, but I can't see any merit to it at all. It may be more "comfortable" for some folks, but comfortable lies are still lies. And when we have many trying to govern us based on those lies, well, their "comfort" does not outweigh my right not to have to support their lies.
just as your opinions may be much more comfortable for you....
but comfortable lies are still lies. And when we have many trying to govern us based on those lies, well, their "comfort" does not outweigh my right not to have to support their lies.
Actually I'm a big fan of truth myself. (In fact you might say I"m obsessed with it-- others have.).
But here's the problem-- who determines what is true?
Do you? Does Dowser? Does Randy?
And if you disagree on some fact-- how do I know who to believe-- how do I know whose truth is the real truth?
But here's the problem-- who determines what is true?
Do you? Does Dowser? Does Randy?
Ahem! Ahem! I do! LOL!
The truth, if anyone really wants to know it, is that the whole argument, while fun sometimes, is just plain silly in the first place. It's like jumping jacks. It's an exercise, but so what? I can still do 10 of them (as long as I am willing to ignore the pounding and heavy pain in my left chest), but again, so what?
"One debate I hears was about God parting the Red Sea for Moses. Obviously it would seem to that make no sense from a scientific POV. But here's an interesting attempt at explaining it "scientifically" that someone cnme up with."
Some people are still arguing about where the crossing took place
"For many years scholars have disagreed over the identity of the sea the Israelites crossed and thus the site of the drowning of Pharaoh's army. Three routes for the Exodus have been proposed and continue to be debated."
On a side topic there was an article recently in the London Standard (A London daily newspaper) trashing Darwin
There are a lot of faults crossing the Red Sea. Correctly dating a seismic eruption is pretty hard, unless some rocks were formed by that event. You can't date an event without some rock being formed by it. Just a note...
Well it was either the Jews fault or the Arabs fault-- and I don't want to go there. We should draw the line there-- no matter whose fault the line was!
Correctly dating a seismic eruption is pretty hard, unless some rocks were formed by that event. You can't date an event without some rock being formed by it. Just a note...
Are you referring to the crossing of the Red Sea? If so, would it be possible that in crossing some artifact was dropped? Some small stone tool or perhaps a metal implement. And then it became buried in mud and preserved?
Some people are still arguing about where the crossing took place
"For many years scholars have disagreed over the identity of the sea the Israelites crossed and thus the site of the drowning of Pharaoh's army. Three routes for the Exodus have been proposed and continue to be debated."
On a side topic there was an article recently in the London Standard (A London daily newspaper) trashing Darwin
Interesting. When I first go a site on subjects like this I look to see to see what the orientation of the site is. The article about possible routes is on a Christian site ("United Chruch of God").
Of course discussing which route the ancient Iraelistes took pre-supposed that there was a group like that in ancient Egypt in the first place. And that if indeed they did in fact cross the Red Sea (at some point) and travel to the other side (the Sinai).
I really don't know much on those topics. The ancient Egyptian civilization did exist, of that there's no doubt (I've seen parts of it myself when I was in Egypt). I know they had a religion that was not monotheistic. And that they did have slaves. I have no idea whether the rest of the storyn is true or not.
I had heard of the Evening Standard but didn't remember its orientation. However the headlines there looked a bit sensationalistic. So I checked:
The London Evening Standard (simply the Evening Standard before May 2009) is a local, free daily newspaper , published Monday to Friday in tabloid format in London, owned by Russian businessman and former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev.
Good grief-- I wonder if Donald Trumph has his fingers in that pie as well? Or..maybe even..Jared?
The article looked interesting, But I actually not all that interested in Evolution so I didn't bread it thoroughly. But I did skim it-- they are definitely Bashing Darwin.Of course even if Darwin is mostly wrong, that does not necessarily negate the idea that evolution. is real.
Some folks say no, no-- God created everything within a short time frame-- several days from one celled organisms to Humans. But perhaps God created the beginnings of life (those primitive ome celled forms) set everything in motion, and then let life "do its own thing"-- evolve with out his interference. In that view really did create life-- but then it did evolved (he created it so it had the potential to keep evolving).
Of course I don't know-- I wasn't there at the time!
"Interesting. When I first go a site on subjects like this I look to see to see what the orientation of the site is. The article about possible routes is on a Christian site ("United Chruch of God")."
Certain Christian groups are among those arguing about the possible routes, after all they believe it happened. I doubt that Atheist groups spend much time on it.
"I really don't know much on those topics. The ancient Egyptian civilization did exist, of that there's no doubt (I've seen parts of it myself when I was in Egypt). I know they had a religion that was not monotheistic . And that they did have slaves. I have no idea whether the rest of the storyn is true or not."
For a short time they got close to a monotheistic faith under Akhenaten, as this shows.
"Akhenaten's religion is probably not strictly speaking monotheistic, although only the Aten is actually worshipped and provided with temples. Other gods still existed and are mentioned in inscriptions although these tend to be other solar gods or personifications of abstract concepts; even the names of the Aten, which are written in cartouches like king's names, consist of a theological statement describing the Aten in terms of other gods. The majority of traditional gods were not tolerated, however, and teams of workmen were sent around the temples of Egypt where they chiselled out the names and images of these gods wherever they occurred."
During this period of time, Akhenaten, decreed the only god to be Aten, who was the Sun God. The priests of Amun were ticked, and conspired against Akhenaten. After Akhenaten's death, King Tut, took the name Tutankhamun, to align the official religion back to the old gods... At least that is what I've read. (My son was heavily into Egyptology as a younger lad... Up under his bed, I can find the entire pantheon of Egyptian Gods)
I think the videos do a fairly good job of explaining Evolution, but on about a 4th grade level and then fall completely apart when the concept of a god is introduced. For instance many people who believe in the Bible literally will automatically reject the truth the Evolution takes place over millions of years as they reject the idea that the earth is that old. I simply can not believe that there is a way to reconcile the Bible with Evolution and in every case Evolution wins out. Especially since there is no god of any kind.
The dumbing down is absolutely essential for the audience. So I applaud their approach.
Note that BioLogos largely describes evolution correctly. They differ regarding abiogenesis. Instead of spontaneous biology they insert God. Once we figure out how life itself emerged that approach will no longer work and another gap will close.
The dumbing down is absolutely essential for the audience. So I applaud their approach.
While I agree that I applaud their research in knowing the intellectual level of their audience on this subject, I think that it is sad commentary that there are so many people in America who are so uneducated about even the very basics of Evolution that it would have to be "dumbed down" for even adults. This is the result of them being taught lies about Evolution in private schools that are there mostly to re-enforce their religious doctrine, rather then to give an honest education to their children about science.
Since they are private schools they of course have the right to teach these lies, but that doesn't make it any less sad that their children are being sent out into the real world so unprepared about the truth of science.
@Randy: "I think that it is sad commentary that there are so many people in America who are so uneducated about even the very basics of Evolution that it would have to be "dumbed down" for even adults."
Sad indeed. Part of the problem is the influence of opportunists like Ken Ham who actively work hard to keep people ensnared by their childhood indoctrination.
I think that it is sad commentary that there are so many people in America who are so uneducated about even the very basics of Evolution that it would have to be "dumbed down" for even adults
O f course the science curriculum in many schools is dumbed down because of a religious agenda.
However, even when a religious bias (against evolution) isn't present, the curriculum in all areas is dumbed down for kids in many schools today.
I was recently in another discussion (someone claimed that "everyone" has read Animal Farm) which struck me as a bit bizarre. So I did a bit of research, started with looking for the literacy rate in the U.S. Even I was surprised--20% of High School grads are illiterate. Knowing evolution? Heck one fifth of High School grads can't even read!!!
They differ regarding abiogenesis. Instead of spontaneous biology they insert God. Once we figure out how life itself emerged that approach will no longer work and another gap will close.
Hard to see how you come to that conclusion. Ok you have "spontaneous biology" . Who or what caused it to happen?
People who want to believe God is The Creator have an endless array of places to insert God into any function of our existence. That would be why he/she/it is God. They can do anything.
Why must anything but chance have caused it? Sure, theists can claim whatever they like, but as our knowledge of the origins of our universe and life increase, the domain of their god or gods becomes smaller and smaller, to the point of irrelevance. Unless they choose to lie to themselves, of course, which is entirely possible, and entirely their right.
It depends on how you envision God. Sure science can debunk that the earth was created in 7 days or that man was created fully formed , but science cannot debunk the existence of God. That is not even possible and never will be.
science cannot debunk the existence of God. That is not even possible and never will be.
Of course it's not. But those who adhere to logic know that it is not necessary for nonbelievers to disprove the existence of god to hold the stronger position. It is necessary for believers to prove god, and they haven't. The likelihood that god exists decreases every time that science provides an explanation for that which was generally explained by religion.
There are online debates on sites that cater to this sort of thing that discuss the "default position" . The arguments that atheists should have the default position are no stronger than the arguments that believers should have the default position.
Since no one can ever prove or disprove the existence of God, the possession of the default position could decide the argument. In reality though, neither side has an exclusive claim on the default position.
I don't necessarily agree with everything in this article or passage, but this is a good example of how believers would assert a default.
"Physics explains to us how the universe came into existence (see: The Big Bang theory and the initial singularity) but not where all matter originated from. Despite the best attempts of dishonest atheists to prove that "matter can originate from nothingness" this is something that has simply never been seen and is neither testable by scientific method or observational and so this idea is anti-scientific. Atheists cite examples of particles "appearing from nothing" out of the vacuum of space and by doing so prove that they are illiterate in physics, as the vacuum of space is not "nothingness" with it containing dark energy, neutrinos, gamma ways as well as numerous other elements and energies. What we observe with observational science and what philosophy tell us is that everything with a beginning must have a cause and that at one point, there had to be an eternal cause with no prior beginning. There cannot be an infinite regress of self-creating universes as other atheists argue as an infinite regress has no beginning and without an ultimate beginning, there is no initiation and therefore nothing would exist. At this point to either believe in something from nothing or an infinite regress would not just be having blind faith but to reject scientific law, observational evidence and logic. This is why atheism fails to be a coherent worldview whereas theism is agreeable with what is scientific, observable and philosophically reasonable."
Something cannot come from nothing. It is not possible. Anytime someone argues that something (this existence) came from nothing we can be sure that the "nothing" really contained something.
Atheists cite examples of particles "appearing from nothing" out of the vacuum of space and by doing so prove that they are illiterate in physics, as the vacuum of space is not "nothingness"
No. Atheism makes it own claim . It claims that there IS no God. It is a positive assertion which must meet it's own burden of proof. Agnosticism does not require proof. Atheism does.
Ok, I'll grant you that point. But why should the existence of your god be the default position, rather than no god, or any of the multitude of gods that have been proposed over the course of human history?
You seem to want to assign a burden of proof to atheists (I think you'd find many are agnostic atheists, BTW) that you are unwilling to take on your own position?
"Ok, I'll grant you that point. But why should the existence of your god be the default position, rather than no god, or any of the multitude of gods that have been proposed over the course of human history?"
I don't mean to butt in, but surely in the absence of evidence, shouldn't the default position be I don't know.
Both Theism, and Atheism require proof, Agnosticism doesn't.
I don't mean to butt in, but surely in the absence of evidence, shouldn't the default position be I don't know.
Yes.
Which is why most atheists are actually agnostic atheists. They'd believe if there were evidence. But there isn't, so they live as if there is no god, which there likely isn't.
Both Theism, and Atheism require proof, Agnosticism doesn't.
I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that statement.
Theism, is a belief in a god or God, and does NOT require 'proof'. It only requires FAITH.
Atheism requires the "absence of proof" that there is a god. "Go ahead! Prove your god to me. I dare you! You can't. Okay, if you can't prove it, then he doesn't exist." is along the lines of what they say in a lot of posts I have read. "You can't prove your magic fairy god is floating around somewhere, then god doesn't exit!" Some of them can be quite obnoxious about it. Not all, but quite a few who like to post comments on the subject.
Agnostics are actually in between. We hold out the possibility there may be a god, so we are not willing to just write Him or Her off as a certainty that there is no God. We would really like some actual proof, as it would make things so much easier to deal with, but we're not ruling anything out due to current lack of proof.
But, that's my opinion, and only my opinion. Take it or leave it as you wish.
"Theism, is a belief in a god or God, and does NOT require 'proof'. It only requires FAITH."
It requires proof if it's ever going to be based on more than just faith, the comment I was responding to dealt with the burden of proof, and where it lies.
As with most things the context is important.
If a Theist says they believe god exists, well and good. If however they state god exists, then they require proof. One is a statement of personal belief, the other is a statement of fact.
Sandy,
"Which is why most atheists are actually agnostic atheists. They'd believe if there were evidence. But there isn't, so they live as if there is no god, which there likely isn't."
I have no evidence on this point one way or the other, so I argue over it. What I will say is that any statement of fact for or against gods existence requires proof, otherwise it's merely belief.
"Agnostics are actually in between. We hold out the possibility there may be a god, so we are not willing to just write Him or Her off as a certainty that there is no God. We would really like some actual proof, as it would make things so much easier to deal with, but we're not ruling anything out due to current lack of proof."
It isn't quite that simple, I've seen various terms used, but the most common are strong and weak, and there are also different definitions that I've seen. Some hold that Agnostics are merely weak Atheists, from a personal position I don't agree with this.
In the absence of evidence either for or against, my default position is to say I don't know.
It isn't quite that simple, I've seen various terms used, but the most common are strong and weak, and there are also different definitions that I've seen. Some hold that Agnostics are merely weak Atheists, from a personal position I don't agree with this.
The nomenclature I prefer is one TiG introduced me to a while back.
Gnostic theists state absolutely thatthere is a god. There is no possibility in their minds that god doesn't exist.
Agnostic theists believe there is a god, but are not certain.
Agnostic atheists believe that there is no god, but allow for the possibility. Given proof, they will concede the existence of a god.
Gnostic atheists state absolutely that there is no god.
I am an agnostic atheist, and I suspect you'll find many who are referred to as "atheists" for simplicity are the same. I'll believe in a god (any god, not just the Abrahamic one) when you offer proof as to its existence. Mind, you're making a pretty extraordinary claim, so you need to present pretty extraordinary evidence. The Bible, personal feelings, "revelations", "every culture believes in some god" arguments, etc., just don't cut it.
"Mind, you're making a pretty extraordinary claim, so you need to present pretty extraordinary evidence. The Bible, personal feelings, "revelations", "every culture believes in some god" arguments, etc., just don't cut it."
Agreed, in my opinion none of the above constitutes proof.
My position is quite simple, when it comes to creator gods I'm waiting for the evidence, this could be for either side of the argument.
When it comes to the established religions my position becomes more complex. Historically we know that these were founded by humans, not gods, hence I'm strongly inclined to dismiss them as
1) Primitive attempts to explain the world
2) Cynical attempts to control populations
I realise that this conflicts with my position on creator gods.
Hey Sandy! "Where am I?" I feel like I'm bouncing back and forth and back and forth, and am not at all sure what Nation I'm in, nor which article I'm on...
Sandy, where did I say there is no burden of proof on theists?
I think I said believers can make an argument that they should have the default position. Many atheists assume only they deserve a default position but I don't agree with that.
No. Atheism makes it own claim . It claims that there IS no God. It is a positive assertion which must meet it's own burden of proof. Agnosticism does not require proof. Atheism does.
Not quite. Most (weak) atheists align with agnosticism. They simply reject any claim for a god without supporting empirical evidence or proof. However, they would be willing to consider proof, if any was forthcoming. As it stands, there is no such proof or evidenced for a god. Agnostics generally take the "we don't know either way" position. Strong atheists are those that posit with certainly that there is no god, much like theists posit there is a god with certainty.
Exactly. I am a strong atheist. There is no god. It is up to those who claim that there is to prove it. Surely if I claimed that the tooth-fairy was real then people would say I have to prove that. It would not be up to others to dis-prove my claim.
If you positively state that there is no God , then the burden to prove that is on you. Period.
IYHO. We have been through this before. I know there is no god like I know there is no tooth fairy or Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. If you say that leprechauns exist (which to me is no different then claiming god exists) then the burden of proof is on you, not me. You are the one making the extraordinary claim of the existence of something for which there is no evidence of.
Randy, you can believe whatever you want, including that you know there is no God. But without proof, this 100% surety exists only inside your own head.
Saying "there IS no God" is a positive assertion, which requires proof. Period.
No it does not. Strong atheists do not not believe that there is no god. We know that there is not one. For a strong atheist the idea of the existence of a god is so absurd that it does not even rise to the level of a belief.
1. If I am NOT trying to get you to change your mind about what you believe or don't believe, then I don't need to provide you any 'proof' either way.
2. If I refuse to allow you to change my mind on what I do or do not believe, then none of your so-called proof is going to matter one way of the other to me.
3. The only time "proof" might come into the picture is if Joe is trying to CONVERT Ralph from being a non-believer to a believer (or vice versa). Then Joe might have to provide some kind of proof to convince Ralph to change. But, if Joe can convince Ralph on the basis of FAITH alone, then in that case no proof is needed because FAITH is all that is needed.
Anyone who thinks anyone has to 'prove' the existence or non-existence of a god or God, is just flat-out wrong. There is no "burden of proof" on either side. I don't have to prove my beliefs to you, and I do not need you to prove your beliefs to me. No proof burden at all, unless one side is really trying to convert the other. I can make all the statements I want to. I don't have to prove them. You can believe what you want to believe, or not believe, as you choose.
As I have stated before, that's only my opinion. Take it or leave it as you wish, but know this: You and/or no one else can prove anything to me about God. The only proof I will ever accept is my own proof or faith as the case may be. Don't waste your time trying.
FYI: I like Ron Reagan (Ronald Reagan's son). He does a TV commercial in which he says something like "I'm Ron Reagan, lifelong atheist. Not afraid of an eternity in Hell." (Or something like that.) I like that. I respect him for publicly saying that. But, I'm not an atheist. And just because Ron Reagan says that is not going to make me become an atheist. Yet, he or anyone can be an atheist if that's what he truly believes. Good for him and all others who at least have some kind of belief. (As for me, I'm still searching.)
The only way one can know forcertain that there is no god (i.e. creator entity) is to be omniscient. Short of that one must allow for the possibility ... logically.
Same holds true for science. Science does not declare truth (certainty) - the best is high confidence.
The only way one can know forcertain that there is no god (i.e. creator entity) is to be omniscient.
I disagree, but it is because what we are talking about, the existence of a god, is strictly a societal question and not one of science. For instance, I am lucky enough in my life to have 7 sisters and 1 brother (if you count adopted and half) and two of them are very religious and very faithful. However if you asked them if there is a god (and I have) they have no doubt about it whatsoever. None. They are absolutely certain. This position is considered a norm in our society and they are not questioned (except by their pesky big brother...once) about it whatsoever and in many circles are praised for their position. To them and many others it is not a question of faith or belief. They know there is a god.
However this is, as I said, strictly societal and not science. Still, since it is considered by society and custom to be a completely normal and acceptable position for them to take, those of us who say we know that there is no god are always the ones who seem to be constantly questioned about that knowledge. It's not acceptable in our society for me to take the except opposite position of my sisters. Fortunately it is gaining wider acceptance in America and some other Western countries, but would get you executed in other parts of the world, strictly because of their societal acceptance of the existence of a god.
@TiG: "The only way one can know forcertain that there is no god (i.e. creator entity) is to be omniscient."
@Randy: "I disagree, but it is because what we are talking about, the existence of a god, is strictly a societal question and not one of science."
To me it is simply logic and the common meaning of words.
Certainty = Truth = no possibility of even the slightest error
That, Randy, is impossible. No human being has achieved omniscience (to my knowledge) and thus no human being can possibly claim to hold truth about anything in reality. (One can hold truth about man-made formal systems such as arithmetic, but not about reality itself.)
To know there is no god is to be omniscient. I submit that all hard atheists (gnostic atheists) place themselves in an entirely untenable position. They are all making an impossible claim. It is so much stronger to simply claim that one is convinced there is no god but is willing to consider strong evidence to the contrary. Claiming 99.99% confidence that there is no god is profoundly better supported than claiming absolute knowledge that there is no god.
In short, IMO, the only tenable positions are those held by the agnostics: the agnostic atheists and the agnostic theists.
Again, I disagree for the reasons I have stated. Humans created a god to worship and to try to explain what they could not otherwise do so. The existence or non-existence of a god has nothing to do with science. God is not a construct of science. It is a construct of society.
@Randy: "Again, I disagree for the reasons I have stated."
Non sequitur IMO.
@Randy: "Humans created a god to worship and to try to explain what they could not otherwise do so."
I agree.
@Randy: "The existence or non-existence of a god has nothing to do with science. God is not a construct of science. It is a construct of society."
I agree with that too.
But neither of those posits contradict what I wrote. Nor or they responsive to my point. I pointed out a fundamental problem with logic. Nobody knows anything in reality with certainty. That is the fundamental flaw in gnostic views.
Again I disagree. You insist on looking at the question as one of science or logic. Proving or not proving the existence of a creature, when to me we might as well be debating the existence or non-existence of Santa Claus. Science nor logic is part of the question. God is not a creature of science or logic (as there is no logic in the acts of many of the societal faithful) and it is actually offensive to me that people argue that.
God is not a creature. God is something you out grow. It's something you suffer through as a child like Chicken Pox. Then you become an adult and realize that the whole question of the existence or non-existence of a god is just a silly child's game.
@Randy: "You insist on looking at the question as one of science or logic. Proving or not proving the existence of a creature, ..."
I was discussing your claim of certainty. I was not the one claiming to be a strong atheist. What I have been doing illustrating the problem with strong (gnostic) atheism.
Well, it is with in the realm of possibility to prove that something exists (if in fact it does)
But it not possible in cases like this to prove something doesn't exist.
(If you are unable to find proof something exists that doesn't prove it doesn't exist-- it may just means it exists but just haven't found it yet).
In any event, my own opinion which often upsets both devout Atheists as well as True Believers is that it is impossible to either prove or disprove the exitance of a God.
I personally have never heard anything that I feel conclusively proves the existence of a God. And bynthe same token, I have never heard anything that proves that God doesn't exist.
So as far as I'm concerned, I not convinced of either.
But beyond that-- I'm tending to believe we will never know for sure!
(That position tends to frfeak out many people on both sides of the argument-- they simply can't accept the notion that there's something they don't know and probsalby never will!
Well, it is with in the realm of possibility to prove that something exists (if in fact it does)
But it not possible in cases like this to prove something doesn't exist.
(If you are unable to find proof something exists that doesn't prove it doesn't exist-- it may just means it exists but just haven't found it yet).
In any event, my own opinion which often upsets both devout Atheists as well as True Believers is that it is impossible to either prove or disprove the exitance of a God.
I personally have never heard anything that I feel conclusively proves the existence of a God. And bynthe same token, I have never heard anything that proves that God doesn't exist.
So as far as I'm concerned, I not convinced of either.
But beyond that-- I'm tending to believe we will never know for sure!
(That position tends to freak out many people on both sides of the argument-- they simply can't accept the notion that there's something they don't know and probalby never will!
Well-- what if the was some Higher Power? What if everything is not random-- what if there is some order in nature? (And it could be true without having to fit the beliefs of some evangelical church. If there is a higher power,it doesn't necessarily have to be an old man with a white beard sitting on a chair on a cloud up in the sky!)).
Just because we haven't discovered something doesn't mean it doesn't exist-- something to keep in mind.
(Even if the teachings of some groups that do believe in a God are totally false and misleading, it does not logically follow that therefore no God exists).
You have your definition of God. Ok, I get that. If God created everything then he created thunderstorms. He also created the scientific explanation for thunderstorms.
A lot of atheists like to get totally into the weeds and perhaps not allow that we simply may not ever know what God does.
The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, ever. Belief or disbelief is a matter of faith.
"God" is a supernatural being. How can we disprove something that exists outside the only nature that we can test or measure? You can claim you don't see evidence of God, but you can't disprove it.
The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, ever.
Which means that when you say he did or did not do anything, I am free to dismiss that statement out of hand, along with the explanation that thunder exists because of Zeus, or that the sun rises because Apollo drags it across the sky.
It's kind of funny how the atheist argument always somehow reverts back to Zeus or Odin. Those beings are cultural earthly expressions of a belief in God, not God itself.
All human religions are cultural expressions. That is pretty obvious. It doesn't mean believing their teachings are either wrong or right.
It's kind of funny how the atheist argument always somehow reverts back to Zeus or Odin. Those beings are cultural earthly expressions of a belief in God, not God itself.
If you say so. An awful lot of Christians would call that blasphemy.
Earthly religions are obviously cultural expressions.
That acknowledgement doesnt mean that there is no God or that God, if it exists, doesnt approve or disapprove of them. We have no way of knowing that. Religions are human endeavors, not divine ones.
BTW, I don't. I feel that God shows his face differently to different peoples and their interpretations of that are based on their own culture and feelings. I personally feel that any recognition of a God, be it Horus, or Zeus, or Odin, or The Great Cookie Monster, is up to the individual to decide, and not for me to judge them. We each have to find our own path.
I don't have a lot of time for those Christians who believe they have the ONLY right way to go to heaven... I mean, is heaven to be filled only with Baptists who belong to XYZ church? Why would God make all these people and different beliefs just to condemn them? That makes no sense to me.
Personally, I don't care if you believe or not. It's not up to me to say. We all have to find our own way in life, and in what we believe or don't believe. I feel that God is love, and anytime you love someone one, or do a loving act for them, or behave kindly to someone, you are following the Will of God. But that's just me.
Hal and I disagree about a lot of things, but I truly respect his beliefs. He reached them logically and over time, and he has thought them out carefully. It's not for me to tell him he is wrong. We just have different beliefs.
I feel that we are born with only a certain amount of luck in this life, which is why I don't buy lottery tickets. I want to save all my luck up for when I have another heart attack, so I can survive it-- why waste all that good luck on something as mundane as just money?
Proof? Tell me, did your mother love you? Or your father? Prove it. You can't REALLY prove love, but we all know it exists... You'll have to take it on faith when I tell you that my father loved me. I can't prove it.
I mean, is heaven to be filled only with Baptists who belong to XYZ church ?
Why yes, it is. Everyone knows it's filled with Mormons . LOL
You can't REALLY prove love, but we all know it exists ...
Actually, we can. MRI and PET scans of the brain have demonstrates specific areas of the brain (especially those pertaining to emotions) becomes more active when an emotional response is elicited, including feelings of love. Love, like all emotions, is a function of the brain. just saying.
Not that I can think of. He made great sacrifices for me, his kid, and there is a ton of proof, to me, but to everyone else? How does one measure love? I don't know that there IS a way to empirically prove that love exists between a child and their parent... Yet, I would stake my life on knowing that my father loved me. AS I love/loved him. He's been gone for 32 years, so no way to measure his brain waves...
He made great sacrifices for me, his kid, and there is a ton of proof, to me, but to everyone else?
Anyone else who sees what your father did for you might accept such actions as proof of love.
How does one measure love? I don't know that there IS a way to empirically prove that love exists between a child and their parent
Quantifying love is more difficult that actually demonstrating love. As I said, brain scans can empirically prove there is love. As to the extent of that love (for lack of a better term), that might be more difficult to demonstrate.
What is a "feeling of love" ? Is it ordered up on demand for a scientific test? That is gobbledy gook.
No one could ever be convicted of a crime , by the way, using that logic. The emotions, thoughts , rationales involved in the robbery or murder could be traced back to brain activity , ie functions of the brain.
Or, put another way, did the brain activity cause love or did love cause the brain activity?
Both. Emotional feelings and responses are functions of the brain. Nothing more.
What is a "feeling of love" ?
An emotional response.
Is it ordered up on demand for a scientific test? That is gobbledy gook.
I already explained such tests have been conducted. So why are you so dismissive of it?
No one could ever be convicted of a crime , by the way, using that logic. The emotions, thoughts , rationales involved in the robbery or murder could be traced back to brain activity , ie functions of the brain
Crimes involve actual illegal actions taken by an individual. Such actions can be proven using forensics. Emotional intent might establish a motive for committing a crime. But that is not enough to prove an individual actually committed a crime.
Or, put another way, did the brain activity cause love or did love cause the brain activity?
Both. Emotional feelings and responses are functions of the brain. Nothing more.
What is a "feeling of love" ?
An emotional response.
If love is a function of the brain and not the other way around , then the same would pertain to emotion driven crime. How could someone be convicted of a crime they were compelled to commit by the way their brain works?
If love is a function of the brain and not the other way around , then the same would pertain to emotion driven crime. How could someone be convicted of a crime they were compelled to commit by the way their brain works
I've already addressed that. I said an emotional state can be a motivator for committing a crime (ex: "crime of passion"). But the actual act of committing a crime is still a conscious decision, especially if emotion overrides rational thought. It's the act itself that warrants penalty.
But how do you know that? How do you know that God exists and how do you know God is supernatural? Also, supernatural is simply that which is beyond our current understanding of physics. When we understand, it becomes 'natural'.
Ok you have "spontaneous biology" . Who or what caused it to happen?
Fortunately, science has provided a possible explanation for that. Refer to the Miller-Urey experiments.
People who want to believe God is The Creator have an endless array of places to insert God into any function of our existence. That would be why he/she/it is God. They can do anything.
Indeed, which is essentially an intellectual cop-out.
It isn't a cop out at all, nor is belief in God an intellectual exercise.
Sure it is. Whenever someone uses the "god did it" explanation, that is an exercise in intellectual laziness because it requires no further thought or analysis. It's an emotionally appealing explanation used for explanation's sake.
We can't ever prove whether or not God exists because we have no frame of reference to make that decision.
One cannot prove the non-existence of something. But since god's existence cannot be proven either way, that invalidates god (as a presumed supernatural entity) as a reasonable or rational explanation.
But since god's existence cannot be proven either way, that invalidates god (as a presumed supernatural entity) as a reasonable or rational explanation.
For you.
You continue to claim "non-existence" of God as a default when you have no right to.
Something cannot come from nothing. It is not possible. This existence that we know and experience has to have come from outside this existence through a supernatural means we don't understand.
No, from a logical standpoint. One wouldn't say "Zeus did it," or "Odin did it," ect., and expect to have a rational position or be taken seriously. Why is it any different than "god did it?"
You continue to claim "non-existence" of God as a default when you have no right to.
I've made no claim. But since god's existence is not proven (there isn't even a shred of evidence) either way, it is not rational to use god as an explanation for anything.
Something cannot come from nothing. It is not possible.
This is true.
This existence that we know and experience has to have come from outside this existence through a supernatural means we don't understand.
That is merely an assumption. And one based on the idea that a supernatural cause (god?) as being the originator. But since you correctly state something doesn't come from nothing, then what caused your assumed supernatural cause to come into being? Are you making the claim for a supernatural agent as the cause, when you really have no right to?
@JohnRussell: "Something cannot come from nothing."
This is true by definition. That is, it is true because of the meaning of the words.
Nothing is nonexistence. For something to come from nothing it would have to be possible for something to literally pop into existence from nothing at all. The closest we have to that is quantum fluctuation but even then we have no way to detect (verify) pure non-existence and have almost no understanding at what takes place during quantum fluctuation. To wit ... we have no grounds to call quantum fluctuations 'something from nothing' except to be 'cute' (like Lawrence Krauss tries to be).
Of course literally is a key word. Some people do believe in the Bible, that it contains a lot of wisdom but feel its not to be taken literally. Allegories and so on. Perhaps even some true stories that were told in a way that exxagerated or otherwise stretched the simple facts in order to make a point...?
I was enjoying the videos up till the last minute when it went sideways. Sure - there's a god that has a reason to create free willed humans through the most protracted process that humanity has ever known. Why is that supposed to sound reasonable?!
I agree, but the videos I offered are geared towards Christians / religious people in general. It is one thing to accurately summarize science. It is another thing to have the credibility to encourage people to take you seriously. That is the value of BioLogos IMO - they can serve as a stepping stone: Christians explaining science to Christians. Once people get over the idea that evolution is not the work of the devil, they might graduate to videos such as the one you offered.
Sure - there's a god that has a reason to create free willed humans through the most protracted process that humanity has ever known. Why is that supposed to sound reasonable?!
There have been several scientific theories postulated for the parting of the Red Sea, (I believe it has something to do with seismic activity), the Great Flood, (if all the water vapor in the atmosphere somehow fell out of the atmosphere, water levels would rise to top the big volcano of Hawaii), etc. They seem to be logical explanations to me...
We don't know everything science-wise. We don't even know that we're measuring a lot of phenomena correctly, or even what the results mean. We're not at the end of our scientific discoveries, we don't even know if we've started. The more we learn, the more we understand.
As a geologist, I must say that radioactive dating is an easy concept to understand, and the one Christian theory I have the most problems with is that the earth is 6,000 years old. I mean, good gosh. Of all the geologists I know, and I know a LOT, there are a handful that are atheists-- and the rest of us have some form of religious background and belief. So, I personally, don't reject religious belief out of hand, and believe that there is a God, or Creator. I feel that God shows his face differently to different people.
The laws of physics don't change, we just have to increase our understanding of them. To me, there is nothing random about the universe. It looks to me, like the galaxies have a distinctive shape-- rather than just a scattering of stars. I take it that they are following the laws of physics. Not that I understand all of those laws, but, then, nor does anyone else.
We're all doing the best we can. You can believe or not believe in a Creator, but to me, something is driving the universe. I see the laws of physics and all the other sciences, as being laws of the Creator. So, we're following them.
Now, everyone jump on me and tell me how stupid I am-- but, there are many different ways of seeing life, in general. And we all have to reach our own conclusions.
How it is depicted, with walls of water on each side, and how it really can happen are two different things. How it can really happen, is that part of the floor of the water way, like the Mississippi river, is uplifted and tilted, allowing a dry land crossing, until the river/stream, whatever, cuts through the uplift. Logical? Yes. It happened to the Mississippi River in the earthquakes of 1811-1812.
Here is an article about how it happened, back then:
So, while the geology community feels that it was rare and unusual, it does have a president, during recent times. OH, and there are tons of faults in the Red Sea are, geologists just don't know which one moved...
Geologists that I know believe, as I do, that it was a natural phenomena-- not caused by someone raising their arms and parting the sea, but incredible timing... Does that make you feel better? How did Moses "know"? I don't have any idea, nor do geologists claim to have that answer. It just happened. Maybe all the water birds flew up in the air at once, which would make sense. Or maybe their animals felt the earthquake before it struck. Or maybe there were swarms of mini-earthquakes before the big one hit. Earthquakes make a lot of noise, and the low-level vibrations are often not felt by humans, but animals go wild...
Feel better? We're all just looking for a logical explanation, and this one seems to fit.
To me, I understand how a seismic shift can uplift and tilt blocks of rocks and formations. So, to me, it IS Occam's razor that it is a logical explanation. I don't know why Moses got there at just the right time, or felt like he had to "part" the sea. But, to me, a seismic shift, or an earthquake, or something, caused it to happen, and Moses had incredible timing... Maybe it was a slow shift through time, that allowed it to happen-- faults don't always move in fits and starts, some of them act slowly... So, I can understand that. Since it happened in an area without a strong, obvious current, it could have lasted for long enough for the Israelites to cross. And easily shifted the other way to drown the Egyptians.
Sometimes, those with no idea or understanding of a natural phenomena misinterpret and draw things that couldn't possibly happen...
A lot of mythical phenomena are actually based on fact-- and attributing it to God is just a simple explanation for things that people didn't know at the time.
Ever poured a box of salt down into an outhouse? I predict that it will reach the home's water well in a few weeks, maybe sooner. Miracles DO happen! (ha) It is logical that if you introduce salt into a freshwater supply, your well will eventually pull it in.
But, to me, a seismic shift, or an earthquake, or something, caused it to happen, and Moses had incredible timing...
This is where Occam's Razor is appropriate. It's not that it couldn't happen, but for it to happen exactly when it was most convenient makes it nothing but a fable.
Religionists try to use similar logic to refute evolution. They will argue that our existence without God's hand in it, is akin to a 747 appearing from a junk yard by virtue of random parts coming being brought together via natural processes. The problem is that the buck always stops at god, and they are unwilling to ask where god came from.
Think what the people who had boats tied up on the MIssissippi River thought! Incredible timing! Just as they were fast asleep, their boat started drifting "upstream"... I'm not saying the parting of the Red Seat happened, or that it didn't happen-- I am saying that there is a scientific explanation for how it could have happened. Odds are staggering. But the odds of me finding one single brachiopod fossil, out of the millions of fossils out there, and me, one human out billions, are also staggering. Yet, I have boxes of brachiopods... So, while improbable, it's not impossible.
Is it impossible that South America was once attached to Africa? Who'd have thunk it? Yet, it happened, whether or not we were around to see it. I wasn't there when they built the Coliseum, either, but I know that mankind built it.
Note: I try to prove evolution, not disprove it...
@Dowser: "and the one Christian theory I have the most problems with is that the earth is 6,000 years old."
The good news is that this pretty much is limited to the Young Earth Creationists. The bad news is that about 10% of the USA are YECs. Most Christians understand (and accept the fact) that dinosaurs and homo sapiens did not coexist and that the Earth is actually 4.55B years old. Thankfully!
I would say that here in KY, that percentage is more like 30%. In fact, my POSTMAN used the opportunity of delivering a registered letter from the KGS, (Kentucky Geological Survey), to lecture me, from the front porch, in the cold, about how the earth is only 6000 years old and all geologists should be stoned at dawn, every day... (I guess he didn't get the concept that if you stone of every one of them in one day, there's not going to be much to stone the next day..)
My answer to them, is usually, "How long is a day to God?" They at least shut up enough to think about it, and I can politely excuse myself.
@Dowser: " I would say that here in KY, that percentage is more like 30%. "
Kentucky is Ken Ham territory. How do you survive?
@Dowser: "... to lecture me, from the front porch, in the cold, about how the earth is only 6000 years old and all geologists should be stoned at dawn, every day ... "
John Russell and Dowser you have really been in there.
Who knows about the Red Sea, burning of the bushes, Noah's Ark, etc, etc.? They were stories told. We do know that Jesus was crucified, dead and buried. That is a fact.
Science is wonderful and I marvel every time there is a new discovery. It's like God is playing a game with us. The Scavenger Hunt! Remember that? Go out and find all of the treasures I have hidden. He gave us the wisdom and knowledge to exceed our own expectations.
I have a friend who died several years ago. He was the most intelligent human being I have ever known. His intellect was beyond comprehension. One evening when we were playing bridge, I asked him this question because I had often wondered what his answer would be. "Claude, you don't ever talk about your faith in God, but tell me, do you believe in God"? He said, "Wil, I know there is something, but I don't know what it is". He found out and it is still a mystery to me.
God is love....pure and simple. There is no hell and brimstone. That exists on earth now. That hell and brimstone thing was used to make people obey the religious doctrines. Put fear into them.....they will walk a tight rope. God is not vindictive. He gave us some rules to follow for a good life and you know yourself that if you don't follow these rules you will end up a very unhappy person.
I will close it out now even though I have a lot more to say.
We do know that Jesus was crucified, dead and buried. That is a fact.
Actually we do not know that and it is not a fact. It is an unverified claim. We do not know if Jesus Christ actually existed as described in the New Testament.
Faith implies "doubt" but simultaneous "acceptance-as-reality" despite the doubt.
Theory (scientific theory) implies uncertainty, but unlike faith, subjects itself to testing and objectivity.
Unlike religion-based faith, scientific theory is inherently open to the possibility of ultimately proving itself to have been in error, even in its very basic premise.
@Randy: "Actually we do not know that and it is not a fact. It is an unverified claim. We do not know if Jesus Christ actually existed as described in the New Testament."
Agreed. Merely a claim written by ancient men no sooner than 60 years after the alleged death of Jesus. There is no empirical evidence of Jesus and interestingly almost no historical references to Jesus outside of the NT. Without the New Testament there would be no Jesus.
This does not mean that Jesus did not exist. It merely means that there is no reason (that I can offer) to believe Jesus ever existed. It is simply faith - belief sans evidence - belief because other human beings said it was true.
This does not mean that Jesus did not exist. It merely means that there is no reason (that I can offer) to believe Jesus ever existed. It is simply faith - belief sans evidence - belief because other human beings said it was true.
Which is how I was raised to believe by people I trusted. Parents, grand-parents, Priest, etc., just as it was taught to them. Of course I would not say that I no longer trust their word and not just because they have all passed away, but I simply no longer accept what they said as truth on this point or on the existence of a god. They were simply mis-led as I was.
"Actually, we do. There is a lot of empirical evidence which supports the big bang."
I'm afraid you've fallen into a verbal trap, they're not asking if there's evidence to support the theory, they're asking for absolute proof it happened.
However, when it comes to faith and theory, you are correct, there is a marked difference.
I'm afraid you've fallen into a verbal trap, they're not asking if there's evidence to support the theory, they're asking for absolute proof it happened.
I know what they're trying to do. It's not the first time I've seen such an obvious attempt either. They prefer to ignore actual evidence and degrees of probability in some attempt to make a point. But all it does is demonstrate a lack of understanding of evidence and the theories the evidence supports.
Again, science doesn't claim anything is proven. Science deals with degrees of confidence. We can say, with a high degree of confidence, that the Big Bang is the likely mechanism for the origin of our universe, and that evolution is how we came to be here. We base this on evidence, and when new evidence disagrees with our explanations, we adjust our explanations to suit that new evidence.
Religion tells a story that never changes, regardless of the evidence.
Me and every renowned scientist throughout the world will tell you The Big Bang has never been proven and can never be proven unless and until Time Travel is perfected. Until then it's just a theory.
A theory is based on a Faith in the scientific method. Thus, it is the same as FAITH.
That is, unless YOU can PROVE IT, and so far you have not.
p.s. I moved no goal posts. You want to make it seem that way, because you can't make a touchdown. The field is the same as it always has been. You just haven't got a good enough offense to score.
@Sandy: "Any scientist will tell you that nothing is ever proven."
Absolutely! Science could not claim objectivity if it got into the practice of claiming truth - 'we got this right, never gonna be shown to be incorrect in any way'. Declaring proof (truth) is anti-science.
Hi Sandy! You may have noticed that I am playing with a reply-with-quote format. Works okay on computers but not all that great with tablets or phones.
@Squirrel: "A theory is based on a Faith in the scientific method. Thus, it is the same as FAITH."
(sigh) A scientific theory is a formal, falsifiable explanation of phenomena based upon highly scrutinized evidence and having the quality of predictability. The ability to predict phenomena that have not yet happened.
Having confidence in a scientific theory is the exact opposite of faith. It is a measure of confidence based upon how the theory actual performs.
There's the standard statement of someone who doesn't understand what a theory is.
A theory is based on a Faith in the scientific method. Thus, it is the same as FAITH.
And that statement only proves it too!
That is, unless YOU can PROVE IT, and so far you have not.
I've made no claims to prove. I simply cited actual empirical evidence. The difference is, the evidence produces a high degree of probability and certainty, to the point where it can be considered fact. Of which there is NONE at all for any claims of a supernatural entity.
p.s. I moved no goal posts.
I said evidence. You're the one who mentioned proof. So unless you confuse the two, you most certainly tried to move the goalposts.
You want to make it seem that way, because you can't make a touchdown. The field is the same as it always has been. You just haven't got a good enough offense to score.
That's funny, considering how badly you've already fumbled.
Can evolution be traced back beyond a one cell organism.........or, has everything evolved from a one cell organism? If so, what created that one cell organism?
@PostNoMore: "Can evolution be traced back beyond a one cell organism.........or, has everything evolved from a one cell organism? If so, what created that one cell organism?"
Science does not know how the first cell was formed. This is the goal of abiogenesis. It is an active area of research.
Can evolution be traced back beyond a one cell organism.........
No. Evolution only works when there is an organism to evolve.
or, has everything evolved from a one cell organism?
Yeah, pretty much.
If so, what created that one cell organism?
In simplest terms, the first amino acids combining into proteins, which also combined to form genetic material, which formed self-replicating organisms.
You're the one making the claim, so you're the one who should be producing evidence. I can no more disprove god that I can disprove invisible purple unicorns, but I'm not asking you to ride my invisibly purple unicorn.
You're shifting the burden, and doing it in bold font doesn't strengthen your argument.
The existence of a god is strictly a construct of society. The existence or not of such a creature is not a construct of science and has nothing to do with it. Humans created god, not the other way around.
The egg was that of a reptile the embryos of which evolved via mutation. Beyond that, natural selection, that is, the ability or failure to adapt in specific environments, determined success or failure of a species (all else being equal).
I have a degree in Biology with specialties in ichthyology, limnology and aquatic ecosystems.
"Which came first THE CHICKEN EGG or THE CHICKEN?"
That would be dependent on whether you believe on evolution or creation. As the statement was aimed at a poster who believes in evolution we must consider the former, rather than the latter.
1 a : to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact Do you believe ? —usually used with in believe in the Scriptures b : to accept something as true, genuine , or real ideals we believe in believe s in ghosts
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy , or ability of something believe in exercise
1 a : to consider to be true or honest believe the reports you wouldn't believe how long it took b : to accept the word or evidence of I believe you couldn't believe my ears
2 : to hold as an opinion : suppose I believe it will rain soon
You see context matters, here it refers to a posters position or opinion re evolution/creation, not which position is correct.
Beyond a statement no one has to provide proof that they believe something.
Any scientist will tell you that nothing is ever proven.
Bullshit.
Medical Doctors are scientists. (They damn well better be!) Can they PROVE a person is living? Yes.
Can they prove a person is dead? Yes.
Can other scientists prove there is oxygen in the atmosphere? Yes.
Can scientists even prove there is such a thing as an atmosphere? Yes.
Can a scientist prove there is such a thing as gravity? Yes.
Can a scientist prove there are sunspots on the sun? Yes.
Can a scientist prove The Big Bang really took place? No.
There are some things scientists cannot prove, and The Big Bang is one of them. They can collate all the evidence, make a lot of assumptions, develop a hypothesis, postulate a theory. But, they cannot PROVE it really happened.
So what do they do? They take it ON FAITH that it did happen because they have no other way to explain the creation of the universe.
Same thing believers in God do. They take it on FAITH.
You can argue all you want to about it. You can say I didn't use the words postulate, hypothesis, theory or whatever correctly, but you CANNOT PROVE The Big Bang actually happened. No one can. At least no human being or scientist can.
But, if God does exist, He actually could prove it. Why? Because he would have created it because he created all things.
Believe in God. Don't believe in God. I don't care. But stop pretending you can PROVE your answer to the question: Is there a God? Because you can't. No one can. Some people say there isn't and some say there is, but they all have to go by FAITH because there is no proof one way or the other.
Randy, your siblings who absolutely KNOW there is a God, know it because their FAITH is as strong as your Atheism. They KNOW without proof. You know because you see no proof. You both have FAITH that you are correct. But neither you or your siblings can PROVE your case. One side is correct, the other side is not. I'd like to find out which is which, so I keep searching. Because I search for the truth I know more than most who think they know the truth, but know only what their FAITH tells them.
Admit it or don't, if your atheism is strong it is because your FAITH in it is strong. You have no PROOF. You have FAITH.
Randy, your siblings who absolutely KNOW there is a God, know it because their FAITH is as strong as your Atheism. They KNOW without proof. You know because you see no proof. You both have FAITH that you are correct. But neither you or your siblings can PROVE your case. One side is correct, the other side is not. I'd like to find out which is which, so I keep searching. Because I search for the truth I know more than most who think they know the truth, but know only what their FAITH tells them.
The burden of proof is on those who claim a god exists. I know, not as a mater of faith (as much as others say it must be), but as a matter of knowledge.
God is something that you outgrow. When you become an adult you put away the toys of your childhood. The problem is that many people insist on bringing this absurdity into their adult lives. The existence or non-existence of a god is a silly child's game. Just as the existence or non-existence of Leprechauns or the Easter Bunny. It simply does not rise to the point of being seriously considered. It does not constitute a belief or non-belief. It is a fairy tale, like The Three Little Pigs or Goldilocks.
Randy, your siblings who absolutely KNOW there is a God, know it because their FAITH is as strong as your Atheism. They KNOW without proof. You know because you see no proof. You both have FAITH that you are correct. But neither you or your siblings can PROVE your case. One side is correct, the other side is not. I'd like to find out which is which, so I keep searching. Because I search for the truth I know more than most who think they know the truth, but know only what their FAITH tells them.
The burden of proof is on those who claim a god exists. I know, not as a matter of faith (as much as others say it must be), but as a matter of knowledge. My sisters also absolutely know, not as a matter of faith, but knowledge, that there is a god.
God is something that you outgrow. When you become an adult you put away the toys of your childhood. The problem is that many people insist on bringing this absurdity into their adult lives. The existence or non-existence of a god is a silly child's game. Just as the existence or non-existence of Leprechauns or the Easter Bunny. It simply does not rise to the point of being seriously considered. It does not constitute a belief or non-belief. It is a fairy tale, like The Three Little Pigs or Goldilocks.
Now you are repeating yourself, and I'm not referring to the double-posting of the same comment/reply. You're back to that Burden of Proof bullshit. Nobody has a Burden of Proof unless they are trying to CONVERT the other person.
And you also said that same shit about growing up and growing out of your belief in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. You are so sure you are right about that, then why don't you go tell Pope Francis he hasn't grown up yet. Go ahead. Or go tell Archbishop Broglio, he's closer.
This argument is full circle and pointless. You all are just repeating yourself but you have never PROVEN A THING and if there is a Burden of Proof it is on YOU. So...
Let me give you a few very wise words from a very intelligent man:
In the life of a man, his time is but a moment, his being an Incessant flux, his senses a dim rushlight, his body a prey of worms, his soul an unquiet eddy, his fortune dark and his fame doubtful. In short all that is of the body is as coursing waters, all that is the soul of dreams and vapours; life a warfare, a brief sojourning in an alien land; after repute, oblivion.
Marcus Aurelius. Meditations. Book Two. Chapter 17. 1st century AD.
There is no god. Marcus Aurelius knew this truth as do I, so I am in good company. No afterlife and personally I am looking forward to the oblivion. The sweet, sweet oblivion.
I'll be honest with you, that Marcus Aurelius quote was kind of meaningless to me. But here's a quote I really like, written in modern English and you might like it too:
If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
Just re-reading one of my comments and this line reminded me of something:
If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
Star Trek - The Movie
ILIA PROBE: The Creator has not answered. The carbon-units infestation is to be removed from the Creator's planet. KIRK: Why? ILIA PROBE: You infest, Enterprise. You interfere with the Creator in the same manner. KIRK: The carbon-units are not an infestation. They are ...a natural function of the Creator's planet. They are living things. ILIA PROBE: They are not true lifeforms Only the Creator and other similar lifeforms are true.
Here's another quote I thought was kind of good that you might understand better than me:
Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don’t wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe.
By the way, regarding your quote from Marcus Aurelius, which really said nothing at all about God or no god. You summed it up by posting:
There is no god. Marcus Aurelius knew this truth as do I, so I am in good company. No afterlife and personally I am looking forward to the oblivion. The sweet, sweet oblivion.
As an atheist you must know that Marcus Aurelius is long dead, and his remains have disintegrated into nothingness, so you are not in his company and he is not in yours. And as an atheist, you believe in no afterlife, so there is no chance you will ever be in his company, not even spiritually.
Wow! You threw a lot of meaningless quotes at me. They have been used so many times before to argue against other atheists, that it takes my breath away that they are still in use. You need to get out more and before you decide where you stand on the question of a god or if there is life after death, need to do a whole lot more reading before you can actually speak intelligently on the subject. I mean come on! It you want to duel, then at least draw a sword and not a Boy Scout pen knife!
LOL, I guess I shouldn't yell at you like that as it is not your fault. And it really is not. I seriously doubt you have even read the bible that you are defending and again, that is not your fault. Why would any Christian religion encourage anyone to actually read the bible, from cover to cover, without expecting them to learn the trick to Three Card Monte?
Work the problem for one fucking time in your life!
I mean saying that Aurelius is dead and thinking that I was somehow thinking that I didn't realize that, like the (did he exist or not?) Christ has turned to dust and I could not expect to commune with him? Did everything everyone has ever written that you have ever seen about atheism go right over your head? Why in the fuck would think I expected to commune with a pile of dust when I die and reach oblivion? And why in the fuck do you think that he left words behind after he dies makes them any less meaningful?
So what do they do? They take it ON FAITH that it did happen because they have no other way to explain the creation of the universe.
The evidence for the Big bang explains the creation of the universe. Therefore, they take it on the evidence available. No faith is required or necessary.
Same thing believers in God do. They take it on FAITH.
The difference is, believers neither have nor provide any evidence! Big difference!
You can say I didn't use the words postulate, hypothesis, theory or whatever correctly,
Good, because you clearly did not! Not to mention you show a lack of understanding of those terms.
but you CANNOT PROVE The Big Bang actually happened. No one can. At least no human being or scientist can.
The available evidence gives a high degree of certainty. Again, no faith is required.
Some people say there isn't and some say there is, but they all have to go by FAITH because there is no proof one way or the other.
Not believing in god is more a logical conclusion based on the total lack of evidence. No evidence/proof = no belief. What takes faith is accepting something as factual or true in the absence of evidence.
They KNOW without proof.
No, they only BELIEVE! They do not and cannot know. And belief does not equal fact.
I never mentioned proof. you did. All I mentioned was evidence. Evidence which is strong enough to be considered proof. It's not my problem if you can't understand and/or accept that!
Here is the PROOF in a QUOTE from one of your many comments:
Not quite. Most (weak) atheists align with agnosticism. They simply reject any claim for a god without supporting empirical evidence or proof. However, they would be willing to consider proof, if any was forthcoming. As it stands, there is no such proof or evidenced for a god. Agnostics generally take the "we don't know either way" position. Strong atheists are those that posit with certainly that there is no god, much like theists posit there is a god with certainty.
See. I can PROVE you wrong. And I did PROVE you wrong.
Besides, all you guys with the same 'hat on the book' avatar look the same to me. Who the hell knows which one of you is posting what. And, as I have consistently said, I really don't care what you think or say, because you can't prove jack.
I have. They're usually silhouettes of a person, like a gray, green or light blue tongue depressor or popsicle stick with a ball on top for a head, something really generic looking. This hat & book default here just looks ... goofy ... is the best word I can use. It looks like a real avatar, but I know it's the default.
I knew it was the defualt when I opened my account here. When I saw it, one of the first things I did after opening my account was create a new avatar that matches my name. That way, I figured, people could look at my avatar or read my name and know exactly who they were conversing with. Reduce the confusion, you know.
My original comment to Gordy was just a throw-away line at the very end of a comment. A fleeting thought as it were. I don't know why Sandy decided to get all upset and make a big deal about it. I really don't care either. People can do what they want about their avatars. Just saying, if you can change it and make it uniquely yours, and it doesn't take a whole lot of time and effort... why not?
Here is the PROOF in a QUOTE from one of your many comments:
Notice how my statement deals with the lack of proof. Clearly you ignore context. And this statement, "Actually, we do. There is a lot of empirical evidence which supports the big ban," is what you were replying to when you brought up 'proof.' Looks like you're trying to move goalposts again.
See. I can PROVE you wrong. And I did PROVE you wrong.
Only in your mind.
Besides, all you guys with the same 'hat on the book' avatar look the same to me. Who the hell knows which one of you is posting what.
I've suggested in other discussions how the 'reply' function can be tweaked. But that's really not relevant here.
And, as I have consistently said, I really don't care what you think or say, because you can't prove ja
As I have said, you have consistently ignored and demonstrated a lack of understanding of evidence, especially that with a high degree of certainty. You seem quite hung up on the term 'proof.'
As I told Perrie, I am a humble seeker of truth. That's why I am here, and why I am elsewhere. I don't care what others claim is fact or folly. I make my own decisions. I do not allow others to make my mind up for me.
Gordy I know you are new here, but when someone says impasse, you don't get to say anything there after. Impasse is used to keep discussion where there seems to be no room for agreement from turning into a fight.
A great question! Are you here to bullshit? Are you here to post music videos? Are you here for just friendly banter (and that is not a bad reason). Are you here to discuss things, such as god and life and death? Pick a place and sit down! If you are here to learn something then READ (A LOT) and then come back and there are several people here who will gladly teach you!
Otherwise, as I said, you are playing checkers and at least 4 other people in this thread are playing 3 dimensional Chess. Give it up for now and then come back. Please.
I used the word my brain came up with... If not used correctly, I'm sorry, but it was the only word that I could come up with that seemed right.
Theories, to me, are just that, theories. It seems to me that scientists set out to prove theories in the search for the truth. At least that's what I thought I was doing in 40 years of geological practice!
I guess I could have said that theories were presented, or discussed, or proposed... But what semantics are we up against here? And why so hostile?
And, hey everybody, I'm not an authority on much, ok? What does Dowser think of all this? I can tell you what I think, but it's just an opinion. Some things, I know for sure. No dinosaur bones have been found with human bones deposited in the same formation. Yet, anyway. There are very few dinosaur like creatures found above the iridium layer, all over the world, either. And yes, there are still dinosaur-like creatures running around today. They're called turtles, crocodiles, alligators, and birds, (descendants)... The brachiopod Lingula was found in the sediments deposited in the Cambrian age, and you can still see some of them, when they wash up onto shore in today's oceans. Horse shoe crabs are another living fossils. And crinoids. Relatively unchanged for millions of years.
I also had to pick out single celled organisms from sand and put them up under the microscope to identify them. And there are still single-celled organisms around. Most are not fossilized, just because they lack hard parts. Here was one of my favorites, Gyrticoella beede : Our samples looked more like barbells. Aren't they cute?
I guess I could have said that theories were presented, or discussed, or proposed... But what semantics are we up against here? And why so hostile?
Who is hostile? Not me. I am not hostile at all in any of my comments. At least not here in this venue. Others come at me with hostility, here, criticizing simple things like a throw-away comment I made on the use of default avatars.
No, I am not at all hostile. Not here anyway. You must be referring to others who take issue with plain statements I make and try to twist them into arguments I am not willing to engage in.
I'm sorry. I don't know you very well yet, and for some reason, I felt on the defensive. Maybe I've been spending too much time on NV... NO worries!
My advice to you, (delivered with a hug), is to not participate in those discussions that you feel to be hostile or accusatory or snarky. I try not to. It makes life a whole lot easier! Good luck, and I look forward to seeing you around!
That's good advice and I will apply it as I can. Sometimes, however, to get the information I need, I must endure hostility and snarkiness. C'est la vie.
I loved Spock, too! I'm so old, I remember when it first came on TV. We used to be in band, and the guys would use their billfolds as communicators, "Beam me up Scotty! Get me out of here!" It was fun! And, of course that was 1970... What feels like a loooong time ago.
I learned a lot from watching Star Trek and paying close attention to Mr. Spock and how he addressed issues. He had a way of causing people to focus on the facts even though they may have been wrapped-up in their emotions. I believe that was what Gene Roddenberry intended when he created that character.
Just as I believe there were great messages in Star Trek, so too in Star Wars with Lucas, The West Wing with Sorkin, and many others. I don't believe they simply wrote those scripts to make money. I believe they had a message, a philosophy to impart to us.
p.s. A long time ago for me as well, but you are always just as young as you feel. Enjoy life!
GOD to me is the power/ the force/ the being/ the whatever that arranged all the atoms to be the sky, the earth, the rocks, the sun, the animals, us, and everything we can think of to be what they are and to work together the way they do. Everything is (made up of atoms) Whatever arranged the atoms to be what they are is what I call my GOD.
Every time I see the word "Pandeist", I think of this. And, yes, I know what the word means, (I just looked it up to be sure), but this is what my brain flashes:
I'm a bit intrigued at the attempts to explain the parting of the Red Sea. We don't know that the Exodus even occurred, let alone all the stories associated with it.
I understand, Sandy. I guess the geologists were having a boring day and decided to dabble in a little archaeology. Still, if nothing else, it offers a different viewpoint that seems logical, based on what we know happened in the more recent past. You know that geologists get tired of constantly going over the same old rocks-- they have to take a break, every now and then.
Geologists often move up to archaeology, (in the time scale), just tp mess with the archaeologists, Example: The Pyramid is about 10,000 years older than the archaeologists think, based on the weathering of the stone. Oh my! People came to blows over that one! And another one: Dinosaurs had feathers. Paleontologists came to blows over that one, too. A giant brawl at some international paleontology conference. I'm glad I missed it. From what I've heard, there was no standing on the sidelines and maintaining one's composure. Geologists move with glacial slowness in their acceptance of new theories. It's been 40 years since I was in school, and back then, the theory of continental drift was viewed as only a theory, and probably not at all a viable one. Now, 40 years later, it has become accepted...
Some of them are quite vociferous in their rejection of a theory! They try their best to ruin everyone else's reputation and standing. Again, I'm glad I wasn't there, because a few of them 'took it outside' and actually beat up on each other.
I can see both sides. There was a period of time when all the dinosaurs were depicted as having feather boas and tutus... (eye rolling here) Wait until there is real evidence, guys... But, some of them were absolutely convinced and others were not at all convinced. Few really good fossils exist of dinosaur skin.
We don't know that the Exodus even occurred, let alone all the stories associated with it.
Not to mention there is no record of the Exodus by the ancient Egyptians. One would think such a significant event in their society at the time would warrant at least a hieroglyphic or two.
Indeed, which can lead to misinformation. Perhaps such stories should have the disclaimer: "Based on a true [I use the term loosely] story." That might allow a degree of 'artistic license.'
Many an Evangelical, self-ascribed "white-victim" who voted for TRUMP, did so clearly, in part, because he told them the things they wanted to hear, would be their "savior" from foreigners, minorities, gays …
Most people accept evolution as the basis for modern biology. We have a way to go, especially in the USA and especially in Kentucky, but I would rather go with the evidence regardless of popularity.
@Dowser: "I've never understood how it has become and either/or thing."
I suspect it is because the Bible speaks of God creating all creatures and all things. Evolution flies in the face of that. Given evolution (both biological and cosmological) there definitely was no Adam & Eve. Without Adam & Eve there is no original sin. Without original sin there is no reason for Jesus. Without Jesus (as the savior) there is no Christianity.
In short, evolution wreaks havoc with the Bible, Qur'an, Pentateuch, Torah, etc. One can still logically believe in a supreme entity, but not that described in the Bible (without a lot of cognitive dissonance).
To me, evolution follows laws of adaptation and mutation, but I see those as God's laws... To me, and many of my geology buddies, we have no problem with that.
That is how Biologos explains it too. To make that work, they note that Adam & Eve are simply allegorical characters. I have not traced their logic to see how they deal with the absence of original sin and the mass of religion that depends upon that notion.
BioLogos does a very good job of explaining science to Christians. It, for the most part, is remarkably true in its descriptions of science. That is, BioLogos does not 'adjust' science but rather offers ways to interpret the Bible in a manner that is not contradictory to the findings of modern science.
Here we have their introductory videos on evolution. Well done, IMO.
does not 'adjust' science but rather offers ways to interpret the Bible in a manner that is not contradictory to the findings of modern science.
I heard some discussions where the attempts to bridge the differences between science and faith can be pretty interesting.
One debate I hears was about God parting the Red Sea for Moses. Obviously it would seem to that make no sense from a scientific POV. But here's an interesting attempt at explaining it "scientifically" that someone cnme up with.
They raise the possibility that in ancient times the climate was different, so the Red Sea was actually very shallow back. In addition, there were extreme climate changes at the time-- some very wet and very dry seasons. And that sometimes for brief periods during the dry season it was so shallow you could actually walk across-- or that sometimes the area were the seabed was actually exposed. And so on...
I'm not interested in going into that in more depth (pun intended) but the point is-- there have been past attempts to reconcile the differences between science and religion.
A differing approach and probably a more commonn one is that "you can't understand it rationally, just have to "take it on faith". At first glance that sound like such as obvious cop out..but I can see that there may be some merit to that.
Of course if the Red Sea parted in today's world of advanced technology,it might;ve looked like this:
(Wasn't that an old iPhone commercial...from Biblical times?)
Don't know exactly how evolution works, though I do have a basic understanding of it. But one thing I do know for sure is that the parting of the Red Sea does not have a damn thing to do with evolution. To bring it up in this discussion is simply an attack on religion. The cartoon is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Thus, this discussion thread has been rendered entirely irrelevant in my opinion. (Nobody has to agree with me or my opinion, okay? Nobody is forcing anyone to. Just want to make that clear.)
How about going over to the discussion on Trump's Newsweek Magazine Cover? Or maybe discuss the question as to why Trump is still the president. Just saying, that in my opinion those discussions are more relevant than this. (Again, no one has to agree with my opinion, I'm just putting it out there. Just like somebody decided to post a cartoon about parting the Red Sea. Non-evolutionary.)
Can you provide some links to those articles? I'm having trouble finding them...
Thank you, very much, if you can!
I don't know if I can or if I should. Is that allowed here? They are discussions here on NewsTalkers.
You can, as long as the author doesn't object. Some authors don't want any links to other articles on NT, but most do not object. I don't. So, I'll keep looking...
You are being cautious and a very courteous member to think that maybe the author would be ticked off. Kudos!!!
Well, just trying to not get in trouble. I know each site has it's own rules, and switching back and forth between a few different sites makes it a little tough to remember which sites have which rules. Better safe than sorry. I think what I can do is maybe post a comment on the other articles and that should put a note on The NewsTalkers Front Page. That way you can see that and know where the articles are. I'll try that. (Hope it works.)
Really, you are doing a great job, and a great service! Thank you!!!
Okay, apparently JohnRussell is okay with it. Here are the links:
Conservative Magazine : Members of Congress report to us that the president can’t hold a conversation at even a rudimentary level about issues supposedly high on the president’s agenda—tax reform, for instance, and health care.
and
Donald Trump Appears On Newsweek Cover For A Record 48th Time
Hope they work.
(Oh, and thanx!)
Thank YOU!!! That helps, enormously!!!
How about going over to the discussion on Trump's Newsweek Magazine Cover? Or maybe discuss the question as to why Trump is still the president. Just saying, that in my opinion those discussions are more relevant than this
Well I don't necessarily agree that they're more important. That's your opinion. (Other folks may feel other things are important than you do. There's no right or wrong-- people have different values)
And BTW, I do feel that Newsweek magizine cover is very Importnat-- if I didn't feel that way,why would I go to the trouble of seeding it eh?.
And BTW, I do feel that Newsweek magazine cover is very Importnat-- if I didn't feel that way,why would I have seeded it?
Watch what happens next-- Live! :^)
Don't know exactly how evolution works, though I do have a basic understanding of it. But one thing I do know for sure is that the parting of the Red Sea does not have a damn thing to do with evolution.
Correct.
In fact, as far as I know, people disagree as to whether t actually even happened. (Probably the ones that do are those that take the Bible and/or other religious teachings literally. But I'm not much of an authority on western religions.
I could be wrong, but most people probably don't believe it to be fact.
To bring it up in this discussion is simply an attack on religion.
I'm sorry you feel that way-- that was not my intention.
BioLogos takes a different route. They are not engaging in wild speculation trying to explain religious beliefs or the Bible. They are doing the opposite - explaining science (correctly for the most part) in a way that a Christian could accept.
They are doing the opposite - explaining science (correctly for the most part) in a way that a Christian could accept.
That approach does appeal to me.
I would quibble with minor point though-- I wouldn't have said "a Christian". I would have preferred "most Christians" or even "many Christians". IMO that more accurate-- but perhaps I'm being too nit-picking.
A differing approach and probably a more commonn one is that "you can't understand it rationally, just have to "take it on faith". At first glance that sound like such as obvious cop out..but I can see that there may be some merit to that.
Sorry, but I can't see any merit to it at all. It may be more "comfortable" for some folks, but comfortable lies are still lies. And when we have many trying to govern us based on those lies, well, their "comfort" does not outweigh my right not to have to support their lies.
Sorry, but I can't see any merit to it at all.
Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion!
It may be more "comfortable" for some folks,
just as your opinions may be much more comfortable for you....
but comfortable lies are still lies. And when we have many trying to govern us based on those lies, well, their "comfort" does not outweigh my right not to have to support their lies.
Actually I'm a big fan of truth myself. (In fact you might say I"m obsessed with it-- others have.).
But here's the problem-- who determines what is true?
Do you? Does Dowser? Does Randy?
And if you disagree on some fact-- how do I know who to believe-- how do I know whose truth is the real truth?
But here's the problem-- who determines what is true?
Do you? Does Dowser? Does Randy?
Ahem! Ahem! I do! LOL!
The truth, if anyone really wants to know it, is that the whole argument, while fun sometimes, is just plain silly in the first place. It's like jumping jacks. It's an exercise, but so what? I can still do 10 of them (as long as I am willing to ignore the pounding and heavy pain in my left chest), but again, so what?
Facts are facts whether you agree with them or not.
Yes, they are.
Krishna
"One debate I hears was about God parting the Red Sea for Moses. Obviously it would seem to that make no sense from a scientific POV. But here's an interesting attempt at explaining it "scientifically" that someone cnme up with."
Some people are still arguing about where the crossing took place
"For many years scholars have disagreed over the identity of the sea the Israelites crossed and thus the site of the drowning of Pharaoh's army. Three routes for the Exodus have been proposed and continue to be debated."
On a side topic there was an article recently in the London Standard (A London daily newspaper) trashing Darwin
There are a lot of faults crossing the Red Sea. Correctly dating a seismic eruption is pretty hard, unless some rocks were formed by that event. You can't date an event without some rock being formed by it. Just a note...
There are a lot of faults crossing the Red Sea.
Well it was either the Jews fault or the Arabs fault-- and I don't want to go there. We should draw the line there-- no matter whose fault the line was!
Correctly dating a seismic eruption is pretty hard, unless some rocks were formed by that event. You can't date an event without some rock being formed by it. Just a note...
Are you referring to the crossing of the Red Sea? If so, would it be possible that in crossing some artifact was dropped? Some small stone tool or perhaps a metal implement. And then it became buried in mud and preserved?
Some people are still arguing about where the crossing took place
"For many years scholars have disagreed over the identity of the sea the Israelites crossed and thus the site of the drowning of Pharaoh's army. Three routes for the Exodus have been proposed and continue to be debated."
On a side topic there was an article recently in the London Standard (A London daily newspaper) trashing Darwin
Interesting. When I first go a site on subjects like this I look to see to see what the orientation of the site is. The article about possible routes is on a Christian site ("United Chruch of God").
Of course discussing which route the ancient Iraelistes took pre-supposed that there was a group like that in ancient Egypt in the first place. And that if indeed they did in fact cross the Red Sea (at some point) and travel to the other side (the Sinai).
I really don't know much on those topics. The ancient Egyptian civilization did exist, of that there's no doubt (I've seen parts of it myself when I was in Egypt). I know they had a religion that was not monotheistic. And that they did have slaves. I have no idea whether the rest of the storyn is true or not.
(Cont'd in following comments)
(cont'd from a previous comment):
I had heard of the Evening Standard but didn't remember its orientation. However the headlines there looked a bit sensationalistic. So I checked:
The London Evening Standard (simply the Evening Standard before May 2009) is a local, free daily newspaper , published Monday to Friday in tabloid format in London, owned by Russian businessman and former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev.
Good grief-- I wonder if Donald Trumph has his fingers in that pie as well? Or..maybe even..Jared?
The article looked interesting, But I actually not all that interested in Evolution so I didn't bread it thoroughly. But I did skim it-- they are definitely Bashing Darwin.Of course even if Darwin is mostly wrong, that does not necessarily negate the idea that evolution. is real.
Some folks say no, no-- God created everything within a short time frame-- several days from one celled organisms to Humans. But perhaps God created the beginnings of life (those primitive ome celled forms) set everything in motion, and then let life "do its own thing"-- evolve with out his interference. In that view really did create life-- but then it did evolved (he created it so it had the potential to keep evolving).
Of course I don't know-- I wasn't there at the time!
(As far as I know..)
Krishna
"Interesting. When I first go a site on subjects like this I look to see to see what the orientation of the site is. The article about possible routes is on a Christian site ("United Chruch of God")."
Certain Christian groups are among those arguing about the possible routes, after all they believe it happened. I doubt that Atheist groups spend much time on it.
"I really don't know much on those topics. The ancient Egyptian civilization did exist, of that there's no doubt (I've seen parts of it myself when I was in Egypt). I know they had a religion that was not monotheistic . And that they did have slaves. I have no idea whether the rest of the storyn is true or not."
For a short time they got close to a monotheistic faith under Akhenaten, as this shows.
"Akhenaten's religion is probably not strictly speaking monotheistic, although only the Aten is actually worshipped and provided with temples. Other gods still existed and are mentioned in inscriptions although these tend to be other solar gods or personifications of abstract concepts; even the names of the Aten, which are written in cartouches like king's names, consist of a theological statement describing the Aten in terms of other gods. The majority of traditional gods were not tolerated, however, and teams of workmen were sent around the temples of Egypt where they chiselled out the names and images of these gods wherever they occurred."
During this period of time, Akhenaten, decreed the only god to be Aten, who was the Sun God. The priests of Amun were ticked, and conspired against Akhenaten. After Akhenaten's death, King Tut, took the name Tutankhamun, to align the official religion back to the old gods... At least that is what I've read. (My son was heavily into Egyptology as a younger lad... Up under his bed, I can find the entire pantheon of Egyptian Gods)
I think the videos do a fairly good job of explaining Evolution, but on about a 4th grade level and then fall completely apart when the concept of a god is introduced. For instance many people who believe in the Bible literally will automatically reject the truth the Evolution takes place over millions of years as they reject the idea that the earth is that old. I simply can not believe that there is a way to reconcile the Bible with Evolution and in every case Evolution wins out. Especially since there is no god of any kind.
The dumbing down is absolutely essential for the audience. So I applaud their approach.
Note that BioLogos largely describes evolution correctly. They differ regarding abiogenesis. Instead of spontaneous biology they insert God. Once we figure out how life itself emerged that approach will no longer work and another gap will close.
The dumbing down is absolutely essential for the audience. So I applaud their approach.
While I agree that I applaud their research in knowing the intellectual level of their audience on this subject, I think that it is sad commentary that there are so many people in America who are so uneducated about even the very basics of Evolution that it would have to be "dumbed down" for even adults. This is the result of them being taught lies about Evolution in private schools that are there mostly to re-enforce their religious doctrine, rather then to give an honest education to their children about science.
Since they are private schools they of course have the right to teach these lies, but that doesn't make it any less sad that their children are being sent out into the real world so unprepared about the truth of science.
@Randy: "I think that it is sad commentary that there are so many people in America who are so uneducated about even the very basics of Evolution that it would have to be "dumbed down" for even adults."
Sad indeed. Part of the problem is the influence of opportunists like Ken Ham who actively work hard to keep people ensnared by their childhood indoctrination.
Ken Ham and David Green of Hobby Lobby...Both were caught with their fingers in the cookie jar.
Both are con artists.
@Kavika: "Both are con artists."
Agreed.
I think that it is sad commentary that there are so many people in America who are so uneducated about even the very basics of Evolution that it would have to be "dumbed down" for even adults
O f course the science curriculum in many schools is dumbed down because of a religious agenda.
However, even when a religious bias (against evolution) isn't present, the curriculum in all areas is dumbed down for kids in many schools today.
I was recently in another discussion (someone claimed that "everyone" has read Animal Farm) which struck me as a bit bizarre. So I did a bit of research, started with looking for the literacy rate in the U.S. Even I was surprised--20% of High School grads are illiterate. Knowing evolution? Heck one fifth of High School grads can't even read!!!
They differ regarding abiogenesis. Instead of spontaneous biology they insert God. Once we figure out how life itself emerged that approach will no longer work and another gap will close.
Hard to see how you come to that conclusion. Ok you have "spontaneous biology" . Who or what caused it to happen?
People who want to believe God is The Creator have an endless array of places to insert God into any function of our existence. That would be why he/she/it is God. They can do anything.
Why must anything but chance have caused it? Sure, theists can claim whatever they like, but as our knowledge of the origins of our universe and life increase, the domain of their god or gods becomes smaller and smaller, to the point of irrelevance. Unless they choose to lie to themselves, of course, which is entirely possible, and entirely their right.
It depends on how you envision God. Sure science can debunk that the earth was created in 7 days or that man was created fully formed , but science cannot debunk the existence of God. That is not even possible and never will be.
science cannot debunk the existence of God. That is not even possible and never will be.
Of course it's not. But those who adhere to logic know that it is not necessary for nonbelievers to disprove the existence of god to hold the stronger position. It is necessary for believers to prove god, and they haven't. The likelihood that god exists decreases every time that science provides an explanation for that which was generally explained by religion.
There are online debates on sites that cater to this sort of thing that discuss the "default position" . The arguments that atheists should have the default position are no stronger than the arguments that believers should have the default position.
Since no one can ever prove or disprove the existence of God, the possession of the default position could decide the argument. In reality though, neither side has an exclusive claim on the default position.
I don't necessarily agree with everything in this article or passage, but this is a good example of how believers would assert a default.
"Physics explains to us how the universe came into existence (see: The Big Bang theory and the initial singularity) but not where all matter originated from. Despite the best attempts of dishonest atheists to prove that "matter can originate from nothingness" this is something that has simply never been seen and is neither testable by scientific method or observational and so this idea is anti-scientific. Atheists cite examples of particles "appearing from nothing" out of the vacuum of space and by doing so prove that they are illiterate in physics, as the vacuum of space is not "nothingness" with it containing dark energy, neutrinos, gamma ways as well as numerous other elements and energies. What we observe with observational science and what philosophy tell us is that everything with a beginning must have a cause and that at one point, there had to be an eternal cause with no prior beginning. There cannot be an infinite regress of self-creating universes as other atheists argue as an infinite regress has no beginning and without an ultimate beginning, there is no initiation and therefore nothing would exist. At this point to either believe in something from nothing or an infinite regress would not just be having blind faith but to reject scientific law, observational evidence and logic. This is why atheism fails to be a coherent worldview whereas theism is agreeable with what is scientific, observable and philosophically reasonable."
Something cannot come from nothing. It is not possible. Anytime someone argues that something (this existence) came from nothing we can be sure that the "nothing" really contained something.
Atheists cite examples of particles "appearing from nothing" out of the vacuum of space and by doing so prove that they are illiterate in physics, as the vacuum of space is not "nothingness"
The concept of "burden of proof" puts atheists in the default position. Russell's teapot, and all that.
No. Atheism makes it own claim . It claims that there IS no God. It is a positive assertion which must meet it's own burden of proof. Agnosticism does not require proof. Atheism does.
Ok, I'll grant you that point. But why should the existence of your god be the default position, rather than no god, or any of the multitude of gods that have been proposed over the course of human history?
You seem to want to assign a burden of proof to atheists (I think you'd find many are agnostic atheists, BTW) that you are unwilling to take on your own position?
Why does your position need that advantage?
Sandy
"Ok, I'll grant you that point. But why should the existence of your god be the default position, rather than no god, or any of the multitude of gods that have been proposed over the course of human history?"
I don't mean to butt in, but surely in the absence of evidence, shouldn't the default position be I don't know.
Both Theism, and Atheism require proof, Agnosticism doesn't.
I don't mean to butt in, but surely in the absence of evidence, shouldn't the default position be I don't know.
Yes.
Which is why most atheists are actually agnostic atheists. They'd believe if there were evidence. But there isn't, so they live as if there is no god, which there likely isn't.
Both Theism, and Atheism require proof, Agnosticism doesn't.
I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that statement.
Theism, is a belief in a god or God, and does NOT require 'proof'. It only requires FAITH.
Atheism requires the "absence of proof" that there is a god. "Go ahead! Prove your god to me. I dare you! You can't. Okay, if you can't prove it, then he doesn't exist." is along the lines of what they say in a lot of posts I have read. "You can't prove your magic fairy god is floating around somewhere, then god doesn't exit!" Some of them can be quite obnoxious about it. Not all, but quite a few who like to post comments on the subject.
Agnostics are actually in between. We hold out the possibility there may be a god, so we are not willing to just write Him or Her off as a certainty that there is no God. We would really like some actual proof, as it would make things so much easier to deal with, but we're not ruling anything out due to current lack of proof.
But, that's my opinion, and only my opinion. Take it or leave it as you wish.
Squirrel
"Theism, is a belief in a god or God, and does NOT require 'proof'. It only requires FAITH."
It requires proof if it's ever going to be based on more than just faith, the comment I was responding to dealt with the burden of proof, and where it lies.
As with most things the context is important.
If a Theist says they believe god exists, well and good. If however they state god exists, then they require proof. One is a statement of personal belief, the other is a statement of fact.
Sandy,
"Which is why most atheists are actually agnostic atheists. They'd believe if there were evidence. But there isn't, so they live as if there is no god, which there likely isn't."
I have no evidence on this point one way or the other, so I argue over it. What I will say is that any statement of fact for or against gods existence requires proof, otherwise it's merely belief.
Sandy
Sorry this
"I have no evidence on this point one way or the other, so I argue over it."
should read
"I have no evidence on this point one way or the other, so I can't argue over it."
I really shouldn't rewrite things halfway through, but the original sounded like a dig at you.
No problem; I understood what you meant.
Squirrel
"Agnostics are actually in between. We hold out the possibility there may be a god, so we are not willing to just write Him or Her off as a certainty that there is no God. We would really like some actual proof, as it would make things so much easier to deal with, but we're not ruling anything out due to current lack of proof."
It isn't quite that simple, I've seen various terms used, but the most common are strong and weak, and there are also different definitions that I've seen. Some hold that Agnostics are merely weak Atheists, from a personal position I don't agree with this.
In the absence of evidence either for or against, my default position is to say I don't know.
It isn't quite that simple, I've seen various terms used, but the most common are strong and weak, and there are also different definitions that I've seen. Some hold that Agnostics are merely weak Atheists, from a personal position I don't agree with this.
The nomenclature I prefer is one TiG introduced me to a while back.
I am an agnostic atheist, and I suspect you'll find many who are referred to as "atheists" for simplicity are the same. I'll believe in a god (any god, not just the Abrahamic one) when you offer proof as to its existence. Mind, you're making a pretty extraordinary claim, so you need to present pretty extraordinary evidence. The Bible, personal feelings, "revelations", "every culture believes in some god" arguments, etc., just don't cut it.
Sandy
"Mind, you're making a pretty extraordinary claim, so you need to present pretty extraordinary evidence. The Bible, personal feelings, "revelations", "every culture believes in some god" arguments, etc., just don't cut it."
Agreed, in my opinion none of the above constitutes proof.
My position is quite simple, when it comes to creator gods I'm waiting for the evidence, this could be for either side of the argument.
When it comes to the established religions my position becomes more complex. Historically we know that these were founded by humans, not gods, hence I'm strongly inclined to dismiss them as
1) Primitive attempts to explain the world
2) Cynical attempts to control populations
I realise that this conflicts with my position on creator gods.
Hey Sandy! "Where am I?" I feel like I'm bouncing back and forth and back and forth, and am not at all sure what Nation I'm in, nor which article I'm on...
Take care!
Sandy, where did I say there is no burden of proof on theists?
I think I said believers can make an argument that they should have the default position. Many atheists assume only they deserve a default position but I don't agree with that.
And neither do theists deserve the default position, because that removes the burden of proof from them.
@Jonrussell: "Many atheists assume only they deserve a default position but I don't agree with that."
I would argue that agnostic atheism is the default position. We are all born as agnostic atheists.
No. Atheism makes it own claim . It claims that there IS no God. It is a positive assertion which must meet it's own burden of proof. Agnosticism does not require proof. Atheism does.
Not quite. Most (weak) atheists align with agnosticism. They simply reject any claim for a god without supporting empirical evidence or proof. However, they would be willing to consider proof, if any was forthcoming. As it stands, there is no such proof or evidenced for a god. Agnostics generally take the "we don't know either way" position. Strong atheists are those that posit with certainly that there is no god, much like theists posit there is a god with certainty.
Exactly. I am a strong atheist. There is no god. It is up to those who claim that there is to prove it. Surely if I claimed that the tooth-fairy was real then people would say I have to prove that. It would not be up to others to dis-prove my claim.
Randy, you are in over your head when you talk like that. You are misusing the terms.
If you positively state that there is no God , then the burden to prove that is on you. Period.
If you positively state that there is no God , then the burden to prove that is on you. Period.
IYHO. We have been through this before. I know there is no god like I know there is no tooth fairy or Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. If you say that leprechauns exist (which to me is no different then claiming god exists) then the burden of proof is on you, not me. You are the one making the extraordinary claim of the existence of something for which there is no evidence of.
Randy, you can believe whatever you want, including that you know there is no God. But without proof, this 100% surety exists only inside your own head.
Saying "there IS no God" is a positive assertion, which requires proof. Period.
Randy,
J.R. is correct, if you make a statement of fact, the burden of proof falls on you.
No. Atheism makes it own claim .
No it does not. Strong atheists do not not believe that there is no god. We know that there is not one. For a strong atheist the idea of the existence of a god is so absurd that it does not even rise to the level of a belief.
Sorry Randy but JohnRussell is correct.
1. If I am NOT trying to get you to change your mind about what you believe or don't believe, then I don't need to provide you any 'proof' either way.
2. If I refuse to allow you to change my mind on what I do or do not believe, then none of your so-called proof is going to matter one way of the other to me.
3. The only time "proof" might come into the picture is if Joe is trying to CONVERT Ralph from being a non-believer to a believer (or vice versa). Then Joe might have to provide some kind of proof to convince Ralph to change. But, if Joe can convince Ralph on the basis of FAITH alone, then in that case no proof is needed because FAITH is all that is needed.
Anyone who thinks anyone has to 'prove' the existence or non-existence of a god or God, is just flat-out wrong. There is no "burden of proof" on either side. I don't have to prove my beliefs to you, and I do not need you to prove your beliefs to me. No proof burden at all, unless one side is really trying to convert the other. I can make all the statements I want to. I don't have to prove them. You can believe what you want to believe, or not believe, as you choose.
As I have stated before, that's only my opinion. Take it or leave it as you wish, but know this: You and/or no one else can prove anything to me about God. The only proof I will ever accept is my own proof or faith as the case may be. Don't waste your time trying.
FYI: I like Ron Reagan (Ronald Reagan's son). He does a TV commercial in which he says something like "I'm Ron Reagan, lifelong atheist. Not afraid of an eternity in Hell." (Or something like that.) I like that. I respect him for publicly saying that. But, I'm not an atheist. And just because Ron Reagan says that is not going to make me become an atheist. Yet, he or anyone can be an atheist if that's what he truly believes. Good for him and all others who at least have some kind of belief. (As for me, I'm still searching.)
Squirrel
There is no "burden of proof" on either side. I don't have to prove my beliefs to you, and I do not need you to prove your beliefs to me.
If you are making statements of fact, then the burden of proof is on you. If it is a mater of belief, then no, you don't have to prove this.
In the case of Randy he is making a statement of fact, to wit
"There is no god."
The only way one can know for certain that there is no god (i.e. creator entity) is to be omniscient. Short of that one must allow for the possibility ... logically.
Same holds true for science. Science does not declare truth (certainty) - the best is high confidence.
The only way one can know for certain that there is no god (i.e. creator entity) is to be omniscient.
I disagree, but it is because what we are talking about, the existence of a god, is strictly a societal question and not one of science. For instance, I am lucky enough in my life to have 7 sisters and 1 brother (if you count adopted and half) and two of them are very religious and very faithful. However if you asked them if there is a god (and I have) they have no doubt about it whatsoever. None. They are absolutely certain. This position is considered a norm in our society and they are not questioned (except by their pesky big brother...once) about it whatsoever and in many circles are praised for their position. To them and many others it is not a question of faith or belief. They know there is a god.
However this is, as I said, strictly societal and not science. Still, since it is considered by society and custom to be a completely normal and acceptable position for them to take, those of us who say we know that there is no god are always the ones who seem to be constantly questioned about that knowledge. It's not acceptable in our society for me to take the except opposite position of my sisters. Fortunately it is gaining wider acceptance in America and some other Western countries, but would get you executed in other parts of the world, strictly because of their societal acceptance of the existence of a god.
@TiG: "The only way one can know for certain that there is no god (i.e. creator entity) is to be omniscient."
@Randy: "I disagree, but it is because what we are talking about, the existence of a god, is strictly a societal question and not one of science."
To me it is simply logic and the common meaning of words.
Certainty = Truth = no possibility of even the slightest error
That, Randy, is impossible. No human being has achieved omniscience (to my knowledge) and thus no human being can possibly claim to hold truth about anything in reality. (One can hold truth about man-made formal systems such as arithmetic, but not about reality itself.)
To know there is no god is to be omniscient. I submit that all hard atheists (gnostic atheists) place themselves in an entirely untenable position. They are all making an impossible claim. It is so much stronger to simply claim that one is convinced there is no god but is willing to consider strong evidence to the contrary. Claiming 99.99% confidence that there is no god is profoundly better supported than claiming absolute knowledge that there is no god.
In short, IMO, the only tenable positions are those held by the agnostics: the agnostic atheists and the agnostic theists.
Again, I disagree for the reasons I have stated. Humans created a god to worship and to try to explain what they could not otherwise do so. The existence or non-existence of a god has nothing to do with science. God is not a construct of science. It is a construct of society.
@Randy: "Again, I disagree for the reasons I have stated."
Non sequitur IMO.
@Randy: "Humans created a god to worship and to try to explain what they could not otherwise do so."
I agree.
@Randy: "The existence or non-existence of a god has nothing to do with science. God is not a construct of science. It is a construct of society."
I agree with that too.
But neither of those posits contradict what I wrote. Nor or they responsive to my point. I pointed out a fundamental problem with logic. Nobody knows anything in reality with certainty. That is the fundamental flaw in gnostic views.
Again I disagree. You insist on looking at the question as one of science or logic. Proving or not proving the existence of a creature, when to me we might as well be debating the existence or non-existence of Santa Claus. Science nor logic is part of the question. God is not a creature of science or logic (as there is no logic in the acts of many of the societal faithful) and it is actually offensive to me that people argue that.
God is not a creature. God is something you out grow. It's something you suffer through as a child like Chicken Pox. Then you become an adult and realize that the whole question of the existence or non-existence of a god is just a silly child's game.
@Randy: "You insist on looking at the question as one of science or logic. Proving or not proving the existence of a creature, ..."
I was discussing your claim of certainty. I was not the one claiming to be a strong atheist. What I have been doing illustrating the problem with strong (gnostic) atheism.
but science cannot debunk the existence of God.
Well, it is with in the realm of possibility to prove that something exists (if in fact it does)
But it not possible in cases like this to prove something doesn't exist.
(If you are unable to find proof something exists that doesn't prove it doesn't exist-- it may just means it exists but just haven't found it yet).
In any event, my own opinion which often upsets both devout Atheists as well as True Believers is that it is impossible to either prove or disprove the exitance of a God.
I personally have never heard anything that I feel conclusively proves the existence of a God. And bynthe same token, I have never heard anything that proves that God doesn't exist.
So as far as I'm concerned, I not convinced of either.
But beyond that-- I'm tending to believe we will never know for sure!
(That position tends to frfeak out many people on both sides of the argument-- they simply can't accept the notion that there's something they don't know and probsalby never will!
but science cannot debunk the existence of God.
Well, it is with in the realm of possibility to prove that something exists (if in fact it does)
But it not possible in cases like this to prove something doesn't exist.
(If you are unable to find proof something exists that doesn't prove it doesn't exist-- it may just means it exists but just haven't found it yet).
In any event, my own opinion which often upsets both devout Atheists as well as True Believers is that it is impossible to either prove or disprove the exitance of a God.
I personally have never heard anything that I feel conclusively proves the existence of a God. And bynthe same token, I have never heard anything that proves that God doesn't exist.
So as far as I'm concerned, I not convinced of either.
But beyond that-- I'm tending to believe we will never know for sure!
(That position tends to freak out many people on both sides of the argument-- they simply can't accept the notion that there's something they don't know and probalby never will!
Why must anything but chance have caused it?
Well-- what if the was some Higher Power? What if everything is not random-- what if there is some order in nature? (And it could be true without having to fit the beliefs of some evangelical church. If there is a higher power,it doesn't necessarily have to be an old man with a white beard sitting on a chair on a cloud up in the sky!)).
Just because we haven't discovered something doesn't mean it doesn't exist-- something to keep in mind.
(Even if the teachings of some groups that do believe in a God are totally false and misleading, it does not logically follow that therefore no God exists).
You're playing "what if". "What if it happened this way" does not equate to "it happened this way".
@JohnRussell: "Hard to see how you come to that conclusion. Ok you have "spontaneous biology" . Who or what caused it to happen?"
Once we understand abiogenesis we will have that answer. Just as we now understand the origin of thunderstorms, the God hypothesis is not necessary.
You have your definition of God. Ok, I get that. If God created everything then he created thunderstorms. He also created the scientific explanation for thunderstorms.
A lot of atheists like to get totally into the weeds and perhaps not allow that we simply may not ever know what God does.
He also created the scientific explanation for thunderstorms.
Did he indeed? You have proof of this? You must first prove he exists before you can assert that he did or didn't do anything.
The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, ever. Belief or disbelief is a matter of faith.
"God" is a supernatural being. How can we disprove something that exists outside the only nature that we can test or measure? You can claim you don't see evidence of God, but you can't disprove it.
The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, ever.
Putting it square in the realm of anything else of imagination. Enter Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, ever.
Which means that when you say he did or did not do anything, I am free to dismiss that statement out of hand, along with the explanation that thunder exists because of Zeus, or that the sun rises because Apollo drags it across the sky.
It's kind of funny how the atheist argument always somehow reverts back to Zeus or Odin. Those beings are cultural earthly expressions of a belief in God, not God itself.
All human religions are cultural expressions. That is pretty obvious. It doesn't mean believing their teachings are either wrong or right.
It's kind of funny how the atheist argument always somehow reverts back to Zeus or Odin. Those beings are cultural earthly expressions of a belief in God, not God itself.
If you say so. An awful lot of Christians would call that blasphemy.
And argumentum ad populum.
Earthly religions are obviously cultural expressions.
That acknowledgement doesnt mean that there is no God or that God, if it exists, doesnt approve or disapprove of them. We have no way of knowing that. Religions are human endeavors, not divine ones.
BTW, I don't. I feel that God shows his face differently to different peoples and their interpretations of that are based on their own culture and feelings. I personally feel that any recognition of a God, be it Horus, or Zeus, or Odin, or The Great Cookie Monster, is up to the individual to decide, and not for me to judge them. We each have to find our own path.
I don't have a lot of time for those Christians who believe they have the ONLY right way to go to heaven... I mean, is heaven to be filled only with Baptists who belong to XYZ church? Why would God make all these people and different beliefs just to condemn them? That makes no sense to me.
Personally, I don't care if you believe or not. It's not up to me to say. We all have to find our own way in life, and in what we believe or don't believe. I feel that God is love, and anytime you love someone one, or do a loving act for them, or behave kindly to someone, you are following the Will of God. But that's just me.
Hal and I disagree about a lot of things, but I truly respect his beliefs. He reached them logically and over time, and he has thought them out carefully. It's not for me to tell him he is wrong. We just have different beliefs.
I feel that we are born with only a certain amount of luck in this life, which is why I don't buy lottery tickets. I want to save all my luck up for when I have another heart attack, so I can survive it-- why waste all that good luck on something as mundane as just money?
Proof? Tell me, did your mother love you? Or your father? Prove it. You can't REALLY prove love, but we all know it exists... You'll have to take it on faith when I tell you that my father loved me. I can't prove it.
I mean, is heaven to be filled only with Baptists who belong to XYZ church ?
Why yes, it is. Everyone knows it's filled with Mormons . LOL
You can't REALLY prove love, but we all know it exists ...
Actually, we can. MRI and PET scans of the brain have demonstrates specific areas of the brain (especially those pertaining to emotions) becomes more active when an emotional response is elicited, including feelings of love. Love, like all emotions, is a function of the brain. just saying.
Well, good! Physical proof that love exists! Even if only in our brains!
Yet, that only proves that I love my father, not that he loved me, back in the day...
Well, good! Physical proof that love exists! Even if only in our brains!
As I sometimes say, it's all about the brain.
Yet, that only proves that I love my father, not that he loved me, back in the day...
I suppose there is no way of empirically demonstrating that, is there?
Not that I can think of. He made great sacrifices for me, his kid, and there is a ton of proof, to me, but to everyone else? How does one measure love? I don't know that there IS a way to empirically prove that love exists between a child and their parent... Yet, I would stake my life on knowing that my father loved me. AS I love/loved him. He's been gone for 32 years, so no way to measure his brain waves...
He made great sacrifices for me, his kid, and there is a ton of proof, to me, but to everyone else?
Anyone else who sees what your father did for you might accept such actions as proof of love.
How does one measure love? I don't know that there IS a way to empirically prove that love exists between a child and their parent
Quantifying love is more difficult that actually demonstrating love. As I said, brain scans can empirically prove there is love. As to the extent of that love (for lack of a better term), that might be more difficult to demonstrate.
What is a "feeling of love" ? Is it ordered up on demand for a scientific test? That is gobbledy gook.
No one could ever be convicted of a crime , by the way, using that logic. The emotions, thoughts , rationales involved in the robbery or murder could be traced back to brain activity , ie functions of the brain.
Or, put another way, did the brain activity cause love or did love cause the brain activity?
Or, put another way, did the brain activity cause love or did love cause the brain activity?
Both. Emotional feelings and responses are functions of the brain. Nothing more.
What is a "feeling of love" ?
An emotional response.
Is it ordered up on demand for a scientific test? That is gobbledy gook.
I already explained such tests have been conducted. So why are you so dismissive of it?
No one could ever be convicted of a crime , by the way, using that logic. The emotions, thoughts , rationales involved in the robbery or murder could be traced back to brain activity , ie functions of the brain
Crimes involve actual illegal actions taken by an individual. Such actions can be proven using forensics. Emotional intent might establish a motive for committing a crime. But that is not enough to prove an individual actually committed a crime.
Or, put another way, did the brain activity cause love or did love cause the brain activity?
Both. Emotional feelings and responses are functions of the brain. Nothing more.
What is a "feeling of love" ?
An emotional response.
If love is a function of the brain and not the other way around , then the same would pertain to emotion driven crime. How could someone be convicted of a crime they were compelled to commit by the way their brain works?
If love is a function of the brain and not the other way around , then the same would pertain to emotion driven crime. How could someone be convicted of a crime they were compelled to commit by the way their brain works
I've already addressed that. I said an emotional state can be a motivator for committing a crime (ex: "crime of passion"). But the actual act of committing a crime is still a conscious decision, especially if emotion overrides rational thought. It's the act itself that warrants penalty.
Good question, John. I don't know the answer to that.
@JohnRussell: ""God" is a supernatural being."
But how do you know that? How do you know that God exists and how do you know God is supernatural? Also, supernatural is simply that which is beyond our current understanding of physics. When we understand, it becomes 'natural'.
Ok you have "spontaneous biology" . Who or what caused it to happen?
Fortunately, science has provided a possible explanation for that. Refer to the Miller-Urey experiments.
People who want to believe God is The Creator have an endless array of places to insert God into any function of our existence. That would be why he/she/it is God. They can do anything.
Indeed, which is essentially an intellectual cop-out.
It isn't a cop out at all, nor is belief in God an intellectual exercise.
We can't ever prove whether or not God exists because we have no frame of reference to make that decision.
It isn't a cop out at all, nor is belief in God an intellectual exercise.
Sure it is. Whenever someone uses the "god did it" explanation, that is an exercise in intellectual laziness because it requires no further thought or analysis. It's an emotionally appealing explanation used for explanation's sake.
We can't ever prove whether or not God exists because we have no frame of reference to make that decision.
One cannot prove the non-existence of something. But since god's existence cannot be proven either way, that invalidates god (as a presumed supernatural entity) as a reasonable or rational explanation.
But since god's existence cannot be proven either way, that invalidates god (as a presumed supernatural entity) as a reasonable or rational explanation.
For you.
You continue to claim "non-existence" of God as a default when you have no right to.
Something cannot come from nothing. It is not possible. This existence that we know and experience has to have come from outside this existence through a supernatural means we don't understand.
Something cannot come from nothing. It is not possible.
Untrue. But we've gone through this exercise before, so no need to rehash an impasse.
It is true. what you call "nothing" is not nothing.
For you.
No, from a logical standpoint. One wouldn't say "Zeus did it," or "Odin did it," ect., and expect to have a rational position or be taken seriously. Why is it any different than "god did it?"
You continue to claim "non-existence" of God as a default when you have no right to.
I've made no claim. But since god's existence is not proven (there isn't even a shred of evidence) either way, it is not rational to use god as an explanation for anything.
Something cannot come from nothing. It is not possible.
This is true.
This existence that we know and experience has to have come from outside this existence through a supernatural means we don't understand.
That is merely an assumption. And one based on the idea that a supernatural cause (god?) as being the originator. But since you correctly state something doesn't come from nothing, then what caused your assumed supernatural cause to come into being? Are you making the claim for a supernatural agent as the cause, when you really have no right to?
@JohnRussell: "Something cannot come from nothing."
This is true by definition. That is, it is true because of the meaning of the words.
Nothing is nonexistence. For something to come from nothing it would have to be possible for something to literally pop into existence from nothing at all. The closest we have to that is quantum fluctuation but even then we have no way to detect (verify) pure non-existence and have almost no understanding at what takes place during quantum fluctuation. To wit ... we have no grounds to call quantum fluctuations 'something from nothing' except to be 'cute' (like Lawrence Krauss tries to be).
Just using you as a test case.
many people who believe in the Bible literally
Of course literally is a key word. Some people do believe in the Bible, that it contains a lot of wisdom but feel its not to be taken literally. Allegories and so on. Perhaps even some true stories that were told in a way that exxagerated or otherwise stretched the simple facts in order to make a point...?
I was enjoying the videos up till the last minute when it went sideways. Sure - there's a god that has a reason to create free willed humans through the most protracted process that humanity has ever known. Why is that supposed to sound reasonable?!
This one makes more sense to me.
I agree, but the videos I offered are geared towards Christians / religious people in general. It is one thing to accurately summarize science. It is another thing to have the credibility to encourage people to take you seriously. That is the value of BioLogos IMO - they can serve as a stepping stone: Christians explaining science to Christians. Once people get over the idea that evolution is not the work of the devil, they might graduate to videos such as the one you offered.
Sure - there's a god that has a reason to create free willed humans through the most protracted process that humanity has ever known. Why is that supposed to sound reasonable?!
God only knows
There have been several scientific theories postulated for the parting of the Red Sea, (I believe it has something to do with seismic activity), the Great Flood, (if all the water vapor in the atmosphere somehow fell out of the atmosphere, water levels would rise to top the big volcano of Hawaii), etc. They seem to be logical explanations to me...
We don't know everything science-wise. We don't even know that we're measuring a lot of phenomena correctly, or even what the results mean. We're not at the end of our scientific discoveries, we don't even know if we've started. The more we learn, the more we understand.
As a geologist, I must say that radioactive dating is an easy concept to understand, and the one Christian theory I have the most problems with is that the earth is 6,000 years old. I mean, good gosh. Of all the geologists I know, and I know a LOT, there are a handful that are atheists-- and the rest of us have some form of religious background and belief. So, I personally, don't reject religious belief out of hand, and believe that there is a God, or Creator. I feel that God shows his face differently to different people.
The laws of physics don't change, we just have to increase our understanding of them. To me, there is nothing random about the universe. It looks to me, like the galaxies have a distinctive shape-- rather than just a scattering of stars. I take it that they are following the laws of physics. Not that I understand all of those laws, but, then, nor does anyone else.
We're all doing the best we can. You can believe or not believe in a Creator, but to me, something is driving the universe. I see the laws of physics and all the other sciences, as being laws of the Creator. So, we're following them.
Now, everyone jump on me and tell me how stupid I am-- but, there are many different ways of seeing life, in general. And we all have to reach our own conclusions.
Have you ever seen seismic activity hold water up vertically? I'm concerned that this is considered logical.
How it is depicted, with walls of water on each side, and how it really can happen are two different things. How it can really happen, is that part of the floor of the water way, like the Mississippi river, is uplifted and tilted, allowing a dry land crossing, until the river/stream, whatever, cuts through the uplift. Logical? Yes. It happened to the Mississippi River in the earthquakes of 1811-1812.
Here is an article about how it happened, back then:
So, while the geology community feels that it was rare and unusual, it does have a president, during recent times. OH, and there are tons of faults in the Red Sea are, geologists just don't know which one moved...
Did anyone ever claim that God parted the Mississippi River? Just curious.
Geologists that I know believe, as I do, that it was a natural phenomena-- not caused by someone raising their arms and parting the sea, but incredible timing... Does that make you feel better? How did Moses "know"? I don't have any idea, nor do geologists claim to have that answer. It just happened. Maybe all the water birds flew up in the air at once, which would make sense. Or maybe their animals felt the earthquake before it struck. Or maybe there were swarms of mini-earthquakes before the big one hit. Earthquakes make a lot of noise, and the low-level vibrations are often not felt by humans, but animals go wild...
Feel better? We're all just looking for a logical explanation, and this one seems to fit.
I have a better explanation, and it involves Occam's Razor.
To me, I understand how a seismic shift can uplift and tilt blocks of rocks and formations. So, to me, it IS Occam's razor that it is a logical explanation. I don't know why Moses got there at just the right time, or felt like he had to "part" the sea. But, to me, a seismic shift, or an earthquake, or something, caused it to happen, and Moses had incredible timing... Maybe it was a slow shift through time, that allowed it to happen-- faults don't always move in fits and starts, some of them act slowly... So, I can understand that. Since it happened in an area without a strong, obvious current, it could have lasted for long enough for the Israelites to cross. And easily shifted the other way to drown the Egyptians.
Sometimes, those with no idea or understanding of a natural phenomena misinterpret and draw things that couldn't possibly happen...
A lot of mythical phenomena are actually based on fact-- and attributing it to God is just a simple explanation for things that people didn't know at the time.
Ever poured a box of salt down into an outhouse? I predict that it will reach the home's water well in a few weeks, maybe sooner. Miracles DO happen! (ha) It is logical that if you introduce salt into a freshwater supply, your well will eventually pull it in.
But, to me, a seismic shift, or an earthquake, or something, caused it to happen, and Moses had incredible timing...
This is where Occam's Razor is appropriate. It's not that it couldn't happen, but for it to happen exactly when it was most convenient makes it nothing but a fable.
Religionists try to use similar logic to refute evolution. They will argue that our existence without God's hand in it, is akin to a 747 appearing from a junk yard by virtue of random parts coming being brought together via natural processes. The problem is that the buck always stops at god, and they are unwilling to ask where god came from.
Think what the people who had boats tied up on the MIssissippi River thought! Incredible timing! Just as they were fast asleep, their boat started drifting "upstream"... I'm not saying the parting of the Red Seat happened, or that it didn't happen-- I am saying that there is a scientific explanation for how it could have happened. Odds are staggering. But the odds of me finding one single brachiopod fossil, out of the millions of fossils out there, and me, one human out billions, are also staggering. Yet, I have boxes of brachiopods... So, while improbable, it's not impossible.
Is it impossible that South America was once attached to Africa? Who'd have thunk it? Yet, it happened, whether or not we were around to see it. I wasn't there when they built the Coliseum, either, but I know that mankind built it.
Note: I try to prove evolution, not disprove it...
@Dowser: "and the one Christian theory I have the most problems with is that the earth is 6,000 years old."
The good news is that this pretty much is limited to the Young Earth Creationists. The bad news is that about 10% of the USA are YECs. Most Christians understand (and accept the fact) that dinosaurs and homo sapiens did not coexist and that the Earth is actually 4.55B years old. Thankfully!
I would say that here in KY, that percentage is more like 30%. In fact, my POSTMAN used the opportunity of delivering a registered letter from the KGS, (Kentucky Geological Survey), to lecture me, from the front porch, in the cold, about how the earth is only 6000 years old and all geologists should be stoned at dawn, every day... (I guess he didn't get the concept that if you stone of every one of them in one day, there's not going to be much to stone the next day..)
My answer to them, is usually, "How long is a day to God?" They at least shut up enough to think about it, and I can politely excuse myself.
Glad to see you here, TiG!
@Dowser: " I would say that here in KY, that percentage is more like 30%. "
Kentucky is Ken Ham territory. How do you survive?
@Dowser: "... to lecture me, from the front porch, in the cold, about how the earth is only 6000 years old and all geologists should be stoned at dawn, every day ... "
Good grief.
John Russell and Dowser you have really been in there.
Who knows about the Red Sea, burning of the bushes, Noah's Ark, etc, etc.? They were stories told. We do know that Jesus was crucified, dead and buried. That is a fact.
Science is wonderful and I marvel every time there is a new discovery. It's like God is playing a game with us. The Scavenger Hunt! Remember that? Go out and find all of the treasures I have hidden. He gave us the wisdom and knowledge to exceed our own expectations.
I have a friend who died several years ago. He was the most intelligent human being I have ever known. His intellect was beyond comprehension. One evening when we were playing bridge, I asked him this question because I had often wondered what his answer would be. "Claude, you don't ever talk about your faith in God, but tell me, do you believe in God"? He said, "Wil, I know there is something, but I don't know what it is". He found out and it is still a mystery to me.
God is love....pure and simple. There is no hell and brimstone. That exists on earth now. That hell and brimstone thing was used to make people obey the religious doctrines. Put fear into them.....they will walk a tight rope. God is not vindictive. He gave us some rules to follow for a good life and you know yourself that if you don't follow these rules you will end up a very unhappy person.
I will close it out now even though I have a lot more to say.
We do know that Jesus was crucified, dead and buried. That is a fact.
Actually we do not know that and it is not a fact. It is an unverified claim. We do not know if Jesus Christ actually existed as described in the New Testament.
We also do not know if The Big Bang really happened.
Faith? Theory? Both are about the same really.
Squirrel
"We also do not know if The Big Bang really happened."
With absolute certainty, no, however the theory matches much of the available information (evidence) that we have.
"Faith? Theory? Both are about the same really."
No, faith rests on nothing, theory can and is tested against available information (evidence)
There is a difference.
Faith? Theory? Both are about the same really.
Similar, but not the same.
Faith implies "doubt" but simultaneous "acceptance-as-reality" despite the doubt.
Theory (scientific theory) implies uncertainty, but unlike faith, subjects itself to testing and objectivity.
Unlike religion-based faith, scientific theory is inherently open to the possibility of ultimately proving itself to have been in error, even in its very basic premise.
@Randy: "Actually we do not know that and it is not a fact. It is an unverified claim. We do not know if Jesus Christ actually existed as described in the New Testament."
Agreed. Merely a claim written by ancient men no sooner than 60 years after the alleged death of Jesus. There is no empirical evidence of Jesus and interestingly almost no historical references to Jesus outside of the NT. Without the New Testament there would be no Jesus.
This does not mean that Jesus did not exist. It merely means that there is no reason (that I can offer) to believe Jesus ever existed. It is simply faith - belief sans evidence - belief because other human beings said it was true.
This does not mean that Jesus did not exist. It merely means that there is no reason (that I can offer) to believe Jesus ever existed. It is simply faith - belief sans evidence - belief because other human beings said it was true.
Which is how I was raised to believe by people I trusted. Parents, grand-parents, Priest, etc., just as it was taught to them. Of course I would not say that I no longer trust their word and not just because they have all passed away, but I simply no longer accept what they said as truth on this point or on the existence of a god. They were simply mis-led as I was.
We also do not know if The Big Bang really happened.
Actually, we do. There is a lot of empirical evidence which supports the big bang.
Faith? Theory? Both are about the same really.
Not even close. Theory has evidence. Faith has wishful thinking.
You said
"evidence which supports
Show us the "PROOF". The PROOF. And nothing but THE PROOF!
Gordy
"Actually, we do. There is a lot of empirical evidence which supports the big bang."
I'm afraid you've fallen into a verbal trap, they're not asking if there's evidence to support the theory, they're asking for absolute proof it happened.
However, when it comes to faith and theory, you are correct, there is a marked difference.
I'm afraid you've fallen into a verbal trap, they're not asking if there's evidence to support the theory, they're asking for absolute proof it happened.
I know what they're trying to do. It's not the first time I've seen such an obvious attempt either. They prefer to ignore actual evidence and degrees of probability in some attempt to make a point. But all it does is demonstrate a lack of understanding of evidence and the theories the evidence supports.
No verbal trap at all.
You demand PROOF from the other side, fine.
You provide the Proof for The Big Bang.
You can't prove it.
It's not a verbal trap, it's just a FACT. (Unless you can prove it. Go ahead. Prove it.)
Again, science doesn't claim anything is proven. Science deals with degrees of confidence. We can say, with a high degree of confidence, that the Big Bang is the likely mechanism for the origin of our universe, and that evolution is how we came to be here. We base this on evidence, and when new evidence disagrees with our explanations, we adjust our explanations to suit that new evidence.
Religion tells a story that never changes, regardless of the evidence.
You said
I know what I said, and I stand by it.
Show us the "PROOF". The PROOF. And nothing but THE PROOF!
I see you are trying to move the goalposts. But since you asked: From National geographic . Or this : And this sums it up as well:
As you can see, the Big Bang is based on actual evidence, which is the exact opposite of faith. Are you going to tell me it's "just a theory" now?
Yep!
Me and every renowned scientist throughout the world will tell you The Big Bang has never been proven and can never be proven unless and until Time Travel is perfected. Until then it's just a theory.
A theory is based on a Faith in the scientific method. Thus, it is the same as FAITH.
That is, unless YOU can PROVE IT, and so far you have not.
p.s. I moved no goal posts. You want to make it seem that way, because you can't make a touchdown. The field is the same as it always has been. You just haven't got a good enough offense to score.
Any scientist will tell you that nothing is ever proven.
@Sandy: "Any scientist will tell you that nothing is ever proven."
Absolutely! Science could not claim objectivity if it got into the practice of claiming truth - 'we got this right, never gonna be shown to be incorrect in any way'. Declaring proof (truth) is anti-science.
Hi Sandy! You may have noticed that I am playing with a reply-with-quote format. Works okay on computers but not all that great with tablets or phones.
You may have noticed that I am playing with a reply-with-quote format. Works okay on computers but not all that great with tablets or phones.
I have been, too, but I've just been indenting. Maybe italics or quotes and a reference to the user I'm replying to would be more clear.
@Squirrel: "A theory is based on a Faith in the scientific method. Thus, it is the same as FAITH."
(sigh) A scientific theory is a formal, falsifiable explanation of phenomena based upon highly scrutinized evidence and having the quality of predictability. The ability to predict phenomena that have not yet happened.
Having confidence in a scientific theory is the exact opposite of faith. It is a measure of confidence based upon how the theory actual performs.
Until then it's just a theory.
There's the standard statement of someone who doesn't understand what a theory is.
A theory is based on a Faith in the scientific method. Thus, it is the same as FAITH.
And that statement only proves it too!
That is, unless YOU can PROVE IT, and so far you have not.
I've made no claims to prove. I simply cited actual empirical evidence. The difference is, the evidence produces a high degree of probability and certainty, to the point where it can be considered fact. Of which there is NONE at all for any claims of a supernatural entity.
p.s. I moved no goal posts.
I said evidence. You're the one who mentioned proof. So unless you confuse the two, you most certainly tried to move the goalposts.
You want to make it seem that way, because you can't make a touchdown. The field is the same as it always has been. You just haven't got a good enough offense to score.
That's funny, considering how badly you've already fumbled.
Can evolution be traced back beyond a one cell organism.........or, has everything evolved from a one cell organism? If so, what created that one cell organism?
@PostNoMore: "Can evolution be traced back beyond a one cell organism.........or, has everything evolved from a one cell organism? If so, what created that one cell organism?"
Science does not know how the first cell was formed. This is the goal of abiogenesis. It is an active area of research.
Can evolution be traced back beyond a one cell organism.........
No. Evolution only works when there is an organism to evolve.
or, has everything evolved from a one cell organism?
Yeah, pretty much.
If so, what created that one cell organism?
In simplest terms, the first amino acids combining into proteins, which also combined to form genetic material, which formed self-replicating organisms.
GOD arranged the atoms, evolution changed them.
You have evidence of this, or of the existence of god?
You have evidence of this, or of the existence of god?
Do you have evidence I'm wrong ?
Do you have evidence I'm wrong ?
You're the one making the claim, so you're the one who should be producing evidence. I can no more disprove god that I can disprove invisible purple unicorns, but I'm not asking you to ride my invisibly purple unicorn.
You're shifting the burden, and doing it in bold font doesn't strengthen your argument.
@321steve: "GOD arranged the atoms, evolution changed them."
Evolution definitely explains the myriad species on the planet (among other things). It is backed by mountains of cross-disciplinary evidence.
The God hypothesis has no supporting evidence. God is simply a possibility. Lots of things are possible.
God is simply a possibility.
The existence of a god is strictly a construct of society. The existence or not of such a creature is not a construct of science and has nothing to do with it. Humans created god, not the other way around.
I agree.
Humans created god, not the other way around.
About the same as saying The Egg came before The Chicken.
If that's what you want to believe then good for you. Go for it.
Squirrel
"About the same as saying The Egg came before The Chicken."
The Egg did come before the Chicken, many creatures laid eggs long before Chickens evolved.
The egg was that of a reptile the embryos of which evolved via mutation. Beyond that, natural selection, that is, the ability or failure to adapt in specific environments, determined success or failure of a species (all else being equal).
I have a degree in Biology with specialties in ichthyology, limnology and aquatic ecosystems.
I stated many creatures, reptiles were indeed among them.
TO CLARIFY, I think we all know I was not referring to snake eggs, or reptile eggs or any other kind of eggs when I commented on the comment:
Humans created god, not the other way around.
About the same as saying The Egg came before The Chicken.
If that's what you want to believe then good for you. Go for it.
Let's try this again so there is no confusion:
Which came first THE CHICKEN EGG or THE CHICKEN?
is about the same as asking...
Which really happened HUMANS CREATED GOD or GOD CREATED HUMANS.
So, saying one or the other is equally as unprovable.
Okay, is that clear enough?
Squirrel
"Which came first THE CHICKEN EGG or THE CHICKEN?"
That would be dependent on whether you believe on evolution or creation. As the statement was aimed at a poster who believes in evolution we must consider the former, rather than the latter.
Back to the "whether you believe in this or that" crap huh.
No believe . Show PROOF!
Prove which came first.
What you believe in is called FAITH and to many of you FAITH doesn't count. So show proof.
Nevermind.
This converstaion has started to circle. Meeting adjourned.
Squirrel
"Back to the "whether you believe in this or that" crap huh.
No believe . Show PROOF!
Prove which came first."
As I've stated it depends, for example
If you believe in classic creation, then god created at least the wild versions of chickens fully formed, so you have a definitive answer.
If you believe in evolution you'd also have a definitive answer, there is a point in time when the creatures classified as a chicken first hatched.
"What you believe in is called FAITH and to many of you FAITH doesn't count. So show proof."
No, you are confusing the definitions of the word, and the context in which it's being used
Definition of believe
believed
believing
1 a : to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact Do you believe ? —usually used with in believe in the Scriptures b : to accept something as true, genuine , or real ideals we believe in believe s in ghosts
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy , or ability of something believe in exercise
3 : to hold an opinion : think I believe so
1 a : to consider to be true or honest believe the reports you wouldn't believe how long it took b : to accept the word or evidence of I believe you couldn't believe my ears
2 : to hold as an opinion : suppose I believe it will rain soon
You see context matters, here it refers to a posters position or opinion re evolution/creation, not which position is correct.
Beyond a statement no one has to provide proof that they believe something.
GOD arranged the atoms
That's nice. Prove it!
And better yet, who arranged God's atoms?
Any scientist will tell you that nothing is ever proven.
Bullshit.
Medical Doctors are scientists. (They damn well better be!) Can they PROVE a person is living? Yes.
Can they prove a person is dead? Yes.
Can other scientists prove there is oxygen in the atmosphere? Yes.
Can scientists even prove there is such a thing as an atmosphere? Yes.
Can a scientist prove there is such a thing as gravity? Yes.
Can a scientist prove there are sunspots on the sun? Yes.
Can a scientist prove The Big Bang really took place? No.
There are some things scientists cannot prove, and The Big Bang is one of them. They can collate all the evidence, make a lot of assumptions, develop a hypothesis, postulate a theory. But, they cannot PROVE it really happened.
So what do they do? They take it ON FAITH that it did happen because they have no other way to explain the creation of the universe.
Same thing believers in God do. They take it on FAITH.
You can argue all you want to about it. You can say I didn't use the words postulate, hypothesis, theory or whatever correctly, but you CANNOT PROVE The Big Bang actually happened. No one can. At least no human being or scientist can.
But, if God does exist, He actually could prove it. Why? Because he would have created it because he created all things.
Believe in God. Don't believe in God. I don't care. But stop pretending you can PROVE your answer to the question: Is there a God? Because you can't. No one can. Some people say there isn't and some say there is, but they all have to go by FAITH because there is no proof one way or the other.
Randy, your siblings who absolutely KNOW there is a God, know it because their FAITH is as strong as your Atheism. They KNOW without proof. You know because you see no proof. You both have FAITH that you are correct. But neither you or your siblings can PROVE your case. One side is correct, the other side is not. I'd like to find out which is which, so I keep searching. Because I search for the truth I know more than most who think they know the truth, but know only what their FAITH tells them.
Admit it or don't, if your atheism is strong it is because your FAITH in it is strong. You have no PROOF. You have FAITH.
Randy, your siblings who absolutely KNOW there is a God, know it because their FAITH is as strong as your Atheism. They KNOW without proof. You know because you see no proof. You both have FAITH that you are correct. But neither you or your siblings can PROVE your case. One side is correct, the other side is not. I'd like to find out which is which, so I keep searching. Because I search for the truth I know more than most who think they know the truth, but know only what their FAITH tells them.
The burden of proof is on those who claim a god exists. I know, not as a mater of faith (as much as others say it must be), but as a matter of knowledge.
God is something that you outgrow. When you become an adult you put away the toys of your childhood. The problem is that many people insist on bringing this absurdity into their adult lives. The existence or non-existence of a god is a silly child's game. Just as the existence or non-existence of Leprechauns or the Easter Bunny. It simply does not rise to the point of being seriously considered. It does not constitute a belief or non-belief. It is a fairy tale, like The Three Little Pigs or Goldilocks.
Randy, your siblings who absolutely KNOW there is a God, know it because their FAITH is as strong as your Atheism. They KNOW without proof. You know because you see no proof. You both have FAITH that you are correct. But neither you or your siblings can PROVE your case. One side is correct, the other side is not. I'd like to find out which is which, so I keep searching. Because I search for the truth I know more than most who think they know the truth, but know only what their FAITH tells them.
The burden of proof is on those who claim a god exists. I know, not as a matter of faith (as much as others say it must be), but as a matter of knowledge. My sisters also absolutely know, not as a matter of faith, but knowledge, that there is a god.
God is something that you outgrow. When you become an adult you put away the toys of your childhood. The problem is that many people insist on bringing this absurdity into their adult lives. The existence or non-existence of a god is a silly child's game. Just as the existence or non-existence of Leprechauns or the Easter Bunny. It simply does not rise to the point of being seriously considered. It does not constitute a belief or non-belief. It is a fairy tale, like The Three Little Pigs or Goldilocks.
Now you are repeating yourself, and I'm not referring to the double-posting of the same comment/reply. You're back to that Burden of Proof bullshit. Nobody has a Burden of Proof unless they are trying to CONVERT the other person.
And you also said that same shit about growing up and growing out of your belief in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. You are so sure you are right about that, then why don't you go tell Pope Francis he hasn't grown up yet. Go ahead. Or go tell Archbishop Broglio, he's closer.
This argument is full circle and pointless. You all are just repeating yourself but you have never PROVEN A THING and if there is a Burden of Proof it is on YOU. So...
Prove there is No God.
Or Prove The Big Bang really happened.
Or admit you really can't prove either.
It really doesn't matter to me either way.
May The Force Be With You!
IYHO.
Let me give you a few very wise words from a very intelligent man:
In the life of a man, his time is but a moment, his being an Incessant flux, his senses a dim rushlight, his body a prey of worms, his soul an unquiet eddy, his fortune dark and his fame doubtful. In short all that is of the body is as coursing waters, all that is the soul of dreams and vapours; life a warfare, a brief sojourning in an alien land; after repute, oblivion.
Marcus Aurelius. Meditations. Book Two. Chapter 17. 1st century AD.
There is no god. Marcus Aurelius knew this truth as do I, so I am in good company. No afterlife and personally I am looking forward to the oblivion. The sweet, sweet oblivion.
As long as we're trading quotes, try this one on for size:
The atheist can’t find God for the same reason that a thief can’t find a policeman.
~ Author Unknown
I'll be honest with you, that Marcus Aurelius quote was kind of meaningless to me. But here's a quote I really like, written in modern English and you might like it too:
If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
~ Douglas Wilson
Just re-reading one of my comments and this line reminded me of something:
If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
Star Trek - The Movie
ILIA PROBE: The Creator has not answered. The carbon-units infestation is to be removed from the Creator's planet.
KIRK: Why?
ILIA PROBE: You infest, Enterprise. You interfere with the Creator in the same manner.
KIRK: The carbon-units are not an infestation. They are ...a natural function of the Creator's planet. They are living things.
ILIA PROBE: They are not true lifeforms Only the Creator and other similar lifeforms are true.
Fascinating. Very fascinating.
Here's another quote I thought was kind of good that you might understand better than me:
Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don’t wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe.
~ Peter Kreeft
This is a good one too. Very brief.
Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God.
~ Tom Stoppard
By the way, regarding your quote from Marcus Aurelius, which really said nothing at all about God or no god. You summed it up by posting:
There is no god. Marcus Aurelius knew this truth as do I, so I am in good company. No afterlife and personally I am looking forward to the oblivion. The sweet, sweet oblivion.
As an atheist you must know that Marcus Aurelius is long dead, and his remains have disintegrated into nothingness, so you are not in his company and he is not in yours. And as an atheist, you believe in no afterlife, so there is no chance you will ever be in his company, not even spiritually.
Just pointing out the obvious.
Wow! You threw a lot of meaningless quotes at me. They have been used so many times before to argue against other atheists, that it takes my breath away that they are still in use. You need to get out more and before you decide where you stand on the question of a god or if there is life after death, need to do a whole lot more reading before you can actually speak intelligently on the subject. I mean come on! It you want to duel, then at least draw a sword and not a Boy Scout pen knife!
LOL, I guess I shouldn't yell at you like that as it is not your fault. And it really is not. I seriously doubt you have even read the bible that you are defending and again, that is not your fault. Why would any Christian religion encourage anyone to actually read the bible, from cover to cover, without expecting them to learn the trick to Three Card Monte?
Work the problem for one fucking time in your life!
I mean saying that Aurelius is dead and thinking that I was somehow thinking that I didn't realize that, like the (did he exist or not?) Christ has turned to dust and I could not expect to commune with him? Did everything everyone has ever written that you have ever seen about atheism go right over your head? Why in the fuck would think I expected to commune with a pile of dust when I die and reach oblivion? And why in the fuck do you think that he left words behind after he dies makes them any less meaningful?
I am sorry, but you are playing checkers.
Randy
ROTFLMAO!
As I said.
Impasse.
So what do they do? They take it ON FAITH that it did happen because they have no other way to explain the creation of the universe.
The evidence for the Big bang explains the creation of the universe. Therefore, they take it on the evidence available. No faith is required or necessary.
Same thing believers in God do. They take it on FAITH.
The difference is, believers neither have nor provide any evidence! Big difference!
You can say I didn't use the words postulate, hypothesis, theory or whatever correctly,
Good, because you clearly did not! Not to mention you show a lack of understanding of those terms.
but you CANNOT PROVE The Big Bang actually happened. No one can. At least no human being or scientist can.
The available evidence gives a high degree of certainty. Again, no faith is required.
Some people say there isn't and some say there is, but they all have to go by FAITH because there is no proof one way or the other.
Not believing in god is more a logical conclusion based on the total lack of evidence. No evidence/proof = no belief. What takes faith is accepting something as factual or true in the absence of evidence.
They KNOW without proof.
No, they only BELIEVE! They do not and cannot know. And belief does not equal fact.
You have never PROVED a damn thing.
You have never PROVED a damn thing.
I never mentioned proof. you did. All I mentioned was evidence. Evidence which is strong enough to be considered proof. It's not my problem if you can't understand and/or accept that!
Actually YOU did mention proof.
Here is the PROOF in a QUOTE from one of your many comments:
Not quite. Most (weak) atheists align with agnosticism. They simply reject any claim for a god without supporting empirical evidence or proof. However, they would be willing to consider proof, if any was forthcoming. As it stands, there is no such proof or evidenced for a god. Agnostics generally take the "we don't know either way" position. Strong atheists are those that posit with certainly that there is no god, much like theists posit there is a god with certainty.
See. I can PROVE you wrong. And I did PROVE you wrong.
Besides, all you guys with the same 'hat on the book' avatar look the same to me. Who the hell knows which one of you is posting what. And, as I have consistently said, I really don't care what you think or say, because you can't prove jack.
Besides, all you guys with the same 'hat on the book' avatar look the same to me. Who the hell knows which one of you is posting what.
Odd. I'm able to read your handle. I'm talking to a person, not an avatar.
Odd, but you have the exact same avatar as: Gordy327 and Another-Fine-Mess
Exactly the same.
Whereas I have a unique avatar, so it's obviously easier for you to know you are not replying to anyone but me.
Are you three in the same club? Do the three of you feel the same way and have the same beliefs?
I am talking to a person too, through these comments, but it's not always clear which person I'm talking to because you all look exactly alike.
What is the point of having an avatar if you're just going to be the same as someone else?
It really doesn't matter. I address the comment not the person, so I really don't care.
But thanks for your comment.
Or you could just, you know, read.
Or maybe you could just, you know ... read. Here I will help you out.
Read what I wrote, again, and you may understand I really don't care who you are. I care about the comment.
It really doesn't matter. I address the comment not the person, so I really don't care.
You know?
Or you could just, you know, read.
There's an idea!
Impasse
Their avatars are the default. They haven't chose a unique one yet. I assume you have seen default avatars before, every discussion website has them
I have. They're usually silhouettes of a person, like a gray, green or light blue tongue depressor or popsicle stick with a ball on top for a head, something really generic looking. This hat & book default here just looks ... goofy ... is the best word I can use. It looks like a real avatar, but I know it's the default.
I knew it was the defualt when I opened my account here. When I saw it, one of the first things I did after opening my account was create a new avatar that matches my name. That way, I figured, people could look at my avatar or read my name and know exactly who they were conversing with. Reduce the confusion, you know.
My original comment to Gordy was just a throw-away line at the very end of a comment. A fleeting thought as it were. I don't know why Sandy decided to get all upset and make a big deal about it. I really don't care either. People can do what they want about their avatars. Just saying, if you can change it and make it uniquely yours, and it doesn't take a whole lot of time and effort... why not?
Here is the PROOF in a QUOTE from one of your many comments:
Notice how my statement deals with the lack of proof. Clearly you ignore context. And this statement, "Actually, we do. There is a lot of empirical evidence which supports the big ban," is what you were replying to when you brought up 'proof.' Looks like you're trying to move goalposts again.
See. I can PROVE you wrong. And I did PROVE you wrong.
Only in your mind.
Besides, all you guys with the same 'hat on the book' avatar look the same to me. Who the hell knows which one of you is posting what.
I've suggested in other discussions how the 'reply' function can be tweaked. But that's really not relevant here.
And, as I have consistently said, I really don't care what you think or say, because you can't prove ja
As I have said, you have consistently ignored and demonstrated a lack of understanding of evidence, especially that with a high degree of certainty. You seem quite hung up on the term 'proof.'
But, as I have said repeatedly: I don't care.
Then why are you even here?
But, as I have said repeatedly: I don't care.
Then why are you even here?
As I told Perrie, I am a humble seeker of truth. That's why I am here, and why I am elsewhere. I don't care what others claim is fact or folly. I make my own decisions. I do not allow others to make my mind up for me.
Do you understand that?
As I told Perrie, I am a humble seeker of truth.
It's too bad you seem to prefer to ignore actual fact.
I don't care what others says is fact or folly. I make my own decsions. I do not allow others to make my mind up for me.
Sounds like you only want your idea of "truth," while being closed off to anything else, especially fact!
It's too bad you seem to prefer to ignore actual fact.
The 'actual FACT' of the matter is, that what others claim to be FACT is often not FACT at all, just their opinion which they claim is FACT.
I am a seeker of truth and real facts. Opinions are simply opinions, and nothing more.
The 'actual FACT' of the matter is, that what others claim to be FACT is often not FACT at all, just their opinion which they claim is FACT.
Facts which are so strongly supported by the evidence, with a high degree of certainty, that they can be considered fact.
I am a seeker of truth and real facts.
It's odd then how you simply dismiss or don't even acknowledge empirical evidence, itself also fact, and also supports facts.
Opinions are simply opinions, and nothing more.
Opinion is all you seem to have.
Opinion is all you seem to have.
That is not a fact.
Nor is it an opinion.
That statement is simply a lie.
That statement is simply a lie
I take it back then. It seems you have nothing at all then, opinion or otherwise!
Impasse
Gordy I know you are new here, but when someone says impasse, you don't get to say anything there after. Impasse is used to keep discussion where there seems to be no room for agreement from turning into a fight.
I am a seeker of truth and real facts. Opinions are simply opinions, and nothing more.
Now THAT would be refreshing! Shit we've had most of the same people here for so long that few of us have run across that concept lately!
Time for a drink (and I suggest you take it up too).
Impasse.
I am a seeker of truth and real facts. Opinions are simply opinions, and nothing more.
Now THAT would be refreshing! Shit we've had most of the same people here for so long that few of us have run across that concept lately!
Time for a drink (and I suggest you take it up too).
BBL.
Impasse.
Then why are you even here?
A great question! Are you here to bullshit? Are you here to post music videos? Are you here for just friendly banter (and that is not a bad reason). Are you here to discuss things, such as god and life and death? Pick a place and sit down! If you are here to learn something then READ (A LOT) and then come back and there are several people here who will gladly teach you!
Otherwise, as I said, you are playing checkers and at least 4 other people in this thread are playing 3 dimensional Chess. Give it up for now and then come back. Please.
Impasse.
You can say I didn't use the words postulate, hypothesis, theory or whatever correctly ,
Good, because you clearly did not! Not to mention you show a lack of understanding of those terms.
Theory postulated: "the 4th law of thermodynamics"
It sure looks I did use those words correctly. But, as I have said repeatedly: I don't care.
BTW: Below is a quote here in this thread from Dowser:
There have been several scientific theories postulated for the parting of the Red Sea,
Do you want to tell her she doesn't use those word properly? Go for it! I will be interested to see her response.
I used the word my brain came up with... If not used correctly, I'm sorry, but it was the only word that I could come up with that seemed right.
Theories, to me, are just that, theories. It seems to me that scientists set out to prove theories in the search for the truth. At least that's what I thought I was doing in 40 years of geological practice!
I guess I could have said that theories were presented, or discussed, or proposed... But what semantics are we up against here? And why so hostile?
And, hey everybody, I'm not an authority on much, ok? What does Dowser think of all this? I can tell you what I think, but it's just an opinion. Some things, I know for sure. No dinosaur bones have been found with human bones deposited in the same formation. Yet, anyway. There are very few dinosaur like creatures found above the iridium layer, all over the world, either. And yes, there are still dinosaur-like creatures running around today. They're called turtles, crocodiles, alligators, and birds, (descendants)... The brachiopod Lingula was found in the sediments deposited in the Cambrian age, and you can still see some of them, when they wash up onto shore in today's oceans. Horse shoe crabs are another living fossils. And crinoids. Relatively unchanged for millions of years.
I also had to pick out single celled organisms from sand and put them up under the microscope to identify them. And there are still single-celled organisms around. Most are not fossilized, just because they lack hard parts. Here was one of my favorites, Gyrticoella beede : Our samples looked more like barbells. Aren't they cute?
I guess I could have said that theories were presented, or discussed, or proposed... But what semantics are we up against here? And why so hostile?
Who is hostile? Not me. I am not hostile at all in any of my comments. At least not here in this venue. Others come at me with hostility, here, criticizing simple things like a throw-away comment I made on the use of default avatars.
No, I am not at all hostile. Not here anyway. You must be referring to others who take issue with plain statements I make and try to twist them into arguments I am not willing to engage in.
I'm sorry. I don't know you very well yet, and for some reason, I felt on the defensive. Maybe I've been spending too much time on NV... NO worries!
My advice to you, (delivered with a hug), is to not participate in those discussions that you feel to be hostile or accusatory or snarky. I try not to. It makes life a whole lot easier! Good luck, and I look forward to seeing you around!
That's good advice and I will apply it as I can. Sometimes, however, to get the information I need, I must endure hostility and snarkiness. C'est la vie.
Same here... Not much fun, is it?
No, it's not always fun, but sometimes it's what we must do if we hope to learn and grow.
Live long and prosper!
I loved Spock, too! I'm so old, I remember when it first came on TV. We used to be in band, and the guys would use their billfolds as communicators, "Beam me up Scotty! Get me out of here!" It was fun! And, of course that was 1970... What feels like a loooong time ago.
Take care!
I learned a lot from watching Star Trek and paying close attention to Mr. Spock and how he addressed issues. He had a way of causing people to focus on the facts even though they may have been wrapped-up in their emotions. I believe that was what Gene Roddenberry intended when he created that character.
Just as I believe there were great messages in Star Trek, so too in Star Wars with Lucas, The West Wing with Sorkin, and many others. I don't believe they simply wrote those scripts to make money. I believe they had a message, a philosophy to impart to us.
p.s. A long time ago for me as well, but you are always just as young as you feel. Enjoy life!
Any day I wake up on this side of the grass is a good day!
I, too, found it to be philosophically very deep... A lot of real truths to those shows...
GOD to me is the power/ the force/ the being/ the whatever that arranged all the atoms to be the sky, the earth, the rocks, the sun, the animals, us, and everything we can think of to be what they are and to work together the way they do. Everything is (made up of atoms) Whatever arranged the atoms to be what they are is what I call my GOD.
That is all I need !
You could be a pantheist.
Or a Pandeist.
Indeed.
Every time I see the word "Pandeist", I think of this. And, yes, I know what the word means, (I just looked it up to be sure), but this is what my brain flashes:
I found what I believe is more like a deist.
I'm in good company, some of the founding fathers were deists.
LOL
I think human beings are inclined to presume a higher sentient power. Such an entity is entirely speculative but nevertheless possible.
whatever arranged all the atoms to be what they are and to work together the way they do is what I call my GOD.
Period, I know no more and don't believe anyone else does either.
If anyone else doesn't call that GOD, I don't care, I do.
I'm a bit intrigued at the attempts to explain the parting of the Red Sea. We don't know that the Exodus even occurred, let alone all the stories associated with it.
I understand, Sandy. I guess the geologists were having a boring day and decided to dabble in a little archaeology. Still, if nothing else, it offers a different viewpoint that seems logical, based on what we know happened in the more recent past. You know that geologists get tired of constantly going over the same old rocks-- they have to take a break, every now and then.
Geologists often move up to archaeology, (in the time scale), just tp mess with the archaeologists, Example: The Pyramid is about 10,000 years older than the archaeologists think, based on the weathering of the stone. Oh my! People came to blows over that one! And another one: Dinosaurs had feathers. Paleontologists came to blows over that one, too. A giant brawl at some international paleontology conference. I'm glad I missed it. From what I've heard, there was no standing on the sidelines and maintaining one's composure. Geologists move with glacial slowness in their acceptance of new theories. It's been 40 years since I was in school, and back then, the theory of continental drift was viewed as only a theory, and probably not at all a viable one. Now, 40 years later, it has become accepted...
We're a strange bunch, as a group.
I'm imagining a brawl among paleontologists - a bunch of Ross Gellers from "Friends" being all passive-aggressive in a hotel conference room
LOL!
Some of them are quite vociferous in their rejection of a theory! They try their best to ruin everyone else's reputation and standing. Again, I'm glad I wasn't there, because a few of them 'took it outside' and actually beat up on each other.
I can see both sides. There was a period of time when all the dinosaurs were depicted as having feather boas and tutus... (eye rolling here) Wait until there is real evidence, guys... But, some of them were absolutely convinced and others were not at all convinced. Few really good fossils exist of dinosaur skin.
Wow. Fisticuffs over fossils.
Some of them are very passionate about their work... I guess!
We don't know that the Exodus even occurred, let alone all the stories associated with it.
Not to mention there is no record of the Exodus by the ancient Egyptians. One would think such a significant event in their society at the time would warrant at least a hieroglyphic or two.
Allegories taken literally.
Allegories taken literally.
Indeed, which can lead to misinformation. Perhaps such stories should have the disclaimer: "Based on a true [I use the term loosely] story." That might allow a degree of 'artistic license.'
Perhaps such stories should have the disclaimer:
Many an Evangelical, self-ascribed "white-victim" who voted for TRUMP, did so clearly, in part, because he told them the things they wanted to hear, would be their "savior" from foreigners, minorities, gays …
No coincidence.
because he told them the things they wanted to hear, would be their "savior" from foreigners, minorities, gays …
That says a lot about those particular Trump supporters, especially those who buy into such lip service rhetoric.
I thought they did, in the tomb of one of the Ramses. (Ramseses?)
Dear Tig--
I can't find your comment to me, so I am going to reply here.
How do I survive in KY, believing in evolution? I grit my teeth and call up my geology buddies when I'm discouraged...
Most people accept evolution as the basis for modern biology. We have a way to go, especially in the USA and especially in Kentucky, but I would rather go with the evidence regardless of popularity.
Me, too. I've never understood how it has become and either/or thing. Why can't one believe in both? I do!
@Dowser: "I've never understood how it has become and either/or thing."
I suspect it is because the Bible speaks of God creating all creatures and all things. Evolution flies in the face of that. Given evolution (both biological and cosmological) there definitely was no Adam & Eve. Without Adam & Eve there is no original sin. Without original sin there is no reason for Jesus. Without Jesus (as the savior) there is no Christianity.
In short, evolution wreaks havoc with the Bible, Qur'an, Pentateuch, Torah, etc. One can still logically believe in a supreme entity, but not that described in the Bible (without a lot of cognitive dissonance).
To me, evolution follows laws of adaptation and mutation, but I see those as God's laws... To me, and many of my geology buddies, we have no problem with that.
That is how Biologos explains it too. To make that work, they note that Adam & Eve are simply allegorical characters. I have not traced their logic to see how they deal with the absence of original sin and the mass of religion that depends upon that notion.
I've always thought of them as that. I mean, my whole life... Note: Don't get me started on Original Sin. I don't hold with that...
((((((((((((((Tig))))))))))))))))