Another problem with the watch analogy is that when you're talking about abiogenesis, you're talking about the most basic elements of any organism. When you're talking about a watch you're talking about larger pieces. This analogy just doesn't work.
@r3neGaDeh0p3 The most basic parts of the cell have to all be present at one time in order for metabolism and reproduction to occur. That is many thousands of times more complicated than a watch.
I don't mean to suggest that this is how organic matter originated only to give an example of a theory that is more plausable than "some supernatural being designed it all".
The argument here that since watches and plastic puzzles don't just manifest themselves out of their individual parts is just ridiculous. The materials used to create life aren't even remotely related to the materials used to make a watch or a plastic puzzle.
@r3neGaDeh0p3 "more plausible" according to whom? I think accidental assembling of such complex compounds and organelles is vastly LESS plausible whether from comets or whatever--nothing but intelligence will explain it. The plastic/metal parts are an analogy.
One particular theory is that extraterrestrial bodies (things not from our territory, like comets meteors, etc) fell to earth in its early days and carried with them amino acids. Recently NASA confirmed that comets do carry amino acids as a key building block called Glycine was discovered on a comet by one of NASA's research craft. It is more likely that in the infinity of spare there exist some things we don't know about yet that created the glycine. As opposed to a supernatural designer.
@r3neGaDeh0p3 That just moves the question back one step, but does nothing to answer the basic question. The presence of amino acids would be no different than what we already have on Earth.
Just saying that cells are 'impossibly complicated' doesn't prove that God exists, again it just proves that cells are complicated. I won't address the example of the watch because quite frankly, it's a bad analogy. In lieu of refuting the watch argument I will simply point to the scientific topic of abiogenesis. Just look through all the research and data collected, all of the theories about how the first organism developed. All of those are more plausable than a supernatural being.
@r3neGaDeh0p3 First, this series never claimed to be "proof." That is impossible for any world view. Instead, it is inference to the best conclusion. If you listened to the later sections, you will remember that in abiotic assembling of original life compounds, information is required. Randomness is inadequate. So to is intent. These do point to an intelligent and purposeful creator.
If we're going to have a discussion here, I insist you allow all my posts be approved. You did not allow my last one to which you responded below. What are you afraid of your followers reading? Censoring is the sign of a weak mind who is afraid of losing control (just like the xtian doctrine). If you don't accept these terms, we're done here. C'mon, it'll give you a chance to trounce a satanist publicly and get you a JC feather in your cap to boot.
@satan1st666 It's not my book, and whether it's true isn't up to me. Hubris is when someone refuses to submit himself to anyone or anything, like you.
So this is where the OSU students go for their brainwashing "Let us make lemmings in our image" - what a shame : (
Anyhoo - replying to your 'cook the kid in the microwave' post (sick example by the way - makes me question exactly what you're mentally repressing) - for an xtian, the man who committed the crime would be instantly forgiven and issued a ticket to heaven as soon as he asked JC for forgiveness - correct.
It sounds like you disapprove morally of the idea of forgiveness. But then, as a materialists, you have no basis for any moral position in the first place, so this is nonsense isn't it?
Someone steals a pack of gum - forgiven, steals a car - prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, rapes then murders a teenage girl-if convicted, they are taken out and shot in the head-no appeals, no 10 years on death row-dead. Let god/jc deal with forgiving them on the other side. If the girl was YOUR daughter, would you just roll over play nicey-nice because jc said so? I think not. BTW-not every satanist is a materialist-get your facts before judging lest jc send you to the BBQ.
@satan1st666 brainwashing ha!! i found it a place to learn and educate myself on something I belived in, which in return adjusted my abilty to make choices. which is i think the greatest thing god allows us to do.
Simply put. A watch is not life. A watch cannot put itself together. Life comes from the chemical and physical makeup of the universe. The answer is in the universe not some man made notion of god.
If you bothered to listen to the series, you'd realize this is about abiotic evolution, so the same thing applies to inanimate compounds--they aren't life. They can't put themselves together.
You would prefer that he act fairly? That's coming later, but not sure you'll like it. Keeping hands off is an act of mercy. More time to change our direction. He doesn't owe us anything.
Obviously I have no control over the structuring of my brains hardware, but that doesnt matter. I *am* the hardware. If I had hardware that lead me to make bad decisions, then I would be a crappy person.
If a computer program is designed in such a way that it does math poorly (it thinks that 1+1=e), then it is clearly a poor program. It did not design itself to be poor, so likely delete it. The same follows for degenerate minds (rapist, murderers, etc.).
All human beings have certain defects (the nature of the defect varies with the nature of the value system used to judge the machine).
As such, I believe that murderers, rapists, sociopaths etc. should either: (a) be repaired to the best of our ability, (b) sequestered, or (c) destroyed.
Now, on to why free will is not problem for an atheist.
Our decisions are the results of: (a) our brains, (b) our environment acting on the brain.
If we define the self as being only the body (excluding the brain), then clearly "I" do not make free decisions. But if we include the brain in our understanding of the self, then "I" am reacting to the environment.
Obviously I have only small control over the environment, but my brain does control the decision making process.
You haven't come to grips with the problem. Why the arbitrary difference between the body and the brain? The brain is neurons, chemical neuro-transmitters, all functioning in response to stimuli from the senses or other systems in the body. There is no "I" capable of independent thought. Just chemicals, electrical impulses, and tissue. It's just a machine.
You're speaking as a non-materialist even though your assumptions are materialistic.
The difference isnt arbitrary (nor is it necessary, I merely make the distinction for the ease of conversation). The rest of the body is not capable of conscious thought (therefore it *might* be distinguished from the brain).
The machine produces thought. The thought is not entirely independent (it accepts output from environmental factors), but the decision making is localized to the brain. That localized thought or consciousness is designated as "I".
I have never assumed pure materialism. I have not said that only matter (and energy) exist. I have merely denied the unobserved. Matter, energy, consciousness, and certainly logical principles are observed.
Making free choices is the question. If a criminal puts your one year old kid in a microwave and cooks him as he runs out of your house. Later, when he's arrested and prosecuted, they don't prosecute the microwave, only the free-choosing morally responsible agent that set the microwave in motion. The microwave has no responsibility b/ it did whatever it was programmed to do. The man, on the other hand was not programmed. He is responsible.
Your analogy is flawed in three ways: (a) in your analogy, the microwave did what it was meant to do--it heated something; (b) there is no indication that microwaves think; (c) your analogy implies a larger being that is controlling things. In reality, humans are the largest controlling beings.
You make people sound like programmed machines. Now all you have to explain is why millions of people from those same religions have converted to Christianity in recent years, while those of us "born into" Christianity in the west are turning away from it in vast numbers.
"If there was only one true religion " See reply above. This assumes people are honest, objective, more interested in truth than in autonomy.
What does the number of religions have to do with the correctness of a worldview? You think if a thousand people have drawn wrong conclusions, that means all conclusions are wrong?
Of course not, every person in the world could drawn the wrong conclusion, and that wouldn't mean that there is no right conclusion.
The number of religions is only indirectly evidence that no particular religion is correct. If God's existence and nature truly were evident, then people could conform to a single (or a few) very closely tied religions. Instead, we see people claiming to have met very different kinds of gods. This is evidence of the unreliability of subjective experience.
No, it's not direct or indirect evidence that a particular "religion" is incorrect. That's like saying that because a hundred people give different dates for the death of Lincoln, it somehow shows that there is no correct answer.
"if evident, then people could conform..." That assumes that people are objective and rational, even when their personal preferences might be overthrown. Not likely.
Your Lincoln analogy is flawed: obviously there is a correct date for Lincoln's date, just as there is obviously a correct worldview. But if historians gave wildly different dates for Lincoln's death, then it would provide evidence that the historians are just taking a guess.
If I became terribly sick, and all of the hospital's doctors each gave wildly different diagnoses--with wildly different treatment options, then I would probably try to find a different hospital.
There are no other hospitals. This is our world, and the time is short. A decision has to be made and that decision could be a life and death decision. Your analogy is actually better than mine.
I would probably begin with a process of elimination, cutting out improbable diagnoses and low-credibility doctors. Then I would cross examine the few remaining likely guys on their bases for diagnosis. I would have to assess the danger implied in following their advice also.
When something is evident, then the vast majority of people do recognize it. It is evident that jumping in front of a car will harm/kill you--people only jump in front of cars if they intend to harm themselves, or save another.
It is evident that jumping into fire is a bad idea, or that eating food is necessary for survival.
When something is evident, only the truly insane deny it. But perhaps we are truly insane...perhaps the subjective experiences of others *should* count as powerful evidence for Christianity, in spite of the mountains of subjective experiences for every other belief system.
First, if it was that evident, then no faith would be required, and God would have virtually over-ruled human free will. Sure if he got in our face, like "I am God" but that again would be analogous to jig dancing servant of each human being.
Others' subjective experience is not persuasive. But if we can ask for our own, that's different.
I don't know if you're into reading scientific papers or not, but you should check out: Wachtershauser, G. 2007. On the Chemistry and Evolution of the Pioneer Organism. Chemistry and Biodiversity 4:584-602.
Ah, I'm only a freshmen in college, and haven't taken too many biology courses, so I've never heard of atheistic abiogenesis. However, I don't think we should make appeals to the supernatural-- scientific knowledge constantly expands. Years ago, we didn't know many things that we know now, such as how the sun rose. So we attributed this action to a God. But personally, I would consider myself more agnostic than atheistic. I don't think anybody knows how we got here, including myself.
Agnosticism is a faith position that lacks backing. We could always say "we'll know more later" but we only have one life in which to make our decision. Is it that we can't know? Or only that we don't know? If the latter, then we should take our quest to God himself and ask him to reveal himself.
Right, we only have one life-- which is why we shouldn't live our lives in fear. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. But as photolitherland says, how are you persuaded that the God of the Bible is real, and not Buddha or African tribal Gods? Just because you live in a majority Christian area/nation doesn't mean you should conform to something just because a majority of the people believe it. Most people used to believe that the Earth was flat-- and guess what? They were wrong.
If you understood Jesus, you would realize that following him is the most non-fearful life possible.
Why not other gods? Plenty of reasons, as this lecture explains in later sections. They simply won't account for what we see. Only an infinite/personal God does, and that's only in the Bible.
Agnosticism is certainly *not* a faith position, nor does it lack backing. Agnosticism states that either: (a) don't know whether or not a god exists, or (b) we cannot know whether or not a god exists. While the latter is a faith position, the former is a fact. We do not know whether or not a god exists.
As for asking God to reveal himself, lets try that right now.
You suggested that we ask God to reveal himself. Thats what I did--i asked im to reveal himself.
But, of course, its not that simple. God will have to reveal himself to us through nature, or through the love of a family member, etc. He only reveals himself in nebulous ways (except to prophets 500 to 6000 years ago, he was more than happy to talk to them).
I suppose I have to wonder: if there is a loving God, why has he taken such great pains to hide himself?
Well, an alternative picture would be a god who comes and dances a jig to please the demands of each one of his creatures. That way, he could be our little butler.
I think it would be amazing if he makes contact in any way he chooses. And that is often in pretty overwhelming ways.
I'm not suggesting that God should act as our entertainment, and I think you know that. God showing himself to his creation, and helping them out wouldn't be an act of slavery--it would be an act of love.
The Judeo-Christian God is a loving god correct? If you had children, and they called out for help, would you be their slave if you responded? No, you would just be a good father.
If a god exists, he certainly is not a loving one. I ask again: Why does God hide himself?
I think the point Paul makes in this passage is that God has made himself known. And I'm not sure I've ever see someone call out to God to reveal himself in a spirit of humility (rather than a sneering, tweaking of the nose), and not had God answer.
I have met many people who have called out to God and received no answer. Most of my atheist friends *used* to be christians, but left after crying out for help, and receiving no answer.
Now I have a rather personal question: How exactly did God reveal himself to you?
It's not easy to explain to another person, because he knows what would be persuasive to different individuals. It was a gradual, growing certainty of a new presence, a new voice, within. So it was subjective in the first place. Then, as I began studying the question, I became convinced that there was also substantial evidence and that the plausibility for theism was so high that it really was more likely than other explanations.
Was it a literal voice in your mind? Clearly distinct from your own?
So God reveals himself in different ways to different people? And the way he reveals himself varies according to what would be persuasive?
If we have already argued that God revealing himself destroys free will, then how can we say that anyone who has experienced God has not lost their free will?
Futhermore, why would God appear to people outside of the christian faith, and reassure them that Islam/Mormonism/etc are true?
Islam doesn't teach a personal relationship with Allah, and Muslims don't feel they have one. Allah is entirely transcendent with little or no immanence. The same goes for orthodox Judaism.
I think the difference between what I'm talking about on God revealing himself and the earlier suggestion that he show up in people's face is that this revelation really follows after an act of faith, not to compel belief. Even the man in Mk. 9 who said "i do believe, but help me in my uinbelief" cont.
was good enough for Jesus. It seems that if we take a step toward him, he takes one toward us.
A literal voice - Nearly so. A visceral sense in certain situations that "this is what you asked for" in connection with a miracle, a subjective experience wtih the Bible, and a strange, alien sense (at the time) that things I was accustomed to and had no problem with, were wrong.
These impulses were strong enough to make me almost look over my shoulder, saying Where did that come from?
The relationship with Allah is not personal in the way that Christian believe is personal, but Allah does talk to people, and he does relate to them. Allah is not a deistic God--the same follows for Judaism.
So God only shows himself to people who already believe? And sometimes he never shows himself, even to people that do believe? And when he does reveal himself, its a feeling or knowledge that God exists?
Faith and revelation - God knows the state of one's heart exactly, so anyone approaching him with an attitude of idle curiosity or daring him would be met with nothing but silence. John 7:17 and parallels.
You can think whatever you want, but I think Muslims might disagree.
I know many people, including myself, who have asked to experience God. Not with "idle curiosity", or "daring", but with genuine faith, in the midst of crisis A God who remains hidden during times of crisis is not a loving God.
I haven't judged God, I've merely stated that he is not (by any common definition of "loving") a loving God.
What loving God refuses to help his children in times of need? What loving God would punish children for the sins of their fathers? What loving God would torture his children for eternity? Especially when they were born into "sin"?
Your God condemns people to hell for something that they cannot help. That is not loving.
You are judging, and apparently the standard is "any common definition." But why should these definitions carry any weight? Where does this concept of love come from? Why is it binding?
I don't believe God ever condemns anyone for what they cannot help. And the Bible doesn't teach that.
I am not arguing that the definitions are based on some sort of objective morality. I merely hold that if you are going to talk about God as a loving being (and you are using "loving" in a way that we normally use it), then God clearly do not fit.
If you want to substitute some other definition of what "loving" is, then go ahead. You could define "loving" as willingful abandonment of children. But by normal understanding of love, God doesnt fit.
I do believe in original sin. But that just explains why we have a sin nature--one of the teachings of the Bible that totally resonates with history. It says nothing about whether someone would be condemned. Jesus said that he would draw all men to himself, overcoming the natural inability to turn to God. Jn 12:31,32.
On "the normally use it" definition, I don't know what that is, or who you're referring to. I get my definition of love from the Bible, and from (continued)
the character of God. I don't know what the basis is for understanding true love apart from that.
Your use of parents and children as an analogy has the effect of comparing fully responsible knowing adults with relatively helpless and not responsible minors. That's why we protect children--they are vulnerable an incapable of making mature choices.
If we portray ourselves as children, then we are responsible for nothing, God is for everything. This is not the aspect of being a Father in view.
Every metaphor has elements that are intended to be compared, and other elements that don't fit. The heavenly father picture has to do with the love of a father for his children, not with their helplessness, or with the fact that he is responsible for them or owes them nurture. God owes us nothing other than justice.
Let's start with the hatred of God evident from many on this board. Why should God overlook that? If he is legitimately sovereign, why should he overlook that people ignore him or refuse to follow him? Or, why should he overlook all the other sins that result from that?
Do not attempt to connect Godlessness with sinful acts...history is not on your side.
It would be a different story if he did make himself evident, but he does not. Why would we follow a ruler whose existence is questionable? And I wouldn't call it a hatred of God so much as a disbelief in God.
Why would a truly benevolent rule not reward those who deny that which has not been demonstrated? If the designer gave us powerful minds, were we not intended to use them?
If we cannot do anything to cleanse ourselves of sin, then we *are* helpless. If God has created every aspect of us (including the world around us), then we cannot be held responsible. If we turn from God and make immoral choices constantly, then we are incapable of mature choices.
If then heavenly father picture has do to with the love of a father for his children, but not their helplessness, then the analogy is incomplete.
This is how humanity in general would like to see itself--as innocent as children, and having been wronged by God. Of course, if someone rapes my sister, then he's all of a sudden responsible. But moi? I just do what my environment makes me do. I never made a free choice in my life.
If God created you, and the environment that you live in, then God is responsible. If a God exists, then we have been wronged by him.
If someone rapes another person, and God exists, then God is responsible for creating such a rotten person. We can still be rotten, bad, awful people--but God is the one who created us that way.
If people are conditioned by their environment and makup, then I think it's very self-contradictory for you to waste time arguing your case on this board. Clearly, people are what they are, and believe what they believe, and there's nothing any of us can do about that. So why go on for pages of argument?
Totally disagree. Strict determinism is unavoidable under materialistic assumptions. Matter and energy reacting under natural law can never produce anything called freedom.
Matter and energy react in strictly determinate ways, this is true. However, the determinate nature of matter does not preclude the possibility of conscious decision. Yes, your decisions are completely determined by the nature of your brain and how the chemicals interact, but you *are* the sum of those chemical interactions. Therefore you *are* the chemicals in your brain.
Ok, lets start from the beginning of the determinism argument. Everything that happens must have a cause. Each particular cause produces an exact (single) result. If we flip a coin in exactly the same way, with exactly the same conditions, and catch the coin the exact same way, then the flips will always produce the same result (IE either all flips will give face up, or face down).
If I flip a coin once, and get tails, then i flip the coin again, replicating the exact circumstances involved in the first flip (a practical impossibility, but a theoretical possibility), then I will certainly get tails.
Things do not act chaotically. "Chance" and "probability" are approximations--if the universe is based on a strict cause/effect line, then it must be a determinant one. "Chance" is only valid as an approximation, or in a universe that truly is chaotic.
If you believe that we live in a chaotic world (that is to say, a world where not all things cause another, and where not every event is caused), then we may as well not have this conversation at all--chaos is not logic's ally.
I agree if you had a machine that could flip the coin identically and eliminate all other interference, you could make it flip identically every time. That's because it's just a material object.
I'm not saying things are uncaused, I'm saying some causes are immaterial--spiritual causes, and mind that is different than, but related to one's brain. The existence of the personal opens new categories of cause and effect, including free, un-programmed choice. and therefore responsible choice.
I see, so is the immaterial mind not subject to cause and effect? Does the natural world play no role in decision making (IE do environmental factors not affect the mind)? Does God make this mind? Or does the mind simply exist?
Obviously our minds are aware of the environment. But choice can be made any way a person decides. Otherwise, why are we having this conversation? If we are not making free choices, everything we say is predetermined and pointless. No ability to deliberate and reach independent conclusions, only to react chemically.
Clearly, there is something between being determined by environment and being affected.
The soul is created by God acc. to James 1. "father of spirits"
We are born with a sinful nature, and thus naturally unable to be with God. This sinful nature is the result of Adam and Eve's sin. How does original sin not punish the children for Adam and Eve's failure?
If Jesus draws all men to himself, then the obvious question is: "Why, after 2000 years, are so many people still deceived by atheism and other religions?
I define love as a profound feeling of affection and compassion for another, leading to action.
Being born with a sin nature means you have a problem, but it's your deeds, not your nature that God will judge (mt. 16:27).
What your description is missing--that God has made it possible for anyone, no matter what they have done, to be forgiven and accepted free of charge. This he secured at his own expense. That's what I call love.
Sorry, the lack of clarity was due to poor typing.
An agnostic is someone who does not know (or believes that it is impossible to know) whether or not a god exists.
I do not know whether or not a god exists, therefore it is a fact that I do not know.
This is not a faith position, because it is not a position at all. If someone asks me for my opinion on the validity of string theory, I will decline (I don't know enough about it). But refusal to answer isnt a faith position--its nothing.
As long as you don't have the arrogance to discount the knowledge others have gained through direct interaction with God, agnosticism could be a reasonable and honest position. But someone in that position, if honestly held, would also be strongly motivated to learn more.
Agree with your analogy via string theory. But someone who pipes up and says it's BS is taking a position.
1. Agnostics discount other people's interactions with God for three reasons: (a) The vast majority are vague "feelings" that God was there, or speaking to them; (b) the accounts given by individual people are not consistent (IE they talk of a God with different properties); (c) subjective experiences are always suspect, if they were solid evidence, then we would all believe that extra terrestrials abduct people.
Agnosticism doesnt say God is BS, it says "I don't know."
Most accounts of subjective encounters with God are likely to be false, but it doesn't follow that they all are. How would you know? This isn't a logical conclusion from inconsistency of accounts. On most questions, there are always many with mistaken views.
"subjective experiences are always suspect" In the final analysis, all truth claims involve subjective experience. Even empirical evidence is based on an experience. My belief that my wife is real is based on experience.
I'm not saying that all subjective encounters are false, merely that it is impossible to tell any genuine encounters from the mountain of false ones.
In its most basic terms, all that we experience is derivative of our subjective experience--this is true. However, your wife, and everything that she does, alters the world in such a manner that everyone in her vicinity receives a great deal of subjective experience regarding her existence. In this way, we may determine her objective existence.
I agree that others' subjective experience have zero evidential value to me. Only to them.
But correlating subjective experiences from multiple people carries a certain amount of weight--not enough to be definitive, but maybe enough to investigate further. In a case like God, I would require my own experience that I find convincing. That's what I told him.
I agree, the amount subjective experience would warrant further investigation *if* people's subjective experiences generally agreed, and were vivid. Instead, we get a slew of deeply religious people who claim that they saw a bright light, or felt deeply comforted by *something*.
People then label these experiences as encounters with God, even though they are far to vague to make any such conclusion.
I was referring to the more sane experiences you hear from those like C. S. Lewis, Francis Collins, or people in our group. These are cases of people with no prior interest in religion--agnostics, atheists, etc. who are convinced that God has begun to communicate with them.
What experiences have you classified as "sane"? Being convinced of something's truth is not evidence of its validity. If it was evidence, then Islam and the Mormon faith would be the most likely candidates for true worldviews.
See above? Which part? Do you mean that only experiences similar to those of C.S. Lewis, people in your group, etc. are sane experiences? If so, then I think you see the obvious problems with that assessment.
And through all of this discussion you have not addressed the powerful "revelations" given to people of other faiths.
I meant the post I put up at the same time you wrote this. Messages crossed.
My main objection to the other religions would focus on the proposition common to them all that it is up to the worshiper to do good works in order to earn the favor of a deity. I think the Christian message of grace (the free gift of acceptance based on the work of Jesus) puts it in its own category. This unique message strongly suggests divine revelation rather than human speculation.
Re. the subjective experiences others have with their religion, those would no evidential value for me, as I said earlier. They could be psychologically caused, wishful thinking, delusion based on the power of suggestion, or even authentic spiritual experience coming from a spiritual source other than the God of the Bible.
You have ample evidence, and if you refuse the gift of forgiveness offered free of charge, you will not be forgiven. You will have made your choice, and God will not over-rule it.
In fact, he is just, so your sins count. The amazing thing is that he has taken his own judgment upon himself so you can escape the judgment you deserve for blaspheming him that way.
This speaker obviously has no idea about the true nature of the universe. The universe as we know it now was created from quantum fluctuations from nothing. Yes the universe originated from nothing. Now we have a very full understanding that the universe we are living in is a flat universe and ultimately the energy equivalent of the universe is 0.
First, we do NOT have a very full understanding, only theory that physicists don't agree with each other on. Second, this video is not about the origin of the universe but of life, which has nothing to do with quantum physics.
Junk in a jar assembling into a specific watch, junk in a universe assembling into a something resembling a specific definition of life, whatever. So long as you're preoccupied with your own ideas of what productive output of a universe is, your perspective on what's impossible will be skewed.
Given the range of scales, locations, times, and media in which life and intelligence have the potential to manifest we don't seem special at all.
We only seem effective because of our environment.
And yet, what makes me think that even with your claimed low view of humanity, you would oppose mass murder? You probably also try to devise a meaning for your life.
Yes, I oppose mass murder. I make exceptions, not being a vegetarian, and not making much greater effort to help people in need, but I have trouble seeing where you're going with this... I don't value humanity any less because of my beliefs; I just recognize that we are a very specific kind of life that could have turned out very differently, with or without a designer.
Have you read Gödel, Escher, Bach?
As for my life's meaning, nothing's occurred to me yet. Maybe when I'm older. :)
Because as "Junk in a jar" being what humans are, you have no reason to view them as anything other than "junk" but you in fact don't believe they should be destroyed. It's painful when your worldview directly collides with your moral views.
There should definitely be a firm separation between Church and State. Agreed. However, you're watching this video for a reason. Before I you type your reply (If your reply), ask yourself why you were watching. God Bless friend.
Wow. People can sure get mad. If a god (or God) doesn't even exist why should we care what other people say or think? I mean, a couple more hours or years and poof... You are dust!
But such angry words posted on this site.
It brings to mind the saying, "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end." Your frustration/anger will melt to peace when you humble yourself.
Ugh. Another person actually believes this creationist bullshit. Atheism is AMMORAL not IMMORAL. Therefore, it's up to the PERSON to decide their morals, which come from instint and emotion, which we don't need religion to experience. Creations always point out the bad atheists. But what about the bad Christians? Were the crusades perfectly acceptable Christian behavior? The Westboro Baptist Church is about the closest to TRUE Christianity you get these days and they do some horrible shit.
Morals that each person decides based on how they feel are the same as no morals. Hitler felt he was in the right. Pedophiles feel loving children is good. Racists believe they are in the right. So according to you, it's all cool.
Westboro Baptist Church is a group of about 14 nut cases, and they get as much press as any twenty sizable churches put together. Classic media propaganda.
Crusades were Catholic. Nothing to do with the Bbile.
I can see what's leading you to the conclusion that instinctual morals are bad ones. That's not true, though it was in Hitler's case, and can be in many other cases, your morals are generally developed through your genetic predisposition and enviornment-- and I'm not saying religion is always a bad influence, but sometimes it is. We can both agree that Westboro is a bunch of douchebags, and as for the whole crusades comment. you might not agree with Catholics, but they're still biblical
Okay, first of all, yeah, self-created morals might be good, but could just as easily be bad. The point is, anything goes, and we lose all basis for resisting evil is evil is a matter of personal opinion. We can say that the Taliban are bad for beating women and refusing them education, but what's our basis? If there is not moral authority external to the individual, it's hypocritical to turn around and bust out with universal moral norms ever.
Second, people's morals may be determined by their environment (I don't see genetics having anything to do with it) and this may be the case most of the time. The question is whether that is right or not. In a culture like that in which Hitler grew up, antisemitism was considered a good thing. He was not t the creator of that view.
Finally, the Catholic church was not and is not biblical. They explicitly claim the power to generate new truth outside the Bible.
But also back to the main point I was trying to express in the first place. I'll admit that I would LIKE to believe that there is a God that loves and cares for me, that doesn't make it true. But our exsistence alone does not disprove evolution in anyway. If anything, it helps prove it. But I guess that is opinion based, so let me ask: what makes you choose God over science? Fear, faith, ignorance, enlightenment? Feel free to fill me in.
on evolution, I'm not arguing against evolution. I'm arguing against atheistic abiogenesis. You should watch part 2.
On your question, I have never chosen against science. I accept all demonstrable findings of science, including evolution. But I do not accept the naturalistic axiom that in areas science cannot explain, we may never appeal to the supernatural. I believe we can and should in some cases.
Ah, I see. You make no distinction between ignorance, and gods performing miracles. Well, that dismisses you from any possibility of being taken serious.
Jesus christ is the way the truth and the life. Amen God loves us all people Just repent of your sins and acept jesus christ as your saviour. God bless
Belief is how things work, it is how the consciousness operates, now maybe it is simply impossible for the human mind to grasp the truth of existence, but the consciousness is one with all the atoms that gather up to create us, one with the universe, one with everything. You want to seek god, then remove your image of a white beard, and look inside yourself, and identify with the eternity in every being. Were experiencing everything simultaneously.
Very Buddhist, and very fluffy thinking. It is true that we are interconnected with everything in the universe via the fundamental forces, but that is no reason to stop studying them. You are able to make your silly comments on this page because a lot of smart electrical engineers spent a lot of time understanding how things actually work.
Life is made of amino acids and it has been proven that lighting (high energy shock) can start the process of life from this "raw material" The whole do you think someone made this survey is not a fair way to get his point across, its ful of loop wholes and innuendo, you keep yelling that this is all about abiogenesis and abiotic chemical reactions but what this is, is a bias attempt to say that without god or some creator then everything would be just potential.
The formation of amino acids in a spark chamber is roughly like trying to construct the Taj Mahal by putting dynamite under a pile of bricks and blowing them up. After the fallout, you walk through the mess and find that one brick has fallen on top of another. Look! See, it can happen! There's the proof.
Do the reading on pre-biotic chemical evolution and you'll see the problem. You might want to listen to the second part also.
Tell that analogy to Miller and Urey who actually accomplished forming amino acids in a spark chamber. Please study a bit before you get in front of a group of people and make yourself look foolish.
Do you seriously suppose I don't know about their work??? That's the first thing every freshman is taught. Unfortunately, amino acids are very simple compounds that have nothing to do with the issues in this discussion. It's like saying ability to make a screw proves your ability to make an aircraft.
If you blew up the Taj Mahal every second for the next 500 million years, you might get surprising results. Earth had about 500 million years of random chemical reactions to get it right.
Actually 4 billion years, but that won't help. I'm amazed you would actually suggest this experiment with the bricks might work! Can't you see there is nothing in the model to channel the energy to the necessary ordering task?
theres no solid proof either way . when i look at the world around me i dont automatically think that there is a creator, and i only bet that you do because of you predesposition that a designer exists were as i dont, so if you take a child who was just born and has not had any influences thrust upon him. let him grow up and with no influences he can derive from others, then show him the many things that are on this earth and there is no gurante he will see a designer or that he wont
@preachersaredumb You sound like some kind of fascist.
4thstreetstudycenter 1 year ago
@4thstreetstudycenter Godwin's Law! Twenty yard penalty!
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
Another problem with the watch analogy is that when you're talking about abiogenesis, you're talking about the most basic elements of any organism. When you're talking about a watch you're talking about larger pieces. This analogy just doesn't work.
r3neGaDeh0p3 1 year ago
@r3neGaDeh0p3 The most basic parts of the cell have to all be present at one time in order for metabolism and reproduction to occur. That is many thousands of times more complicated than a watch.
4thstreetstudycenter 1 year ago
I don't mean to suggest that this is how organic matter originated only to give an example of a theory that is more plausable than "some supernatural being designed it all".
The argument here that since watches and plastic puzzles don't just manifest themselves out of their individual parts is just ridiculous. The materials used to create life aren't even remotely related to the materials used to make a watch or a plastic puzzle.
r3neGaDeh0p3 1 year ago
@r3neGaDeh0p3 "more plausible" according to whom? I think accidental assembling of such complex compounds and organelles is vastly LESS plausible whether from comets or whatever--nothing but intelligence will explain it. The plastic/metal parts are an analogy.
4thstreetstudycenter 1 year ago
One particular theory is that extraterrestrial bodies (things not from our territory, like comets meteors, etc) fell to earth in its early days and carried with them amino acids. Recently NASA confirmed that comets do carry amino acids as a key building block called Glycine was discovered on a comet by one of NASA's research craft. It is more likely that in the infinity of spare there exist some things we don't know about yet that created the glycine. As opposed to a supernatural designer.
r3neGaDeh0p3 1 year ago
@r3neGaDeh0p3 That just moves the question back one step, but does nothing to answer the basic question. The presence of amino acids would be no different than what we already have on Earth.
4thstreetstudycenter 1 year ago
Just saying that cells are 'impossibly complicated' doesn't prove that God exists, again it just proves that cells are complicated. I won't address the example of the watch because quite frankly, it's a bad analogy. In lieu of refuting the watch argument I will simply point to the scientific topic of abiogenesis. Just look through all the research and data collected, all of the theories about how the first organism developed. All of those are more plausable than a supernatural being.
r3neGaDeh0p3 1 year ago
@r3neGaDeh0p3 First, this series never claimed to be "proof." That is impossible for any world view. Instead, it is inference to the best conclusion. If you listened to the later sections, you will remember that in abiotic assembling of original life compounds, information is required. Randomness is inadequate. So to is intent. These do point to an intelligent and purposeful creator.
4thstreetstudycenter 1 year ago
... god exists because the bible says so and I have the biblical verses to prove it (yikes!)
has2cats 1 year ago
@has2cats I hope some viewers understand the argument better than you did.
4thstreetstudycenter 1 year ago
If we're going to have a discussion here, I insist you allow all my posts be approved. You did not allow my last one to which you responded below. What are you afraid of your followers reading? Censoring is the sign of a weak mind who is afraid of losing control (just like the xtian doctrine). If you don't accept these terms, we're done here. C'mon, it'll give you a chance to trounce a satanist publicly and get you a JC feather in your cap to boot.
satan1st666 1 year ago
@satan1st666 I don't know what you're talking about, but you're so pitiful you name yourself Satan! You're a joke.
4thstreetstudycenter 1 year ago
@satan1st666 It's not my book, and whether it's true isn't up to me. Hubris is when someone refuses to submit himself to anyone or anything, like you.
4thstreetstudycenter 1 year ago
so, what if i believe that God made the watch and then left it, what then?
xxredwolfxx1 1 year ago
@xxredwolfxx1
That would be deism, which is a reasonable possible conclusion from this material.
4thstreetstudycenter 1 year ago
LOL the old watchmaker argument is right up there with the old banana argument and peanutbutter argument.
DutchNordic 1 year ago
LOL the old watchmaker argument is right up there with the old banana argument and peanutbutter argument.
DutchNordic 1 year ago
So this is where the OSU students go for their brainwashing "Let us make lemmings in our image" - what a shame : (
Anyhoo - replying to your 'cook the kid in the microwave' post (sick example by the way - makes me question exactly what you're mentally repressing) - for an xtian, the man who committed the crime would be instantly forgiven and issued a ticket to heaven as soon as he asked JC for forgiveness - correct.
satan1st666 1 year ago
It sounds like you disapprove morally of the idea of forgiveness. But then, as a materialists, you have no basis for any moral position in the first place, so this is nonsense isn't it?
4thstreetstudycenter 1 year ago
Someone steals a pack of gum - forgiven, steals a car - prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, rapes then murders a teenage girl-if convicted, they are taken out and shot in the head-no appeals, no 10 years on death row-dead. Let god/jc deal with forgiving them on the other side. If the girl was YOUR daughter, would you just roll over play nicey-nice because jc said so? I think not. BTW-not every satanist is a materialist-get your facts before judging lest jc send you to the BBQ.
satan1st666 1 year ago
@satan1st666 brainwashing ha!! i found it a place to learn and educate myself on something I belived in, which in return adjusted my abilty to make choices. which is i think the greatest thing god allows us to do.
TaOpOcL462 1 year ago
If you wake up in Hell, I guess you'll realize you messed up. But too late.
4thstreetstudycenter 1 year ago
@satan1st666
So, I guess that means you have no answer to the proposition.
4thstreetstudycenter 1 year ago
Simply put. A watch is not life. A watch cannot put itself together. Life comes from the chemical and physical makeup of the universe. The answer is in the universe not some man made notion of god.
olh1152 2 years ago
If you bothered to listen to the series, you'd realize this is about abiotic evolution, so the same thing applies to inanimate compounds--they aren't life. They can't put themselves together.
4thstreetstudycenter 1 year ago
What is your point? Something put it together?
olh1152 1 year ago
You'll just have to listen if you want to find out.
4thstreetstudycenter 1 year ago
Hello. There is no god.
TheRunescapeCow 2 years ago
Did you have a contentful point to make?
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
@TheRunescapeCow, So true. Just watch CNN on the Haitan earthquake. How can a loving god sit on his ass in heaven and watch his creation suffer.
olh1152 2 years ago
You would prefer that he act fairly? That's coming later, but not sure you'll like it. Keeping hands off is an act of mercy. More time to change our direction. He doesn't owe us anything.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
@4hstreetstudycenter, yep, keep believing the BS!
olh1152 2 years ago
@olh1152
You're wrong olh1152... there is a God! He is father almighty Zeus, He of the Thunderbolt! I shall sacrifice an ox your soul... or maybe an ass.
Diosibundo 2 years ago
Obviously I have no control over the structuring of my brains hardware, but that doesnt matter. I *am* the hardware. If I had hardware that lead me to make bad decisions, then I would be a crappy person.
If a computer program is designed in such a way that it does math poorly (it thinks that 1+1=e), then it is clearly a poor program. It did not design itself to be poor, so likely delete it. The same follows for degenerate minds (rapist, murderers, etc.).
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
Yes, and as one with materialistic assumptions, you should see that humans are no different than this--defective machines.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
All human beings have certain defects (the nature of the defect varies with the nature of the value system used to judge the machine).
As such, I believe that murderers, rapists, sociopaths etc. should either: (a) be repaired to the best of our ability, (b) sequestered, or (c) destroyed.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
Now, on to why free will is not problem for an atheist.
Our decisions are the results of: (a) our brains, (b) our environment acting on the brain.
If we define the self as being only the body (excluding the brain), then clearly "I" do not make free decisions. But if we include the brain in our understanding of the self, then "I" am reacting to the environment.
Obviously I have only small control over the environment, but my brain does control the decision making process.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
You haven't come to grips with the problem. Why the arbitrary difference between the body and the brain? The brain is neurons, chemical neuro-transmitters, all functioning in response to stimuli from the senses or other systems in the body. There is no "I" capable of independent thought. Just chemicals, electrical impulses, and tissue. It's just a machine.
You're speaking as a non-materialist even though your assumptions are materialistic.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
The difference isnt arbitrary (nor is it necessary, I merely make the distinction for the ease of conversation). The rest of the body is not capable of conscious thought (therefore it *might* be distinguished from the brain).
The machine produces thought. The thought is not entirely independent (it accepts output from environmental factors), but the decision making is localized to the brain. That localized thought or consciousness is designated as "I".
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
I have never assumed pure materialism. I have not said that only matter (and energy) exist. I have merely denied the unobserved. Matter, energy, consciousness, and certainly logical principles are observed.
Physical objects exist physically, concepts exist conceptually, and logical principles merely exist.
Futhermore, I would assert that I am "just a machine," but there is no reason to believe that a machine cannot think.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
Making free choices is the question. If a criminal puts your one year old kid in a microwave and cooks him as he runs out of your house. Later, when he's arrested and prosecuted, they don't prosecute the microwave, only the free-choosing morally responsible agent that set the microwave in motion. The microwave has no responsibility b/ it did whatever it was programmed to do. The man, on the other hand was not programmed. He is responsible.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Your analogy is flawed in three ways: (a) in your analogy, the microwave did what it was meant to do--it heated something; (b) there is no indication that microwaves think; (c) your analogy implies a larger being that is controlling things. In reality, humans are the largest controlling beings.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
I don't follow your point C. I don't think I said that.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
You make people sound like programmed machines. Now all you have to explain is why millions of people from those same religions have converted to Christianity in recent years, while those of us "born into" Christianity in the west are turning away from it in vast numbers.
"If there was only one true religion " See reply above. This assumes people are honest, objective, more interested in truth than in autonomy.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
What does the number of religions have to do with the correctness of a worldview? You think if a thousand people have drawn wrong conclusions, that means all conclusions are wrong?
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Of course not, every person in the world could drawn the wrong conclusion, and that wouldn't mean that there is no right conclusion.
The number of religions is only indirectly evidence that no particular religion is correct. If God's existence and nature truly were evident, then people could conform to a single (or a few) very closely tied religions. Instead, we see people claiming to have met very different kinds of gods. This is evidence of the unreliability of subjective experience.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
No, it's not direct or indirect evidence that a particular "religion" is incorrect. That's like saying that because a hundred people give different dates for the death of Lincoln, it somehow shows that there is no correct answer.
"if evident, then people could conform..." That assumes that people are objective and rational, even when their personal preferences might be overthrown. Not likely.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Your Lincoln analogy is flawed: obviously there is a correct date for Lincoln's date, just as there is obviously a correct worldview. But if historians gave wildly different dates for Lincoln's death, then it would provide evidence that the historians are just taking a guess.
If I became terribly sick, and all of the hospital's doctors each gave wildly different diagnoses--with wildly different treatment options, then I would probably try to find a different hospital.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
There are no other hospitals. This is our world, and the time is short. A decision has to be made and that decision could be a life and death decision. Your analogy is actually better than mine.
I would probably begin with a process of elimination, cutting out improbable diagnoses and low-credibility doctors. Then I would cross examine the few remaining likely guys on their bases for diagnosis. I would have to assess the danger implied in following their advice also.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
When something is evident, then the vast majority of people do recognize it. It is evident that jumping in front of a car will harm/kill you--people only jump in front of cars if they intend to harm themselves, or save another.
It is
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
(ooops, i hit "post comment" too soon)
It is evident that jumping into fire is a bad idea, or that eating food is necessary for survival.
When something is evident, only the truly insane deny it. But perhaps we are truly insane...perhaps the subjective experiences of others *should* count as powerful evidence for Christianity, in spite of the mountains of subjective experiences for every other belief system.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
First, if it was that evident, then no faith would be required, and God would have virtually over-ruled human free will. Sure if he got in our face, like "I am God" but that again would be analogous to jig dancing servant of each human being.
Others' subjective experience is not persuasive. But if we can ask for our own, that's different.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Moronic. Chemistry does not act like a watch in a jar.
danimationmi 2 years ago
Right, the watch illustration is far too simple, as part 2 explains.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I don't know if you're into reading scientific papers or not, but you should check out: Wachtershauser, G. 2007. On the Chemistry and Evolution of the Pioneer Organism. Chemistry and Biodiversity 4:584-602.
Yokocrono 2 years ago
Wrong.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Ah, I'm only a freshmen in college, and haven't taken too many biology courses, so I've never heard of atheistic abiogenesis. However, I don't think we should make appeals to the supernatural-- scientific knowledge constantly expands. Years ago, we didn't know many things that we know now, such as how the sun rose. So we attributed this action to a God. But personally, I would consider myself more agnostic than atheistic. I don't think anybody knows how we got here, including myself.
vinnyMcDougal 2 years ago
Agnosticism is a faith position that lacks backing. We could always say "we'll know more later" but we only have one life in which to make our decision. Is it that we can't know? Or only that we don't know? If the latter, then we should take our quest to God himself and ask him to reveal himself.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Right, we only have one life-- which is why we shouldn't live our lives in fear. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. But as photolitherland says, how are you persuaded that the God of the Bible is real, and not Buddha or African tribal Gods? Just because you live in a majority Christian area/nation doesn't mean you should conform to something just because a majority of the people believe it. Most people used to believe that the Earth was flat-- and guess what? They were wrong.
vinnyMcDougal 2 years ago
If you understood Jesus, you would realize that following him is the most non-fearful life possible.
Why not other gods? Plenty of reasons, as this lecture explains in later sections. They simply won't account for what we see. Only an infinite/personal God does, and that's only in the Bible.
Where we live has nothing to do with it.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
@4thstreetstudycenter
and after asking him to reveal himself and he does not you will just say that we did not ask the right way.
If God wanted me to believe he would make himself known with out silly science babble from some one that does not know the science.
bugeyemonster 2 years ago
I guess that would be a refusal.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Agnosticism is certainly *not* a faith position, nor does it lack backing. Agnosticism states that either: (a) don't know whether or not a god exists, or (b) we cannot know whether or not a god exists. While the latter is a faith position, the former is a fact. We do not know whether or not a god exists.
As for asking God to reveal himself, lets try that right now.
God, if you exist, please comment on this forum.
Now we play the waiting game.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
not a faith position -- are you saying you don't know? or that I don't know? Whichever, how can that be a "fact?"
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I doubt scoffing would get any answer from God.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
You suggested that we ask God to reveal himself. Thats what I did--i asked im to reveal himself.
But, of course, its not that simple. God will have to reveal himself to us through nature, or through the love of a family member, etc. He only reveals himself in nebulous ways (except to prophets 500 to 6000 years ago, he was more than happy to talk to them).
I suppose I have to wonder: if there is a loving God, why has he taken such great pains to hide himself?
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
Well, an alternative picture would be a god who comes and dances a jig to please the demands of each one of his creatures. That way, he could be our little butler.
I think it would be amazing if he makes contact in any way he chooses. And that is often in pretty overwhelming ways.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I'm not suggesting that God should act as our entertainment, and I think you know that. God showing himself to his creation, and helping them out wouldn't be an act of slavery--it would be an act of love.
The Judeo-Christian God is a loving god correct? If you had children, and they called out for help, would you be their slave if you responded? No, you would just be a good father.
If a god exists, he certainly is not a loving one. I ask again: Why does God hide himself?
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
I think the point Paul makes in this passage is that God has made himself known. And I'm not sure I've ever see someone call out to God to reveal himself in a spirit of humility (rather than a sneering, tweaking of the nose), and not had God answer.
He didn't hide himself from me.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I have met many people who have called out to God and received no answer. Most of my atheist friends *used* to be christians, but left after crying out for help, and receiving no answer.
Now I have a rather personal question: How exactly did God reveal himself to you?
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
It's not easy to explain to another person, because he knows what would be persuasive to different individuals. It was a gradual, growing certainty of a new presence, a new voice, within. So it was subjective in the first place. Then, as I began studying the question, I became convinced that there was also substantial evidence and that the plausibility for theism was so high that it really was more likely than other explanations.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Was it a literal voice in your mind? Clearly distinct from your own?
So God reveals himself in different ways to different people? And the way he reveals himself varies according to what would be persuasive?
If we have already argued that God revealing himself destroys free will, then how can we say that anyone who has experienced God has not lost their free will?
Futhermore, why would God appear to people outside of the christian faith, and reassure them that Islam/Mormonism/etc are true?
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
Islam doesn't teach a personal relationship with Allah, and Muslims don't feel they have one. Allah is entirely transcendent with little or no immanence. The same goes for orthodox Judaism.
I think the difference between what I'm talking about on God revealing himself and the earlier suggestion that he show up in people's face is that this revelation really follows after an act of faith, not to compel belief. Even the man in Mk. 9 who said "i do believe, but help me in my uinbelief" cont.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
was good enough for Jesus. It seems that if we take a step toward him, he takes one toward us.
A literal voice - Nearly so. A visceral sense in certain situations that "this is what you asked for" in connection with a miracle, a subjective experience wtih the Bible, and a strange, alien sense (at the time) that things I was accustomed to and had no problem with, were wrong.
These impulses were strong enough to make me almost look over my shoulder, saying Where did that come from?
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
The relationship with Allah is not personal in the way that Christian believe is personal, but Allah does talk to people, and he does relate to them. Allah is not a deistic God--the same follows for Judaism.
So God only shows himself to people who already believe? And sometimes he never shows himself, even to people that do believe? And when he does reveal himself, its a feeling or knowledge that God exists?
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
Allah talks to people - I don't think so.
Faith and revelation - God knows the state of one's heart exactly, so anyone approaching him with an attitude of idle curiosity or daring him would be met with nothing but silence. John 7:17 and parallels.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
You can think whatever you want, but I think Muslims might disagree.
I know many people, including myself, who have asked to experience God. Not with "idle curiosity", or "daring", but with genuine faith, in the midst of crisis A God who remains hidden during times of crisis is not a loving God.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
What moral ground do you stand on when judging God? What is the standard he must answer to?
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I haven't judged God, I've merely stated that he is not (by any common definition of "loving") a loving God.
What loving God refuses to help his children in times of need? What loving God would punish children for the sins of their fathers? What loving God would torture his children for eternity? Especially when they were born into "sin"?
Your God condemns people to hell for something that they cannot help. That is not loving.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
You are judging, and apparently the standard is "any common definition." But why should these definitions carry any weight? Where does this concept of love come from? Why is it binding?
I don't believe God ever condemns anyone for what they cannot help. And the Bible doesn't teach that.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Oh? So you dont believe in original sin?
I am not arguing that the definitions are based on some sort of objective morality. I merely hold that if you are going to talk about God as a loving being (and you are using "loving" in a way that we normally use it), then God clearly do not fit.
If you want to substitute some other definition of what "loving" is, then go ahead. You could define "loving" as willingful abandonment of children. But by normal understanding of love, God doesnt fit.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
I do believe in original sin. But that just explains why we have a sin nature--one of the teachings of the Bible that totally resonates with history. It says nothing about whether someone would be condemned. Jesus said that he would draw all men to himself, overcoming the natural inability to turn to God. Jn 12:31,32.
On "the normally use it" definition, I don't know what that is, or who you're referring to. I get my definition of love from the Bible, and from (continued)
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
the character of God. I don't know what the basis is for understanding true love apart from that.
Your use of parents and children as an analogy has the effect of comparing fully responsible knowing adults with relatively helpless and not responsible minors. That's why we protect children--they are vulnerable an incapable of making mature choices.
If we portray ourselves as children, then we are responsible for nothing, God is for everything. This is not the aspect of being a Father in view.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Every metaphor has elements that are intended to be compared, and other elements that don't fit. The heavenly father picture has to do with the love of a father for his children, not with their helplessness, or with the fact that he is responsible for them or owes them nurture. God owes us nothing other than justice.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
(continued)
I *love* that you brought up justice. Tell me exactly: what have we done that is to be judged?
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
Let's start with the hatred of God evident from many on this board. Why should God overlook that? If he is legitimately sovereign, why should he overlook that people ignore him or refuse to follow him? Or, why should he overlook all the other sins that result from that?
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Do not attempt to connect Godlessness with sinful acts...history is not on your side.
It would be a different story if he did make himself evident, but he does not. Why would we follow a ruler whose existence is questionable? And I wouldn't call it a hatred of God so much as a disbelief in God.
Why would a truly benevolent rule not reward those who deny that which has not been demonstrated? If the designer gave us powerful minds, were we not intended to use them?
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
If we cannot do anything to cleanse ourselves of sin, then we *are* helpless. If God has created every aspect of us (including the world around us), then we cannot be held responsible. If we turn from God and make immoral choices constantly, then we are incapable of mature choices.
If then heavenly father picture has do to with the love of a father for his children, but not their helplessness, then the analogy is incomplete.
(continued)
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
This is how humanity in general would like to see itself--as innocent as children, and having been wronged by God. Of course, if someone rapes my sister, then he's all of a sudden responsible. But moi? I just do what my environment makes me do. I never made a free choice in my life.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
If God created you, and the environment that you live in, then God is responsible. If a God exists, then we have been wronged by him.
If someone rapes another person, and God exists, then God is responsible for creating such a rotten person. We can still be rotten, bad, awful people--but God is the one who created us that way.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
If people are conditioned by their environment and makup, then I think it's very self-contradictory for you to waste time arguing your case on this board. Clearly, people are what they are, and believe what they believe, and there's nothing any of us can do about that. So why go on for pages of argument?
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
The environment includes every experience felt by the person. This very discussion is part of that environment.
Strict determinism can only be claimed by a person who believes they were created, not that they simply are.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
Totally disagree. Strict determinism is unavoidable under materialistic assumptions. Matter and energy reacting under natural law can never produce anything called freedom.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Matter and energy react in strictly determinate ways, this is true. However, the determinate nature of matter does not preclude the possibility of conscious decision. Yes, your decisions are completely determined by the nature of your brain and how the chemicals interact, but you *are* the sum of those chemical interactions. Therefore you *are* the chemicals in your brain.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
Sounds like serious double talk. All you did her was confirm my point that everything is determined and put the label "you" over it.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Ok, lets start from the beginning of the determinism argument. Everything that happens must have a cause. Each particular cause produces an exact (single) result. If we flip a coin in exactly the same way, with exactly the same conditions, and catch the coin the exact same way, then the flips will always produce the same result (IE either all flips will give face up, or face down).
Is that agreeable?
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
Sure. Fifty percent of the time.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
If I flip a coin once, and get tails, then i flip the coin again, replicating the exact circumstances involved in the first flip (a practical impossibility, but a theoretical possibility), then I will certainly get tails.
Things do not act chaotically. "Chance" and "probability" are approximations--if the universe is based on a strict cause/effect line, then it must be a determinant one. "Chance" is only valid as an approximation, or in a universe that truly is chaotic.
(continued)
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
If you believe that we live in a chaotic world (that is to say, a world where not all things cause another, and where not every event is caused), then we may as well not have this conversation at all--chaos is not logic's ally.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
I agree if you had a machine that could flip the coin identically and eliminate all other interference, you could make it flip identically every time. That's because it's just a material object.
I'm not saying things are uncaused, I'm saying some causes are immaterial--spiritual causes, and mind that is different than, but related to one's brain. The existence of the personal opens new categories of cause and effect, including free, un-programmed choice. and therefore responsible choice.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I see, so is the immaterial mind not subject to cause and effect? Does the natural world play no role in decision making (IE do environmental factors not affect the mind)? Does God make this mind? Or does the mind simply exist?
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
Obviously our minds are aware of the environment. But choice can be made any way a person decides. Otherwise, why are we having this conversation? If we are not making free choices, everything we say is predetermined and pointless. No ability to deliberate and reach independent conclusions, only to react chemically.
Clearly, there is something between being determined by environment and being affected.
The soul is created by God acc. to James 1. "father of spirits"
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
We are born with a sinful nature, and thus naturally unable to be with God. This sinful nature is the result of Adam and Eve's sin. How does original sin not punish the children for Adam and Eve's failure?
If Jesus draws all men to himself, then the obvious question is: "Why, after 2000 years, are so many people still deceived by atheism and other religions?
I define love as a profound feeling of affection and compassion for another, leading to action.
What is the Bible's definition
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
Being born with a sin nature means you have a problem, but it's your deeds, not your nature that God will judge (mt. 16:27).
What your description is missing--that God has made it possible for anyone, no matter what they have done, to be forgiven and accepted free of charge. This he secured at his own expense. That's what I call love.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Sorry, the lack of clarity was due to poor typing.
An agnostic is someone who does not know (or believes that it is impossible to know) whether or not a god exists.
I do not know whether or not a god exists, therefore it is a fact that I do not know.
This is not a faith position, because it is not a position at all. If someone asks me for my opinion on the validity of string theory, I will decline (I don't know enough about it). But refusal to answer isnt a faith position--its nothing.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
As long as you don't have the arrogance to discount the knowledge others have gained through direct interaction with God, agnosticism could be a reasonable and honest position. But someone in that position, if honestly held, would also be strongly motivated to learn more.
Agree with your analogy via string theory. But someone who pipes up and says it's BS is taking a position.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
1. Agnostics discount other people's interactions with God for three reasons: (a) The vast majority are vague "feelings" that God was there, or speaking to them; (b) the accounts given by individual people are not consistent (IE they talk of a God with different properties); (c) subjective experiences are always suspect, if they were solid evidence, then we would all believe that extra terrestrials abduct people.
Agnosticism doesnt say God is BS, it says "I don't know."
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
Most accounts of subjective encounters with God are likely to be false, but it doesn't follow that they all are. How would you know? This isn't a logical conclusion from inconsistency of accounts. On most questions, there are always many with mistaken views.
"subjective experiences are always suspect" In the final analysis, all truth claims involve subjective experience. Even empirical evidence is based on an experience. My belief that my wife is real is based on experience.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I'm not saying that all subjective encounters are false, merely that it is impossible to tell any genuine encounters from the mountain of false ones.
In its most basic terms, all that we experience is derivative of our subjective experience--this is true. However, your wife, and everything that she does, alters the world in such a manner that everyone in her vicinity receives a great deal of subjective experience regarding her existence. In this way, we may determine her objective existence.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
I agree that others' subjective experience have zero evidential value to me. Only to them.
But correlating subjective experiences from multiple people carries a certain amount of weight--not enough to be definitive, but maybe enough to investigate further. In a case like God, I would require my own experience that I find convincing. That's what I told him.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I agree, the amount subjective experience would warrant further investigation *if* people's subjective experiences generally agreed, and were vivid. Instead, we get a slew of deeply religious people who claim that they saw a bright light, or felt deeply comforted by *something*.
People then label these experiences as encounters with God, even though they are far to vague to make any such conclusion.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
I was referring to the more sane experiences you hear from those like C. S. Lewis, Francis Collins, or people in our group. These are cases of people with no prior interest in religion--agnostics, atheists, etc. who are convinced that God has begun to communicate with them.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
What experiences have you classified as "sane"? Being convinced of something's truth is not evidence of its validity. If it was evidence, then Islam and the Mormon faith would be the most likely candidates for true worldviews.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
See above.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
See above? Which part? Do you mean that only experiences similar to those of C.S. Lewis, people in your group, etc. are sane experiences? If so, then I think you see the obvious problems with that assessment.
And through all of this discussion you have not addressed the powerful "revelations" given to people of other faiths.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
I meant the post I put up at the same time you wrote this. Messages crossed.
My main objection to the other religions would focus on the proposition common to them all that it is up to the worshiper to do good works in order to earn the favor of a deity. I think the Christian message of grace (the free gift of acceptance based on the work of Jesus) puts it in its own category. This unique message strongly suggests divine revelation rather than human speculation.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Re. the subjective experiences others have with their religion, those would no evidential value for me, as I said earlier. They could be psychologically caused, wishful thinking, delusion based on the power of suggestion, or even authentic spiritual experience coming from a spiritual source other than the God of the Bible.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
And many people who are agnostic *do* want to learn more, but most are unconvinced by any evidence for/against the existence of God.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
Jesus' infinite nature was important in order for him to be able to absorb infinite judgment in a moment of time.
You are not in position to be the righteous, just judge of the universe. Neither does God owe you anything.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Yes. Maybe you should try listening to the rest of the lecture.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
You have ample evidence, and if you refuse the gift of forgiveness offered free of charge, you will not be forgiven. You will have made your choice, and God will not over-rule it.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
In fact, he is just, so your sins count. The amazing thing is that he has taken his own judgment upon himself so you can escape the judgment you deserve for blaspheming him that way.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I reject religion.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
This speaker obviously has no idea about the true nature of the universe. The universe as we know it now was created from quantum fluctuations from nothing. Yes the universe originated from nothing. Now we have a very full understanding that the universe we are living in is a flat universe and ultimately the energy equivalent of the universe is 0.
BStock117 2 years ago
First, we do NOT have a very full understanding, only theory that physicists don't agree with each other on. Second, this video is not about the origin of the universe but of life, which has nothing to do with quantum physics.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Junk in a jar assembling into a specific watch, junk in a universe assembling into a something resembling a specific definition of life, whatever. So long as you're preoccupied with your own ideas of what productive output of a universe is, your perspective on what's impossible will be skewed.
Given the range of scales, locations, times, and media in which life and intelligence have the potential to manifest we don't seem special at all.
We only seem effective because of our environment.
AllTom 2 years ago
And yet, what makes me think that even with your claimed low view of humanity, you would oppose mass murder? You probably also try to devise a meaning for your life.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Yes, I oppose mass murder. I make exceptions, not being a vegetarian, and not making much greater effort to help people in need, but I have trouble seeing where you're going with this... I don't value humanity any less because of my beliefs; I just recognize that we are a very specific kind of life that could have turned out very differently, with or without a designer.
Have you read Gödel, Escher, Bach?
As for my life's meaning, nothing's occurred to me yet. Maybe when I'm older. :)
AllTom 2 years ago
Because as "Junk in a jar" being what humans are, you have no reason to view them as anything other than "junk" but you in fact don't believe they should be destroyed. It's painful when your worldview directly collides with your moral views.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
There should definitely be a firm separation between Church and State. Agreed. However, you're watching this video for a reason. Before I you type your reply (If your reply), ask yourself why you were watching. God Bless friend.
katmariebokon 2 years ago
What is this some kind of conspiracy theory?
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Agree with you that Xians should forget about legislation. But also agree with him, that your anger and fury betray something more.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
You're pitiful
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
-Carl Sagan
toeverythingtaboo 2 years ago 2
Wow, really deep.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Wow. People can sure get mad. If a god (or God) doesn't even exist why should we care what other people say or think? I mean, a couple more hours or years and poof... You are dust!
But such angry words posted on this site.
It brings to mind the saying, "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end." Your frustration/anger will melt to peace when you humble yourself.
gregjohn52 2 years ago
Thats so arrogant.
rollsofjoy1 2 years ago
Oh, that makes so much sense. You're awesome.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I wonder how many people in that room have ever taken a college level biology class.
xfasteddiedx 2 years ago 2
The overwhelming majority. A sizable number are in grad school in the sciences or medical school.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I'm too thick headed to get into this conversation.
But, each morning as I look out my door to start a new day, I look around and think to myself, there just has to be a creator.
All this simply can't be a random chance.. noway !
I choose to believe in Jesus Christ. :)
HoocH65 2 years ago
Ugh. Another person actually believes this creationist bullshit. Atheism is AMMORAL not IMMORAL. Therefore, it's up to the PERSON to decide their morals, which come from instint and emotion, which we don't need religion to experience. Creations always point out the bad atheists. But what about the bad Christians? Were the crusades perfectly acceptable Christian behavior? The Westboro Baptist Church is about the closest to TRUE Christianity you get these days and they do some horrible shit.
vinnyMcDougal 2 years ago
Morals that each person decides based on how they feel are the same as no morals. Hitler felt he was in the right. Pedophiles feel loving children is good. Racists believe they are in the right. So according to you, it's all cool.
Westboro Baptist Church is a group of about 14 nut cases, and they get as much press as any twenty sizable churches put together. Classic media propaganda.
Crusades were Catholic. Nothing to do with the Bbile.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I can see what's leading you to the conclusion that instinctual morals are bad ones. That's not true, though it was in Hitler's case, and can be in many other cases, your morals are generally developed through your genetic predisposition and enviornment-- and I'm not saying religion is always a bad influence, but sometimes it is. We can both agree that Westboro is a bunch of douchebags, and as for the whole crusades comment. you might not agree with Catholics, but they're still biblical
vinnyMcDougal 2 years ago
Okay, first of all, yeah, self-created morals might be good, but could just as easily be bad. The point is, anything goes, and we lose all basis for resisting evil is evil is a matter of personal opinion. We can say that the Taliban are bad for beating women and refusing them education, but what's our basis? If there is not moral authority external to the individual, it's hypocritical to turn around and bust out with universal moral norms ever.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Second, people's morals may be determined by their environment (I don't see genetics having anything to do with it) and this may be the case most of the time. The question is whether that is right or not. In a culture like that in which Hitler grew up, antisemitism was considered a good thing. He was not t the creator of that view.
Finally, the Catholic church was not and is not biblical. They explicitly claim the power to generate new truth outside the Bible.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
But also back to the main point I was trying to express in the first place. I'll admit that I would LIKE to believe that there is a God that loves and cares for me, that doesn't make it true. But our exsistence alone does not disprove evolution in anyway. If anything, it helps prove it. But I guess that is opinion based, so let me ask: what makes you choose God over science? Fear, faith, ignorance, enlightenment? Feel free to fill me in.
vinnyMcDougal 2 years ago
"doesn't make it true" Agreed.
on evolution, I'm not arguing against evolution. I'm arguing against atheistic abiogenesis. You should watch part 2.
On your question, I have never chosen against science. I accept all demonstrable findings of science, including evolution. But I do not accept the naturalistic axiom that in areas science cannot explain, we may never appeal to the supernatural. I believe we can and should in some cases.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Ah, I see. You make no distinction between ignorance, and gods performing miracles. Well, that dismisses you from any possibility of being taken serious.
Desertphile 2 years ago
Well, quit wasting my time then.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
WHY?
rollsofjoy1 2 years ago
I am very pleased, however, to see a person of faith with this much knowledge of science. Thank you for backing arguments with verifiable facts.
Yokocrono 2 years ago
Jesus christ is the way the truth and the life. Amen God loves us all people Just repent of your sins and acept jesus christ as your saviour. God bless
felip77 2 years ago
Yeah, keep saying that over and over and eventually it might be true right?
adamredwine 2 years ago
Your all wrong, especially you atheists.
Belief is how things work, it is how the consciousness operates, now maybe it is simply impossible for the human mind to grasp the truth of existence, but the consciousness is one with all the atoms that gather up to create us, one with the universe, one with everything. You want to seek god, then remove your image of a white beard, and look inside yourself, and identify with the eternity in every being. Were experiencing everything simultaneously.
MarkToTheSky 2 years ago
Very Buddhist, and very fluffy thinking. It is true that we are interconnected with everything in the universe via the fundamental forces, but that is no reason to stop studying them. You are able to make your silly comments on this page because a lot of smart electrical engineers spent a lot of time understanding how things actually work.
adamredwine 2 years ago
this belief is hopeless because with it we lose out individuality which is what defines being human, we are seperate, not one
xxredwolfxx1 2 years ago
So if there has to be a designer for everything then who designed God?
Bmbillma 2 years ago 3
First premise is wrong. God is an eternal being. Because spiritual, not subject to physical principles.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
You didn't answer my question. You dodged it.
Bmbillma 2 years ago 2
Whatever
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Life is made of amino acids and it has been proven that lighting (high energy shock) can start the process of life from this "raw material" The whole do you think someone made this survey is not a fair way to get his point across, its ful of loop wholes and innuendo, you keep yelling that this is all about abiogenesis and abiotic chemical reactions but what this is, is a bias attempt to say that without god or some creator then everything would be just potential.
GodLikeQualities 2 years ago 2
The formation of amino acids in a spark chamber is roughly like trying to construct the Taj Mahal by putting dynamite under a pile of bricks and blowing them up. After the fallout, you walk through the mess and find that one brick has fallen on top of another. Look! See, it can happen! There's the proof.
Do the reading on pre-biotic chemical evolution and you'll see the problem. You might want to listen to the second part also.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Tell that analogy to Miller and Urey who actually accomplished forming amino acids in a spark chamber. Please study a bit before you get in front of a group of people and make yourself look foolish.
adamredwine 2 years ago
Do you seriously suppose I don't know about their work??? That's the first thing every freshman is taught. Unfortunately, amino acids are very simple compounds that have nothing to do with the issues in this discussion. It's like saying ability to make a screw proves your ability to make an aircraft.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
If you blew up the Taj Mahal every second for the next 500 million years, you might get surprising results. Earth had about 500 million years of random chemical reactions to get it right.
Yokocrono 2 years ago
Actually 4 billion years, but that won't help. I'm amazed you would actually suggest this experiment with the bricks might work! Can't you see there is nothing in the model to channel the energy to the necessary ordering task?
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
In fact, you would get an amazingly similar pattern every time you did this--random bricks strewn around on the ground. And that would never change.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
theres no solid proof either way . when i look at the world around me i dont automatically think that there is a creator, and i only bet that you do because of you predesposition that a designer exists were as i dont, so if you take a child who was just born and has not had any influences thrust upon him. let him grow up and with no influences he can derive from others, then show him the many things that are on this earth and there is no gurante he will see a designer or that he wont
xxredwolfxx1 2 years ago
tell me again, how a watch is like the planet we live on, i think we all know the answe