ByFaithAlone

If it's absolutely true that a black hole doesn't reflect any light back, then it's evident that absolute truth exists for some things. Are you absolutely sure it exists for some things? Can you please get on with your apologetic line? The anticipation is killing me! I am trying to determine if you believe there are universal absolutes? The problem is that you are asking for absolutes in two different cases. One is in the case of morality, the other is any absolute. Trying to make these terms the same is committing the fallacy of equivocation. Fallen and many others would hold the position that absolute morals don't exist or that morals do not express propositions and are therefore cannot be judged as true or false (two different philosophical positions I am just not sure which one fallen is and decided to play it safe lol). However, I am sure that he would agree that to our knowledge there is an absolute velocity that one can merely approach (the speed of light, c). Now, being moral realists, you and I can disagree with him on philosophical grounds but you are going about it the wrong way and a logically fallacious way at that.

hmm... haven't heard this idea before. Are you talking Hartle-Hawking model? I have heard that such a model would necessitate some type of closed universe in which a Big Crunch exists and as of now, we do not believe that will happen. I think that model also necessitates a non-flat universe which is also unlikely. Additionally, I don't see how the idea of a quantum gravity conflicts with the idea of a beginning as my understanding of the quantum universe theory is that it is not infinite. Furthermore, wouldn't such work contradict accepted scientific belief proposed by Guth, Borde and Vilenkin in 2003 and reaffirmed in 2012? Granted, this is only with a brief knowledge of such a theory as the math is a little complex for my calc III brain lol

At the university I attend, interdenominational churches are the most common. So far, I am still "church shopping" for the right place. I went to one place for about a month but it just hasn't appealed to me theologically or spiritually. They can be good but sometimes they are so broad that you lose the sense of community you may find in a home church. I miss my home church . God willing, I will be guided to the right place.

What do you MEAN by that? Obama is the A/C? Or what? I'm one of those who DOESN'T have their head buried....either in the sand or the crazy C.T. blogs. So how does he stand for islam when he's been declared their enemy? Please explain because I'm lost. Yay MG!!! I don't always agree with your politics but I appreciate the logic you have brought to this

To actually show it in context, Obama also mentioned in his full speech that leaders should not attack any religion... please stop cherry picking from speeches... Thanks!

Lol... we have really drifted off the topic of God and evolution being logically possible. Anyways... I agree with you on the idea that the majority of the cases involving one saving the life of a child could be explained through the gene view theory but even you brought up an example which I think is hard to explain. Organ transplants (in particular ones not donated by the dead), are given generally to someone you do not know. Why would people do this from an evolutionary perspective. I don't think the outliers explanation will cut it. Why would there be such dramatic outliers in the first place under the evolutionary view. Selfishness could be understood as the person wants to maintain their own survival and the desire for self-preservation are very strong but I don't understand why the other side of the spread should exist at all. Can evolution truly explain it?

This argument is flawed. You are arguing that because one group of people misrepresented a scientific theory, the scientific theory itself must also be flawed. This is not necessarily true and commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Well, from the organism point of view that would not make sense. But from the gene's perspective, our altruism could guarantee an optimum for its survival. We share most of our genes with people we are related with and, therefore, tend to be more altruistic toward relatives, but this could apply also to total strangers who, nevertheless share a high quantity of genes. I don't know anybody who would sacrifice herself for, say, a spider. I read the article but I am still confused on one part of your moral position. You believe that genes act to protect the future of the group as a whole rather than the individual itself. I can see the "gene's view" idea of altruism if there was one organism that sacrificed itself for the survival of multiple others or for an individual valuable to the future of the population (ex: the last female in the group) but what about cases of altruism involving a life for a life (which are the most common cases of altruism I generally hear about). There is no incentive for either the individual or the population as the gene pool remains constant from the gene perspective and the individual will not want to lose his/her life from an individual perspective. It seems that neither view could explain such a case of altruism which I view as the most common type (granted this is based not on evidence on what is the most common type, but rather the amount of cases that I have heard about).

I am personally a theistic evolutionist like a few other people on the forum. To me, the idea that life evolved does not destroy the idea that God is powerful but rather makes his intelligence even more apparent. As to the idea that it takes faith to believe in evolution, I would say that such an idea is partly true. One has to have faith that what modern science has shown us is accurate and that probability holds true. You may be able to call this faith, but I would call it using Occam's razor (choosing the most reasonable and simplest explanation for a set of facts). Insert what bary said about evolution and there being no apex, etc. Moving on to the idea that evolution is a theory. In science, there is a huge difference between a theory and a hypothesis. I hypothesis may be an educated guess but a theory is backed by tons of research in a particular area and generally proposes a mechanism which lines up with all the facts that we have but cannot be proven due to a given restraint. Examples of famous theories yet to be called law (pure fact): Theory of General Relativity - Einstein's famous theory which is accepted by 99.99999999999999% of scientists and the public. Perhaps in time it will be made a law but as of now all we can say is that nothing disagrees with it (similarly to evolution). String or M-theory - a relatively new theory that definitely doesn't have all of the kinks worked out of it but looks like a promising chance to unify the world of quantum mechanics with general relativity but it shows promise

Just a question to viole on her evolutionary adaptation of morality. Why does altruism exist? For instance, a man sacrifices himself to save a person he barely knows leaving behind no kin or relatives. If everyone in the family did this, the family would die out while those who did not would naturally advance. If this is the case, why do humans value altruism? It seems contrary to your position on morality?

Ok. So I am going to bite I would contend not. In all possible worlds with free will there is the possibility of evil. That I will grant. However, that price is not necessarily unavoidable as one can choose whether to fall what is good or what is evil. Let me also note that in all possible worlds without free will there is also the possibility of evil and good or a combination of both. Not exactly relevant to the debate we are having right now but interesting...

Don't have a lot of time to reply right now so my answers will be brief. First let me note that I see the Genesis creation account as an allegory/poetic book obviously and that is why it does not spell out the exact method of creation. It is not intended as a science book. secondly, according to evolutionary theory, there could be a temporally first group of homo sapiens based somewhere in Africa or Mesopotamia so it is possible. Is it possible to measure when it occurred? probably not and I admit that. ok just wanted to clear that up. I would just like to pose a question to you on this. Why would morals appear evolutionary? Wouldn't the best path be ammoral utilitarianism? That was taking my words out of context. I said there was nothing good or evil about death. How exactly is it self-defeating? If you note, what I said is that it is possible for free will and infinite good and no evil to exist if everyone were to follow the precepts of God (love God and love your neighbor). This is what I would say heaven would be like although there is a lot of theologically debate over if there is free will in heaven. Philosophically I suppose this may be a tenable position that our universe is actually created by an omni-evil being. However, since we are debating the Christian concept of God as a possibility and whether or not that Christian God can exist in a possible world then I was assuming a omnibenevolent being. I will have to look into your theory a bit more and we would need another thread to debate it.

9 out of 10.... guess it pays to be an Eagle Scout and go on multiple high adventure trips

True that MG, popular vote will be close to be sure but I think it will be one swing state that decides it. Hopefully it won't be another Florida 2000

The only problem with these stats is that they don't show the swing states. In the swing states it appears that Romney has a bit of a challenge to face: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/swing-state-poll_n_1882423.html

Bary said this very well. Christians do not have a specific spelled out theological position on what exactly happens to these creatures but that does not mean that God does not care for them. Christian just simply must admit to not knowing on this issue.

The asteroid may be chance but that does not necessarily mean that we are here by chance. That only means that one event is possibly due to chance. The Fall is a theological term that relates to the spiritual separation of humanity from God due to the sin of the first humans. I do not know for sure which event in evolution we would point to as the Fall. Probably soon after the first homo sapiens but I doubt it could be measured biologically. Just to make things clear... So you are a moral relativist and believe that it is merely biological adaptation? So your critique against the morality of a creative God is based on the human perception that God would be evil to allow the painful process of evolution? There is no Christian theological position that deals with what happens to animals after death so all I can answer from the Christian perspective is that we don't truly know. Additionally, the argument I pose really doesn't need to include the idea of a spiritual afterlife. The only part of the argument that truly matters is that death is not inherently evil. He probably could have created another universe. However, that is irrelevant. All I need to prove is a possible world in which God and evil can co-exist and then the logical problem of evil fails. Free will...mmh. Free from what? You make it sound like you are much better off with free will, whatever that is. I am not sure. Firts of all, we are not free to do whatever we want to do. For instance, I cannot read other people mind. Second, do you think that it would have been possible for God to create a world with free will but without the evil associated? You are abusing the philosophical definition of free will. Free will merely means that a person is able to choose between the options available to him or her. It does not mean that one is able to do anything they dream of at the particular moment that they are making the choice. Doing anything logically possible would be the definition of omnipotence, not free will. I don’t know if it would be possible for God to create a world with free will but without evil associated. Whenever one is given free will they have a choice whether or not to obey God. If everyone obeyed the precepts God sets before us (to love God with our heart, soul and mind and to love others as ourselves) then it would be possible for free will to exist in conjunction with a lack of evil. There is no logical necessity of God being good (human good). The reason is simple. I could postulate an omni-evil (human evil) God and rebuke all attempts to deny him based on the existence of good in the world, by inverting your logic: P1: There exists a possible world in which an all-evil God exists P2: In this possible world, it is also possible that God grants his creatures free will P3: With free will the creatures can choose to do good or evil C: There exist a possible world in which an all-evil God exists and good exists I would agree that there is philosophically a possible world in which this could be true. However, that does nothing to help your argument on the logical problem of evil. The logical problem of evil relies on the idea that in all possible worlds, it is impossible for an all-loving God and evil to exist. If I can prove one possible world in which evil and God can co-exist, then God and evil co-existing in a world is not mutually exclusive.

I would tend to agree with this assessment. I do not believe that this is fine tuning either but rather random chance that these two rocks collided. From the perspective of a theistic evolution, physical death occurred before the Fall which is considered to be man's spiritual death (his loss of communion with God). Ok so the rest of your post largely deals with something known as the logical problem of evil or at least that is what I think you are going for. If I am understanding your argument, it goes as follows: P1: Evolution is the most likely explanation for why life exists in its present form on Earth P2: Pain and suffering exist in the process of evolution P3: An omnibenevolent and omnipotent God (such as the one in Christian theology) would not allow such death and pain to exist. C: An omnibenevolent and omnipotent God can therefore not exist. The problem I think I would have is with premise 3. I would contend that a God could allow pain and death and still remain logically consistent with his nature. There are a few reasons why pain and death could exist. 1. From a theological perspective, death is nothing to the Christian but a gateway. It does not mean that physical death in itself is evil. To the Christian, spiritual separation (spiritual death) is the problem. 2. Pain serves to protect ourselves from greater danger. In that way, pain allows us to adjust and to learn (adapt if you will). For instance, burning yourself on a hot stove will cause you to not touch the stove when it is on in the future to protect ourselves from greater pain or even death. From a Christian perspective, God does not promise us a comfortable life within the natural world. 3. God gave his creatures free will. That is, a human can choose to kill another human in cold blood (murder) which is considered to be evil. However, at that point, he is not God but is acting as his own moral agent to choose as he sees fit. The evil that he enacts should not reflect on God. In philosophical terms: P1: There exists a possible world in which an all-loving God exists P2: In this possible world, it is also possible that God grants his creatures free will P3: With free will the creatures can choose to do good or evil C: There exist a possible world in which an all-loving God exists and evil exists So I can see really no logical contradiction between God and the existence of pain, death or evil for that matter. This was a bit rushed so it might not be as in depth as you wanted it to be so please ask questions.

Perhaps not those two particular stones or particular stones in general. However, the idea that God created the initial conditions such that atoms themselves could arise seems more plausible to me. Pure chance on two asteroids colliding in general near a planet that could contain life (assuming the that it is within our universe) is possible. Pure chance on the issue of the fine tuned constants (power of strong force, weak force, etc.) is statistically much less possible unless you start appealing to a multiverse. In that case, I begin to wonder why we do not see cosmic "bruises" where inflationary universes have split off from our own or where neighboring universes have touched ours. We also still have to deal with the idea that the inflationary universe or multiverse if it exists would still be past finite but that gets into other matters where we would probably end up debating contingent states of affairs. Nice dodge, but you are not getting away with this We are not talking of the fine tuning of the universe, big unification or inflationary multiverses. We are talking about the circumstances that favored human evolution on earth. And these circumstances are pretty down-to-earth (pun intended). So, again, what is more likely, that God promoted our evolution by "finely tuned" colliding stones together with a big evolutionary and life waste, or that all this is just a Newtonian and biological accident? Sorry for the delay and I honestly wasn't trying to intentionally dodge the question but rather phrase it in the best way possible. I would not say that the stones themselves would be finely tuned (although they could be for all I know) as I have no evidence of such fine tuning. They could be just due to chance perhaps. However, I would contend that the universe itself appears finely tuned as to allow for basic chemistry so in that sense it does allow for our existence. Hope that clarifies my position. Just to be clear, are you asking why natural calamities occur in a creation with an all-loving God? Secondly, are you claiming that an all-loving God and such disasters/problems are mutually exclusive ideas? Just trying to clear this up so I don't go off on a wild goose chase in the wrong direction without answering your actual question

Perhaps not those two particular stones or particular stones in general. However, the idea that God created the initial conditions such that atoms themselves could arise seems more plausible to me. Pure chance on two asteroids colliding in general near a planet that could contain life (assuming the that it is within our universe) is possible. Pure chance on the issue of the fine tuned constants (power of strong force, weak force, etc.) is statistically much less possible unless you start appealing to a multiverse. In that case, I begin to wonder why we do not see cosmic "bruises" where inflationary universes have split off from our own or where neighboring universes have touched ours. We also still have to deal with the idea that the inflationary universe or multiverse if it exists would still be past finite but that gets into other matters where we would probably end up debating contingent states of affairs.

I generally concur with baryonoctet and D-9 that evolution and Christianity can be compatible. I actually think the idea that God creating a universe which is fine tuned as to allow for long term formation of atoms, let alone molecules, to be almost more brilliant than just creating the universe almost 6000 years ago but perhaps that is just me.

Ok... so here are some ideas from a fellow Christian and critic... I think one of the major problems with this argument is that it sets up a false dilemmas on many levels. Moral nihilism vs. moral absolutism There are various philosophies regarding morality. You are suggesting that all evolutionists must, by definition be moral nihilist (i.e. they must believe that there is no such thing as morality). For example, Cognitivism is the idea that ethical statements express ethical propositions and can therefore be true or false. This can include moral realists, moral relativists and error theorists just to name a few. Non-cognitivism is the idea that ethical statements do not express ethical propositions and therefore cannot be judged true or false and it also contains various subgroups. Many of these varying philosophies are held by a wide variety of people. You would first need to prove that atheists (by logical necessity) must believe a certain form of morality and then move on to prove that such a philosophical position does not align with their views before moving to your subsequent premises. The second dilemma you present concerns me even more. Darwinian Evolution vs. Young Earth Creationism Once again, this presents a false dilemma. What about Old Earth Creationists or Theistic Evolutionists or Deistic Evolutionists or (for the sake of argument that one exists) an Atheist who does not believe that the theory of evolution is factually correct? You completely neglect these ideas from your argument. As a theistic evolutionist, I am affronted by this statement. I believe (similarly to you) that God is the Cause of the universe (or multiverse if it exists) but I also believe that the theory of evolution is an accurate description of the biological process and adaptation of life from small organisms into complex beings (such as you and me). Last criticism of your post: Where is your science? You claim that God set up our world (or universe) in such a way as to allow life. I would agree that this seems to be a reasonable explanation to the fine tuning of the universe by why not talk about it? Bring up the fact that if certain constants had been off by even a little bit, our universe would have collapsed on itself, no atoms could form, etc. You could even go deeper into cosmology and examine Borde-Guth-Vilenkin's Past-Finite universe theorem which provides reasonable evidence that any inflationary universe/multiverse has a boundary in its past (approximately 14 billion years ago for us). Then try applying the logical idea of contingency to the evidence and see what you get. Just some advice...

Praying for all involved... sad that someone tries to make this into a political topic.

Hi by Faith Alone The problem that is at hand is that you dont understand and neither did I until God gave me the understanding of this. First and foremost I did not claim that God is simply Dark matter so please get rid of this idea. I said that God is, not simply. Hmm... your first post says: I apologize if that is not want you mean but it appears that you claim that God is dark matter and that he spoke. My problems with dark matter still stand if you still agree with this statement you made. No it does not make us water but it does make us majority water and it does imply that we are inside space and time. I think the problem that you are running into is that something made up, even in part, of spacetime is no longer eternal. It is automatically bonded to time. Everything is bounded by the laws of basic logic. Omnipotent means that God can do everything that is not logically contradictory. For instance, God cannot be not God. Logically, there is no way for God to be part of space time that has a starting point (the Big Bang) and remain eternal. I am worried when you say "how God was created" because you imply some Uncaused Cause before God. This is not in line with standard deistic, theistic or Christian philosophy.

Since when does Islam allow any other religion to come in? Did you even listen to the clarification? The guy doesn't want a purely Islamic school system. He wants to incorporate systems from other school systems (private, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc) as to improve our public schools. He doesn't want them to put religion into schools. It's a not-so-subtle attempt to replace the (now nonexistent) Christian prayers in schools with the satanic agenda of islam. Open your eyes, BFA. One guy saying this and then clarifying it because so many people were misunderstanding it automatically means that the Islam is taking over?... yeah... very logical...