Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

219 Excellent


About siegi91

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Music, Philosophy, Soccer and Reading (a lot).

Recent Profile Visitors

1,754 profile views

    Yes, but all this dissent agrees that me and a tree have a common ancestor. And I believe that is the real contention, is it not? So, I am not sure what the point is, to rejoice. It is like rejoicing that Stalinism has been challenged by Leninism, because that vindicates anti-communism. Makes no logical sense, really. And what do you mean with speaking to my heart? You mean the blood pump in my chest? Or is that some allegory for the set of neurons in my brain responsible for emotional feelings? And I do not think for a moment that you are crazy. I like you a lot. You seem to be genuinely concerned with my eternal destiny, which is sweet. I never met any man that does. Sieglinde

    And that is the scientific dissent? Hearing voices? OK. I am not a Christian, but I am learning so much of it. Thank you. sieglinde

    With common origin I mean: you and a carrot have a common ancestor. The same with all biological beings on earth. Since all scientific (not ID) dissent from Darwinism subscribe to that (obviously, the chances of different independent origins of lives with so much genetic similarities is ridiculously small), I am not sure why creationists get all excited about that dissent. sieglinde

    Yes, there is some some scientific dissent from strict Darwinism. For instance, punctuated equilibrium deviates from canonical gradualism. However, they all strongly agree on one central thing: common origin. Is not darwinian common origin preferable to Christians? I am not a Christian, so I cannot really say. sieglinde

    I am not sure I understand. Do you think that things like cosmology are not science, either, because we cannot reproduce Universes in a lab? sieglinde

    How many of them are called Steve? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
  7. Science and Faith ARE Compatible

    No. Since science includes evolution, and that is clearly incompatible with Christianity, then science is not compatible with faith (in Christianity), unless we arbitrarily modify the definition of what science or Christianity mean. Additionally, the unitarity character of physical laws excludes things like free will and such, which provides definitive evidence of the intellectual disconnect between science and the belief in a supreme being like the Christian God, among others. And the cognitive dissonances that anyone trying to believe in both will necessarily experience. independently from which worldview is the truer one. And that is not, in my opinion, a problem between conservative Christianity and liberal Christianity. Christianity, both flavors thereof, is incompatible with what is considered standard science today. Period. To make an example, liberal Christians ridicule Adam and Eve, but they are also creationists (necessarily) and, therefore, as much at odd with modern science as believers in a young earth. From a scientific point of view, the idea of a first human couple is as plausible as the idea of a spiritual agent operating on the evolution of genomes since millions of years correcting the course of natural unguided selection. So, liberal and conservative Christianity have equal footing here, for what concerns scientific plausibility, and the idea of a liberal Christianity being more scientifically fit is, frankly, untenable. For me, it is obvious that such liberal believers want to have their cake and eat it too, which raises some doubts about their intellectual honesty. But that won't do, I am afraid. They really have to take sides, if they do not want to live with cognitive dissonances, and corrupt both science and the Bible. However, that does not entail that science and faith (in other tenets different from Christianity) cannot be compatible. For instance, deism does not seem to be in full contradiction with modern science. sieglinde
  8. Musings in regard to Hell

    I have a general question. I am not a Christian, and therefore I hope you indulge my ignorance. However, since I am here, people tell me that Christianity is not a religion really, but an intimate relationship with God. A sort of personal relationship. This sounds amazing, but does not really explain why there are so many disagreements about basic things like how hell looks like. An that is only an example. A cursory browsing on this forum shows many more disagreements on many other things. So, to me is not clear what "personal relationship" means if people claiming to have it disagree at such a fundamental level. Wouldn't be much simpler to ask to God, during these relationships, how hell really looks like and get done with it? sieglinde
  9. Do you think that making any cosmological argument, that strongly depends on an outdated and discredited ontology of time, is a rational thing to do? It might have worked in medieval times, when Kalam and Aquinas were young, and nobody had a clue of relativity. But today it won't do, I am afraid. In my experience, these arguments do not convince any atheist who knows basic physics, but it runs the risk of confusing the believer who is not acquainted with those things. So, it is counter-productive, really. Therefore, I would recommend to keep your belief as a statement of faith. This is entirely acceptable and I am sure it is also theologically tenable. Otherwise, trying to justify it with physics and philosophy will only hurt you. Believe me, you don't want that. siegi
  10. "Did come from" is a tensed verb with the word "from" which assumes an external environment. Therefore, it assumes an external time and space context, clocks, etc, Nothing of the sort exists outside the Universe, by definition. Ergo, the Universe cannot be coming from, and the question: "where did the Universe come from?" is meaningless. Now, the question is whether answers to meaningless questions can be taken seriously. And that is left as a simple exercise to the reader. siegi
  11. Man's distinctives from the animals.

    I am not sure I understand this. I am not an expert of Christianity teachings, after all. You think that the observation of what chimps and apes do, explains why humans need a savior? I understand what you mean, since I know we and apes are biologically related. Actually, humans are still (great) apes, taxonomically. But I was not aware that this biological relationship had also theological relevance in Christianity. I found that interesting. I am learning so much. siegi
  12. A Retraction Regarding Abiogenesis

    Well, I like theists, I just do not know so many of them. I like most people. However, I cannot possibly imagine myself believing in the supernatural. But never say never To be honest with you, I am a bit skeptical of a God tweaking things. How is it possible? How could a divine plan go astray if it does not get monitored and corrected almost in real time? I am afraid that would make God ability to design and foresee a bit suboptimal, which is, in my opinion, self defeating for a God worthy that title. I mean, this is not only biology. Big events also influenced the history of life on the planet. For instance, if it is true that the coupe de grace to the dinosaurs has been inflicted by a big asteroid hitting earth AND God wanted the mammals to take over, then we should be led to conclude that God does not only tune DNA, but also the trajectory of celestial bodies millions of years before they hit earth at the right moment, so that little rodents can go out of their shelters, become primates and eventually us. The obvious question is: why make things so complicated? Real-time DNA engineering, asteroids, volcanoes, meteorological changes, tectonic movements, a huge amount of extinctions, living beings needing to eat other living beings, ruthless competition for limited resource, continuous design improvements of predators fighting against continuous design improvements of preys trying to flee them, arm races between eaters and eaten, etc...when all He had to do is to create what He wanted at once, as literalists claim. I understand that admiring (evolutionary) science and, at the same time, being fond of the Bible, can generate some cognitive dissonances, but to be honest with you, all this looks like an attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole. I really have no idea how to resolve such conflicts without a sacrifice. siegi
  13. The CERN? You scare me, I have to go there in a couple of days! sieglinde
  14. Time is relative and has therefore no objective reality. We have been knowing that for 113 years now. So, I am not sure why anyone would discuss God being not subject to something that has no objective meaning anyway. siegi