tdrehfal
-
Posts
207 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by tdrehfal
-
-
To those who don't know me, you can read my thread in Worthy Welcome.
I'll start with a paradox that has resisted for a long time and hasn't been broken yet - to my knowledge. It's called Draygomb's Paradox, from the nickname of the poster who thought it up. The guidelines do not allow me to link to the original forum.
I have thought about it a great deal but I could never figure out how to break it. So I thought maybe it's my bias and I should ask some believers to try break it; it's much more natural if I, an atheist, am the one who defends it. As things are now, it seems too easy because if it can't be broken then that paradox breaks all the religions that define their god as the Conscious First Cause, but I can only say it's valid
Oh when I write "god" -- not capitalized -- I mean any god of any religion. Don't take it as disrespect.
Ok let's go on. Here is the paradox, letter by letter as it was posted on "that forum". It isn't copyrighted.
Draygomb's paradoxWithout Time God didn't have enough Time to decide to create Time.
God is defined as The Conscious First Cause -
The First Cause is That which caused Time.
Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
Time is the measure of change.
Premises:
Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.
Conclusions:
Time is required for Change.
A Decision is a Change.
Decisions require Time.
Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
Consciousness requires Time.
God is Conscious.
God requires Time.
God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
God isn't the cause of Time.
God isn't The First Cause.
If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
God doesn't exist.
Scope
Here Draygomb defines god in a way that is maybe a little unusual. We see all the time refutations based on incompatibilities between, say, omnipotence and omniscience so in a discussion we usually talk about God or other gods that have those properties. However Draygomb's paradox is about consciousness and time, so all he needs is the minimal definition of a god: the Conscious First Cause (CFC from now on). This guarantees that the paradox will work on, well, all the religions that count. It doesn't disprove the Greek religon or statements like "Pizza is god!!" (
) but that's it. In any case, it's obvious that any god that doesn't fit the definition given by Draygomb is not affected.Additional info
Just in case you have missed it, there are a few assumptions hidden in plain sight here and there.
- God created ex nihilo
- Time had a beginning
They may or may not help you to break the paradox. They didn't help me.
Draygomb also posted this, which may or may not help you:
Common Rebuttals And Why They FailGod Isn?t Conscious
Why Worship Something That Can?t Even Know You Exist
God Isn?t TFC
Why Worship A Fellow Caused Being
TFC Doesn?t Exist ie Time Has Always Existed
Infinite Causal Regression has been disproved
That leaves us with Finite Looping Time
Which Means All Of Time Has Always Existed
Thus Nothing Could Have Been Created
No Creation = No Creator
God Transcends Logic
Which Is Just A Fancy Way Of Saying God Is Illogical And Can?t Exist
Change Doesn?t Require Time
Change Does Require Time Go Look It Up
God Doesn?t Need To Change To Make The Conscious Decision To Create Time
If God Doesn?t Change When Making A Decision Then No Decision Was Really Made
Our Time Is An Offshoot Of God?s Time
Then The Real First Cause Of Our Time Is TFC Of God?s Time
God Transcends Time
If God is Always aware of every Moment of Time Then All Of Time Has Always Existed
Thus Nothing Could Have Been Created
No Creation = No Creator
I don't know why he capitalizes everything, I hate it.
Well, that's it. Let the chair throwing commence
The argument seems to confuse the concept of time with linear actual time. God can exist in an eternal state which is 'continual time'
(things always have been happening there, are happening, and always will be happening) and from there created this universe with
its linear timespan. Going back to the concept of time, which is a perceived change, it could just as well be argued that time
requires conciousness, in the conceptual sense. The paradox is difficult because we really don't have a very good definition for
time, period. What, exactly IS time?
From dictionary.com: (there are many definitions there, but this one seems to best fit our paradox):
the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.
So does time require a 'regarder'? Does time require 'relations'? Under this definition, yes. Events require multiple 'things' which could be phyisical
or metaphysical, like conciousness. So even if nothing is physically present, time can exist. So for time to exist, you at least need relations, which
must have always been occuring, like a triune God (father, son, holy spirit, who metaphysically sepearate, but one in will and purpose, the way I see
it) so relations can occur. And of course, so can 'regarding'. Time requires God.
-Time is required for Change.
Relations. Change is required for time.
-A Decision is a Change.
Assuming nothing physically yet exists, Decision is the only Change.
-Decisions require Time.
Assuming nothing physically yet exists, Time requires Decisions...
-Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
Regarder. Perceiver. Time requires conciousness.
-Consciousness requires Time.
See above.
-God is Conscious.
Yes.
-God requires Time.
Perceiver required. Time requires God.
-God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
God is continually making time, by what he does. And in order for time to exist, it needs a God.
-God isn't the cause of Time.
God is the cause of time by continually creating it.
-God isn't The First Cause.
God is the First Cause.
-If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
God, by continually making time, is the first cause of time.
-God doesn't exist.
God MUST exist.
(there are some things we don't understand.... i'm not sitting here gloating that i've successfully broken the paradox, but i feel i gave it a pretty decent shot!)
-
As salesman was assigned to secure an important client but failed in his mission.
He faxed his secretary and asked her to break the news indirectly to his boss. His note read, "Failed in securing client, prepare the boss."
He received the following fax from his secretary:
"The boss is prepared... prepare yourself."
Hmmm....? Guess I didn't get it quite right....
-
Myrtle an 85-year-old widow went on a blind date
with Bertram an 90-year-old man.
When Myrtle returned to her daughter Korina's house
later that night, she seemed upset.
"What happened, Mom?" Korina asked.
"I had to slap his face three times!" Myrtle replied.
"You mean he got fresh with you?" Korina asked.
"No," she answered. "I thought he was dead!"
-
A Man was walking down a street when he heard a voice from behind,
"If you take one more step, a brick will fall down on your head and kill you."
The man stopped and a big brick fell right in front of him. The man was astonished.
He went on, and after a while he was going to cross the road.
Once again the voice shouted, "Stop! Stand still! If you take one more step a car will run over you, and you will die."
The man did as he was instructed, just as a car came careening around the corner, barely missing him.
The man asked. "Who are you?"
"I am your guardian angel," the voice answered.
"Oh, yeah?" the man asked "And where were you when I got married?"
Good one!
-
God and St Peter I expect are very understanding. When serving the Lord K.I.S.S.---- KEEP IT SIMPLE SWEETHEART
FORREST GUMP GOES TO HEAVEN
The day finally arrived. Forrest Gump dies and goes to Heaven. He is at
the Pearly Gates, met by St. Peter himself. However, the gates are closed,
and Forrest approaches the gatekeeper.
St. Peter said, "Well, Forrest, it is certainly good to see you. We have
heard a lot about you. I must tell you, though, that the place is>
filling up fast, and we have been administering an entrance examination for
everyone. The test is short, but you have to pass it before you can get
into Heaven."
Forrest responds, "It sure is good to be here, St. Peter, sir. But nobody
ever told me about any entrance exam. I sure hope that the test ain't too
hard. Life was a big enough test as it was."
St. Peter continued, "Yes, I know, Forrest, but the test is only three
questions.
First: What two days of the week begin with the letter T?
Second: How many seconds are there in a year?
Third: What is God's first name?"
Forrest leaves to think the questions over. He returns the next day and
sees St. Peter, who waves him up, and says, "Now that you have had a chance
to think the questions over, tell me your answers."
Forrest replied, "Well, the first one -- which two days in the week
begins with the letter "T"? Shucks, that one is easy. That would be Today
and Tomorrow."
The Saint's eyes opened wide and he exclaimed, "Forrest, that is not
what I was thinking, but you do have a point, and I guess I did not
specify, so I will give you credi! t for that answer. How about the next
one?" asked St. Peter.
"How many seconds in a year? Now that one is harder," replied Forrest, but
I thunk and thunk about that, and I guess the only answer can be twelve."
Astounded, St. Peter said, "Twelve? Twelve? Forrest, how in Heaven's name
could you come up with twelve seconds in a year?"
Forrest replied, "Shucks, there's got to be twelve: January 2nd,
February 2nd, March 2nd... "
"Hold it," interrupts St. Peter. "I see where you are going with this,
and I see your point, though that was not quite what I had in mind....but I
will have to give you credit for that one, too. Let us go on with the third
and final question. Can you tell me God's first name"?
"Sure," Forrest replied, "it's Andy."
"Andy?" exclaimed an exasperated and frustrated St Peter.
"Ok, I can understand how you came up with your answers to my first two
questions, but just how in the world did you come up with the name Andy as
the first name of God?"
"Shucks, that was the easiest one of all," Forrest replied. "I learnt
it from the song, "ANDY WALKS WITH ME, ANDY TALKS WITH ME, ANDY TELLS ME I
AM HIS OWN. "
St. Peter opened the Pearly Gates, and said: "Run Forrest, run."
-
In our day and age, which is not unlike that throughout history, the acquisition of wealth and power on earth is the driving force and motivation in many people
-
There are some people that argue that Christ's one-time sacrifice isn't really much worth its salt because he was raised again on the third day and God knew this. But, if God is seeing everything at once, outside of time, God is also constantly seeing his Son on the cross at the point in time when it happened. This raises questions in my mind. God, being all-knowing and transcendent of time, will always have the memory of his only Son being on the cross... To him
it could be said to be an ETERNAL sacrifice, since God will always be 'seeing' that cross [outside of time] eternally. I'm not saying Christ is being re-crucified
over and over, but rather that God the Father gave up something for ALL ETERNITY, and being outside of time, is always reminded of what he gave up: His only begotten Son... This seems logical to me.
-
Maybe this is being covered elsewhere in the forum, but it caught my attention. http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-...life-usat_x.htm
I believe that God is the Creator, but this is- weird.
The questionable argument here would be are viruses truly 'alive'? They can reproduce provided they have cells to do this with. Is fire alive? As long as it
has fuel to consume it can 'reproduce' itself. This is a fuzzy issue. I really don't think viruses qualify as 'life'. Computer viruses act exactly the same way,
so are they ALIVE? The lines here are somewhat blurry.
-
After reading much of Paul's insertions into the New Testament, I can't seem to find any mention of Jesus' earthly ministry.
No virgin birth
No visit of magi
No slaughter of innocents
No flight into Egypt
No Jesus in the Temple at age twelve
No Baptism of Jesus
No Wedding Feast
No Christ walking on water
No Raising of Lazerus
No Transfiguration
No entering into Jerusalem
No Last Supper
No Jewish Court hearing
No Pilate court hearing
No flogging
No Jesus carrying the cross
All Paul knows about is Jesus' death on a cross, resurrection from tomb, and his ascension into heaven.
These three attribute accredited to Christ by Paul, the earliest Christian writer, were also accredited to many other pagan savior gods before Jesus. Paul never quotes anything from any gospel, mainly because Paul wrote before the gospels were written, and apparently hadn't been told about Jesus' earthly ministry. When he speaks of the death, resurrection, and ascension, he talks on a MYTHICAL realm. Just like the pagan saviors.
Hebrews 8:4
"If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest."
Jesus lived in the years of 0 A.D. to 33 A.D.(roughly) and Mark was written sometime after 70 A.D. Paul wrote in between these dates. He is the link. And from what I can see, he was unaware of the fact that Jesus was actually on earth.
It is not surprising that Christians rarely speak of early Christianity. When you assemble the facts it comes out as so:
Jesus lived - EVERYONE FORGOT - they finally remembered.
Post your thoughts...
system
Seriously, this is all rubbish.
Why would Paul be mentioning things that everyone already believed since his epistles were written to believers? Paul preached the gospel
orally to people, he did not write The Gospel According to Paul. We have four gospels already for that purpose. We also don't need to play
the 'dating game' where liberal vs. conservative sources smack dates around like a tennis ball during a match. The 'pagan saviour gods'
is just 'mind candy' for selling books to the masses.
-
The ones who are aggressive strong atheists would rather die than believe in God, these are the ignorant ones. These are the ones that no argument will suffice. No amount of evidence will ever support. Nothing can ever be done to change their minds.
Ignorant believers follow the law, and believe that the law is what gets them into heaven. They believe they can judge who will go to heaven and hell. They believe that you have to cleanse yourself of sins before you can go to God, they believe that eternal life rests on their ability to effectively force religion down the throats of others.
True believers follow Jesus, and in following Jesus and his teachings, they follow the law, they understand that God is the final word on heaven and hell, true believers love all of those around them and are sad, not angry for those who turn their back on God, true believers know their purpose, and they perceiver through tough times and know that their life is under Gods will, because that is where they put it.
So does this mean that a true believer should practice Jewish Law? Such as being circumsized? And don't give me Paul's advice on this. I want Jesus' advice on this.
I guess you should become a Christian and get in touch with Him, then?
But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice, for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentence. Mat. 9:13
Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath.
If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with me because I
made a man completely well on the Sabbath?
Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with a righteous judgement. Jhn. 22-24
So lets see. Mercy, not sacrifice. The law was designed for mercy and I'm sure you've probably read some of the law and that you can see that it was
intended for mercy, not some rigid system to break people's backs with. So a true believe needn't practice the Jewish Law. Of course you probably
already knew this. I'm sure noone is going to hell for being uncircumcised.
-
Kendemeyer,
thankyou for the links, they are awesome.
Best explanation for the moon's existence:"observational error, the moon does not exist".
Here's what was written in the link, and taken out of context by the poster here:
Evolutionists (and progressive creationists) deny the moon
-
0. There are...
The first one is stupid. I already said it's just for fun and I already explained why it's nonsense. It's numbered 0 for a reason.
1. A man operates a bridge that allows a train to travel over water and lifts up so boats can pass underneath. The man's son is on the bridgeand a train full of passengers is approaching, without enough time to reach his son. He in effect sacrifices his son's life to allow the passengers
to travel safely accross the bridge instead of allowing a train wreck. He in effect kills his son for the benefit of others.
A police officer shoots someone about to set off a nuclear bomb. Noone knew about the bomb and later someone stole it.
The officer looks like a senseless murderer. This statement equates to: Killing someone is morally exclusive to being perfectly good. This is false.
It is true for God, because He could use His magic to save everyone. He's omnipotent, he can do that. The police officer and the first guy cannot, so they're excused. God is not excused.
2. Omnipotence and Omnipresence includes time. God could see it all at once. This statement is more like: I see evil and suffering and it's God's fault for not changing it. God knows how to run the world, and God, being all powerful, can use suffering for good.(Really, I don't know what this one was about. Omnipotence includes telling/knowing/changing the future. In fact, even if God only existed in the present, his omnipresence would be enough, because he'd know everything going on down to the subatomic level, everywhere. That would allow for PERFECT future prediction. But I believe He can exist outside of time.
If God sees everything at once, then everything has already been decided and He can't change it, thus He's not omnipotent.
3. The thought of man was only evil continually at this point in time, and if there were any babies/children that were 'innocent' at the time, God can take them to heaven and then resurrect them (he's still all-powerful) at judgement day. So God saved the babies and children.Your answer does break the paradox, but it seems very unsatisfying. Killing only the unclean would have been preferable in the eyes of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God.
4. This one again places the blame on God for unecessary evil in the world. Allowing people to suffer the consequences for their actions, including allowing evil, does not exclude omnibenevelence, it simply includes, as a part of omnimax, omnijustice, and an element of free will in the creation. He doesn't want people to suffer. However, he will not always eliminate the consequences of humanity's selfish, sinful actions. This would make God an omni-pushover, and then he really couldn't be called God.That's not the case. I said unnecessary evil. I'm talking about things like forest fires, hurricanes and other things that haven't been caused by humans.
1.
Then God would be obligated to this for EVERYONE, any time something bad happened. Yes, He could save everyone in this way, by making
things disappear the minute someone builds them, or creating force-fields around people every time they're about to do something wrong,
but this would make reality more of virtual prison than the kind of reality we DO have, and that's not omnibenevolent, how would you like
to live in a world like that? That would evil, and not good.
2. I don't see how seeing everything all at once means you can't change it. It could just as well be argued that you're present
everywhere and are constantly changing it for the greater good.
3. Forest fires, hurricanes, and other disasters could just as well have been allowed by God [all-knowing] for some purpose
that is necessary, but men who are not all knowing cannot discern.
-
On 3: Stating that the origin of life is completely superflous to the TOE is rediculous. What you really appear to be saying is 'The origin of life
is superfluous to Evolutionary Biology, not evolution. YOU completely missed MY point. Walk down the street and ask people
about the origin of life and how we got here. Evolution will come up nine times out of ten., if not ten out of ten. So there's no relationship
between evolution and origins? You're being rediculous.
Okay...I seriously don't know how I can make this any clearer for you. You seem to think that the Theory of Evolution is some grand, overreaching theory of "Life the Universe and Everything." It is not. It applies to biological systems after the emergence of life on Earth. I seriously hope I don't have to keep repeating this.
Walk down the street and ask people about the origin of life and how we got here. Evolution will come up nine times out of ten.If that is how you approach science, then you are the one being ridiculous. Scientific theories are not defined or penned by random people off the street.
I suggest instead that you walk into a museum or university and ask scientists in the field. If you ask about how the Human race originated, then yes, you will get the evolutionary explanation from proto-monkeys and so forth. Howevever, if you ask about the origin of life itself, you will likely either get the "RNA world" explanation (which I largely subscribe to), the "Metabolism First" explanation, or some combination thereof. You will never hear Evolution stated as the reason for the origin of life itself.
You might as well try to argue that Atomic Theory is invalid because it does not explain Gravity. I really don't know how much clearer I can make that.
At least points 1 and 2 seem to have gotten through to you
Since I do believe limited evolution does happen, yes, 1 and 2 would get me. However, the rest of this post totally ignored what I stated.
You simply 'pushed' the argument aside. Evolution IS the 'grand, big theory of life and everything' as it relates to pre-college textbooks.
I dont know how to make this any clearer to you: In the minds of most atheist/agnost individuals, evolution is that 'grand theory' you're
talking about. The scientific community should be holding some kind of press conference to convey to the public that evolution isn't
about the way we got here. Why haven't they done this? By letting it continue then, they're being irresponsible. Besides all this,
even if you're talking about stuff AFTER life emerged, you're STILL talking about origins! Not the origin of the first organism, but
the origin of the first 'complex' organism, which eventually turns into modern man. No matter how you look at it, evolution has
a lot to do with origins.
-
Okay, you've completely missed my point. I thought I laid it out clearly enough with this sentence:
First of all, abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution
The asteroid/aleins/Zeus examples I provided after that were merely there to illustrate that point. I'll say it again: Current lack of a conclusively accepted model for how life emerged has no bearing on whether the Theory of Evolution is valid. Evolution is concerned with what happened after life emerged. I also challenge you to find any scientific literature that claims the Theory of Evolution explains the origin of life itself.
In summary:
1-Evolution is testable and falsifiable
2-ID is not
3-The origin of life is completely superfluous to the Theory of Evolution.
On 3: Stating that the origin of life is completely superflous to the TOE is rediculous. What you really appear to be saying is 'The origin of life
is superfluous to Evolutionary Biology, not evolution. YOU completely missed MY point. Walk down the street and ask people
about the origin of life and how we got here. Evolution will come up nine times out of ten., if not ten out of ten. So there's no relationship
between evolution and origins? You're being rediculous. When I was in high school I read about how rain and lightning and the
perfect environment [primoridal soup, or whatever you want to call it] worked together to form the first living organism. The literature
you're looking for is in every high, middle, and even most private schools in the entire country and beyond. On the college level
you're going to study something like evolutionary biology or geology so no, it won't be there because it doesn't need to be there.
-
No, we're saying ID can not be subject to the scrutiny of the Scientific Method, and is therefore not a scientific theory as it claims to be.
This is where ID proponents and abiogenesis/evolution proponents argue back and forth for no reason whatsoever because technically,
ID ISN'T a scientific theory, because it requires the Intelligent Designer, who isn't a lab rat that can be examined. Nor is He a
cell that you can place under a microscope. ID is something that DOES require faith, but to be fair, evolution DOES require
at least some faith, and I think it requires a lot more faith than ID, if you're talking about macroevolution and things like
abiogenesis. Then again, evolution as a theory of origins requires abiogenesis which is not falsifiable and cannot be observed
so you could argue that, at least in the case of abiogenesis, this is not really scientific under the definition that you cannot
scrutinize under the scientific method.
First of all, abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Zip. Nada. If it is conclusively shown that the first DNA (or even the first cell) was placed on Earth by aliens, Divine powers, an asteroid, or what have you, that does not affect Evolutionary Biology. The Theory of Evolution states that over time, via the process of Natural Selection, organisms develop traits to enable them to better survive in their environment. Note that abiogenisis is not mentioned in that definition. The origin of Life is not adressed by Evolution, rather the the Theory deals with everything that has happened since then.
I suppose I could get into such things as the Miller-Urey Experiment or current research into the origins of life on Earth, like self-replicating RNA polymers and self-replicating membranes being synthesized abiotically in a lab, but I believe that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Evolution is also completely falsifiable. Here's a brief list things that would falsify Evolution that I can think of off the top of my head:
-A maladaptive gene/trait propegating through a population despite selective pressures to remove it
-Fossils of modern ceatures being found in precambrian rock
-The finding of a complex structure that has no evolutionary precursor (the so-called "Irreducible Complexity" that ID proponents keep looking for)
-A fossil of an organism being dated as older than its evolutionary ancestors
-The spontaneous generation of a complex organism from inanimate matter
But, thank you for proving my point about ID not being science.
I think this is sort of like 'hiding in the closet', because the TOE is used to describe origins and i'm sure you will find tons of atheists
that say evolution is the way we got here. If the 'first cell' came here by some means other than abiogensis, then evolution is
not a valid in respect to origins. If you say that the first cell could've been deposited by some Divine Power, you're admitting
at least the POSSIBILITY that God exists and He's responsible for this creation. This is really stretching it. If it DID get here
by some divine power, or aliens, or what have you, then it would more reasonable assume that if this power has the ability
to create something as complex as a cell, then why waste time depositing a cell when you can form a creation? Sounds kind
of silly. The only thing you're left with without abiogensis is that you have humans eventually coming about from the first
cell, and that the cell was created. But why don't we look at that hypothesis for a moment?
The first cell is deposited here. For a single cell to survive, it needs the right environment to survive in, and without it
the cell dies. So where, exactly, was this first cell placed? In a perfect environment to ensure its survival. So then that
perfect environment needs to exist as well. Did THAT come about by chance? Cells also need material input so they
can stay alive to reproduce. The material would already need to be here, since cells need glucose/minerals/oxygen
to survive. You should've chosen a better word than 'cell', which is more complex than any of our modern technology.
But then again, what are you left with without cells, aside from viruses which use cells to replicate? You're left with
nothing except, like you said, DNA. DNA certainly isn't going to do much without a cell to abide in. We can sit here
talking about cells, as I just mentioned, being more complex than anything WE could design, and yet you probably think
it's silly to assume they're designed. I also think that it's funny you mentioned an asteroid, since nothing would
survive on an asteroid in the vacuum of space.
-
One important factor to think about, If ID, isn't concidered even valid in the realm of science, what happens to evidence that supports it?
and another question, exactly how do they date the strata? just wondering.
This is a question I think Runner's High is better equipped to answer than me. From my own knowledge, I'd say there isn't actually scientific evidence per se which supports ID - the case for it is constructed largely around criticism of evidence for evolution and by pointing out a lack of knowledge in other areas. As a theory, I don't think it was ever constructed for its own merits so much as to constitute a direct attack on evolution - I mention this because the parameters which define it are more about discrediting another field than trying, through scientific evidence, to establish an alternate theory. As for strata dating, I think they check the age of the rock plus its position in the layers, and then check those with the age of the bones - but that's just my guess.
Just wondering because I've looked around on "other ways to date objects" Carbon 4 methods cannot measure a million years, and for other methods, I havn't found any, I have seen strata layers dated by the fossils in the layer, and I've seen fossils based off the strata layers. Theres a book I think you should check out, it's called the genises floodby john c. whitcomb, and henry M moris, it had a thing about the footprints, It's funny how the dinosaur footprints where found real, some footprints where discredited, and some where interprited to go along with evolution, there was no valid evidence to discredit any of them. one interesting fact is that the majority where around 15 inches long, In Genises it makes mention that giants walked the earth. After looking at both sides, I saw evidence supporting the footprints, and the only evidence disproving them where doubt, and suspission, which isn't evidence at all.
Well, the only thing I'm going to add when it comes to doubt and suspicion is that both sides partake of it in liberal quantities. Something you can't ever really change en masse is the fact that people tend to believe first and find evidence second. I've met a lot of Christians who discredit evolution because of what they already believe and because this makes them suspicious of it, not because they have any evidence to the contrary. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
People do tend to believe first and find evidence second. This is true of every scientist, creationist or non-creationist. EVERYONE is biased. One thing
that's often said about science is that it is totally and completely objective evaluation of the evidence. There's NO SUCH THING as the perfect, totally
objective human being, all people are biased to some degree and there's no way of getting around it. People are biased, at least to some extent.
Everyone.
Do scientists not look at things, come up with a theory first (an idea, a belief that might seem reasonable) and THEN look for evidence for their theory?
Since proving an entirely new theory about something is a great achievement in scientific circles, might not the scientist be passionate about his or
her theory, and this passion could perhaps lead to some bias toward the theory? Certainly.
-
You are basicly making the claim, "If you can't think of a way to disprove a theory or hypothesis then it must not be true anyway...."
No, we're saying ID can not be subject to the scrutiny of the Scientific Method, and is therefore not a scientific theory as it claims to be.
This is where ID proponents and abiogenesis/evolution proponents argue back and forth for no reason whatsoever because technically,
ID ISN'T a scientific theory, because it requires the Intelligent Designer, who isn't a lab rat that can be examined. Nor is He a
cell that you can place under a microscope. ID is something that DOES require faith, but to be fair, evolution DOES require
at least some faith, and I think it requires a lot more faith than ID, if you're talking about macroevolution and things like
abiogenesis. Then again, evolution as a theory of origins requires abiogenesis which is not falsifiable and cannot be observed
so you could argue that, at least in the case of abiogenesis, this is not really scientific under the definition that you cannot
scrutinize under the scientific method.
-
C shouldn't stop adapting at all. But C will still be an adapted C, and not a newly-evolved D.
So If C is continuously changing, or adapting, how do things settle down?
They settle down after so many negative, abhorrent and non-beneficial mutations occur to C and proliferate the gene pool that C finally becomes
an exctinct species. You could argue that C is continuously changing and adapting forever, but during this process a ton of negative mutations
are causing a loss of genetic information and finally extinction. And again, C will always be an adapted C and not a newly evolved D. Now,
to overcome this natural process, natural selection can weed out those weaker C's with bad genetic mutations to ensure the survival of C.
But now you're depending on another species to to do this. So you'd have to admit then, that C REQUIRES another species using natural
selection to weed out the weaker ones to ensure its survial. C, left to itself, would degrade like the following: You make a copy on a copy
machine. You make another copy of that copy, and another copy of a copy of a copy. Copying is never perfect, so some of these copies
contain copying errors. Fortunately we can throw out the bad copies [natural selection]. But this must be DONE by someone. In the same
way, C requires another species, we'll call it E, to ensure its survival. But E is a species as well, and it needs another species to ensure
IT'S survival as well, and so the chain continues into an intricately irreducably complex ecosystem in which all species actually DEPEND
on each other. Even with natural selection, how many species are going exctinct? TONS. Yes, much of is it is the product of man
but even without man we'd still have species going extinct. Information in the gene pool is being lost, destroyed, or altered in a non-
beneficial way far too much.
-
Questioner -
I know these are not arguments you created. I can see you most likely assume them to be true, valid, convincing arguments. But they are not.
They are based in the semantics of the terms used without appreciating their essence.
The rationality of the arguments likewise confines God to the 3-D world we live in. Einstein showed that when the fourth dimension of "time" is included in the mix, the rules change. Quantum physics has found that there are even more dimensions than this, and we have yet to unravel what effect they have in the universe (for that matter, we have yet to define just what these dimensions are!)
You forget that God by definition is a spiritual being, and so in rationalizing your arguments, you need to comply by the rules of how a spirit operates. But you can't do that because spirits operate in a realm we cannot see, feel, or touch, and so is not confined by our rules, or what we perceive our rules to be.
So, in essence, your arguments are negated at their core.
Actually he said they were 'just for fun' so we don't know how really serious he takes them. He also said they were from 'weakest' to 'strongest' which
means he admits that some of them are weak.
-
If believe and nothing happens, test is negative.
What do you want to have happen? If you want to be saved from hell, you get that. What does it look like to you? Must it have a substance? No...it is a secure and real knowledge that Jeus is who He says He is! Amen!
If you are waiting for something to happen, then you don't believe. He's 'asking' or 'testing', which means you don't really believe yet.
You can't say: I believe this is TOTALLY true, but nothing is happening, so its NOT true. You either believe or you dont.
-
This is a quick one. It's a barrage of paradoxes. I sorted them from the weakest to the strongest.
0) This is just for fun
If God is defined as omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because He can't create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it.1) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition since either He can't kill, say, Terry Schiavo, or He isn't perfectly good.
2) If God is defined as omnipotent and omniscient, God doesn't exist by definition because either He can't change the future or He can't know the future.
3) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because being omnipotent He could have avoided killing small children with the Flood. He instead let only one family live. So either he didn't have the power to save every single good or innocent human or he had that power but murdered innocents.
The Flood is interchangeable with other biblical events, like the destruction of Sodom.
4) If God is defined as omnimax, God doesn't exist by definition because either he doesn't know about the unnecessary evil present in the world (= not omniscient); or he knows about it but can't do anything to eliminate it (= not omnipotent); or he knows about it, could erase it, but doesn't because He wants us to suffer (= not omnibenevolent).
Discuss (if you want to).
Btw, I hope I'm posting in the right forum...
0. There are some things God cannot do. God cannot lie. He also cannot step down from the Godhead, being all powerful, and make a stone so heavy
he can't lift it. He'd need to cease to be God to do this. Therefore, this statement is: God doesn't exist because God can't not be God. Well, you
can't not be you, [in the literal, physical sense], yet you still exist.
1. A man operates a bridge that allows a train to travel over water and lifts up so boats can pass underneath. The man's son is on the bridge
and a train full of passengers is approaching, without enough time to reach his son. He in effect sacrifices his son's life to allow the passengers
to travel safely accross the bridge instead of allowing a train wreck. He in effect kills his son for the benefit of others.
A police officer shoots someone about to set off a nuclear bomb. Noone knew about the bomb and later someone stole it.
The officer looks like a senseless murderer. This statement equates to: Killing someone is morally exclusive to being perfectly good. This is false.
2. Omnipotence and Omnipresence includes time. God could see it all at once. This statement is more like: I see evil and suffering
and it's God's fault for not changing it. God knows how to run the world, and God, being all powerful, can use suffering for good.
(Really, I don't know what this one was about. Omnipotence includes telling/knowing/changing the future. In fact, even if God
only existed in the present, his omnipresence would be enough, because he'd know everything going on down to the subatomic
level, everywhere. That would allow for PERFECT future prediction. But I believe He can exist outside of time.
3. The thought of man was only evil continually at this point in time, and if there were any babies/children that were 'innocent' at the time, God
can take them to heaven and then resurrect them (he's still all-powerful) at judgement day. So God saved the babies and children.
4. This one again places the blame on God for unecessary evil in the world. Allowing people to suffer the consequences for their actions,
including allowing evil, does not exclude omnibenevelence, it simply includes, as a part of omnimax, omnijustice, and an element of
free will in the creation. He doesn't want people to suffer. However, he will not always eliminate the consequences of humanity's
selfish, sinful actions. This would make God an omni-pushover, and then he really couldn't be called God.
-
Time is created by God. God does not conform to time. Time is useful to man, but God exists and operates independent of it.
Ya, I know. It's weird because since we are 3 dimensional creatures, we cannot look at time. We can only live in it. So since God is outside of time, this means that he can look at time. Kind of like how we look at a book. I like to put it this way:
Lets say I'm writing a book about Joe. In the first chapter I write down that Joe eats a hamburger. Well I finish the book, and I'm reading chapter 20. In chapter 20, Joe is dancing on a roof. Well at any point in time, I can go back and observe Joe eating a hamburger, but at the same time, still dance on a roof. The book is like time. We are characters of the book, like joe, and can only eat the hamburger, but we cannot observe ourselves while we presently eat the hamburger, and dance on the roof at the same time. So I see time as being God's book. He can go and look at any point in the book at any time. He isn't past or future, he is only present. He can't see the future, he is in the future. He can't see the past, he's only in the past. Do you kind of see what I'm saying? We can observe Joe at any point in the book(aka his life) at any time. But Joe can only live in a certain time, and when we get done writing his book, he dies. He doesn't exist in this presence of time anymore. The same goes for us. And this brings another question to mind. When we die and go to Heaven, will we be able to observe time in this manner, like a book? Will we be outside of time? Very interesting....
Cool!
-
Its very mindboggling to think about this. God created everything, even time. But when did God become God, or where does He dwell? He is outside of time, so what where IS He exactly? Its really weird to think about this, I've always wondered if we will be able to ask Him these questions....
When you listen to a song, where exactly is the song. Not the waves transmitting the song, nor the particles in the air that are affected by the waves
but the song itself. Where is the song? The song exists. Where is it? The words in this sentence. Where are they? The words themselves, not the
pixels on your screen as you read this. You can then speak these words to someone else. They still exist. They can write them down. They still
exist. None of the medium are really the words, the words are simply the words. I kind of equate this sort of thinking with the 'where is God'
question. It is mindboggling.
-
Kendemeyer,
thankyou for the links, they are awesome.
Best explanation for the moon's existence:"observational error, the moon does not exist".
Here's what was written in the link, and taken out of context by the poster here:
Evolutionists (and progressive creationists) deny the moon
) but that's it. In any case, it's obvious that any god that doesn't fit the definition given by Draygomb is not affected.
If God is defined as omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because He can't create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it.
wolf in sheeps clothing
in Have a problem? Looking for advice?
Posted · Edited by tdrehfal
Well, do you know the article is true? It might not be. But even if it is, remember, it's God who does any healing, and God who gets the glory.
There are many people I don't particularly care for on TV, but people do get healed. They get healed because God honors their faith
and not because of the preacher. Your trust must be in Christ, and not the preacher or handkerchief. If God was working in your life,
it would be because he honored your faith, and not because of any preacher.
Remember, your faith must be built upon THE ROCK. If you build your house on the sand (a preacher, televangelist, or whomever)
your faith can be easily swept away. If it's built on Jesus Christ, it will stand.