Copper Scroll

I'm not sure if I'd call that a good/bad concept, that is an animal reacting to positive and negative stimulus. If we zapped a person with a taser everytime they sinned, they would begin to avoid it as well. However, there are things that have very little consequence such as lying, insulting someone, or just being miserable in general. On a small scale those things go unpunished yet we still know they are bad. The good/bad concept you're talking about is just a more complex version of the good/bad concept animals have. Humans learn to internalize our own tasers and treats at an early age.

Understood. But I would say that a "religious experience" and the like are phenomena that occur on the psychological level. It is merely a human attribute which can be shown by observing this phenomena outside the realm of religion. There are psychological terms for these phenomena but I will avoid getting too deep into that debate because it's outside my expertise. But Kant's argument suggests that there may be factors acting on this and perhaps all phenomena which are unobservable. I agree that the "gap" that we humans feel the need to explain through the supernatural continues to shrink...and that there may come a point when we have learned all that we possibly can about our own existence. I would want to point out that if something does exist that is not "knowable", then obviously we would not "know" about it, which is precisely what the religious claim to "know". You're right, it is an extraordinary claim that by definition does not have extraordinary evidence...it is a matter of pure faith which is the antithesis of scientific knowledge. Some people are happy to leave it to faith, others cannot. Perhaps, our disagreement boils down to whether we as humans can possibly know everything. I doubt this is possible. I know that my own awareness is finite, and we as humans can only account for reality according to all of our limited awarenesses combined. I think the word is "intersubjectivity". Science must accept "intersubjectivity" as the closest possible thing we could have to true "objectivity", but the two are not the same.

yes, I addressed the existence of the soul in my first post. To summarize, there is no evidence of for the existence of a soul...therefore it is highly unlikely (im not saying impossible) that one in fact does exist. To clarify, I was trying to answer your question about why humans would care about the unknowable. It is because, according to the world's religions at least, the unknowable can affect our lives, perhaps on a non-perceptible level but perhaps also on the level of personal, perceptible experience (including but not limited to what is usually called a "religious experience"). Now, granted, we know that there was a time when we didn't know about the causes of disease, the causes of atmospheric and geological events, etc. and people attributed these things to gods and demons--the realm of the unknowable. We now know that the causes of these things are more knowable than once thought, but the thrust of Kant's argument is that not everything is knowable. That is not what you atheists would call an "extraordinary claim", is it? I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that. [edit] It might be that the word "unknowable" is the wrong word to use in this context. I mean unknowable to individual beings with finite consciousness--us. All things would be knowable to an omniscient being with infinite consciousness--God--so the only things that are truly unknowable don't really exist.

Well, because all reality is one and everything in reality affects everything else in reality, then those things that are unknowable to us do impact us on some level--perhaps on unknowable level (i.e. the soul?).

I agree with Kant's argument completely. I have actually raised these points to atheists before--from various angles, using their terminology here or more religious/theological terminology there--and have never received any satisfactory counterargument. Another way to spin it is that most people do believe that there is a truly objective reality. The problem is that we only perceive our subjective realities, but the organization and overlap between our subjective realities suggests strongly to us that a truly objective reality (that is whole and singular) exists. Now, empiricists hold that the only reality worth considering is one that can be perceived--one that can be known. But no one among us can perceive or know objective reality directly. That would require ominscience--knowledge of everything there is in reality to know. No one among us has it, so what makes objective reality worth considering? In order for it to be worth considering, someone must be percieving it--someone omniscient....

Don't you think animals have some good/bad concepts. I used to own a cat: Science Diet = good Water Gun = bad

copper scroll brought it up, not me Yeah, I brought it up, clearly without the intent of derailing this thread with a silly debate about the intention's of our country's founders. I most definitely was not saying that the exact phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the constitution, so I don't see the need for your canned response from the religious right about the aclu. The first amendment makes plain what I was referring to. People like you offer a reminder on why we should be continually grateful for this amendment. Believe, say, write, and waste $27 million on whatever you want (I support your right as a private citizen to do any and all of this), but thankfully your ideas about what is just in God's eyes has a marginal chance of affecting my life in any way.

* thanks the founders for the separation between church and state * There isn't any hate in any of my posts. That's ridiculous. I suspect that you use such extreme language in misguided attempt to convince yourself of your own extremely absurd views in the face of well-reasoned argumentation... which you ironically call "futile". Despite their "futility", you never fail to answer them with more venomous vilification peppered with extreme language. I have read no one's posts on this subforum more purposefully adversarial than yours.

This comment should go in that thread about why young people are leaving the church.

Peace CopperScroll -- Why does anyone need to demostrate that it is necessary? What museums really are "necessary" ... ? Peace to you, brother. Good question. Typically, museums draw on a host of information sources for content, bringing all this information together under one roof and under one topic. It is an easy way of casually consuming a lot of complex and otherwise spread-out information. I don't see the same thing happening here. What we have here is a museum that primarily draws on one source--the book of Genesis. A person could just as easily get this information from Genesis without having dinosaurs with saddles thrown in for an added flavor of ridiculous and baseless (Flinstones-inspired) speculation.

and yet God delights in that...the scriptures are Divinely inspired I Corinthians 3 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." So then, no more boasting about men! science does not and can not resolve ultiate questions...your faith in man and "science" is a road to nowhere If it's all so futile, then why waste so much money combatting it for space in the public forum? You still have not demonstrated what makes a museum like this necessary.

how much money do you think has been spent disseminating the myth of Darwinism through media, museums, etc? I can tell you...billions...your heroes are hypocrites if they're coming after us for financial irresponsiblity You didn't answer my question. Nevermind. I'm sorry but if a young person is on the fence about these issues (un-indoctrined either way), she is much more likely to believe (a) information gained through the skepticism and rigor of the scientific method and supported by most experts in the fields of biology and geology than (b) information whose primary source is a 2 millenia old religious text produced by a people who didn't know that the earth was round.

first off, not all scientists are long age Darwinists, so you can discontinue using that term in a general sense, it's not accurate second, just as Darwin's ideas slowly permeated the mainstream 150 years ago, the purpose of the museum is to present a Biblical alternative to the fairy tale of "goo-to-you", especially for young people who are being indoctinated with naturalistic religion and nihilism John MacArthur sums it up well in this clip http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0403macarthur.asp To your first point: Okay. I should have said "most scientists". To your second point: Doesn't the Bible do a good enough job of presenting the "Biblical altnerative"? How is a $27 million dollar museum necessary?

we're not trying to "sway" hardened atheists/agnostics....apart from supernatural intervention, they're a lost cause, and God considers them fools Then what exactly are you trying to do? In general, educated people are going to follow the scientists' lead on issues that have to do with the natural world, which is reasonable. I can see this museum appealing only to creationists who (in your words) already have their minds made up. Is this just a $27 million dollar exercise in let's-feel-good-about-being-creationists?

I stated my case in my first post on this thread, but you ignored it and rambled on about the "facts" concerning origins...problem is, there are none No I didn't. I didn't comment on your first post, but I will now: Point taken. I didn't say anything about any "facts" about origins. It wasn't until you asked for that discussion that we even entered it. It was you who brought up light rays, dating, and fossils. Not me. I couldn't count on my fingers the number of points that I've raised that you haven't answered, so don't go there.