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.

look how much controversy Jesus Christ caused! the Truth always divides, and God wants it that way I hear this silly strawman argument all the time: "oh the money should have been used for x purpose"...wrong! there is a DESPERATE need in this conutry to counteract the Lie of Darwinism, and the effect it is having on society I don't think it is very effectively counteracting anything. Putting up a museum that reinforces your beliefs is not an effective way to sway scientists, and most educated people will follow the scientists' lead on issues like this--issues pertaining to natural phenomena. So ultimately all I see it doing is pushing educated people away from Christ.

Well, that is a good point, but the fanatic thing is something we will have to deal with. The secular ideals are slowly moving away from the Christian ones, and over time we are going to come across as fanatics unless we abandon the Bible completely. In Canada right now, I come across as a fanatic because I disagree with gay marriage and that will only get worse. I like to focus on winning respect by being consistent, rather than by appealing to the ideals the rest of the world has begun to create. Charity is not an appeal to the "ideals of the rest of the world". It is Christian, and the rest of the world (at least most of it) finds it admirable and respectable. It does not divide us. It unites us... and no one has to compromise his ideals.

look, nothing is going to convince you, your mind is made up...I could quote from the epistles as well, and you would still dance around it and say Genesis is "allegorical", Either I have my mind made up and I'm simply ignoring your undeniable and impenetrable logic... OR you just haven't stated your case very well. I think it's more of the latter. I haven't thrown out the possibility that my opinion and beliefs on these issues can change, but I bet you have. Let me know if I'm wrong. Do you have your "mind made up"? My guess is that you do, but I also guess that you think that close-mindedness is okay for you and anyone who agrees with you. Let me know if I'm wrong about that too. This is the very reason why an increasing number of people don't respect religion. But you'll probably blame that on the devil. Let me know if I'm wrong about that too. If you're not going to actually engage the points I raise with counterarguments or raise any decent points yourself, then yes you are wasting your time... and mine. Not everyone has an agenda. My only intention in starting this thread was to get answers to a question--the very same question I posted in the opening post. It's as simple as that. Curiosity. Since asking the question, all I've been doing is conversing--stating my opinion and beliefs and providing what support for them I can. There's no consipiracy, and I'm not hiding anything. Why would I ask such a question of believers if my goal was to make myself feel comfortable in "unbelief"? Do you have so little faith in the ability of believers to be persuasive in debate or normal conversation?

This is kind of a good point although really not one we can dwell on. It's too easy to say "Well you may be serving God this way, but you should be doing it that way". If I give money to my church, others could say it should be going to the hungry instead and vice versa. Every Christian serves however they feel called to. About the museum itself, I would love to see it! The questionable presentation of biblical stories as scientific facts aside.... Look at how much controversy this has caused and how much disdain and mistrust and ill will it has inspired among the public. If the money had been used for charitable acts instead it would saved the world this measure of trouble... and actually contributed to making the world better at the same time... and perhaps earned the respect of the very people who are so fiercely opposed to this museum. All this has done is given many educated and intelligent people a reason to mistrust Christians and to think that Christians are lunatics and fanatics.

"Waste of $27 mil" is what I think about it. Couldn't that money have been used to feed the hungry or shelter the homeless?

but not with regard to ultimate questions and/or spiritual issues...see the difference? Certainly, but I don't see the origin of the natural world in and of itself a spiritual issue. But Christ's work on the cross is a spiritual issue. I made this exact same distinction in my last post. true, that is the primary issue...but, again, the truth about Christ is based on the truth of God the gospel doesn't exist in a vacuum; many people mock God and mock the gospel, because they reject most of what is contained in the Bible as fiction John 3 I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? no question Jesus affirmed Genesis as literal history Matthew 19 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." I don't see how this necessarily affirms the account in Genesis as literally true. Jesus refers to the story not for the "factual details" of the story itself, but what the story was meant to convey: that in marriage, man and woman become one. That is what deserves attention there--not the details about how Eve was made from Adam's rib.

I Corinthians 1 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God - that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord." nothing really needs to be added to that: the wise of this world become the fools in the beautiful paradox of God...all worldly wisdom/boasting is nullified and excluded...the world passes away! That's all good, but you and I both have relied on the wisdom of men. Have you ever taken any medications? Driven an automobile? Would we even be communicating if it were not for the work of these scientists? We rely upon knowledge about the natural world gained through science. It seems ironic to label it all foolishness... via electronic communication that would not be possible without such foolishness. I would advocate taking a closer look at the text. What exactly is it that confounds the wisdom of men? Is it the idea of an old earth? Is it the idea of evolution? No, it's the idea of Christ crucified as an act of sacrifice and salvation.

of course! most of them are naturalists/atheists/agnostics who dismiss the Bible, I don't think you understand the human factor of science, paticularly with regard to the topic of origins, which is not even true science, it's 99% speculation, with precious few facts in hand...scientists are still human, they aren't gods, they don't have a time machine, they aren't magicians the bottom line is you put your faith in men, and you aren't alone, but we put our faith in God...why did you start this thread again? with regard to origins there is, read my first post on this thread you're not getting it ultimate questions can not, and will not ever be answered by the human practice of science, you're putting your faith in a black hole Hold on a minute. I haven't really taken sides here. I just stated that the vast majority of the scientific community has taken a stance on certain issues that run contrary to the beliefs of many Christians. Now, the scientific community I think in general is a highly respected group of people, even among Christians, so I think it is a perfectly worthwhile question to ask how Christians react to scientific findings that contradict their beliefs. I understand that science isn't perfect and that there is a flawed "human" factor in all of it, but there is also a flawed human factor in religion about which you just might be in denial. One thing that can be said about science though, is that it is taken up by people who are trying to prove each other wrong--while in religion, all we have is people trying to prove each other right. Which bias is one that is more likely to lead to the truth?

you don't think God's Word was intended to be factual? God's Word existed in the beginning with God... and was God. If the Word is eternal and unchanging, I would think that it is beyond individual facts--that it is an eternal and unchanging principle. And I don't think that "God's Word" and "the Bible" are synonymous. fossils are only formed by rapid encapsulation in an anoxic environment...the global Flood of Noah's Day explains that quite nicely..."millions of years" explains nothing radiometric dating is based on a series of unverifiable assumptions, and has been shown to be highly erratic and basically worthless http://www.icr.org/article/42/ light does funny things when exposed to various forces, it has been slowed to a crawl in the lab, for example, and science is uncovering new information all the time that indicates the simplistic notion that x distance = x years may not be reliable...who is to say exactly what occurred when God created the cosmos and "stretched out the heavens like a curtain"? I believe God created living things fully mature, but isn't playing a game of deception...we simply don't have all th facts...as I said in the first post on this thread, long age naturalists begin with a preconceived model (shaped by Darwin's philosophies, which have nothing to do with cosmology btw) and force fit the evidence to that model...that isn't science, it's religion in disguise I'm not a scientist, so I can't really comment further on any of this. But I do know that the vast majority of the scientific community (the same community whose work has led to cures and remedies for many diseases and lots of great technological innovations) accepts the evidence of a very old world as valid. I don't think there is anything "religious" about the scientific method, unless you consider the process itself a ritual or perhaps they have made some sort of god out observation. The scientific community is filled with very critical-minded people who are trying to prove each other wrong. If the vast majority of this community agrees about something, it does make me stand up and take notice. being a follower of Chrirst has nothing to do with ceremony or ritual, we're not Roman Catholic here perhaps it's time you reconsidered...why not read through the gospel of John? that's not the gospel Okay, you don't have to agree with me. But I have read the Bible.

there's that chorus again...human observation trumps what God declares about origins..I'm sorry, but that's crazy what exactly do you observe that "disproves" the Bible? name something...fossil record? dating of rocks? speed of light? I don't know why "disproves" appears in quotes there, because I don't recall using that word. I don't think all the books in the Bible were intended to be factual documents, so "disproves" isn't the right word. But, yes, fossils, dating, light rays, etc. all suggest that the world is very old. As I understand them, many Christian responses to this scientific evidence boils down to one of the first three options in this poll. Often it's "God created the world with these indicators of age in tact", which is another way of saying "God created the world in such a way to suggest that it is older than it really is." I would hope to be a Christian, a true follower of Christ's teachings--to have a relationship with God--to be redeemed. But I don't attend church or participate in anything ceremonial or ritual regularly... and I don't take the Bible literally, so I'm not very religious. I do believe in God (an unobservable consciousness that is the source of all existence) and that God is love in essence--that God is merciful and forgiving and sacrificed in order for us to know life and love and to know Him.