Darwin's family tree.

[nebula]

As a science teacher, I'm sure you know about the principle of parsimony: the least complex answer is the most probable one. Both God and the gravitational singularity behind the Big Bang are fundamentally causeless, but God is much more complex.

How do you know? Do you even know what the gravitational singularity is - or rather was? Or why it was?

In fact, God might even be more complex than the universe itself, as the watchmaker is more complex than the watch. These things considered, God is a much less probable explanation for the universe than a gravitational singularity precipitating the Big Bang. And he is a much less probable explanation for life on Earth than scientific theories of abiogenesis.

God is too complex to understand; therfore He does not exist.

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Before you answer, I want you to think about why I would say this. But please do not harp on me the same tiring lines I've heard from every other athiest on this subject. I want you to think this through yourself and not repeat what you have heard and read. But I dare you to try to imagine that you do believe God exists. Would a complexity argument disuade your belief?

Yeah, it's awesome. I've always been fascinated by the difference in speed at different scales of reality. Human activity is very slow compared to that of the cells that compose us, and cellular activity is very slow compared to that of atoms that compose the cells. These different scales of existence also seem to be about equally separated, by the power of ten. I know, that wasn't very articulate. Just click here.

Again, you completely missed my point. Are you doing this intentionally?

I can give you some info on missionary trips, if I can. Would that help?

Sorry, I'm a bit busy here in college.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you are a college student.

The easiest thing would simply be documented evidence that any of these things have every actually occurred.

Could you provide documented evidence that you saw a cloud that took on the shape of a dog if you didn't have a camera? (Note, I a talking analogy with this.)

And I have already shown that I know more about organic chemistry and human anatomy than you do.

Since you are a science teacher whereas I am just a student, I would certainly hope so.

Again, you missed my point.

A piece of advice - you really need to stop taking everything so literally. It might help if you read between the lines once in a while.

You were griping about Christians' attitudes towards science, and I was showing you that I as a Christian am totally into science!

As far as evidence to the distant past goes . . . give 10 scientists one piece of evidence, and there will be 10 different interpretations to that evidence. I'm not kidding! Evidence is a lot more subjective to interptetation than you may realize.

Fortunately for scientists there exist things like chi-square tests and other measures to mathematically verify their findings.

Spoken like a good college student.

The real world is not so refined, and a true scientist will question even the most conventional "reason" in order to discover more.

And math can't answer everything that is discovered either.

[Joshua-777]

you saw a cloud that took on the shape of a dog!!! No way, I don't believe that, that can't happen, Prove it!

[ted]

Of course, all human institutions are corruptible and science is not exception. Scientists "begging for grants" are not "fleecing people" any more than pastors passing around a collection plate. Scientific research is expensive.

I kinda mis-stated that one. What I meant was that there are people out there who beg for research money for idiotic things- and they get it, of course, all in the name of scientific research.

As well, some "religious" leaders are simply in it for the money, and it shows. It was these people from both occupations that I was referring to.

I have nothing against scientists who are legitimate or religious leaders (in the context of their own congregations) who are also on the level.

Miracle water? You talk as though the premise for scientific research is always dishonest and unrealistic.

Nope.

Just the scientific researchers who are dishonest and unrealistic. Again, I have nothing against pure, unadulterated scientific research. The premise for scientific research is in the eye of the beholder. If there is a legitimate need for it, then research away, I say.

The ones that bug me are the ones who present their findings in a dishonest way, and I feel the same about religious people who do the same.

Scientific research findings, to it's credit, are supposedly published in a way that others can repeat the experiments. In the same way, so should findings concerning religious matters.

I take either side with the same grain of salt.

What happens, though, is that people from both sides will then move beyond what they find and then give their opinions about what they have found. When these opinions are taken as pretty much fact without proper due evidence, things go haywire.

Listen. Credibility is immensely important in the scientific community. If a scientist completely misrepresents the goals of his or her research, he will have a very hard time getting any kind of funding in the future. Also, a key part of scientific experimentation is repeatability. Ever read a report on an experiment?

Yes, I've read many reports of experiments, but my attitude about reality is not valid in your mind, due to my being a Christian, remember?

So, what does it matter?

I stated in my last post that I do not take findings at face value, from either scientists or Christian leaders, without further research of my own. From that, you should have figured that I have read at least one scientific research report.

Anyway, credibility is supposed to be immensely important, but is it always?

Let's use just one example: Scientists who predicted that this year's hurricane season would be worse than ever.

Do you remember this past spring where it was all over the news that this year would be the worst in history? Or that it would be one of the worst in years? All of this was being trumped up to show how it was all Bush's fault in regards to his policies dealing with global warming.

Then, it turns out that it was, in reality, one of the tamest in history! lol

I guess we should thank Mr. Bush for saving us from the evil hurricanes this year, but what happens to all of these scientists that predicted all of these bad storms? Well, in your world, they would all lose their research money due to their now lack of credibility.

In our real world, however, they will most likely be paid much more next year to make the same guesses again.

But, I must concede the possibility that the press ran with some of these stories and made a big stink of them without actually taking the time to do their own research into the findings.

The moral to the story? Well, speculation was turned into "fact" right before our very eyes and it turned out to be simple idiocy at work again.

That's ok, though. There were many in the religious communities who took the same stories and concluded that God was going to punish the US with hurricanes as a means to put us back in our humble place. You can probably read some threads right here on Worthy concerning both matters.

Now, are you going to tell me that this year's failed predictions concerning hurricane models are the only mistakes within the scientific community? I can post many of the year's failed religious predictions to keep things honest, but can you do the same with the scientific community to keep things real?

But yet, we are supposed to swallow what the scientific community feeds us because "credibility" is supposedly important.

And one more time for the record: I hold the Christian community to the same standard. If things are BS, then they are BS, no matter who is serving it up.

I agree. I am a fan of string theory, but I will freely admit it is largely speculation at this point in time. Of course, you probably know that I think most if not all religions have pushed well beyond truth. Unlike science, most of the hypotheses of religion have not, cannot, or are not checked. Worshipers just have faith in them. And they are told faith is a virtue, as long as faith does not lie in anything else.

Of course we have faith in them! God asks us to have the faith of a child in Him, not a nuclear scientist! But it is not a faith in the hypotheses of religion that I hold dear, but the words of the Bible itself.

Much of the Bible cannot be verified using scientific experimentation, but on the other hand, much of it has been verified through research, too! Archeological findings have confirmed many of the cities which the Bible speaks of which were once thought of as fantasy, in example. People of the day didn't have the means to protect information like we do today. All we can do is look at what we do have and decide from there. Take also into consideration the fact that wars, agendas, and natural disasters have taken away truck loads of information which may, or may not, back up what the Bible speaks of.

But, this faith in things not scientifically confirmed seems to be a sticking point for many. As a matter of fact, the bible predicts this very thing, and you continue to think it's not accurate?

Interesting. Do you think you could ever really accept something that directly contradicts the fundamental principles of the Bible? What kind of evidence would you need to believe it?

At this point, not any longer. Y'see, I've been through and rode the same arguments earlier on in life that you cling to today. Of those that do not believe in God who are here as members at Worthy, there are not a whole lot of stuff which they present that I haven't seen already.

The exception being some of the deeper scientific discussions. Some of that stuff has never reached my eyes before, but that's about it.

Other than that, I used to carry the same flags of dissent.

Here's something which may help you later on in life: I never found God as a result of looking through scientific research papers. I'm not exactly sure how that little bit of information may help you, if ever, but there it is.

I can say, though, that the more I tried to dismiss Him, the more He seemed to reveal about Himself to me.

One day, it all sort of clicked. One day, the words of the Bible, which I had spent a life time not understanding and/or denying, jumped out and made sense to me. I can say that anyone's efforts to understand everything about God will be fruitless. It's simply not going to happen during our lifetimes.

DEU 29:29 states as much. God holds His secrets, but gives us enough to follow His will. That's basically what it says. From that, you can see how we will never come to a full realization of Him here on earth.

And from that, you can see how scientific research to prove "God" will never come to complete realization. He will reveal all at His discretion, not ours.

Now, what would I accept as evidence that the fundamental principles of the Bible are wrong? At this point, I reckon I would need God to sit me on His knee and show me where He was wrong, or where we have messed it up through incorrect interpretation.

Have a great night!

t.

[Floatingaxe]

Do you have any idea how stupid the idea of a human-like creator entity sounds?

God is not human-like! But He created us to have many of His characteristics. If He was human-like, I could understand your ridicule, but He is far from it. To say that something is "____-like" is saying that the thing is less than the other. The master doesn't become like his student, but rather, the student emulates the master. It really reveals where atheistic people put their money: on humanity being the be-all and end-all.

If anything, we are to be God-like! That is our purpose. We are to become like our Master.

[nebula]

He made Himself real enough to me.

There have been times I wanted to walk away, but the evidence of those times He met me had no other explanation, and so I stuck with Him - else I'd be living a lie.

We fool ourselves all the time. Have you ever dreamed?

Ah - the classic "I know nothing about your life or or circumstances, but I just know what you believe happened to you didn't really happene to you" argument.

If you are up to the challenge, here is another story of a man who had an encounter with God...

There's no challenge here, just anecdotal evidence of subjective personal experiences. Thank you for submitting it to my attention, but it really has no place in this argument.

Typical athiestic "I don't want to believe, therefore I won't accept" response. Yeah, sure, he just imagined he got knocked over...

[nebula]

(Had to split it again)

Let me throw this back at you: does our inability to know what happened in all stages of the Big Bang (I forget the specifics, but there is a stage in there that is still a complete mystery), what was there before the Big Bang, and what caused the Big Bang mean that it did not occur?

Of course not, and that's not what I've said about God.

Are you saying that because the existence of God can't be explained, He doesn't exist?

I'm going to repeat my earlier quote verbatim, since apparently you didn't read it:

It doesn't, it just shows your Supreme Being isn't the ultimate answer, just like the gravitational singularity before the Big Bang isn't the ultimate answer. The difference is, most scientists do not claim to know the ultimate answer, but Christians do. They say God is the ultimate answer, but God can't be, because God's own presence still begs questions, just like the Big Bang does.

No matter how you slice and dice it, you are still using this to argue against the existance of God.

Let me get this straight -

Are you saying that because the existence of God can't be explained, He doesn't exist?

Very, very weak argument.

Of course it's a weak argument; it's not what I actually said. Repeating your straw man argument three times will not make my actual argument go away. If you want to know what I said, read what I said. And address it head-on, if you can.

I did read what you said.

When I challeneged your responses to what I said, I didn't accuse you of not reading what Isaid, but I did point out that you misinterpreted what I said. There is a difference, and my reaction was at least an attempt at respect towards you.

As for addressing what you said head on, what you said has gone way off tracj from what was origianlly being discussed and has divereged from actual scientific fact intpo speculative philosophying of science. That's a game I have no interest in playing.

Where would you be today if your parents didn't love you? Did you have to put your parent's love through scientific scrutiny to know they love you?

Bad example. If you think you feel God's love, or that you have a personal relationship with Jesus, etc, go ahead and believe it. But it's another thing to use these personal experiences to justify the scientific claims of divine creation, intelligent design, etc. I don't need to scientifically verify my parents' love, but if that love was tied to claims about the structure and origins of the universe, I would certainly have to verify these claims. It's amazing how some people project their personal emotional experiences onto the entire universe.

Again, you are missing the point of my argument. I was not talking about God's love. I was talking about the existance of something that doesn't need to be explained in orer to be believed or lived as a comparison.

This is why I hate playing the philosophy game. You (general) can't hqave a straight conversation, and you can't stay on target to the original point.

[nebula]

I'm not trying to dissuade your belief, because I realize it is based in faith, which is essentially irrational. (It is also very much based in your upbringing and your environment: you were probably raised Christian and, even if you weren't, you still live in a largely Christian society.)

You assume you know so much, when in fact you know nothing at all why I believe.

I am realizing that even if I told you, you would still hold the same wrong assumption.

And since our discussion has veered so off track from what started this, I don't even remember what the original point was. therefore, I shall gracefullu back out from where we are at because obviously we are just running in the same rut these discussions always turn into -

And I'm tired of it.

And if you want to claim that as a victory, fine.

I take my pearls to those who won't trample them underfoot for the pleasure of it.

[nebula]

And if you want to claim that as a victory, fine.

I'm not sure whether or not I would consider this a victory, because I don't know what a "victory" here would be. If "winning" would entail the opposition submitting to reason

Reason. Why are you covinved the reason is the begin and and end all of understanding?

If you believe in the evolution of life, then you should also believe that there will arise a more evolved form of life than Homo sapiens. Logically, just as each progressive Homo species has been more intellectually advanced than the previous, the next Homo species should have even higher intellectual capacities than us. What do you suppose they will think of our greatest thinkers? Will they consider our rationality tp have the capacity to make correct conclusions, or will they marvel at how dumb we were in our ignorance of "the true powers of [whatever their intellect is]"?

What makes reason so superior to any other method of analyzing life, the universe, and everything?

and admitting some kind of falsehood,

I don't know what you mean by this, but I hope you do not think any of us are lying.

I could never reasonably expect any religious person to do this.

Because we understand just how fallible humans are, and that we are not the greatest beings in the cosmos.

So I'll be optimistic: I'll consider anything I've gained from this argument to be a victory. And while I'm not sure I've gained any factual knowledge from this talk, I've at least gained a better grasp on your viewpoint, and the reason that might or might not underlie it.

From what you have said, I do not believe you have.

I see how important faith is to you, and I believe it is this importance that makes our viewpoints irreconcilable.

You see, this is what you do not understand. My hope and trust is not in faith. My hope and trust is in Jesus. You may not understand this, but there is a difference. My faith is in Jesus; my faith is not in my faith.

Faith is a virtue in Christianity and it is the scourge of science. Christianity encourages the cultivation of faith, whereas scientists seeks to limit it to bare minimums, like faith in the process of observation, and faith in some kind of natural laws.

Well, at least you admit that you do have some form of faith - most athiests won't do that.

Christians don't just praise God, they praise faith, but this praise is dangerous because it often downplays or precludes any distinction between "blind" faith and "informed" faith. We are just told that faith is good, as long as it lies with God, nevermind that faith in God is also faith in books about God, and faith in these books' writers, translators, and interpreters.

I agree this is a problem within Christianity. That's why the Doctinal Forum and Controversial Issues Forum always contain such heated threads. Like anyone else, we tend to lose our focus. It's all a part of our humanity.

Throughout our argument I have spoken as though personal experience is worthless and irrelevant, and I'm sure this has made me look arrogant, insensitive, and even a little crazy--personal experiences are all we have, after all. I have shut out your anecdotal evidence about miracles and divine visitation. But, in reality, I do give these stories some merit. And I have heard similar stories from Buddhists, and Hindus, and Jews. I have never looked any of these people in the face and told them they are lying. But when you advocate your views, when you tout your exclusive claim to truth, you are doing just that. I dare you to look any of the people I have talked to in the face, and I dare you to tell them that.

I don't want to ignore the power of personal experience, I just want you to know other people have personal experiences very different from yours. This is a Christian board, so you probably haven't talked to anyone here with powerful religious experiences that involve Allah, or the Buddha, but I encourage you to.

Then why didn't you just say so instead of dancing around weird bushes?

This thread began as a discussion of life verses unlife. That is one of the reasons I decided to quit this. Somehow in conversing on this topic, someone(s) managed to take the focus off the real issue and drag it into all of these philosophies. It seems as if every discussion someone brings up turns into this same circular philosophical debate. It's gotten very old for me, and I am weary of it.

If you want to go back to the actual science points, I might come back in, but if this thread has devolved into all this, then no thanks.

[nebula]

If "winning" would entail the opposition submitting to reason and admitting some kind of falsehood, I could never reasonably expect any religious person to do this.

And by the way, another thing that annoyed me was that you will say things like this, yet when it was pointed out to you that the coccyx does serve a useful function in the human body, you did not appologize for your false claim that it was useless.

Bad move.

[billie]

Ah.......that's because apologizing requires humility............