Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts are the same. The meaning of the facts is completely different.

Yeah, I figured that was where you were coming from.

It's like this:
1) there's a God;
2) God is good (meaning to be determined later);
3) therefore everything that occurs is just and good;
4) our belief that it's not is just symptomatic of our human limitations.

That reasoning just takes "just," "good," and similar redefines them to mean "that which occurs (b/c God made it or let it occur)." But then believers go on about how "good" God is, forgetting that they've made that adjective meaningless.

Note: I am not making an argument that there's no God b/c there's evil in the world; I'm just addressing your statements. I'm still holding out my reasons for not believing until you give yours.

Anonymous wrote:The facts are the same. The meaning of the facts is completely different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This DNA straw man is just kicking the can down the road.

Theists said the earth could not be 13.8 billion years old, until it was impossible to say otherwise. So now God is the uncaused cause behind the Big Bang.

Evolution was a heresy that the theists fought tooth and nail, until we discovered the mechanism, DNA, and it was impossible to deny. So now evolution is now just another example of the Divine Watchmaker at work.

If we show conclusively that RNA preceded DNA, they'll kick the can down that road. If we push it back to ribosomes, they'll kick it down there too. Still they will say that the system shows a quality that only an intelligent mind will create.

Then after another decade, we will prove that each of the steps can occur in real world settings without an intelligent hand guiding it. We will have not one but five different example pathways.

And they will then forget that they ever made this intelligent design argument and say "you can't prove that any of these is the way". And the fact that we will have done it five different ways will be used as proof against us, because there was most likely only one way and we won't know which one it really was.

Just more can kicking. And each generation of science deniers gets the luxury of shedding the previous generation's backwardness. Their grandparents mocked John Scopes but they are not responsible for that. However, scientists are responsible for their entire historical legacy. Scientists are held accountable for any change in theory. Scientists with differing views are used as proof of the limits of science. The very thing that gives science its integrity will be exploited as a weakness.

Face it, the theists always win because they do not have to play fair. Scientists are hamstrung by documenting their work, admitting its limitations, never being able to erase its mistakes, its requirement to use data and experimentation.

What an interesting post!

I know it was just a rhetorical device, but using the terms "win" and "lose," or "play fair," is so illuminating. Because science and materialism and empiricism and rationalism are all supposed to be about facts, not value judgments. There is no fair and unfair in matter and energy. They just exist.

(I'm channeling the video rationalist now.)

This post shows that science has its set of objectives, and one of those objectives is not answering "Why?"

Well it must be even more illuminating for you to find out that I am a Christian. But I am also a scientist and I find much fault with the proof of God arguments on this thread.

As for your other comment, science has the objective of truth. But scientists do not have to be politely ignore unfair arguments. As a Christian, I know (not guess or imagine but know) that believers as a whole have a heavy emotional stake in the outcome. But while atheists may want to win a debate, it is pretty clear that any rational being would rather live in a world where there was the promise of immortality in a happy place with all of their loved ones in exchange for being good. They do not have the same stake in the outcome. It is a matter of intellectual position or perhaps some pride in being right, but it is by no means equivalent.

As for your comment about answering "why", I can only say that google scholar returns 3.8 million hits on the word, so there are at least that many research papers asking the question. The NIV bible asks the question 510 times, and that was presumably a satisfactory level of curiosity for Christians. I have made several posts that are points of substance, but frankly I am growing tired of it. Half of the posts are ignored because posters can't read science research. And yet they feel qualified to judge it. And many of the same arguments that were knocked down before resurface again and again.

So yes "we" theists have an agenda, and it is not an intellectual one.

.

I'm sorry, I meant science does not ask an existential "why?". It can't.

This idea of salvation and damnation came up before, and I feel compelled to say again, even though I am trying to avoid sticky theological side discussions: Christ, if he is who he said he was, is not just a son of a carpenter from the Middle East, but also the second Person of the Holy Trinity. So a human being could "know" him and "accept" him without having heard the name "Jesus."

Are you saying that the practical facts of their lives are different if there's a deity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This DNA straw man is just kicking the can down the road.

Theists said the earth could not be 13.8 billion years old, until it was impossible to say otherwise. So now God is the uncaused cause behind the Big Bang.

Evolution was a heresy that the theists fought tooth and nail, until we discovered the mechanism, DNA, and it was impossible to deny. So now evolution is now just another example of the Divine Watchmaker at work.

If we show conclusively that RNA preceded DNA, they'll kick the can down that road. If we push it back to ribosomes, they'll kick it down there too. Still they will say that the system shows a quality that only an intelligent mind will create.

Then after another decade, we will prove that each of the steps can occur in real world settings without an intelligent hand guiding it. We will have not one but five different example pathways.

And they will then forget that they ever made this intelligent design argument and say "you can't prove that any of these is the way". And the fact that we will have done it five different ways will be used as proof against us, because there was most likely only one way and we won't know which one it really was.

Just more can kicking. And each generation of science deniers gets the luxury of shedding the previous generation's backwardness. Their grandparents mocked John Scopes but they are not responsible for that. However, scientists are responsible for their entire historical legacy. Scientists are held accountable for any change in theory. Scientists with differing views are used as proof of the limits of science. The very thing that gives science its integrity will be exploited as a weakness.

Face it, the theists always win because they do not have to play fair. Scientists are hamstrung by documenting their work, admitting its limitations, never being able to erase its mistakes, its requirement to use data and experimentation.

What an interesting post!

I know it was just a rhetorical device, but using the terms "win" and "lose," or "play fair," is so illuminating. Because science and materialism and empiricism and rationalism are all supposed to be about facts, not value judgments. There is no fair and unfair in matter and energy. They just exist.

(I'm channeling the video rationalist now.)

This post shows that science has its set of objectives, and one of those objectives is not answering "Why?"

Well it must be even more illuminating for you to find out that I am a Christian. But I am also a scientist and I find much fault with the proof of God arguments on this thread.

As for your other comment, science has the objective of truth. But scientists do not have to be politely ignore unfair arguments. As a Christian, I know (not guess or imagine but know) that believers as a whole have a heavy emotional stake in the outcome. But while atheists may want to win a debate, it is pretty clear that any rational being would rather live in a world where there was the promise of immortality in a happy place with all of their loved ones in exchange for being good. They do not have the same stake in the outcome. It is a matter of intellectual position or perhaps some pride in being right, but it is by no means equivalent.

As for your comment about answering "why", I can only say that google scholar returns 3.8 million hits on the word, so there are at least that many research papers asking the question. The NIV bible asks the question 510 times, and that was presumably a satisfactory level of curiosity for Christians. I have made several posts that are points of substance, but frankly I am growing tired of it. Half of the posts are ignored because posters can't read science research. And yet they feel qualified to judge it. And many of the same arguments that were knocked down before resurface again and again.

So yes "we" theists have an agenda, and it is not an intellectual one.

Anonymous wrote:OP, the lack of god doesn't mean you can't place value on things. The slave child you describe had a crap life. It's not fair. But who ever said life was fair? Do you think life is fair? God doesn't make it fair. You may have a belief system in which there is an ultimate balance, but for most Christians, your slave child would not only have a crap life, he would also be damned to hell for eternity. After all, he never accepted Christ.

Anonymous wrote:...This conversation, as valuable as it is, is tricky, because many comments are exchanged between different PPs than is assumed, and specific religious beliefs are brought in, when we are really just talking about God. I will say again, I am not an expert in any of these areas, and I am not hoping to convince anyone of anything. But I am trying to understand your beliefs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"This post shows that science has its set of objectives, and one of those objectives is not answering 'Why?'"

I know this is just a rhetorical device, but your use of "objective" and "Why?" is just so illuminating. Because God is supposed to be all loving and all knowing and all powerful, so human objectives and questions are irrelevant.

This post proves that deists have a set of objectives, and one of them is not understanding the will of God.

See how easy that is? This is my last post becuase what I just did there made me sick to do. I't s not arguing in good faith. If it is, you'll just "aw shucks" your way on to the next circular and irrational thing. Goodbye.

Agree, OP does not argue in good faith. Your post is quite perceptive, though. You've identified one of the things I find quite grating about OP: that is, she starts from the premise that all "meaning" flows from God. If God doesn't exist, it's time to pull the plug. No meaning for anything, ever again!

This is, as you point out, ridiculous. We have social norms. One of those is a certain level of respect for one's interlocutor. That means you don't spit on them when you disagree. You also make an honest effort to answer your opponent's questions, and put forth an honest response of your own. I've found this kind of slippery intellectual dishonesty to be a kind of fundamental attribute of Christian apologetics. Maybe it's because "faith" requires a not insignificant amount of lying to oneself; maybe it's because of the longstanding practice of bible "interpretation", which is essentially picking an choosing whichever particular passage supports your personal position; and maybe it's the conceit shared by many religious folks that it's okay to treat non-believers in such shabby fashion because they're nothing but "materialists" anyway.

It's not very commendable either way.

Oh, dear! I don't know how to be more respectful of PPs' opinions. I am grateful for them. And while it is very clear most PPs think I am stupid, ignorant, and perhaps mentally off-balance, that is their right to think such things. The conversation is still worthwhile.

I am not trying to be mean when I observe that materialism comes with certain consequences. These consequences were hashed out several pages ago.

Yes, you can assign meaning to human actions. But there is no inherent meaning in anything in a materialist universe, because matter and energy just are.

This conversation, as valuable as it is, is tricky, because many comments are exchanged between different PPs than is assumed, and specific religious beliefs are brought in, when we are really just talking about God. I will say again, I am not an expert in any of these areas, and I am not hoping to convince anyone of anything. But I am trying to understand your beliefs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This DNA straw man is just kicking the can down the road.

Theists said the earth could not be 13.8 billion years old, until it was impossible to say otherwise. So now God is the uncaused cause behind the Big Bang.

Evolution was a heresy that the theists fought tooth and nail, until we discovered the mechanism, DNA, and it was impossible to deny. So now evolution is now just another example of the Divine Watchmaker at work.

If we show conclusively that RNA preceded DNA, they'll kick the can down that road. If we push it back to ribosomes, they'll kick it down there too. Still they will say that the system shows a quality that only an intelligent mind will create.

Then after another decade, we will prove that each of the steps can occur in real world settings without an intelligent hand guiding it. We will have not one but five different example pathways.

And they will then forget that they ever made this intelligent design argument and say "you can't prove that any of these is the way". And the fact that we will have done it five different ways will be used as proof against us, because there was most likely only one way and we won't know which one it really was.

Just more can kicking. And each generation of science deniers gets the luxury of shedding the previous generation's backwardness. Their grandparents mocked John Scopes but they are not responsible for that. However, scientists are responsible for their entire historical legacy. Scientists are held accountable for any change in theory. Scientists with differing views are used as proof of the limits of science. The very thing that gives science its integrity will be exploited as a weakness.

Face it, the theists always win because they do not have to play fair. Scientists are hamstrung by documenting their work, admitting its limitations, never being able to erase its mistakes, its requirement to use data and experimentation.

What an interesting post!

I know it was just a rhetorical device, but using the terms "win" and "lose," or "play fair," is so illuminating. Because science and materialism and empiricism and rationalism are all supposed to be about facts, not value judgments. There is no fair and unfair in matter and energy. They just exist.

(I'm channeling the video rationalist now.)

This post shows that science has its set of objectives, and one of those objectives is not answering "Why?"

Well it must be even more illuminating for you to find out that I am a Christian. But I am also a scientist and I find much fault with the proof of God arguments on this thread.

As for your other comment, science has the objective of truth. But scientists do not have to be politely ignore unfair arguments. As a Christian, I know (not guess or imagine but know) that believers as a whole have a heavy emotional stake in the outcome. But while atheists may want to win a debate, it is pretty clear that any rational being would rather live in a world where there was the promise of immortality in a happy place with all of their loved ones in exchange for being good. They do not have the same stake in the outcome. It is a matter of intellectual position or perhaps some pride in being right, but it is by no means equivalent.

As for your comment about answering "why", I can only say that google scholar returns 3.8 million hits on the word, so there are at least that many research papers asking the question. The NIV bible asks the question 510 times, and that was presumably a satisfactory level of curiosity for Christians. I have made several posts that are points of substance, but frankly I am growing tired of it. Half of the posts are ignored because posters can't read science research. And yet they feel qualified to judge it. And many of the same arguments that were knocked down before resurface again and again.

So yes "we" theists have an agenda, and it is not an intellectual one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This DNA straw man is just kicking the can down the road.

Theists said the earth could not be 13.8 billion years old, until it was impossible to say otherwise. So now God is the uncaused cause behind the Big Bang.

Evolution was a heresy that the theists fought tooth and nail, until we discovered the mechanism, DNA, and it was impossible to deny. So now evolution is now just another example of the Divine Watchmaker at work.

If we show conclusively that RNA preceded DNA, they'll kick the can down that road. If we push it back to ribosomes, they'll kick it down there too. Still they will say that the system shows a quality that only an intelligent mind will create.

Then after another decade, we will prove that each of the steps can occur in real world settings without an intelligent hand guiding it. We will have not one but five different example pathways.

And they will then forget that they ever made this intelligent design argument and say "you can't prove that any of these is the way". And the fact that we will have done it five different ways will be used as proof against us, because there was most likely only one way and we won't know which one it really was.

Just more can kicking. And each generation of science deniers gets the luxury of shedding the previous generation's backwardness. Their grandparents mocked John Scopes but they are not responsible for that. However, scientists are responsible for their entire historical legacy. Scientists are held accountable for any change in theory. Scientists with differing views are used as proof of the limits of science. The very thing that gives science its integrity will be exploited as a weakness.

Face it, the theists always win because they do not have to play fair. Scientists are hamstrung by documenting their work, admitting its limitations, never being able to erase its mistakes, its requirement to use data and experimentation.

What an interesting post!

I know it was just a rhetorical device, but using the terms "win" and "lose," or "play fair," is so illuminating. Because science and materialism and empiricism and rationalism are all supposed to be about facts, not value judgments. There is no fair and unfair in matter and energy. They just exist.

(I'm channeling the video rationalist now.)

This post shows that science has its set of objectives, and one of those objectives is not answering "Why?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"This post shows that science has its set of objectives, and one of those objectives is not answering 'Why?'"

I know this is just a rhetorical device, but your use of "objective" and "Why?" is just so illuminating. Because God is supposed to be all loving and all knowing and all powerful, so human objectives and questions are irrelevant.

This post proves that deists have a set of objectives, and one of them is not understanding the will of God.

See how easy that is? This is my last post becuase what I just did there made me sick to do. I't s not arguing in good faith. If it is, you'll just "aw shucks" your way on to the next circular and irrational thing. Goodbye.

Agree, OP does not argue in good faith. Your post is quite perceptive, though. You've identified one of the things I find quite grating about OP: that is, she starts from the premise that all "meaning" flows from God. If God doesn't exist, it's time to pull the plug. No meaning for anything, ever again!

This is, as you point out, ridiculous. We have social norms. One of those is a certain level of respect for one's interlocutor. That means you don't spit on them when you disagree. You also make an honest effort to answer your opponent's questions, and put forth an honest response of your own. I've found this kind of slippery intellectual dishonesty to be a kind of fundamental attribute of Christian apologetics. Maybe it's because "faith" requires a not insignificant amount of lying to oneself; maybe it's because of the longstanding practice of bible "interpretation", which is essentially picking an choosing whichever particular passage supports your personal position; and maybe it's the conceit shared by many religious folks that it's okay to treat non-believers in such shabby fashion because they're nothing but "materialists" anyway.

It's not very commendable either way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that the dynamic here has developed to set up religion v. science. I have no objection to science, I like the scientific method, but I am not a scientist and I don't think about science when I consider why I do not believe.

I have no reason to believe. I do not have faith. None of the arguments from logic are effective. Thus, I do not believe. But it isn't dependent on my having a scientific basis for the mysteries of life.

Good point. OP keeps kind of dragging us down to the level of "Oh, if Charles Darwin didn't know the full DNA sequence of the hawksbill sea turtle, then that's proof that the Judeo-Christian God exists!'

Anonymous wrote:And does it really not trouble you that there is no such thing as perfect justice? That the "bad" guys win 99.99...% of the time? Please, I am NOT making any argument with this question!!! I am just trying to get a direct response.

Anonymous wrote:If you are right, and I am wrong, most human beings live a life that is "nasty, brutish, and short."

Anonymous wrote:What is it like to face that reality head on?

Anonymous wrote:Are humans really just mammals, then?