RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

E3 -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/1/2010 1:20:46 PM)

So humans can cause life to begin to exist.  This of course means, no one else has ever caused it to exist.  /end sarcasm

It would seem more likely, argumentatively speaking, that becuase "it didn't naturaly occur on its own" for us to observe, but instead had to be initiated by us in order to observe it, that the original occurance was likewise triggered and not a naturaly occuring incident.

Now if there was a trigger... what was it?  An intelligent will desiring life to happen, some kind of unique circumstances that only intentional duplication could duplicate?  IF it were a simple "random occurance" then one could assume it happened more than just once on this planet.  In the universe, a random occurance doesn't happen only once.  Nothing happens only once.  The birth of stars, novas, black holes, etcettera.  And we understand the triggers  behind all of these occurances.  YET the creation of life is something we had to intentionaly cause to observe.  What does that say about life?

edit: fixed a word that while meant one way, was mistyped and provided context other than intended.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/1/2010 1:21:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: E3

So humans can cause life to begin to exist.  This of course means that some superior being made it exist.  /end sarcasm


Now if there was a trigger... what was it?


FYP
There was no trigger needed. Just put the chemicals in the same place and in conditions known to exist on earth and voila RNA.



vincentML -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/1/2010 3:49:36 PM)

ORIGINAL: E3

Now if there was a trigger... what was it? An intelligent will desiring life to happen, some kind of unique circumstances that only intentional duplication could duplicate?

The syncronicity of chemicals, temperature, and pressure could well be a trigger. And not really very unique circumstances would be needed. Carbon and hydrogen are voraciously active species.


IF it were a simple "random occurance" then one could assume it happened more than just once on this planet.

No reason to assume it does not continue to this day. Amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, and nucleotides, the building blocks of RNA, are relatively simple molecules. What is it in your understanding of chemical evolution to make you think the factory whistle was blown and the nightshift shut down?

  YET the creation of life is something we had to intentionaly cause to observe. What does that say about life?

That it is a bumpy process that requires a great deal of time and begins at the molecular level. Certainly, no one but the biblical literalist suggests that life sprang forth full blown in one step. The natural generation of inorganic molecules to organic molecules is quite different than the biblical concept.

It was done intentionally in the Miller/Urey experiment for example because that's what scientists do to try to understand Natural processes. Why is that offensive or startling to you?




E3 -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/1/2010 4:01:58 PM)

It isnt offensive or startling.  You've missed my point entirely.

You acknowledge that the "reoccurance of the creation of life" can potentialy be continuing even to this day, YET it is not something that scientists have ever been able to sit down and observe.  It coudl not be observed, and doccumented, untill we intentionaly caused it.

It seems a stretch of imagination to me.. that duplicating the creation of life is something scientists would have waited on.  So if it were re-occuring naturaly, scientists would have been trying to observe it.  To study it.  But they have not.  Why?  Could it be that natural re-occurances of the creation of life are NOT as common as it would appear on paper?  I mean untill we have doccumented evidence of it being witnessed in nature, without any kind of intelligent-interference causing it (specificly humans, for arguements sake), how can we know it occurs naturaly?

Let me state, for the record.. I am not a Creationist.  I do not even believe in a single God.  I'm pagan, believe in multiple gods, and further believe that they are creations of existence, and not responsible for creating existence itself.  I am simply playing "Devils Advocate" as it were, for the sake of the development of logic on the subject.



NewOCDaddy -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/1/2010 4:28:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: E3

It isnt offensive or startling.  You've missed my point entirely.

You acknowledge that the "reoccurance of the creation of life" can potentialy be continuing even to this day, YET it is not something that scientists have ever been able to sit down and observe.  It coudl not be observed, and doccumented, untill we intentionaly caused it. because the conditions known to exist in nature during earths early years dont exist naturally anymore....except possibly in deep ocean caves. I fully expect abiogenesis to be observed in a natural state in my lifetime.

It seems a stretch of imagination to me.. that duplicating the creation of life is something scientists would have waited on.  So if it were re-occuring naturaly, scientists would have been trying to observe it.  To study it.  But they have not.  Why?  Millions of people have been searching for ANY evidence of god or gods for thousands of years and yet have found none. Why?Could it be that natural re-occurances of the creation of life are NOT as common as it would appear on paper?  I mean untill we have doccumented evidence of it being witnessed in nature, without any kind of intelligent-interference causing it (specificly humans, for arguements sake), how can we know it occurs naturaly?

Let me state, for the record.. I am not a Creationist.  I do not even believe in a single God.  I'm pagan, believe in multiple gods, and further believe that they are creations of existence, and not responsible for creating existence itself.  I am simply playing "Devils Advocate" as it were, for the sake of the development of logic on the subject.


Paganism. Lol.



vincentML -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/1/2010 5:27:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: E3

It isnt offensive or startling.  You've missed my point entirely.

You acknowledge that the "reoccurance of the creation of life" can potentialy be continuing even to this day, YET it is not something that scientists have ever been able to sit down and observe.  It coudl not be observed, and doccumented, untill we intentionaly caused it.

It seems a stretch of imagination to me.. that duplicating the creation of life is something scientists would have waited on.  So if it were re-occuring naturaly, scientists would have been trying to observe it.  To study it.  But they have not.  Why?  Could it be that natural re-occurances of the creation of life are NOT as common as it would appear on paper?  I mean untill we have doccumented evidence of it being witnessed in nature, without any kind of intelligent-interference causing it (specificly humans, for arguements sake), how can we know it occurs naturaly?


A stretch for you only because your definition of the "creation of life" is biblical (however much you deny it) rather than natural.

Many learned people believed in a heliocentric planetary system despite the insistance of the Catholic Church that earth was the center of creation. No one could offer an observation until Galileo had a telescope through which he observed and recorded the moons of Jupiter transversing that planet.

Many believed that cholera and bubonic plague were not caused by demons but the true disease agents remained a mystery and could not be seen until the microcsope was invented and the world of microbes was discovered.

It was obvious to many even before the concept of genes was known that mutations took place at the hereditary level thanks to the work of Gregor Mendel with his pea plants. Today we have techniques that allow us to map the genome.

Surely, you get my point. If prebiotic organic molecules continue to form under fortuitous conditions in Nature out in the swamps or as some now believe in the thermals beneath the sea it is hardly likely we have the instruments to sit there and wait for it to happen. That is why scientist experiment with various environmental factors. While losely using the term "life's beginning" I am talking here of the most rudimentary chemical collisions and and chemical bond formations where the threshhold is crossed from inorganic to organic which of necessity had to happen first. I am not describing the formation of a fully functioning organism. The most primative single cell organisms do not appear in earth's history until about three billion years ago. These primative single cell organisms were preceded by prebiotic molecules. It may be that such prebiotic molecules are still being formed. But evolution is not a tidy process. It may be these molecules are just as quickly being destroyed in unfavorable environments. So, the laboratory is a necessary instrument of exploration.

quote:

Let me state, for the record.. I am not a Creationist.  I do not even believe in a single God.  I'm pagan, believe in multiple gods, and further believe that they are creations of existence, and not responsible for creating existence itself.  I am simply playing "Devils Advocate" as it were, for the sake of the development of logic on the subject.


So, let me see if I understand your position since you so patiently listened to mine. Nature preceded multiple gods. These gods did not create Nature. Can I assume you believe Nature is and was eternal? And if your gods are the creatures of Nature, what is it that makes them gods? Oh, and what function do these gods perform? Additionally, by what mechanism do gods arise out of Nature. I am using Nature here as a synonym for Existence. I will be interested in your answer ... I think. Just playing devil's advocate in return, you see, to understand your logic.



E3 -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/1/2010 5:44:51 PM)

While I would love to debate my religious beliefs, I'd prefer not to derail this topic.  Private conversation prehaps?

My original point, several pages ago.. was that because a thing is scientific, does not mean it is not done by God.  What if God is not as "undefinably supernatural" as everyone believes, but that science is the tool of God.  That his understanding and use of science, even his place within it, is so beyond our present understanding of science, that defining it as "supernatural" is just... the instinctive response.  That would explain why many things in our lifetime were once considered "acts of God" by those centuries ago, who lacked the science to understand it.  That there is the core of my point.  Not that God is supernatural and caused things through magic. BUT that Gods science is beyond our own, and we are playing "catch up".  That is the basis for me saying that belief in God and science can go hand in hand, when percieved from that perspective.

And for the record, I use the term "God" loosely.  Yes this conversation is specific to the God of Abraham vs Science debate, but really, any "higher sentience" who is believed to have created existence could be substituted in.



vincentML -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/1/2010 9:06:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: E3

While I would love to debate my religious beliefs, I'd prefer not to derail this topic.  Private conversation prehaps?

My original point, several pages ago.. was that because a thing is scientific, does not mean it is not done by God.  What if God is not as "undefinably supernatural" as everyone believes, but that science is the tool of God.  That his understanding and use of science, even his place within it, is so beyond our present understanding of science, that defining it as "supernatural" is just... the instinctive response.  That would explain why many things in our lifetime were once considered "acts of God" by those centuries ago, who lacked the science to understand it.  That there is the core of my point.  Not that God is supernatural and caused things through magic. BUT that Gods science is beyond our own, and we are playing "catch up".  That is the basis for me saying that belief in God and science can go hand in hand, when percieved from that perspective.

And for the record, I use the term "God" loosely.  Yes this conversation is specific to the God of Abraham vs Science debate, but really, any "higher sentience" who is believed to have created existence could be substituted in.


No thing, no structure, no event is scientific. Things and happenings are natural or man made. Or they are supernatural if you feel the need to explain a gap in your knowledge in that fashion.

Science is epistomolgical. That is, it is a way of knowing and learning about Nature. Science is not about making Nature. Making anything is the baliwick of Engineering.

Since god is creator, he is Engineer; and since he is all-knowing, it is illogical to talk about god's science. It is a contradiction in terms because he presumably is not seeking any additional knowledge. Only man seeks knowledge, so only man uses science.

Centuries ago (and today as well) the ignorant and superstitious considered events whose causes were unknown to be "acts of god." Otherwise men seek answers and explanations through observation, testing, and reason.... doing science.

Now, if you are trying to say there is a Creator who made Nature and our science has not matured to the point of allowing us to understand him and his ways. I would say it is still a contradiction because the Creator is outside of Nature. Otherwise, if he is in Nature we have to accept that the Creator created himself. If you wish to indulge in that sort of speculation I suspect you are beyond hypothesis testing and therefore out of doing science as a methodology.

I accept there are limits to our current science and there are frontiers yet to be crossed. I understand that is what you are saying. What I am saying is we will never get to god through science. As kirkegaard (sp?) said, eventually you have to take a leap of faith. The Big Choice is to jump or not to jump.



tazzygirl -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/1/2010 11:50:31 PM)

quote:

Since god is creator, he is Engineer; and since he is all-knowing, it is illogical to talk about god's science. It is a contradiction in terms because he presumably is not seeking any additional knowledge. Only man seeks knowledge, so only man uses science.


E3, from what i read of his post and this is only my own speculation, isnt saying God is searching for science, but rather teaching us through that medium.



GotSteel -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/2/2010 7:40:43 AM)

I think what vincent was trying to say, certainly what I spent a couple of posts on is pointing out that E3 is consistantly using the word science incorrectly and that he might have a more accurate world view if he had a better understanding of what the word meant.



vincentML -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/2/2010 8:01:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Since god is creator, he is Engineer; and since he is all-knowing, it is illogical to talk about god's science. It is a contradiction in terms because he presumably is not seeking any additional knowledge. Only man seeks knowledge, so only man uses science.


E3, from what i read of his post and this is only my own speculation, isnt saying God is searching for science, but rather teaching us through that medium.


His basic argument seems to be that god's action is science and not magic. We only consider it magic because we do not understand the science of it. I understand that to mean there are scientific principles unkown to us that god uses in his WORKS. To be fair, he is only speculating and I accept that.

If he had said there are natural principles lurking beneath each of god's works that we do not understand, his argument would have been more cogent for me. The confusion for me is when he conflates natural laws with science. For me they are not the same. Science is what we do to understand natural laws. I concede that our science is a work in progress. But then E3 uses the incomplete status of our science to suggest (hypothetically) god is; we just don't understand him.

That is a reworking of the "god of the gaps."

And that's when I defer to Kirkegaard's leap of faith. You either jump or you don't jump.



E3 -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/2/2010 8:32:48 AM)

Hm.  I guess prehaps I am misusing the word science.  I always took it not only for the study of the "thing", but the "thing" itself.  But yes, vincent you do seem to have translated my misuse of the word correctly.  And yes, exactly what I meant, God works through natural laws that science can study, and we are working through science to understand those laws.  There is nothing in our scientific study that says a being of that kind of power cannot exist, just that we have not found one.  And there is nothing in the bible or any holy writing, to imply that any diety is supernatural, but instead natural.

though I like your question regarding a diety being outside nature to have created it, or part of it, and thus created by it.  All Abrahamic religions have a god based outside nature, not bound by creations limitations, omnipotent, all powerful, and not bound by the passage of time.  Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Sumerian/Mesopotamian ancient religions had a god outside nature, to create nature, but then gods that were created within the scope of nature, rose up to slay/supplant/remove said creator (as once a machine is running, it no longer needs a creator, only maintainers).  Gods created within the scope of nature, one would stand to reason that they would face limitations imposed by nature.  Not as powerful, not as "magical" appearing, and even bound within time.  As an example of that, think of Greek Mythology, where Zeus and his brothers rose up to slay their father, who had been injesting them to keep his own power secure (I beleive).  I'd quote other mythologies, since I know most of them seem based off each other, but I dont know names of gods as well as the greeks ones.

If you ask me, gods created within nature, are a concept far easier to grasp, and understand than ones from outside nature.  BUT prehaps calling these things gods is a bad choice of words since they are bound within the limitations of nature (were such to have ever existed).

OH and I realized why I defaulted to science and misusing tha word as opposed to nature.  To me, nature refers to natural things on this planet, and in truth, I was debating things far beyond just this planet.  All planets, stars, all of space, etcettera.  And in such discussions, I'd never heard the word nature utilized to refer to "all of existence".  To be fair, in hindsight, yes science is used only in regards to the study of these things, and my erorr was in "finding the best fit"



vincentML -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/2/2010 12:35:20 PM)

quote:

And yes, exactly what I meant, God works through natural laws that science can study, and we are working through science to understand those laws. There is nothing in our scientific study that says a being of that kind of power cannot exist, just that we have not found one.


It is a huge leap from observing natural laws to presuming the existence of a Law Maker. The classic response to that is: who made the Law Maker? The counter to that response is The Law Maker always was. So, the atheist is challenged to disprove an untestable proposition. The theist is challanged to prove an untestable proposition. So the theist is left to the scholastic (reasoned) arguments of Anselm and Aquinas or to the primacy of Faith per Paul, Luther, et al. The atheist finds both paths flawed.


quote:

And there is nothing in the bible or any holy writing, to imply that any diety is supernatural, but instead natural.


The Gospels are a testament to miracles:

A young woman is impregnated by a ghost.
She gives birth to a man/god.
The man/god is executed.
The man/god is risen bodily from death.
The man/god appears before his disciples so
they can feel his wounds.
Believers await his return in Judgment.

quote:

If you ask me, gods created within nature, are a concept far easier to grasp, and understand than ones from outside nature. BUT prehaps calling these things gods is a bad choice of words since they are bound within the limitations of nature (were such to have ever existed).


Does seem like there are contradictions inherent in the idea that would be difficult to overcome.

There are a number of believers on these boards who are not adherents to any of the Abrahamic religions nor to atheism. They are traveling down their own various pathways, propelled by personal experiences or reasoning. The only term I know that can be used to classify them as a group (which they are not) without giving offense would be Spiritualists (non-materialists)

I don't know what makes one person a believer but another a nonbeliever. Whatever makes you happy and comforted is good I think.

I am off this thread. good luck, E3.



heartcream -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/2/2010 1:19:18 PM)

There is always free will, we were given it as absolutely as we were given arms and legs (most of us got limbs anyway).

This does not cancel out God.



FirmhandKY -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/2/2010 2:34:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Those who rip apart the belief in a god.....and mock it as though they are operating from a position of higher knowledge and superior ideas.....are guilty of the greatest delusion of them all....that being the belief that they have the answers.

Believe it or not, I try to stay out of the religious threads, although I do occasionally join in.

NG, this is one of the most best sentences on the subject that I've seen posted on the boards.  Can I steal it?  I think it's time for a new sig line!

Firm



GotSteel -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/2/2010 4:04:25 PM)

I don't claim to have the answers except for some cases where we do such as: the earth isn't flat, the earth wasn't created in seven days in the middle of the bronze age and no Jesus did not ride dinosaurs. What I do claim is that you don't have the answers either and that there's a method of searching for the answers that's better than yours.



vincentML -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/2/2010 4:11:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Those who rip apart the belief in a god.....and mock it as though they are operating from a position of higher knowledge and superior ideas.....are guilty of the greatest delusion of them all....that being the belief that they have the answers.

Believe it or not, I try to stay out of the religious threads, although I do occasionally join in.

NG, this is one of the most best sentences on the subject that I've seen posted on the boards.  Can I steal it?  I think it's time for a new sig line!

Firm



Oh, I wanted to stay off this thread but really, Firm, NG ignores the fact that heretics are no longer burned at the stake. It is kinda liberating. [:D]



FirmhandKY -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/2/2010 6:28:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I don't claim to have the answers except for some cases where we do such as: the earth isn't flat, the earth wasn't created in seven days in the middle of the bronze age and no Jesus did not ride dinosaurs. What I do claim is that you don't have the answers either and that there's a method of searching for the answers that's better than yours.


If you call your method of knowing "science", then we are putatively using the same method.

But I've arrived at the conclusion that many people have substituted the "certainty of religion" with the "certainty of science".

My wandering study of the history of knowledge, and the history of science has tentatively brought me to the conclusion that utter certainty in anything is counterproductive to the actual search for knowledge.

Since an "atheist" is utterly certain of their position, I classify them - as searchers for knowledge - no differently than I classify a doctrinally restricted religious zealot.  Both are too brittle and convinced of their rightness to be classified in the category of people with an open, questing mind to anything not directly traceable to the current institutional pillars of their particular belief structure. In other words, they claim to follow the structure of science, but fail to grasp the inherent unsettled nature of "knowing" that science predisposes.

A person willing to say "I don't know, but I'm lead to believe ...x"  (regardless of which side of the question they principally adhere to) are the only people who are really seeking understanding.

I'm willing to admit that I may be incorrect (that's an inherent requirement of my belief structure), but few atheist have demonstrated that openness.

Therefore, since you are an atheist, and seem to have the utter certainty of your belief, I do not consider "your system" better than mine.

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/2/2010 6:35:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Those who rip apart the belief in a god.....and mock it as though they are operating from a position of higher knowledge and superior ideas.....are guilty of the greatest delusion of them all....that being the belief that they have the answers.

Believe it or not, I try to stay out of the religious threads, although I do occasionally join in.

NG, this is one of the most best sentences on the subject that I've seen posted on the boards.  Can I steal it?  I think it's time for a new sig line!


Oh, I wanted to stay off this thread but really, Firm, NG ignores the fact that heretics are no longer burned at the stake. It is kinda liberating. [:D]

We don't burn heretics anymore, true.

We just flog them personally and politically until they shut up. [:)]

Firm



willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/2/2010 6:40:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I don't claim to have the answers except for some cases where we do such as: the earth isn't flat, the earth wasn't created in seven days in the middle of the bronze age and no Jesus did not ride dinosaurs. What I do claim is that you don't have the answers either and that there's a method of searching for the answers that's better than yours.


If you call your method of knowing "science", then we are putatively using the same method.

But I've arrived at the conclusion that many people have substituted the "certainty of religion" with the "certainty of science".

My wandering study of the history of knowledge, and the history of science has tentatively brought me to the conclusion that utter certainty in anything is counterproductive to the actual search for knowledge.

Since an "atheist" is utterly certain of their position, I classify them - as searchers for knowledge - no differently than I classify a doctrinally restricted religious zealot.  Both are too brittle and convinced of their rightness to be classified in the category of people with an open, questing mind to anything not directly traceable to the current institutional pillars of their particular belief structure. In other words, they claim to follow the structure of science, but fail to grasp the inherent unsettled nature of "knowing" that science predisposes.

A person willing to say "I don't know, but I'm lead to believe ...x"  (regardless of which side of the question they principally adhere to) are the only people who are really seeking understanding.

I'm willing to admit that I may be incorrect (that's an inherent requirement of my belief structure), but few atheist have demonstrated that openness.

Therefore, since you are an atheist, and seem to have the utter certainty of your belief, I do not consider "your system" better than mine.

Firm


Ive never met a strong atheist who has "utter certainty" about anything. We acknowledge that you cannot prove the non-existence of something claimed to be so powerful that it could hide in the shadows or something that exists outside of nature. We also acknowledge that any scientific theory is subject to change as we learn more about nature. We are quite willing to admit there is a god...just come up with some evidence.



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875