Evolution and a supreme being.

Time for an avatar change, methinks... First time changing it in my time here.

philologos wrote: »

OK, Pushtrak, let's have a look at your three posts. Let me grab some coffee and begin Thanks for being patient, and thanks for being so understanding.

No prob. It has been an interesting discussion and it has gotten me to look up things I didn't know before.

This discussion though, on the finer points of biblical scholarship, the dating, the veracity are outside my field of experience. For my part, I don't think there is much to be gained from the subject except for if I were to research it.

The meaning remains the same, but it's more convenient to read the Bible in the English we use in 2012 rather than the English of 1611. Wouldn't you agree?

In a sense, I can appreciate that perspective, but I'd rather an internally consistent narrative that is harder to read than one than the differing accounts of some events in the gospels..

If the above weren't true, I'd agree with you. Since the evidence confirms the authenticity of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and since we have by the means of a concordance a means of better clarifying which words are used where and in what context, I would say far from nebulous.

In the stead of trying to counter this, I'll not be pointing out the manuscripts, et cetera, but to the fact of how many denominations exist. Many of them would say that others, if not all of the others are doomed to hellfire. Or, they might say doomed to absence from Christ in the afterlife, or even those who say nothingness in the afterlife. I've encountered all three.

It goes back to the supposed absolute truth.. I am figuring that the absolute truth is supposed to be independent of what we think of it, is it? As in all the subjective opinions that are not of the particular faith one goes with are just subjective. But the one that whichever person has is the absolute truth. What makes any human the arbiter of truth? There is a landscape of these "absolute truths" within the one faith. You will doubtless argue that it is the holy text that is the absolute truth. But, from this book comes the very subjective. If I were to read it, I'd have my own subjective interpretation. And on, and on it goes.

Why would I believe it is fiction? - I'm happy to go into some of these reasons in a bit more depth, and I am entirely justified to ask why you believe it is fiction. That is a positive claim.

A historic account of the times, if written can be taken or left. It isn't ultimately going to make much difference if it were just that. The issue comes in with the arrival of the miracles. My making the claim is merely pointing out that is where it stands on the scale of literacy.

The question is why do we believe in the logical necessity of a Creator, or if we don't what other possibilities are there?

There are a number of possibilities in terms of us being here. To start with, the idea of a creator. Well, within this, the creator could be the deistic concept, for one, or it could be an interventionist deity. Within the idea of an interventionist deity, it could be any one. And of course, it could be a naturalistic answer in the form of the universe always existed or is part of the multiverse.

These last days thankfully have been extended, (Jesus also backs this up in Matthew 24:22), so that we have the opportunity to know Jesus, repent of our sin before God, so that we might be forgiven. Jesus Himself explains that He will not return until the Gospel has come to all nations (Matthew 24:14).

So god changed its mind? There is a point here about how perfect plans ought not be altered.

Again, how did you get that from my post? - That's not what I said in that section. I never said that there is no morality other than in Christ. Rather, I think that all people can do what is good and right, due to God giving us a conscience. Indeed the Bible even tells us this much (Romans 2).

It was close, though, and I didn't feel it appropriate to let it slide just because it wasn't directly stated. If I was heavily implying towards something you took exception to you'd call me out on it too, and rightly so.

As for the subjugation of women argument, that seems like more an atheistic myth concerning Christianity than anything with any solid basis. Perhaps you should chat to some of the women who go to my church (about half of those who go) and see why they can reasonably believe and trust in Jesus?

If the eternal hellfire afterlife is credible to a person, that person is more likely to accept things they otherwise would not. Also, human emotion isn't always conducive to the correct application of logic.

But let me bring up some verses to illustrate my point.

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

(Genesis 2:18-22 ESV)

So, a woman is equal to the rib of a man, and a helper, i.e subservient to man. Anyway, onwards to Genesis 3...

To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
(Genesis 3:16 ESV)

And what of this? Last one for now. If more are required, I can present them.

Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
(Genesis 19:6-8 ESV)

I'd suspect statistically if that were actually true, I would expect there to be to be a lower proportion of women than there are in society, but realistically it is bang on. Actually, of the entire churchgoing population in Britain I would hazard a guess and say they are for the most part women.

If the point you are trying to make is that women would never be part of an abusive ideology then that is an error. The point should stand on its own, if I were to explicitly state what I meant then there might be accusation I'm trying to equivocate one with the other. This is not my intent.

He's also said that there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. The reality is that we do have evidence for the existence of Jesus. Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Lucretius, and the Babylonian Talmud are just a start of where non-Jews referred to the existence of Jesus. Indeed, I'd say that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than of many people we regard as historical.

It seems to be a consensus among biblical scholars from what I understand that Jesus lived. The jury is out on the miracle bit.

Claiming that I'm ignoring any other position by simply questioning someone on their claim is a little off surely? The reality is that it is fact that there are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other text, and the reality is that there is quite a bit of history to back up the existence of Jesus, and plenty of non-Christians have even acknowledged this much.

You are convinced of the arguments for the miracles, et cetera and this in conjunction with the prime mover have you convinced that there is a god, the christian one specifically. The non-biblical sources do not substantiate miracles though. Why would events that would be as fantastical as this not be better recorded? Why would the odd reference to "The Christ" survive, but not an account of people raising from the dead, and other events as described in the bible? It seems a very skewed sense of priorities there. I recall looking in to some of this stuff some time back, and honestly can't recall the dates. It is getting late, too. Want to get this post written up and call it a night.

a clearer picture of how morality works

I would say that you are on a hard ground to defend when it comes to the arguments from morality. The specifics of the moral system of the believer is rendered irrelevant in comparison to if they pray to Jesus or not. There is no morality here. One does wrong, prays to Jesus and it is a mechanism for trying to assuage guilt. The conscience can be cleared by this process. Or, at the very least, cleared more than in its absence.

Not at all. It's not about "comfort" at all. It's about what is more likely to be true.

A good approach to strive for.

I've seen many posts on boards.ie over the years from atheists including some quite recently on the Christianity forum where atheists have essentially claimed that because they just don't like the concept of sin that they don't believe.

I think a better perspective is that a deity that would rather people worship it and apologise for wrongdoings in any way, shape or form in the form of prayer is morally questionable. It says nothing about the existence or non existence.

I think I made the point about how looking at where we are now, and trying to race ourselves back to the start of the universe, and seeing how naturalism explains as much as it has taken over from religion.. The sin issue isn't an argument against god. But reality seems largely to be.

Out of curiosity, suppose there was intelligent life on other planets. What could one infer about such a thing in terms of religion?

We're justly deserving of hell. If God is good, He cannot allow evil to dwell in heaven. If God is just, He must punish for sin. To claim that it is a "finite" crime is to misunderstand what Christianity actually says.

But if they repented, did they suddenly become pure good? I can't see any human being a pure representative of good... Save for if they had large aspects of their personality removed.

There can be an absolute truth about reality, and everyone could reject it. Truth isn't absolute because everyone agrees, truth is absolute because it is true and it is real.

Assuming absolute truth exists, it doesn't seem possible to know if/when you have it.

No, that's not a particularly reasonable approach to take. If you want to see the torture of that position look at René Descartes - Meditations on First Philosophy. I don't think one could too readily believe in the existence of God and be a solipsist.

I actually have that book. I'll get to it, but will be a while.

Morality is mind independent. Good is good, and evil is evil. It's not whatever the heck we like.

Is anything outside the one man, one woman a sin? I'm sure many adherents would say yes. Was polygamy a sin when it was in the bible?

Let me find the entry in the concordance:

So, it is a subject of debate exactly what is intended by in gods image? As per "note: the exact reference of whether this is moral, ethical, physical, nature, etc. is not clear."

Again, sincerity isn't a factor in determining what is true.

Indeed, that is so.

Fair enough, but what does that have to do with what I originally said, or are you bringing this in as something new?

To restate what this was about it was in reference to the bible verse where it was postulated that all know god, as if god reveals himself to all. This is evidently not true owing to the fact there are atheists and people of other faiths.

Can we truly determine whether someone has been truly wronged in the absence of objective moral standards?

The golden rule is a pretty solid basis.

Biblical slavery is not the same thing as colonial slavery. It existed for an entirely different purpose.

There was sex slavery in the bible, so I'm not really buying this line.

kmann wrote: »

in terms of evolution,what happened before evolution,what was the spark?

Evolution is about the adaptation and how life, er, evolved. So, before that would be the origin of life. Or abiogenesis. Before that was part of big bang cosmology. Before that? Well, aside from the fact time started with the big bang... Well, no one can tell you anything here with 100% certainty. Well, they can try.

lmaopml wrote: »

Probability is not on the side of an ordered universe such as ours that sustains conscious human people such as ourselves that can actually explore and understand and conquer our surroundings. Unless you try to insert every other possibility going universes with no evidence either than I'm afraid your living in a highly fabulous and ordered universe...

Ok, we are discussing the universe. Which is a sample size of one. Which is what we have. On what do you base your probabilities? Discussing probabilities on the scales you suggest... Well, show us your workings. Hopefully the margins will be wide enough to support this.

I would suggest anyone who hasn't seen Cosmos to remedy that. Also worth noting is that there will be a sequel airing on Fox next year... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/arts/television/fox-plans-new-cosmos-with-seth-macfarlane-as-a-producer.html

On Friday the Fox network is to announce that it has ordered a 13-episode series, “Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey,” expected to be broadcast in 2013. As part of a creative team that includes Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow and a collaborator on the original “Cosmos,” one of the executive producers is Seth MacFarlane, the creator, producer, co-star and animating spirit of “Family Guy,” the bawdy and irreverent Fox cartoon sitcom.

mickrock wrote: »

The same could be said of your belief in abiogenesis.

I don't know enough about abiogenesis to have a belief in it.

Abiogenesis research has been going nowhere fast for a long time.

As compared to dualism which has been making strides in recent years?

Bbbbbut what about the eye?!!!


/runs off :P

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Go ahead and ignore every possibility except the ones that suit you. But when you're ready, God will be there for you.

You do see the irony in this, right?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why do we tell our children than Santa exists, for example?

I suppose because it's charming and it's more exciting to a child the idea of Santa then just their parents buying them gifts.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Actually this whole Santa Claus analogy is interesting because in my case it illustrates how people cling to the idea of God when deep down they know it to be untrue.

My parents sat me down one day, the day had come to tell me Santa didn't exist and they tried to gently break it by asking the following;

"Why do you think rich kids get better presents from Santa than poor kids?"

An interesting and thought stimulating question for a 10-11yr old (I think). Highlight non-existence of Santa while pointing out the reality of inequality in the world. How did young Jimoslimos choose to answer? Rich kids are better behaved? No....using all of my logic I came up with the following....

"Probably because rich kids have bigger chimneys than poor ones..."

Now I knew well there was no Santa but part of me still wanted that big cheery man with presents to come every year. I tried everything to justify it to myself, reckoned if the big man started around NZ/AUS and travelled westwards that would give more hours of darkness to work with. I knew that this still made the feat impossible but chose to ignore this and other evidence that didn't fit the theory. This is what I see the deeply religious doing, not so much trying to convert anyone but rather convince themselves

Where the analogy is even better with religion, is the latent control the parent has over the child because of the lie. "If you don't be good, Santa won't come."