The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

\
We already create human beings, smacl, by the old-fashioned method. It has all kinds of ethical implications, but I don't see that it calls God's situation into question. And the same will apply if we create self-aware artificial intelligence.

I agree to a large extent P. though don't think it leaves much room for creationist scientists. You also have some more far reaching issues once you allow for intelligence that is not constrained by the mechanics and longevity of human biology. For example, an AI mind need not degrade over time and is persistent (e.g. can be backed up, restored) and hence for live for orders of magnitude longer than us. Similarly while we have two eyes, two ears and a nose, an AI can potentially have an enormous array of distributed sensory inputs, can be in contact simultaneously with very many other AIs, and have immediate access to vast quantities of information. So while not exactly immortal, all seeing and all knowing, something of a jump forward from where we are. Makes me wonder who will make who in who's image :P

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

So were we to create a truly self-aware artificial intelligence using our own processes and materials how do we treat that entity?

As I say, the words create and produce/reproduce need application here. "Our" processes and materials aren't ours but are the product of something that has nothing to do with us. We utilise and manipulate those processes, but that's not the same as out and out creation.


As for the scenario you paint?

We do not fully know, nor can we fully know, what fully constitutes a human being. We can posit a philosophical view of what constitutes life and suppose our artificial self-aware life "human-enough" such as to raise ethical issues.

We (i.e. the people holding the particular philosophy) would be the ones to generate the ethical dilemma, since it is a product of the philosophy held. Hold a different philosophy and there might be no dilemma.


For example:

It seems reasonable to assume we'll see continuing progress in this field and will soon reach the stage where experts in the fields of psychology and linguistics will be unable to differentiate human intelligence from artificial intelligence. If we're unable to empirically distinguish human intelligence from AI, what measure do we use to prove one is self aware where the other isn't?

The philosophy of life here supposes intelligence and self-awareness the measure for ethical dilemma.

My philosophy of life is different and so I don't have an ethical dilemma here. The intelligence and self-awareness might mimic to nth degree human intelligence/self-awareness, but it is just that: a mimic. My philosophy for what it is that constitutes human-kind (and makes them worthwhile) renders it's artificial reproduction impossible. I'd have no more issue discarding the artificial it than I would any other product of mankind.

If we put ourselves in the role of creator, where does that leave God?

It leaves God as the one who does know what constitutes a human being. It's fine to suppose yourself as a bona fide Creator. Quite another thing demonstrating it objectively.

Leroy42

antiskeptic wrote: »

As far as you can tell. There is no need for me to be bound to same process of evaluation that you are. Continuing the though experiment (assuming God exists for the sake of discussion).

As far as anyone can tell, from an evidence basis. You can make up any rules that allow you to belief whatever you want but why not use those new rules for everything? Do you believe in aliens, and leprechauns, and fairies and unicorns. I am sure the people who wrote about them could attest they the "idea" came from somewhere, it must have been direct contact.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The means whereby God manifests himself need have nothing to do with empirical evidence. IF it is the case that there are spiritual antennae AND it is the case that some have this spiritual antennae turned on, on rebirth, THEN no issue that some detect God loud and clear and others do not. The continued insistence "no empirical evidence" affects not one jot, the THEN conclusion.

Same as above, but begs the question why god would create some people who can tune into him and some who cannot, or find it more difficult. Surely that is inherently unfair?

antiskeptic wrote: »

One can go round the houses on this but ultimately, the notion that empirical evidence is the surest way to conclude the truth or otherwise of an observation, is a philosophical one only. It is not something that can be demonstrated to be true.

I am not against their being the existence of non-empirical evidence, the question it then raises, as I mentioned above, is where do you draw the line. Why is non-empirical evidence only in relation to you god. We have no evidence that life created itself, and based on the need for evidence that leads many to conclude that god must have done it, yet they do not assert the same level to God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Simply supposing that the only way that God could evidence himself is via the empirical, and if not empirical then no basis for my position is just that: simply supposing.

Not at all. I am more than willing to accept that the evidence for god does not fit in with the normal rules of evidence that we apply. The question I have is then surely that allows us to believe in anything? And what is the value of evidence that you cannot measure and is entirely subjective?

We don't accept a defense case based on 'God told me to do it", yet that is exactly what you are saying you take as your basis.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've raised an objection to the use of the word "murder". Before continuing with it's use, you would need to counter the objection. You can't do as JC often does and simply assume your position true

Murder definition : kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation

Isn't that exactly what happened? Without trial, and in the case of the young and newborns, without any actual sins being committed and then judged everyone guilty when it is not possible that they had all sinned to the same extent. You don't like the word murder because it paints god's actions in a bad light. An evil, angry, unfair god. By any normal position that is murder. You prefer to give god a special dispensation as it suits your belief.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have pointed out the difference between creation and production so perhaps we ought isolate the word creation for use with God only. It helps keep things precise?

I'm not quite sure of the point you're making in the italicised bit. Could you elaborate?

One of course can argue that its not the parents but nature, but then surely that argument can be used for all the young people than your God killed. The belief is that he created Adam and Eve, nature did the rest.

You are making the case that since God created us then he can do as he pleases, he owns us. My point is that for people who do not believe in God, then they believe that they created the child, and based on your own position then are quite entitled to treat the child in however they see fit.

But that then also raises another issue. Genesis states that God created Adam and Eve, but makes in mention of him being involved in the rest (and we know that he doesn't, its nature). So if you make the argument that the parents don't own the child, its nature, then why did God own all the people in killed in the flood, surely that it nature too?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Again, you are engaging in a JC-type approach. You are not dealing with the argument as it is presented you. It is okay that you personally feel that I have been taught what I posit. But it is not okay to suppose that for the purposes of argumentation.

If I am then I apologise, then is not my intention. I try to understand and take on board all perspectives. Maybe I don't get it across, but I really do appreciate others viewpoints, although I may not agree, but I read them and try to take them into account. However, if I cannot understand the logic, or if it requires different rationale than in other cases, then I will ask that.

I terms of belief, I did not mean you personally, I was speaking in general terms. There is no doubting that the vast majority of people believe in the God they were taught of by their parents/school etc.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Certainly, my understanding of the God-set up is informed by the Bible (but not solely so, the Bible, for instance, doesn't specifically make the legal argument about possession of goods that I make). But overarching that is a personal encounter with this God. It's that which gives the Bible credence for me. You can argue about personal encounter but you can't suppose I hold what I hold simply because someone else told me and I'm undergoing a white-coat syndrome or holding what I hold to simply because I have a need to.

Fair point.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

Unfortunately the Big Bang Theory ... is just that ... a Theory ... and not a Law.
It states that first there was nothing ... and then it spontaneoulsy blew up.

The alternative theory is that first there was God ... and then He directly created everything.

I have asked you this before, but will try again.

Lets just, for the sake of argument go with your position that the big bang theory (which explains everything we know about the universe except for the first .0000000etc of a sec) but lets say God did start it all.

You first you into the exact same issue that you use to negate the theory, how was god created, where did he come from? Surely to make something as complex and powerful as god, would have required something even bigger and more powerful?

Second, even if we park that issue, how does that help with your belief in a god that is involved in your life, listens and acts on your prayers, and that he will judge us when we die? You can argue that science has simply replaced the unknown God with the unknown Big bang Theory, but what the Bog Bang Theory does offer is an explanation for everything that has happened since. No need for miracles, no need for special interventions, no need for special selected peoples.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

My philosophy of life is different and so I don't have an ethical dilemma here. The intelligence and self-awareness might mimic to nth degree human intelligence/self-awareness, but it is just that: a mimic. My philosophy for what it is that constitutes human-kind (and makes them worthwhile) renders it's artificial reproduction impossible. I'd have no more issue discarding the artificial it than I would any other product of mankind.

I agree entirely that an artificial intelligence does not constitute human life, nevertheless this does not mean that it isn't self aware. While we might consider it the latter if we use a term such as 'us and them' my thinking is that it would deserve the same treatment as any self aware intelligent entity, and can't be wantonly disposed of for falling into a 'them' category. How many empires in the past have killed innocents from different civilisations based on this logic?

It leaves God as the one who does know what constitutes a human being. It's fine to suppose yourself as a bona fide Creator. Quite another thing demonstrating it objectively.

Putting human beings aside for one moment, if we are to require an objective test to determine who is or is not self aware, we surely must subject ourselves to the same test to determine its efficacy. These tests, such as the Turing test, to date seem flawed but will no doubt be improved. If these flaws are removed, and an AI passes them, what differentiates the self awareness of the AI from that possessed by you or me? While you might claim the AI self awareness is illusory, you're then left in the position of proving that our's is not.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I agree entirely that an artificial intelligence does not constitute human life, nevertheless this does not mean that it isn't self aware. While we might consider it the latter if we use a term such as 'us and them' my thinking is that it would deserve the same treatment as any self aware intelligent entity, and can't be wantonly disposed of for falling into a 'them' category.

A genuine Van Gogh is worth X. A forgery, no matter how well produced (and it doesn't matter if the means to detect the difference is currently not available to us) is considered an utterly different entity.

If my philosophy considers artificial intelligence/self-awareness a forgery (since the means to detect that it is a forgery are made available by my philosophy) then I approach it in that way. If not, not.

It depends on your philosophy, like I say.

How many empires in the past have killed innocents from different civilisations based on this logic?

A product of their philosophy. My philosophy would disagree with them on the killing of human kind. But not of disposing of an entity that forges an element of human life.

Putting human beings aside for one moment, if we are to require an objective test to determine who is or is not self aware, we surely must subject ourselves to the same test to determine its efficacy. These tests, such as the Turing test, to date seem flawed but will no doubt be improved. If these flaws are removed, and an AI passes them, what differentiates the self awareness of the AI from that possessed by you or me? While you might claim the AI self awareness is illusory, you're then left in the position of proving that our's is not.

Objective test. What goes into the test is dependent on the philosophy of what it is that constitutes a self. If the philosophy decides x,y,z, are indicative of a self and the AI objectively meets those requirements then the AI is objectively indicative of a self (after which, the ethical dilemma)

But philosophies aren't objective and so, the decision of what is indicative of a self is subjective - rendering the outcome a subjective one. Any objective test passing is enclosed in the wider subjectivity which set the standard, rendering the whole, subjective

Illusion isn't the word I'd use - I'm sure tests can be devised to conclude the AI self-aware on as many fronts as the philosophy required.

Forgery would be more like it. The Van Gogh examples what I mean. Just because it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, doesn't mean it's a duck.


I don't have to prove anything - it's simply opposing philosophies, neither of which can be proven. Mine is theistic. Your's supposes science is the appropriate way to determine these things. By demanding I prove you "wrong", you are assuming you're right until otherwise proven. There is no requirement for me to assume that position from the outset: I don't suppose science the appropriate way to determine these things.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

A genuine Van Gogh is worth X. A forgery, no matter how well produced (and it doesn't matter if the means to detect the difference is currently not available to us) is considered an utterly different entity.

If my philosophy considers artificial life a forgery (since the means to detect that it is a forgery are made available by my philosophy) then I approach it in that way. If not, not.

It depends on your philosophy, like I say.

A product of their philosophy. My philosophy would disagree with them on the killing of human kind. But not of disposing of an entity that forges an element of human life.

A forgery is only a forgery if it pretends to be something that it is not. An artificial intelligence need not be an attempt to mimic the human mind. This does not preclude it from being an intelligent. Even other primates in the animal kingdom are demonstrably self aware and exhibit some intelligence, yet they are neither human nor forgeries. I agree an AI will be an utterly different entity, but see no technical reason as to why it would not be self aware or intelligent, and deserving of our respect as such.

Objective test. What goes into the test is dependent on the philosophy of what it is that constitutes a self. If the philosophy decides x,y,z, are indicative of a self and the AI objectively meets those requirements then the AI is objectively indicative of a self (after which, the ethical dilemma)

But philosophies aren't objective and so, the decision of what is indicative of a self is subjective - rendering the outcome a subjective one. Any objective test passing is enclosed in the wider subjectivity which set the standard, rendering the whole, subjective

Illusion isn't the word I'd use - I'm sure tests can be devised to conclude the AI self-aware on as many fronts as the philosophy required.

Forgery would be more like it. The Van Gogh examples what I mean. Just because it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, doesn't mean it's a duck.

I don't have to prove anything - it's simply opposing philosophies, neither of which can be proven. Mine is theistic. Your's supposes science is the appropriate way to determine these things. By demanding I prove you "wrong", you are assuming you're right until otherwise proven. There is no requirement for me to assume that position from the outset: I don't suppose science the appropriate way to determine these things.

I agree that this is a philosophical issue, but at what point do you say that your tests and observations are wrong on the basis of them not matching your philosophy? You seem to be suggesting your philosophically held truths are immutable regardless of objective observation. My position in relation to your own doesn't seem that far removed from your position in relation to JC.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

A forgery is only a forgery if it pretends to be something that it is not. An artificial intelligence need not be an attempt to mimic the human mind. This does not preclude it from being an intelligent. Even other primates in the animal kingdom are demonstrably self aware and exhibit some intelligence, yet they are neither human nor forgeries. I agree an AI will be an utterly different entity, but see no technical reason as to why it would not be self aware or intelligent, and deserving of our respect as such.

The forgery comes from it being considered a self (such as to be self aware). Self-ness (in my philosophy) is something imbued by the creator into created creatures. In supposing something produced by man a self, merely because it displays features of a created self renders it a forgery. It is being pretended to be something that it is not.

I agree that this is a philosophical issue, but at what point do you say that your tests and observations are wrong on the basis of them not matching your philosophy? You seem to be suggesting your philosophically held truths are immutable regardless of objective observation.

I wouldn't suppose that my theology immutable. I was, after all, a YEC in my early Christian days and am no more. If the information causes me to move, I'll move.

But that is not to say all is ever up for change. I don't have to hold the scientific position that all conclusions are forever tentative.

Take sin-infected man, for example. He has always sought to be God and that desire to be at the top expresses constantly: whether supposing oneself a divine emperor or attempting to climb over others to get to the top position in a company. I understand the core conflict between man and God and that view is immutable.

So when man attempts to become creator, to attempt to do what God has done, then you know what lies at the root of things. It's utterly predictable (since it's been done in any number of guises since time immemorial).

The reason (in my philosophy) for false gods is an expression of this. Man knows he has to bow down - it's in his spiritual DNA. And so he erects a god who he can control ("if I offer this that and the other, then the god I know I have to bow down to, will be satisfied and I'm free to live my life unencumbered). He has an itch to scratch and this is the way he does it.

I can see how AI would eventually become god. Let's suppose it becomes infinitely smarter than us and processes infinitely faster than us. Let us suppose it exceeds us in every single definition of self-ness that we assign to oureselves. Super-human. Something that could be bowed down to. Yet it is man-made.

My position in relation to your own doesn't seem that far removed from your position in relation to JC.

JC is attempting to play on the same field as ToE: science.

I'm merely positing my own philosophy and why I view things as I do. I'm not attempting to prove it or argue it true.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The forgery comes from it being considered a self (such as to be self aware). Self-ness (in my philosophy) is something imbued by the creator into created creatures. In supposing something produced by man a self, merely because it displays features of a created self renders it a forgery. It is being pretended to be something that it is not.

I guess we have substantial philosophical differences here so. Going back to your Van Gogh, it is worth considering why is it better than a perfect forgery, which is after all indistinguishable to all concerned? We have a sentimental attachment to original artworks which gets exploited to become financial value, but this value like all value is something that is held by us (and institutions on our behalf), it is not intrinsic to the object. That Van Gogh was a wonderful artist in his time who created many notable paintings is not the issue, but the value society places on those paintings now has little to do with the aesthetic effect on the individual viewer, which is after all conveyed equally well by the forgery. What is more artificial here than the forgery is the value we place on the original purely on the basis that we are told to do so. I'd contend the difference between a human mind and an artificial intelligence is the same. We attach value to our claimed unique position of having a sense of self without being able to say why or how we can prove we are unique in having that sense of self. Philosophically, I'd go with the contextualists here and dispute the notion of intrinsic value, where value is subjective worth.

I'm merely positing my own philosophy and why I view things as I do. I'm not attempting to prove it or argue it true.

Fair enough, and thanks for sharing it.

J C

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't suppose that my theology immutable. I was, after all, a YEC in my early Christian days and am no more. If the information causes me to move, I'll move.

I'm not immutable either ... I used be an Evolutionist in my youth ... and am no more ... because of the evidence that modern Creation Science has discovered.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So when man attempts to become creator, to attempt to do what God has done, then you know what lies at the root of things. It's utterly predictable (since it's been done in any number of guises since time immemorial).

The reason (in my philosophy) for false gods is an expression of this. Man knows he has to bow down - it's in his spiritual DNA. And so he erects a god who he can control ("if I offer this that and the other, then the god I know I have to bow down to, will be satisfied and I'm free to live my life unencumbered). He has an itch to scratch and this is the way he does it.

I can see how AI would eventually become god. Let's suppose it becomes infinitely smarter than us and processes infinitely faster than us. Let us suppose it exceeds us in every single definition of self-ness that we assign to oureselves. Super-human. Something that could be bowed down to. Yet it is man-made.

Yes, it's the old 'you will be as God' lie in different 'clothes'.
We already have super-computers fully integrated with information super-highways ... but no self-awareness like exists in a Human Being.
The only way that artificially created intelligent machines could become 'self-aware' is if they were possessed of a spirit ... and I wouldn't rule that out.

antiskeptic wrote: »

JC is attempting to play on the same field as ToE: science.

As a conventionally qualified scientist, I am playing on the exact same field as ToE science.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I guess we have substantial philosophical differences here so. Going back to your Van Gogh, it is worth considering why is it better than a perfect forgery, which is after all indistinguishable to all concerned? We have a sentimental attachment to original artworks which gets exploited to become financial value, but this value like all value is something that is held by us (and institutions on our behalf), it is not intrinsic to the object.

It's better than the forgery because it is a work of creation (in the limited sense of that word, recognizing that Van Gogh was manipulating already available materials). The forgery is a work of re-creation.

By "better" I mean societies collective view that there's an intangible difference between creation and re-creation - even if the actual price of a Van Gogh might be considered somewhat obscene. If it's being better is denied, because it's only society which holds it to be so, then nothing (in your view) can have intrinsic value.

Which would align those who would slaughter the innocents of yours (a few posts) with your philosophy. One would wonder why you are concerned about the ethical issues of AI when nothing has any intrinsic value anyway?

That Van Gogh was a wonderful artist in his time who created many notable paintings is not the issue, but the value society places on those paintings now has little to do with the aesthetic effect on the individual viewer, which is after all conveyed equally well by the forgery. What is more artificial here than the forgery is the value we place on the original purely on the basis that we are told to do so.

You seem to have a pretty utilitarian view. Aesthetics, taste, feelings are intangible to others perhaps, but no less real and no less valued than that which can be measured by science.

I'd contend the difference between a human mind and an artificial intelligence is the same.

You can't contend so, since you don't know what constitutes the human and the AI mind outside that which you can measure. How can you measure something that you don't know the extent of?

We attach value to our claimed unique position of having a sense of self without being able to say why or how we can prove we are unique in having that sense of self.

That doesn't seem to bother us.

But the issue here Philosophically, I'd go with the contextualists here and dispute the notion of intrinsic value, where value is subjective worth.

As I say above, this appears to mean you ought have no problem with the (Godwin's "Law") the Holocaust. At least, your argument can have no intrinsic value.

Which has one wonder why you partake in a discussion forum

antiskeptic

J C wrote: »

I used be an Evolutionist in my youth ...

As a matter of interest, was this is in your Christian youth?

Yes, it's the old 'you will be as God' lie in different 'clothes'.
We already have super-computers fully integrated with information super-highways ... but no self-awareness like exists in a Human Being.
The only way that artificially created intelligent machines could become 'self-aware' is if they were possessed of a spirit ... and I wouldn't rule that out.

Hmmm. One I haven't considered.

As a conventionally qualified scientist, I am playing on the exact same field as ToE science.

Being a conventionally qualified scientist doesn't say anything about whether you are following the conventions of science.

It appears that a lot of conventionally qualified scientists are mugs in the extreme: each believing in evolution because they assume a conventionally qualified scientist over the fence in another area of investigation believes in evolution because they, in turn, assume that another conventionally qualified scientist.

So much for conventionally qualified scientists.

You can't have your bolded cake and eat it JC.

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

I'm not immutable either ... I used be an Evolutionist in my youth ... and am no more ... because of the evidence that modern Creation Science has discovered.

Yes, it's the old 'you will be as God' lie in different 'clothes'.
We already have super-computers fully integrated with information super-highways ... but no self-awareness like exists in a Human Being.
The only way that artificially created intelligent machines could become 'self-aware' is if they were possessed of a spirit ... and I wouldn't rule that out.


As a conventionally qualified scientist, I am playing on the exact same field as ToE science.

What do you mean by 'spirit'?

antiskeptic

One of Satan's minions. Since he is ever at work its an interesting idea - although I suppose he doesn't occupy machinery, however advanced

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's better than the forgery because it is a work of creation (in the limited sense of that word, recognizing that Van Gogh was manipulating already available materials). The forgery is a work of re-creation.

By "better" I mean societies collective view that there's an intangible difference between creation and re-creation - even if the actual price of a Van Gogh might be considered somewhat obscene. If it's being better is denied, because it's only society which holds it to be so, then nothing (in your view) can have intrinsic value.

So when I listen to Van Karajan's rendering of Brukner's 2nd on CD it is a forgery by your definition as it is no more than a recreation of an original work. Similarly, my appreciation of the piece is exactly the same as everyone else's as its value is intrinsic.

From my perspective, this is of course a nonsense. Creation is in the act of making, it is not an intrinsic property of the result. Objects do not have intrinsic value as we each give them different values. As such value is the worth we ascribe to something and lies in the relationship between ourselves and that thing rather than purely in the thing itself. By definition this makes the value extrinsic.

Which would align those who would slaughter the innocents of yours (a few posts) with your philosophy. One would wonder why you are concerned about the ethical issues of AI when nothing has any intrinsic value anyway?

Not sure where you're getting slaughter of innocents from there. My take on AI is that if and when it gets to the stage where it has a sense of self, we accord that entity respect. Note that we already accord varying degrees of respect to other animals based on our understanding of their sense of awareness (and of course our's of compassion).

You seem to have a pretty utilitarian view. Aesthetics, taste, feelings are intangible to others perhaps, but no less real and no less valued than that which can be measured by science.

Far from it. I take great pleasure from the arts, music and literature, but the specific pieces I love and why I love them will likely be different from those other people might. As such, if anything I tend to value the aesthetic far more than the utilitarian, and also find great beauty in many aspects of maths, science and nature.

You can't contend so, since you don't know what constitutes the human and the AI mind outside that which you can measure. How can you measure something that you don't know the extent of?

Quite so, nor can you. So on that basis, how do you know one can be considered to have a sense of self where the other cannot.

As I say above, this appears to mean you ought have no problem with the (Godwin's "Law") the Holocaust. At least, your argument can have no intrinsic value.

As per the innocents, I'm lost as to why you're dragging the holocaust into the discussion here. You're quite right that my argument has no intrinsic value, it is intended as dialog not rhetoric.

Which has one wonder why you partake in a discussion forum

I take part in these discussions primarily because I enjoy participating, and also to better understand the world I live in through the views of it held by others.

J C

antiskeptic wrote: »

As a matter of interest, was this is in your Christian youth?

I was only Saved after I realised I had been sold a very big Evolutionist 'pup'!!!
My Salvation came after I saw the evidence for Creation (and against Spontaneous Pondkind to Mankind Evolution).

antiskeptic wrote: »

Being a conventionally qualified scientist doesn't say anything about whether you are following the conventions of science.

It appears that a lot of conventionally qualified scientists are mugs in the extreme: each believing in evolution because they assume a conventionally qualified scientist over the fence in another area of investigation believes in evolution because they, in turn, assume that another conventionally qualified scientist.

So much for conventionally qualified scientists.

You can't have your bolded cake and eat it JC.

Scientists aren't infallible ... doubly so when their worldview is threatened by what they find. Yes, this could apply to Creation Scientists ... but it also could apply to Materialistic Evolutionists, who want the world (and everything in it) to have been created without God.
I have been on both sides of this divide ... and I can understand the reticence of Evolutionists about accepting what Creation Science and ID proponents are saying ... I once was that soldier !!!
... but there comes a point when the evidence presented is so overwhelming that you simply can't go on denying it.
That point came for me over 20 years ago.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Scientists haven't a clue. Follow God's law.

PopePalpatine

They had enough of a clue to invent an Internet, processors and screens for you to share such an insightful statement.

Timberrrrrrrr

lw8ey69ntifmph wrote: »

Scientists haven't a clue. Follow God's law.

Well if I or a member of my family ever get really ill I will be happy to rely on medical science but you feel free to shun doctors/hospitals and rely on the power of prayer to cure you or your family member.

J C

lw8ey69ntifmph wrote: »

Scientists haven't a clue. Follow God's law.

Oweny, scientists do have a clue (about real word phenomena) ... do you, for example go to a doctor ... or a quack, when you get ill?
Saying such things discredits Christians and Christianity.

Admittedly, some scientists don't have much of a clue about the things of God ... but then they usually don't claim much knowledge about God either.:)

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

They don't have a clue because they do not acknowledge God as the Creator.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

Well if I or a member of my family ever get really ill I will be happy to rely on medical science but you feel free to shun doctors/hospitals and rely on the power of prayer to cure you or your family member.

I was speaking about Creation.

antiskeptic

lw8ey69ntifmph wrote: »

They don't have a clue because they do not acknowledge God as the Creator.

Or they are blind and cannot see. Jesus, whilst he did warn of hellfire and damnation, was anything but a one trick pony when it came to dealing with the reality of man's fallen condition.

You might take a leaf from his book (a.k.a. The Bible)

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

antiskeptic wrote:

Or they are blind and cannot see. Jesus, whilst he did warn of hellfire of hellfire and damnation, was anything but a one trick pony when it came to dealing with the reality of man's fallen condition.

antiskeptic wrote:

Or they are blind and cannot see. Jesus, whilst he did warn of hellfire and damnation, was anything but a one trick pony when it came to dealing with the reality of man's fallen condition.

What do you mean?

Timberrrrrrrr

lw8ey69ntifmph wrote: »

I was speaking about Creation.

As I said in this post

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You've been saying lots if nothing since you joined the thread so nothing new there, you wont answer the questions asked of you because you have no answer to them.

I'll expect more parroting of the same claptrap in a couple of pages after you think everyone has forgotten

Thanks for proving my point.

antiskeptic

lw8ey69ntifmph wrote: »

What do you mean?

I mean he dealt with them in the place they were in. Without threat, without condemnation, with softness and empathy. He lived in the space that they lived in and shared their woes and pain.

Jesus wept.

Far for it for me to suppose myself as faithfully mimicking him. But the cardboard cut-out, bald,(if ultimately true-of-a-sort) gospel you preach doesn't remind me, in the least, of his approach.

I may not be right and you may be, but I feel compelled to call it as I see it.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

antiskeptic wrote:

I mean he dealt with them in the place they were in. Without threat, without condemnation, with softness and empathy. He lived in the space that they lived in and shared their woes and pain.

antiskeptic wrote:

Far for it for me to suppose myself as faithfully mimicking him. But the cardboard cut-out, bald,(if ultimately true-of-a-sort) gospel you preach doesn't remind me, in the least, of his approach.

antiskeptic wrote:

I may not be right and you may be, but I feel compelled to call it as I see it.

When Christ returns He comes as Judge.

Leroy42

lw8ey69ntifmph wrote: »

When Christ returns He comes as Judge.

Why? Don't we all get judged anyway?

And hasn't god the power to judge us without the need for Jesus to return?

Has nobody that has died been judged yet or will it only be those on Earth, at the time Jesus returns, who will be judged this way?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

He comes to judge the living and the dead. The dead will be wakened. He allows us time up to the very end to avail of His unfathomable mercy. But then comes the Judgment.

Timberrrrrrrr

lw8ey69ntifmph wrote: »

He comes to judge the living and the dead. The dead will be wakened. He allows us time up to the very end to avail of His unfathomable mercy. But then comes the Judgment.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'll expect more parroting of the same claptrap in a couple of pages

You're the gift that keeps on giving.