Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1144 by Jashwell]

Jashwell, you incorrectly restate what I say so you can misinterpret it to conveniently maintain your logical fictions, such as

I wasn't aware directly quoting the posts was incorrectly restating them

1. there was no beginning of space, time, matter & energy and we cannot say there was nothing before the dense singularity from which evolved the big bang

No, the things I've said about this:

If there was nothing before the big bang, it does not mean their was some "ultimate void" in which a God could act prior to the Universe. It means the Universe from the big bang to the infinite future is all there is.

Regardless of whether or not time "began" in a less a-theory biased way (Any verb is a bad choice when speaking of the first point in time), it still means the Universe existed forever. You can't say "Ah! but the Universe didn't exist when time didn't exist" because there isn't a "when time didn't exist", not just for aforementioned reasons but also because the sentence is incoherent.
"At a time when time did not exist"

There ARE various cosmologists that support the view that spacetime did not need to begin, who claim it is not a one sided "spacetime definitely begun".

2. the universe was not caused and its evolution can equivalently be viewed going forward and backward

*there's no given reason to think it was caused (which is not a burdened statement)
*there's no given reason to accept the A-theory of time as objectively descriptive of reality (which is not a burdened statement)

3. if there was a cause of the universe, it definitely wasn't God

I never said this.
The closest I get to saying this is (to paraphrase) "if the beginning of time had a cause, that cause cannot have been before the beginning of time, therefore cause would not need to precede effect and God or a first cause would not be necessary", a failure of the kalam argument.

I would remind you that the physical, which you believe is the only reality, is not directly perceived by us; we perceive what is hopefully a reasonable facsimile created by our brains. Brain researchers have identified the posterior superior parietal lobe as the brain area where humans transcend the physical and make contact with God, and they point out that their meditations are as real brain-wise as their perceptions of the physical. They also cite data contrasting psychotic delusions and normal meditations, and note that meditators/religious people live happier, healthier and longer lives.
kenblogton

1) It doesn't matter whether religious people, spirit mediums, ghostbusters and psychics live happier, healthier and longer lives.
It has no bearing on the truth of the claim they make.

2) The physical is that which is perceived
"Relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete: the physical world" (oxford dictionary)

Reality is our best explanation of the variety of data input we get from our sensors, including all of our senses and the senses of other people and machinery, hence we don't accept individual experience. We compare each sense with our other senses and our current knowledge, and if there are inconsistencies, we find the most reasonable thing to reject.

And no, researchers have not "identified ... the brain area where humans transcend the physical and make contact with God", they've probably identified the region where people believe they transcend the physical and make contact with God.

I'd be surprised if a double blind test with people of various religions gave the same God, too.

kenblogton replied: Here's one sample incorrect restate/misinterpret "And no, researchers have not "identified ... the brain area where humans transcend the physical and make contact with God"" You have not read the book where they cite their research, yet you tell me what they have/haven't said.
Do you do this out of arrogance or fear?
kenblogton

[Goat]

Isn't the fact that no one can prove there was a cause to the universe a reason for people to stop asserting there was a cause to the universe?

It happened 14.5 billion years ago - if it happened at all (the cause, not the time span).

Unless a member has a time machine, I think it's time we stop asserting unsubstantiated claims like "the universe had a cause".

Another thing.. let's suppose the universe does indeed have a cause. That does not mean the cause has intention, and is 'not less than personal'. It is a huge leap of non-logic to go from a 'cause' to even a deistic God, much less someone's favorite personal God.

[Jashwell]

kenblogton replied: Here's one sample incorrect restate/misinterpret "And no, researchers have not "identified ... the brain area where humans transcend the physical and make contact with God"" You have not read the book where they cite their research, yet you tell me what they have/haven't said.

No, I haven't read the book that you've only just mentioned.

I never claimed they didn't say they had identified [...], I said they hadn't identified [...].
In other words, I said they hadn't identified that someone had transcended the physical and made contact with God.

I didn't claim "They never said they identified that someone had transcended the physical and made contact with God."

Do you do this out of arrogance or fear?

No.

Whose the one incorrectly restating?

[Inigo Montoya]

To the two posters in this thread that seem utterly and painfully incapable of recognizing the faults in their reasoning, I leave this quote. Never has it seemed more appropriate.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" - Sam Harris

Truly, gentleman. Some of the responses here are just cringe - worthy. I have half a mind to petition moderators for such blatant disregard to sensible debate.

[Ooberman]

Isn't the fact that no one can prove there was a cause to the universe a reason for people to stop asserting there was a cause to the universe?

It happened 14.5 billion years ago - if it happened at all (the cause, not the time span).

Unless a member has a time machine, I think it's time we stop asserting unsubstantiated claims like "the universe had a cause".

Another thing.. let's suppose the universe does indeed have a cause. That does not mean the cause has intention, and is 'not less than personal'. It is a huge leap of non-logic to go from a 'cause' to even a deistic God, much less someone's favorite personal God.

Right! First and foremost - we don't know. That's all that can be said.
But even if we did, your point would be the next hurdle - which also seems impossible to prove.


I've argued that there are an infinite number of options from the most minute of causes right up to a less-than-personal cause. (A "dumb" god, or philosophical zombie god). Theists have not be able to wade through that work and seem to prefer to ignore the implications.

They assert there was a cause and then assert it was personal.

Of course if we are going to accept those two premises, then their work is almost done - but those premises are completely and utterly unknown and possibly unknowable.


Any hypothesis that asserts those two assumptions is building a hypothesis on sand.

[Clownboat]

Again you missed it, Jesus was telling us that since we are all 'bad trees', He can fix it that we can all become 'good trees' through Him.

I reject your un-evidence claims due to the fact that I am not a bad tree. You may have committed acts that would make you be OK with a human being sacrificed over said acts, but I have done no such things.

Due to this, you come across as a bad tree projecting your badness on to the rest of us trees. Unless of course, you can show me that I'm a bad tree.

I hope you can do better than:
Once upon a time, there was a man that was tricked in to eating from a tree by a talking snake. Therefore, we are all bad trees and a humans needs to be nailed to a pole so we can be good trees.

The notion of sacrificing a human to a god concept for actions you have done, or not done could warrant the argument that said person is actually the bad tree and those that would not sacrifice a human for their actions would be the good trees.

So far, you have failed to convince me to be OK with or to kill another human for any actions I have done.

A) I am a bad person
B) But I'm ok with a human being sacrificed to a god concept in order to be redeemed for being so bad.
C) You will know them by their fruits.

Is it good fruit or bad fruit in your opinion to kill another human for actions you have committed?

[KenRU]

Replying to post 1159 by arian]

I did not mean to sound arrogant, .. but how do I an unschooled dummy sound convincing on something's I am absolutely sure about without sounding arrogant? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!!!
Then Im left to wonder why the barrage of questions about my education/background.

So if you can remember which Book, Chapter and verse a particular Bible quote is written in, you are much better than me.
Generally speaking, I cant and am forced to look it up as well. So, in this regard, I am no better than you. : )

So I didn't mean to butt-heads with you on Scripture, but what I wanted to know is whether or not you understand what the Bible is about? The message in there?
I certainly believe I do. As for butting heads on scripture, I assume youre not making the argument that we ignore the more inconvenient parts of scripture that are barbaric and evil? They are a part of this message (after all) that you are referring to, right?

Yes many religious denominations study the Bible, Christian, Muslim, Judaism, .. etc. But I have found out that they don't know the God of the Bible. Each religion has a slightly different interpretation of Bible-God, but none of them are even close to 'knowing' the God of the Bible, .. our Creator "I Am Who I Am", .. so how would they understand the true meaning of the message?
This makes me wonder. What makes you so sure that you know this god better than they do? Can you possibly make this argument without sounding arrogant?

Well, .. now I know you will take this as an arrogant remark, but from what I have read/watched/listened to over the years from quantum theorists in their quest for their answer for the 'Big Picture', .. to the Big-Questions as to is reasoning from 'within' the box, or from a very limited physical POV, which will NEVER answer these important questions, .. never.
For the most part, I believe we can:

"Who are we?" We decide who we are. Its as simple as that.

"Where did we come from?" ancestors via evolution

"Where are we going?" If you are referring to an afterlife, most likely nowhere, but no one knows this.

and last but not the least; "What's our purpose for existing?" We decide our own purpose.

What I am asking is if you can differentiate between science and sci-fi?
(I'm trying mightily to not take offense to this question) Yes, I am sane and can tell the difference between science and sci fi.

Not quite Substance as in matter and material (observing the universe around us - science), then wondering where it came from (using our mind which is not seen) as evidence.
Then consider this quote:

Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.

Basically, this says the opposite of what you are asserting. My point, though, is that religions tend to cloud (intentionally as my quote above shows) ones ability to learn, especially when science comes into to direct conflict with scriptures.

But if you believe that the brain creates the mind, you will never understand this.
Oddly, I understand your point. But, if what you say is true, that the mind is separate from the brain, then how do you account for brain damage? Damage to certain parts of the brain directly impact the mind and who we are, and it fundamentally changes people. If, as you say, they are separate entities, then this should not happen.

How do you account for this reality?

You don't need luck if you have faith built on evidence, like gravity. You believe in gravity because of all the evidence, not because you accepted it because of your religion, correct? Now use this knowledge to see what could be evidence for God, our Creator?
Im going to need an equivalent example of evidence for god to fully understand the leap you are making here.

Obviously gravity is NOT equal to God, because gravity is a part of the created, like space and light.
I was not saying gravity was equal to god, I was trying to show you that the evidence for gravity is massive, obvious, verifiable and indisputable, and that no such argument can be made for the existence of a god.

But our mind is not affected by space, gravity, light or even time.
Sure it is. Take away gravity and your mind will cease to function as you float off into space and no longer have any access to oxygen and heat. And as for light and time, well, Im sure you heard of Sensory Deprivation Tanks, right? Well, there is ample evidence of the mind going wacky and cuckoo when people spend too much time in those tanks.

So, yes, the mind is most assuredly affected by these things.

Our mind can dream up and create concepts, correct? The concepts we come up with doesn't create our mind, .. our mind creates the concepts. So the only thing that is outside of this physical reality is our mind, .. so could God be an Eternal, Infinite Creative Mind? And our mind be OF God?
Thats a mighty leap your making here. Im going to disagree with you that our minds are outside of the physical world. There is ample evidence that the two are inextricable. Damage the brain and the mind suffers. No reason to believe anything else is happening here.

Guessing becaause ...??
Because youre drawing conclusions based not upon evidence and reason, but of leaps of logic borne of faith.

When you appeal to a supernatural entity, and ignore evidence (brain and mind inextricably linked), then yes, I believe you are guessing or wishing.

Yes, obviously all animals exhibit the possession of consciousness and sensory awareness, and that too was given to them by our Creator. But I cannot speak for dolphins or elephants, or even about that talking donkey who said a few words to the angry Prophet, all I can talk about is you and me, humans.
No, you can, however, talk about the evidence observed in nature and science, and draw reasonable conclusions from it.

It is in us humans that I see characteristics of a God who could create this universe and everything in it. Now if some human would have claimed they created the Universe and everything in it, then I would seek evidence in him/her, but for now, all I have is our characteristics, and that since we didn't create this universe, someone LIKE us could have.
That is a much larger leap of faith then saying the universe always was. For an excellent explanation on what science has to say on this topic, I suggest listening to Sean Carrolls debates on this subject.

Now I have read in a Book that there is a Being in whose image we were created, only He is Spirit. Now this makes all the sense in the world, we are an image of our Invisible Eternal All mighty Creator. So if we didn't create the universe, then it must have been Him.
Why do you believe that this assertion in your book is accurate, but do not believe in stoning adulterers to death? If you are getting your knowledge and morals from said book, why are you picking and choosing? What makes some parts worth following and others not so much?

Better chance of survival by working together, right? Tell me, how many millions of years did it take man to figure out that working together increased their survival?
Modern man, as I understand it, is only approximately 200,000 years old. Theres nothing to figure out. Larger numbers of people thrive when in social communities. So, the creatures that are more likely to procreate (the ones that survive) are those that are social. So their offspring is more than likely social.

After how many extinctions before man figured this out?
Um, I dont think you fully understand how evolution works. There are non-social creatures that still exist today. Some species of sharks, for example.

So, Im not sure what your point is here.

What gave man the idea that survival is better than extinction?
Already answered above. I think youre putting effect before cause.

Did 'extinction' teach them this?
Extinction of what?

Or was it 'before' man was a single celled bacterium: "It is better to be a single celled bacterium then to be non-existent" Then man becomes a single celled bacterium.
"It is better to cooperate with other single celled bacterium then become extinct, and we know this because we know how bad extinction is" ??
Come on, talking about assumptions ?
Your logic escapes me here. Youre going to have to clarify your point. When was man a single celled bacterium? Thats a new one to me.

How life knows to cooperate? If that is your question, then the answer is simple. Some forms of life benefit from this and others don't. I don't understand your confusion.

Regarding my signature being fine as it is: That sure is a religious statement.
Please justify this comment.

Yes, and? What's your point?
Quote:
Not everything in the bible is worthy of respect, so, I assume you pick and choose which parts to follow?
This was my point.

Of course not everything in there is worthy of respect. Like, why should I respect the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? But should I disrespect the Bible for telling us about that story?
No, but you can have no respect for the lines I quoted (which it appears that you ignored).

The Bible is instruction on how to find God and follow what His Spirit teaches us.
So you say. Just what makes you the authority or so certain that your interpretation is correct? Why is your opinion better than the priests at my local church?

All the best,

[kenblogton]

kenblogton replied: Here's one sample incorrect restate/misinterpret "And no, researchers have not "identified ... the brain area where humans transcend the physical and make contact with God"" You have not read the book where they cite their research, yet you tell me what they have/haven't said.

No, I haven't read the book that you've only just mentioned.

I never claimed they didn't say they had identified [...], I said they hadn't identified [...].
In other words, I said they hadn't identified that someone had transcended the physical and made contact with God.

I didn't claim "They never said they identified that someone had transcended the physical and made contact with God."

Do you do this out of arrogance or fear?

No.

Whose the one incorrectly restating?

In my previous post, I said "Brain researchers have identified the posterior superior parietal lobe as the brain area where humans transcend the physical and make contact with God, and they point out that their meditations are as real brain-wise as their perceptions of the physical."

In your reply to my previous post, you said "And no, researchers have not "identified ... the brain area where humans transcend the physical and make contact with God", they've probably identified the region where people believe they transcend the physical and make contact with God."

Yours is an incorrect restatement/misrepresentation of what I said. Are you able to see that now?
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1172 by kenblogton]

When I said "They've probably identified where people believe they have transcended the physical and made contact with God" I'm saying it seems very unlikely that brain researchers in this obscure book that hasn't even been named have demonstrated that someone has been talking with God.

Unless you're suggesting I should take it at face value and accept that they were talking to God because "some researchers" from "the book" said so.

I didn't restate what you said, I disputed the truthfulness of it.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1172 by kenblogton]

When I said "They've probably identified where people believe they have transcended the physical and made contact with God" I'm saying it seems very unlikely that brain researchers in this obscure book that hasn't even been named have demonstrated that someone has been talking with God.

Unless you're suggesting I should take it at face value and accept that they were talking to God because "some researchers" from "the book" said so.

I didn't restate what you said, I disputed the truthfulness of it.

Nowhere did you explicitly say you disputed the truthfulness of what I said; rather you deliberately distorted what I had said to fit in with your preconceptions of what is truth. And, I have frequently observed, this is a pattern of your: Restate what the other person says in a way which is in accord with what Jashwell believes.
kenblogton