I just love this concept that it has to be perfect to be designed. Then again, I'm of the opinion that evolution is a tool used by God to develop life, so...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckJPHTo-mvM
Moist air rising into cold air and condensing, is how the gods makes rain.
Static electricity is how Zeus throws lightning bolts at you.
Gravitational pull of the moon as it goes around the earth is how King Neptune makes waves to sink your boat.
Nuclear fusion in the sun is how Ra sends out radiation to light up the world.
Genetic coding, instincts, and a big wallet is how Cupid makes people fall in love.
Oh, and evolution is how god makes life forms.
Yes, people really are this stupid, it's embarrassing. As a society, we should be beyond religion by now.
...
you do know that we're not a single society yet, right?
I don't think that was the point you should have taken from that post... I'd wager he was trying to make the point that we, as humanity (with our shared knowledge that admittedly some individuals and cultures have limited or no access to for various reasons) have been able to observe the natural mechanisms behind the physical phenomena that were previously "mysterious" to humanity as a whole. The heavens were once presumably very very mysterious, so to someone without access to modern scientific equipment, adequate time to study it, etc. it is very reasonable for it to appear to have been created on the whole by a supernatural entity. Same sort of idea with the sun, with the changing of night and day, the changing of the seasons, and so forth. However, today we have rigorously tested scientific explanations regarding these events and mechanisms. I understand that for the religious or spiritual person, it's very easy to say "Well obviously, that's the mechanism that [supreme being of choice] chose to use.". But I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's equally easy for anyone else to cut out the middle man and realize that perhaps a supreme being didn't have to choose to use those mechanisms, and they arose naturally throughout our universe. I would propose that the religious example is more of a leap of faith than the scientific example, though obviously that can be debated as much as you want. The key difference between the religious view and the scientific view is that anyone (with a few billion dollars to spend, in some cases) can reproduce every single scientific experiment done throughout history and either validate or invalidate its results. The religious views don't have the ability to be invalidated, which is a very big problem for the people that don't buy into that world-view.
I guess this was just a really really long-winded way of say "yo bro chill, some people don't believe in a god because they don't see the need for one to exist" lol
(edit: cleaned up some word vomit. If none of this makes sense, I'm sorry. I'm on painkillers after having 2 surgeries to scoop out cancerous tumors =P)
I just love this concept that it has to be perfect to be designed. Then again, I'm of the opinion that evolution is a tool used by God to develop life, so...
It's commonly held by theists that God is perfect and that we were designed in His image. It doesn't take much of a logical leap to suggest that such a design ought to be at the very least beyond easily justifiable criticism.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Here's a quote from the second paragraph in that article:
All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor, which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago, although a study in 2015 found "remains of biotic life" from 4.1 billion years ago in ancient rocks in Western Australia. According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe."
This sounds like faith and religious doctrine to me. Just replace Genesis 1:1 with Evolution 1:1 and state "In the beginning, Common Ancestor..."
They also sound quite faithful on that 3.5-4.1 billion figure. That researcher's quote was telling, as well, in stating that such could be common phenomena in the universe. No hard, indisputable evidence. But faith, nonetheless.
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
This sounds like faith and religious doctrine to me. Just replace Genesis 1:1 with Evolution 1:1 and state "In the beginning, Common Ancestor..."
They also sound quite faithful on that 3.5-4.1 billion figure. That researcher's quote was telling, as well, in stating that such could be common phenomena in the universe. No hard, indisputable evidence. But faith, nonetheless.
We know the 4.1 billion figure from radiometric dating. We suspect biotic life because of the radios of carbon-12 and carbon-13 which form a specific signature of photosynthetic life.
That life could be a common phenomena is extrapolation based on our local experience. This is not an inductive fallacy.
On the other hand, Genesis 1 is a story reliably dated to approximately 600-400 BCE, with no given supporting evidence for the hypotheses laid out describing the state of things 4000 or so years prior.
Unless, I'm missing something. Do you have an extrabiblical positive argument for young earth creationism that I'm unaware of.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor, which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago, although a study in 2015 found "remains of biotic life" from 4.1 billion years ago in ancient rocks in Western Australia. According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe."
This sounds like faith and religious doctrine to me.
No, it's inference based on the available evidence and scientific research. It's the result of measurements. It's not somebody's wild hunch.
That's like saying that "the temperature of the surface of the Sun is 5778 kelvin" is just faith and religious doctrine. No, it isn't. It's the result of scientific research and measurements. Just because you might not know how they determine that temperature, that doesn't mean they don't have a sound method for it.
Here's a quote from the second paragraph in that article:
All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor, which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago, although a study in 2015 found "remains of biotic life" from 4.1 billion years ago in ancient rocks in Western Australia. According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe."
This sounds like faith and religious doctrine to me. Just replace Genesis 1:1 with Evolution 1:1 and state "In the beginning, Common Ancestor..."
They also sound quite faithful on that 3.5-4.1 billion figure. That researcher's quote was telling, as well, in stating that such could be common phenomena in the universe. No hard, indisputable evidence. But faith, nonetheless.
You appear to be confusing faith and uncertainty. He's not proposing that, certainly, this is definitely a common phenomena in the universe. He's proposing that Earth isn't necessarily the only place where it could have happened. (I mean, he literally used the word "could".) That's a very reasonable opinion of him to hold, based on the measured vastness of the universe.
There's no faith involved in the age of the common ancestor of the species. That is done with radiometric dating techniques that are the best "yardstick" we have developed as humanity to determine age of ancient objects and species. I won't claim that method is perfect, as I myself don't know the specifics or tolerances or precision of radiometric dating, but I'd say that it's not an unreasonable number. It's certainly more reasonable than 6000 years, for instance, or 20 years, or 10 googol years. And again, none of this requires any faith whatsoever, it's all based on observations about the natural world and MOST IMPORTANTLY it is ALWAYS subject to change. If we discover that radiometric dating techniques are flawed and inaccurate, then we will find ways to improve our methods of dating ancient objects and species. That's the best part about science: it's never static, and the methods can always be improved. The absolute best day in the life of a scientist is the day that an experiment is done that goes against the currently accepted model. It means there's more work to be done to improve our model!
Well, an imperfect designer could make an imperfect design...
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
It's commonly held by theists that God is perfect and that we were designed in His image. It doesn't take much of a logical leap to suggest that such a design ought to be at the very least beyond easily justifiable criticism.
I will remind/inform you both of two facts regarding myself (and by extension, my faith)
I am LDS.
I hold very close to my heart the idea that the purpose behind creation is so that Homo sapiens can improve.
Specifically, because of that second point, I posit that God deliberately created Man to be flawed such that Man would have room to improve.
By the same token, the scientific method is predicated on the idea that we don't know everything yet, and that we can learn about creation/nature/the universe through observation and experimentation. I see both God and Science existing in harmony at the level of omniscience.
Specifically, because of that second point, I posit that God deliberately created Man to be flawed such that Man would have room to improve.
By the same token, the scientific method is predicated on the idea that we don't know everything yet, and that we can learn about creation/nature/the universe through observation and experimentation. I see both God and Science existing in harmony at the level of omniscience.
Two questions:
1. Evolution by its nature does not make major improvements, it merely changes what's available. As such problems of legacy cannot be fixed through evolutionary change. So our Laryngeal nerve flaw cannot be fixed. No amount of evolution will fix it. How do you reconcile this?
2. In that case, if in the future if you find science to be in conflict with religion, which is more important to you.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Warp: Why else would God create? I've been LDS all my life, though, so I can't argue this point without coming back to what I've already stated - I don't know the other points of view well enough to defend or attack them.
OmnipotentEntity:
0) You raise a valid point - you're referring to the perfection of form, whereas religion in general is more oriented towards perfection of behavior. I should have been more clear on this point, and I admit as such.
1) I don't fully understand the flaw you're referring to. The beauty and blessing of being Homo sapiens is that we are capable of changing ourselves outside the natural mechanism of evolution - see prosthetic limbs, the very nature of invasive surgery, and the fact that we as a species are capable of travel outside of the atmosphere, even if only within our own backyard. Give it a few years and science will advance sufficiently to overcome that flaw (or else will recognize that it isn't a flaw that warrants overcoming). In other words, what's wrong with it?
2) Science is presently in conflict with religion because neither has reached perfection. I hold that both will ultimately converge rather than divide. In other words, I cannot answer the question because I do not comprehend the hypothetical you're proposing. Also, there's not one singular religion. There may well already be religions that are more convergent with science presently, just as there are religions that are more divergent from science presently.
Oh, now I understand. It's going well out of its way to do its job when humans would design it to take the shortest possible path. I'll add that to my list of "biological oddities to ask about when I die". In the meantime, I'll chalk it up to what I said originally - that God uses evolution as a tool. Why intervene directly when the means to accomplish a thing already exist within the system? (A good way to imagine this concept is to imagine a universe in which sandcastles built themselves - why would anyone really want to build a sandcastle if they built themselves?)(E: A better way to demonstrate this concept to this specific community is this - in a TAS aiming for Arbitrary Code Execution, it is disqualifying to directly modify memory using the Hex Editor or the Cheats dialogue. Rather, you find ways from within the system to introduce the invasive code)
One thing did jump out at me, though, as I was watching the video. The one (biologist? surgeon? technician?) stated that the nerve is part of the system that coordinates breathing and swallowing. I realize that the CNS is the overarching system that handles survival stuff; however it does not appear to be overly circuitous if you assume that the nerve itself needs to gather/distribute information across where it travels. (It's a weak argument, but again this is now something I'll be asking about after I've joined the laboratory eternal)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Hi Pokota, I like your attitude. You seem like a really open-minded person. Actually, I think the same is true for many people in this thread. Always interesting to read your comments, everyone.
Pokota wrote:
God uses evolution as a tool
Isn't that an ad hoc hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis
It seems that you add something to the idea of God, in hindsight, just to save the idea from being useless.
You see, the process of evolution does not have and cannot have any user, because it is not a thing per se. It is a relation. The verb "use" cannot be meaningfully applied to this:
A population of self-replicating entities with variation and heredity in a complex environment with limited resources will adapt and bifurcate.
All this happens without any user, so why postulate the useless user? What does the user do exactly? (Nothing.)
We all agree that it is meaningless to say that God uses lightning. That is because we know that lightning works whether there is God or not. In the same manner, natural selection would exist as an abstract relation whether God existed or not.
I can't think of any context where the "user God" would not be redundant. Can you?
Pokota wrote:
Aqfaq: I am mortal. I have a finite amount of time to live and a finite capacity to understand the universe around me while I live. This should be true for all mortals. If the answer is found while I am alive, then the answer is found while I am alive. If not, there's no harm in having the question ready, as I expect there to be dead people who have either found the answer or know how to find it.
As for a context where "user God" is not redundant... that's actually an interesting way to think about it now that it's been worded in that manner.
Aqfaq: I am mortal. I have a finite amount of time to live and a finite capacity to understand the universe around me while I live. This should be true for all mortals. If the answer is found while I am alive, then the answer is found while I am alive. If not, there's no harm in having the question ready, as I expect there to be dead people who have either found the answer or know how to find it.
As for a context where "user God" is not redundant... that's actually an interesting way to think about it now that it's been worded in that manner.
That's a bit disingenuous.
You see a piece of evidence that doesn't fit your world view, and you say, "Huh, that sure is strange!" And you make absolutely no attempt to reconcile it.
More human "biological oddities":
1. Choking death is possible because we use the same tube for breathing and eating.
2. Our appendix can explode and kill us, and provides no necessary function.
3. Hernias are more likely in males because our testes are developed inside of us then drop.
4. Prior to modern medicine, human pregnancy resulted in the death of the mother a terrifying percentage of the time due to various complications including the size of our head. A rate of death not seen in other mammals.
5. Our eyes, and the eyes of most (but not all) of the animal kingdom are inside out, this causes the blind spot where the nerve attaches and various other optical oddities.
6. Humans cannot create their own vitamin C due to a genetic defect not present in other animals.
7. Because of our geologically relatively new upright posture, there are various complications that arise from our spine being curved in an insane manner.
8. Melanoma
And many more. It's not just one thing. It's systemic. And many of these problems are not easy to solve. Are you suggesting that humans will radically alter the way our faces look to accommodate an eating hole and a breathing hole? Radically alter our posture and pelvis for a straighter, more robust spine and less complications during birth? Completely change how our species gestates?
You asked "Why intervene directly when the means to accomplish a thing already exist within the system?"
Because these things cause needless suffering and death. If you, personally, could fix pregnancy death and extreme pain forever with the wave of your hand, would you? I know I would. If you wouldn't, how would you deal with the guilt?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
Pokota wrote:
Aqfaq: I am mortal. I have a finite amount of time to live and a finite capacity to understand the universe around me while I live. This should be true for all mortals. If the answer is found while I am alive, then the answer is found while I am alive. If not, there's no harm in having the question ready, as I expect there to be dead people who have either found the answer or know how to find it.
As for a context where "user God" is not redundant... that's actually an interesting way to think about it now that it's been worded in that manner.
I appreciate your sincere responses in this thread, Pokota. Unlike certain others, I'm not going to belittle you or make veiled condescending remarks toward you.
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
I appreciate your sincere responses in this thread, Pokota. Unlike certain others, I'm not going to belittle you or make veiled condescending remarks toward you.
If you wanted to thank Pokota, you could have used PM. Therefore, you simply wanted to be passive aggressive to everyone who disagrees with you. Instead, if you have a specific problem with a user, take it to PM or talk to moderation. This is offtopic here.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2794
Location: Northern California
Hey, speaking of moderation: I understand this is likely going to fall on deaf ears, but please keep everything civil here. No personal attacks of any kind, no calling anyone "stupid" for what they believe in, no matter how much you disagree with them. The point of this thread should be to promote understanding without essentially being a safe haven for people to openly mock the beliefs of others. This thread's always been on thin ice in my opinion, and I won't hesitate to temporarily lock it or even Grue it if I see things getting too out of hand.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
We may yet do all of that. Recall a statement I made earlier - the beauty and blessing of Homo sapiens is that we are capable of changing ourselves outside the natural mechanism of evolution.
You asked "Why intervene directly when the means to accomplish a thing already exist within the system?"
Because these things cause needless suffering and death. If you, personally, could fix pregnancy death and extreme pain forever with the wave of your hand, would you? I know I would. If you wouldn't, how would you deal with the guilt?
I want to. Right now, I say I would too. Herein lies the contradiction of omnibenevolence, and I actually have answers from within my own faith that answer this question - though many would argue that the answers are meaningless because they avoid the issue.
Recall that I am LDS. In our canon can be found this:
Moses 1:37-39 wrote:
And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
But just as you cannot teach a person to perform differential calculus without first ensuring that they have a firm grasp of the underlying principles of algebra, Heavenly Father cannot give eternal life without first ensuring we will not abuse it.* We have to prove that we are willing to obey eternal laws and principles, and Heavenly Father directly intervening during our trials and tribulations would invalidate that.
Death is part and parcel of living, and is per LDS teachings necessary for exaltation/eternal life.Jesus Christ, firstborn of Heavenly Father in the spirit and only begotten of the flesh, had to die before he could be glorified (though arguably Christ had other work to do that necessitated him to be dead to do). Bear in mind, that LDS doctrine equates Jesus Christ with Jehovah of the Old Testament, and that Heavenly Father is his own separate entity with the same goals (a good way to demonstrate the relationship between the members of the Godhead is to point to any TAS submission with plural authors - separate entities working in conjunction towards a common goal). This by itself, however, reintroduces the contradiction of omnibenevolence and requires further argument.
God will not override one's capacity to choose for themselves. Again, I have to point to LDS canon to support this argument, so I shall. Moses 4:1-4 wrote:
And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.
At first glance, it's contradictory that Satan would save everybody while Christ would allow some to fall through the cracks. However, look at what Satan's words were again. At no point does he claim that all will be proven obedient, or that all would be prepared for eternal life. Under Satan's plan, an omnimaleficent diety would inevitably rise up into the eternities because there would be no proving, no trials, no nothing. If you think a non-interfering God is bad, try one that's actively destroying his own creation - or worse, destroying other creations.
*Footnote: Immortality and Eternal Life are not the same per LDS beliefs. I'll edit in or post the supporting scriptures when I find them again. Immortality is simply not dying again, and everyone (save for an infinitely small percentage of people born) is entitled to that through resurrection. Eternal Life is what we're trying to prove worthiness for.
"Zeus is the cause of lightning."
"Actually we know that lightning is an electrostatic discharge between electrically charged regions of clouds or between a cloud an the ground. We understand and can measure and test how electricity works, and how clouds get an electrical charge."
"Zeus is just using electricity and electrostatic charges in clouds as a tool."
Do you understand why that is not a very convincing argument?
