- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillAgain you are assuming implicitly in the question that such a purpose exists.I am sure he can [and will] reply for himself.
But my question to you still stands.
First I want to see what this rational thinker has realized about his own purpose for existing in this world.
EDIT: you are not asking the neutral question "do you believe that your existence has an external purpose or meaning?"
You are asking what he thinks the meaning is... thus assuming it exists in the first place.
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill“...He said Evolution does not involve accidents ...”
He can reply for himself, however he wants to answer.
No?
He said Evolution does not involve accidents so, maybe he doesn't see his life here as accidental but purposeful.
NO NO NO, I did NOT say anything of the sort. Of cause evolution “involves accidents” -they are called mutations.
What I said was evolution ( i.e. evolution process itself ) is NOT an accident but an INEVITABLE process under the three right conditions I specified.
Mutations occurring is inevitable given life although exactly which ones and exactly where and exactly when and in exactly what order is not.
Natural selection is also inevitable given life and has a certain level of predictability.
The two combined ( Mutations + Natural selection ) plus a change in the environment that stimulates new adaptation equates with evolution.
“...so, maybe he doesn't see his life here as accidental but purposeful. ...”
I do see it as purposeful -whatever the purpose I choose to give it.
Obviously, this purpose doesn't require a deity or something involving a god or gods nor talking to an imaginary god nor sacrificing a goat nor flying aircraft into tall buildings.
I do not need something 'supernatural' to 'tell' me what I want from my life nor do I need anyone else to tell me what I want from my life.
I have independent thought -right?
So why cannot I alone choose what my own purpose is to be?
What barrier is stopping me?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree with that completely.
I think you misunderstood him. I think he was pointing out that not all those who claim to have the 'truth' can be right, so mere claims are simply not enough.
Now this thread's purpose, I think, has been fulfilled. Ie. Some Scientists ALSO believe in God.
And some New Atheists need to simply get use to that and stop trying to re-write history. Some Scientists, good ones, contributing ones, also believed in God.
Why don't you do a service for your New Atheists friends and tell them to stop trying to re-write history. They should stop trying to raise up a generation of young minds who think Science is a wholly owned subsidiary of Atheism.
Originally posted by humyYou are wrong. There is no such thing as evolution in nature. What you are
“...He said Evolution does not involve accidents ...”
NO NO NO, I did NOT say anything of the sort. Of cause evolution “involves accidents” -they are called mutations.
What I said was evolution ( i.e. evolution process itself ) is NOT an accident but an INEVITABLE process under the three right conditions I specified.
Mutations occurring is inevitable gi ...[text shortened]...
So why cannot I alone choose what my own purpose is to be?
What barrier is stopping me?
thinking of is the process of adaptation during the reproduction process. And
mutation is something gone wrong in the reproduction process.
Originally posted by jaywillIf I had met one of these 'new atheists' I might do so. But I have neither met them nor heard of them before. Who are they and how do I contact them?
Why don't you do a service for your New Atheists friends and tell them to stop trying to re-write history. They should stop trying to raise up a generation of young minds who think Science is a wholly owned subsidiary of Atheism.
Originally posted by jaywillRJ said that the way to 'true knowledge' is through belief and faith.
Not directed to me, I would like to respond to this post my way Penguin.
There has to be truth which is true for everyone and everywhere. There has to be what Francis Schaeffer called "true truth".
You are here attempting to write what is TRUE. You are here attempting to declare what is TRUE for all of us. Are you not ?
So first we have to reco ...[text shortened]... is like it is for everyone and everywhere.
Don't overdose on 20th century relativism.
I pointed out that different people have belief and faith in different things and therefore get different 'knowledge' from their belief and faith.
As you say, it certainly seems logical that there can only be one form of True knowledge. Either the universe was created by a god (and if so then by a particular God in a particular way) or it wasn't. And that is independent of whether people believe that truth or not.
So the fact that different people believe and have faith in different creation stories can only be evidence that belief and faith cannot be relied upon to get to True knowledge.
The only method we have that might get to True knowledge is science since that demands testing any ideas against what appears to be reality. However, even if we do achieve True knowledge through science, we still won't know that we have achieved it.
--- Penguin.
6 edits
Originally posted by humy
“...He said Evolution does not involve accidents ...”
NO NO NO, I did NOT say anything of the sort. Of cause evolution “involves accidents” -they are called mutations.
What I said was evolution ( i.e. evolution process itself ) is NOT an accident but an INEVITABLE process under the three right conditions I specified.
Mutations occurring is inevitable gi
So why cannot I alone choose what my own purpose is to be?
What barrier is stopping me?
“...He said Evolution does not involve accidents ...”
NO NO NO, I did NOT say anything of the sort. Of cause evolution “involves accidents” -they are called mutations.
What I said was evolution ( i.e. evolution process itself ) is NOT an accident but an INEVITABLE process under the three right conditions I specified.
Aren't most of the mutations harmful and non- benefitial ? As I understand it it is the "good" mutations which advance the process of evolving in a positive way.
Here then a valid concern: I doubt that there is enough TIME since the emergence of life to have gone through the enormously greater number of harmful mutations, to luck out on the good ones, to arrive at what I see around me today.
But either way - mutations either negatively effect the organism of positively do. And by far most mutations are bad.
Mutations occurring is inevitable given life although exactly which ones and exactly where and exactly when and in exactly what order is not.
Natural selection is also inevitable given life and has a certain level of predictability.
The two combined ( Mutations + Natural selection ) plus a change in the environment that stimulates new adaptation equates with evolution.
An elquently expressed idea. Even it is somewhat ingenius as a worldview philosophy. But I don't have enough "faith" to believe that that combination of phenomenon is responsible for what I see around me.
I don't know if there could EVER be enough TIME to luck out to that detail and to that grand degree.
How are you diminished if we have to accept that intelligence either aided or programmed this fantastic process ?
Even some Christian apologists argue that the Teleological argument for the existence of God does not prove the Bible's God necessarily. Others would disagree.
Anyway, does the realization of [edited] intelligent design threaten your thirst for knowledge? Will it somehow make you less curious about HOW things work if you have to accept intelligent design ?
Any scientist will still have years if not centries of happy research on HOW things work even if they DO admit to detecting intelligent design. It does not dampen human curiosity per se to acknowledge Intelligent Design or a Creator.
“...so, maybe he doesn't see his life here as accidental but purposeful. ...”
I do see it as purposeful -whatever the purpose I choose to give it.
Obviously, this purpose doesn't require a deity or something involving a god or gods nor talking to an imaginary god nor sacrificing a goat nor flying aircraft into tall buildings.
I do not need something 'supernatural' to 'tell' me what I want from my life nor do I need anyone else to tell me what I want from my life.
What then would you say to Charles Manson or Jack the Ripper who ALSO says he has a right to define his purpose of homicide and destruction of other humans ?
At least in my belief in God there is a final judgment and an eternal accounting. But with your Atheism every evil doer will only melt peacefully into the dust of the earth with no accounting to a greater Judge.
And no, self nobility is not enough. Self nobility will not render ultimate Justice. God will.
I have independent thought -right?
So why cannot I alone choose what my own purpose is to be?
What barrier is stopping me?
Nothing stops you or Adolf Hitler.
As for me, I trust that the God who designed my liver, stomach, eyes, brain, lungs, reproductive system also loves me and cares for me rising to my potential.
I am not suspicious of God that He is withholding from me the best for me. I do not suspicion this God that He is a arbitrary tyrant, an evil despot. I see His love manifested in nature and in the life of Christ.
So I do not think submission to the will of God could possibly mean anything other than submission to the most perfect life for me.
I see this manifested in the death, resurrection and enthronement of the Son of God. He cannot, against all odds and against all adversity, fail to secure the highest and best for human life.
So I trust God and His purpose.
Originally posted by PenguinEven with my imperfect knowledge, it is obvious to me that God, Creator of the
Different people have belief and faith in different religions teaching different 'truths'. There is no indication that any of this 'knowledge' is perfect.
--- Penguin.
heavens and the Earth, has greater knowledge than you and me. So if it is
possible to have perfect knowledge then God is the most likely candidate to
have this perfect knowledge. We certainly do not since we did not create
ourselves. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
1 edit
Originally posted by Penguin
RJ said that the way to 'true knowledge' is through belief and faith.
I pointed out that different people have belief and faith in different things and therefore get different 'knowledge' from their belief and faith.
As you say, it certainly seems logical that there can only be one form of True knowledge. Either the universe was created by a god (and i e knowledge through science, we still won't know that we have achieved it.
--- Penguin.
So the fact that different people believe and have faith in different creation stories can only be evidence that belief and faith cannot be relied upon to get to True knowledge.
The only method we have that might get to True knowledge is science since that demands testing any ideas against what appears to be reality. However, even if we do achieve True knowledge through science, we still won't know that we have achieved it.
It was not approriate for me to break in on a conversation between you and RIHinds without knowing the essence of the exchange.
I apologize. Twhitehead was probably right that I misunderstood you.
I think I read the other day that the only true test of truth is undeniability. What we cannot deny must be truth.
Now, concerning this statement that you just wrote: " The only method we have that might get to True knowledge is science since that demands testing any ideas against what appears to be reality. "
1.) Is that statement a statement of True knowledge ?
2.) If so HOW did you imploy the scientific method to arrive at that True knowledge ?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillStraw man.
I agree with that completely.
Now this thread's purpose, I think, has been fulfilled. Ie. Some Scientists ALSO believe in God.
And some New Atheists need to simply get use to that and stop trying to re-write history. Some Scientists, good ones, contributing ones, also believed in God.
Why don't you do a service for your New Atheists friends a ...[text shortened]... aise up a generation of young minds who think Science is a wholly owned subsidiary of Atheism.
It has not and is not claimed by any serious or significant atheist new or otherwise that no
scientists or no famous scientists has never believed in god or does not believe in a god now.
As I keep saying you are attacking a position that atheists don't claim.
Fewer scientists believe in god and the supernatural than the rest of the population, but that isn't
an argument, just an observation.
Generally you will find that it's the theists who try to rewrite history not atheists.
And as per normal you have it backwards.
If you are religious and have a belief in god and a mythology surrounding that god then that is a source of
beliefs and meanings for you.
It is a starting point for how you think about the world.
Your problem is that when you get to atheists you look at atheism as their 'religious' position and assume that
that is their starting point and source of beliefs meanings and values for atheists.
This is nonsense.
Atheism is the RESULT of beliefs and values not the source of them.
Science, skepticism, and rationality lead [in a world with no evidence for the existence of gods or the supernatural]
inexorably to atheism.
Atheism is a result of science and scepticism not the other way around.
That some people are scientists skeptics and still believe in god is simply an indication that they are doing science and
scepticism wrong. (at least with respect to questions about the existence of gods and the supernatural)
Science is not 'owned' by or only done by atheists and nobody of any not is claiming that.
However the scientific world view and methodologies are those of scepticism and rationality and they are the very antithesis
of believing based on blind faith.
Belief based on faith is the diametric opposite of what the philosophy and methodology of science require and teach.
Thus science and a scientific world view naturally lead towards atheism.
The fact that people can do the mental gymnastics in their head that allow the holding of mutually contradictory ideas is not
new nor interesting or relevant.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadThey don't exist.
If I had met one of these 'new atheists' I might do so. But I have neither met them nor heard of them before. Who are they and how do I contact them?
However it's a name created for the current batch of prominent atheists who argue against
theism and faith based belief. (ie what atheists have done for centuries but they get more
press and are more popular nowadays.)
Big names include Hitchins, Dawkins, Harris, Randi, PZ Myers, ect...
They sometimes jokingly refer to themselves as Gnu atheists because it doesn't really mean
anything.
It's a strawman argument that jaywill is making because none of these people have ever made
the claims jaywill is accusing them of.
Originally posted by jaywillYou have a copy of The Blind Watchmaker don't you? May i suggest you read it.“...He said Evolution does not involve accidents ...”
NO NO NO, I did NOT say anything of the sort. Of cause evolution “involves accidents” -they are called mutations.
What I said was evolution ( i.e. evolution process itself ) is NOT an accident but an INEVITABLE process under the three right conditions I specified.
Aren't most o ...[text shortened]... o secure the highest and best for human life.
So I trust God and His purpose.
Originally posted by jaywillAs for your concerns about not enough time, consider this analogy from Bill Bryson's wonderful book A Short History of Nearly Everything -“...He said Evolution does not involve accidents ...”
NO NO NO, I did NOT say anything of the sort. Of cause evolution “involves accidents” -they are called mutations.
What I said was evolution ( i.e. evolution process itself ) is NOT an accident but an INEVITABLE process under the three right conditions I specified.
Aren't most o ...[text shortened]... o secure the highest and best for human life.
So I trust God and His purpose.
Say you have a time machine, and the time machine can go back one year every second. So in one minute you can travel back 60 years, five minutes would be 300 years and so on. To get back to the time of Jesus would take a little over half an hour. To get back to the dawn of Homo sapiens, 200,000 years ago to Mitochondrial Eve would take just over 2 days. To the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago would take around 2 years, and to get back 550 million years to the Cambrian Explosion would take you over 17 years. And to get back 3 billion years to the dawn of life on this planet would take you 95 years.
Is that enough time for you?