Spirituality
21 Oct 21
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Oct 21
6 edits
Sonship - 250 word max mate ;-)
The question covers all those areas imo.
If you can study a DNA molecule, mitosis, miosis, and protien synthesis and not see design in biological life I don't know what you're thinking.
But ZOE [Greek] life in the New Testament is a PERSON. When the Gospel of John says these things is means that LIFE is a Divine Person. ZOE "life" is a divine, uncreated, eternal Person - God Himself Who can be imparted INTO people.
"In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." (John 1:2)
"I have come that they may have life and may have it abundantly." (John 10:10)
"I am the bread of life." (John 6:48)
"I am the resurrection and the life." (John 11:25)
"I am the way and the truth and the life; not one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)
"It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63)
LIFE here and many other places is Jesus Christ Himself the embodiment of the Triune God.
22 Oct 21
@kellyjay saidIn other words, creation vs. evolution. Been there, done that.
When speaking about life, is it designed, or is the cause a mindless process? Would this be a question about the truth of life, science, religion, or all of the above?
I still don't see how it can't be both.
22 Oct 21
@suzianne saidThat was one of my points; if life is designed or the result of a mindless process, it hits both camps, Atheistic and Theistic. It could also look at dispassionallity from a purely scientific perspective since what is more reasonable is when looking at the evidence. Can something mindless without a goal, no knowledge, totally unaware build something so functionally complex and error checking to boot? Dismissing it for philosophical reasons alone is avoiding it not for what is there but only because it may lead to some end someone may want to deny or embrace. I imagine motivations would be called into question but that would have more to do with our opinions and worldviews than the answer.
In other words, creation vs. evolution. Been there, done that.
I still don't see how it can't be both.
@kellyjay saidSeriously dude, what are you jabbering about?
That was one of my points; if life is designed or the result of a mindless process, it hits both camps, Atheistic and Theistic. It could also look at dispassionallity from a purely scientific perspective since what is more reasonable is when looking at the evidence. Can something mindless without a goal, no knowledge, totally unaware build something so functionally complex a ...[text shortened]... alled into question but that would have more to do with our opinions and worldviews than the answer.
Are you saying that the world, the universe is to complex and too wonderful to have occurred by accident?
23 Oct 21
@kellyjay saidA question about one truth of life, and one with no obvious answer. If there is a designer, they are elusive enough that it is not obvious that they even exist.
When speaking about life, is it designed, or is the cause a mindless process? Would this be a question about the truth of life, science, religion, or all of the above?
Science and Occam suggest we should not assume there is a designer. Just try and figure out how the physical world actually works, and if we run into a designer along the way, so be it.
Religion seems better suited for helping people find meaning in life than it does for solving this difficult a question.
23 Oct 21
@divegeester saidThat is the question, is what we see resemble something we call mindless or are there things about it that suggest a design? No matter the side you choose, if you enter the discussion, you should at least give positive reasons for suggesting your point outside of suggesting there is no reason to accept something one way or another. That is simply rejection without giving a cause. If it's mindless, what do we see makes this assertion the most likely, with reason?
Seriously dude, what are you jabbering about?
Are you saying that the world, the universe is to complex and too wonderful to have occurred by accident?
23 Oct 21
@bigdogg saidI think the best we can do by looking at what we see is it, the most reasonable and the most likely. In criminal cases, it is a reason beyond a reasonable doubt, and I don't think that should be raised or lowered for these types of cases. If we demand absolute proof, that will never be reached; there will always be some cause for questioning; science always has room for change given new information arising that could cause us to question what was earlier thought of as a solid evidentially theory or hypothesized.
A question about one truth of life, and one with no obvious answer. If there is a designer, they are elusive enough that it is not obvious that they even exist.
Science and Occam suggest we should not assume there is a designer. Just try and figure out how the physical world actually works, and if we run into a designer along the way, so be it.
Religion seems better suited for helping people find meaning in life than it does for solving this difficult a question.
The designer doesn't have to be discussed, just the evidence itself; where does it lead? When we look at what we find in the oceans, we see all manner of material, some of it is there by nature it is just part of the whole, some of it is there because of pollution by manufactured products, we look to the heavens listening for sounds, we hear noise, it is static or are we hearing something that comes from intelligent life, can we tell by simply hearing?
I find it fascinating that some people can look at life, say it resembles complex things that look designed, but the way it looks designed is illusionary. What if it isn't an illusion? What if we are seeing exactly that, a design? Both beliefs, a mindless process, and design have questions about both. Can something that is designed have flaws? If there are design flaws, does that rule out design because of flaws? Can a mindless process build a highly complex functional system and error-checking; without knowing what is required or desire to do anything towards or away from life?
23 Oct 21
@kellyjay saidWell I remain a creationist and happy to take the flack the goes with it. I also see evidence of evolution.
That is the question, is what we see resemble something we call mindless or are there things about it that suggest a design? No matter the side you choose, if you enter the discussion, you should at least give positive reasons for suggesting your point outside of suggesting there is no reason to accept something one way or another. That is simply rejection without giving a cause. If it's mindless, what do we see makes this assertion the most likely, with reason?
I still won’t become a Jehovah’s Witness though.
Just putting that out there because sooner or later you’ll be doing what sonship does,
23 Oct 21
@divegeester saidI'm not attempting to prove creation over evolution here in this discussion. Is what we see in life better explained with design over mindlessness is the goal. I don't even think creation and evolution are a debate; as you point out, creation can be confirmed with evolution being accurate since one is an ongoing process while the other is a singular event.
Well I remain a creationist and happy to take the flack the goes with it. I also see evidence of evolution.
I still won’t become a Jehovah’s Witness though.
Just putting that out there because sooner or later you’ll be doing what sonship does,