@avalanchethecat saidWhy, wouldn’t they also stand or fall according to the truth in them? Each thing we point to as truth is either true or not, we point to something else it’s either true or false in its own right. All truth is absolute so it will never contradict itself. This is why the saying what is true for you is not true for me is false. We may carry different opinions but truth will not contradict itself. We cannot have God as only one, many gods not just one, or no gods whatsoever and say these are all true statements. They could people’s heart felt beliefs, but the three views cannot be true at the same time.
Sanskrit/Hindu scripture.
@kellyjay saidPrecisely my point. You are arguing that your explicitly biased ancient scripture is true based only on the content of your explicitly biased ancient scripture. An advocate of the truth of the Vedas must necessarily argue from the same unsteady foundation. Objectively, the explicit bias and antiquity of both must place them on an equal footing. The theory of evolution does not share those obvious weaknesses. Should somebody produce a theory of life throughout the ages of the Earth which better explains the hard data available to everybody than that which we currently hold to be 'true', despite the inertia of the academic establishment, this new theory would be published, and it would eventually supplant the old. That's the beauty of science.
Why, wouldn’t they also stand or fall according to the truth in them? Each thing we point to as truth is either true or not, we point to something else it’s either true or false in its own right. All truth is absolute so it will never contradict itself. This is why the saying what is true for you is not true for me is false. We may carry different opinions but truth will not ...[text shortened]... ements. They could people’s heart felt beliefs, but the three views cannot be true at the same time.
@avalanchethecat saidNo, simply saying they share content that is old doesn't mean they share truth purely on that basis alone; what do they say, what do they report as truth is more critical than when they said it. Do you want to say all generated papers in peer review papers are wrong if we have an issue with one of them because they share the same time period?
Precisely my point. You are arguing that your explicitly biased ancient scripture is true based only on the content of your explicitly biased ancient scripture. An advocate of the truth of the Vedas must necessarily argue from the same unsteady foundation. Objectively, the explicit bias and antiquity of both must place them on an equal footing. The theory of evolution ...[text shortened]... w theory would be published, and it would eventually supplant the old. That's the beauty of science.
@kellyjay saidYou appear to be arguing that your ancient and explicitly biased scripture has some 'truth' which you are correctly able to discern but which others (the majority of the world's population) cannot, and that all those people who can similarly discern truth from other ancient scriptures but not yours are wrong. You appear to be further arguing that the 'truth' which you are able to discern holds a similar (or indeed, greater) weight of evidence than a theory which pretty much all of the reputable scientists working in palaeontology and geology accept as being 'true', or at least a close approximation thereto. Now I accept that your faith obliges you to accept your scripture as being 'true', but I don't think you are being very reasonable in your arguments here.
No, simply saying they share content that is old doesn't mean they share truth purely on that basis alone; what do they say, what do they report as truth is more critical than when they said it. Do you want to say all generated papers in peer review papers are wrong if we have an issue with one of them because they share the same time period?
@avalanchethecat saidI am arguing that if something is true, then those things that run counter to it are not. I'm also arguing that truth doesn't change due to time; if something is true, it is always true.
You appear to be arguing that your ancient and explicitly biased scripture has some 'truth' which you are correctly able to discern but which others (the majority of the world's population) cannot, and that all those people who can similarly discern truth from other ancient scriptures but not yours are wrong. You appear to be further arguing that the 'truth' which you ...[text shortened]... r scripture as being 'true', but I don't think you are being very reasonable in your arguments here.
@kellyjay saidOh well, if that's all you're saying then we agree. I was labouring under the misapprehension that you were claiming that your scripture was true and that the theory of evolution wasn't.
I am arguing that if something is true, then those things that run counter to it are not. I'm also arguing that truth doesn't change due to time; if something is true, it is always true.
@avalanchethecat saidAs I said earlier time and evolution are not worth debating since both are accretions that people make based on what is in the here and now. What you think something means is opinion and that can remain something people hold on to no matter what.
Oh well, if that's all you're saying then we agree. I was labouring under the misapprehension that you were claiming that your scripture was true and that the theory of evolution wasn't.
What I do think is worthy for looking at the past and assessing the truth about what we think took place back then, is it reasonable today? So no matter how many papers get published can a mindless process initiate specified functionally complex systems that requires matter, energy, and information to operate and increase in functionality and forms?
You can even believe evolution is true but what I am asking colors the universe and everything in it depending on how you respond. Mindlessness or intelligence are the only two choices only one is true, the other a grand illusion.
@kellyjay saidIt seems perfectly plausible to me that either choice could be true. Or even both. Possibly even neither.
As I said earlier time and evolution are not worth debating since both are accretions that people make based on what is in the here and now. What you think something means is opinion and that can remain something people hold on to no matter what.
What I do think is worthy for looking at the past and assessing the truth about what we think took place back then, is it reas ...[text shortened]... Mindlessness or intelligence are the only two choices only one is true, the other a grand illusion.
@avalanchethecat saidI'd beg to differ; we can say mindlessness could do it; what exactly are we saying if we propose that? Something without a goal, no targets, no desire to see success, does not know what success is, it is no different to it than failure built something so remarkable as life?
It seems perfectly plausible to me that either choice could be true. Or even both. Possibly even neither.
@kellyjay saidI see no reason why not. Our best guess is that there are something like 10,000,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy alone, and a similar number of other galaxies beyond ours, and the universe has been around for something like 13,000,000,000 years, so that's a lot of dice to roll. We can't really guess how likely it is that life will arise given favourable conditions, it might be very likely indeed. All things considered, it doesn't seem unimaginable to me given the size of the sand-pit that self-aware life might arise from a 'mindless' universe.
I'd beg to differ; we can say mindlessness could do it; what exactly are we saying if we propose that? Something without a goal, no targets, no desire to see success, does not know what success is, it is no different to it than failure built something so remarkable as life?
@avalanchethecat saidYou don't know how life started, so suggesting because of a large number of stars that means it's possible isn't looking at it critically. Please consider all of the variables while looking at the earth's makeup, our moon, our sun, our solar system, and add them into your calculations for life to be possible here. You may wonder why we are here; let long some star Trek-like universe with life just beyond our ability to see them. You should have watched that first link; it nailed all of these issues quite well.
I see no reason why not. Our best guess is that there are something like 10,000,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy alone, and a similar number of other galaxies beyond ours, and the universe has been around for something like 13,000,000,000 years, so that's a lot of dice to roll. We can't really guess how likely it is that life will arise given favourable conditions, it ...[text shortened]... le to me given the size of the sand-pit that self-aware life might arise from a 'mindless' universe.
@avalanchethecat said<<I see no reason why not. Our best guess is that there are something like 10,000,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy>>
I see no reason why not. Our best guess is that there are something like 10,000,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy alone, and a similar number of other galaxies beyond ours, and the universe has been around for something like 13,000,000,000 years, so that's a lot of dice to roll. We can't really guess how likely it is that life will arise given favourable conditions, it ...[text shortened]... le to me given the size of the sand-pit that self-aware life might arise from a 'mindless' universe.
You’re way off.
If I’m not mistaken, what you wrote is 10 trillion. There’s not 10 trillion stars in our galaxy - more like 100 billion.
For all the talk of Christians believing what they believe based on faith, it takes far more faith to be an atheist.
In fact, atheists are the ones whose beliefs are based entirely on faith - faith in miracles that no one witnessed. Atheists say they reject the impossible - but they believe the impossible in at least four ways.
This article identifies the four impossible miracles atheists have to believe:
From reasonabletheology.org:
Consider the following four miracles which must be accepted by the atheist in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary:
• Getting Something from Nothing. There has never been an observed example where something was created from nothing. No person would attempt to build something without materials, and there is no theory outside Big Bang cosmology which reaches this conclusion without ridicule from the scientific community.
• Getting Life from Non-Life. Even if naturalistic causes could have created the universe, it would still be necessary for non-living material to become living. This is also an unproven (and impossible) feat which must be accepted when denying the existence of God.
• Getting Order from Chaos. Personal observation tells us that all things tend towards disorder, not order. Left to themselves buildings crumble, gardens are taken over by weeds, and living material decays. If unguided natural causes produced the universe (from nothing) and produced life (from non-life) these processes would necessarily go against observed scientific principles in order to produce the complexity, beauty, and order that we observe in the world around us.
• Getting the Immaterial from Physical Matter. If nothing was able to produce everything, non-life was able to produce life, and chaos was able to produce order the atheistic worldview would still encounter an insurmountable obstacle. No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter.
Each of these examples go against the natural order and could be labeled as miracles. Naturalistic worldviews such as atheism, evolution, and neo-Darwinism regard this evidence for God with what Dawkins would certainly consider an unscientific approach: each item must be taken on faith.
With God it is very logical to conclude that He who created all things can work within His creation as He pleases. Scripture is replete with examples of such miraculous interactions and the Genesis account of creation certainly addresses the above four points.
https://reasonabletheology.org/four-miracles-athiesm/
@kellyjay saidNeither of us knows how life started. The theory you favour involves an omnipotent, omniscient super-being, and your only evidence for the existence of this is gleaned from a handful of pre-scientific stories. Mine does not include any super-beings. I would hazard that critically, one should tend towards the theory with the fewer infinite quantities.
You don't know how life started, so suggesting because of a large number of stars that means it's possible isn't looking at it critically. Please consider all of the variables while looking at the earth's makeup, our moon, our sun, our solar system, and add them into your calculations for life to be possible here. You may wonder why we are here; let long some star Trek-like ...[text shortened]... lity to see them. You should have watched that first link; it nailed all of these issues quite well.