Why Does God Reveal Himself to Some People and Not to Others?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…that type of thing drives me nuts when people suggest evolution is without a designer,…”

So are you now saying evolution has a designer?
Why would evolution need a “designer” when evolution is just a natural consequence of natural law?

“…because systems just don't happen in my opinion…”

What are you referring to by “systems”?
and what do you mean by they “just don't happen”?

I refered to a post someone gave me...when I was talking about systems.
I don't want to rewrtie the entire thread again.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
A “cause” yes –but why a conscious/intelligent reason? ( I assume here that this is what you imply by your use of the words “reason” and “why” in your previous posts -you seem to blur and confuse the meanings together )

Are you saying it is impossible for something to NOT have a conscious/intelligent reason?

If so, what is the conscious/intell ...[text shortened]... ns in animals and thus for this outcome to have a cause but for NO conscious/intelligent reason?

"Are you saying it is impossible for something to NOT have a conscious/intelligent reason?"

No, are you reading all of the posts or just a few words in each? We were talking
about apples dropping from trees, I thought that was an outstanding example of
something happening that wasn't done by choice, it was an event due to the
forces that were being applied to the tree and apple. I'm saying for something to
have been choosen, a choice has to be made, and choice requires intent. They
are two different things one is done due to the forces that be, like a chemical
reaction or another is due to some purpose.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Something being selected or choosen can be done without some intent?
When we were talking about the apple falling from a tree, it didn't fall due the
choice the tree, earth, or gravity made it reacted to the forces being applied to
it.
Kelly

I do not know if I have finally guessed what you have been saying but have you been saying that when natural selection makes a selection then it is making a “choice” which implies intent?

If so, then this is simply not true because a “selection” doesn’t necessarily mean “choice” with intent.
It may or may not mean “choice” depending on the context but, although, for example, for “me” to make a selection of something I generally need to be making a “choice” with intent, this surely couldn’t be true when only a none-intelligent thing makes a selection.
For example, using your apple falling from the tree example, a gust of wind may blow though an apple tree and selectively only knockdown those apples with sufficiently weakened stalks. So you could say the wind “selects” only those apples with sufficiently weakened stalks.
Does this selection imply ”choice” with intent?

So in the same way natural selection can make a selection without making a ”choice” with intent –right?

Originally posted by KellyJay
For that person, can he know the difference?
Kelly

Yes; by checking that his belief was based on evidence and flawless reasoning -unless, of course, he doesn't understand "flawless reasoning".

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Are you saying it is impossible for something to NOT have a conscious/intelligent reason?"

No, are you reading all of the posts or just a few words in each? We were talking
about apples dropping from trees, I thought that was an outstanding example of
something happening that wasn't done by choice, it was an event due to the
forces that were being a ...[text shortened]... e to the forces that be, like a chemical
reaction or another is due to some purpose.
Kelly

I'm saying for something to have been choosen, a choice has to be made, and choice requires intent.

But this isn't the case with natural selection, there is no intent behind it. If an animal/organism/plant can survive in a particular environment then it's genes are passed on, the genes of the animal/organism/plant that doesn't survive are eliminated.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]I'm saying for something to have been choosen, a choice has to be made, and choice requires intent.

But this isn't the case with natural selection, there is no intent behind it. If an animal/organism/plant can survive in a particular environment then it's genes are passed on, the genes of the animal/organism/plant that doesn't survive are eliminated.[/b]

I agree, I believe it is a poor choice of words used to describe the process it is
more of a sifting where what goes through life and survives moves on and that
which doesn't, doesn't. Again, choice and selection have meanings that are not
really being used here unless of course you which to instill upon the process some
meaningful purpose which I thought sort of went against the grain of many
people's views on that topic. I can see natural selection being used with a creation
belief system since the same processes would be taking place. The differences
would be the start of the process, nothing else would change, we would still see
living system though time changing due to their environment and circumstances
adapting to whatever is affecting them.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Yes; by checking that his belief was based on evidence and flawless reasoning -unless, of course, he doesn't understand "flawless reasoning".

He would still be subject to error, his understanding of the evidence could be
flawed yet his reasoning about what he thinks he knows could be sound. We can
view X within the box of our understanding but miss something which would make
our understanding of X flawed.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree, I believe it is a poor choice of words used to describe the process it is
more of a sifting where what goes through life and survives moves on and that
which doesn't, doesn't. Again, choice and selection have meanings that are not
really being used here unless of course you which to instill upon the process some
meaningful purpose which I thoug ng due to their environment and circumstances
adapting to whatever is affecting them.
Kelly

“…Again, CHOICE and SELECTION have meanings that are not
really being used here unless of course you which to instill upon the process some
meaningful PURPOSE which I thought sort of went against the grain of many
people's views on that topic….” ( my emphasis )

Again, as I have already explained to you in my previous post, “CHOICE” implies “PURPOSE” but “SELECTION” does not always do so. For this reason, “choice” does not equate with “selection” and it is fine to talk about natural selection making a “selection” because that does not mean the same thing as natural selection making a “choice” and saying natural selection is making a “selection” does not imply purpose nor intent.

Natural selection does NOT make “choices”; it makes “selections”.

Reminder of my previous post:

“…a “selection” doesn’t necessarily mean “choice” with intent.
It may or may not mean “choice” depending on the context but, although, for example, for “me” to make a selection of something I generally need to be making a “choice” with intent, this surely couldn’t be true when only a none-intelligent thing makes a selection.
For example, using your apple falling from the tree example, a gust of wind may blow though an apple tree and selectively only knockdown those apples with sufficiently weakened stalks. So you could say the wind “selects” only those apples with sufficiently weakened stalks.
Does this selection imply ”choice” with intent?...”

So do you now accept the fact that you can have a selection without purpose or intent?
If not then why not? -can you point out the flaw in my example?
If you DO accept the fact that you can have a selection without purpose or intent then why do you insist that natural selection making a selection implies choice/purpose/intent?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…Again, CHOICE and SELECTION have meanings that are not
really being used here unless of course you which to instill upon the process some
meaningful PURPOSE which I thought sort of went against the grain of many
people's views on that topic….” ( my emphasis )

Again, as I have already explained to you in my previous post, “CHOICE” implies “ ...[text shortened]... then why do you insist that natural selection making a selection implies choice/purpose/intent?

I said it was a poor choice of words and I have stated my reasons for why.
We disagree and I'm sure neither of us really care enought to go to deep into this
beyond what we have already said. If I'm wrong just say so we can restate our
poisitions I think we have already made our points clear, we can agree to disagree.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…Again, CHOICE and SELECTION have meanings that are not
really being used here unless of course you which to instill upon the process some
meaningful PURPOSE which I thought sort of went against the grain of many
people's views on that topic….” ( my emphasis )

Again, as I have already explained to you in my previous post, “CHOICE” implies “ ...[text shortened]... then why do you insist that natural selection making a selection implies choice/purpose/intent?

I would say the wind is not making a choice or a selection the process is simply
doing its thing no intent involved.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I would say the wind is not making a choice or a selection the process is simply
doing its thing no intent involved.
Kelly

I had previously said:

“…a gust of wind may blow though an apple tree and selectively only knockdown those apples with sufficiently weakened stalks. So you could say the wind “selects” only those apples with sufficiently weakened stalks.
Does this selection imply ”choice” with intent?...”

So you agree to disagree with me that the wind can make a selection of only those apples with sufficiently weakened stalks? -unless it is with "intent"?

-I am finding it very very hard to believe that this is in fact your position.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I said it was a poor choice of words and I have stated my reasons for why.
We disagree and I'm sure neither of us really care enought to go to deep into this
beyond what we have already said. If I'm wrong just say so we can restate our
poisitions I think we have already made our points clear, we can agree to disagree.
Kelly

I agree, it is a poor choice of words. Can you think of a better choice though?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Yes but what you have done is justify the paucity of good evidence we see before us in an unfalsifiable way again.

In other words, you have just shared that aspect of your faith again.
So it seems I have failed to communicate to you that I have heard your message.

I'll ask one more time to please answer some questions directly:

1) Will yo ...[text shortened]... please, don't just share that aspect of your faith again, I have heard and understood it.

I think this post, and possibly Kelly's reply to it, way back on page 9 was the time anyone on this thread was actually talking about the topic.

The topic is "Why Does God Reveal Himself to Some People and Not to Others?"

Obviously my 'ulterior motive' for the topic is to put across my assertion that he doesn't. Such revelations are illusions of the mind, interpreted as revelations of whatever religion or belief system the recipient is most familiar with.

Thus Francis Collins, when at his most receptive to religious ideas, sees three streams on a hillside and takes it as an indication of the Trinity. If his main religious exposure had been to Hinduism instead of Christianity, he would have found some other aspect of his surroundings to be inspired by and would now be a Hindu.

Likewise, if Kelly had been familiar with some other religion than Christianity, he would not be a Christian now.

Christianity is no different to any other religion. Kelly seems to think that the other religions are all 'the Devil's work'.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
I think this post, and possibly Kelly's reply to it, way back on page 9 was the time anyone on this thread was actually talking about the topic.

The topic is "Why Does God Reveal Himself to Some People and Not to Others?"

Obviously my 'ulterior motive' for the topic is to put across my assertion that he doesn't. Such revelations are illusions of the mi ...[text shortened]... lly seems to think that the other religions are all 'the Devil's work'.

--- Penguin.

I think what I was trying to get to was that as fallible humans we ought to hear alarm bells ringing when we realise that a belief we hold is not capable of being responsive to contrary evidence, whilst also being something we have a big emotional commitment to.
However, I realised on the journey that I wasn't going to get that point across, so I stopped.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I had previously said:

“…a gust of wind may blow though an apple tree and selectively only knockdown those apples with sufficiently weakened stalks. So you could say the wind “selects” only those apples with sufficiently weakened stalks.
Does this selection imply ”choice” with intent?...”

So you agree to disagree with me that the wind can make ...[text shortened]... th "intent"?

-I am finding it very very hard to believe that this is in fact your position.

Hang on; have I misread what you said? Reality check:
When you said:

“…I would say the wind is not making a choice or a selection the process is simply
doing its thing no intent involved…”

did you mean what I thought you meant which was:

“…I would say the wind is not making a choice OR a selection.
THE process is simply doing its thing no intent involved…”

In which case you are saying you cannot have a selection without intent? (which is absurd because, for example, a gust of wind can selectively blow down only those apples on a tree with sufficiently weakened stalks –so intent involved? 😛 )
Or did you mean:

“…I would say the wind is not making a choice.
Or a selection process is simply doing its thing no intent involved…”

In which case you are saying you CAN have a selection without intent? (in which case this begs the question why do you not accept that natural selection can make a selection without intent? )

I often have incredible difficulty deciphering your statements –my apologies if I misread you 🙂