18 Dec 22
@fmf saidCertainty is subjective, sometimes collectively subjective; people were once certain that witches exist and should be killed; sane people don’t believe this any more, and are just as certain that witches don’t exist and shouldn’t be killed even if they do.
@moonbus
I think KellyJay believes that the sheer certainty he feels about his faith is, in and of itself, objective evidence.
19 Dec 22
@kellyjay said“But but but … life would be meaningless, nothing matters, if God doesn’t exist” is not an argument why God exists. It is merely an observation about yourself, that you would struggle to find meaning if you lost your belief in God.
If it is only feelings that matters nothing matters since we all have them, and they take us in all different directions. You are right God as a concept would be the ultimate truth and righteousness and He is no different in reality either. His being accepted or rejected doesn’t change anything about God, only us.
19 Dec 22
@moonbus saidNo, there would be nothing without an uncaused cause, a first cause, and meaning
“But but but … life would be meaningless, nothing matters, if God doesn’t exist” is not an argument why God exists. It is merely an observation about yourself, that you would struggle to find meaning if you lost your belief in God.
in life, we can make our own, but that does not mean we were not made with
meaning at the heart of it.
@kellyjay saidthere would be nothing without an uncaused cause, a first cause, and meaning
No, there would be nothing without an uncaused cause, a first cause, and meaning
in life, we can make our own, but that does not mean we were not made with
meaning at the heart of it.
The "evidence" implied by your assertion of your personal opinion [which is basically a manifestation of your wonderment at the universe] in this matter is no more clincher "evidence" that supports your Abrahamic God figure than it is clincher "evidence" supporting Dasa's "certainty" about his Hindu notion of a reincarnation-based universe.
20 Dec 22
@kellyjay saidThe uncaused cause need not have been intelligent, much less identical with the God of Abraham. It could have been simply a blind force of nature external to the known universe, like a match which starts a fire and is extinguished as the fire burns on. No meaning or purpose or grand plan involved.
No, there would be nothing without an uncaused cause, a first cause, and meaning
in life, we can make our own, but that does not mean we were not made with
meaning at the heart of it.
@moonbus saidI disagree mainly because of the functional complexity we see in the universe; in
The uncaused cause need not have been intelligent, much less identical with the God of Abraham. It could have been simply a blind force of nature external to the known universe, like a match which starts a fire and is extinguished as the fire burns on. No meaning or purpose or grand plan involved.
addition, in the universe we also see personalities, that too would have had to
come from the Creator, a living Word makes it word-based, full of information and
meaning, we see consciousness that too had to come from the Creator as
everything would have without exception. We read and write, draw diagrams, and
these due to symbolism, which is not a function of some reductionist activity of
molecules and atoms in play, that requires a mind and intellect that we see within
in this universe and experience because we think and are aware.
Do you think a mindless force could produce all of that, with the consistency we
see in the forces in play in the universe with constraints? Stop-starts, boundaries
that allow for function due to the constraints show intelligence more than
anything else in my opinion. Where we see all stop-starts we see where boundaries
are in play for fire, water, gravity, electrical charge, expansion of the universe, and
life, so mindlessness is inadequate for what we see and experience.
Do you believe a mindless cause could produce intelligence and conscience, or
chaos fine-tuning in universal forces, from the molecular to galactic and all points in
between? Mindless could put in instructional directions in life, all of the stop-starts
in play there, self-monitoring, and correction without a purpose, or a plan?
Can we get anything out of nothing other than nothing, most excuses I have seen
where that are justified are calling something nothing and acting up other things
that are also something that is called nothing. If you must change meaningless to
meaning to say meaningless can do it, you are not consistent or being honest
with yourself. Not saying you are doing that, but what are you doing?
20 Dec 22
1 edit
@kellyjay saidYes, mindless recombination of a little over 100 elements will, given deep time, eventually result in all possible combinations of molecules, including life with intelligence and consciousness. We are proof of that. Just as random shuffling of a deck of cards will eventually draw a royal flush. Life is simply the royal flush of chemistry.
I disagree mainly because of the functional complexity we see in the universe; in
addition, in the universe we also see personalities, that too would have had to
come from the Creator, a living Word makes it word-based, full of information and
meaning, we see consciousness that too had to come from the Creator as
everything would have without exception. We read and write ...[text shortened]... ot consistent or being honest
with yourself. Not saying you are doing that, but what are you doing?
Oh, but you don’t accept deep time, do you? You think the Earth, and all the galaxies and stars, popped into existence from nothing about 6,000 years ago, within minutes of each other, along with humans and dinosaurs.
@moonbus saidYou are saying an unintelligible, unguided, goalless, and irrational process given time (deep time) would through hit and miss chemical reactions build intelligence, conscience, and life.
Yes, mindless recombination of a little over 100 elements will, given deep time, eventually result in all possible combinations of molecules, including life with intelligence and consciousness. We are proof of that. Just as random shuffling of a deck of cards will eventually draw a royal flush. Life is simply the royal flush of chemistry.
Oh, but you don’t accept deep tim ...[text shortened]... e from nothing about 6,000 years ago, within minutes of each other, along with humans and dinosaurs.
Odd, chemical reactions are what occurs when chemicals react to one another, meaning you require chemicals and each time they react you require the output to exactly what is required because once two chemicals react to one another that changes them into something else.
Exactly how do you get an endless amount of reactions to suddenly produce what is needed before it continues to react into something else, or use up all the necessary ingredients you started with?
One royal flush if found doesn’t stop the dealer from continuing to mix the cards.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27444
21 Dec 22
@divegeester saidI thought it was going to be something like Saul/Paul of Tarsus had this grand revelation: "I could totally prank these people."
[i]”According to a 2011 Gallup Poll, 30% of Americans believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally. This is, therefore, the position of tens of millions of Americans. Presumably many, if not most, literalists believe that we merely need to consult the Bible and then the solutions to the moral and other problems we face will be unambiguousl ...[text shortened]... ed with atheists because I find much of this loosely held together ancient text to be utter nonsense
21 Dec 22
@kellyjay saidAn endless number of reactions did not “suddenly” produce life forms. It took billions of years for the right molecules to come together in favorable circumstances to produce even the most primitive life forms (of course not intelligent ones at first). Most likely this occurred near hot geysers on the sea bed, where there are sufficient organic molecules, a source of energy (heat), and natural churning of the water to shuffle the components until the “royal flush” combination occurred. This is supported by available evidence: the oldest life forms are also the simplest, and lived in the oceans not on land.
You are saying an unintelligible, unguided, goalless, and irrational process given time (deep time) would through hit and miss chemical reactions build intelligence, conscience, and life.
Odd, chemical reactions are what occurs when chemicals react to one another, meaning you require chemicals and each time they react you require the output to exactly what is required bec ...[text shortened]... started with?
One royal flush if found doesn’t stop the dealer from continuing to mix the cards.
You are quite right that one royal flush does not mean the shuffling process stops there. Life may have gotten started multiple times at several locations. This would go a long way towards explaining the great diversity of life we observe.
The thing about life is, once it gets going, it concentrates and stores energy. This is the opposite of entropy. Life is little pockets of negative entropy. This makes the continuation of life no longer dependent upon random shuffling of chemicals. This is one of the characteristics which distinguishes life from inorganic processes, such as whether lightning strikes. Just because lightning struck once, it does not increase the likelihood that it will again, that is truly random. But once life gets going, life itself increases the likelihood that it will reproduce and generate more life.
@moonbus saidYou are all over the place, and without a starting point. Unless you can give a reason for there being a starting point, where did all of these endless, or countless reactions come from? If there was a starting point, there is no such thing as an endless number of reactions, there would be limitations by both time and available materials, neither of which you have given a reason for anything being here let alone things that could react and produce what was required, also what space was there to begin with as well so they could do all of this?
An endless number of reactions did not “suddenly” produce life forms. It took billions of years for the right molecules to come together in favorable circumstances to produce even the most primitive life forms (of course not intelligent ones at first). Most likely this occurred near hot geysers on the sea bed, where there are sufficient organic molecules, a source of energy ( ...[text shortened]... life gets going, life itself increases the likelihood that it will reproduce and generate more life.
You talk about favorable circumstances as if that is a given, primitive life as if that was also just a given, none of which you have given a reason for their existence, YET in your explanation, they are there. Why is that, where did all of this come from to get you to where you want to be? Can you go back to the point of origins and start from there please, you seemed to have missed a few key periods as well as show the mechanisms required to do the work you just assume occurred.
The thing about first causes, is they must come first, you just skipped past that and got where all the work is almost completed and are attempting to call that a reasonable explanation, it is not.
21 Dec 22
@kellyjay saidYou confuse reasons and causes. There's no point in continuing this discussion until you get your categories straightened out.
You are all over the place, and without a starting point. Unless you can give a reason for there being a starting point, where did all of these endless, or countless reactions come from? If there was a starting point, there is no such thing as an endless number of reactions, there would be limitations by both time and available materials, neither of which you have given a re ...[text shortened]... ll the work is almost completed and are attempting to call that a reasonable explanation, it is not.
21 Dec 22
@moonbus saidYea, okay, sure I'm not the one who is playing fast and loose with words and reason
You confuse reasons and causes. There's no point in continuing this discussion until you get your categories straightened out.
go away and ignore the categories in how they are stacked against you.
@kellyjay saidThere is little or no evidence that you are able to understand, analyze, respond to, or even remember anything put to you that you disagree with. It sometimes just seems like you are operating in bad faith. Your ability to discuss these kinds of topics deteriorated markedly in 2022.
Yea, okay, sure I'm not the one who is playing fast and loose with words and reason
go away and ignore the categories in how they are stacked against you.