Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[heusdens]

Psycho Dave:

Thanks for this post.

I did not elaborate on 'evil' more just left it as it's theistic attributes, but conjectured against the way how in real life such is abused by current government leaders.

I of course do not think of 'evil' in a theistic way, and much of what you stated I could agree on.

 

[Bigotboy]

Zakath says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Moral Knowledge Argument for Atheism:

1. If Pastor Enyart's God exists, then he is a being who is powerful, loving, and just.

2. If Pastor Enyart's God exists, it would be in his interest (loving and just) and within his capacity (powerful) for all human beings to know his absolute standards perfectly.

3. All humans do not know God's ethics perfectly, as is demonstrated by his followers disagreeing about many moral values.

Therefore: Pastor Enyart's God does not exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Zakath has a very powerful point here, but he made one small error. The god illustrated here is NOT Enyart's God, but is clearly Zakath's god. So Zakath is correct, his made up god does not exist, and that is why Zakath did not get the results he wanted from his god, and from there he made the assumption that if HIS god did not exist, then NO god existed. Enyart, on the other hand, is arguing that the evidence we have points to a God, and we have to figure out what His true attributes are.

 

[flash]

Originally posted by avatar382

I understood God to have the following qualities -
1.) omnipotent
2.) omniniscent
3.) all-loving
4.) possessing a free will
5.) personal
6.) above all, perfect in every way.

I'll refer to a hypothetic God with these qualities as a six point God (SPG).

The fact that suffering exists disproves any god from having the first three properties.

 

[heusdens]

The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe

The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe

The links below shows "sophisticated" theistic arguments for the existence of God, which is about to reason that the universe must have had a beginning in time (hence requires us to "assume" a Deity "created" all of matter, space and time).

Who Created God?
The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe

Sine the argument used is not very original (Kant was the first one who showed that a beginning of the universe is as arguable as the universe not having a beginning), let us present here an argumentation against this (or: one very similar to it) theistic argument here by Friedrich Engels in Anti-Duhring (1877), chapther V. Philosophy of Nature. Space and Time.

In concise: the argument of the contradiction of the "counted infinite series" (or: "law of definite number") can be reasoned to be invalid, cause the very assumption that time does not have a begin, means that the time prior to "now" is not susceptible of being counted at all. The contradication is achieved by assuming that one can start counting at all. But no matter where one starts counting, you always leave behind you an infinite amount of time, and thereby the task one has to fulfill.

Which just shows that most of these theistic arguments, have not escaped the attention of contemporary philosophers, and have been adequately dealt with already.

In conclusion: an actual beginning of time, we can not conceive of, since there is no "bridge of continuity" between the conceptualized "nothing" and there even being an infinitesimal small something as a result of that "nothing", let alone a whole universe, existing in time and space and filled with matter.
And this is the case, even despite the help of God, so the theistic interpretation that the universe did not start out from this conceptual nothing, but nevertheless had a begin in time and started as a creation of a God, who created time, space and matter, since this would have left this Deity, who is said to have been there in 'eternity' in a form of unchanging-existence, with
1) no time at all to start anything (since time itself is said to have started with the universe, with matter and space)
2) the duration of 'eternity' of this necessary being (Deity) would necessarily be less then even the smallest infinitesimal duration of time.
3) God would then be a being, not having existence in eternity, but a being out-of-time, out-of-space and out-of-matter, which then makes it as nothing more as a concept of the mind, having no objective and independend existence, outside and apart from the mind.

So this brings us no solution to the orignal puzzle, which was to conjecture from known physical laws, that we can not conceive of a universe existing for all of eternity, since the replacement of a conceptual "nothing" with a conceptual "Deity" as a being out-of-time, out-of-space and out-of-matter. No actual "filling up" of this "nothing" with independly how many "concepts of mind" can ever do that trick.

Which brings us to reason about. that the only thing we could thus ever concieve of is the universe, that is matter in eternal motion in space and time, could not have started in time, which means the universe exists in eternity.

In another post I will try to explain that the conjectures against a universe existing in eternity (such as the argument from Thermodynamics, and esp. the second law of thermodynamics) are not in contradiction with this.


EDIT: added extra link

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by heusdens
And there is this alternative

a. God does not exist

b. 'Evil' still exist

c. We have to defeat 'evil'

That ultimately is a regurgitation of Avatar's option, except you're adding some kind of nebulous concept of "evil" in the mix.

But this places us in the position, how to define 'evil' in the first place.

Exactly.

In fact, the current state of the world, makes us to be quit suspicious of those, who in the 'name of God' want to defeat 'evil', and give us a definition of 'evil' which is not a truthfull projection of reality.

Of course this is your athestic assumption. You ASSUME that theistic morality isn't a "truthful projection of reality". You can't prove it.

But it is clear now, that that 'evil' was just a phantom of the thought, and a fication of mere imagination (although some 'attempts' were made to create some proof beyond all reasonable doubt..), and did not exists at all.

Then how do you explain that as of last November, every intellegience agency in the world, including the French, said that Saddam possessed WMD? Was every intel agency in the world wrong? Do you have access to all the intelligence reports? Have you read them? Have you proved where their data was flawed? In short, are you an expert on this topic who is qualified to categorically state that WMD "did not exist at all"?

 

[tenkeeper]

dear ls,

Being reconciled to our Lord is indeed one of man's most
urgent needs. Most just want to KNOW for sure, one way
or the other. The proof to the logical mind is illusive on the
one hand but alas, we cannot force God's hand to give us
more proof than He already has. He has spoken by His
mouth to a whole nation and has shown signs and wonders.
He sent His prophets, yet with all of this most still would not
believe. So, my question is, what more proof is needed?
What does man insist that God give them?
Who will put Him first?

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by heusdens
Evolution is to be understood as the theory describing in the best possible way, without there being an alternative theory, what actually happened.

Yes, it is a gap theory. We know. It's an elastic theory that can be stretched to explain whatever it has to explain, regardless of how little the empirical evidence actually supports it.

As such, evolution does not require any one of you, to believe it is true, to be true,

That could be said of any claim. Ex., God does not require any of you to believe He is real, to be real. Sounds like you are ripping off a statement Morpheus made in Matrix 2.

neither as one has to belief the theory of gravity to be true, for the occurence of objects falling to the earth when in free fall.

LOL! Now you are comaparing the LAW of gravity with the *theory* of evolution. This just goes to show how deluded evolutionist thinking can get. Tell ya what.....I'll accept your comparison of evolution with gravity as soon as you demonstrate molecules-to-man evolution with an actual, testable, repeatable experiment. Until then, your idea of evolution is nothing but a naturalistic bed-time story for adults, and it should not be taught in school. I can empirically verify that the law of gravity exists by dropping an apple or any othe object. In fact, gravity can be directly observed, tested, retested, and reobserved - endlessly. It's empirical science for those reasons. However, the fairytale of molecules-to-man evolution has ZERO empirical evidence; it cannot be observed, it cannot be tested, it cannot be retested, or reobserved. It is an origins philosophy that is almost entirely built on conjecture and biased interpretations of evidences. Indeed, it is the "mental projection" of naturalist philosophers.

 

[Soulman]

Dave said,

And I'm sorry if I sound arrogant, but if you do not find the fault in your arguments, then perhaps you should pick a different topic, or a less skilled opponent.

I don’t consider you an “opponent.”

To my question,

Where did you ever get the idea that the only thing God is good for is to understand the physical universe?

You said,

I never made that argument.

But you had previously written,

I prefer to use William of Ockham's advise on this. Natural selection and other scientific bodies of knowledge adequately explain the way things are. Since they consistently and adequately explain what we once found impossible to understand without God, what reason is there to believe in God? (emphasis mine)

Later, you qualified your statement by saying that God might be useful in understanding philosophy or culture, but that was after the fact.

By the way, I see no difference between you “appealing” to the “higher authority” of Ockham, or Hawking for that matter, and the link I provided. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. No one said Islam (or the Greeks, or the Egyptians, or the Chinese, or the Indians) had NO science. The argument is that the Islamic, etc., world view did not provide the presuppositional basis for a logical and knowable universe and the scientific method, which the Bible did.

Quoted in:
Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(1):4, 1996
But some will object, “If we allowed appealing to God anytime we don't understand something, then science itself would be impossible, for science proceeds on the assumption of natural causality.” This argument is a red herring. It is true that science is not compatible with just any form of theism, particularly a theism that holds to a capricious god who intervenes so often that the contrast between primary and secondary causality is unintelligible. But Christian theism holds that secondary causality is God's usual mode and primary causality is infrequent, comparatively speaking. That is why Christianity, far from hindering the development of science, actually provided the womb for its birth and development.
Moreland, J. P., 1989. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation, Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 226.

Science and Christianity are not opposites.

Soulman

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
That ultimately is a regurgitation of Avatar's option, except you're adding some kind of nebulous concept of "evil" in the mix.

I did not introduce the nebular concept of 'evil' but the poster of the message I was quoting, already introduced this nebulae.

I do however not concede with such a nebular concept of 'evil', since I stated we have yet to define what this 'evil' is.

See the remarks in the post before of Psyhco Dave, who gave a pretty good argumentation on that issue.

Of course this is your athestic assumption. You ASSUME that theistic morality isn't a "truthful projection of reality". You can't prove it.

I do not merely assume it, cause I know it.
Theism is not a truthfull projection of morality, since theism as a whole is fundamentally flawed, because of the introduction of "actors outside time, space and matter". This is an assumption without any base and any relfection on the reality as we know it, and therefore out of the world and out of the question.

And the reasoning is absurd: or we have to accept an ABSOLUTE morality, or we would be left with NO MORALITY at all. This in fact is a denyal of any human concept of moral, as moral is to be understood in the context of real people and real circumstances only and not outside of that.

Then how do you explain that as of last November, every intellegience agency in the world, including the French, said that Saddam possessed WMD? Was every intel agency in the world wrong? Do you have access to all the intelligence reports? Have you read them? Have you proved where their data was flawed? In short, are you an expert on this topic who is qualified to categorically state that WMD "did not exist at all"?

I have read other reports as well, in which it was already made clear (due to the weapon inspectors) that Iraq by the time of 1996 was already disarmed.

On some other bulleting board in january this year, I stated that the fallacy of the US claims, and their attempt to put law and jurisdiction upside down, in which the party who is accused has to "proof" that the accusations are false (that is proof beyond all reasonable doubt that Iraq had no weapons of mass-destruction).
But wether Saddam Hussein is a lyer or not, and wether they are "cooperative" or not, it is simply impossible for anyone to proof that they do not have something in their possession.
It is the accusing party (the US) to proof beyond all reasonable doubt that such weapons of mass destruction do exist. Which of course they did not do. Just some "indications" that Iraqi army oficers, "might be hiding something".


If I would accuse you of having a weapon in your possession, how can you ever proof that that is not the case? Even when we would researched your house thoroughly and not find anything, I could say that you have that weapon in a hidden place outside of your house, a place that could be anywhere. If THAT would be in general juridiction, then you would already hang, and so would anybody else.

CAUSE FOR SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXISTS, IT IS UNPROVABLE THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST.

(This is true for the "existence" of God as well, it can only be proved that all claims for the positive existence of God are false)

Hence I suggested that, without there being any proof for such weapons, this war would nevertheless start.

The end of the war is:
1) No weapons of mass-desctruction ever found
2) Iraqi people not happy with US occupation of Iraq
3) Saddam Hussein never caught.

The three reasons for starting that war, despite the lies they presented to us, are however very simple:
1. Oil
2. Oil
3. Oil

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
Hi Avatar,
...You make that claim based a some unsupported assumptions, as I will demonstrate below.

...

we can reformulate the argument with the correct assumptions; and the argument would actually become a vindication for God:


1. If God is all-good, He will defeat evil.

2. If God is all-powerful, He can defeat evil.

3. Evil is not yet defeated.

4. Therefore, it is inevitable that God will defeat evil at some point from now.

So in other words, God isn't finished.

Scrim,
I observe that your response to Avatar's assault on God was incisive and compelling.

Touché

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
Yes, it is a gap theory. We know. It's an elastic theory that can be stretched to explain whatever it has to explain, regardless of how little the empirical evidence actually supports it.

Elastic theory:

If you mean by elastic that it is not presented to us as a doctrine (you either believe it or go to hell) and that we do not have a minute-to-minute description of all the billions of facts that were going on in the physical nature during the billions of years of evolution of life, then I must say, you are right, but your argument has little validity. The nature of the development of scientific theory is, that because they do not depend on belief or dogma, but progress forward with human ability to explore reality, are elastic in nature (as is man himself).

Little evidence?

How little is little? When we would write out all the evidence for evolution from physical theory and observation, chemistry theory and observations, biological theory and observations, geological theory and observations, including the fossils and rocks, and labaratory proof, this could fill some academic library for sure.

Where is the evidence for God, on the other hand?
Show me one bit of proof that "creation" took place.

That could be said of any claim. Ex., God does not require any of you to believe He is real, to be real. Sounds like you are ripping off a statement Morpheus made in Matrix 2.

Never seen the Matrix movie. Nevertheless the argument holds.

And I think you must be confused, cause apart from testimonies and all that, no real evidence for the existence of God as an entity that exists apart from, outside and independend of mind, has yet to be presented to the science community.

If the theists find that evidence, let them come back, and let the science community explore that evidence then.

LOL! Now you are comaparing the LAW of gravity with the *theory* of evolution. This just goes to show how deluded evolutionist thinking can get. Tell ya what.....I'll accept your comparison of evolution with gravity as soon as you demonstrate molecules-to-man evolution with an actual, testable, repeatable experiment. Until then, your idea of evolution is nothing but a naturalistic bed-time story for adults, and it should not be taught in school. I can empirically verify that the law of gravity exists by dropping an apple or any othe object. In fact, gravity can be directly observed, tested, retested, and reobserved - endlessly. It's empirical science for those reasons. However, the fairytale of molecules-to-man evolution has ZERO empirical evidence; it cannot be observed, it cannot be tested, it cannot be retested, or reobserved. It is an origins philosophy that is almost entirely built on conjecture and biased interpretations of evidences. Indeed, it is the "mental projection" of naturalist philosophers.

Zero evidence:

See my remark above about the amount of evidence.

Not empirical:

Despite your thoughts, we have seen evolution in action, and have seen species change due to evolution. That is: within the time frame of one or a couple of generations.

As for gravity, it can be stated that it is not only responsible for testable and observable phenomena of "falling of apples" in the same way as we can observe and test micro-evolution in action (if you never seen it, go to a botanist he can tell you all about it) but also for large time-scale phenomena like the formation of stars and solar systems, and the expansion of the universe itself.

If your position against evolution is that we can not observe within the time scale of a human being the development of lifeless matter to a human being, the formation of stars and galaxies, and the expansion of the universe, and for that reason call it "not scientific" then so be it. Then also geology and astronomy are "non scientific" cause they deal with even larger time frames.

If you are satisfied with the childrens version ("God did it") above the scientific version, then I wish you good night sir!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Soulman
Science and Christianity are not opposites.

Science and Christianity are not opposites requires one to unite two fundamentally different conmcepts of reality. One which says that nature does not require us to assume it was created, but that it exists all by itself, and the other requiring that we can not conceive of nature of having independend existence, and therefore need to assume God as it's first premise/cause.
But what is Christianity here? Since a lot of Christian dogma's do oppose science, we would need to say that Christianity opposes Christianity, since not all Christians hold on to a literal Bible explenation, which goes out from the "creation event" taking place a mere 10.000 years ago (Young Earth Creationists), but a major part of the Christian world find themselves already concealed to the Big bang theory, as the real "creation event".
And even sciencce itself opposes science, cause one group of scientists hold on to the concept of a "beginning of time" starting at the Big Bang, while other scientists hold on to no such "beginning of time" concept.
The very fact that both in science and in theism we can find opposing viewpoints and contradictions, is the acknowledgment that science and theism are "living entities" progressing in the world. Without any opposition or contradiction, no progress would ever occur, which by the way, is not only true for the reality of the mind, but for the reality of matter as well. A material world not in opposition or contradiction with itself, would be nothing but a self-equal state, a state of immobility, and would in fact not exist at all. Since we see nowhere in nature immobility or rest, but instead see matter in motion always and in any place and at any scale, we will most likely see opposing forces and tendencies, working on each other, causing the world to progress.
No contradiction or opposition would therefore be nothing more as a symptom of death or inexistence. That is how the natural world, that of matter and of mind, IS. A state of self-equalness, and that for an eternity, and that of non-contradiction and non-opposition, which are attributed properties of a Deity, are just states of non-existence, cause nothing that is can at any one moment be equal to itself, cause that would mean immobility and rest. Nowhere in nature a real state of immobility and self-equalness can be found anywhere.

 

[LightSon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Hank,

Originally posted by Hank
No one has ever observed the earth rotating around the sun. You would have to be a long way off, much further than the moon which is as far as man has traveled, and looking through a powerful telescope to observe that.

Well I won't be dogmatic on this point. I would have thought that astronaut's would have been able to measure the phenomenon objectively from the moon.

Originally posted by Hank
My point is you do believe the earth rotates around the sun because of a scientific model that fits the evidence even though the Bible explicitly contradicts this, yet you reject evolution even though a similar scientific model fits the evidence just as closely

To say the Bible contradicts heliocentrism is overstated IMO. I do believe scripture was written from a human perspective. Even today, we still speak of "sunrise" and "sunset". These are conventions of perspective.

quote LS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s just great! So instead of saying "HA, See there! evolution is true and God doesn't exist," you say, "HA, See there! evolution is true and God DOES exist."

Aaawww.... You theistic evolutionists get me every time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote Hank:

I’m not sure what you are saying. I was just pointing out the evidence and how science uses it. But I do believe that God exist and that he used evolution to create all of life. To me evolution is not evidence there is no God, but evidence of how amazing and powerful he is.

Sorry. My tongue-in-cheek gets me into trouble sometimes.

What I meant is that when classifying these matters, I err in just discussing two cases: theistic-creation and atheistic-evolution. It is a flaw in my thinking, so when I frame arguments, I tend to forget that third alternative of theistic-evolution. So "You theistic evolutionists get me every time," means that you caught me making the mistake of forgetting to include you in my case study.

Originally posted by Hank
I was raised a Christian but when I got older and the facts I was taught didn’t seem to fit the evidence I went through a difficult time of what I did believe.

Thanks for sharing your background and for adding the hedge "didn't seem" to your statement. Facts often end up to be tenuous. How many times has the evolution model changed to fit new facts? I'm sure the creationists' model (if you will allow for that usage) has changed in light of demonstrable science. My thinking changes weekly. I just stop short of accepting as science those dogmatisms regarding the happenings from an alleged 4 billion years ago. As a computer programmer, I know what it feels like to be certain I have something coded properly, only to discover via testing that my code has a flaw. And that is in the context where all the building blocks are right in front of my eyes. How much more uncertainly might there be in conjecturnig on the construction of the Earth and of mankind? When I think of the sophistication reflected in atomic theory, it boggles my mind. To suppose such intricacies "just happened" is too hard for me to swallow. Of course I'm forgetting about the thiestic component of your view again. :doh: Can we acknowledge that many evolutionists are atheists and that their ideology can color their thought processes and conclusions every bit as much as my creationism drives mine. We are human, and prejudicial thinking is a weed which must be continually rooted out.

Originally posted by Hank
What did it for me was something you might not expect or even understand. When I read about the lives of Jesus, Gandhi, St. Frances, George Fox and all the other great men who had a profound belief in God, I realized that other people were drawn to them in a dramatic fashion. To me it showed that there is something in mankind that is sparked when the right person comes along and touches that part of his life. Because of this I believe in a loving God. I probably haven’t explained it very well but I hope you get my meaning.

Wow. Thanks for that. This supports the idea that science is not the only tool in the box. You speak of "being drawn" and "spark". These are spiritually discerned phenomena and as such are not always analyzed well under a microscope.

You believe in a loving God. I accept that. If there is a God, let us hope that He is loving. I suggest that love is also rooted in His goodness. I believe God is good.

A loving God also implies to me a measure of anthropomorphism. The reverse may be more correct; we just might bear some image of our creator. God loves, and so has made us with that same capacity.

How do you reconcile a loving God with our world's pain and suffering? Is God aware of what's going on down here? If aware, is He able to do anything about it? I'm just curious where you are in the process of devoping this aspect of your worldview.

 

[heusdens]

Entropy, Disorder and Life

Entropy, Disorder and Life

Entropy, Disorder and Life

 

[sawrie]

Flash you said: "The fact that suffering exists disproves any god from having the first three properties: refering to these 1.) omnipotent
2.) omniniscent
3.) all-loving."


How could God allow you to truly know Love unless you know suffering?

All suffering proves is that you are ignorant to think about God in a rational caring manner because you don't want someone to give an account to.

 

[heusdens]

Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism

Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism

And to the topic of Evolution vs Thermodynamics from the perspective of "Creation Scientists", we could add This link.

Which then settles for the question, that following the reasoning of Timothy Wallace, the fact that Thermodynamics would not permit life to come into existence, nevertheless life forms do exist, that are capable of taking in energy, and use that to sustain themselves, grow, react on the environment, and reproduce.

Is the fact that organic life exist in contradiction with the laws of Thermodynamics? No, of course not, since organic life are not isolated systems, but constantly take in energy (in the form of food, or in the case of plants by photosynthese).

 

[LightSon]

Re: Entropy, Disorder and Life

Re: Entropy, Disorder and Life

Originally posted by heusdens
Entropy, Disorder and Life

I read the link and have a few remarks.

The author's bias and frustrated state of mind are evident when he says, "still the creationist won't let go".

Well what is it that we won't let go of? The article is specious. It has lots of scientific jargon and will easily dupe most into its thesis.

Look carefully at the author's approach.

It can be explained patiently (or less than patiently, after the 1000th iteration or so) that entropy only strictly increases in an isolated system; that there are no completely isolated systems in nature, save maybe the universe as a whole; and that the whole idea of isolated systems is really an abstraction for pedagogical purposes; but still the creationist won't let go

The creationist application of the 2nd law to the universe is predicated on viewing the universe as a "completely isolated system[] in nature".

Curious how he sets himself up to win the argument by stating, "the whole idea of isolated systems is really an abstraction for pedagogical purposes". The author then proceeds to use his own pedagogical approach to demonstate how the law fails when applied to non-isolated systems.

He rolls out a number of examples and observes, "more often the system under study is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, where everything has some fairly constant temperature and energy is exchanged to keep that temperature equal on both sides of the system boundary." Wow! Great observation. So when energy is exchanged from one system to another then entropy need not increase. All I can say is duh :doh:

The author's circular reasoning has added little value to the broader issue. He hasn't dismantled our application of the 2nd law to the universe, a "completely isolated system" taken as a whole.

 

[Hank]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Originally posted by LightSon
Hank,

Well I won't be dogmatic on this point. I would have thought that astronaut's would have been able to measure the phenomenon objectively from the moon.

The astronauts were still extremely close to the earth relative to the sun. It’s like trying to measure how fast a train is going but you are on it without a speedometer. I believe parallax of the stars is still the best evidence we have that the earth rotates around the sun.

To say the Bible contradicts heliocentrism is overstated IMO. I do believe scripture was written from a human perspective. Even today, we still speak of "sunrise" and "sunset". These are conventions of perspective.

I agree completely. But that’s why I don’t use Genesis as a scientific text when talking about creation or the age of the earth or universe.

sorry. My tongue-in-cheek gets me into trouble sometimes.

What I meant is that when classifying these matters, I err in just discussing two cases: theistic-creation and atheistic-evolution. It is a flaw in my thinking, so when I frame arguments, I tend to forget that third alternative of theistic-evolution. So "You theistic evolutionists get me every time," means that you caught me making the mistake of forgetting to include you in my case study.

Okay I see what you were saying now.

Thanks for sharing your background and for adding the hedge "didn't seem" to your statement. Facts often end up to be tenuous. How many times has the evolution model changed to fit new facts?

When talking about the details of the evolution model you are correct. For instance it was once thought that evolution progresses slowly over time. However with time scientist have discovered more and more evidence and the new evidence shows that evolution has a lot of “jumps” where it just took off relative to other times. Living bodies tend to optimize to their surroundings and when the environment is not changing or changing very little, there is not much pressure on them to change. If a disaster happens that drastically changes the environment, they react to that by adapting. However the basic theory that Darwin proposed that life changes over time and the mechanism for that change is natural selection has not changed. Much like the fact that engineers use computers and software for designing much more efficiently than in the past. But the basic principals have not changed. We just understand them better with research and study.

Can we acknowledge that many evolutionists are atheists and that their ideology can color their thought processes and conclusions every bit as much as my creationism drives mine. We are human, and prejudicial thinking is a weed which must be continually rooted out.

Yes many evolutionists are atheists. But scientist must present their research to be reviewed if their ideas are to be recognized. That review is open to the public which includes all scientist, both atheist and theist. Sometimes science heads down the wrong trail. But it is a self-correcting process in today’s world because of all the public information. And I would point out that scientist, not creationist, correct their own errors.

How do you reconcile a loving God with our world's pain and suffering? Is God aware of what's going on down here? If aware, is He able to do anything about it? I'm just curious where you are in the process of devoping this aspect of your worldview.

Thanks for the comment. I have never had many problems with pain and suffering being a part of this life. Occasionally, although rarely, someone is born without the ability to feel pain. They are freaks of nature in that they must be monitored constantly since they can be hurt and never know it.

When it comes to pain and suffering, I see Jesus refusing to give up his principles in order to save his life. In the process he has influenced more lives than anyone in history. I see Gandhi who stood alone saying that one person doing the will of God was a majority. Then having millions follow in his steps by refusing to fight but refusing to submit. He and others were beaten but did not give up and changed a nation. This has happened over and over and has impacted the world. What person does not want their life to count for something and make some kind of impact on the world. If you could change the world one tenth as much as Jesus did, would you submit to suffering? What else impacts the world more than standing for your beliefs even in the face of suffering and death? And I believe this is a defect of atheism. I have a strong belief that standing up for what I believe in, even in the face of adversity and death, is the right thing to do because I believe in a loving and caring God that has made mankind respond to that. I don’t think atheism can make that kind of argument. I am not saying what I would do in any particular circumstance and I’m not sure anyone knows unless they have been faced with it, but that doesn’t keep me from believing.

 

[heusdens]

Re: Re: Entropy, Disorder and Life

Re: Re: Entropy, Disorder and Life

Originally posted by LightSon
The creationist application of the 2nd law to the universe is predicated on viewing the universe as a "completely isolated system[] in nature".

Curious how he sets himself up to win the argument by stating, "the whole idea of isolated systems is really an abstraction for pedagogical purposes". The author then proceeds to use his own pedagogical approach to demonstate how the law fails when applied to non-isolated systems.

He rolls out a number of examples and observes, "more often the system under study is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, where everything has some fairly constant temperature and energy is exchanged to keep that temperature equal on both sides of the system boundary." Wow! Great observation. So when energy is exchanged from one system to another then entropy need not increase. All I can say is duh :doh:

The author's circular reasoning has added little value to the broader issue. He hasn't dismantled our application of the 2nd law to the universe, a "completely isolated system" taken as a whole.

Some remarks on this:

What do you mean with the universe being a "completely isolated system". Of what is it isolated, to be called an "isolated" system?
An what is the reason to bring that up?

If we would take the solar system as a system in concern, this simply means that - being an open system - loses energy to the surrounding space due to the sun radiating energy into space.
As a whole there is an increase in entropy. The sun constantly loses energy, and once it's fuel is burned up, this system is about to decay. In perhaps 5 billion years, this will be the case.


What we know for the system "earth' is that it is not isolated, but receives nett energy from the sun, while radiating energy back into space. Without the sun, no life system would be possible.

 

[Psycho Dave]

Soulman wrote:

But you had previously written,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer to use William of Ockham's advise on this. Natural selection and other scientific bodies of knowledge adequately explain the way things are. Since they consistently and adequately explain what we once found impossible to understand without God, what reason is there to believe in God? (emphasis mine)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Later, you qualified your statement by saying that God might be useful in understanding philosophy or culture, but that was after the fact.

Okay, I see the confusion. What I was trying to say was that PRIOR to modern scientific knowledge, western society relied on the Bible to explain everything. I was not saying that God was "only good for understanding the physical universe". I was pointing out that prior to all of our modern scientific knowledge, God was used as an explanation for anything we did not understand.

In the light of Ockham's razor, Adding god into the equation does not help us understand anything. Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

For example, we cannot examine god, angels, souls, spirits, devils, as part of any scientific model of the universe. By including them into a model of how something works, we only add dead weight to it. As science usually works, we end up discovering physical explanations for things once thought to involce the supernatural, hence, the usefulness of things like gods and angels to science is not just highly questionable, but it has a history being pushed out of the way by physical evidence.

By the way, I see no difference between you “appealing” to the “higher authority” of Ockham, or Hawking for that matter, and the link I provided. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. No one said Islam (or the Greeks, or the Egyptians, or the Chinese, or the Indians) had NO science. The argument is that the Islamic, etc., world view did not provide the presuppositional basis for a logical and knowable universe and the scientific method, which the Bible did.

Actually, historically, Christianity did not have an exclusive claim on it's influence on modern science. People of all faiths contributed to science. That's what i was pointing out. Islam, ancient Greek polytheism, and Hinduism have just as much of a presuppositional basis for a logical and knowable universe. as Christianity does. Of course, I believe that all of them, Christianity included, are not as good as the secular models, but the point is that all faiths have presuppositional basis that were used as a basis for their understanding of science. But as in all cultures, Christian presuppositions tended to get shaved away bit by bit, with each new secular scientific discovery.

If you're wondering where the ancient greek religion contributed to science, just read up on their philosophers, who invented the principles of science as we know them.

Quoted in:
Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(1):4, 1996
But some will object, “If we allowed appealing to God anytime we don't understand something, then science itself would be impossible, for science proceeds on the assumption of natural causality.” This argument is a red herring. It is true that science is not compatible with just any form of theism, particularly a theism that holds to a capricious god who intervenes so often that the contrast between primary and secondary causality is unintelligible. But Christian theism holds that secondary causality is God's usual mode and primary causality is infrequent, comparatively speaking. That is why Christianity, far from hindering the development of science, actually provided the womb for its birth and development.
Moreland, J. P., 1989. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation, Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 226.

I wonder if the author realized the implication of what he was saying. He was saying that God interferes with the physical world via secondary causality -- he picks a natural cause to intervene on his behalf, and thus, everything appears to have a natural cause. What he implies is that we have no way of ever knowing the difference between God intervening or not intervening. By taking this idea to it's logical conclusion, we cannot even conclude whether this message I am posting now is the result of me using a computer and sending signals over a physical network through file servers and routers, or it is being caused by God, working through me and the internet. Indeed, because of the principle of secondary causality, pretty much everything is potentially being caused by God intervening at any moment. Sunspots, the phases of the moon, my car starting, and me getting a craving for Cantonese Seafood Chow Mein, could all simply be caused by God, using natural processes as intermediaries.

Secondary causality adds an unnecesary, and pointless layer to the equation.

Science and Christianity are not opposites.

I never said they were. They are apples and oranges.