Creation vs. Evolution

[DFT_Dave]

Beats me, but that's the way it is. have your god show up tomorrow morning at breakfast and explain it all.

There is absolutely no possibility that mindless matter is your maker. Mindless matter could not even create the cereal box on your breakfast table let alone you.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

There is absolutely no possibility that mindless matter is your maker. Mindless matter could not even create the cereal box on your breakfast table let alone you.

--Dave

And how have you managed to rule out all the multitude of possible ways it could have happened and settled on one, and not any old supernatural method, but a very particular one that happens to coincide with the one described in one specific holy book?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes that's about right, but allowing yourself to be absurd occasionally can be a an honest release. A couple of beers will usually do it for me.

I don't believe that any gods are particularly likely to exist never mind trapped of course, I'm just thinking hypothetically.
Something being uncaused while also being sentient and omnipotent seems to have a vanishingly small chance of being true afaic even for a paradox.

Primarily I'm only arguing that gods are too unlikely to be true, at least if we assume that "God" is an involved personal deity. Why should a perhaps single personal being, albeit a god, simply exist without a cause?

In the Bible "God" is supposed to be the explanation for us and for everything we know, I don't think that too many people are actually seeking any further regression.

Do you think that your God is free to not exist by choice?

I don't say that.

An "unknown" is the only rational answer imo to the apparent paradox of why the universe with us in it can and does exist, while anything else we can suppose only tends toward an infinite regression or infinite gods (or turtles) perhaps.

That a mindless passionless universe produces thought and love is an irrational belief.

A God who is free does not require a cause.

Self destruction is hardly an act of free will.

Infinite regress effects only a series of causes and effects not a God who is intrinsically free and needs no cause for his actions.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

A beginning point in its internal time (the Big Bang) or externally (not required)?

Assertion. You don't know how universes are created, or whether there is time outside of the universe. There has never been a time when the universe existed in any usual meaning of the word time.

Believe? Not especially. The assumption of free will is useful for disciplinary discussions and legal procedures and moralising. But whether there is absolute free will is irrelevant to most discussions. Why is it relevant now?

The Big Bang requires a cause and causes do not originate themselves anymore than a particle can originate itself.

If God is outside of the universe then there is time outside of the universe.

Is there a cause for the way we think?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes that's about right, but allowing yourself to be absurd occasionally can be a an honest release. A couple of beers will usually do it for me.

I'll drink to that :cheers:

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

And how have you managed to rule out all the multitude of possible ways it could have happened and settled on one, and not any old supernatural method, but a very particular one that happens to coincide with the one described in one specific holy book?

God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

How does this compare to anything else? Everything we need to know as a foundation for understanding is right here.

--Dave

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear DFT_Dave,

Now you see why this thread is too hard for me to keep up with. Like six or seven people against one or two people. The vultures circle, but the Lion shall get them.

The Post Starter,

MichaelC

 

[alwight]

Dear DFT_Dave,

Now you see why this thread is too hard for me to keep up with. Like six or seven people against one or two people. The vultures circle, but the Lion shall get them.

The Post Starter,

MichaelC

Threads tend to develop a direction of their own and by all means try to direct it back to where you want it but as the original poster you aren't obliged to keep control Michael.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Threads tend to develop a direction of their own and by all means try to direct it back to where you want it but as the original poster you aren't obliged to keep control Michael.

Oh Alwight,

I am delighted and thankful to have DFT_Dave come here with all of his wisdom and you might learn something from him. He is quiet a treasure of info, eh?? I do not care where this thread goes, unless it goes on a sour note, namely atheistically. He can stay as long as he likes, for sure. You know, there are more of you all, then just him and I, so it's really not fair at all. And still you are baseless and will be embarrassed when Jesus does return. Do you think He's going to give you a one-way ticket to Las Vegas?? If I were you, I would take all that you've learned so far and make a wise decision on your part. Are you worried about all your atheist friends being upset with you. Let Jesus save you!! Go to a Baptist Church and tell them that you'd like to be baptized in their full-immersion pool to wash away your sins. That would be for starters.

I love you, but not your ways!

Michael

:bang:

:angel:

:up:

 

[Jukia]

God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

How does this compare to anything else? Everything we need to know as a foundation for understanding is right here.

--Dave

the problem is with "God said" because if you don't buy that then the rest is nonsense.

 

[DFT_Dave]

the problem is with "God said" because if you don't buy that then the rest is nonsense.

Well said : )

Communication is information from someone to someone else. Communication is not just letters, visible symbols, but also recognizable sounds that are highly organized and the basis for logic.

The three basic rules, or laws of logic, come from speech. The word in Greek, logos, means word and logic. The law of identity, or definition and distinction, states a thing is what it is and not something else.

This is the one denied by pantheists in their basic understanding of the universe, God, and man. I am God, or everything is God, means their is no ultimate distinction between what is "eternal" and what is not. Everything that is eternal is always here, never comes and goes. There is no possible way to affirm our own personal identity, hence the "illusion of self" and "evil".

In atheism everything is nature, I am nature. There is no distinction between what is and what is not "temporal", what is moral and what is not, everything is temporal, everything is changing. Everything is made up of particles that come and go, universes come and go, we come and go, ultimately from no where to no where. There is no way to truly understand how the universe or life began. Causes logically can't come from no where, hence the impossibility of trying to understand how the universe or life began.

In basic theism there is what is God and what is not. There are important distinctions between what is eternal and what is temporal, what is moral and what is immoral, what is infinite and what is finite, what is rational and what is irrational. In theism we have a beginning point to the universe and ourselves that has a relationship with what is eternal without contradiction, the second basic rule of logic and communication. In theism we are not just impersonal matter or the projection of an impersonal singular world soul. I am a "personal finite", intelligent/rational, moral/volitional/free being created in the image of a "personal infinite" intelligent/rational, moral/volitional/free being. God has his own eternal personal identity, we have our own temporal personal identity.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

Oh Alwight,

I am delighted and thankful to have DFT_Dave come here with all of his wisdom and you might learn something from him. He is quiet a treasure of info, eh??

No not really, Dave has his own particular DFT ideas, but rather like your assertions, for me, they don't often seem to be matched by the real world of science and material things.

I do not care where this thread goes, unless it goes on a sour note, namely atheistically. He can stay as long as he likes, for sure. You know, there are more of you all, then just him and I, so it's really not fair at all.

Being right or wrong about something is not about being fair. If atheistic views are wrong then explain without witnessing or making bald assertions why that is.

And still you are baseless and will be embarrassed when Jesus does return.

Bald assertion.

Do you think He's going to give you a one-way ticket to Las Vegas??

No, dead people don't come back to life, particularly 2000 years later. Besides I don't even want to go to Las Vegas.

If I were you, I would take all that you've learned so far and make a wise decision on your part. Are you worried about all your atheist friends being upset with you.

I'm more concerned with what actually is evidentially true than being in a club of presupposed ideas. If a god evidentially exists then I have no reason to cling to atheism.

Let Jesus save you!! Go to a Baptist Church and tell them that you'd like to be baptized in their full-immersion pool to wash away your sins. That would be for starters.

Sorry Michael if I actually thought that someone's mumbo-jumbo had the power to make me into a better person then I might just do it, but I don't.

I love you, but not your ways!

Michael

:bang:

:angel:

:up:

Nice to see that you've learn't how to do a few smilies. :thumb:

 

[DFT_Dave]

"I am delighted and thankful to have DFT_Dave come here with all of his wisdom and you might learn something from him. He is quiet a treasure of info, eh??"--MichaelCadry

No not really, Dave has his own particular DFT ideas, but rather like your assertions, for me, they don't often seem to be matched by the real world of science and material things.

There is the real world of science and that which is called science that is not real, yes?

Is there nothing about science that is "theoretical" or "propositional" in your mind, something believed that may or may not be true.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

There is the real world of science and that which is called science that is not real, yes?

Is there nothing about science that is "theoretical" or "propositional" in your mind, something believed that may or may not be true.

--Dave

Yes, but I like to think that science only proposes things because evidence demands that true, material, natural, non-supernatural, answers do exist, even when they are only proposed, not actually known. Anyone can suppose supernatural answers if there is no perceived need or desire to be scientific and materialistic about it, only perhaps an agenda for there to be a supernatural.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, but I like to think that science only proposes things because evidence demands that true, material, natural, non-supernatural, answers do exist, even when they are only proposed, not actually known. Anyone can suppose supernatural answers if there is no perceived need or desire to be scientific and materialistic about it, only perhaps an agenda for there to be a supernatural.

So you presume there is no super-nature, that all is nature.

Is our thinking process merely the movement of atoms in out head?

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

So you presume there is no super-nature, that all is nature.

Is our thinking process merely the movement of atoms in out head?

--Dave

Presuming to answer for him: yes and yes. There in no evidence against that idea, and much to support it. The only think lacking in the naturalist world-view is an ancient book of our own where bronze aged people wrote things than can be twisted to agree with what we know today.

 

[alwight]

So you presume there is no super-nature, that all is nature.

Is our thinking process merely the movement of atoms in out head?

--Dave

I think it's more to do with electricity and chemicals but basically yes (and yes).

 

[DFT_Dave]

Presuming to answer for him: yes and yes. There in no evidence against that idea, and much to support it. The only think lacking in the naturalist world-view is an ancient book of our own where bronze aged people wrote things than can be twisted to agree with what we know today.

See my post #2032

How is it then that the atoms in your head don't agree with the atoms in my head?

Is there a failure in nature to communicate the same accurate information into all heads that nature is all there is and ever has been?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I think it's more to do with electricity and chemicals but basically yes (and yes).

See last post to gcthomas.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

See my post #2032

Doesn't seem to relate to my comments. :nono:

How is it then that the atoms in your head don't agree with the atoms in my head?

Different atoms, arranged differently. Similar gross structures, but differences nonetheless.