AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

"This review summarizes the evidence indicating that mutagenic mechanisms in vivo are essentially the same in all living cells. Unique metabolic reactions to a particular environmental stress apparently target specific genes for increased rates of transcription and mutation, resulting in higher mutation rates for those genes most likely to solve the problem. Kinetic models which have demonstrated predictive value are described and are shown to simulate mutagenesis in vivo in Escherichia coli, the p53 tumor suppressor gene, and somatic hypermutation. In all three models, direct correlations are seen between mutation frequencies and transcription rates. G and C nucleosides in single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) are intrinsically mutable, and G and C silent mutations in p53 and in VH framework regions provide compelling evidence for intrinsic mechanisms of mutability, since mutation outcomes are neutral and are not selected. During transcription, the availability of unpaired bases in the ssDNA of secondary structures is rate-limiting for, and determines the frequency of mutations in vivo. In vitro analyses also verify the conclusion that intrinsically mutable bases are in fact located in ssDNA loops of predicted secondary structures."-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23274173-Evolution has solved the delay problem of waiting for a chance serendipitous mutation. Here we see directed mutations! And evolution developed this all by chance! Tongue in cheek.

2385 views

DAVID: Unique metabolic reactions to a particular environmental stress apparently target specific genes for increased rates of transcription and mutation, resulting in higher mutation rates for those genes most likely to solve the problem. -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23274173-Evolution has solved the delay problem of waiting for a chance serendipitous mutation. Here we see directed mutations! And evolution developed this all by chance! Tongue in cheek.-This whole article seems to me to highlight the intelligence of the genome, but I still wonder to what extent new environments may also account for innovation as well as adaptation. I watched a programme about the Galapogos islands the other day, with their various unique "species", but these were variations of tortoises, albatrosses etc. If epigenetics can also lead to entirely new organs and entirely new organisms through innovative responses to different environments, there will be no need at all for random mutations as the inventive force behind evolutionary progress.

2401 views


> dhw: This whole article seems to me to highlight the intelligence of the genome-Beg to differ. The chemical molecules act automatically to the information imbedded in the genome structure. The intelligence that inbedded the information is elsewhere.

2378 views

dhw: This whole article seems to me to highlight the intelligence of the genome-DAVID: Beg to differ. The chemical molecules act automatically to the information imbedded in the genome structure. The intelligence that inbedded the information is elsewhere.-There is a continual breakdown in our communication on this subject, as you always focus on the origin of the evolutionary mechanism, whereas my focus lies on how evolution works. In particular, here, my question is whether the mechanism for adaptation is the same as that for innovation, which would dispense with the need for Darwin's random mutations. Unless your god preprogrammed the original "genome structure" to come up specifically with legs, wings, penises, vaginas, eyes, ears, noses, hearts, livers, kidneys, teeth, tongues, brains etc. etc., there has to be an inventive mechanism which takes its own decisions as and when environmental conditions are favourable for the introduction of such organs. Is it not possible, in your own interpretation of events, that God designed such a mechanism to function intelligently but without self-awareness within the genome, much as the first ants and bees were (we assume) intelligent but not self-aware when they created their homes and social structures? Yet again, let me ask you whether you think innovation is likely to have been caused by 1) your God's direct intervention, 2) random mutations, 3) the inventive intelligence of the genome.

2362 views

dhw: Is it not possible, in your own interpretation of events, that God designed such a mechanism to function intelligently but without self-awareness within the genome, much as the first ants and bees were (we assume) intelligent but not self-aware when they created their homes and social structures? Yet again, let me ask you whether you think innovation is likely to have been caused by 1) your God's direct intervention, 2) random mutations, 3) the inventive intelligence of the genome.-Yes I think God designed a genome mechanism to respond in a rather automatic and autonomic fashion to environmental challanges. The cells are not intelligent, but contain information implanted there probably from the beginining of life. The cells do not wilfully make changes on their own. They are programmed to do so. They are no more intelligent than your adding machine, which always gives you intelligent answers, but if you asked it, it cannot tell you how it did the sum.-I hope to finally settle the issue: cells are not intelligent, but are programmed to use information coded into them.

2391 views

DAVID: Yes I think God designed a genome mechanism to respond in a rather automatic and autonomic fashion to environmental challenges. The cells are not intelligent, but contain information implanted there probably from the beginning of life. The cells do not wilfully make changes on their own. They are programmed to do so. They are no more intelligent than your adding machine, which always gives you intelligent answers, but if you asked it, it cannot tell you how it did the sum.
I hope to finally settle the issue: cells are not intelligent, but are programmed to use information coded into them.-Some people think that humans are also programmed to use information coded into them! I know you hope to settle the issue, and I hesitate to go on trying the patience of our resident Job, but I'm unhappy with the reasoning that leads to a conclusion with such far-reaching implications ... for the theory of evolution, for some religions, and for atheism.-You think "God designed a genome mechanism to respond in a rather automatic and autonomic fashion to environmental challenges." I like "rather", because it leaves room for something extra, which I will add later. Why only "environmental challenges"? My focus is more on innovation than on adaptation (the response required by a challenge). We don't know to what extent these processes overlap, but you yourself have made the point ... from the survival of bacteria to the non-necessity of the human brain ... that evolution did not REQUIRE innovation. Every step from the first forms of life to ourselves, however, involves countless new inventions. And so if your God designed the mechanism, we have to decide whether he created each invention separately, "pre-programmed" it in the earliest forms of life, or it assembled itself.-Your adding machine can do nothing but add. It cannot come up with anything new. In this respect, it is the same as the liver cell, kidney cell, heart cell. But the intelligent force that put together the adding machine ... i.e. human intelligence ... can also make other machines. At one time there were no livers, kidneys or hearts. And so, once more, either your God invented each one separately, pre-programmed it right from the beginning, or created a mechanism capable of inventing it on its own initiative, analagous to humans inventing adding machines etc. on their own initiative. The latter is what I'm suggesting, not necessarily as a response to environmental challenges, but simply because new environments allowed for innovations which could live alongside existing forms of life. The creation of something new that actually works requires not just "information" but the intelligent use of that information.-I'm very reluctant to define "intelligence", which is so difficult to separate from "consciousness/awareness", and I prefer to dwell on what I regard as the fact that there are different levels. However, I'm going to give it a go, because this discussion needs it. I suggest: "the ability of living organisms to learn, understand, remember, process and use information". NB this removes the need to discuss artificial intelligence, which I regard as a separate subject; "use" allows for inventiveness; the definition neither includes nor excludes self-awareness, because in my view any definition has to allow for the different levels. If you accept it, perhaps you can also accept that, unless God pre-programmed every single innovation, new organs were invented by the intelligent "genome mechanism" (no doubt scientifically more accurate than my "cell") which ultimately enabled the adding machine to be invented by intelligent humans, the ant colony to be invented by intelligent ants, and virtually every procedure you've listed under "Nature's Wonders" to be invented by other intelligent organisms. In other words, "rather automatic and autonomic" should be supplemented by a degree of autonomous intelligence, without which there could have been no innovation and hence no evolution.

2382 views

dhw: I'm very reluctant to define "intelligence", which is so difficult to separate from "consciousness/awareness", and I prefer to dwell on what I regard as the fact that there are different levels. However, I'm going to give it a go, because this discussion needs it. I suggest: "the ability of living organisms to learn, understand, remember, process and use information". -I can accept that definition as it is broad and covers most of what we think of when discussiong intellgent consciousness.-> dhw: If you accept it, perhaps you can also accept that, unless God pre-programmed every single innovation, new organs were invented by the intelligent "genome mechanism" ........In other words, "rather automatic and autonomic" should be supplemented by a degree of autonomous intelligence, without which there could have been no innovation and hence no evolution.-> My focus is more on innovation than on adaptation (the response required by a challenge). We don't know to what extent these processes overlap, but you yourself have made the point ... from the survival of bacteria to the non-necessity of the human brain ... that evolution did not REQUIRE innovation.-Brief answer: yours is the $64,000 question. We just don't know enough to give clear answers. I have my preferences.-Since we really still don't know how species originate, your proposals are valid up to a point. Autonomic means automatic control without outside control, and I believe adaptive mechanisms appear to fit that role to a marked degree, but the genome acts on implanted information to do that. My internal organs run automatically but under tight feedback controls. They invent nothing. The genome adapts with epigenetic changes, but the steps to a new species are not clear. Not to me at least. Epigenetics plays a major role, but it is not clear how inheritable those adaptations are.-I must admit, there is no way of knowing whether God steps in at appropraite moments or whether the uncalled-for advances, multicellularity, the big brain, etc. are pre-programmed. Since our arrival on the scene with our consciousness is uncalled for, the best guess is that it is all pre-programmed. We haven't decoded all of junk DNA yet. Much of it as I have pointed out is just geographic filler to set up 3-D relationships between genes and other modifying and controlling segments for expression. I would guess that any pre-planning is in the junk portion not yet understood. -The issue is, how bright is the mind of God? If He is all they say, then He did this in the beginning. If not that bright, He has to reajust things now and then. Since He prefers evolutionary processes in making a universe and also life and humans, I must really conclude that He appears to be pretty assured of his ability to control ongoing processes and not have bother to step in. That doesn't make me a deist. I think He is fully aware of what is going on and watches closely as a good theist would expect.

2399 views

DAVID: Since we really still don't know how species originate, your proposals are valid up to a point. [...] The genome adapts with epigenetic changes, but the steps to a new species are not clear. Not to me at least. Epigenetics plays a major role, but it is not clear how inheritable those adaptations are.-I must admit, there is no way of knowing whether God steps in at appropriate moments or whether the uncalled-for advances, multicellularity, the big brain, etc. are pre-programmed. Since our arrival on the scene with our consciousness is uncalled for, the best guess is that it is all pre-programmed.-The one thing that is clear from your post is that nothing is clear, and I'm more than happy to settle for my proposal being "valid up to a point". The same qualification has to apply to all proposals. I'd like to round this off with a summary of the ramifications of my own, which is that new organs and organisms are the result of an intelligent mechanism within the genome that invents new cell combinations as and when the environment allows them. (Intelligence = the ability of living organisms to learn, understand, remember, process and use information.) Natural selection decides which of these inventions will survive. My starting point is the belief that all forms of life are descended from earlier forms, going back to Darwin's original few forms or one.-Alternatives: 1) innovations are the result of an endless series of random but functional mutations; 2) a god directly created every innovation; 3) a god preprogrammed every innovation into the earliest form(s) of life. -From an evolutionary standpoint, the intelligent genome explains not only how innovations take place, but also why the history of evolution has developed into a higgledy-piggledy bush, as changing environments result in extinctions and innovations (while some existing species survive because there is also a mechanism ... possibly the same one ... that enables adaptation). Any major change in the environment could result in a massive increase in innovations (possible explanation for the Cambrian Explosion).-From an atheist standpoint, this has the advantage of entirely removing reliance on Darwin's random mutations, so that evolution itself becomes a naturally creative process dependent solely on interaction between living organisms and a changing environment. It has the disadvantage that the so-called "simple" forms of life must have incorporated this inventive intelligence from the beginning in a mechanism so complex that the odds against its chance assembly become incalculable. -From a theist standpoint, the latter is the most obvious advantage. However, the above scenario runs counter to the anthropocentric interpretation of evolution, because of its higgledy-piggledy progress, unless God found his plans going awry and needed to intervene "at appropriate moments" (goodbye to omniscience and omnipotence). The bush resulting from the interplay between the mechanism and the changing environment also favours the version of deism which makes God the creator of the "intelligent genome", who then sits back and watches evolution run its course without intervention. Alternatives: 1) God set up the mechanism without any particular aim, but tinkered with it as he became aware of its possibilities (out goes omniscience again); 2) human reason cannot fathom the workings of God's mind, and we should abandon it ... unless...um...it leads us to have faith in him.

2374 views


>dhw; From an atheist standpoint, this has the advantage of entirely removing reliance on Darwin's random mutations, so that evolution itself becomes a naturally creative process dependent solely on interaction between living organisms and a changing environment. It has the disadvantage that the so-called "simple" forms of life must have incorporated this inventive intelligence from the beginning in a mechanism so complex that the odds against its chance assembly become incalculable. -Bravo. Finally seeing my point. of course, the complexity has to be at the very beginning or you can't get hwere from there.
> 
> dhw; From a theist standpoint, the latter is the most obvious advantage. However, the above scenario runs counter to the anthropocentric interpretation of evolution, because of its higgledy-piggledy progress, unless God found his plans going awry and needed to intervene "at appropriate moments" (goodbye to omniscience and omnipotence). -No. It is anthropocentric. We are here. What caused ur big brain? it wasn't needed by the circumstances what it appeared. It was caused! We started very close to apes. They are still doing their thing, thank you, living just fine as long as we con't interfere, which unfortunately we tend to do. They didn't grow any more neurons because they were not required Neither were ours but we've got them. For no good reason except under pre-planning they were required.

2354 views

dhw; [...] the so-called "simple" forms of life must have incorporated this inventive intelligence from the beginning in a mechanism so complex that the odds against its chance assembly become incalculable.
 
DAVID: Bravo. Finally seeing my point. of course, the complexity has to be at the very beginning or you can't get here from there.-Not "finally", David. This has always been one of the prime reasons why I am an agnostic and not an atheist.-dhw; [...] the above scenario runs counter to the anthropocentric interpretation of evolution, because of its higgledy-piggledy progress, unless God found his plans going awry and needed to intervene "at appropriate moments" (goodbye to omniscience and omnipotence). -DAVID: No. It is anthropocentric. We are here. What caused our big brain? it wasn't needed by the circumstances what it appeared. It was caused! We started very close to apes. They are still doing their thing, thank you, living just fine as long as we don't interfere, which unfortunately we tend to do. They didn't grow any more neurons because they were not required Neither were ours but we've got them. For no good reason except under pre-planning they were required.-You are repeating part of my post of 09 January at 19.21: "you yourself have made the point ... from the survival of bacteria to the non-necessity of the human brain ... that evolution did not REQUIRE innovation". Your questions concerning the human brain can be applied to EVERY innovation, since earlier forms of life have survived without legs, wings, eyes etc. Should we say that evolution is spidercentric, because spiders' webs were not required, birdcentric because wings were not required, antcentric because ant colonies were not required? They are also "here"! Every innovation dating back to the earliest forms of life is a "bonus", and we have agreed that this can only be traced to a mechanism that must have been there at the beginning, unless one believes in Creationism. If those earliest forms of life were preprogrammed eventually to produce the human brain, they must have been preprogrammed eventually to produce webs, wings, and colonies (not to mention preprogramming the environmental changes without which these innovations would not have happened). And presumably they were also preprogrammed eventually to produce dinosaurs and dodos. Was their extinction also preprogrammed within those earliest forms of life? The suggestion that these contained a mechanism that could invent new things in accordance with a changing environment explains all the comings and goings that have led to the higgledy-piggledy bush, which you yourself have admitted is not a logical structure if from the very beginning the aim was to produce humans.

2344 views

DAVID: Bravo. Finally seeing my point. of course, the complexity has to be at the very beginning or you can't get here from there.
> 
> dhw: Not "finally", David. This has always been one of the prime reasons why I am an agnostic and not an atheist.
> 
> dhw;You are repeating part of my post of 09 January at 19.21: "you yourself have made the point ... from the survival of bacteria to the non-necessity of the human brain ... that evolution did not REQUIRE innovation". Your questions concerning the human brain can be applied to EVERY innovation, since earlier forms of life have survived without legs, wings, eyes etc. Should we say that evolution is spidercentric, because spiders' webs were not required,-My point is finer than as you interpret it. My point is that the new complexities are never required, but they happen anyway. There is no reason for bacteria to become multicellular. They are very successful. But we can see that multicellularity leads to sexuality, and sexual reproduction allows for much more mixing of DNA, and more opportunities for innovation and complexity. I think that these observations imply a drive for complexity from the beginning. Why God chose to advance through evolution is unknown to us. But that complexification leads to the bush like evolutionary result, and not Darwin's tree (as in his notebook).-It is as if God said let's throw everything at the fan and see where it lands, but since the process ended up with consciousness, obviously a very desirable goal, I must conclude that this shotgun approach was pre-ordained or guided to this desired result.-My point about complexity at the very beginning of life is that the earliest cells had to be complex or they couldn't really BE Alive. Many scientists are coming to that realization and there have been new discussions of the definition of life to take that into account. Chance cannot create that complexity. Therefore, God did it. Therefore there is a God. From my viewpoint it is a simple set of reasonable steps to that conclusion.

2346 views

dhw;You are repeating part of my post of 09 January at 19.21: "you yourself have made the point ... from the survival of bacteria to the non-necessity of the human brain ... that evolution did not REQUIRE innovation". Your questions concerning the human brain can be applied to EVERY innovation, since earlier forms of life have survived without legs, wings, eyes etc. Should we say that evolution is spidercentric, because spiders' webs were not required,
> 
> David: ... Why God chose to advance through evolution is unknown to us....
> 
> It is as if God said let's throw everything at the fan and see where it lands, but since the process ended up with consciousness, obviously a very desirable goal, I must conclude that this shotgun approach was pre-ordained or guided to this desired result.
> -I have commented several times on this observation, but I feel it is worth repeating. IT WAS DONE THIS WAY BECAUSE HAD TO BE DONE THIS WAY! No other way would have worked out to be a self-sustaining ecosystem. The lump of rock that was proto-earth was every bit as inhospitable to modern life as deep space is. We needed heat, weather patterns, and a way of recycling land; hence those darned earthquakes and volcanoes that DHW likes to lament. We NEED them or we could not exist here. The same with early bacterial stages of life. They were an absolute necessity for any other form of life to exist. Even IF God had just decided to create creatures from thin air, fully formed and evolved, they still would have needed all of the ground work that came before them or they would have been dead in under a minute. -There was no blind chance involved, nor was there any shot gun scatter approach taken, any more than it is a 'shotgun approach' for an automobile engineer to make sure that there is access to rubber, vynyl, steel, copper, oil, petroleum, glass(all of which could be broken down further into base components) was available BEFORE he tried to build a car. Let's say you were the master engineer, and you had the blueprints for a Roadster(or whatever your car of choice is), and you wanted to build it but there was no infrastructure. You could envision every aspect, right down to the top speed, the wind in your hair, the winding roads running through the hills. If none of that, nor the chemical factories, assembly plants, fueling stations, highways, etc etc etc etc were in place, in order to achieve your goal you would have to begin from the beginning.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2347 views


> > David: ... Why God chose to advance through evolution is unknown to us....
> > 
> > It is as if God said let's throw everything at the fan and see where it lands, but since the process ended up with consciousness, obviously a very desirable goal, I must conclude that this shotgun approach was pre-ordained or guided to this desired result.
> > 
> 
> Tony: I have commented several times on this observation, but I feel it is worth repeating. IT WAS DONE THIS WAY BECAUSE HAD TO BE DONE THIS WAY! No other way would have worked out to be a self-sustaining ecosystem........ There was no blind chance involved, nor was there any shot gun scatter approach taken, -It is obvious to me that your concept of God is a limited God. He had to work with what He had after He created or invented the universe. The universe had to evolve itself under His rules. The same thing seems to apply to the Earth. It had to drift its continents, fix its Moon, develop its CO2-rock cycle, scatter around enough nutrients for the early one-celled guys, as the eco-systems developed.-I find that a reasonable approach, but that does away with an all-powerful, all knowing, omnipotent, total controller of a 'god'. Why do you deny religions' version of God? -Since I deny myself the privilege of making up the rules about God's personality and powers, I really want to hear yours.

2387 views

David: It is obvious to me that your concept of God is a limited God. He had to work with what He had after He created or invented the universe. The universe had to evolve itself under His rules. The same thing seems to apply to the Earth. It had to drift its continents, fix its Moon, develop its CO2-rock cycle, scatter around enough nutrients for the early one-celled guys, as the eco-systems developed.
> 
> I find that a reasonable approach, but that does away with an all-powerful, all knowing, omnipotent, total controller of a 'god'. Why do you deny religions' version of God? 
> 
> Since I deny myself the privilege of making up the rules about God's personality and powers, I really want to hear yours.-You are talking about the three "O's", omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. -It is not so much a limitation of God's power or abilities. He may or may not be limited in what he can do. I don't know for certain and the bible actually doesn't go into whether or not he has limitations on his power, though I would assume that there are in fact limitations, even if they are so far beyond our comprehension that it would be meaningless for us to consider them as limitations. -Who knows the system better than it's designer and architect? When a person designs a system, right down to the molecular or quantum structure of each particle, that person holds great predictive power over what will happen. However, that does not mean that the system can not surprise them, or do unexpected things. My view of god is that he is wise and knowledgeable beyond what we can comprehend, fully knowing things that we do not know enough about to even as questions about them. However, there is a difference in saying that the system's architect knows everything about the system and saying that the system's architect knows everything there is to know.-I am not as certain on the subject of Omnipresence. On one hand, there is the concept that "God" entails all of the energy of the universe come sentient, so that all things would by necessity be part of him. On the other, there are numerous references throughout the scriptures of every religion that see limitations of form put on God. I do not know which is correct, and I can only speculate. -
As for god being limited in the sense of your first paragraph, I think you misunderstand. What I am talking about is limitations of the system, not of the designer. You could build a supercomputer, and it would still be subject to the very laws of physics that allow it to work in the first place. A rule that enables something to happen, by its very nature, also implies a limitation. There is ALWAYS a balance. What I was talking about in my previous post was that he designed the system, knew the needs and requirements of the system, and built the necessary requirements into the system, as any good designer would.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2357 views


> Tony: It is not so much a limitation of God's power or abilities. He may or may not be limited in what he can do. -The impression I get from religion's description of God is that He is all powerful and can design and do anything He wants. he can intervene at any time and geet things done his way. You are not decribing that at all.-> 
> Tony: Who knows the system better than it's designer and architect? ........However, there is a difference in saying that the system's architect knows everything about the system and saying that the system's architect knows everything there is to know.-Again, not the God as inferred by most religions. They say: He knows your every thought and can step into every system and fix it to his liking. your god is more like my concept.
> 
> Tony: I am not as certain on the subject of Omnipresence. On one hand, there is the concept that "God" entails all of the energy of the universe come sentient, so that all things would by necessity be part of him. On the other, there are numerous references throughout the scriptures of every religion that see limitations of form put on God. I do not know which is correct, and I can only speculate. -As do the religions, because they don't know any more than you or I.
> 
> 
> Tony: As for god being limited in the sense of your first paragraph, I think you misunderstand. What I am talking about is limitations of the system, not of the designer. -An omniscient God should be able to expect every outcome of his invented system. Yours can't, therefore, yours has very definite limits in his powers.-You sound alot like me. But my thought is that we cannot know if God has any limits to his powers. That is why I presume not to make definite statements.-I fully understand your approach to ecosystems. With living organisms, they have to live ahd die and evolve to set up the checks abd balances that make a balanced system. And it is the same to create a life-bearing Earth from a big rock with a nickel-iron core. But religion's god knows the outcome in advance. Obviously as a theist, or deist(?) you only accept a portion of that statement.

2347 views

David:The impression I get from religion's description of God is that He is all powerful and can design and do anything He wants. he can intervene at any time and geet things done his way. You are not decribing that at all.
> -As a game designer, I guess I have a slightly different perspective. To the player, the designer is all powerful, but the good designer knows not only that they must exercise restraint in order to make a great game, but that the limitations inherent in what they are doing or their abilities is often beyond the understanding of the player. Does God have limitations? I do not know, but even if he did those limitations are beyond my understanding and so utterly meaningless to me. -
> David: Again, not the God as inferred by most religions. They say: He knows your every thought and can step into every system and fix it to his liking. your god is more like my concept.
> > -I do not agree with the interpretations of 'most religions' any more than you do. While I do think God CAN know your thoughts, and CAN intervene, that is not the same as saying that he does so at all times, which would be the text book definition of omnipresence. -
> > 
> An omniscient God should be able to expect every outcome of his invented system. Yours can't, therefore, yours has very definite limits in his powers.
> -Tarn Adams is a game designer that created one of the most complex simulation games on the planet, called Dwarf Fortress. If Tarn had perfect information, it is quite reasonable to expect that he could predict with a tremendous degree of accuracy the state of his game at any given moment. However, there is one thing that our 'simulation' has that his doesn't: free will. We have the ability to make choices that will affect the outcome of events at any given step. Now, it may be possible to predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy what the trends will be, but the individual outcomes are not predetermined. That is why throughout the bible you will see YHWH saying "I will make so&so do this thing..". He doesn't say that he already knows that they are going to do it, he says that he will make them do it. This would be akin to a game developer putting a cheatcode into his games that would allow him to manipulate what would otherwise be random events. -So yes, there is at least ONE very definite limit to God's powers. He does not know with 100% certainty what choices we will make, even if he can make a damn good guess.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2467 views


> Tony: I do not agree with the interpretations of 'most religions' any more than you do. While I do think God CAN know your thoughts, and CAN intervene, that is not the same as saying that he does so at all times, which would be the text book definition of omnipresence. -I don't know how personal God is in entering every human's mind. Perhaps He does when a specific person is communicating with him. And we must remember, only 1/2 of us believe in a single God head. The East may know more about reality than we do in the West.--
> Tony: Tarn Adams is a game designer that created one of the most complex simulation games on the planet, called Dwarf Fortress. If Tarn had perfect information, it is quite reasonable to expect that he could predict with a tremendous degree of accuracy the state of his game at any given moment. However, there is one thing that our 'simulation' has that his doesn't: free will. ....... So yes, there is at least ONE very definite limit to God's powers. He does not know with 100% certainty what choices we will make, even if he can make a damn good guess.-I am convinced God gave us Free Will and that it really exists, contrary to Rom's position. Therefore, I think you are right. God cannot know every human outcome, cannot have precognition in regards to humanity, and it is his doing.

2346 views


> > Tony: Tarn Adams is a game designer that created one of the most complex simulation games on the planet, called Dwarf Fortress. If Tarn had perfect information, it is quite reasonable to expect that he could predict with a tremendous degree of accuracy the state of his game at any given moment. However, there is one thing that our 'simulation' has that his doesn't: free will. ....... So yes, there is at least ONE very definite limit to God's powers. He does not know with 100% certainty what choices we will make, even if he can make a damn good guess.
> 
> David: I am convinced God gave us Free Will and that it really exists, contrary to Rom's position. Therefore, I think you are right. God cannot know every human outcome, cannot have precognition in regards to humanity, and it is his doing.-That is one of the reasons I trust the bible more than other religious texts. It OPENLY ADMITS that god does not know the outcome of free will(See Abraham/Job accounts), AND it openly admits that he is not above manipulating events/people in order to maneuver things to how he wants them to be. (See practically every prophecy ever made). There is a plan, and I am fully confident that he will make things happen in his own time as needed in order for that plan to come to pass.-
Getting back to the topic of epigenetics, this mechanism seems to suit a number of really interesting design principles. It allows for temporary changes as a sort of trial and error. It keeps a running log of what has been happening, written right into the genetic code. It even metes out short term punishment for doing stupid stuff, even without the need for God to intervene on a case by case basis. In computer design we might call this a force feedback controller, or a PID controller. A self correcting control that balances internal forces against external forces and strives to strike a balance between them. By their nature, these controllers have to take a little bit of history into account so that they can anticipate and adapt to changing conditions.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2349 views

TONY: I have commented several times on this observation, but I feel it is worth repeating. The lump of rock that was proto-earth was every bit as inhospitable to modern life as deep space is. We needed heat, weather patterns, and a way of recycling land; hence those darned earthquakes and volcanoes that DHW likes to lament. We NEED them or we could not exist here. The same with early bacterial stages of life. They were an absolute necessity for any other form of life to exist. Even IF God had just decided to create creatures from thin air, fully formed and evolved, they still would have needed all of the ground work that came before them or they would have been dead in under a minute.-The point at issue here is not the conditions or organisms necessary for life and evolution, but the reason for the evolutionary bush. If a god intended to produce humans from the start (the subject of the discussion between David and me), why did he create dodos and dinosaurs? Why would your "master engineer" make a disposable rocking horse and toy drum before building his roadster? An autonomous, inventive mechanism (itself invented by a god if you like) coming up with innovations as allowed by environmental change is a proposal that would explain the bush. So would a god experimenting, either ad hoc or with a particular goal he didn't know how to achieve.
 
However, I'd like to follow up your own line of argument as it encapsulates an on-going difference between us. You may well be right about conditions. This is the only life-supporting world we know, the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution is the only life history we know, and the mixture of sun and rain, drought and flood, earthquakes, volcanoes, bacteria, viruses, diseases, cures, laughter, tears is the only combination we know. And so maybe that is the way it HAS to be (a kind of anthropic principle) ... but not if the particular god you believe in exists. This is the god who is said to have created the garden of Eden, where everything was apparently perfect until Adam and Eve messed things up, thereby enabling some religious people to blame all the ills of the world on human beings. You say of the earth's history: "No other way would have worked out to be a self-sustaining ecosystem." And yet you believe in Chapter 21 of Revelations, which you quoted as an illustration of your god's power and goodness: "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. [...] Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people [...] And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Obviously, then, your God is capable of creating a new, pain-free earth with, presumably, a new self-sustaining ecosystem to accommodate our resurrected bodies (I have asked you several questions about the practicalities of this). I don't know how you can reconcile Eden and the new earth with "IT HAD TO BE DONE THIS WAY".
 
In your response to BBella under "Love me..." (11 January at 2013) you wrote: "Hard to explain what I see in my own head." I think we all have the same trouble, but it's even harder to explain what we see in other heads, especially when the other head may not even be there at all! However, if your God does exist, there has to be some sort of logic behind his actions, and that's what you two theists and this agnostic are hunting for!-****** -This was written before I had read the latest, very interesting exchange between you and David, but I am posing a different set of questions.-
---

2382 views

DHW: The point at issue here is not the conditions or organisms necessary for life and evolution, but the reason for the evolutionary bush. If a god intended to produce humans from the start (the subject of the discussion between David and me), why did he create dodos and dinosaurs? Why would your "master engineer" make a disposable rocking horse and toy drum before building his roadster? An autonomous, inventive mechanism (itself invented by a god if you like) coming up with innovations as allowed by environmental change is a proposal that would explain the bush. So would a god experimenting, either ad hoc or with a particular goal he didn't know how to achieve.
> -I have said before that there was a larger purpose that was interrupted by the Eden event. So, one area where I sort of differ(I think) with David is that I do not believe that humanity is the end all be all of the divine purpose. We are an integral part though, just as your evolutionary 'bush' is. Our stated purpose was to be the gardener, if you will, the caretaker, the 'husband' of the natural world. As designed, it is/was a symbiotic relationship, one that we have managed to foul up in grand style. As for why it was designed with innovation and inventive mechanisms in place, it is for the same reason that the engineer would allow a steering wheel and independent suspension in the vehicle. The road is not always straight or even, and the vehicle must be able to adjust accordingly. As related to this discussion, the earth was not always going to be precisely the same as when it was created. That would be a dead world, and boring to boot. You are asking why God didn't build a train that ran on rails instead of an all-terrain vehicle with all the bells and whistles. I don't know why he didn't, but I am certainly GLAD that he didn't. -> DHW: ...This is the only life-supporting world we know, the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution is the only life history we know, and the mixture of sun and rain, drought and flood, earthquakes, volcanoes, bacteria, viruses, diseases, cures, laughter, tears is the only combination we know. And so maybe that is the way it HAS to be (a kind of anthropic principle) ... but not if the particular god you believe in exists. This is the god who is said to have created the garden of Eden, where everything was apparently perfect until Adam and Eve messed things up, thereby enabling some religious people to blame all the ills of the world on human beings. You say of the earth's history: "No other way would have worked out to be a self-sustaining ecosystem." And yet you believe in Chapter 21 of Revelations, which you quoted as an illustration of your god's power and goodness: "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. [...] Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people [...] And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Obviously, then, your God is capable of creating a new, pain-free earth with, presumably, a new self-sustaining ecosystem to accommodate our resurrected bodies (I have asked you several questions about the practicalities of this). I don't know how you can reconcile Eden and the new earth with "IT HAD TO BE DONE THIS WAY".
> 
> -You are going to accuse me of cherry picking, but here it is anyway. There are several instances in the bible where it refers to the "Earth" specifically in regards to the current civilization of humanity in all its forms. More reading into revelation would find you reading clearly about the destruction of the political and religious systems in the 'world'(something many religions gloss over because they are absolutely sure they are the 'right' one and hence that doesn't apply to them). How often do we use the word 'Earth' to refer to something other than the physical planet as a whole? Also, when you take the verse you quoted in context with the rest of the book, it would be referencing the new government set up by Christ and passed to YHWH at the end of 1000 years. I know you are going to try and pick this paragraph to pieces, and I don't blame you, but that is it in a nut shell to the best of my ability to explain. -In that sense, there is no need to create a new universe from scratch. It is not the earth that is broke, it is us. The earth would heal itself in short order if we would quit screwing around with it, as science could well testify too.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2406 views

TONY: So, one area where I sort of differ(I think) with David is that I do not believe that humanity is the end all be all of the divine purpose. We are an integral part though, just as your evolutionary 'bush' is. Our stated purpose was to be the gardener, if you will, the caretaker, the 'husband' of the natural world. [...] As for why it was designed with innovation and inventive mechanisms in place [...] the earth was not always going to be precisely the same as when it was created. That would be a dead world, and boring to boot.-Of course I can't go along with "stated purpose", since I don't accept the authority of your sources, but putting on my theist hat, I'm happy with your agreement concerning inventive mechanisms, and with your reference to "boring". This particular section of the discussion concerned David's belief that humans were the ultimate aim, and evolution was pre-programmed to produce them. I was not "asking why God didn't build a train that ran on rails" but pointing out that God didn't build a train, which suggests that humans were not the ultimate aim.-TONY: I know you are going to try and pick this paragraph to pieces, and I don't blame you, but that is it in a nut shell to the best of my ability to explain.
 
I shan't quote the paragraph or "pick it to pieces", because my own post was specifically targeted at what seem to me to be confusing elements in your beliefs or arguments. References to more texts and details only confuse me more! Using Revelation and other texts, you have told me: 1) We are going to be physically resurrected; 2) God will create a new earth, will kill off the resurrected and unreformed sinners forever, but will allow the faithful to live with him (presumably forever) on this new earth; 3) God could not have created our planet any other way. If any of this is wrong, do please correct me. If not, I would like to know in your own words: 1) how you think the practical problems of resurrection will be solved, 2) what this "new earth" actually means if it DOESN'T mean a physical planet on which the physically resurrected bodies will live with God forever, and 3) why you believe that God is incapable of building a pain-free planet, in spite of Revelation 21, 1-4!-However, if these beliefs really make sense to you, I can accept that they are based on faith and I should not expect a rational answer, any more than I would expect a rational answer from an atheist if I asked him why he believed chance could assemble a mechanism too complex for humans to understand let alone replicate. I am quite good at asking questions, but hopeless at answering them, so I'm in no position to expect answers from others!
 
(I share your scepticism about existing political and religious systems, but only partially accept your claim that the earth would heal itself in short order if we would quit screwing around with it.)

2358 views

DHW: References to more texts and details only confuse me more! Using Revelation and other texts, you have told me: 1) We are going to be physically resurrected; -Yes.->DHW: 2) God will create a new earth, will kill off the resurrected and unreformed sinners forever, but will allow the faithful to live with him (presumably forever) on this new earth; -By all indications, the creation of a 'New Earth' is in reference to a new society on all levels, particularly political and religious. The 1000 year reign of Christ appears to involve a mass cleanup of the planet and a (re-)education of the population. ->3) God could not have created our planet any other way. If any of this is wrong, do please correct me. -It is the destination, the final goal, that determines the design constraints, not the limitations of the designer. The design constraints for building a 10 story building in an earth quake zone are different than those for constructing the same building in a hurricane zone. Each building has to be able to withstand different stressors. I am saying that God has a purpose for creating all of this, even if we do not know what that purpose is yet. That purpose, the ultimate goal, will have been the deciding factor for the design constraints that govern everything else. In other words, it could not have been done any other way and still achieved the ultimate purpose, whatever that may be. (We can get more into that later if you want)->DHW: If not, I would like to know in your own words: 1) how you think the practical problems of resurrection will be solved, -Which problems, specifically?-Number two is answered above.->3) why you believe that God is incapable of building a pain-free planet, in spite of Revelation 21, 1-4!-Incapable is the wrong word. I simply think that creating a world without the POSSIBILITY of pain would have been unwise. I would also point out that, at least according to biblical sources, God also feels pain. Of course, all of his pains are referred to as emotional in nature, but I do not think that changes anything when you consider that all of our pain is also generated in our own heads. -Pain is the bodies warning system. I am grateful that pain exists, because it keeps me from doing permanent harm to myself from simple inattention. It alerts me when something is wrong. Now, if you were to read in Revelation and other books of the bible, you would see that much detail went into talk about removing the external sources of pain. That leaves internal sources, which can be solved through social means, and natural sources(weather/geological) which can be completely avoided. I still think the possibility of pain will exist because it is a valuable component of our make up. However, that is only speculation. -> 
>DHW: However, if these beliefs really make sense to you, I can accept that they are based on faith and I should not expect a rational answer.-Of course you should!! God is extremely rational, by all accounts, so those that profess any level of faith in him should also strive to be rational and reasonable. I do not see any of my beliefs to be at all far fetched or contrary to any existing evidence that we have. -> (I share your skepticism about existing political and religious systems, but only partially accept your claim that the earth would heal itself in short order if we would quit screwing around with it.)-National Geographic(or Discover, can't remember) did a special that talked about this very thing. According to them, within 200 years most evidence of humanity would be gone. Within 2k years, it would be as if we never existed except for some extreme examples.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2336 views


> Tony: It is the destination, the final goal, that determines the design constraints, not the limitations of the designer. The design constraints for building a 10 story building in an earth quake zone are different than those for constructing the same building in a hurricane zone. Each building has to be able to withstand different stressors. I am saying that God has a purpose for creating all of this, even if we do not know what that purpose is yet. That purpose, the ultimate goal, will have been the deciding factor for the design constraints that govern everything else. In other words, it could not have been done any other way and still achieved the ultimate purpose, whatever that may be. (We can get more into that later if you want)-Thank you for this paragraph. I don't think dhw understands this. Design has to be appropriate for the goal. Teleology is always involved. This is why the atheists look at design in humans and laugh at some of the arrangements, but as research goes on into the mechanisms, it is found that it may look strange or inappropraite, but these odd arrangments turn out to be the best functional endpoint. Our backwards, upside down retina can pick up one photon! The crazy recurrent laryngeal may loop around an artery in the top of the chest, but there are branches that have functions in the chest. The list is really endless.

2371 views

This thread has moved far away from its original subject of epigenetics. I hope you will forgive me for using (abusing?) the mighty powers invested in me, and changing the heading of the last few posts, so that we can bring some sort of order to what is rapidly becoming a higgledy-piggledy bush. -TONY: By all indications, the creation of a 'New Earth' is in reference to a new society on all levels, particularly political and religious. The 1000 year reign of Christ appears to involve a mass cleanup of the planet and a (re-)education of the population. -But there will be no death, sorrow, crying or pain, according to the text you recommended to me. (See below)-TONY: It is the destination, the final goal, that determines the design constraints, not the limitations of the designer. [...] I am saying that God has a purpose for creating all of this, even if we do not know what that purpose is yet. That purpose, the ultimate goal, will have been the deciding factor for the design constraints that govern everything else. In other words, it could not have been done any other way and still achieved the ultimate purpose, whatever that may be. (Later: "God is extremely rational, by all accounts, so those that profess any level of faith in him should also strive to be rational and reasonable.")-DAVID: Thank you for this paragraph. I don't think dhw understands this. Design has to be appropriate for the goal. Teleology is always involved.-So God is perfectly capable of building a pain-free, sorrow-free, death-free world (see above), but the world he built has to be the way it is because that's the way he wanted it to be, though we don't know why. This argument consists of nothing but premises based purely on faith ... and there is nothing wrong with pure faith so long as it doesn't harm anyone. But I'm sure you will understand that, for someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in your particular version of God, such arguments seem neither rational nor reasonable.
 
TONY: Incapable is the wrong word. I simply think that creating a world without the POSSIBILITY of pain would have been unwise.-But the new earth will be free of pain, and that will not be unwise.-DHW: If not, I would like to know in your own words: 1) how you think the practical problems of resurrection will be solved? 
TONY: Which problems, specifically?-I listed them in my post of 3 January at 13.18 under "Love me or else" (Part One), 4th paragraph.-Dhw: I share your skepticism about existing political and religious systems, but only partially accept your claim that the earth would heal itself in short order if we would quit screwing around with it.-TONY: National Geographic (or Discover, can't remember) did a special that talked about this very thing. According to them, within 200 years most evidence of humanity would be gone. Within 2k years, it would be as if we never existed except for some extreme examples.-And so we would be back to a planet riddled with climatic upheavals, floods, droughts, ice ages, earthquakes, volcanoes, colliding asteroids, pain, species extinctions ... just as it was before we arrived. But we won't be around then to say it's all our fault.

2346 views

I am rather tired of going round and round on this. You see my views as unreasonable and irrational because they are based on faith, which to me, is based on evidence. -I see your view of the potential for pain as a complete negative just as irrational and unreasonable. Pain serves an important purpose. It teaches us lessons we were too stupid to learn from the wisdom of others. -Mom: Don't the stove.-Kid touches the stove and get's burned.-Kid: OWWWWWWWWW it hurts it hurts-Mom: I told you not to do it, maybe now you will learn. -
You are blaming mom for heating up the stove that cooks your food and saying that it is her fault you got burned. If you were the child in that conversation your next line would be "Mom why did you heat the stove up causing me to get burned?! You are so mean! You must not love me nor care about be, nor even know how to cook because I got burned on your stove when I did what you told me not to do!"-
I am not trying to be sarcastic or dismissive here, but this is truly how the argument about a world without pain comes across to me. -Mom: "When you are older and wiser, I will teach you how to cook, and you will not get burned any more because you know how to cook." -Kid: "Why didn't you just teach me to cook before so that it would burn me so that I wouldn't get hurt."-Mom: "I was trying to teach you child, but you refused to listen and did what you wanted to do. So, you got burned. When you are ready to listen, I will be here to teach you."-Kid: "But the stove will still be hot!! It will still be possible for me to get burned."-Mom gets exhasperated: "Your point? Perhaps you would like cold meals or wrinkled clothing? Perhaps you would like to stay up all night or eat sweets for every meal without getting sick? Perhaps you would like to hold your breath for a week and not suffocate...."-
I could go on and on with the irrationality of complaining that the possibility of pain should not exist.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2363 views


> Tony: I could go on and on with the irrationality of complaining that the possibility of pain should not exist.-I'm on your side. Pain is a friend that warns you of trouble so you can do something to protect yourself, as you have stated.-The issue of evil can be approached in a number of ways, but pain caused by other humans to other humans is not under God's control. In evolution 'red in tooth and claw' is part of the mechanism of evolution. Living animals have to eat, and eat each other they do. They also set up balances in nature that are necessary as you have pointed out in your discusdsion of ecosystems. Life requires ingestion of nutrients. Try and get by without 'red tooth and claw'! -Perhaps dhw would prefer life never existed. I cannot imagine another arrangement for an evolutionary process, if there is a large element of competition to test the genetic advances. It is amusing to think dhw might prefer that God made everything in advance so as to get around the process of evolution, and gave Man dominion over everything as in Genesis, with no free will and gentle human personalites.

2381 views

TONY: I am rather tired of going round and round on this. You see my views as unreasonable and irrational because they are based on faith, which to me, is based on evidence. 
I see your view of the potential for pain as a complete negative just as irrational and unreasonable. Pain serves an important purpose. It teaches us lessons we were too stupid to learn from the wisdom of others. [Followed by some excellent examples, vividly and entertainingly illustrating the point.]-DAVID: I'm on your side. Pain is a friend that warns you of trouble so you can do something to protect yourself, as you have stated.-Unfortunately, both of you have completely missed the point of my own post, which is not to downgrade the importance of pain and suffering on this earth, but to highlight the inconsistency of the argument that pain is essential for bodies on this earth, and yet it won't be essential for bodies on the new earth! This part of the discussion sprang from Tony's reference to Revelation as proof of God's goodness ("Is this the description of a tyrannical asshole of a God?"). Let me be as blunt as both of you: I have great difficulty seeing any possible rationality in or justification for the belief that our dead bodies will be resurrected, and those who continue to fornicate, murder or disbelieve will be condemned to eternal death, while those who love God will live with him forever on a new, death-free, PAIN-FREE earth ... provided they toe his line, which may be different from ours. (I asked some practical questions in my post of 3 January at 13.18 under "Love me or else", but these have been ignored.) I have never denied the importance of pain, suffering, death etc. in the kind of life system we have ... whether built by God or not (see "Endings" in the "brief guide", and my post to BBella on the "Afterlife" thread). My objection, linked to the inconsistent argument mentioned above, is to the image of God that Tony is trying to conjure up.
 
Tony, you have said repeatedly that you do not know WHY God "had" to build the earth this way, as you don't know his purpose, so perhaps I can best illustrate my dissatisfaction with the above discrepancies by offering you a well-known hypothetical purpose: God was endlessly bored. The relief of endless boredom might be endless entertainment, which requires endless variety. No use sticking to the same individuals of the same species all eternity long. New species are therefore necessary, as is death, as are contrasts: no good without bad, no beauty without ugliness, no joy without pain etc. That's the way to do it ... a complete mixture, and it doesn't matter if living beings suffer, so long as the show is entertaining. Accordingly, yes, God HAD to build it this way to fulfil his purpose. And also accordingly, God is responsible for the suffering of his creatures (though in the case of humans, part of the entertainment is that they also create some of their own suffering). NB I'm not asking you to believe in this scenario, but I find that the goal and the outcome fit the history of life as we know it, and I challenge you to find anything that doesn't fit (discounting the question of God's existence in the first place). It is not pain I object to, but an image of God that seems to me to bear only half a relationship (the good half) to the world which you think he created, glosses over the other half with a don't-know-but-let's-have-faith, and offers consolatory promises along with dire threats that have no foundation except visions reported by authors we know nothing about.
 
At least David refrains from this kind of divine mind-reading. However, he does attempt to do some mind-reading of his own :-D AVID: Perhaps dhw would prefer life never existed. I cannot imagine another arrangement for an evolutionary process, if there is a large element of competition to test the genetic advances. It is amusing to think dhw might prefer that God made everything in advance so as to get around the process of evolution, and gave Man dominion over everything as in Genesis, with no free will and gentle human personalites.-I am delighted to be alive, I accept the conditions under which I am alive, I accept that evolution happened, and I cannot imagine another arrangement for an evolutionary process. I am sceptical, however, of Tony's image of God, and of your idea that God preprogrammed evolution right from the start to produce humans, since this conflicts with the higgledy-piggledy bush. I am, however, delighted that you have switched from this idea to: "It is as if God said let's throw everything at the fan and see where it lands..." We need a scenario that will fit in with whatever we know of the world. It may not be true, but it has a better chance of being true than one that runs counter to what we know. I have no idea why you think a non-anthropocentric version of evolution would deprive man of his dominance, his free will, or ... in some cases ... his gentle personality.

2328 views

dhw: At least David refrains from this kind of divine mind-reading. -I'm not with Tony at his level of using the Bible. I don't accept his version of prophesies. Even Nostradamus can be contorted to mean anything. This is not a disrespect of Tony. He has his views and faith and I have mine. To me the Bible is history in the early portions of the OT, and after that it contains whatever the early committees needed it to contain to convince folks of that time that this religion was better than that religion. -> 
> dhw: I am delighted to be alive, I accept the conditions under which I am alive, I accept that evolution happened, and I cannot imagine another arrangement for an evolutionary process. I am sceptical, however, of Tony's image of God, -And of mine, because you are completely skeptical of the God issue. But I know you realize something/someone did all this. I think you are really not an agnostic. You just cannot accept recognition of the First Cause. You've admitted it is not a chance process. It is either chance or directed, nothing inbetween. Cook up your own verson of the director. He won't mind. -And I'm delighted you're alive also. At least there are two of us, but I know there are many others thankful for you.

2340 views

DAVID: I'm not with Tony at his level of using the Bible. I don't accept his version of prophesies. Even Nostradamus can be contorted to mean anything. This is not a disrespect of Tony. He has his views and faith and I have mine. To me the Bible is history in the early portions of the OT, and after that it contains whatever the early committees needed it to contain to convince folks of that time that this religion was better than that religion.-It's nice that we agree on some things! The first fallible fellow who came up with the expression "The Word of God" has a lot to answer for! -dhw: I am delighted to be alive, I accept the conditions under which I am alive, I accept that evolution happened, and I cannot imagine another arrangement for an evolutionary process. I am sceptical, however, of Tony's image of God. -DAVID: And of mine, because you are completely skeptical of the God issue. But I know you realize something/someone did all this. I think you are really not an agnostic. You just cannot accept recognition of the First Cause. You've admitted it is not a chance process. It is either chance or directed, nothing inbetween. Cook up your own version of the director. He won't mind.-Mr W: I'm not on the right
Mr T: Ah, so you're on the left.
Mr W: I'm not on the left.
Mr.T: Ah so you're on the right.
Mr. W: I'm in the middle.
 
I do recognize a first cause, and if I were an atheist it would be some kind of impersonal, unconscious energy. If I were a theist, it would be personal and conscious. I am neither, and opt for neither. But I'm enjoying discussing the idea of something in between, along panpsychic lines, though of course I remain uncommitted!
 
DAVID: And I'm delighted you're alive also. At least there are two of us, but I know there are many others thankful for you.-The feeling is reciprocated many times over, David, as I think/hope it is with my immediate family and friends. I have, however, alienated some people through this website, and I'm sorry about that.

2314 views


> The feeling is reciprocated many times over, David, as I think/hope it is with my immediate family and friends. I have, however, alienated some people through this website, and I'm sorry about that.-People have a funny way of coming back around in your life, and if they don't then perhaps it is for the best, even if it sucks. I may disagree with you, David, Bella, George, or any number of others that have come through here, but I greatly value our debates and, even when I get frustrated or flustered, always consider all of you with the highest degree of respect and hopefully, friendship.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2339 views


> > The feeling is reciprocated many times over, David, as I think/hope it is with my immediate family and friends. I have, however, alienated some people through this website, and I'm sorry about that.
> 
> Tony: People have a funny way of coming back around in your life, and if they don't then perhaps it is for the best, even if it sucks. I may disagree with you, David, Bella, George, or any number of others that have come through here, but I greatly value our debates and, even when I get frustrated or flustered, always consider all of you with the highest degree of respect and hopefully, friendship.-Agree with you Tony. dhw, those folks were not really alienated so much as frustrated with your logic staying on the pickets. This is one marvelous site for discussion.

2366 views

Actually, look close. I said the absence of pain would be because we would be educated on how to avoid it. There is actual scriptural evidence that implies that the world not be 'perfect' in the since that nothing bad will ever happen, but rather that the bad would not be allowed to continue. Take it however you like, but whether it is some form of nanny state where we have advisers warning us off before we do something stupid or because we are educated to the level where we do not make the mistakes that lead to pain, the absence of pain does not mean the absence of the possibility of pain. -
> DHW: (Paraphrased)We are all just here to dance for God's amusement because he was terminally bored.
> -Well, if God did create us for endless entertainment, don't you think he would want to avoid the endless frustration of dealing with a bunch of whiny, ignorant, violent, hard-headed assholes? If that was his sole purpose, why let the simulation survive beyond the point where it grew tedious and started to cause him pain?(See numerous references to God being hurt in his heart over our actions...doesn't sound like much fun or good entertainment to me.) We don't continue to watch movies that make us feel like crap unless we have a bad case of Stockholm syndrome. We don't play games that become too tedious, frustrating, boring, or hurtful. That is why I disagree with your speculation. It may 'fit' on the surface, but it doesn't make it past the first round of examination when we begin to question motives. More importantly, if all of this were just a simulation for entertainment, why care at all what happens? Why care about being worshiped or any of the other stuff? It would be more entertaining to see what kind of crazy gods the people came up with because you knew the truth and they didn't.(See The Invention of Lying and The Life of Brian)--> DHW: I am delighted to be alive, I accept the conditions under which I am alive, I accept that evolution happened, and I cannot imagine another arrangement for an evolutionary process. I am sceptical, however, of Tony's image of God, and of your idea that God preprogrammed evolution right from the start to produce humans, since this conflicts with the higgledy-piggledy bush. I am, however, delighted that you have switched from this idea to: "It is as if God said let's throw everything at the fan and see where it lands..." We need a scenario that will fit in with whatever we know of the world. It may not be true, but it has a better chance of being true than one that runs counter to what we know. I have no idea why you think a non-anthropocentric version of evolution would deprive man of his dominance, his free will, or ... in some cases ... his gentle personality.-My image of God is that of a parent figure(which is why I used a parent figure in my previous illustration). The mom in that illustration certainly didn't WANT to see her child get hurt, and she just as certainly CARED and TRIED to stop them from doing something stupid that was going to hurt them. But the child had mind of its own and didn't listen. -Parents, on a much much smaller more fallible scale reenact the biblical representation of God all the time. We KNOW something is going to hurt our children, we TRY to teach them how to live correctly, but at the end of the day we have to let them learn on their own for a time before they are ready to listen. As Mark Twain so eloquently put it:-"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."-Everything I see fits this context without exception. The world was created the way it was because it had to be. The Father new the dangers of the world and was willing to teach us. He gave us a warning that we ignored, and it we got burned. So, he tried to teach us how to deal with the burn, and we ignored him and it blistered. So finally, he figured that he would allow us to come to our senses, and in the mean time he tried to make provisions for us so that we didn't completely screw ourselves. -In the future, we will either have become ready to listen, or have completely rebelled, and he will deal kindly with those that are ready to listen. Not sure what is so difficult about that.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2321 views

As a hypothetical explanation of this life's mixture of good and bad, suffering and joy etc., I suggested that God created it as an entertainment to relieve his eternal boredom. This would justify Tony's claim that he HAD to make the world this way, but at the same time would make God responsible for a great deal of the suffering. -TONY: Well, if God did create us for endless entertainment, don't you think he would want to avoid the endless frustration of dealing with a bunch of whiny, ignorant, violent, hard-headed assholes?-He wouldn't have to deal with them, any more than we have to deal with the violent assholes we watch night after night on our TV screens for our entertainment. Once they've gone, they've gone. Imagine a TV schedule that consisted of nothing but feel-good movies, newspapers with nothing but tales of how wonderful everything is, books without a hint of suffering. As always, you start off with a very particular concept of God, and impose it on the observable world, as follows:-TONY: (See numerous references to God being hurt in his heart over our actions...doesn't sound like much fun or good entertainment to me.)-You quite rightly question the claims of scientists whose work can be and is tested against observable reality, and yet you base your beliefs on ancient texts largely written by unknown authors, as if these fallible humans presented infallible evidence! How do YOU know that God is hurt? The hypothesis I have offered you makes no claims to "truth". It is, like all theories, an attempt to join up the dots of observable reality into a coherent pattern. Your only objection to it is that it doesn't fit your pattern of a God who cares, but you yourself have admitted that you do not know WHY your caring God created a world of joy mixed with suffering. The pleasure we all seem to have in watching other people's suffering (as well as love, happiness, humour, adventure etc.) on film, in books, in plays may be shared by the God in whose image you think we are made. The mixture IS the entertainment. -The above is simply a theistic (or deistic) hypothesis that might explain the mixed world we know, but your image of God as a "parent figure" trying to teach us, being upset when we fail to learn, allowing us time "to come to our senses", is not derived from your observation of the world we know. It is derived from those ancient texts, as is even more obvious when you describe the visions you have of the future. Like David, I respect your faith and your scholarship, and like BBella I concede that nothing is impossible (within subjective boundaries of common sense). Perhaps, again in line with BBella's posts, there are personal experiences that have convinced you of your God's caring love. I'm in no position to say what is true and what is not, but I hope you will understand why I find the arguments themselves so deeply unconvincing: quoting religious texts does not provide evidence that those religious texts are true!

2344 views

I'm in no position to say what is true and what is not, but I hope you will understand why I find the arguments themselves so deeply unconvincing: quoting religious texts does not provide evidence that those religious texts are true!-Science can explain only the material world, yet, even YOU know that is not all that exists. Like begets like. If you can experience love, joy, happiness, and sorrow, then simple reason and logic tells you that what ever designed you was aware of those emotions.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2380 views

In short, nothing is ever, EVER designed without a frame of reference. Logically, I can find no reason to think that this does not apply to YHWH as well. Material existence is framed in the patterns and movements of energy, which for a creature made of pure energy makes perfect sense. Every thing in existence is an extrapolation of what comes at lower and lower levels of energy, the lowest of which that we are aware being Quantum Physics. -However, science can not explain emotion or consciousness. How could a designer that had no emotion or self-awareness design those things?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2352 views

Dhw: I'm in no position to say what is true and what is not, but I hope you will understand why I find the arguments themselves so deeply unconvincing: quoting religious texts does not provide evidence that those religious texts are true!
TONY: Science can explain only the material world, yet, even YOU know that is not all that exists. Like begets like. If you can experience love, joy, happiness, and sorrow, then simple reason and logic tells you that what ever designed you was aware of those emotions.-I could not have put it better myself, though I have certainly said the same thing many times. Simple reason and logic also tell me that if I really was designed, whatever designed me would be equally "aware" of self-centredness, vanity, greed, sadism. And I really don't see how he could have created such things without already knowing about them from within. I have no doubt you will find a passage in the bible to explain how God can be all good but can create evil (one of the oldest problems of all, never satisfactorily resolved), but I repeat: "quoting religious texts does not provide evidence that those religious texts are true!" I asked you earlier, how do YOU know that God is hurt by the evil and suffering in the world? And I also pointed out that you were quite rightly sceptical of many scientific claims (usually by named and accountable scientists) which cannot be tested against empirical realities. And I asked you why you did not apply the same (agnostic) principles to the claims made in ancient texts by often unknown authors, knowing that these claims (e.g. their reading of God's nature and intentions) cannot be tested against empirical realities. Such statements CANNOT be used as evidence of what you believe in, when what you believe in is what you are told by these statements!-Tony: People have a funny way of coming back around in your life, and if they don't then perhaps it is for the best, even if it sucks. I may disagree with you, David, Bella, George, or any number of others that have come through here, but I greatly value our debates and, even when I get frustrated or flustered, always consider all of you with the highest degree of respect and hopefully, friendship.-DAVID: Agree with you Tony. dhw, those folks were not really alienated so much as frustrated with your logic staying on the pickets. This is one marvelous site for discussion.-I am in a rather vulnerable state at the moment, and I must confess these comments brought a tear to my eye. David and I are used to teasing each other, but I'm aware that my posts to Tony sometimes go very close to the edge of what might be bearable. I can only say that despite my scepticism, I fully share those feelings of respect and friendship.-***-Tony, thank you for posting a summary of the points raised under "A Scientist's Approach..." I'll try to respond tomorrow, as I will to BBella's post about the afterlife.

2321 views

DHW: I could not have put it better myself, though I have certainly said the same thing many times. Simple reason and logic also tell me that if I really was designed, whatever designed me would be equally "aware" of self-centredness, vanity, greed, sadism. And I really don't see how he could have created such things without already knowing about them from within. I have no doubt you will find a passage in the bible to explain how God can be all good but can create evil (one of the oldest problems of all, never satisfactorily resolved), but I repeat: "quoting religious texts does not provide evidence that those religious texts are true!" -I do not think that I have ever said that he didn't create the potential for those things. I am absolutely certain that he did! I am also absolutely certain that they are required! Look, nothing is black and white, good and evil, innately. Fear, can help you survive. Hate can protect you from something that can harm you.(Hating drugs, for example.) Pain is a valuable teacher, and also a valuable warning tool. What I disagree with is first, that you classify them as evil, which, decoupled from intent, they are not. Second, is that you continually blame God for all the suffering in the world, without recognizing or acknowledging two facts: 1) That life could not exist without the potential for suffering, and 2)Exposure to suffering(which must exist in order for life to exist) is generally cause through human mistakes(sin/unintentional, wickedness/intentional).->DHW:I asked you earlier, how do YOU know that God is hurt by the evil and suffering in the world? And I also pointed out that you were quite rightly sceptical of many scientific claims (usually by named and accountable scientists) which cannot be tested against empirical realities. And I asked you why you did not apply the same (agnostic) principles to the claims made in ancient texts by often unknown authors, knowing that these claims (e.g. their reading of God's nature and intentions) cannot be tested against empirical realities. Such statements CANNOT be used as evidence of what you believe in, when what you believe in is what you are told by these statements!-
Yes, you asked, I answered, you ignored my answer and asked again! Given a book that has been repeatedly proven as accurate, my own observations, experience, and knowledge, I find no reason to doubt the things that we can not yet prove. That is the textbook definition of faith my friend, and that is the only thing that separates the A/Theist from the agnostic. Faith is the assured expectation of things to come, though not beheld. Assured expectation, not just expectation. I find assurance in the historical accuracy of the bible and in the realization of other prophecies throughout the bible. The more I learn and uncover in its text, the more assurance I find. -
> 
> I am in a rather vulnerable state at the moment, and I must confess these comments brought a tear to my eye. David and I are used to teasing each other, but I'm aware that my posts to Tony sometimes go very close to the edge of what might be bearable. I can only say that despite my scepticism, I fully share those feelings of respect and friendship.
> -
You are a hard headed, stubborn, infuriating piece of work, DHW, and we love you for it. :) Best wishes from my family to yours. Casey sends her regards and best wishes for you and your wife as well.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2368 views

DHW: Simple reason and logic also tell me that if I really was designed, whatever designed me would be equally "aware" of self-centredness, vanity, greed, sadism. And I really don't see how he could have created such things without already knowing about them from within. -TONY: I do not think that I have ever said that he didn't create the potential for those things. I am absolutely certain that he did! I am also absolutely certain that they are required! Look, nothing is black and white, good and evil, innately. Fear, can help you survive. Hate can protect you from something that can harm you.(Hating drugs, for example.) Pain is a valuable teacher, and also a valuable warning tool.
 
I hesitate to continue this discussion, firstly as any negative view of God's possible nature clearly offends you, secondly because you have in the second part of your post given me the perfect answer. However, I will try to round it off from my own perspective. I agree with all the above.-TONY: What I disagree with is first, that you classify them as evil, which, decoupled from intent, they are not.-By evil I understand deliberate actions which cause unnecessary suffering to others. "Unnecessary" is open to interpretation, but I'm sure we can find common ground on this, e.g. warning pain is not evil; pain inflicted on others for pleasure is evil.
 
TONY: Second, is that you continually blame God for all the suffering in the world, without recognizing or acknowledging two facts: 1) That life could not exist without the potential for suffering, and 2)Exposure to suffering(which must exist in order for life to exist) is generally cause through human mistakes(sin/unintentional, wickedness/intentional).-Far from "all" the suffering (I'm not unaware of self-centredness, vanity, greed, sadism etc., as listed above), but we needn't argue about the proportion, or about the need for suffering in the world we know, which I've always accepted. My focus in all these discussions has been on the NATURE of God as revealed by the world you believe he has created. You rightly drew attention to love, joy, happiness and sorrow, and I assume that "whatever designed you was aware of those emotions" also meant that he himself felt them. (You have said that God is hurt by the suffering in the world.) My argument here is that if your God as first cause created us all from nothing, he could not have been "aware" of anything that was not already WITHIN himself, including the evil potential of self-centredness. In other words, he could not have made us in such a way that we would feel things HE HIMSELF WAS UNAWARE OF AND DIDN'T FEEL. (Please don't try to answer yet. This post needs to be swallowed whole!)-You have constantly quoted the bible to prove how good God is. You even gave me a verse from Revelation as evidence, but when replaced in its immediate context it led to problems connected with physical resurrection, Christ's 1000 year reign, and eternal death for sinners organized with split-second timing ... all of which were your own interpretation of the scriptures. If God exists ... and I remain open-minded on the subject ... his nature is of concern to me. You have, I'm sure with the very best of intentions, tried to reassure me, but despite the many excellent arguments concerning the way the world has to be (whether created by God or not), and concerning all the good things your God has also created, I can see nothing other than selected quotes from various mainly unknown authors to even suggest that his nature is any different from the mixture we see all around us. Hardly surprising if he created man in his own image!-But you did give me the perfect answer: "I find no reason to doubt the things that we can not yet prove. That is the textbook definition of faith my friend, and that is the only thing that separates the A/Theist from the agnostic." It may be advisable for us to leave it at that!

2308 views

dhw: If God exists ... and I remain open-minded on the subject ... his nature is of concern to me. You have, I'm sure with the very best of intentions, tried to reassure me........... I can see nothing other than selected quotes from various mainly unknown authors to even suggest that his nature is any different from the mixture we see all around us. Hardly surprising if he created man in his own image!-
Trying to fathom God's nature is what gets you in trouble with yourself and in trouble with Tony. I don't fight with tony's impression of who God is and what is His nature. Tony doesn't really know; his authorities are only guessing, and everyone tries to make God human. He is not human. He is a very special consciousness, and per Adler, a personality like no other person we know.-The Muslims attempt to know Him thru His works. That is the very best approach. we know that He gave humans free will. That allows the evil to appear.
He chose to develop life through evolution. That requires dog eat dog. Perhaps that is the only way life could go from bacteria to US. Perhaps his creative ability is limited. WE do not know.-What I am saying is that you are trying to be too analytical about a subject that we can only guess at. I became very comforable with my analysis when I quit trying to carry it to your extreme.

2300 views

Far from "all" the suffering (I'm not unaware of self-centredness, vanity, greed, sadism etc., as listed above), but we needn't argue about the proportion, or about the need for suffering in the world we know, which I've always accepted. My focus in all these discussions has been on the NATURE of God as revealed by the world you believe he has created. You rightly drew attention to love, joy, happiness and sorrow, and I assume that "whatever designed you was aware of those emotions" also meant that he himself felt them. (You have said that God is hurt by the suffering in the world.) My argument here is that if your God as first cause created us all from nothing, he could not have been "aware" of anything that was not already WITHIN himself, including the evil potential of self-centredness. In other words, he could not have made us in such a way that we would feel things HE HIMSELF WAS UNAWARE OF AND DIDN'T FEEL. (Please don't try to answer yet. This post needs to be swallowed whole!)
> 
> You have constantly quoted the bible to prove how good God is. You even gave me a verse from Revelation as evidence, but when replaced in its immediate context it led to problems connected with physical resurrection, Christ's 1000 year reign, and eternal death for sinners organized with split-second timing ... all of which were your own interpretation of the scriptures. If God exists ... and I remain open-minded on the subject ... his nature is of concern to me. You have, I'm sure with the very best of intentions, tried to reassure me, but despite the many excellent arguments concerning the way the world has to be (whether created by God or not), and concerning all the good things your God has also created, I can see nothing other than selected quotes from various mainly unknown authors to even suggest that his nature is any different from the mixture we see all around us. Hardly surprising if he created man in his own image!
> 
> But you did give me the perfect answer: "I find no reason to doubt the things that we can not yet prove. That is the textbook definition of faith my friend, and that is the only thing that separates the A/Theist from the agnostic." It may be advisable for us to leave it at that!-
I have found answers to some of your questions regarding the logistics, but I need to research them further before responding, and my time is going to be limited for the next week or so. But I promise that I will reply in full asap. -The problem I have always had with this debate is twofold. First, as I mentioned previously, nothing is 'evil' separate from intent, and second, you consistently blame him for human actions. -As to some of your other comments, the bible writers are no more unknown or unknowable than you, I, or David. We can know them through their writings, as confirmed by their contemporaries, as I know you and David by your writings and the commentary of your contemporaries. Most of the Bible writers were talked about in great detail, and much of their personality is evident. -As for YHWH being like us, I would say that he is to us what the best of men is to the worst of men, multiplied by an unknowable amount. There is no love, anger, or power greater than his, but neither is there any mercy or justice as great. -I do not shrink back when I think of the devastation that he has certainly caused in the past because I know, all things being equal, had their been any decency or goodness left in even one of the people destroyed, he would have found a means to spare them, as he has proven to do time and again. So, I can take the hard things that he has done, without calling them evil, any more than I think putting a serial killer down is evil.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2367 views

DHW, In my research I found a quote here that pretty much sums up the crux of our argument. Though the original writer was talking about prophecy specifically, I think it is equally applicable. -
"But nothing is gained by a mere answer to objec- 
tions, so long as the original prejudice, " there cannot 
be supernatural prophecy," remains. Be the objec- 
tions ever so completely removed, unbelief remains 
unshaken, because these objections are put forward to 
delude others, scarcely to blind itself; for they who 
believe not, know well that the ground of their unbe- 
lief rests on their conceptions of God and of His rela- 
tion to man, not on history."~REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D., DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD -
This is part of my frustration with David as well, though that is tied directly to the nature of prophecy. I get frustrated because I know that no matter how much evidence I can present, getting beyond unbelief is not something that I can accomplish.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2343 views


> 
> tony: This is part of my frustration with David as well, though that is tied directly to the nature of prophecy. I get frustrated because I know that no matter how much evidence I can present, getting beyond unbelief is not something that I can accomplish.-Don't be frusrated. Almost all prophesies I've seen are very broad statements which allow for broad interpretation. Present to me the equivalent of foretelling the name of our next US president and I'll accept your argument.

2308 views

The prophecies in Daniel and Isaiah do just that, and more to the point, they are backed up by third party histories that not only show that they were written in advance(so were actual prophecies) but that they came true. Cyrus actually read the prophecies about him overthrowing the Babylonians after he captured the city. It is cited as being part of his motivation for giving the Jews money to rebuild the temple and showing them special dispensation. -Flavius says:- This was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies; for this prophet said that God had spoken thus to him in a secret vision: "My will is, that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be king over many and great nations, send back my people to their own land, and build my temple." This was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the Divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfill what was so written; so he called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them, that he gave them leave to go back to their own country, and to rebuild their city Jerusalem, (2) and the temple of God, for that he would be their assistant, and that he would write to the rulers and governors that were in the neighborhood of their country of Judea, that they should contribute to them gold and silver for the building of the temple, and besides that, beasts for their sacrifices. -
Cyrus

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2355 views

tony: Flavius says:-If you are quoting Josephus, how did he know for sure what he related in his histories? They wre mostly oral stories.

2351 views

TONY: I have found answers to some of your questions regarding the logistics, but I need to research them further before responding, and my time is going to be limited for the next week or so. But I promise that I will reply in full asap.-Tony, I fear this may lead to more frustration for you. I don't want you to spend your time on such matters unless you feel they are of interest to you too.
 
TONY: The problem I have always had with this debate is twofold. First, as I mentioned previously, nothing is 'evil' separate from intent, and second, you consistently blame him for human actions.-I have answered both points. I have defined evil as "deliberate actions which cause unnecessary suffering to others", so that e.g. we can separate good pain from bad. I do not blame God for human actions. I am suggesting to you, through my subjective view of the earth's history, that the mixed nature of humans may mirror the mixed nature of the God who you think created us.
 
TONY: As to some of your other comments, the bible writers are no more unknown or unknowable than you, I, or David. We can know them through their writings [...] etc.-But the sources of their information, and their credentials for announcing to us the nature of God, his motives for past actions, and his future intentions are unknown and uncheckable.
 
TONY: As for YHWH being like us, I would say that he is to us what the best of men is to the worst of men, multiplied by an unknowable amount. There is no love, anger, or power greater than his, but neither is there any mercy or justice as great. -If he exists, I have to agree as far as the scale is concerned. Love and mercy are encouraging, anger and power are scary, and justice makes them even scarier since we do not know whether his idea of justice coincides with our own.
 
TONY: I do not shrink back when I think of the devastation that he has certainly caused in the past because I know, all things being equal, had their been any decency or goodness left in even one of the people destroyed, he would have found a means to spare them [...] etc.-And as you so rightly said, that is your faith. We should leave it at that.-TONY: In my research I found a quote here that pretty much sums up the crux of our argument. Though the original writer was talking about prophecy specifically, I think it is equally applicable. 
"But nothing is gained by a mere answer to objec- 
tions, so long as the original prejudice, " there cannot 
be supernatural prophecy," remains. Be the objec- 
tions ever so completely removed, unbelief remains 
unshaken, because these objections are put forward to 
delude others, scarcely to blind itself; for they who 
believe not, know well that the ground of their unbe- 
lief rests on their conceptions of God and of His rela- 
tion to man, not on history."~REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D., DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD -This quote can be reversed en bloc to argue that the ground of belief rests on believers' conceptions of God and of His relations to man, not on history. Absurdly, Pusey assumes that unbelief is prejudice whereas belief is based on fact/history (in this case, prophecies, but you have extended his meaning to our own discussion). I would not insult you, however, by calling your beliefs prejudice, or even worse an attempt to delude me, and I had thought this respect was reciprocated. You have reached your conclusions through years of experience, study, and reflection. So has David. And I have failed to reach any conclusion though I have gone through the same processes as you. As you have so rightly said, the difference between us, and between the way we interpret life and the world you think God created, is FAITH, and faith is not based on fact/history (then it wouldn't be faith), but on a subjective interpretation of fact/history. Shame on you for quoting such derogatory nonsense!-TONY: This is part of my frustration with David as well, though that is tied directly to the nature of prophecy. I get frustrated because I know that no matter how much evidence I can present, getting beyond unbelief is not something that I can accomplish.-That is why I am very apprehensive about the continuation of this discussion. The arguments that I put to you ... if I may be permitted to analyse myself ... are not the result of prejudice or a desire to delude anyone, but constitute the reasons why I became and remain agnostic. Naturally I see them as a rational and coherent counter to the subjectivity underlying the "evidence" as it is presented by both sides. They are not, however, expressions of belief or disbelief. I do not (dis)believe God is a "tyrannical asshole". I do not (dis)believe God is all good. I do not even (dis)believe in God. According to whatever subject is under discussion, I can only explain why I do not believe whatever my interlocutor does believe. Agnosticism can only be negative, and so it might be seen as a testing ground for belief. That is all I can offer ... at least until such time as something tips the balance!

2327 views

DHW: Tony, I fear this may lead to more frustration for you. I don't want you to spend your time on such matters unless you feel they are of interest to you too.
> -There is nothing to fear. If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't spend my time on it. In fact, I quite enjoy it, honestly. Frustration is not a bad thing any more than pain is. Frustration, much like pain, is a warning sign that whatever it is we are doing, we are going about it the wrong way. So, in a sense, getting frustrated with our discussions at times is a learning experience for me, and as such is actually greatly appreciated!! Believe me, if I did not have immense respect for the people on this board, and did not find some benefit in discussing these topics, I would not be posting here. -
> DHW: I have answered both points. I have defined evil as "deliberate actions which cause unnecessary suffering to others", so that e.g. we can separate good pain from bad. I do not blame God for human actions. I am suggesting to you, through my subjective view of the earth's history, that the mixed nature of humans may mirror the mixed nature of the God who you think created us.-And I have agreed, repeatedly, that God is a mix of our nature. The prime difference, aside from physical differences and scale, is motivation. We have both agreed that motive is the primary component for something to be construed as evil/wicked. -
>DHW: But the sources of their information, and their credentials for announcing to us the nature of God, his motives for past actions, and his future intentions are unknown and uncheckable.
> -That is why the prophecies and histories are so important. The historical accuracy gives confidence in their credentials. They have never been proven inaccurate. The prophecies give confidence in their credentials as sources of divine inspiration by breaking the Law of Probabilities to pieces in a verifiable way. In this sense it is like science. You get a theory, that makes a lot of predictions. The more of those predictions that come true, the more faith you put in the theory until the point where you call it a Law! -
> DHW: If he exists, I have to agree as far as the scale is concerned. Love and mercy are encouraging, anger and power are scary, and justice makes them even scarier since we do not know whether his idea of justice coincides with our own.
> -Whose justice should coincide with whose?--As for the rest..-This is what I get for including the whole quote and citing the source instead of just the relevant part. The only part I was concerned with was that it is impossible to overcome disbelief externally, regardless of the amount or nature of the evidence. I meant no insult. The truth of the matter is that no matter what I show you, I can not make you (dis)believe. As we ALL said in the conversation with Bella, it is something you come to through your own experiences. If you can not get to the point where you are at least WILLING to (dis)believe, then no one, not I nor anyone else on this earth, could make you (dis)believe anything at all. That is not meant to be derogatory nor is it non-sense. People disbelieve things all the time, irregardless of anything presented to them. --> DHW: Naturally I see them as a rational and coherent counter to the subjectivity underlying the "evidence" as it is presented by both sides. They are not, however, expressions of belief or disbelief. I do not (dis)believe God is a "tyrannical asshole". I do not (dis)believe God is all good. I do not even (dis)believe in God. According to whatever subject is under discussion, I can only explain why I do not believe whatever my interlocutor does believe. Agnosticism can only be negative, and so it might be seen as a testing ground for belief. That is all I can offer ... at least until such time as something tips the balance!-You contradict yourself here... I do not (dis)believe, I do not (dis)believe, I do not (dis)believe .... I can only explain why I do not believe..-What is disbelief but the absence of belief?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2337 views

DHW: Tony, I fear this may lead to more frustration for you. I don't want you to spend your time on such matters unless you feel they are of interest to you too.
TONY: There is nothing to fear. If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't spend my time on it. In fact, I quite enjoy it, honestly. Frustration is not a bad thing any more than pain is. -Thank you. I am reassured.-DHW: I am suggesting to you, through my subjective view of the earth's history, that the mixed nature of humans may mirror the mixed nature of the God who you think created us.
TONY: And I have agreed, repeatedly, that God is a mix of our nature. The prime difference, aside from physical differences and scale, is motivation. We have both agreed that motive is the primary component for something to be construed as evil/wicked.-You wrote earlier: "I do not shrink back when I think of the devastation that he has certainly caused in the past because I know, all things being equal, had there been any decency or goodness left in even one of the people destroyed, he would have found a means to spare them, as he has proven to do time and again." 
This is where faith becomes the decisive factor. You apparently "know" that such slaughter is all for the best. I do not.-DHW: But the sources of their information, and their credentials for announcing to us the nature of God, his motives for past actions, and his future intentions are unknown and uncheckable.
TONY: That is why the prophecies and histories are so important. The historical accuracy gives confidence in their credentials. They have never been proven inaccurate.-Whose credentials? Even if I were to give credence to some of these ancient texts, does an accurate prophecy in Daniel mean I must believe the prophecies of St John the Divine? The bible is a collection of books by different, fallible, human authors (and sometimes we don't even know who they were), put together by a group of men with an agenda of their own, who somehow or the other have succeeded in promoting the idea that their selection is "the Word of God".
 
DHW: If he exists, I have to agree as far as the scale is concerned. Love and mercy are encouraging, anger and power are scary, and justice makes them even scarier since we do not know whether his idea of justice coincides with our own.
TONY: Whose justice should coincide with whose?-God has the last word. And supposing ... purely for argument's sake, of course ... he decides that murderers, fornicators and agnostics are equally deserving of eternal death, I can't argue. That's why it's scary.-TONY: If you can not get to the point where you are at least WILLING to (dis)believe, then no one, not I nor anyone else on this earth, could make you (dis)believe anything at all. -It was a badly chosen quote. You obviously didn't intend to insult David or me ("This is part of my frustration with David as well") but the above explanation still requires clarification. For the record, I see my rejection of the so-called "evidence" in the case for and against God as being based not on an unwillingness to believe, but on what I regard as the dubious subjectivity of the arguments. To put it another way, what both you and Richard Dawkins are "willing" to believe seems to me to fall apart on analysis. And that is why I neither believe nor disbelieve.
 
DHW: I do not (dis)believe God is a "tyrannical asshole". I do not (dis)believe God is all good. I do not even (dis)believe in God. According to whatever subject is under discussion, I can only explain why I do not believe whatever my interlocutor does believe. 
TONY: You contradict yourself here... I do not (dis)believe, I do not (dis)believe, I do not (dis)believe .... I can only explain why I do not believe. What is disbelief but the absence of belief?-As I have tried to make clear many times, I distinguish between belief, non-belief and disbelief. Belief in God = I think God exists; disbelief = I think God does not exist; non-belief = I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. Absence of belief is non-belief, not disbelief. In talking to a theist, I explain why I do not believe in God. In talking to an atheist, I explain why I do not disbelieve in God. This distinction is very important for the understanding of what I mean by agnosticism.
---

2358 views

DHW: But the sources of their information, and their credentials for announcing to us the nature of God, his motives for past actions, and his future intentions are unknown and uncheckable.
> TONY: That is why the prophecies and histories are so important. The historical accuracy gives confidence in their credentials. They have never been proven inaccurate.
> 
> Whose credentials? Even if I were to give credence to some of these ancient texts, does an accurate prophecy in Daniel mean I must believe the prophecies of St John the Divine? The bible is a collection of books by different, fallible, human authors (and sometimes we don't even know who they were), put together by a group of men with an agenda of their own, who somehow or the other have succeeded in promoting the idea that their selection is "the Word of God".
> -Ok, so think of it this way. If a hundred scientist all wrote papers in a particular field, and they all agreed with each other as to the overall big picture, and they were all verified repeated by outside experiments, would you question the credentials of each and every one? The criteria that we impose on science is much less rigorous than the scrutiny to which the bible has been subjected, and for the bible has been under such scrutiny for thousands of years. Yet, you seem much more trusting of a bunch of scientist whose hypotheses and theories have been overturned on a regular basis. -
> TONY: Whose justice should coincide with whose?
> 
> DHW: God has the last word. And supposing ... purely for argument's sake, of course ... he decides that murderers, fornicators and agnostics are equally deserving of eternal death, I can't argue. That's why it's scary.
> -It is only scary if you are afraid of death. I don't WANT to die, but it holds no fear for me. Sadness, sure; fear, not at all. ->DHW: As I have tried to make clear many times, I distinguish between belief, non-belief and disbelief. Belief in God = I think God exists; disbelief = I think God does not exist; non-belief = I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. Absence of belief is non-belief, not disbelief. In talking to a theist, I explain why I do not believe in God. In talking to an atheist, I explain why I do not disbelieve in God. This distinction is very important for the understanding of what I mean by agnosticism.
> ----Ok, so then let me pose this question to both you and David: What would you accept as valid evidence? What brings you from the non-belief to the point of belief, regardless of the subject being discussed?-When I have presented quotes from historians, they historians credentials and sources were discarded. When I have presented fulfilled prophecies, they have been discarded. When I have presented archaelogical evidence, it has been discarded. When science provides evidence, it is discarded. So, the question becomes, what is acceptable as valid evidence if not history, science, archaeology, or an accuracy rating that smashes the Law of Probabilities?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2359 views


> Tony: When I have presented quotes from historians, they historians credentials and sources were discarded. When I have presented fulfilled prophecies, they have been discarded. When I have presented archaelogical evidence, it has been discarded. When science provides evidence, it is discarded. So, the question becomes, what is acceptable as valid evidence if not history, science, archaeology, or an accuracy rating that smashes the Law of Probabilities?-I know what you believe and what you have presented as truth. But the Biblical record is mainly hearsay, and the historian record likewise. I've looked at what Catholics call miracles, and I am just as skeptical there. The ossuary containing James bones, supposedly brother of Joshua (Jesus), is apparently a fake. There is no absolute solid evidence that Jesus existed except the stories about him. I happen to believe they are true, but I cannot prove my belief. Josephus' mention of Jesus is said to be a fraudulent entry, not Josephus' writings. Some scholars claim this. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know for sure what to believe. If your 'prophecies' were crystal clear valid, there wouldn't be all this debate. They are interpretations. You are happy with them. I am not.

2321 views

David: I know what you believe and what you have presented as truth. But the Biblical record is mainly hearsay, and the historian record likewise. I've looked at what Catholics call miracles, and I am just as skeptical there. The ossuary containing James bones, supposedly brother of Joshua (Jesus), is apparently a fake. There is no absolute solid evidence that Jesus existed except the stories about him. I happen to believe they are true, but I cannot prove my belief. Josephus' mention of Jesus is said to be a fraudulent entry, not Josephus' writings. Some scholars claim this. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know for sure what to believe. If your 'prophecies' were crystal clear valid, there wouldn't be all this debate. They are interpretations. You are happy with them. I am not.-Much of Daniel actually translates itself, so it is not so much my interpretation. As for history, check out the Cyrus Cylinder and the Nabonidus Cylinder. These are straight from the tap, as it were.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2339 views


> Tony: Much of Daniel actually translates itself, so it is not so much my interpretation. As for history, check out the Cyrus Cylinder and the Nabonidus Cylinder. These are straight from the tap, as it were.-I've read them. I don't see any connection that helps me see your point. I know the Jews returned to the Holy Land later, and even if it was said they would return eventually, that hardly makes it a holy prophesy.

2328 views

TONY: If a hundred scientist all wrote papers in a particular field, and they all agreed with each other as to the overall big picture, and they were all verified repeated by outside experiments, would you question the credentials of each and every one?
 
What experiments? The only "big picture" in the bible is the story of one version of God, which cannot be verified by outside experiments.
 
TONY: The criteria that we impose on science is much less rigorous than the scrutiny to which the bible has been subjected, and for the bible has been under such scrutiny for thousands of years. Yet, you seem much more trusting of a bunch of scientist whose hypotheses and theories have been overturned on a regular basis.-Science is an ongoing study of the material world. When scientists explain natural phenomena, and their explanations are confirmed by experiment and observation, I trust them. When they hypothesize and theorize on subjects that probably can't be confirmed (e.g. abiogenesis, multiverses, universes that spring from nothing), I am sceptical. If I were to read a book by a hundred atheist scientists rubbishing the notion of God, I would be sceptical. If I read a book by a hundred believers, (selected by a hundred believers), praising or excusing the conduct of their hypothetical, theoretical version of God, I am sceptical.
 
DHW: God has the last word. And supposing ... purely for argument's sake, of course ... he decides that murderers, fornicators and agnostics are equally deserving of eternal death, I can't argue. That's why it's scary.
TONY: It is only scary if you are afraid of death. I don't WANT to die, but it holds no fear for me. Sadness, sure; fear, not at all.
 
Agreed. I only referred to "eternal death" in order to avoid another discussion with you about the lake of fire and brimstone! My point, of course, is that I see reason to be afraid of an almighty God who may have different moral criteria from my own.
 
TONY: ...let me pose this question to both you and David: What would you accept as valid evidence? What brings you from the non-belief to the point of belief, regardless of the subject being discussed? -It can't be "regardless of the subject being discussed"! The (non-)existence of God is a unique subject. But I will try to answer each of the following arguments:-TONY: When I have presented quotes from historians, they historians credentials and sources were discarded. When I have presented fulfilled prophecies, they have been discarded. When I have presented archaelogical evidence, it has been discarded. When science provides evidence, it is discarded. So, the question becomes, what is acceptable as valid evidence if not history, science, archaeology, or an accuracy rating that smashes the Law of Probabilities?-Do you, then, like the Rev. E.B. Pusey, think all non-Christian historians, archaeologists and scientists are prejudiced, trying to delude others, and "know well" that they are ignoring historical truths? History and archaeology: No doubt some events reported by some biblical authors are historical. Our historians and archaeologists agree that the English defeated the French at Agincourt in 1415, and I believe them. But when in Shakespeare's play Montjoy says to Henry V: "The day is yours," and Henry replies: "Praised be God, and not our strength, for it!" I do not take it as proof that God won the Battle of Agincourt. History may be fact, but presentation and interpretation of history depend on subjective, fallible historians. Even eye-witness accounts vary considerably, and when the historian is not an eye-witness, he/she can only rely on the unreliable subjectivity of others. Prophecies: I'm in no position to judge the authenticity of the biblical texts that contain prophecies, or the extent to which prophecies have come true, but (a) I have an open mind on many psychic matters, and would by no means dismiss experiences authenticated by independent third parties (as in NDEs and OBEs); (b) even if Gipsy Rose gets it right, I do not see that as proof that Gipsy Jane will also get it right. Science: Please give me one piece of objective, scientific evidence that God exists.-What would I accept as valid evidence? I suspect that BBella is right, and it would need a personal experience to convince me. The overriding impression that has emerged from all our discussions is that arguments relating to the existence and nature of God are based on subjective interpretation of whatever information is available to us. You have agreed that belief is a matter of faith, and yet you get frustrated when someone tells you that your subjectively interpreted "evidence" requires faith to be believed!

2355 views


> dhw:What would I accept as valid evidence? I suspect that BBella is right, and it would need a personal experience to convince me. The overriding impression that has emerged from all our discussions is that arguments relating to the existence and nature of God are based on subjective interpretation of whatever information is available to us. You have agreed that belief is a matter of faith, and yet you get frustrated when someone tells you that your subjectively interpreted "evidence" requires faith to be believed!-Your discussion and mine with Tony is frustrating. He thoroughly believes that what he considers evidence is 'real' truth. It isn't. It requires interpretation of ancient texts, based on hearsay, and then an interpretation of the future events which may or may not have been foretold. The Jews in exile certainly planned to get back to Jeruselem, and they expressed wishes for that event, and they did get back. So? We all wish for things that finally come true. You are right to ask for a scientific proof. That is what I am attempting to show.

2344 views

You want specifics and details? ... Ok... coming right up.-Concerning Babylon and it's fall-Jeremiah 25:9 Israel would be conquered and held captive by Babylon. Called Nebuchadnezzar by name. -Jeremiah 25:11 Gives the specific length of their captivity. -Jeremiah 25:12 Specifies that the last rulers would be Chal'dean. Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar were Chaldean(Not all Babylonian Kings were), and the last rulers of Babylon. Also specified that the city would become a desolate waste. -Jeremiah 51:28 Tells that the nation conquering Babylon would be the Medes. (Between this and the confirming of Cyrus we have the sum of the Medo Persian Empire which had not been formed yet. Babylon was taken by Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian. )-Jeremiah 51:39 Says they will be conquered while 'at banquet'. (Confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder #23)-Isaiah 44:28 - Specifically names Cyrus as the one to give the order to rebuild Jerusalem. (Confirmed in the Cyrus Cylinder.)-Isaiah 45:1 - The gates would be left opened. (Confirmed by Josephus. Cyrus Cylinder #40 notes that there was no siege, the city was not surrounded)-Isaiah 45:4 - That Cyrus would not be a Jew.(He was Persian, confirmed numerous times)-Isaiah 45:13- That Cyrus would let the Jews go. (Confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder#26 & #32)-45:13 that he would rebuild the city and the temple, and that he would do so without bribes or asking for tribute. (Confirmed by both Josephus and the Cyrus Cylinder.)-
Isaiah 46:11 Cyrus would come from the east, and would move swiftly in his conquest. (This one is a little more vague, but it held true none the less.)-Isaiah 47:5 Babylon would never recover as a world power. (Confirmed by history)-Isaiah 47:9 That Babylon would fall in a single day. (Confirmed by Josephus)-
The nice thing about these(and the reason I used this particular line of prophecy) is that the events themselves are written in the stone of time. They are immutable. They can not change. They are not open to interpretation. They either happened, or they did not. The commentary is specific. It is not vague. It gives names, indicates dates, supplies confirmable details. These are not subject to my faith or yours, instead being binary in nature. They are either true, or false.-
But I am certain you will have a way of saying none of those are valid, credible evidence... Either they are hearsay, or the cylinders can't be confirmed, or Josephus's sources can't be confirmed, or that they were not specific enough. "The very stones cry out..", but people will not hear what they do not want to hear. To admit any of it is true(beyond a purely secular history) is to admit the possibility that all of it is true, and that would be a cause for fear to people and people do not want to be afraid.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2315 views


> Tony: Isaiah 47:9 That Babylon would fall in a single day. (Confirmed by Josephus)-Isaiah dates to the 8th Century BC. Josephus was born a few years before Jesus died (33 AD) All you have proven is Josephus was a good reader. The first fall of Babylon was about 520 BC. with several falls aferward. I admire you faith but you are twisting facts to support it. Look at this discussion by a scholar of the OT.-http://www.dabar.org/semreview/fallbabyprob.html-
Let's drop the subject. I don't want to upset you or your faith.

2344 views

Dhw (to TONY): You have agreed that belief is a matter of faith, and yet you get frustrated when someone tells you that your subjectively interpreted "evidence" requires faith to be believed!-DAVID: Your discussion and mine with Tony is frustrating. He thoroughly believes that what he considers evidence is 'real' truth. It isn't. It requires interpretation of ancient texts, based on hearsay, and then an interpretation of the future events which may or may not have been foretold. The Jews in exile certainly planned to get back to Jeruselem, and they expressed wishes for that event, and they did get back. So? We all wish for things that finally come true. You are right to ask for a scientific proof. That is what I am attempting to show.-Thank you for this post, which is important for me since it comes from someone who is an avowed theist and like myself was raised in the Jewish tradition, tied to the Old Testament. It's difficult for all of us not to get frustrated when others apparently refuse to see what seems to us an obvious truth. However, I would like to think that the exchanges do help all of us to sharpen our thinking, and certainly in my case they have broadened my knowledge considerably.-While on the subject of frustration and your own "scientific proof", there continue to be misunderstandings over my own agnostic position. In my post to Tony a couple of days ago, I made a point which I'll repeat here in the hope that it might make my views clearer to you and others as well:
 
Your scientific argument against chance creating life leads you to the subjective inference that no matter how unlikely it may be (even you can't come up with attributes or an explanation other than the nebulous "first cause"), some form of intelligence you call God must have done it. The atheist argument that there is no scientific evidence to prove that God exists leads him to the subjective inference that no matter how unlikely it may be (even Dawkins admits the improbability), chance must have done it. Confronted by two unbelievable theories, I decline to draw a conclusion, and so if either theory is presented to me, I can only explain why I accept the negative arguments (no evidence for chance v. no evidence for God), but do not accept the positive (chance did it v. God did it).-One very important qualification here is that I do NOT believe that science has or ever will have all the answers, and I know you don't either. But since experiences from other areas of life (not just psychic, but also connected with our everyday consciousness) still prove nothing either way about "God", I remain - as you know all too well! - on my fence.

2337 views

TONY: If a hundred scientist all wrote papers in a particular field, and they all agreed with each other as to the overall big picture, and they were all verified repeated by outside experiments, would you question the credentials of each and every one?
> 
> DHW: What experiments? The only "big picture" in the bible is the story of one version of God, which cannot be verified by outside experiments.
> -Not at all. The "Big Picture" is a chain of events as well. The hypotheses were the prophecies, which were tested in the laboratory of life, and confirmed. The repeat experiments are in the form of archaeology and history which confirm that these are true, despite the attempts of nay-sayers to poo poo them. - --> TONY: ...let me pose this question to both you and David: What would you accept as valid evidence? What brings you from the non-belief to the point of belief, regardless of the subject being discussed? 
> 
> It can't be "regardless of the subject being discussed"! The (non-)existence of God is a unique subject. But I will try to answer each of the following arguments:
> -The non-existence of god is no more unique than Abiogensis, String theory, Evolution, or any other theory for which we have no DIRECT OBSERVATION. So, again, what is your criteria?--> DHW: Do you, then, like the Rev. E.B. Pusey, think all non-Christian historians, archaeologists and scientists are prejudiced, trying to delude others, and "know well" that they are ignoring historical truths? -Not all, certainly, but some most definitely. I have actually quoted non-christian/non-jewish historians and archaeology that confirms my points. Why would I do that if I thought all of them were biased or trying to delude others?->DHW:History and archaeology: No doubt some events reported by some biblical authors are historical. History may be fact, but presentation and interpretation of history depend on subjective, fallible historians. Even eye-witness accounts vary considerably, and when the historian is not an eye-witness, he/she can only rely on the unreliable subjectivity of others. -
Aside from the obvious fact that Shakespeare was not writing a history, I understand your point. However, when such rich details of accounts have been verified by multiple accounts from respectable sources, do you not give them credibility?->DHW: Prophecies: I'm in no position to judge the authenticity of the biblical texts that contain prophecies, or the extent to which prophecies have come true, but (a) I have an open mind on many psychic matters, and would by no means dismiss experiences authenticated by independent third parties (as in NDEs and OBEs); (b) even if Gipsy Rose gets it right, I do not see that as proof that Gipsy Jane will also get it right. -
But if Gipsy Rose has a perfect track record for all the ones that have happened already, shouldn't you be more inclined to perk up when she is telling you what is going to happen in the future?->DHW: Science: Please give me one piece of objective, scientific evidence that God exists.
> -David has given us so much evidence that it would be near insulting for me to try and top his efforts. The most basic though, is the Law of Biogenesis that has never been disproven, and the fact that without information, physical life can not exist(i.e. information must proceed physical life)->DHW: What would I accept as valid evidence? I suspect that BBella is right, and it would need a personal experience to convince me. The overriding impression that has emerged from all our discussions is that arguments relating to the existence and nature of God are based on subjective interpretation of whatever information is available to us. You have agreed that belief is a matter of faith, and yet you get frustrated when someone tells you that your subjectively interpreted "evidence" requires faith to be believed!-It is faith insomuch as I have not directly observed God. You are correct in that. I have also never directly observed an atom, or a strand of DNA. I've never seen Jupiter with my own eyes or walked on the surface of the Red Planet to take air samples. Instead, I must rely on the reports and interpretations of data that other people that have, who may or may not have their own agenda or bias that is slanting their views. So much of our lives is relegated to trusting someone else's subjective interpretation. I am always surprised when that is thrown up as a defense. There is no response to that argument, and there never can be.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2349 views

DHW: The only "big picture" in the bible is the story of one version of God, which cannot be verified by outside experiments.
TONY: Not at all. The "Big Picture" is a chain of events as well. -A story IS a chain of events. And all the events are centred on the Jewish/Christian version of God.-TONY: The hypotheses were the prophecies, which were tested in the laboratory of life, and confirmed.
 
I'll leave you and David to argue about the prophecies.-TONY: The non-existence of god is no more unique than Abiogensis, String theory, Evolution, or any other theory for which we have no DIRECT OBSERVATION. So, again, what is your criteria?-I gave them to you in the post which you are responding to and now echoing: "When scientists explain natural phenomena and their explanations are confirmed by experiment and observation, I trust them. When they hypothesize and theorize on subjects that probably can't be confirmed (e.g. abiogenesis, multiverses, universes that spring from nothing), I am sceptical." Your belief in God, his benign nature, and Christian eschatology naturally comes under the second category.
 
DHW: Do you, then, like the Rev. E.B. Pusey, think all non-Christian historians, archaeologists and scientists are prejudiced, trying to delude others, and "know well" that they are ignoring historical truths? 
TONY: Not all, certainly, but some most definitely. I have actually quoted non-christian/non-jewish historians and archaeology that confirms my points. -Are you saying your non-Christian historians, archaeologists and scientists should by now all have been converted to Christianity? Why do you think the unprejudiced ones have not been converted?-DHW:History and archaeology: History may be fact, but presentation and interpretation of history depend on subjective, fallible historians.
TONY: Aside from the obvious fact that Shakespeare was not writing a history, I understand your point. However, when such rich details of accounts have been verified by multiple accounts from respectable sources, do you not give them credibility?-Like any other historian, Shakespeare did his research and then wrote his own version. If several eye-witnesses report on an event, and it can be authenticated by independent experts (historians, archaeologists etc.), of course I will give them credibility. But nobody can authenticate claims that God thought, said or did this and that. Even when recounting a true story, every writer fills in the gaps with his imagination. Do you not think it possible that, like Shakespeare, your authors made up stories, put dialogue into the mouths of their characters, and sometimes even twisted history to fit their own purposes?
 
TONY: But if Gipsy Rose has a perfect track record for all the [prophecies] that have happened already, shouldn't you be more inclined to perk up when she is telling you what is going to happen in the future?-Even if Isaiah did get some right, that is no reason for me to believe St John. You always argue as if the bible was one book by one author!-DHW: Science: Please give me one piece of objective, scientific evidence that God exists.
TONY: David has given us so much evidence that it would be near insulting for me to try and top his efforts. The most basic though, is the Law of Biogenesis that has never been disproven, and the fact that without information, physical life can not exist(i.e. information must proceed physical life)-I asked for objective evidence that God exists. David has put as powerful a scientific case against chance as one could wish for. But he goes one step beyond science: if chance didn't do it, by inference God must have done it. The atheist scientist argues that there is no evidence for the existence of God; he then goes one step beyond science: if God doesn't exist, by inference chance did it. I repeat: the choice is between two unbelievable theories, and there's no objective scientific evidence for either of them.-DHW: You have agreed that belief is a matter of faith, and yet you get frustrated when someone tells you that your subjectively interpreted "evidence" requires faith to be believed!
TONY: It is faith insomuch as I have not directly observed God. You are correct in that. I have also never directly observed an atom, or a strand of DNA. [...] Instead, I must rely on the reports and interpretations of data that other people that have, who may or may not have their own agenda or bias that is slanting their views. So much of our lives is relegated to trusting someone else's subjective interpretation. -It's a source of comfort to me that you so often echo my own words. On 18 January in my response to you under "Scientist's Approach to Creation", I pointed out that "all of us on this forum are dependent for our information on the work of so-called experts. If there is a general consensus, we tend to accept their findings. [...] This makes us vulnerable, and if there is controversy, I think one has to keep an open mind." -TONY: I am always surprised when [subjective interpretation] is thrown up as a defense. There is no response to that argument, and there never can be.-In turn I am always surprised if, when there is controversy, subjective interpretation is used to attack open-mindedness! 
---

2324 views

DAVID: My point is finer than as you interpret it. My point is that the new complexities are never required, but they happen anyway.
Not "finer". Exactly the same.-DAVID: I think that these observations imply a drive for complexity from the beginning. 
I myself have repeatedly stressed that the inventive mechanism must have been there from the beginning.-DAVID: Why God chose to advance through evolution is unknown to us. But that complexification leads to the bush like evolutionary result, and not Darwin's tree (as in his notebook).
I couldn't care less whether you call it a bush or a tree! Both structures branch out higgledy-piggledy in all directions.
 
DAVID: It is as if God said let's throw everything at the fan and see where it lands...
Exactly. If God exists, this is a scenario that fits in perfectly with the higgledy-piggledy bush. We agree at last!-DAVID: ...but since the process ended up with consciousness, obviously a very desirable goal, I must conclude that this shotgun approach was pre-ordained or guided to this desired result.
Well, at least "pre-ordained" is not as pin-point precise as "pre-programmed". If Tony's scatter-gun is fired in all directions for long enough (i.e. the inventive mechanism keeps innovating), you might say it's inevitable that one day it will hit the bullseye. However, a "desirable goal" leading to the "desired result" actually IS your conclusion. We know humans are here, and it is your reading of God's "desires" that is open to question. "Guided" = intervention, which also fits in with the bush, but implies either no initial purpose (working ad hoc) or difficulty hitting the target.-DAVID: My point about complexity at the very beginning of life is that the earliest cells had to be complex or they couldn't really BE Alive. 
I have never disagreed.-David: Chance cannot create that complexity. Therefore, God did it. Therefore there is a God. From my viewpoint it is a simple set of reasonable steps to that conclusion.
I have always shared your scepticism about chance. Unfortunately, there are two separate non-beliefs involved. You and I cannot believe in chance. At the same time I cannot believe in an equally unlikely, eternal, immaterial power that has either always been conscious or has somehow generated its own consciousness (see Tony's response to BBella under "Love me", 11 Jan. at 03.17). You can. That's why you are a theist and I am an agnostic!

2350 views

DAVID: It is as if God said let's throw everything at the fan and see where it lands...-> dhw:Exactly. If God exists, this is a scenario that fits in perfectly with the higgledy-piggledy bush. We agree at last!-Up to a point. So far so good.
> 
> DAVID: My point about complexity at the very beginning of life is that the earliest cells had to be complex or they couldn't really BE Alive. -> dhw:I have never disagreed.-> 
> David: Chance cannot create that complexity. Therefore, God did it. Therefore there is a God. From my viewpoint it is a simple set of reasonable steps to that conclusion.-> dhw:I have always shared your scepticism about chance. Unfortunately, there are two separate non-beliefs involved. You and I cannot believe in chance. At the same time I cannot believe in an equally unlikely, eternal, immaterial power that has either always been conscious or has somehow generated its own consciousness (see Tony's response to BBella under "Love me", 11 Jan. at 03.17). You can. That's why you are a theist and I am an agnostic!-But what choice do you really have? Something got all of this reality started. There can't be something from nothing. You don't buy pure chance. Where did chance events come from? 'Something' operated by chance? What was that? The early necessary complexity of life requires information. That requires a thinking mental state. So much for chance, for contigency. Something eternal has always been around.-Faith is a matter of a choice. If you believe this reality had a start, and the universe has been definitely shown to have a starting point, and you don't believe in chance, there has to be a guiding force. That force for all of us is something we cannot imagine. It is concealed. It must be accepted on faith. Your agnosticism in an unwillingness to come tio a logical endpoint, simply because you cannot imagine the unimaginable. Neither can we believers, which is why we are called believers. You will never have a black and white conclusion. There is none, and never will be. I think you are on your picket fence forever.

2358 views

Speaking of genes, belief and cells...-Dr. Lipton claims that belief not genes control biology. I'm sure David has heard this before, but I did think it interesting and I do believe that Dr Lipton is way ahead of his time. He did not wait for science to approve his findings knowing science would not make money from his findings, so he took his findings straight to the public.-
Genetics, Epigenetics, and Destiny
 
Interview with Dr. Bruce Lipton-http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/science/interview-dr-bruce-lipton

2305 views

bbella: Speaking of genes, belief and cells...
> 
> Dr. Lipton claims that belief not genes control biology. I'm sure David has heard this before, but I did think it interesting and I do believe that Dr Lipton is way ahead of his time. He did not wait for science to approve his findings knowing science would not make money from his findings, so he took his findings straight to the public.
> 
> 
> Genetics, Epigenetics, and Destiny
> 
> Interview with Dr. Bruce Lipton
> 
> http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/science/interview-dr-bruce-lipton-I've reviewed the site. My own reaction is that Lipton is correct to large degree about epigenetics. And certainly the plasticity of the brain will bring individual changes in that person's brain by his conscious activity. And we all know evidence of changing how our body feels when we have a thought, lets, say a sense of joy. He also invokes Rupert Sheldrake, a favorite of mine who has shown there is human species consciousness we all tap into.-On the other hand Lipton is implying more than is currently proven, and with all theories we don't know at this point how much will turn out to be true. But I'll bet he is a fine motivational speaker. And folks need that kind of stuff.

2341 views


> David: I've reviewed the site. My own reaction is that Lipton is correct to large degree about epigenetics. -Serendipity at work: new findings of how epigenetics may be inheritable:-"The new Cambridge study initially discovered how the DNA methylation marks are erased in PGCs, a question that has been under intense investigation over the past 10 years. The methylation marks are converted to hydroxymethylation which is then progressively diluted out as the cells divide. This process turns out to be remarkably efficient and seems to reset the genes for each new generation. Understanding the mechanism of epigenetic resetting could be exploited to deal with adult diseases linked with an accumulation of aberrant epigenetic marks, such as cancers, or in 'rejuvenating' aged cells.
 
However, the researchers, who were funded by the Wellcome Trust, also found that some rare methylation can 'escape' the reprogramming process and can thus be passed on to offspring -- revealing how epigenetic inheritance could occur. This is important because aberrant methylation could accumulate at genes during a lifetime in response to environmental factors, such as chemical exposure or nutrition, and can cause abnormal use of genes, leading to disease. If these marks are then inherited by offspring, their genes could also be affected."-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130124150808.htm

2332 views

dsRNA is now shown to cross from parent to offspring and suppress a gene the parent doesn't have!

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-biologists-inheritance-gene-silencing-rna.html

"...recent research has shown that, in some species, parents' life experiences can alter their offspring. Being underfed, exposed to toxins or stricken by disease can cause changes in a parent's gene expression patterns, and in some cases, these changes can be passed down to the next generation. However, the mechanisms that cause this effect—known as non-genetic inheritance—are a mystery.

"For the first time, developmental biologists have observed molecules of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA)—a close cousin of DNA that can silence genes within cells—being passed directly from parent to offspring in the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans. Importantly, the gene silencing effect created by dsRNA molecules in parents also persisted in their offspring.

***

"'This is the first time we've seen a dsRNA molecule passing from one generation to the next," said Antony Jose, an assistant professor in the UMD Department of Cell Biology and Molecular Genetics and senior author on the study. "The assumption has been that dsRNA changes the parent's genetic material and this altered genetic material is transmitted to the next generation. But our observations suggest that RNA is cutting out the middle man."

"In a surprising turn of events, some of the dsRNA molecules could not silence genes in the parent because the dsRNA sequence did not match any of the parent's genes. But the dsRNA molecules did silence genes in the offspring, when the new worm gained a copy of the matching gene from its other parent. This suggests that, in some cases, gene silencing by dsRNA might be able to skip an entire generation.

"'It's shocking that we can see dsRNA cross generational boundaries. Our results provide a concrete mechanism for how the environment in one generation could affect the next generation," Jose said. "But it's doubly surprising to see that a parent can transmit the information to silence a gene it doesn't have."

"Jose and his colleagues did not expect dsRNA to play such a direct role in the transmission of information across generations. Because dsRNA factors into the life cycle of many viruses, Jose explained, it is reasonable to assume that a living cell's natural defenses would prevent dsRNA from invading the next generation.

"'It's very surprising. One would think the next generation would be protected, but we are seeing all of these dsRNA molecules being dumped into the next generation," Jose added. "Egg cells use the same mechanism to absorb nutrients as they prepare for fertilization. The next generation is not only getting nutrition, it's also getting information." (my bold)

"There are hints that similar things could be happening in humans. We know that RNA exists in the human bloodstream. But, we don't know where the RNA molecules are coming from, where they're going or exactly what they're doing," Jose said. "Our work reveals an exciting possibility—they could be messages from parents to their offspring."

Comment: Genetic mechanisms pass information. That is accepted now. This new epigenetic mechanism discovery shows that it can be predicted more methods for passage of information between generations will be found. Lamarck will be vindicated.

1944 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum