- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I admit that “The fool has said in his heart there is no God” is not my material. I got it from the Bible.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 11 2010,18:28) I admit that “The fool has said in his heart there is no God” is not my material. I got it from the Bible.
From the con artist formerly known as Saul of Tarsus is the original insecure name-caller, no less.The Oxford chemist Peter Atkins:
And there's no evidence for [a god], no reason to believe that there is one, and so I don't believe that there is one. And I think that it is rather foolish that people do think that there is one.
Foolish is a matter of opinion.
However in the case of Paul it is an admission of feeling threatened by those willing to call his bluff.
Stuart
Well it is a matter of opinion what you call a man who rejects the giver of all life. I agree with scripture, but I suppose if you are the one who rejects the Living God, then you might also find it convenient to say that you are the wise one. It might make you feel better now, but after that is the judgement. You can't change that by trying to will it away or choosing not to believe can you. Oh that's right, you don't believe in free will. All sounds very muddled to me Stu.
- No free will.
- No God.
So how did I choose to believe in God in your universe that obeys your laws of no free will and no God. It must be frustrating for you that people can find the truth when they choose to, even when you oppose them and do not believe in free will.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 11 2010,21:19) Well it is a matter of opinion what you call a man who rejects the giver of all life. I agree with scripture, but I suppose if you are the one who rejects the Living God, then you might also find it convenient to say that you are the wise one. It might make you feel better now, but after that is the judgement. You can't change that by trying to will it away or choosing not to believe can you. Oh that's right, you don't believe in free will. All sounds very muddled to me Stu. - No free will.
- No God.
So how did I choose to believe in God in your universe that obeys your laws of no free will and no God. It must be frustrating for you that people can find the truth when they choose to, even when you oppose them and do not believe in free will.
Did I say there is no such thing as personal decision making?No.
But the sanitised black-and-white christian's world of good / evil, fool / wise man cannot allow consideration of the shades of grey that are there.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 11 2010,21:35) But the sanitised black-and-white christian's world of good / evil, fool / wise man cannot allow consideration of the shades of grey that are there.
What about the sanitised black and white world of atheism?
No shade of anything but black (no color), no God and that is it.
No open mind.
Quote (princess of the king @ Mar. 11 2010,22:39) Stuart, Do you have proof of the origin of the first species?
No.Do you have an explanation for how it arose?
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 12 2010,07:56) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 11 2010,21:35) But the sanitised black-and-white christian's world of good / evil, fool / wise man cannot allow consideration of the shades of grey that are there.
What about the sanitised black and white world of atheism?
No shade of anything but black (no color), no God and that is it.
No open mind.
I have an open mind.What do you have for its consideration that is more than just assertion of your fantasy story?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 12 2010,16:46) I have an open mind.
Interpretation, there is no God, or there is a 0.05% chance that there is a God.Is that an open mind?
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 12 2010,17:55) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 12 2010,16:46) I have an open mind.
Interpretation, there is no God, or there is a 0.05% chance that there is a God.Is that an open mind?
It is 0.000000000000001% which I used earlier to describe the probability of you version of reality being correct, although that is a vast exaggeration of my opinion actually.Anyway, as you appear to give a 0% probability of you being wrong, we divide my figure by your figure and get infinity: mathematically my mind is infinitely more open than yours, and that is true no matter what non-zero value of probability I choose.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 12 2010,16:45) Quote (princess of the king @ Mar. 11 2010,22:39) Stuart, Do you have proof of the origin of the first species?
No.Do you have an explanation for how it arose?
Stuart
a) Why not?b) A Creator.
PoftheK
a) Because there is no such thing as proof, except in mathematics. If you mean to say evidence, then the evidence is that there are living descendants of the first species, and that there were only single-celled organisms for the first couple of billions of years. So the first species should be expected to be some kind of primitive single cell. Even if you could beat astronomical odds and find fossil remains of the “first” species, there would be no chemical remains available to tell you how it arose. We have very good speculation about how living cells came about. Unfortunately it is likely that there will never be any evidence for a proper scientific theory of abiogenesis.
b) The word “Creator” is a description, not an explanation.
Stuart
Quote b) The word “Creator” is a description, not an explanation. If the definition is correct in regards to abiogenesis (a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter), then yours also is a description and not an explanation.
Your creation story is not much different then the account of Genesis 2.7, yours just do not know what brought the non- living to life.
Stuart have you ever read Origin of the World, as it is called by the Nag Hammadi Library? The word androgynous is used. What is your opinion on this.
Princess
Quote (princess of the king @ Mar. 13 2010,11:33) Quote b) The word “Creator” is a description, not an explanation. If the definition is correct in regards to abiogenesis (a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter), then yours also is a description and not an explanation.
Your creation story is not much different then the account of Genesis 2.7, yours just do not know what brought the non- living to life.
Stuart have you ever read Origin of the World, as it is called by the Nag Hammadi Library? The word androgynous is used. What is your opinion on this.
Princess
There are candidate explanations that are not just assertion of the word “abiogenesis”. Read about some of them in the Holy Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models
How does Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. match evolution by natural selection? Humans are the latest in an unbroken line of reproduction that goes back 4 billion years and takes in countless non-human ancestors along the way.
I have never read the “Origin of the World”. Is it mythology or science?
Stuart
Stuart,
I retrieve the definition of abiogenesis from princeton, wiki is not one of my fav's to retrieve info.
If we could get past the natural selection/mutation parts and get to the origins of the matter, I think we would be better off in conversing. Have always been fascinated with origins.
You would take Origin of the World as mythology, other christians may take is as heresy.
We had to come from somewhere Stuart, with everything that surrounds us, how all is place together, just does not happen with a little of this just happen to come across a little of that to create a little of this which then passed a little of that to create a little more of this so forth and so on.
Let's regress Stuart, start from the beginning of your theory, shall we.
Quote (princess of the king @ Mar. 13 2010,13:55) Stuart, I retrieve the definition of abiogenesis from princeton, wiki is not one of my fav's to retrieve info.
If we could get past the natural selection/mutation parts and get to the origins of the matter, I think we would be better off in conversing. Have always been fascinated with origins.
You would take Origin of the World as mythology, other christians may take is as heresy.
We had to come from somewhere Stuart, with everything that surrounds us, how all is place together, just does not happen with a little of this just happen to come across a little of that to create a little of this which then passed a little of that to create a little more of this so forth and so on.
Let's regress Stuart, start from the beginning of your theory, shall we.
I disagree with the Princeton use of the word “created”. That is not the idea that abiogenesis means to suggest. “Arose” or “developed” might be better words to use in its place.There is no theory of abiogenesis. If you insist, then I will have to simply say I don't know how life started, because that is the only honest position. Once there is a single replicating cell, you have the beginnings of evolution, which is well established. This one starting point of abiogenesis, however may elude us forever, no matter how unsatisfactory that may seem.
Stuart
Knowing my audience, I understand why you would disagree with Princeton's use of created in defining abiogenesis.
You believe that a single cell was the beginning of life as we know it, and that one cell created all living matter we have today, by natural selection and mutation. Scientifically you cannot prove to me (staying within the parameters of origins)
I believe in a creator, a designer that created all living matter. Which by all accounts Stuart, I cannot prove to you.
My point of the matter is, we both cannot prove to each other on origin's of life, mine being faith based and yours' being fact based.
I truly believe Stuart, that you have had your doubts, where you have almost believed in a Creator, alas, the texts that are involved in this Creator is what has kept you from taking fact to faith. As is such, this is how our conversations started.
I also believe in natural selection and mutation, not in the sense that you believe though, I believe man has applied this to scripture.
Just for moment Stuart, believe with your heart there is a creator of all living matter, what would be your question to him in regards to life.
Take care of yourself Stuart
Quote (princess of the king @ Mar. 14 2010,01:19) Knowing my audience, I understand why you would disagree with Princeton's use of created in defining abiogenesis. You believe that a single cell was the beginning of life as we know it, and that one cell created all living matter we have today, by natural selection and mutation. Scientifically you cannot prove to me (staying within the parameters of origins)
I believe in a creator, a designer that created all living matter. Which by all accounts Stuart, I cannot prove to you.
My point of the matter is, we both cannot prove to each other on origin's of life, mine being faith based and yours' being fact based.
I truly believe Stuart, that you have had your doubts, where you have almost believed in a Creator, alas, the texts that are involved in this Creator is what has kept you from taking fact to faith. As is such, this is how our conversations started.
I also believe in natural selection and mutation, not in the sense that you believe though, I believe man has applied this to scripture.
Just for moment Stuart, believe with your heart there is a creator of all living matter, what would be your question to him in regards to life.
Take care of yourself Stuart
No, I have never had doubts that the concept of a creator being anything other than the wishful thinking of the deluded.I can pretend though. Let's say I met this creator, the one in your book of mythology. I would not ask it a question about life or the universe. I would ask it why it had to kill Uzzah.
Stuart
Quote being anything other than the wishful thinking of the deluded I fully understand your thought process, I find the same with ones that think there is not creator.
Regarding Uzzah, (which this seems to bother you, for your repetitiveness on the subject) if you would ask it would be given I am sure. I am waiting on a few myself.
Take Care Stuart.
Quote (princess of the king @ Mar. 15 2010,04:51) Quote being anything other than the wishful thinking of the deluded I fully understand your thought process, I find the same with ones that think there is not creator.
Regarding Uzzah, (which this seems to bother you, for your repetitiveness on the subject) if you would ask it would be given I am sure. I am waiting on a few myself.
Take Care Stuart.
The difference in the thinking comes down to the fact that the concept of a creator explains nothing, and no one has ever seen one.Of the two positions, how is that not the delusion?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
