Creationists

[Metsfanmax]

Is it possible there is something out there so unbelievably smarter than us that they were able to create all of this. Humans are only touching the tip of the iceberg. It's silly to think that creation or evolution are the only option. You people act as we have figured it all out. We haven't even discovered all the animals or plants on the earth yet we can definitively say where everything from or they evolved. If evolution is correct why not compress all that has been learned into a 2-3 hour movie showing proven facts of evolution? Not theories. Or if creation is the other option why not compress all that info into a 2-3 hour movie stating proven facts?Neither side can do so. If they could there would be no debate because either side would be able to explain where we came from.

There have been plenty of instances where myself and others have showed proof of evolution, incontrovertibly. Whether the creationists choose to acknowledge it is up to them. It does require at least a working familiarity of the basics of genetics and physiology.

-TG

Why couldn't evolution be a perfectly natural and fully integrated function or purpose of something that was created?

Well, if we accept as true the basic cosmology that we have now (the Universe was created nearly 14 billion years ago, but Earth wasn't created until less than 5 billion years ago) -- and there's no good scientific reason to disagree with that -- then for evolution to be a purpose of creation, the Creator would have needed to set up the universe in just such a way as to guarantee that evolution was possible, and that it would happen on Earth.

And of course, there's not really any way for us to test that right now. But one wonders why the Creator would go through all that trouble to set up the universe just right, when if He wanted humans to exist, he could have just created us straight up.

[notyou2]

Do you ever think these "changes" were made due to the fact that the initial beliefs/dogma didn't make sense?

I think it was the lack of any other facts at the time to indicate otherwise. The biggest problems back then were the obvious ones like what was the day/night before the sun? Of course these people were members of the church writing homilies for the salvation of people's souls not for the scientific community (which was mostly nonexistent at that time).

Even back in the days of Galileo there were those who insisted that the Bible told of how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

You never answered the question.

Tzor, You are attempting to think for them, not yourself. I asked you what you thought, not what you think they thought.

[tzor]

And of course, there's not really any way for us to test that right now. But one wonders why the Creator would go through all that trouble to set up the universe just right, when if He wanted humans to exist, he could have just created us straight up.

Who isn't to say he didn't create us straight up ... from His point of view. If God exists outside of time, then such notions are indeed silly. Why would you think this was trouble?

[tzor]

Do you ever think these "changes" were made due to the fact that the initial beliefs/dogma didn't make sense?

Tzor, You are attempting to think for them, not yourself. I asked you what you thought, not what you think they thought.

Before I go too deep into answering a STUPID question, that you insist that I have to answer in your specific way, let's break down your question.

Do you ever think

Yea, all the time

the fact that the initial beliefs/dogma didn't make sense?

To whom? To me? If it is to them then how can I not state what I think they thought? And if this is to me when why would anything I think have any effect on actions that took place in the past? Am I a Time Lord?

How am I supposed to answer the question?

[notyou2]

So you're saying the Pope is wrong?

[Metsfanmax]

And of course, there's not really any way for us to test that right now. But one wonders why the Creator would go through all that trouble to set up the universe just right, when if He wanted humans to exist, he could have just created us straight up.

Who isn't to say he didn't create us straight up ... from His point of view. If God exists outside of time, then such notions are indeed silly. Why would you think this was trouble?

Well, for one thing, the world that exists essentially guarantees the existence of life forms on other planets. So it seems infinitely unlikely to assert that he created this world for us.

[nietzsche]

maybe the aliens were created to be our sex toys.

[Metsfanmax]

maybe the aliens were created to be our sex toys.

Yes, but in all probability, we were created to be their sex toys.

[warmonger1981]

Thanks notyou2. I thought it was.

Yes I'm talking about Planck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtiSCBXbHAg

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeUgDJc6AWE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEX2-m8EabU

Thoughts people?

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

My thoughts are that you dont understand Plancks constant.

I've always wondered why it matters. If you live a moral life then the question of if there is the presence of a higher being is somewhat irrelevant.

[nietzsche]

no it's not. there's the anxiety created by the perception of nothingness

[Metsfanmax]

no it's not. there's the anxiety created by the perception of nothingness

Merely a reminder of how weak and unimportant we are in the cosmos, rather than personal failure.

[mrswdk]

If you live a moral life then the question of if there is the presence of a higher being is somewhat irrelevant.

The question of whether or not the concept of morals has any value is entirely predicated on whether or not you believe in a higher being.

[Dukasaur]

If you live a moral life then the question of if there is the presence of a higher being is somewhat irrelevant.

The question of whether or not the concept of morals has any value is entirely predicated on whether or not you believe in a higher being.

Total nonsense. The ersatz morals provided by religions are just for lazy people who don't want to spend any time pondering what their morals should be. Atheists (at least atheists on the existential side of the spectrum) devote a lot of time and effort and carefully craft moral codes for themselves without reference to any sky monkeys.

[mrswdk]

If you live a moral life then the question of if there is the presence of a higher being is somewhat irrelevant.

The question of whether or not the concept of morals has any value is entirely predicated on whether or not you believe in a higher being.

Total nonsense. The ersatz morals provided by religions are just for lazy people who don't want to spend any time pondering what their morals should be. Atheists (at least atheists on the existential side of the spectrum) devote a lot of time and effort and carefully craft moral codes for themselves without reference to any sky monkeys.

Or indeed, without reference to anything whatsoever except their own flights of fancy.

[Dukasaur]

If you live a moral life then the question of if there is the presence of a higher being is somewhat irrelevant.

The question of whether or not the concept of morals has any value is entirely predicated on whether or not you believe in a higher being.

Total nonsense. The ersatz morals provided by religions are just for lazy people who don't want to spend any time pondering what their morals should be. Atheists (at least atheists on the existential side of the spectrum) devote a lot of time and effort and carefully craft moral codes for themselves without reference to any sky monkeys.

Or indeed, without reference to anything whatsoever except their own flights of fancy.

In some cases that's true. In others, not true. Typically the people who are willing to go to that much bother will make sure they are grounded in some logically consistent system.

[mrswdk]

Typically the people who are willing to go to that much bother will try to make sure they are grounded in some logically consistent system.

Let me know if they ever find a way to do so.

[mrswdk]

By which I mean that a logical system built on a fallacious assumption is not, when all is said and done, truly logical.

[nietzsche]

no it's not. there's the anxiety created by the perception of nothingness

Merely a reminder of how weak and unimportant we are in the cosmos, rather than personal failure.

that is simply your logical conclusion based on the premises you believe to be true.

what really happens is that atheists choose another source of meaning. the most popular one among atheist is progress, i've encountered. in some way or another.

there must be something to put the focus on, to avoid feeling its all for nothing.

[nietzsche]

If you live a moral life then the question of if there is the presence of a higher being is somewhat irrelevant.

The question of whether or not the concept of morals has any value is entirely predicated on whether or not you believe in a higher being.

Total nonsense. The ersatz morals provided by religions are just for lazy people who don't want to spend any time pondering what their morals should be. Atheists (at least atheists on the existential side of the spectrum) devote a lot of time and effort and carefully craft moral codes for themselves without reference to any sky monkeys.

yes, but it's also true that choosing a set of morals is to save time. otherwise we would have to be making moral decisions every second.

even then, creating a personal moral code is not only based in logic, logic is used but the reasons behind it are irrational.

[macbone]

If you live a moral life then the question of if there is the presence of a higher being is somewhat irrelevant.

The question of whether or not the concept of morals has any value is entirely predicated on whether or not you believe in a higher being.

This has been done to death, M. Yes, one can be moral without having faith in gods or other higher powers. This is pretty well-established in philosophy.

[mrswdk]

And while doing it to death on this forum even Dukasaur has agreed that the morality being produced by atheists is not objective. I quote:

You can talk about "happiness for the greatest number" but it's only a subjective opinion that we should seek happiness. What objective reason is there that universal misery is not the goal?

and

What I believe is not possible, is to come up with any objective reason to desire an outcome.

and finally

I certainly think ethical systems are possible, I just deny them any claim to be objective.

Which is why I don't understand his stance in this thread.

[warmonger1981]

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
― Max Planck

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
― Max Planck, Where is Science Going?

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
― Max Planck, Where is Science Going?

[Dukasaur]

And while doing it to death on this forum even Dukasaur has agreed that the morality being produced by atheists is not objective. I quote:

You can talk about "happiness for the greatest number" but it's only a subjective opinion that we should seek happiness. What objective reason is there that universal misery is not the goal?

and

What I believe is not possible, is to come up with any objective reason to desire an outcome.

and finally

I certainly think ethical systems are possible, I just deny them any claim to be objective.

Which is why I don't understand his stance in this thread.

I don't understand why you don't understand it.

Yes, we can and do construct moral codes. No, they are not objective. They are filtered through our particular set of biases. We say "Thou Shalt Not Kill" but then we clarify "But It's Okay To Kill Things That Taste Good." That's because evolution has made us a carnivorous hunter, so we construct a moral code that still allows us to murder little piglets. If we were a strictly herbivorous species, we would probably have a stricter rule about not killing any sentient being. If we were a scavenging species, we might have a moral code where it's good to eat meat, but only if it has died of natural causes.

So, I disagree with people who say "My code is based purely on Natural Law." No, I say. Your code is based on Natural Law as you see it from your vantage point at a particular nexus in the food chain. That doesn't make it any less valid. Just accept that you have restrictions and limitations to your viewpoint. Your code is valid, but only within the particular set of constraints that evolution has placed on you.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

By which I mean that a logical system built on a fallacious assumption is not, when all is said and done, truly logical.

If morals are a flight of imagination, then so is logic.

-TG