Who's game?

Originally posted by whodey
Part of my feeling is that my belief resides alot in the actual teachings of Christianity. Specifically, the teachings Christ gave about the "kingdome of God". For example, love God and your fellow man are the greatest commmands. If one does this then one will keep the laws in the Torah without trying. For me this is a truth and is reality. Who can argue ...[text shortened]... reasons to do so. What needs to be addressed is why we hate to begin with. This is the key.

Many who do base their faith on the Gospels also fall far short. For example, two of the defendants in the Dover school trial, devout Christians who had sworn to tell the truth on a bible, which is to say, they promised to God they would not lie (I love the hypocracy, right there), where shown to have lied under oath and apparently feel no remorse. I suppose they would have felt remorse had the judge prosecuted them as he had threatened.

However, to get back to the subject. If one is unwilling to accept (valid) counter-evidence, how can one justifiably make a case for any particular viewpoint being valid?

Originally posted by vistesd
LOL!! Since that line didn't work for you, I’m going to try: “It was a mu moment: I wonder who left the toilet seat up?” (I steal half my lines from scottishinnz anyway. 😉 )

It's all about mu, mu, mu with you! LOL!

(I steal half my lines from scottishinnz anyway.)

Then I bet everyone is glad I'm back, to provide you with new (or maybe mu) material!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It's all about mu, mu, mu with you! LOL!

[b](I steal half my lines from scottishinnz anyway.)

Then I bet everyone is glad I'm back, to provide you with new (or maybe mu) material![/b]

It's all about mu, mu, mu with you! LOL!

Not! 😉

Then I bet everyone is glad I'm back, to provide you with new (or maybe mu) material!

Yeah, man, it’s been rough! (Seriously, I think everybody’s just glad to see you back; I am.)

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Many who do base their faith on the Gospels also fall far short. For example, two of the defendants in the Dover school trial, devout Christians who had sworn to tell the truth on a bible, which is to say, they promised to God they would not lie (I love the hypocracy, right there), where shown to have lied under oath and apparently feel no remor ...[text shortened]... counter-evidence, how can one justifiably make a case for any particular viewpoint being valid?

To be honest, I am not that well versed on the Dover school trial to comment on it in an informed fashion. As I recall, it had something to do with teaching intelligent design in public school, however, I am not sure how those Christians had lied under oath. Nonetheless, if they did lie then deserve what they what they got, if you know what I mean. I never saw Christ lie to gain an upper hand.

As far as your last comment, in all fairness I think we all have had beliefs challenged with supposide counter-evidences that seemed valid at the time. However, instead of abandoning those beliefs we may have had reasons for not abandoning them. In such a situation I can say I have experienced defending my position even though the evidence produced to refute my position seemed undeniable at the time. I have then later tasted both complete dissillusionment with my original beliefs at the time as well as other times feeling vendicated by sticking to certain beliefs even though it seemed irrational at the time. This vendication was produced when I later discovered that the counter-evidences were but a house of cards upon further investigation.

Having said all that, are you suggesting that you have counter-evidences to challenge my belief system or are you only interested in exploring hypothetical scenerios?

Originally posted by whodey
To be honest, I am not that well versed on the Dover school trial to comment on it in an informed fashion. As I recall, it had something to do with teaching intelligent design in public school, however, I am not sure how those Christians had lied under oath. Nonetheless, if they did lie then deserve what they what they got, if you know what I mean. I never ...[text shortened]... es to challenge my belief system or are you only interested in exploring hypothetical scenerios?

The Dover trial was fascinating, Nova did an excellent documentary on it. I recommend if you have time giving it a watch.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

The kicker come to the fact that the alleged reasons that they claimed they wanted to teach creationis... I mean Intelligent Design, in schools changed. Also, one of the defendants claimed to "have no idea" where 60 copies of an ID textbook came from, despite having signed the cheque for their purchase.

As for the philosophical questions, I think you have a good point. It is unwise to simple discard our beliefs without sufficiently detailed analysis of counter arguments. Is it not just as silly to refuse to analyse those counter arguments to maintain an illusion. For example, the Christian community, amongst others came to evolutionists and said things like, "okay, but how did the eye evolve?" or "the immune system must have been created", and it was by analysis and research that Evolutionary Theory has become the formidable explanation which it currently is. Refusal to acknowledge weaknesses in one's argument does not allow one to strengthen that argument, nor does it allow us to discard fallacious arguments. Refusal to acknowledge and address valid arguments only weakens the defendant's position; they lose by neglect essentially.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The Dover trial was fascinating, Nova did an excellent documentary on it. I recommend if you have time giving it a watch.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

The kicker come to the fact that the alleged reasons that they claimed they wanted to teach creationis... I mean Intelligent Design, in schools changed. Also, one of the defendant valid arguments only weakens the defendant's position; they lose by neglect essentially.

As you know I have come a long way in regards to the science behind evolution. As many Christians I was taught that evolution was evil and incompatible with the Bible. However, much to my suprise this is not the consensus within Christiandom. In fact, the two beliefs are not mutually exclusive no matter how many try to make them so. Also, ancient Jewish scholars who studied the Torah also seemed to agree that soley based upon thier study of Genesis alone that was written in the original Hebrew, that the text hinted that man seemed to have had an evolutionary type of beginning. The most astonishing aspect of these views is that this was well before the advent of such evolutionary theories. Of coarse the big quesiton is how did God have or not have a hand in such processes. That is the dividing line I think.

Originally posted by whodey
As you know I have come a long way in regards to the science behind evolution. As many Christians I was taught that evolution was evil and incompatible with the Bible. However, much to my suprise this is not the consensus within Christiandom. In fact, the two beliefs are not mutually exclusive no matter how many try to make them so. Also, ancient Jewish s ...[text shortened]... on is how did God have or not have a hand in such processes. That is the dividing line I think.

As long as you concede that evolution happened, I, for one, would not begrudge you the right to believe it was god who caused it. I don't agree with that belief, but it causes me no great harm.

Originally posted by rwingett
As long as you concede that evolution happened, I, for one, would not begrudge you the right to believe it was god who caused it. I don't agree with that belief, but it causes me no great harm.

To be honest it is hard for me to think that life sprang from nonlife. I mean, where has this been observed, yet many in science hold to this view? For me, this is belief without the facts to support them pure and simple. Is this belief based upon reason? However, whatever happened both theist and atheist alike must conceed on some level that the product of the life we see today has both a miraculous and mystical element to it in regards to the origins from which it sprang. What turns me off are those who read the KJV of Genesis and after reading a couple of chapters that cover the entire creation of the universe declare that they know how God did it and whats more, they then declare that evolution could not have played a part. Equally as troubling are those who discount God entirely and sware up and down that they know how life sprang from nothingness. Both positions, in my opinion, are arrogant and wanting.

Originally posted by whodey
To be honest it is hard for me to think that life sprang from nonlife. I mean, where has this been observed, yet many in science hold to this view? For me, this is belief without the facts to support them pure and simple. Is this belief based upon reason? However, whatever happened both theist and atheist alike must conceed on some level that the product ...[text shortened]... know how life sprang from nothingness. Both positions, in my opinion, are arrogant and wanting.

As I have said elsewhere, evolution does not address the origin of life. It only addresses it's evolution. I don't think anyone claims to 'know' how life came about. There are many plausible naturalistic theories, but the jury is still out on that one. If it pleases you to believe that god created life and then guided evolution, then by all means do so. Personally, I do not think god is required for the process, but even so, that only makes god unnecessary and not disproved.

Originally posted by rwingett
As I have said elsewhere, evolution does not address the origin of life. It only addresses it's evolution. I don't think anyone claims to 'know' how life came about. There are many plausible naturalistic theories, but jury is still out on that one. If it pleases you to believe that god created life and then guided evolution, then by all means do so. ...[text shortened]... is required for the process, but even so, that only makes god unnecessary and not disproved.

I did not mean to imply that evolution addresses the origins of life and is why I do not reject it. Abiogenesis is what addresses the origins of life and is the theory I have a problem with.

On the one hand, we can all agree that we are a part of the material universe and made up of building blocks from that material universe. On the other hand, we do not know the process of how these building blocks begat life. All we know is that from observation life begats life and not life from nonlife. The rest is pure speculation. In fact, no matter how we play with the known building blocks of life we cannot produce life. So I ask you, based upon scientific observation, which theory is more plausible? Is it plausible to believe that a God is needed to initiate life that we cannot produce ourselves with human intelligence to aid our efforts or is it more plausible presume that it simply happened on its own via dumb luck even though we cannot produce it ourselves? In a way, Christians dropped the ball here. I think science is more on our side than the atheists. Then Christians inexplicably drew a line in the sand and said evolution is incapatible with their beliefs. Really the line should have been drawn at abiogenesis and not evolution.

Originally posted by whodey
I did not mean to imply that evolution addresses the origins of life and is why I do not reject it. Abiogenesis is what addresses the origins of life and is the theory I have a problem with.

On the one hand, we can all agree that we are a part of the material universe and made up of building blocks from that material universe. On the other hand, we do no ...[text shortened]... le with their beliefs. Really the line should have been drawn at abiogenesis and not evolution.

A line was drawn in the sand about the planets etc rotating round the earth. Then that was shown to be false.

A line was drawn in the sand about the earth being 6000 years old. That was shown to be false (although some will still argue about it)

A line was drawn in the sand about species being fixed (eg no evolution). That was shown to be false (although some still argue about it)

Now you want to draw a line so far pre-history that it is unlikely to be verified any time soon. I have no problem with that. I don't think any theory is robust enough re lifes' origins. But isn't there a pattern emerging here?

Edit: Why doesn't theology stick to theology and stop trying to prove the natural?

Originally posted by whodey
I did not mean to imply that evolution addresses the origins of life and is why I do not reject it. Abiogenesis is what addresses the origins of life and is the theory I have a problem with.

On the one hand, we can all agree that we are a part of the material universe and made up of building blocks from that material universe. On the other hand, we do no ...[text shortened]... le with their beliefs. Really the line should have been drawn at abiogenesis and not evolution.

Saying that something is probably not possible simply because nobody's done it yet is silly.

I mean...has anyone even tried and failed?

Originally posted by whodey
Then Christians inexplicably drew a line in the sand and said evolution is incapatible with their beliefs. Really the line should have been drawn at abiogenesis and not evolution.

And why is abiogenesis incompatible with your beliefs? If God could create a universe in which life could evolve from a single celled organism into the vast array of life we see today why could he not create a universe in which abiogenesis could take place?
More importantly, if I can show conclusively that at least one life form has been created via abiogenesis will you abandon your faith in Christianity? Or will you cover your eyes and hears and deny my proof? Or will you (as Christians have in the past with other seemingly incompatible science) simply move the line once more?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
A line was drawn in the sand about the planets etc rotating round the earth. Then that was shown to be false.

A line was drawn in the sand about the earth being 6000 years old. That was shown to be false (although some will still argue about it)

A line was drawn in the sand about species being fixed (eg no evolution). That was shown to be false here?

Edit: Why doesn't theology stick to theology and stop trying to prove the natural?

Actually, the lines were errased hundreds of years ago by Jewish scholars such as Maimonides and several other rabbis who studied Genesis from their Torah. Simply studying the Hebrew Torah led them to believe that the earth was much older than 6000 years and that man probably followed an evolutionary path despite not having modern science as their aid. Go figure? It is a historical fact. I think it behooves one to read Genesis from the original Hebrew langauge as well as having training in that language and tradition in order to study it effectivly.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Saying that something is probably not possible simply because nobody's done it yet is silly.

I mean...has anyone even tried and failed?

The last time I talked about abiogenesis some yahoo gave me a wealth of articles about man trying to create life and swore that they had, in fact, already done so. In fact, as I recall you were part of that discussion and you correctly identified that he was full of it, so to speak.