Smart Kid

[Dunstan]

Maybe this belongs in Religion and Philosophy, but it's more a silly anecdote than anything else.

My nine-year-old neice and four-year-old nephew are staying with my parents this weekend while their parents are gone, and I'm here visiting, too. During dinner today, my niece starts talking about how the Tooth Fairy left her a note last night to "have fun at your grandparents' house this weekend."

"The Tooth Fairy sees everything!" she declares. "Just like Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny,"

"And God!" chimes in the nephew.

Ok, it'll probably take him a few more years to figure out just how much those four characters have in common, but hey, he's only four. It's a good start.

[rcronk]

[Spoiler Warning!]

Actually the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Clause all DO exist. Another name for them is "Parents."

Children see the evidence of these beings all around them when they lose a tooth and find money or when its Christmas time and see presents under the tree. They just don't see the whole picture yet. Many people see evidence for God's existence but attribute it to things like evolution, etc.

I was atheist once, but I was unsatisfied by the lack of answers I found in that belief system. As a simple example, if I found 10 lines of 10 m&m's (tm) in rows organized by color on the side of the road in the desert, if asked how they got there, I'd say someone put them there rather than that they blew around for billions of years and fell into that exact configuration.

Likewise, if I found a fully functioning computer with an operating system and other programs on it and nobody around, I'd also say that it was put there by someone rather than sand blowing around, turning into silicon and then into simple circuits and then more complex circuits until an entire computer appeared and then random memory errors over billions of years caused a functional operating system to program itself until it was useful and had a purpose and order to it.

Why then do we do this when we explain our own existence?

Maybe this is too deep as a followup to a funny story - it just made me think.

[Dunstan]

[Spoiler Warning!]

Actually the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Clause all DO exist. Another name for them is "Parents."

Children see the evidence of these beings all around them when they lose a tooth and find money or when its Christmas time and see presents under the tree. They just don't see the whole picture yet. Many people see evidence for God's existence but attribute it to things like evolution, etc.

I was atheist once, but I was unsatisfied by the lack of answers I found in that belief system. As a simple example, if I found 10 lines of 10 m&m's (tm) in rows organized by color on the side of the road in the desert, if asked how they got there, I'd say someone put them there rather than that they blew around for billions of years and fell into that exact configuration.

Likewise, if I found a fully functioning computer with an operating system and other programs on it and nobody around, I'd also say that it was put there by someone rather than sand blowing around, turning into silicon and then into simple circuits and then more complex circuits until an entire computer appeared and then random memory errors over billions of years caused a functional operating system to program itself until it was useful and had a purpose and order to it.

Why then do we do this when we explain our own existence?

Maybe this is too deep as a followup to a funny story - it just made me think.

There's no way to say this without sounding condescending, so I'll just put it bluntly:

You need to do some more reading about evolution. Your examples are not analogous.

[rcronk]

Don't worry - that's not condescending.

Please explain. Why can "living" things improve, progress, strive to continue living and "non-living" things can't? What's the difference between "living" and "non-living" things? I've not received answers to these questions from atheism - if you've found these answers, please share them.

[Fronzel]

Your examples are not analogous.

Or original.

[gypsey]

rcronk [Spoiler Warning!]

I was atheist once, but I was unsatisfied by the lack of answers I found in that belief system.

thats your problem right there ! you were looking for a belief system in a lack of belief
kinda silly don't ya think :rolleyes:

[Dunstan]

Don't worry - that's not condescending.

Please explain. Why can "living" things improve, progress, strive to continue living and "non-living" things can't? What's the difference between "living" and "non-living" things? I've not received answers to these questions from atheism - if you've found these answers, please share them.

Well, first of all, it's a little circular to ask why "non-living" things can't "strive to continue living."

Second, the answers to these questions won't come from "atheism," they'll come from evolutionary biology. Contrary to popular belief, those are not the same thing.

As to the substance of your question, I'm not an expert in the field and probably can't explain it to you any better than the folks at www.talkorigins.org -- try starting with this page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)

If you still have questions after reading that site, I'd suggest you start a thread in the Science forum. If noboby better qualified answers, I'll give it a try.

[rcronk]

Thanks all - I knew I could find intelligent discussion here rather than bashing. Thanks!Atheism is a belief system - a belief that God doesn't exist.I'll go check out that site and let you know what I find - thanks for the link!

[jimlintott]

I don't believe that there are ten metre tall fire breathing clowns living in Antarctica but that doesn't make it a belief system.

Do you believe in gravity? Does that make it a belief system?

[gypsey]

rcronk
Atheism is a belief system - a belief that God doesn't exist

no dear atheism is not a belief system no more than bald is a hair color

[gypsey]

Dunstan

Maybe this belongs in Religion and Philosophy, but it's more a silly anecdote than anything else.

My nine-year-old neice and four-year-old nephew are staying with my parents this weekend while their parents are gone, and I'm here visiting, too. During dinner today, my niece starts talking about how the Tooth Fairy left her a note last night to "have fun at your grandparents' house this weekend."

"The Tooth Fairy sees everything!" she declares. "Just like Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny,"

"And God!" chimes in the nephew.

Ok, it'll probably take him a few more years to figure out just how much those four characters have in common, but hey, he's only four. It's a good start.

kids are a lot smarter than most adults think so this is a great start and about the time he realizes the others are make believe god will be just one more story:)

[rcronk]

Thanks all for your comments. I call atheism a belief system because it requires a system of other beliefs, like evolution for example, to support it. Where we come from is a core relevant question that's been asked for millenia - whether or not fire breathing clowns exist somewhere isn't, and non-belief in those clowns doesn't require a supporting system of beliefs and isn't core to our existence. This is all off topic though.I went to the biological evolution page and read it - thanks again for the link. It was educational and I agree with a lot of it, but it still didn't answer my questions:1. Why can a human evolve and a computer can't? What's the difference?2. Why do we reject random chance for a computer coming together but accept that very notion for humans? What's the difference?Of course my questions aren't original, they've remained unanswered for centuries. If any of you have found the answers for yourselves, please let me know. Thanks.

[Wolfman]

rcronk,

There were atheists long before the theory of evolution ever appeared. There is no 'system of belief' that is necessary for or integral to atheism; only the lack of belief in a god. A person who, 2000 or 5000 years ago, looked at the world around him and said, "I don't believe in god" was just as much an atheist, even though he lacked the scientific underpinnings that we have today.

Let me put it this way, as there tend to be problems on both sides of the argument here. Atheists often make the same claims about theists...that being a theist automatically means that you must have certain other beliefs, such as belief in an omnipotent god, or belief that you must follow that god (or his spokesmen) unquestioningly.

The fact is, to be a theist you simply need to believe in some kind -- any kind -- of god. You could believe that god is flawed, even stupid and prone to mistakes (as, in fact, many Greeks believed was the case with some of their gods). And to be an atheist, you simply need to not believe that any god exists.

Any attempt to attach further values/beliefs to either of those labels -- theist, or atheist -- only demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what is being discussed.

It is true that, in modern times, there is a strong tendency to correlate belief in the theory of evolution with atheism; but a theist could just as easily believe in evolution, while an atheist could just as easily (and validly) state that "I think that evolution is a load of bollocks, but I still don't believe in god."

[Amapola]

Here, I'll take a try:

1. A computer can not evolve because it is a made thing, a human is not a made thing.

2. It is not exactly random chance, it is random chances that are successful, that make evolution work. This can make it look directed even though it isn't. A computer is a made thing, and the "chances" that put it together *ARE* directed.

Hope that helps.

[Wolfman]

And in regards to the M&M's analogy...that's pitiful by any standard. Let me illustrate with a relatively simple explanation:

Evolution works on the principle that one particular species will have hundreds/thousands/millions of different mutations within its population. Most of those mutations will be harmful, or at best benign; but a few will be advantageous. Over time, those beneficial mutations accumulate, until there are so many such mutations that a new species develops. Each individual mutation is entirely random; but the process that determines which mutations are kept is not. It discards non-beneficial mutations, and keeps beneficial ones.

I saw an illustration in here awhile ago that demonstrates this perfectly -- if you toss 1000 coins in the air, they will randomly come up heads or tails. It doesn't matter how many times you do this, they will continue to behave in that manner. But if you add a rule that coins that come up heads will be left alone, and only coins that come up tails will be tossed again, in a very short time you'll find yourself with 1000 coins that all show heads. The process of tossing is random; but the process that selects which tosses are accepted, and which are rejected, is not.

And before you go and try to argue that my example requires an intelligent interference (ie. humans tossing coins, and selecting those that are heads), evolution requires no such interference. If an antelope is born with a mutation that makes it slower than other antelope, it is more likely to be caught and eaten, and not produce any offspring or pass on its genes; if an antelope is born with a mutation that makes it faster than other antelope, it is less likely to be caught and eaten, and therefore more likely to produce offspring and pass on its genes. No outside, intelligent interference is involved or needed, but a definite selection process is nevertheless taking place. That's why its called "natural selection", rather than "supernatural selection".

There is no possible correlation between this process, and the arrangement of M&Ms you described, unless you can describe a natural process by which, over time, M&Ms would not only accumulate there, but that it would prove advantageous for them to form such a shape, and to show a preference for certain colors in each row. But again, the examples you give only demonstrate how little you understand about what it is you are discussing.

[Dunstan]

Thanks all for your comments. I call atheism a belief system because it requires a system of other beliefs, like evolution for example, to support it. Where we come from is a core relevant question that's been asked for millenia - whether or not fire breathing clowns exist somewhere isn't, and non-belief in those clowns doesn't require a supporting system of beliefs and isn't core to our existence.

I can't get too exercised about the whole issue of "is atheism a belief," because it's largely semantics to me, but I do take issue with this whole idea of what does -- and doesn't -- need a "supporting system of beliefs."

I reject the implication that an atheist has to be able to explain every damn thing about the universe. Theists certainly don't. They offer non-explanations, usually by defining the problem away. ("Humans exist because God created us. How? Well, He just did. He's omnipotent and can make anything happen." "How did God get here? Oh, that's a silly question because He's eternal. Don't ask how I know that; I just do.")

What's particularly maddening is that atheists get blasted from both directions. When we point out that there's an excellent, well-supported scientific explanation for X, the God of the Gappers just say "oh yeah? Well, you haven't explained Y yet!" (For example, let X = existence of humans on Earth, and let Y = existence of the universe.) Meanwhile, they haven't offered any evidence for their position other than to point to the (steadily shrinking) list of things that science hasn't yet explained. Yet at the same time, theists (often the same ones!) make snide comments about how "atheists think they know everything!"

This is all off topic though.I went to the biological evolution page and read it - thanks again for the link. It was educational and I agree with a lot of it, but it still didn't answer my questions:1. Why can a human evolve and a computer can't? What's the difference?

To the answers you've already received in this thead, I'll add:

a) because living things, including humans and their ancestors, reproduce through a mechanism that allows for very good, but not perfect copying, and live in an environment that allows for differential rates of survival. Computers don't "reproduce" at all. There's nothing for natural selection to work with.

b) we have evidence of human ancestry, both from living species that show evidence of common descent, and from fossil evidence. There is no such evidence for computers.

2. Why do we reject random chance for a computer coming together but accept that very notion for humans? What's the difference?

Again, you are still missing the most important aspect of evolution. It is not random chance. Wolfman explained it very well, but I'll just add that certain random events (i.e. mutations) provide the raw material for natural selection, but it is non-random factors (i.e. differential survival) that make it "work."

I'm going to steal a good explanation and example from someone's blog (http://therestlessmind.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolution-by-random-chance.html):

And the misconception is, in a nutshell, that it is not "Evolution by random chance", rather it is "Evolution by natural selection" - and natural selection is a completely non-random process. Darwin's named his book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

Let's take the small scale example of the flu virus. Every year we encounter a new strain of the flu virus that beats the flu vaccine. The misconception starts when we think that the flu virus evolves into new strains deliberately with the explicit purpose of beating the flu vaccines that its host (we humans) administer. Now it is extremely dumb to think that the flu virus knows about the flu vaccine and is able to change its reproductory system to produce new vaccine-resistant offsprings. It doesn't -- the flu virus tries to reproduce in the only way it knows to (using DNA replication mechanism of the host to "replicate" itself into hundreds of different copies). During that process, minor errors in the DNA copying mechanism, rare and completely random, creates imperfect copies of the parent's DNA. These new slightly changed DNAs give rise to "new strains" of the flu virus. This part, "mutation", is the only random part of evolution.

After this, the virus's "nature" (the environment in which it thrives, i.e. the human body) kicks in with "natural selection". Viruses acquire "mutations" spontaneously or randomly. But all mutations are not favorable for survival, and hence those viruses that aquire unfavourable mutations are lost. Only the virues that aquire favourable mutations are the "fittest" to survive (Darwin's "survival of the fittest"). Since generation time of viruses (hundreds can be produced simultaneously) are small and the populations large, they can fill up the lost pool in double quick time. Thus, natural selection is not random. The only "new strains" that *might* survive this natural selection are those that neither the body's inbuilt defenses, nor the vaccine, could eliminate.

The two very important things to understand here are:
Mutations are random, aimless, without any purpose, and without any control.
Natural selection is completely non-random. It is the result of systematic application of non-random natural laws to filter out the incompatible mutations.

[toddjh]

It can be even simpler than the coin toss. Just take a big bag of potato chips and shake it for a while. When you open it, you'll notice that the large chips have collected at the top, while all the small bits and crumbs have sunk to the bottom. There's no design or plan involved, but it's not "random" either: even if there's no rhyme or reason to the way you shake the bag, our decidedly nonrandom physical laws will produce an orderly result.

[Wolfman]

I'd just like to point out -- as I mentioned briefly above -- that many atheists in these forums are just as guilty of making similar statements about theists. They confuse "Christians" (and/or Muslims, and/or other subsets of theistic groups) with "theists" as a whole, and make statements about how theists accept their god's proclamations uncritically, follow their gods laws blindly, are required to believe their scriptures unquestioningly, etc.

This description is true of some theists; but is in no way essential to or inseparable from being a theist. I could, in theory, believe in a god that is mentally retarded, even stupider than me, who didn't know what on earth he was talking about, and who should not be trusted for anything...but the fact that I believe he is a god makes me a theist. I love the Greeks (and many of the other old polytheistic religions) for the fact that they depicted their gods as remarkably human, just as flawed and untrustworthy as any human being (some of them could even be defeated by mere mortals). Yet for all that the Greeks did not consider them infallible, or perfect, or beyond questioning...they were still theists.

An atheist is defined only by their lack of belief in the existence of any god. A theist is defined only by their belief in the existence of one or more gods. Being an atheist does not in any manner, shape, or form dictate what other beliefs I must have. Being a theist does not in any manner, shape, or form dictate what other beliefs that person must have.

This is one of the reasons I hate defining myself as an atheist...the term essentially means nothing, other than that I don't believe any god exists. It does not in any way tell you what I do believe. Which is why I prefer to define myself as a Humanist, which entails a specific set of beliefs, and can give you some idea of what I actually do believe in.

Just as almost nobody will ever identify themselves specifically as a theist, but rather by what kind of theism they subscribe to (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.)

[rcronk]

Fair enough on belief systems - again, that's not my main point.I think you're misunderstanding my main point. Why can an antelope evolve but M&M's(tm) can't? How do atheists differentiate between "living" and "non-living" things? Since natural selection only applies only to "living" things - what is the difference between a living and a non-living thing? The explanation above that one is "made" and the other is not doesn't make sense to me. Anyone want to take another shot at it?

[supercorgi]

It was educational and I agree with a lot of it, but it still didn't answer my questions:1. Why can a human evolve and a computer can't? What's the difference?2. Why do we reject random chance for a computer coming together but accept that very notion for humans? What's the difference?

To put it most simply, computers and M&Ms don't reproduce, living organisms do. Errors occur during reproduction so that the offspring is not a perfect copy of the parent (even in creatures that reproduce asexually, errors can occur). These errors, or rather changes, make an organism more or less fit to survive to maturity as environmental forces work on them. Those that do survive, get to reproduce and perhaps pass on the trait that made it more likely for them to survive.

[rcronk]

Reproduction is an attribute of living things - it's not what causes something to be living. I'm looking for the atheist explanation of what the fundamental difference is between living and non-living - what makes something move around of its own free will, etc. rather than just attributes. Again thanks to all of you for your patience and answers.

[Amapola]

Why would atheists have a different idea of what a living thing is? What is it about atheists that you think would make them so different that they would have a different definition of "alive"? As far as I can tell, atheists are just like any other human. Do you think they are different somehow?

And I sure hope you don't think M&Ms are alive! :D You were just saying that for an example, right?

[Dunstan]

Fair enough on belief systems - again, that's not my main point.I think you're misunderstanding my main point. Why can an antelope evolve but M&M's(tm) can't?

Since natural selection only applies only to "living" things - what is the difference between a living and a non-living thing? The explanation above that one is "made" and the other is not doesn't make sense to me. Anyone want to take another shot at it?

I've tried to explain it. Wolfman's tried. Supercorgi's tried. Yet you seem to be disregarding all of our explanations and seizing on one line from Amapola's post (which I think was a bit of an oversimplification on his/her part).

Natural selection requires:
1) some "thing" that reproduces
2) some "imperfections" or "errors" in the copying process
3) differential reproduction/survival rates, i.e. an environment in which not all of the "things" have an equal chance of surviving long enough to successfully reproduce.

"Living" vs. "non-living" doesn't really enter into it, except to the extent that reproducing, dying, etc. are often characteristics of "living" things, but that's really beside the point.

M&M's and computers don't reproduce. Interestingly, computer viruses can "reproduce," but as far as I know they do so without errors or imperfections in the copying process, so computer viruses can't "evolve." (But I may be way behind the times on that one.)

If you want an example of a "non-living" thing that undergoes an evolutionary process, you can read up on memetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics), but that may be a distraction at this point in the discussion.

How do atheists differentiate between "living" and "non-living" things?

As Amapola just said, the same way(s) everyone else does. I don't know that there's any one single definition of what is a living thing (hence the debate about whether computers could ever be "alive"). But for purposes of evolutionary biology, it's irrelevant. The Theory of Evolution doesn't say "living things evolve because they're alive; non-living things can't because they're not living." You seem to be trying to force that kind of circular definition into the discussion.

[slingblade]

And in regards to the M&M's analogy...that's pitiful by any standard. Let me illustrate with a relatively simple explanation:



That was quite beautiful. I find myself rather awed by your ability to explain all that so succinctly and clearly. Thanks for that, because I learned a lot from it.

Nominated.

[69dodge]

I'm looking for the atheist explanation of what the fundamental difference is between living and non-living - what makes something move around of its own free will, etc. rather than just attributes.


I don't think there's a fundamental difference between living and nonliving things.

Free will is a tricky subject---I think there's probably no such thing---but in any case, plants are generally considered to be alive but not to have free will, so ... now what?

Regarding computers (and likewise M&M's): I already know that people exist and that some of them create computers. So if I come across a particular computer whose origin I have no direct knowledge of, the reasonable conclusion is that a person made it. I am not deducing from the computer the very existence of people, merely the fact that it was made by one. But when I come across a living organism, I don't already know that God exists and that he sometimes creates life---that's the whole question! So, the two situations are quite different.

It's really hard to imagine not knowing that people exist, when trying to decide how a computer in front of me probably got there, because, at the very least, I know that I'm a person and that I exist.

[BillyJoe]

I'm looking for the...explanation of what the fundamental difference is between living and non-living...


There isn't a clear, fundamental difference between living and non-living.
Some things are clearly alive.
For example, animals are clearly alive.
Some things are clearly not alive.
For example, a lump of metal is clearly not alive.
In between, there are things that are not clearly alive or not alive.
For example, a virus is not clearly alive or not alive.
(or, if you don't like that example, a prion is not clearly alive or not alive)

Because it can be such a small step from non-living to living, it may be possible to actually go from non-living to living, However, to date, this has not yet been demonstrated.
This is abiogenesis, though, not evolution.

...what makes something move around of its own free will, etc. rather than just attributes. Again thanks to all of you for your patience and answers.


A thing does not need to be able to move around to be alive.
For example a plant doesn't move around - certainly not of it's own free will.
In any case, the question of free will is an interesting one, but let's not detrail the thread.

[gypsey]

rcronk
Reproduction is an attribute of living things - it's not what causes something to be living. I'm looking for the atheist explanation of what the fundamental difference is between living and non-living - what makes something move around of its own free will, etc. rather than just attributes. Again thanks to all of you for your patience and answers.

may i ask how old you are? you do know the diference between something made and something reproduced? i guess i am asking if you are old enough to have had the "talk" with a parent or other caring adult?
does common sense not tell you that 2 computers(or m&ms) can't on their own get together and make babies:eye-poppi

on second thought the m&ms reproducing in their packs might be a good thing if they could be as quick as bunnys:D

[BillyJoe]

dodgy,

...we cross-posted. :)

(ignore the 9 minute delay, they cats were fighting and big daddy had to step in)

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Non-living things do evolve, in a way. Do you think the first car was a supercharged Z06 Corvette with a six-speed transmission, air bags and anti-lock brakes?

[treble_head]

does common sense not tell you that 2 computers(or m&ms) can't on their own get together and make babies:eye-poppi
[/quote]

oh yeah? where do mini m&ms come from, then? Huh?

[Beleth]

Thanks all for your comments. I call atheism a belief system because it requires a system of other beliefs, like evolution for example, to support it.


To be fair, there are two kinds of belief: trust-based (belief due to corroborating evidence) and faith-based (belief without, or despite, evidence).

Atheism is trust-based. Atheists believe the sun will come up tomorrow morning because the sun has come up every morning before. Atheists believe that there are no unanswerable questions in science because really difficult questions have been answered before. Just because a question has no answer today doesn't mean that we will never come up with an answer.

Religions, on the other hand, are faith-based.

Oftentimes when religious folks say that atheism is a "belief system", they are ignoring the fact that there are these two separate types of belief systems, and are thinking that all belief is faith-based. Which it is not.

[gypsey]

treble_head
does common sense not tell you that 2 computers(or m&ms) can't on their own get together and make babies


oh yeah? where do mini m&ms come from, then? Huh? [/QUOTE]

:dl:

[Geek Goddess]

1. Why can a human evolve and a computer can't? What's the difference?

"A" human cannot evolve.

[SopranoHarmony]

Non-living things do evolve, in a way. Do you think the first car was a supercharged Z06 Corvette with a six-speed transmission, air bags and anti-lock brakes?

But that's a different type of evolution. Cars are "evolving" simply because we are changing them; if we were not intelligent, we would make the same cars over and over again and not change the models.

[Soapy Sam]

Reproduction is an attribute of living things - it's not what causes something to be living. I'm looking for the atheist explanation of what the fundamental difference is between living and non-living - what makes something move around of its own free will, etc. rather than just attributes. Again thanks to all of you for your patience and answers.

Why the atheist explanation?

As opposed to (say) the sports fan explanation or the vegetarian explanation?
What does atheism have to do with this issue?
The objective and scientific explanation is that we are not yet in a position to fully answer the question, but we do know it's essentially a question about chemistry.
We can also be pretty sure that whether a chemist is an atheist, a Bokononist or a chartered accountant does not affect the facts.

[Mongrel]

Natural selection requires:
1) some "thing" that reproduces
2) some "imperfections" or "errors" in the copying process
3) differential reproduction/survival rates, i.e. an environment in which not all of the "things" have an equal chance of surviving long enough to successfully reproduce.
<snip>

M&M's and computers don't reproduce. Interestingly, computer viruses can "reproduce," but as far as I know they do so without errors or imperfections in the copying process, so computer viruses can't "evolve." (But I may be way behind the times on that one.)

Side point - it seems in rare occasions evolution can stop.
The Worlds oldest plant (http://www.wonderquest.com/green-eggs-oldest-plant-ship-jet-race.htm#oldest-plant) discovered cloning.

[BillyJoe]

Side point - it seems in rare occasions evolution can stop.


If there are no changes in the environment there is nothing to drive evolution. Put another way, evolution occurs because of changes in the environment.

[richardm]

But that's a different type of evolution. Cars are "evolving" simply because we are changing them; if we were not intelligent, we would make the same cars over and over again and not change the models.

Well, yeah, that's where the analogy falls down of course, because cars cannot breed so they are reliant on external forces to produce new cars. But nevertheless the hugely complicated and highly effective Bugatti Veyrons did not spring straight into existence as creationists would have us believe; they are at the end of a long line of development stretching back well before the introduction of the Model T. Same could be said for the computer that we found in the OP.

[rcronk]

Yes, I know that M&M's aren't "alive". :) In theism, living things have spirits that are at the source of thought, reason, movement, order, etc. I'm asking what's the source of life for atheism? What was the first "living" thing and what changed it from non-living to living?

Dunstan brought up computer viruses and I am a software engineer. Let's set up an evolution experiment. Let's say that there's a program that runs and modifies another program at random - or it might even copy and paste parts of the original program (where did this original program come from?). If you change one byte of a computer program, it may do nothing, it may handicap it, or it may break it completely. If the program crashes or runs slower, for example, the program is terminated and we start from the original copy.

It would be extremely rare for a one character change to add a new feature or even modify a feature to make it better. Doing those types of operations takes planning, design, and implementing many changes at once. If I were to treat a gene sequence as a computer program, and I altered portions of it at random, it would destroy the gene just as it destroys a program.

Let's pretend that modifying a character made something useful happen. The "code" would be chaotic and not elegantly planned out at all - it certainly wouldn't look like the mirror image human body with it's form, functions, and purpose behind each part of its design.

I just can't see that happening at all based on my years of seeing code and how I only see planned organized purposeful information being created by intelligence while it is destroyed by random flaws.

Do we have any example of sigificanly new genetic code being created out of random mutations?

P.S. Faith is a belief based on evidence that moves a person to action. Religion has evidence, just as evolution does. Religion has witnesses, evolution doesn't. They both have unanswered questions too. Looking through other atheist and evolution threads on this site, I think we're all better just walking away now agreeing to disagree as nothing good seems to come of these discussions.

[The Atheist]

Religion has evidence, just as evolution does.

:dl:

[Dunstan]

It would be extremely rare for a one character change to add a new feature or even modify a feature to make it better. Doing those types of operations takes planning, design, and implementing many changes at once. If I were to treat a gene sequence as a computer program, and I altered portions of it at random, it would destroy the gene just as it destroys a program.

Well, it's an imperfect analogy to be sure, but one thing to remember is the staggeringly long time frame that evolution has had to work with. There's been plenty of time for "extremely rare" events to accumulate.

Let's pretend that modifying a character made something useful happen. The "code" would be chaotic and not elegantly planned out at all - it certainly wouldn't look like the mirror image human body with it's form, functions, and purpose behind each part of its design.

There are lots of examples of "bad design" in animals, including humans. Here are a few. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html)

I just can't see that happening at all based on my years of seeing code and how I only see planned organized purposeful information being created by intelligence while it is destroyed by random flaws.

Let's slow down here. I was asking the question of whether computer viruses can evolve. I wasn't suggesting that computer software is a great comparison to the evolution of living things.

Do we have any example of sigificanly new genetic code being created out of random mutations?

As far as I know, all "new" genetic code has to come from random mutations. So now I guess you need to define "significantly." The other thing to remember is the time frame. Contrary to the creationist straw-man, evolution doesn't say that an ape gave birth to a human. Nor do new organs or limbs just appear in one generation. Small changes accumulate over time. Again, note the evidence of "jury-rigged design" in the link above.

P.S. Faith is a belief based on evidence that moves a person to action. Religion has evidence, just as evolution does. Religion has witnesses, evolution doesn't. They both have unanswered questions too. Looking through other atheist and evolution threads on this site, I think we're all better just walking away now agreeing to disagree as nothing good seems to come of these discussions.

Well, if you don't think learning something new is good, that's your prerogative.

[rcronk]

Speaking of timeframe - as I was reading around I saw the "ev" program that was simulating random mutations and it was looking like the creation of just an e.coli was going to take longer than the age of the earth. So I'm not too sure we can just throw a billion years at it and call it good. I'd like to see more tests done. Even considering the timeframe involved, we're skipping right over the fundamental origins of life itself and what is at the source of it and the order, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and self-will that is in place that allows these genes to mutate through the generations.Sure there are some strange designs but to me, that doesn't detract from the overall elegance of the mirror image amazing human body. A few jury riggings doesn't even compare.Computer viruses can and do evolve with human intervention - the virus writer creates the virus, the virus detection software detects it, so the virus writer modifies it to go undetected a little longer, exploiting different vulnerabilities. So that evolution is driven by and intelligent being at its source.What about arms turning into wings? Wouldn't the poor genetic line who mutated slowly along that path be killed first - half a wing, half a leg - can't run very well but can't fly either?I do want to learn - and I guess we can all learn together here if we all choose to. My lack of faith in the learning process was based on the evidence I had seen in other threads. Who knows, maybe this thread can be different?Thanks again for the thoughtful responses everyone.

[Dunstan]

Speaking of timeframe - as I was reading around I saw the "ev" program that was simulating random mutations and it was looking like the creation of just an e.coli was going to take longer than the age of the earth. So I'm not too sure we can just throw a billion years at it and call it good.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it's something by Behe or some other Intelligent Design advocate.

I'd like to see more tests done.

Fortunately for you, it's not like this isn't a well-studied topic. There should be plenty of stuff already out there.

I've got to break up this next sentence to unpack it a little;

Even considering the timeframe involved, we're skipping right over the fundamental origins of life itself

Yes, evolution is not the same thing as abiogenesis, though I'm sure there's some overlap in the concepts.

and what is at the source of it and the order, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and self-will that is in place that allows these genes to mutate through the generations.

I really don't understand what you're getting at here. Genetic mutation doesn't require thoughts, feelings, emotions, or "self-will." If you mean "how does evolution lead to life forms that have (or appear to have) thoughts, etc.," well, brains evolve. If you want to get into a whole mind/body dualism debate, there's a bunch of folks here who will oblige you on that.

Sure there are some strange designs but to me, that doesn't detract from the overall elegance of the mirror image amazing human body. A few jury riggings doesn't even compare.

"Mirror image" (by which I assume you mean symetrically-shaped bodies) seems to be to be remarkable unsurprising. There's a pretty clear survival advantage to having limbs of similar length and location on both sides of your body. (And many aspects of our bodies aren't symmetrical: we only have one heart, liver, spleen, etc., and they aren't all lined up right in the middle of our bodies. Left/right brain specialization, too.)

But here's the thing. "Believing" in evolution isn't about being reductionist and saying that humans in particular, or nature in general, is humdrum and boring. When I started reading about evolutionary biology (a few years ago, as an adult; I took pathetically little biology in high school), I found it fascinating. So do the people who study it. Duh, that's why they study it!

Here, for example, is what Richard Dawkins wrote in the preface to The Blind Watchmaker (which I'm giving a second reading at the moment):

The brain with which you are understanding my words is an array of some ten million kiloneurones. Many of these billions of nerve cells have each more than a thousand 'electric wires' connecting them to other neurones. Moreover, at the molecular genetic level, every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. No, on second thoughts I don't give up, because one of my aims in the book is to convey something of the sheer wonder of biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to it. But having built up the mystery, my other main aim is to remove it again by explaining the solution.

emphasis mine.

By the way, returning to the "random chance" thing that got this discussion started, here's the opening of Chapter 3:

We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence?

So there you have one of the big names in the field, a man often referred to as "Darwin's Rottweiler," voicing part of the sentiments you have: that the life forms we know (including ourselves) are too complex, too amazing and fascinating, to have come about by mere chance.

Intrigued yet?

By the way, whatever you may think of Dawkins from his recent book The God Delusion, his earlier works like Watchmaker and The Ancestor's Tale, are fascinating reading on evolution for the intelligent layperson. Although he does express his exasperation with certain creationists on occasion in those books, they're hardly atheist propaganda. But you can certainly find other writers in the field; perhaps something from this reading list (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/a_book_list_for_evolutionists/)

Computer viruses can and do evolve with human intervention - the virus writer creates the virus, the virus detection software detects it, so the virus writer modifies it to go undetected a little longer, exploiting different vulnerabilities. So that evolution is driven by and intelligent being at its source.

Yeah, it's not really analogous. To be comparable to evolution by natural selection, you'd have to give the virus the ability to "mutate" randomly on its own, and set it up so that viruses that successfully infiltrated their target(s) were more likely to reproduce, i.e. the "bad" mutations tend to get caught by virus detection software and don't reproduce, while the "good" mutations (rare as they might be) get through and do reproduce. But I don't think I want to torture this analogy any further.

What about arms turning into wings? Wouldn't the poor genetic line who mutated slowly along that path be killed first - half a wing, half a leg - can't run very well but can't fly either?

Coincidentally, the chapter of The Blind Watchmaker I've been reading today discusses some of those issues. "Half a wing" can in fact be useful -- ask a flying squirrel, which has flaps of skin extending between arms and legs. They can't actually fly, but they do glide.

I do want to learn - and I guess we can all learn together here if we all choose to.

Well, hey, it is an Educational Foundation, after all.

My lack of faith in the learning process was based on the evidence I had seen in other threads. Who knows, maybe this thread can be different?Thanks again for the thoughtful responses everyone.

Most evolution threads degenerate because, quite frankly, the vast majority of creationists aren't interested in honest discussion. I don't expect you to take my word for it, but if you do some digging, you'll notice that most "evolutionist" websites, books, etc. cite and respond to creationist arguments, whereas the creationists for the most part continue to spout the same lies and misconceptions. It's one thing for you to come into a thread, say that evolution is just random chance, and then listen to why it's not and genuinely think about it. Most creationists show up, barf up their standard "arguments" (Random! Second Law of Thermodynamics! The eye! No transitional fossils!), and then ignore the rebuttals and continue to spit out more long-debunked arguments, until they run out. Then they run off, presumably to another website, and rinse, lather, repeat.

Anyway, at this point I think I'm going to drop out of the discussion. If you really want to learn more, check out some of those reading suggestions. I'm sure other folks can point you to some more; I think there was a recent thread on the subject in a different subforum. It really is a cool area to learn about. Thanks for keeping things civil.

[BillyJoe]

Speaking of timeframe - as I was reading around I saw the "ev" program that was simulating random mutations and it was looking like the creation of just an e.coli was going to take longer than the age of the earth. So I'm not too sure we can just throw a billion years at it and call it good.


Did they simulate random mutation + natural selection?

Even considering the timeframe involved, we're skipping right over the fundamental origins of life itself and what is at the source of it and the order, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and self-will that is in place that allows these genes to mutate through the generations.


I don't understand this sentence.
Would you please rephrase it?

Sure there are some strange designs but to me, that doesn't detract from the overall elegance of the mirror image amazing human body. A few jury riggings doesn't even compare.


The point about the "strange" designs, is that they are very easily explained if evolution (random mutation + natural selection) is true. But they are pretty hard to explain if they were intelligently designed.

Computer viruses can and do evolve with human intervention - the virus writer creates the virus, the virus detection software detects it, so the virus writer modifies it to go undetected a little longer, exploiting different vulnerabilities. So that evolution is driven by and intelligent being at its source.


Firstly you are assuming your conclusion. If, instead, humans are the result of evolution, then human artifacts are also the result of evolution (ie humans evolved to produce artifacts - such as computers and computer viruses).
Secondly, you haven't explained anything by assuming an intelligent being because now you have to explain something even more complicated than a human, namely the intelligent being.

What about arms turning into wings? Wouldn't the poor genetic line who mutated slowly along that path be killed first - half a wing, half a leg - can't run very well but can't fly either?


The use of any characteristic depends on the environment in which the animal finds itself. If the forest floor is teeming with predators, animals that can climb trees to escape the predators are more likely to survive. As predators evolve to climb trees as well, animals that evolve skin flaps to glide from tree to tree have an advantage. When predators evolve to jump or glide from tree to tree, animals whose skin flaps evolve into wings can escape by taking to the air.

I do want to learn - and I guess we can all learn together here if we all choose to. My lack of faith in the learning process was based on the evidence I had seen in other threads. Who knows, maybe this thread can be different?Thanks again for the thoughtful responses everyone.


I know what you mean.
It's a sad fact of life.

[rcronk]

@ Dunstan – thanks for the reply – I’ll check out the reading list.

@ Billy Joe – Yes, they modeled mutation AND natural selection and it was actually evolutionists who wrote the program, wrote a paper based on some hasty cherry picked numbers and someone challenged their numbers and with further investigation, the simulation has now shown that evolution is not possible in the timeframe we have to work with. Of course, even to this day, both sides don't see eye to eye so there seems to be a lot to work out and resolve still. Unfortunately, the thread looks like it degenerated over its 32-page lifespan...

A link to the thread discussing the above issue and computer model (including a link to the java version that you can run for yourself) is here: http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348

At the very least, the thread is very educational (at least the first third of it). Don’t mind the website name. ;-) I think I actually found the link to that thread from a thread here at jref.

As for me talking so much about the origins or meaning of what life is and how it started and what makes something living or not – I just can’t get past all I’ve seen of living things going about their business in an orderly fashion (like when a cell divides and you get the microtubules delving into the nucleus and attaching to the DNA and all of it lining up and pulling apart – what drives that? What’s moving those things around, lining them up and causing the orderly cell division? We can explain what happens, but is there an explanation for how these things move around in there in such an orchestrated united manner? Does anyone here have the answer? Also, when differentiation in a fertilized egg occurs, who decides (in 3D) which end of the group of identical cells is going to be the head and which side will be the front and where each organ is going to differentiate? I know this is an argument from ignorance, so educate me – I’ve been looking for some time now and haven’t found these answers yet – everything I’ve read so far just says, “and then the cells differentiate into specialized cells” without any further explanation.)

I’m glad you brought up the point of intelligent design producing some jury rigged items. My belief is that God respects our right to choose (as opposed to a lot of people I know) and designed things in such a way that people aren’t compelled to believe/trust in Him because He’s the only possible explanation. I think He’d rather we all choose to believe and trust in Him or not. If He designed things in such a way that people could come up with other theories, then we’d all be on a level playing field and be able to choose of our own free will. That’s my theory anyway.

By the way, there are computer viruses (or is it viri?) that mutate themselves to avoid detection, but not randomly, they have to do it in a very specific way to change their own fingerprint but still purposefully remain valid and executable. If mutations were random in a computer virus, you’d probably have a 1 in 4 billion chance that it would survive the first mutation because random mutations in software are usually fatal, and that one would surely not survive the second mutation.

As for assuming an intelligent being, my belief is that God is our father, so just like parents, we come from him and progress as children, learning for ourselves what works and what doesn’t work as far as things that produce the best good for the most people for the longest amount of time, etc. I don’t want to derail the thread with my beliefs though, I was here looking for some answers about others’ beliefs and to throw out a different point of view where I saw some disrespect toward people who believe that God exists.

Fair enough on the flying squirrel. ;-)

[toddjh]

Yes, I know that M&M's aren't "alive". :) In theism, living things have spirits that are at the source of thought, reason, movement, order, etc. I'm asking what's the source of life for atheism? What was the first "living" thing and what changed it from non-living to living?

It all depends on your definition of "living." Since that's a very slippery thing to define, yours is a very difficult question to answer. However, the best answer I can give is that the first entity which might be considered by some to be alive was most likely a pretty simple self-replicating protein in some tidal pool on the primordial earth.

As for what changed it from non-living to living, it was probably just a matter of the right set of molecules coming together under the right conditions. I know, it's easy to balk at this, but remember we're talking about a very simple protein, nowhere near as complex as a modern cell, or even a modern virus. And also remember it had hundreds of millions of years to happen, and it only had to happen once, somewhere on the planet...

P.S. Faith is a belief based on evidence that moves a person to action.

I disagree. Faith is a belief not based on evidence, or based on insufficient evidence. If you have sufficient evidence, then you don't need faith, just rationality.

[toddjh]

@ Billy Joe – Yes, they modeled mutation AND natural selection and it was actually evolutionists who wrote the program, wrote a paper based on some hasty cherry picked numbers and someone challenged their numbers and with further investigation, the simulation has now shown that evolution is not possible in the timeframe we have to work with.

Given mounds and mounds of fossil and genetic evidence showing evolution over time as well as some insights into the mechanisms by which it takes place, compared to a computer model that is definitely oversimplified and probably based on a lot of shaky assumptions, I know which one I'd pick.

This is like those early computer simulations which "proved" that bumblebees are aerodynamically incapable of flight. I'm sorry, but cold hard facts trump flawed computer models every time.

As for me talking so much about the origins or meaning of what life is and how it started and what makes something living or not – I just can’t get past all I’ve seen of living things going about their business in an orderly fashion (like when a cell divides and you get the microtubules delving into the nucleus and attaching to the DNA and all of it lining up and pulling apart – what drives that? What’s moving those things around, lining them up and causing the orderly cell division? We can explain what happens, but is there an explanation for how these things move around in there in such an orchestrated united manner?

Sure: billions of years of practice. :) Seriously, what you see today is the end result of eons and eons of gradual refinement. Given that amount of time, it's hardly surprising that some pretty darn efficient mechanisms have developed. If you went back four billion years and looked at some of the earliest forms of life, I think you'd find things to be a lot less elegant.

Does anyone here have the answer? Also, when differentiation in a fertilized egg occurs, who decides (in 3D) which end of the group of identical cells is going to be the head and which side will be the front and where each organ is going to differentiate?

As far as I know, that's the topic of continuing study. Nobody claimed to have all the answers, but we have enough to be pretty certain of the general idea, even if there are still a lot of details to fill in along the way.

My belief is that God respects our right to choose (as opposed to a lot of people I know) and designed things in such a way that people aren’t compelled to believe/trust in Him because He’s the only possible explanation.

Let me ask you a question: do you believe that God can know the future with 100% accuracy?

[rcronk]

I'd like to see those first living/semi-living RNA and how they originally formed and how they became living. I'd like to see some experiments to see how it started and how it continued and how it could have done this without human intervention. Until then, it's just a theory, like theism.

As for faith, I would say it is based on evidence but not absolute proof. When we have absolute proof, we have knowledge instead of faith.

For example, we see all of creation around us and we see beings of intelligence creating order in cities, etc. and this combined with people recording that they have seen God and that God has revealed our purpose for being here and how we can become better people - so we can come up with a theory of an intelligent being setting this up for us and our progression based on the above evidence, without a complete firsthand proof of God's existence. We can then test this theory by doing the things that the people who claim to have communicated with God have said and see for ourselves if the experiments produce the claimed results - like loving your enemies, not stealing, killing, being generous, praying, being humble/self-honest etc.

The same is true for evolution. We see animals that are similar and we see adaptation and natural selection and so based on this partial evidence, we have faith that evolution is how it all came about without firsthand proof (by observing it happen ourselves).

The same is true for science, we believed in atoms way before we had visible proof of their existence. The scientists had faith that atoms existed and were configured a certain way. This faith moved them to action to perform more and more tests and eventually, we were able to see more and more artifacts and eventually the curves of the atoms themselves and faith became knowledge. And now it moves on to string theory - we have no way of directly seeing the strings so string theory scientists work and move and experiment based on the faith they have in the partial evidence they have so far.

I think religion and science should really be the same thing - partial evidence, faith moving us to experimentation, results, and finally knowledge. There are blind followers and abusers in both religion and science - it seems to have more to do with the specific integrity of the individuals involved rather than whether it's science or religion we're talking about though.

I hope that explains better what I'm trying to convey.

[rcronk]

P.S. Those mounds of fossils can be explained by more than one theory. Yes, we can't explain it all through science and evolution. That's why I go with theism, which explains it to me more thoroughly and with much more meaning and reason than evolution does to me. Of course, we can all pick which theory we want to adhere to and I have picked atheism and evolution in the past.

The knowledge of God question smells like a trap, but I'll step in it anyway. Yes, I think God can know the future with 100% accuracy.

[toddjh]

P.S. Those mounds of fossils can be explained by more than one theory.

I don't think so. Or at least, I think all of the options are just minor variations on the general theme of descent with modification, or trivial alternatives like solipsism or "last-thursdayism."

Yes, we can't explain it all through science and evolution.

Yet. Our evidence is incomplete, so naturally there will be some ideas which can't currently be confirmed. But we're working on it; filling in the gaps with the supernatural doesn't make sense.

The knowledge of God question smells like a trap, but I'll step in it anyway. Yes, I think God can know the future with 100% accuracy.

Well, it's a trap only insofar as the answer exposes some logical contradictions in what you're saying. I'm not trying to put one over on you or anything. I was asking because I didn't want to put words in your mouth when I started down that road.

But if God can predict the future with 100% accuracy, then that means that the future is predetermined, which in turn means our universe is deterministic. Free will in such a system is not possible -- we are, by necessity, more or less automatons under the metaphysical system you believe in.

So basically, God created a bunch of puppets, some of whom are predetermined to believe in him, and some of whom aren't. I fail to see any meaning or reason in that idea, nor why God should find it gratifying that we behave in predetermined ways he set out for us.

[jimlintott]

The knowledge of God question smells like a trap, but I'll step in it anyway. Yes, I think God can know the future with 100% accuracy.

What god? Which god? What is god? Please define god.

God is a completely foreign and unknown concept to me. Here is your chance to explain it.

[rcronk]

I don't think so. Or at least, I think all of the options are just minor variations on the general theme of descent with modification, or trivial alternatives like solipsism or "last-thursdayism."

Theism is one of the "other" explanations I was talking about.

Yet. Our evidence is incomplete, so naturally there will be some ideas which can't currently be confirmed. But we're working on it; filling in the gaps with the supernatural doesn't make sense.

It may not make sense to some, but I assert that it is possible that there is a God and therefore the theories involving a supreme being should not be dismissed unless there is proof to the contrary.

Well, it's a trap only insofar as the answer exposes some logical contradictions in what you're saying. I'm not trying to put one over on you or anything. I was asking because I didn't want to put words in your mouth when I started down that road.

But if God can predict the future with 100% accuracy, then that means that the future is predetermined, which in turn means our universe is deterministic. Free will in such a system is not possible -- we are, by necessity, more or less automatons under the metaphysical system you believe in.

So basically, God created a bunch of puppets, some of whom are predetermined to believe in him, and some of whom aren't. I fail to see any meaning or reason in that idea, nor why God should find it gratifying that we behave in predetermined ways he set out for us.

I've struggled with that idea before and here's what I've come up with so far.

When I see my child with her arm raised and that look in her eye when she's angry at her sister - can I pre-determine that she's going to take a swing at her? My track record with that prediction is probably about 99% correct. If I can guess the result with 99% accurracy and I'm limited in my knowledge, biased in my opinions, and limited to my five senses, would it not be too far a stretch to think that a God without imperfections or biases, and with greater senses could do 1% better than I can in predicting behavior?

Does that mean that my child's actions are predetermined? Does my knowledge of her actions have any effect whatsoever upon her free will? I don't think so.

If God is more perfect than we are, I expect Him to be able to predict what's going to happen without His own knowledge affecting our own free will in any way.

[toddjh]

Theism is one of the "other" explanations I was talking about.

Theism is not a scientific explanation; it is an appeal to the supernatural. That's fine if you want to believe it, but it means you're abandoning science.

God is, at best, irrelevant in scientific inquiry, and at worst contradictory.

It may not make sense to some, but I assert that it is possible that there is a God and therefore the theories involving a supreme being should not be dismissed unless there is proof to the contrary.

As I said, I know of no scientific theories which involve divine intervention. There's plenty of rampant speculation by theists, but that's another thing entirely.

When I see my child with her arm raised and that look in her eye when she's angry at her sister - can I pre-determine that she's going to take a swing at her? My track record with that prediction is probably about 99% correct. If I can guess the result with 99% accurracy and I'm limited in my knowledge, biased in my opinions, and limited to my five senses, would it not be too far a stretch to think that a God without imperfections or biases, and with greater senses could do 1% better than I can in predicting behavior?

No, that's entirely reasonable.

Does that mean that my child's actions are predetermined? Does my knowledge of her actions have any effect whatsoever upon her free will? I don't think so.

Here's where we part ways. Yes, that absolutely means your child's actions are predetermined. That's what "predetermined" means: 100% predictable in advance.

If God is more perfect than we are, I expect Him to be able to predict what's going to happen without His own knowledge affecting our own free will in any way.

It's not a matter of "affecting" free will. The problem is much more fundamental: free will is, by definition, incompatible with determinism. In a deterministic universe, we are robots inhabiting a giant clockwork device, nothing more.

ETA: Or, to put it in a clearer way, let me ask another question: can we, by exercising what you perceive to be our free will, choose to act in a way God does not expect? Or do we have no choice but to march down the precise path he has already foreseen for us?

If the former, then God's powers of prediction seem to be on the fritz. And if the latter, what separates us from robots marching down the precise path determined by their programming?

[rcronk]

What god? Which god? What is god? Please define god.

God is a completely foreign and unknown concept to me. Here is your chance to explain it.

Ok - I'll explain who I believe God is - my theory. [thread derail warning]

Each one of us has a spirit within us. It has the same organs and organization that our physical body has. It is where our free will and consciousness originates. "God" is the father of our spirits. Before this world was created, God created our spirits and we were His children. He taught us and helped us to acquire as much knowledge as we could as spirits. He then knew that to progress further and to know "right" from "wrong" or in other words to know what gives the most people the most lasting joy and what doesn't, we needed to have physical bodies and be away from him so we could act for ourselves - kind of like finding out how hard an employee will work when the boss is gone. So, he created a world for us so we could come down here to get a physical body that would further help us acquire knowledge and also it would help us to experience each other being nice and mean, sharing and stealing, giving new life and murdering. So that we could all know what "works" and what "doesn't work" in a society and within ourselves. I think he organized things here so that we could choose to believe in him or not. He actually appeared to some people and told them to go give people hints as to what works and what doesn't (the "right" and "wrong" ways). He did this, keeping himself hidden so that we could all choose of our own free will to choose good or evil and to follow His ways or not with no compulsion whatsoever. So, God is our father and we are all his children, all living and experiencing life and learning as we go - acquiring knowledge in ways that we otherwise couldn't have and choosing all the while what we want for ourselves. He wants the best for us, but wants us to choose it. He is all powerful and all knowing and he is perfected in all of his attributes such as mercy, justice, forgiveness, honesty, truth, etc. He will not take away our right to act in the ways we desire and so we see much good and much evil in the world.

So there's a basic theory that I believe in currently based on my own research, study, and experiments that I have performed throughout my life to see if He exists and to find out who He is. The theory evolves (no pun intended) as I learn more and as I try to refine my own biases and weaknesses out of myself using the processes He has given to prophets through the centuries. I've tried them and they work. That's my understanding of God, His plan for me, and how He relates to me.

As I have said before, I have been an atheist and I have believed in evolution before and my theories have changed based on evidence, testimonies, and my own experiences.

[rcronk]

Hmm - I can't figure out how to delete this duplicate post, so I'll just edit it into something useful instead. ;-)

toddjh - "Religion" to me is just like science. I observe something, I form a theory, I test the theory, I acquire knowledge, etc. It's not an appeal to the supernatural unless you stop before you get to a knowledge of the truth - which many people do. I don't plan on stopping until I have not just a belief, but a knowledge of the truth, which is entirely possible.

Saying that God can never enter the picture in the realm of science is a fallacy. That's like seeing a cup on the table one day and then seeing it on the floor the next and saying "well, since I can't explain the cup's movement by experiment yet and the only other option is that an intelligent being bumped it in the night, I have to keep looking for a theory that doesn't involve an intelligent being because that would be an appeal to the supernatural." I don't understand that logic. If God did put things together, which is possible, science will find that out eventually. It's not valid to throw God under the bus because we've seen blind true believers stop looking for the truth.

With respect to determenation - we'll have to agree to disagree. I see your explanation as the tail wagging the dog. Perhaps you can see what I'm saying if you address my questions directly - If I know what you're going to do next, does it affect you? Does it force you to do what I already know you're going to do or does it just make me really smart and really have no effect upon you whatsoever? Does my super smartness make you programmed and make you follow what I know - or am I just really smart and have no connection or effect upon you whatsoever?

P.S. Sorry Dunstan for hijacking your thread...

[jimlintott]

Ok - I'll explain who I believe God is - my theory. [thread derail warning]

Each one of us has a spirit within us. It has the same organs and organization that our physical body has. It is where our free will and consciousness originates. "God" is the father of our spirits. Before this world was created, God created our spirits and we were His children. He taught us and helped us to acquire as much knowledge as we could as spirits. He then knew that to progress further and to know "right" from "wrong" or in other words to know what gives the most people the most lasting joy and what doesn't, we needed to have physical bodies and be away from him so we could act for ourselves - kind of like finding out how hard an employee will work when the boss is gone. So, he created a world for us so we could come down here to get a physical body that would further help us acquire knowledge and also it would help us to experience each other being nice and mean, sharing and stealing, giving new life and murdering. So that we could all know what "works" and what "doesn't work" in a society and within ourselves. I think he organized things here so that we could choose to believe in him or not. He actually appeared to some people and told them to go give people hints as to what works and what doesn't (the "right" and "wrong" ways). He did this, keeping himself hidden so that we could all choose of our own free will to choose good or evil and to follow His ways or not with no compulsion whatsoever. So, God is our father and we are all his children, all living and experiencing life and learning as we go - acquiring knowledge in ways that we otherwise couldn't have and choosing all the while what we want for ourselves. He wants the best for us, but wants us to choose it. He is all powerful and all knowing and he is perfected in all of his attributes such as mercy, justice, forgiveness, honesty, truth, etc. He will not take away our right to act in the ways we desire and so we see much good and much evil in the world.

So there's a basic theory that I believe in currently based on my own research, study, and experiments that I have performed throughout my life to see if He exists and to find out who He is. The theory evolves (no pun intended) as I learn more and as I try to refine my own biases and weaknesses out of myself using the processes He has given to prophets through the centuries. I've tried them and they work. That's my understanding of God, His plan for me, and how He relates to me.

As I have said before, I have been an atheist and I have believed in evolution before and my theories have changed based on evidence, testimonies, and my own experiences.

I don't see a theory there but if you believe you have a theory then please falsify your theory.

[JLam]

rcronk,
You seem to misunderstand the concept of faith. Scientists did not have "faith" that atoms existed before they were able to see them. They drew inferences based on evidence. BIG difference.

When a scientist has an idea, the first thing he does is to think of all the different ways he might be wrong. He purposely tries to discredit his own idea to make sure he's not fooling himself. That's the exact opposite of faith.

[toddjh]

toddjh - "Religion" to me is just like science. I observe something, I form a theory, I test the theory, I acquire knowledge, etc. It's not an appeal to the supernatural unless you stop before you get to a knowledge of the truth

It's an appeal to the supernatural as soon as you invoke the concept of divine intervention to explain observed phenomena.

With respect to determenation - we'll have to agree to disagree. I see your explanation as the tail wagging the dog. Perhaps you can see what I'm saying if you address my questions directly - If I know what you're going to do next, does it affect you? Does it force you to do what I already know you're going to do or does it just make me really smart and really have no effect upon you whatsoever?

It doesn't affect me, exactly, but it does reveal that I have no choice in the matter, and never did. I'm not saying that predetermination somehow removes free will that was there before; I'm saying that determinism simply reveals the fact that it never existed in the first place. If I truly had free will, then it would be impossible to predict my actions. Conversely, if you can predict my actions with 100% accuracy, then I am, by definition, an automaton and not a free agent.

Does my super smartness make you programmed and make you follow what I know - or am I just really smart and have no connection or effect upon you whatsoever?

Neither. I'm saying that, in a universe where free will existed, you wouldn't be able to predict the actions of another being, no matter how smart you were. Some degree of unpredictability is an absolute prerequisite of free will.

Consider the opposite: how can you possibly claim a being is capable of making choices it is absolutely impossible for him to choose opposite the way you expect?

[rcronk]

rcronk,
You seem to misunderstand the concept of faith. Scientists did not have "faith" that atoms existed before they were able to see them. They drew inferences based on evidence. BIG difference.

I guess it's a matter of natural language ambiguity. To me, faith and inferences are the same thing because I don't separate religion and science and I don't think of faith as a blind, baseless following of the unknown, which is apparently what some other people think. That's completely fine - I'm willing to call my faith, "inference" if it helps other people understand what I'm really saying.

When a scientist has an idea, the first thing he does is to think of all the different ways he might be wrong. He purposely tries to discredit his own idea to make sure he's not fooling himself. That's the exact opposite of faith.

Exactly! Why do you think I'm here amongst atheists? I'm trying to find holes in my theories and better understand their theories. Hanging out with only like-minded people tends to get people into self gratifying feedback loops that deter them from finding the truth. Thanks for the comments.

[rcronk]

I don't see a theory there but if you believe you have a theory then please falsify your theory.

The whole description I gave is a theory about the reality of our situation and I'm here partly to falsify my theory and partly to learn more about other theories as I have explained above.

[rcronk]

It's an appeal to the supernatural as soon as you invoke the concept of divine intervention to explain observed phenomena.

Hmm - I don't think you got my analogy of the cup moving without "divine intervention" as you are calling it. I'm not hiding from the details and arguing from ignorance any more than an evolutionist is hiding from the details of the parts of his theory he can't explain. I'm still seeking the truth and will not stop until I find it all.

If there is a God, (which is possible) then it's perfectly valid to consider that He exists and that He has a part in reality. The practice of avoiding any mention of God would keep you from finding the truth, if in fact God exists. It's a fallacy to say that "because we have been able to explain X, Y, and Z without needing to include God, God must never enter into the equation."

It doesn't affect me, exactly, but it does reveal that I have no choice in the matter, and never did. I'm not saying that predetermination somehow removes free will that was there before; I'm saying that determinism simply reveals the fact that it never existed in the first place. If I truly had free will, then it would be impossible to predict my actions. Conversely, if you can predict my actions with 100% accuracy, then I am, by definition, an automaton and not a free agent.


I get what you're saying but it doesn't make sense to me. Your choice is not effected by my knowledge in any way whatsoever. Free will is the ability to do what you want to do without anyone forcing you to do what they want - nothing more. If someone knows what you're going to do because they are smart, it has absolutely no bearing on the choice you make and whether you are doing what you want to do.

An automaton in this context by Merriam Webster's definition is "a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions." [emphasis mine] I am a software engineer and so I know about predetermined sets of instructions and how a computer is forced to follow my predetermined set of instructions without any free will of its own.

Again, if I'm smart and know what you're going to do, that doesn't mean that you are following a set of instructions with no choice to deviate, you are acting independently of my knowledge. You are not an automaton. I could cease to exist and it wouldn't all of a sudden give your free will back - you wouldn't even know that I had died - except that I would stop posting here. :-) We operate independently from each other.

Neither. I'm saying that, in a universe where free will existed, you wouldn't be able to predict the actions of another being, no matter how smart you were. Some degree of unpredictability is an absolute prerequisite of free will.

What are the sources of your assertions? Who said that you cannot predict the actions of someone who has free will? I predict my kids' actions and I thereby violate your law - my prediction doesn't affect their free will. Who said that some degree of unpredictability is a prerequisite of free will?

Consider the opposite: how can you possibly claim a being is capable of making choices it is absolutely impossible for him to choose opposite the way you expect?

Interesting question but that scenario reflects God's intelligence, not a person's free will. Again, free will is the ability to do what one wants to do without any outside compulsion or force. It has nothing to do with someone else's smartness or ability to predict what you'll do. I'm not taking my children's free will from them when I know they'll run out onto the ice and fall down. My prediction has absolutely nothing to do with my child's free will or their ability to choose to run out onto the ice.

Maybe this is just a matter of mismatching definitions. Thanks for the debate - I like it.

[jimlintott]

The whole description I gave is a theory about the reality of our situation and I'm here partly to falsify my theory and partly to learn more about other theories as I have explained above.

The problem with your "theory" is that it mentions the thing you are defining or theorizing about. Without knowing what god is (and trust me, I don't) your "theory" makes no sense. It's similar to me saying "the theory of evolution is that things evolve".

Your "theory" doesn't begin to address my question of "define god".

[toddjh]

I get what you're saying but it doesn't make sense to me. Your choice is not effected by my knowledge in any way whatsoever.

What choice? If my actions are predetermined, then there is one and only one possible outcome. "Choice" is a strange word to use to describe that situation.

If someone knows what you're going to do because they are smart, it has absolutely no bearing on the choice you make and whether you are doing what you want to do.

If your actions can be predicted with 100% certainty, then you don't have a choice, period. You have only one option. The fact that you think you "chose" that option is completely irrelevant. There is no choice because there is no other possible outcome.

An automaton in this context by Merriam Webster's definition is "a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions."

Yes. According to you, God can predict the future, and so the entire course of your life is predetermined. You have absolutely no ability to change it. You have no choice but to "follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations" -- that which God has predicted/designed.

Again, if I'm smart and know what you're going to do, that doesn't mean that you are following a set of instructions with no choice to deviate, you are acting independently of my knowledge.

Okay, so...can you choose to deviate, then?

I could cease to exist and it wouldn't all of a sudden give your free will back

Again, I'm not saying the act of prediction somehow takes away the free will you previously had. I'm saying the fact that it's even possible to predict your actions shows that you never had free will to start with.

What are the sources of your assertions? Who said that you cannot predict the actions of someone who has free will?

Any alternative leads to logical contradictions, or semantic gymnastics, such as your assertion above that a person somehow has a "choice" even though there is only one path available to him and he is powerless to choose otherwise.

Again, free will is the ability to do what one wants to do without any outside compulsion or force.

Yes. And a predetermined future is just such an outside compulsion.

[rcronk]

toddjh - I understand what you're saying, and it sounds ok in the abstract. But if you try applying that theory to my kids in an experiment, I think the theory falls apart.

If I predict what they'll do, then you are saying that my knowledge has caused them to loose the ability to do what they want? Keep it in the realm of this one specific example. Maybe we can avoid arguing past each other by keeping focused on this one experiment. Explain how their free will has been eliminated because I'm smart enough to know what they'll do. How exactly does it force them to do what I'm smart enough to know that they'll do?

jimlintott - Ok - I get what you're saying. So I described what I believe is our relationship with God in my original reply to you. To define what God is more specifically, I believe that God is a man like me who has gone through sufficient refinement to become perfect in every way, all powerful, all knowing, and that he begot us as his spirit children like our earthly parents begot us physically. And He, like our earthly parents, works with us to try to get us to become happy independent parents some day who will then have children, etc. Is that a good enough definition? It's not the mainstream theist definition but it's how I define him. Did I miss anything?

[toddjh]

If I predict what they'll do, then you are saying that my knowledge has caused them to loose the ability to do what they want?

First, I'm skeptical that you can predict the behavior of your children with perfect accuracy. No one can do that. But I'll accept that for the sake of argument.

In which case, no, I'm not saying your knowledge has caused them to lose the ability to do what they want. In fact, I specifically said that was not the case, twice. What I said is that, if they truly have free will, then you simply won't be able to predict their actions with absolute certainty, period. If you can predict their actions, then by definition they don't have free will. They're robots. Hugely complicated, amazingly detailed, awesomely elegant robots, but robots nonetheless.

So, your turn. What makes you think your kids aren't robots? After all, if you can predict what they'll do with perfect accuracy, it sounds like you've already figured out their "programming."

Keep it in the realm of this one specific example. Maybe we can avoid arguing past each other by keeping focused on this one experiment. Explain how their free will has been eliminated because I'm smart enough to know what they'll do. How exactly does it force them to do what I'm smart enough to know that they'll do?

For the fourth time, I'm not saying that the act of prediction forces them to do anything. I'm saying that prediction would be impossible in the first place if they had free will. Therefore, the fact that you can predict their actions simply shows that they don't.

[rcronk]

Ok - I get it now. I'll restate to make sure I get what you're saying. You're saying that my ability to predict their behavior has no effect on them with respect to their free will (like what I have been saying) you're just saying that prediction would be impossible in the first place if they had free will. Ok so we agree on everything except the assertion that prediction would be impossible. And so if I were able to predict their actions, they by definition would not have free will - therefore, since we know that they do have free will, I must not be able to predict their actions.

Assertion: It is impossible to predict the actions of someone who has free will.

Please explain the basis for that assertion. My experience is that it's actually quite easy to predict my kids' actions most of the time - and they definitely have free will all of the time and do what they want to do all of the time. And I'm just some dude - definitely not a perfect, all knowing, unbiased being. Your assertion does not match my experience. Please show me evidence that supports your assertion.

[rcronk]

After thinking about it yet again, I think I've got it. You're saying that if God could predict every action I took, then he would have to know, using a computer analogy, every line of my code and how I would react to every situation that came my way and therefore I would be just like a computer following a program, is that correct?

[toddjh]

After thinking about it yet again, I think I've got it. You're saying that if God could predict every action I took, then he would have to know, using a computer analogy, every line of my code and how I would react to every situation that came my way and therefore I would be just like a computer following a program, is that correct?

Yes, exactly. The next step in this debate (believe me, I've been through it plenty of times) is for you to invoke the soul, claiming that the fact that you're conscious and self-aware exempts you from automaton status. Am I right? :D

If so, I'd counter by saying that of course you'd say that, you're programmed to!

Just kidding. Well, sort of. But the fact remains that, if God can know the future, then it's impossible for anything you do to surprise him. He knows, even before he creates you, whether or not you're going to believe in him, for example. What gratification, therefore, can he receive from watching you live out the predetermined path -- the "program," if you will -- that he has set up for you?

No, the only way for free will to make any sense in that context is if it were possible to surprise God. And the only way to surprise God would be if he couldn't predict your actions. And, since this is God we're talking about, the only way to do that would be if you were completely and inherently unpredictable.

[jimlintott]

jimlintott - Ok - I get what you're saying. So I described what I believe is our relationship with God in my original reply to you. To define what God is more specifically, I believe that God is a man like me who has gone through sufficient refinement to become perfect in every way, all powerful, all knowing, and that he begot us as his spirit children like our earthly parents begot us physically. And He, like our earthly parents, works with us to try to get us to become happy independent parents some day who will then have children, etc. Is that a good enough definition? It's not the mainstream theist definition but it's how I define him. Did I miss anything?

Yes - habitat. Where does this thing live?

[rcronk]

You failed to predict my response. You must not be God. :-P

I'm glad I finally got what you're saying. It takes me a while, but I usually get it if the other party is patient enough, so I thank you for your patience.

There are some assertions and assumptions about our analogy that I want to identify and so I'm going to take some time to identify those things to see if there's anything either of us have missed. It seems this predetermination debate has gone on for millennia so we may not reconcile it here, but we'll see.

The bookends of logic on your argument are that "since people have free will, God can't exist." And the detail between the two is what we've been discussing.

I personally, through my own experiences, believe that God exists and that I have free will, so must resolve the discrepancy or change a belief. Simple enough. :-) Either you or I or both of us have made a mistake somewhere in our assertions and assumptions or God doesn't exist or we don't have free will. Does that sound about right?

Thanks again for the debate and I'll post back soon.

[rcronk]

According to a man named Abraham, God told him that He lives near a star named Kolob. He's apparently got a throne there too. He's made of perfected and immortal flesh and bone in the same form as human flesh and bone and can sit down on that throne just like a person can, according to Abraham. I haven't seen God nor have I seen His throne or Kolob, so all I have to work with is Abraham's (and other's) testimonies. I have tried some of Abraham's (and other prophets') experiments and I have gotten the same results as they predicted so they seem like reliable sources so far.

[toddjh]

The bookends of logic on your argument are that "since people have free will, God can't exist." And the detail between the two is what we've been discussing.

Well, not exactly. I don't make any claims about whether free will exists, or whether God exists. Like jimlintott, I don't even have a coherent idea of what God is. All I'm doing out is pointing out what seems to me like a logical conclusion: "If free will exists, then the future can't be predicted with certainty." Or, conversely, "If the future is predictable, then free will does not exist."

Either you or I or both of us have made a mistake somewhere in our assertions and assumptions or God doesn't exist or we don't have free will. Does that sound about right?

Sure, sounds right to me.

[jimlintott]

According to a man named Abraham, God told him that He lives near a star named Kolob. He's apparently got a throne there too. He's made of perfected and immortal flesh and bone in the same form as human flesh and bone and can sit down on that throne just like a person can, according to Abraham. I haven't seen God nor have I seen His throne or Kolob, so all I have to work with is Abraham's (and other's) testimonies. I have tried some of Abraham's (and other prophets') experiments and I have gotten the same results as they predicted so they seem like reliable sources so far.

Tonight when it gets dark, look up into the sky. If it's a cloudless night you'll see stars. Lots of them. More than you could count in your lifetime. Saying someone lives near a star is like Sylvia Browne saying the body will be found near water. We live near a star!

What does "near a star" mean anyway?

Sorry, but Abraham's "testimony" seems like an anecdote, which is not evidence. What I need is some evidence to support the testimony. Sorry that's the way my atheist brain works.

[Atlas]

rcronk,

I'll take a run at this from both sides of your issues... Your description of God and abiogenesis. I ain't the brightest guy so take this for what it's worth. Your God description sounds like you prefer reincarnation. Like God is into teaching spirits with various bodies; spirit, amoeba, mackerel, sparrow, squirrel, pig, and human, and then perhaps great spirit. Of course, it could be that the spirits that were with God from creation are already great spirits and become entire species... like one of the spirits is the squirrel spirit and becomes all the squirrels with each individual squirrel being like a single skin cell that is in its turn sluffed off and replaced imbuing the great squirrel spirit with new squirrel experiences that enrich all the other squirrels. Same for the sparrow, the pig, and the human. I think that's cool, at least there is no hell (nor any individual reward which makes more sense that the Abrahamic weirdness).

On this life thing... look at it first from atomic bonding. toddjh was alluding to this and I think some others. Atoms naturally bond. Take it all the way back to hydrogen ions if you must, the universe makes complex atoms in the heart of the stars and the supernovas. You can think hydrogen ions are intelligent or that there is something in the universe more intelligent than hydrogen and you that forced rules of bonding on ions or you can believe in dumb natural processes.

Suns and planets undergo bonding and accretion. Atoms bond with attractive atoms. Gold bonds with gold, Sodium with Chlorine, Hydrogen with Oxygen and mostly the results are bizarrely different from the constituent atoms. Nonliving crystals grow. Water changes state and forms huge freaking icebergs. These things may not be predictable from constituent atomic matter and the environmental variables of space and planets but over time we master the ice cube maker and think we're intelligent.

Anyway, none of the ways matter behaves should surprise us more than any other, it's magic stuff of electromagnetic attraction that's otherwise almost entirely empty space. Somewhere along the line matter's innate attractiveness and bonding characteristics produced a molecule that self replicates in a way other bits of matter could not. But that's been what it's been doing naturally from the beginning.

You probably believe in microevolution. You're fighting the idea that species can change into other species but certainly part of it is because God offers additional comfort that natural selection cannot. There's nothing wrong with that, we all have to sleep at night. But if you stop and think about the universe at large coming together and forming all the matter there is from hydrogen ions it's clear it's amazing enough that life isn't really all that great a stretch. Intelligence is a pretty bizarre side product of life but it's not all it's cracked up to be. Making nuclear weapons of such magnitude that all life could be snuffed out can't be what we mean by intelligent. Intelligence should aid survival - some of us can't even get a date.

[rcronk]

Tonight when it gets dark, look up into the sky. If it's a cloudless night you'll see stars. Lots of them. More than you could count in your lifetime. Saying someone lives near a star is like Sylvia Browne saying the body will be found near water. We live near a star!

What does "near a star" mean anyway?

Sorry, but Abraham's "testimony" seems like an anecdote, which is not evidence. What I need is some evidence to support the testimony. Sorry that's the way my atheist brain works.

Hmm - I've never really considered knowing God's exact location as something that's extremely important to know. As I see it, the purpose of this life is to learn right from wrong and reconcile myself to God knowing and trusting Him because of His attributes rather than His exact location at any given time. I have many testimonies of His attributes and I also have several experiments and results that are documented and I have tried those experiments and have gotten the same results and the byproduct of those experiments is that I have become a more patient, kind, happy, generous person than I was before each experiment. All of this brings me happiness and allows me to be a better contributor to society. I've lived life as an atheist and it didn't bring me the same fruits at all. In fact, it was the loneliest, saddest, emptiest time of my life - and my atheism was at the core of it all. All I have is my experience and based on that, I'll continue on the path I'm in. I am actually willing to try the experiments that God has revealed and they bore fruit. In fact, I didn't even have to completely understand God or creationism in order to try these experiments! And I'm an engineer!

[DanishDynamite]

According to a man named Abraham, God told him that He lives near a star named Kolob. He's apparently got a throne there too. He's made of perfected and immortal flesh and bone in the same form as human flesh and bone and can sit down on that throne just like a person can, according to Abraham. I haven't seen God nor have I seen His throne or Kolob, so all I have to work with is Abraham's (and other's) testimonies. Have you seen this Abraham fellow? Whether you have or not, why would you feel this fellow's ramblings would be of more importance than other's ramblings?
I have tried some of Abraham's (and other prophets') experiments and I have gotten the same results as they predicted so they seem like reliable sources so far.
Which experiments might this be? Could you elaborate? Thanks.

[BillyJoe]

"since people have free will, God can't exist."


If people have free will, an omniscient God can't exist

I personally...believe that God exists and that I have free will, so must resolve the discrepancy or change a belief.


If your God is not omniscient, you would not need to change your belief.
Personally, I do not believe god exists, omniscient or otherwise, and I do not believe free will exists either.

[Mashuna]

I’m glad you brought up the point of intelligent design producing some jury rigged items. My belief is that God respects our right to choose (as opposed to a lot of people I know) and designed things in such a way that people aren’t compelled to believe/trust in Him because He’s the only possible explanation. I think He’d rather we all choose to believe and trust in Him or not. If He designed things in such a way that people could come up with other theories, then we’d all be on a level playing field and be able to choose of our own free will. That’s my theory anyway.

If I may jump in and pick up on this paragraph. It seems as though your theory for Intelligent Design is that although there are imperfect designs, such as you'd expect if you had a random system (or system with random elements) such as natural selection due to mutation and/or environmental change, this is not a problem. God deliberately put these imperfections in because otherwise it would be too easy to belive in him. He'd prefer it if we believed in him despite the evidence, for some unpecified deistic reason.

This is my reading of the paragraph, and I may well have misinterpreted your intention. Could you clarify if this is what you meant, or give me your corrected version? Thanks.

[Morrigan]

Reproduction is an attribute of living things - it's not what causes something to be living. I'm looking for the atheist explanation of what the fundamental difference is between living and non-living - what makes something move around of its own free will, etc. rather than just attributes. Again thanks to all of you for your patience and answers.

Haven't you ever taken an intro to biology class? There are no absolute definitions, but the distinctive, specific characteristics of living organisms are generally defined as follows:
- organisation: being composed of one or more cell
- metabolism: consuming energy by converting food, nutrients, water, etc. to the cells, and excreting the "garbage"
- growth
- response to stimuli. can be completely instinctive or automatic, like a plant or a bug responding to light
- reproduction, sexual or asexual; production of new cellular organisms.

There might be more, those are the five I remember. And they aren't perfect, because some living species, such as mules, are sterile. And it's unclear if a virus can be considered a living being or not. Still, they are solid guidelines to determine whether or not something, like a group of molecule, is living or not.

I'd like to see those first living/semi-living RNA and how they originally formed and how they became living. I'd like to see some experiments to see how it started and how it continued and how it could have done this without human intervention. Until then, it's just a theory, like theism.
You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution, a common creationist mistake. Evolution isn't concerned with how life came about, but rather how new species occurred. And please don't say "it's just a theory, like theism" - this really highlights your misunderstanding of what the scientific method is.


As for faith, I would say it is based on evidence but not absolute proof. When we have absolute proof, we have knowledge instead of faith.

That's not how science works.
Faith requires NO evidence. And there can never be any absolute proof in science. A scientific theory is the best model for explaining the available evidence. And it has to be falsifiable. For example, finding rabbit fossils in the precambrian fossil stratum would falsify the theory of evolution. A celestial body such as a planet or moon with a perfectly square orbit would falsify gravity.
There is nothing that could falsify the existence of a god, or anything faith-related.


The same is true for evolution. We see animals that are similar and we see adaptation and natural selection and so based on this partial evidence, we have faith that evolution is how it all came about without firsthand proof (by observing it happen ourselves).

Untrue. Evolution has been observed in laboratory.

[Apathia]

According to a man named Abraham, God told him that He lives near a star named Kolob. He's apparently got a throne there too. He's made of perfected and immortal flesh and bone in the same form as human flesh and bone and can sit down on that throne just like a person can, according to Abraham. I haven't seen God nor have I seen His throne or Kolob, so all I have to work with is Abraham's (and other's) testimonies. I have tried some of Abraham's (and other prophets') experiments and I have gotten the same results as they predicted so they seem like reliable sources so far.

Hi rcronk,

What's your source for this? There's nothing in the Bible story about Abraham and God that says this.

Now pardon me for asking a rude question. Does God have a penis. He has a tush, according to what you say above, but does he have this particular detail? If so, what's it for?

[The Grave]

Hmm - I've never really considered knowing God's exact location as something that's extremely important to know. As I see it, the purpose of this life is to learn right from wrong and reconcile myself to God knowing and trusting Him because of His attributes rather than His exact location at any given time. I have many testimonies of His attributes and I also have several experiments and results that are documented and I have tried those experiments and have gotten the same results and the byproduct of those experiments is that I have become a more patient, kind, happy, generous person than I was before each experiment. All of this brings me happiness and allows me to be a better contributor to society. I've lived life as an atheist and it didn't bring me the same fruits at all. In fact, it was the loneliest, saddest, emptiest time of my life - and my atheism was at the core of it all. All I have is my experience and based on that, I'll continue on the path I'm in. I am actually willing to try the experiments that God has revealed and they bore fruit. In fact, I didn't even have to completely understand God or creationism in order to try these experiments! And I'm an engineer!


Well these threads get so big, so quick.

Atheists do not 'believe' there is no god, they don't believe there is a god. To try and say otherwise is a childish attempt to have an argument over word play.
It is only faithers that 'believe' that there is any difference between 'living' and 'non-living' matter. There is not. Being an engineer, I would think you knew that; but obviously not.
What are you exactly - an engineer? What's that? Do you have a degree in engineering? What options did you take: microbiology? biochemistry? physics? Pray tell...
Science says there is no soul... So it is up to a 'believer {like yourself} to show us where this soul is, what it is made of, when it first forms etc...I leave it to you to demonstrate the soul... I await your next post with eager anticipation. But then since you brush off other things you don't know anything about {like where the hell is god -- oh I don't care!} simply because you can't answer, I don't suppose I'll be getting much of an answer! Will I?
Finally... This is the one {this post I have quoted}. This one of your posts quite clearly indicates an experiment that we can all reproduce to gain this information that led you to god {presumably}...We need details....we are waiting with baited breath... show us to our maker!!!! I hope it involves something kinky!I too, am willing to try these experiments 'that god has revealed to you' and I'm glad I don't have to understand god to do them {because I don't}.

I too, am an engineer.....BEng (Hons.) Chem Eng. 2nd class - I was too busy chasing girls to study all the time, so I didn't get a 1st!

...Never caught any mind you! Yours, lonely guy!

I have plenty more to say to you but first I want that experimental detail...

I once got a guy thrown out of his job because he made up some results to further his carrier....I blew them out of the water...so to speak!


Good luck! I can't wait for this one! In-fact I'll have a go....right now.

Method

Take one large spoon full of gullibility and add it to a larger beaker of ignorance.
Heat, simmer and stir for many years until arm falls off.
Add condescending overtones and liberality and re-flux at 60'C to prevent oxidation.
Titrate solution against a standard sample of bullshyt and add acid drop wise until your eyes water.
Slug back the whole mixture and pray for salvation.
If nil result, repeat 1-5 with a stick of TNT, made earlier.Results

None.

Conclusion

Bonkers!

Evaluation

In need of psychiatric help!

References and bibliography : the good book. {not so good though is it?}.

Griff...:D

[rcronk]

DanishDynamite – Have you seen this Darwin fellow? ;-P I explained that his "ramblings" have more importance than some other ramblings because I've followed what he's said and have found what he's said to be true through my own experience.

BillyJoe – Thanks for the clarification.

Mashuna – I think God wants us to choose without compulsion. I think he organized things so that people wouldn't feel compelled to believe in Him or not believe in Him based on evidence around them that could be explained either way but people could choose to believe or not based on their own free will. I could be wrong though.

Morrigan – Thanks for the biology info. Yes, I've taken biology classes and I know the difference in the attributes of living and non-living things. My point was what causes things to be living vs. non-living. In theism, it's generally a spirit, so I was wondering what the cause was in atheism – that's all. When I was an atheist, I had a desire to explain the world around me and how it came to be. In order to do that without God, I had to use evolution and abiogenesis to explain it. Some of these theories went against my own common sense – specifically dealing with elegant design and purpose spontaneously appearing from nothing – yes, even over billions of years. It also didn't answer a lot of my questions and I found out that a lot of my reason for picking atheism at the time dealt with normal teen rebellion and father figure issues or "how could there be a god when he let X happen" issues – which I have found to be common amongst the atheists I have asked. I'm sorry that many theists are "doing it wrong" and not doing it scientifically. I am doing it scientifically so please try not to map their behaviors onto me. Again, because I'm doing this scientifically, my definition of faith doesn't seem to match all of your definitions. Sorry about that. I've explained that topic already so we won't continue to have confusion over that. It may be true that one can't falsify God existing – one can, however, find out that He does exist. There have been many who have done this and they have told you and me how to do it but most people are unwilling to do what is required to gain this knowledge. Fair enough on the evolution being observed in a laboratory – was it a new species that was observed that came from newly evolved genetic material?

Apathia – I'm LDS, and it's in a book called "The Pearl of Great Price" in the book of Abraham. It contains more writings of the same Abraham found in the Bible. It's pretty interesting stuff. As for God having certain body parts – I think he'd have them all since according to Him, man was created in his image and in his likeness. The body part in question might have to do with spirit reproduction – that would just be a guess though.

polaris... – I am a software engineer. I have a BS in CIS and have been programming for 29 years total, 15 of that professionally. So I do like to pick things apart and figure out how they work and so it is difficult for me to take actions before knowing everything – but I usually find out things after I take the actions – it's counter intuitive for an engineer, but it works. Fair enough on the semantics of not believing in God or believing there is no God. According to evolutionists, non-living things cannot evolve and living things can evolve, so there are many differences between living and non-living matter – otherwise we'd see self evolving computers on mars. I don't have direct evidence that there's a soul, but I have indirect evidence like the fact that we're talking to each other and thinking and acting of our own free will, that we are organized with purpose, that we die and stop "living", and that sources that I trust have told me that souls exist. There's no evidence for string theory either but I don't see atheists mocking and calling those scientists gullible – why?

As for the experiments – the prerequisite is a willingness to sincerely find and accept the truth and do whatever it takes to find that truth. I don't see that here with statements like:

"spoon full of gullibility"
"ignorance"
"condescension"
"psychiatric help"
"[adding] extra to nail this turkey"

combined with the fact that all of these experiments have been available to you all for free for your entire lives but you are asking me to hand them to you – for what purpose? For you to pick them apart and make fun? To prove to me how stupid and gullible I am? To "nail this turkey"?

I'm sorry, but I don't want any part of that.

[kmortis]

Fair enough on belief systems - again, that's not my main point.I think you're misunderstanding my main point. Why can an antelope evolve but M&M's(tm) can't? How do atheists differentiate between "living" and "non-living" things? Since natural selection only applies only to "living" things - what is the difference between a living and a non-living thing? The explanation above that one is "made" and the other is not doesn't make sense to me. Anyone want to take another shot at it?
OH, but they can (http://www.aaaugh.com/jokes/m&m_duels.html)....:p

[rcronk]

OH, but they can (http://www.aaaugh.com/jokes/m&m_duels.html)....:p

lol - that's freaking hilarious - thanks! It reminds me a little of the twinkie experiments: http://www.twinkiesproject.com

[Jon.]

DanishDynamite – Have you seen this Darwin fellow? ;-P I explained that his "ramblings" have more importance than some other ramblings because I've followed what he's said and have found what he's said to be true through my own experience.


The point of science is that you don't have to prove the existence of the scientist to validate the results of the experiment. Darwin's observations and theories would be just as valid if Darwin didn't exist. They have been repeated, with and without modification, many times and the amount of evidence that exists to support Darwin's basic theory - evolution by natural selection, operating through descent with modification - is staggering.

You didn't answer the question about the experiments you claim to have done to support your theism.

[rcronk]

The point of science is that you don't have to prove the existence of the scientist to validate the results of the experiment. Darwin's observations and theories would be just as valid if Darwin didn't exist. They have been repeated, with and without modification, many times and the amount of evidence that exists to support Darwin's basic theory - evolution by natural selection, operating through descent with modification - is staggering.

Thanks - that was my exact point - the same logic applies to Abraham.

You didn't answer the question about the experiments you claim to have done to support your theism.

You are correct and if you read closely, you'll see that I explained why I did not answer that question.

[kinkymagic]

As for the experiments – the prerequisite is a willingness to sincerely find and accept the truth and do whatever it takes to find that truth. I don't see that here with statements like:

"spoon full of gullibility"
"ignorance"
"condescension"
"psychiatric help"
"[adding] extra to nail this turkey"

combined with the fact that all of these experiments have been available to you all for free for your entire lives but you are asking me to hand them to you – for what purpose? For you to pick them apart and make fun? To prove to me how stupid and gullible I am? To "nail this turkey"?

I'm sorry, but I don't want any part of that.

Well I haven't made any disparaging remarks concerning you beliefs and like to regard myself as a truth-seeker, so how about you teach me some of these lessons. While according to you they are free and available, I must confess that I am at a loss as to where one might find them. Besides, if you have any confidence in these arguements then you should be confident my fellow posters would be unable to effectivly pick them apart, just as they are unable to pick apart things such as evolution or gravity (although that doesn't stop some trying).

[Jon.]

Thanks - that was my exact point - the same logic applies to Abraham.

So what did Abraham say that can be verified by external evidence?

You are correct and if you read closely, you'll see that I explained why I did not answer that question.

I assume you mean this:

As for the experiments – the prerequisite is a willingness to sincerely find and accept the truth and do whatever it takes to find that truth. I don't see that here with statements like:

"spoon full of gullibility"
"ignorance"
"condescension"
"psychiatric help"
"[adding] extra to nail this turkey"

combined with the fact that all of these experiments have been available to you all for free for your entire lives but you are asking me to hand them to you – for what purpose? For you to pick them apart and make fun? To prove to me how stupid and gullible I am? To "nail this turkey"?

So you're not going to tell us what these experiments are because one twit said some stupid things (here's a hint: take a look at Polaris' other posts; he's not exactly representative of most people on these forums, or even on this thread)?

Or is it because "the prerequisite is a willingness to sincerely find and accept the truth and do whatever it takes to find that truth"? Because I think most scientists and skeptics would meet that criterion, unless of course it's code for having to believe in the validity of someone's personal revelation from God before the contents of that revelation make any sense.

[Hokulele]

Do these experiments only apply to Abrahamic traditions, or would they also work for Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, or any other tradition for which we have many texts and writings that can be attributed to a single source? If the experiments can only be applied to Abraham, why?

[rcronk]

Well I haven't made any disparaging remarks concerning you beliefs and like to regard myself as a truth-seeker, so how about you teach me some of these lessons. While according to you they are free and available, I must confess that I am at a loss as to where one might find them. Besides, if you have any confidence in these arguements then you should be confident my fellow posters would be unable to effectivly pick them apart, just as they are unable to pick apart things such as evolution or gravity (although that doesn't stop some trying).

Ok, here is the first experiment. I will share the conditions of the experiment and then my own experience with it.

1. Read "The Book of Mormon". They're free - contact an LDS missionary or member to get a free one. "Mormon" is the name of the historian who put the book together.

2. As you read it, think about what you're reading and compare it to truths you already know.

3. Pray to ask God if the contents of the book you just read are true. This can be a simple prayer similar to "God, I just read this book and it says you exist and I want to know if you exist and if this book is true." According to the book, the answer will come to you through the power of the Holy Ghost and will cause you to feel and know that the book is true. Once you have received this answer, you will know that the book is true with more assurity than knowing the sun will rise the next day. That was my experience and the experience of hundreds of people I have talked to who have also done this experiment.

There are some conditions. When you pray, you must pray:

1. with a sincere heart
2. with real intent
3. having faith in Christ

These instructions and conditions appear in the book itself in Moroni chapter 10 verses 3 through 5. If you do all of this, you will know for yourself the truth about God and much more. And faith in Christ will come to you as you sincerely read the book.

When I was in high school, I read the book and prayed about it and didn't get an answer at all. I found that I had not performed the experiment correctly. I lacked a sincere heart, real intent, and faith in Christ I was looking to disprove it and for an excuse to go party instead of being "religious". I then became the partying atheist for a while until I figured out that that didn't give me any lasting peace and happiness. To make a long story short, several years later, after investigating many religions and philosophies, I decided to try the experiment again - this time I was sincerely wanting to know the truth about the book and I received an answer. It's a little difficult to explain, but it was a combination of a deep feeling of peace accompanied by a knowledge of the truthfulness of the book that I cannot deny. I have since received other reconfirmations of its truthfulness. I now know that the Book of Mormon is a true book.

The book itself describes God, who He is, His relation to us, His plan for us, the role of Jesus Christ in that plan and why it was necessary for Him to be a part of the plan, where we came from before this mortal life, where we're going after this mortal life, how to acquire true and lasting joy, etc. It does all this through a combination of stories about people and discourses starting in Jerusalem in 600 B.C., following a family from Jerusalem to the American Continent until about 421 A.D.

There's the first free experiment. If you have questions, let me know. I would like to know if anyone is willing to try this experiment.

[Foster Zygote]

If there are no changes in the environment there is nothing to drive evolution. Put another way, evolution occurs because of changes in the environment.

In a way, yes. But even "living fossil" species are still evolving. If we could compare the DNA of a 70 million year old coelacanth with a living descendant there would be discernible phylogenetic differences.

[rcronk]

Do these experiments only apply to Abrahamic traditions, or would they also work for Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, or any other tradition for which we have many texts and writings that can be attributed to a single source? If the experiments can only be applied to Abraham, why?

Someone asked where God was and Abraham said "near Kolob" and that's how Abraham got into this discussion.

These experiments apply to all religions, faiths, atheists - anyone who performs the experiment properly.

Again Dunstan - sorry for the thread hijack.

[Jon.]

Ok, here is the first experiment. I will share the conditions of the experiment and then my own experience with it.

1. Read "The Book of Mormon". They're free - contact an LDS missionary or member to get a free one. "Mormon" is the name of the historian who put the book together.

2. As you read it, think about what you're reading and compare it to truths you already know.

3. Pray to ask God if the contents of the book you just read are true. This can be a simple prayer similar to "God, I just read this book and it says you exist and I want to know if you exist and if this book is true." According to the book, the answer will come to you through the power of the Holy Ghost and will cause you to feel and know that the book is true. Once you have received this answer, you will know that the book is true with more assurity than knowing the sun will rise the next day. That was my experience and the experience of hundreds of people I have talked to who have also done this experiment.

There are some conditions. When you pray, you must pray:

1. with a sincere heart
2. with real intent
3. having faith in Christ

These instructions and conditions appear in the book itself in Moroni chapter 10 verses 3 through 5. If you do all of this, you will know for yourself the truth about God and much more. And faith in Christ will come to you as you sincerely read the book.

See, that third condition there is a dealbreaker for me. I have no problem with reading a book and praying to ask God to reveal himself to me and reveal whether the book is true or false. However, if I have to already have faith in Christ, then, sorry, that's not going to happen. This is what I was referring to above:

code for having to believe in the validity of someone's personal revelation from God before the contents of that revelation make any sense

In a scientific experiment, the results are the results whether the reader agrees with the experimenter's beliefs or not. And if the reader doesn't believe it, s/he can re-do the experiment, and if s/he gets a differing result, publish that. Enough differing results and the first experiment is regarded as invalid. There is no such process for the Book of Mormon. Or, if enough of us perform your experiment and come back and say "nope, no God spoke to me", will you accept that the Book of Mormon is not true?

Further, a valid experiment should have objective outcomes. This has only a subjective outcome.

When I was in high school, I read the book and prayed about it and didn't get an answer at all. I found that I had not performed the experiment correctly. I lacked a sincere heart, real intent, and faith in Christ I was looking to disprove it and for an excuse to go party instead of being "religious". I then became the partying atheist for a while until I figured out that that didn't give me any lasting peace and happiness. To make a long story short, several years later, after investigating many religions and philosophies, I decided to try the experiment again - this time I was sincerely wanting to know the truth about the book and I received an answer. It's a little difficult to explain, but it was a combination of a deep feeling of peace accompanied by a knowledge of the truthfulness of the book that I cannot deny. I have since received other reconfirmations of its truthfulness. I now know that the Book of Mormon is a true book.

Is the truth of the Book of Mormon compatible with the truth of the Qu'ran? If not, how does the fact that many, many people "know" that the Qu'ran is a "true book", using the exact same method you used with respect to the Book of Mormon, affect your observations?

Have you tried this method with any other books, such as the Qu'ran, Dianetics or for that matter, the collected works of Bob Dylan? If not, why not? Of course, with those books, your condition #3 would have to be changed to faith in Muhammad, L. Ron Hubbard or the Zim respectively.

The book itself describes God, who He is, His relation to us, His plan for us, the role of Jesus Christ in that plan and why it was necessary for Him to be a part of the plan, where we came from before this mortal life, where we're going after this mortal life, how to acquire true and lasting joy, etc. It does all this through a combination of stories about people and discourses starting in Jerusalem in 600 B.C., following a family from Jerusalem to the American Continent until about 421 A.D.

How would your belief in the truth of this book be affected if it were proven scientifically - that is, with objective, replicable results - that at least some of the events described in it just didn't happen?

There's the first free experiment. If you have questions, let me know. I would like to know if anyone is willing to try this experiment.

Sorry, I don't go into experiments by assuming a particular outcome as one of the premises.

[Tanstaafl]

So your emotional reaction to reading a book and praying constitutes a scientific experiment in your opinion?

ETA: Covered better and in much more detail above!

[toddjh]

There are some conditions. When you pray, you must pray:

1. with a sincere heart
2. with real intent
3. having faith in Christ

We get this a lot. The problem is, what it essentially boils down to is, "Believe in what I say, then pray, and then you will believe!" It assumes what it sets out to establish.

I can't pray with a sincere heart, because my sincere belief is that there's no one listening -- any attempt at prayer would simply be going through the motions, or, at best, a "what if?" type of thing. Likewise, I can't have faith in Christ, because I see no reason to believe there was anything supernatural about him, if he even existed at all.

Statements like these puzzle me, because they reflect an attitude that people can change what they believe like flipping a lightswitch. Maybe it's like that for some people, but for me, what I believe changes based on what I've experienced. The experience has to come before the change, and for that reason exhortations like "pray really, really hard" seem completely backwards.

[Hokulele]

Someone asked where God was and Abraham said "near Kolob" and that's how Abraham got into this discussion.

These experiments apply to all religions, faiths, atheists - anyone who performs the experiment properly.

Again Dunstan - sorry for the thread hijack.


So to make sure I understand you correctly, if I read one of the Sutras and request that Kanon reveal herself and assure me that it is true, she will reveal herself and assure me that the particular verse I am reading is true?

[Foster Zygote]

Ok - I'll explain who I believe God is - my theory. [thread derail warning]

Each one of us has a spirit within us. It has the same organs and organization that our physical body has. It is where our free will and consciousness originates. "God" is the father of our spirits. Before this world was created, God created our spirits and we were His children. He taught us and helped us to acquire as much knowledge as we could as spirits. He then knew that to progress further and to know "right" from "wrong" or in other words to know what gives the most people the most lasting joy and what doesn't, we needed to have physical bodies and be away from him so we could act for ourselves - kind of like finding out how hard an employee will work when the boss is gone. So, he created a world for us so we could come down here to get a physical body that would further help us acquire knowledge and also it would help us to experience each other being nice and mean, sharing and stealing, giving new life and murdering. So that we could all know what "works" and what "doesn't work" in a society and within ourselves. I think he organized things here so that we could choose to believe in him or not. He actually appeared to some people and told them to go give people hints as to what works and what doesn't (the "right" and "wrong" ways). He did this, keeping himself hidden so that we could all choose of our own free will to choose good or evil and to follow His ways or not with no compulsion whatsoever. So, God is our father and we are all his children, all living and experiencing life and learning as we go - acquiring knowledge in ways that we otherwise couldn't have and choosing all the while what we want for ourselves. He wants the best for us, but wants us to choose it. He is all powerful and all knowing and he is perfected in all of his attributes such as mercy, justice, forgiveness, honesty, truth, etc. He will not take away our right to act in the ways we desire and so we see much good and much evil in the world.

So there's a basic theory that I believe in currently based on my own research, study, and experiments that I have performed throughout my life to see if He exists and to find out who He is. The theory evolves (no pun intended) as I learn more and as I try to refine my own biases and weaknesses out of myself using the processes He has given to prophets through the centuries. I've tried them and they work. That's my understanding of God, His plan for me, and how He relates to me.

As I have said before, I have been an atheist and I have believed in evolution before and my theories have changed based on evidence, testimonies, and my own experiences.

That is not a theory. It isn't even an hypothesis. How do you propose to test this? How can it be falsified?

[Dark Jaguar]

This may have already been covered, but I'll spell it out bluntly.

There is no selection pressure for your rows of M&Ms over non-rows. Without selection, it WOULD be totally random. M&Ms are also incapable of reproducing. These are not minor nitpicks. Both are utterly fundamental aspects of evolution. If you are going to make an analog, you need to have something that at least imitates those qualities.

Now then, make your M&Ms capable of having young. Now envision a scenario where lining up in rows helps them to reach a point where they can reproduce and pass on that particular behavior. Well, it doesn't sound so impressive and rare now does it? Randomness is part of evolution, but only in providing the raw material for evolution to work with. The process of natural selection OUT of those available mutations isn't random at all.

The problem is, any analogy you cook up that actually does analog evolution, well, it just ends up supporting evolution.

If we designed computers that could replicate, and made that replication just a little flawed (not so flawed as to prevent them from producing viable offspring but flawed enough to allow for mutations and adaptation), we'd have better and stronger computers, though it would take a lot longer than engineers doing it. But, we can speed it up. Let's make a computer program that simulates natural selection and random mutations of a strain. Well, not only has that been done, it's being used CONSTANTLY in evolution programs everywhere to get work done. They have used them to design some truly unique looking robots that move in unusual ways, the selection criteria being whichever one is fastest. It's being used in warehouses to determine the best way to stock and load up shipped goods in a timely manner (scheduling basically). Don't bother saying that since it's done by a program an intelligence is involved which "defies the natural laws", in this case, no aspect of the program operates any differently than nature would, except that nature has no specific end goal in mind at all. If you think that changes everything, please, explain why you think so. The only thing it changes is that in the real world, it produces countless different strains in all sorts of niches, while in the computer, it produces strains that only fill one specific predetermined niche.

But, I don't expect you'll listen to this. You'll ignore the "selection pressure" part completely, continuing to think it is PURE chance. Or, you'll likely say "sure selection pressure works with existing genes, but there is NO WAY a beneficial mutation can ever occur ever", in spite of direct evidence, in computer programs and tests involving bacteria cultures and the introduction of stuff to kill those cultures, and go on and on about chance and so on.

You were just never taught correctly what evolution is, but you were taught never to bother finding out.

[rcronk]

See, that third condition there is a dealbreaker for me. I have no problem with reading a book and praying to ask God to reveal himself to me and reveal whether the book is true or false. However, if I have to already have faith in Christ, then, sorry, that's not going to happen. This is what I was referring to above:

The faith in Christ comes automatically as you read the book. You don't have to have it right now. It would be like saying that a byproduct of the first step of an experiment is needed for the final step in the experiment.

In a scientific experiment, the results are the results whether the reader agrees with the experimenter's beliefs or not. And if the reader doesn't believe it, s/he can re-do the experiment, and if s/he gets a differing result, publish that. Enough differing results and the first experiment is regarded as invalid. There is no such process for the Book of Mormon. Or, if enough of us perform your experiment and come back and say "nope, no God spoke to me", will you accept that the Book of Mormon is not true?

I get what you're saying. It's not just a "feeling" I get after reading a book but nobody here can understand that until they have tried the experiment. It is a bit difficult for me to explain, but the nature of the result is such that someone else getting a negative result just means they didn't do the experiment correctly. I know you'll are going to hate that response, but it's true. Try it and find out. Refusing to even try the experiment because it doesn't match what you've seen in the past is strange to me.

Is it possible that there is a different way to acquire knowledge than what you're used to?

Further, a valid experiment should have objective outcomes. This has only a subjective outcome.

It's only subjective to the person who hasn't run the experiment yet. It's completely objective to the one who has run the experiment. Again, there is another way to acquire knowledge - rejecting it simply because it doesn't match other ways of proving something is like saying you don't like carrots before you've tried them.

Is the truth of the Book of Mormon compatible with the truth of the Qu'ran? If not, how does the fact that many, many people "know" that the Qu'ran is a "true book", using the exact same method you used with respect to the Book of Mormon, affect your observations? Have you tried this method with any other books, such as the Qu'ran, Dianetics or for that matter, the collected works of Bob Dylan? If not, why not? Of course, with those books, your condition #3 would have to be changed to faith in Muhammad, L. Ron Hubbard or the Zim respectively.

Truth is compatible with all other truth no matter where it is found. I've read parts of the Qu'ran and have found truth in it, certainly. I have done this experiment on the new testament and I have found that this method works to find the truth of all things regardless of the name of the book or whether the item in question is "religious" or not. I have found truth in a lot of different sources. Truth doesn't come from books, books can document pieces of the truth though. The experiment doesn't require faith in anything other than Christ, which again, is a byproduct of the first part of this experiment.

How would your belief in the truth of this book be affected if it were proven scientifically - that is, with objective, replicable results - that at least some of the events described in it just didn't happen?

I would assume that men are fallible and help them continue their research until they found the truth of the matter. You'll hate that response too and unless you've tried the experiment, you'll not understand that response. Once you've successfully tried the experiment, you'll understand why I would take such a stance.

Sorry, I don't go into experiments by assuming a particular outcome as one of the premises.

You don't have to assume anything. Start at the first step and move from there.

Is anyone out there willing to run the experiment?

[rcronk]

Dark Jaguar - I completely get the selection pressure and reproduction, etc. I was asking why some things are living and why some things are not - what is at the cause of "life" to an atheist?

It's funny that you said "If we designed computers that could replicate" - since that would take intelligent creators (we) to do such a thing. That whole argument supports creationism simply because only intelligent beings could make such computers. I'm a computer programmer by the way and it is truly an interesting science.

[Ryokan]

The faith in Christ comes automatically as you read the book.

I've read the Book of Mormon (and the Pearl of Great Price), but I didn't get this automatic faith in Christ. I'm still an atheist. Maybe the book I read was faulty? Can I get a new one?

You are assuming that we are atheists because we haven't read your book. But most people in here are well versed in religion, and have read several holy books, including the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon. In fact, there are ex-Mormons on the forum.

Is anyone out there willing to run the experiment?

Tried it. Didn't work. Now what?

[rcronk]

toddjh - thanks for the reply. I've responded to some of what you've said in my reponses to others here. Once thing specific to your response was that the experiment and its result IS the experience that changes belief.

[rcronk]

Ryokan - if you read my original post, you'll see that I also read it once and got no answer and was atheist too. I found out later that it was because I wasn't running the experiment correctly. You can get a new book just in case though. :)

You stated that you "are still an atheist." So I think I didn't assume you are atheist. The thread is about atheism. If I assume someone's an atheist and they're not - forgive me.

[jimlintott]

Einstein once said something to the effect that he didn't know what weapons the third world war will be fought with but the fourth will be fought with sticks and stones.

While Einstein was a great scientist just because he said the above doesn't mean it will happen and certainly doesn't make it a fact. On the other hand his theory of relativity is there for everyone to see, use, validate and possibly invalidate.

If Abraham says that god lives near a star of some name, unless he has star charts and evidence that can be independently verified it's just philosophical musings. If he left behind the exact location of this star so that we can look then he was doing science. Otherwise, I can make stuff up too.

[Ryokan]

Ryokan - if you read my original post, you'll see that I also read it once and got no answer and was atheist too. I found out later that it was because I wasn't running the experiment correctly. You can get a new book just in case though. :)

The experiment seems awfully simple.

Read the Book of Mormon, get automatic faith in Christ, pray, revelation.

What were you doing wrong? I'm always up for trying new things, although I dread reading that awfully boring book again.

My Book of Mormon is still on my bookshelf, next to the Bible. And it's not one of those mass produced books that missionaries hand out, it's a beautifully illustrated version.

[jimlintott]

Dark Jaguar - I completely get the selection pressure and reproduction, etc. I was asking why some things are living and why some things are not - what is at the cause of "life" to an atheist?


Being atheist gives no insight whatsoever to a "cause" for life.

How there is living things is very interesting to me. Why there is living things is a philosophical question. Does there need to be a why?

[rcronk]

jimlintott - Abraham and the Book of Mormon could just be people making stuff up. Unless you run the experiment, you'll never know. Again - is it possible that there is a way to acquire knowledge that is different than what you're used to?

[Jon.]

The faith in Christ comes automatically as you read the book. You don't have to have it right now. It would be like saying that a byproduct of the first step of an experiment is needed for the final step in the experiment.

How does this assertion square with your earlier observation:


When I was in high school, I read the book and prayed about it and didn't get an answer at all. I found that I had not performed the experiment correctly. I lacked a sincere heart, real intent, and faith in Christ I was looking to disprove it and for an excuse to go party instead of being "religious".

If the faith in Christ comes "automatically" then why didn't you get it when you read the Book of Mormon in high school?

If I read the book and don't then have faith in Christ, should I proceed to the prayer stage or not?

I get what you're saying. It's not just a "feeling" I get after reading a book but nobody here can understand that until they have tried the experiment. It is a bit difficult for me to explain, but the nature of the result is such that someone else getting a negative result just means they didn't do the experiment correctly. I know you'll are going to hate that response, but it's true. Try it and find out. Refusing to even try the experiment because it doesn't match what you've seen in the past is strange to me.

I'm not necessarily refusing; I'm just trying to clarify some of your conditions.

Is it possible that there is a different way to acquire knowledge than what you're used to?

I am not aware of any evidence that would support the acquisition of knowledge otherwise than through the five senses and the application of reason to the observations gained thereby.



It's only subjective to the person who hasn't run the experiment yet. It's completely objective to the one who has run the experiment.

BS. If only the person who does the experiment can experience the result, then it's subjective.

Again, there is another way to acquire knowledge - rejecting it simply because it doesn't match other ways of proving something is like saying you don't like carrots before you've tried them.

Again, have you read (in their entirety) the holy books of all the other religions - the Qu'ran, the Bhagavad Gita, Dianetics, the Tao, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Tripitaka, etc.? If not, how do you reject them? And don't say that you don't reject them - you must if you have faith that Jesus Christ is "the way, the truth and the life; no-one will come to the Father except through" him.

Truth is compatible with all other truth no matter where it is found.

When you find parts of the Book of Mormon that are incompatible with scientifically proven truths, which will you reject?

I've read parts of the Qu'ran and have found truth in it, certainly. I have done this experiment on the new testament and I have found that this method works to find the truth of all things regardless of the name of the book or whether the item in question is "religious" or not. I have found truth in a lot of different sources. Truth doesn't come from books, books can document pieces of the truth though. The experiment doesn't require faith in anything other than Christ, which again, is a byproduct of the first part of this experiment.

In other words, you haven't done this experiment with any book other than those particular to your religion. Why? How do you think this affects the results of your experiment?

I would assume that men are fallible and help them continue their research until they found the truth of the matter. You'll hate that response too and unless you've tried the experiment, you'll not understand that response. Once you've successfully tried the experiment, you'll understand why I would take such a stance.

So you would assume that the scientists are wrong? Why not assume that Joseph Smith was wrong? Better yet, why not put the two together and see if there is an explanation that fits both?

You don't have to assume anything. Start at the first step and move from there.

Is anyone out there willing to run the experiment?


If (and it's a big IF) I were willing to read the Book of Mormon through, and provide my feedback as I went, would you be willing to:

(a) stick around these boards to respond to any questions I might have as I read;
(b) read a book of my choosing with an open mind and be prepared to either accept it or refute it with reasoned arguments; and
(c) if the experiment "fails" (ie. I do not, at the end of the process, accept the truth of the Book of Mormon), consider my data point to be as valid as your own?

[jimlintott]

jimlintott - Abraham and the Book of Mormon could just be people making stuff up. Unless you run the experiment, you'll never know. Again - is it possible that there is a way to acquire knowledge that is different than what you're used to?

What experiment?

I can only know what my (our) senses reveal. I know of no other way.

[rcronk]

ryokan - if you read my original post more carefully, you'll find out what I did wrong initially. Hmm, I don't find the book boring - I actually learn a lot from it each time I read it. Can I have your copy? ;-)

jimlintott - when I was an atheist, I couldn't help but wonder about life and living things and how that could be explained within the context of my atheism.

[Jon.]

jimlintott - when I was an atheist, I couldn't help but wonder about life and living things and how that could be explained within the context of my atheism.


Lots of other people have wondered the same things. Did you do any research to see what other people had concluded on these points? What sources did you consult?

[Ryokan]

I'll admit that it's been 12 years since I read the Book of Mormon.

I'm willing to reread it, if rcronk is willing to read the Dhammapada. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammapada)



ETA:

ryokan - if you read my original post more carefully, you'll find out what I did wrong initially. Hmm, I don't find the book boring - I actually learn a lot from it each time I read it. Can I have your copy? ;-)

Then the experiment is not as easy as you claim. I have to already believe in your god for it to work? The slightest bit of scepticism ruins the experiment?

That's not how science works. You get the same result from an experiment, no matter what you believe.

No, you can't have my copy, I like it ;)

[Hokulele]

rcronk, since you appear to have missed my last question, I would like to try and make sure I understand your response to me from earlier.

You had stated that this experiment applies to all religions, including atheists. Does this mean that if I read another religious text, such as one of the Upanishads, and pray for guidance, say to Shiva, I will become a believer in Hinduism? Or does this only apply to the Book of Mormon?

[Ryokan]

You had stated that this experiment applies to all religions, including atheists. Does this mean that if I read another religious text, such as one of the Upanishads, and pray for guidance, say to Shiva, I will become a believer in Hinduism? Or does this only apply to the Book of Mormon?

Well, that's one thing I was going to propose we find out.

I try rcronk's experiment, read the Book of Mormon and pray. In exchange, rcronc can read the Dhammapada and try to follow the Eightfold Path.

That should be fair enough, right? Rcronk should be willing to do an elaborate experiment himself, since he's advocating others do it.

I'm up for it. I'm going on holiday to Turkey on friday, and haven't found a book to read yet. Maybe it's time to reread the Book of Mormon.

[rcronk]

Jon. - I didn't get faith because I didn't have sincerity about finding the truth concerning the book. You could proceed to prayer without faith and see what happens - it didn't work when I tried it.

Five senses? Do you have kids or parents or someone you love? Have you felt love? Isn't that outside of your five senses? If so, could it be possible that you could receive not only a physical sensation as I described but also knowledge through something other than five senses?

objective:undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena - when you receive the answer, you'll know that it came from outside of yourself and has nothing to do with emotion or personal bias. The observable phenomena for me was that my life completely changed as a result of that answer.

I have the computerized Bhagavad Gita and have read some of it also. No, I haven't read all of the books you listed in their entirety and I don't have to accept or reject them all as a whole - truth is truth - if the Bhagavad Gita says you should love and serve God and others to find lasting happiness, that's truth regardless of its context.

Men are fallible, I'll trust the answer I received from God over the attempts of men to put truth together. But over time, the truth usually wins out and the world ends up shperical - just like God made it. :) If the Bible said the world was a sphere and men proved scientifically that it was flat, I'll trust God and then wait for men to catch up.

I haven't done this experiment with other books specifically because I know that if I read those books, I can get the truth that's in them and if it's something I really am not sure about and want to know the truth, I'll perform the experiment and find out for myself.

Again, I believe the answer I got from God and work with men's answers until they match - the truth wins out eventually.

I would stick around and we could start another thread for your questions. I would read a book of your chosing and accept it or refute it, I will accept your result as a data point.

[jimlintott]

jimlintott - when I was an atheist, I couldn't help but wonder about life and living things and how that could be explained within the context of my atheism.

Good for you. That makes you just like pretty much every person who has ever lived. Did you stop when you were no longer atheist?

Scientifically, I know there is a how but I don't know how. Philosophically, I'm not convinced there is a why. Although for why I tend to believe that living things are just so much more efficient at creating entropy that the second law of thermodynamics predicts that life will exist. Life is probably plentiful all over the universe. So, sure, I think of these things as much or more than anyone. Not in the concept of atheism but in the concept of reality.

[rcronk]

Holy cow you guys - slow down the posts, I can't keep up.

Ryokan - I will read the Dhammapada - I love buddists! I have studied shaolin chuan fa for 9 years now and even trained with some shaolin warrior monks a few years back! Awesome people! Yes, this is a different way to acquire knowledge and has some different rules than man's scientific method. That's ok. It works.

Hokulele - yeah - I can't see how I could have missed your question in this deluge! :-) This experiment will help people find the truth regardless of what book your reading in or what the source is. Period. The prayer is to your Heavenly Father (God) and I'm not sure if the faith in Christ is specific to the Book of Mormon or not - it doesn't specify.

[Hokulele]

I have the computerized Bhagavad Gita and have read some of it also. No, I haven't read all of the books you listed in their entirety and I don't have to accept or reject them all as a whole - truth is truth - if the Bhagavad Gita says you should love and serve God and others to find lasting happiness, that's truth regardless of its context.


Well, most Hindu texts list more than one god, so I am not sure how that would fit into your theology. Shintos believe everything has/is a god. Classical Taoism has no gods at all, but rather "right living". Confucianism tends to worship ancestors more than any god-concept.

Men are fallible, I'll trust the answer I received from God over the attempts of men to put truth together. But over time, the truth usually wins out and the world ends up shperical - just like God made it. :) If the Bible said the world was a sphere and men proved scientifically that it was flat, I'll trust God and then wait for men to catch up.


Too bad the bible states/implies a geocentric solar system. Not sure about the book of Mormon.

I haven't done this experiment with other books specifically because I know that if I read those books, I can get the truth that's in them and if it's something I really am not sure about and want to know the truth, I'll perform the experiment and find out for myself.


I would start with Black Elk Speaks. It is written by an Oglala Sioux, and can easily be found on the Internet.

[rcronk]

Hokulele - out of curiosity do you have the reference for the geocentric solar system in the bible?

I'm done for today - I'll check back tomorrow. Please don't post too many posts before then. :-)

[Ryokan]

Ryokan - I will read the Dhammapada - I love buddists! I have studied shaolin chuan fa for 9 years now and even trained with some shaolin warrior monks a few years back! Awesome people! Yes, this is a different way to acquire knowledge and has some different rules than man's scientific method. That's ok. It works.

Well, there are a lot of directions within Buddhism, and they're all quite different. Dhammapada is the main work of Theravada Buddhism, while Shaolin is Zen Buddhism. But both those directions have one thing in common that is at the heart of this experiment - they're both atheistic directions, where there are no god and you are your own saviour. In Zen it's through enlightenment through meditation, while in Theravada it's following the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path (where the Eightfold Path is actually Noble Truth #4.)

So I'll read the Book of Mormon and pray, and you'll read the Dhammapada (a much shorter book, I'll add) and try to follow the Eightfold Path?

That would be a good experiment, wouldn't it?

[Hokulele]

Hokulele - out of curiosity do you have the reference for the geocentric solar system in the bible?

I'm done for today - I'll check back tomorrow.


Take your time, I can understand about the deluge of responses here. Regarding the geocentric solar system and the bible, there are two sets of quotes that are typically referenced. The first is from Joshua 10:12-14.

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.


The second is from Ecclesiastes 1:5-7.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea [is] not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.


These are just the two most famous quotations. These were used by the church in the case of Galileo as proof that the theories Galileo was espousing were heretical. In both cases the fact of the sun's movement is explicitly stated, as was believed at the time. It is only now with our current understanding of the solar system do we say the sun's rising and setting is metaphor, and not literal truth.

[jimlintott]

I'll be the control group and not read anything.

Don't we need a placebo group? They could read Lord of the Rings.

I do have to give rcronk props for staying quite cool and maintaining composure in the 'deluge'.

[Jon.]

Jon. - I didn't get faith because I didn't have sincerity about finding the truth concerning the book. You could proceed to prayer without faith and see what happens - it didn't work when I tried it.

What kind of sincerity would I have to have for the experiment to be valid? Would I have to "want" it to be true? If I approached it with an open mind, scepticism but a willingness to be convinced by evidence, would that be enough?

Five senses? Do you have kids or parents or someone you love? Have you felt love? Isn't that outside of your five senses? If so, could it be possible that you could receive not only a physical sensation as I described but also knowledge through something other than five senses?

An emotion is not a form of knowledge - the fact that I experience the emotion is. I have never received any knowledge through the love that I feel for my parents, spouse and children; I have received knowledge from those individuals, however.

objective:undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena - when you receive the answer, you'll know that it came from outside of yourself and has nothing to do with emotion or personal bias. The observable phenomena for me was that my life completely changed as a result of that answer.

But it was observable only by you, which makes it subjective. Your behaviour may have changed in ways that were objectively evident, but the knowledge that the Book of Mormon was true was not objectively evident.

I have the computerized Bhagavad Gita and have read some of it also. No, I haven't read all of the books you listed in their entirety and I don't have to accept or reject them all as a whole - truth is truth - if the Bhagavad Gita says you should love and serve God and others to find lasting happiness, that's truth regardless of its context.

What if it doesn't (eg. Dianetics)? What if it denies that Jesus Christ was the son of God or that he was resurrected (eg. Qu'ran)? What if it says that there is not one god, but many (eg. Bhagavad Gita)? What if it says there is no God at all (eg. Buddhist texts)?

Other people have read these works in all sincerity and "known" that they are true. How can you say that they are wrong?

Men are fallible, I'll trust the answer I received from God over the attempts of men to put truth together. But over time, the truth usually wins out and the world ends up shperical - just like God made it. :) If the Bible said the world was a sphere and men proved scientifically that it was flat, I'll trust God and then wait for men to catch up.

What if the Bible says that the world is flat (Matt 4:8) and supported by pillars (1 Sam. 4:8)?

I haven't done this experiment with other books specifically because I know that if I read those books, I can get the truth that's in them and if it's something I really am not sure about and want to know the truth, I'll perform the experiment and find out for myself.[/quoe]

Other people have performed those experiments. They say that these books are true, even (or perhaps especially) where they contradict your books. Why do you say these people are wrong?

[quote=rcronk;2706749]Again, I believe the answer I got from God and work with men's answers until they match - the truth wins out eventually.

Indeed, and nobody still believes that the moon gives off its own light, or that the stars could actually fall to earth (Mark 13:24-25), although they did at one time. Nobody still believes that seeds must be "dead" in order to germinate (1 Cor. 15:36), although they may have done at one time. Nobody still believes that the earth is set on an unmoving foundation (Heb. 1:10), although they did at one time. Eventually, the truth wins out. How do you think the Biblical or Mormon theories of the origin of species, or the migration of Israelites to the Americas, will survive against contrary scientific truth?

I would stick around and we could start another thread for your questions. I would read a book of your chosing and accept it or refute it, I will accept your result as a data point.


Will you accept my data point as equally valid to yours? Specifically, will you entertain the possibility that you were wrong (or deceived, or delusional) when you accepted the truth of the Book of Mormon? If so, how do you deny the validity of your own earlier data point, as well as the data points of lapsed Mormons (RandFan is one who posts here fairly often - I'm sure he'd answer any PMs you might send him)?

ETA: you seem to have something set up with Ryokan, and I will defer to that setup for now. If you want to do this with me, PM me.

[The Grave]

Dark Jaguar - I completely get the selection pressure and reproduction, etc. I was asking why some things are living and why some things are not - what is at the cause of "life" to an atheist?

It's funny that you said "If we designed computers that could replicate" - since that would take intelligent creators (we) to do such a thing. That whole argument supports creationism simply because only intelligent beings could make such computers. I'm a computer programmer by the way and it is truly an interesting science.

Your second point first:-

No slagging off; scouts honour! Honest Indian!

So, "It's funny that you said...." that god is the creator, when the simple knock-out to this is the fact that you are one of those faithers that wish to replace something fairly complicated with some thing MUCH more complicated...thereby breaking every observational concept of any functioning reality.... i.e. to me it is delusional ramblings... and I'm not trying to wind-up Holy Jon! or you.

There is no room in your theory of god for a formation of god. That bucket doesn't hold water.

First point second:

To me as a trained science/engineer type person who has studied and taught for what feels like centuries...

Firstly there is no "cause" of life, in a purpose full way by a being... simply because this replaces one unexplained jig-piece with a more complicated one.

Next: Have you read any good biochemistry books recently {ever}?? Or microbiology... or Dawkins, Gould et al...?

I know how your computer works: shuffle a few n's and p's here, a few electrons there... stone aged gadgetry for our near-stone-aged times that we live in!

A good biol book will tell you that your membranes/cells are nothing more than tiny twigs of phospholipids cramped in together; a few not very complicated glycoproteins and Bob's your uncle, hey presto, a bag full of chemicals that can make more chemicals; some of which can copy themselves.

All understood by phys/chem... it's just a lot of information... and we're still learning it.

Do you know you are 97% DNA alike to chimps, ~85% to horses and even 70% + for a banana... that one gets 'em every time...WHY? because they all rely on membranes, cells and other organelles that are pretty much the same... why? because they originate from the same common ancestor... all life does...or maybe there's some scope for more but that's the point.. not much.

Surely if a designer had drawn us all up... we'd be as different as chalk and cheese... but we're not. This is the evidence for evolution and the nail in the coffin for creationism.

Chimps have ABO blood, like yours and mine.

If you notice all mammals have 2 eyes/ears/arms.... no wings out of their backs, only modified arms...

Whales and dolphins have left-over legs/pelvic bones from having walked on ground...

No engineer would design a car with a 'real', left over horse {for horse power} inside a Ferrari... would they? Why should god give whales a pelvis & legs?

The hippo looks like a pig and is named after a horse... kinda... and yet DNA testing tells us that it is the closest relation to...what do you think...?






A whale.

Your god {not that I think there is such a thing} can't even design an animal that we can't explain in terms of evolution... if IT could we'd be stumped!

Good luck in your search...

"To travel with hope, is better than to arrive..."

Griff...

[Foster Zygote]

The idiot is back...

Don't be so hard on yourself.

[kmortis]

Now then, make your M&Ms capable of having young.

I do believe that you've just described a version of heaven that I could get into....:p

[RandFan]

Hi rcronk,

I came here an inactive Mormon but a firm believer in intelligent design. Reading through this thread I see a number of similarities between us. I made many of the same arguments and held a number of notions that you do know. My first thread here was an argument in support of ID not too different from your M&M example.

I'm a computer programmer which might explain why I came to a number of the same conclusions. I came up with a variation of the Chinese Room (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room) before I knew there was a Chinese Room thought experiment.

I'm not so presumptuous as to assume that my experiences will necessarily be of any importance to you. However, I think it perhaps helpful for you to know that others (yes other[s]) precede you.

I was not an atheist before being a Mormon. My family converted when I was too young to know what theism or lack of theism was. I was a true believer though. I believed it as absolutely as any human can, at least as far as I can tell but I won't deny that through my life I had my trials of faith.

In any event, welcome and I wish you the best of luck. I think you are doing a good job. You don't have the chip on your shoulder that I came here with (and still have from time to time).

RandFan

[Tony]

I'm looking for the atheist explanation of what the fundamental difference is between living and non-living

Umm...the fundamental differences between living and non-living things is that living things are living and non-living things aren't.

what makes something move around of its own free will

This doesn't make sense. How can something make something move around of its own free will??? If it has free will, it doesn't need to be made to do anything.

[BillyJoe]

Don't be so hard on yourself.


:D

...I see he has a son called Tony. ;)



(BTW, where you saying above that evolution can occur without environmental changes?)

BJ

[BillyJoe]

rcronk,

I'm impressed with the way you've handled the idiots around here.

If you have found your way I am happy for you. But everyone is different. For example, I was a devoutly religious at age 15, but, within a year, my faith was completely gone as a result of thinking for myself about those things others had told me were true. I have not looked back since and I can't imagine any circumstances where I would.

As a matter of interest, do you believe in an eternal afterlife?

[Foster Zygote]

:D

...I see he has a son called Tony. ;)



(BTW, where you saying above that evolution can occur without environmental changes?)

BJ

A species can evolve without environmental change. Even if the environment remains static mutations can occur which give certain individuals a greater chance of reproductive success than others. And even species that have barely changed their form at all in millions of years are accumulating mutations in their genome.

[blobru]

I now know that the Book of Mormon is a true book.
...
a combination of stories about people and discourses starting in Jerusalem in 600 B.C., following a family from Jerusalem to the American Continent until about 421 A.D.

In the precocious [and holy] spirit of the OP's nephew, who compared God to the tooth fairy at the start of this thread, I thought I'd take your challenge, delve into the Book of Mormon a bit, and compare it to the historical record, to see if its claimed 'truth' was worth any more than a quarter under my pillow.


1 Nephi 1:4
4 For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of
the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having
dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there
came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must
repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.


So far so good, historians date Zedekiah's reign circa 597-586 B.C.

Now we read a bit further, and I must say things really start to heat up. At one point God commands his prophet Nephi to murder his rival Laban in his sleep:


1 Nephi 4:18
18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban
by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own
sword.


Then later on He rewards Nephi with a vision of just how upset He's going to be with a certain 'Gentile' church:


1 Nephi 13:4
4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the
Gentiles the formation of a great church.

1 Nephi 13:5
5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church
which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth
the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down,
and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into
captivity.

1 Nephi 13:6
6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable
church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.


(Probably explains why not a whole lot of Xmas cards arrive in Salt Lake City with a Vatican return address.)

Anyway, these visions are just the kick in the rear Nephi needs to lead his tribe out of the wilderness to the shores of a great ocean, which thanks to the Almighty's exceedingly fine ark blueprints and trusty compass, they make it across to the New World, where they find:


1 Nephi 18:25
25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of
promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were
beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and
the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all
manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we
did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of
copper.


As Dunstan's 4-year-old nephew might say: "unh-uh";
"the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat" are all Old World fauna. This is the 6th century BC, right?
Cows etal. won't show up for another 2 millenia at least:


"When Europeans first touched the shores of the Americas, ... there were no horses, cattle, sheep, or goats, all animals of Old World origin. Except for the llama, alpaca, dog, a few fowl, and guinea pig, the New World had no equivalents to the domesticated animals associated with the Old World[...]"
The Columbian Exchange (http://www.historynow.org/06_2007/historian2.html)
- Alfred Crosby, Professor Emeritus, University of Texas at Austin


So sorry, but unless as part of this 'experiment' we're expected to not show the same degree of curiosity a 4-year-old might while reading this "true book", I'm afraid that sort of 'truth' ain't worth a nickel in a sewer drain to me.

[rcronk]

Ryokan - thanks for the Buddhism info - I really like how humble the warrior monks were. I admire them. Yes - I'll read the Dhammapada and try to follow the eightfold path. What's the best online link for the Dhammapada that you've found as well as a summary of the eightfold path? I can go find it all on my own, but if you have a good link, I'll take it. Good experiment. I really like the angle that the Eastern religions and philosophies look at the truth. For example, they explain the concept of meekness as a pebble being thrown into the ocean as opposed to a puddle - a meek person is like the ocean, not affected by annoying disturbances, etc. Good stuff.

Hokulele - Thanks for the scripture references. I'm not sure I'd be able to take those verses into a (non-crooked) court and convince people that a heliocentric theory was heretical - the verses are pretty vague. That's one thing that bugs me about people is that they do their own junk in the name of religion and thereby give religion a bad wrap. If people could get their own answers and not follow or compel each other - that would be nice.

jimlintott - lol - yes, we need a control group! No Lord of the Rings though. You must read nothing or you'll taint the control. Thanks for the props - I've been battered in forums for years - usually on 9/11 conspiracy theories though (which I think are a pile of junk, BTW), so I'm getting better at rolling with the punches.

Jon. - Yes, I think open minded skepticism with a willingness to accept the truth you find will work. Emotion is just an example of something you experience outside of the five senses. I have discovered that Knowledge can also come from outside my five senses - not through emotion but some other way that I don't yet understand - I just know it can happen because it happened to me. Objective/Subjective - fair enough. Those books can have truth in them and it's good to gather truth wherever you can find it. If one of them says that Christ was not the Son of God, for example, then based on the knowledge I have received, I would have to say that those specific words in that specific book are in error - it doesn't mean that there isn't any truth in the book - in fact the whole rest of the book may be full of truth. Each person must find these things out for themselves. I think it's a stretch to claim that Matt 4:8 says the world is flat. I think you meant 1 Sam 2:8 and the phrasing of that verse sounds more symbolic than literal. I'm not saying the Bible is perfect, it has its flaws, but it also has truth in it. As for contradictions between people saying that two things are true that contradict each other - either one or both of the people are wrong. Truth sits there waiting to be discovered - nobody owns it, no religion owns it - it exists independently of all of us. If there's an orange on the table and one person says there's an orange on the table and another person says there's not an orange on the table, one of them is just wrong and that's ok - it's not the end of the world and it doesn't mean that the person who said the orange is there is prideful or better than the other person either. I call meteorites "falling" or "shooting" stars sometimes - it doesn't mean I think that they're literally falling. Again, I'm not going to get into "defend the perfection of the bible" mode because it's not perfect, but I think it has some crucially important truths in it that make these other flaws irrelevant. I will accept your data point as being equally valid as mine. I cannot accept the idea that I was delusional or wrong about my answer though because of the nature of the answer. If you run the experiment correctly, you'll understand me. Until then, you probably won't. But that's ok. We can still hang out, right? :-) I'll PM you and Ryokan and anyone else who wants to run the experiment. Thanks for your willingness.

Polaristutoring - I freaking love bananas!

Foster Zygote - LOL!

kmortis - I freaking love M&M's(tm)!

randfan - I was Mormon, then atheist, then a bunch of different religions, then Mormon again. My brother-in-law is Vaishnava (Hare Krishna) and I occasionally hang out over there and the Jehovah's Witnesses are right there across the street in their Kingdom Hall - I went there too. There's truth scattered everywhere. Thanks for the welcome - and I'm really lazy so I try not to keep too much on my shoulders. :-)

Tony - Good points, let me clarify. I was looking for what causes something to be living or not living and in theism, a spirit is usually what people believe is at the source of what's moving the body about and is at the source of thought, etc. I was looking for the atheist point of view on these things.

BillyJoe - I don't think I've run into an idiot yet - but then again, I may be an idiot and just can't tell when I run into one of my own ilk. ;-) LDS Article of faith number 11 - "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." Yes, I believe in an eternal afterlife - I hope they've got some really good hobbies there. :-)

blobru - I'm glad you've decided to read the Book of Mormon for the purpose of finding out truth rather than just going through it to try to find things you think aren't true and bash on it - oh wait...

all - the idea of praying for wisdom is not just a Mormon idea either: 1 James 1:5 - "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." The conditions of the experiment come from The Book of Mormon in Moroni 10:3-5 - "Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."

[blobru]

blobru - I'm glad you've decided to read the Book of Mormon for the purpose of finding out truth rather than just going through it to try to find things you think aren't true and bash on it - oh wait...

You're right, I'm a pretty disgusting experimental subject. I guess I'll just never be able to wrap my brain around what true-believers mean by "truth".

[rcronk]

There are explanations for the issues you've brought up. www.fair-lds.org (http://www.fair-lds.org) is a good place to look around for some of those explanations. These issues have been brought up before and have been discussed. I guess I was confused that you didn't bring up anything good that you learned during your reading and that seemed to reveal the purpose of your reading.

[blobru]

Y'know I did enjoy the bit where Laban got his head cut off (drunk s.o.b. had it coming as far as I'm concerned), and the Nephite name for the Atlantic(?) "Irreantum" was kinda purty; however, almost every verse starting with "And so it came to pass that" and the archaic verb tenses ("they floateth their boateth over the moateth") made it fairly tough sledding, and much as the prospect of pre-columbian contact between the Old World and New excites my imagination, when they get off the boat and find ponies for the kids to ride on, well, that's when I decided to pack it in and watch some cartoons. ;)

[rcronk]

m-kay.

[rcronk]

I have started a new thread for the "Religious Book Exchange" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85463). The instructions and explanation of the process is explained over there. I will now focus most of my time on the above mentioned new thread and reading the Dhammapada. If you're interested in seeking truth using the experiment we've discussed and you're willing to keep it positive as you seek for that truth, join me over there and let's see what happens.

[blobru]

... I decided to pack it in and watch some cartoons.

and by 'cartoons' I mean hard-core pornography.

Good Luck, Cronk! :cool:

[rcronk]

I've actually found that to be quite destructive in the lives of hundreds of people I know who are trying to become unaddicted to it. There are 12-step programs (http://www.sa.org) for that if you ever want to stop but find that you can't.

It ends up being a drug addiction to the testosterone, adrenaline, and about four other bodily produced "drugs" that are produced. Except these drugs are free and anonymous. They produce a funneling effect which focuses a person so much that time, morals, and family disappear while one is under their influence. They serve the same purpose that street drugs and alcohol serve when it comes to escaping the pains of reality or covering up hatred/fear/depression and they have the same progression-stifling effects.

[cyborg]

Asking why M&Ms don't evolve is a bit like asking why you can't use your fork to fly.

[rcronk]

We covered the details about this in the thread above. If you can't find it, let me know and I'll explain further.

[Hokulele]

Hokulele - Thanks for the scripture references. I'm not sure I'd be able to take those verses into a (non-crooked) court and convince people that a heliocentric theory was heretical - the verses are pretty vague. That's one thing that bugs me about people is that they do their own junk in the name of religion and thereby give religion a bad wrap. If people could get their own answers and not follow or compel each other - that would be nice.


Thanks for the response. Just to clarify my point with the biblical quotes, at the time, they were not considered vague at all. For example, I gave the Ecclesiastes quote in context with the following verses to show that the author of the verse meant it in a true literal fashion. It is all about cycles, and it was assumed that the reader would understand that the sun literally moved across the sky (rather than the earth rotating, as we know now), then returned back to its starting place, much as the river literally runs into the sea.

It is easy to dismiss such writing as vague or metaphorical based on what we know now, but that is reinterpreting the words, rather than reinterpreting the science, which is what you had mentioned in your post here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2706749#post2706749), (the bit about trusting god before trusting science).

I have no problem with faith in general, but when it starts to obscure observable facts (such as heliocentrism or evolution), then I start to become alarmed.

[rcronk]

Fair enough.

[Shevek-72]

3. Pray to ask God if the contents of the book you just read are true. This can be a simple prayer similar to "God, I just read this book and it says you exist and I want to know if you exist and if this book is true.".

I did that some years ago. And I got an answer from God right away. It was: "You are a stupid [rule 8]. It should be clear to you that I do not exist. Now bugger off".
Don't understand why you got a different statement.

[rcronk]

lol - So God does exist, He's just a lot more rude and a little less honest than He's described in scripture! Cool! :-P

[cyborg]

We covered the details about this in the thread above.

You do realise of course that posting this information changed the thread order?

[Shevek-72]

lol - So God does exist [...]

So you're calling God a liar? :D

[Hokulele]

Fair enough.


:)

[rcronk]

cyborg - Oh, sorry - I meant "earlier in this very thread" not in the thread above this thread.

shevek-72 - Well, either he's lying or you are, and since I don't know you I guess it could be you that's lying. But at least it's a funny lie.

[cyborg]

cyborg - Oh, sorry - I meant "earlier in this very thread" not in the thread above this thread.

Then why assume I wasn't aware that there was previous discussion rather than that I had a desire to post a short analogy on the topic?

[rcronk]

Since your analogy missed the point of the discussion, I assumed you had not read the discussion. I apologize for assuming.

[Tony]

Tony - Good points, let me clarify. I was looking for what causes something to be living or not living and in theism, a spirit is usually what people believe is at the source of what's moving the body about and is at the source of thought, etc. I was looking for the atheist point of view on these things.


With all due respect, the theist view, that, as you describe it, the spirit is the source that gives life, is demonstrably wrong. Don't believe me? See what happens when you stop breathing, eating and drinking. Your body doesn't need a spirit to move and think, it needs food, water and oxygen. This is a scientific fact.

[Shevek-72]

shevek-72 - Well, either he's lying or you are, and since I don't know you I guess it could be you that's lying. But at least it's a funny lie.

I'd say you are skipping at least one of the possibitities here. I agree that God probably was not lying - I mean why should he lie to me when I was praying with a sincere heart and with real intend? No. I am totally convinced that God told me the TRUTH. He does not exist.
But how can I trust you, I don't know you and you tell me of your experiences with God that are so different from my own. I think you might not be telling the truth here... If only I could think of a way to falsify these contradicting claims and find out the truth....

[rcronk]

Tony - Perhaps a person needs a spirit and food and water and air to keep living. I don't think denying a person of a subset of its needs and having it then die proves that there aren't other needs. Apparently if a body is starved or injured, there is a rule that the spirit leaves the body and that person's time here on earth is over. I don't think your point proves that a spirit does not exist and is not at the source of thought and choice, etc.

Shevek - m-kay.

[Ryokan]

Tony - Perhaps a person needs a spirit and food and water and air to keep living. I don't think denying a person of a subset of its needs and having it then die proves that there aren't other needs. Apparently if a body is starved or injured, there is a rule that the spirit leaves the body and that person's time here on earth is over. I don't think your point proves that a spirit does not exist and is not at the source of thought and choice, etc.

The question then becomes, how would you recognize a body with spirit and one without one?

[Tony]

Tony - Perhaps a person needs a spirit and food and water and air to keep living.

You first need to prove the existance of a spirit if you're going to answer the question of whether it's needed to survive.

I don't think denying a person of a subset of its needs and having it then die proves that there aren't other needs.

You did ask for the source of what moves life. It's a fact that if you deny those things to a living being, it will die. What other conclusion can you draw from that other than those things are needed to survive?

Apparently if a body is starved or injured, there is a rule that the spirit leaves the body and that person's time here on earth is over.

First prove that a spirit exists. Furthmore, since there is a "rule" that the spirit must leave the body in the event of starvation of injury, it would follow that it's not the spirit that animates the body.

I don't think your point proves that a spirit does not exist

It's not my job to prove a spirit doesn't exist anymore than it's my job to prove that unicorns don't exist. It's you, the person making the claim, that must show that the spirit exists.

and is not at the source of thought and choice

Actually, it does, you just don't like it. If you have faith that it's your spirit that gives you life, you should be prepared to test it. Don't eat, sleep, drink or breath for 4 days, if it's your spirit keeping you alive, you should be ok.

[rcronk]

Ryokan - I guess if the body showed signs of life, it would have a spirit and if it didn't show signs of life, it wouldn't have a spirit. :-) String theory has similar difficulties in that it's very difficult to find evidence that the theory is correct. Now, if one follows the experiment I outlined above, they could find out these things that way. I know - we'll have to agree to disagree but I like to be able to use both the scientific method and the "ask God" method together - finding out all I can and then going to Him with the things I can't find on my own.

Tony - ok, let's apply your logic to a subset: try not drinking any water for a week. You then die and we can conclude that it's only water that is needed for life. A need for food doesn't exist. That's how I'm hearing your argument about a spirit. The cool thing is that I don't have to prove to anyone that a spirit exists, I just have to find out for myself. I've done this and it works and I've outlined how anyone can also do it and so it's up to you to chose whether or not you'll try the experiment and open up a whole new way of acquiring knowledge.

[Tony]

Tony - ok, let's apply your logic to a subset: try not drinking any water for a week. You then die and we can conclude that it's only water that is needed for life.

That's not my logic at all. You claim it's the spirit, something you're unwilling and unable to show the existence of, that moves life. I'm claiming it's food, water and oxygen, things that are known to exist, that move life. And I'm right.

That's how I'm hearing your argument about a spirit.

Of course you are, you're searching for any hair to split to discount my argument. It's your defense mechanism from having to seriously consider my argument.

The cool thing is that I don't have to prove to anyone that a spirit exists

If you want your claims to be taken serously you do.

I've done this and it works

No, you haven't. You just believe you have.

and I've outlined how anyone can also do it and so it's up to you to chose whether or not you'll try the experiment and open up a whole new way of acquiring knowledge.

I already have any found it wanting.

[KingMerv00]

Deleted. My post was way too late to take seriously.

[KingMerv00]

Ryokan - I guess if the body showed signs of life, it would have a spirit and if it didn't show signs of life, it wouldn't have a spirit.

You are cheating by defining life and spirit as the same thing. That is the very notion you are trying to prove.

[rcronk]

Tony - we'll agree to disagree then. I've given you a way to find out about these things and so it's up to you to chose to try it out or not.

KingMerv00 - I really like Carl Sagan - especially when he would say "billions and billions" on "Cosmos". And you took my quote out of context by leaving the smiley face off of it that showed that I was being a smarty pants.

[Jon.]

Jon. - Yes, I think open minded skepticism with a willingness to accept the truth you find will work. Emotion is just an example of something you experience outside of the five senses.

It's certainly an experience, but it's not knowledge or a source of knowledge, other than "I just felt [emotion]"

I have discovered that Knowledge can also come from outside my five senses - not through emotion but some other way that I don't yet understand - I just know it can happen because it happened to me.

How can you be sure that that knowledge is true?

Objective/Subjective - fair enough. Those books can have truth in them and it's good to gather truth wherever you can find it. If one of them says that Christ was not the Son of God, for example, then based on the knowledge I have received, I would have to say that those specific words in that specific book are in error - it doesn't mean that there isn't any truth in the book - in fact the whole rest of the book may be full of truth. Each person must find these things out for themselves.

Here is the problem faced by an impartial observer. On the one hand, we have the books that say Christ was the son of God, and the people telling us they have experienced some form of personal experience or revelation telling them that those books are true. On the other hand, we have the books that say Christ was just one in a long line of prophets to the Israelites, and the people with equally compelling experiences and revelations telling them that those books are true. On the gripping hand, we have the skeptics like Dennett and Shermer saying - often with hard scientific data backing them up -that those experiences and revelations come from within us, from a need to believe in stories that say "everything is going to be ok." Who should the impartial observer believe?

I think it's a stretch to claim that Matt 4:8 says the world is flat. I think you meant 1 Sam 2:8 and the phrasing of that verse sounds more symbolic than literal.

Matt 4:8 says that Jesus and Satan went to the top of a high mountain from which they could see "all the kingdoms of the world." That would not work on a globe, but it would work on a flat earth.

If you say it's symbolic, how do you determine which parts of the Bible are literal and which are symbolic? Doesn't that mean putting yourself in a position that is superior to the text, thereby removing or at least diminishing its status as "holy"?

I'm not saying the Bible is perfect, it has its flaws, but it also has truth in it. As for contradictions between people saying that two things are true that contradict each other - either one or both of the people are wrong. Truth sits there waiting to be discovered - nobody owns it, no religion owns it - it exists independently of all of us. If there's an orange on the table and one person says there's an orange on the table and another person says there's not an orange on the table, one of them is just wrong and that's ok - it's not the end of the world and it doesn't mean that the person who said the orange is there is prideful or better than the other person either. I call meteorites "falling" or "shooting" stars sometimes - it doesn't mean I think that they're literally falling. Again, I'm not going to get into "defend the perfection of the bible" mode because it's not perfect, but I think it has some crucially important truths in it that make these other flaws irrelevant.

How do you decide which parts of the Bible are true and which are not? Again, doesn't that mean putting yourself above the text?

I will accept your data point as being equally valid as mine. I cannot accept the idea that I was delusional or wrong about my answer though because of the nature of the answer.

If I get a different result, then one of us was wrong. If you cannot accept that it might be you, then why would you expect me to accept that it might be me?

If you run the experiment correctly, you'll understand me. Until then, you probably won't. But that's ok. We can still hang out, right? :-)

I'll be here, on and off.

I'll PM you and Ryokan and anyone else who wants to run the experiment. Thanks for your willingness.


I look forward to it.

[rcronk]

Jon. - Actually I have posted a link in this thread to another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85463) called "Religious Book Exchange" where we can do the experiment. I'm reading the Dhammapada already and I really like it so far. Try the experiment out for yourself and see what you find out. Actually, according to Monty Python, the earth is Banana-shaped. Apparently, a person is supposed to let the Holy Spirit help them to interpret and apply truth in scripture to themselves and understand it as it truly is. That's what I do and it works really well so far.

[Jon.]

Jon. - Actually I have posted a link in this thread to another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85463) called "Religious Book Exchange" where we can do the experiment. I'm reading the Dhammapada already and I really like it so far. Try the experiment out for yourself and see what you find out. Actually, according to Monty Python, the earth is Banana-shaped. Apparently, a person is supposed to let the Holy Spirit help them to interpret and apply truth in scripture to themselves and understand it as it truly is. That's what I do and it works really well so far.

I saw that thread and was considering what to ask you to read. However, I think I'll wait until you and Ryokan finish.

Remember - Monty Python also thought a witch and a duck would weigh the same!

[cyborg]

Since your analogy missed the point of the discussion,

Whatever.

[KingMerv00]

KingMerv00 - I really like Carl Sagan - especially when he would say "billions and billions" on "Cosmos".

Carl Sagan never said "Billions and Billions". I believe his good friend Johnny Carson said it when he parodied him on TV. If you don't believe me read "Billions and Billions".

And you took my quote out of context by leaving the smiley face off of it that showed that I was being a smarty pants.

Sorry bout that but I did try your experiment twice. I tried talking to God for that sort of advice and I got no response. Why do you suppose that is?

[Tony]

Tony - we'll agree to disagree then.


Then you admit you can't demonstrate that the spirit exists and that it animates life?

I've given you a way to find out about these things and so it's up to you to chose to try it out or not.

No, you haven't. Furthermore, I was once a believer so whatever you did tell me, which was your subjective experience, was nothing I haven't heard before.

[rcronk]

Jon. - I love the parody of human logic of the Monty Python witch skit - brilliant! Sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes too. Feel free to jump into the other thread - I'm sure we can run one more test in parallel and save some time.

KingMerv00 - Thanks for the correction - ok he just said "Billions" a lot - I still like him though. Only you can answer the question of why you didn't get an answer. I could only make random guesses at it and it's not really my job to do that anyway.

Tony - Correct. I cannot prove to you that spirits exist and animate life. I can try to convince you not to shut the possibility out of your mind though. The experiment will always be there if you ever want to try it and I hope you do. It has really changed me in so many good ways.

All - In the course of this thread I have come to understand that "salvation" or learning the truth about God is a personal journey. Don't rely on me or anyone else to prove these things to you - go do it yourself, if you want to. I don't think I ever realized just how important it is for each of us to do it on our own and not be dependent upon someone else to do it for us.

[cyborg]

It has really changed me in so many good ways.

Your emotional state due your beliefs is irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant to the truth of them.

If you think anyone will be persuaded by emotional appeals here then you are wrong plain and simple.

[rcronk]

Stop beating around the bush and just say what you really think. :P

I'm not trying to persuade anyone - just extending an invitation for people to find out for themselves if they want to. If not, that's fine.

[cyborg]

I'm not trying to persuade anyone

Rubbish - of course you are. Simply by engaging in discourse with people you know do not share your beliefs you are attempting to persuade them implicitly.

just extending an invitation for people to find out for themselves if they want to. If not, that's fine.

You should know perfectly well it's not about people finding out for themselves; and if not you are coming from a most naive position of assuming that the reason why the people here think differently must be due to ignorance of the alternatives.

[jimlintott]

All - In the course of this thread I have come to understand that "salvation" or learning the truth about God is a personal journey. Don't rely on me or anyone else to prove these things to you - go do it yourself, if you want to. I don't think I ever realized just how important it is for each of us to do it on our own and not be dependent upon someone else to do it for us.

In other words it's all in your head. If you believe it, it will be true. I think you'd find that many atheists also believe they know the truth about god (all gods not just a select one).

Do plants have a spirit?

[BillyJoe]

A species can evolve without environmental change. Even if the environment remains static mutations can occur which give certain individuals a greater chance of reproductive success than others.


I think evolutionists use the term "enviromment" in the broader sense that includes changes in competitors of the index case.

And even species that have barely changed their form at all in millions of years are accumulating mutations in their genome.

Mutations are not sufficient for evolution to occur, there must be natural selection as well.

[Tony]

Tony - Correct. I cannot prove to you that spirits exist and animate life.

Ok.

I can try to convince you not to shut the possibility out of your mind though.

There is no need to convince me. My mind is open to any possibility, you just have to provide some empirical evidence for me to accept it's veracity. Indeed, I want there to be a soul, I want some part of me to continue living on after I've died, but me wanting it to exist doesn't mean that it does. And no amount of religious belief is going to change that. I don't want to believe, I want to know.

The experiment will always be there if you ever want to try it and I hope you do.

Did you not see where I said I was once a believer? I lived the first 21 years of my life conducting your "experiement" and I saw not a shred of evidence.

It has really changed me in so many good ways.

I submit that it didn't change you. You changed yourself, the beliefs were merely the inspiration.

[rcronk]

cyborg - I'm glad you and I can think and believe differently.

jimlintott - My experience is that it's not all inside my head. Try it and see what I mean. I think plants do have spirits. God allegedly made plants and animals in spirit first and then physically after that.

tony - I know - instead of me providing empirical evidence, you could provide it for yourself! You can not just believe, but know it for a fact based on an experience that is more powerful than physical evidence. You know where the other thread is if you want to try it out. Hey - I tried the experiment for the first half of my life and saw no shred of evidence either! When I came back later with more sincerity, then I found the evidence I was looking for. That's just my experience though. Your submission that it didn't change me is based on nothing, but you still have the right to submit it and that's fine.

[cyborg]

cyborg - I'm glad you and I can think and believe differently.

Gladness is irrelevant.

My experience is that it's not all inside my head.

Everything is all inside your head. First you need to realise this.

You can not just believe, but know it for a fact based on an experience that is more powerful than physical evidence.

Personal experience is flawed. See above.

[volatile]

Hey - I tried the experiment for the first half of my life and saw no shred of evidence either! When I came back later with more sincerity, then I found the evidence I was looking for. That's just my experience though. Your submission that it didn't change me is based on nothing, but you still have the right to submit it and that's fine.

If God doesn't work hard enough to convince us to believe, it's *our* fault for not trying hard enough?

What kind of person wants to worship such a twisted deity - one who condemns us to hell for not believing in him, only to go out of his way to move in mysterious ways? Even if he does exist, he's certainly not worthy of any kind of devotion if he's as sadistic as you're making him out to be, Cronk...

[KingMerv00]

Hey - I tried the experiment for the first half of my life and saw no shred of evidence either! When I came back later with more sincerity, then I found the evidence I was looking for. That's just my experience though. Your submission that it didn't change me is based on nothing, but you still have the right to submit it and that's fine.

So you ignore the times it doesn't happen?

I did your experiment and did not feel a thing. I was perfectly sincere. So I conclude that:

1) God likes you more than me.

and/or

2) God acts arbitrarily.

or

3) There is no God and the experience you had was caused by self-induced suggestion.

[Tony]

I know

No you don't.

instead of me providing empirical evidence, you could provide it for yourself!

I'm not the one claiming spirits exist.

You can not just believe, but know it for a fact based on an experience that is more powerful than physical evidence.

You're wrong. Physical evidence is always more powerful than experience. Would you believe me if I told you I spent 12 years on Pluto simply because of my experiences, or would you require physical evidence of my having lived there?

You know where the other thread is if you want to try it out.

Try what out?

When I came back later with more sincerity, then I found the evidence I was looking for.

Evidence isn't predicated on sincerity, it is either there or it isn't.

Your submission that it didn't change me is based on nothing

Yes, it is. It's based on psychology and the power of the human mind to fool itself, which is what's happened to you.

[rcronk]

Thanks to all for the chat - and I really mean that - I've learned a lot. We're falling into repeated arguments though so I think it's best to agree to disagree at this point and move on with our lives. Take care.

[RandFan]

Thanks to all for the chat - and I really mean that - I've learned a lot. We're falling into repeated arguments though so I think it's best to agree to disagree at this point and move on with our lives. Take care.:(

Sorry to see you leave cronk, I really am. I hope you will reconsider but I understand.

FTR, I prayed and got an answer. The answer was, that the BOM was true and JS was a prophet of god. Based on that I sold everything I had, including a 1961 Chevrolet Camaro that I restored by hand, and went on a two year mission. I testified and baptized many people. Many of them told me that it was my unwavering faith that led them to pray and ask god if it was true also. There was little question for a good portion of my life as a believer that the church was true. Not always but often enough.

Cronk, scientists, including social scientists, anthropologists, behaviorists, neuroscientists and others tell us that the phenomenon of gaining a testimony of the truthfulness of a thing is actually well understood.

If a person is sincere in trying to discern whether or not the Catholic Church is a the one true church and that person reads the scriptures, goes to church and follows the rules then he or she will come to have a powerful witness that it is indeed true. It is so powerful that people will die for it.

Problem is, there is nothing about Mormonism that is unique in this aspect.

Good luck in whatever and wherever life takes you.

[BillyJoe]

Tony,

Apologies for lumping you in with whateverhisnamewas.
You make a lot of sense.

Rcrock has made a fundamental error which you have pointed out, but he is not sticking around to debate it. Not that I feel he can be convinced because now his life has meaning which it didn't have before. I would not want to take that away from him in any case. The Book Of Mormon came around when he really needed it. It saved him, what can we say?

BJ

[Tony]

Thanks to all for the chat - and I really mean that - I've learned a lot. We're falling into repeated arguments though so I think it's best to agree to disagree at this point and move on with our lives. Take care.

Noooooooooooooooo...dont leave.


Seriously, are saying that you're leaving the forum? I hope not.

[Apathia]

The Book Of Mormon came around when he really needed it. It saved him, what can we say?

BJ

As a chiropractor once told me as I lay on his table, "Trust the process!"

[Tony]

Apologies for lumping you in with whateverhisnamewas.


Did you? I didn't notice.

You make a lot of sense.

Thanks. :)

Rcrock has made a fundamental error which you have pointed out, but he is not sticking around to debate it. Not that I feel he can be convinced because now his life has meaning which it didn't have before. I would not want to take that away from him in any case. The Book Of Mormon came around when he really needed it. It saved him, what can we say?

I tend to agree, but I figure that when a religious person comes to a debate such as this, and especially when they're claiming that their beliefs are the truth, they're willing to have their beliefs scrutinized, ya know?

[BillyJoe]

I tend to agree, but I figure that when a religious person comes to a debate such as this, and especially when they're claiming that their beliefs are the truth, they're willing to have their beliefs scrutinized, ya know?


Well, rcrock just wants you to go through the same process that he went through (or should I say, the same process that he went through the second time round). The problem is you cannot do this because you are not him. Even if you were like him, you are not in the same circumstances as he was when the Book of Mormon worked for him (and neither was he the first time round - so he should, at least, empathise with you). But it sounds like it saved his life or something so you can hardly expect him to give it up very easily. As long as he needs this thing he will defend it against any argument not matter how rational. He has found another, non-rational, way of knowing.

[rcronk]

I'm still here but I'm focusing my time on the other thread. I get what you guys are saying and I can understand where you're coming from, I just don't see how us discussing this any more will be useful other than to escalate a contention between us. That doesn't work.

To quote from the Dhammapada that I'm reading now, "The others know not that in this quarrel we perish; those of them who realise it, have their quarrels calmed thereby."

[BillyJoe]

I'm still here but I'm focusing my time on the other thread. I get what you guys are saying and I can understand where you're coming from, I just don't see how us discussing this any more will be useful other than to escalate a contention between us. That doesn't work.


I am with you here. I am content to understand your point of view, and for you to understand mine, and for both of us to understand see how and why they differ. I never expect to pursuade anyone from a view they've taken decades to get to in the space of a single thread. I wouldn't have much respect for you if I could. I am familiar with the alternative way of knowing but I am unable to accept it. It worked for you - it made you a better person and it has enabled you to finally enjoy your life - and therefore you do accept it.
For me, it's like predators hunting down and killing their prey or that wasp that paralyses a caterpillar and lays its eggs inside its body cavity so that when the larvae hatch they eat the caterpillar alive from the inside out. It may not be pretty but it is what's real. I prefer to start with that and see what I can make out of it. So far things haven't worked out too bad.

To quote from the Dhammapada that I'm reading now, "The others know not that in this quarrel we perish; those of them who realise it, have their quarrels calmed thereby."


There is no doubt that these books contain kernels of truth. :)

[The Grave]

Please explain. Why can "living" things improve, progress, strive to continue living and "non-living" things can't? What's the difference between "living" and "non-living" things? I've not received answers to these questions from atheism - if you've found these answers, please share them.

Answer:

A "living system" is nothing more than a collection of animated chemicals; admittedly a complicated collection. The animation of those chemicals comes from any source of energy that is at a higher potential than that "life" which it is responsible for driving.

This can be seen clearly if you think of where "life" exists on the 'potential energy scale' in the Universe ... it is nearly at the bottom! (37'C as compared to say 20 million is a huge potential gap.) That is exactly where we would expect it to be, so that it can be a sink for the higher energy levels to pour their energy into. The focal point of this energy transfer is life and it can not be at the lowest level, because it needs to transfer energy itself, to do what it does.

If you ask the 'personal' question ... why does it "want" to exist or what causes it? Simple! What's stopping it???

The fact is; when something can be identified as stopping life {eg bullet to brain or lack of nutrient} then nothing can super cede that knowledge... have you {has anyone} seen a corpse walking? No!

The net result is a collection of chemicals that are able to store the energy {redistribute it to useful life processes} but only for limited time.

Just as when a tree collects minute energy from the sun (compared to the source) and builds on it to grow. Other consumers then utilise the stored energy as you move from one trophic level to next, at a depletion rate of about 10% to the next level.

Important bit.......

You "feel" there is some distinction between "living" and "non-living"...

The only distinction is that the living matter is non-living matter that is animated by virtue of being part of a chemical reaction. In your body there are elements found in the ground... not different elements. They react the same, crystalize the same and are not "living", whether in you or not.

"life" is a condition, a process... you can not talk of chemicals as alive or dead... only the 'process' as being ongoing {alive} or terminated {dead}........... or paused {coma}.

So it is with great regret that I must inform you that you are not "alive".

You are a bunch of chemicals, no more "alive" than any other reaction. You gain energy from oxidation of glucose slowed stepwise by enzymes. All the chemical reactions have physical foundations... none spiritual. In fact there is no spirit.

Your "non-living" things.... notice your term... things!

You are comfortable with your definition of life as MRSGREN perhaps. But the fact remains that all of these things are explainable using biochemistry, and ultimately physics.

I'll tell you what I see as a non-believer in a god/spirit {meaning I know there is no such thing}.....

You as a believer, trivialise this life we have, these bodies we live in are regarded by you as nothings, mere vessels for transporting the 'soul' to where and for what purpose you seem to make up as you go. (in terms of all faiths, not just you personally).

To this end, religion belittles life and us all, relegating it to near uselessness and not worthy of care. It's no wonder we have so many suicide terrorists, off on a mission to see god.

On the other hand we have atheists who love their bodies & lives because that's all we've got and all we ever will have.... so live this life; it is precious!


Griff... "Cease the day!"..... Dead Poet's Society.

[RandFan]

I'm still here but I'm focusing my time on the other thread. I get what you guys are saying and I can understand where you're coming from, I just don't see how us discussing this any more will be useful other than to escalate a contention between us. That doesn't work.I'm living proof that it does.

To quote from the Dhammapada that I'm reading now, "The others know not that in this quarrel we perish; those of them who realise it, have their quarrels calmed thereby." I can't agree. It is because of this "quarrel" that humanity has gained so many insights. Many of our greatest discoveries have not been readily accepted at first. It took some "quarrel", dispute and ego. However, the strength of science, logic and reason will lead most to a consensus. It is for this reason we no longer quarrel about the structure of matter, heliocentrism, radio waves, the solar wind, etc., etc..

I think you bury your head in the sand cronk. It's a comfortable place but there is nothing to be found there. Truth does not always come easy.

[cyborg]

rcronk - in order to learn something new sometimes you have to be willing to unlearn as well.

[BillyJoe]

polaristutoring,

There is no fundamental difference between living and non-living.
They are at opposite ends of a spectrum.
In the middle there is no sense in which you can say that the thing is living or non-living.

When does a child become an adolescent?

[PrincessIneffabelle]

polaristutoring,

When does a child become an adolescent?

When they develop B.O. and perfect their eye-rolling. :rolleyes:

[BillyJoe]

...but what age in years, months, and days was your child when she developed B.O. and eye rolling. ;)

[The Grave]

polaristutoring,

There is no fundamental difference between living and non-living. Yes, I know!
They are at opposite ends of a spectrum. "?" What spectrum? If there is no difference {as above} then why are they at opposite ends of this "spectrum" of yours?
In the middle there is no sense in which you can say that the thing is living or non-living. I certainly wouldn't describe something in these terms... As I have said: "Alive" refers to matter that is animated by chemical reaction providing energy. Nothing more. Nothing "special".


When does a child become an adolescent? Well at 13 of course!

Griff... The bold one!:)

[vexed]

[Spoiler Warning!]


I was atheist once, but I was unsatisfied by the lack of answers I found in that belief system. As a simple example, if I found 10 lines of 10 m&m's (tm) in rows organized by color on the side of the road in the desert, if asked how they got there, I'd say someone put them there rather than that they blew around for billions of years and fell into that exact configuration.

First of all, if you call it a 'belief system' you had a religion = theists, which is NOT atheism.

Your hypothetical statement is rather absurd, and wouldn't the makers of m&m's feel a little silly, making them all these years while they've been produced naturally by nature for billions of years...

I would say someone had put the m&m's there.


Likewise, if I found a fully functioning computer with an operating system and other programs on it and nobody around, I'd also say that it was put there by someone rather than sand blowing around, turning into silicon and then into simple circuits and then more complex circuits until an entire computer appeared and then random memory errors over billions of years caused a functional operating system to program itself until it was useful and had a purpose and order to it.


If this hypothetical incident was happening, it sounds like you would be breaking and entering, a crime in most places on Earth.

How does one logically compare organic organisms (things that have 'life') to inanimate objects. If we stopped all computer technology today (as in nobody worked on making faster CPU's, more efficient OS's, etc) in a million years the PC's would not be any faster or have new operating systems, they wouldn't mutate to form new typee of hardware/software (because computers DO NOT breed-F.Y.I.).

Surprised the "banana argument" wasn't introduced.

Respectively,

Vexed

[wolfgirl]

[Spoiler Warning!]

Actually the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Clause all DO exist. Another name for them is "Parents."

Children see the evidence of these beings all around them when they lose a tooth and find money or when its Christmas time and see presents under the tree. They just don't see the whole picture yet. Many people see evidence for God's existence but attribute it to things like evolution, etc.It seems to me that this argument supports the atheistic viewpoint more than the religious one.

Children only see the "evidence" of these mythological beings but lack the understanding to explain them via natural means. Once they are old enough to start questioning the reality, such as could someone really fly around the world in one night and carry gifts for all the kids, etc., they realize that what they thought was supernatural has a completely natural explanation...their parents.

Humans once saw "evidence" of a mythological being they called various names and thought of as gods. This "evidence" was things like the sun rising and setting, thunder and lightning, crop failures, plague and disease, etc. Lacking the necessary knowledge to understand these things, they created gods to explain them. Once they were advanced enough, they understood that these things all had natural explanations.

Much like children growing up and letting go of the idea of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy once they understood the natural explanations for them, we need to grow up and let go of the idea of gods.

[RandFan]

It seems to me that this argument supports the atheistic viewpoint more than the religious one.

Children only see the "evidence" of these mythological beings but lack the understanding to explain them via natural means. Once they are old enough to start questioning the reality, such as could someone really fly around the world in one night and carry gifts for all the kids, etc., they realize that what they thought was supernatural has a completely natural explanation...their parents.

Humans once saw "evidence" of a mythological being they called various names and thought of as gods. This "evidence" was things like the sun rising and setting, thunder and lightning, crop failures, plague and disease, etc. Lacking the necessary knowledge to understand these things, they created gods to explain them. Once they were advanced enough, they understood that these things all had natural explanations.

Much like children growing up and letting go of the idea of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy once they understood the natural explanation for them, we need to grow up and let go of the idea of gods.I don't think cronk is going to see it but great post. Spot on.

[BillyJoe]

"Alive" refers to matter that is animated by chemical reaction providing energy.


By that definition is a virus alive? A prion?


Well at 13 of course!


I said adolescence, not teenagerhood.

[BillyJoe]

Much like children growing up and letting go of the idea of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy once they understood the natural explanations for them, we need to grow up and let go of the idea of gods.


Except that the concept of god is not really equivalent to santa claus, the easter bunny or the tooth faerie.

[cyborg]

That would rather depend on which concept of god one is discussing would it not?

[BillyJoe]

I'm not about to start defending god, sorry.

[wolfgirl]

Except that the concept of god is not really equivalent to santa claus, the easter bunny or the tooth faerie.How exactly is it different? They're all things that were made up, and they provide an explanation for things that have natural explanations. Once you understand the natural explanations, what further need have you of the supernatural ones?

[cyborg]

I'm not about to start defending god, sorry.

Eh? Either you recognise that the term god refers to any number of entities with various properties or you do not. If you do then saying god is not equivalent to mythical being X is rather presumptuous.

[The Grave]

By that definition is a virus alive? A prion?

NO. The virus needs other 'living' materials to propagate. Therefore it does not 'live' by MRSGREN's standard.

A Prion is most definitely alive... I "saw" one once on a trip in the Southern Oceans. Reminded me of a pigeon!:D


I said adolescence, not teenager-hood.

You say tomato I say toma'e'to....de de de....

Griff...

[BillyJoe]

You say tomato I say toma'e'to....de de de....

Griff...


You become a teenager on your 13th birthday, but not an adolescent.

[BillyJoe]

How exactly is it different? They're all things that were made up, and they provide an explanation for things that have natural explanations. Once you understand the natural explanations, what further need have you of the supernatural ones?


There are natural explanations for christmas presents, easter eggs, and money in your glass of water where you placed your tooth the night before. There are not natural explanations for some things that god is credited with. Nobody knows, for example, why anything exists at all, or where the laws of physics came from, or how the big bang started. So god is not equivalent to santa claus, the easter bunny, or the tooth faerie.

[BillyJoe]

Eh? Either you recognise that the term god refers to any number of entities with various properties or you do not. If you do then saying god is not equivalent to mythical being X is rather presumptuous.


Some versions of god, or some attributes of god can be disproved, but not all attributes can be (see above). Santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie are easily dispensed with by discovering that your parents supply the things attributed to them.

[cyborg]

Santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie are easily dispensed with by discovering that your parents supply the things attributed to them.

Rubbish. I was actually visited by Santa Claus. It is your problem if you were too naughty as a boy that your parents had to make you feel better by filling your stocking on Christmas Eve.

[BillyJoe]

:D

Well, then...santa claus is easily dispensed with by discovering that he is a different person every time you meet him; so either he changes his body, voice, and b.o. every time you sit on his knee, or he is one of many other boys' fathers donning a silly red and white suit.

[cyborg]

Duh. Santa Claus is magic. He manifests himself in many ways.

[RandFan]

:D

Well, then...santa claus is easily dispensed with by discovering that he is a different person every time you meet him; so either he changes his body, voice, and b.o. every time you sit on his knee, or he is one of many other boys' fathers donning a silly red and white suit.Odd, that sorta sounds like god.

[BillyJoe]

You sat on god's knee when you were a boy?

[wolfgirl]

There are natural explanations for christmas presents, easter eggs, and money in your glass of water where you placed your tooth the night before. There are not natural explanations for some things that god is credited with. Nobody knows, for example, why anything exists at all, or where the laws of physics came from, or how the big bang started. So god is not equivalent to santa claus, the easter bunny, or the tooth faerie.There's a big difference between saying that we don't know the natural explanation for everything yet and saying that there are no natural explanations for them.

There was a time when humans didn't know the natural explanation for thunder. At that time, someone (perhaps your ancestor) would have said "Nobody knows why the sky rumbles, so it must be a god causing it. How else can you possibly explain it?" Then we learned what causes thunder. No more need for a god to explain that.

Similarly, just because we can't explain something right here, right now, today, doesn't mean we never will.

Just think of how very many things were originally attributed to a god or gods that we now know have natural explanations. So why must you insist on holding that the things we still can't explain must somehow be attributed to a god? Doesn't our very history suggest otherwise?

[Beerina]

Don't worry - that's not condescending.

Please explain. Why can "living" things improve, progress, strive to continue living and "non-living" things can't? What's the difference between "living" and "non-living" things? I've not received answers to these questions from atheism - if you've found these answers, please share them.

May I direct you to a class on neural networks and various gradient descent algorithms?

I assure you the math behind evolution is rock solid. If God created life, he would have to actively work to stop evolution from happening.

Evolution also explains sexual reproduction as well as the variations you see between parent and child (controlled variation in structure scours the gradient descent space much faster than rare but literal mutations do.)

The Theory of God must claim this cannot be why, and that thus the variation (in faces, for example) is due to personal preference.

[BillyJoe]

There's a big difference between saying that we don't know the natural explanation for everything yet and saying that there are no natural explanations for them.


The word "yet" seems to imply that you think that natural explanations for everything are just a matter of time. I do not think that conclusion is justified. It could just as likely turn out the natural explanations for some things will never be found. This would be the case if the universe ends before these natural explanations are found. This would also be the case if humans are not intelligent enough to find out what these natural explanations are. But this also means that we may never know whether or not everything has a natural explanation.

In other words, I am not saying that "there are no natural explanations for them". I am saying that "we may never know whether or not everything has a natural explanation".

There was a time when humans didn't know the natural explanation for thunder. At that time, someone (perhaps your ancestor) would have said "Nobody knows why the sky rumbles, so it must be a god causing it. How else can you possibly explain it?" Then we learned what causes thunder. No more need for a god to explain that.


I was not talking about all the possible varieties of god.
Many of those have been disproven.
However, god, the creator of the universe, has not been disproven.

Similarly, just because we can't explain something right here, right now, today, doesn't mean we never will.


And it doesn't mean we will either.

Just think of how very many things were originally attributed to a god or gods that we now know have natural explanations. So why must you insist on holding that the things we still can't explain must somehow be attributed to a god? Doesn't our very history suggest otherwise?


I'm not actually saying that. I'm saying that this cannot be disproven which makes the concept of god different from the concept of santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie. That is all.

[wolfgirl]

I'm saying that this cannot be disproven which makes the concept of god different from the concept of santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie. That is all.A great number of things that we can imagine are possible cannot be disproven. Should we believe in them all? I prefer to believe in things we know, and withhold judgement on things we don't. Rather than saying, "I don't know there's no god, so until someone proves otherwise, I'll just believe in one," I prefer to say, "I don't know there's no god, but until someone proves there is, I choose not to believe there is." I can't even imagine thinking any other way. For which I'm extremely glad.

[BillyJoe]

...I prefer to say, "I don't know there's no god, but until someone proves there is, I choose not to believe there is."


Would you also prefer to say:

"I don't know there's no santa claus, but until someone proves there is, I choose not to believe there is."

If not, then you will have to admit that the question of god's existence is not on par with the question of santa claus' existence.

[rcronk]

Another option would be to remain agnostic instead of choosing one way or the other.

[BillyJoe]

Another option would be to remain agnostic instead of choosing one way or the other.


Are you talking about god or santa claus? :D

Seriously, though, if you can say this about god, but not about santa claus, you are admitting that the question of god's existence is not equivalent to the question of santa claus' existence.

[rcronk]

My point was that if there's not sufficient evidence one way or the other, why not be agnostic rather then choosing to believe one way or the other? In any case, God, Santa, whatever, remain agnostic until sufficient evidence points your in a direction, then lean that way.

[wolfgirl]

Would you also prefer to say:

"I don't know there's no santa claus, but until someone proves there is, I choose not to believe there is."

If not, then you will have to admit that the question of god's existence is not on par with the question of santa claus' existence.Ummmm...that's exactly what I would say about Santa Claus. Let me try it out...I don't know there's no Santa Claus, but until someone proves there is, I choose not to believe there is. Yup, that's pretty much right. Also insert the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the invisible purple unicorn, or anything else that I or anyone else can imagine might possibly exist.

Isn't that how you feel about Santa Claus? Am I missing something here?

[wolfgirl]

My point was that if there's not sufficient evidence one way or the other, why not be agnostic rather then choosing to believe one way or the other? In any case, God, Santa, whatever, remain agnostic until sufficient evidence points your in a direction, then lean that way.But don't we all have an opinion, a leaning, a belief one way or the other about almost everything? We choose to believe based on the weight of the evidence, not on the certainty of it.

Surely you aren't agnostic on the subject of Santa Claus, are you? You have a certain amount of knowledge about him which leads you to conclude that he very, very probably doesn't exist, though there is always that tiny possibility. Because there is that slim possibility, can you honestly say, if someone asks you if you believe in Santa, that your answer is "I'm not sure"? You either believe in Santa or you don't. The only truly Santa-agnostics are probably kids who are starting to question the truth of it, but haven't quite decided yet.

That's how I feel about gods. Yeah, okay, there is a tiny possibility that a god or gods might conceivably exist. But the knowledge I have on the subject leads me to lean in favor of not believing in any, so I don't go around calling myself an agnostic about gods any more than I call myself an agnostic about Santa Claus. I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't believe in gods. Same thing, to me.

[BillyJoe]

Ummmm...that's exactly what I would say about Santa Claus. Let me try it out...I don't know there's no Santa Claus, but until someone proves there is, I choose not to believe there is. Yup, that's pretty much right. Also insert the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the invisible purple unicorn, or anything else that I or anyone else can imagine might possibly exist.

Isn't that how you feel about Santa Claus? Am I missing something here?


Let me try it out:

"I don't know there's no Santa Claus, but until someone proves there is, I choose not to believe there is."

Well, I don't know about you, but I DO know that there is no santa claus.
I don't remember ever believing in santa claus, but, if I did, I'm sure proof against santa claus would have reached me by now!

I'm not sure how you could have missed it all these years.
(oops, I'm sorry, I don't even know your age :o)

[BillyJoe]

Surely you aren't agnostic on the subject of Santa Claus, are you? You have a certain amount of knowledge about him which leads you to conclude that he very, very probably doesn't exist, though there is always that tiny possibility. Because there is that slim possibility, can you honestly say, if someone asks you if you believe in Santa, that your answer is "I'm not sure"? You either believe in Santa or you don't. The only truly Santa-agnostics are probably kids who are starting to question the truth of it, but haven't quite decided yet.


Hmmm....this seems to contradict your previous post.
I guess you're hanging on to the "very, very probably doesn't exist, though there is always that tiny possibility"
Let me assure you that I have absolutely no doubt that santa claus does not exist. (Is the Earth flat?)

That's how I feel about gods. Yeah, okay, there is a tiny possibility that a god or gods might conceivably exist. But the knowledge I have on the subject leads me to lean in favor of not believing in any, so I don't go around calling myself an agnostic about gods any more than I call myself an agnostic about Santa Claus. I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't believe in gods. Same thing, to me.


But my feeling about god is roughly the same as yours. :)

We have not answered the question of "Why something rather than nothing", and my reaction to the revelations of relativity and quantum theory is something along the lines of "weird, bizarre, shocking". Until we can answer all such questions, we have to allow a possibility that god exists. At the very least, god cannot be disproven.

IMO, those other three characters are just not in the same league.

[volatile]

IMO, those other three characters are just not in the same league.

So, the more extreme and absurd a "character"'s powers, the more likely you are to believe in them?

Seems like you have things the wrong way up, if you're basing your opinions of whether something exists or not by assigning "leagues"!

This is nothing more than a base argument from incredulity, really...

[The Grave]

My point was that if there's not sufficient evidence one way or the other, why not be agnostic rather then choosing to believe one way or the other? In any case, God, Santa, whatever, remain agnostic until sufficient evidence points your in a direction, then lean that way.


Yes the holy-trinity!:crowded:


Evidence.... of a phenomena worthy of explanation. {There is no evidence of god; ergo IT is not worthy of an explanation}
Theory.... a set of ideas to explain and test the theory. {you faithers can come up with NONE. To have a theory you need to test it. You criticise evolution one this very point... ironically enough!}
Truth.... proof! You have none. QED.To address your point:"...there's not sufficient evidence one way or the other..."


What utter rubbish; yet what an astounding scientific observation to totally annihilate your theory!

It's utter rubbish because if there's not evidence to support a god hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent! OPEN YOUR EYES MAN!

Yet it's astoundingly correct... that there IS no evidence! Therefore there is no god which needs to be explained!

Hope that helps you faithers sleep tonight! I mean knowing your wrong!

Griff...:) Zzzzz....

[The Grave]

Some versions of god, or some attributes of god can be disproved, but not all attributes can be (see above). Santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie are easily dispensed with by discovering that your parents supply the things attributed to them.


Name and shame:

Tell us oh wise one.... which attributes can not be disproved?

Griff...:confused:

[BillyJoe]

volatile,

I see you nominated wolfgirl's post. :D

So, the more extreme and absurd a "character"'s powers, the more likely you are to believe in them?


No. If there is no evidence for or against a "character", I neither believe it exists nor believe that it doesn't exist.
Example: god.

On the other hand:
The more evidence against a "character", the more likely I am to believe that it doesn't exist.
Examples: santa claus, easter bunny, tooth faerie.

Seems like you have things the wrong way up, if you're basing your opinions of whether something exists or not by assigning "leagues"!


All I am saying is that god has no evidence for or against, whereas the other "characters" have incontrovertible evidence against. They're in different leagues, categories, groups, call it what you will.

This is nothing more than a base argument from incredulity, really...


I'm simply saying that they cannot be grouped together.

[BillyJoe]

Name and shame:

Tell us oh wise one.... which attributes can not be disproved?

Griff...:confused:


I am not wise as you have so cleverly discerned. :(
And so derogatorily noted. :mad:

In fact, I probably misused that word "attribute".
I am merely referring to god as that purported being who has always existed and who created everything else.

But if you insult me again, I'm going home to mummy.

[BillyJoe]

It's utter rubbish because if there's not evidence to support a god hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent! OPEN YOUR EYES MAN!


What's good for the goose, is good for the gander:

It's utter rubbish because if there's not evidence to support a string hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent! OPEN YOUR EYES MAN!

Is that what you want to say?
(Oh wise one.)

:cool:

[The Grave]

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander:

It's utter rubbish because if there's not evidence to support a string hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent! OPEN YOUR EYES MAN!

Is that what you want to say?
(Oh wise one.)

:cool:


I would be the first to say that some geniuses in the past have made scientific 'leaps' beyond known {experimental} knowledge, but they were still applying 'rules'; they simply took those rules to their logical conclusion on paper rather than in practice... they were proved later.

String theory is not like that... it has a long way to go. Not that I've read up on it lately {got bored} but I have to say that to explain particle creation with a complicated set of 'strings' requires faith on a par with godly faith.

To replace a reasonably complicated thing with a much more complicated string-thing is usually wrong {can't say 100% - cos I donts knows every-ting}.

And I never really try to insult anybody... I let them do that for themselves.;)

Griff...

[BillyJoe]

polaristutoring,

So, strings are non-existent are they, because, at the moment, there is absolutely no evidence for their existence?
And, if proof of strings is found next century, do they suddenly spring into existence?

At least wolfgirl quit while she thought she was ahead. :D

[cyborg]

So, strings are non-existent are they, because, at the moment, there is absolutely no evidence for their existence?
And, if proof of strings is found next century, do they suddenly spring into existence?

Human decisions about what abstractions to use for phenomena have an affect on the nature of the phenomena. You are talking as if definitive absolute answers about such issues are possible.

[Lonewulf]

polaristutoring,

So, strings are non-existent are they, because, at the moment, there is absolutely no evidence for their existence?
And, if proof of strings is found next century, do they suddenly spring into existence?

At least wolfgirl quit while she thought she was ahead. :D

So, prove that there's a chinese teapot orbiting the sun. Oh, you can't yet, but we should expend vast resources trying to find it...

My astronomy instructor wasn't very happy with string theory. Until there becomes something falsifiable or predictable with it, it's just a nice idea.

They're currently building particle accelerators that could potentially prove some aspects of String Theory, and I will find it interesting if they discover anything. However, your claim of, "Well, they haven't proven it YET, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't believe that it exists!" is faulty at best.

Furthermore, there's more "evidence" for string theory than there is for God, that's for damned sure.

[volatile]

No. If there is no evidence for or against a "character", I neither believe it exists nor believe that it doesn't exist.
Example: god.

On the other hand:
The more evidence against a "character", the more likely I am to believe that it doesn't exist.
Examples: santa claus, easter bunny, tooth faerie.

All I am saying is that god has no evidence for or against, whereas the other "characters" have incontrovertible evidence against. They're in different leagues, categories, groups, call it what you will.

What's the incontrovertible evidence against Santa Claus? How is this better than the evidence against God?

I'm simply saying that they cannot be grouped together.

Why not? Your categorisation seems to be based squarely on the fact that the God character is is more powerful than the others...

[BillyJoe]

For some reason I'm no longer receiving email alerts for this thread.
I wonder if maybe that's why wolf girl dropped out of the discusion.
(If so, apologies to her for my comment above)
I just remembered this thread before going to bed.
Sorry I can't answer tonight.

[kinkymagic]

What's the incontrovertible evidence against Santa Claus? How is this better than the evidence against God?

I can prove that Santa Claus exists if you like.

"Santa Claus exists if I am not mistaken. This sentence is certainly true and hence, I am not mistaken and therefore Santa Claus exists."

[Tanstaafl]

Well, I must admit, that proof is up to biblical standards... :D

[wolfgirl]

At least wolfgirl quit while she thought she was ahead. :DI didn't quit. I just have a lot of other things going on besides this thread.

There is no more or less evidence for God than there is for Santa, et al.

Evidence against Santa: physical impossibility of having a sled that can carry enough presents for all children on Earth.

Evidence against God: physical impossibility of having an ark that can carry two of every animal on Earth, plus food to feed them all for a year.

Evidence against Easter Bunny: rabbits can't carry eggs into houses.

Evidence against God: snakes can't talk.

Evidence for all of these things: we like to believe them because they make us feel good.

[The Grave]

Yes, BillyJoe is using typical faither logic here....


Pick a topic most people think is a rubbish scientific theory
Pretend {or really believe} that they think it's true
Make a lot of noise about how there's no evidence for it BUT yet scientists 'believe' it {{only those who invented it!}}
Criticise science for accepting something on faith {which most haven't}
Draw a fabulously pathetic conclusion that science is a faith.
Go to bed with a faither grin.:D
Sweet dreams..... That's all they are!


Griff....

[BillyJoe]

Regarding String theory...

Human decisions about what abstractions to use for phenomena have an affect on the nature of the phenomena.


You'll have to explain to me how the nature of subatomic particles are affected by humans using "vibrating strings" as abstractions to explain them.
If you're saying something else, I don't get it.

You are talking as if definitive absolute answers about such issues are possible.


A great number of physicists at present believe that all the different types of subatomic particles are composed of "vibrating strings", in straight and closed varieties, and that they can explain the properties of all these different types of subatomic particles. If true all of reality is made up of nothing but these "vibrating strings".
Either this is true or it is not.

I used strings in answer to PT's claim that:
"...if there's not evidence to support a god hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent!"
Whether or not "vibrating strings" exist is not affected by whether or not we have evidence for it now (which we don't).
Same for god.

[Lonewulf]

Whether or not "vibrating strings" exist is not affected by whether or not we have evidence for it now (which we don't).
Same for god.

And for all intents and purposes, those vibrating strings might as well not exist if there is no evidence for them and the theory of them makes no accurate predictions.

Without being falsifiable, it's only barely "science", if it's science at all. We are developing ways to attempt to falsify it, but until we do, it's not a scientific theory. It's barely a hypothesis.

Same with God.

The only difference is, God is demonstrably made up by humans from a time period where such crap as astrology and alchemy made sense.

Just like Santa Clause.

[BillyJoe]

Still on strings...

My astronomy instructor wasn't very happy with string theory. Until there becomes something falsifiable or predictable with it, it's just a nice idea.


An astronomy instructor seems just the person to provide a reliable opinion on string theory. :D
I agree with him though. :cool:

They're currently building particle accelerators that could potentially prove some aspects of String Theory, and I will find it interesting if they discover anything. However, your claim of, "Well, they haven't proven it YET, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't believe that it exists!" is faulty at best.

What I actually said was that it is wrong to say, as PT did, that:
"...if there's not evidence to support a god hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent!"
It is just as wrong to say that as it is to say:
"...if there's not evidence to support a string hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent!"

Furthermore, there's more "evidence" for string theory than there is for God, that's for damned sure.


There is no evidence for the string hypothesis.
Likewise for the god hypothesis.

[BillyJoe]

What's the incontrovertible evidence against Santa Claus?


You are joking aren't you?

How is this better than the evidence against God?


There is no evidence against god (the ever existing being who created everything else).

Why not? Your categorisation seems to be based squarely on the fact that the God character is is more powerful than the others...


God is different from the other characters because he has not been disproven whereas these other characters have been.

[BillyJoe]

I didn't quit. I just have a lot of other things going on besides this thread.


I was just joking around. :)

There is no more or less evidence for God than there is for Santa..

Agreed.
The difference does not lie in evidence for god v santa.
The difference lies in the evidence against god v santa.
There is no evidence against god.
The evidence against santa is conclusive.

Evidence against God: physical impossibility of having an ark that can carry two of every animal on Earth, plus food to feed them all for a year.
Evidence against God: snakes can't talk.


That's the christian God.

Evidence for all of these things: we like to believe them because they make us feel good.


Whether or not something feels good has no bearing on whether or not that something is true.

[BillyJoe]

Yes, BillyJoe is using typical faither logic here....


Pick a topic most people think is a rubbish scientific theory
Pretend {or really believe} that they think it's true
Make a lot of noise about how there's no evidence for it BUT yet scientists 'believe' it {{only those who invented it!}}
Criticise science for accepting something on faith {which most haven't}
Draw a fabulously pathetic conclusion that science is a faith.
Go to bed with a faither grin.:DSweet dreams..... That's all they are!


1. A large number of physicists do not think the string hypothesis is rubbish. They are spending their lives investigating it.

2. They do think it is true, or could be true. Why otherwise would they spend the time and money and waste their life's work.

3. There is no evidence for it, at least yet, because the very nature of strings (their size) is that are almost impossible to investigate.

4. Where did I critisise investigating the string hypothesis?

5. Where did I draw that conclusion?
The string hypothesis probably falls into the category of "Things you believe to be true although there is no evidence for it". Another one is the multiverse hypothesis to explain the universal constants.

6. I'll let you in on a secret: I'm not a "faither". :D

[BillyJoe]

And for all intents and purposes, those vibrating strings might as well not exist if there is no evidence for them and the theory of them makes no accurate predictions.


For "all intents and purposes they do not exist" is not the same as "they do not exist". To repeat, having no evidence for something does not mean that something does not exist.

Without being falsifiable, it's only barely "science", if it's science at all. We are developing ways to attempt to falsify it, but until we do, it's not a scientific theory. It's barely a hypothesis.


You are probably right.
Physicist seem to be attracted by the beauty of the "vibrating string hypothesis".
That doesn't mean strings don't exist though. Consider...
A couple of thousand years ago atoms were hypothesised to exist. There was no evidence for atoms at that time. Therefore atoms don't exist???

Same with God.


Agreed.

The only difference is, God is demonstrably made up by humans from a time period where such crap as astrology and alchemy made sense.


Yeah, about the time the atom was hypothesised.

[Lonewulf]

You are probably right.
Physicist seem to be attracted by the beauty of the "vibrating string hypothesis".
That doesn't mean strings don't exist though. Consider...
A couple of thousand years ago atoms were hypothesised to exist. There was no evidence for atoms at that time. Therefore atoms don't exist???

So you're saying that the default position should be that it DOES exist?

That's logical. :rolleyes:

There's a reason that falsifiable claims are those preferred by scientists. Do you need help in figuring it out?

Yeah, about the time the atom was hypothesised.

What, God?

Now you're just being silly. Or purposefully deceitful.

Provide evidence that "atoms" were hypothesized in the same way as we have theories of atoms today.

Agreed.
The difference does not lie in evidence for god v santa.
The difference lies in the evidence against god v santa.
There is no evidence against god.
The evidence against santa is conclusive.

Which you have yet to demonstrate.

What's the matter? Afraid to dismiss Santa conclusively?

No one's kidding here. Demonstrate the "irrefutable evidence" that Santa doesn't exist, in a way that can't be applied to God.

Tip: You can't do it.

I'll go back to the Chinese Teapot. If your default position is that the teapot exists, then you can spent billions trying to look for it, floating out there in space, for something that MUST be there, but that there is no reason to believe.