Debating God (2003)

Discussing God

This is an old debate I was involved in… the reason I do not do this format of debating any longer is because there would be too many people coming in to comment and challenge me… and not enough “Me’s” to respond back. Keep in mind that many here are not Christians, so some foul language may be herein. This isn't meant for my readers to read as much as it is meant for me to get it into my log.

Enjoy… but I warn you, if you choose to read it… it is long!

Infoceptor Forums :: starcraft / warcraft / diablo

http://www.infoceptor.com/forums/index.php)

- Serious Discussions (http://www.infoceptor.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)

- - Religion (http://www.infoceptor.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5279)

MethSnax 05-27-2003 10:21 PM I am an athiest, but I am always open to learning about new religions and such, so I was wondering if those who have a religion would please explain their religion so that we could better understand that of which we do not partake in.

Papa Giorgio 05-28-2003 03:28 AM Very well put! Being that I am busy elsewhere, I can guide you to a place where there are some of the best scholarly essays about the faith. · http://www.origins.org/ Sorry I couldn’t engage you more.

Heresy 05-28-2003 03:32 AM I am also an atheist... but I have some suggested reading for you. Will to Power – Nietzsche Koran (well... not all of it...) Inferno – Dante Genesis

CrazyMofo 05-28-2003 05:24 AM Pantheism, much like atheism. You might like this simple look on life. http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/

Preator Antrax 05-28-2003 07:54 AM I'm sort of an Agnostic. Although I have a tendency to think God does exist. But as a man of science I am not prepared to claim for certain until there is reasoning to do it. But that's not where it stops, I basically believe that God exists and that I must stand opposed to him. I do what I can to ridicule his religions and find fallacies and contradictions in his teachings. Infact I have a score board, currently 3:2 (i'm winning), of sucessful direct stands against one another. It makes for an interesting life. Oh and I'm not a Satanist, if he was so prevalent then I'd oppose that bastard too.

Papa Giorgio 05-28-2003 03:55 PM “But as a man of science I am not prepared to claim for certain until there is reasoning to do it.” Nor is he prepared to go out and spend a little cash to see if science does indeed point to a Divine Intelligence behind it all. For any wishing to get the best answers to tough questions, I will take a quote from my “Replying to Human / Ape Proof of Evolution?” strain, for those interested in being unbiased (scientific). Quote: I have a few suggestions for your viewing and reading pleasure: · The first is by an atheist, Richard Milton. He wrote a book called Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, and that’s exactly what it does. The author is not opposed to evolution, per se, but he is opposed to how it is currently taught, being that it is more pseudo-science than actual science. Plus, he is not a creationist trying to bury the proverbial axe. $11.87 at Amazon.com Now, keep in mind that these two books I am mentioning are for the introductory reader on this subject… however, if you are a college student taking courses in a particular scientific field, let me know and I will offer a more technical manual. · The next book I recommend is by Ralph Muncaster, and is called, Dismantling Evolution: Building the Case for Intelligent Design. He is a Christian, but the book is written for the irreligious, for the most part. $9.59 at Amazon.com These two books, one by an atheist, the other by a Christian-theist, would be great – positive – places to start from. I also realize that documentaries of the quality close to, say, The Learning Channel, or the Discovery Channel, would help bring what these books mention to a three-dimensional life. The two DVD’s I will offer for your investigation into this matter are: · The first is a short (30 min) film, but is packed with a large punch. It is called, From a Frog to a Prince, and is well worth the money ($9 at answersingenesis.com). The other DVD documentary is called, Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design (65 min). Both are well done and deserve an honest hearing in front of your viewing pleasure ($22.48 at goccc.com). These four suggestions will allow you to, over the course of, say a year, if you took your time, to get some of the positive input by doctorate holding scientists and professors in their special fields of science on this matter. This is not me changing someone’s mind, but allowing said person to make up his or her own mind in light of all the evidence. This is all I wish for people.

Preator Antrax 05-28-2003 04:07 PM Quote: Originally posted by Papa Giorgio@May 28th 2003, 10:55 AM “But as a man of science I am not prepared to claim for certain until there is reasoning to do it.” Nor is he prepared to go out and spend a little cash to see if science does indeed point to a Divine Intelligence behind it all. Oh so you know what I spend my money on, do you? And I know for a fact that there is no reputable scientific theory that proves the existence of a "Divine Intelligence", there are certainly philosophers that have thought to have proved it, such as Berkeley but they have been met with equally strong opposition. Everytime someone thinks they've got proof, someone think about it and provides a reason to reject this proof. And as such I am not going to say for sure that either side is correct. I allow for the existence of God, I think I would be disappointed if he didn't exist. God is quite and adversary to have. But I'm sorry Papa Giorgio, you don't get to claim that science has conclusively proved God exists, I know it hasn't. Anyway it would destroy the religion if it had, because religion is meant to be a question of faith...if you prove it you remove the concept of faith and in effect destroy the religion. Prove that God exists and then believing in him means nothing.

Papa Giorgio 05-28-2003 04:18 PM “And I know for a fact that there is no reputable scientific theory that proves the existence of a "Divine Intelligence",…” Have you viewed and read the above books and DVD's? How about reading Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Dr. Michael Behe? Or The Natural Limits to Biological Change? How about the two seminal works, The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, and Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design. Please tell me, Antrax, which creation or intelligent design books or articles have you read? I would love to know so I wouldn’t have to go around guessing where you spend your money. I would like to know, since you so forcefully claim there is no scientific evidence for design, what made you come to that conclusion, bias, or actually looking at the best available evidence? · Do you say, "God doesn't exist, therefore..." · Or do you say, "I have looked at the best evidence available to me now, and I do not see..."

Papa Giorgio 05-28-2003 04:27 PM Please, again, let me know what books, articles, or media you have taken the time to thoroughly read and meditate on to come to your brazen conclusions that 90% of the world’s population throughout history hasn’t.

CrazyMofo 05-28-2003 07:32 PM It's not that we haven't looked for the evidence that intelligent design actually took place, it's that there isn't any. Seriously I haven't ever read or heard anything feasible that supports intelligent design. It's hog wash I tell you :). And I noticed you referred to "god" as a he. Why does everyone do this? If something created humans and everything why would it be logical to assume he is a human male? Anyways Papa Giorgio can you please just tell me a few of the best points of why intelligent design is feasible?

Papa Giorgio 05-28-2003 10:49 PM “I haven't ever read or heard anything feasible that supports intelligent design.” This is the point Mofo, when people say, “well, you don’t know what I have read or studied… but I know there is no evidence in this or that,” and when I press people about what they have read, silence usually follows. It did with you Mofo, and it did with Antrax. I could sit here and argue your ignorance to the issue of Intelligent Design theory, but I would be hitting up against a brick wall. Because you refuse to even look, let me repeat you again · “I haven't ever read or heard anything feasible that supports intelligent design.” The point is you haven’t even looked yet, you just assume it not to be so. I don’t reject Mormonism, or Jehovah Witness’, or Islam because I know them to be false, because I already assume Christianity to be true. I have gone out and put the same test I put to the Christian faith, all the others as well. The same goes for science. I go out and put a test to what science currently knows, and what we can see in nature. I don’t know if you realized yet (I'm sure you do), Mofo, but I quoted you at the beginning of the “Human Evolution” post, and I must say (and I do not say this in meanness, or a prideful manner), you ended up looking silly. Why? Because you state something so emphatically, and then cannot back up what you are saying. And then after reading it all, you just shrug it off and say, “Well! I still believe in it!” I haven’t heard such a haughty tone from Dr. Pangloss, or the others who ask constructive questions? Or maybe some have seen the weakness in what they use to believe were good arguments (basing their beliefs on them), and are now – maybe for the first time in their life (and rightly so) – going to go out and “dig a little deeper.” They, however, haven’t dug quite the deep hole you and Antrax seem to dig. Again, I just think you should consider… I know… it sounds out-of-this-world!… just maybe… possibly, go out of your way and check out just one of the resources I mentioned. Start with the atheist’s book about evolution I recommended. · Don’t say there isn’t, and then go look with that attitude. Say, there’s a possibility (just a shred of one, but a shred nonetheless), but I should look into it to see, for myself. Are you a · “God doesn't exist, therefore..." Or, "I have looked at the best evidence available to me now, and I do not [or do] see..." One is scientific in nature, the other isn’t. P.S., I will get to a few examples later, i want to let the other posts die down first.

Giaddon 05-28-2003 11:27 PM One reason I don't believe in god is the lack of proof of his existence. I used to be a Christian, but left in disgust when I saw that there was just... Nothing there. A bunch of hypocritical and contradictory pish-tosh that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. For example, on Origins.org I found a fascinating article on how the burden of proof lies on the atheists. From the beginning, this is illogical. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, especially when it is as amorphous as god. The whole article seems to say: "We're tired of trying to prove that god exists: your turn." Furthermore, back in ye olde tymes, God was quite an active fellow. Starting floods, talking to people, sending plagues, burning bushes. Yet all of a sudden he went quiet. Why did he suddenly stop doing things? Did he get bored and wander away? Did he go on a snack run? What? Or maybe he can't contact us and we can't contact him for a very simple reason: He doesn't exist.

MethSnax 05-29-2003 12:11 AM Wow, thank you very much. I have read much of the material suggested, except for the books, although I believe they will contain a great deal that I should know to. I have read Genisis, and part of the Koran. I have come to the conclusion that perhaps I should form my own religion. It would be a varied form of atheism that mearly questions God existance in a more scientific manner, not completely deny it. This way, people can not believe in God, but still maintain an understanding of other religions. I hope that wasn't a stupid idea. The only true problem I see with religion is that if you total the deaths caused in the name of God/god(s) compared to all other deaths in the world, you will see that most are in the name of God/god(s) or religions that promote non violence.

CrazyMofo 05-29-2003 02:52 AM Right you are, MethSnax. The terrorists behind the nightmares of 9/11 believed they are going to a type of "heaven" for their brave acts. Bush thinks he is going to a type of "heaven" for protecting america, the "good side", and destroying "evil" (terrorists and terrorist harboring countries). It's the same damn idea on both sides, however each side thinks they are the "good side"! Good going religion :(

Kaigun 05-29-2003 04:19 AM So lemme get this straight, because religion is used as an excuse for killing someone, it is the religion's fault? Let me pose a question to you. A criminal goes on a shooting spree and attributes his mass murder to video game violence. Do you therefore draw the conclusion that it is video games that are responsible for these murders?

Preator Antrax 05-29-2003 11:29 AM I actually do read alot of books and articles pertaining to scientific and philosophical evaluations of religion and religious claims. And I have regular conversation with the father of my best friend...who has spent the last 3-4 years of his life evaluating religion, and has spent huge amounts of money on books. So far I have not found anything that works as a sound confirmation of the existence of a divine intelligence. Stop being so pig-headed by assuming because you've found something that you see as evidence, that everyone will take it as evidence. Some people take more to convince.

Papa Giorgio 05-29-2003 12:10 PM Wasn’t it you, Giaddon, who said there was no logical proof for His existence? Then I posted a response? Quote: · Based on Sufficient Reason P1) A contingent being exists. · a. This contingent being is caused either (1) by itself, or (2) by another. b. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible. P2) Therefore, this contingent being (2) is caused by another, i.e., depends on something else for its existence. P3) That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (3) another contingent being, or (4) a non-contingent being (necessary) being. c. If 3, then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so onto infinity. P4) Therefore, that which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (5) an infinite series of contingent beings, or (4) a necessary being. P5) An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being. P6) Therefore, a necessary being (4) exists! · Based on the Principle of Existential Causality 1. Some limited, changing being[s] exist. 2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another. 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being. 4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings. 5. This first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchangeable and one. 6. This first uncaused Cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition · A mix of both 1. *Something exists (e.g., I do); 2. *I am a contingent being; 3. *Nothing cannot cause something; 4. *Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being; 5. *Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being; 6. *But I am personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities); 7. Therefore this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy; 8. *But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction; 9. *Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way; 10. *This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings); 11. *Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (=infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists; 12. *Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God; 13. *Therefore, the theistic God exists. Giaddon, you said: · “It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, especially when it is as amorphous as God” Amorphous means: · 1. lacking definite form; having no specific shape; formless: the amorphous clouds. 2. of no particular kind or character; indeterminate; having no pattern or structure; unorganized: an amorphous style; an amorphous personality. Now, I want either Giaddon to answer this, or anyone else… what did Giaddon just do to contradict her/him self?? I will give a hint below with a small portion of a paper I have already posted… and you would think these types of mistakes would be stopped once shown – going to show how much bad-thinking is incorporated into our minds when not honed. My favorite quote is, “Raising one’s self-consciousness [awareness] about worldviews is an essential part of intellectual maturity” (From the book, World-Views In Conflict: Choosing Christianity In a World of Ideas, by Ronald Nash). Quote: What about agnosticism, does the belief that one cannot ultimately know anything about God hold up to rational and logical thought? *Before going any further, I should define the two different types of agnostics: · Agnosticism: The state of not-knowing whether there is a God or not. *The humble [soft] agnostic says that he doesn’t know whether there is a God. *The less humble [hard] agnostic says that you don’t either… [and] thinks that we can’t ever really know (Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies. Chicago, Illinois: IDG Books Worldwide (1999), p. 238.) I am mainly dealing here with the “hard” agnostic. *The “soft” agnostic is open to receiving information about God from others and then tests these claims by the rules and science of logic, history, and experience. *An example that bears striking similarities to the “hard” agnostic is that of a conversation between a teacher and her student: · Teacher: “Welcome, students. This is the first day of class, and so I want to lay down some ground rules. First, since no one person has the truth, you should be open-minded to the opinions of your fellow students. Second… Elizabeth, do you have a question?” Elizabeth: “Yes I do. If nobody has the truth, isn’t that a good reason for me not to listen to my fellow students? After all, if nobody has the truth, why should I waste my time listening to other people and their opinions? What’s the point? Only if somebody has the truth does it make sense to be open-minded. Don’t you agree?” Teacher: “No, I don’t. Are you claiming to know the truth? Isn’t that a bit arrogant and dogmatic?” Elizabeth: “Not at all. Rather I think it’s dogmatic, as well as arrogant, to assert that no single person on earth knows the truth. After all, have you met every single person in the world and quizzed them exhaustively? If not, how can you make such a claim? Also, I believe it is actually the opposite of arrogance to say that I will alter my opinions to fit the truth whenever and wherever I find it. And if I happen to think that I have good reason to believe I do know truth and would like to share it with you, why wouldn’t you listen to me? Why would you automatically discredit my opinion before it is even uttered? I thought we were supposed to listen to everyone’s opinion.” Teacher: “This should prove to be an interesting semester.” Another Student: “(blurts out) Ain’t that the truth.” (Students laugh) (Francis J. Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly In Mid-Air. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books (1998), p. 74.) The hard agnostic dismisses the argument even before hearing it. *This type of agnosticism is refuted by the associate professor of philosophy and government at the University of Texas at Austin, J. Budziszewski (Ph.D., Yale University): · “To say that we cannot know anything about God is to say something about God; it is to say that if there is a God, he is unknowable. *But in that case, he is not entirely unknowable, for the agnostic certainly thinks that we can know one thing about him: *That nothing else can be known about him. *Unfortunately, the position that we can know exactly one thing about God – his unknowability in all respects except this – is equally unsupportable, for why should this one thing be an exception? How could we know that any possible God would be of such a nature that nothing else could be known about him? *On what basis could we rule out his knowability in all other respects but this one? The very attempt to justify the claim confutes it, for the agnostic would have to know a great many things about God in order to know he that couldn’t know anything else about him” (Norman Geisler & Paul Hoffman, editors, Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books (2001), p. 54.) Agnostics basically claim that nothing can be known about reality (or, Reality). *Norman Geisler points out that “in its ultimate form [agnosticism] claims that all knowledge about reality (i.e., truth) is impossible. *But this itself is offered as a truth about reality” (Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson (1999), p. 637). * He did contact us, and proved His existence. Kaigun, great point, and you clearly show a use of a part of the brain that others seem to not, common sense! Not only do MethSnax and Mofo blame the video game, but they would then say the video game does not exist. I know I just simplified it too much, but the premise remains. MethSnax, I would entreat you to read an article found at: · http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apolo...ns/realmurd.htm Please, read the whole article. Again Antrax, · What have you read? Give me the articles, names of the books, etc. I want to know… please inform me, as, I may have read it as well. if putting you on the spot is pigheaded, then so be it.

Papa Giorgio 05-29-2003 12:50 PM Mofo, you are very apt at showing your youthful “ire.” My hope is you actually make it from the abyss of necessitous thought patterns and join the world of reflective thinking. To pigeonhole the geopolitical landscape into such a neanderthalish comparison of, “good religion vs. bad religion,” is just too much for me to bear. Again, I entreat you to stop focusing on your very-apparent psychological fear of anything Christian – because you apparently cannot even comment on a simple political choice made by a United States president without throwing religion in the mix. Are you so tainted about the Christian faith (or, religion in general) that you would simply brush it aside by making such child-like comparisons of a complex issue? I wish to leave the world of religio-political thought (or so inferred by you) for a moment and share an incite with you that I hope (and can only pray), hits home. Quote: Instead of thinking of Christianity as a collection of theological bits and pieces to be believed or debated, we should approach our faith as a conceptual system, as a total world-and-life view. *Once people understand that both Christianity and its adversaries in the world of ideas are worldviews, they will be in a better position to judge the relative merits of the total Christian system. *William Abraham has written: · “Religious belief should be assessed as a rounded whole rather than taken in stark isolation, *Christianity, for example, like other world faiths, is a complex, large-scale system of belief which must be seen as a whole before it is assessed. *To break it up into disconnected parts is to mutilate and distort its true character. *We can, of course, distinguish certain elements in the Christian faith, but we must still stand back and see it as a complex interaction of these elements. *We need to see it as a metaphysical system, as a worldview, that is total in its scope and range” (An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, p. 104). The case for or against Christian theism should be made and evaluated in terms of total systems. * Christianity is not simply a religion that tells human beings how they may be forgiven, however important this information is. *Christianity is also a total world-and-life view. *Our faith has important things to say about the whole of human life. *Once Christians understand in a systematic way how the options to Christianity are also worldviews, they will be in a better position to justify their choice of Christianity rationally. *The reason many people reject our faith is not due to their problems with one or two isolated issues; it is the result of their anti-Christian conceptual scheme, which leads them to reject information and arguments that for believers provide support for the Christian worldview. “The problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried” ~ G. K. Chesterton ~ (Quote taken from, A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism). A book that helps to compare three major worldviews is entitled Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of Our Day and the Search for Truth, by David A. Noebel. It compares Secular Humanism, Marxism/Leninism, and Christianity in the realm of: · 1) Theology 2) Philosophy 3) Ethics 4) Biology 5) Psychology 6) Sociology 7) Law 8) Politics 9) Economics 10) History Until you look at Christianity in a way that includes the whole sum, you are merely making a mockery of my faith, and yourself, when saying such puerile statement about George W’s belief.

SirZap 05-29-2003 06:36 PM Quote: Giaddon Furthermore, back in ye olde tymes, God was quite an active fellow. Starting floods, talking to people, sending plagues, burning bushes. Yet all of a sudden he went quiet. Why did he suddenly stop doing things? Did he get bored and wander away? Did he go on a snack run? What? Or maybe he can't contact us and we can't contact him for a very simple reason: He doesn't exist. Jesus .. founded a church.. with the guidance of the.. Holy Spirit... GOD did actively intervined in history... but of course... Jesus told HE will come again... but there will be turbulent times ahead... Knowledge will increase... and People will travel to and fro... as prophisied by Daniel.. Quote: Preator Antrax I actually do read alot of books and articles pertaining to scientific and philosophical evaluations of religion and religious claims. And I have regular conversation with the father of my best friend...who has spent the last 3-4 years of his life evaluating religion, and has spent huge amounts of money on books. So far I have not found anything that works as a sound confirmation of the existence of a divine intelligence. Stop being so pig-headed by assuming because you've found something that you see as evidence, that everyone will take it as evidence. Some people take more to convince. Me too... I spent books on other people's religion and beliefs.... Divine Intelligence....well let me put it this way... a Story... a true story and was published in Reader's Digests One time, an athiest visted his friend, a christian, both are Astronomers... The atheist was fascinated with the Solar system Model and asked who made it.... the Christian answered "nobody!!!" jokingly with a smile, but the atheist insistented knowing his christian friend to be joking. The Atheist continued, praising and really admiring the model.... then the Christian said that if somebody made the model how can the real thing have none??? end of story.... Quote: MethSnaxWow, thank you very much. I have read much of the material suggested, except for the books, although I believe they will contain a great deal that I should know to. I have read Genisis, and part of the Koran. I have come to the conclusion that perhaps I should form my own religion. It would be a varied form of atheism that mearly questions God existance in a more scientific manner, not completely deny it. This way, people can not believe in God, but still maintain an understanding of other religions. I hope that wasn't a stupid idea. The only true problem I see with religion is that if you total the deaths caused in the name of God/god(s) compared to all other deaths in the world, you will see that most are in the name of God/god(s) or religions that promote non violence. Science has limitations.... it depends on senses... but GOD transcends beyond our senses... You can not just gain religion by intellectual means... Religion is a way of life....

CrazyMofo 05-29-2003 08:19 PM First off i didnt' blame the video game, of course the person that commits the act is always to blame, but religion helps in fogging their choices. Secondly I just wanna know why/how people can believe there is a "supernatural" being behind everything we see and do when there is: Zero evidence, Zero reason, and finally, Zero logic for something like this to exist If a being created the universe who created that being? It is much more logical to assume that the universe is a sea of energy and matter forming stars and planets and sometimes planets that can suit life (earth). Religion has been wrong time and time again, afterall the churches thought the earth was flat and it was at the center of the universe. We can thank courageous astronomers for discovering the TRUTH and risking torture and ridicule.

Heresy 05-29-2003 09:24 PM Quote: Zero evidence, Zero reason, and finally, Zero logic for something like this to exist There is also ZERO evidence that there is not a creator. Seriously... how can so many atheists be blindly one sided? I'm an atheist, but I still see the arguement. Excuse me while I go vomit.

El_Chupacabra 05-29-2003 10:01 PM Heretic ur logic is extremely flawed, if there is no divine being how could there be evidence that there is no divine being? Has anyone ever heard of the Shrodinger Cat experiment? Basically if you put a live cat in a lead box and then you throw in a poisoned cat treat and then you seal the box, you have no way of knowing whether the cat is alive or dead therefore the cat exists in two states alive and dead. We cannot know whether or not God exists so therefore God both exists and doesn't exist. Furthermore because the cat is sealed in a box it makes no difference to us whether the cat is alive or dead...oh and one other thing for those of you who say that there cannot be an infinite cause for the creation of the universe you are quite wrong. There is a relatively new theory concerning time travel and the creation of the universe though i cannot recall the exact details, i think the book i read it in was called Time Travel in Einstein's Universe. Something about at some point in time the universe creates itself in the past and ur left with the eternal question of which came first the chicken or the egg...i dunno i can't remember ill try and dig up the book and get back to you

Heresy 05-29-2003 10:31 PM Quote: if there is no divine being how could there be evidence that there is no divine being? um great arguement.... ill just say this. If there is a divine being, how could there be evidence that there is a divine being? On both sides, there is a fair amount of theory and such, and although the creation theory has been losing some ground, is it really all that less relevant? Some may say yes, while many say no. But because there is not sufficient evidence on either side, I choose to accept both as legitimate, although i lean towards atheism. Is my logic flawed? Hardly. After all, there is no PROOF that there is no god - and that is all I say. The cat cannot exist in two states. Regardless of what you know... it is in only one. Its like saying. "You dont know if I am male or female." I only exist in one state... regardless of how much you know. Is my logic flawed? No. Are most atheists horribly one sided? Yes. Is yours? Not looking promising.

El_Chupacabra 05-29-2003 10:45 PM To you the cat does exist in two states. The cat is encased in solid lead you can't see it, it can't see you. How can you possibly know if the cat is alive or dead? Its all about perspective. And again how can there be proof that something doesn't exist if it doesn't exist? I want a 10 legged dog, try and prove to me it doesn't exist.

Heresy 05-29-2003 10:57 PM No. It doesn't. The cat exists in one state.... you simply cannot know which. This DOES NOT mean that it exists in two. Of course, the fact that a dog will have ten legs is scientificly disproven. Or at least highly unlikely. it could happen... but it probably wont. God has not been disproven. Try again...

El_Chupacabra 05-29-2003 11:42 PM OK i am not attempting to disprove God im attempting to prove that its impossible to prove or disprove God and yes the cat does exist in two states, if you dont believe so then tell me if the cat is alive or dead.

El_Chupacabra 05-29-2003 11:45 PM Oh and please show me scientific evidence that disproves the existence of a 10 legged dog.

Heresy 05-29-2003 11:56 PM Its called DNA.... the genetic structure of a dog does not allow for the additional legs to be grown without mutation. Althought additional legs have been formed before, iirc. And basically what I'm saying is that your 2 existences thing is bullshit. If you know what the existance is or not, there is still only ONE true way that it is. KNOWING has nothing to do with it. Your idea is RETARDED. There. I said it. Anyway... I'm basically just humoring you now... In my mind I've decided that I've pretty much pwned you... so i'm gonna go study for a math test....

El_Chupacabra 05-30-2003 12:07 AM I would let you win this one because i am truely just as tired of arguing this point as you are, but i just don't have it in me to bow to someone who does not even realize that the whole cat thing was not my idea in the first place. I'm in fact citing a well known and accepted idea that was created by Shrodinger and is used in such fields as quantum mechanics. Also unless you can show me a complete map of a dog's genome and show me where the dog is constrained to 4 legs then you had better find some more concrete proof. Anyways study for your math test im sure you need to.

Heresy 05-30-2003 12:09 AM I realize that you are citing a few sources... I'm simply saying that I dont agree with them. Anyway.. I was arguing a side which I don't really support and I have massive finals tomorrow.

CrazyMofo 05-30-2003 12:16 AM I like the cat example, it produces the same problem we have here. We can't prove there is or isn't a creator. SO we must choose the most logical choice, and that is that there isn't one. And don't say but why is that the most logical choice? Because i'm not gonna repeat myself as I am forced to in almost every thread i'm sick of it, you know how I feel on this...

Giaddon 05-30-2003 02:52 AM Papa GiorgioG: Obviously my "contradiction" was that I referred to God as a "he", then called "him" amorphous. I was simply trying to use the conventional term regarding God, to avoid confusion. It's mere semantics, and shouldn't even be up for debate. If you prefer, I can call God "bullshit." And as for your "God was required to make humans" argument, my response stands: what made God? And if he just "is" why can't the whole universe just "be?" That argument falls apart if you spend even a second of time thinking about it. SirZap: What? I don't understand what you are saying. Heretic: Good attitude, and one I wish more people would share, both atheists and believers. As I said, there is no way to prove that there is no God, I just don't believe in him, and I have presented my reasons. El_Chupacabra: The cat occupies one stage only. Our observation is irrelevant to the truth.

Papa Giorgio 05-30-2003 03:49 AM Mofo, (and others), you said: · “ Zero evidence, Zero reason, and finally, Zero logic for something like this to exist” Quote: · Based on Sufficient Reason P1) A contingent being exists. · a. This contingent being is caused either (1) by itself, or (2) by another. b. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible. P2) Therefore, this contingent being (2) is caused by another, i.e., depends on something else for its existence. P3) That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (3) another contingent being, or (4) a non-contingent being (necessary) being. c. If 3, then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so onto infinity. P4) Therefore, that which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (5) an infinite series of contingent beings, or (4) a necessary being. P5) An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being. P6) Therefore, a necessary being (4) exists! · Based on the Principle of Existential Causality 1. Some limited, changing being[s] exist. 2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another. 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being. 4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings. 5. This first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchangeable and one. 6. This first uncaused Cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition · A mix of both 1. *Something exists (e.g., I do); 2. *I am a contingent being; 3. *Nothing cannot cause something; 4. *Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being; 5. *Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being; 6. *But I am personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities); 7. Therefore this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy; 8. *But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction; 9. *Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way; 10. *This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings); 11. *Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (=infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists; 12. *Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God; 13. *Therefore, the theistic God exists. Mofo, you said: · “If a being created the universe who created that being?” Quote: Ref: Excerpted from Philosophy for Dummies, by Tom Morris, p.253.[/list]The most prominent objection that is ever raised against a form of cosmological argument like this consists in asking, “Then what is the explanation for God’s existence?” This is most effective when done with a smugness of tone and deliberate emphasis of the word “God.” The objection usually means to imply here that the cosmological argument will generate an infinite regress of explanations. To explain the existence of God, by the reasoning just used, it would seem that we need to postulate the existence of a Super-God. But then that being’s existence would need explaining by the activities of a Super-Duper-God, and so on, ad infinitum and absurdum (to infinity and absurdity). This objection seems to just assume that God’s existence does not have a scientific or personal explanation, then it is unintelligible. But it should be by now what a defender of the argument will say to this. The existence of God is intelligible not because it was caused by anything or anyone, but because it flows from his essence. This was the claim that the ontological argument made about God. God cannot fail to exist. God exists necessarily. It is God’s essential nature to exist. And in this regard, God is very different from anything in the universe. God’s existence logically follows from God’s essence. No other explanation for God is either necessary or possible. Thus, we don’t have to worry about postulating (theoretically supposing the existence of) other deities in an infinite regress (or infinite mess) of explanatory postulations. God, as the ontological argument told us, is fundamentally different from the universe. The very concept of God, it contends, precludes God’s not existing. So we cannot even imagine God’s not existing and know with full detail what we are imagining, without contradiction. But we can with the universe. It does not seem to be at all the sort of thing whose essence is to exist. Its concept does not logically imply its reality in all sets of possible circumstances. And that is different from the concept of God as a greatest possible being. Notice that the conclusion of this version of the cosmological argument is not “Therefore there is a God.” it is just that, if we are rational, we should believe that there is a God. But this in itself is a surprise to many people who associate religious belief not with rationality but instead with the irrational side of life. This argument contends not just that it is rational to believe, but that it is irrational not to believe.[/list] Mofo, you said: · “Religion has been wrong time and time again, afterall the churches thought the earth was flat and it was at the center of the universe.” All not true Mofo?! In fact, the flat-earth theory is a myth, but you wouldn’t want to actuallythus proving the church to be false. Before I go about taking more of your examples and showing you – and the others here – how you are wrong yet again, I want to make an analogy. Just for a moment, lets say you are right, lets say that the church thought the earth was flat, and also believed a geocentric universe (actually they did, but there is more to this story than simply this, I will shortly explain). What does this have to do with the truth of a matter, like, say, God’s existence? If the Son of Sam Okay, back to business. A very fun read is a book by Jeffrey Russell called, Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern History. Two other books worth mentioning are: Not So!: Popular Myths About America from Columbus to Clinton, by Paul Boller; and, 6 Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization, by Philip Sampson. The Bible clearly states the earth is round (Isaiah 40:22), the Hebrew root word used in this verse literally means sphericity, with the 3-D in mind. investigate that, because that would require putting your bias aside and looking into the matter yourself... I mean, you have already presupposed what your saying is true, right? The answer is yes, because you have emphatically stated these things to be true, killed his victims merely for the fact that 2 + 2 = 4, would that make the equation 2 + 2 = 4 wrong? No it wouldn’t, neither would the hypothetical that the church taught a flat earth. This has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. Even if there were no Christians on earth, this would not falsify the truth claims of Christianity. · Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22) Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9) Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7) Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7) Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22) Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27) Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11) Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6) Gravitational field (Job 26:7) Etc. As for geocentricism, the church rejected Scripture for geocentricism that the secular universities taught. The analogy would be if the church today accepted Darwinism. Quote: Ref: *http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c007.html Creationists are often accused of trying to oppose science on purely theological terms. The argument usually contains a strong warning to remember the persecution of Galileo by the theologians of his own time. It continues, "History has proven that Galileo was correct and that the dogmatic religious authorities who opposed him were wrong." With one simple illustration, scientists warn that any interference in scientific ideas by religious people is tantamount to religious persecution. The historical account of Galileo's struggle for acceptance is not, however, a black and white issue. In fact, it is one of the most interesting and complex historical events recorded. Galileo's trial was not the simple conflict between science and religion so commonly pictured. It was a complex power struggle, fought upon the foundations of personal and professional pride, envy, and ambition. The stage for this tragedy had been set a few years earlier during what is commonly referred to as the Protestant reformation. During the reformation, the Catholic Church's authority had been called into question. Priests and laypeople had judged Rome as having forsaken true Christian beliefs. The reformation shook the Church at its very foundation of authority, causing it to lose much of its world power and influence. Eventually, at the council of Trent, the Catholic Church formed an index of literature which was forbidden to Catholics throughout the world. Included in this censor were any books that challenged traditional interpretations of the scripture. Ironically, the traditional beliefs that Galileo opposed ultimately belonged to Aristotle, not to biblical exegesis. Pagan philosophy had become interwoven with traditional Catholic teachings during the time of Augustine. Therefore, the Church's dogmatic retention of tradition was the major seat of controversy, not the Bible. It may also be noted that Pope Urban VIII was himself sympathetic to Galileo but was not willing to stand against the tide of controversy. In reality, the majority of persecution seemed to come from intellectual scientists whose monopoly of educational authority had been threatened. During Galileo's time, education was primarily dominated by Jesuit and Dominican priests. One of the most important aspects of Galileo's "threat" to education is that he published his writings in Italian, rather than Latin, which was the official language of scholarship. Galileo was attempting to have his ideas accepted by common people, hoping that they would eventually filter into the educational institutions. Thus, Galileo was regarded as an enemy of the established scientific authorities and experienced the full weight of their influence and persecution. In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles. In the sixteenth century, Christian theism was the prevailing philosophy and the Catholic Church dominated the educational system. Those, like Galileo, who dedicated themselves to diligently search for truth found themselves at the unmerciful hands of the authorities whose theories they threatened. In the twentieth century, however, the philosophy of naturalism has become dominant, and science occupies the position of influence. Again, we note that the majority (regardless of whether it is right or wrong) will persecute those who dare to dispute their "traditional" theories; today the questionable theory of evolution is being challenged. The lesson to be learned from Galileo, it appears, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough. It allowed Greek philosophy to influence its theology and held to tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible. We must hold strongly to Biblical doctrine which has been achieved through sure methods of exegesis. We must never be satisfied with dogmas built upon philosophic traditions. See also: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...geocentrism.asp Mofo, again, knowledge is good, your hasty assumptions are not.

SirZap 05-30-2003 03:54 AM Giaddon: Of course, you are a non-believer. If you are intelligent enough, or at least knowledgable about what i said, then you will understand what i'm saying. Nothing personal, just my opinion about you. GOD is GOD, believe it or not. simple as that.

Papa Giorgio 05-30-2003 04:07 AM Giaddon, you said: · “It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, especially when it is as amorphous as God” Amorphous means: · 1. lacking definite form; having no specific shape; formless: the amorphous clouds. 2. of no particular kind or character; indeterminate; having no pattern or structure; unorganized: an amorphous style; an amorphous personality. Don’t you see? · “To say that we cannot know anything about God is to say something about God; it is to say that if there is a God, he is unknowable. But in that case, he is not entirely unknowable, for the agnostic certainly thinks that we can know one thing about him: That nothing else can be known about him. Unfortunately, the position that we can know exactly one thing about God – his unknowability in all respects except this – is equally unsupportable, for why should this one thing be an exception? How could we know that any possible God would be of such a nature that nothing else could be known about him? On what basis could we rule out his knowability in all other respects but this one? The very attempt to justify the claim confutes it, for the agnostic would have to know a great many things about God in order to know he that couldn’t know anything else about him” (Norman Geisler & Paul Hoffman, editors, Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books (2001), p. 54.) I’m surprised I had to point that out again.

El_Chupacabra 05-30-2003 04:52 AM Giaddon i will pose to you the same question that i did to Heretic: Is the cat alive or dead? And please note that the box is sealed and there is no way to see in or hear anything or have any sort of interaction with the box. There is also enough oxygen to last for several days. So after say 30 mins is the cat alive or dead?

CrazyMofo 05-30-2003 06:13 AM Papa Giorgio the reason you and I cannot communicate is because you already accept that there is a god where I do not. It just does not make any sense to me. Humans are animals, no other animal on the earth assembles and contemplates this like we do. God is just a term made up by humans. And if there is some sort of creator, wtf would it be? Certainly it would not be a human form right if you say it created humans. I will tell you what god is, it is energy. Energy and matter in the universe. You go on and on talking about god this god that. Can you define god? Why would a being just create all this **** we have in the universe. I know my method of arguing is weaker than yours, but that is because I'm just getting frusterated. You keep attacking my intelligence, when you are the high school dropout. I'm currently in college and I talk with my professors regularly about astronomy and philosophy. I also attend free night classes on astronomical events and upcomings. Such as the alignment of Mars, which is coming up soon. But anyways i'm getting off track, so i'll let you respond to what I presented you with.

Andwarf 05-30-2003 06:46 AM Quote: Originally posted by El_Chupacabra@May 29th 2003, 09:52 PM Giaddon i will pose to you the same question that i did to Heretic: Is the cat alive or dead? And please note that the box is sealed and there is no way to see in or hear anything or have any sort of interaction with the box. There is also enough oxygen to last for several days. So after say 30 mins is the cat alive or dead? The act of not knowing does not affect the state of the cat! I don't know how many people there are in China, but that does not affect the amount that are actually there!

Preator Antrax 05-30-2003 06:50 AM Quote: El_Chupacabra QUOTE (El_Chupacabra @ May 29th 2003, 05:01 PM oh and one other thing for those of you who say that there cannot be an infinite cause for the creation of the universe you are quite wrong. There is a relatively new theory concerning time travel and the creation of the universe though i cannot recall the exact details, i think the book i read it in was called Time Travel in Einstein's Universe. Something about at some point in time the universe creates itself in the past and ur left with the eternal question of which came first the chicken or the egg...i dunno i can't remember ill try and dig up the book and get back to you I think what you are referring to is Causal Time Loops. I've heard that they have been logically applied to the origin of the universe. Basically it goes like this; the cause of the universe is the effect in an infinite loop. Whilst this is difficult to comprehend it involves no logical fallacies. It is merely experience which brings us to believe that the effect is always caused, and never it's own cause. It's an interesting explanation, I really enjoy time-based philosophy, hence why I took a class in it. Causal Time Loops are an incredibly interesting concept. I'd encourage you all to read up on them, since they explore many concepts that are shown in sci-fi movies of today. Papa Giorgio@May 29th 2003, 10:49 PM Based on Sufficient Reason P1) A contingent being exists. a. This contingent being is caused either (1) by itself, or (2) by another. b. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible. P2) Therefore, this contingent being (2) is caused by another, i.e., depends on something else for its existence. P3) That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (3) another contingent being, or (4) a non-contingent being (necessary) being. c. If 3, then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so onto infinity. P4) Therefore, that which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (5) an infinite series of contingent beings, or (4) a necessary being. P5) An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being. P6) Therefore, a necessary being (4) exists! This argument only works if all premisses are correct, and I can't see any reason why you can't deny these premisses. Both 'a' and 'b' of P1 can be denied, although 'b' requires the introduction of causal time loops as I stated above. You can't just post an argument and assume that it is correct, the logic is perfect, but the premisses aren't necessary and whilst that makes this argument cogent it doesn't assure its validity.

Kaigun 05-30-2003 09:14 AM Quote: Originally posted by CrazyMofo@May 29th 2003, 07:16 PM I like the cat example, it produces the same problem we have here. We can't prove there is or isn't a creator. SO we must choose the most logical choice, and that is that there isn't one. And don't say but why is that the most logical choice? Because i'm not gonna repeat myself as I am forced to in almost every thread i'm sick of it, you know how I feel on this... Ok, I won't ask you why you think its the most logical choice. I will tell you that you blantantly wrong. It is not the most logical choice. To paraphrase Heretic, if neither side can adequately prove their case, then the most logical choice would not be to side with either. I used to think I was an atheist, until I discovered the vast majority of atheists were atheists simply because it supposedly gave them justification for their prejudice against Christianity. I didn't want to be associated with such hatred and ignorance. I don't see how anyone who values logic and knowledge could blindly believe in anything, be it the existance of God, non-existance of God, love or anything else for that matter.

Doc P-Funk 05-30-2003 10:08 AM Kaigun is right. It is fallacious to say that because we cannot prove something it is not real. So, let's take this from an academic paper: 7.4 Appeals to Ignorance Another, quite subtle, fallacy is that of an appeal to ignorance. An appeal to ignorance is a fallacious assumption that because we do not have evidence that p, we should believe that not p. The basic form of the argument is: We have no good evidence that p.******* Therefore, not p. Arguments of this form are not always fallacious, but sometimes they are. When are they fallacious? When, even if p were true, we would not expect to have clear evidence that p is true. Fallacious Appeal to Ignorance: We have no good evidence that p. Even if p were true, there would not be good evidence that p.*** Therefore, not p. When we spell it out as above, we can see why an appeal to ignorance can be fallacious. e.g. ?There are no reliable records indicating that aliens have visited Earth. Therefore, aliens do not exist.? This argument is fallacious, because it is quite possible that aliens do exist, and have not visited earth because space is so vast.* Hence, even if p is true, we would not expect to have clear evidence that p. Lack of evidence that p does not constitute strong grounds for claiming that p is false. But NB, nor does it give us grounds for saying p is true. * Compare this to a different example: ?There are no reliable records indicating that aliens have visited Earth. Therefore aliens are not living amongst us.? I think this argument is not fallacious. Of course, it is an inductive argument, so it is possible that it?s premise is true and the conclusion false, but I think the truth of the premise makes it very likely that the conclusion is true. Why does this argument not commit a fallacious appeal to ignorance? Because in this case, if it were true that aliens were living amongst us, we would expect to have good evidence that they were doing so. Where we would expect evidence that p, were p true, but we in fact lack evidence that p, we have a reason to believe that not p.

Papa Giorgio 05-30-2003 01:25 PM No Mofo, the reason you and I cannot communicate is because you state things – over-and-over-again – that just aren’t true. I just showed you in my last post the many examples and misuses you make of the limited information you have. Another reason we cannot communicate is that you refuse to suspend your belief for a little while and look into the matter for yourself (I suggest the book by the atheist). I wasn’t born into a Christian family? I was an atheist (or thought I was) for many years. I didn’t want to stop or suspend my beliefs because this would mean changing my life style – or altering it. I grew up indoctrinated with evolution, all my parents watched were PBS shows and Carl Sagan by-lines. However, when I started to actually look into the matter myself, I was told that the evidence was so massive that any “intellectual” person would be a fool not to accept it. Naturally I didn’t want to be a fool. So when I finally started to dig for this evidence, all I turned up were a lot of “soft” theories about how things “might have happened.” There was no solid empirical evidence for evolution. And after many years of reading, and looking into the matter, I found more evidence for the creation model and evidence for God’s existence than rock turning into man (the atheists Bible). As far as God being energy, energy is not eternal; it was made at the Big Bang. Since matter and energy didn’t exist at one point, and everything that comes to exist has a cause, what caused the Big Bang? Mofo, I am a high school drop out!? And all I am pointing out is that you say stuff like, “the church taught a flat-earth/geocentric universe and this is one of the many reasons I don’t believe in God…”, which is what you imply implicitly and explicitly, you are basing your beliefs on something that isn’t true. And I have shown many of these you have brought up in your repertoire of "evidences" you use for, a) evolution; and b) evidences you use against God. I am not attacking you as much as I am challenging you to see that you have accepted a worldview not based on evidence, logic, or rational/evidential prodding, but only on bias against anything metaphysical. You, are a philosophical materialist, a naturalist by choice, not by evidence. Once you realize this, you may wish to look into the matter more deeply, for yourself, not because Papa GiorgioG says so. What college do you go to (what area), I bet there may be a creationist professor that teaches there that I can find for you (PM me).

Papa Giorgio 05-30-2003 01:27 PM Antrax, are you a contingent being? How could this be denied?

Papa Giorgio 05-30-2003 01:46 PM Time-Travel Loops Quote: Ref: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/d...s/tachyons.html · If it were the case that Lincoln was assassinated and I can possibly eat ice cream, then were I to do so, it would be the case that Lincoln was assassinated and I eat ice cream. Here Lincoln's death and my eating ice cream are totally unrelated, and so whether or not I eat does not affect Lincoln's death. Analogously, the construction and proper functioning of the rocket have no effect upon the structure of space-time. Hence, if the timelike loops exist and the rocket and so forth are possible, then it seems that it would be true that, if the rocket were to exist, both the loops and the rocket would exist, which results in a self-inhibiting situation. But, since it is impossible that, were the rocket to exist and function properly, then both it and the time loops would exist, it follows that it must be impossible for the time loops to exist and the rocket to be possible. Since the rocket is possible, necessarily the time loops do not exist. The crucial difference between these two cases, however, is that, although both lack a relation of conditionship between the earlier and later states of affairs, the time-travel case involves contradictory states of affairs, which the other does not. A backtracking counterfactual is therefore required in the time-travel case, not because the time loops are conditioned by later events, but because the envisaged situation does not obtain in any possible world; that is, there simply is no world in which both states obtain. The closest worlds to the actual world in which the rocket exists and functions properly must be worlds in which time loops do not exist. Therefore, a backtracking counterfactual is here in order, even under the standard resolution of vagueness and in the absence of any relation of conditionship between antecedent and consequent, despite the feeling of disquiet with which one is left.

CrazyMofo 05-30-2003 07:19 PM Papa Giorgio the thing is you never post your own thoughts on the matter. All you do is post huge chunks of text from other sources. Just once i'd like you to tell me how you feel and some points of why you think your worldview is correct. Because I haven't seen a single point yet to support design theory or the existence of god.

Giaddon 05-30-2003 11:42 PM Papa GiorgioG: Quote: However, when I started to actually look into the matter myself, I was told that the evidence was so massive that any “intellectual” person would be a fool not to accept it. Naturally I didn’t want to be a fool. So when I finally started to dig for this evidence, all I turned up were a lot of “soft” theories about how things “might have happened.” There was no solid empirical evidence for evolution. And after many years of reading, and looking into the matter, I found more evidence for the creation model and evidence for God’s existence than rock turning into man (the atheists Bible). The reason we have "soft theories" is that we understand the limits of our knowledge. Just because we don't know "X" doesn't make it true. The Theory of Evolution, for example, is a process that occurs over billions of years, there is no way anyone can have a solid handle on reality. It is infinitely complex, beyond our understanding. Anyone who states that they know the whole truth is a fool. Science continually probes and ponders, and continually learns new things. The Bible simply declares things to "be" and has no room for new ideas; the very definition of foolishness (I know it isn't literally, work with me here). For something to be considered a "theory" or "true" in the scientific community is by repeatable and observable examples. The ONLY way that creation could be proved is to witness this act of creation (in person, through fossil records, etc.). This has not been done. There have been many examples of creatures evolving. Is evolution a fact? Probably not, but it's on the right track. Quote: God cannot fail to exist. God exists necessarily. It is God’s essential nature to exist... No other explanation for God is either necessary or possible. Papa Giorgio, you seem like an intelligent person. So I am baffled as to why you would site this guy in a debate. I mean, "God cannot fail to exist"? "No other explanation is necessary"? Talk about guys not opening their eyes and looking for the truth... That's a statement, not an argument. There is no proof, no reasoning, just this guy saying that God is there. Anyone with half a brain can see that this guy is illogical and silly. And I hope you can too. SirZap: I cannot respond. Your answer nimbly evades all semblance of logic and organization (both of them). o_O

Cladmir 05-31-2003 02:00 AM Bah, the bitterness form religious discussions. Now I understand why my dad classified it as one of the item on the list of "topic not to be brought up during conversations." Or maybe I am just wierd and therefore it's just me who feels that many of the posts seems to to have this "pissied-off" aura flowing out from them. Back to why am I posting here: A lot of you outright deny the existence of God based of various reasons. I seems to me, however, that sometimes there's this reference to religious institutions, and it seems that some people are more or less not happy about these institutions, and subsequently, their image of their Supreme Being (God). So let me ask you this: Do you disbelieve in God or in the human institution(s)? Now I am going to add-on to Giaddon's point for my next reason as to why I am posting here. Giaddon has the correct idea about scientific theories, which have two basic characteristics (which goes somewhat like this according my blurry memory, but I am very positive about it): 1) The theory has to be able to describe what it attempts to explain correctly. 2) Accurate predictions can be done through the theory. Do you see anything that says that "scientific theory" actually exist elsewhere beside in our mind? Eventhough a number of scientists may claim and want believe that their "scientific theories" describe events occuring in our universe correctly and that those theories should, in fact, be the same as the LAWS that govern our universe. But of course, the scientific community is always caution enough not to move any recent "theories" into "laws" because of the embarrassment that will occur if someone disproves those laws. It's a good thing that Newton's Laws of Motions only needed slight modifications (for systems at very high velocity) to make it compatible to Special Theory of Relativity. Likewise goes to why the theories of relativity are still "theories" even if they've successfully answered and expalined to much. For example: If *somehow* the number of flies in my house each day can be used to calculate and accurately predict the number of people who dies from cancer per day over some period of time and has not once failed after careful observations then I could create a scientic theory out of it! Basically, scientific theories are the best way we have to explain what's going on around us, that's it. Now I am NOT siding on any side of the whether God exist or not, or if we can prove his existence or not. After the last time I stuck my head into this forum and got to read many of these religious arguements, I've been going to various religious institutions (mainly Christian), and studying others with the little free time I had so that I could perhaps find something. Well, I still have no opinion/standpoint on the issue. Basically put "maybe" infront of all your arguements and that's about it. :) Also, perhaps you should know that one of the way we can verify theories based on math is to derive it from fundamental equations. There is no way, however, to derive these fundamental equations (F = ma is a fundamental quation) from anything. They are there simply because they have been countlessly verified through observations. Disprove a fundamental equation through observation and you can bring down an entire field of science. I mentioned that because I just showed you how it *might* be impossible to prove/disprove something through something other than observation (unless God menifested and proclaimed it to be true). But that too, doesn't always hold true. Not able to observe a black hole didn't disprove its existence because it was *predicted* be General Theory of Relativity.l I'll stop now.

Papa Giorgio 05-31-2003 02:07 AM Mofo, you said: · “Because I haven't seen a single point yet to support design theory or the existence of god.” First of all, I have referenced two DVD’s you should buy, it is all the evidence you need. Secondly, you already said there is no proof available to me to even get. Again, for the existence of God using the laws of logic and thought: Quote: · Based on Sufficient Reason P1) A contingent being exists. · a. This contingent being is caused either (1) by itself, or (2) by another. b. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible. P2) Therefore, this contingent being (2) is caused by another, i.e., depends on something else for its existence. P3) That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (3) another contingent being, or (4) a non-contingent being (necessary) being. c. If 3, then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so onto infinity. P4) Therefore, that which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (5) an infinite series of contingent beings, or (4) a necessary being. P5) An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being. P6) Therefore, a necessary being (4) exists! · Based on the Principle of Existential Causality 1. Some limited, changing being[s] exist. 2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another. 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being. 4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings. 5. This first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchangeable and one. 6. This first uncaused Cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition · A mix of both 1. Something exists (e.g., I do); 2. I am a contingent being; 3. Nothing cannot cause something; 4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being; 5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being; 6. But I am personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities); 7. Therefore this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy; 8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction; 9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way; 10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings); 11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (=infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists; 12. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God; 13. Therefore, the theistic God exists. I said I would show you some IDT stuff later, and I will still do that, however, I will throw you a bone now: Quote: Professor Werner Gitt – Director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology – tells us that: · “The highest information density known to us is that of DNA molecules…. The storage capacity of DNA, the information carriers of living things, is 4.5 x 10(to the 13th power) times more effective than a megachip!… The sum total of knowledge currently stored in the libraries of the world is estimated at 10(to the 18th power) bits. If this information could be stored in DNA molecules, 1% of the volume of a pinhead would be sufficient for this purpose. If, on the other hand, this information were to be stored with aid of megachips, we would need a pile higher than the distance between the earth and the moon.” The DNA molecule, of which even the simplest – some would say the most “primitive” – forms of life are composed, is thus 45 million million times more efficient at holding and conveying information than a megachip. This is because the DNA molecule is an incredibly complex three-dimensional information storage system, where the megachip is only two-dimensional. But the DNA molecules ability to store and convey such inconceivably large amounts of information so efficiently does not tell us where the itself comes from. What is the source of that? Information Theory, of which Professor Gitt is one of the world’s leading exponents, is an important branch of scientific investigation which has shown conclusively and consistently that information cannot and does not arise from any state of non-information, just as life cannot proceed from non-life. Moreover, information has now come to be recognized as the Third Fundamental Quantity of the universe, which hitherto was thought to consist of merely two fundamental quantities, those of matter and energy. The DNA molecule is, of course, matter. Its activities are funded by energy. But the information that it carries is something else entirely. In other words, it is not sufficient to have only matter and energy for DNA to work. What is also required, at least to begin with, is a massive input of information for which matter and energy can give no account, and which neither of them can supply. Again, Professor Gitt: · “According to Norbert Wiener, the founder of cybernetics and information theory, information cannot be of a physical nature, even though it is transmitted by physical means: ‘Information in information, neither matter nor energy. No materialism that fails to take account of this can survive the present day’.” Because of the increasing disillusionment with the role of chance, a shift took place in the late 60’s and the 70’s to the view that life was somehow the inevitable outcome of nature’s laws at work over vast spans of time. Terms such as “directed chance” and “biochemical predestination” have entered the scientific literature to mean that life was somehow the result of the inherent properties of matter. But more discomforting still to the materialist, is not just the recent discovery of information to be the Third Fundamental Quantity, but rather the startling realization of its source: · “If a basic code is found in any system, it can be concluded that the system originated from a mental concept, and did not arise by chance…. Meanings always represent mental concepts. They are distinct from matter and energy. They originate from an intelligent source. It is by means of language that information may be stored and transmitted on physical carriers. The information itself is invariant…. The reason for this invariance lies in its non-material nature.” It would seem then that while some materialists have been busy looking in all the wrong places, certain physicists have stumbled upon the Mind of God. The problem with most of modern science is that the philosophy of reductionism is the ruling paradigm. According to George Williams, a scientist of some stature in the evolutionary community, the crucial object of selection in evolution is inherently non-material: · “Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter…. These two domains can never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term ‘reductionism.’ … The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, its not the message…. Just the fact that fifteen years ago I started using a computer may have had something to do with my ideas here. The constant process of transferring information from one physical medium to another and then being able to recover the same information in the original medium brings home the separability of information and matter. In biology, when you’re talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you’re talking about information, not physical objective reality.” Perhaps evolutionary biologists have avoided noticing that information and matter are fundamentally different things because that insight is fatal to the whole reductionist project in biology. If the message is truly not reducible to the medium, then trying to explain the creation of the information by a materialistic theory is simply a category mistake. One might as well try to explain the origin of a literary work by invoking the chemical laws that govern the combining of ink and paper, and then proposing speculative hypotheses about how those laws (with boost from chance but without intelligence) might have generated meaningful sentences.

Papa Giorgio 05-31-2003 02:22 AM Giaddon, you said: · “The Theory of Evolution, for example, is a process that occurs over billions of years” If this did in fact occur, then we should find fossil evidence of it. I clearly made that point in my papers on the fossil evidence for humans and also intermediate fossils in general. And, I have shown, which shows you haven’t read my paper, that the fossil record fits better with the creation model than with the evolutionary one. Read my paper Giaddon. When you say “the Bible simply declares things to "be" and has no room for new ideas,” I am sure that Newton, Keppler, Pascal, Bacon, Boyl, Steno, Burnet, and others of the past, would disagree with you. · http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/...ult.asp#pastsci http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/....asp#presentsci You said, “There have been many examples of creatures evolving.” No there isn’t. As for William Lane Craig, you can buy any one of his video taped debates with the leading philosophers and atheists of our day, and see him slice and dice them up in front of university crowds. · http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/m.../resources.html P.S. Human / Ape Proof of Evolution? This is where my two papers are found in the opening.

El_Chupacabra 05-31-2003 04:46 AM I really, really hate to bring this back up especially since its been drowned out by Papa Giorgio and Mofo's bickering but Andwarf if you can tell me whether the stupid cat is alive or dead i will back down. Also the comment that it is neither, would mean that the cat is neither alive nor dead. How the heck is that possible? Did the cat simple cease to exist? Also i think its just fabulous that you dont know how many people are in China but i must say that that little factoid is in no way related to the paradox at hand, you see because the paradox at hand involves two states of being not what you know and do not know. As for needing proof to prove that something does not exist, where's my ten legged dog?!

Preator Antrax 05-31-2003 06:54 AM Quote: Originally posted by Papa Giorgio@May 30th 2003, 09:22 PM Giaddon, you said: · “The Theory of Evolution, for example, is a process that occurs over billions of years” If this did in fact occur, then we should find fossil evidence of it. I clearly made that point in my papers on the fossil evidence for humans and also intermediate fossils in general. And, I have shown, which shows you haven’t read my paper, that the fossil record fits better with the creation model than with the evolutionary one. Read my paper Giaddon. So you're saying that fossil records showing that one species slowly disappeared parallel with the rise of a very similar but in some ways better suited species shows absolutely no reasoning to believe that through genetic variation and mutation the species evolved. And that instead it shows better reasoning that God killed all of the less suitable species and replaced it with a better species. I'm sorry but I don't think that the fossils prove either correct, but give good logical reasoning to accept the evolutionary theory. PS. Please put some of your own opinions in your posts. Sheesh, one of my friends is convinced that you're a bot. He's actually explained how he could created a bot that does the exact thing that you do. o_O

Papa Giorgio 05-31-2003 07:12 AM Similar? For instance, the bat appears in the fossil record fully formed and functional, no half-bat/half-lizard precedes it (or whatever would precede it). The T-rex appears fully formed in the fossil record, and then disappears. The bird, the honeybee, the tarantula, etc., etc. · “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists… as a fatal objection to the belief of the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, that fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection. For the development by this means of a group of forms all of which are (according to the theory) descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long before their modified descendants.” That was Charles Darwin. Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s “bulldog,” also realized the importance of this issue when he wrote: “If it could be shown that this fact [gaps between widely distinct groups] had always existed, the fact would be fatal to the doctrine of evolution.” Absence of transitional forms was a continuing problem for Darwin, as it is for paleontologists today. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, make this abundantly clear with this statement: · “He [Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would, and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences…. Darwin’s general solution to the incompatibility of fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one…. We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America [still on display in the Los Angeles Natural History Museum], have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.” Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, probably evolution’s leading spokesperson today, has acknowledged: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” Anthropologist Edmund R. Leach told the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science: “Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” George Gaylord Simpson, perhaps the twentieth century’s foremost paleontologist, said: “This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate.” Dr. Steven Stanley of the department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, John Hopkins University, says: “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic [structural] transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.” Professor Heribert Nilsson, Director of the Botanical Institute at Lund University, Sweden, declared after forty years of study in this field: · “It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.” Gareth J. Nelson, of the American Museum of Natural History: “It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil ‘group’ can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another. The ancestor-descendant relationship may only be assumed to have existed in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise.” Well known British zoologist Mark Ridley declares: “…no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.” Quote: Just some quotes from the already posted paper elsewhere. You will take note that Giaddons’ and Antraxs’ debate is not with me, or with the creationist community, it is with the evolutionists themselves who are specialists in their field.

Papa Giorgio 05-31-2003 07:18 AM Antrax, did you see the Futurama where Fry thought he was a robot, and Leela tried to snap him out of it by planting one on him (kissing him)? Well, all I have to say is, “ …Beeep.”

SirZap 05-31-2003 03:07 PM Giadon What are we talking about is religion and therefore faith, the 2 goes together. So it would be elusive for you using your own perception and mindset to understand religion. I apologize for my organization, but surely you have an idea of what I am saying. I still have logic but it goes together with faith. :p

Harbinger 05-31-2003 04:30 PM I'd just like to poke my head into this debate to state that Papa Giorgio is ripping you guys apart. You're using sophomoric arguments that have been regurgitated by your equally uneducated peers. Frankly you have your heads up your asses; you're ignoring the very evidence you claim to have been waiting for, because you are committed to a position. That's bad form for any kind of intellectual. It's your perogative to wallow in ignorance, but if I were you I'd open your mind a little... or a lot.

Andwarf 05-31-2003 10:27 PM Quote: Originally posted by El_Chupacabra@May 30th 2003, 09:46 PM I really, really hate to bring this back up especially since its been drowned out by Papa Giorgio and Mofo's bickering but Andwarf if you can tell me whether the stupid cat is alive or dead i will back down. Also the comment that it is neither, would mean that the cat is neither alive nor dead. How the heck is that possible? Did the cat simple cease to exist? Also i think its just fabulous that you dont know how many people are in China but i must say that that little factoid is in no way related to the paradox at hand, you see because the paradox at hand involves two states of being not what you know and do not know. As for needing proof to prove that something does not exist, where's my ten legged dog?! I cannot tell you whether or not the cat is dead or alive. I can tell you that those are the two possible states the cat could be in and that the cat is not in both states. I don't know how many people there are in China, be it more than two billion, or less than two billion, but just because I don't know, does not make the number BOTH more and less than two billion.

Papa Giorgio 06-01-2003 09:02 PM It is quite comical that many here ask for evidence, and I give them many, but they still, a priori, reject it because they are already committed to a philosophy of life (worldview). I just posted this elsewhere, but I will post it here to show as an example how these worldviews will blind someone to evidence, the evidence they have been asking for (in a demeaning tone) all their lives. Quote: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” (Kansan State University immunologist, Scott Todd, correspondence to Nature, 410 [6752], 30 September, 1999). I will illustrate with a mock conversation between a science professor and a student: · Professor: “Miracles are impossible Papa Giorgio, don’t you know science has disproven them, how could you believe in them [i.e., answered prayer, a man being raised from the dead, etc.].” Student: “for clarity purposes I wish to get some definitions straight. *Would it be fair to say that science is generally defined as ‘the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us’?” Professor: “Beautifully put, that is the basic definition of science in every text-book I read through my Doctoral journey.” Student: “Wouldn’t you also say that a good definition of a miracle would be ‘and event in nature caused by something outside of nature’?” Professor: “Yes, that would be an acceptable definition of ‘miracle.’” Student: “But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you wish to call it], you are ‘forced’ to conclude that miracles are impossible” (Norman L. Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions About the Christian Faith. *Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House (2001), pp. 63-64). So an honest “atheist” [or, philosphical naturalist] would realize that his position is philosophical / presuppositional (presuppose – to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance), and not rationally nor logically defensible. Plato was right, “atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of the mind.” *Another syllogistic example is in order before we go on to deal with agnosticism. *The atheist can be shown that his starting point – presupposition – interferes with how he views evidence; much like the above example, biased philosophy is the guiding force rather than systematic investigation: · Premise: Since there is no God, Conclusion: all theistic proofs are invalid. Premise: Since the theistic proofs are invalid, Conclusion: there is no God. (Robert A. Morey, The New Atheism: And the Erosion of Freedom. *Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R (1986), p. 57.) Ref: My paper on atheism

Giaddon 06-02-2003 12:25 AM Quote: Student: “But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you wish to call it], you are ‘forced’ to conclude that miracles are impossible” This is why debating religion is absurd. No matter what I, as an atheist, argue, you can simply respond “God did it” or “God made it so”. I am forced to constrict my arguments to the physical world, to things that can be repeatabley tested, while you have the freedom to transcend logic with “miracles”.

SirZap 06-02-2003 12:50 AM OK...... I'm setting aside my personal religious beliefs and present you with another point of view. Remember the topic is "Religion: Search for Religious Knowledge". Please take note that in Confucianism and Buddhism, both religions states no Deity or accepts there is but does not discuss it. Particularly, Confucius, founder of Confucianism, focuses more on social relations. He only states worship of ancestors but not to a particular deity. Buddha on ther hand, focuses on oneself, inner peace, and ascetic style of living. Buddha and Confucius, therefore does not deny nor confirm existence of GOD or a Deity. But some schools of buddhism also tells sotries of Buddhas Ascension , before reaching it he has to dabae intelectually against demons and by defeating them thus he attained Nirvana ( I don't know how Curt Cobain got to do with this :p ). For atheists and agnostics we can start from here.

CrazyMofo 06-02-2003 01:26 AM Quote: Originally posted by Giaddon@Jun 1st 2003, 07:25 PM Quote: Student: “But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you wish to call it], you are ‘forced’ to conclude that miracles are impossible” This is why debating religion is absurd. No matter what I, as an atheist, argue, you can simply respond “God did it” or “God made it so”. I am forced to constrict my arguments to the physical world, to things that can be repeatabley tested, while you have the freedom to transcend logic with “miracles”. Very well put Giaddon, I have been trying to say this for a long time.

SirZap 06-02-2003 03:55 AM Quote: CrazyMofo Quote: Student: “But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you wish to call it], you are ‘forced’ to conclude that miracles are impossible” This is why debating religion is absurd. No matter what I, as an atheist, argue, you can simply respond “God did it” or “God made it so”. I am forced to constrict my arguments to the physical world, to things that can be repeatabley tested, while you have the freedom to transcend logic with “miracles”. Very well put Giaddon, I have been trying to say this for a long time. To CrazyMofo and Giadon: I agree, human logic/science is bound within our physical world, perceptible only by human senses. Also, logic dictates that since this is a "Religion: Search for religious knowledge" thread, I believe we should minimize debating. The search should also be experiential/subjective, not just by limited logic. Logic in itself is limited by data present to us or to which we are aware. Furthermore, we are presenting religion in a table top manner. I suggest that please operate to the paradigms to which a particular religious thinking is bound so we can appreciate its own uniqueness. Again, you can subscribe to some knowledge from "confucianism" as it more focuses on everyday living rather than worshipping and describing a deity or some supernatural being(s). In addition, religion is like science, it is a product of humans as it tries to explain some phenomena. But as human knowledge exploded exponentially we have verified some beliefs are truly absurd, such as sacredness of cow in hindus. If you want your religion to be scientifically-based, I think the bible has enough scientific proofs to reach a claim at par with science. Our current morality and laws are shaped by religion, as religion is a major source of basis for morality. Please also take note that most of our laws are somewhat a mixture of Judeo-Christian ethic sprinkled with some secularism. :)

Preator Antrax 06-02-2003 07:58 AM Quote: Originally posted by Papa Giorgio@Jun 1st 2003, 04:02 PM It is quite comical that many here ask for evidence, and I give them many, but they still, a priori, reject it because they are already committed to a philosophy of life (worldview). I just posted this elsewhere, but I will post it here to show as an example how these worldviews will blind someone to evidence, the evidence they have been asking for (in a demeaning tone) all their lives. Quote: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” (Kansan State University immunologist, Scott Todd, correspondence to Nature, 410 [6752], 30 September, 1999). I will illustrate with a mock conversation between a science professor and a student: · Professor: “Miracles are impossible Papa Giorgio, don’t you know science has disproven them, how could you believe in them [i.e., answered prayer, a man being raised from the dead, etc.].” Student: “for clarity purposes I wish to get some definitions straight. *Would it be fair to say that science is generally defined as ‘the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us’?” Professor: “Beautifully put, that is the basic definition of science in every text-book I read through my Doctoral journey.” Student: “Wouldn’t you also say that a good definition of a miracle would be ‘and event in nature caused by something outside of nature’?” Professor: “Yes, that would be an acceptable definition of ‘miracle.’” Student: “But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you wish to call it], you are ‘forced’ to conclude that miracles are impossible” (Norman L. Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions About the Christian Faith. *Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House (2001), pp. 63-64). So an honest “atheist” [or, philosphical naturalist] would realize that his position is philosophical / presuppositional (presuppose – to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance), and not rationally nor logically defensible. Plato was right, “atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of the mind.” *Another syllogistic example is in order before we go on to deal with agnosticism. *The atheist can be shown that his starting point – presupposition – interferes with how he views evidence; much like the above example, biased philosophy is the guiding force rather than systematic investigation: · Premise: Since there is no God, Conclusion: all theistic proofs are invalid. Premise: Since the theistic proofs are invalid, Conclusion: there is no God. (Robert A. Morey, The New Atheism: And the Erosion of Freedom. *Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R (1986), p. 57.) Ref: My paper on atheism I've read just as many books and articles which "prove" that all the stuff you are posting is a load of crap. And so I find that it is much more logical to take a middle ground and accept that there is a possibility that a god exists, yet equally there is a possibility than no god exists. Everything you've posted can be countered, and I've seen it countered, and then the counter can be countered, ad infinitum. That is the biggest problem with philosophical arguments, they tend to have no definate answer. And I think it's necessary to point out that your argument against the logic of atheists also applies to theists like yourself. Premise: Since there is a God, Conclusion: all theistic proofs are valid. Premise: Since the theistic proofs are valid, Conclusion: there is a God. Try as you might to disregard this, you demonstrate an equally closed mind in these issues as any of these hardcase atheists. You're just on the other side.

Papa Giorgio 06-02-2003 01:54 PM Giaddon said: · “This is why debating religion is absurd. No matter what I, as an atheist, argue, you can simply respond “God did it” or “God made it so”. I am forced to constrict my arguments to the physical world, to things that can be repeatabley tested, while you have the freedom to transcend logic with “miracles”.” I wish to repeat, “I am forced to constrict my arguments to the physical world, to things that can be repeatabley tested, while you have the freedom to transcend logic with “miracles”.” I have already posted this… please, read it carefully this time Giaddon: One of the nation's most eminent biologists, Keith Stewart Thompson, has stated: · "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some two to ten million species on Earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between three and five million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations and extinctions every decade." But, of course, we do not see that. (From the article "Natural Selection and Evolution's Gun," American Scientist, Vol. 85, Nov/Dec 1997, p. 516) Quote: · Science First Definition Here is a dictionary definition. Many people assume that when we use the word "science," we are talking about this definition. In my opinion, it's a pretty good definition, and it would be good if we all meant this definition when we used the word "science." In general, when you see the word "science" in these pages, this is the definition. · "Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied." (Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language) Implied in this definition is the idea that conclusions are made on the basis of empirical evidence (i.e., evidence that comes from experimentation and observation). Thus, a true "scientist" is someone who studies a part of the world around him for evidence that he then uses to draw conclusions about the world he lives in. Few people should have trouble with this definition of science. Second Definition However, there are many who use the term "science" to refer to a way of looking at the world. To them, the word "science" refers to a philosophical mindset. Their definition of science might be something like this. · "An understanding that matter is the only true reality in the world and that everything in the world can be explained only in terms of this matter. An understanding that the natural world contains everything that is real and of value." Now it should be easy to see that if someone who adheres to this second definition of "science" hears me refer to the fact that the empirical evidence points to the fact that this world must have had a Creator, they will cry, "That is not science! That is religion!" They are using a definition of science that, by definition, excludes the concept of a Creator. They believe, in essence, that their philosophy of life (or religion) of materialism and naturalism is "science" and that the Christian philosophy of life (or religion) is "religion." In fact, both materialism and Christianity can be thought of as philosophies of life. One must examine the evidence closely to ascertain which "philosophy" most closely fits the evidence that exists in the world around us. (And, in fact, one can do "good science" [first definition!] and still adhere to either "philosophy"--or some other philosophy--of life.) I can argue all day that "science" (first definition) points to a Creator, but they will have none of it because they claim that "science" (second definition) allows no room for the concept of a Supernatural Creator! This is the very reason you hear so many people on television "nature programs" and in high school biology textbooks talk as though the natural world is all that there is. They believe that to imply that a Creator might be involved in all this would be to deny "science" (second definition, of course). I would suggest that we need to do our little part to insist that the first definition of science (above) is the only valid definition. And I would suggest that those who use the word "science" to mean the second definition should be required to use a different word--a word that shows that they are really talking about their philosophy or their religion. They are talking about the philosophy (or "religion" if you please!) of materialism or naturalism. We must not let them get away with taking a good word ("science") and redefining it to mean "materialism" or "naturalism!" (And then claim that anyone who disagrees with them is trying to replace "science" [second definition] with religion!). The philosophy of Naturalism is a world-view that is built on an unverifiable assumption. Strictly speaking, neither evolution nor creation are empirical science, nor can they be. This is evident in that they both seek to address the question of life's origin, something that cannot be repeated nor put into a test tube. Neither theory is subject to repeatable experimentation or observable processes. However, both can be described as forensic science, in that they seek to reconstruct a theory about a past event based on empirical data presently observed. Origin science, whether evolutionism or creationism, is analogous to what forensic specialists do at a crime scene and what archaeologists do on a dig. Most importantly, both theories are first and foremost a philosophical framework for interpreting the data. One of the primary flaws with evolutionists is their stubborn propensity to confuse the data itself with data-interpretation. The very same data is viewed by both evolutionists and non-evolutionists, but because each is working within a different paradigm the interpretive conclusions are very different. Yet evolutionists call their own (naturalist) interpretation "science" and the non-evolutionist interpretation "faith." If naturalism is assumed, then any notion of Intelligent Design is automatically excluded by very definition. But if evolution is actually bad philosophy, we are left with a nagging question. If science excludes Design, and yet there is in fact a Designer, then how will anyone ever know? If our idea of science excludes God outright, and He in fact exists, then our "science" is forever damned to be riddled with error. This is a simple logical conclusion, and I am amazed that it is so rarely considered. Currently, the situation with the debate is rather ironic. We have come full circle, back to Inherit the Wind. Yet the characterization of the creationists as closed-minded with a "don't confuse me with the facts" attitude is now the position occupied by the evolutionists. The situation has entirely reversed. Furthermore, the evolutionists are every bit as interested in maintaining the popular philosophy of materialistic naturalism as the early creationists were in defending the Bible. Quote: From a theistic perspective, Darwinism as a general theory is not empirical at all. It is a child of naturalistic or positivistic philosophy, which defines science as the attempt to explain the world without allowing any role to theological or providential activity. Positivism in this sense requires science to have at least a vague theory about everything really important. To produce the required theory, scientists are allowed, if necessary, to make simplifying assumptions or even to overlook difficult aspects of the problem. Even a particularly frustrating problem, such as the origin of life on earth, is considered to be solved in principle once scientists think they have some plausible general notion about how the thing might have happened. The spirit of positivistic science is illustrated by James Trefil's summary of the evolution of life in his recent book, 1000 Things Everyone Should Know About Science: · Evolution of life on earth proceeded in two stages: chemical and biological. Life on earth must have developed from inorganic materials- what else was there for it to come from? The first stage in the development of life, therefore, was the production of a reproducing cell from materials at hand on the early earth. This process is called chemical evolution.... Once a living, reproducing system was present, the process of natural selection took over to produce the wide variety of life that exists today. That sort of reasoning seems unimpeachable to metaphysical naturalists; fully naturalistic chemical and biological evolution happened because nothing else could have happened. A theist, on the other hand, has no reason to accept the plausibility of either chemical evolution or creative natural selection in the absence of a convincing empirical demonstration. Because Darwinism has its roots in metaphysical naturalism, it is not consistent to accept Darwinism and then to give it a theistic interpretation. Theistic evolutionists are continually confused on this point because they think that Darwinism is an empirical doctrine-i.e., that it rests fundamentally on observation. If that were the case, it is hard to see how any observations of evolution or natural selection in action could rule out the possibility that Darwinian evolution is God's way of creating. Nothing about the observed variations in the beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands, or in the increased survival rate of dark melanic moths during periods when the background trees were darkened by industrial smoke, discredits a theistic interpretation of evolution. If one assumes that confidence in the ability of Darwinian selection to create entirely new kinds of animals is based on observations like those, then obviously atheism or metaphysical naturalism is not a necessary implication of Darwinism. This mistaken premise leads theistic evolutionists to the conclusion that they can accept George Gaylord Simpson's "scientific" statement-i.e., that mutation and selection did the work of creation-and reject his "philosophical" conclusion that the universe is purposeless. The flaw in that logic is that the purportedly scientific statement was inferred from the philosophical conclusion rather than the other way around. The empirical evidence in itself is inadequate to prove the necessary creative power of natural selection without a decisive boost from the philosophical assumption that only unintelligent and purposeless processes operated in nature before the evolution of intelligence. Darwinists know that natural selection created the animal groups that sprang suddenly to life in the Cambrian rocks (to pick a single example) not because observation supports this conclusion but because naturalistic philosophy permits no alternative. What else was available to do the job? Certainly not God-because the whole point of positivistic science is to explain the history of life without giving God a place in it. In short, the reason that Darwinism and theism are incompatible is not that God could not have used evolution by natural selection to create. Darwinian evolution might seem unbiblical to some, or an unlikely method for God to use, but it is always possible that God might do something that confounds our expectations. The contradiction between Darwinism and theism is at a deeper level. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible. To know that is to know that God does not exist, or at least that God cannot create. To infer that Darwinism is true because there is no creator God, and then to interpret Darwinism as God's method of creating, is to engage in self-contradiction. I have two concluding points. First, the contradiction between Darwinism and theism is not necessarily evident to people who have only a superficial acquaintance with Darwinism. That explains why 40 percent of the American public believes in a God-guided evolution and thinks, no doubt, that this position satisfactorily reconciles science and religion. The contradiction sinks in when a person assimilates Darwinist ways of thinking and sees how antithetical they are to theism. That is why Darwin in his own time and his successors today have generally felt that theistic evolutionists were missing the point. Theistic evolutionists protest (correctly) that a creative role for natural selection does not rule out the possibility of God, but they fail to understand that the entire outlook of positivistic science is profoundly incompatible with the existence of a supernatural creator who takes an active role in the natural world. My second concluding point is that it is risky for Darwinists to be candid about the implications of their theory for theistic religion. I don't mean simply that the anti-theistic bluster put about by people like William Provine and Carl Sagan arouses opposition, although that is an important consideration. I am thinking of an intellectual problem. The all-purpose defense that Darwinists invoke when their theory is under attack is to invoke what I called in my earlier address "Dobzhansky's rules," the rules of positivistic science. That is, they say that "science" is defined as the search for naturalistic explanations for all phenomena and that any other activity is "not science." This position is sustainable only on the assumption that "science" is just one knowledge game among many, and theists suffer no great loss if they have to go and play in another game called "religion." The problem is that the games do not have equivalent status. The science game has government support and control of the public educational establishment. Everybody's children, theists and non-theists alike, are to be taught that "evolution is a fact." This implies that everything contrary to "evolution,'' specifically the existence of a God who takes a role in creation, is false. If "evolution" has strong anti-theistic implications, the theists in the political community are entitled to ask whether what Darwinists promulgate as "evolution," is really true. The answer, "That's the way we think in Science," is not an adequate response. Over 40 years ago, C.S. Lewis noted the tendency of scientists to rally around naturalism, not because of the evidence, but because they fear the alternative: · "The Bergsonian critique of orthodox Darwinism is not easy to answer. More disquieting still is D.M.S. Watson's defense. ‘Evolution itself,’ he wrote, ‘is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.’ Has it come to that? Does the whole cast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but keep out God?” ~ C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory In an article entitled, “Naturalism Is An Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry,” what I’ve been saying is quite bluntly stated: “Naturalism is, ironically, a controversial philosophy. Our modern civilization depends totally for its existence and future survival on the methods and fruits of science, naturalism is the philosophy that science created and that science now follows with such success, yet the great majority of humans (at least 90% of the U.S. population) believe in the antithesis of naturalism--supernaturalism. Our culture persistently indulges and celebrates supernaturalism, and most people, including some scientists, refuse to systematically understand naturalism and its consequences.” And I posit, that when the majority defines what they think science is, it is by no means religiously neutral. As the immediately above quote shows. The below is an excellent article, I will give just one example of the three mentioned. Quote: Is Science Religiously Neutral? Three Examples (Actually, only one will suffice) Simon and Altruism First, then, some examples that suggest that science is not religiously neutral. I begin with Herbert Simon's article, "A Mechanism for Social Selection and Successful Altruism." This article is concerned with the problem of altruism: Why, asks Simon, do people like Mother Teresa do the things that they do? Why do they devote their time and energy and indeed their entire lives to the welfare of other people? Of course it isn't only the great saints of the world that display this impulse; most of us do so to one degree or another. How, says Simon, can we account for this kind of behavior? The rational way to behave, he says, is to act or try to act in such a way as to increase one's personal fitness; i.e., to act so as to increase the probability that one's genes will be widely disseminated in the next and subsequent generation, thus doing well in the evolutionary derby. A paradigm of rational behavior, so conceived, was reported in the South Bend Tribune of December 21, l991 (dateline Alexandria (Va.)). "Cecil B. Jacobson, an infertility specialist, was accused of using his own sperm to impregnate his patients; he may have fathered as many as 75 children, a prosecutor said Friday." Unlike Jacobson, however, such people as Mother Teresa and Thomas Aquinas cheerfully ignore the short- or long-term fate of their genes. What is the explanation of this behavior? The answer, says Simon, is two mechanisms: "docility" and "bounded rationality": · Docile persons tend to learn and believe what they perceive others in the society want them to learn and believe. Thus the content of what is learned will not be fully screened for its contribution to personal fitness (p. 1666). Because of bounded rationality, the docile individual will often be unable to distinguish socially prescribed behavior that contributes to fitness from altruistic behavior [i. e., socially prescribed behavior that does not contribute to fitness--AP]. In fact, docility will reduce the inclination to evaluate independently the contributions of behavior to fitness. .... By virtue of bounded rationality, the docile person cannot acquire the personally advantageous learning that provides the increment, d, of fitness without acquiring also the altruistic behaviors that cost the decrement, c. (p. 1667). The idea is that a Mother Teresa or a Thomas Aquinas displays bounded rationality; they are unable to distinguish socially prescribed behavior that contributes to fitness from altruistic behavior (socially prescribed behavior which does not). As a result, they fail to acquire the personally advantageous learning that provides that increment d of fitness without, sadly enough, suffering that decrement c exacted by altruistic behavior. They acquiesce unthinkingly in what society tells them is the right way to behave; and they aren't quite up to making their own independent evaluation of the likely bearing of such behavior on the fate of their genes. If they did make such an independent evaluation (and were rational enough to avoid silly mistakes) they would presumably see that this sort of behavior does not contribute to personal fitness, drop it like a hot potato, and get right to work on their expected number of progeny. No Christian could accept this account as even a beginning of a viable explanation of the altruistic behavior of the Mother Teresas of this world. From a Christian perspective, this doesn't even miss the mark; it isn't close enough to be a miss. Behaving as Mother Teresa does is not a display of bounded rationality--as if, if she thought through the matter with greater clarity and penetration, she would cease this kind of behavior and instead turn her attention to her expected number of progeny. Her behavior displays a Christ-like spirit; she is reflecting in her limited human way the magnificent splendor of Christ's sacrificial action in the Atonement. (No doubt she is also laying up treasure in heaven). Indeed, is there anything a human being can do that is more rational than what she does? From a Christian perspective, the idea that her behavior is irrational (and so irrational that it needs to be explained in terms of such mechanisms as unusual docility and limited rationality!) is hard to take seriously. For from that perspective, behavior of the sort engaged in by Mother Teresa is anything but a manifestation of 'limited rationality'. On the contrary: her behavior is vastly more rational than that of someone who, like Cecil Jacobson, devotes his best efforts to seeing to it that his genes are represented in excelsis in the next and subsequent generations. Simon suggests or assumes that the rational course for a human being to follow is to try to increase her fitness. Rationality, however, is a deeply normative notion; the rational course is the right course, the one to be recommended, the one you ought to pursue. Simon, therefore, seems to be making a normative claim, or perhaps a normative assumption; it is a vital and intrinsic part of what he means to put forward. If so, however, can it really be part of science? Science is supposed to be non-evaluative, non-normative, non-prescriptive: it is supposed to give us facts, not values. Can this claim that the rational course is to pursue fitness then be part of science, of a scientific explanation, or a scientific enterprise? But perhaps there is a reply. What, exactly, does Simon mean here by such terms as “rational” and “rationality”? At least two things; for when he says that the rational course, for a human being, is to try to increase her fitness, he isn't using the term in the same way as when he says Mother Teresa and people like her suffer from bounded rationality. The latter means simply that people like this aren't quite up to snuff when it comes to intelligence, perspicacity, and the like; they are at least slightly defective with respect to acuteness. It is because of the lack of acuity that they fail to see that the socially prescribed behavior in question is really in conflict with their own best interests or the achievement of their own goals. This limited rationality is a matter of running a quart low, of playing with less than a full deck, of being such that the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor. When he says that the rational course for a human being is to strive to promote fitness, he presumably means something different by the term “rational”, namely, that a properly functioning human being, one not subject to malfunction (one that isn't insane, or retarded, or reacting to undue stress, or in the grip of some other malfunction or dysfunctional state) will as a matter of fact have certain goals, try to attain certain conditions, aim to bring about certain states of affairs. Presumably survival would be one of these goals; but another one, says Simon, is promoting or maximizing fitness. And there are two things to say about this claim. In the first place, we might ask what the evidence is that, as a matter of fact, properly functioning human beings do indeed all or nearly all display this goal. It isn't easy to see precisely how to answer this question. One suspects that a study done by way of the usual polling and questionnaire techniques wouldn't yield this result; most of the properly functioning people I know, anyway, wouldn't give as one of their main goals that of increasing their fitness. (Perhaps you will retort that this is because most of the people I know are past childbearing age, so that directly increasing their genetic representation in the next generations is no longer a live option. Of course they could do their best to see that they have a lot of grandchildren--judiciously distributed bribes, perhaps, or arranging circumstances so that their daughters will become pregnant, or encouraging their younger relatives to drop out of school and have children). But obviously there is always another option: we can say that the goals or aims in question aren't conscious, are not available to conscious inspection. They are rather to be determined by behavior. It is your behavior that reveals and demonstrates your goals, no matter what you say (and, indeed, no matter what you think). Well, perhaps so. It would still remain to be shown or argued that properly functioning human persons do as a matter of fact display in their behavior this goal of increasing their fitness--where, of course, we couldn't sensibly take their displaying this goal as a criterion of normality or proper function. As a matter of fact, Simon doesn't proceed in this way; his procedure, with respect to this question, is a priori rather than a posteriori. He doesn't tell us what it is that leads him to think that properly functioning human beings will have this goal, but one suspects his answer would be that human beings acquire this goal somehow by virtue of our evolutionary history. I suspect he thinks it would follow from any proper evolutionary account of human beings (and for many other species as well) that they have maximizing fitness as a goal. How exactly this story would go is perhaps not entirely clear; but for the moment we can ignore the difficulties. The second thing to say about this claim is that the same question arises with respect to it: isn't the idea of proper function itself a normative notion? There is a connected circle of notions here: proper function, health, normality (in the normative, not the descriptive sense) dysfunction, damage, design (a properly functioning lung is working the way lungs are designed to work), purpose, and the like. Perhaps none of these notions can be analyzed in terms of notions outside the charmed circle (so that this circle would resemble that involving the notions of necessity, possibility, entailment, possible worlds, and so on). And aren't these notions normative? Indeed, there is a use of 'ought' to go with them. When the starter button is pressed, the engine ought to turn over--i.e., if the relevant parts are functioning properly, the engine will turn over when the starter button is pressed. When you suffer a smallish laceration, a scab ought to form over the wound; that is, if the relevant parts of your body are functioning properly, a scab will form over the wound. A six-month-old baby ought to be able to raise its head and kick its feet simultaneously; that is, a healthy, normal (in the normative, not the statistical sense) six-month-old baby can do these things. Must we not concede, therefore, that this notion of proper function is itself a normative notion, so that if Simon uses 'rationality' in a way explicable only in terms of proper function, then what he says is indeed normative and thus not properly a part of science? Perhaps; but if the employment of the notion of normality or proper function is sufficient to disqualify a discourse from the title of science, then a lot more than Simon's account of altruism will turn out not to be science. Consider functional generalizations--the sorts of generalizations to be found in biological and psychological descriptions of the way in which human beings or other organic creatures work. As John Pollock points out, such generalizations seem to involve an implicit presupposition: · when we formulate similar generalizations about machines, the generalizations we formulate are really about how machines work when they work properly; or when they are not broken. Similarly it seems that generalizations about organisms should be understood as being about the way they work when they are “working normally.” Here “working normally” and “not being broken” mean something like “subject to no dysfunction” or “working properly” or “not malfunctioning”. Functional generalizations about organisms, therefore, say how they work when they are functioning properly. But of course biological and social science is full of functional generalizations. Thus, if Simon is appealing to the notion of proper function in his idea of rationality, he may be appealing to a kind of normativity; but that kind of normativity is widely found in science. Or, at any rate, it is widely found in what is called science. Some will maintain that the notion of proper function doesn't belong in science unless it can be explained, somehow, in other terms--finally, perhaps, in terms of the regularities studied in physics and chemistry. We need not enter that disputatious territory here; it is sufficient to note that if Simon is appealing to the notion of proper function, then what he does appeal to is in fact to be found over the length and breadth of the social and biological sciences. Therefore, we should not deny the title 'science' to what Simon does unless we are prepared to raise the same strictures with respect to most of the rest of what we think of as social and biological science. And even if we do say that Simonian science isn't really science, nothing substantive changes; my point will then be, not that religious considerations bear on science properly so-called, but rather that they bear on what is in fact called science, which is a very important, indeed, dominant part of our intellectual and cultural life. I shall therefore assume that Simonian science is science. So in Simon's account of altruism we have an example of a scientific theory that is clearly not neutral with respect to Christian commitment; indeed, it is inconsistent with it. Simon's theory also illustrates another and quite different way in which religious considerations are relevant to science; they bear on what we take it needs explanation. From Simon's perspective, it is altruism that needs explanation; from a Christian or theistic perspective, on the other hand, it is only to be expected that humans beings would sometimes act altruistically. Perhaps what needs explanation is the way in which human beings savage and destroy each other. Naturalism, materialism, whether metaphysical or otherwise, is dead in the water. It is a theory that has no explanatory power whatsoever. And when it presumes to have explanatory power, it is entirely anti-thetical to the Christian faith and worldview. A great quote by the senior paleontologist of the British Natural History Museum makes the point that I believe is the root of the problem, “Darwin’s evolutionary explanation of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress…. The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science…. I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling.” A myth, says my dictionary, is a real or fictional story that embodies the cultural ideals of a people or express deep, commonly felt emotions. By this definition, myths are generally good things – and the origin stories that paleontologists tell are necessarily myths (“Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad,” Natural History [1983]). I will end with this, when I say that the hypothesis of evolutionary origins has no explanatory power, what do I mean?… · Why then does the scientific theory of evolution hold on to a concept of chance to the degree it does? I suspect it is the fact that there is no alternative whatsoever that could explain the fact of universal evolution at least in principle, and be formulated within the framework of natural science [philosophical naturalism]. If no alternative should be forthcoming, if chance remains overtaxed, then the conclusion seems inevitable that evolution and therefore living beings cannot be grasped by natural science to the same extent as non-living things – not because organisms are so complex, but because the explaining mechanism is fundamentally inadequate. Bibliography http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/...m/chapter4.html http://www.str.org/free/studies/natural.htm http://www.flash.net/~thinkman/articles/evolution.htm http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9602/johnson.html http://www.icr.org/pubs/president/prz-0112.htm http://bdalby.freeyellow.com/naturalism.html http://www.aboundingjoy.com/define.htm http://www.gospelcom.net/faithfacts/evolution.html http://www.freeinquiry.com/naturalism.html http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/meth...at181.htm#text3 http://www.str.org/free/studies/natural.htm

Papa Giorgio 06-02-2003 01:56 PM Antrax, No, my premise is: · Premise: Since there is a possibility there might be a god, Conclusion: theistic proofs could be valid. Premise: Since human logic necessitates a necessary being, Conclusion: God is that necessary being. Antrax, you said, “I've read just as many books and articles which "prove" that all the stuff you are posting is a load of crap.” Which books and articles Antrax? If you asked of me the same question, as specifically as I have asked it, I could give a list of books and articles that have made an impression on me. I could also give you a list of books and articles I have read from the opposing viewpoint. This is important, and shows a level of maturity (open mindedness) that I fear most here don’t wish to acknowledge they have foregone. You have yet to explain how P1 is invalid? · Based on Sufficient Reason P1) A contingent being exists. · a. This contingent being is caused either (1) by itself, or (2) by another. b. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible. P2) Therefore, this contingent being (2) is caused by another, i.e., depends on something else for its existence. P3) That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (3) another contingent being, or (4) a non-contingent being (necessary) being. c. If 3, then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so onto infinity. P4) Therefore, that which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (5) an infinite series of contingent beings, or (4) a necessary being. P5) An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being. P6) Therefore, a necessary being (4) exists! · Based on the Principle of Existential Causality 1. Some limited, changing being[s] exist. 2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another. 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being. 4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings. 5. This first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchangeable and one. 6. This first uncaused Cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition · A mix of both 1. Something exists (e.g., I do); 2. I am a contingent being; 3. Nothing cannot cause something; 4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being; 5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being; 6. But I am personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities); 7. Therefore this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy; 8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction; 9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way; 10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings); 11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (=infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists; 12. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God; 13. Therefore, the theistic God exists.

Firefly 06-03-2003 03:40 AM Quote: Remember the topic is "Religion: Search for Religious Knowledge". Please take note that in Confucianism and Buddhism, both religions states no Deity or accepts there is but does not discuss it. Particularly, Confucius, founder of Confucianism, focuses more on social relations. He only states worship of ancestors but not to a particular deity. Buddha on ther hand, focuses on oneself, inner peace, and ascetic style of living. Buddha and Confucius, therefore does not deny nor confirm existence of GOD or a Deity. But some schools of buddhism also tells sotries of Buddhas Ascension , before reaching it he has to dabae intelectually against demons and by defeating them thus he attained Nirvana ( I don't know how Curt Cobain got to do with this ). it's been a while since i learned this, and maybe it doesn't relate... but didn't Confucianism kind of evolve from the teachings of Confucious? i mean to say that, Confucianism wasn't supposed to be a religion, but rather a collection of teachings i believe. that's why it focused on social behaviors, and not more supernatural things. it wasn't a religion to begin with. other people, after Confucious passed, decided to call it a religion for some reason. i think that's what happened, but again, it's been a while since i learned about it. maybe Papa Giorgio knows a bit more on this.

Disciple 06-03-2003 04:42 AM You are missing the point of Schrodinger's cat. It is used to explain Heisenberg's Uncertanty Principle. Meaning, within the world of quantam mechanics, you can never be 100% sure. though you can reasonably infer that something is, there is a chance it isn't. You can deduct that after 1000 years that cat is dead, by observing other cats, but what if that cat that you put into the box wasn't really in the sapce you thought and it was actualy place into a place on the toerh side of the universe on a planet where the gravity and rotation is such that, it will not die for another 800000 earth years? You cannot say that you didn't because you can't prove it... unless you open the box, but this defeats the purpose because no human yat has figured out how to do it... how fun, neh? Let me ask you "men of science". What is science? You make it out to be some solve all religion that you hate, refuse, and become to an adversity. The correct answer: Inductive and Deductive reasoning. Therefore, by it's own laws and understanding and limits of man, you cannot do this on the subject of God esp. if you cannot take history and records into account nor can look for him in all life... but I suppose i cannot show you until I open the box... but once I do, I can't show you anyway, so goodluck on your self enlightenment! *btw santanism are those who believe in power in self, not satan, that is something else. they are satanists b/c the word means advisary. Here is a good site if you want to read about it: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html

Giaddon 06-03-2003 05:28 AM Papa Giorgio: Observation: Fossils of simpler, more basic creatures are older than more recent fossils, which are of more complex creatures. Analysis: From this we can ascertain that there was a shift from less complex to more complex creatures over Earth's history. Note: The bible and the Christian Creation myth contains nothing regarding this. Conclusion: The Bible and the Christian Creation myth do not line up with the facts. Evolution is a constantly changing theory, and we will probably never get it right. But the evolutionary theory matches the facts more than the Bible or the Christian Creation myth, so it is more logical, and thus more true. Also, you reuse the same "necessary being" argument over and over. For everyone's convenience, I have put his arguments to the left and my responses to the right. P1) A contingent being exists. Ok a. This contingent being is caused either (1) by itself, or (2) by another. Fair enough. b. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible. Quite true. P2) Therefore, this contingent being (2) is caused by another, i.e., depends on something else for its existence. Yeah, it's parents. P3) That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (3) another contingent being, or (4) a non-contingent being (necessary) being. Alright. I'm leaning towards other contingent beings c. If 3, then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so onto infinity. Yep. P4) Therefore, that which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (5) an infinite series of contingent beings, or (4) a necessary being. Following you so far. P5) An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being. Untrue. First of all, this implies a "purpose" in life, which is just unproven and false. There is no logical reason that there cannot be infinite contingent beings. It's at least as logical as God. P6) Therefore, a necessary being (4) exists! Still unproven. 1. Some limited, changing being[s] exist. Yes. 2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another. Yes. 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being. Why? 4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings. Not necessarily. 5. This first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchangeable and one. Actually, no. The universe could have been created by dimension-hopping aliens, eh? 6. This first uncaused Cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It does, but that doesn't mean it exists. 1. Something exists (e.g., I do); Indeed. 2. I am a contingent being; So True. 3. Nothing cannot cause something; Again, true. 4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being; Uh... What? Ever take sex ed? 5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being; Again, untrue. You are the fruit of your parent's loins. 6. But I am personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities); I'll take your word for it. 7. Therefore this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy; According to you, God created all contingent beings. This includes: Serial killers, drug addicts, Rapists, pedophiles, mass murderers, mentally ill people, physically ill people etc. So I guess God is a mass murderer who rapes even young children, is mentally and physically ill, and a drug addict. 8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction; Yes, it would. 9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way; So basically God's definitions of "moral, rational and personal" are different from us contingent beings'? Then this argument is nonsensical and meaningless. 10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings); Why not? You are simply arguing with definitions, not logic. Example: "Why do birds fly? "Because they're birds. You: "Why is God infinite and necessary? "Because he's God." 11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (=infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists; Actually, if you read my responses you will see that this remains unproven. 12. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God; Sure. It's just a name. 13. Therefore, the theistic God exists. Well, no. I'm not even going to get into the Big Bang theory yet, your arguments fall apart on their own. SirZap: You're quite right. We shouldn't be limiting this discussion to a debate against/for Christianity. All right then. Let's see... My father is a Zen Buddhist, so I know a bit about it. A very neat religion, and I have certainly borrowed parts of it and incorporated it into my belief system (peace, meditation, etc.) And Confucianism is also interesting. And yes, Firefly, it began as social teachings and not a religion at all. I look forward to this discussion moving in a more positive direction. Disciple: Yeah, it's more of a metaphor than a fact. What I oppose to is the way you are presenting it. You make it seem like it's the act of observation that kills the cat, which is wrong.

Papa Giorgio 06-03-2003 06:11 AM Giaddon, you have gotten premise 2 [P2)] wrong, it is not the parents. This has to do with “being” specifically, and not with existing, in its general sense. This is a very hard equation, but I have as yet to see it taken apart. There is a logical reason that there cannot be an infinite of contingent beings. I have shown that infinites are impossible; I would be more tan happy to revisit this subject if you so wish. Also, I believe you still haven’t read my paper… Quote: · The Cambrian “Explosion” In the Cambrian rocks are found a multitude of highly complex creatures with no ancestors. After vertebrates were found in the Cambrian, Science magazine placed every major animal phylum (group) in the Cambrian rocks. This information comes as a shock to most people for it is not discussed in school or university textbooks. Dr. Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History said, “There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multicellular life. There is no question about that. That’s a real phenomenon.” Noted evolutionist Dr. George Gaylord Simpson has called the sudden appearance of many types of complex life forms in the Cambrian rocks (around the entire globe) the “major mystery of the history of life.” He went on to say that two-thirds of evolution was already over by the time we found the fist fossils. Today, some scientists are saying 75 percent of the evolutionary process occurred before the first fossils were deposited. Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and George Gaylord Simpson, the twentieth century’s foremost paleontologist, have both pointed to the fact that two-thirds of evolution was over by the time we found the first fossils. Creationists were saying that to an open-minded person (setting you’re “a priori” presuppositions aside), this would indicate agreement between the creation model and what is found in the fossil record. Eldredge goes on to say: · “Then there was something of an explosion. Beginning about six hundred million years ago and continuing for about ten to fifteen million years [Dr. Gould rates it about five million], the earliest known representatives of the major kinds of animals still populating today’s seas made a rather abrupt appearance. This rather protracted ‘event’ shows up graphically in the rock record…. Creationists have made much of this sudden development of a rich and varied fossil record where, just before, there was none…. Indeed, the sudden appearance of a varied, well-preserved array of fossils, which geologists have used to mark the beginnings of the Cambrian Period does pose a fascinating intellectual challenges.” Science magazine had evolutionary scientist, Dr. David Woodruff, do a review of the book Macroevolution, Pattern and Process. Dr. Woodruff stated that the fossil record “fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” [FYI, all creationists believe in what is referred to – wrongly – as microevolution, however, the disagreement is over macroevolution.] Ichthyologist Dr. Donn Rosen, the late curator of fish at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, noted that evolution has been “unable to provide scientific data about the origin, diversity, and similarity of the two-million species that inhabit the earth and the estimated eight million others that once thrived.” Dr. Steven M. Stanley, professor of paleobiology at John Hopkins University, openly admits that “the known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic [gradual] evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.” In the book Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland (a creationist, although, at the time of the interviews the interviewees didn’t realize this) interviewed five top paleontologists at leading natural history museums around the world (some of which have been mentioned already), each having significant fossil collections. Those interviewed were Dr. David Pilbeam, former curator of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale, later professor of anthropology at Harvard; Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History; Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum in New York City; Dr. David M. Raup, curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago; and Dr. Donald Fisher, state paleontologist at the New York State Natural History Museum. This is what Sunderland said after all the above men were interviewed: · “None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.” So, is the proof of evolution “wanting?” Dr. Eldredge when he confessed about our textbooks in the colleges and universities (and presumably television channels such as the Discovery Channel or The Learning Channel) also confessed to the lack of evidence about the theory of evolution that so permeates our society: · “I admit that an awful lot of [mis]information has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true…. Many statements about prehistoric time, or a presumed fossil record, partake of imaginative narratives.” Is it any wonder then when writers and scientists say such things like, “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless” (Professor Louis Bounoure, Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research). Or that “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has” (Malcolm Muggeridge, world famous journalist, writer and philosopher). These men are only commenting on the lack of any credible evidence that should be there if evolution were true. They are only commenting on the predictions made that are yet to be substantiated. To reject creation a priori and to defend a model that lacks any substance, whatsoever, is itself unscientific. Or, as the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History puts it, “Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.” Dr. Gish remarks that, “Eldredge admits that ‘The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery.’ But creation scientists say, ‘what greater evidence for creation could the rocks give than this abrupt appearance of a great variety of complex creatures without trace of ancestors?’ Thus we see, right from the beginning, on the basis of an evolutionary scenario, the evidence is directly contradictory to predictions based on evolution but is remarkably in accord with predictions based on creation. This [Cambrian] evidence alone I sufficient to establish the fact that evolution has not occurred on the earth.” To Conclude When creationists look at evolution through the eyes of mathematical probabilities; the fossil record; information theory and the vast informational content in living things; the laws of thermodynamics, biogenesis and non-contradiction; comparative studies in physiology/anatomy/taxonomy/embryology/ morphology/genetics and biochemistry; and sciences such as anthropology, geology, and biology, they (we) find it hard to believe that anyone who fairly examines this issue could state that evolution is a fact – or even a credible theory. This is why creationists argue that any open-minded individual, scientist or layman, who will objectively evaluate all the evidence, will discover that such evidence comes down heavily on the side of creation. As I have shown with the crux of the Darwinian theory, the fossil record. Where does the evidence lay? With creation.

SirZap 06-03-2003 08:34 AM Observational Fact: 1. Evolution thoeryis just a theory.... sorry :p 2. There are no transitional/gradual development of creatures. 3. God does not talk too much, cause brevity is the soul of wit.

Disciple 06-03-2003 06:33 PM Quote: Originally posted by Giaddon@Jun 3rd 2003, 12:28 AM P5) An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being. Untrue. First of all, this implies a "purpose" in life, which is just unproven and false. There is no logical reason that there cannot be infinite contingent beings. It's at least as logical as God. I have to say, I dont understand how you are defining contingent b/c as far as I know it means likely but not inevitble. So I am going to assume yuou mean a being that is dependeent for another in order for it to actually exsist and exsists because of the chance it can by means of another. If not, correct my definition. Now, that being out of the way, There is one being that MUST not depend on anothefor existance, one, somewhere, whether it exsist becuase of itself, or by happenstance. 7. Therefore this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy; According to you, God created all contingent beings. This includes: Serial killers, drug addicts, Rapists, pedophiles, mass murderers, mentally ill people, physically ill people etc. So I guess God is a mass murderer who rapes even young children, is mentally and physically ill, and a drug addict. you are human, there fore you must be as well. (observation made by another similar creature to us if it were to scientifically evaluate us) Disciple: Yeah, it's more of a metaphor than a fact. What I oppose to is the way you are presenting it. You make it seem like it's the act of observation that kills the cat, which is wrong. I am just saying that is will exsist. Wether you observe it or not, i was just just saying that if any observation point would be taken, there are different possibilities to why somethings happens, the observation itself doesnt cause it, but I have to explain it someway. I am not sure how this quote thing works, and I am in school (freeperiod) so here is my go at it. P5) An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being. Untrue. First of all, this implies a "purpose" in life, which is just unproven and false. There is no logical reason that there cannot be infinite contingent beings. It's at least as logical as God. I have to say, I dont understand how you are defining contingent b/c as far as I know it means likely but not inevitble. So I am going to assume yuou mean a being that is dependeent for another in order for it to actually exsist and exsists because of the chance it can by means of another. If not, correct my definition. Now, that being out of the way, There is one being that MUST not depend on anothefor existance, one, somewhere, whether it exsist becuase of itself, or by happenstance. 7. Therefore this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy; According to you, God created all contingent beings. This includes: Serial killers, drug addicts, Rapists, pedophiles, mass murderers, mentally ill people, physically ill people etc. So I guess God is a mass murderer who rapes even young children, is mentally and physically ill, and a drug addict. you are human, there fore you must be as well. (observation made by another similar creature to us if it were to scientifically evaluate us) Disciple: Yeah, it's more of a metaphor than a fact. What I oppose to is the way you are presenting it. You make it seem like it's the act of observation that kills the cat, which is wrong. I am just saying that is will exsist. Wether you observe it or not, i was just just saying that if any observation point would be taken, there are different possibilities to why somethings happens, the observation itself doesnt cause it, but I have to explain it someway.

Papa Giorgio 06-03-2003 09:31 PM The colors are confusing... who is this directed to?

Gul'dan the Warlock 2 06-03-2003 09:54 PM yet another religion debate. i wish simply to state that you can prove neither creationism no evolutionism as of yet. we do not have proof of anything yet. i all rests on belief. my pesonal is that God exists, just many of you belive he dosen't. read below: Premise: Since there might be a God, Conclusion: all theistic proofs might be valid. Premise: Since the theistic proofs might not be valid, Conclusion: there might not a God. We can only speculate. belve what you will, so long as you don't fly airliners into skyscrapers.

CrazyMofo 06-03-2003 10:00 PM Papa Giorgio if you question todays science so much and believe it to be false, then how come you trust and believe the ancient bible to be so accurate?!

Papa Giorgio 06-03-2003 10:14 PM . · This time Mofo, read it… you will actually learn something… and, I use an example from one of the sites below to refute naturalism… which is what YOU belive in. One of the nation's most eminent biologists, Keith Stewart Thompson, has stated: · "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some two to ten million species on Earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between three and five million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations and extinctions every decade." But, of course, we do not see that. (From the article "Natural Selection and Evolution's Gun," American Scientist, Vol. 85, Nov/Dec 1997, p. 516) Quote: · Science First Definition Here is a dictionary definition. Many people assume that when we use the word "science," we are talking about this definition. In my opinion, it's a pretty good definition, and it would be good if we all meant this definition when we used the word "science." In general, when you see the word "science" in these pages, this is the definition. · "Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied." (Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language) Implied in this definition is the idea that conclusions are made on the basis of empirical evidence (i.e., evidence that comes from experimentation and observation). Thus, a true "scientist" is someone who studies a part of the world around him for evidence that he then uses to draw conclusions about the world he lives in. Few people should have trouble with this definition of science. Second Definition However, there are many who use the term "science" to refer to a way of looking at the world. To them, the word "science" refers to a philosophical mindset. Their definition of science might be something like this. · "An understanding that matter is the only true reality in the world and that everything in the world can be explained only in terms of this matter. An understanding that the natural world contains everything that is real and of value." Now it should be easy to see that if someone who adheres to this second definition of "science" hears me refer to the fact that the empirical evidence points to the fact that this world must have had a Creator, they will cry, "That is not science! That is religion!" They are using a definition of science that, by definition, excludes the concept of a Creator. They believe, in essence, that their philosophy of life (or religion) of materialism and naturalism is "science" and that the Christian philosophy of life (or religion) is "religion." In fact, both materialism and Christianity can be thought of as philosophies of life. One must examine the evidence closely to ascertain which "philosophy" most closely fits the evidence that exists in the world around us. (And, in fact, one can do "good science" [first definition!] and still adhere to either "philosophy"--or some other philosophy--of life.) I can argue all day that "science" (first definition) points to a Creator, but they will have none of it because they claim that "science" (second definition) allows no room for the concept of a Supernatural Creator! This is the very reason you hear so many people on television "nature programs" and in high school biology textbooks talk as though the natural world is all that there is. They believe that to imply that a Creator might be involved in all this would be to deny "science" (second definition, of course). I would suggest that we need to do our little part to insist that the first definition of science (above) is the only valid definition. And I would suggest that those who use the word "science" to mean the second definition should be required to use a different word--a word that shows that they are really talking about their philosophy or their religion. They are talking about the philosophy (or "religion" if you please!) of materialism or naturalism. We must not let them get away with taking a good word ("science") and redefining it to mean "materialism" or "naturalism!" (And then claim that anyone who disagrees with them is trying to replace "science" [second definition] with religion!). The philosophy of Naturalism is a world-view that is built on an unverifiable assumption. Strictly speaking, neither evolution nor creation are empirical science, nor can they be. This is evident in that they both seek to address the question of life's origin, something that cannot be repeated nor put into a test tube. Neither theory is subject to repeatable experimentation or observable processes. However, both can be described as forensic science, in that they seek to reconstruct a theory about a past event based on empirical data presently observed. Origin science, whether evolutionism or creationism, is analogous to what forensic specialists do at a crime scene and what archaeologists do on a dig. Most importantly, both theories are first and foremost a philosophical framework for interpreting the data. One of the primary flaws with evolutionists is their stubborn propensity to confuse the data itself with data-interpretation. The very same data is viewed by both evolutionists and non-evolutionists, but because each is working within a different paradigm the interpretive conclusions are very different. Yet evolutionists call their own (naturalist) interpretation "science" and the non-evolutionist interpretation "faith." If naturalism is assumed, then any notion of Intelligent Design is automatically excluded by very definition. But if evolution is actually bad philosophy, we are left with a nagging question. If science excludes Design, and yet there is in fact a Designer, then how will anyone ever know? If our idea of science excludes God outright, and He in fact exists, then our "science" is forever damned to be riddled with error. This is a simple logical conclusion, and I am amazed that it is so rarely considered. Currently, the situation with the debate is rather ironic. We have come full circle, back to Inherit the Wind. Yet the characterization of the creationists as closed-minded with a "don't confuse me with the facts" attitude is now the position occupied by the evolutionists. The situation has entirely reversed. Furthermore, the evolutionists are every bit as interested in maintaining the popular philosophy of materialistic naturalism as the early creationists were in defending the Bible. Quote: From a theistic perspective, Darwinism as a general theory is not empirical at all. It is a child of naturalistic or positivistic philosophy, which defines science as the attempt to explain the world without allowing any role to theological or providential activity. Positivism in this sense requires science to have at least a vague theory about everything really important. To produce the required theory, scientists are allowed, if necessary, to make simplifying assumptions or even to overlook difficult aspects of the problem. Even a particularly frustrating problem, such as the origin of life on earth, is considered to be solved in principle once scientists think they have some plausible general notion about how the thing might have happened. The spirit of positivistic science is illustrated by James Trefil's summary of the evolution of life in his recent book, 1000 Things Everyone Should Know About Science: · Evolution of life on earth proceeded in two stages: chemical and biological. Life on earth must have developed from inorganic materials- what else was there for it to come from? The first stage in the development of life, therefore, was the production of a reproducing cell from materials at hand on the early earth. This process is called chemical evolution.... Once a living, reproducing system was present, the process of natural selection took over to produce the wide variety of life that exists today. That sort of reasoning seems unimpeachable to metaphysical naturalists; fully naturalistic chemical and biological evolution happened because nothing else could have happened. A theist, on the other hand, has no reason to accept the plausibility of either chemical evolution or creative natural selection in the absence of a convincing empirical demonstration. Because Darwinism has its roots in metaphysical naturalism, it is not consistent to accept Darwinism and then to give it a theistic interpretation. Theistic evolutionists are continually confused on this point because they think that Darwinism is an empirical doctrine-i.e., that it rests fundamentally on observation. If that were the case, it is hard to see how any observations of evolution or natural selection in action could rule out the possibility that Darwinian evolution is God's way of creating. Nothing about the observed variations in the beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands, or in the increased survival rate of dark melanic moths during periods when the background trees were darkened by industrial smoke, discredits a theistic interpretation of evolution. If one assumes that confidence in the ability of Darwinian selection to create entirely new kinds of animals is based on observations like those, then obviously atheism or metaphysical naturalism is not a necessary implication of Darwinism. This mistaken premise leads theistic evolutionists to the conclusion that they can accept George Gaylord Simpson's "scientific" statement-i.e., that mutation and selection did the work of creation-and reject his "philosophical" conclusion that the universe is purposeless. The flaw in that logic is that the purportedly scientific statement was inferred from the philosophical conclusion rather than the other way around. The empirical evidence in itself is inadequate to prove the necessary creative power of natural selection without a decisive boost from the philosophical assumption that only unintelligent and purposeless processes operated in nature before the evolution of intelligence. Darwinists know that natural selection created the animal groups that sprang suddenly to life in the Cambrian rocks (to pick a single example) not because observation supports this conclusion but because naturalistic philosophy permits no alternative. What else was available to do the job? Certainly not God-because the whole point of positivistic science is to explain the history of life without giving God a place in it. In short, the reason that Darwinism and theism are incompatible is not that God could not have used evolution by natural selection to create. Darwinian evolution might seem unbiblical to some, or an unlikely method for God to use, but it is always possible that God might do something that confounds our expectations. The contradiction between Darwinism and theism is at a deeper level. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible. To know that is to know that God does not exist, or at least that God cannot create. To infer that Darwinism is true because there is no creator God, and then to interpret Darwinism as God's method of creating, is to engage in self-contradiction. I have two concluding points. First, the contradiction between Darwinism and theism is not necessarily evident to people who have only a superficial acquaintance with Darwinism. That explains why 40 percent of the American public believes in a God-guided evolution and thinks, no doubt, that this position satisfactorily reconciles science and religion. The contradiction sinks in when a person assimilates Darwinist ways of thinking and sees how antithetical they are to theism. That is why Darwin in his own time and his successors today have generally felt that theistic evolutionists were missing the point. Theistic evolutionists protest (correctly) that a creative role for natural selection does not rule out the possibility of God, but they fail to understand that the entire outlook of positivistic science is profoundly incompatible with the existence of a supernatural creator who takes an active role in the natural world. My second concluding point is that it is risky for Darwinists to be candid about the implications of their theory for theistic religion. I don't mean simply that the anti-theistic bluster put about by people like William Provine and Carl Sagan arouses opposition, although that is an important consideration. I am thinking of an intellectual problem. The all-purpose defense that Darwinists invoke when their theory is under attack is to invoke what I called in my earlier address "Dobzhansky's rules," the rules of positivistic science. That is, they say that "science" is defined as the search for naturalistic explanations for all phenomena and that any other activity is "not science." This position is sustainable only on the assumption that "science" is just one knowledge game among many, and theists suffer no great loss if they have to go and play in another game called "religion." The problem is that the games do not have equivalent status. The science game has government support and control of the public educational establishment. Everybody's children, theists and non-theists alike, are to be taught that "evolution is a fact." This implies that everything contrary to "evolution,'' specifically the existence of a God who takes a role in creation, is false. If "evolution" has strong anti-theistic implications, the theists in the political community are entitled to ask whether what Darwinists promulgate as "evolution," is really true. The answer, "That's the way we think in Science," is not an adequate response. Over 40 years ago, C.S. Lewis noted the tendency of scientists to rally around naturalism, not because of the evidence, but because they fear the alternative: · "The Bergsonian critique of orthodox Darwinism is not easy to answer. More disquieting still is D.M.S. Watson's defense. ‘Evolution itself,’ he wrote, ‘is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.’ Has it come to that? Does the whole cast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but keep out God?” ~ C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory In an article entitled, “Naturalism Is An Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry,” what I’ve been saying is quite bluntly stated: “Naturalism is, ironically, a controversial philosophy. Our modern civilization depends totally for its existence and future survival on the methods and fruits of science, naturalism is the philosophy that science created and that science now follows with such success, yet the great majority of humans (at least 90% of the U.S. population) believe in the antithesis of naturalism--supernaturalism. Our culture persistently indulges and celebrates supernaturalism, and most people, including some scientists, refuse to systematically understand naturalism and its consequences.” And I posit, that when the majority defines what they think science is, it is by no means religiously neutral. As the immediately above quote shows. The below is an excellent article, I will give just one example of the three mentioned. Quote: Is Science Religiously Neutral? Three Examples Simon and Altruism First, then, some examples that suggest that science is not religiously neutral. I begin with Herbert Simon's article, "A Mechanism for Social Selection and Successful Altruism." This article is concerned with the problem of altruism: Why, asks Simon, do people like Mother Teresa do the things that they do? Why do they devote their time and energy and indeed their entire lives to the welfare of other people? Of course it isn't only the great saints of the world that display this impulse; most of us do so to one degree or another. How, says Simon, can we account for this kind of behavior? The rational way to behave, he says, is to act or try to act in such a way as to increase one's personal fitness; i.e., to act so as to increase the probability that one's genes will be widely disseminated in the next and subsequent generation, thus doing well in the evolutionary derby. A paradigm of rational behavior, so conceived, was reported in the South Bend Tribune of December 21, l991 (dateline Alexandria (Va.)). "Cecil B. Jacobson, an infertility specialist, was accused of using his own sperm to impregnate his patients; he may have fathered as many as 75 children, a prosecutor said Friday." Unlike Jacobson, however, such people as Mother Teresa and Thomas Aquinas cheerfully ignore the short- or long-term fate of their genes. What is the explanation of this behavior? The answer, says Simon, is two mechanisms: "docility" and "bounded rationality": · Docile persons tend to learn and believe what they perceive others in the society want them to learn and believe. Thus the content of what is learned will not be fully screened for its contribution to personal fitness (p. 1666). Because of bounded rationality, the docile individual will often be unable to distinguish socially prescribed behavior that contributes to fitness from altruistic behavior [i. e., socially prescribed behavior that does not contribute to fitness--AP]. In fact, docility will reduce the inclination to evaluate independently the contributions of behavior to fitness. .... By virtue of bounded rationality, the docile person cannot acquire the personally advantageous learning that provides the increment, d, of fitness without acquiring also the altruistic behaviors that cost the decrement, c. (p. 1667). The idea is that a Mother Teresa or a Thomas Aquinas displays bounded rationality; they are unable to distinguish socially prescribed behavior that contributes to fitness from altruistic behavior (socially prescribed behavior which does not). As a result, they fail to acquire the personally advantageous learning that provides that increment d of fitness without, sadly enough, suffering that decrement c exacted by altruistic behavior. They acquiesce unthinkingly in what society tells them is the right way to behave; and they aren't quite up to making their own independent evaluation of the likely bearing of such behavior on the fate of their genes. If they did make such an independent evaluation (and were rational enough to avoid silly mistakes) they would presumably see that this sort of behavior does not contribute to personal fitness, drop it like a hot potato, and get right to work on their expected number of progeny. No Christian could accept this account as even a beginning of a viable explanation of the altruistic behavior of the Mother Teresas of this world. From a Christian perspective, this doesn't even miss the mark; it isn't close enough to be a miss. Behaving as Mother Teresa does is not a display of bounded rationality--as if, if she thought through the matter with greater clarity and penetration, she would cease this kind of behavior and instead turn her attention to her expected number of progeny. Her behavior displays a Christ-like spirit; she is reflecting in her limited human way the magnificent splendor of Christ's sacrificial action in the Atonement. (No doubt she is also laying up treasure in heaven). Indeed, is there anything a human being can do that is more rational than what she does? From a Christian perspective, the idea that her behavior is irrational (and so irrational that it needs to be explained in terms of such mechanisms as unusual docility and limited rationality!) is hard to take seriously. For from that perspective, behavior of the sort engaged in by Mother Teresa is anything but a manifestation of 'limited rationality'. On the contrary: her behavior is vastly more rational than that of someone who, like Cecil Jacobson, devotes his best efforts to seeing to it that his genes are represented in excelsis in the next and subsequent generations. Simon suggests or assumes that the rational course for a human being to follow is to try to increase her fitness. Rationality, however, is a deeply normative notion; the rational course is the right course, the one to be recommended, the one you ought to pursue. Simon, therefore, seems to be making a normative claim, or perhaps a normative assumption; it is a vital and intrinsic part of what he means to put forward. If so, however, can it really be part of science? Science is supposed to be non-evaluative, non-normative, non-prescriptive: it is supposed to give us facts, not values. Can this claim that the rational course is to pursue fitness then be part of science, of a scientific explanation, or a scientific enterprise? But perhaps there is a reply. What, exactly, does Simon mean here by such terms as “rational” and “rationality”? At least two things; for when he says that the rational course, for a human being, is to try to increase her fitness, he isn't using the term in the same way as when he says Mother Teresa and people like her suffer from bounded rationality. The latter means simply that people like this aren't quite up to snuff when it comes to intelligence, perspicacity, and the like; they are at least slightly defective with respect to acuteness. It is because of the lack of acuity that they fail to see that the socially prescribed behavior in question is really in conflict with their own best interests or the achievement of their own goals. This limited rationality is a matter of running a quart low, of playing with less than a full deck, of being such that the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor. When he says that the rational course for a human being is to strive to promote fitness, he presumably means something different by the term “rational”, namely, that a properly functioning human being, one not subject to malfunction (one that isn't insane, or retarded, or reacting to undue stress, or in the grip of some other malfunction or dysfunctional state) will as a matter of fact have certain goals, try to attain certain conditions, aim to bring about certain states of affairs. Presumably survival would be one of these goals; but another one, says Simon, is promoting or maximizing fitness. And there are two things to say about this claim. In the first place, we might ask what the evidence is that, as a matter of fact, properly functioning human beings do indeed all or nearly all display this goal. It isn't easy to see precisely how to answer this question. One suspects that a study done by way of the usual polling and questionnaire techniques wouldn't yield this result; most of the properly functioning people I know, anyway, wouldn't give as one of their main goals that of increasing their fitness. (Perhaps you will retort that this is because most of the people I know are past childbearing age, so that directly increasing their genetic representation in the next generations is no longer a live option. Of course they could do their best to see that they have a lot of grandchildren--judiciously distributed bribes, perhaps, or arranging circumstances so that their daughters will become pregnant, or encouraging their younger relatives to drop out of school and have children). But obviously there is always another option: we can say that the goals or aims in question aren't conscious, are not available to conscious inspection. They are rather to be determined by behavior. It is your behavior that reveals and demonstrates your goals, no matter what you say (and, indeed, no matter what you think). Well, perhaps so. It would still remain to be shown or argued that properly functioning human persons do as a matter of fact display in their behavior this goal of increasing their fitness--where, of course, we couldn't sensibly take their displaying this goal as a criterion of normality or proper function. As a matter of fact, Simon doesn't proceed in this way; his procedure, with respect to this question, is a priori rather than a posteriori. He doesn't tell us what it is that leads him to think that properly functioning human beings will have this goal, but one suspects his answer would be that human beings acquire this goal somehow by virtue of our evolutionary history. I suspect he thinks it would follow from any proper evolutionary account of human beings (and for many other species as well) that they have maximizing fitness as a goal. How exactly this story would go is perhaps not entirely clear; but for the moment we can ignore the difficulties. The second thing to say about this claim is that the same question arises with respect to it: isn't the idea of proper function itself a normative notion? There is a connected circle of notions here: proper function, health, normality (in the normative, not the descriptive sense) dysfunction, damage, design (a properly functioning lung is working the way lungs are designed to work), purpose, and the like. Perhaps none of these notions can be analyzed in terms of notions outside the charmed circle (so that this circle would resemble that involving the notions of necessity, possibility, entailment, possible worlds, and so on). And aren't these notions normative? Indeed, there is a use of 'ought' to go with them. When the starter button is pressed, the engine ought to turn over--i.e., if the relevant parts are functioning properly, the engine will turn over when the starter button is pressed. When you suffer a smallish laceration, a scab ought to form over the wound; that is, if the relevant parts of your body are functioning properly, a scab will form over the wound. A six-month-old baby ought to be able to raise its head and kick its feet simultaneously; that is, a healthy, normal (in the normative, not the statistical sense) six-month-old baby can do these things. Must we not concede, therefore, that this notion of proper function is itself a normative notion, so that if Simon uses 'rationality' in a way explicable only in terms of proper function, then what he says is indeed normative and thus not properly a part of science? Perhaps; but if the employment of the notion of normality or proper function is sufficient to disqualify a discourse from the title of science, then a lot more than Simon's account of altruism will turn out not to be science. Consider functional generalizations--the sorts of generalizations to be found in biological and psychological descriptions of the way in which human beings or other organic creatures work. As John Pollock points out, such generalizations seem to involve an implicit presupposition: · when we formulate similar generalizations about machines, the generalizations we formulate are really about how machines work when they work properly; or when they are not broken. Similarly it seems that generalizations about organisms should be understood as being about the way they work when they are “working normally.” Here “working normally” and “not being broken” mean something like “subject to no dysfunction” or “working properly” or “not malfunctioning”. Functional generalizations about organisms, therefore, say how they work when they are functioning properly. But of course biological and social science is full of functional generalizations. Thus, if Simon is appealing to the notion of proper function in his idea of rationality, he may be appealing to a kind of normativity; but that kind of normativity is widely found in science. Or, at any rate, it is widely found in what is called science. Some will maintain that the notion of proper function doesn't belong in science unless it can be explained, somehow, in other terms--finally, perhaps, in terms of the regularities studied in physics and chemistry. We need not enter that disputatious territory here; it is sufficient to note that if Simon is appealing to the notion of proper function, then what he does appeal to is in fact to be found over the length and breadth of the social and biological sciences. Therefore, we should not deny the title 'science' to what Simon does unless we are prepared to raise the same strictures with respect to most of the rest of what we think of as social and biological science. And even if we do say that Simonian science isn't really science, nothing substantive changes; my point will then be, not that religious considerations bear on science properly so-called, but rather that they bear on what is in fact called science, which is a very important, indeed, dominant part of our intellectual and cultural life. I shall therefore assume that Simonian science is science. So in Simon's account of altruism we have an example of a scientific theory that is clearly not neutral with respect to Christian commitment; indeed, it is inconsistent with it. Simon's theory also illustrates another and quite different way in which religious considerations are relevant to science; they bear on what we take it needs explanation. From Simon's perspective, it is altruism that needs explanation; from a Christian or theistic perspective, on the other hand, it is only to be expected that humans beings would sometimes act altruistically. Perhaps what needs explanation is the way in which human beings savage and destroy each other. Naturalism, materialism, whether metaphysical or otherwise, is dead in the water. It is a theory that has no explanatory power whatsoever. And when it presumes to have explanatory power, it is entirely anti-thetical to the Christian faith and worldview. A great quote by the senior paleontologist of the British Natural History Museum makes the point that I believe is the root of the problem, “Darwin’s evolutionary explanation of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress…. The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science…. I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling.” A myth, says my dictionary, is a real or fictional story that embodies the cultural ideals of a people or express deep, commonly felt emotions. By this definition, myths are generally good things – and the origin stories that paleontologists tell are necessarily myths (“Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad,” Natural History [1983]). I will end with this, when I say that the hypothesis of evolutionary origins has no explanatory power, what do I mean?… · Why then does the scientific theory of evolution hold on to a concept of chance to the degree it does? I suspect it is the fact that there is no alternative whatsoever that could explain the fact of universal evolution at least in principle, and be formulated within the framework of natural science [philosophical naturalism]. If no alternative should be forthcoming, if chance remains overtaxed, then the conclusion seems inevitable that evolution and therefore living beings cannot be grasped by natural science to the same extent as non-living things – not because organisms are so complex, but because the explaining mechanism is fundamentally inadequate. Bibliography http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/...m/chapter4.html http://www.str.org/free/studies/natural.htm http://www.flash.net/~thinkman/articles/evolution.htm http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9602/johnson.html http://www.icr.org/pubs/president/prz-0112.htm http://bdalby.freeyellow.com/naturalism.html http://www.aboundingjoy.com/define.htm http://www.gospelcom.net/faithfacts/evolution.html http://www.freeinquiry.com/naturalism.html http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/meth...at181.htm#text3 http://www.str.org/free/studies/natural.htm

Cladmir 06-04-2003 03:51 AM Whow, put the break on those idea about Schrodinger's Cat Experiment! First off, although many people seems to say that Schrodinger's cat is all about the uncertainty priciple, it's actually used mainly to explain the particle-wave duality, because in classical or "common sense" science the particle and the wave concepts are mutually exclusive, i.e. is it's a particle, it cannot be a wave, never both (hence, the cat must either be alive or dead, but never both). But this duality ONLY exist in theory, meaning that it can only be shown on paper, but once you attempt to "observe" the elctron, its duality will collapse to suit what it is you are looking for: To clarify this, the electron was once thought as a particle, but was later verufied that it also exhibits wave property, so physicists were determined to "see" this dual-property (same thing also happened to the photon). But since we can only observe either the "particle" or the "wave" cheracteristic, not both at the same time, they found out that when they measure for the wave property of the electron, it acted as if it was a wave, and when they look for the particle, they got a particle! This thought experiment was used to demonstrate how quantum mechanics is "truely" a science of the extremely small scale, and WILL NOT make any sense when apply to our everyday macroscopic world. This concept of particl-wave duality is very true to the level that even those who oppose quantum mechanics also accepts it. So yes, if the cat in the box is a subjected to the quantum mechanical rules that cat will be alive and dead at the same time. And observing it by opening the box will "collapse" this duality into one state only (alive/dead). Now on the evolution topic: I must say that I am leaning more toward Papa Giorgio's point now regarding evolution (at least I am starting to believe that the current "scientific" theory seems to have a great flaw). To put in simple terms, I believed in the evolution theory because that's what I've been told since a child, and that's what schools have tought me. But now that I think of it, all the I see about evolution in work is like a "side step" where only small things changes slowly. The only thing I've ever learned about long progress of evolution went like this: Fish -> (this is an arrow like they use in books) -> fish with legs -> some reptile-like creture -> primitive dinosaur. And basically that's it. All the explanation of how the heck those fishes got legs and lungs and how in the world did they become reptile-like and so on so forth were those arrows. So if someone has some better explanations please show them to me. Btw, phsycis used to be called "natural philosophy", I think that was prior to Newton's famous "Principles of Mathematics." Anou you might not believe how close physics can come to philosophy at times, it just happend to be backed up by a crap load of [sometimes questionable] numbers and symbols Somehow I have the feeling that Papa Giorgio's posts were not carefully read, or not read altogether. Now I would like to point out something this might not seem related, but you'll get the idea. There's a problem in "science" today, or at least how people seems to to see it, or make it, or perhapes it's just my perspective. Personally, as a person who's majoring in the field of science, I believe that science MUST and SHOULD ALWAYS be OPEN minded and ready to CHANGE at all time. Science must evolve, or else it's going to die, and to do that, it must be flexible enough to admit that it's mistaken and willing to change when it has to. But alas, its the "human" in science who's the source of this major flaw. Why? Let me show you an example: My friend and I were talking about how we distrust the rpinciples of quantum mechanics (QM) one day and before we parted he gave me an advice (he's has seniority): Do not tell the professors about our thoughts we've been talking about. You might wonder why is it that I cannot express my dislike on QM? Aren't those professor scientist? Shouldn't they be more reasonable about other's idea? Let me tell you this: If someone comes out and declare that QM is wrong and that person happens to be CORRECT about it, I am willing to bet you that there would be major opposition from the physics community at the insane level. If this person is who disproved QM is correct then he would have based it on mathematical arguments, which is indisputable (IF he's correct). So the "science" itself is not at fault here, but it's the "people" in it. My friend explained to me the reason behind it: A lot of people in the physics community based their entire [physics] life on QM, and that's how they've defined themselves. Telling them that QM is wrong is like going to the pope that tell him that God does not exist. To illustrate my point, I'm going togive you an example about George Cantor (I now know a whole lot more about him and his work due to the discussions with Papa Giorgio on infinity :) ), which is in the field of Math! Cantor has a misserable life because he went against one of his mentors, eho happened to have much influence in the math field. The root of this was based on the fact that Cantor was able to PROVE the existance of irrational number (number with decimals that never repeats such as pi, the natural log (e)), and their role in his infinite theories but his mentor DOES NOT BELIEVE in it, he dislike the idea of irrational numbers because they cannot be constructed by the use of two integers. Cantor's mentor believes that ONLY INTEGERS are real simple because he thinks they are PURE AND BEAUTIFUL. I should add that this is AFTER the discovery of pi (3.14...). What he was doing was like fighting against 1+1=2! And because of that Cantor's mentor made Cantor's life so misserable Contor suffered from nervous breakdown. Do you see how far how deep and how severe this "human" problem is? If you claim that you believe in "science" then you should start to look into the defintions provided by Papa Giorgio. Are you the person who agrees fits in the first or both? If you only believe in the first, which is what I do, then you should accept the possibility that there could and very like is something beyond the boundary. If you're the sacond one, I'll say that you'll probably be one of the person who will disagree with new scientific theories, the way people did to Einstein when he first proposed his papers on Special Relativity, or the way people opposed Galileo. That's what I think, at least. You do not have to believe it, nor am I extrapolating it into a universal truth. BUt I hope I at least gave you my idea idea of "science" from the perspective of a "want-to-be-scientist."

Giaddon 06-04-2003 05:00 AM Papa Giorgio: Papa Giorgio, your repeated claims that there are no transitional fossils simply aren't true. I don't want to bore anyone, so I'll just put in some quotes and links. First of all, as to why there are gaps: Quote: Why do gaps exist? (or seem to exist) Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage. Many laypeople even have the (incorrect) impression that the situation is even worse, and that there are no known transitions at all. Why are there still gaps? And why do many people think that there are even more gaps than there really are? Stratigraphic gaps The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record. Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years. Luckily, this is enough to record most episodes of evolutionary change (provided that they occurred at Clark's Fork Basin and not somewhere else), though it misses the most rapid evolutionary bursts. In general, in order to document transitions between species, you specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (e.g. every 20,000-80,000 years). If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species. If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved. And so on. These are rough estimates (from Gingerich, 1976, 1980) but should give an idea of the completeness required. Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened. Discovery of the fossils The second reason for gaps is that most fossils undoubtedly have not been found. Only two continents, Europe and North America, have been adequately surveyed for fossil-bearing strata. As the other continents are slowly surveyed, many formerly mysterious gaps are being filled (e.g., the long-missing rodent/lagomorph ancestors were recently found in Asia). Of course, even in known strata, the fossils may not be uncovered unless a roadcut or quarry is built (this is how we got most of our North American Devonian fish fossils), and may not be collected unless some truly dedicated researcher spends a long, nasty chunk of time out in the sun, and an even longer time in the lab sorting and analyzing the fossils. Here's one description of the work involved in finding early mammal fossils: "To be a successful sorter demands a rare combination of attributes: acute observation allied with the anatomical knowledge to recognise the mammalian teeth, even if they are broken or abraded, has to be combined with the enthusiasm and intellectual drive to keep at the boring and soul-destroying task of examining tens of thousands of unwanted fish teeth to eventually pick out the rare mammalian tooth. On an average one mammalian tooth is found per 200 kg of bone-bed." (Kermack, 1984.) Documenting a species-to-species transition is particularly grueling, as it requires collection and analysis of hundreds of specimens. Typically we must wait for some paleontologist to take it on the job of studying a certain taxon in a certain site in detail. Almost nobody did this sort of work before the mid-1970's, and even now only a small subset of researchers do it. For example, Phillip Gingerich was one of the first scientists to study species-species transitions, and it took him ten years to produce the first detailed studies of just two lineages (see part 2, primates and condylarths). In a (later) 1980 paper he said: "the detailed species level evolutionary patterns discussed here represent only six genera in an early Wasatchian fauna containing approximately 50 or more mammalian genera, most of which remain to be analyzed." [emphasis mine] Getting the word out There's a third, unexpected reason that transitions seem so little known. It's that even when they are found, they're not popularized. The only times a transitional fossil is noticed much is if it connects two noticably different groups (such as the "walking whale" fossil reported in 1993), or if illustrates something about the tempo and mode of evolution (such as Gingerich's work). Most transitional fossils are only mentioned in the primary literature, often buried in incredibly dense and tedious "skull & bones" papers utterly inaccessible to the general public. Later references to those papers usually collapse the known species-to-species sequences to the genus or family level. The two major college-level textbooks of vertebrate paleontology (Carroll 1988, and Colbert & Morales 1991) often don't even describe anything below the family level! And finally, many of the species-to-species transitions were described too recently to have made it into the books yet. Why don't paleontologists bother to popularize the detailed lineages and species-to-species transitions? Because it is thought to be unnecessary detail. For instance, it takes an entire book to describe the horse fossils even partially (e.g. MacFadden's "Fossil Horses"), so most authors just collapse the horse sequence to a series of genera. Paleontologists clearly consider the occurrence of evolution to be a settled question, so obvious as to be beyond rational dispute, so, they think, why waste valuable textbook space on such tedious detail? Misunderstanding of quotes about punctuated equilibrium What paleontologists do get excited about are topics like the average rate of evolution. When exceptionally complete fossil sites are studied, usually a mix of patterns are seen: some species still seem to appear suddenly, while others clearly appear gradually. Once they arise, some species stay mostly the same, while others continue to change gradually. Paleontologists usually attribute these differences to a mix of slow evolution and rapid evolution (or "punctuated equilibrium": sudden bursts of evolution followed by stasis), in combination with the immigration of new species from the as-yet-undiscovered places where they first arose. There's been a heated debate about which of these modes of evolution is most common, and this debate has been largely misquoted by laypeople, particularly creationists. Virtually all of the quotes of paleontologists saying things like "the gaps in the fossil record are real" are taken out of context from this ongoing debate about punctuated equilibrium. Actually, no paleontologist that I know of doubts that evolution has occurred, and most agree that at least sometimes it occurs gradually. The fossil evidence that contributed to that consensus is summarized in the rest of this FAQ. What they're arguing about is how often it occurs gradually. You can make up your own mind about that. (As a starting point, check out Gingerich, 1980, who found 24 gradual speciations and 14 sudden appearances in early Eocene mammals; MacFadden, 1985, who found 5 cases of gradual anagenesis, 5 cases of probable cladogenesis, and 6 sudden appearances in fossil horses; and the numerous papers in Chaline, 1983. Most studies that I've read find between 1/4-2/3 of the speciations occurring fairly gradually.) http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsit...ansitional.html Now some words on transitional fossils: Quote: Creationists often state categorically that "there are no transitional fossils". As this FAQ shows, this is simply not true. That is the main point of this FAQ. There are abundant transitional fossils of both the "chain of genera" type and the "species-to-species transition" type. There are documented speciations that cross genus lines and family lines. http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsit...ansitional.html Quote: "There's a nifty passage in Darwin in which he describes the fossil record as a library. The library has only a few books, and each book has only a few chapters. The chapters have only a few words, and the words are missing letters. Well, in this case, we've got a relatively complete library. The 'books' are in excellent shape. You can see every page, every word." http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creati...m_article3.html Quote: A few remarks are also appropriate about the theological implications of evolution as demonstrated by sequences of transitional fossils. As the reader may have noted, theological considerations do not enter at all into our demonstration of evolution as a very highly probable scientific conclusion. Consequently, like other scientific conclusions, this one cannot be viewed as inherently either pro- or anti-Christian. However, of course, Christians - especially theologians - will need to integrate evolutionary process into their views as being the proximate means which God uses to create various forms of life, just as He uses other scientifically demonstrable processes to maintain the natural universe. In summary, the paleontologic record displays numerous sequences of transitional fossils, oriented appropriately within the independently derivable geochronologic time framework, and morphologically and chronologically connecting earlier species with later species (often so different that the end-members are classified in different high-rank taxa). These sequences quite overwhelmingly support an evolutionary, rather than a fiat-creationist, view of the history of life. Consequently, after carefully considering the implications of the fossil record, we must conclude that that record represents the remains of gradually and continuously evolving, ancestor-descendent lineages, uninterrupted by special creative acts, and producing successive differernt species which eventually become so divergent from the initial form that they constitute new major kinds of organisms. http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html Quote: While the fossil record is certainly not "complete" (fossilization is a rare event, so this is to be expected), there is still a wealth of fossil information to be considered. If you examine the fossil evidence, you see that the fossil record uniformly supports the idea of common descent. The general order of the fossil record, the correspondence of the order of organisms found in the fossil record with the order suggested by examining living organisms, the correspondence of the fossil record to the phylogenetic tree (including transitional organisms), and the biogeography of the fossil record all support the idea of common descent. Since the fossil record is a record of historical organisms, it strongly suggests a process of evolution occurring throughout history. http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Scienc...onalFossils.htm And because you say that you are fair-minded, Papa Giorgio, here's another quote: Quote: "The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionists. Such transitional forms are scarce, to be sure, and for two sets of reasons - geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium and transition within small populations of limited geological extenet). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical geneology." -- Stephen Jay Gould If you want more, you know where to find me. And even if all these scientists are wrong, even if all this is false, my initial analysis is still true: Quote: Analysis: From this we can ascertain that there was a shift from less complex to more complex creatures over Earth's history. Note: The bible and the Christian Creation myth contains nothing regarding this. Conclusion: The Bible and the Christian Creation myth do not line up with the facts. Evolution is a constantly changing theory, and we will probably never get it right. But the evolutionary theory matches the facts more than the Bible or the Christian Creation myth, so it is more logical, and thus more true. The Bible doesn't say God wandered over to the Earth and added a lot of animals¨ Or God started animals off, then let them evolve. No, it says that God created the all the animals in six days. This does not fit objective data whatsoever. If you are as open minded as you say, you would see that. And I would love to see the defense of your "necessary being¨ logic. Gul'dan the Warlock 2: Though I disagree with you on many issues, that post is so true. I am simply angry when people try to pass off their belief as the absolute truth, or say that there are no contradictions or fallacies in their belief, ignoring all logic and evidence.

Papa Giorgio 06-04-2003 01:43 PM Giaddon, I will quote a small section that is important: Quote: Actually, no paleontologist that I know of doubts that evolution has occurred, and most agree that at least sometimes it occurs gradually. I never said that the evolutionists I quoted, and I directly quoted evolutionists – in context – don’t believe in evolution. This quote I quoted from your quote (did you follow that), is telling. They believe evolution to be true, however, the fossil record doesn’t back up evolution. This is why punctuated equilibrium, an evolutionary theory, is replacing the neo-Darwinian one. AND THIS IS IMPORTANT… because, the Darwinian model says that evolution happened so slow we cannot see it, punctuated equilibrium says it happened so fast we cannot see it. Giaddon, take two examples for me that you feel are good representations of transitional fossils, and we will discuss them like grown adults… I would do so, though, in my post on “Human Evolution,” as that is a forum better suited for such a conversation.

Kei 06-04-2003 02:11 PM Papa Giorgiog, you said; Quote: An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being. Why is this? Why is a single being with no reason for existence (that is, by the first postulate, nonexistent) more likely than multiple things of equal unlikeliness? There is no concept larger than infinity, even through multiple infinities. (infinity * infinity = infinity.) so why would it be MORE likely that something infinitely improbable exists than that several equally infinitely improbable things exist? I find (and strangely enough appropriately, for this site) that Starcraft's X'el Naga theory (which is derived from David Brin's Uplift War books) is much more plausible than a "god" theory (though essentially, they both fill the same niche), and that they themselves could then be created by advanced beings in the FUTURE through time-travel (which i find equally likely to the god theory as well.) This goes back to the "big bang" theory, which i find an interesting rationale (though again, it's science-fiction, which tends to be the majority of my reading matter, quite unfortunately, however--science fiction often preceeds fact) in Stainslaw Lem's Memoirs of a Time Traveler (which has in it a short story regarding the creation of the universe and the inherent imbalance in matter due to its existence.) To summarize, it's kind of like the chicken and the egg--only without evolution, this just means that a chicken managed to go back in time at some point and create itself, or that some other being engineered the whole "chicken" thing, and that that being was engineered by the chicken in time travel. (the first half of the summary is less accurate, but easier to understand.)

Preator Antrax 06-04-2003 04:41 PM I think that it is necessary that I add this link to any discussion about religion. I like to think of it as a science experiment pertaining to the reactions of various religious types when their belief structure is midly pressured... EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT...

Giaddon 06-04-2003 10:11 PM Papa Giorgio: First of all, evolution is a constantly changing theory. If we refused to use new information and always stuck with Darwin's theory, well, that would be stupid. So the theory adapts. But the premise is always the same: simpler creatures mutate and adapt into more complex creatures. Those that survive are the "fittest" and continue their line. And did you follow the links? There's tons of transitional fossils on the other end of them. Take some time to check it out. And yes, if I post further about this, it will be in the evolution forum from now on. Preator Antrax: That's hilarious! I wonder if it's true? Jesus didn't bump with the ladies, as far as I know...

SirZap 06-05-2003 06:45 AM Preator Antrax: Coz the one who made the conclusion is a gay him/herself. The motive behind is that gays to acceptable in christian circles and churches. Language of Hebrew and Aramaic (Hebrew with Greek mixture), has different implications and also language goes with culture. Someone made that same conclusion in our Country, Philippines, as Kissing another man would be a homosexual act in our culture, except if it is your dad or elderly males, but not in Ancient Israel. Being single, all your life does not mean you're gay.... it poses the same problem as before..... you can not prove or positively prove that Jesus commited homosexual acts. Just like you can not prove or disprove the existence of GOD.

Papa Giorgio 06-05-2003 01:47 PM Giaddon, you said: · If we refused to use new information and always stuck with Darwin's theory, well, that would be stupid. So the theory adapts. But the premise is always the same: simpler creatures mutate and adapt into more complex creatures. Those that survive are the "fittest" and continue their line. The most complex eye known to man is in the lowest strata? Also, evolution is not verifiable or testable, making it a tautology. Giaddon, you said: · And did you follow the links? There's tons of transitional fossils on the other end of them. Take some time to check it out. And yes, if I post further about this, it will be in the evolution forum from now on. I did follow the links, you pick two that you think will stand up to the test, and I will debunk them… simple.