by dubstepped 340 Replies latest jw friends
Questions from Coded Logic:
How do you know this?
How do you know this? Is there actually a good reason for thinking this is the case? Or is this just a mere assertion?
Until one has reached the point in their studies where it becomes painfully obvious that there can be no other answer, one will defend their beliefs with passion.
Hitting that dratted wall is humiliating and humbling. You will know it when you too smack into it.
That is where the light turns on. Where all doubt is vaporized.
Old Navy,
I don't see any reason to think what you just said is true. However, I do see a great deal of evidence that this claim is false. Those who go to school and get an education in the life sciences - those who do academic research and field work - and who study various animals and ecosystems and taxonomy of species - are NOT coming back saying "God done it".
To the contrary, all their research continues to show that life on this planet evolved through naturalistic means. Not magic.
There's nothing humble about creationism - because claiming to know things you can't possibly know is the complete opposite of humility - it's the height of arrogance.
it simply misunderstands what many believers think God is or what can even be said about him. In a crucial sense it is the essence of God that he is such that he is sufficient in himself.
-SFB
Surely such a proposition would be self defeating. Because if a god were "sufficient to itself" there wouldn't be a universe. I don't know of any deist that believes this.
However, most deists I've talked to (and the sort I used to be) believe in a "creator god". The difference, of course, between a creator god and a run of the mill deity is that a "creator god" is required to create. Thus, it is NOT "sufficient to itself". Rather, it is dependent upon its creation.
A painter that doesn't paint - isn't a painter. And a creator god that doesn't create - isn't a creator god.
But more importantly SBF - I think you've missed the point of the exercise. It was the creationist who asserted that consciousness requires an explanation. When pressed on how creationism explains consciousness - Old Navy retreated to "God done it" - which doesn't explain it. It just kicks the can down the road. We would still have to explain the consciousness of the God. And further saying "God is sufficient to itself" also doesn't explain it. Because "sufficient to itself" is not an explanation. Rather, it's an obfuscation meant to disguise what is very obviously a case of Special Pleading.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/163/Special-Pleading
They talk about consciousness in relation to the earth, brains, tables, chairs, and all matter, from about 48 minutes in. "Rocks have persoanlities" is a particular synecdoche you are fond of using to mock pansychism in total - SBF
So a conscious table is a serious topic for conversation but rocks with personality is just mocking? Okay thanks I find it hard to keep up with what passes for philosophy and what is just buillshit. It's so hard to tell the difference.
Evolution presumes that all life traces back to a "Common Ancestor." - Old Navy
No it doesn't presume anything.
Multiple related fields of science have proven beyond all doubt that all life evolved from a common ancestor. The vast majority of intelligent christians have no problem with this.
SBF - Your sophistry has no relevance to the topic.
Well, what they've shown is that it's highly statistically improbable that we didn't all descend from a common ancestor (which is good enough for me).
Quotes from Coded Logic:
I don't see any reason to think what you just said is true.
...
There's nothing humble about creationism - because claiming to know things you can't possibly know is the complete opposite of humility - it's the height of arrogance.
I do not expect anyone to think what I have said is true. Discovering Truth is a personal venture that will be achieved in a personal way. You will discover unexpected Truths for so long as you continue seeking them by whatever means you employ.
What is humbling is the realization that one has been wrong. To finally realize that one has been arrogantly propagating and defending theoretical doctrine which is not true. Finally realizing that there are limits to what we can "know" until we are shown our un-knowables by Those for Whom All Things are Possible.
To finally develop Faith in a Benevolent Creator.
We shall all get there whether we wish to or not. What I say will really play no part at all in how you will ultimately "change your mind." You will change by your own volition. As you learn more.
To finally develop Faith in a Benevolent Creator
'Nature red in tooth and claw' proves that there is no benevolent creator.
Creationism isn't a leap of faith, it's a drunken tumble down Mount Dumbass.
You will change by your own volition. As you learn more
I have learned more in the past 20 years than I did in the previous 30. That is why I reject creationism. The men and women who know most about the complexity of the natural world are the strongest advocates for evolution. These are the thousands of scientists - many of them christians - who know more about life than you or I ever will.
There is a very important difference between you and I Old Navy. I thoroughly understand both creationism and evolution. You have never learned even the most basic information about evolution. You are wilfully ignorant of the evidence. For that reason you have nothing to say about it.
Why are you still refusing to acknowledge that the vast majority of intelligent christians accept the fact of evolution. You never engage in conversation, you just keep repeating the same old platitudes. When are you going to pay anybody the respect of actually engaging with the subject?
Discovering Truth is a personal venture that will be achieved in a personal way. You will discover unexpected Truths for so long as you continue seeking them by whatever means you employ.
-Old Navy
Do you think people should have good reasons for believing the things they believe? And do you think people have an obligation to use reliable methods of getting information to inform their beliefs?
For example, if I scattered chicken bones across the floor and then declared - this tells me Thor will soon return - would you think I was justified in such a belief? And would it be enough to convince you of my claim?
Quote from Cofty:
'Nature red in tooth and claw' proves that there is no benevolent creator.
Creationism isn't a leap of faith, it's a drunken tumble down Mount Dumbass.
That may be your temporary belief for this moment; but it will change in time.
Quote from Cofty:
I have learned more in the past 20 years than I did in the previous 30. That is why I reject creationism. The men and women who know most about the complexity of the natural world are the strongest advocates for evolution. These are the thousands of scientists - many of them christians - who know more about life than you or I ever will.
Your rejection of Creationism is but temporary. As you continue to study and learn the Truth will eventually make itself known. The Natural World itself is profound "proof" of the goodness and beauty of Creation when viewed objectively and without bias. Sadly, most who claim to be Christian are victims of Cult Indoctrination which renders them temporarily incapable of seeking Truth. But, once again, all of this confusion is temporary. In the end Truth will prevail.
Quote from Cofty:
There is a very important difference between you and I Old Navy. I thoroughly understand both creationism and evolution. You have never learned even the most basic information about evolution. You are wilfully ignorant of the evidence. For that reason you have nothing to say about it.
I believe your self-assessment of your level of comprehension will change dramatically in the not too distant future. How is anyone able to "thoroughly understand both Creationism and Evolution?" Do you mean that you thoroughly understand the theoretical dogma to your satisfaction as it is presented by those who claim to be expert? I choose to say nothing about the theoretical dogma since re-hashing its details is counter-productive. There really is little Truth there.
Quote from Cofty:
Why are you still refusing to acknowledge that the vast majority of intelligent christians accept the fact of evolution. You never engage in conversation, you just keep repeating the same old platitudes. When are you going to pay anybody the respect of actually engaging with the subject?
What I acknowledge is that all are able to freely choose what they want to believe. I have no desire to attempt to alter anyone's beliefs or to promote either side of the debate. Rather, I reveal what my beliefs are and in a general sense how I came to hold them. It is also my belief that Truth is forthcoming and that comprehension of the mysteries will occur. We just haven't gotten there yet.
Never. While I respect your freedom to believe as you wish I have no desire to "engage" in discussion of the theoretical subject. It is not yet time.
It is an unfortunate truth that "Christians" are easily deceived. The Christian Movement is loaded with Cults Aplenty. Tickled Ears and Washed Minds is the name of the game. For the time being.
Patience.
Questions from Coded Logic:
Do you think people should have good reasons for believing the things they believe? And do you think people have an obligation to use reliable methods of getting information to inform their beliefs?
Our System of Information Overload is so full of "noise" that most people are quite confused. Ideally, we should develop the means to discern Truth from falsehood. We are far removed from that ideal. People do have a natural inclination to embrace Truth and to seek Truth but there are many obstacles put in place by those who delight in use of the lie. Our obligation should be to be Truthful at all times.
Questions from Coded Logic:
For example, if I scattered chicken bones across the floor and then declared - this tells me Thor will soon return - would you think I was justified in such a belief? And would it be enough to convince you of my claim?
If the belief satisfies you then you are free to take hold of it. I would not agree with your hypothetical but if you believe that it is just then that is up to you personally. No, it would not be enough.
Patience.
