NTI's Christian Theology Thread

[methamaniac]

Methamaniac. I haven't read the whole thread, but it sounds like everytime there's something that science can't explain, you asume that "God did it". Did I get that right? I just want to understand what your point is? Are you christian? by the way.

Your first question is a little loaded ( semantically). Prehaps it would be better said, "everytime materialism/ naturalsim can't exaplain something....".
The current neo-darwinism paradigm doesn't hold a monopoly on our sciences.
Frankly, IMO disagreeing with neo-darwinism doesn't really have anything to do with science since it basically doesn't give anything we can test/observe/repeat.
In reality ( when you get down to it), there is zero actual scientific proof of what the theory actually posits. This is why it can undoubtedly be classified as a religious belief.
In fairness, using "evolution did it" or "mother nature did it" for the lack of explanation of how/why something works (*or exists as it does); is the exact same thing as what you are suggesting I am doing.
( but yes I am saying "God did it")
Have you ever stopped to think it's entirely possible there are things science can't explain?

Pesrsonally, I beleive God is responsible for our existence and the laws that govern our universe.
Our sciences (including mathematics) are an attempt to understand/explain the mechanisms of how/why God's creation/laws work the way they do.

My point? I guess kinda two-fold .....
( in short)
First, we all believe in creationism. Some believe in the supernatural and some the natural.
and
Second, the study of our sciences hasn't given any extra credence to the naturalistic view of creation.
(p.s it's ok to hold faith that one day there will be a naturalistic explanation, but just be honest in the fact you are using faith)


On your second question,
If by Christian you mean do I believe in Jesus Christ (and his teachigs) , yes, I am a Christian.

I didn't say that at all. I said that all we have here is a "holey theory".

yes, i agree, it's chock-full of holes.

Of course an alternative is not required to disprove a thesis. But it would be intellectually generous of you to expand upon your creationist views.

Surely a scientific rationalist like you has something to offer as evidence for your idea's...

Let's be clear, I'm not the one postualting a 'scientific' explanation of our creation.
I freely admit I have no idea of the mechanics of how God created man/universe.
I do, however, believe when you apply logic to the obersvation of our sciences; it shows a complexity that could have only come from an intelligent entity.
(i.e. a highly complex 4-bit code that has ability transcribe, code/translate, edit/repair and execute/build a 3-D object)
If when we first got to the moon we found a computer/ hard drive, would it be logical to postulate it was intelligently designed or it was made by some random naturalistic causations?
I don't really need an explanation of the explanation to know it's the best explanation.
In other words, I don't need an explanation ( "proof") of how/ why an intelligent entity created life, to come to the realization its the best explanation of the origin of life.
Having said that,
the myriad examples of the symbiotic relationships in nature, or the undeniable evidence of a finely tuned universe; could be cited as just a couple of examples of an intelligent hand at work.
IMO there is a lot off evidence, but you have to be able to look at it objectively or there is no point even examining it (or me giving it) at all.

It is ironic that you talk about holes in the theory of evolution. There's a huge hole in the idea of christianity IMO, and its the apparent absence of god.

Sadly, maybe absent in your life , but not mine.

You just repeat the same arguments ad nauseum and offer nothing new and think you've made your point.

The crux of the argument is the same, but I have gave numerous new/different examples of why the current model of neo-darwinism is false.

For months you've been "debunking" evolution. Not once have you been willing really justify your alternative, (which is god as creator).

Again, it isn't necessary to give a replacement theory to show a theory is in error.
If the emperor isn't wearing any clothes,
I don't have to first find him clothes to see/point out he has no clothes on. Furthermore, I wouldn't need a scientific explanation of how clothes came into existence either.

I'm going to continue to ignore what you it seems you don't understand about evolution and put the ball in your court to offer an alternative, in keeping with the topic of this thread...

? Back to the " you don't understand evolution" argument again I see.
Did you ever figure out why your "evolving" dog isn't "evolving" with respect?
Or do you need me to explain your lack of understanding of neo-darwinism?
?
P.s I am keeping with topic in thread.
And the OP brought up evolution.

Much love BTW, I dig you and what you have to offer

? same here, just cause I disagree with ya doesn't mean I don't have respect for your views.

 

[Voyager3]

The current neo-darwinism paradigm doesn't hold a monopoly on our sciences.
Frankly, IMO disagreeing with neo-darwinism doesn't really have anything to do with science since it basically doesn't give anything we can test/observe/repeat.
In reality ( when you get down to it), there is zero actual scientific proof of what the theory actually posits. This is why it can undoubtedly be classified as a religious belief.

Hope you don't mind me jumping in, but maybe I can help decide what appears to be a bit of a 'circular argument' here? To be honest, I'm not even quite sure who is suggesting what, or favours exactly what, so can I just say a word for Darwin here?

His theory, concerning an incredibly complicated and (as it was in his time) highly controversial issue, was a very fine attempt IMHO to explain evolution by natural selection. It wasn't perfect of course, but was, and still is, sound enough to be quickly accepted by science and the general public, despite substantial and bitter opposition from many powerful interests.

It has, during the 150 odd years since he published, been thoroughly questioned and tested as far as is possible, by both those favouring it, and others who did their utmost to discredit it for both scientific and distinctly unscientific reasons... and the fromer have invariably 'won', and the latter, driven into ever more desperate and hopeless positions, have only ever won derision, abuse and dismissal as kooks, bigots or worse.


It is easy to forget that Darwin published his theory only a few decades after a French expedition to Egypt, armed with the ability to understamd heiroglyphs and the AE language, we given strict orders by the Catholic church that 'they were to find or record NOTHING that would contradict the Bible', particularly any indications of the Earth possibly being more than the 8000 years or so old, which is when Genesis claims the Creation occured, as experts at the Vatican had deduced, after nearly 2000 years of research and analysis. If so much as a single heretical or blasphemous whisper contradicting the 'official history' was heard, all funding would be withdrawn, and serious charges would be preferred on any offenders! Luckily, they ignored the church, and published and were damned... though nobody cared.

That was of course still decades before Darwin, and I seem to remember that his theory came out only a few years before or after the Vatican reluctantly accepted that Galileo had been right all along, and apologised.

In fairness, using "evolution did it" or "mother nature did it" for the lack of explanation of how/why something works (*or exists as it does); is the exact same thing as what you are suggesting I am doing.
( but yes I am saying "God did it")
Have you ever stopped to think it's entirely possible there are things science can't explain?

Of course, many things - and no scientist worthy of the name would be stupid enough to claim otherwise. A nice, simple and very well known phenomena has been observed, recorded and openly mentioned by reliable, credible witnesses throughout human history, in every country, civilisation and society worldwide. Anyone therefore who says"there's no such thing as ghosts!", which some still do, with haughty, self-assured arrogance, is actually expressing a hope or wish, not a fact. Easy for me to say, since I can just as arrogantly, smugly and assuredly say "yes there are, I've seen several" - which is a fact. To be quite fair, science is actually catching up with this one, and in only the last few years there have been quite a few fastidiously and reliably recorded sightings and instrumental evidence, but it remains for now a matter of debate and speculation.


I would however say, and this is entirely 'personal', I believe that there is "no such thing as supernatural", only phenomena science, in its present form, cannot record, measure, quantify and explain experimentally. I mean, only a couple of centuries ago, electricity, which we all use, employ and accept as a fact, would have been entirely supernatural were you to suggest it. And we still can't see, hear or (hopefully!) feel or smell it even now.

Pesrsonally, I beleive God is responsible for our existence and the laws that govern our universe.
Our sciences (including mathematics) are an attempt to understand/explain the mechanisms of how/why God's creation/laws work the way they do.

My point? I guess kinda two-fold .....
( in short)
First, we all believe in creationism. Some believe in the supernatural and some the natural.
and
Second, the study of our sciences hasn't given any extra credence to the naturalistic view of creation.
(p.s it's ok to hold faith that one day there will be a naturalistic explanation, but just be honest in the fact you are using faith)

I consider myself a scientist, but that does not mean I am unable to have an open mind. In fact, I would say that having a truly open, inquiring mind is an essential requirement for anyone claiming to BE a scientist. It always used to be so, it is a sad, recent development that so-called scientists have claimed to be the ultimate authority on what is real, and what is not... something which IMHO has done much harm to science and stifled a great deal of potentially valuable and fascinating discoveries, due to researchers being intimidate by possible ridicule, or prevented by lack of funds.

Back to Darwin though. The way it works is quite easy to see if you look at dogs. Almost every breed in the World is descended from the wolf, be it a Yorkshire terrier, Great Dane or Whippet. They have all 'evolved' in only a few thousand years, due to selective breeding... NB NOT Natural Selection, but selection nonetheless. Without man, and his selfish desire to have smaller/bigger/sweeter/faster dogs, they would all still be wolves. In the natural world, such evolution would take far longer, and be causes by changes in environmental conditions, for instance, were it to become icy cold, any wolf with a thick coat would do better than one with less fur, and manage to live longer and breed for a longer time, producing longer haired offspring.
Or maybe a change in the weather caused a drop in the plant population, which meant many larger herbivorous animals moved on or died out, giving an advantage to smaller, faster wolves, etc. etc.... and eventually, the whole wolf population in said area would gradually turn into hairy whippets.


I think it is sad that Darwin, a well meaning, honest man, has been unfairly blamed for some of the most unfortunate episodes in recent history, which was really encouraged by those who followed him, and developed eugenics. The patently absurd notions they instilled into twisted psychopaths like Hitler and Himmler were not Darwin's fault - he would have been appalled!

As for Creationism, I too cannot see how anyone can avoid or deny the notion. It happened... we even know roughly when, 14 billion years ago or so. The Big Bang... and the energy 'created' in that evolved into matter, and after much interaction and evolution, the Solar system formed some 4 billion years ago. Then a vast serious of geological, gravitational, physicaland chemical events produced the right circumstances and environment for life to form and develop... actually Created from and by Evolution... which came from and with Creation. They go together, and one cannot be without the other... only words for something incredible, unimaginable in the vastness of time and space... and here I am, writing this! I'm sure things will get better?

If it comes to questions like "Who lit the blue touchpaper and set off the Big Bang?", I know only one thing - neither religion nor science has a sensible answer, and that satisfies me!

 

[sekio]

Sorry if this has been touched on before and I'm missing it, but why must complexity be a surefire indicator of intelligence?
At what point does a process have to be so complex that it could not have arisen through random chance?

Does this argument rely on "rounding down" very small but nonzero odds to zero and assuming such events cannot occur, ever?

 

[methamaniac]

Sorry if this has been touched on before and I'm missing it, but why must complexity be a surefire indicator of intelligence?
At what point does a process have to be so complex that it could not have arisen through random chance?

Does this argument rely on "rounding down" very small but nonzero odds to zero and assuming such events cannot occur, ever?

If you are refering to the origin of life, a better way to look at it is building from the bottom up, instead of subtracting from the top down.
When building from bottom up, you need new specified information that is functional and favorable (keypoints) at every step of the way up. The odds of chance getting lucky as many times as it would need to be lucky are basically nill (given we have a finite timeline).

Even in Conway's 'game of life' you first need specified information to build complexity.

 

[Voyager3]

Basically nil? Yet it happened....

The human imagination is sadly limited, and during our tiny lifespan can never hope to truly understand, accept or picture the true vastness of the Universe... or the relatively tiny timespans and complexities of our little 'grain of sand' on the outer edge of said Universe we call Earth.

 

[NOtoInvega]

what are the words of jesus. what are his basics teachings

34But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36Master, whichis the great commandment in the law? 37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

He died for our sins.

I'm doing fine, to those who were worried. I was tied up for a while.

 

[socko]

34But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36Master, whichis the great commandment in the law? 37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

He died for our sins.

I'm doing fine, to those who were worried. I was tied up for a while.

Some of us were getting worried about you. I'm glad your OK. And yes, the "Great Commandment" #37 and #39 are two everyone, even non-believers, should try to live by. The world would be a better place.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Stumbled upon this thread. Read a good chunk of it. Not my cup of tea I'll be honest, but part of me could relate to the struggle. Here's a radical idea you might consider: sin isn't real. It appears real while we hold a belief in it, but it is an illusion of perception. While we reach for the purity of God's Grace with one hand and hold a belief in sin with the other we can't help but experience confusion. Let me quote a little verse too while we're at it...

"Except for God's teachers there would be little hope of salvation, for the world of sin would seem forever real. The self-deceiving must deceive, for they must teach deception. And what else is hell? [...] God's Son is guiltless, and sin does not exist." — A Course in Miracles

I've experienced my own visions of hell mixed with grace. Some call it psychosis. To me it was a gift. Had I given too much meaning to it though it would have been enough to drive me mad. I went down the rabbit hole some and saw my soul in a most precarious limbo. I saw my own arrogance. I saw how deep down inside there is a confusion of authorship with God. I never even read the bible or went to church more than a handful of times. Why visions of satan? Why a sense of eternal struggle over the fate of my soul?

This happened several times throughout my life. These episode would last no longer than an hour usually would change my life forever. Odd thing is after going through it I would usually experienced periods of clarity, though not always. Here is the phrase I repeated over and over to myself when the experience came to me yet again for the n-th time: "I always chose the light" That's all it took. I made a choice that day. A choice that may very well have saved me from the mental ward. There is no battle between good and evil. There is no sin. There is just Grace and illusions, and illusions don't exist. My story about that experience now is that I was merely reliving my fall from oneness. My birth trauma essentially. No fangs, no disembodied entities preying on my soul. Just a love of creation and my illusory obstacles towards realizing it.