Philosophy Discussion Forums

Dolphin42 wrote:One thing I've noticed is that eye-eating worms always get a bad rap from discussions like this. Always it's the eye-eating worms. In their defence: maybe, by eating some eyes, they've caused the eye to evolve better protection. Although if it just means they've evolved better protection from being eaten by worms it is an admittedly dubious, mafia-esque, kind of "protection".

There are worse things than eye-eating worms - feminists, for example. Or golf balls that don't float.

-- Updated November 9th, 2016, 8:04 pm to add the following --

Fooloso4 wrote:
So, if I understand you accept microevolution as a fact but reject macroevolution. What do you think the difference is? Is it based on the notion of species as kinds?

My understanding is:
microevolution + time = macroevolution

I am theologically committed to a literal interpretation of Genesis, but I'm tinkering with the possibility that the creatures originally created may be subject to macroevolution.  This idea may not present any theological difficulties, but I'll have to let my fragile, egg-shell mind mull it over awhile. However, given the time elapsed since creation - less than 6000 years, not much macro' would have occurred.

On the other hand, I'm not aware of any trustworthy evidence that demonstrates that macroevolution has ever occurred.  Various forms of "evidence" are offered by different strands of science, but I can't trust the opinion of "scientists" who are so unscientific as to believe that dead, mindless matter per se can produce the order seen in the universe - and especially in living organisms.
 I can't trust the mentality that claims drug-resistance in bacteria is an example of "evolution".  This is an example of natural selection, but has zero relevance to speciation.  I might be stupid, but I not so stupid as to fall for that cheap trick.

As for the fossil record, Charles Darwin didn't think much of it; and the nebulous world of palaeontology is the last place I'd trust to provide empirical evidence.  I get the impression that the fossil record supports creation at least as much as it supports evolution.  

So I can sum up my position on macroevolution by saying that while I can't prove it doesn't happen, I have no reason to believe that it does.  And in such a case as this, I apply my fool-proof criteria: Can the theory be tested?  Does it have a use in applied science?  No and no ... macroevolution fails on both counts.
So what am I missing out on exactly, by rejecting it?  Of what use is it to believe that a deer evolved into a whale or that some ape-like creature evolved into a human being?  None that I can see.  Such beliefs are as irrelevant and unproductive as science-fiction.

Wiki provides the following references regarding examples of speciation from its article on macroevolution. Each is available by copying and pasting the title is a search engine: ....

Definitions of speciation differ.  So one man's speciation is another man's stasis.  For every (desperate) scientist who claims speciation has occurred, you'll find one (or 1000) who disputes it.  One step forward and one step back ... so goes the dance of speciation - nowhere, in other words.

In other words, if you accept microevolution then you accept macroevolution.

You seem to be making the mistake of equating an extrapolation with a fact (Darwinists have a penchant for this, I've noticed).   To claim that microevolution necessarily leads to macroevolution is no different to claiming that, since human beings are running the 100-meter dash faster and faster, eventually a man will run it in one second.  Maybe, but not necessarily.
If I accept microevolution I'm doing no more than accepting the means by which macroevolution (supposedly) happens.

-- Updated November 10th, 2016, 4:29 pm to add the following --

Iapetus wrote: I gave you an example of a claim to ‘goodness’, All things bright and beautiful, published in 1848. I questioned whether you considered this to be logical, balanced and fair. Rather than reply directly, you simply stated, with no further explanation, that, “God cannot create evil”, even though we have never discussed the term, ‘evil’.

"bad" = evil

If you can’t even tell me if a cat is a ‘good thing’ or a ‘bad thing’, - when your beliefs seem to focus on such things - then what sort of basis is this for any sort of philosophy?

A cat is good, but I believe that before the Fall, all creatures were vegetarian.  So, to sum up:  Cat - good.   Killing other animals - bad(=evil).

You can believe what you like but please don’t assume that I go along with it.

Why would I assume that? What you choose to believe is none of my business.

If a woman (oh silly woman!) was persuaded by a talking snake to eat an apple, the result of which is that every child who was ever born subsequently must bear the burden of such a sin, then the God who ordained such a penance is not an entity which I can respect. I find the concept of original sin to be abhorrent, as would be the blood sacrifice of atonement.

Ok, so there are some aspects of this Christian entity that you find disagreeable and that don't engender respect.  What if this entity created the universe and everything in it, including your life, would this be enough to warrant any of your respect?  Besides that, there are other aspects of this entity's character expressed in the Bible, some of which I think you would find agreeable - in principle, at least.  For example, in the Old Testament the entity gives advice on how to deal with certain diseases and issues commandments to honour one parents, to look after widows and orphans, to love one's neighbour as oneself and to be hospitable to strangers.  Plus there are prohibitions against stealing, lying, rape, usury and cruelty to animals.  The entity also says that he loves his people.
In the New Testament, this Christian entity performs miracles to feed thousands of people; calm storms; heal the sick, blind and lame; free people from demonic possession; and raise the dead.  And this entity also exhorts people to promote love, peace, honesty and forgiveness.  Then there are the admirable teachings contained in parables such as the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.
This Christian entity also promises to resurrect billions of the dead to eternal life, in which there will be no "bad" things - like crime, violence, pain, suffering, disease, ageing, sadness or death. This entity also declares his love for all humanity.

When assessing whether this entity might be worthy of respect or not, would it be logical, balanced and fair to take into account both the disagreeable and agreeable aspects of its character?  Or would it be logical, balanced and fair to take into account only the disagreeable aspects?

I fail to see how, in any reasoned argument, you can assume that what has been ‘revealed’ to you has been ‘revealed’ to anybody else.

Not sure what you mean but this, as there are more than a billion Catholics in the world who believe in exactly the same revelation as I.

And so to the question which you have already dodged four times, even though I have stressed its importance;
I asked you long ago if you considered it your moral duty to do as you are told – or what you are ‘taught’ - and you never answered me. It is a significant question because, if all that concerns you is that you do what you are told or 'taught', then why does logic, balance and fairness even matter to you?

It is my moral duty to do whatever the Catholic Church requires me to do to fulfil my duty as a Catholic.  
Faith is arrived at through a process of reasoning.  But not all faith can be reasoned, as faith entails accepting unfathomable mysteries. If faith can be reasoned, it wouldn't be faith.

If you are unable to discern the mind of God, then who are you to question 'Him'?

I don't understand this question.  But the mind of God can be known in as much as God has revealed himself to mankind.   This revelation is recorded in Scripture, especially in the person of Jesus Christ.

Anthony:

A cat is good, but I believe that before the Fall, all creatures were vegetarian.

Having read through a few of your posts I suspect you're simply playing a part to see the reaction. That's good. I like that. This is an old, old discussion that many have had before, but it's still a bit of fun to pass the time before getting on with some boring work. So:

Before the fall, when creatures like cats were all vegetarian, do you think they had longer guts, flatter teeth and no claws? Or were they given these features in anticipation of the inevitable fall? Do you think prey animals which currently have eyes on the sides of their heads to give them an all-round view to spot predators had forward facing eyes? Or do you think the animals that are now predators, with front facing eyes of tracking prey had sidey eyes? Or did they both have eyes somewhere in between? Or, since these questions have no obvious practical use for humans, do you not really care?

Cats and other carnivores currently possess a gene which codes for the creation of vitamin C in their bodies so that they don't need it in their diet. They manufacture it internally. We humans have a recognisable but corrupted version of that same gene, so we need vitamin C in our diets. (I'm quite a limey myself. Especially in a Gin and Tonic.)

Those crazy evolution theorists have some nutty idea that the existence of this corrupted version of the same "vitamin C gene" constitutes part of the evidence that we share a common ancestor with the carnivorous mammals but that the existence of plentiful vitamin C in our ancestors' diets meant that there was no selective pressure to keep the gene functioning. An individual with a mutated copy is just as likely to survive as one with a functioning copy. Or something like that.

Before the fall, do you think cats, like us, didn't have a working gene which codes for the creation of vitamin C?

etc.

-- Updated November 11th, 2016, 10:12 am to add the following --

I've pondered this for a few minutes and I think the best answer is this:

Carnivorous animals, like cats, didn't actually exist before the fall. Initially, God created humans and herbivores. After the fall, He created the carnivores. I'm not a great Biblical scholar so I don't know if this theory can be made to fit scripture. I hope so. I vaguely remember something about the Lion lying down with the Lamb. I suspect that was just a mis-translation.

-- Updated November 11th, 2016, 10:37 am to add the following --

I'm going to generalise the above comment slightly.

Initially, before the fall, God created only:

1. Creatures whose diet consists of living things with no central nervous system and therefore no capacity for suffering.
2. Creatures whose diet consists of living things with a central nervous system but which humans find unattractive and which it is, therefore, not evil to eat. (ants, for example.)
3. Creatures whose diet consists of carbon dioxide and sunlight.

Reply to Anthony Edgar:

"bad" = evil

Is this the level of discussion to which we are reduced? You have told me that:

It would be impossible for me to develop criteria that can be used to differentiate good things from bad things, as I don't know precisely what the world was like before Original Sin corrupted it. I can only guess.

It does not appear that you have given any thought to how you would distinguish good from bad, yet you frequently use both terms. You also seem to think that you can freely interchange ‘bad’ and ‘evil’. In which case, a ‘bad cough’ and an ‘evil cough’ mean the same thing. This is, for me, such an embarrassing level of discussion that I can only direct you to a decent dictionary.

You also insist that “God cannot create evil” but if, as you suggest, evil and bad mean the same things, then that is a useless statement since, as you have admitted in relation to distinguishing good from bad, “I can only guess”.

So, to sum up: Cat - good. Killing other animals - bad(=evil).

I find it very difficult to respond to this without sounding patronising. Cats kill other animals. But you say they are good. You seem reluctant, however, to construct an explanation which consists of a proper sentence. I guess that the reason for this is that you are unable to square the inherent contradictions. You seem incapable of defining the quality of any entity as anything other than good or bad, yet you are unable to distinguish between the two. Perhaps you hope that the least said, soonest mended. Sorry to disabuse you of this but it sounds to me, once more, like desperation.

Not sure what you mean but this, as there are more than a billion Catholics in the world who believe in exactly the same revelation as I.

I hope that you understand enough about the ‘numbers game’ to appreciate that this bears no correspondence whatsoever to ‘truth’, whatever that may mean. Moreover, you have not defined your ‘revelation’. If you are referring to the Garden of Eden, since you spoke of this recently, then please provide me with the evidence that all Roman Catholics accept this story, because I know personally many Catholics and none of them believe this.

It is my moral duty to do whatever the Catholic Church requires me to do to fulfil my duty as a Catholic.

But you have already told me that “The Catholic Church doesn't teach that the life of a Catholic is superior in meaning, purpose and value to that of a non-Catholic". Yet, in a previous discussion, you asserted specifically that atheist meaning and purpose is a mirage. When I asked you about this, you immediately discontinued the conversation. So I have to ask once again. Were you in disagreement with your Church? Does this mean that you were – perish the thought – thinking for yourself? Is that allowed?

I have to say, Anthony, that I cannot remember having a conversation with anybody in a discussion forum who is so keen to use the terms, ‘good’, ‘bad’ and ‘evil’ but who has so little appreciation of what they appear to mean and how they can be distinguished. If you are so dependent on what you have been ‘taught’, then I suppose it is not that surprising. I do not think it is an encouraging advert for ‘doctrine’.

Faith is arrived at through a process of reasoning. But not all faith can be reasoned, as faith entails accepting unfathomable mysteries. If faith can be reasoned, it wouldn't be faith.

"Faith is arrived at through a process of reasoning … If faith can be reasoned, it wouldn’t be faith". Pardon me???? Reasoned or not reasoned? Anthony, if you think that this represents a process of reasoning, when your third sentence contradicts your first, then it leaves much to be desired. You have, in any case, already refered to; “My belief in God - even if it turns out to be a fantasy …”. Why are you bothering to continue?

I have argued many times that not all aspects of belief are necessarily subject to reason. We often believe things as the result of upbringing, socialisation, emotional responses, affinity for nice stories and so on. But some things, surely, are subject to reasoned discussion and it is those things which may concern us, particularly when it was you who made the original criticism about reason, balance and fairness.

If you say that you believe in something, then I can only take your word for it. If you say that you have faith, then there is little for me to say, except that I don’t accept that faith is necessarily a good thing. If, on the other hand, you want me to accept, in a discussion forum, the validity of what you say, then you need to provide an explanation which is reasoned, using strategies such as evidence, justification and logical progression. I can hardly find anything in what you have written which corresponds to this process. You have made assertions with no attempt to explain them. You have told stories which have meaning for you but not for me. You have told me what you have been taught but have been completely unable to explain how you are able to discern that what you have been taught is acceptable, beyond the duty of obediance. Must this acceptance of ‘teaching’ be blind and unquestioning? If not, then how could you possibly learn to acquire facilities of discrimination?

If your ‘arguments’ continue to consist of bald assertions, telling of stories and reliance on what you have been ‘taught’ then, as far as I can see, these are religious rather than philosophical arguments and, according to the rules, are not permitted.

Iapetus,
You need to address the following part of my last post.  I can't work out how you missed it, as it's central to your complaint.

Iapetus wrote:If a woman (oh silly woman!) was persuaded by a talking snake to eat an apple, the result of which is that every child who was ever born subsequently must bear the burden of such a sin, then the God who ordained such a penance is not an entity which I can respect. I find the concept of original sin to be abhorrent, as would be the blood sacrifice of atonement.

Ok, so there are some aspects of this Christian entity that you find disagreeable and that don't engender respect.  What if this entity created the universe and everything in it, including your life, would this be enough to warrant any of your respect?  Besides that, there are other aspects of this entity's character expressed in the Bible, some of which I think you would find agreeable - in principle, at least.  For example, in the Old Testament the entity gives advice on how to deal with certain diseases and issues commandments to honour one parents, to look after widows and orphans, to love one's neighbour as oneself and to be hospitable to strangers.  Plus there are prohibitions against stealing, lying, rape, usury and cruelty to animals.  The entity also says that he loves his people.

In the New Testament, this Christian entity performs miracles to feed thousands of people; calm storms; heal the sick, blind and lame; free people from demonic possession; and raise the dead.  And this entity also exhorts people to promote love, peace, honesty, forgiveness and care for for the poor.  Then there are the admirable teachings contained in parables such as the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.
This Christian entity also promises to resurrect billions of the dead to eternal life, in which there will be no "bad" things - like crime, violence, pain, suffering, disease, ageing, sadness or death.  This entity also declares his love for all humanity.

When assessing whether this entity might be worthy of respect or not, would it be logical, balanced and fair to take into account both the disagreeable and agreeable aspects of its character?  Or would it be logical, balanced and fair to take into account only the disagreeable aspects?

-- Updated November 13th, 2016, 9:07 pm to add the following --

Dolphin42 wrote: Having read through a few of your posts I suspect you're simply playing a part to see the reaction.

Huh?

Dolphin42 wrote: So: Before the fall, when creatures like cats were all vegetarian, do you think they had longer guts, flatter teeth and no claws? Or were they given these features in anticipation of the inevitable fall? Do you think prey animals which currently have eyes on the sides of their heads to give them an all-round view to spot predators had forward facing eyes? Or do you think the animals that are now predators, with front facing eyes of tracking prey had sidey eyes? Or did they both have eyes somewhere in between? Or, since these questions have no obvious practical use for humans, do you not really care? ... Before the fall, do you think cats, like us, didn't have a working gene which codes for the creation of vitamin C? etc ... I've pondered this for a few minutes and I think the best answer is this:
Carnivorous animals, like cats, didn't actually exist before the fall. Initially, God created humans and herbivores. After the fall, He created the carnivores. I'm not a great Biblical scholar so I don't know if this theory can be made to fit scripture. I hope so. I vaguely remember something about the Lion lying down with the Lamb. I suspect that was just a mis-translation.

My theory about herbivores turning into carnivores raises all sorts of "how" questions for some people, I know, but I've no need to consider such questions because I accept the whole thing as a supernatural event, and therefore a profound mystery that defies scientific explanation (God is not limited by the laws of nature). So I don't need to figure out how such a thing could have happened ... anymore than I need to figure out how Jesus turned water into wine or raised the dead.
 My belief can be reduced to: No carnivores existed before the Fall; after the Fall carnivores did exist. I really wouldn't want to get any more specific than that. I also believe that animals killing and eating each other is a result of Original Sin.   
But I'm open to any theory on the matter as long as it doesn't compromise Scripture.  

There is a prophesy about lions, leopards and wolves "lying down" and living in harmony with lambs and goats (and children) - and lions eating straw "like the ox" -  in the book of Isaiah.  I believe this Scripture refers to the carnivore-less conditions that will prevail in the animal kingdom after the Second Coming, an event which will eradicate all the effects of Original Sin.  There is also speculation that no creatures will need to eat anything because they will be supernaturally sustained - eating will be only for pleasure.   But who knows?

Dolphin42:

Having read through a few of your posts I suspect you're simply playing a part to see the reaction.

Tony:

Huh?

I guess that means "no, I really believe the things that I say". In which case, you have an interesting take on life.

My theory about herbivores turning into carnivores raises all sorts of "how" questions for some people, I know, but I've no need to consider such questions because I accept the whole thing as a supernatural event, and therefore a profound mystery that defies scientific explanation (God is not limited by the laws of nature). So I don't need to figure out how such a thing could have happened ... anymore than I need to figure out how Jesus turned water into wine or raised the dead.
My belief can be reduced to: No carnivores existed before the Fall; after the Fall carnivores did exist. I really wouldn't want to get any more specific than that. I also believe that animals killing and eating each other is a result of Original Sin.
But I'm open to any theory on the matter as long as it doesn't compromise Scripture.

Fair enough. That is a perfectly internally consistent way to view the world. It is also very liberating, as it frees you to believe anything at all, including things that contradict themselves, so long as they don't contradict your chosen text. It's not a world view that I would personally adopt because it makes the world a staggeringly dull place with no possibility of working out the reason why anything at all happens. But each to their own. It takes all sorts. etc.

Reply to Anthony Edgar:

You need to address the following part of my last post. I can't work out how you missed it, as it's central to your complaint.

You have lost me completely. I assumed you were about to tell me of something I missed but you haven’t told me what. You have not told me what is central to what. Instead, you quoted part of my reply but have not explained what I did not address. I demonstrated that I was familiar with the story you were trying to tell me. I explained that my interpretation was not the same as yours.

What you have then tried to do is to tell me some of the ‘nice’ things you can find in the Bible. I could then quote you some of the hideous things, including commands by God to massacre women and children without exception and demands for blood sacrifice. It is clear to me that the Bible can be used to justify almost any belief, including keeping slaves. I did, however, stress an objection; “Please, please don’t attempt to answer them. If you can’t even tell me if a cat is a good thing or a bad thing, then anything more substantial is bound to be unconvincing. You have told me a story which has no power to persuade me of anything”.

Yet you continue to tell stories. This does not constitute philosophical discussion.

What if this entity created the universe and everything in it, including your life, would this be enough to warrant any of your respect?

And what if your God is the fantasy which you admit it could be? What if a God created the universe and then destroyed itself, shocked at what it had done? What if a flying spaghetti monster sprinkled fairy dust to alter our perceptions of our own existence? What if we are all part of a computer simulation? Your question has a significance, but only in the context of my questions, amongst others. We would need to examine the question philosophically but you have not attempted to do so and, given that you are unable to differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’, I have no confidence that you would be able to do so.

When assessing whether this entity might be worthy of respect or not, would it be logical, balanced and fair to take into account both the disagreeable and agreeable aspects of its character?

“So a claim for only good or only bad things for an omnipotent God – whatever that means precisely - is likely to be illogical, unbalanced and unfair” (#226). Which part of this did you not manage to follow? You have, by the way, now changed your argument to include both “disagreeable and agreeable aspects of its (God’s) character” even though, previously, you insisted that “God cannot create evil”. And, if God is a fantasy, then it could be anything you fantasise it to be.

Neither do you relate your belief in Roman Catholicism to any other beliefs. You take is as given that your faith and the book you value is all that needs to be considered. This is not logical, fair or balanced. You have not attempted to explain the Bible in relation to the Quran, the Talmud, the Shreemad Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Book of Mormon and any selection of umpteen others. You just want your own stories. That is preaching, not philosophy. It also ignores the point of this thread, which is about exploring possibilities for biogenesis.

Since you accused me of not answering something you asked, but did not tell me precisely what, we now need to consider some of those issues which, once more, you have completely ignored.

I asked how you would differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’, you have not been able to progress beyond, “I can only guess”.

I questioned your equivalence of ‘bad’ and ‘evil’. You have not responded.

I explained why I thought that your claim that, “God cannot create evil”, was a useless statement. You have not responded, except to give a contradiction to your own argument in your most recent reply.

I pointed out, “Cats kill other animals. But you say they are good. You seem reluctant, however, to construct an explanation which consists of a proper sentence. I guess that the reason for this is that you are unable to square the inherent contradictions. You seem incapable of defining the quality of any entity as anything other than good or bad, yet you are unable to distinguish between the two”. You have not attempted to respond to this.

I tried to point out what I considered a critical objection to your arguments about logic; “’The Catholic Church doesn't teach that the life of a Catholic is superior in meaning, purpose and value to that of a non-Catholic’. Yet, in a previous discussion, you asserted specifically that atheist meaning and purpose is a mirage. When I asked you about this, you immediately discontinued the conversation. So I have to ask once again. Were you in disagreement with your Church? Does this mean that you were – perish the thought – thinking for yourself? Is that allowed?” You have not even tried to address the objection.

"Faith is arrived at through a process of reasoning … If faith can be reasoned, it wouldn’t be faith"

I pointed out the nonsense of this. You have not responded.

I asked two specific questions; “Must this acceptance of ‘teaching’ be blind and unquestioning? If not, then how could you possibly learn to acquire facilities of discrimination?” You have made no attempt to answer.

This is far from a complete list of your failures to respond and it only refers to my very last post. But it will do for now.

You seem to be bereft of ideas. If you continue to try to tell me stories and what you have been ‘taught’, rather that offering genuine philosophical proposals, then we are done. To rest upon faith as a justification is no justification at all. Your refusal to answer questions demonstrates to me a determination to disengage from the discussion.

Anthony Edgar:

A cat is good, but I believe that before the Fall, all creatures were vegetarian. So, to sum up: Cat - good. Killing other animals - bad(=evil).

Of course you can believe whatever you want but the story of the Fall says nothing of the sort. What we do find, however, is that after the Flood man is given permission to eat animals:

Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. (Genesis 9:3)

So whatever stories you want to make up about the Fall and cats, when it comes to people, the eating of animals comes after the Flood not after the Fall.

We also have this:

The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. (Genesis 3:21)

and :

Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering (Genesis 4:4).

What is clear is that God found the use of animals for their skins and for sacrifice to Him to be acceptable. That man would need adequate clothing after being banished from the garden is understandable, but why is animal sacrifice to God now acceptable? Had God fallen as well? Is this why He found it acceptable to kill almost all living things in the Flood and then regret what He did?

We have gotten way off topic with these Bible stories and further stories to explain the stories in a way that conforms to your beliefs. Bible stories are not a critique of biological materialism. This is nothing more than a plea to reject scientific inquiry and accept your Bible based beliefs instead.

Iapetus wrote: What you have then tried to do is to tell me some of the ‘nice’ things you can find in the Bible. I could then quote you some of the hideous things, including commands by God to massacre women and children without exception and demands for blood sacrifice. It is clear to me that the Bible can be used to justify almost any belief, including keeping slaves.

When evaluating the Christian god, it is a common trait of atheists to concentrate on this god's perceived evils (any possible mitigating circumstances are not considered, of course) and to ignore anything that might be perceived as good or virtuous.   So your displayed bias is nothing unusual.  Is your animus towards theism reserved for just the Judeo-Christian form, or does all religion get up your nose?

Neither do you relate your belief in Roman Catholicism to any other beliefs. You take is as given that your faith and the book you value is all that needs to be considered. This is not logical, fair or balanced. You have not attempted to explain the Bible in relation to the Quran, the Talmud, the Shreemad Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Book of Mormon and any selection of umpteen others.

What?  How the hell did you get on to this?  Next you'll be asking me for my whole life's story!  Do you want me to write a book?

I asked how you would differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’, you have not been able to progress beyond, “I can only guess”.

More confusion.  Are you talking about differentiating between good and evil in general?  If so, I defer to the opinion of the Church on such matters. If you want to study their philosophy, try the web.

I tried to point out what I considered a critical objection to your arguments about logic; “’The Catholic Church doesn't teach that the life of a Catholic is superior in meaning, purpose and value to that of a non-Catholic’. Yet, in a previous discussion, you asserted specifically that atheist meaning and purpose is a mirage. When I asked you about this, you immediately discontinued the conversation. So I have to ask once again.

If an atheist believes, on the one hand, that the universe and everything in it is meaningless, then, on the other hand, claims that his life does have meaning, then this meaning he finds must be a mirage, or an hallucination, since, according to his premise, meaning doesn't exist.  
He is part of a meaningless universe, yet he claims his life has meaning - this is a obvious contradiction, in my opinion.  Either meaning exists in the universe or it doesn't; he can't have it both ways.  

The theist on the other hand, believes that the universe and everything in it - including human life - does have meaning.   He at least has a philosophical reason to believe that his life has meaning and he is not contradicting his premise.

You seem to be bereft of ideas. If you continue to try to tell me stories and what you have been ‘taught’, rather that offering genuine philosophical proposals, then we are done. To rest upon faith as a justification is no justification at all. Your refusal to answer questions demonstrates to me a determination to disengage from the discussion.

One reason I ignore some of your questions is that (a) some of them seem to badly worded and therefore unintelligible;  (b) you go off on tangents; and (c) replying to one of your questions means getting another frenzied ten from you in return, each requiring considerable thought and effort to answer.  Sorry if I can't be bothered with your every request, Your Majesty. 
Furthermore, you accuse me of "dodging" your questions, but you're not bad at doing it yourself.  I had to re-pose a question from my second-last post - and you still haven't answered it.

Anthony, you are obviously an intellectual. A problem for me is that your faith overshadows your intellect.

How can someone so smart to have his intellect so completely hijacked by religion?

Some aspects of your faith to ponder:
1. The tenets were written in a book.
2. The book says God is the way to believe.
3. Yet it says NOTHING or hardly anything about God, as he speaks first person singular. One of the few things he reveals of himself is in the opening paragaraph of the ten commandments, "I am a mean and jealous god." And you call him all-good and all fair. He calls himself mean (not good) and jealous (commandment-antithetical). You can say he is different from man, so his own commandments don't apply to him. Fine. But "He created him in His own image." So he IS like us.

How can he be infinitely good? Or infinitely this or that or the other thing? we are not like that. So how can we be similar to each other?

The Bible does not say what traits are in common, and what is different between us.

This god of yours is hiding something from you. Something he very badly does not want you to know.

You know what it is that he tries to hide?

Do you want me to tell you?

Well..., the thing he hides is.....

heck if I knew.

Because he is hiding it well.

The fact is he is hiding it.

Nobody has to date figured out what the hidden things are.

But just remember one thing: the power of a god derives from the amount of worship by his followers. The more people worship a god, the more powerful this god is.

That's why I ask you to give up your faith in any god altogether. He is the Trump of gods.

Reply to Anthony Edgar:

When evaluating the Christian god, it is a common trait of atheists to concentrate on this god's perceived evils (any possible mitigating circumstances are not considered, of course) and to ignore anything that might be perceived as good or virtuous.

For crying out loud. You have tried this as a get-out so many times and it is becoming abundantly clear that you either do not read what I have written or you ignore it deliberately. In this case, in my very last post, I reminded you; “‘So a claim for only good or only bad things for an omnipotent God – whatever that means precisely - is likely to be illogical, unbalanced and unfair’ (#226). Which part of this did you not manage to follow?” So, to repeat, which part of this did you not manage to follow?

In post #220 – thirty posts ago - I pointed out an example of a claim that God makes ‘only good things’ going back to 1848. I asked you if you thought this was logical, balanced and fair. You failed initially to respond and, when reminded subsequently, you said, yes, because “God cannot create evil”. Since then I have tried at least five times to get you to explain precisely what you mean but you have been unable to explain any difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and you recognise no difference between ‘bad’ and ‘evil’. This time you not only refuse to answer but “I defer to the opinion of the Church on such matters”. Apart from your assumption that the ‘Church’ is entirely united on all such issues (??!!) and that, therefore, there can be no disagreement, what, then, is your purpose in writing in a philosophy forum?!

If you want to study their philosophy, try the web.

We are in a philosophy forum! If I want to know your views, I ask you. I don’t expect to be directed elsewhere for your views! If I want to study any aspect of philosophy, then I can, indeed, go to the web. But I have been trying to have a conversation with you whereby we both give reasons for our positions. You have made it clear that you don’t want to do that, so what is the point? Why are you posting if, every time you are asked a specific question, you either ignore it or direct me elsewhere to avoid the issue?

So, to be as clear as I can possibly be; I have suggested that the ‘God is good’ claim was made a long time ago. To point out that ‘bad things’ exist as well as ‘good things’ does not demonstrate a bias to ‘bad things’. It is an argument for balance. If you can justify ‘only good things’ then you are welcome to try but you haven’t done so yet.

So your displayed bias is nothing unusual. Is your animus towards theism reserved for just the Judeo-Christian form, or does all religion get up your nose?

I explained my position to you in some detail in post #2313 of Why atheism cannot be logically supported - 7 Oct 2016 - though since, as usual, you did not reply, I cannot be sure that you even read it. You can, however, go back and do so now. I pointed out that my position was against dogma rather that religion. I actually referenced, ‘tyrant atheists’, though it does not surprise me that you forgot this. It does, however, demonstrate that your accusation above is an unfair one.

To move on. I refered to a range of other beliefs and religions. I made it clear why I did so; “You take is as given that your faith and the book you value is all that needs to be considered. This is not logical, fair or balanced”. Your response is as follows:

What? How the hell did you get on to this? Next you'll be asking me for my whole life's story! Do you want me to write a book?

I didn’t ask for your life story or a book. After all, I can’t even get the difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’. But I wouldn’t mind something that recognised that what you believe is not what everybody else believes. Clearly, however, I was asking too much.

I then asked you why you appeared to disagree with your Church in relation to acceptance of other positions regarding meaning and purpose in life. You decided not to answer. Instead, you repeated your criticism that atheist meaning and purpose is a mirage, to which I have already replied. Why can you not stick to the question? Do you not know by now that I will pick you up on it? Do you disagree with your Church? Are there circumstances where you need to think for yourself? Or is blind obedience a desirable quality?

One reason I ignore some of your questions is that (a) some of them seem to badly worded and therefore unintelligible; (b) you go off on tangents; and (c) replying to one of your questions means getting another frenzied ten from you in return, each requiring considerable thought and effort to answer. Sorry if I can't be bothered with your every request, Your Majesty.

They are not unintelligible and you know it. If you really do not understand the question, then you can always seek clarification. But you don’t. On several occasions in the past I have gone to great efforts to reword and explain in further detail when you have not responded but you have still ignored the question. I can certainly quote instances but you will find it embarrassing.

If you thought that I was going off on a tangent, then you could always have told me so. But, up till now, you never have, nor have you ever provided an example.

I think you will find that, if I don’t get an answer, I ask the same question again. I give you plenty of opportunities. Of course, if you don’t answer, then the questions mount up and it becomes very difficult for you. This indicates to me the weaknesses in your argument and, yes, I will then ask further questions to probe the weaknesses. This is what often happens in philosophical discussion. Do you have a problem with this process?

I am not Your Majesty and your sarcasm highlights your desperation.

Furthermore, you accuse me of "dodging" your questions, but you're not bad at doing it yourself. I had to re-pose a question from my second-last post - and you still haven't answered it

Please reread the very beginning of my last post. I asked you for details of what I missed. You have not provided any. I am not a mind reader.

Anthony, I think I have been patient. I have tried to answer all of your questions but you refuse adamantly to answer – and even ignore - most of mine, despite my repeating them. I do not find this conversation either demanding or interesting and we are no nearer to addressing biological materialism, the point of the thread. If you cannot come up with something which suggests more substantial commitment to genuine discussion, then I am finished with you.

Dolphin42 wrote: Fair enough. That is a perfectly internally consistent way to view the world. It is also very liberating, as it frees you to believe anything at all, including things that contradict themselves, so long as they don't contradict your chosen text. It's not a world view that I would personally adopt because it makes the world a staggeringly dull place with no possibility of working out the reason why anything at all happens. But each to their own. It takes all sorts. etc.

There a big difference between knowing how things happen and thinking you know how things happen. For example, the big issues in evolutionary biology (aka atheist theology) revolve around ideas of speciation - that can't be tested, so there's no way of being certain about of any of it.  So what's the point?  Atheist theology is no more than a talk-fest and is as useless to science as any other kind of theology.

-- Updated November 23rd, 2016, 12:45 am to add the following --

Renee wrote:Anthony, you are obviously an intellectual. A problem for me is that your faith overshadows your intellect. How can someone so smart to have his intellect so completely hijacked by religion?

An "intellectual"? ... "so smart"? Surely you are confusing me with someone else. My IQ has been rated at 9.8 (although I think it's actually higher - somewhere between 10 and 11).  An intellectual requires an IQ of at least 20, so I'm well short of that mark.  My education didn't get any further than Grade 7 and even then I had to repeat three grades!
But I know what you're trying to do, your flatteries don't fool me - I'm not going to lend you any money.

Some aspects of your faith to ponder:
1. The tenets were written in a book.

So what?

3. Yet it says NOTHING or hardly anything about God, as he speaks first person singular. One of the few things he reveals of himself is in the opening paragaraph of the ten commandments, "I am a mean and jealous god." And you call him all-good and all fair. He calls himself mean (not good) and jealous (commandment-antithetical).

I am not aware of any Biblical verse in which God describes himself as "mean", so your task now is now is to back up your accusation by telling me where I can find such a verse.

Anthony Edgar wrote:

Dolphin42 wrote: Fair enough. That is a perfectly internally consistent way to view the world. It is also very liberating, as it frees you to believe anything at all, including things that contradict themselves, so long as they don't contradict your chosen text. It's not a world view that I would personally adopt because it makes the world a staggeringly dull place with no possibility of working out the reason why anything at all happens. But each to their own. It takes all sorts. etc.

There a big difference between knowing how things happen and thinking you know how things happen. For example, the big issues in evolutionary biology (aka atheist theology) revolve around ideas of speciation - that can't be tested, so there's no way of being certain about of any of it.  So what's the point?  Atheist theology is no more than a talk-fest and is as useless to science as any other kind of theology.

Nonsense.

The value of science is in its predictive ability. This is exactly what evolutionary theory does; it predicts the attributes of species in a given environment. Darwin famously predicted the existence of a moth before it was known: io9.gizmodo.com/darwin-predicted-this-a ... 1703223208

On the other hand, the middle eastern Iron Age mythology to which you subscribe provides no more to science than any other myths.

Anthony:

There a big difference between knowing how things happen and thinking you know how things happen.

No, not really. We all only think we know how things happen. We can never have 100% certain knowledge of anything except tautologies. There are certainly no scientific theories that are certain. We can be more confident in our knowledge on some subjects than on others. But it's a difference of degree only.

For example, the big issues in evolutionary biology (aka atheist theology) revolve around ideas of speciation - that can't be tested, so there's no way of being certain about of any of it.

As I've explained previously, you are making the mistake of thinking that theories about things that happened in the past can never be scientific because they cannot create predictions of future observations. If this were true, then my theory that there once existed a man called Henry VIII could never be tested. But it can be tested by future observations. It can be tested by future observations of evidence for things that happened in the past. In the case of Henry VIII, perhaps documents or the remains of large wooden ships.

Likewise, the theory that, for example, we share a relatively recent common ancestor with other mammals can be tested by observations in the present and future, even though the process of speciation that had to happen for that to be true happened a long time ago and won't happen again. We can ask ourselves: If we do indeed share a common ancestor with other mammals, using our knowledge of such things as genetics, what would we expect to find in the characteristics of present day humans and other mammals?

There is a huge amount of evidence in that case. The gene for the production of vitamin C in the body is just one interesting example that I've mentioned before.

Greta wrote: The value of science is in its predictive ability. This is exactly what evolutionary theory does; it predicts the attributes of species in a given environment.

Macroevolutionary predictions serve only to support macroevolution theory (ie, atheist theology), but otherwise have no use in the real world.  Creationism can also make predictive claims (eg, the fossil record) which serve to support theist theology, but are likewise just as useless.  Both these theologies could be erased from human consciousness and real-world science won't even notice - which suggests their scientific value is very low - zero, I would suggest.  Clearly then, predictiveness can be a very poor indicator of scientific value.

I think the best way to measure the value of science is it's usefulness in applied science.  Applied science is a fool-proof way of separating the wheat from the chaff.   A scientific theory without a real-world use is not necessarily wrong, but it's as worthless as a theory that is wrong.  
Science is like people:  There are the Quixotics who like to talk and theorise a lot but produce nothing of any earthly use; but on the other hand there are the Pragmatists who actually do productive things that help make the world go round.  
 
How many companies or governments have bothered to invest money in any project dependant on macroevolution?  None, because macroevolution is utterly useless and so has no tangible value.

Greta, you can adopt atheist theology as your reality if you want to, but in the interest of scientific rigour, you really need to learn how to separate your preferred belief system from scientific fact.  Psychological need has no place in science.

As noted before, the test of a valid scientific theory is that it spots a pattern in nature. That's what science is. Patterns in nature. The test of a valid scientific theory has nothing to do with whether it makes a profit for human beings, i.e. whether it results in the manufacture of products that human beings desire or need. That is a useful side effect.

-- Updated November 25th, 2016, 12:36 pm to add the following --

Anthony:

I think the best way to measure the value of science is it's usefulness in applied science.

In the above quote you are stating your opinion that scientific theories are not interesting or valuable to you unless they have a practical application in the manufacture of something that humans need or desire. It's fine for you to hold that opinion. The mistake you make is in conflating your taste for scientific theories which result in human profit with an assertion that scientific theories which are not to your taste are not scientifically rigorous or valid, here:

Greta, you can adopt atheist theology as your reality if you want to, but in the interest of scientific rigour, you really need to learn how to separate your preferred belief system from scientific fact. Psychological need has no place in science.

As a footnote: It is impossible to tell in advance which seemingly obscure unearthed scientific truths will later turn out to be profitable. The classic example: 80 years ago, nobody would have guessed that Einstein's strange, abstract-seeming new theory of gravity (the General Theory of Relativity) would have been essential for the manufacture of devices which can tell us where we are when driving.

So, as a general policy, it's best to look for the patterns first and worry about whether they're going to make you any money later. Hence the well known quotation from the famous discoverer of the electron, Sir J.J. Thomson:

"The electron: may it never be of any use to anybody!"

Apparently, this was a popular toast during his time as the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge.

-- Updated November 25th, 2016, 12:39 pm to add the following --

Mistake: I meant "at the Cavendish Lab", not "as". He was a human being, not a building.