Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

I would just like forum members to keep in mind forum rules regarding preaching, while noting that the lines can be blurred:

onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... php?t=3624

Please note, like all the on-topic forums, the Philosophy of Religion and Theism Forum is for philosophical discussions and philosophical debate. This is not for preaching, non-philosophical sermons or making religious assertions without providing any argument for them. This is a philosophy of religion forum not a religion forum; there's a big difference.

[Daviddunn]

Daviddunn, There are several Biblical passages that appear to contradict your assertion, chiefly from John, a disciple of Jesus. 

I was quoting from the Bible, and if there are contradictions then it is not from me. All the Christians scholars concur in that there are contradictions in the Bible as we know it today. This is one of the rare instances in which there is a consensus among the Biblical scholars!

But with respect to the central message of conveying strict monotheism, the worshipping of a Unique God, who is All-Knowing, Almighty, Eternal, Most Merciful, Creator of the heavens and earth and everything in between; the Bible still conveys that message. Trinitarianism cannot be supported from the reading of the Bible by someone who has sound judgement and is reasonable.

So to anyone who has sound judgement and is reasonable, consider the following:

I will put the verses quoted in post #330 in context, so as to understand them correctly.

First quoted verse

• 5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?” 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” (John 14:5-6)

The first verse that was quoted is from John 14:6 from the NIV Bible. In this verse, according to Christian belief, Prophet Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) was replying to a question put to him by Thomas, who was inquiring about the way to follow (I.e. how to please God, the Almighty). And in a nutshell, Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was saying to Thomas, to follow his (I.e.Jesus) example, in doing what he commands in the name God, and refraining from what he forbids them in the name of God. This is perfectly normal, Prophets (pbut) have been given the authority and responsibility to convey the commands of God, the Almighty, who is the One who created and sent them. God, the Almighty is refered to metaphorically as the Father in the Bible. I do not use that designation to refer to God, the Almighty because He, the Most Merciful is my Creator but NOT my father, and also He is NOT the father of anyone else.

Before Prophet Jesus Christ, there was Prophet David (peace be upon them) who also received revelations from God, the Almighty. In Prophet David's time , he was the way and the truth. The same for Prophet Moses(pbuh), to whom God, the Almighty spoke directly. Amd likewise, in Prophet Moses' time, it was Prophet Moses (pbuh) who was the way and the truth.
If we read the rest of the passages from John, it becomes abundantly clear that Prophet Jesus Christ ( pbuh ) was telling the disciples to obey and follow the instructions that he received from God, the Almighty to obtain salvation.

• Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. (John 14:12 NIV).

Second quoted verse

When put in context gives:

• 7. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” 8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (John 14: 7-9)

In this passage, it is Philip who is reported to have requested to Prophet Jesus to show to the disciples, God, the Almighty. I observe/understands two things about this passage:

1. From reading this passage of the book of John (the author of which is unknown according to the Christian scholars), one understands that the disciples are still looking for proof for the existence of God, the Almighty, even after all the miracles and good works that Prophet Jesus Christ(pbuh) has been doing by the permission of God, the Almighty. They had still at this point some remnants of doubts in their hearts. So Jesus tells them later to look at the evidence of the works he has been doing (I.e. the miralces), and they will have the proof that they were asking for (see John 14:11 NIV). And in an earlier passage from John that I already quoted, Prophet Jesus, according to Christian beliefs says, "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. (John 5:30)"

2. The verb 'to see' has several meanings. Some of them from the Oxford dictionaries are:

• 1. Perceive with the eyes; discern visually
  
  2. Discern or deduce after reflection or from information; understand.

Here obviously it is seeing with the mind, i.e. understanding that is meant, because the Father and the Son are distinct persons from other verses in the Bible for example:

• By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. (John 5:30)
  
  You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28 NIV)
  
  "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32 NIV)
  
  "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. (Luke 18:19 NIV)

So according to Christian beliefs, Prophet Jesus (pbuh) in John 14:9, is encouraging the disciples to obey him and follow him, and if they have understood (the word 'seen' is used in the text) him (Jesus) then they will have understood the Father, as Jesus says later in this passage from John: "The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority."

As I said already in my previous post, nowhere in the whole Bible will one find verses which supports trinitarian doctrine.
-----------------------

But after all this, one must keep in mind that according to the Christian Bible, Prophet Jesus Christ ( pbuh ) was sent only to the Children of Israel (I.e. the Jews):

• 21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 
  22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David,have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
  23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
  24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
  25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
  26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
  27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
  28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.”And her daughter was healed at that moment. (Mathew 15: 21-28)

One might here pertinently remark, what about the rest of humanity? Is not there a Prophet sent to them? Well, there is. Indeed, the Prophet sent to the whole mankind (including the Jews) has been sent by God, the Almighty about 1400 years ago. His name is Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him ), who has been prophesied by NAME in the Bible itself and in numerous other scriptures (the details of which I have already provided but I can provide them again if need be). In the Holy Quran, Allah, the Almighty says:

• Say [O Muhammad], "O mankind! Indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all - to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no god except Him. He gives life and causes death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believes in Allah and His Words, and follow him so that you may be guided." (Holy Quran 7:158)
  
  And We have not sent you [O Muhammad] except as (a universal Messenger) to all mankind, as a giver of glad tidings and as a warner. But most people do not know. (Holy Quran 34:28)
  
  And we have not sent you [O Muhammad] except as a mercy for all the worlds (Holy Quran 21:107)

________________________________

[Anthony Edgar]

Your example [aliens-redheads] is actually an excellent analogy for how natural selection works!

My alien-redhead analogy is the exact equivalent of antibiotic resistance, yet you describe my analogy as an example of "natural selection", but antibiotic resistance as an example of "evolution".   A fascinating inconsistency is here apparent.
 Evolution requires more than just natural selection, but antibiotic resistance is marketed as evolution, which is false advertising, since all you get is natural selection.  I smell a rat.

Now we would have a population of humans that was VERY different from the original stock, and over time, enough differences could accumulate such that, if an alien with a time machine were to come to earth and take one of these new freckled, redhead, alcohol-immune humans back in time to before the first spraying, they couldn't successfully interbreed with any of their ancestors.

The question is, how much genetic diversity are organisms capable of?  If creation is rejected as a possibility, then one has no choice but to believe that genetic mutations are limitless.   Creationists, in general, claim that genetic variation is limited and therefore there exists an uncrossable species boundary.  I'm certainly no expert (more like a bumbling amateur with a lot to learn) on any of this stuff, but it seems to me that neither camp can prove that genetic diversity is limited, or on the other hand, potentially unlimited.  

We observe something similar to the alcohol tolerance thing occurring all the time, such as when scientists were able to evolve e. coli to metabolize citrate, or when flavobacteria evolved to digest nylon.

E.coli have always been capable of metabolising citrate under anaerobic conditions.  The difference with some of Lenski's e.coli was that they could metabolising citrate under aerobic conditions.  Is this speciation?  Most scientists seem to think not. Have these e.coli evolved? Well, let's remember that without speciation, the theory of evolution is dead in the water. Ditto for the nylon-digesting flavobacteria.

[Dolphin42]

@Daviddunn

Not all who call themselves Christians believe in the Trinity. Some like the Jehovah Witnesses, the Christadelphians and the Unitarians for examples vehemently reject the whole concept of the Trinity as unscriptural. They believe in God, the Creator. And they believe that Prophet Jesus Christ ( pbuh ) was a man, and the Holy Spirit is the "active force" of God... ...Does this answer your questions?

Thank you. That is interesting. From what you said, it seems that there is disagreement within Christianity as to the exact status of Jesus Christ in relation to God.

But, in those strands of Christianity that do regard Jesus Christ as more than just a mortal man and as the son of God, it seems that this comment of yours still applies:

That implies that one should not associate with God, the Almighty anything that He created as an equal to God, the Almighty. If one does that nonetheless (i.e. associating others with God, the Almighty), then it would be polytheism, and it annuls any good action.

...and also applies to any other form of polytheism. In which case, it seems odd to me that any good actions of those people are "annulled" - i.e. made invalid or worthless. Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

@Felix:

Thanks for the extra information about your friend's premonitions. I was, of course, only joking with my comment about the cold fluorescent light of reason and analysis. (I think you realised that but I wanted to make sure.)

[Anthony Edgar]

What about reports of miracles, visions and demonic possession? These are events that have been observed.

These are anecdotes, not observations. These reports cannot be verified or repeated, and interestingly these things never seem to happen when qualified skeptics are watching. They're just big fish stories and nothing more.

I'm wondering what a "qualified skeptic" might look like ... but anyways, there are accounts of miracles, demonic possession and visions that can be very compelling to the unprejudiced mind.   But to the mind that is determined to "not let a divine foot in the door", such phenomena are dismissed as simple-minded nonsense that can be easily explained away with science.  

But skeptics beware, don't examine such phenomena too closely, lest you end up like Australiam media personality, Mike Willesee, a journalist and (former) atheist who set out to debunk a report of a miracle of the stigmata variety.  He actually witnessed said stigmata and the experience so affected him that he became a devout Catholic who now attends Mass every day.

Speaking of which, the Catholic Church takes reports of miracles very seriously and you might be surprised how thoroughly and scientifically it investigates such matters before it declares a miracle to be authentic or not. No stone is left unturned.  Sometimes the investigations can take years and the experts consulted are often non- Catholics, non-Christians or atheists.
-------------------------------------------------
As for the rest of your post, you appear to have mastered the art of dumbing-down very complex processes found in nature in order to accommodate the belief that dead matter has creative and executive powers.  You call it science when exceedingly complex machines build themselves; I call it delusional, anti-intellectual nonsense.  

There is not one (sane) person on the planet who believes that even a very simple machine (like a mouse trap, for example) can build itself, yet there are millions of evolutionists who believe that not only can very complex biological machines build themselves, they can also self-replicate!  What a bizarre mentality.

 I'm sure the scientists who have been trying for decades to build a workable fusion reactor appreciate the complexity of the Sun much more than you do.
Abiogenesis, in your mind, is as simple as falling of a log, yet modern scientists, with all their knowledge and technology, can't come even close to producing life in a test tube - let alone life that can also reproduce itself.
Francis Crick considered DNA to be too complex to have formed as a result of chance and consequently concluded it had to have been intelligently designed (albeit by aliens).

Abiogenesis is an active and fruitful field of research.

In what way has abiogenesis research been fruitful?

The difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is that spontaneous generation was the belief that fully-formed extant species emerged whole cloth from nonliving material, while abiogenesis is the belief that organic chemistry gradually became more and more complex until the first self-replicating organisms formed ... The time scales are different. The mechanisms are different. One has evidence to support it, and the other does not. These are not the same thing.

The former is superstition built on ignorance; the latter is superstition built on wishful thinking, delusion and atheism.

[Renee]

The former {spontaneous generation} is superstition built on ignorance; the latter {abiogenesis} is superstition built on wishful thinking, delusion and atheism.

Edgar, I wouldn't be surprized if you said the earth is not really round, and Galileo was wrong. That conclusion because of a dogmatic tenet is similar to your denying the validity of abiogenesis. In fact, the mechanism and functional relationships are identical, only the topic Christian judgment is applied on to is different.

The Vatican only admitted in the last century that they had erred in the case of Galileo Galilei. I have the newspaper clipping of it somewhere unless I threw it out. If my premonition (as above) is right, then you are about three or four decades behind the Vatican -- not too bad.

I have nothing against your faith or your stance... you believe what you want. Just please don't go out and poison the malleable minds of young people and tell them that science is all wrong, since it contradicts the Scriptures you believe in.

But don't you worry. When your Messiah comes, all the high school science teachers and doctors and professors of the world will be lined up against the wall and shot.

[Daviddunn]

That is interesting. From what you said, it seems that there is disagreement within Christianity as to the exact status of Jesus Christ in relation to God.

Yes, there is the disagreement that you mention. You can also ascertain it for yourself by studying the history of early Christianity. This is a well-known subject for those who know some basic historical facts. Anyway, if one refers to the scriptures of the Christians, it is clear that Prophet Jesus Christ (pbuh) was a prophet and messenger of God, the Almighty and never claimed divinity for himself.
______________

But, in those strands of Christianity that do regard Jesus Christ as more than just a mortal man and as the son of God, it seems that this comment of yours still applies:

About the 'son of God' appellation, some Bible scholars say it is used metaphorically in the Bible, as I already said in my previous post. Many other prophets have been called 'son of God' in the Bible, for example Prophet Adam (see Luke 3:38), Prophet Israel/Jacob (see Exodus 4:22) and other prophets like Prophet Solomon (see Samuel 7:13-14) (peace be upon the prophets) and other people as well have been called 'sons of God' in the Bible. In Islam, we do NOT say that God, the Almighty has children and it is wrong to do that in Islam. Even if I am aware of the use of this appellation in biblical verses, I do not subscribe to such practices and I advise to anyone who is willing to listen, to disengage and stay away from such practices.

Allah, the All-Knowing says in the Holy Quran:

• And they say "The Most Gracious has taken a son." Glorified is He! Nay, they are honored slaves. (Holy Quran 21:26)
  
  And warn to those who say, "Allah has taken a son."
  They do not have any knowledge about it, nor had their forefathers. Grave is the word that comes out of their mouth. Nothing they say except a lie. (Holy Quran 18:4-5)

________________

In which case, it seems odd to me that any good actions of those people are "annulled" - i.e. made invalid or worthless.

I said that all good actions are annuled with polytheism, but in fact it was an understatement. Because, polytheism, i.e. associating equals to God, the Almighty, not only annuls all good actions, but is the sin that if a person does not repent from it and correct himself/herself before he/she dies, then it is a sin that God, the Almighty will not forgive on Judgement Day.

Allah, the All-Knowing says in the Holy Quran,

• Indeed, Allah does not forgive that you associate partners with Him, but He forgives other than that for whom He wills. And whoever associates partners with Allah, then surely he has lost the way, straying far away. (Holy Quran 4:116)
  
  Being upright to Allah and not associating partners with Him. And whoever associates partners with Allah, it is as though he has fallen from the sky and the birds have snatched him or the wind has blown him to a far off place. (Holy Quran 22:31)
  
  And when hardship touches people, they call upon their Lord turning in repentance to Him. Then when He causes them to taste Mercy from Him, behold! A party of them associate partners with their Lord
  So as to deny what We have granted them. Then enjoy yourselves but soon you will know. (Holy Quran 30: 33-34)

Associating partners with God, the Almighty, is the greatest and most serious sin in Islam. Next in the list of serious crimes comes the killing of innocent people.
Polytheism is not just a great sin in Islam, but also in Christianity and Judaism as well.

According to the Old Testament, Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) informed the Children of Israel in Deuteronomy chapter 6:

• 4. Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
  5. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. (Deuteronomy 6:4-5)

And Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him), according to Christian belief, restated this command word for word, as the most important command in Mark:

• 29. “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
  30. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ (Mark 12:29-30)

And there are many other verses throughout the Bible which prohibits polytheism. Here, the interested reader can investigate the matter for themselves.
_________________

Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

No doubt, associating partners with God, the Almighty truely results in a tremendous lost. But in the Abrahamic religion, we are taught that God, the Almighty is also the Most Merciful, the Perpetual Forgiver, the Most Compassionate. One of the names of God, the Almighty, in both the Hebrew language and the Arabic language is Ar-Rahman. 'Ar-Rahman' means the Most Compassionate or the Most Gracious. This is a type of mercy and love that is above human level.

So, back to our subject of discussion; God, the Almighty provides the solution to this sin that we were discussing, in chapter 5 verse 74 of the Holy Quran. This solution is known as sincere repentance.

Allah, the Most Merciful says:

• Certainly they have disbelieved those who say, "Indeed, Allah is the third of the three." And there is no god except One God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, a painful punishment will surely afflict those who disbelieve among them.
  So will they not turn to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Quran 5: 73-74)

As Allah, the Most Merciful says in chapter 5 verse 74 of the Holy Quran, if one sincerely repents to Him, from this great sin and do not return to this sin again, then He reminds us that He is the Most Merciful and the Oft-Forgiving.

And Allah, The Most Merciful also says in the Holy Quran:

• O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul (created at a command) from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist-it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as a disposer of affairs. (Holy Quran 4:171)

On this, if God wills, I will end the discussion on this subject. And let my Christian brothers and sisters in humanity, after they have studied and pondered on the Scriptures, to decide for themselves what they think is best for themselves in the light of the Scriptural evidences. True believers in God, the Almighty are humble people, and they do not hesitate to turn in repentance to their Creator, the Most Merciful, when they have done wrong to themselves. I made mistakes too in the past (well, I was raised in tinitarian ideology as well!), and there is no doubt that God, the Almighty is the Most Merciful.
_______________

Let's get back to an earlier post that you addressed to me. You made some interesting statements in post #303 , that I would like you to clarify for me. Can you clarify, the following statement?

The Burgess Shale, being possibly the most famous formation in the western world, seems like a good example to consider. It is allegedly about 500 million years old.

How was the Burgess Shale dated to be about 500 million years of age? And how reliable is this dating method according to science itself?

And a similar question which I will also ask to Andrian as one of the links he/she posted made the following statements:

-----ARA-VP-6/500, "Ardi", Ardipithecus ramidus
Discovered by a team led by Tim White in 1994 at Aramis in Ethiopia (White et al. 2009; Gibbons 2009). Its age is about 4.4 million years. Ardi is a spectacularly complete fossil. About 45% of her skeleton was found, including most of the skull, pelvis, hands and feet, and many limb bones. She was about 120 cm (3'11") tall and weighed about 50 kg (110 lbs).

KP 271, "Kanapoi Hominid", Australopithecus anamensis
Discovered by Bryan Patterson in 1965 at Kanapoi in Kenya (Patterson and Howells 1967). This is a lower left humerus which is about 4.0 million years old. -----

So how were these fossils dated? And how reliable is this method according to science itself?

Note: respecfully remark that these questions are specific questions, and as I replied to all your questions by providing references, it will not be too much to ask for the same from your part. If you do not know, then just say so, and I will inform you, if God wills.
______________________

[Renee]

There is not one (sane) person on the planet who believes that even a very simple machine (like a mouse trap, for example) can build itself, yet there are millions of evolutionists who believe that not only can very complex biological machines build themselves, they can also self-replicate! What a bizarre mentality..

Anthony Edgar, if anyone says to you "you are a replication of your parent's biological combination", what do you reply? You deny that fact?

Let's just do that. Anthony Edgar, I assert hereby that you are a close (but not perfectly matched) replication of your parents, and that's why you look human, and that's why you don't look like, for example, a gerbil, or an oak-tree, or a colony of coral reef.

Go ahead, deny this again as an atheist-spawned, devilishly stupid, delusionally evolutionist, certifiably insane assertion.

-- Updated December 21st, 2016, 3:05 am to add the following --

About the 'son of God' appellation, some Bible scholars say it is used metaphorically in the Bible, as I already said in my previous post. Many other prophets have been called 'son of God' in the Bible, for example Prophet Adam (see Luke 3:38), Prophet Israel/Jacob (see Exodus 4:22) and other prophets like Prophet Solomon (see Samuel 7:13-14) (peace be upon the prophets) and other people as well have been called 'sons of God' in the Bible.

The Prophet Joni Mitchell (phub) (not in the bible -- save yourself the research) also quoted some specific human as the "Child of God".

-- Updated December 21st, 2016, 3:07 am to add the following --

EDIT: that specific human that the Prophet Joni Mitchell quoted was alive and seen as walking down the road in the twentieth century.

[Anthony Edgar]

Felix, in the absence of documentation that affirms these claims of precognition, I would have to discount them. If indeed we are simply a "pack of neurons" doing things (which is what I believe us to be), then it follows that all of our experiences and memories are in some form confabulations. Much of remembered events are rather likely to be after the fact reconstruction. You may believe that you had these experiences as you describe them, I suggest you did not.

This is your garden-variety atheist response to any reports of phenomena that might suggest there is a spiritual dimension to life - i.e., invent some lame, pseudo-scientific "explanation" that will facilitate a denial (the same technique is used to deny creation - abiogenesis and the theory of evolution).

Maybe you should consider the possibility that your "we are just a bunch of neurons" belief system is seriously compromised by reality.

-- Updated December 23rd, 2016, 4:46 am to add the following --

Edgar, I wouldn't be surprized if you said the earth is not really round, and Galileo was wrong.
The Vatican only admitted in the last century that they had erred in the case of Galileo Galilei. I have the newspaper clipping of it somewhere unless I threw it out. If my premonition (as above) is right, then you are about three or four decades behind the Vatican -- not too bad.

Thank you for your humour.
The thing about abiogenesis is that atheists, having rejected creation, have no choice but to believe that dead matter magically turned into living matter; in their minds it is already a fact - which I think is an unscientific claim, since for this alleged fact to stand, first creation must be proved to be false.
So abiogenesis - like its kissing cousin, evolution - will always be a theory, as it will never be observed or verified experimentally, since, to do that, life will need to arise out of test tube ... actually, not merely life, but life that can also reproduce.  

I have nothing against your faith or your stance... you believe what you want. Just please don't go out and poison the malleable minds of young people and tell them that science is all wrong, since it contradicts the Scriptures you believe in.

My advice to young people would be, when it comes to science, be aware that is science is not equivalent to truth. Many scientists have philosophical (read: atheist) agendas, and they want you to believe what they believe. Think of scientists as potentially-dodgy salesmen, who can be less than honest in their quest to sell you an idea. When they say "there is over whelming evidence" for such and such a theory ... don't believe them; rather, be skeptical.
As a rule of thumb, only believe in applied science, because an applied use means it's true, because it works.  Science that doesn't have an applied use may be wrong, and besides, by rejecting science that doesn't have an applied use, you're not missing out on anything.

-- Updated December 23rd, 2016, 4:54 am to add the following --

There is not one (sane) person on the planet who believes that even a very simple machine (like a mouse trap, for example) can build itself, yet there are millions of evolutionists who believe that not only can very complex biological machines build themselves, they can also self-replicate! What a bizarre mentality..

Anthony Edgar, if anyone says to you "you are a replication of your parent's biological combination", what do you reply? You deny that fact?

Let's just do that. Anthony Edgar, I assert hereby that you are a close (but not perfectly matched) replication of your parents, and that's why you look human, and that's why you don't look like, for example, a gerbil, or an oak-tree, or a colony of coral reef.

Go ahead, deny this again as an atheist-spawned, devilishly stupid, delusionally evolutionist, certifiably insane assertion.

In all the excitment you seemed to have missed something. That is to say, what's your point?

[Felix]

Renee: that's why you don't look like, for example, a gerbil, or an oak-tree, or a colony of coral reef.

Anthony Edgar: what's your point?

I believe he's suggesting that you not bring your gerbil to the coral reef colony uninvited.

[JamesOfSeattle]

The thing about abiogenesis is that atheists, having rejected creation, have no choice but to believe that dead matter magically turned into living matter; in their minds it is already a fact -

But what if they are atheists because they are scientists? What if they started with theism as a hypothesis, but could find no evidence for it? What if evert time something was posited as spiritual, when examined in a scientific manner, there turned out to be a non-spiritual explanation. Every. Time. Under such circumstances, it makes sense to assume from the beginning that there will be a non-spiritual explanation. Even when there seems to be no path to an non-spiritual explanation, that should not dictate that there is no explanation. It counts as an indication, but it is not proof.

which I think is an unscientific claim, since for this alleged fact to stand, first creation must be proved to be false

Surely you can't be serious about this statement [yes, intentionally setting up the joke]. Creationism can't be proven false. Ever. Even if we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that life began from dead matter, that doesn't disprove Creationism. That just pushes whatever was Created back a little.

In fact, there are several hypotheses that point toward an explanation of abiogenesis. For example, Terrence Deacon presents what I think is a very likely candidate for how life started from dead matter in his book "Incomplete Nature: How mind emerged from matter". It's just that testing those hypotheses are difficult, mostly because it is difficult to generate the proper conditions on the necessary scale, as in for example, hundreds of miles of coastline under the chemical conditions of three billion years ago.

So abiogenesis - like its kissing cousin, evolution - will always be a theory, as it will never be observed or verified experimentally, since, to do that, life will need to arise out of test tube ... actually, not merely life, but life that can also reproduce.  

Just so ya know, the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is just a theory, and will always be a theory. But we think of it as a proven theory. Just because a theory is hard to prove doesn't mean it never will be. Think, Higgs boson and gravitational waves. Evolution, by the way, has so much evidence that it is considered proven by most.

*

[Renee]

I believe he's suggesting that you not bring your gerbil to the coral reef colony uninvited.

Yes, well, not when it is a coral reef colony reefer- and wife-swapping party. But if it's a good-old-fashioned oak-tree eating feast, at Thanksgiving, then everyone is invited-- so much so that they don't even send out invitations.

I ain't jokin'. Have YOU ever received an invitation to an oak-tree eating feast in a coral reef colony? No? Well, then, there you go. (No pun intended.)

[Togo1]

The thing about abiogenesis is that atheists, having rejected creation, have no choice but to believe that dead matter magically turned into living matter; in their minds it is already a fact -

But what if they are atheists because they are scientists?

<shrug> Ask them why they've chosen to have faith that everything in the universe is emperically verifiable rather than the equally unprovable and bizarre idea of a big guy in the sky?

What if they started with theism as a hypothesis, but could find no evidence for it?

Ask them what emperical evidence they expected to find?

What if evert time something was posited as spiritual, when examined in a scientific manner, there turned out to be a non-spiritual explanation. Every. Time.

Every time something is posited as purely non-spiritual, there turns out to be a spiritual explanation. Every. Single. Time. Spooky? Or just a sign that, hey, the ability to explain an event in an alternative way, doesn't actually mean much?

Under such circumstances, it makes sense to assume from the beginning that there will be a non-spiritual explanation.

No more so than the reverse position.

Hey, I appreciate that atheism makes sense to you and chimes with your life and world-view and all, but remember that all chains of reasoning start with an assumption. All of them. The question isn't whether X is supported and Y is not, it's where you want to start.

</agnosticism drive-by>

[JamesOfSeattle]

Ask them why they've chosen to have faith that everything in the universe is emperically verifiable rather than the equally unprovable and bizarre idea of a big guy in the sky?

Okay, I'll ask myself. Oh right, the answer is: results. When I find something is empirically verifiable, it's called knowledge, and I can do something with it. Instead of just assuming that everyone in a particular village has diarrhea because they're cursed by the Deity, I can try to figure out what's going on, and maybe I can teach them to boil the water before they drink it.

When something is not empirical verifiable, I can't tell if it's really not verifiable, or if I'm just doing it wrong. In any case, if it really isn't verifiable, then there's nothing I can do about it, or with it, so why should I care?

*

[Dustin]

(Nested quote removed.)

And my position is that it has not, on account of leaving fundamental things out of its explanations, the foremost being an account of the nature of mind.

This would be a reasonable position if the most important subject in this universe were "the nature of the mind". Do you have any rational arguments in support of that position? While you present any such arguments, could you be so kind as to explain precisely what you mean by "the nature of the mind", just so we can make sure that you aren't begging any questions.

Is your basic argument that "biological materialism" is flawed because it doesn't address mind? Is geology equally flawed because it doesn't address mind? What about nuclear physics? Astronomy? If so, could you explain why?

I do rather suspect that you have a rather large begged question buried in your argument.

I agree with you, the nature of mind does seem to require a bit of clarification. But, we cannot so swiftly toss it aside only because it is poorly understood. Especially in our current time period, where we are beginning to see this question swell up in our art. A sign that the open minded scientist of the time will soon begin to follow suit. The great artist is a common muse to the good scientist. This is no longer a question to be sweeped under the rug, and it most definitely is not isolated to the ill witted. With the advances in neuro-science we are coming to a place in these recent years where questions like this may soon become accessible to "real science". And who's discovery is seconded by the will of the people.

Newton himself begged this question while he shoved a toothpick into his eye, and as he looked into the sun; attempting to discover how much of his observation was divisible to mere visual phenomena. I suppose that there are two common ways that the word "Nature" is used metaphorically in science: either as a question of origin or a question of its natural function. And, when we consider the origin of something to be simultaneous with the cause of its natural function, then by substitution we see two common meanings being: "cause of natural function" or the "current natural function". Now, we can easily place this within the scientific paradigm by saying that the nature of mind has something to do with the question: "what is the natural function of mental phenomena in the physical world?" which begs the question what would change if one could "divide out" our perceptions from reality? Which renders perception a Force (as a thing that causes change). I know that this is just a tiny piece of what we are dealing with, maybe it does a little to express the gravity that this question holds.