Crocduck

On 1/10/2023 at 5:48 PM, Trurl said:

Well in evolution if a cell is designing an evolved self isn’t there instructions or nucleus that is designing this evolution? Something has to take place to “design” something new. What else would cause such a unique and specific change?

 

Also why are plants considered living? Do they have a conscious that moves their bodies to light? Or is the plant just made out of reactions to its environment?

I just made some delicious ribs.  A recipe that was passed down over time.  The first hero's in creating good recipes were those that died because they tried something new (maybe had some bad berries or some toxic animal created by god) and the ancestors learned over time there was something in that recipe killing their loved ones (according to some...god designed).    they learned over time to avoid death and suffering by trial and error.  Not a good design IMO.

On 1/8/2023 at 7:42 PM, FullMoon said:

Hi, @

IMHO

the assumption that "one can pick up everything in the environment" needs to be debated here.

We know there are 5 senses. but these senses cannot cross sense. meaning, the tongue cannot hear, the eyes cannot taste and so on.

like wise, the Creator, bestows upon His creatures (those who genuinely strive to look for Him) senses that make them aware of Him. thanks to current technology, Examples of those abound around us. 

A cellphone from late 1990s might still work but will not be capable of streaming youtube or netflix. Even though it lays immersed and bathed in the waves carrying that information. The waves and wavelengths that we have no way of sensing. 

I would agree with you that god works a little bit worse than a cell phone from the 1990s.  "Wavelengths that we have no way of sensing".

Time for a system upgrade from an "omnipotent being".  

 

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Really? You've never had an earworm?

So are you trying to tell me that, "your voice" has never been influenced by anything or that when you think of a phrase like "are you talking to me" you don't hear a New York cabbie looking in a mirror?

That's your personal bias Angel, whispering in your ear.

There goes the insanity defense.  

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

It wouldn’t be a valid test or set of questions since there’s no second party involved in the exchange. They’d just be talking to / asking themselves. 

When “god” answers, it’s still that same narrative creating set of brain regions. 

Well sure.  But if you did ask all people who claim to have a personal relationship with God (a survey) and have them give specific answers to these questions (but not consult one another on the answers)...I would guess you would get the same amount of different answers as respondents as well some wildly different and contradictory answers.  At some point one would realize they are all just talking to themselves...they are all their own God

On 11/4/2022 at 8:36 AM, iNow said:

All excellent points with which I tend to agree, but the answer here IMO is quite simple and straight forward. When we lack the ability to clearly form an image, we substitute features and insert concepts based on our own personal experiences and thoughts. The parts of our brain that form narratives and attempt to make sense of the stimuli we receive will fill in the gaps with fictions that eliminate feelings of uncertainty, dissonance, and all the rest. 

Let's say you believe in a personal God.  One that communicates with you on a personal level.  Can those who do talk to God not just ask where He is or what he looks like?  Are you that guy in the white beard or not?  My book tells me you are a He.  What's with all the imagining what God looks like...just ask?

From where did you spake the universe?  Was it audible?  Could anyone else hear it or were you the only one there?  Was that another universe on a planet like ours where sound travels?  Why am I asking these questions?  Will I find this answer on a piece of toast or an audible message to me that is inaudible to everyone else?  Why must it work this way?  

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Universal health care? Diplomatic solutions to conflict? Climate change amelioration?

That's a piece of cake. People are eager to believe in eternal life and unconditional love. They swallow the bait before the hook begins to hurt.

You hear any US news in the past 6 years?

Sorry, I tried hard to type some sarcasm in there but it doesn't always come thru

39 minutes ago, Crocduck said:

Sorry, I tried hard to type some sarcasm in there but it doesn't always come thru

 

So let's see if I have the facts straight.  

Jesus was possibly/probably a real human.  He had some sayings that have lived on.  There are no known writing examples of any kind that date to his time alive.  Most of the credible sounding stuff are about the years from the time he was 30 years old.  I would assume Jesus (if God) could write.  Even if not about himself he could have written about his philosophy and he could have written so much that we might still find scraps today.  There is not a single artifact that can be attributed to arguably the most important human that ever "lived".  Not one!!

But the necessity of faith is the lack of evidence.  The less evidence the more faith you must have.  The more evidence the less faith you need.  

On 1/15/2022 at 11:24 AM, Peterkin said:

That's because they were commissioned by a committee. The only NT book of which we have a reasonably reliable source is the epistles of Paul, and he probably did collect local folk tales and hearsay in his travels as a tax collector, as well as later, as a purveyor of the Christian startup. You have to admit, though, the franchise became phenomenally successful. There must have been something charismatic about the central figure to appeal to a wide range of cultural background. It's just universal enough to correspond to many ancient myths and just unique enough to be greeted as a novelty. 

People will believe what they want to believe if it serves a purpose.  I was going to say some of the stuff that flew in ancient times would not fly now but then again...

What if it would fly now?  What if someone could come along and make fact free statements that were popular?  And say them often enough to a crowd that didn't care if they were true or not?  What if they saw some benefit in either believing it or just telling others they believed it?  What if it gave them a leg up in some weird way?  What if it just confirmed other deep down long held strange biases?  

I mean if that were the case...almost any evidence free conspiracy could take hold at any time.  Propaganda would be consumed at alarming rates.  Long standing societies could crumble.   But thankfully we are even more civilized now and have all the info we need to debunk just about any theory if we want.  The age of enlightenment.  I am comforted that Big Foot and Loch Ness monsters and Santa Claus are not really even questioned anymore by the general public.  Well Santa after about age 7...and the others still make for good Nielson ratings.  Aliens?  I am almost certain we will uncover in a billion year old rock...a spaceship...or a human looking alien walking among us with DIFFERENT DNA or no DNA???

Evidence free or evidence based?  I had an argument with my wife the other day.  She asked if I had seen her sunglasses.  I said no.  She asked if I was sure.  I said yes.  Okay she said.  Then she found her sunglasses in my drawer where I keep my own sunglasses.  And I could have either said an invisible being must have done that...or apologized that I mistook her sunglasses for mine and put them in MY drawer where she puts NOTHING.  So I don't know what type of ghost took her sunglasses and was able to put them in my drawer with my fingerprints on them. But I have a very strong motivation to find out. 

On 1/18/2022 at 4:34 PM, Peterkin said:

Yep. Nothing depends on their position. For a theologian, there is a prior commitment, a faith, a canon to uphold: a great deal at stake. So I can understand why they're entrenched and will defend their position by any means at their disposal - even if it includes stretching credulity and accepting evidence unsupported by outside sources.  I think atheists should be more open-minded and consider a longer perspective.

But that's, again, a personal opinion.

 

Sometimes I wonder what leads people to believe in constructs not supported by any evidence.  Then I think back to my childhood when I was raised Catholic and went to church every Sunday from the time I was just a baby.  My parents weren't even all that strict compared to others in the community.  My public school held religion classes and if I got to school too early in the morning I had to go to the church which was next door to my grade school and sit through part of a daily mass.  I eventually became an alter boy...and the list goes on.  I never really believed most of it but I wasn't going to say it out loud.  The penalties for the skeptic are not only sever but eternal.  

There are certain ideals and constructs that require a lot more work and effort to sell to an otherwise skeptical audience.  Certain religions fit that description very well.  Wars have and will be fought...non believers will be damned to eternal suffering.  In general they will become the outcasts of society as it were.  If you want to vote on a new president the last category I would search is atheist.   It will take a millenia to undo the indoctrination(s).  

There are evidences for certain parts of every story but the most outlandish of claims in general have had the least evidentiary support...and that is the rub.