nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 468:
Line 468: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Extraterrestrial life (view source)
Revision as of 15:18, September 9, 2008
, 15:18, September 9, 2008→Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?: Different forms of argument; wrong about Darwin, a theological question.
P.S. One last thing: How exactly, does the fact that God "''is outside of time''" actually solve this free will paradox? When God created mankind, He knew full well that Adam was going to ruin everything. We both agree on this. Despite that it was Adam's choice and Adam's alone, ''why'' did God even have to create mankind? To give us a choice which He already knew would end in disaster? Does that mean God is just going through the motions of some script, over which He has no control?
P.S. One last thing: How exactly, does the fact that God "''is outside of time''" actually solve this free will paradox? When God created mankind, He knew full well that Adam was going to ruin everything. We both agree on this. Despite that it was Adam's choice and Adam's alone, ''why'' did God even have to create mankind? To give us a choice which He already knew would end in disaster? Does that mean God is just going through the motions of some script, over which He has no control?
Thanks. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 14:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 14:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:"''"Do you reject that we claim that?" Of course I don't.''": Then you didn't answer the question, "What premise is that?". You said that you didn't accept my premise in my statement, "we specifically claim that...". So just what premise is there that you didn't accept?
:"''I specifically claim my assertions as well''": In other words, you are claiming to be making the same sort of argument as me. One of the things that started this aspect of our discussion was your comment, "...the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so "moral" is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.". To put that in a more formal way, you were arguing that:
:* Overall, our ethics progress as a species.
:* Therefore (that is why) our modern interpretation of God is so "moral".
: That is, you were making a ''claim'' or ''assertion'' in the form of a conclusion based on a premise. I could accept the claim/assertion/conclusion, ''if I accept the premise''. But I don't accept the premise, so the conclusion doesn't follow. Can you put my "we specifically claim that..." comment in the same premise-conclusion structure? I would argue either that you can't, or that if you can, the premise part would be something that you accept. Therefore, you were ''not'' making the same sort of argument as me.
: "''You're right. The same should be said for my view.''". Correct. I never disputed that your view ''has an explanation''. But I said that you appeared to be arguing as though my view ''can't explain it'' (e.g. "If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws..."). I'm glad that you now acknowledge that my view ''can'' explain it. That is what I was trying to get you to see.
: "''Just as the many claims of Bigfoot around the world suggest there must be a real Bigfoot.''": Correct. They ''do'' imply that there is ''something'' on which the Bigfoot myths are based (a giant bear, perhaps? Or evolutionary stories of ape-men?).
: "''You are right that I have a "semi-plausible story to explain that," but should I even bother typing it since you will reject it?''": You think that there's something wrong with me rejecting a ''semi-plausible'' story as true?
: "''This statement is disgusting.''": It's backed by many personal accounts of people who have rejected Christianity because of evolution.
: "''Do you honestly believe that the theory, and the hundreds of years of research associated with it, exists solely to inflate the egos of atheists?''": Darwinian evolution has only been around for 150 years, hardly "hundreds of years of research". And yes, it's not far wrong to say that the impetus behind it is to justify atheism. (I'm ''not'' saying that that is why every individual people who believes evolution believes it.)
: "''What do you make of the 30-40 percent of biologists who are theistic...''": Not all of that 30-40 percent are evolutionists, and probably 98% of those that are don't actually study evolution itself. Rather, they ''believe'' evolution because that's what they've been taught is correct.
: "''...who are somehow able to reconcile the hard physical evidence with their personal faiths?''": What hard physical evidence?
: "''Darwin himself was Anglican as he wrote the Origin of Species.''": He was raised in an Anglican society, so was Anglican "by default". Evolutionist historians have said that evolution was ''intended'' to replace God.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877/]
: "''He became agnostic later.''": Actually, he wrote that he gave up his faith when he was 39.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1025/] He published ''Origin'' when he was 50.
: "''Do you think he ''wanted'' to lose his faith?''": Perhaps not, but it appears that he started to when he read Lyell's ''Principles of Geology'' which he read whilst on the ''Beagle'' (c1832-1836), and certainly by 1839 he had rejected the accuracy of the Old Testament.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5703]
: "''...the level of paranoia it takes to honestly and sincerely believe that an entire branch of science with literally millions upon millions of researchers and individuals exists only to trumpet atheism''": First, I strongly doubt that there are "millions upon millions of researchers" of evolution. It's actually quite a small part of science, with most science ('real' science) being the study of things in the present, not the evolutionary "family tree". Second, yes, that is, to a fair extent, exactly what it is (emphasis added):
{{QuoteBox|We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. ... Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for '''we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door'''.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/]}}
: "''...the lack of imagination it requires for a believer to be unable to imagine that perhaps God is behind the very real and very hard evolutionary evidence that scientists uncover.''": First, the reason that I'm "unable to imagine" is because the biblical account is totally incompatible—contradictory—with evolution. So, given the biblical account, there is ''good reason'' to reject evolution. You ''cannot'' (consistently) believe both, without distorting one (and guess which one gets distorted). Second, it's not a matter of the evidence that scientists uncover. Creationists have ''the same evidence''. The difference is the ''interpretation'' of the evidence, and the interpretation varies ''because of different starting assumptions''.
: "''How exactly, does the fact that God "is outside of time" actually solve this free will paradox?''": First, how is it actually a paradox? What is there about God ''knowing what happened'' that means that man has no choice?
: "''Despite that it was Adam's choice and Adam's alone, why did God even have to create mankind?''": That's a legitimate question, ''but a totally different question''. It's a theological question ("why did God"), not a logical paradox.
: "''Does that mean God is just going through the motions of some script, over which He has no control?''": God did not have to give us free will: He ''chose'' to. Which means that he ''does'' (or ''can'') have control, but ''chooses not to exercise it''. I believe that the answer is something along the lines of God wanted us to understand and appreciate love, by seeing that God loved us ''despite'' our rejection of Him.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:18, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
== ??? ==
== ??? ==