nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 251:
Line 251: − :::::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.+ − :::::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly "Christian." I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say "why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.," as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.+ − :::::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was "prophesied" to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.+ − :::::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.+ − :::::"Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation..." So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.+ − :::::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that "''God has tasks for you to do''" here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.+ − :::::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his "personal" aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.+ − :::::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating "new information" ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.+ − :::::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D + − :::::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)+ − :::::A few other things I'd like to note:+ − :::::Naturalism: You argue that naturalistic explanations are atheistic. Yet, you yourself probably use them. If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them? Naturalistic explanations are used by scientists because they actually teach us something about the world. No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it. Without ''somebody'' first proposing to use [[methodological naturalism]] to investigate the world, we'd still believe that thunder was caused by Thor slamming his hammer, or that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon hitting the ground with his trident. It's just a more useful way to look at the world.+ − :::::''"With atheism, nothing has any meaning."'' While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your ''own'' meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone. I love writing and that is my meaning but it may not be yours. It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.+ − :::::''"Why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?"'' Good point. It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review. But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?+ − :::::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 20:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Extraterrestrial life (view source)
Revision as of 06:59, August 26, 2008
, 06:59, August 26, 2008→Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?: Adjust indenting; two replies.
::""...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...": Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution." Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious. People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::""...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...": Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution." Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious. People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
:::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.
:::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly "Christian." I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say "why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.," as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.
:::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was "prophesied" to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.
:::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.
:::"Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation..." So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.
:::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that "''God has tasks for you to do''" here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.
:::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his "personal" aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.
:::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating "new information" ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.
:::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
:::A few other things I'd like to note:
:::Naturalism: You argue that naturalistic explanations are atheistic. Yet, you yourself probably use them. If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them? Naturalistic explanations are used by scientists because they actually teach us something about the world. No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it. Without ''somebody'' first proposing to use [[methodological naturalism]] to investigate the world, we'd still believe that thunder was caused by Thor slamming his hammer, or that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon hitting the ground with his trident. It's just a more useful way to look at the world.
:::''"With atheism, nothing has any meaning."'' While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your ''own'' meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone. I love writing and that is my meaning but it may not be yours. It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.
:::''"Why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?"'' Good point. It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review. But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 20:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
:::: Frey, people who have ''committed their lives to Christ'' are Christians, regardless of whether they see the Bible as word-for-word literal truth or not (I don't) and regardless of whether they follow its moral teachings or not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::: "''It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.''": Assuming that question was directed at me, no, I'm not saying that at all (depending on what you mean by "true" believer). Perhaps my reply to Frey has clarified that.
:::: "''By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible)...''": I think you have misread Frey (if he's the other one of "both"), and read into my comments something that is not there.
:::: "''I've also heard people say "why follow Christ if there was not a literal Fall, etc.," as if we need to believe that Genesis actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked.''": Define "wicked" without invoking God or subjective opinion.
:::: "''Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.''": What does it need to be saved from? Again, no invoking of God nor subjective opinion.
:::: "''I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.''": That might be true, if he was just a human being with a messiah complex. But if He is, as claimed, the Creator Himself, then your "what if" has no basis.
:::: "''Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true ... that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point.''": Not from a "certain point", but away from us, and away from every other object in the universe.
:::: "''...the implication of these observations is still that all of the universe is quickly expanding outward ...--evidence enough of the Big Bang.''": No, evidence of outward expansion is evidence of outward expansion, not of what ''caused'' that outward expansion. The Big Bang is offered as a ''cause'' of that outward expansion. Some creationary scientists say that the outward expansion was directly caused by God, as the Bible in numerous places refers to God "stretching out the heavens", i.e. a different cause for the same observation.
:::: "''People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things.''": Yes, many people do hold two or more contradictory beliefs. We're funny like that. But maybe you were referring to something else, which I'll get to when I respond to your point about naturalism.
:::: "''I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you.''": That is not what I said and is inconsistent with what I meant.
:::: "''I have tasks for a stapler to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler.''": Do you work for an employer? Does he have tasks for you to do? Does that mean that you are his "wind-up toy"? Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?
:::: "''Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them?''": Should we envy humans as conceived by atheists, where all our thoughts are the results of chemical reactions in our brains, which are simply the result of accidents (mutations, etc.), or should we envy humans as conceived by God Who gave us free will, the ability to decide things for ourselves (including the ability to decide whether or not to do the tasks he has for us)?
:::: "''This is why free market capitalism works.''": No, that works because we have free will and God-provided intelligence rather than just acting according to the chemical impulses in our brains.
:::: "''Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.''": So do I. But how can you be held responsible unless you have free will? You can't be held responsible if you are simply acting according to those chemical process in your brain, as atheists believe.
:::: "''God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including Alvin Plantinga, have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his "personal" aspect.''": Oh? It was Plantinga who was quoted in the box above, and who went on to say (see the same reference), "...it is far from obvious that God is complex.".
:::: "''Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating "new information" ''by definition.": By ''what'' definition? If you take a recipe, for example, that has ''information'' on what ingredients to use in a cake, and in copying the recipe there is a copying mistake (mutation), so that "flour" now reads "blour", what you have is not ''information'', but ''corruption'', because it has ''lost meaning''.
:::: "''You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable.''": Exactly. It's unavoidable that the only source of information is ''existing'' information: there's no source of ''new'' information.
:::: "''The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years.''": The "approximately 4 billion years" is according to the atheistic origins myth; I don't accept that.
:::: "''It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.''": Why do so many evolutionists keep repeating their theory as though it is evidence? I ''know'' that's the claim. I ''dispute'' the claim. In trying to convince me, you should supply argument from evidence and logic, not simply repeat the claim as though it constitutes evidence.
:::: "''If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them?''": Naturalism is the belief that nature ''is all there is''. It is not simply one possible explanation, but the only possible explanation. Don't believe me? Try convincing a naturalistic scientist that he should ''on occasions'' consider the option that "God did it". No, he will tell you that God can ''never'' be considered. I ''can'' consider both "is God responsible" or "is it something natural?", but a ''naturalistic'' scientist will exclude the former as even a consideration. (And actually, I don’t look for a natural explanation: I look for the keys! And I sometimes ask God to help me find them. And it appears to help.)
:::: "''No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it.''": First, we are talking about how things ''started'', not how they ''operate now''. Second, why don't they say "Zeus does it"? Is it because (a) Zeus ''doesn't'' do it, or (b) because they willingly refuse to consider Zues? Modern science started on the foundation that God created, and that he created mechanisms, such as the laws of physics, that we can study. So historically, we study meteorology from what you call a "naturalistic" viewpoint because we believe that's how God set things up. If we assume that God wasn't involved, then we have no basis for assuming that the laws of physics, for example, will be the same tomorrow as they are today. That assumption historically comes straight from assuming that the God of the Bible was responsible for it. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].
:::: "''While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your own meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone.''": That sounds like intellectual snobbery, not maturity! If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented, not real and absolute. Which means that it's not ''meaning'' at all.
:::: "''It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.''": Nonsense. It's not communistic to describe things as they are.
:::: "''It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review.''": All of which also involve those thoughts resulting from chance. So the "verification" that you speak of is not verification at all. You've not answered the question.
:::: "''But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?''": Because that sinfulness has ''damaged'', not ''destroyed'' our abilities. Those incredible God-given abilities are still there, though imperfect.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)