Question

[lemonbeam]

I was sent this question by an atheist. Can you please help me answer? Thanks in advance

‘‘Given that the VAST majority of all things in the universe are inanimate (so far as we can see) and things that require a mind like intent, self-awareness, creativity etc. are contingent on life & neural space to exist in… then how does the “force” outside the universe that was presumably the initial cause, have all these things? Why is it personified? Why is it a WHO instead of a WHAT?’’

 

[DavidFilmer]

things that require a mind like intent, self-awareness, creativity etc. are contingent on life & neural space to exist in

So the idea is that all life must be constrained by the same factors that constrain us? That’s pretty shallow. I suppose if we had never seen a bird we would also believe that no living thing could fly. There’s more in the universe than what we have perceived.

 

[jemfinch]

I was sent this question by an atheist. Can you please help me answer? Thanks in advance

‘‘Given that the VAST majority of all things in the universe are inanimate (so far as we can see) and things that require a mind like intent, self-awareness, creativity etc. are contingent on life & neural space to exist in… then how does the “force” outside the universe that was presumably the initial cause, have all these things? Why is it personified? Why is it a WHO instead of a WHAT?’’

Um…how would an inanimate, unaware “force” manage to create a universe with animate, self-awareness, and other qualities it doesn’t possess?

In other words, how could a universe of persons ever have been created by anything other than a person?

Jeremy

 

[mardukm]

I was sent this question by an atheist. Can you please help me answer? Thanks in advance

‘‘Given that the VAST majority of all things in the universe are inanimate (so far as we can see) and things that require a mind like intent, self-awareness, creativity etc. are contingent on life & neural space to exist in… then how does the “force” outside the universe that was presumably the initial cause, have all these things? Why is it personified? Why is it a WHO instead of a WHAT?’’

Here’s the argument:
Show me a computer that made another computer without the (name removed by moderator)ut of an intelligent being.

Our minds are more complex than any computer ever made.

How can you NOT conclude an intelligent being/force did not create us?

Catholicism is unique among all religions in that we do not fear science but embrace. Though science can never PROVE God, it certainly does a great job of providing support for Him. Science is like God’s IT division.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[promethius]

I was sent this question by an atheist. Can you please help me answer? Thanks in advance

‘‘Given that the VAST majority of all things in the universe are inanimate (so far as we can see) and things that require a mind like intent, self-awareness, creativity etc. are contingent on life & neural space to exist in… then how does the “force” outside the universe that was presumably the initial cause, have all these things? Why is it personified? Why is it a WHO instead of a WHAT?’’

If what he’s getting at is that the self is dependent on living cells and particularly neural cells, here’s how I’d respond: Hogwash. The cells of the body only last about 7-10 years. During that time, the entire body sheds itself of dead material and has been entirely replaced by a fresh set of cells. Nothing that was in my body 12 years ago exists today… and yet my SELF is the same person it was before. Obviously the “self” is not exclusively connected to the cellular system.

 

[lemonbeam]

Hi - this is what he just sent as a reply.

''Well you’ve done it… You’ve completely dodged my question. Your answer was the equivalent of “why not” not an explanation of your logic. I’ll give you another chance and re-word it.
Since intelligence is so rare and minute in this universe, basically an extremely small fraction of all that is, then why should we expect that the cause of the universe possesses such a rare feature as thought or consciousness?
Don’t just make an assertion, take me step by step of why something outside the universe would/should/could have a personality.

“How would an inanimate, unaware “force” manage to create a universe with animate, self-awareness, and other qualities it doesn’t possess?”
The answer is simple, evolution… I know it isn’t the cause of the whole universe… but it is the driving force of the universe of life on earth. It is inanimate and unaware yet it has created a billion species over the life of the earth… yes, even things like “purpose” and “love” and “rage” arose from evolution.

“How can you NOT conclude an intelligent being/force did not create us?”
Exactly, I conclude that there was no intelligent force behind our creation. God is a wild assumption that is no different than magic. Why is God real but not Santa or Superman or Shiva, there’s equally credible evidence for all these? I can’t believe you don’t see how arbitrary your religion is. (actually I know why, because you’re brainwashed to reject anything that contradicts your programming)

To be honest, I don’t give a **** where Christianity comes from, it’s all ******** and I’m out to destroy it. It’s an excuse for people to avoid responsibility for themselves or their society and say some imaginary being is the cause of ill in the world. Then when something good happens, you credit God when it was human action (usually) that caused the positive outcome. (Example, the Hudson River crash recently). Plus the very fact that the Bible can be interpreted in any way one wishes just speaks to the fact that it’s fabricated and is the OPPOSITE of the perfect divine word of anything.’’

What should I reply? HELP

 

[lemonbeam]

Anyone?

 

[mlchance]

“To be honest, I don’t give a **** where Christianity comes from, it’s all ******** and I’m out to destroy it. It’s an excuse for people to avoid responsibility for themselves or their society and say some imaginary being is the cause of ill in the world.”

Respond with, “Put a sock in it. You don’t have anything to say worth listening to. I’m going to Baskin Robbins to get a sundae.”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Your post is very confusing. Maybe you should color code? Apparently some of the post is you repeating another? Thus which parts of which post are supposed to be a stream of logic?

In simple the logic is what - God has to be inert? (made more rocks than people)
-------------------------------------- - I am a special from evolution? ( would that not violate evolution, as many should have evolved all advantaged traits )

Maybe he can explain to us how “consciousness” is an advantage verses a disadvantage?

 

[Eucharisted]

Hi - this is what he just sent as a reply.

''Well you’ve done it… You’ve completely dodged my question. Your answer was the equivalent of “why not” not an explanation of your logic. I’ll give you another chance and re-word it.
Since intelligence is so rare and minute in this universe, basically an extremely small fraction of all that is, then why should we expect that the cause of the universe possesses such a rare feature as thought or consciousness?
Don’t just make an assertion, take me step by step of why something outside the universe would/should/could have a personality.

“How would an inanimate, unaware “force” manage to create a universe with animate, self-awareness, and other qualities it doesn’t possess?”
The answer is simple, evolution… I know it isn’t the cause of the whole universe… but it is the driving force of the universe of life on earth. It is inanimate and unaware yet it has created a billion species over the life of the earth… yes, even things like “purpose” and “love” and “rage” arose from evolution.

“How can you NOT conclude an intelligent being/force did not create us?”
Exactly, I conclude that there was no intelligent force behind our creation. God is a wild assumption that is no different than magic. Why is God real but not Santa or Superman or Shiva, there’s equally credible evidence for all these? I can’t believe you don’t see how arbitrary your religion is. (actually I know why, because you’re brainwashed to reject anything that contradicts your programming)

To be honest, I don’t give a **** where Christianity comes from, it’s all ******** and I’m out to destroy it. It’s an excuse for people to avoid responsibility for themselves or their society and say some imaginary being is the cause of ill in the world. Then when something good happens, you credit God when it was human action (usually) that caused the positive outcome. (Example, the Hudson River crash recently). Plus the very fact that the Bible can be interpreted in any way one wishes just speaks to the fact that it’s fabricated and is the OPPOSITE of the perfect divine word of anything.’’

What should I reply? HELP

Ignore him. He just wants to toy with you, like a cat with a mouse.

 

[CGDouglas]

Hi - this is what he just sent as a reply.

''Well you’ve done it… You’ve completely dodged my question. Your answer was the equivalent of “why not” not an explanation of your logic. I’ll give you another chance and re-word it.

Since intelligence is so rare and minute in this universe, basically an extremely small fraction of all that is, then why should we expect that the cause of the universe possesses such a rare feature as thought or consciousness?

You could argue that because an extremely small fraction is within the universe, it does not place any limit to that which is beyond the effect of time I guess…

Don’t just make an assertion, take me step by step of why something outside the universe would/should/could have a personality.

“How would an inanimate, unaware “force” manage to create a universe with animate, self-awareness, and other qualities it doesn’t possess?”

The answer is simple, evolution… I know it isn’t the cause of the whole universe… but it is the driving force of the universe of life on earth. It is inanimate and unaware yet it has created a billion species over the life of the earth… yes, even things like “purpose” and “love” and “rage” arose from evolution.

**First, evolution has nothing to do with beyond biology, In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

And so what if these emotions rose from evolution? We’re focusing on God…**

“How can you NOT conclude an intelligent being/force did not create us?”
Exactly, I conclude that there was no intelligent force behind our creation. God is a wild assumption that is no different than magic. Why is God real but not Santa or Superman or Shiva, there’s equally credible evidence for all these? I can’t believe you don’t see how arbitrary your religion is. (actually I know why, because you’re brainwashed to reject anything that contradicts your programming)

**Santa is Saint Nicholas, a Catholic saint, Superman is a comic hero ironically enough ‘invented’ by human talent, and Shiva, since he isn’t focusing upon specific belief right now, is still a God… The difference is God is beyond our thinking, whilst the former two isn’t.

Religion does not contradict anysort of programming, he needs to reminded where such science stems from…**

To be honest, I don’t give a **** where Christianity comes from, it’s all ******** and I’m out to destroy it. It’s an excuse for people to avoid responsibility for themselves or their society and say some imaginary being is the cause of ill in the world. Then when something good happens, you credit God when it was human action (usually) that caused the positive outcome. (Example, the Hudson River crash recently). Plus the very fact that the Bible can be interpreted in any way one wishes just speaks to the fact that it’s fabricated and is the OPPOSITE of the perfect divine word of anything.’’

This here is personal emotion, always credit God for everyday, when good happens or not, I suggest you tell him to read upon a few theological books on the concept of God, and moreover, if he is interested more in the Christian faith, Alistar, John Lennox, Kenneth Miller, should be sufficient to bind Evolution with Faith.

What should I reply? HELP

Remain calm, feel wise, use wisdom, and never lose charity.

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[jemfinch]

Since intelligence is so rare and minute in this universe, basically an extremely small fraction of all that is, then why should we expect that the cause of the universe possesses such a rare feature as thought or consciousness?

Because intelligence exists. It seems far more reasonable to me to believe that intelligence begat other intelligences, than to believe that something unintelligent made intelligences. We have clear examples in this world of intelligences both begetting other intelligences and making unintelligent things, but we have no clear example in this world of unintelligent things making intelligent things.

The answer is simple, evolution… I know it isn’t the cause of the whole universe… but it is the driving force of the universe of life on earth.

That’s not an answer, that’s an assumption. It’s only true if evolution wasn’t guided by an intelligence, which means it begs the question: it assumes what it intends to prove.

I can’t believe you don’t see how arbitrary your religion is. (actually I know why, because you’re brainwashed to reject anything that contradicts your programming)

Your interlocutor is clearly not interested in civil debate, so I’d simply stop emailing him.

To be honest, I don’t give a **** where Christianity comes from, it’s all ******** and I’m out to destroy it.

His discourse is simply not up to the standards I expect in polite conversation. I could answer his objections, but I really don’t see a point in doing so, any more than I see a point in answering a child who calls me a doodyhead.

Jeremy

 

[lemonbeam]

Hi guys, I’m sorry to bother you again, but I am continuing this conversation with this atheist. I really appreciate all your help, please help again I know some of you are going to say, just leave it, but I really do want to continue this debate, Thank you!

I sent him some of your well thought responses, as well as some of my own, (the italics are what I sent him, and the **bold **text are his answers), and here is what he sent me:

–

"Because intelligence exists. It seems far more reasonable to me to believe that intelligence begat other intelligences, than to believe that something unintelligent made intelligences. We have clear examples in this world of intelligences both begetting other intelligences and making unintelligent things, but we have no clear example in this world of unintelligent things making intelligent things. It seems far more reasonable to me to believe that intelligence begat other intelligences, than to believe that something unintelligent made intelligences."

This would make sense if you said life… so far it requires life to create other life (although bio chemists are coming closer and closer to replicating the transition from inanimate chemicals to replicating/mutating/“living” macromolecules. I think that within 10 years, there will be a plausible (and scientifically demonstrated) description of abiogenesis. You have to be up on new scientific articles to make claims about what is known. Intelligence so far as we can tell is dependent on some sort of life system. So it seems like an enormous leap to say a supreme intelligence “designed” things when there is NO REPEATABLE OBJECTIVE CONCRETE or REAL evidence in the detectable universe of this being. There is arguably evidence for some sort of creation catalyst (basically Big Bang)… but to assume that this force has a feature (intelligence) which is dependent on SO MANY other things (neural networks, mathematics & physics, brains, sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, behavioral output, and more) which seem to be dependent on physical timespace, is not a reasonable logical progression.
"*That’s not an answer, that’s an assumption. It’s only true if evolution wasn’t guided by an intelligence, which means it begs the question: it assumes what it intends to prove.

Secondly, evolution has nothing to do with beyond biology, In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

And so what if these emotions rose from evolution? We’re focusing on God…*"

I bring the evolutionary development of emotion into this because theists commonly describe God as “Love” or “Good” or other intangible mental symbols which are ethereal and dependent on a mind to perceive in order to exist (just like God.) (If pressed, I’ll admit that God exists only in so much that it’s an idea conceived in the minds of men who exist in the universe… but from the “objective” perspective of the universe itself, it is not literally true.)

"Answer: That’s not an answer, that’s an assumption. It’s only true if evolution wasn’t guided by an intelligence, which means it begs the question: it assumes what it intends to prove."

**I’m not retarded… flipping an asymmetric argument around doesn’t make it valid. Evolution is a property of life. Thus, wherever life exists some sort of evolutionary process will occur to adapt this life phenomenon to whatever environment it can manage, within certain limits. Evolution is NOT guided by God… at least we have no evidence to support that claim, so it is a non sequitor to assume all the elaborate and incomprehensible requirements of a divine intelligent dictator which deterministically forms a track from infinite past to infinite future. I also disclaimed that evolution only explains how a single cell could eventuate an intelligence such as humans or chimps or dolphins given that life already exists. The origin of the entire universe & timespace “bubble” we live in is still under investigation. But, some aspects are known through concrete data, giving rise to new questions. I will proudly admit that science does not have all the answers or details but is always looking for new information and encouraging new discoveries which violate existing theories. One field which I encourage you to research are related to abiogenisis and biochemistry related to pre-cellular development. We think this is possible, and if it can be done in a test tube it can happen in the wild… By the Laws of Nature. >)8-0 **

…

 

[lemonbeam]

Continued:

–
*"Your interlocutor is clearly not interested in civil debate.
Santa is Saint Nicholas, a Catholic saint, Superman is a comic hero ironically enough ‘invented’ by human talent, and Shiva, since you are not focusing upon specific belief right now, is still a God…The difference is God is beyond our thinking, whilst the former two aren’t.

Religion does not contradict anysort of programming.

Science is the study of creation. Religion is our response to the Creator. If creation is a painting, then God is the painter. By studying the painting, we not only learn about the painter, who expresses himself through his art, but we learn about ourselves. But science can’t answer the questions that religion asks."
*

Just like God, Shiva and reverence for Saints. Is it impossible to conceive of the universe as we can actually perceive it where imaginary **** is imaginary and has no real impact on the tangible universe? I mean, if humans can imagine things in such elaborate (and historically inspired) detail as the Iliad & the Odyssey, Journey to the Centre of the Earth, 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Hobbit why is it so grating for you to entertain the idea the Bible could be among these historically relevant works of fiction? I really think the universe is inanimate and regardless of it’s cause/design/creation/fabrication w/e, there is no supreme design or plan for my life (other than what I create & what is built from human society), nor for the universe at large (unless perhaps there is no randomness at all where everything would be dertermined by physical laws and free will would be nonexistent[like god]). Why is it necessary for you to appeal to something “unknowable” “incomprehensible” and “highly unlikely” like an intelligence outside of timespace rather than just admit when you don’t know?

“Answer: This here is personal emotion . I suggest you read upon a few theological books on the concept of God, and moreover, if you are interested more in the Christian faith, Alistar, John Lennox, Kenneth Miller, should be sufficient to bind Evolution with Faith.”

**Ken Miller is a *****. I haven’t heard of the others but I can pretty much assume they’re gonna try to spin perception into some kind of nonsense Jesus ******. For every written character you add along the progression of the Bible’s prose, the higher the chance of error and mistranslation and fabrication. So what, I’m a human… I get emotional when people try to defend an institution which I see stripping people of their humanity, cognitive ability and in fact direct them toward suicidal/extinction seeking tendencies (i.e. Apocalypse). If a wacko wants to kill people for secular/personal reasons that’s fine, we’ll deal with them in real society, but I won’t having them try to implicate their imaginary friend and have it be a respectable defense.

“Newton, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Tycho Brache, Copernicus–in short all of the founders of modern science–were devoutly religious. And the discoverer of the Big Bang was a priest. Even Einstein declared himself “a proundly religious man.” The myth of the incompatibility of science and religion is not only stupid but dangerous”

I don’t know when you had a religious discussion with any of these scientists in order to determine their true religious beliefs. Einstein was not religious… that’s BS you prolly heard from some Jesus/CS propaganda. I know that theology and science describe two different and probably mutually exclusive things. But science moves us forward as a species and attempts to improve our odds of survival. Fundamentalism/traditionalism tries to hold us back. In a dynamic world, the systems which can adapt will survive, those which are too stubborn to change will pay for it. Science adapts, religion gets pulled along kicking and screaming while enjoying the benefits of the science they so reject. **** that, it pisses me off. I’m not saying that you are necessarily a retard science denier, but you are defending the same side that they are which is an inherently dishonest position. To claim you know that God (who is contingent on so many other things, no matter what you say) made everything and all the scientific, objective, physical, literal evidence is somehow not there (even though a retarded 3 year old can see it when presented) is just plain dishonest and thus violates the teachings of your own religion. Where did the Universe come from? Correct answer: So far the evidence points to some kind of singularity which basically exploded creating a bubble of timespace in which we now reside, beyond that we don’t know and we’re looking for more info. WRONG answer: An intangible, universal, intelligence planned the progression of all existence and demands that “he” be revered and worshiped at the threat of eternal torture. If all life on Earth ceased suddenly, torture would be meaningless anyway because that condition requires a mind to perceive pain.

"I’m continually astounded that you atheists never even consider the possibility that your atheism is “a comforting illusion.” I think life would be a heck of a lot easier and less complicated if God doesn’t exist. But I have not allowed myself to accept this finally childish wish-fulfillment. What compells you to make time for something already decided in your mind!?

Lolz, facepalm. You are obviously entirely misinformed on what atheism even means. It’s not MEANT to be comforting, it’s not MEANT for anything. If anything it is a psychological enzyme to inspire real exploration and freedom of concept. But all it means is I think your detailed ancient mythological “truth” is nonsense. I am a humanist tho, so I think that the most worthy endeavor one can pursue is the advancement of our species through the faculties that we’ve been endowed with by our evolutionary development.

 

[lemonbeam]

Last:

–

I always find it amusing that atheists think that religious people are the only ones who might be motivated by their psychological needs! I don’t believe in Unicorns, I don’t need to write books and produce memorabilia to prove that Unicorns don’t exist, that they are just a delusion. I don’t spend my time conversing with people arguing / debating how Unicorns don’t exist. Why spend your time on something that you believe doesn’t exist. Odd. What compells you to make time for something already decided in your mind!?’’

**I’m totally motivated by my psychological needs as you put it. They are determined by the gradual development of human behavior and society & experience. God doesn’t tell me what to do. **

"I’m continually astounded that you atheists never even consider the possibility that your atheism is “a comforting illusion.” I think life would be a heck of a lot easier and less complicated if God doesn’t exist. But I have not allowed myself to accept this finally childish wish-fulfillment. What compells you to make time for something already decided in your mind!?’’

IT IS. Heard of Occam’s Razor? Sagan’s “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” quote? Come on. You are the weakest christian I’ve ever debated since you Jenga your own arguments before you even try to make them. The only reason I debate people on the existence of Unicorns is because THERE IS NOTHING TO BACK UP THE POSITIVE CLAIM yet people are SO SURE UNICORNS ARE THE ORIGIN & DESIGNERS OF ALL 10+ Conceivable dimensions. (sorry for rude caps, but I need to emphasize).

“The universal intelligibility of reality–which must be the starting point for all science-is a mystery that calls out for an explanation. Why should it be the case that laws of tremendous mathematical complexity should obtain at both the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels? Science can’t dispute this, precisely because it rests on it. I think that a very reasonable explanation is that these laws are the work of a supreme personal intelligence.”

This is a telling quote on your part. The fact that you make a nonsense sentence (although I think I know what you meant) and use the phrase “mathematical complexity” indicates you are afraid of the unknown. First, mathematics (while it seems complex) is actually a language to describe otherwise incomprehensible relationships which we see repeated and rarely if ever violated. Second, mathematics is/describes the properties of the universe in a similar, yet more conceptual/intangible way as physics. Why would large things and small things operate on such different rules? I DONT KNOW, but just because mankind doesn’t have the answer does not make Santa Claus or Rudolph the de facto answer.

“Science can’t dispute this, precisely because it rests on it. I think that a very reasonable explanation is that these laws are the work of a supreme personal intelligence.”

**You’re making no sense… science rests on observations & patterns in math and physics. If a phenomenon violates past observations then science will have to revise the theory to accommodate this new/rare outcome. I’m sorry if I’m frustrated with your scientific illiteracy, but it’s precisely why I speak out so strongly against religions since often they actively disparage rational cognition. You think the reasonable explanation is God because you were ****ing brainwashed and that’s ****** since it was probably before you had a choice in the matter. But if you actually investigate “cutting edge” scientific discoveries you’d be amazed at how well the scientific community understands things which are actually useful. Churches should pay taxes, or be demolished for secular purposes so the whole community can actually produce a tangibly valuable output. (poorly put, but sorta what I mean).

Until you have real evidence of Jesus rising from the dead, or God extinctifying Unicorns with a flood while miraculously saving every other animal on a man-made boat, I can’t believe it. There’s real **ing life, and there’s imagination… the Bible is as much imagination as any other “historically inspired” text. I intend to be only slightly rude, but your religion is ******** and is a form of psychological slavery. It’s too bad you reject science for CareBears.

 

[lemonbeam]

Anyone?

 

[HelenaMT]

Anyone?

Arguing with a patronizing, rude, hostile person who obviously is looking to vent on those whose opinions he finds offensive is a complete waste of your time. It won’t change his mind or bring him to God, it’ll just entertain him. He has obvious contempt for you, and your point of view, and people don’t seriously consider the arguments of those they find contemptible. The fact that he calls you “brainwashed , before you could have known better” makes that obvious.

As annoying as it may be to give up on an argument, this dude has no intention of actually taking you seriously. If you want to do something more worthwhile online, try to talk to someone you can actually reach. Otherwise, you’re just keeping this jerk entertained. Your time is much too valuable to waste on that.

 

[Luke65]

Hi Lemonbeam, I read your friend’s comments and the advice people have given you, and they’re right - it’s quite obvious he has no interest in the truth. But if you want you can go ahead and tell him that we do have proof for our faith, but its up to him to seek it out. Otherwise…

“Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy.” (Revelation 22:11)

 

[mardukm]

There are some real inconsistencies and holes in your friend’s argument:

"Because intelligence exists. It seems far more reasonable to me to believe that intelligence begat other intelligences, than to believe that something unintelligent made intelligences. We have clear examples in this world of intelligences both begetting other intelligences and making unintelligent things, but we have no clear example in this world of unintelligent things making intelligent things. It seems far more reasonable to me to believe that intelligence begat other intelligences, than to believe that something unintelligent made intelligences."

This would make sense if you said life… so far it requires life to create other life (although bio chemists are coming closer and closer to replicating the transition from inanimate chemicals to replicating/mutating/“living” macromolecules. I think that within 10 years, there will be a plausible (and scientifically demonstrated) description of abiogenesis. You have to be up on new scientific articles to make claims about what is known. Intelligence so far as we can tell is dependent on some sort of life system. So it seems like an enormous leap to say a supreme intelligence “designed” things when there is NO REPEATABLE OBJECTIVE CONCRETE or REAL evidence in the detectable universe of this being. There is arguably evidence for some sort of creation catalyst (basically Big Bang)… but to assume that this force has a feature (intelligence) which is dependent on SO MANY other things (neural networks, mathematics & physics, brains, sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, behavioral output, and more) which seem to be dependent on physical timespace, is not a reasonable logical progression.…

**I’m not retarded… flipping an asymmetric argument around doesn’t make it valid. Evolution is a property of life. Thus, wherever life exists some sort of evolutionary process will occur to adapt this life phenomenon to whatever environment it can manage, within certain limits. Evolution is NOT guided by God… at least we have no evidence to support that claim, so it is a non sequitor to assume all the elaborate and incomprehensible requirements of a divine intelligent dictator which deterministically forms a track from infinite past to infinite future. I also disclaimed that evolution only explains how a single cell could eventuate an intelligence such as humans or chimps or dolphins given that life already exists. The origin of the entire universe & timespace “bubble” we live in is still under investigation. But, some aspects are known through concrete data, giving rise to new questions. I will proudly admit that science does not have all the answers or details but is always looking for new information and encouraging new discoveries which violate existing theories. One field which I encourage you to research are related to abiogenisis and biochemistry related to pre-cellular development. We think this is possible, and if it can be done in a test tube it can happen in the wild… By the Laws of Nature. >)8-0 **

He has not refuted your claim that intelligence must be begotten by intelligence. In fact, he completely avoids it by nimbly shifting the focus to life. His evasion, however, fails on two counts: 1) Life HAS INDEED developed into intelligence. Put the onus of evidence back on him to prove that intelligence did not beget intelligence, regardless of HOW that primordial intelligence begat the subsequent intelligence (i.e., evolution can easily be viewed merely as the method whereby the Intelligence begat intelligence - the evolution of computers from mere machines to Artificial Intelligence is proof of that). 2) He has offered NO evidence that life actually began from non-life. All he can come up with are claims of “chemists coming closer and closer” and claims of possible breakthroughs “10 years from now.” For a person that requires - in his words - “repeatable, objective, concrete or real” evidence, he has failed miserably to support his own claims. He must either admit that theists have just as reasonable a belief as he does (given that he provides NO evidence for this own beliefs), or he is just as foolish as the theists he accuses of being foolish (in his words - “retarded”).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[nuntym]

May I comment on one of your friend’s statements?

Lolz, facepalm. You are obviously entirely misinformed on what atheism even means. It’s not MEANT to be comforting, it’s not MEANT for anything. If anything it is a psychological enzyme to inspire real exploration and freedom of concept. But all it means is I think your detailed ancient mythological “truth” is nonsense. I am a humanist tho, so I think that the most worthy endeavor one can pursue is the advancement of our species through the faculties that we’ve been endowed with by our evolutionary development.

Lolz, facepalm. I don’t know about anyone else here, but a psychological enzyme to inspire real exploration and freedom of concept?! Excuse me, but my experience with atheistic thinking is that it REMOVES freedom of concept. With atheistic humanism, you can only believe in science and the intrinsic worth of the human race, nothing else. With Catholicism (or any other mysticism out there), I can believe in those—I wonder how your friend will react to the fact that if it was not for Christianity, science and the concept of the value of the human person will not develop as it is today? —but I can also believe in God, in fairies, in unicorns, in the concept of the moral weakness of man, in life after death, in angels, in miracles, in…well, I think you get the point.

In fact, no other religion nor philosophy extols Reason more than Catholicism. Catholicism is the only religion bold enough to proclaim that God Himself is constrained, is limited by Reason.

In no other religion nor philosophy is the human person given more honor, placed on a higher pedestal, than Catholicism. For according to the Church, man is no less than a broken god, a being whose magnificence cannot be constrained to remain in this plane of reality after death.

Yeesh.