Correction. I did not say I approve of his committing suicide.
Did I not just say so? Survival of the fittest. Isn’t that as Darwinian as one can get?
If you are saying that a things existence cannot be random, then i agree. But that is not what you are saying.
If God has to be the cause of all change in order to consider the universe as being guided toward a purpose, then it makes no sense to then say but oh human beings have freewill. If human beings can be considered as free to act according to their nature, then why not the rest of the universe? Why would such a universe be without a purpose?
Well, unless we start conducting serious research into the issue, or find some to refer to, the points going to be wishy washy, but you seem pretty slim on examples you can come up with, wheras I can come up with them in spades, which I think says something. The slagging off of Christianity usually amounts to “that’s what you get for believing in imaginary beings” or “see what looking for truth in mysticism!” sort of schlock, so is usually quite clearly from an atheist perspective, usually expressed by a prominently positively presented figure, real or fictional, or both
You can be a theist and not part of an organisation. In fact, you can be a Christian, and not part of any form of organisation (in other words ‘religion’), as some Christians believe is the only true way to be Christian! So you’re not quite right.
I’ve sat around a Christmas meal at which everyone (but me and one other person quietly twiddling our thumbs) went through stock anti-Christian barbs and ‘continuing our DNA is all that matters’ nonsense for about 2 hours. I’ve never seen even born again Christians intone such dogmatic nonsense in such an uncritically po-faced fashion for so long
Depends on how it’s all played, isn’t it? As I’ve said, new atheism is a pretty obviously ‘in-group’ masquarading, quite deliberately, as an ‘out-group’, because after all, theres nothing more popular than…
I am not actually sure that that is what science has concluded. I don’t think science has made any statement that these are “secondary” causes. My limited knowledge tells me that all science has done is say that “these things” are the immediate causes of “those things” but I don’t think they have labelled these causes as secondary.
Yes all this is true. But if I am not mistaken, evolutionists (especially those strictly Darwinian) are making such an extension that everything is random and accident. They posit natural selection and this is a great assumption that nature by itself would always move upwards.
Never claimed that and don’t believe that.
And that is exactly what I believe. There is a natural order because God made it that way. Hence total random and chance mutations are out of the equation once we posit an Intelligent Creator.
I can see how you may get that from the very inexact analogy I have given. I can’t think of a better one at the moment. But no, I am not claiming that at all.
I will try to come up with a better explanation and analogy because the clay analogy just does not allow for the multiple variations that are also implicit in the intelligent design and guidance of creation.
Because inherent laws of change still does not mean evolution as Darwinian evolution would make it. Building into creation inherent laws of change does not necessarily mean evolution. The fact that change (progress, upward motion) is built in therefore means that change is anything but chance because if this is completely by chance then devolution should not be out of the equation.
And these natural processes are never deemed as secondary causes. They are just plain causes, and the order of causality is not even hinted at.
But I think that is exactly what evolution says, that everything came from nothing and hence everything is chance.
I doubt very much that you will find that in any scientific books about evolution.
Their natures having been made by God to be so. If opposite valences attract, it is because God designed opposite valences to attract.
That may be what we believe, but I doubt that that is what the scientist believes. If the scientist observed that this atom bumped against this atom creating this molecule, then that is pure empirical observation. The problem is scientists do not limit themselves to this observations. They make other conclusions based on this observation that may or not may not be true.
Not at all. I am affirming the existence of a natural world that is held in balance by a Supernatural being; a natura world that would not be were it not for this Supernatural Being.
Sorry but that is exactly what I am saying.
I never claimed that God is the cause of all change. I don’t think you will find such a statement in any of my posts. What I did say (or meant to say) is He guided this upward movement of change in matter, to come up with the pinnacle of His creation – a human being with free will; this movement towards a thinking, free-willing being, He designed to be His co-creators in a way. So therefore, being co-creators we effect change in His creation, and this He allows because He has given us free will.
Because freedom is truly only applicable to creatures of free will. Could the fine tuned universe have moved according to its willing at the point of the Big Bang?
Ok, so fingers crossed then.*
Well that is one of the big unanswered questions isn’t it. How likely is life? One in a million planets? One in a billion? One in a trillion planets? We don’t really know.
Why? Evolution is essentially built in to anything that we would consider to be “life”. This has an inevitable tendency to increase complexity with time.*
There I must disagree with you, the conditions for life to have a chance of coming about must really include proximity of some kind of star. So we only really tend to consider the odds of life occurring with a solar system, which is why above I queried odds in terms of number of planets as opposed to (for example) per unit volume of the universe.
As above, evolution is essentially built in to what we would consider to be life. So that’s pretty much covered above as well.
Not really, no. Any species which reached the level of self awareness would pretty much inevitably conclude that their own existence was highly unlikely. No matter what they looked like or where in the universe they evolved. So we need to factor in to calculations of probability the fact that we could have evolved anywhere in the entire universe and in any way which got us to sentience.*
Nope, that’s exactly the point. Well done. A species can evolve to the point of sentience in any number of ways and at any location in the universe and at any time. And the results in terms of the probability of that particular species having evolved are largely indistinguishable. Always inconceivably unlikely.*A pen can land any way it wants - the results are largely indistinguishable, on your average hypothetical carpet. Your example deliberately obscures issues of possibilities in terms of consequences, surely? Which strikes me as the approach of someone coming from a clearly difficult-to-justify position, in terms of consequences…
Er, so you were seeking to obscure the correlation? Why? How does that help the discussion?
Funnily enough you’d be more accurate to say the opposite. I was told when I was young that the bible creation story was literally true. Then later I was told that evolution happened but God directed it. My realisation that this didn’t make sense was my own. The understanding came from my own independent research. Not someone issuing me a dogma.*Your whole belief (and justifications for the same) that evolution occurred without design and resulted in unlikely us comes across as a particularly unconvincing and overwrought dogma. Just as an example
That is an assumption.
But we are related to rats, it just so happened that we are higher up in the so called “evolutionary” process.
Well your moral tenet is suffering avoidance. Bomb them out of their suffering. That would fit perfectly into your moral compass.
From what? Take the first bacteria. Where did that come from? Say carbon perhaps. Where did the carbon come from?
If we came from nothing and we return to nothing, what becomes the basis for morality? The self . If the self, then completely subjective.
Yes it does. It leaves you free to make up your own morality. But if just yours then it can’t really be an ought. But morality dictates an ought.
So what exactly did we come from (I mean from the very, very beginning) and what exactly becomes of us when we die?
What is there in say, the bacteria stage that would make one think that emotions would develop in the later stages and that later variants would become social animals. Why should there be an impetus to develop in this manner such that you are able to make the conclusion that we love and are social animals because we have evolved?
But you are assuming that this is the result of evolution. What is there in the plant stage that decrees that succeeding developments would lead to love?
No I do not simply define goodness by what God says, I define goodness by what God IS.
Which if He were truly God and is therefore Goodness Himself, then the only standard should be Himself.
If God is the Sum of All Goodness how is it possible that He would dictate that what is evil is good?
It is both - because we say that God is the Sum of All Goodness. What the Sum of AllGoodness command is good because it proceeds from the Sum of All Goodness and it is morally good because it is commanded by the Sum of All Goodness.
Only because you have a very myopic understanding of who and what God is.
No it doesn’t because He is the Sum of All Goodness so therefore it is right because He is Goodness itself, and also because even thought He is Mighty, the right does not proceed from His might from the fact that He is goodness itself.
Oh but yes. Very much so.
No what that means is that since according to your atheistic foundation, we all came from nothing (No First Cause called God) then obviously we are all here by chance, just a mass of chemicals (since you don’t like mud) talking and walking around. What exactly is the value of a talking, walking chemical? Totally subjective from one’s point of view.
And there’s the problem. Why should we consider them mental issues? If everything is subjective, their conviction is as valid as those who consider life to be of value.
Well, hello, you said that value is subjective. Everyone is allowed to make their own morality. Now you are saying that the benchmark is to be how we have evolved as social creatures. And what makes that the benchmark? Who says that that should be the benchmark?
) but I think you may be focusing a little too much on the randomness of evolution. Yes there is some randomness involved, but there’s a lot more to it than that. (Perhaps you do know this, but even a little bit of randomness is too much for you to accept?) Well anyway, that is just the impression I get from your last few posts.Both Jacques and Raïssa would go on to become two of the greatest Thomistic philosophers of the 20th century.
The difference is I’ve provided a small number of pretty solid, specific examples which anyone who watches tv in Britain will be aware of. While you have made some rather nebulous references to a whole array of different tv shows and given me nothing I can actually check. So I cannot disprove what you are saying, but I cannot prove it either and nothing I see on tv supports the view you have provided. Of course you can just say I’m biased or haven’t seen the right episode of programme X. Neither of which I can disprove because you haven’t provided me with any solid, checkable examples.Well, unless we start conducting serious research into the issue, or find some to refer to, the points going to be wishy washy, but you seem pretty slim on examples you can come up with, wheras I can come up with them in spades, which I think says something. The slagging off of Christianity usually amounts to “that’s what you get for believing in imaginary beings” or “see what looking for truth in mysticism!” sort of schlock, so is usually quite clearly from an atheist perspective, usually expressed by a prominently positively presented figure, real or fictional, or both
None the less, I think you’ll agree that the vast majority of Catholics are members of the catholic church. In fact the vast majority of Christians are at least loosely members of a specific church. In fact most theists are members of specific purely theist organisations.*
?I think I’m misunderstanding you here. Christian communists are a massive faction?*
Yes, pretty much all organisations have some form of organisational structure. But the vast majority of atheists are not in the organisations you mentioned. And the organisations are in reality more or less toothless both due to this fact and also political correctness.*
Perhaps. I don’t know any “positive atheists” to be honest. Haven’t heard how they speak so can’t comment.*
“continuing our DNA is all that matters”? Seriously? Someone actually said that? How odd. Never heard that point of view before. You must know some… interesting people.*I’ve sat around a Christmas meal at which everyone (but me and one other person quietly twiddling our thumbs) went through stock anti-Christian barbs and ‘continuing our DNA is all that matters’ nonsense for about 2 hours. I’ve never seen even born again Christians intone such dogmatic nonsense in such an uncritically po-faced fashion for so long
As I say, I’m dubious if it’ll ever gain much popularity. Many atheists (including myself) recognise that religion is a comforting thing to most people. Losing it is challenging and I don’t think it is sensible to push people towards it by forcing them to question their beliefs. Many people aren’t ready for that and will either go off the rails or go closed minded if pushed. I’d much rather just have accurate information shared and let people reach their own conclusions.*Depends on how it’s all played, isn’t it? As I’ve said, new atheism is a pretty obviously ‘in-group’ masquarading, quite deliberately, as an ‘out-group’, because after all, theres nothing more popular than…
We don’t really know anything, but we have reasons to calulate probabilities and possibilities. And those of life occuring spontaneously have always looked pretty naff
Now this IS high dogma. If evolution, in any effective sense of the word regarding complexity, was built into everything we consider to be life, we wouldn’t still have amoebas. I’m waiting for you to fall into the pit trap that lies inevitably at the end of your replies
Why? We have no reason to think that such is likely to be true, other than unbridled positivism regarding abiogenesis
I’d say so. Sand, however, probably isn’t
Insane. The scary thing is, I have the frightened feeling that such bizarre leaps in (from?) logic form the basis of modern atheism. So a penguin can evolve to the point of sentience in the vacuum of space tomorrow? Is this before, during or after it chokes to death for lack of oxygen?
…yes, it’s been asked, and the honest answer is generally ‘not likely!’
I’ve already replied to this distortion of Christian beliefs, if I remember rightly
Oh dear. I don’t think you really understand what I’m saying
I’m thinking of stuff like this:
Well, actually, since the vast majoirty of atheists are probably Chinese, most of them are probably marxist communists, aren’t they?
Marxist communists represent most communists.Is what I meant…
I’m trying to think of the exact phrase… “you owe it to your ancestors”, then something like that… It helps to keep one stimulated, but I don’t think it’s that unusual… it’s something that people believe in, you know!
My experience is that religion is, socially speaking, a difficult thing to publically subscribe to. Atheism is so much more socially acceptable, and besides, generally gives reason not to bother about very much unless you’re in the mood, and in most forms, doesn’t stop you doing selfish things you want to do. Which is why it appeals to people who don’t like to bother too much with personal responsibility
You’re kidding, right? Atheism is anything but “socially acceptable”. Perhaps the non-religious lifestyle is, but not atheism itself. America, at least, is not atheist-friendly. There is “under God” in our national pledge (which is as discriminatory as putting “under Jesus” in the pledge). Some states don’t even allow atheists to hold government positions. And if you ever admit that you are an atheist in most of America, be prepared to be treated with as much disdain and condescension as the quoted poster does.
I am not aware that God would demand us to kill our children. Also, its not our children. Given a truly christian understanding, each child is a creation of God, and thus they are Gods children. We are merely looking after Gods children. Also, hell, when the concept is properly understood, is a necessary consequence of freewill; we all have the freedom to embrace the opposite of love forever, and true loves respects peoples freewill.
I am not aware that this is true. This is not my understanding of the meaning of Catholic faith. It also depends on the context in which somebody expresses faith. First of all Human-beings, regardless of being agnostic atheist or religious, in general have faith in many things they deem either important to their humanity or in something that makes the best sense of their human nature. For example Gods existence makes the best sense of the existence of objective moral values, and people conclude this because it certainly appears evident that it is truly and objectively immoral to rape children. This is not a blind faith, but rather a faith based on human experience. This idea that practical faith merely applies to the religious is false. Secondly God favors faith if it allows a person to come close to God and he values it in that context alone; but he does not demand it as an absolute standard when approaching truth. Thirdly, when God speaks of having faith, he is speaking about Gods saving grace, that God at some point in history has come to save humanity. This is a different kind of faith in comparison to having faith in Gods “existence”. Proving Gods metaphysical existence does not do away with the necessity of having faith in Gods saving grace especially given humanities fallen state, effecting us both rationally and morally. If we doubt Gods existence, it is because we are irrational and not because Gods existence cannot reasonably be known. In fact there are places in the bible where Gods existence is said to be demonstratable, and that the intelligent atheists who believes that the universe is rational has no excuse.
Unless you are are talking about “objective moral law”, the word “discriminatory” is morally meaningless, and its use in this sentence is just a deceptive attempt to create a false sense of wrong where none is rationally justified.