<p>your right points’ exhibit zero dimension, but i was using “point” in terms of the other meaning which is a synonym of the word “premise” or “Thesis”</p>
<p>i’ll stop posting and go to bed, i start to write nonsense after 1:30.</p>
<p>^this whole thread is nonsense</p>
<p>how so? it’s just a forum expressing different points of view on religion. is that not somewhat of sense? human nature after all is to question, most people would say that is the particular characteristic that separates us from other primates</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know what you meant; I simply ignored your obvious usage of the word for the sake of prolonging conversation. :)</p>
<p>Good night.</p>
<p>/endthread</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Firstly, this is a thread, not a forum.</p>
<p>And I feel that somewhere along the line, this devolved into an angry (shouting) match, rife with improper grammar and spelling, along with a lack of capitalization. Quite simply, arguments were recycled for nearly 20 pages. That’s not really sensible, bro/sis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Eh. As far as science is concerned, human “nature” is an artificial, self-delusional, and megalomaniacal construct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have said it before and I will say it again: My beliefs on the age of the earth are not based on my trust in the Bible!</p>
<p>It is quite possible that those who interpret the Genesis account in terms of an old earth are correct. However, I feel that it is more likely that the earth is drastically younger. I believe that the evidence is sufficiently doubtful that it would be a very bad scientific practice to rule out a young age. I have no problem with those who take a different view, as long as they will respect mine and be willing to defend their own.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My 6,000 year old theory is not set in stone as a pillar of my faith, unlike some people’s belief in a 6 billion year old earth. Regardless, if Summer emerged circa 4000 BC, that is almost perfectly compatible with a supposed rise of civilization from Adam’s decendants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I stand on my statement that we have not, do not, and will never observe the processes you call the Big Bang. We can only observe the current state of the universe. If this state fits with that which would be expected if the Big Bang model were true, then that would give validity to our inference that it is indeed true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Has anyone here ever claimed the existence of a biological god? In fact, my argument shows that not only is a biological god impossible, a biological person is also impossible. Since people do exist in spite of this, there is no logical inconsistency with god also existing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you won’t accept things that I quote, why should I accept the things you quote?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find it interesting that you never reply to my argument in which I show my reason for believing that the human mind is more than a complex chemical reaction. I have now repeated it many times.</p>
<p>As for “special signifigance” how would I know? The minds of animals, trees, even rocks could be just the same, but we would have no way of ever knowing that, so it is useless to science.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Logically refutable? By what logic? Is it any more refutable than the Big Bang, using only pure logic?</p>
<p>As for evidence, if you claim that the evidence supports the Big Bang, then there must be some evidence you would expect to see if god were real. What is it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not propose that we teach the “7 days of creation” and “the first woman was made from a man’s rib” in science class. Students need to know these things, just as they do the pillars of Islam or the teachings of Buddism, so that they can be well informed when dealing with the varied beliefs in the world.</p>
<p>But in science class, I am saying that students should be taught the Theory of Evolution, as well as the flaws in it, and should also be taught that some scientists believe that the earth is much younger, and told the reasons for that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am quite willing to listen to any logical argument in favor of those things if anyone truly believes them. I will then be quite happy to lay out my reasons for rejecting them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course! I don’t claim that your belief has no justification, only that my belief does have some justification also. I am willing to respect your beliefs, and allow you to present them to the world. You should grant the same respect to me.</p>
<p>If humans are nothing more than complex chemical reactions, piles of blocks falling towards chaos, then why should they be capable of reational thought?</p>
<p>If the only reason you believe in one theory is because various enviromental factors have caused your brain cells to reach a certain chemical configuration, and the only reason I belive differently is because the complex chemical reaction that is my brain has been differently influenced, what reason is there to believe that the chemical configuration of your brain correlates with some reality about the origins of the universe?</p>
<p>C. S. Lewis said “I see no reason for believing that one accident could give me a correct account of all the others.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is pointless in the sense that a discussion such as the one under consideration is inherently insoluble, just as is a discussion with a feminist regarding abortion, or with a racial minority over affirmative action, or asking individuals of their opinion regarding which gender is superior (which will overwhelmingly represent a bias in favor of their own). But if such argumentation or ideological exchange is consistently muted – as it often is regarding religious matters – nothing is ever accomplished.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anecdotal and subjective experience adds absolutely nothing for the case of theological credibility. In fact, such an assertion holds as much argumentative force as simply stating that no god exists, without any effective justification.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That isn’t true whatsoever. Einstein’s and Stephen Hawking’s quotes are notoriously misconstrued and taken as personal disclosures in favor of supernatural religion. Neither individual is religious. Neither uses the word “God” in the same sense in which religious individuals use it to describe some supernatural entity. Rather, “God” in their sense is taken to mean something conceptually analogous to nature or the laws of physics rather than some fellow with humanlike characteristics (just of a greater intensity) who directs every single individual in the course of common affairs, performs miracles, crafts morality, raises people from the dead, answers prayers, creates universes and biological beings, or reads everyone’s minds – simultaneously. It’s actually intellectually inappropriate to deliberately equate the two “God” conceptions. The use of the word in Einstein’s and Hawking’s case is pantheistic in origin, certainly not theistic.</p>
<p>Einsteins quotes regarding his religiosity:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
[quote]
The idea of a personal god seems alien to me and seems even na</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You stated previously that you interpret the Christian Bible as a fundamentalist, and, in essence, that you trust its implicit calculation of a 6,000-year-old Earth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Scientific evidence uniformly and overwhelmingly supports an Earthly age of 4.54 billion years, conducted independently and through multiple measurements. The age certainly is not validly set at 6,000, nor at 6 billion, or 1.57 trillion (according to some primitive creation myth of Mideastern origin).</p>
<p>What respect should be accorded on account of incorrect belief?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rocks and trees do not have minds. The former is not a biological structure, while the latter is not a member of the biological kingdom that underwent the phylogenetic process of encephalization as part of its evolutionary heritage and therefore does not have the framework for consciousness, sentience, or cognition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The distinctive doctrines of separate religions express contrary or contradictory claims. “Evidence” in favor of one religion necessarily provides “evidence” that all others are false if there exists analogous assertions in other religions which are not the same (such as the creation myth or the foundation of every religion). Hence, if a religion is incorrect, then any putative claims made in its favor are also false or established on artificial foundations. Evidence from one religion that provides a contrary assertion to other religions ineluctably implies that all others are false. And given that truth-claims are not evidentially supported, and that faith is founded on their development, no religion provides a remotely tenable candidate for belief. </p>
<p>Moreover, there are various deductive arguments that discredit faith-based belief. The argument from design asserts that complexity can only be formulated through non-naturalistic design. However, that very belief implies that the designer must be as complex as the universe in which it designed. Thus, it necessarily requires a designer, which, in turn, necessitates its own designer, ad infinitum. In essence, it merely creates an infinite regress and ineffectively addresses the question in which it sought to correct. </p>
<p>The problem of evil, addressed earlier, contradicts the simultaneous possession of the characteristics of omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. The problem of hell contradicts the concurrent possession of omnipresent and omnibenevolent attributes. Furthermore, the concept of free will (whether possessed by the god under consideration or its creations) contradicts the concept of a deity’s sense of omniscience. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From brain science, human thoughts, instinct, and sentiments develop from exceedingly intricate interconnections of physical structures within the brain.</p>
<p>The most malevolent actions are often based upon ideas for which there is no systematic basis or substantive evidence. For instance, persecution is a common practice involving theological matters, but not in mathematics, because in the latter lies knowledge, whereas in theology there is only unsupportable suppositions. The most effective way to dispel dogmatic opinions is to expose yourself to opinions different from your own. In fact, I attribute much of my irreligiosity to my experience and immersion in cultures and social circles separate from my own. I have come to realize that there is absolutely no perimeter to the absurdities that can come to be believed – whether it be Allah, Krishnan, Zeus, God, Fascism, Communism, Nazism, leprechauns, or whatever else – if the presence of a social influence is sufficiently forceful. Historically, socioreligious beliefs have been motivated by childhood indoctrination and could easily be converted to a completely separate belief (and inconsistent from the previous one) through political conquest or a basic change in sociopolitical structure and common or idealized collective sentiment. Moreover, the fear of calumny or personal defamation is such a strong social influence that very few are willing to dissent from popular opinion, regardless of how irrational, implausible, or inconsistent the system of belief.</p>
<p>But no one, in one form or another, is immune to superstition or religious belief, particularly when under some intense emotive influence – whether it be terror, astonishment, perplexity, or simply the desire to conform to a socially or politically established paradigm. It is only natural to fallaciously detect agency or perceive a generalized sense of inferiority in a world of seemingly great complexity.</p>
<p>Okay, I have been neglecting comment on the subject of morality for far too long and I feel that it is time to begin to address the subject.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since you agree that morality is psychologically inherent, that it is another adaptive or evolved feeling in the human mind similar to basic emotional urges, then there is no inherent reason consider that morality is above and beyond other sentimental instincts. For instance, morality is neurologically separate from the tendencies to desire more attractive physical characteristics in a mate, to seek aesthetic pleasure, and to satisfy one’s hunger in a state of undernourishment, yet all are conceptually homologous. Do each of those require proof in the form that you seek for the concept of morality or do you simply accept them for what they are – as naturally selected elements that have come to constitute our psychology? Human behavior becomes far more transparently comprehensible on a genetic and evolutionary level. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you done anything at all to prove the existence of your system of belief? If you wish to believe any irrational claim about reality or believe that there exists an invisible ally in some fantasy realm, then the onus is completely on you. </p>
<p>Supernatural belief has never been an effective explanation for moral tendencies. Natural law (or fixed, incontestable moral inclinations) has been historically disproved, in the strictest sense of its definition, since morality and ethical standards are consistently revised on a sociological basis. It has also had deplorable failures and has been misapplied as a “rationalistic” mechanism for slavery, jingoism, colonialism, and genocide. Likewise, Christians have held to certain moral beliefs throughout history that today are considered morally repugnant. Hitler and the Nazis held to broad Christian beliefs to inspire the Holocaust through Christian antisemitism. And indeed, Christian morals have supported the unfair restrictions upon feminine rights and supported slavery. Since society has radically altered its interpretations of these social malignancies, it is intellectually dishonorable for Christians (or members of any religious faith for that matter) to state that their holy books serve humanity as the moral guides outside of reasoning and logic.</p>
<p>I will write more later.</p>
<p>I have a lot of epiphanies in which I just glimpse and think of the world. I don’t know how to explain how I see it. I’m pretty sure you guys know what kind of feeling I am trying to express right now, but it’s when I just think about the world and how complex it is, and how WEIRD it is. Like why are we existing? Really? I just find it hard to believe life just “happened.” I believe in a God, and I am willing to risk my life on my faith. Because there is nothing to lose.</p>
<p>I believe science is a tool that God has given us so that we can use it righteously. There are no contradictions with the Bible and science, and if you’re going to bring up evolution, evolution isn’t a science, it is just adaption and the decision of which animal/being is stronger.</p>
<p>But that is just me. Don’t want to bash/argue with anyone, just have clean discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The reason I interpret it in this way is because I feel that the evidence supports the theory that humans and other life emerged in complete forms within the last 10,000 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Take a look at this: [The</a> Age of the Earth and the Formation of the Universe: Professor Heaton](<a href=“http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/index.html]The”>http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/index.html)</p>
<p>It does a good job of explaining why both the Young Earth and Old Earth theories are not proven, although it shows evolutionary bias. For the other side of the argument, see one of the creation websites I have linked to. They will give you simliar arguments but claim their conclusion more probable.</p>
<p>I remain skeptical of the arguments of both sides, though I feel that the balance of evidence favors a young earth. This is unfortunately an issue than can never be settled, but future evdence may cause me to change which side I feel more likely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The same respect I accord you, even you I also consider your belief incorrect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that the existence of a “mind” is not relevant to the existence of a biological structure such as a brain. A brain is a computer. It is not a mind. A brain responds to stimuli in ways that are predetermined by its structure. The human mind does not. Until neuroscience becomes more advanced, we will have no way of knowing if animals’ actions are entirely determined by their brains or if they have something similar to our “mind”.</p>
<p>The point I was making about rocks and trees was that a mind is by definition not scientifically modelable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not presenting evidence in favor of one religion. I am presenting evidence against the validity of rejecting anything besides a naturalistic point of view. The debate between one religion and another is a theological and historical one, which has no place in my argument here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This argument applies equally to the Big Bang. What initiated it? What initiated that?</p>
<p>Any theory which attempts to ascribe origins to something that itself can be described in rational terms leads to an infinite regression. The only option we have is to assume that the First Cause does not exist within any natural laws. Without that framework, there is nothing to make one non-existent concept more valid than another.</p>
<p>It is therefore impossible to choose between one origins theory and another by logic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, but the validity or non-validity of one religion’s concept of god has no relevance to this debate.</p>
<p>I think you are misunderstanding my beliefs. From your argument, you seem to think my beliefs on this issue run such:</p>
<p>1: I believe that the Bible is infallible.
2: The Bible says god created the world 6,000 years ago.
3: Therefore, anything that contradicts that is false.</p>
<p>In fact, my beliefs are:</p>
<p>1: I absolutly reject the idea that reality is nothing but matter and energy acting according to natural laws and running inexorably towards maximum entropy.
2: Therefore, there is nothing inherently illogical about the concept of a creator being outside of natural reality.
3: Given 1, and 2, there is no reason Evolution and Old Earth theory must be true.
4: The many problems with these theories cast doubt on the issue.
5: It is therefore scientifically irresponsible to supress alternate viewpoints.</p>
<p>Statements 2-3 follow naturally from statement 1. Statement 5 follows from statement 4. I have posted my argument for statement 1 many times:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If thoughts are merely complex chemical reactions, why should they correlate with any truth about reality?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because those chemical reactions facilitate the ability to interpret sensory information, thereby making it possible for us to analyze our world empirically.</p>
<p>^ How do we know that? There is no way for a chemical reaction to prove itself capable of proof.</p>