Re: funny creationsist


Jim Spaza wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Jim Spaza wrote:
> > > TomS wrote:
> > > > "On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:18:52 +0000 (UTC), in article
> > > > <dovv4b$9f1$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bobby D. Bryant stated..."
> > > > >
> > > > >On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Let me ask you...if not for values that come from a Supreme Being,
> > > > >> then what is the source of one's non-religious value system?
> > > > >
> > > > >From a thick layer of culture on top of whatever foundation evolution
> > > > >provided, just like for religious value systems.
> > > > >
> > > > >But I'm curious about the apparent assumption that the existence of
> > > > >a Supreme Being adds meaning and values to life. Why so?
> > > > >
> > > > >If we were in fact "designed" by space aliens, would that make life
> > > > >more meaningful than if we evolved? Would we be obligated to adopt
> > > > >whatever values they demanded of us? Should we feel obligated to
> > > > >abide by whatever rules they happened to impose on us?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If, for example, we have bodies which have been deliberately
> > > > designed by the intelligent designers to be nearly identical with
> > > > the bodies of chimps and other apes - would that then obligate us
> > > > to follow the purposes of the designers by acting like just another
> > > > ape?
> > >
> > > No. Does not the existence of our free will and conscious mind give
> > > us the ability to not act like apes?
> >
> > Bearing in mind that we *are* apes, I guess that anything we do will be
> > acting like apes. In fact, as behavoural studies have shown, we act in
> > many ways remarkably like our closest relative, chimpanzees.
>
> Or, perhaps that should be phrased that chimps act like us.
>
> >
> > > Yes. Our having free will gives
> > > us some indication of our purpose...if we were intended by some
> > > intelligence to exist.
> >
> > Which presumes that we have free will, something which cannot be
> > established by science.
>
> Please. Do me a favor and step outside of the laboratory for a second.
> Some things, like love, hate, conscious minds, and free will cannot be
> proven by science.

Nothing can be proven by science.

On the other hand, it can be demonstrated scientifically that in many
cases in which we think we are excercising free will, our actions are
highly constrained: this is, after all, the bread and butter of
professional "mentalists" who can manipulate the decisions of their
subjects to an astonishing degree.

The question is, are we making decisions based on free will, or, given
our history, experience and biological heritage can we make any other
decision other than the one we make in any circumstance. As we cannot
rerun any situation exactly, there is no way of knowing.

> If you think about it, our existing in this
> universe technically cannot be proven either. From a skeptical
> standpoint, we all could be strapped into chairs with electrodes in our
> brains, giving us the impression that we exist in this world (vis-a-vis
> the Matrix movies).

Perhaps, but it's a useless speculation.

>
> Let's be honest, however. You know that you have free will.
I don't. I can't rerun the same sitution again to see if I can make any
other decision. Neither can you.
>You know
> that you have a conscious mind.
That's not the same as having free will.

> You know that you feel love and hate
> at times.
Again, that has nothing to do with free will. In fact, we seem to have
little free will when it comes to love or hate.

>You know that you exist.

Which his ultimately as much as anyone can know for certain. So what?

>
> Many aspects of our existence cannot be proven, cannot be tested, are
> not subject to peer review, and are not subject to solely logical
> analysis.

So what?

>Yet, these aspects exist.

Perhaps. All I know for certain is that I exist. Nothing beyond that is
certain.

>Same thing with God, except that
> you cannot normally see Him.
>

Which is a non-sequitur. If the only thing I can be certain of is that
I exist, why is this an argument in favour of there being a God?

> >
> > >
> > > A generic intelligent designer does not, by necessity, demand that we
> > > act in any particular fashion. However, if the intelligent design is
> > > the Supreme Being who created this entire universe, then I'd argue that
> > > His position demands that we at least investigate what His will is for
> > > us.
> >
> > If this "generic intelligent designer" exists, one wonders why he has
> > created us with behavioural patterns remarkably similar to those of
> > chimps. Bearing in mind also that "free will" is a metaphysical
> > assertion not testable by science, rather begs the question of purpose:
> > if you accept the existence of God, you accept free will. You can't use
> > the assertion of free will to support your argument for the existence
> > of God.
>
> Yes. I have to agree with that...to a point. Direct evidence? No.
> Indirect evidence which helps infer the existence of God? Yes, but
> only when taken with all the other evidence (historical, personal,
> psychological, etc.).

How can any historical or psychological evidence be used to infer the
existence of God? These are matters which require evidence of much the
same standards as science. As for personal - it's just that: personal.
If you believe in God for your own personal reasons without needing any
evidence, it's faith.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Of if we say that the designers were not interested enough in
> > > > us to make us significantly different from most other mammals, what
> > > > would that have to tell us about how much these designers value us?
> > >
> > > I am assuming (uh-oh!) that you do not view humans as that much
> > > different from apes. However, I do. To me, just because we share the
> > > 95% of the same DNA doesn't mean that our value, worth,
> >
> > What is our value? We are the most destructive animal ever to have
> > walked the planet. Our value is negative in those terms.
>
> We are also the most constructive creators of materials (buildings,
> tools), esoteric things (beauty, art, music, language, poetry), and
> are, by far, the best at works of mercy and sympathy. Humans are a
> strange mix of good and evil.

I fail to see how this is relevant. This is judging humanity by orur
own standards.

>
> >
> > >or intended
> > > function in this world is 95% the same. It just means that the
> > > designer(s) used generally the same material and physiology.
> >
> > "intended function"? This is the falacy of prsesuming the consequent,
> > by the way.
>
> Sure, if this is used as direct evidence of God's existence. Rather, I
> see it as indirect evidence which fills in the gaps once the direct
> evidence is analyzed.

Why does it have to be God that fills the gaps?
There is far more that we don't know than we know. "I don't know" is a
good answer in science - it leads to finding out more about how the
universe works.

>
> >
> > >
> > > The value of a fire department's ladder truck is much different than
> > > that of a tractor trailer hauling oranges from Florida; yet, their
> > > internal makeup, materials in use, equipment on board, and inner
> > > workings are far more similar than different.
> > >
> >
> > And this is completely irrelvant because they are manufactured items,
> > and not the outcome of a long evolutionary process.
>
> So, we come to the crux of everything in this forum. Was the
> evolutionary process SOLELY responsible for our existence? If so, was
> this evolutionary process undesigned, unaffected by the supernatural,
> and the product of only chemistry and physics?

I disagree with you. In my view, the heart of the matter on this and
other forums is the claim of creationists that their religious views
are supported by science. This is simply false. It is not the business
of science to prove anything, let alone the existence of God.
Furthermore, it is bad theology: Beliief in God is a matter of faith,
not evidence.

I don't know if the evolutionary process is soley responsible for our
existence. I don't know if the supernatural was involved or not. What I
do know is that science provides many answers to this and many other
questions which by the nature of science do not involve the
supernatural.



>
> >
> > > Besides, since when do we, as a civilized nation, vary the human worth
> > > and value of our neighbors due to their skin color, handicap, and
> > > ethnicity which are all DNA-caused?
> >
> > in the words of John MacEnroe "you can not be serious!."
>
> The tennis player? I never took him seriously. I don't think that he
> took himself too seriously either. Cetainly, his fans and the tennis
> officials didn't.
>
> >
> > > Well, perhaps we do,
> >
> > There's no "perhaps" about it! We do and all nations and populations
> > have throughout recorded history, and almost certainly beyond. If you
> > read about the "Red Queen" hypothesis, you will see that evolutionary
> > theory explains why rather accurately. I can recommend Matt Ridley's
> > book of that title.
>
> As I am behind on many my reading list, please tell me their are
> Cliff's Notes available for "Red Queen". :-)
>

Not to my knowledge. But it's well worth reading.

> >
> > >but we
> > > shouldn't. That's the point. It's good not to do such things. And if
> > > we, as limited humans understand this important value of human life,
> >
> > A statement not supported by human history, by the way...
>
> Some people understand the value of human life. Some don't. However,
> you're correct. Overall, I'd say not.
>
> >
> > > then how much more so does a perfect, loving Supreme Being?
> > >
> > > Perhaps, now we can see how a Supreme Being can make us so similar to
> > > apes but impart so much more value and meaning to our lives and want so
> > > very much more for our existence.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > (I am thinking of "significant differences" as being those which
> > > > show marks of "intelligent design", such as "irreducible complexity"
> > > > - the eye structure that we share with most vertebrates, the
> > > > adaptive immune system that we share with most jawed vertebrates,
> > > > the blood clotting system that we share with most mammals, and the
> > > > bacterial flagellum which we lack.)
> > > >
> > > > Or if we observe that certain persons are born with improperly
> > > > functioning major bodily function, are we supposed to infer that
> > > > these persons have less value, or are of less concern to their
> > > > designers? Is our value, that is, dependent upon the material
> > > > construction of our bodies? Is it dependent upon our distant
> > > > ancestry? Is it dependent upon the mechanisms which gave rise to
> > > > our species?
> > >
> > > If the God of the Bible is real, then no one person is worth more or
> > > less than any other...ever. If not, then everyone is at the mercy of
> > > the arbitrary values that we have placed on ourselves. If God is real,
> > > then we're guaranteed to have value and meaning. If there is no God,
> > > then...
> > >
> >
> > Well, most societies in human history believed in Gods of one sort or
> > another. The people of western Europe have believed in the Christian
> > god for a couple of millenia, give or take a few centuries. The history
> > of Western Europe is not an outstanding model of tolerance and respect
> > for the value of human life.
> > Setting up a society in which religion plays no part might be an
> > interesting experiment.
>
> Stalin's Russia? Pol Pot's Cambodia? Mao Tse-Tung's China? I'd argue
> that the dismissal of God from any culture allows the inherent human
> nature in all of us to run rampant without reservation.
I'd argue that those regiems were so successful at killing large
numbers of people mainly because of the technological advances of the
20th century, and the far greater populations then than in earlier
eras. Ghenghis Khan managed to kill a tenth of the worlds population
using low-tech weapons - and he was a religious man in his own terms.
The Romans were pretty efficient when it came to genocide, and did not
change their habits notably when they adopted Christianity as the state
religion.

>It would be
> like a man walking the planet without the earth's magnetic field to
> direct his compass. The compass spins widely or not at all. The man
> wanders aimlessly as his emotions/feelings/inner desires lead him.

I don't see this as any more than wishful thinking. I see no great
difference in moral values between professed believers and other
people. I have been cheated by Christians, and treated honestly
atheists.

>
> Don't think that humans are "bad" by nature? Did you have to teach
> your children to lie, be selfish with toys, or disobey you? Or did you
> have to impart some values, sometimes with a paddle to their rear ends?
>

Another big sideways leap! Behavours we call "good" - not lying, not
stealing, not using violence and so on - are behaviours which help to
cement our social structure. They are enshrined in law not because they
are ordained by God, but because for society to function we need to
have such standards imposed.

RF

> >
> > RF
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
> > > > "It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
> > > > much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
> > > > Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
> > > > limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II

.

Loading