Dr. Anthony Fauci is a real time illustration on how absurdity becomes mainstream "science".

[Tiburon]

That is one possibility to consider.

OK.

Maybe. My experience with God is that he is interactive with the world he designed down to the small details. Thinking that he set processes in motion and let them play out without intervention is a radically different way for me to think about him.

What experience convinced you that God is interactive with the world he designed down to the small details?

My point is God would be credited as creator indirectly with the things that come about from the processes he set in place.

Sure, but that doesn't provide any criterion for differentiating the direct from the indirect.

The cause of the big bang. The cause of life on earth. The cause of consciousness. If one limits their view of these things to only material/natural causes their interpretation is skewed.

The material/natural is all that science can measure.
You can claim their interpretation is skewed, but as long as there is no way to arrive at evidence for the supernatural, it is what it is.
The present lack of a complete answer to those questions isn't reason enough to jump to God as the answer.

 

[sobchak]

The more I look into this, the more top-down design I see. We take so much for granted even in many discussions on fine-tuning. Even the properties of water and other basic molecules like carbon are required for life. They can't be an afterthought after the earth is created. A good designer works top-down and sees the big picture first. "Evolution" is a bottom-up process that involves an innumerable number of happy coincidents where even the environment for these happy coincidences to take place are assumed. There is no free lunch when you are starting from nothing.

You make a huge error in equating "tiniest" with inconsequential. It reminds me of the critical, wife-beater t-shirted father who demeans one of his sons because he isn't built like a football player. It's a very narrow-minded way of looking at reality. There is going to be a lot of folks that make a lot of money off of nanotechnology. I for one appreciate the ever-increasing small microchips that run our technology.

Your worldview is infected with scarcity thinking and hopelessness. What you are giving is a metaphysical outlook of the future based on your worldview. There are better worldviews. For example:


View attachment 6443

If imagining yourself some sort cosmic importance makes you happy, go for it. If the belief in the promise of better life to come after this existence drives you to be better here and today, then why would I argue for you to change your beliefs. And if the imagination of certainty of knowledge in this strange, wonderful, and seemingly incomprehensible world gives you peace, then peace be unto you.

Sadly, such beliefs are not for me, and I can only strive to find my own limited good, meaning, and peace in this small but wonderful existence that I have been so kindly given by whatever led the universe to this tiny moment in space and time.

 

[rossum]

Why should we believe something with intelligence can come about from something without intelligence?

We should believe it because we see it all the time. A human zygote does not have intelligence, yet it later develops intelligence. The same is true of many other animals which show intelligence when fully grown, yet are not intelligent when still in early development. A chicken is more intelligent than an egg.

Intelligence is an emergent property which appears when all the necessary conditions are present.

 

[rossum]

Just knowing something doesn't equate to causing it.

Knowing what will happen before setting the process in motion is causing it. Who do you blame if you throw a pebble straight up in the air, and it comes down and hits you on the head?

 

[Caroljeen]

How do you square the direct creation of mankind (Genesis 1-2) by God with what you said?

Gen 2:7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

"Dust of the ground" can be understood as the use of the basic elements through the process of evolution. A mix of direct creation (biogenesis) and indirect creation (evolution). "Breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living being" understood as direct creation of the soul which includes the will, mind, rationality. It is the aspect of the person that reflects being made in the image of God. This is by no means a thoroughly thought out conception. It's work in progress.

Plus, there isn't solid evidence for descent with modification much above the ranking of Genus or Family anyways. Evolutionists say they do, but it is all inferred through their worldview. Creationists all accept it up through the Family ranking because there is some evidence. Keep in mind that most of these minor changes are already pre-programmed (epigenetics) and "mutation" doesn't do much progressive change, but generally reduces overall fitness (See Behe's "The Edge of Evolution" for example).

View attachment 6440

What comes before domain? Do you agree with the classifications? What, in your opinion, would count as solid evidence that would link order to family in the order you listed above? Couldn't the groupings of kingdom to species be an example of evolution depicted in Genesis 1:24-26? This would be God's way of speaking to primitive humans in general terms they could understand.

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind and the cattle of every kind and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let us make humans

 

[Gus Bovona]

Why should we believe something with intelligence can come about from something without intelligence?

Because otherwise we fall prey to the fallacy of division.

 

[Andreas]

Gen 2:7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

"Dust of the ground" can be understood as the use of the basic elements through the process of evolution. A mix of direct creation (biogenesis) and indirect creation (evolution). "Breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living being" understood as direct creation of the soul which includes the will, mind, rationality. It is the aspect of the person that reflects being made in the image of God. This is by no means a thoroughly thought out conception. It's work in progress.


What comes before domain? Do you agree with the classifications? What, in your opinion, would count as solid evidence that would link order to family in the order you listed above? Couldn't the groupings of kingdom to species be an example of evolution depicted in Genesis 1:24-26? This would be God's way of speaking to primitive humans in general terms they could understand.

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind and the cattle of every kind and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let us make humans

"Dust of the ground" has traditionally been viewed as the use of the basic elements by direct creation. Then there is the creation of Eve from Adam, which includes a detailed description of God putting Adam to sleep and making her from a rib from his side. It would be difficult to read a gradual evolutionary process into the creation of the woman.

Like any good designer, it appears God used a modular design approach. This is why I think the taxonomy rankings are good and useful. As a side note, I think that since God gave Adam the job of naming the animals, scientists establishing taxonomy groups is biblical. We are made in the image of God and given dominion and so we are God's stewards, his representatives upon the earth.

But the modular design doesn't follow a strict nested hierarchy approach that common ancestry would have produced. There are discontinuities between animals that are supposed to have a close common ancestor. These discontinuities show up as specific genes that are not found in a supposed close ancestor but rather in another animal that is supposedly far away in the "evolutionary" tree.

Engineers and computer programmers do this same sort of thing. A new car model, for example the luxury edition of that car, may have a few components that are also used in a completely different line of vehicles, but not in the standard car model. One could use the "evolution" of cars since 1900 to show how human design works via intelligent design. I like some of the parallels to life, however, in life we see complexity from the beginning. For example, blue-green algae perform quantum mechanics to utilize photosynthesis efficiently.

In animals we don't see a strict Darwinian tree of life and branching from LUCA, but an orchard of different trees.

Here is a basic article that gives some examples of what I'm talking about: https://www.discovery.org/a/10651/

 

[BMS]

I was talking specifically about Mount Rushmore. People knew about it in advance, and while it was being carved.

Nice doge to avoid having to admit that you do not have any scientific papers showing that IDs design detection methods actually work.

Poor dodge of the question

 

[Andreas]

If imagining yourself some sort cosmic importance makes you happy, go for it. If the belief in the promise of better life to come after this existence drives you to be better here and today, then why would I argue for you to change your beliefs. And if the imagination of certainty of knowledge in this strange, wonderful, and seemingly incomprehensible world gives you peace, then peace be unto you.

Sadly, such beliefs are not for me, and I can only strive to find my own limited good, meaning, and peace in this small but wonderful existence that I have been so kindly given by whatever led the universe to this tiny moment in space and time.

There are so many reasons to believe, and no good reasons to doubt. Everyone doubts, often just driven by negative emotion. But God is here if you are open to Him.

Parable of the Drowning Man

A storm descends on a small town, and the downpour soon turns into a flood. As the waters rise, a man kneels in prayer on the church porch, surrounded by water. A townsfolk comes up the street in a canoe and says, “Better get in, man. The waters are rising fast.”

“No,” says the man. “I have faith in the Lord. He will save me.”

Then a motorboat comes by. The fellow in the motorboat shouts, “Jump in, I can save you.” To this the man replies, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

Finally, a helicopter comes by and the pilot shouts down, “Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety.” To this the man again replies, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

The waters continue to rise and the preacher drowns. When he meets God in Heaven, he asks, “I had faith in you but you didn’t save me, you let me drown. I don’t understand why!”

To this God replies, "I sent you a rowboat, a motorboat, and a helicopter.

 

[Caroljeen]

I think it can be thrown on the pile of 'evidence for design', but I do not feel it is very compelling. Too many unknowns and potential other explanations at the moment for it to have much weight.

And while I think it can be used as evidence for a diffuse Creator/Designer hypothesis, It seems like a very bad argument for an Earth-centric Creator / Designer. Earth is so amazingly inconsequential in the greater Universe. The tiniest of tiniest of tiniest slivers of our reality that will only exist for a blink of the cosmic eye. All life here will be gone in a couple of billion of years and the rest of the universe will just march on unconcerned.

Did you know that "peak habitability" of the universe has been estimated to happen 10 TRILLION years from now? If the universe was tuned, it doesnt seem like it was tuned for us.

Why would you understand 10 trillion years before peak is reached to be a bad thing for us?

 

[mikeT]

Why would you understand 10 trillion years before peak is reached to be a bad thing for us?

@sobchak can answer for himself; I'm just replying from my perspective on your exchange and the question being asked.

I don't think he was saying it'd be bad for us if it took the universe 10 trillion years to reach peak habitability. However, it'd make Christianity's explanations of the nature of their God look questionable. For example, why would a timeless & perfect creator God instantiate something which takes so long to bring maximal glory to Him?

A god like the one described in the bible does things that bring Him immediate glory. Parting seas, creating life, resurrecting Himself/His-son, turning water to wine, etc. I do not list these things to mock you or your religion; they're simply some of the miracles listed in the bible which spring to mind. In each case, God is making it immediately clear that He is Awesome and sovereign, etc.

So... creating something which takes such an unimaginably long time to bring Him as much glory as it ever will - seems pretty clearly out of character. That length of time seems more plausibly the product of slow, natural laws (re. cosmic evolution). It really wouldn't bring Him much glory at all - the same way that the last runner in a hugely popular marathon doesn't cause any excitement whatsoever.

 

[rossum]

@sobchak can answer for himself; I'm just replying from my perspective on your exchange and the question being asked.

I don't think he was saying it'd be bad for us if it took the universe 10 trillion years to reach peak habitability. However, it'd make Christianity's explanations of the nature of their God look questionable. For example, why would a timeless & perfect creator God instantiate something which takes so long to bring maximal glory to Him?

A god like the one described in the bible does things that bring Him immediate glory. Parting seas, creating life, resurrecting Himself/His-son, turning water to wine, etc. I do not list these things to mock you or your religion; they're simply some of the miracles listed in the bible which spring to mind. In each case, God is making it immediately clear that He is Awesome and sovereign, etc.

So... creating something which takes such an unimaginably long time to bring Him as much glory as it ever will - seems pretty clearly out of character. That length of time seems more plausibly the product of slow, natural laws (re. cosmic evolution). It really wouldn't bring Him much glory at all - the same way that the last runner in a hugely popular marathon doesn't cause any excitement whatsoever.

Or looking at it from God's point of view, 10 trillion years is 0% of God's lifetime, and ten minutes is also 0% of God's lifetime.

 

[sobchak]

Why would you understand 10 trillion years before peak is reached to be a bad thing for us?

Im not saying it would be a bad thing for us, just a rational argument against the fine tuning Christian religious argument.

If the peak habitability of the universe is in 10 trillion years, and the universe was deliberately fine tuned for the existence of life, it would be reasonable to argue it was fine tuned for life in 10 trillion years, at its peak 'life carrying' capability.

It's merely a comment that if the universe was fine tuned for a purpose, it does not seem like that purpose was us.

 

[Caroljeen]

Im not saying it would be a bad thing for us, just a rational argument against the fine tuning Christian religious argument.

If the peak habitability of the universe is in 10 trillion years, and the universe was deliberately fine tuned for the existence of life, it would be reasonable to argue it was fine tuned for life in 10 trillion years, at its peak 'life carrying' capability.

It's merely a comment that if the universe was fine tuned for a purpose, it does not seem like that purpose was us.

Or perhaps it was designed to keep us around for a long time.

 

[sobchak]

Or perhaps it was designed to keep us around for a long time.

Sure, maybe the Mormons are right and people get their own planet later on?

Anyway, would seem to go against a fairly mainstream Christian idea that the world will end in the near future?

 

[Caroljeen]

Sure, maybe the Mormons are right and people get their own planet later on?

Anyway, would seem to go against a fairly mainstream Christian idea that the world will end in the near future?

The world may end but the earth may not.

 

[docphin5]

Im not saying it would be a bad thing for us, just a rational argument against the fine tuning Christian religious argument.

If the peak habitability of the universe is in 10 trillion years, and the universe was deliberately fine tuned for the existence of life, it would be reasonable to argue it was fine tuned for life in 10 trillion years, at its peak 'life carrying' capability.

It's merely a comment that if the universe was fine tuned for a purpose, it does not seem like that purpose was us.

Do you have a reference to your claim? The only science theories for the future of our cosmos that I have heard include the Big Crunch and the Big Freeze, not “peak habitability” as you claim.

 

[docphin5]

@sobchak can answer for himself; I'm just replying from my perspective on your exchange and the question being asked.

I don't think he was saying it'd be bad for us if it took the universe 10 trillion years to reach peak habitability. However, it'd make Christianity's explanations of the nature of their God look questionable. For example, why would a timeless & perfect creator God instantiate something which takes so long to bring maximal glory to Him?

A god like the one described in the bible does things that bring Him immediate glory. Parting seas, creating life, resurrecting Himself/His-son, turning water to wine, etc. I do not list these things to mock you or your religion; they're simply some of the miracles listed in the bible which spring to mind. In each case, God is making it immediately clear that He is Awesome and sovereign, etc.

So... creating something which takes such an unimaginably long time to bring Him as much glory as it ever will - seems pretty clearly out of character. That length of time seems more plausibly the product of slow, natural laws (re. cosmic evolution). It really wouldn't bring Him much glory at all - the same way that the last runner in a hugely popular marathon doesn't cause any excitement whatsoever.

As a science trained theist I am leaning towards belief in the Big Bounce, ie, after billions or trillions of years the cosmos collapses in on itself, the Big Crunch, followed by the “Bounce” into a “new creation”. It is all speculative, of course.

The long periods of time do not bother me so much as we humans dont seem to care about the length of cosmic time before we were born. We care when we were born, when we die, and only the time between, which parallels the individual’s conscious life. Therefore, let another trillion years pass after my death and I will care less during that time, but “resurrect” my consciousness in the Big Bounce or “new creation” and my conscious clock will start again. For me, the time between my old life and my new life will only be perceived as the blink of an eye.

I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, (1 cor 15:52)​

 

[sobchak]

The world may end but the earth may not.

Not sure I follow. Explain?

 

[sobchak]

Do you have a reference to your claim? The only science theories for the future of our cosmos that I have heard include the Big Crunch and the Big Freeze, not “peak habitability” as you claim.

Loeb, Abraham; Batista, Rafael; Sloan, W. (2016). "Relative Likelihood for Life as a Function of Cosmic Time". Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics.