RE: 'Seeking' God
November 1, 2011 at 1:10 am
(This post was last modified: November 1, 2011 at 1:15 am by lucent.)
(October 31, 2011 at 10:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: I can whittle down gods that are plainly false by referencing what we do know about ourselves and the cosmos Lucent. That leaves yours out of the party. The origins story is myth, the histories are myth, and the very notion of prophecy or any narrative built upon the other two as a part of the prophetic cycle are myth as well. Perhaps some god, definitively not the god you describe. How about that for whittling down gods with a little reason? (see, that's how that's done. simple explanations for your stance on an issue that can stand up to scrutiny)
That's your interpretation of the available data, I see something entirely different. The creation story in Genesis is the only one the line up with the basic facts, such as that time had an absolute beginning.
(October 31, 2011 at 10:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: You have stated that one can whittle down the list of gods if one uses a little reason, why are you unable to provide that reason when asked? Why must we whittle the list down to creator gods only (a subset of god contained within every pantheon btw, you eliminate no competing faith by eliminating the non creator god subset). Perhaps god simply stumbled upon this show already in motion. How can you know that this is not the case? More claims to knowledge made from a position of ignorance. Your claims become yet more complicated. I notice you believe that wodan is mythical, but why is your own argument fed back to you insufficient when dealing with wodan, but right on the mark for your own god? Special rules for your pet fairy right?
We're looking for ultimate causes and gods which make no claims to creation can be ruled out for ultimate causes.
(October 31, 2011 at 12:35 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Unlike language, you cannot substitute the 'letters' of DNA with other molecules and get the same result. In language, the symbols are arbitrary, not so in chemistry. You can analogize DNA to a language, but it isn't actually a language. There is no alternate way to specify the same organism by 'translating' DNA onto a disk: the information will never give you a living organism unless you 'translate' the disk back into DNA. And
There are multiple overlapping codes in DNA. These codes can translate DNA into many different types of critical functions and instructions using the same series of letters. So these letters have different meanings according to the rules used to translate them I would say this sufficiently qualifies for a level of abstraction to the overall code, not that this is actually a requirement to identify DNA as a langauge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki31gtup92U
(October 31, 2011 at 12:35 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The point about the transfer of DNA is, it can be copied and copied back with no loss of information. It doesn't matter if I can get an organism from the DNA code on a computer disk. If this post was found by a civilization that had no record of the english language, would it cease to be english because no one could translate it?
'Information simply only comes from minds' is affirming the consequent, and therefore fallacious. It's like saying 'design simply only comes from humans'. It assumes what you're trying to prove. Someone saying that 'information only comes from minds', observing information that can't be traced back to a mind, and concluding that it must be produced by a mind anyway, is doing neither science nor logic.
I'll say it this way. There isn't a natural process to create that information, and all the information we have ever observed comes only from minds. Further, the information in DNA fits into categories of things which contain information, such as codes and languages. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude the information in DNA came from a mind.
(October 31, 2011 at 12:35 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Darwin didn't even know cells, or genes, existed. He knew there must be a mechanism of heredity with the properties of high (but not perfect) fidelity for his theory to be correct, and it turned out to be so. As for the complexity of cells, that explains why it took longer for cells to appear after the earth cooled than it took for all life since to evolve. In regards to your explanation, why did God wait so long to 'poof' the first cell into existence?
I don't believe in theistic evolution. I take a literal view on Genesis.
(October 31, 2011 at 12:35 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Excellent evidence of common descent.
Also excellent evidence for a common designer.
(October 31, 2011 at 12:35 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: It is true that single-celled organisms never stopped evolving (why should they?), so current single-celled organisms are not 'primitive' in any sense. After sixty or seventy years of studying abiogenesis with purpose we are able to synthesize an entire bacterial genome, insert it into a denucleated cell, and have it live and reproduce. Nature ran the same experiment without purpose in 'labs' around the planet over half-a-billion years. Early cells would have a tough time in today's environment, but, to be fair, most modern life would perish in the world they arose in.
It's easy to say that because we can toy around with the design and make things happen, but that's quite a bit different from getting to the design in the first place. It would be like expecting C++ to emerge from a calculus. Spontaneous generation of life has never once been observed happening anywhere, and the sophistication of the cell, and the DNA molecule cannot be accounted for by darwinian processes.
(October 31, 2011 at 2:33 pm)ElDinero Wrote: I thought I was clear on the fact that you can't use your personal experience, because somebody else could provide the same. Once again, you show how incapable you are of grasping even the simplest logical process.
Is there anything I could tell you which you wouldn't instantaneously and contemptously dismiss?
(October 31, 2011 at 2:33 pm)ElDinero Wrote: Then you claim to have researched ALL religions. Goodness me lucent, you are a fucking liar. Why would you even tell such a stupid, stupid lie?
Obviously not all religions ever, but all of the modern ones, the important and unimportant historical ones, and the even very esoteric ones. I researched belief systems in every culture, spiritual systems, philosophies, etc..from the logical to the abstract to the totally bizarre. Everything from hinduism, to jainism, to the sumerians, to kundalini yoga to marxism, confucism, taoism, etc etc etc.
(October 31, 2011 at 3:41 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Except yourself, of course. You clearly know the truth, but everyone else is being deceived. Do you truly not see your arrogance, or do you just enjoy believing you're better than everyone else?
The primary factor in the equation is sin. If you can keep sin out of your life, and obey the will of God, you can avoid many of the pitfalls that people fall into because they loved their sin more than the truth.
