Theism is literally childish

[Mystic]

Adding to what Neo said about the bible... There are thousands of different denominations of Christianity across the world, but with the exception of small frindge groups, their differences are mostly small nuances. The fundamental Christian principles themselves are almost universally the same, despite the claim that interpretation of scripture is supposedly extremely subjective, and that the bible, in its entirety, doesn't provide an overall testimony. It very much does.

Majority unfortunately are not reliable means to digest what is in a book as majority tend to follow a minority in charge. So really the minority that thinks for themselves and derives things differently then the majority are on equal grounds as far as numbers. That is because it becomes a few opinion vs a few opinion, because majority follow few, and don't think for themselves. The advantage of a minority who doesn't follow "authority" figures is they have better chances of being less biased and derive things from their proper context. 

I agree with Jehova witnesses analysis of Oneness of God and if I was Christian, I would interpret "only son" as "first born creation" like them.

The problem of course is if minority begin to interpret the book according to their whims and desires, and quote of it when it suits them.  This will make them on equal ground with all those who follow blindly, because, they are blindly following their desires even if they trick themselves it is true.

There is no way to truth but to decisively not rely on anyone but God and the light with us and the spirit from God with us, and to search traces of knowledge from sources of knowledge that God himself appointed.

Equating the church with the authority of the Prophets put an end to God's hand on earth,   rather, the searchers for God are to look for that leader from God, and not equate people without proofs as having the authority of God and the leadership of the Prophets.

Leadership as far as guidance of humanity goes, belongs to God, he is the Guide and Master of the Authority, the True King, the Guardian, the Great helper, and anoints who he pleases for that leadership and to represent his authority and channel his light.

The book of God is never alone, and a leader from God is never alone, they go together, and they come in groups, with predecessors and successors (except the first of the group who has only successors and last who has only predecessors).

[possibletarian]

Adding to what Neo said about the bible... There are thousands of different denominations of Christianity across the world, but with the exception of small frindge groups, their differences are mostly small nuances. The fundamental Christian principles themselves are almost universally the same, despite the claim that interpretation of scripture is supposedly extremely subjective, and that the bible, in its entirety, doesn't provide an overall testimony. It very much does.

There have been wars fought over these 'nuances' ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_...Christians


You think believing in a 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth and an earth billions of years old in which humans have been around for the tiniest part of that history a small nuance ?  One deals with actual original sin, the other uses it as a allegory.

Or That some Christians believe that we don't have free will is a small nuance?, almost all the arguments  on here where god's love is called to question relies on free will, while other Christians dispose of the idea all together.  Then you get full preterism that denies Jesus will return, and that the resurrection will be physical, on a physical earth. Or pre-tribulationist perhaps who have very different views on the second coming.

Even then you are still limiting it to the thousands of religions that use the bible as their source that you call Christian, what about those that still believe in Jesus and use the bible but generally would not be called Christians by the mainstream. ?

And that's just believers !!  Bring in non believers who have no obligation to believe the bible at all and it becomes not subjective, but downright unbelievable.

[John V]

Well thank you for demonstrating my point about how raising a child to believe that one fairy tale is true while all the others is false means that they have no concept of plausibility.

I wasn't raised that way. My father's middle name was Darwin. Seriously. We went to church on and off but those of my family who considered such things were evolutionists.

Incidentally, asking for proof is binary religious thinking. It is thinking that something is either true or false. The only thing that ever gets proved is a logic theorem because it uses a heavily constrained set of rules that are unrealistic. Nothing ever gets proved 100% in real life. There is no such thing as absolute truth.

More word games. Substitute "supported beyond a reasonable doubt" or whatever you like for proven. You still don't have it.

Which means that we need to look at plausibility. How likely is it that an explanation is correct? How many questions does it satisfactorily answer compared to competing explanations? Does it rely on assumptions that we have no basis in making? Do we see the same process or phenomenon happen elsewhere for the same reasons? Can we test the hypothesis and reproduce the results?

Fine. When you can show me a single hypothesis on abiogenesis that meets these standards you'll have something. Unitl then, you're just saying that you personally find material explanations plausible, even if there's scant evidence to support them.

Right, so you're deliberately limited the debate here by referring to matter that is lifeless rather than matter that is not animated.

Yes, and?

Which means that you now need to define what life is. Because from what I can see you are making an assumption that life is some kind of force that inhabits matter like a soul in a body. Since we're using your definitions here, how can you tell whether a lump of matter is alive or not? What does it actually mean for matter to not be lifeless? The very word inanimate means that it is not animated, yet you are arbitrarily limiting it to mean lifeless.

Here's the definition Google gives:

the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

It only sounds stupid to you because you have this vague (and wrong) idea of what life is and aren't open to the idea of not knowing. And then when you start to think about it, you start to make yet more assumptions that are not warranted. Why should we require a car to arise spontaneously?

Because you're using it as an analogy to life, which you believe arose without a designer. A car has a designer, so you shot yourself in the foot with that one.

As I said, the very word inanimate means that it is not animated.

And as I clarified, I'm using it in the sense of "lifeless." And, the first dictionary definition of "animated" is:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animated

endowed with life or the qualities of life :alive

So, my use is the standard usage of the word.

The opposite therefore is animated matter. How does matter become animated? Through the flow of free energy. You're thinking of an engine as something that drives your car, but the word actually refers to anything that convert one form of energy into mechanical energy. Which is why we talk about rocket engines, steam engines, internal combustion engines, stirling engines, molecular engines etc.

The only characteristic of all forms of life is that it has a metabolism. Any other definition will have an exception that can be applied to something that we still consider alive.

A cell therefore is a molecular engine which uses a metabolism to convert chemical energy into mechanical energy. Thereby making inanimate matter into animated matter.

OK, show us how the first metabolism came to be and you might be on to something.

You were claiming that inanimate matter coming to life is implausible and I was giving an example of inanimate matter becoming animated. I was not defining snowflakes as being alive.

Yes, I agree that you threw in an obvious red herring.

But both life, snowflakes, intelligence and evolution are examples of self organisation. The same underlying thermodynamic process underlies it all. That is, self organisation happens when a system can settle into a stable state by minimising free energy in accordance with the laws of Thermodynamics.

You previously noted that life requires continual fuel to be maintained. So, you know yourself that life isn't a stable state that is "settled into." Just the opposite - absent continual maintenance, living things settle into death, which is a more stable state.

The same laws that underlie modern engines that we create ourselves.

Key words being "we" and "create."

Abiogenesis is plausible using my definition above because we see the same underlying thermodynamic processes occur throughout our daily life. And these aren't just observations, We make use of this understanding when we create engines, or build a fire under a chimney, or try to eat well.

You're noting that intelligent beings can direct energy to achieve useful results. I agree, and that's a good argument for ID, but it in no way supports abiogenesis.

It only looks that way because you have not defined what life is and are ignorant about physics.

I defined life above. I'm no expert in physics, but I had three semesters of it in college. I know a little.

[Brian37]

You know a little about physics?

Yea well see the great thing about any science class is that it can be taught and understood without a bible, Koran, Torah or Talmud or Hindu Vedas or the writings of the alleged Buddha.

If your religion were a requirement to understand physics Christianity would be taught in every science class in every school and university in the world. 

Don't feel bad, Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and Jewish books are not a requirement for a science class either.

[Catholic_Lady]

Adding to what Neo said about the bible... There are thousands of different denominations of Christianity across the world, but with the exception of small frindge groups, their differences are mostly small nuances. The fundamental Christian principles themselves are almost universally the same, despite the claim that interpretation of scripture is supposedly extremely subjective, and that the bible, in its entirety, doesn't provide an overall testimony. It very much does.

There have been wars fought over these 'nuances' ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_...Christians


You think believing in a 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth and an earth billions of years old in which humans have been around for the tiniest part of that history a small nuance ?  One deals with actual original sin, the other uses it as a allegory.

Or That some Christians believe that we don't have free will is a small nuance?, almost all the arguments  on here where god's love is called to question relies on free will, while other Christians dispose of the idea all together.  Then you get full  preterism that denies Jesus will return, and that the resurrection will be physical, on a physical earth. Or pre-tribulationist perhaps who have very different views on the second coming.

Even then you are still limiting it to the thousands of religions that use the bible as their source that you call Christian, what about those that still believe in Jesus and use the bible but generally would not be called Christians by the mainstream. ?

And that's just believers !!  Bring in non believers who have no obligation to believe the bible at all and it becomes not subjective, but downright unbelievable.

Yes, people fight over small differences. Always have, always will. 

I addressed the fact that there are fringe groups and exceptions, and was careful to use words like "almost", mostly", rather than absolutes. Taking Genesis as literal vs allegory is a small difference (so small that the Church actually allows a belief in either interpretation), because the underlying belief, the important part, is the same - that God is the Father of creation, that human beings have a tendency to sin. I've never met or ever even heard of a Christian denomination who doesn't believe in free will, but the fact that they may exist doesn't negate my point.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I see that Alpha is in full on denial mode now and deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

[Catholic_Lady]

I see that Alpha is in full on denial mode now and deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

Kinda how you misrepresented so many of us on your OP.

[Brian37]

There have been wars fought over these 'nuances' ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_...Christians


You think believing in a 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth and an earth billions of years old in which humans have been around for the tiniest part of that history a small nuance ?  One deals with actual original sin, the other uses it as a allegory.

Or That some Christians believe that we don't have free will is a small nuance?, almost all the arguments  on here where god's love is called to question relies on free will, while other Christians dispose of the idea all together.  Then you get full  preterism that denies Jesus will return, and that the resurrection will be physical, on a physical earth. Or pre-tribulationist perhaps who have very different views on the second coming.

Even then you are still limiting it to the thousands of religions that use the bible as their source that you call Christian, what about those that still believe in Jesus and use the bible but generally would not be called Christians by the mainstream. ?

And that's just believers !!  Bring in non believers who have no obligation to believe the bible at all and it becomes not subjective, but downright unbelievable.

Yes, people fight over small differences. Always have, always will. 

I addressed the fact that there are fringe groups and exceptions, and was careful to use words like "almost", mostly", rather than absolutes. Taking Genesis as literal vs allegory is a small difference (so small that the Church actually allows a belief in either interpretation), because the underlying belief, the important part, is the same - that God is the Father of creation, that human beings have a tendency to sin. I've never met or ever even heard of a Christian denomination who doesn't believe in free will, but the fact that they may exist doesn't negate my point.

Um no, if religious differences were that small our species would not have the deep divisions, even under the same umbrella labels we do.

The problem is even with one label and it's competing sub sects, OF ANY GIVEN UMBRELLA LABEL, humans get stuck on those details instead of accepting that our morality isn't in a old book, but in our evolution.

Taking Genesis literally WAS the norm in antiquity, just as much to them real and literal the Ancient Egyptians believed in Ra and as literal as the Greeks believed in Zeus.

You not wanting to take parts of the bible literally now is a result of humans cherry picking. Instead maybe you need to consider the humans who wrote that BACK THEN literally believed the magic they were writing because all of antiquity both polytheism and monotheism were gap filling with wishful fantasy BACK THEN, because nobody knew any better.

To call the divisions minor is bologna. Even in the west, even today. To say Judge Roy Moore and Barack Obama have "minor differences believing in the same Christian God is patently absurd. 

They have the same core heros sure, but not the same interpretations which there is a huge gap.

There ARE individuals that still believe in a 6 day earth, and even outside America the less educated that country is the more literally they take that holy book.

[possibletarian]

There have been wars fought over these 'nuances' ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_...Christians


You think believing in a 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth and an earth billions of years old in which humans have been around for the tiniest part of that history a small nuance ?  One deals with actual original sin, the other uses it as a allegory.

Or That some Christians believe that we don't have free will is a small nuance?, almost all the arguments  on here where god's love is called to question relies on free will, while other Christians dispose of the idea all together.  Then you get full  preterism that denies Jesus will return, and that the resurrection will be physical, on a physical earth. Or pre-tribulationist perhaps who have very different views on the second coming.

Even then you are still limiting it to the thousands of religions that use the bible as their source that you call Christian, what about those that still believe in Jesus and use the bible but generally would not be called Christians by the mainstream. ?

And that's just believers !!  Bring in non believers who have no obligation to believe the bible at all and it becomes not subjective, but downright unbelievable.

Yes, people fight over small differences. Always have, always will. 

I addressed the fact that there are fringe groups and exceptions, and was careful to use words like "almost", mostly", rather than absolutes. Taking Genesis as literal vs allegory is a small difference (so small that the Church actually allows a belief in either interpretation), because the underlying belief, the important part, is the same - that God is the Father of creation, that human beings have a tendency to sin. I've never met or ever even heard of a Christian denomination who doesn't believe in free will, but the fact that they may exist doesn't negate my point.

 Fair enough CL

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes, people fight over small differences. Always have, always will. 

I addressed the fact that there are fringe groups and exceptions, and was careful to use words like "almost", mostly", rather than absolutes. Taking Genesis as literal vs allegory is a small difference (so small that the Church actually allows a belief in either interpretation), because the underlying belief, the important part, is the same - that God is the Father of creation, that human beings have a tendency to sin. I've never met or ever even heard of a Christian denomination who doesn't believe in free will, but the fact that they may exist doesn't negate my point.

Um no, if religious differences were that small our species would not have the deep divisions, even under the same umbrella labels we do.

The problem is even with one label and it's competing sub sects, OF ANY GIVEN UMBRELLA LABEL, humans get stuck on those details instead of accepting that our morality isn't in a old book, but in our evolution.

Taking Genesis literally WAS the norm in antiquity, just as much to them real and literal the Ancient Egyptians believed in Ra and as literal as the Greeks believed in Zeus.

You not wanting to take parts of the bible literally now is a result of humans cherry picking. Instead maybe you need to consider the humans who wrote that BACK THEN literally believed the magic they were writing because all of antiquity both polytheism and monotheism were gap filling with wishful fantasy BACK THEN, because nobody knew any better.

To call the divisions minor is bologna. Even in the west, even today. To say Judge Roy Moore and Barack Obama have "minor differences believing in the same Christian God is patently absurd. 

They have the same core heros sure, but not the same interpretations which there is a huge gap.

There ARE individuals that still believe in a 6 day earth, and even outside America the less educated that country is the more literally they take that holy book.

People fight over small differences all the time. Whether that be religious or otherwise.

Don't you think skin color is a small difference? People have fought and killed over that.