Lay it all out!

Posts and comments by soldieroftruth77

Page 1 2 3 4 5 » 123 comments
I just wasn't sure what exactly you didn't understand. But as far as God not being material, I've always accepted that God would have to be immaterial, but defining immaterial can get a little abstract, to say the least.

I think it's safe to say that whatever existed before our Universe, was certainly in a different form than it is now. Time and space came into being with the big bang, as well as the rules that govern physics, so to say "immaterial" could simply mean "existing outside of our immediate material universe". We can really only understand material as it relates to the rules of our Universe. At least for the time being, we are stuck with observing the limits of our known dimensions.

0
Not sure why you're suddenly being sarcastic, but no, clearly you don't understand what I'm saying.
0
I think causation is the reason why I fail to see how a purely material existence can adequately answer any deep philosophical question, because everything just "is". There would be no cause for anything in that view.
0
But that begs the question, is there anything that ISN'T created? Where we probably differentiate is that I believe God wasn't created, he has always existed. I'm guessing you'd say the universe (or matter/energy) wasn't created, it has always existed (though in a different form).

I also don't think the possibility of better fine-tuning negates the fact that we currently have a fine-tuning which works well enough for us to rely on science, reason, and rationality. So the fine-tuning is still valid as far as I'm concerned. Just because you can make a faster car doesn't mean the slower car is invalid. It's just not preferable (to you).

0
I think fine-tuning always fits lol. Both sides acknowledge it as far as I'm aware.

Romans 1:20 essentially highlights the argument I presented earlier. When you see something created, you assume a creator. It's normal and natural. We apply this logic to everything EXCEPT nature itself, and the universe. The "invisible qualities" the verse refers to is the power to create the universe and everything in it.

0
I'm just saying that "God could have made a better world, therefore he doesn't exist" isn't a good argument for me. I'm allowing room for "I don't understand fully why he didn't make it better." It's a valid question but one that I'm not willing to lose faith over. That's all I'm saying. It's possible we aren't as smart as we think.
0
We were talking about systems of cosmology and evolution. Medical advancements are only possible within the existing framework of reality.
0
Because you said we know how to design a better universe. If a better one existed, we wouldn't desire for anything more; IE a spiritual realm. It would defeat the need for faith. This is appealing, no doubt, but it's not the world we live in.
0
"...so you could make a universe where the sun does not give you cancer..."

This is all assuming the physical universe is all that exists/matters. If that were the case, yes you would be correct. But in light of a spiritual or transcendent reality, it would make sense to live in a world that leaves you desiring more. If we lived in a perfect ideal world, we wouldn't want to leave it.

0
I can't speak of genetic algorithms since that's way beyond my level of expertise, so I'll accept your point. Though I've heard before that individual mutations not making sense is basically further proving that certain complex microorganisms could not have evolved from chemicals (bacterial flagellum for example).

But as far as the notion of "why would God guide evolution through such a slow process/take billions of years to create the universe?" Well... I'm certainly not going to pretend to understand his intent, but I appreciate that we have something to study and discover when it comes to our origins. If it happened in the blink of an eye and we had no concept of how, I think life would be quite boring, especially for scientists. I also think it's easy for us to label the system as "inefficient" or "slow", but to a potential infinite being that exists outside of time and isn't affected by time, it would presumably make no difference to him. Plus again, maybe a more efficient way would prove boring to discover, if we were able to figure it all out so easily. Or maybe I just think it's a bit arrogant for us to assume we can do a better job creating a universe that allows for life lol

0
Do you talk to people like this in real life? You've accused me of making assumptions then made several of your own. Nobody likes a hypocrite. You also jumped into the middle of a conversation between myself and other people who are being very respectful. I sense a lot of hostility on your end, and we've never even met. What's up with that?
0
"What I found most interesting about the fine-tuning of the Universe is that it seems fine-tuned just enough to allow out evolution to happen and far from enough to be intelligently designed."

Here's how I see that as a creationist: I believe the fine-tuning was planned by God to allow for evolution. The only caveat I would throw in is that I believe more specifically in guided evolution, and not random mutation. I think you've mentioned Occum's razor before, and I would apply that specifically to the chances of us even existing. The simplest explanation is design. The other explanation is an infinite number of universes, which only raises more questions. And of course we haven't even invoked Alien spore theory, which raises even more questions.

0
I'm well acquainted. Obviously I've heard of what you're referring to but it definitely does not say that anywhere in the bible. It's based off a verse that's completely misinterpreted. Two versus later he refers to the firmament as the sky. Your just nit picking at this point lol
0
I've read the bible a few times and never heard that version of the earth you described lol
0
What version?
0
There's a lot of evidence to the contrary of that claim and I think the exact opposite is true (although these studies are obviously difficult to conduct), but children tend to attribute nature as being created by a Deity of sorts, vs human created things. It's not even logical to assume that when you see something that has obvious design, it was randomly placed by chance. You wouldn't come across a book and assume it was a random process of matter + time + chance. If you raised a human in complete isolation in the woods without any external input, I don't think it's fair to say he would be an atheist without being told about God (or science for that matter).
0
I'm talking about the conclusions people draw from such views. Such as, the universe is hostile there God doesn't exist, for example. Its a nonsensical argument to me, but again, that's the view people choose to use when arguing for or against things. I've never heard someone say "space is huge and beautiful and contains the conditions necessary for life on earth, therefore God doesn't exist."
0
They are not mutually exclusive for me. Understanding the science behind things actually deepens my appreciation of them. I was just giving an illustration. A better one might be the cold, vast, empty, harshness of space versus the beauty of it. I hear that one commonly, about how "hostile" the universe is towards life. And yet here we are lol
0
haha you basically sound exactly like my best friend. First of all I think one can really choose how they see the world/universe. For example one person may view a beautiful sunset and just think of the science behind what's causing it, which is certainly interesting, but I prefer to really enjoy the aesthetic beauty of it, especially if it was created for my enjoyment.

I completely understand how scientifically minded people can't accept the concept of God, and that's simply because it lies beyond the scope of the observable universe. Essentially it requires faith and that's generally too much of a leap for some people, but for me science is limited in what questions it can answer. It deals with the "how" but not the "why". I'm sure for some folks that's not a big deal but all I can say is that I've been through a lot of sh*t in my life that caused me to ask very deep questions to which science alone couldn't answer.

0
Well I appreciate the intellectually honesty. Nothing worse than a hypocrite who has blind faith. I was in your shoes a few years back and I actually ended up coming back to faith but I can assure you it wasn't blindly lol
0
So I'm curious what made ultimately made you stop believing. Was it a life event, or realization of some sort?
0
Thanks. You've shown me the error of my ways.
0
I understand your position. I just disagree.
0
The evidence points to a purpose, and meaning. I think thats what you don't understand. I don't see the randomness that you see. I see specific intent. Things work together a little too well for mere chance. Especially given the astronomically small odds of us even existing in the first place. It stands to reason that if the universe has no purpose, than neither do we. You can't have one without the other. Otherwise you're just making it up.

You may think that one does not need meaning or purpose, but it's by far one of the biggest correlations with happiness. Tell that to a person suffering from severe depression and see how that goes. I'm sorry but it's not wishful thinking. Its reality as far as I'm concerned. Would you tell your child there is no meaning in life, and that your relationship and love for them means nothing? Of course you wouldn't.

0
Again you're assuming I don't have evidence. But anyway, if nothing else I enjoy debating so it was nice chatting with you. I wish you all the best.

And to some degree, yes, you're right. I refuse to believe that this world has no ultimate meaning or purpose, and that its all random. I can't live my life like that. And if I'm wrong, then according to science, I'm pre-wired to think that way anyway lol

0
Page 1 2 3 4 5 » 123 comments
soldieroftruth77
238 comments
Jul 7, 2017
soldieroftruth77
14 comments
May 11, 2017
soldieroftruth77
6 comments
May 7, 2017