19 Sep 09
Originally posted by jaywillSuch a transmission should provide a sequence that it cannot be attributed neither to the physical laws nor to the sentient beings of our planet, and it must have a specific source whose location is known to us.
Black Beetle, what kind of radio signal from outer space might convince you that we are being communicated with by an extra terrestial intelligence ?
What might such a signal include to persuade you that intelligent mind/s were their designers ?
19 Sep 09
edit: "I don't think following the evidence to an intelligent Creator has to mean the loss of human free will."
Do you believe that the so called "holy scriptures" are
solely products of the human mind alone,
or products of the human mind because "god" wanted so,
or products of the human mind because "god" and the author wanted both so,
or products of the "god' who used the mind of the author without the permission of the author because "god' wanted so,
or products of the "god" who used the mind of the author under the author's permission because the "god" wanted so,
or products of the "god" who used the mind of the author under the author's permission because the "god" and the author wanted both so?
😵
19 Sep 09
Originally posted by black beetleYou would agree perhaps with Carl Sagan, that the transmission of a sequence of prime numbers would be a good indication?
Such a transmission should provide a sequence that it cannot be attributed neither to the physical laws nor to the sentient beings of our planet, and it must have a specific source whose location is known to us.
He envisions mathematics as the universal language and postulated that something representing a sequence of prime numbers ,ie. 1,2,3,5,7,11 .... prime, would be too improbable to merit chance message, but an intelligent one.
I think that is a good test Dr. Sagan suggests. Do you think so?
19 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetle===================================
edit: "I don't think following the evidence to an intelligent Creator has to mean the loss of human free will."
Do you believe that the so called "holy scriptures" are
solely products of the human mind alone,
or products of the human mind because "god" wanted so,
or products of the human mind because "god" and the author wanted both so,
or produc author's permission because the "god" and the author wanted both so?
😵
Do you believe that the so called "holy scriptures" are
solely products of the human mind alone,
or products of the human mind because "god" wanted so,
or products of the human mind because "god" and the author wanted both so,
or products of the "god' who used the mind of the author without the permission of the author because "god' wanted so,
or products of the "god" who used the mind of the author under the author's permission because the "god" wanted so,
or products of the "god" who used the mind of the author under the author's permission because the "god" and the author wanted both so?
=========================================
That's an interesting grid of questions which i don't think I will work my way through right now.
Suffice it, perhaps, to say that I do not reqard the process of God and man cooperating to produce the holy Scriptures necessitates that there is no human free will.
In the Sripture is there was EVER a man who was under the control of God it was Jesus Christ. And even He displayed choice and will to or not to obey His Father. He did not HAVE to drink the cup of suffering and crucifixion. He prayed "Yet not as I will but as You will."
Here is a godly man to the uttermost. Yet His obediance to the will of His Father indicates submission, love, cooperation rather than coercion and usurping of human freedom.
I don't see how suggesting an ingelligent God as the Creator of the universe and humanity with its facilities and capabilities insists that those humans are puppets to their Creator.
It has been debated though for centries. And I acknowledge that it is not an easy philosophical matter.
Would I be unfair to think that for the Atheist, to think a Creator necessitates the loss of human freedom, is simply a method of making the concept of God more distasteful, therefore giving the Atheist further rational to dislike such a God?
It sounds to me like a link the Atheists needs to place "God" in the light of an arbitrary tyrant to be not liked.
I mean in Genesis we see that the accuser of God instills this kind of thought into the minds of the first people:
In essence the ploy went like this:
"God is a tyrant who wants to withhold the best from you Eve. He is afraid of your freedom so restricts you arbitrarily and at His whim. You cannot eat of any tree of the garden you wish??
I will free you and allow you to be independent, to reach your highest potential. You were made for better things. This tyrant is holding you back, you see? Be liberated. Eat of the tree which has been forbidden to you. You will not die. Baloney. God doesn't what you to be free because He doesn't want competition.
I'm here to set you free!"
The ancient slander that God is an arbitrary despot is still at work today. I don't believe the existence of a Creator means I am not free to decide.
Now I am free to make choices. Now, I will grant this. I MAY not be always free to escape the consquences of my choices.
I am free to jump out of the fifth floor window of a building. Once I jump a may not be free to then decide I don't feel like falling anymore. The law of gravity couldn't care less about how I feel. And even my degree of spirituality has no effect on the matter.
Black Beetle, I believe in spite of the fact there is a Creator God, we are free to make some choices in life. However there are also laws in place. We may not be always free to escape the consequences of our choice.
20 Sep 09
Originally posted by jaywillI don't know what exactly has to be considered "too improbable" under cosmologic terms, where the given SpaceTime is not only unlimited but also expanding and when, on the other hand, our science at that field is not at all exhausted.
You would agree perhaps with Carl Sagan, that the transmission of a sequence of prime numbers would be a good indication?
He envisions mathematics as the universal language and postulated that something representing a sequence of prime numbers ,ie. 1,2,3,5,7,11 .... prime, would be too improbable to merit chance message, but an intelligent one.
I think that is a good test Dr. Sagan suggests. Do you think so?
However in my opinion such a sequence transmitted by a given known location would be worth of a further investigation.
😵
20 Sep 09
Originally posted by jaywillYou misunderstood me; I simply said that there is no way to prove that a given human product is not just a human product but "God's product". Your post answers not this thesis of mine, and your above mentioned reply is irrelevant to my question because it is based on your a priori falsified assumption that the existence of your God is a fact.
[b]===================================
Do you believe that the so called "holy scriptures" are
solely products of the human mind alone,
or products of the human mind because "god" wanted so,
or products of the human mind because "god" and the author wanted both so,
or products of the "god' who used the mind of the author without the permission ...[text shortened]... not be always free to escape the consequences of our choice.
20 Sep 09
4 edits
Originally posted by black beetleNot true. Rather you have an a priori commintment that no God exists.
You misunderstood me; I simply said that there is no way to prove that a given human product is not just a human product but "God's product". Your post answers not this thesis of mine, and your above mentioned reply is irrelevant to my question because it is based on your a priori falsified assumption that the existence of your God is a fact.
Indications that one is on the right track to believe that a book like the Bible is more than the product of human invention alone, is adaquate for our faith.
That is what I have, if not mathematical proof in the rigorous sense, I do have 66 books covering 1500 years of wisdom. The accumulative effect and prophetic effect encourages me that I am on the right track to takes its own claim seriously.
20 Sep 09
3 edits
Originally posted by black beetleYou should be able to understand that some scientists would consider the information stored in the first one celled life as indicative of an intelligent message.
I don't know what exactly has to be considered "too improbable" under cosmologic terms, where the given SpaceTime is not only unlimited but also expanding and when, on the other hand, our science at that field is not at all exhausted.
However in my opinion such a sequence transmitted by a given known location would be worth of a further investigation.
😵
Please don't object that we don't know the location from which it comes.
There is still an irony that Carl Sagan would accept a string of prime numbers as indicative of intelligent design, but not the evidence of the equivalence of 1,000 encycopedias in the DNA of the "simpliest" one celled life.
The reason is that his "faith" is extremly strong. That is his faith in Atheism is very strong.
Sagan writes:
"The information content of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons - about a hundred trillion bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world's largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books is inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a very small space ... The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy. The circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans."
But ironically this machine "more wonderful than any devised by humans" reveals to Sagan no indication of intelligent design.
20 Sep 09
Originally posted by jaywillI have not an a priori commitment; I use my intelligence and I don't see the slightest evidence regarding the existence of an intelligent god. And I claim that you cannot bring up a rational evidence. Your faith is valuable to you but meaningless to me
Not true. Rather you have an a priori commintment that no God exists.
Indications that one is on the right track to believe that a book like the Bible is more than the product of human invention alone, is [b]adaquate for our faith.
That is what I have, if not mathematical proof in the rigorous sense, I do have 66 books covering 1500 years of w ...[text shortened]... nd prophetic effect encourages me that I am on the right track to takes its own claim seriously.[/b]
So, which are these "indications" that they keep you "on the right track" and why do you believe that the Bible is something more than merely a human invention?
20 Sep 09
Originally posted by jaywillThis is in my opinion a false assuption. DNA is not an "intelligent message" sent out of nowhere to specific or non-specific sentient beings. Could you kindly please let me know about a single paper that is associated with this interpretation of yours?
You should be able to understand that some scientists would consider the information stored in the first one celled life as indicative of an intelligent message.
Please don't object that we don't know the location from which it comes.
There is still an irony that Carl Sagan would accept a string of prime numbers as indicative of intelligent design, ...[text shortened]... than any devised by humans" reveals to Sagan no indication of intelligent design.[/b]
21 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetlehttp://www.geocities.com/lamb_of_god_2005/no_evolution.html
This is in my opinion a false assuption. DNA is not an "intelligent message" sent out of nowhere to specific or non-specific sentient beings. Could you kindly please let me know about a single paper that is associated with this interpretation of yours?
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by black beetleI define religion as it is defined by the science of sociology. So go on, define religion and show me "what a religion truly is" -and prove that I am ignorant
edit: "The only success you and any other naysayers have offered is to challenge the obvious... without so much as a scintilia of evidence to back it up."
😀
I define religion as it is defined by the science of sociology. So go on, define religion and show me "what a religion truly is" -and prove that I am ignorant
😵
On the other hand, un ...[text shortened]... st has not the slightest problem to do whatever in order to serve his personal interests
😵
As has been the case repeatedly, you missapply what has been clearly stated. Go back and read my posts. My words challenged your grasp of the concept of religion if you consider my approach (as you said) "religionist."
A religion is something man-made, employed with the intent to win the approbation of any form of diety. What I follow is decidedly different.
On the other hand, until now you were unable to mention even one scientific find that it was caused thanks to the agent of the religion, and you were unable to mention even one philosophic virtue that it is caused thanks to the agent of the religion.
At this point, I can only conclude that you are purposely being obstinate. As has been pointed out (again, repeatedly), what has come to be known as modern science was birthed and matured by Christian men wishing to explore and explain the workings of creation in order to further express their love and adoration of its Creator.
What part of that do you not get?
A honest interlocutor reacts not the way you do react, but it is well knon that a sophist has not the slightest problem to do whatever in order to serve his personal interests
I guess it's safe to assume that English is not your primary language. That being said, if you're not certain how the words are supposed to be used, it's better not to use them at all. Your efforts otherwise lend nothing to the conversation than adding confusion.
22 Sep 09
Originally posted by black beetleFor the time being our science shows clearly that the concept of an intelligent God is not required neither for the so called "creation of the universe" nor for the mental ability of every sentient being of our planet.
I deeply respect your opinion -but I discard your theology as a false philosophic theory since I do not have the slightest evidence about the existence of "an intelligent God who designed the human mind and equiped it with the ability to carry out rational thought".
For the time being our science shows clearly that the concept of an intelligent God i ...[text shortened]... atever we do simply because we want to do it and not because "God told us to act so"
😵
Riiiiight.
Current science shows us that "an intelligent God" is not required, but it also tells us that "something" is required. Only those committed to God not being required can so clearly see science 'showing' us the same. However, without that intelligent God, something else takes His place. What is that something?
Time.
Spontaneuous action.
Infinite regress.
Don't really know, but it couldn't be God!
22 Sep 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHedit: “As has been the case repeatedly, you missapply what has been clearly stated. Go back and read my posts. My words challenged your grasp of the concept of religion if you consider my approach (as you said) "religionist."
[b]I define religion as it is defined by the science of sociology. So go on, define religion and show me "what a religion truly is" -and prove that I am ignorant
As has been the case repeatedly, you missapply what has been clearly stated. Go back and read my posts. My words challenged your grasp of the concept of religion if you consider my approach ...[text shortened]... m at all. Your efforts otherwise lend nothing to the conversation than adding confusion.[/b]
I missaply nothing. Your primal post at this thread is pure nonsense and you are unable to back it up.
edit: “A religion is something man-made, employed with the intent to win the approbation of any form of diety. What I follow is decidedly different.”
Define religion as you understand it and explain what exactly are you following.
edit: “At this point, I can only conclude that you are purposely being obstinate. As has been pointed out (again, repeatedly), what has come to be known as modern science was birthed and matured by Christian men wishing to explore and explain the workings of creation in order to further express their love and adoration of its Creator. “
The religion of a scientist is irrelevant to his scientific contribution. According to your way of thinking, one could also claim that "...the astronomers Pedro Ferreira from the University of Oxford, Dr Richard Massey from the University of Edinburgh and the Oxford anthropologist Dr Gisa Weszkalnys (which are all fans of Manchester United) they pay homage to the original expedition led by Sir Arthur Eddington (a fan of Manchester United) and they celebrate the 90th anniversary of one of the key discoveries of the 20th century, which is the theory of relativity by Einstein (who was too a fan of Manchester United). All thesse brilliant scientists are motivated by their wish to explore and to explain the working of creation in order to further express their love and adoration of Manchester United."
edit: “I guess it's safe to assume that English is not your primary language. That being said, if you're not certain how the words are supposed to be used, it's better not to use them at all. Your efforts otherwise lend nothing to the conversation than adding confusion.”
I will try again in order to confuse you not: a honest interlocutor reacts not the way you do react, but it is well known that a sophist has not the slightest problem to do whatever in order to serve his personal interests.
😵