Why Does God Reveal Himself to Some People and Not to Others?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll ask again, maybe you have an answer, why would any life form in a world where
none had them develop emotion?
Kelly

“…I'll ask again, maybe you have an answer, WHY would any life form in a world where
none had them develop emotion?...” ( my emphasis )

when you say “WHY” above, do you actually mean simply “how”?
if yes, then the answer is evolution. For example, those animals that don’t panic when faced with danger so to run from it are usually selected out by natural selection.

But, if no, then exactly what do you mean by “WHY”? are you implying that there must be a reason with conscious intent behind it and, if so, what makes you think there exists this type of “WHY” behind the origin of emotions?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…I'll ask again, maybe you have an answer, WHY would any life form in a world where
none had them develop emotion?...” ( my emphasis )

when you say “WHY” above, do you actually mean simply “how”?
if yes, then the answer is evolution. For example, those animals that don’t panic when faced with danger so to run from it are usually selected out by ...[text shortened]... and, if so, what makes you think there exists this type of “WHY” behind the origin of emotions?

There should be a cause or reason what do you think?
Kelly

Originally posted by Lord Shark
So you'll understand that this kind of faith is a means by which you might stick with a belief regardless of whether it is correct or not?

Yes, that is true of all faith it is possible no matter how solid the evidence may
appear to make it, that what people are placing their faith in is an error and they
are wrong.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I was joking 🙂

However, I think I should point out that I was implicitly making the distinction between when a person REALLY finds something and when a person merely BELIEVES he has found something.

For that person, can he know the difference?
Kelly

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Maybe you could find your answer in here -

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/emotion.html

Thank you
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
There should be a cause or reason what do you think?
Kelly

A cause, yes. A reason implies to me that the 'cause' is an intelligent agent with its own justification, so no.

The 'cause' of an apple falling from a tree is due to the weakening of the stalk. That can be followed back to evolution selecting for those trees whose apple stalks weakened by the best amount at the best time to give the tree the best chance of seeding more apple trees.

I think that emotions were selected for in the same way: they gave survival advantages to our ancesters.

However, this is way off the topic of the thread!

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
A [b]cause, yes. A reason implies to me that the 'cause' is an intelligent agent with its own justification, so no.

The 'cause' of an apple falling from a tree is due to the weakening of the stalk. That can be followed back to evolution selecting for those trees whose apple stalks weakened by the best amount at the best time to give the tree th ...[text shortened]... tages to our ancesters.

However, this is way off the topic of the thread!

--- Penguin.[/b]

I wasn't trying trick you into saying something that meant intelligent design. I get
the apple falling off from the tree, good example of why something would happen
a cause, reason, and why!

So, again emotion unlike an apple falling from tree I don't see the a reason or a
why. Look at the discussion on morals, people are having a hard time with that,
is it due to there are no good reasons to have a reason for good? Value judgments
require values where somethings are more important than others. Emotions can
fly in the face of what is important if important means prolonging life and so on.

Proper Knob gave me a link to look at, right now I've only skimmed it and really
has been giving more questions since it goes into systems and sub-ystems...that
type of thing drives me nuts when people suggest evolution is without a designer,
because systems just don't happen in my opinion, let alone several different
systems and sub-systems all working together to get something done.
Kelly

Originally posted by Penguin
A [b]cause, yes. A reason implies to me that the 'cause' is an intelligent agent with its own justification, so no.

The 'cause' of an apple falling from a tree is due to the weakening of the stalk. That can be followed back to evolution selecting for those trees whose apple stalks weakened by the best amount at the best time to give the tree th ...[text shortened]... tages to our ancesters.

However, this is way off the topic of the thread!

--- Penguin.[/b]

"I think that emotions were selected for in the same way: they gave survival advantages to our ancesters."


Look at your statement, "emotions were selected", no they were not, selection
means choice and without a designer that does not happen, what would happen
would be (emotions gave an advantage during their full formation cycle from
cradle to grave, and once they were formed) and those with them would survive
where they gave advantage not a disadvantage. The issue with statements
like "emotions were selected" sort of implies something directed it to be so, but like
your apple falling from the tree what were the forces in play which would have
caused that to occur? The full process would have to be like an apple falling from a
tree, if systems and sub-systems were required, than we need to find the cause
and reason for them to really grasp this, not just say they were an advantage to
those that have them! That statement leap frogs over the tree stalk weakinging
and gravity doing its thing.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
O If you are going to add words like (mankind) you should at
least highlight the fact your adding text to what your quoting, or you are not
really quoting anything your making it up as you go!


The accounts between Gen 1 and 2 are both refering to the same event, you think
they are different accounts and so we should throw one way?
Kelly

I was highlighting, that's what these symbols was for ( ) I inserted mankind so you would understand that when the bible says man, in some instances the correct translation is mankind, not simply man.

If they are the same event then the bible contradicts itself which I'm sure you would find is impossible. No the more reasonable explanation, and the one that grammatically makes sense is that they are two separate events

Originally posted by KellyJay
I wasn't trying trick you into saying something that meant intelligent design. I get
the apple falling off from the tree, good example of why something would happen
a cause, reason, and why!

So, again emotion unlike an apple falling from tree I don't see the a reason or a
why. Look at the discussion on morals, people are having a hard time with that, ...[text shortened]... everal different
systems and sub-systems all working together to get something done.
Kelly

“…that type of thing drives me nuts when people suggest evolution is without a designer,…”

So are you now saying evolution has a designer?
Why would evolution need a “designer” when evolution is just a natural consequence of natural law?

“…because systems just don't happen in my opinion…”

What are you referring to by “systems”?
and what do you mean by they “just don't happen”?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"I think that emotions were selected for in the same way: they gave survival advantages to our ancesters."


Look at your statement, "emotions were selected", no they were not, selection
means choice and without a designer that does not happen, what would happen
would be (emotions gave an advantage during their full formation cycle from
cradle to grav ...[text shortened]... t statement leap frogs over the tree stalk weakinging
and gravity doing its thing.
Kelly

“…Look at your statement, "emotions were selected", no they were not, selection
means choice…”

“means choice”? you mean “means conscious choice”? why would natural selection mean it makes conscious choices? –that wouldn’t make any sense because natural selection is not a conscious process. And why would it be impossible for natural selection to select for animals with the innate tendency to have those emotional responses that are advantageous to survival? What would be stopping it?

Originally posted by KellyJay
There should be a cause or reason what do you think?
Kelly

A “cause” yes –but why a conscious/intelligent reason? ( I assume here that this is what you imply by your use of the words “reason” and “why” in your previous posts -you seem to blur and confuse the meanings together )

Are you saying it is impossible for something to NOT have a conscious/intelligent reason?

If so, what is the conscious/intelligent reason for a particular snowflake to form its particular geometric shape?

If not, why can’t natural selection select for advantageous emotions in animals and thus for this outcome to have a cause but for NO conscious/intelligent reason?

Originally posted by duecer
I was highlighting, that's what these symbols was for ( ) I inserted mankind so you would understand that when the bible says man, in some instances the correct translation is mankind, not simply man.

If they are the same event then the bible contradicts itself which I'm sure you would find is impossible. No the more reasonable explanation, and the one that grammatically makes sense is that they are two separate events

Like I said, I didn't think you were trying to mislead.
Point still remains that I don't think it is an error to refer to God as Father as I
could just as easy insert the words (Father, Son, and Holy Spirt) into the same
verses and claim that was what it means too.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…Look at your statement, "emotions were selected", no they were not, selection
means choice…”

“means choice”? you mean “means conscious choice”? why would natural selection mean it makes conscious choices? –that wouldn’t make any sense because natural selection is not a conscious process. And why would it be impossible for natural selection to ...[text shortened]... o have those emotional responses that are advantageous to survival? What would be stopping it?

Something being selected or choosen can be done without some intent?
When we were talking about the apple falling from a tree, it didn't fall due the
choice the tree, earth, or gravity made it reacted to the forces being applied to
it.
Kelly

Originally posted by duecer
I was highlighting, that's what these symbols was for ( ) I inserted mankind so you would understand that when the bible says man, in some instances the correct translation is mankind, not simply man.

If they are the same event then the bible contradicts itself which I'm sure you would find is impossible. No the more reasonable explanation, and the one that grammatically makes sense is that they are two separate events

I'm not sure how you think they were two different events, but I'll let you tell
about both of them and how they are different.
Kelly