Evidence for theistic evolution

[EssentialSacrifice]

RickD wrote:
Biblical faith is based on reasonable justification.

it's what you realize must come right after this ...

accomplished by that perfect omniscient Deity, and not by rules of chance.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
Biblical faith is based on reasonable justification.

it's what you realize must come right after this ...

accomplished by that perfect omniscient Deity, and not by rules of chance.

Absolutely, ES!

And I just noticed that you live in Maine. I was wondering if it was true what they say...you cahnt get thar from hear.

Sorry, that was my best Maine accent.

[Kenny]

the inflation model in only micro seconds (plank time of about 10 to the minus 36 seconds) is proof the material traveled faster than the speed of light because of the inflation of space created from the material existing within the "singularity". The questions are still, where did the material for the inflation come from, why did the inflation (big bang) occur, what made time and space inflate at all and why and how to such an absolutely perfectly balanced and finely tuned control of "explosive inflation"

Now if you can provide an answer that does not require faith in order to believe, you would have something. Otherwise I think it's best to admit; we don't know

Ken

But, every belief requires faith Kenny.

I don't know how you are defining "faith" but I do not define faith as a belief that is backed up by scientific theory, empirical evidence, and established facts; that's what I call "reasonable justification".

Ken

Kenny,

Biblical faith is based on reasonable justification.

Is biblical faith backed up by scientific theory and empirical evidence? If not, then it may be what you (subjectively) call reasonable justification; but not I. If it is, then my point still stands because scientific theory and empirical evidence is not required for belief.

Ken

[EssentialSacrifice]

Ken wrote:
Is biblical faith backed up by scientific theory and empirical evidence? If not, then it may be what you (subjectively) call reasonable justification; but not I. If it is, then my point still stands because scientific theory and empirical evidence is not required for belief.

Religious belief requires no theories or empirical evidence.

But if it's the mass cause of empirical evidence you require, that is very attainable. if you take all the sequential steps it was necessary to take for the final physical formation of our world from the beginning of time, the (big bang), including but not even closely limited to the following... add one grain of sand to the original material in the Bang and our universe never even got the kick start it needed to survive, it would have collapsed in on itself, the inflation rate either any faster, created an envelope of gas that never could have coalesced, any slower and it clumped in to matter that could not have inflated continually as is does to this day, too hot and it would always be a gas, too cold it would have been matter only, coalescence of matter of our galaxy in just he right proportion to allow for the orbital effects of all the galaxy on just our solar system, which is in just the right place within the plane of the galaxy so as to allow just the right amount of nucleic radiation so as not too much to burn everything out of existence or too little to cool the entire system so our star, a fourth generation star would never have seen the light of day because no further star formation would have occurred after the first generation. Thea never collides with the earth in just the right orbital plane so as not to destroy both planets, in fact just right so as to create the materiel and eventual coalescence of the moon. No moon no tidal effect, no 24 hour day, nor consistent earthly rotation. Neptune and Uranus switch planetary orbit around the sun, allowing for the gigantic mass gravity of Jupiter (within it's current orbit because of the switch) as our greatest protector against asteroids, comets and rougue planetary killers. 4 ice ages, 4 or 5 mass extinctions, ... this list of natural potential for falling down is literally endless ...

and we haven't even gone in to the actual manufacture of man, who has his own distinct DNA grouping, although close (95%) to a chimpanzee... (were there chimpanzee's around when man was and if so why haven't they evolved in to men as some think we evolved from them)... question after question after question that, as it turns out equals an equivalency odds rate of (for the creation of our earth and ourselves) of 10 to the minus 120th. Consider Ken, most lottery winners beat the odds (miraculously at that) of 10 to the minus 7th...
and this isn't just a one shot willie like the lottery, these odds were continued and stretched out over 14 billion years of creational odds smacking accuracy for us to be here.

and no matter what you call Him, because the "odds" of self or natural creation are so remote that, the, He who is the prime Mover who created everything, has just cause for His creation is more a matter of justifiable belief than not, and can be supported for and from over 5000 years of data gathering from reliable resources as the Old Testament, New Testament, Talmud, Koran, personal and public revelation and a plethora of further knowledge compounded by literally billions of faithful followers of God...

He who was, Is and Always will be isn't just a choice of admirable faith, based on reasonable justification, it's a compendium of choice beyond reasonable justification. It's the non belief in a Prime Mover who's finger is on creation, who presumes and prefers the possibilities of 10 to the minus 120th odds for the existence of our world today via natural processes alone, and the lives we live herein.

[Kurieuo]

the inflation model in only micro seconds (plank time of about 10 to the minus 36 seconds) is proof the material traveled faster than the speed of light because of the inflation of space created from the material existing within the "singularity". The questions are still, where did the material for the inflation come from, why did the inflation (big bang) occur, what made time and space inflate at all and why and how to such an absolutely perfectly balanced and finely tuned control of "explosive inflation"

Now if you can provide an answer that does not require faith in order to believe, you would have something. Otherwise I think it's best to admit; we don't know

Ken

But, every belief requires faith Kenny.

I don't know how you are defining "faith" but I do not define faith as a belief that is backed up by scientific theory, empirical evidence, and established facts; that's what I call "reasonable justification".

Ken

Then you have faith in your physical senses only then.

As an aside, the philosophy of Scientism is logically self-refuting.
It cannot use the same empirical evidence it touts in order to prove itself as a valid theory of knowledge.

[Kenny]

the inflation model in only micro seconds (plank time of about 10 to the minus 36 seconds) is proof the material traveled faster than the speed of light because of the inflation of space created from the material existing within the "singularity". The questions are still, where did the material for the inflation come from, why did the inflation (big bang) occur, what made time and space inflate at all and why and how to such an absolutely perfectly balanced and finely tuned control of "explosive inflation"

Now if you can provide an answer that does not require faith in order to believe, you would have something. Otherwise I think it's best to admit; we don't know

Ken

But, every belief requires faith Kenny.

I don't know how you are defining "faith" but I do not define faith as a belief that is backed up by scientific theory, empirical evidence, and established facts; that's what I call "reasonable justification".

Ken

Then you have faith in your physical senses only then.

The trust I have in my physical senses is not what I would call faith.

Ken

[Kurieuo]

I don't know how you are defining "faith" but I do not define faith as a belief that is backed up by scientific theory, empirical evidence, and established facts; that's what I call "reasonable justification".

Ken

Then you have faith in your physical senses only then.

The trust I have in my physical senses is not what I would call faith.

Sorry Ken, but I don't believe you're thinking deep enough.

How do you know your senses are properly functioning so as to provide you with warranted beliefs?
Please provide empirical evidence that provides you with your "reasonable justification" -- since empirical evidence is your stated criteria.

If you can't, and yet you still accept them, then what else enables you to reasonably accept your sense perception?
Maybe you're right. It's not faith, but rather blind acceptance and adherence.

[Kenny]

I don't know how you are defining "faith" but I do not define faith as a belief that is backed up by scientific theory, empirical evidence, and established facts; that's what I call "reasonable justification".

Ken

Then you have faith in your physical senses only then.

The trust I have in my physical senses is not what I would call faith.

Sorry Ken, but I don't believe you're thinking deep enough.

How do you know your senses are properly functioning so as to provide you with warranted beliefs?
Please provide empirical evidence that provides you with your "reasonable justification" -- since empirical evidence is your stated criteria.

If you can't, and yet you still accept them, then what else enables you to reasonably accept your sense perception?
Maybe you're right. It's not faith, but rather blind acceptance and adherence.

My 5 senses are reinforced by each other. When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating. When I hear someone speak, my sense of sight reinforces my hearing as I see their lips move; etc. not to mention the fact that they are reinforced by everyone else's 5 senses.

Ken

[Kurieuo]

I don't know how you are defining "faith" but I do not define faith as a belief that is backed up by scientific theory, empirical evidence, and established facts; that's what I call "reasonable justification".

Ken

Then you have faith in your physical senses only then.

The trust I have in my physical senses is not what I would call faith.

Sorry Ken, but I don't believe you're thinking deep enough.

How do you know your senses are properly functioning so as to provide you with warranted beliefs?
Please provide empirical evidence that provides you with your "reasonable justification" -- since empirical evidence is your stated criteria.

If you can't, and yet you still accept them, then what else enables you to reasonably accept your sense perception?
Maybe you're right. It's not faith, but rather blind acceptance and adherence.

My 5 senses are reinforced by each other. When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating. When I hear someone speak, my sense of sight reinforces my hearing as I see their lips move; etc. not to mention the fact that they are reinforced by everyone else's 5 senses.

Why does that matter? (serious question)

[EssentialSacrifice]

Ken wrote:
When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating.

But what are you left with if your nose is plugged and your sense of smell no longer enhances your sense of taste. Relying on our senses is a natural thing but non nonsensical if impaired in any way, and cannot be relied up to be reliable, albeit non justifiable reason from unreliable senses... or resources of information.

Empirical evidence can only go so far. After that, there is still a world out there that needs explaining and at some point you have to rely on your interior self for those explanations. This is when I find, in all circumstance when required, that my belief in God is of paramount importance and beyond reasonable justification.

[Kenny]

Ken wrote:
Is biblical faith backed up by scientific theory and empirical evidence? If not, then it may be what you (subjectively) call reasonable justification; but not I. If it is, then my point still stands because scientific theory and empirical evidence is not required for belief.

Religious belief requires no theories or empirical evidence.

But if it's the mass cause of empirical evidence you require, that is very attainable. if you take all the sequential steps it was necessary to take for the final physical formation of our world from the beginning of time, the (big bang), including but not even closely limited to the following... add one grain of sand to the original material in the Bang and our universe never even got the kick start it needed to survive, it would have collapsed in on itself, the inflation rate either any faster, created an envelope of gas that never could have coalesced, any slower and it clumped in to matter that could not have inflated continually as is does to this day, too hot and it would always be a gas, too cold it would have been matter only, coalescence of matter of our galaxy in just he right proportion to allow for the orbital effects of all the galaxy on just our solar system, which is in just the right place within the plane of the galaxy so as to allow just the right amount of nucleic radiation so as not too much to burn everything out of existence or too little to cool the entire system so our star, a fourth generation star would never have seen the light of day because no further star formation would have occurred after the first generation. Thea never collides with the earth in just the right orbital plane so as not to destroy both planets, in fact just right so as to create the materiel and eventual coalescence of the moon. No moon no tidal effect, no 24 hour day, nor consistent earthly rotation. Neptune and Uranus switch planetary orbit around the sun, allowing for the gigantic mass gravity of Jupiter (within it's current orbit because of the switch) as our greatest protector against asteroids, comets and rougue planetary killers. 4 ice ages, 4 or 5 mass extinctions, ... this list of natural potential for falling down is literally endless ...

and we haven't even gone in to the actual manufacture of man, who has his own distinct DNA grouping, although close (95%) to a chimpanzee... (were there chimpanzee's around when man was and if so why haven't they evolved in to men as some think we evolved from them)... question after question after question that, as it turns out equals an equivalency odds rate of (for the creation of our earth and ourselves) of 10 to the minus 120th. Consider Ken, most lottery winners beat the odds (miraculously at that) of 10 to the minus 7th...
and this isn't just a one shot willie like the lottery, these odds were continued and stretched out over 14 billion years of creational odds smacking accuracy for us to be here.

and no matter what you call Him, because the "odds" of self or natural creation are so remote that, the, He who is the prime Mover who created everything, has just cause for His creation is more a matter of justifiable belief than not, and can be supported for and from over 5000 years of data gathering from reliable resources as the Old Testament, New Testament, Talmud, Koran, personal and public revelation and a plethora of further knowledge compounded by literally billions of faithful followers of God...

He who was, Is and Always will be isn't just a choice of admirable faith, based on reasonable justification, it's a compendium of choice beyond reasonable justification. It's the non belief in a Prime Mover who's finger is on creation, who presumes and prefers the possibilities of 10 to the minus 120th odds for the existence of our world today via natural processes alone, and the lives we live herein.

So If I understand you correctly; because you cannot see how things could have possibly turned out the way they did, you assume God and you assume God did it.

Ken

[Kenny]

My 5 senses are reinforced by each other. When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating. When I hear someone speak, my sense of sight reinforces my hearing as I see their lips move; etc. not to mention the fact that they are reinforced by everyone else's 5 senses.

Why does that matter? (serious question)

Why does what matter?

K

[Kenny]

Ken wrote:
When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating.

But what are you left with if your nose is plugged and your sense of smell no longer enhances your sense of taste.

If I am sick and my senses are not working correctly, I go by their “track record” of how they preformed when I was well

Relying on our senses is a natural thing but non nonsensical if impaired in any way, and cannot be relied up to be reliable, albeit non justifiable reason from unreliable senses... or resources of information.

It may not be perfect, but it’s the best I’ve got.

Empirical evidence can only go so far. After that, there is still a world out there that needs explaining and at some point you have to rely on your interior self for those explanations.

That’s where we differ; I don’t rely on my “interior self” for explanations. I prefer to go as far as I can, continue to look, but until I find; I admit to not having an answer yet.

This is when I find, in all circumstance when required, that my belief in God is of paramount importance and beyond reasonable justification.

Yeah! I've noticed.

K

[EssentialSacrifice]

So If I understand you correctly; because you cannot see how things could have possibly turned out the way they did, you assume God and you assume God did it.

Ok Ken if you want to go down this road, explain it to me, how did it, did ? Explain how the odds of natural processes, 10 to the minus 120th did it without tripping up once over the span of 14 billion years did it. One trip up over any of the process I took the time to show you = no earth as we know it. Pretend I'm from Missouri, show me, and I'll pretend any answer you come up with other than some variation of "cause I said so" or because " I think it" is rational enough to explain away everything that had to happen sequentially for our existence.

Because " I said so" and "because I think it" are absolutely no different than my reasonable justification of belief, except my/the 5000 years of written, recorded, lived and passed forward information on the God of life, that I have and you do not to rely on. Our science is hollow and at best a tag along to all that has been performed by God. Our science finds what has already been made and thinks that is enough for now, but we'll keep looking to see what else has been made and how... when the hard answers are not how,... they're why, and those are much harder to expound, and completely unable to be answered by empirical evidence alone.

[EssentialSacrifice]

EssentialSacrifice wrote:
Ken wrote:
When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating.

But what are you left with if your nose is plugged and your sense of smell no longer enhances your sense of taste.

If I am sick and my senses are not working correctly, I go by their “track record” of how they preformed when I was well
Of course if there is no track record you've come to a dead end on an empirical basis alone.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:
Relying on our senses is a natural thing but non nonsensical if impaired in any way, and cannot be relied up to be reliable, albeit non justifiable reason from unreliable senses... or resources of information.

It may not be perfect, but it’s the best I’ve got.
Infallible man willing to risk it all on his own self perceived intelligence.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:
Empirical evidence can only go so far. After that, there is still a world out there that needs explaining and at some point you have to rely on your interior self for those explanations.

That’s where we differ; I don’t rely on my “interior self” for explanations. I prefer to go as far as I can, continue to look, but until I find; I admit to not having an answer yet.


so you come to a closed door and never go further while I open the door and find answers to questions you don't know to ask.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:
This is when I find, in all circumstance when required, that my belief in God is of paramount importance and beyond reasonable justification.

Yeah! I've noticed
Actually Ken, I'm not so sure, by the way you answer, if you've noticed anything I've said at all.