Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote: Yet, if our senses of the world and rationality were naturally evolved without any intention to work this way and that, one might wonder as to whether we were able to sense and know what is actually true, or whether what we sense and know is merely adapted to get by in life and survive.

I discussed this matter here
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=38392&start=255
but nobody seems interested in commenting.
Nils

trulyenlightened wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

Philip wrote:

Truly: I only asked for one thread, hence the different but related topics. Why don't you let me speak only on one thread? Where is Christian understanding, patience, and compassion? I'm really starting to feel that I am just not wanted. "Where there is little knowledge, there is great ignorance. Where there is little ignorance there is great fear and mistrust". I was a skeptic, but not anymore. Thank you. Don

Truly, I think you've misunderstood - there's no problem with mentioning related thoughts in one thread - I think Rick just wanted any discussion that FOCUSES on evolution alone to have a separate thread. And, of COURSE, many such topics are related, with any one of them perhaps best being discussed in a specific thread - that is, if one veers very SIGNIFICANTLY into a peripheral subject that isn't necessarily the focus of the current thread.

Fair enough. But other than by you, I'm not feeling very welcomed, let alone my opinions. Let's just see how this will play out. Don

Let me be honest with you, maybe brutally so. I'm neither intending to be welcoming or not. I owe you nothing, you owe me nothing. You want to play ball, play ball. Don't cry foul or "unChristian" when people don't roll over and praise you for knocking their beliefs. Expect resistence, expect argument, expect to play ball.

I will state, whenever someone visits this board who is clearly non-Christian and thinks themselves all intelligent and Christians ignorant (right truly enlightened one?), who thinks they can after many milliea knock belief in God out of the ball park, in particular the monotheistic God rooted Judaism, which has infact stood the test of time admist all sorts of other beliefs and philosophies -- such a person is kidding themselves.

Further, such just wreaks to me of self-grandeur, an Atheism-like rational snobbery common to the New Atheism movement which seems to be dying as quickly as it started, makes me roll my eyes, and really the words coming out of such a person to me are on the level of a chimp going "ooh ooh ooh eee eee eee aah aah aah."

I hope that isn't being unwelcoming to you. Understand not everyone is going to agree with each other or just accept what another says, especially on a discussion board like this. Aussies in the past who have come here have had such thin skins it embarrasses me. I hope you're not one. Just say what you want to say, make your arguments, and let people respond how they respond. You're being given a lot of leeway here if you take a read the board purpose and separate discussion guidelines.

I have read the boards purpose and guideline, unfortunately, a lot is left up to interpretation by the moderators. I assure you I have very thick skin. It is more than just faith that strengthen my beliefs. I have never demanded anything to be done for me on this forum, and I'm not so naive to think that I will threaten anyone's faith, or try to convert anyone. How people respond to my posts only reflects the strength of their own convictions. I have no problems if I am wrong about anything. That is a win-win for me, since knowledge should always be free and available. I expect an argument based on my ideas and the facts I present, not on insults and threats BECAUSE I presented them.

Anyway, I don't want to argue over the open forum. Would it be alright if you would continue to insult me, with your version of the brutal but honest truth, as a PM? I don't want to be accused of whining(without merit), despite being an Aussie. Don

It's good you have very thick skin. I merely expressed my thoughts and feelings. I didn't know I insulted you? If you would like to discuss privately anything with me feel free to PM.

Nils wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Yet, if our senses of the world and rationality were naturally evolved without any intention to work this way and that, one might wonder as to whether we were able to sense and know what is actually true, or whether what we sense and know is merely adapted to get by in life and survive.

I discussed this matter here
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=38392&start=255
but nobody seems interested in commenting.
Nils

I didn't notice all of what was there, that it was left open. I'll respond, eventually. Posts like that take a bit of time to respond to for me. And this past 1-2 months has been hectic as, so I've only been posting at my leisure stuff that feels easy to respond to, doesn't require any breaking down and much thinking my end.

As I have stated before, our sense receptors are only able to provide our brain with enough information to give us its best representation of our objective reality. Don't believe that reality is a representation by the brain? Just put on a blindfold, and place plugs in your ears. Just see how much reality is lost. In this case we only used mechanical tools to alter our reality. But what happens when receptors are damaged due to disease, age, chemicals, or accidents?

Our senses have evolved to function just they way they are designed to. To give us enough information to survive, and interact with our environment, Our brain will interpret this information regardless of whether the information is true or false(phantom limb sensations). What we have learned to trust is the results of trial and error, which we then pass onto each successive generation. Those that fail to learn or adapt will eventually die out. Are we talking about the survival needs of a modern urban dweller, or the Yanomami natives in the Amazon Jungles? Both require a different set of skills to survive. Both require different survival needs, survival skills, and levels of sensory development. The difference may be the level of threats for the natives compared to the urban dweller. There is certainly a trade-off, which is dictated by the environment. In either case, our senses are all we have to connect us with our outside environment. So whether the sensations/representations are real or can be trusted becomes irrelevant, since they are all we have. As we age, so do our senses. Therefore our perceptions can change. This is just a part of the cycle of life, and Natures way of preparing us all for the inevitable, I'm afraid. Don

TE wrote:
Our senses have evolved to function just they way they are designed to.

Designed to, by whom?

"Designed" ??? Maybe he means randomized?

Kurieuo wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

Philip wrote:
Truly, I think you've misunderstood - there's no problem with mentioning related thoughts in one thread - I think Rick just wanted any discussion that FOCUSES on evolution alone to have a separate thread. And, of COURSE, many such topics are related, with any one of them perhaps best being discussed in a specific thread - that is, if one veers very SIGNIFICANTLY into a peripheral subject that isn't necessarily the focus of the current thread.

Fair enough. But other than by you, I'm not feeling very welcomed, let alone my opinions. Let's just see how this will play out. Don

Let me be honest with you, maybe brutally so. I'm neither intending to be welcoming or not. I owe you nothing, you owe me nothing. You want to play ball, play ball. Don't cry foul or "unChristian" when people don't roll over and praise you for knocking their beliefs. Expect resistence, expect argument, expect to play ball.

I will state, whenever someone visits this board who is clearly non-Christian and thinks themselves all intelligent and Christians ignorant (right truly enlightened one?), who thinks they can after many milliea knock belief in God out of the ball park, in particular the monotheistic God rooted Judaism, which has infact stood the test of time admist all sorts of other beliefs and philosophies -- such a person is kidding themselves.

Further, such just wreaks to me of self-grandeur, an Atheism-like rational snobbery common to the New Atheism movement which seems to be dying as quickly as it started, makes me roll my eyes, and really the words coming out of such a person to me are on the level of a chimp going "ooh ooh ooh eee eee eee aah aah aah."

I hope that isn't being unwelcoming to you. Understand not everyone is going to agree with each other or just accept what another says, especially on a discussion board like this. Aussies in the past who have come here have had such thin skins it embarrasses me. I hope you're not one. Just say what you want to say, make your arguments, and let people respond how they respond. You're being given a lot of leeway here if you take a read the board purpose and separate discussion guidelines.

I have read the boards purpose and guideline, unfortunately, a lot is left up to interpretation by the moderators. I assure you I have very thick skin. It is more than just faith that strengthen my beliefs. I have never demanded anything to be done for me on this forum, and I'm not so naive to think that I will threaten anyone's faith, or try to convert anyone. How people respond to my posts only reflects the strength of their own convictions. I have no problems if I am wrong about anything. That is a win-win for me, since knowledge should always be free and available. I expect an argument based on my ideas and the facts I present, not on insults and threats BECAUSE I presented them.

Anyway, I don't want to argue over the open forum. Would it be alright if you would continue to insult me, with your version of the brutal but honest truth, as a PM? I don't want to be accused of whining(without merit), despite being an Aussie. Don

It's good you have very thick skin. I merely expressed my thoughts and feelings. I didn't know I insulted you? If you would like to discuss privately anything with me feel free to PM.

Unfortunately, when I do that I'm banned, micromanaged, or accused of complaining. But I will reserve these kind of remarks to PM. I really would like to focus only on the topics I present, or I'm I again making demands? Don

trulyenlightened wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:
Fair enough. But other than by you, I'm not feeling very welcomed, let alone my opinions. Let's just see how this will play out. Don

Let me be honest with you, maybe brutally so. I'm neither intending to be welcoming or not. I owe you nothing, you owe me nothing. You want to play ball, play ball. Don't cry foul or "unChristian" when people don't roll over and praise you for knocking their beliefs. Expect resistence, expect argument, expect to play ball.

I will state, whenever someone visits this board who is clearly non-Christian and thinks themselves all intelligent and Christians ignorant (right truly enlightened one?), who thinks they can after many milliea knock belief in God out of the ball park, in particular the monotheistic God rooted Judaism, which has infact stood the test of time admist all sorts of other beliefs and philosophies -- such a person is kidding themselves.

Further, such just wreaks to me of self-grandeur, an Atheism-like rational snobbery common to the New Atheism movement which seems to be dying as quickly as it started, makes me roll my eyes, and really the words coming out of such a person to me are on the level of a chimp going "ooh ooh ooh eee eee eee aah aah aah."

I hope that isn't being unwelcoming to you. Understand not everyone is going to agree with each other or just accept what another says, especially on a discussion board like this. Aussies in the past who have come here have had such thin skins it embarrasses me. I hope you're not one. Just say what you want to say, make your arguments, and let people respond how they respond. You're being given a lot of leeway here if you take a read the board purpose and separate discussion guidelines.

I have read the boards purpose and guideline, unfortunately, a lot is left up to interpretation by the moderators. I assure you I have very thick skin. It is more than just faith that strengthen my beliefs. I have never demanded anything to be done for me on this forum, and I'm not so naive to think that I will threaten anyone's faith, or try to convert anyone. How people respond to my posts only reflects the strength of their own convictions. I have no problems if I am wrong about anything. That is a win-win for me, since knowledge should always be free and available. I expect an argument based on my ideas and the facts I present, not on insults and threats BECAUSE I presented them.

Anyway, I don't want to argue over the open forum. Would it be alright if you would continue to insult me, with your version of the brutal but honest truth, as a PM? I don't want to be accused of whining(without merit), despite being an Aussie. Don

It's good you have very thick skin. I merely expressed my thoughts and feelings. I didn't know I insulted you? If you would like to discuss privately anything with me feel free to PM.

Unfortunately, when I do that I'm banned, micromanaged, or accused of complaining. But I will reserve these kind of remarks to PM. I really would like to focus only on the topics I present, or I'm I again making demands? Don

Lemme guess...you're a liberal professor?

No, I doubt he'd vote Liberal, he is probably Labor or Greens.

Kurieuo wrote:No, I doubt he'd vote Liberal, he is probably Labor or Greens.

I forgot he's an Aussie. Liberal has a different meaning there.

I'd like to avoid using labels altogether. They tend to insulate people from their own true nature, and blind them to the nature of their own truth. Although I maintain a more liberal point of view(not the Liberal party's ideology), it is only because this is the only ideology that is fueled by change in general. If it were not for this ideology, nothing would change for the majority in society. All other ideologies generally cater to their own specific self-interests, supported by their own labels and manufactured rationales. All in an attempt to make sure that the "status quo" is maintained at all cost. Old folks tend not to want change, and young folks tend to welcome change. I wonder what is the underlying reason for this phenomenon? I'd like to think of myself as more evolved, and more complicated, than any fixed label. I think of myself as just an honest secure person, honestly expressing the honest truth, honestly, and with only the best intentions. Honestly. Don

trulyenlightened wrote:I'd like to avoid using labels altogether. They tend to insulate people from their own true nature, and blind them to the nature of their own truth. Although I maintain a more liberal point of view(not the Liberal party's ideology), it is only because this is the only ideology that is fueled by change in general. If it were not for this ideology, nothing would change for the majority in society. All other ideologies generally cater to their own specific self-interests, supported by their own labels and manufactured rationales. All in an attempt to make sure that the "status quo" is maintained at all cost. Old folks tend not to want change, and young folks tend to welcome change. I wonder what is the underlying reason for this phenomenon? I'd like to think of myself as more evolved, and more complicated, than any fixed label. I think of myself as just an honest secure person, honestly expressing the honest truth, honestly, and with only the best intentions. Honestly. Don

You would like to avoid using labels, because they tend to insulate and blind people to the nature of their own truth.

Then in your next breath/s you identify your ideology as "more liberal" over against "other ideologies" which all cater to their own specific self-interests. Then, you add in the labels of "old folks" vs "young folks", label yourself as "more evolved", "more complicated", "without any fixed label", "honest secure", etc.

So then, I would like to ask yours truly what it is you are being insulated from and blinded to?

Don,

Please don't neglect an answer to this question.

Kurieuo wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:I'd like to avoid using labels altogether. They tend to insulate people from their own true nature, and blind them to the nature of their own truth. Although I maintain a more liberal point of view(not the Liberal party's ideology), it is only because this is the only ideology that is fueled by change in general. If it were not for this ideology, nothing would change for the majority in society. All other ideologies generally cater to their own specific self-interests, supported by their own labels and manufactured rationales. All in an attempt to make sure that the "status quo" is maintained at all cost. Old folks tend not to want change, and young folks tend to welcome change. I wonder what is the underlying reason for this phenomenon? I'd like to think of myself as more evolved, and more complicated, than any fixed label. I think of myself as just an honest secure person, honestly expressing the honest truth, honestly, and with only the best intentions. Honestly. Don

You would like to avoid using labels, because they tend to insulate and blind people to the nature of their own truth.

Then in your next breath/s you identify your ideology as "more liberal" over against "other ideologies" which all cater to their own specific self-interests. Then, you add in the labels of "old folks" vs "young folks", label yourself as "more evolved", "more complicated", "without any fixed label", "honest secure", etc.

So then, I would like to ask yours truly what it is you are being insulated from and blinded to?

I said that, "I would like to think of myself as being more evolved and more complicated than any fixed label". This doesn't mean that I am labelling myself as being, "more evolved" or "more complicated". You really must look at how the words are used in a sentence, and not take them out of context to fit your own narrative. Stating that, "I maintain a more liberal point of view", was only in response to a "Liberal professor" comment regarding my political preference. It doesn't mean that I AM liberal minded. There is a big difference. There are some topics that I am "more conservative minded" as well. I then explained that the capacity for change was WHY I tend to be more liberal minded, when compared to ideologies that do not welcome change. Again taken out of context. I never said that I was being insulating from or blinded by labels. Sometimes one's true self can use labels to hide behind. If one claims that he is "that label", he will tend to behave in a certain way that is stereotypic of that label. This behavior might not fit his true character, or his true nature. But for many cognitive-dependent reasons, he must maintain this behavior, or he may be trapped by his own cognitive dissonance. Old folks vs. young folks, was to illustrate and highlight their difference in ideologies. It was also to get you to think how or why these differences might be relevant. Obviously, of little relevance.

So, was there any comments regarding the central topic itself? Or, are we going to continue to blatantly take my words out of context, and used them to misrepresent my thoughts and ideas. Maybe you should also include my syntax, grammar, and composition in general? I'm sure you can find something there you can exploit, distract, or misrepresent. Since everything you both have posted, have absolutely nothing to do with my topic, should I assume that you simply agree with me? If you don't, then where do you think I've missed the mark? Oh well, at least I am still intellectually honest, and still have my thick skin. Oops! Don

trulyenlightened wrote:
So, was there any comments regarding the central topic itself?

Yes, this:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 21#p230821

TE wrote:
Our senses have evolved to function just they way they are designed to.

Rickd asked:
Designed to, by whom?