Evidence for God from Science

Saying something is objective, does not make it so

Is that objectively true?

I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

That is fallacious reasoning and is an absurdity. You hadn't been dead for billions of years. You weren't. Do you understand what it really means to not have been? The objection of saying, "I'd be better of if I'd never been." You wouldn't be better of. You wouldn't be. Better implies a standard, which requires existing to measure. Out of nothing comes nothing.

Anyone that says they don't fear death, IMO, is not being intellectually honest, and calls into question everything they are saying.
In fact, this is directly contradictory to saying life has meaning. If life has meaning, subjectively or objectively, then death will rob that life away. Period. And if you value your life and love, then death looms to snatch it away.

You say science cannot be conclusive on why the universe exists.

In defense, science can not answer that question. Science can look for causes, the how. But why is really a philosophical question. A question of meaning.

Just because we haven't found the answer yet, doesn't mean it's impossible to achieve. We have no idea how far science will take us in hundreds or thousands of years.

That is a 'science of the gaps' theory.

jlay wrote:In defense, science can not answer that question. Science can look for causes, the how. But why is really a philosophical question. A question of meaning.

Just because we haven't found the answer yet, doesn't mean it's impossible to achieve. We have no idea how far science will take us in hundreds or thousands of years.

That is a 'science of the gaps' theory.

Is there way to define borders to these gaps? For example, "meaning of the universe" is clearly out of bounds for science. But some people also say "origin of life" research is not amenable to science. Is there any reason to believe it is possible to decide what science can and cannot address?

sandy_mcd wrote:

jlay wrote:In defense, science can not answer that question. Science can look for causes, the how. But why is really a philosophical question. A question of meaning.

Just because we haven't found the answer yet, doesn't mean it's impossible to achieve. We have no idea how far science will take us in hundreds or thousands of years.

That is a 'science of the gaps' theory.

Is there way to define borders to these gaps? For example, "meaning of the universe" is clearly out of bounds for science. But some people also say "origin of life" research is not amenable to science. Is there any reason to believe it is possible to decide what science can and cannot address?

Of course, whatever can be tested with the scientific method is science. The rest is pure conjecture.

Byb couldn't have said it better.

I probably could have worded my statement better. In actuality science can't address anything. Science is a method. It isn't some entity as it seems to be treated by many. In fact, we tend to treat the scientific method as an entity by default. "Science says....." In actuality science doesn't say anything. Scientists do. So, I suppose a scientist can do what he pleases. The question is, are they following the scientific method in doing so.

If someone looks for the meaning of the universe, then aren't they presuming that the earth has meaning. IMO, this is a valid example of circular reasoning.

The talk of fire and brimstone has always eluded me, and I was raised as a strict Catholic. The focus was always on trying to love God as perfectly as possible and seeking his guidance and staying true to His word as possible. But, that if you failed at it, it did not mean you were a horrible individual, but that you ARE HUMAN and thats exactly why Christ came to earth -- to help and free us.

(edit: oops! feel free to move this. I was posting from my phone and didn't realize there were 4 pages! so sorry...)

jlay wrote:Come now, I covered this in my post to you. Why would you get mad at someone who says life has no meaning? (let me get a little absurd for a moment) On what grounds do you get mad? After all, if meaning is subjective then who are you to impose your thought that life can have meaning? Isn't it one's subjective right to deny meaning? I know this sounds ridiculous. But how can anyone's 'opinion' be right or wrong when meaning is subjective? It can't, at least regarding meaning. Sure, you can say life has meaning. But if you follow naturalism and atheism to its logical conclusions you have to admit that 'meaning' is merely a perception of consciousness from a material, unguided and purposeless universe. An illusion. Thus my comment on the consequential fallacy. Objective meaning is not an assumption. One MUST, MUST presume objective meaning to engage in the scientific process. I don't mean they will admit to it, only that they must presume it. One must presume that there is order to the universe. That gravity (and a myriad of physics) today, is operating like gravity in the past. )uniformity of nature) That the human mind can rely on logic and reason. That logic and reason will operate tomorrow like they did yesterday. For one to deny objective meaning and then boast science is fundamentally contradictory. Do these objective qualities in themselves mean the Christian faith is true. No, but they are consistent. We would expect to see a cosmos with uniformity of nature since the Bible evidences a God who created an order and sustains an order. We would also expect a universe which can be studied and understood by laws of logic. Science cannot account for these. But it must rely on these truths.

I guess I don't see the point. Some things are objective (like your examples in the scientific process) some are not. I never said everything was subjective, but I do think this topic is. Chemical reactions don't have meanings. They just happen. So lets just say it's only wishful thinking, similar to belief in afterlife, that assigns meaning to life. That said, it doesn't mean that the lack of meaning or purpose should devoid this chemical reaction from being kind to other chemical reactions or enjoying its short course. Is a rainbow suddenly less meaningless when you know it's a refraction of light in water droplets? Is love any less real to the person when they understand it's a biological condition? Is cancer any more painful to the patient and any less a scourge on your body when you know it rises as a genetic defect and not from some divine punishment?

You say we would expect to see a cosmos with uniformity of nature since the Bible evidences a God, etc... I could invent any type of mythical creature to account for this, and write a book to go along with it. You say science cannot account for these, but rely on truths (laws). That is correct, but I don't see your point. Just because we don't know something, yet, doesn't mean anything except, We. Don't. Know.

jlay wrote:Although the conditions for life similar to that on earth may still be improbable, realize that there are 400 billion stars in our milky way galaxy, and that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.

Yet, each year the anthropic principle becomes more convincing. As time goes by science keeps discovering new factors in physics that showing the 'apparent' fine tuning required for life on earth. In other words, as science learns more, the evidence keeps strengthening the argument. That my friend, is a fact. And it is increasing exponentially. [/quote]

Again, I don't see your point. See below:

Pierson5 wrote:That doesn't even take into account hypothetical theories about multiverses or an oscillating big bang/big crunch universe. Of course the proper usage of the anthropic principle tells us that while it may be statistically improbable, its isn't statistically impossible given that we have at least one example of life in the universe occurring.

jlay wrote:

Are you then saying that I should believe in a god, even if it does not exist, so that I can feel the self-esteem boost of my life having a higher meaning?

No. That would also be a consequential fallacy. You should believe in God (The God) because it is true. Truth matters. At least it does in an objective universe. If meaning is subjective, then what value is there is there in truth?
If the Bible is true, then you are a sinner, Christ is the savior, and you should trust in Him. If not true, then don't. You say on one hand that meaning is subjective. I don't disagree. People can find meaning in cheering for a sports team, or collecting comic books. That is not my point. You are welcome to your subjective meaning. However, it faces problems. For one, you say that because of skepticism and science you lost your faith. This indicates that you felt your beliefs were false. This indicates that you value truth. But on what grounds. Subjective ones? Hardly. You rely on objective reality to say such things. You don't think logic is subjective. You think there is truth, otherwise you wouldn't waste your time. After all, if it's subjective then what is the harm in believing in a pet dragon, god, or nothing? So, I would like for you to account for logic and reason. Explain their source and why we can depend on them, objectively.

Logic, reason, evidence, etc.. Why can we depend on them? Because they have demonstrated time and time again that they work. Like the study of chemical interactions and their properties, known as chemistry, it works. What is the harm in believe in dragons, god, or anything else subjectively without evidence? False equivalency. Not believing in the supernatural does not leave you believing in a being that can affect the world and/or talk to you. It does not leave you thinking that you know the will of the creator of all existence, which no religion anywhere has ever shown any verifiable evidence for. So yes, believing in lies can harm yourself and those around you. Such as suicide bombers, the strict moral enforcers of dogma. False beliefs can lead to all manner of disastrous outcomes. Another example (shying away from religious wrongdoings) would be people killing endangered animals because they believe their body parts (rhinoceros horns for example) provide some sort of health benefit without any kind of evidence.

jlay wrote:

You kind of lost me at your examples when you started comparing faith and love. You say it cannot be coerced. Is it possible that a person can have this same "knowing faith" and heart motive for something like an invisible pet dragon?

Sure, if the pet dragon was an actual real being, witnessed and testified to by history in real time and in real places. If the PD was also predicted in prophecy regarding the place and time of its birth, and also in the way it died. If the PD rose from the dead, and this was supported by eye witness testimony. If these documents stand up under literary scrutiny and the many other methods used to authenticate ancient literature. "knowing faith" encompasses the heart and mind. Faith, contrary to what many think is not blind. It is based on reason, and intellect.

The main reason is due to a developed skepticism and love for science over the years.

Prejudicial. What you imply here is that to have genuine Christian faith, one cannot be a skeptic or have a love for science. This is simply false.

I believe the teachings of hell is one of them.

Can you be specific. Regarding the Bible, what teaching of Hell is objectionable?

There are plenty of "witnesses" for dragons and mermaids in history. Many books, scrolls, paintings, etc... Witnesses accounts and testimonials are not reliable sources of information. Look at how many UFO sitings we have every year, bigfoot, etc... As for other methods to authenticate ancient literature, I am unaware of such things pertaining to the Christian bible. I'm sure every country has their "experts" working on their own religious doctrines. I still find it odd why the individuals who actually study how the world and universe work (chemists, biologists, physicists) are more atheistic than the general public. Wouldn't you think if this "evidence" for the supernatural was that rock solid, the people that spend their lives studying these things would be LESS atheistic than the general public?

As for implying that to have genuine Christian faith, one cannot be a skeptic or love science, I never implied such a thing. I was merely explaining the reasons I lost MY faith. This was leading up to the sentence afterward. "This led me to understand that my beliefs were without rational justification and without evidentiary support. "

The whole concept of Hell is objectionable. In my opinion it is harmful to teach children that certain actions they do can condemn them forever. It causes lots of anxiety, guilt and stress for a young child. It is only putting large amounts of pressure and fear onto a child, which in my opinion is a form of emotional abuse, because making someone fear for their life (or in this case afterlife) is injurious to that person’s well being. It was for me (although may not be for my child) and I prefer not to even take the chance on it. I addressed my reasons for it in earlier posts. Would you be scared of the Boogey Man if the first time you heard about him was when you were 18?

seveneyes wrote: I hear this question often and it actually comes from some misconceptions. There are actually zero cultures who have actually experienced God, who have experienced him differently than any other. I am not saying that the peoples do not have differences. What I am saying is that before other cultures learned about Christ and were separated from each other geographically and by language. Each culture had it's varied beliefs. Most of which were completely either carnal or brutal. In each of these cultures however (and there are writings of these things as evidence to what I am saying) had experiences with God himself who does not change and has revealed himself to mankind. You find the same spirit throughout the centuries within each and every culture out there. You clearly see his wisdom and truth as well as men having knowledge of him. To all of the men who did have knowledge of him, when they heard the Gospel, if they ever did hear the Gospel of Chirst, immediately recognized the same spirit as the author. -Here is an illustration from an ancient Souix Indian prayer:

You may not want to believe this, but I would encourage you to contemplate the fact, that if God does exist, he definitely revealed himself to all mankind throughout the centuries, and God is God, meaning he is the God of the Chinese, the Europeans, the South Americans...God is the same for all of us and what I am saying (if God is in fact real) is most certainly true.

What would account for the rise of atheism? What about developing secular nations like Sweden or Denmark? Has God stopped revealing himself to these nations? He definitely revealed himself to all mankind... Why didn't he do a better job of it? I'm a mere mortal but if I was a God and wanted people to believe in me and love me, I could think of MANY better ways to do it. It wouldn't result in everyone interpreting it differently, doubting my existence, etc...

jlay wrote:

Saying something is objective, does not make it so

Is that objectively true?

Yes, and you can demonstrate it by approaching anybody and simply lying and claiming your lie as objectively true.

jlay wrote:

I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

That is fallacious reasoning and is an absurdity. You hadn't been dead for billions of years. You weren't. Do you understand what it really means to not have been? The objection of saying, "I'd be better of if I'd never been." You wouldn't be better of. You wouldn't be. Better implies a standard, which requires existing to measure. Out of nothing comes nothing.

Anyone that says they don't fear death, IMO, is not being intellectually honest, and calls into question everything they are saying.
In fact, this is directly contradictory to saying life has meaning. If life has meaning, subjectively or objectively, then death will rob that life away. Period. And if you value your life and love, then death looms to snatch it away.

I don't recall ever saying anything about being better off. Only that I haven't "existed" for billions of years and it doesn't bother me. I disagree that death would rob the meaning of life. The fact that I exist at all is miraculous. This is the life that I am certain of. It's continually ending. Not only in death, but in each moment. This makes every moment precious and valuable. Let's your a new parent and you're carrying a child. There are 100's of times you pick up your child. You never think there is a last time you do that. At a certain point your child will get older and you won't be able to pick them up anymore (you don't pick up your 16 year old for example). At a certain point, you will have picked your child up for the last time. We tend to not go through life thinking this way, but if we did... As though we are standing in front of a ticket machine at a deli counter and are just pulling tickets, not knowing how many are in there. At a certain point you pull and you have the last one in hand. There will be a last time you pick your child up, and you will not have noticed that it was the last time. That makes life very precious. Certainly death, the final ticket, at the end of life, makes it incredibly precious. Its preciousness is not predicated on it lasting forever, as though such a thing could even make sense.

jlay wrote:

You say science cannot be conclusive on why the universe exists.

In defense, science can not answer that question. Science can look for causes, the how. But why is really a philosophical question. A question of meaning.

Just because we haven't found the answer yet, doesn't mean it's impossible to achieve. We have no idea how far science will take us in hundreds or thousands of years.

That is a 'science of the gaps' theory.

philosophical question of meaning... Fair enough.

"Science of the gaps"? No... When I say we haven't found the answer, that's it. How is saying "I don't know" = "filling in the gaps"... That's ridiculous. Claiming to KNOW an answer when you do not is "filling in the gaps".

jlay wrote: If someone looks for the meaning of the universe, then aren't they presuming that the earth has meaning. IMO, this is a valid example of circular reasoning.

I don't think so. Science starts out what is called the "null hypothesis." Just like if you were testing a new medication. You start out assuming it has no effect. You are performing tests to see if does and you can reject the null hypothesis. Just because you are looking for something, doesn't necessarily = you believe it exists.

Pierson, science can tell the how but it cannot tell the why, it was never intended for that, especially the
methodologically materialistic worldview that currently infests science. It is also dominated by how a scientist interprets the evidence and that most of the time is far from objective. Macroevolution is just one fairy tale theory that is treated like it's fact.

Materialism cannot take into account the incredible amount of information that is involved in even one human cell much less a living organism. Information is immaterial, not material.
You ascribe to what is commonly called as scientism, which is the belief that science can find out all truths.
I suggest that you read some of professor Joseph needham's works who warns all societies to be carefull of this narrow-minded worldview. Joseph needham was an atheist.

That said, it doesn't mean that the lack of meaning or purpose should devoid this chemical reaction from being kind to other chemical reactions or enjoying its short course.

Again, you are smuggling in objective morality. You say, 'kind,' which presumes that kind is better than cruel. How do you justify that subjectivley? I assure you this converstation can go on indefinately. You will either smuggle in objective meanng, or you will conceed. Maybe (and I say this only to illustrate) to me, might versus right is what brings me meaning. Survival of the fittest. Maybe my wiring is to find meaning by supressing your will and enforcing mine. Who are you to say you're right and I'm wrong?

Logic, reason, evidence, etc.. Why can we depend on them? Because they have demonstrated time and time again that they work. Like the study of chemical interactions and their properties, known as chemistry, it works.

I hope you understand that this fails scientifically. Because it depends on another presumption. That our memories and perception of them is also reliable.
How do you measure logic and reason? How much does a memory weigh? What about a thought? Scientifically, I want you to account for them. I know, you can't.

It does not leave you thinking that you know the will of the creator of all existence, which no religion anywhere has ever shown any verifiable evidence for.

There is evidence. Whether you are convinced by it is another story. I find that this is rarely an evidential issue but a volitional issue.

There are plenty of "witnesses" for dragons and mermaids in history. Many books, scrolls, paintings, etc... Witnesses accounts and testimonials are not reliable sources of information

Sure, then just apply that same skepticism to science. You are RELYING on witness accounts and testimonials. Unless you have measured the speed of light, personally. Throw out the history books while you are at it. I guess you think we should lump accounts of mermaids in with Napolean, George Washington, etc.

"This led me to understand that my beliefs were without rational justification and without evidentiary support. "

And I say my beliefs are with rational justification and evidentiary support. And if you care to look at a text book, it is called the "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict." And if you will pledge to read it thoroughly, I'll pledge to buy it and mail it to you at my expense. Just pmail the address. Then you can know for sure whether you are being rational about your rejection.

The whole concept of Hell is objectionable. In my opinion it is harmful to teach children that certain actions they do can condemn them forever.

Volitional objection. That is equivalent to me saying. The death penalty is objectionable. Therefore it is harmful for me to teach children that certain actions can land them in jail or face the death penalty.

Would you be scared of the Boogey Man if the first time you heard about him was when you were 18?

If the Bible is true, then we should heed its warnings. If the Boogey man is real, we should be scared of him.

Yes, and you can demonstrate it by approaching anybody and simply lying and claiming your lie as objectively true.

And do you realize the implications to your worldview?????????

I disagree that death would rob the meaning of life. The fact that I exist at all is miraculous.

Miraculous? Whose side are you arguing for here?
Let's see, life has meaning? check. Death robs life? Check. But death doesn't rob that? Got it.

That makes life very precious.

No sir, that is begging the question. You presume that picking up the child has meaning. You presume the child has meaning. Again, you smuggle in objective meaning. I agree the experience with the child IS precious. But, in your sense, precious is just another word for meaning, and we are right back where we started.

Science of the gaps"? No... When I say we haven't found the answer, that's it. How is saying "I don't know" = "filling in the gaps"... That's ridiculous. Claiming to KNOW an answer when you do not is "filling in the gaps".

Uh, exactly. You are presuming that science will fill in the gaps at some future time. Because I could make that same statement about God. "Science hasn't found God, but we don't know what science will find in the future."

I still find it odd why the individuals who actually study how the world and universe work (chemists, biologists, physicists) are more atheistic than the general public.

Can you prove this, scientifically? Seriously though, this is a popularity fallacy. How many scientist believe something doesn't make it true. Truth is not determined by vote. Maybe you ought to reconsider that you abandoned Christianity because of rational justification and evidentiary belief. (There are actually some good studies on this phenomenon you mention, but I doubt you would like the conculsions.)

So yes, believing in lies can harm yourself and those around you. Such as suicide bombers, the strict moral enforcers of dogma. False beliefs can lead to all manner of disastrous outcomes.

Harm? This presumes life has inherent value. I can give you a plethora of examples where lying can benefit. True beliefs can lead to disastrous outcomes. No beliefs can as well.

That doesn't even take into account hypothetical theories about multiverses or an oscillating big bang/big crunch universe. Of course the proper usage of the anthropic principle tells us that while it may be statistically improbable, its isn't statistically impossible given that we have at least one example of life in the universe occurring.

OK, how much evidence do we have of these? How about ZERO. There is absolutely no evidence for mulitverses, none. So, be consistent in your skepticism man.

I could invent any type of mythical creature to account for this, and write a book to go along with it.

Not while remaining rational. By examining our universe we have knowledge. If the universe has a cause, then it must be timeless, immaterial, and transcendent. What is the nature of our universe? Time, space, and matter. Anything outside our NATURAL universe that brought the universe into existence is by definition, supernatural. Beyond nature. If an intelligent being did that, then every miracle in the bible is plausible. So, you can't create 'any type' of myth to explain that.

I want to ask you a bottom line question, and I want you to sincerely ponder if before you answer. If you could know for certain that Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

Pierson5 wrote:... I disagree that death would rob the meaning of life. The fact that I exist at all is miraculous...

You desire God to prove to you a miracle and yet set before you is your miracle you seek...

Miracles do exist – you are here. Look in the mirror.

Then your own self robs you of this miracle…

Pierson5 wrote:...This is the life that I am certain of. It's continually ending. Not only in death, but in each moment. This makes every moment precious and valuable...

If you die and that is it – nothingness - then there is no continual ending and no miracle about life at all.

You attribute life to Radom molecules colliding but where did these come from? Hmmm and all the species of life on this earth past and present show an intelligence behind the miracle of life you continually deny came by God who performed a miracle for you.

You deny all your personal – Don’t do it moments – to your own conscience but how can that be? Again another miracle God does: he often speaks to the human conscience of all people. Then they pass it off as passé.

You live life denying God – then he will deny you. Fair is fair. Why would God want people to live with him forever who deny the miracle of life he gave them and his own speaking into their conscience? He entrust you and I with his gift of life. It is we who mess it up and then blame God for allowing us to mess it up, or deny him completely. Jesus came to straighten things out.

You claim to have been a Christian. If so please take the time to explain who and what Jesus did for humanity?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:... I disagree that death would rob the meaning of life. The fact that I exist at all is miraculous...

You desire God to prove to you a miracle and yet set before you is your miracle you seek...

Miracles do exist – you are here. Look in the mirror.

Then your own self robs you of this miracle…

How would you define "miracle"? Something that is just improbable? I don't think you would agree that winning the lottery doesn't account as a "miracle." I would say a miracle is something which is of supernatural origin (which we have yet to find ANY evidence of).

B. W. wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:...This is the life that I am certain of. It's continually ending. Not only in death, but in each moment. This makes every moment precious and valuable...

If you die and that is it – nothingness - then there is no continual ending and no miracle about life at all.

You attribute life to Radom molecules colliding but where did these come from? Hmmm and all the species of life on this earth past and present show an intelligence behind the miracle of life you continually deny came by God who performed a miracle for you.

You deny all your personal – Don’t do it moments – to your own conscience but how can that be? Again another miracle God does: he often speaks to the human conscience of all people. Then they pass it off as passé.

You live life denying God – then he will deny you. Fair is fair. Why would God want people to live with him forever who deny the miracle of life he gave them and his own speaking into their conscience? He entrust you and I with his gift of life. It is we who mess it up and then blame God for allowing us to mess it up, or deny him completely. Jesus came to straighten things out.

You claim to have been a Christian. If so please take the time to explain who and what Jesus did for humanity?

Where did these molecules come from? Depends on how far you want to go back. Exploding stars many, many years ago account for the various elements we are made of. As for the atoms at the "beginning" (if you can say there was one), I don't know. NOBODY DOES. Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can make up any answer you so choose and claim it's true, or even a likely possibility. You say all species show "intelligence behind the miracle of life". Where? They show complexity, but intelligence? Hardly. There are plenty of things wrong with human beings and various animals. (cancer, birthing complications due to pelvic opening, the list goes on and on).

And they weren't always this complex (prokaryotes). We were able to recreate possible origins of organic matter in the lab. I.E. Miller-Urey, Sidney W. Fox, Manfred Eigen and Peter Schuster, etc... etc.... When you ask, well, how do you explain X, how do you account for Y? Just because you don't understand something, or don't know something, doesn't conclude evidence of a higher power or creator. I'm sure you are familiar with the "God of the gaps" phrase.

"You live life denying God – then he will deny you." What kind of loving God holds a grudge like that? God creates the human race with critical thinking skills. They fail to see any significant evidence of a creator and so, stop believing in him. God punishes those people.... I'm sorry, but that is NOT a God I would be happy to worship.

As for "proving" I use to be Christian. What would that prove except my knowledge of the story of Jesus and the bible? It's irrelevant.

jlay wrote:

That said, it doesn't mean that the lack of meaning or purpose should devoid this chemical reaction from being kind to other chemical reactions or enjoying its short course.

Again, you are smuggling in objective morality. You say, 'kind,' which presumes that kind is better than cruel. How do you justify that subjectivley? I assure you this converstation can go on indefinately. You will either smuggle in objective meanng, or you will conceed. Maybe (and I say this only to illustrate) to me, might versus right is what brings me meaning. Survival of the fittest. Maybe my wiring is to find meaning by supressing your will and enforcing mine. Who are you to say you're right and I'm wrong?

Jlay, I read through your post, and I must admit, you are quite good at this . I have class in a little bit, but I'll get back to you.

We were able to recreate

I love it. We were able to reCREATE. Intelligent beings, with a purpose were able to what?........

jlay wrote:

We were able to recreate

I love it. We were able to reCREATE. Intelligent beings, with a purpose were able to what?........

Exactly, the very thing that evolutionary biologists wanted to disprove, they ended up proving. That life is so complex that it has to be created by planning, purpose, intellect: all of the qualities that can only come from a creative mind:)

I have nothing to add to this conversation, but I do enjoy reading it. I thoroughly enjoy reading jlay's work

inlovewiththe44 wrote:I have nothing to add to this conversation, but I do enjoy reading it. I thoroughly enjoy reading jlay's work

Me too,Jlay really makes a person think. Reminds of a phrase used by Ravi Zacharias "let my people think"

I forgot my notebook and no 2 pencil

Where did these molecules come from? Depends on how far you want to go back. Exploding stars many, many years ago account for the various elements we are made of. As for the atoms at the "beginning" (if you can say there was one), I don't know. NOBODY DOES.

Lol...u have no idea how many times I have seen people resort to this.

ust because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can make up any answer you so choose and claim it's true, or even a likely possibility.

Can you say the same about multiverse and macro-evolution? I'd like you to try and see how it turns out.

There are plenty of things wrong with human beings and various animals. (cancer, birthing complications due to pelvic opening, the list goes on and on).

Wrong? compared to what?

"You live life denying God – then he will deny you." What kind of loving God holds a grudge like that? God creates the human race with critical thinking skills. They fail to see any significant evidence of a creator and so, stop believing in him. God punishes those people.... I'm sorry, but that is NOT a God I would be happy to worship.

Emotional appeal is irrelevant. God is not only loving, he is just too. Hell was not created for man. It was for Satan. Man himself chooses to go there. You wouldn't drag a person in your home if you don't know him and he doesn't want to come inside. You'd leave him outside if you are a fair man. Same thing in God's case. He wouldn't drag you in, if you don't wanna come inside.

I could invent any type of mythical creature to account for this, and write a book to go along with it

Try it.

Some things are objective (like your examples in the scientific process) some are not. I never said everything was subjective, but I do think this topic is. Chemical reactions don't have meanings. They just happen. So lets just say it's only wishful thinking, similar to belief in afterlife, that assigns meaning to life. That said, it doesn't mean that the lack of meaning or purpose should devoid this chemical reaction from being kind to other chemical reactions or enjoying its short course. Is a rainbow suddenly less meaningless when you know it's a refraction of light in water droplets? Is love any less real to the person when they understand it's a biological condition? Is cancer any more painful to the patient and any less a scourge on your body when you know it rises as a genetic defect and not from some divine punishment?

So you do believe in objectivity. well pierson you cant make a claim and then not accept what it entails. Meaning does not mean experiencing the wonder itself.
Either life has inherent value or it doesn't. Believe me you don't wanna go down this road.

If all life has value, then you and your child doesn't have anymore value then the life of the ant, which is stepped over by you all day long. After all chemical reactions have no meaning or they only have subjective meaning, then you would have to concede that all is equal. And something would not have real value just because you assigned value to it for your own chemical reactions to be pleased. And by that measure, it is all brutal imbalance.

But if all life has value, then why do we not protest when an ant hill is destroyed? when a fruit is taken down from a tree (plants are a life form, right?) Its genocide, in a way. Most would find this as absurd reasoning, and it is. But to illustrate my point if all life indeed has subjective meaning than right and wrong are just arbitrary conventions. Just as the most elaborate computer intelligence is a combination of a glamor-less 0-1-0-1 at the core.

But if all life doesn't have value then the situation is even worse. It shelves everything into a more brutal "convenient ethics" area. This way its ok to kill a Jew in Nazi Germany, performing human sacrifice or killing millions just because you're Stalin.

In the end, if you think that human life has more value, that your baby has more value than an apple, fly or an ant, then you would have to accept that you are looking to assign meaning to something which just isn't there, not in the universe you see around you, which is pitiless. Believing in objectivity means right is right, everywhere, anytime and anyplace.

If humans are special; if you or your child are indeed more special than the life of a fly, then may I ask what would be your source of objectivity? Objectivity can not be your chemical reactions being kind, that is arbitrary and violates the law of non-contradiction. Something cannot be objective and human preference at the same time. Doesn't add up. Your assigning meaning to your child is no more different than someone falling in love with a tree (no offense intended). YOu can say its absurd of me to evaluate you as such but at the core, given if there is no objectivity outside of human choice-no god, then it is all a glamor-less 0-1-0-1, random chemical formations having preferences, that's all. Nothing more.

You cant buy your way out of this. If something is objective it has to be above the human preference, choice or logic. If not than there is no objectivity and everything is subjective. Even thinking that only some things are objective and some subjective - is indeed a subjective choice of yours.

I know everyone is engaged with you in conversation, so take your time, if you must.