A monkey is the Pope's uncle.

Slap me up the side of the head if you want to but I'm glad Brian is here to represent the beauty of the existing order.

Can't I do both? ya know i love ya!

I think those "outside" the dreaded fundamentalist circles have no idea just how interesting and fun the various debates are within fundamentalism/evangelicalism. Sure there a couple of "sticks in the mud," but within my own church there are/have been nuclear engineers working for Exelon, chairs of academic departments at Northwestern University, coffee-house comedians (no kidding, that's what one guy does), Democrats and Republicans. What is in common is an unwavering trust in Jesus Christ and in nobody else. Beyond that we have a wonderful diversity that does not stifle inquiry in the least, least of all scientific (one friend of mine, with an ivy league doctorate, is doing incredible things with material sciences).

ziggy wrote:

There are only two reasons I can think of and one is less legitimate than the other: One is that science operates via methodological naturalism; that is, in order to keep theology from encroaching into the realm of science, science must confine all explanations and hypotheses to purely naturalistic causes. Which is all well and good if we are talking about explaining gravity or lightening.

Were lightning and gravity always hypothesized and explained by non-theological, scientific / naturalistic causes?

We know- or at least think we know- more about lightning and gravity than we do about how man came to exist. When we know more about how man came to exist, we will see that, too, as a more naturalistic and a less theological cause.

Perhaps so. Though somewhat ironically, we know about as much about gravity as we do human evolution [assuming we are the product of evolution] which is actually very little considering we have been studying it scince the days of Newton. We know gravity operates via the inverse square law whereby the force of gravity drops off at a specific rate according to distance between respective masses. We also know, from astronomy, that gravity can create a 'lens effect' on light, which, tells us about as much about light [that photons have mass] as it does gravity. And we prolly know some other things about it as well.

But I don't know that one can explain gravity or explain why it came to exist. Though the favored hypothesis traces its origins back to the singularity of Big Bang cosmology, that hypothesis, doesn't 'explain it' in any meaningful sense beyond implying that gravity is a product of the BB and exists as a sort of brute fact of nature that could have just as easily not have existed.

In a purposeless universe, that is ruled by chance rather than design, we thank our lucky stars it does. Since without gravity and scores of other physical constants not only existing but existing within hairline parameters, we wouldn't be here having this conversation.

It occurs to me that in explaining how we came to be here, one must ultimately explain the very constants of nature and why they are the way they are. Quite the daunting task, eh Zigmiester?

You believe science can explain how we got here. I'm decidedly more skeptical, Zigmiester. I think Darwinian evolution isn't up to the task. Even if common descent is true and we share common ancestry with ape-like critters the proposed [Darwinian] mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations doesn't sufficiently explain it, imo.

Dinesh D'Souza said it well when he said something to the effect of biologists ought to be kept in the lab. To the extent that they are dealing with matters of actual science, clearly they are to be trusted. When they begin to pontificate on matters unknowable to them from empirical data collection, they not only go astray from Christian standards but from their own as well.

Hitchens and Dawkins have been asked where matter and energy come from in the first place. They can only answer by asking where God has come from (that's the only response I've heard on youtube, anyway:)

But God is, by definition, supernatural. We Christians and other theists posit that for anything to make sense, God must exist, and this God is eternal. While this cannot be empirically verified (even if God can be, His eternal characteristics could not be), neither can the theory that "matter and energy have always existed."

An uncaused effect would be shocking, dare I say, beyond what we witness in reality. Materialism does not fit that problem nearly as well as Theism does.

Hitchens and Dawkins have been asked where matter and energy come from in the first place.

What difference does it make?

Hi Stephanie,

I was piggybacking off of Darth's comment that science cannot tell us how we got here. It seems that we only have three options.

1-Matter and energy have always existed.
2-Matter and energy came out of nothing.
3-Matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond anything we witness in nature.

The third proposition is the most likely. While theism is not necessarily the product of the third scenario, it certainly fits it better than any materialist doctrines supposedly based on empirical data.

Dawkins and Hitchens are quoted by me as the leading brains in the naturalist/materialist movement. I'd be happy to let the secularists pick a new champion, though:)

SheikBen wrote:Hi Stephanie,

I was piggybacking off of Darth's comment that science cannot tell us how we got here. It seems that we only have three options.

1-Matter and energy have always existed.
2-Matter and energy came out of nothing.
3-Matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond anything we witness in nature.

or 4- That matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond what we fully understand in nature.

I tend to lean heavily toward:

matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond what we fully understand in nature.

surprise surprise.

I'd never make a good scientist or philosopher. I don't see why which answer is correct matters which is why even atheists have trouble with my views. lol

How can they possibly know that something is 1000 light years away?

I never got that either.

Stephanie wrote:I tend to lean heavily toward:

matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond what we fully understand in nature.

surprise surprise.

I'd never make a good scientist or philosopher. I don't see why which answer is correct matters which is why even atheists have trouble with my views. lol

I've read your prolife arguments and agree with them, Stephanie. The facts of biology affirm that the human fetus is human and the moral consequences flows from there.

But the question that I find interesting is why you'd care about abortion if you think the answer to Mike's list of options didn't matter. If unborn humans are the product of a purposeless materialistic process that didn't have them in mind, why would you care if they were aborted or not?

I'm not trying to be a smart alec, I really don't understand.

SheikBen wrote:Dinesh D'Souza said it well when he said something to the effect of biologists ought to be kept in the lab. To the extent that they are dealing with matters of actual science, clearly they are to be trusted. When they begin to pontificate on matters unknowable to them from empirical data collection, they not only go astray from Christian standards but from their own as well.

Hitchens and Dawkins have been asked where matter and energy come from in the first place. They can only answer by asking where God has come from (that's the only response I've heard on youtube, anyway:)

But God is, by definition, supernatural. We Christians and other theists posit that for anything to make sense, God must exist, and this God is eternal. While this cannot be empirically verified (even if God can be, His eternal characteristics could not be), neither can the theory that "matter and energy have always existed."

An uncaused effect would be shocking, dare I say, beyond what we witness in reality. Materialism does not fit that problem nearly as well as Theism does.

Well put, good brother.

With the recent discoveries of the fine-tuning of the cosmos and the astounding level of complexity and apparent design within those non-descript 'little blobs of protoplasm' [Darwin's notion of the cell], theism, as a general proposition, has perhaps never been in better shape.

Of course, theism is an open proposition. Hence the need for revelation.

As believers we not only know that God is, we know that He is rewarder of those that dilligently seek Him. We can know the first part via nature but only the second via revelation.

In my humble theological opinion.

Stephanie wrote:How can they possibly know that something is 1000 light years away?

I never got that either.

I think they use parallax and probably at least one other method in order to confirm it. Something to do with redshift, if memory serves.

What's interesting though is that time is relative according to Relativity. A thousand years is as a day to the Lord and a thousand years depends on where you are in the universe lol. I read recently that photons are timeless little critters that effectively exist in eternity since they don't experience time in the linear sense like we do.

Don't ask me to explain that, please.

darth omar wrote:

Stephanie wrote:I tend to lean heavily toward:

matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond what we fully understand in nature.

surprise surprise.

I'd never make a good scientist or philosopher. I don't see why which answer is correct matters which is why even atheists have trouble with my views. lol

I've read your prolife arguments and agree with them, Stephanie. The facts of biology affirm that the human fetus is human and the moral consequences flows from there.

But the question that I find interesting is why you'd care about abortion if you think the answer to Mike's list of options didn't matter. If unborn humans are the product of a purposeless materialistic process that didn't have them in mind, why would you care if they were aborted or not?

I'm not trying to be a smart alec, I really don't understand.

I do think that the process has them in mind and I don't think they are purposeless, though.

I believe all living things are important, just that some are more important than others and humans are most important. Very self-serving, I know. I'm sure most animals think they are most important too.

Everything wants to live. Just like my very old, and desperately sick dog, Duchess, suffered until I had the courage to bring her to the vet and have her put to sleep, she struggled to survive. Victims of the Holocaust who watched all of their family members die still struggled to survive when I question what they had to live for, that will to live in undeniable among all living creatures.

Now I used to think that abortion would be OK up to a certain point. Abortion would be alright until the central nervous system had formed and that baby could feel. I'd still fight for that if I thought it would work but it isn't good enough. The "Silent Scream" is all propaganda. Fathers have no rights, grandparents have no rights, and babies that would live sometimes with little to no medical assistance have no rights. So I have to oppose it all.

There is no escaping it. The pro-abortion camp uses people like me in their statistics as people favoring abortion, which I do not. This is the year 2008. Women, even teenage girls, are very aware of the possibility that even with readily available contraceptives they can get pregnant. So people need to take responsibility for their actions. If you don't want to have a baby don't have sex.

Fathers have no "choice". If I were pregnant I could have an abortion and my husband could not stop me. If my 26 y/o son gets his girlfriend pregnant and she wants an abortion he can't stop her. If she decides to have the baby but wants him out of her life, she gets the baby and his wages are garnished for 18 years. Same thing with his 19 y/o brother.

Also, while I don't believe in "god", I don't believe human beings should play "god". I'm opposed to abortion and the death penalty. I oppose government intrusion on end of life decisions. Dr. Kevorkian was providing a public service, imho. I think if Elizabeth Edwards' life becomes unbearable a doctor should be able to help her end her life. In the case of children their parents should be able to make those decisions and I encourage adult to have a living will or durable power of attorney so that cases like Terry Schiavo don't become fodder for politicians and political activists and so that their wishes will be followed.

I don't think a belief in any god is necessary to be able to determine right from wrong. Nor do I think it is rocket scientist stuff to comprehend that radical pro-abortionists don't care about right or wrong. They care about justfying their personal wealth and power and/or bad acts they have committed, do commit, and/or plan on committing in the future.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Hi Stephanie,

I was piggybacking off of Darth's comment that science cannot tell us how we got here. It seems that we only have three options.

1-Matter and energy have always existed.
2-Matter and energy came out of nothing.
3-Matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond anything we witness in nature.

or 4- That matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond what we fully understand in nature.

What is the difference between 3 and 4 and what is the consequence of that difference?

"Fully understand," Zig? That's implying that we can understand "part" of the situation?

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Hi Stephanie,

I was piggybacking off of Darth's comment that science cannot tell us how we got here. It seems that we only have three options.

1-Matter and energy have always existed.
2-Matter and energy came out of nothing.
3-Matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond anything we witness in nature.

or 4- That matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond what we fully understand in nature.

What is the difference between 3 and 4 and what is the consequence of that difference?

Number 3 infers, demands actually, the recognization of existencies beyond the natural world.

Number 4 is indicative that we simply do not fully understand what we witness in nature.

"Fully understand," Zig? That's implying that we can understand "part" of the situation?

Sure. We understand more of the "situation" than we did 1000 years ago, or even 100, or even 10 years ago.

I can't see how you make that claim. We have known of both matter and energy for quite awhile now, but we have no witness of spontaneous generation of matter from a void or life from non-life, for that matter.

We can understand "nature" as much as we'd like, but in the question of the origin of nature, no amount of reading and discovery will do much good. We need either the word of someone who was there (may I suggest that we have it:) or the best we can do is guess based on what we see today.

If you say that we do not fully understand what we witness in nature, that's well and good as far as it goes. But how far does it go? Perhaps if we had greater understanding we'd be more likely to infer an intellignet designer. Maybe if your number 4 is true than the scientists who claim great knowledge need to be taken down a few hundred pegs.

Look I'm with Ziggy........he explained the difference perfectly.

We don't have a witness, but that doesn't mean that isn't the way it occurs and just because we're not seeing it doesn't mean it isn't going on somewhere else at this moment in time.

I think that the scientists do need to be taken down a peg or two. I think they make a lot of assumptions and estimations and then the scientific community present it to mere mortals like me as fact.

I read Darth's answer....and I'm sure he's correct about formulas. Kate says she thinks she has the formula somewhere in her chemistry notes. I'm not convinced a formula proves anything and how do they know about those photons he was talking about?

Big bang.....they don't know. Maybe. Maybe it somewhere some intelligent or unintelligent creature of a size we can't fathom (like I can't fathom 1000 light years) threw a temper tantrum and stomped his foot, scattered some dust and dirt and there was the "Big Bang". They don't know. I sure don't know. I just don't see what difference it makes.

SheikBen wrote:Dinesh D'Souza said it well when he said something to the effect of biologists ought to be kept in the lab. To the extent that they are dealing with matters of actual science, clearly they are to be trusted. When they begin to pontificate on matters unknowable to them from empirical data collection, they not only go astray from Christian standards but from their own as well.

What either scientific or "Christian standards" disallow scientists from speculating or pontificating on spiritual matters?

Hitchens and Dawkins have been asked where matter and energy come from in the first place. They can only answer by asking where God has come from (that's the only response I've heard on youtube, anyway:)

But God is, by definition, supernatural. We Christians and other theists posit that for anything to make sense, God must exist, and this God is eternal. While this cannot be empirically verified (even if God can be, His eternal characteristics could not be), neither can the theory that "matter and energy have always existed."

(bold emphasis added by Zig)

So as to not accuse one another of a bait and switch definition of "God", which definition of God requires that "God is, by definition, supernatural'?

noun, verb, god·ded, god·ding, interjection
–noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. (lowercase) any deified person or object.
8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. a. the upper balcony in a theater.
b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.

–verb (used with object) 9. (lowercase) to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.
–interjection 10. (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?

[Origin: bef. 900; ME, OE; c. D god, G Gott, ON goth, Goth guth]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

SheikBen wrote:I can't see how you make that claim. We have known of both matter and energy for quite awhile now, but we have no witness of spontaneous generation of matter from a void or life from non-life, for that matter.

We can understand "nature" as much as we'd like, but in the question of the origin of nature, no amount of reading and discovery will do much good. We need either the word of someone who was there (may I suggest that we have it:) or the best we can do is guess based on what we see today.

And may I suggest that the authors of Genesis did just that- they guessed based on what they saw.

If you say that we do not fully understand what we witness in nature, that's well and good as far as it goes. But how far does it go?

It goes as far as nature goes.

Perhaps if we had greater understanding we'd be more likely to infer an intellignet designer.

Perhaps so. Or perhaps greater understanding would infer the opposite. Either way, mostly what we have is a void of understanding of "In the beginning".

Maybe if your number 4 is true than the scientists who claim great knowledge need to be taken down a few hundred pegs.

"Great knowledge" or "great" anything is relative. Compared to the year 1008, we have "great knowledge" of medical science, of chemistry, of observable celestial events and of several other sciences. But what we know of these scienes today may be quite puny compared to what we learn by 2108.

But I can identify with a need to be taken down a few pegs. When I was 18 years old, I thought I knew everything. Eventually I was "taken down a few pegs" by the realization that the older I get the more I realize that there is more to learn tomorrow than what I thought there was even yesterday.

darth omar wrote:
As believers we not only know that God is, we know that He is rewarder of those that dilligently seek Him.

And the Bible tells you that, ..... right.



Brian, found any good Administrator jobs lately?


.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:3-Matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond anything we witness in nature.

or 4- That matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond what we fully understand in nature.

What is the difference between 3 and 4 and what is the consequence of that difference?

Number 3 infers, demands actually, the recognization of existencies beyond the natural world. (If it is beyond the natural world, ...... then that is supernatural ...... and you are back to trying to make a case for your Religious beliefs.)

Number 4 is indicative that we simply do not fully understand what we witness in nature.

YUP, I'll betcha there were several hundred thousand Japanese that didn't fully understand what they witnessed after the Enola Gay "pooped on their porrige".

GEEEZE, even to this day there is still tens of thousands of West Virginians that don't fully understand what the hell happened back then.



.

Ziggy,

Sure a "god" like an idol would not be supernatural, but it was obvious that I was not talking about those. In speaking of the origin of life, we are also obviously not talking about some unidentifiable and unintelligent "force" as being/as not being responsible for anything.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Sure a "god" like an idol would not be supernatural, but it was obvious that I was not talking about those.

Right. I was not suggesting that you were.

In speaking of the origin of life, we are also obviously not talking about some unidentifiable and unintelligent "force" as being/as not being responsible for anything.

I disagree. I don't think that we know that.

Again, I think that the "intelligence" we think we see is assigned by our minds as a starting point. Just as a land surveyor needs a fixed starting point to make his "calls", humans need to assign a "starting point" or reference point for further inquiry- with the realization that the starting point may need to be moved again and again as the available evidence indicates.

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. "

But he hadn't invented water yet!

I always thought this was the placenta, with the author "remembering" that he "created" the world upon birth.