Evolution - A Weak Argument for the Anti-Supernatural?

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

You're talking about "in this universe." How do you know how silicons can be linked in another universe, where carbon based life is not even possible? And you're right, if atom based life forms are not possible in another universe, why can't there evolve energy based life forms? So this really defeats your argument that this universe is fine tuned for life. This universe just accidentally happened to develop one particular form of life. That's all it is.

You have just proved that I can't prove that there is a God. And I have always steadfastly maintained just that fact. And I agree that it is even difficult to assign probabilities here.

But I want you to notice one thing: to prove your point, you are having to appeal to other universes once again. If I were appealing to other universes to prove my point, you would (I predict) be completely in my face and challenging me for appealing to something that we cannot verify its existence. I can just imagine someone writing, "You might as well appeal to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny..." And I say that because people have written this to me so many times!

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

You have just proved that I can't prove that there is a God. And I have always steadfastly maintained just that fact. And I agree that it is even difficult to assign probabilities here.

But I want you to notice one thing: to prove your point, you are having to appeal to other universes once again. If I were appealing to other universes to prove my point, you would (I predict) be completely in my face and challenging me for appealing to something that we cannot verify its existence. I can just imagine someone writing, "You might as well appeal to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny..." And I say that because people have written this to me so many times!

No, I don't have to appeal to another universe. Even if no other universe ever exists (or exists only in our mind), it can still be argued that carbon based life form is merely an accident, and so is the universe that contains it. The only point that I have to "appeal to" is that ruling out carbon does not automatically rule out life.

 

[I am...]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Now here's my question for you: what else do you want? Seriously. If there was a Creator and He was a Mathematical Super Genius and wanted to build a universe to impress people like you and me that love math and science. Is this not impressive? I mean what else do you want?

Ha!

The devil is indeed a genius. It has managed to:

A. Destroy all evidence of a Creator.
B. Impress lovers of math and science with it's handiwork.
C. Induce both "believers" and "unbelievers" to sing it's praises.

An idol is stood up and lavished with praise, "Oh, thou Mathematical Super Genius! Impressive art thou!"

But an idol is still an idol. If that's what you want.



Jesus

 

[I am...]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Here's the real situation:

1. This universe came out perfectly tuned for life.

Look again. This universe came out perfectly tuned for death.

But before anything can die, it must appear to live. To you, this looks like "life". But it is merely the set-up for it's ultimate purpose, to die.

You say, "it dies because it has free choice and used it to become guilty and worthy of death".

The maker of this universe would love for you to believe this, because it takes the onus off of itself...the fact that it is unable to make anything that truly lives.

The operative word in quantum mechanics is mechanics, as in, mechanical.

Think, automaton.

All the world is a stage. And you are merely acting out scenarios already scripted by the stage-maker...in a very mechanical fashion.

Each deja-vu experience should remind you of this fact. Only realize that from birth to death, it is one long deja-vu experience, over and over again...until you wake up.

Jesus

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from I am...:

The devil is indeed a genius. It has managed to:

A. Destroy all evidence of a Creator.

Sorry, Johnny, but this is impossible. One thing you may not have thought about is that the light rays that we receive from around the universe are all from the past. Thus we get to look at a Chronological and Panaromic Portrait of the Universe from right here on earth. We can see quasars from near the time of the Big Bang and we can see near by stars in Andromeda and everything in between. So unless you're going to believe in the (imo ridiculous) idea that the devil fabricated every light beam heading to planet earth from the trillions of stars out there, I can't imagine what you are talking about...

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

No, I don't have to appeal to another universe. Even if no other universe ever exists (or exists only in our mind), it can still be argued that carbon based life form is merely an accident, and so is the universe that contains it. The only point that I have to "appeal to" is that ruling out carbon does not automatically rule out life.

Well, let's start with the Origin of the Universe. Imagine that you have one critical parameter that has a possible range of 0 to 100. And the range that will produce rocky planets (including Si I might add) is 50-51. Then if the actual value is 50.4 you have a 1/100 chance assuming an equal probability distribution. Now, granted, an equal probability distribution is a big assumption. But you have to start somewhere.

Now a second similar parameter and a third and a fourth. Even if they are not independent of one another, it begins to appear like an extremely low probability event.

The best way I can possibly explain this is imagine if you saw 10,000 marksmen line up at relatively short distance to execute a prisoner. The lieutenant raises his hand and 9,999 fire simultaneously. When the dust settles the prisoner opens his eyes and not a bullet touched him.

When strange events occur, you have to ask yourself why? Why would all the marksmen miss since the odds of even one marksmen missing the target is so low?

And I ask the same kind of question: couldn't it be coincidental that even one of these constants is in such a tight range for Si/C? Now add in the 40+ others and it starts to get really weird...

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from kjkent1:


The difference is that the believer no longer requires further information, so he/she terminates the search. The non-believer also requires no further information. Only the person who remains open continues to search for greater knowledge.

Actually, I don't really agree with this. I think that I could argue better for the atheist position than most atheists. It really doesn't bother me to see both sides of the argument.

As I stated previously, if there really is a God, then what do I have to worry about in studying science? Science really is just a mirror better revealing an aspect of God in my mind. So in my case, and I think it should be the case with all Christians, there should be no fear in researching the universe.

Yes, I see the universe through my own lens to a certain extent. I look and see verifications here and there. But don't we all do that?

But I can't agree that only agnostics are seekers. Remember that almost all the great discoveries of a few centuries ago were from believers.

And that leads to an even bigger question: if science cannot really answer questions such as this, why not go to other sources/methodologies?? What do you have to lose?

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Well, let's start with the Origin of the Universe. Imagine that you have one critical parameter that has a possible range of 0 to 100. And the range that will produce rocky planets (including Si I might add) is 50-51. Then if the actual value is 50.4 you have a 1/100 chance assuming an equal probability distribution. Now, granted, an equal probability distribution is a big assumption. But you have to start somewhere.

Now a second similar parameter and a third and a fourth. Even if they are not independent of one another, it begins to appear like an extremely low probability event.

The best way I can possibly explain this is imagine if you saw 10,000 marksmen line up at relatively short distance to execute a prisoner. The lieutenant raises his hand and 9,999 fire simultaneously. When the dust settles the prisoner opens his eyes and not a bullet touched him.

When strange events occur, you have to ask yourself why? Why would all the marksmen miss since the odds of even one marksmen missing the target is so low?

And I ask the same kind of question: couldn't it be coincidental that even one of these constants is in such a tight range for Si/C? Now add in the 40+ others and it starts to get really weird...

Wrong example.

Imagine if you saw Dick Cheney with a rifle. He started shooting randomly in different directions. The first shot hit a beetle on a maple leaf. What is the chance that Dick Cheney's first shot would hit a beetle? Next to zero. So it must be a miracle!

What if Dick Cheney hit a fly instead of a beetle on the first shot? It's another miracle!

You see, no matter how small the chance is for Dick Cheney to hit a beetle, the combination of the two facts, that he indeed hit a beetle, and that the chance is next to nothing, still does not prove that Dick Cheney aimed at the beetle.

 

[I am...]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Sorry, Johnny, but this is impossible. One thing you may not have thought about is that the light rays that we receive from around the universe are all from the past. Thus we get to look at a Chronological and Panaromic Portrait of the Universe from right here on earth. We can see quasars from near the time of the Big Bang and we can see near by stars in Andromeda and everything in between. So unless you're going to believe in the (imo ridiculous) idea that the devil fabricated every light beam heading to planet earth from the trillions of stars out there, I can't imagine what you are talking about...

Before man...before "the universe"...before the big bang(s) there is the Light.

It is the devil's duty, so-to-speak, to hide the Light behind a mask.

The big bang(s) serves this purpose...and everything that flows from them.

I'm saying that what you consider a "wonderful and miraculous" universe is indeed the handiwork of the "devil", which is made first by a belief in the mind of the Son of God. The belief in separation constitutes the thought that becomes "the devil" as it takes on a life of it's own and takes that theme to the extreme. The devil, in turn, turns on it's maker, and makes itself "God" in the place of our Father, Who has nothing whatsoever to do with this "wonderful and miraculous" universe.

That is why I say you underestimate the devil's domain, and at the same time, underestimate the power of both the Father and the Son.


I repeat: What you keep insisting is "the universe" is the kingdom of darkness set up by the devil, which is merely an idol in the mind of the Son of God.

While you value it's work, you are blinded to it's purpose. This entire universe is an abomination of desolation in the temple of the Son of God, the temple of his mind. You do not see the abomination for what it is because you are unwilling to assess it honestly, from the heart. Instead, you assess it from the mind, and that is what traps you in it's web. This universe is made of a mental process that is ungodly, and all mental assessments of it key off of the same type of thinking that makes it. So as long as you assess it this way, you will keep it within your experience.

What you find "wonderful" is really just the mechanics of how the devil has managed to mask the Light.

But I say, "do not hide your Light under a bushel".

Jesus

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from I am...:

Before man...before "the universe"...before the big bang(s) there is the Light.

It is the devil's duty, so-to-speak, to hide the Light behind a mask.

The big bang(s) serves this purpose...and everything that flows from them.

I'm saying that what you consider a "wonderful and miraculous" universe is indeed the handiwork of the "devil", which is made first by a belief in the mind of the Son of God. The belief in separation constitutes the thought that becomes "the devil" as it takes on a life of it's own and takes that theme to the extreme. The devil, in turn, turns on it's maker, and makes itself "God" in the place of our Father, Who has nothing whatsoever to do with this "wonderful and miraculous" universe.

That is why I say you underestimate the devil's domain, and at the same time, underestimate the power of both the Father and the Son.


I repeat: What you keep insisting is "the universe" is the kingdom of darkness set up by the devil, which is merely an idol in the mind of the Son of God.

While you value it's work, you are blinded to it's purpose. This entire universe is an abomination of desolation in the temple of the Son of God, the temple of his mind. You do not see the abomination for what it is because you are unwilling to assess it honestly, from the heart. Instead, you assess it from the mind, and that is what traps you in it's web. This universe is made of a mental process that is ungodly, and all mental assessments of it key off of the same type of thinking that makes it. So as long as you assess it this way, you will keep it within your experience.

What you find "wonderful" is really just the mechanics of how the devil has managed to mask the Light.

But I say, "do not hide your Light under a bushel".

Jesus

You realize this is pure gnosticism: the universe is entirely evil; our bodies are evil; all is an illusion, etc.?

Gnosticism leads very easily, and has historically, to extremes of either aesceticism or licentiousness because of the lack of value placed on the body and all things physical. One can come to the conclusion, "The body is evil and must be subjugated" or "The body is useless and it does not really matter what I do with it".

I also have a problem with one of the primary tenets of gnosticism: that true wisdom is a big secret that only the enlightened know and that this enlightened wisdom must be handed down through secretive channels from one member to another.

I believe in openness and peer review if you will...