Rohan

Edinburgh, UK

#107 Aug 20, 2013
There are some people of these religions who accept evolution. However religious literalists who take the childish fairy tale of Adam and Eve literally are plain wrong.
<quoted text> In your opinion and equally in their opinion you are plain wrong to oppose and mock it.

You are mistaken if you think "logic" is a single internally consistent concept. There are many models of "logic", all dependant upon certain axioms. Saying the Bible is true cuz the Bible sez so is "logical", based on the axiom of Divine Authority. However there's no rational reason to support the original axiom in the first place.
<quoted text> GOD and the principle of revelation. Common to all Abrahamic faiths and indeed others also - I accept this you deny this. But I was talking about inconsistencies within your(plural) own reasoning

Except evolution. Apparently. "Impossible" you claimed.

NO Actually it is indeterminate (although probably wrong for the reasons given)

In which case I would like to know have you were able to determine God's limits via the scientific method. Just one problem - you can't even scientifically demonstrate that this God of yours even exists yet.

Listen Dude - It is not "this God of mine" It is the one true God of everyone and everything and in your last answer you hinted that you may actually believe and do good deeds from time to time is that so unreasonable to hope that we have common ground in that regard at least?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#108 Aug 21, 2013
Rohan wrote:
There are some people of these religions who accept evolution. However religious literalists who take the childish fairy tale of Adam and Eve literally are plain wrong.
<quoted text> In your opinion and equally in their opinion you are plain wrong to oppose and mock it.
You are mistaken if you think "logic" is a single internally consistent concept. There are many models of "logic", all dependant upon certain axioms. Saying the Bible is true cuz the Bible sez so is "logical", based on the axiom of Divine Authority. However there's no rational reason to support the original axiom in the first place.
<quoted text> GOD and the principle of revelation. Common to all Abrahamic faiths and indeed others also - I accept this you deny this. But I was talking about inconsistencies within your(plural) own reasoning
Except evolution. Apparently. "Impossible" you claimed.
NO Actually it is indeterminate (although probably wrong for the reasons given)
In which case I would like to know have you were able to determine God's limits via the scientific method. Just one problem - you can't even scientifically demonstrate that this God of yours even exists yet.
Listen Dude - It is not "this God of mine" It is the one true God of everyone and everything and in your last answer you hinted that you may actually believe and do good deeds from time to time is that so unreasonable to hope that we have common ground in that regard at least?
Logic is internally consistent.

But if you throw in indefensible axioms you will get garbage in garbage out.

Divine authority is not axiomatic, its merely a conditional premise. I.e. you can say "IF there is divine authority, THEN xyz...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109 Aug 21, 2013
Rohan wrote:
In your opinion and equally in their opinion you are plain wrong to oppose and mock it.
Not the case, when Biblical literalism is simply at odds with reality. Now if you wanna go ahead and claim that it's only supposed to be an allegorical tale then that's fine. But then that means it's useless for providing scientific information. Simply disagreeing with something is not the same as mocking, however anyone who says Genesis is *literally* true complete with talking lizard deserves to be mocked.
Rohan wrote:
GOD and the principle of revelation. Common to all Abrahamic faiths and indeed others also - I accept this you deny this.
I cannot deny what has not been presented.
Rohan wrote:
But I was talking about inconsistencies within your(plural) own reasoning
You were unable to point them out. Be more specific.
Rohan wrote:
NO Actually it is indeterminate (although probably wrong for the reasons given)
No, actually evolution has long been determined scientifically correct. So far there has been nothing to falsify it. Biological evolution hasn't been scientifically controversial since the fifties at the very latest.
Rohan wrote:
Listen Dude - It is not "this God of mine" It is the one true God of everyone and everything
That's very sweet but so far no-one on the entire planet has the ability to demonstrate that such a being even exists yet.
Rohan wrote:
and in your last answer you hinted that you may actually believe and do good deeds from time to time is that so unreasonable to hope that we have common ground in that regard at least?
I cannot believe in something for which there is no evidence, although I'm perfectly open to the possibility of a universe-creating intelligent entity. It's just that, at the present moment, there is no more evidence for that than there is for us all being stuck in the Matrix.
Rohan

Edinburgh, UK

#110 Aug 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic is internally consistent.
But if you throw in indefensible axioms you will get garbage in garbage out.
Divine authority is not axiomatic, its merely a conditional premise. I.e. you can say "IF there is divine authority, THEN xyz...
Chimney ,Dude et all
Scriptural Literalism is not really at odds with reality… it only appears to be and that too only in the most exceptional cases. This is, of course, inevitable because otherwise everyone would believe and there would be no test of faith. Nevertheless we do have common ground:
1. We are human beings born of a male and female human
2. All the billions of human beings alive today fall into this category
This is the uncontested common ground. We also agree that at some time in the past there must have been some exceptions to this overwhelmingly general rule otherwise by induction it would follow that mankind had ever been in existence which both science and faith tell us is false. Hence we deduce another axiom:
3. At some point of time there must have been exceptions to this rule.
The believer’s perspective:
Judaism, Christianity and Islam postulate Adam (pbuh) as being miraculously directly created by God. Other faiths also have equivalent concepts albeit with different names. Islam and Christianity also accept that Jesus (pbuh) was miraculously directly created although born of a woman without a man. In terms of divine symmetry we have Eve (pbuh) also miraculously directly created but through the agency of a man without a woman. Source of knowledge is scripture and this worldview is consistent with observable reality with 3 exceptions which are explained as direct miracles of God.
Hence we can say generally God creates human beings through the agency of sexual intercourse of their parents and this is true in 99.99…% of the cases. But for you to mock the exceptions is as absurd as for the believer to mock the man / monkey issue since a 24 chromosome ape must in at least one exceptional case (according to you) have been a parent of a 23 chromosome human. Of course mockery is unworthy but in this case easy to do (by either side) since the rule is so general and the exception so rare thus the mocker appears to have reason on his side because observable reality confirms the general case and not the exception.
The unbeliever’s perspective:

He does not accept this because it pre-supposes belief in God. It is internally logically consistent as indeed one would expect from an absolute truth and therefore the disbeliever merely mocks the believers or their belief but cannot challenge the narrative using reason because it is beyond contestation. But this is not enough for him because the faithful can simply say what about axiom 3 hence he must invent a counter narrative and therefore embraces the (I think) discredited Darwinian dogma with the same zeal as he ought to believe in his scripture but then he also is faced with exceptions.
Rohan

Edinburgh, UK

#111 Aug 23, 2013
Some Exceptions

1. No scientist has been able to put non-living matter together in the right conditions to create life. If science, under rigidly controlled laboratory conditions, cannot generate life from non-living matter, then did it happen under random conditions? That is the basis for the objection.(NB The probabilistic response to this seems highly questionable )
2. Whilst the non-life to life objection seems decisive in itself (because unlike the believer he cannot simply say God did it). He has yet another hurdle, he postulates a continuous “evolution” from simple to more complex animals which not only violates the second law of thermodynamics but is directly in opposition to this. Moreover why do all the evolutionists suppose a continuous ape to man evolution surely a continuous but random process would make some backward jumps even if it were directional (which a random process should not be). For example suppose we observe people are getting taller that does not mean that every child is taller than the parent so why in the ape to man scenario do we not also show backward steps and moreover why should the evolution be unidirectional (-think arrow of time etc.) There may be some answers to these points but they then imply that there is some divine goal which some of you deny.
3 I understand that the following is true “No observable process exists by which new information can be added to an organism’s genetic code” in which case this seems to challenge evolution. And again in your theory 23 chromosome man (by definition) must have been born of 24 chromosome ape (by definition) in one generation. So “GODDIDIT” is absurd but monkey fathers human is ok?
BUT and this is one difference although I hold faith absolutely true and evolution probably false re-read my opening refutation you originally mocked which was conceptually similar to Darwin’s own objection which has not been laid to rest. Darwin’s attempt at an answer as to why there are no transitional forms currently in existence was an inadequate geographic response. Also (and this is my understanding from other works) I think he believed black people to be a sort of transitional form that would eventually be bred out. It was not that he was a racist who happened to be a brilliant biologist (in which case it would just be an ad hominem attack) but rather that the racist worldview was central to the validity of the theory. This presumably causes you some ethical problems at the very least and anyhow maybe if you put white people in Africa and black people in Northern Europe/America you might after millions of years find the blacks turn white and the whites turn black but I don’t think either group would turn into apes or that any existing apes would turn into either black or white people but I could be proved wrong!
Bottom Line- maybe evolution is a partial truth or an indeterminate one but some of you use it to contest the word of God and this is where you are absolutely wrong
Rohan

Edinburgh, UK

#112 Aug 23, 2013
Scriptural Literalism is not really at odds with reality… it only appears to be and that too only in the most exceptional cases. This is, of course, inevitable because otherwise everyone would believe and there would be no test of faith. Nevertheless we do have common ground:
1. We are both human beings born of a male and female human being.
2. All the billions of human beings alive today fall into this category
This is the uncontested common ground. We also agree that at some time in the past there must have been some exceptions to this overwhelmingly general rule otherwise by induction it would follow that mankind had ever been in existence which both science and faith tell us is false. Hence we deduce another axiom:
3. At some point of time there must have been exceptions to this rule.

The believer’s perspective:
Judaism, Christianity and Islam postulate Adam (pbuh) as being miraculously directly created by God. Other faiths also have equivalent concepts albeit with different names. Islam and Christianity also accept that Jesus (pbuh) was miraculously directly created although born of a woman without a man. In terms of divine symmetry we have Eve (pbuh) also miraculously directly created but through the agency of a man without a woman. Source of knowledge is scripture and this worldview is consistent with observable reality with 3 exceptions which are explained as direct miracles of God.
Hence we can say generally God creates human beings through the agency of sexual intercourse of their parents and this is true in 99.99…% of the cases. But for you to mock the exceptions is as absurd as for the believer to mock the man / monkey issue since a 24 chromosome ape must in at least one exceptional case (according to you) have been a parent of a 23 chromosome human. Of course mockery is unworthy but in this case easy to do (by either side) since the rule is so general and the exception so rare thus the mocker appears to have reason on his side because observable reality confirms the general case and not the exception.
The unbeliever’s perspective:
He does not accept this because it pre-supposes belief in God. It is internally logically consistent as indeed one would expect from an absolute truth and therefore the disbeliever merely mocks the believers or their belief but cannot challenge the narrative using reason because it is beyond contestation. But this is not enough for him because the faithful can simply say what about axiom 3 hence he must invent a counter narrative and therefore embraces the (I think) discredited Darwinian dogma with the same zeal as he ought to believe in his scripture but then he also is faced with exceptions :
Rohan

Edinburgh, UK

#113 Aug 23, 2013
1. No scientist has been able to put non-living matter together in the right conditions to create life. If science, under rigidly controlled laboratory conditions, cannot generate life from non-living matter, then did it happen under random conditions? That is the basis for the objection.(NB The probabilistic response to this seems highly questionable )

2. Whilst the non-life to life objection is decisive in itself (because unlike the believer he cannot simply say God did it). He has yet another hurdle, he postulates a continuous “evolution” from simple to more complex animals which not only violates the second law of thermodynamics but is directly in opposition to this. Moreover why do all the evolutionists suppose a continuous ape to man evolution surely a continuous but random process would make some backward jumps even if it were directional (which a random process should not be). For example suppose we observe people are getting taller that does not mean that every child is taller than the parent so why in the ape to man scenario do we not also show backward steps and moreover why should the evolution be unidirectional (-think arrow of time etc.) There may be some answers to these points but they then imply that there is some divine goal which some of you deny.

3. I understand that the following is true “No observable process exists by which new information can be added to an organism’s genetic code” in which case this seems to challenge evolution. And again in your theory 23 chromosome man (by definition) must have been born of 24 chromosome ape (by definition) in one generation. So “GODDIDIT” is absurd but monkey fathers human is ok?

BUT and this is one difference although I hold faith absolutely true and evolution probably false re-read my opening refutation you originally mocked which was conceptually similar to Darwin’s own objection which has not been laid to rest. Darwin’s attempt at an answer as to why there are no transitional forms currently in existence was an inadequate geographic response. Also (and this is my understanding from other works) I think he believed black people to be a sort of transitional form that would eventually be bred out. It was not that he was a racist who happened to be a brilliant biologist (in which case it would just be an ad hominem attack) but rather that the racist worldview was central to the validity of the theory. This presumably causes you some ethical problems at the very least and anyhow maybe if you put white people in Africa and black people in Northern Europe/America you might after millions of years find the blacks turn white and the whites turn black but I don’t think either group would turn into apes or that any existing apes would turn into either black or white people but I could be proved wrong!
Bottom Line- maybe evolution is a partial truth or an indeterminate one but some of you are so bereft of reason you use it to contest the word of God and this is where you are wrong.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#114 Aug 23, 2013
Rohan wrote:
... which not only violates the second law of thermodynamics ...
Even the lunatics at Answers in Genesis don't try and trot out SLoT violations.

Go outside, look up. See that big yellow ball? That's the SUN.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#115 Aug 23, 2013
Rohan wrote:
I hold faith absolutely true
Do you believe that there could be a Hindu who holds that his false is absolutely true?

A Muslim?
A Krishna?
A Shinto?
A Buddhist?

In the past could you say the same things about:
Vikings?
Greeks?
Romans?
Aztecs?
Mayans?
Inuit?
Africans?

In fact, can't you say that for EVERY religion (and there have been THOUSANDS) there has been at least one person who holds it to be absolutely true?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#116 Aug 23, 2013
Rohan wrote:
1. No scientist has been able to put non-living matter together in the right conditions to create life.
Quick question for you Rohan...

What if tomorrow a scientist revealed that they had done this successfully?

Would that mean that Creationism is false? Or would you just disregard this criticism and come to the same conclusion you started off with?
Rohan

Edinburgh, UK

#117 Aug 23, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Quick question for you Rohan...
What if tomorrow a scientist revealed that they had done this successfully?
Would that mean that Creationism is false? Or would you just disregard this criticism and come to the same conclusion you started off with?
It would strengthen the evolutionary case but not refute the creationist case (in my opinion) unless you hold that the two theories are direct opponents. But as for me I believe in God.

Your other post is (I feel) a strategic attack on religion - Basically you are saying there are lots of religions how do I know you are right?:

Firstly while they all have differences they have a main common ground belief in one supreme God (Before you attack Hinduism - they have Paramatmah and Buddhism is a variant of Hinduism)and doing good deeds. By demolishing evolution this core belief is strengthened and of course evolution itself doesn't negate this core belief. So logically this argument in itself isn't sufficient to make my opponents Muslim they might choose to be Christian, Hindu etc ..yes in that regard you are correct. But my stated goal in this context is just to get people to believe in one God and do good deeds. Also it is not just an intellectual thing otherwise all intelligent people would believe and stupid people disbelieve and may be damned which would seem unfair. The truth (I think) is reached by reason and good deeds so my sincere advice to you is:

1. Pray to God to guide you to whichever religion is correct
2. Do a good deed- eg help an old person across the road/give a burger to a beggar and some money to charity/poor relation of yours etc.

See what happens, good luck and God-willing you come to faith

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#118 Aug 23, 2013
Rohan wrote:
<quoted text>
It would strengthen the evolutionary case but not refute the creationist case
There is no "creationist case". There's no evidence nor claims FOR creationism. All Creationists have is "some Jews said this".
1. Pray to God to guide you to whichever religion is correct
2. Do a good deed- eg help an old person across the road/give a burger to a beggar and some money to charity/poor relation of yours etc.
See what happens, good luck and God-willing you come to faith
#1) Inherently biased. Why not say, "Pray to a wheelbarrow to lead you to which religion is right?"

#2) According to Christian theology, no amount of good deeds grant you anything. You can rape and murder, so long as you accept Jesus - you're in. You can dedicate your lives to good works, but fail to accept Jesus - you're out.

Christians just want an excuse to rape and murder.
Rohan

Edinburgh, UK

#119 Aug 23, 2013
I visited California (San Diego, San Francisco and LA)over 10 years ago and really enjoyed it. I loved your zoo at San Diego and your food was amazing BUT...

I was disappointed to note that for such a wealthy state you seemed to have lots of poor people...so why don't you help them personally? Then at least you will have some mileage with your creator who might change you for the better as was my case.

May God guide you

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120 Aug 23, 2013
Rohan wrote:
I visited California (San Diego, San Francisco and LA)over 10 years ago and really enjoyed it. I loved your zoo at San Diego and your food was amazing BUT...
I was disappointed to note that for such a wealthy state you seemed to have lots of poor people...so why don't you help them personally? Then at least you will have some mileage with your creator who might change you for the better as was my case.
May God guide you
Many of the poor "want" to be poor. Or they are not willing to work. Part of the reason there are so many poor is that right now it is easier than ever to make a living being poor. There is no problem for people to get food stamps. That is $200.00 a month from Uncle Sugar. With all of the areas that feed the homeless those are very often sold for drug money. The going rate is a fifty percent discount on the street. California is very loose and easy on pahhandling. When it used to be much harder to live as a bum there were fewer bums.

Sometimes tough love is the solution. Give food stamps but demand labor of some sort for them. Give out food at homeless shelters, but again, some sort of labor should be provided. Ban panhandling. If those three things are done the number of homeless will drop considerably.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#121 Aug 23, 2013
Rohan wrote:
I was disappointed to note that for such a wealthy state you seemed to have lots of poor people...so why don't you help them personally? Then at least you will have some mileage with your creator who might change you for the better as was my case.
May God guide you
Like I said, Christian theology clearly states that your good deeds are MEANINGLESS. That accepting Jesus is the _ONLY_ path to heaven.

An atheist or an agnostic can devote their entire lives to charity and will burn for eternity in hell.

A Christian rapist gets to sit at the right hand of God so long as he gets in an apology right before the curtain call.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#122 Aug 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Many of the poor "want" to be poor. Or they are not willing to work. Part of the reason there are so many poor is that right now it is easier than ever to make a living being poor. There is no problem for people to get food stamps. That is $200.00 a month from Uncle Sugar. With all of the areas that feed the homeless those are very often sold for drug money. The going rate is a fifty percent discount on the street.
You need a new rant, bigot asshole.

http://www.myfoodstamps.org/

CalFresh, formerly known as California's Food Stamp Program, is a federal government nutrition program, like WIC and School Meals. People may be eligible to receive CalFresh benefits whether or not they are working or have children. Benefits are now distributed using the CalFresh Advantage Card that works just like a bank card or a debit card.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123 Aug 23, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
You need a new rant, bigot asshole.
http://www.myfoodstamps.org/
CalFresh, formerly known as California's Food Stamp Program, is a federal government nutrition program, like WIC and School Meals. People may be eligible to receive CalFresh benefits whether or not they are working or have children. Benefits are now distributed using the CalFresh Advantage Card that works just like a bank card or a debit card.
What is wrong with my "rant". do you seriously think I am wrong about my claim of the going rate? I know people that sell their food stamps regularly. Most of the homeless are homeless by choice. They would rather get high than get a job.

And there is a difference between the poor and the homeless. Poor people are who the food stamp program was designed for. It is abused by many. Perhaps not by the poor, but you can bet that any drug addict has sold his food stamps at one time or another.
Rohan

Edinburgh, UK

#124 Aug 23, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, Christian theology clearly states that your good deeds are MEANINGLESS. That accepting Jesus is the _ONLY_ path to heaven.
An atheist or an agnostic can devote their entire lives to charity and will burn for eternity in hell.
A Christian rapist gets to sit at the right hand of God so long as he gets in an apology right before the curtain call.
You are confused:

In any faith good deeds alone are insufficient because this world is transient and the next world is eternal. This is why one must rely of the mercy and grace of God. However isn't the mercy of God is more likely to descend upon one who does good deeds?

Yes an apparent evildoer can be forgiven and raised to supreme heights by accepting the message of the relevant prophet. So yes at the time of Jesus, a rapist, murderer etc could repent accept God through his prophet Jesus (pbuh) and thereafter be blessed.

Similarly in the Jewish tradition the sorcerers of Pharaoh lived as the most evil of creatures being black magicians and then died as the most noble of creatures being martyrs when they realised Moses(pbuh) was the messenger of God.

In the Islamic tradition the Prophet(saw) said "No one attains heaven just by good deeds" the companion asked even you, he said "Even me unless God graces me with his mercy". As you may have guessed this is a Muslim take on it as I am Muslim.

The Prophet (saw) said actions are by intention. So if your question was simply a debating point it is now answered and if your question was truly a search for faith either imagining that you yourself were so evil how could God accept you-then don't despair or conversely if you imagine your charity so great that it alone will buy you entry into heaven it cannot possibly although it may attract the grace of God. Again my advice stands and try it after all your(and my)death is certain so please do not ignore what I say:

1. Pray to God to guide you
2. Do good deeds

May God guide you

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125 Aug 23, 2013
The head Christian of the world disagrees with you, Rohan.

“HATRED EATS THE SOUL OF”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

THE HATER -- NOT THE HATED

#126 Aug 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
The head Christian of the world disagrees with you, Rohan.
Again you are telling half truths. To a point he does disagree but not completely. Now are not half truths the same as lying?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 min Dogen 504
How would creationists explain... 12 min Chimney1 317
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Hidingfromyou 132,470
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 3 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,617
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) 9 hr Zach 4
Science News (Sep '13) 15 hr positronium 2,943
Genetic entropy Thu Discord 159
More from around the web