Why I Lost My Christian Faith (genesis, atheist, quote, God)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But what you continue NOT to get is that our forward-planning intelligence and inquisitiveness cannot just "emerge" or "evolve" from unknown "natural" forces or processes that seem basically "dead." Those qualities are too unique and non-existent in the processes you ultimately want to pretend are responsible for them.
You assertion that ignores the science is nothing more than question begging.
But what you continue NOT to get is that our forward-planning intelligence and inquisitiveness cannot just "emerge" or "evolve" from unknown "natural" forces or processes that seem basically "dead." Those qualities are too unique and non-existent in the processes you ultimately want to pretend are responsible for them.
You keep saying this stuff over and over. Yet, you offer no evidence to support your claim. Why do you keep doing that? We know absolutely that life forms evolve. It doesn't matter if a life form is bacteria or human beings. They evolve. Why do you think some life forms are too complex to conform to known natural processes?
Gentlemens, If Mystic does not come back with an explanation (and if he was going to, he would have done so by now) please note that he has been 'refuted'; refuted by the science and has failed to produce any supporting science of his own - for when he will (inevitably) deny it and ask me why I keep making the claim that he was refuted...many times.
If you will allow me to change your god field to human field. I know you don't mean humans, but I am unifying, it so to speak, so you can help me understand what you mean
To me, it makes no diference if we are a set of interactions or a we are a fundamental field.
why is that a requirement for you?
I mean in so far that we see everything as interactions between fields and yet you need humans to be a fundamental field?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Mystic, you know very well that I was talking about the 'forward -planning intelligence of the universe' in creating everything. If you don't think it has one, then why call it 'God'. If you think it does, how do you validate that claim? You cannot do it with just an assertion that it isn't possible for our capabilities and nature to evolve naturally. the evolution of animal consciousness argues against such an assertion.
We have of course done this before - several times. I remember, even if you don't. But at least you are tackling the answer this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
You assertion that ignores the science is nothing more than question begging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
You keep saying this stuff over and over. Yet, you offer no evidence to support your claim. Why do you keep doing that? We know absolutely that life forms evolve. It doesn't matter if a life form is bacteria or human beings. They evolve. Why do you think some life forms are too complex to conform to known natural processes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Gentlemens, If Mystic does not come back with an explanation (and if he was going to, he would have done so by now) please note that he has been 'refuted'; refuted by the science and has failed to produce any supporting science of his own - for when he will (inevitably) deny it and ask me why I keep making the claim that he was refuted...many times.
Gentlemen, I do have a life outside of the forum. The basic unsupported and unsupportable (scientifically) claims by atheists are that essentially "dead" elements (periodic table) somehow combine into living material that reproduce and grow according to some code by somehow developing a "survival" instinct and somehow compete to combine into cooperating organisms that somehow evolve by adapting to their environment into evaluating and reacting organisms that eventually develop a previously non-existent and unique quality of an abstract consciousness capable of contemplating its own and other existences using a somehow transcendent imagination unshackled from the laws of physics and chemistry that otherwise control everything that made them in the first place. Now, this absurd chain of events by essentially "dead" elements is "explained" by observational euphemisms (which means not explained just observed to occur) like "emergence," "self-organization," evolution, etc. AS IF they are scientifically established.
Now, if you geniuses would care to TRY to actually explain scientifically how this all takes place WITHOUT using your euphemistic observational excuses masquerading as explanations, I am all ears (and eyes).
Gentlemen, I do have a life outside of the forum. The basic unsupported and unsupportable (scientifically) claims by atheists are that essentially "dead" elements (periodic table) somehow combine into living material that reproduce and grow according to some code by somehow developing a "survival" instinct and somehow compete to combine into cooperating organisms that somehow evolve by adapting to their environment into evaluating and reacting organisms that eventually develop a previously non-existent and unique quality of an abstract consciousness capable of contemplating its own and other existences using a somehow transcendent imagination unshackled from the laws of physics and chemistry that otherwise control everything that made them in the first place. Now, this absurd chain of events by essentially "dead" elements is "explained" by observational euphemisms (which means not explained just observed to occur) like "emergence," "self-organization," evolution, etc. AS IF they are scientifically established.
Now, if you geniuses would care to TRY to actually explain scientifically how this all takes place WITHOUT using your euphemistic observational excuses masquerading as explanations, I am all ears (and eyes).
This is merely changing the subject to something that we have to prove. In this case, Abiogenesis, it seems. The theoretical mechanisms by which this might occur have been scientifically explained. There is probably a vid. out there that I could post. Thus your question has already been answered and it was not what you have to validate - which is: if 'Nature' must be forward -planning intelligent to merit the label "God" how will you verify that claim? If you can't, why should we agree to call it "God?" Ball is now in your court.
Gentlemen, I do have a life outside of the forum. The basic unsupported and unsupportable (scientifically) claims by atheists are that essentially "dead" elements (periodic table) somehow combine into living material that reproduce and grow according to some code by somehow developing a "survival" instinct and somehow compete to combine into cooperating organisms that somehow evolve by adapting to their environment into evaluating and reacting organisms that eventually develop a previously non-existent and unique quality of an abstract consciousness capable of contemplating its own and other existences using a somehow transcendent imagination unshackled from the laws of physics and chemistry that otherwise control everything that made them in the first place. Now, this absurd chain of events by essentially "dead" elements is "explained" by observational euphemisms (which means not explained just observed to occur) like "emergence," "self-organization," evolution, etc. AS IF they are scientifically established.
Now, if you geniuses would care to TRY to actually explain scientifically how this all takes place WITHOUT using your euphemistic observational excuses masquerading as explanations, I am all ears (and eyes).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
This is merely changing the subject to something that we have to prove. In this case, Abiogenesis, it seems. The theoretical mechanisms by which this might occur have been scientifically explained. There is probably a vid. out there that I could post. Thus your question has already been answered and it was not what you have to validate - which is: if 'Nature' must be forward -planning intelligent to merit the label "God" how will you verify that claim? If you can't, why should we agree to call it "God?" Ball is now in your court.
IT is NOT changing the subject. It is the abstract consciousness in the bold that we are using that in no way resembles or can possibly come into being in a "dead" element only Reality. It MUST preexist our consciousness as the substrate (unified field) for our entire Reality. There is NO scientific explanation or mechanism for getting from a substrate without consciousness to the existence of consciousness. Material elements and consciousness have NOTHING in common except they are manifestations within a field. Consciousness is a field phenomenon and it must reside within an existing consciousness field which means our Reality must be a consciousness field and a conscious Reality is the ultimate definition of God. Explain to me your alternative to this.
IT is NOT changing the subject. It is the abstract consciousness in the bold that we are using that in no way resembles or can possibly come into being in a "dead" element only Reality. It MUST preexist our consciousness as the substrate (unified field) for our entire Reality. There is NO scientific explanation or mechanism for getting from a substrate without consciousness to the existence of consciousness. Material elements and consciousness have NOTHING in common except they are manifestations within a field. Consciousness is a field phenomenon and it must reside within an existing consciousness field which means our Reality must be a consciousness field and a conscious Reality is the ultimate definition of God. Explain to me your alternative to this.
Yes. While i was looking for a suitable video, i realised that you were arguing 'It cannot happen without an intelligent being doing it'.
This video goes back from what is direct evidence of the progression of life -forms to indirect evidence of how the very simplest life developed, and finally back to the explanation of how biochemicals could become 'Life'. In fact he goes into some details of how RNA could appear and how that Rna would eventually replicate, which is essentially 'Life' - the self replication of complex organic structures.
You cannot possibly claim that this is not possible and credibly talk of 'science'. You have no case for suggesting that an Intelligence' had to have done it.
What else do you have to validate this necessary Intelligence that is necessary before the label "God" can credibly be applied to the world and universe that we know of?
Gentlemen, I do have a life outside of the forum. The basic unsupported and unsupportable (scientifically) claims by atheists are that essentially "dead" elements (periodic table) somehow combine into living material that reproduce and grow according to some code by somehow developing a "survival" instinct and somehow compete to combine into cooperating organisms that somehow evolve by adapting to their environment into evaluating and reacting organisms that eventually develop a previously non-existent and unique quality of an abstract consciousness capable of contemplating its own and other existences using a somehow transcendent imagination unshackled from the laws of physics and chemistry that otherwise control everything that made them in the first place. Now, this absurd chain of events by essentially "dead" elements is "explained" by observational euphemisms (which means not explained just observed to occur) like "emergence," "self-organization," evolution, etc. AS IF they are scientifically established.
Now, if you geniuses would care to TRY to actually explain scientifically how this all takes place WITHOUT using your euphemistic observational excuses masquerading as explanations, I am all ears (and eyes).
I would suggest that you start by reading about Stanley Miller's experiments decades ago. That will get you started.
But even if you want to reject Miller and stromatolites and such, your claims have even less evidence.
I'm anticipating - assuming that Mystic accepts the case for abiogenesis so far - that he will argue that consciousness or awareness is inexplicable without God.
I have done that one before, as well. Unfortunately I can't find a vid. on the evolution of consciousness (other than some woeful ones about New age speculations about human ascendancy to the spiritual plane) but my view is that animal consciousness was just another evolved ability that developed just as the others did. If physical evolution from biochemical is accepted as at least an adequate explanation, the evolution of consciousness is equally plausible by natural means. We still have no need - and thus no evidence - for anything we need call "God".
Yes. While i was looking for a suitable video, i realised that you were arguing 'It cannot happen without an intelligent being doing it'.
This video goes back from what is direct evidence of the progression of life -forms to indirect evidence of how the very simplest life developed, and finally back to the explanation of how biochemicals could become 'Life'. In fact, he goes into some details of how RNA could appear and how that Rna would eventually replicate, which is essentially 'Life' - the self-replication of complex organic structures.
I am NOT arguing it cannot happen without an intelligent being doing it. I am arguing that consciousness cannot exist in a substrate which is NOT conscious and is comprised of only "dead" elements. There is no way to get from a substrate that is NOT conscious to the existence of consciousness within it.
Quote:
You cannot possibly claim that this is not possible and credibly talk of 'science'. You have no case for suggesting that an Intelligence' had to have done it.
What else do you have to validate this necessary Intelligence that is necessary before the label "God" can credibly be applied to the world and universe that we know of?
You seem fixated on a Being DOING whatever, but I am only specifying a consciousness EXISTING as the substrate for our consciousness. It is absurd to think that I am questioning what we have learned about how things work or have worked or are done. I am only questioning what must be true about the substrate for our Reality given the existence of OUR consciousness because the unique contemplative traits of our consciousness are nowhere seen in the periodic table of elements.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
