Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Of course since Alan also believes in demon possession, he thinks other entities can slip in

[Shaker]

Doesn't surprise me.

[Nearly Sane]

Doesn't surprise me.

Including what happens in split brain patients

[Alan Burns]

We didn't get here by chance; we got here by natural selection, which is part-chance, part deterministic, part guided

FIFY

[Alan Burns]

Doesn't surprise me.

Including what happens in split brain patients

So if your brain was split in two, would there be two of you?

[Nearly Sane]

Doesn't surprise me.

Including what happens in split brain patients

So if your brain was split in two, would there be two of you?

I am not even sure there is one of me at any one time. That there might be two or one functioning consciousnesses, does not equate to numbers of souls. That's your assertion. Since your question is predicated on accepting that position we haven't git there yet.

[BashfulAnthony]

Doesn't surprise me.

Including what happens in split brain patients

So if your brain was split in two, would there be two of you?

I am not even sure there is one of me at any one time. That there might be two or one functioning consciousnesses, does not equate to numbers of souls. That's your assertion. Since your question is predicated on accepting that position we haven't git there yet.

If there are two, why on earth did you choose the one you have?   Joke!!

[Nearly Sane]

Doesn't surprise me.

Including what happens in split brain patients

So if your brain was split in two, would there be two of you?

I am not even sure there is one of me at any one time. That there might be two or one functioning consciousnesses, does not equate to numbers of souls. That's your assertion. Since your question is predicated on accepting that position we haven't git there yet.

If there are two, why on earth did you choose the one you have?   Joke!!

As in the Glasgow Empire comment when Bernie Winters appeared after Mike Winters on stage - oh God, there's 2 of them?

Not merely 2, see Walt Whitman

http://www.daypoems.net/plainpoems/1900.html

[Sebastian Toe]

We didn't get here by chance; we got here by natural selection, which is part-chance, part deterministic, part guided

FIFY

FIFY

[Shaker]

We didn't get here by chance; we got here by natural selection, which is part-chance, part deterministic, part guided

FIFY

No you didn't FIFM at all. That's sheer garbage for which you have absolutely no evidence whatever. (But then, what's new?).

When I said to you, as I did quite recently, that you're ignorant of evolution, and you replied that people often say that to you ... this is the reason why, Alan.

[torridon]

Faith does much,much more than win debates.  It saves souls.
The type of compelling evidence you ask for does not exist.
What I have tried to do is to open the door to the possibility that God exists, and that He made Himself known to us through Jesus.
Once you are open to this possibility, it is then up to you to take a step in faith through this door of possibility and discover the truth for yourself.

Faith doesn't win debates at all Alan. It doesn't save souls either, because souls don't exist as far as we know. If you want open people like me up to the possibility that there is a God then you are going to need reason and evidence.  Faith doesn't cut it with me, faith is immoral in my book, so I try to avoid it as far as possible. When you have some proper evidence for your beliefs, that is the time to sit up and take notice, all else is gratification or indulgence of some or other stripe.

Alan's is a reasonable position. We couldn't have got here by chance, therefore there must be a Creator. Faith enables us to know that creator. He has revealed himself in the Bible.

I am guessing from this that you must imagine that god aimed that asteroid at Earth so that the pesky dinosaurs would get wiped out leaving the way clear for us mammals to develop.  Ta very muchly god 

[Alan Burns]

We didn't get here by chance; we got here by natural selection, which is part-chance, part deterministic, part guided

FIFY

No you didn't FIFM at all. That's sheer garbage for which you have absolutely no evidence whatever. (But then, what's new?).

When I said to you, as I did quite recently, that you're ignorant of evolution, and you replied that people often say that to you ... this is the reason why, Alan.

The reason I suggest that it could be part guided is due to the extremely high number of beneficial mutations needed to drive the process forward to produce the immense complexity we see in ourselves.  There is no feasible way that we can produce evidence to show the probability that such a huge number of beneficial mutations could have been generated by random events.  And there is the problem of the negative effects of detrimental mutations, which in the case of randomly driven events will be many, many magnitudes greater than the number of beneficial mutations.  There is the question of whether enough beneficial mutations would survive past the detrimental mutations for the natural selection process to choose from.  And can natural selection generate conscious awareness which currently has no scientific definition?  I think atheists must put a lot of faith in the capabilities of the blind unguided process of natural selection to bring them into existence.

[BeRational]

You do not understand evolution.

[Andy]

We didn't get here by chance; we got here by natural selection, which is part-chance, part deterministic, part guided

FIFY

No you didn't FIFM at all. That's sheer garbage for which you have absolutely no evidence whatever. (But then, what's new?).

When I said to you, as I did quite recently, that you're ignorant of evolution, and you replied that people often say that to you ... this is the reason why, Alan.

The reason I suggest that it could be part guided is due to the extremely high number of beneficial mutations needed to drive the process forward to produce the immense complexity we see in ourselves.

Oh, so you don't believe that the simplest things in comparison to this require divine guidance then?

[Nearly Sane]

Of course it could be part or completely guided, if you think it is, where is the METHOD?  Incredulity is not an argument.

[Leonard James]

I think atheists must put a lot of faith in the capabilities of the blind unguided process of natural selection to bring them into existence.

Natural selection is not unguided, Alan, it is guided by the suitability of the organisms to survive and reproduce in their environment. That is the guiding force, and there is nothing supernatural about it.

[Maeght]

Alan's is a reasonable position. We couldn't have got here by chance, therefore there must be a Creator. Faith enables us to know that creator. He has revealed himself in the Bible.

We could have got here by natural processes with no creator. The rest is just your belief.

[Maeght]

What I have tried to do is to open the door to the possibility that God exists, and that He made Himself known to us through Jesus.

On the whole, how successful in this endeavour do you consider yourself to have been?

I have had at least one sceptic admitting that I have made him/her think about what I have said.  If I can succeed in making people think about how and why they came into existence, and what existence itself actually comprises of, it is a step in the right direction.

Shaker wasn't doing that as far as I can see.

[Maeght]

The reason I suggest that it could be part guided is due to the extremely high number of beneficial mutations needed to drive the process forward to produce the immense complexity we see in ourselves.  There is no feasible way that we can produce evidence to show the probability that such a huge number of beneficial mutations could have been generated by random events.  And there is the problem of the negative effects of detrimental mutations, which in the case of randomly driven events will be many, many magnitudes greater than the number of beneficial mutations.  There is the question of whether enough beneficial mutations would survive past the detrimental mutations for the natural selection process to choose from.

And yet the vast majority who work in the relevant fields and who are qualified to judge the validity of the science have no issue with this. Why do you think that is?

And can natural selection generate conscious awareness which currently has no scientific definition?

Yes, it could.

[Maeght]

I think we have agreed that there are aspects to our existence which at this time do not have an explanation, such as conscious self awareness.  Does it not require an act of faith to assume that conscious awareness can somehow arise out of the same sub atomic particles as we find in a lump of rock?  If you do have such faith in the ability of protons neutrons and electrons to generate awareness, then surely every bit of matter in the entire universe will have some form of locked up awareness trying to get out, pending some re arrangement of the atomic particles.  However the human concept of the soul makes much more sense, because the atomic particles then become the vehicle which is driven by the soul, and there is only one soul per vehicle.

It's not the protons and neutrons but the materials which are formed from them which gives rise to the difference between rocks and our brains. The idea of a human soul makes no sense to me.

[Shaker]

Alan:

All your points, or what you think of as points, have been answered by far better writers than I'll ever be. I recommend:

Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker/Climbing Mount Improbable/The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Jerry Coyne: Why Evolution Is True

Ernst Mayr: What Evolution Is

John Maynard Smith: The Theory of Evolution

Carl Zimmer: Evolution

Let us all know how you get on.

[jjohnjil]

We didn't get here by chance; we got here by natural selection, which is part-chance, part deterministic, part guided

FIFY

No you didn't FIFM at all. That's sheer garbage for which you have absolutely no evidence whatever. (But then, what's new?).

When I said to you, as I did quite recently, that you're ignorant of evolution, and you replied that people often say that to you ... this is the reason why, Alan.

The reason I suggest that it could be part guided is due to the extremely high number of beneficial mutations needed to drive the process forward to produce the immense complexity we see in ourselves.  There is no feasible way that we can produce evidence to show the probability that such a huge number of beneficial mutations could have been generated by random events.  And there is the problem of the negative effects of detrimental mutations, which in the case of randomly driven events will be many, many magnitudes greater than the number of beneficial mutations.  There is the question of whether enough beneficial mutations would survive past the detrimental mutations for the natural selection process to choose from.  And can natural selection generate conscious awareness which currently has no scientific definition?  I think atheists must put a lot of faith in the capabilities of the blind unguided process of natural selection to bring them into existence.

It always puzzles me, Alan, how theists find the complexity of life, especially human life, so incredulous and come to the conclusion the it must have been guided - presumably by God - and yet never seem to consider the complexity of this entity that's capable of creating life!

God, being so much greater than humans, must surely be far more complex ... but you're perfectly happy to accept that he/she/it didn't have to be created or 'guided' by something even more complex! 

[Alan Burns]

Of course it could be part or completely guided, if you think it is, where is the METHOD?  Incredulity is not an argument.

The method is the same as what drives human creativity.  It is the power of free will to manipulate the natural properties of this universe.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course it could be part or completely guided, if you think it is, where is the METHOD?  Incredulity is not an argument.

The method is the same as what drives human creativity.  It is the power of free will to manipulate the natural properties of this universe.

no method and more assertion

[Alan Burns]

You do not understand evolution.

I understand that every incremental beneficial mutation can only be passed on if it has the ability to enhance the chances of survival.  In essence this is a very crude mechanism for selection which is assumed to be responsible for producing very sophisticated life forms.  Several scientists have concluded that the unguided natural selection process could never be more than a fine tuning mechanism operating on something which is already complex, and that it is not capable of producing the complexity in the first place.