Searching for GOD...

[Rhiannon]

But God loves all the people in Mali and Syria and Nepal just as much as us, Wiggs. Clearly it's his plan for them to suffer because, er, we can show how good we are by giving to charities and things. Or something.

[Shaker]

You've been reading that awful Swinburne man

[floo]

But God loves all the people in Mali and Syria and Nepal just as much as us, Wiggs. Clearly it's his plan for them to suffer because, er, we can show how good we are by giving to charities and things. Or something.

I hadn't thought of that one! The deity has a cunning plan to make people suffer so those of us who donate to charity feel good by trying to relieve their pain, WOW how very clever!

[Shaker]

Floo, you probably won't know this but there's somebody regarded as a  well-respected theologian who pretty well argues at great length in this manner.

[Rhiannon]

Floo, you probably won't know this but there's somebody regarded as a  well-respected theologian who pretty well argues at great length in this manner.

Blimey. And I just thought I was making up shit.

Well, so is he to be fair.

[Shaker]

I shit you not. I should probably start a shit-stirring thread on this whole thing to get into in detail, nauseating as it all is, but Richard Swinburne is the man who has seriously tried to argue that God permitted/permits such things as the Holocaust (think of any other kind of great evil, whether humanly-inspired and therefore conscious and deliberate, or a natural 'evil' such as a terrible natural disaster; famine, fire, flood and the like) as a means of letting people demonstrate courage, heroism and charity.

I want to be inventing this, but I'm not the one doing so.

[wigginhall]

Yes, somewhere he says that if one less person had died at Hiroshima, that would have reduced the chance for heroism and courage, and also for protests against the bomb.   It's frightening that an intelligent man can produce such a grotesque and barbaric idea really. 

[Shaker]

Yes, wiggles; have just read that specific passage again.

Unbelievable.

[Alan Burns]

It's quite interesting that there seems to be this horror of chance among some theists, as if it makes life meaningless.   But the consequences of arguing against chance are bizarre really - for example, does this mean that things are planned?   Thus, the moon ended up in its orbit, because God put it there?  Gulp.

But is it not obvious that this universe comprises of a mixture of random, chance events combined with some intelligently manipulated events?

It is certainly not all random chance, neither is it entirely manipulated.  It is a mixture of the two.

[Nearly Sane]

Well if you posit an interventionist being that is omniscient, this is the best of all possible universes, so it's either that or something similar or the old mysterious ways.

[torridon]

Maybe you cannot see the value in it Sass, but to anyone with an interest in life, the TofE provides the profoundest of insights into how life works, so much so, that nothing in life sciences makes any sense except in the light of evolution.

What a stupid comment....

 

but to anyone with an interest in life,

As if, the theory of evolution really as ANYTHING to do with a persons personal interest or disinterest in life??

Life is not something you or anyone on the planet had a choice in.
It does not serve the matter of interest. But life is the subject ALL have an interest in on this planet because NO ONE knows how it got here.
May be for those with a real interest in reality we are not such pushovers to think life cannot be interesting if we do not have theory to cling to.

The fact is that we live in a constantly changing world, and the TofE describes the mechanisms by which life changes and adapts to changing circumstances.

No it doesn't....There is no evolution of man at all these days... Mans genes are not changing and by a process over so called millions of years you would think it would have perfected itself and the cells so no disease etc.

Truth is that there has been no evolving of man for over 2,000 years. Isn't if funny that evolution can only be applied to man in theory because it cannot be seen today or in the years since it became a theory to man.
May be some of us who believe in God can see what isn't there in what we can see.

There is no doubt much remaining to discover but that doesn't mean that the TofE is 'wrong', it means it is incomplete, and that applies to all areas of knowledge including our understanding of the pathways from geochemistry and biochemistry into biology.  Merely maintaining an attitude of denial will bring us no new insights.

Kidding ourselves won't make something appear that isn't there in the theory.
No real evidence of the theory of evolution. Man stopped suddenly evolving did it?

You kid yourself all you want... but it is always going to be a theory because as the thousands of years pass...Man will not evolve...

I don't know where you get your ideas from, but they are wrong from start to finish. The evidence of evolution is all around us, to deny it is about as sensible as a haddock denying the existence of seawater. Evolution is fundamental to life and anyone with an enquiring mind will at some stage or other want to understand what life is. I grant you could be forgiven for thinking that mankind is excluded from this natural process, after all we in the West have universal health care so we cushion ourselves from the harshness of survival of the fittest, but we are still evolving nonetheless. Have you never wondered why there are races ? It is not just coincidence that you get black people in Congo but white people in Poland, that is evolution in action, acting on the human genome, drawing out adaptions to suit environmental circumstances. Have you never considered why you find attractive people, errm, attractive, and ugly people not so much ? Again that is evolution in action, sexual selection is alive and well and still shaping the future of mankind day in day out. Evolution cannot stop, any more than metabolism can stop, or gravity can stop.

[torridon]

It's quite interesting that there seems to be this horror of chance among some theists, as if it makes life meaningless.   But the consequences of arguing against chance are bizarre really - for example, does this mean that things are planned?   Thus, the moon ended up in its orbit, because God put it there?  Gulp.

But is it not obvious that this universe comprises of a mixture of random, chance events combined with some intelligently manipulated events?

It is certainly not all random chance, neither is it entirely manipulated.  It is a mixture of the two.

That sort of thinking just invites selection bias.  Hmm now which bit was divine intervention and which not. Maybe god got tired of the dino's ruling the roost for so long and aimed an asteroid at Earth so we mammals could have a go.

[Nearly Sane]

It's quite interesting that there seems to be this horror of chance among some theists, as if it makes life meaningless.   But the consequences of arguing against chance are bizarre really - for example, does this mean that things are planned?   Thus, the moon ended up in its orbit, because God put it there?  Gulp.

But is it not obvious that this universe comprises of a mixture of random, chance events combined with some intelligently manipulated events?

It is certainly not all random chance, neither is it entirely manipulated.  It is a mixture of the two.

Leaving aside that this another vacuous assertion from Alan, it is a very odd view. In this case his god does not so much play dice, as is a die at the control of the randomeer.

[Shaker]

It's quite interesting that there seems to be this horror of chance among some theists, as if it makes life meaningless.   But the consequences of arguing against chance are bizarre really - for example, does this mean that things are planned?   Thus, the moon ended up in its orbit, because God put it there?  Gulp.

But is it not obvious that this universe comprises of a mixture of random, chance events combined with some intelligently manipulated events?

It is certainly not all random chance, neither is it entirely manipulated.  It is a mixture of the two.

You're very nearly there Alan. Teetering and tottering on the brink as 'twere.

Intelligently manipulated events are intelligently manipulated by creatures such as humans. As of July 13th 2015 they're the only ones, bar some less sophisticated examples from their evolutionary ancestors (not to be denied or waved aside, mind you), that we know are capable of doing this. But, I think somehow, that's really not quite what you mean, is it?

[Alan Burns]

The evidence of evolution is all around us, to deny it is about as sensible as a haddock denying the existence of seawater.

But there is no natural explanation for why a naturally driven process of evolution has developed something which far exceeds the functionality of a biological survival machine.  Looking ahead it seems very likely that the capacity for the human race to destroy each other will soon ensure that humans will have been around for just a very short period in the time line for this earth.  And to what purpose?  Will it all have been for nothing?  Just a random blip created by chance?  Who will support Darwin's theory when all the humans are gone?

[Nearly Sane]

Who will support the theory of gravity with the humans gone?

[Shaker]

The evidence of evolution is all around us, to deny it is about as sensible as a haddock denying the existence of seawater.

But there is no natural explanation for why a naturally driven process of evolution has developed something which far exceeds the functionality of a biological survival machine.  Looking ahead it seems very likely that the capacity for the human race to destroy each other will soon ensure that humans will have been around for just a very short period in the time line for this earth.  And to what purpose?

Ultimately (as opposed to proximately), none whatsoever.

Will it all have been for nothing?

Ultimately (as opposed to proximately), yes. Nothing at all.

Just a random blip created by chance?

Yes. A random blip created by chance.

Who will support Darwin's theory when all the humans are gone?

Nobody, unless there's another organism, not human, intelligent enough to figure out the same physical facts for itself.

We are very close to philosophical bedrock here, Alan. I strongly suspect you're not going to like it.

[Leonard James]

But there is no natural explanation for why a naturally driven process of evolution has developed something which far exceeds the functionality of a biological survival machine.

Evolution IS the explanation, Alan. We are simply biological survival machines with a few frills added on by chance mutations.

Looking ahead it seems very likely that the capacity for the human race to destroy each other will soon ensure that humans will have been around for just a very short period in the time line for this earth.

Thousands of forms of life have come and gone since it began ... humans are just one of them.

And to what purpose?  Will it all have been for nothing?  Just a random blip created by chance?  Who will support Darwin's theory when all the humans are gone?

Until we find evidence to the contrary, I'm afraid you just have to accept that.

[ippy]

Maybe you cannot see the value in it Sass, but to anyone with an interest in life, the TofE provides the profoundest of insights into how life works, so much so, that nothing in life sciences makes any sense except in the light of evolution.

What a stupid comment....

 

but to anyone with an interest in life,

As if, the theory of evolution really as ANYTHING to do with a persons personal interest or disinterest in life??

Life is not something you or anyone on the planet had a choice in.
It does not serve the matter of interest. But life is the subject ALL have an interest in on this planet because NO ONE knows how it got here.
May be for those with a real interest in reality we are not such pushovers to think life cannot be interesting if we do not have theory to cling to.

The fact is that we live in a constantly changing world, and the TofE describes the mechanisms by which life changes and adapts to changing circumstances.

No it doesn't....There is no evolution of man at all these days... Mans genes are not changing and by a process over so called millions of years you would think it would have perfected itself and the cells so no disease etc.

Truth is that there has been no evolving of man for over 2,000 years. Isn't if funny that evolution can only be applied to man in theory because it cannot be seen today or in the years since it became a theory to man.
May be some of us who believe in God can see what isn't there in what we can see.

There is no doubt much remaining to discover but that doesn't mean that the TofE is 'wrong', it means it is incomplete, and that applies to all areas of knowledge including our understanding of the pathways from geochemistry and biochemistry into biology.  Merely maintaining an attitude of denial will bring us no new insights.

Kidding ourselves won't make something appear that isn't there in the theory.
No real evidence of the theory of evolution. Man stopped suddenly evolving did it?

You kid yourself all you want... but it is always going to be a theory because as the thousands of years pass...Man will not evolve...

I don't know where you get your ideas from, but they are wrong from start to finish. The evidence of evolution is all around us, to deny it is about as sensible as a haddock denying the existence of seawater. Evolution is fundamental to life and anyone with an enquiring mind will at some stage or other want to understand what life is. I grant you could be forgiven for thinking that mankind is excluded from this natural process, after all we in the West have universal health care so we cushion ourselves from the harshness of survival of the fittest, but we are still evolving nonetheless. Have you never wondered why there are races ? It is not just coincidence that you get black people in Congo but white people in Poland, that is evolution in action, acting on the human genome, drawing out adaptions to suit environmental circumstances. Have you never considered why you find attractive people, errm, attractive, and ugly people not so much ? Again that is evolution in action, sexual selection is alive and well and still shaping the future of mankind day in day out. Evolution cannot stop, any more than metabolism can stop, or gravity can stop.

Torri, why a Haddock?

ippy

[torridon]

The evidence of evolution is all around us, to deny it is about as sensible as a haddock denying the existence of seawater.

But there is no natural explanation for why a naturally driven process of evolution has developed something which far exceeds the functionality of a biological survival machine.  Looking ahead it seems very likely that the capacity for the human race to destroy each other will soon ensure that humans will have been around for just a very short period in the time line for this earth.  And to what purpose?  Will it all have been for nothing?  Just a random blip created by chance?  Who will support Darwin's theory when all the humans are gone?

You need to get the teleology out of your hair to see clearly. Extinctions are natural to evolution just as death is a natural consequence of life. Humans may well go extinct, such an event certainly in no way would invalidate evolutionary theory.

[Alan Burns]

The evidence of evolution is all around us, to deny it is about as sensible as a haddock denying the existence of seawater.

But there is no natural explanation for why a naturally driven process of evolution has developed something which far exceeds the functionality of a biological survival machine.  Looking ahead it seems very likely that the capacity for the human race to destroy each other will soon ensure that humans will have been around for just a very short period in the time line for this earth.  And to what purpose?  Will it all have been for nothing?  Just a random blip created by chance?  Who will support Darwin's theory when all the humans are gone?

You need to get the teleology out of your hair to see clearly. Extinctions are natural to evolution just as death is a natural consequence of life. Humans may well go extinct, such an event certainly in no way would invalidate evolutionary theory.

But it would show how pointless human life is, and our awareness of it.  There is much, much more to life than evolution.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, 'how pointless' is tautology and the entirety is argumentum ad consequentiam

[wigginhall]

It's quite interesting that there seems to be this horror of chance among some theists, as if it makes life meaningless.   But the consequences of arguing against chance are bizarre really - for example, does this mean that things are planned?   Thus, the moon ended up in its orbit, because God put it there?  Gulp.

But is it not obvious that this universe comprises of a mixture of random, chance events combined with some intelligently manipulated events?

It is certainly not all random chance, neither is it entirely manipulated.  It is a mixture of the two.

How do you decide which is which?  For example, do you think God placed the moon in its orbit, so that we can have regular tides?

[Leonard James]

But it would show how pointless human life is, and our awareness of it.  There is much, much more to life than evolution.

Of course there is. Life is a song we have to sing from birth to death. Some of it is sad, some joyful and some just routine. Whether or not there is any point to life depends entirely on you.

Live the best way you know how, helping your fellow man and not hurting him, and caring for the environment. Anybody who needs more point to his life than that is being self-centred and greedy.

[Shaker]

But it would show how pointless human life is, and our awareness of it.

You're eliding the difference between proximately pointful and ultimately pointful. They're not the same. Not at all. Not even close.