Post by Barry OGradyOn Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:02:19 +0000, Steve Wilson
Post by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyOn Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:00:41 +0000, Steve Wilson
Post by Steve WilsonDo yo think Christians are unaware of the biological similarity with
other animals, especially mammals, that we need someone like you to
point it out?
It does seem that way.
No it doesn't, it just suits you to presume we Christians blindly deny
the biological similarities so you can press your case for Darwinism.
Even the most fundamentalist of Christians could explain this similarity
as being due to economy of design.
As if an almighty and all-knowing creator would need to economise.
Why didn't God economise with insects and snakes?
You are grasping at straws.
I'm merely showing you that you are terribly naive if you think that
Christians are like deer caught in the glare of a car's headlights
regards biological similarity. Biologicial similarity can easily be
explained by a designer. In fact isn't Richard Dawkins whole position
one of explaining away the apparent design we observe in nature?
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonWhen the Christian says we are the creaturely image of
God, it is not said with reference to our physical bodies.
How convenient.
Convenient? Actually it's very pertinent because it is integral to
Christian theism, not some special add-on invented to defend against
atheism. You concentrate on the physical similarities whilst ignoring
the non-physical differences which actually do set us apart from animals.
Rather convenient that our differences are in areas that can't be
seen or detected.
Well it might be convenient for you to ignore our conceptual capacities
in the interests of trying to make Christianity look silly.
And you say that our conceptual capacities are undetectable, but are
they? How about our rational faculties and moral awareness? How about
our capacity to wonder about how and why we are here? Even our capacity
create theories such as Darwinism? Are these things undetectable? All
we have to do is observe ourselves and talk to one another. Instead of
being undetectable, they are obvious.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonSo what about the incredible non-physical differences between humans
and animals?
Humans are animals.
The differences between us and OTHER animals is a matter of degree
rather than being absolute. We generally have a higher intelligence
and better abilities to manipulate objects.
This is a massive understatement about the capabilities of humans.
In what way?
In that you reduce art, music, language, writing, rationality, our moral
awareness, our awareness of the laws of logic and our desire to know our
origins down to the level of just being slightly better abilities than
animals. These things, which identify us as human, are not merely
quantitative differences but qualitative.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyWe have the same basic needs and wants and the very same method
of reproduction.
You have returned to physical similarities, which I and many other
Christians do not dispute but which is not what I asked.
It is the physical aspect of the brain that determines our thoughts
and actions.
If so, then we are walled up in determinism and there is no hope of
either one of us having a change of mind. For what we think and do is
merely the end process our cause and effect biological bodies. Clearly
this is nonsense because the very basis of discussion presupposes that
we have the freedom to think through issues by weighing up the evidence
and coming to a conclusion. So your presence on this n.g contradicts
your own comment. But then such is the double-think of atheism.
Post by Barry OGradyApes are smarter than 2 year old children.
That is not saying much because a 3 year old child is smarter than an
adult Ape. So it seems that our very similar DNA does not account for
the great difference between ourselves and Apes. Genetic makeup is only
part of the story and something else is at work, which the naturalistic
world-view cannot philosophically accept.
Post by Barry OGradyAdults with Down's Syndrome behave like children because their
brain is not fully developed.
So? Yet we recognise that they are persons. But if it is as you say
then why don't we put them down like we do with animals? Instead we
make the deep assumption that they are still persons and we have a moral
obligation to treat them as humans whether we do or not. Take away God
and this world would be a very different and infinitely darker place
where the human animal is put down the moment he/she is no longer useful
to society or is defective in some way. We had a taste of the horrors
of unfettered atheism during the first half of the 20th century which
out-did the atrocities performed in the name of Christianity throughout
all it's 2000 year history.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradySome humans and non-humans have homosexual tendencies.
We suffer from the same ailments.
Again you appeal to the physical rather than the non-physical capacities
of humans.
Our superior thinking abilities are due to a physical aspect as is
our superior ability to manipulate things.
The problem with your argument is that this is all we are and thus we
become merely biochemical machines without any freedom. Clearly this is
at odds with what we know ourselves to be. The Christian view is much
better; yes we have our biological bodies, and damage to it can have
profound effects, but we also have a non-physical mind which expresses
itself through the mechanism of the body but is not a product of it. And
we have an explanation for the existence of mind because the cause of
the Universe is infinite mind. As the originator of the universe is an
infinite mind (God) it is to expected that he might want create
creatures with minds too. 0
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonSeems to me you haven't given any thought to what really
makes humans different form animals.
There is no difference. Humans are animals.
Economy of design! LOL!
So why is it wrong to eat a sibling or rape a female when all these
things and more routinely occur in nature? Why do we know these things
are objectively wrong if done by humans and not merely social taboos? If
we are just relatively evolved animals you owe the Christian an
explanation of where this qualitative difference comes from. For months
now you have blanked me and even claimed that I have given no arguments
to counter the atheists logical argument from the existence of evil.
Seems to me atheism is like the Emperor who thinks he's wearing the
finest clothes but is actually naked.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonYou say nothing about this, when it is this which really needs
an explanation from the atheist. And contrary to what you assert, I
think it is more to be expected that humans have bodies made of the same
stuff as other animals and this is backed up by the bible when it says
we are made from the dust of the earth, which is a figurative reference
to humans being biologically of this world. If we were quite separate
from other forms of life on earth, we would be aliens.
The way our bodies and minds are speaks of evolution rather than
custom design by an intelligent creator.
I think humans possessing rational minds speaks of the existence of God,
not his non-existence.
What does God possessing a rational mind speak of?
That the universe is a rational place where we can predict the existence
of something which has not yet been discovered. The Higgs Boson is one
recent example. The regularity of the universe is staggering when you
think about it but difficult to explain on atheism. Yet it is precisely
what we would expect on biblical theism.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonYou really don't know what you are talking about Goldfish. If we have
no free will, then there is no point in any atheist trying to show
theists the 'error of their thinking' as we think only what we are
biologically determined to think. As such we are incapable of a change
of mind because our thoughts are merely the cause and effect processes
of our biochemical makeup. However you clearly know this is not true
because you presume a change of mind is possible for Christians, for
everyone. So the argument is about how to best explain what we know to
be true; that we have freewill.
Did I say we totally lack free will?
We certainly don't have the sort of free will you promote.
Then you will have to explain how we can only have partial or apparent
free will. The only Godless explanation I've heard is a kind of soft
determinism, where a magic wand is waved to declare that our freedom is
an emergent property of our complex brains. All this does is put the
problem one step back.
Our choices are either influenced or random.
You need to explain this more based on your atheist belief that we are
merely biological machines. It will be interesting to see how you
attempt to escape biological determinism.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonAnd how silly of you to assert that if God gave us free will that he
would be responsible for how we use that free will.
Do you believe God chose the way our brain works?
We have free-will, that much is common knowledge. And we tacitly
acknowledge this when we punish people for crimes because it assumes
that they have the capacity and knowledge to have known the right and
acted differently.
Sometimes a person is found not guilty due to diminished
responsibility.
So how does this support your belief that we are merely relatively
evolved animals? For animals are not guilty of any crime as they are not
moral beings.
Post by Barry OGradyThere are places where child molesters are held after
they have completed their prison term because it is believed they will
certainly offend again.
Again, how does this support your belief that we are merely relatively
evolved animals when administering justice speaks of morally aware
beings who are able to do otherwise than what they actually do? All
this example would reveal is that the authorities judged that the
paedophiles have not chosen to change, not that they lack the ability to
change. If they were not moral beings with the intrinsic ability to
choose what they do, we would castrate them or even have them put down.
Post by Barry OGradyWhy is it that most men would not molest a
child if you paid them but some can't help themselves? Why is it
that most men are sexually attracted to women and find the thought
of sex with a man repulsive but some men are sexually attracted
to men and find the thought of sex with a women repulsive?
Do you think they choose their sexuality?
I think there is a growing phenomena of persons desiring to experiment
with what they might not otherwise countenance because of societal
encouragement via the internet, media and government legislation, but on
the whole I don't think the majority do. However that is not the issue.
The issue is whether any of those you mention can choose not to engage
in sexual activity. I think the answer to that we do possess the
ability to refrain; to control our desires, even if it is not easy.
Animals do not possess this capacity for self-control as they lack
self-awareness. If we are not moral beings then it makes no sense to
judge paedophiles as doing something immoral as it is natural to them
and they cannot do otherwise. The most that could be said is that
paedophiles are going against the present social convention but not that
paedophilia is really wrong. And you need to explain to me why it is
wrong for a human male to have forced copulation with a child/female but
not for animals.
Post by Barry OGradyWhy is it necessary to choose not to drive before you get drunk?
Why did the railway worker's personality change after a rail
spike went through his brain?
The difference is that on your naturalistic assumptions we can only be
the output of our brains, but that doesn't fit with what we know about
ourselves. And science is still at a loss as to what consciousness is
so I don't know how you can assert that our consciousness and
self-identity is merely a phenomenon of the brain. Contrary to this,
Christianity says we have this physical organ called the brain but there
is a non-physical person who exists as well. As an illustration, the
brain can be compared to a piano whilst the pianist can be compared to
the non-physical element which is the person. If the piano gets
damaged, then the pianist cannot express himself no matter how often he
hits the affected keys. So citing examples of brain damage as proof
that we are merely organic machines is somewhat unconvincing.
Also, the difference between the biblical theist and the
naturalist/atheist is that on Godless view the conclusion that we are
merely machines and therefore all our thoughts and actions are
determined by our biology is hard to avoid; we may think we have freedom
of mind but it is all really an illusion. However the biblical theist
has a source of mind in God, and thus we have a basis for real minds
that can make real choices even though the mind is dependent upon the
hardware of the brain to express intentions in the physical world.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonI think human free-will is easily accounted for if God exists but
extremely difficult to account for on atheism.
How do you define free will?
To be able to make choices between alternatives and have intentionality.
How do you account for free will in a Godless world that is merely
lifeless matter and energy?
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonThat is the same as saying God makes us freely do the right
thing, which is a logical contradiction. If God has created we humans
with free will, then we are responsible to God for our actions and you
are in deep s**t unless you turn to God through Jesus Christ.
What happens if I use my God given free will to reject
God through Jesus Christ? What happens to those people who
are too intelligent to be taken in by the Christian bullshit?
As I said before you are responsible for your actions to God and your
comment amply demonstrates your freedom to reject him.
I don't have the freedom to choose God.
You comment is a falsehood. If you don't have the freedom to choose God
then I don't have the freedom to become an atheist and there is no point
to any discussion at all. Yet here you are on this n.g.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonHowever you will reap the consequences if you do not repent and freely
accept salvation before your death.
You have a very strange idea of freedom.
Post by Steve WilsonAnd what is more, you will have no excuses when you
appear before God and he will be proven to be just in his sentence upon
you.
I disagree.
So you disagree, so what?
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonFor you have the moral law within you and God has supplied enough
evidence in the created order for you to know his existence, at least as
creator.
Does God have any responsibility for making himself and his laws
known?
He has done so and many have responded to the evidence he has provided
by confessing their sins and trusting on Christ for their salvation. You
have inoculated yourself the the evidence that is all around you by
denying that there can be anything beyond this physical universe
(naturalism).
Post by Barry OGradyI use my superior abilities to improve the lives of my animals
and they respond by trusting me and by being gentle.
If God was to use the same techniques with us he would find we
respond much better. But perhaps God is economising by leaving
us to our own devices. LOL!
Well for a start you are not the creator of your pets and as such did
not choose whether or not they should be beings with free will. God
chose to create humans with free will in the hope that many would freely
choose salvation and enter into eternal life with him. So basically I'm
saying your comparison is not like-for-like because you and your animals
are on the same level in the sense that you are a created creature too.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonBertrand Russell's boast about what he would say to God after
his death is hollow for there is enough evidence if you have eyes to
see. What blinds atheists is their commitment to naturalism.
What if I was to explain to God that he is responsible for everything
and what if I was to tell God how he should behave? Would God's
pride get in the way of him being good to us?
Post by Steve WilsonAnd you misunderstand the whole issue if you think it is a matter of the
intelligent versus the unintelligent.
Sometimes the more intelligent a person the less they can relate
to the real world. You use your intelligence the wrong way.
That is very biased. What you mean is that intelligent people will
always see that atheism is true but lots of intelligent people see that
Christianity is true and atheism false. Basically you are trying to
write me off because I don't conform to your idea of how Christians
should be.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyIt doesn't surprise me that you would try to use free will as an
out for God's unacceptable behaviour since you tried to
cast doubt on the solid proof of no good and powerful God.
What you don't like is that you cannot find a counter argument to it on
the atheistic websites you consult, so you retreat into denial.
You were unable to come up with a way for God to be good
without being good, and your freewill argument is just putting
the blame on God's victims.
As always, you ascribe to Christianity a god of your own invention and
then fault Christianity for believing in this god. You shouldn't be
surprised that Christians do not take you as a serious critic.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonI've yet to hear an explanation of how free-will can appear in a
universe that is merely matter and energy in motion.
I've yet to hear an explanation of how a magical God can
appear out of nothing with power and knowledge from
nowhere.
It is far more likely that matter and energy popped out of
nothing or always existed than your magical God.
That is sad, what you are saying is that you would rather embrace total
irrationality that consider the evidence that points to the universe
being created by an unembodied infinite and personal mind (i.e God).
What is sad is that you have no argument.
If simple life coming from nothing is unlikely then a complex magical
being is impossible.
By very nature God cannot not exist. It is not irrational to conclude
such a being exists because mind and personality cannot come from
lifeless atoms.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonHow personality and freewill can come from inanimate matter and energy
is a big problem for the naturalist/atheist. No doubt you are totally
oblivious to this in your atheist arrogance.
How personality and freewill can come from nothing is a big problem
for the creationist. No doubt you are totally oblivious to this in
your creationist arrogance.
I don't know how you managed to delude yourself into getting this so
back to front. For if God exists as a personal being, we have a ready
explanation for the existence of personality and freewill as it is
sourced in the creator.
Did the creator source it's own personality and freewill?
He is a necessary being, which means he was not caused to be by
something or someone else. You clearly do not want to accept that if God
is God, he is necessarily self-existent by definition in all possible
worlds.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonIt is the atheist who is stuck with conjuring
personality and free-will out of inert lifeless matter as John Locke
"It is as impossible to conceive that ever pure incognitative matter
should produce a thinking intelligent being, as that nothing should of
itself produce matter."
John Locke (Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding IV,x,10
Notice that he compares the production of intelligent beings out of
inert matter as equally impossible as something coming out of nothing.
The more you argue against something from nothing the more you
argue against the existence of your God.
Where did God get its thinking abilities?
How about addressing my comment instead of ignoring it and throwing
something else back? Seems to me, you not only have no explanation for
the universe coming out of nothing but intelligent beings coming from
inanimate matter too. Are you going to play the 'honesty' card again
and from your bankrupt position demand that I be honest too in an
dishonest attempt to blunt the force of atheism's inability to provide a
coherent explanation for either of these two?
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyI know it is in your interest to promote God by denying evolution
but the fact is that everything points to evolution having happened
over millions of years and many Christians accept evolution without
losing faith in God.
As you have put it, evolution is no argument against a creating God
because he could have guided it to produce a rational, self-conscious
being.
I did not put it that way.
I think your argument is muddled.
I think you wish my argument was muddled because you have no comeback.
Post by Steve WilsonYou routinely use evolution to
disprove the existence of God by attacking the literal interpretation of
genesis, but at the same time highlight that some Christians accept that
some form of evolution has occurred. It seems you do not realise the the
real issue is whether evolution is unguided or guided. Seems to me you
do not disprove the existence of God even if you manage to disprove the
literal interpretation of Genesis.
If Genesis is wrong what else is wrong in the bible?
How do you decide which parts of the bible are true?
If the literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong all is means is the
literal interpretation is wrong, not that Genesis is actually wrong. To
me it is clear that Genesis is not a scientific document, but a
theological one. It is telling us true truths about God and man and
gives a sketchy outline of creation which is not at odds with the big
bang. You often attack the literal interpretation as if by doing so you
destroy Christianity, but you do not. To undermine Christianity you
have to disprove the resurrection of Christ.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonAs such evolution is not the real issue.
There is too much evidence for evolution for you to reject it
completely.
Here is a quote from Brian Goodwin, How the Leopard Changed its Spots
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. ix
"It appears that Darwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of
evolution: it can explain the variations and the adaptations with
species that produce fine-tuning of varieties to different habitats. The
large-scale differences of form between types of organism that are the
foundation of the biological classification systems seem to require
another principle than natural selection operating on small variation,
some process that gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism.
This is the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of novel
structures in organisms, which has always been one of the primary foci
of attention in biology." [end of quote]
And I agree with him. I find Darwinism to be wholly insufficient to
account for the vast array of different types of living organisms from
one common ancestor. However I am open to the notion that biological
change has occurred over time, and that God may have intervened at
critical points to direct it they way he wanted. What I reject as wholly
implausible is the naturalistic notion that evolution is unguided.
You also reject the idea that God created everything in one week.
Genesis is a figurative account not a literal one. One only has to read
about the creation of Eve to see this. And Moses would have known that
it takes much longer than a day for trees to grow. There are deep
truths in Genesis but it is couched in figurative language and utilising
and adapting the Babylonians creation story.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonPost by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonThe point of difference is not evolution as such but whether evolution
is guided or unguided. If it is unguided then humans are merely the
product of a blind process which never had humans in mind and it is a
mystery where our rationality, free-will comes from.
Its true that nobody knows how life originated, but we do know how
life progressed from that early start, and no God has been detected
nor is one needed.
You admit nobody knows how life originated but you do know that it does
not involve God?
We know when and why God was created.
How can you possibly know that? Even Dawkins advert on the side of
London buses a few years ago had to include the words; 'There probably
isn't a God, so . . . '. The truth of the matter is that the existence
of evil in the world does not disprove the existence of God, and
actually demonstrates his existence.
Post by Barry OGradyPost by Steve WilsonSo now your naturalistic beliefs are coming to the
surface. The reason you cannot find evidence for God is that your
philosophical beliefs prevent you from seeing the evidence and following
it to its conclusions. For you there can never be any evidence for the
existence of God, so if you are presented with it you automatically
dismiss it because it just cannot be valid.
If there was a God I would want to know, but the God claims are
radical and require radical evidence which you don't have.
OTOH you can never accept that you could be wrong so no amount
of logic, reasoning, or evidence will convince you. It appears that
your free will is malfunctioning.
Why is it radical, and why does it need radical evidence? All I have to
do is point to the evidence that does exist and use logical arguments.
If you choose to artificially filter these out because of your
philosophically truncated beliefs, then the problem is clearly on your
side.
Post by Barry OGradyPlease don't hold back for the sake of my feelings. If you have
something that will make a mockery of my understandings
go ahead and present it.
Your naturalistic beliefs are your problem as it stops you going where
the evidence leads, once all the natural explanations and evidences have
been exhausted.
Post by Barry OGradySo far you have made assertions which you can't back up and
you try to cover up your shortcomings with bluster and denigration.
You're in denial mode again. You fool only yourself.
Post by Barry OGradyThe reason you can't come up with evidence for God is that there
is none due to there being no God.
There is good evidence but you are philosophically inoculated against
it. You cannot even admit there can be evidence even though it is
staring you in face, because according to naturalism, there can be no
supernatural explanations. Therefore any evidence for a supernatural
explanation just cannot be evidence by very definition.
Post by Barry OGradySome atheists feel they should treat believers with respect but I
say we should call theists on their foolishness and should mock
religion at every opportunity.
Argumentum ad Derision does nothing to disprove the claims of
Christianity and makes those who resort to it look like arrogant fools
with no good arguments.
Steve Wilson