Carson: Theory Of Evolution Encouraged By The Devil

[Charmonium]

Whats funny is you thinking I'm serious.

First of all it's 'your thinking' not 'you thinking' since gerunds take a possessive form.

Aside from that, I'm happy to hear that you're not serious. Dogma based religions prevent you from exploring your own spirituality. It's the archetypal version of the thought police.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how it was that I could have discerned it was a joke, but it's cool either way. I love talking to fundamentalists about what they believe is their religion only to blow their tiny minds.

 

[shira]

One more thing, Retro Bob:

From this point in the discussion onward, you WILL use the following terminology, so that you can't play games:

• When your intended meaning is "divine purpose," you will use the term "divine purpose."
• When your intended meaning is "personal reason why [people do something]," you will use the phrase "personal reason why."
• When your intended meaning is "personal meaning," you will use the term "personal meaning."
• When your intended meaning is "the cause of [a thing]" you will use the phrase "the cause of."
• When your intended meaning is "the purpose of [a thing]" you will use the phrase "the divine purpose of" or "the personal purpose of," whichever is applicable.

Also, ALWAYS make clear whether you're referring to "personal" or "divine." So, for example, if you use a phrase like "meaning of existence," I won't understand your intent. Instead, use "personal meaning of existence" or "divine meaning of existence."

Also, don't use "reason" or "purpose" all by themselves. They're ambiguous, and you want everyone to understand EXACTLY what you mean, don't you?

 

[Vic]

Life's purpose is to propagate.

Actually, the purpose of life is to live forever. Propagating our genes through reproduction is just the only means of that available to us now. But a perfectly evolved being would be immortal.
Every living being seeks indefinite survival, and all religions promise it.
A 13 billion year old universe and evolution smack at those promises. Many people don't want to hear that the universe wasn't made just for them, or that they're not the ones who get to live forever.

 

[Paratus]

I believe there is a purpose/reason for life, which means the same thing in this context.



How do you know this? Have you figured out how life originated?

Once you answer that, only then can you say existence has no reason.

But I respect your opinion.



No reason for that, but it rains for a reason.



Huh? I think the earth and cosmos are configured the way they are deliberately to make life possible.

Me being born in the US, for instance, was simply a roll of the dice -- no reason behind it.

Coincidence.

The universe looks as if it was made to support human life because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to observe it.

That's called the anthropic principle.

 

[Retro Rob]

Are you afraid of a universe without divine purpose? You certainly sound like it.

Heavens no, not afraid of a purposeless universe. The sheer order present demonstrates purpose.

A purposeless universe would surely result in a completely lifeless universe.

This ain't here for nothing.

There's no "divine purpose" for existence.

Well, we have to agree to disagree, my friend.

 

[Jeff7]

To keep me chained to this planet so I can torment all of you.

Goddammit, where are my bolt cutters?....

 

[Charmonium]

Heavens no, not afraid of a purposeless universe. The sheer order present demonstrates purpose.

A purposeless universe would surely result in a completely lifeless universe.

This ain't here for nothing.



Well, we have to agree to disagree, my friend.

That's a popular rationalization for believing in some superior being but it ignores the vastness of the universe. Granted, there have been a lot of unusual things that have happened to the earth in the course of its evolution. The early collision with another body that created our moon, the fact that the earth has a molten outer core that generates a magnetic field which in turn prevents the solar wind from blowing away our atmosphere, and that's probably just the tip of the iceberg.

But you have to realize that there are tens of billions of galaxies each with billions of stars. And the current evidence seems to indicate that most of those stars have planets. So any random series of events, such as those that created life on earth, were likely to happen multiple times across the entire universe. And that assumes that the only place life can exist is on rocky water covered planets.

In other words, ignorance of what has happened at every other place in the universe is no justification for believing that there is anything unique about us.

 

[sandorski]

Heavens no, not afraid of a purposeless universe. The sheer order present demonstrates purpose.

A purposeless universe would surely result in a completely lifeless universe.

This ain't here for nothing.



Well, we have to agree to disagree, my friend.

No. You are thinking of it exactly backwards, like the water in the mud puddle. If what you say is to be true, then a Creator is the only one who can say what our Purpose is. So until you can produce this Creator and have it state our purpose, there is no reason to believe your position has any merit.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's a popular rationalization for believing in some superior being but it ignores the vastness of the universe. Granted, there have been a lot of unusual things that have happened to the earth in the course of its evolution. The early collision with another body that created our moon, the fact that the earth has a molten outer core that generates a magnetic field which in turn prevents the solar wind from blowing away our atmosphere, and that's probably just the tip of the iceberg.

But you have to realize that there are tens of billions of galaxies each with billions of stars. And the current evidence seems to indicate that most of those stars have planets. So any random series of events, such as those that created life on earth, were likely to happen multiple times across the entire universe. And that assumes that the only place life can exist is on rocky water covered planets.

In other words, ignorance of what has happened at every other place in the universe is no justification for believing that there is anything unique about us.

My beliefs don't require me to account for what's happening in the rest of the universe -- that's for science to figure out.

We already know that this area was specifically designed for life.

Seeing the vastness and beauty of the cosmos, and the things that randomly happen, is evidence of superior power.

Granted, it may seem random because we lack understanding of its purpose, but whatever the purpose, it makes the cosmos more amazing to study.

 

[Charmonium]

My beliefs don't require me to account for what's happening in the rest of the universe -- that's for science to figure out.

We already know that this area was specifically designed for life.

Seeing the vastness and beauty of the cosmos, and the things that randomly happen, is evidence of superior power.

Granted, it may seem random because we lack understanding of its purpose, but whatever the purpose, it makes the cosmos more amazing to study.

You should look up what a circular argument is. First, beauty is a completely subjective attribute. If the earth happened to get in the way of x-ray burst, which probably has happened at least once in the earth's history, your concept of beauty might be a little different. Just like I think cats are beautiful but if I were a mouse, I'd probably have a different opinion. It's only beautiful because you don't think it poses any danger to us but you'd be wrong.

Second, how is vastness any indication of a superior being? There are vast numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons in every drop of water but that doesn't make water special in any way.

No, what you've done is come to a conclusion and now you feel you need to find 'evidence' that supports that conclusion. However if you had true faith based on personal experience, such thoughts wouldn't even occur to you because you would have a visceral connection to some underlying truth that you knew existed with or w/o any evidence. THAT is what happens when you have a true religious experience. Unfortunately, Western religions don't encourage that sort of exploration. They much prefer simply brain washing you since it's so much easier and cost effective.

 

[Retro Rob]

You should look up what a circular argument is. First, beauty is a completely subjective attribute. If the earth happened to get in the way of x-ray burst, which probably has happened at least once in the earth's history, your concept of beauty might be a little different. Just like I think cats are beautiful but if I were a mouse, I'd probably have a different opinion. It's only beautiful because you don't think it poses any danger to us but you'd be wrong.

Second, how is vastness any indication of a superior being? There are vast numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons in every drop of water but that doesn't make water special in any way.

No, what you've done is come to a conclusion and now you feel you need to find 'evidence' that supports that conclusion. However if you had true faith based on personal experience, such thoughts wouldn't even occur to you because you would have a visceral connection to some underlying truth that you knew existed with or w/o any evidence. THAT is what happens when you have a true religious experience. Unfortunately, Western religions don't encourage that sort of exploration. They much prefer simply brain washing you since it's so much easier and cost effective.

Actually, my conclusions were based on what I observed. I'm big into reading about and watching science-based shows on tv that focus on the Universe. My favorites have been "How the universe works", and "The Planets".

The more I studied this stuff, the stronger my believe in God became.

 

[Charmonium]

Actually, my conclusions were based on what I observed. I'm big into reading about and watching science-based shows on tv that focus on the Universe. My favorites have been "How the universe works", and "The Planets".

The more I studied this stuff, the stronger my believe in God became.

That's called confirmation bias. The more you want to believe something more evidence you "discover" to support that belief. It's a common logical fallacy - one to which even scientist tend to fall prey. But the difference between them and you is that their world doesn't crumble around them if they find evidence that contradicts what they believe. Sure, they tend to be more reluctant to recognize and accept that evidence, but they don't dismiss it on purely dogmatic grounds.

What those documentaries should have proven to you was the fact that the universe is random and gives less than a shit about us. We just happened to luck out. But because of your beliefs, you saw precisely the opposite picture.

I don't doubt that walking through life with rose tinted shades is a nice way to deal with all of the pain, suffering and other bullshit. But at least have the intellectual honesty to see what you're really doing.

 

[Paratus]

Actually, the purpose of life is to live forever. Propagating our genes through reproduction is just the only means of that available to us now. But a perfectly evolved being would be immortal.
Every living being seeks indefinite survival, and all religions promise it.
A 13 billion year old universe and evolution smack at those promises. Many people don't want to hear that the universe wasn't made just for them, or that they're not the ones who get to live forever.

I see what you are getting at but everything we classify as being "alive" replicates and propagates.

There are already some animals are biologically immortal like the hydra. Although I wouldn't necessarily call them perfectly evolved.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality

Perfectly evolved doesn't really mean anything more than being perfectly adapted to the environment an organism inhabits. (Not sure how one would measure that unless your saying a perfectly evolved organism never dies in its environment)

I agree with the rest of what you wrote.

Obviously immortality is something humans have always pursued. I actually think biological immortality is possible for us. The real question is are we smart enough to stave off our own extinction, the death of our sun, the death of all stars, the heat death of the universe by entropy and/or by dark energy tearing it apart.

I don't know the answer but I'm pretty sure intelligence is the only thing might survive.

 

[shira]

Heavens no, not afraid of a purposeless universe. The sheer order present demonstrates purpose.

A purposeless universe would surely result in a completely lifeless universe.

This ain't here for nothing.

Well, we have to agree to disagree, my friend.

What is your evidence of "order"? What is your evidence that a universe without divine purpose would be lifeless? What is your evidence that "this ain't here for nothing?"

 

[shira]

My beliefs don't require me to account for what's happening in the rest of the universe -- that's for science to figure out.

We already know that this area was specifically designed for life.

Seeing the vastness and beauty of the cosmos, and the things that randomly happen, is evidence of superior power.

Granted, it may seem random because we lack understanding of its purpose, but whatever the purpose, it makes the cosmos more amazing to study.

What is your evidence that "this area was designed for life?"

What is your evidence that your perception of beauty is evidence of a superior power.

What is your evidence that there's a divine purpose?

 

[Retro Rob]

That's called confirmation bias. The more you want to believe something more evidence you "discover" to support that belief. It's a common logical fallacy - one to which even scientist tend to fall prey. But the difference between them and you is that their world doesn't crumble around them if they find evidence that contradicts what they believe. Sure, they tend to be more reluctant to recognize and accept that evidence, but they don't dismiss it on purely dogmatic grounds.

What those documentaries should have proven to you was the fact that the universe is random and gives less than a shit about us. We just happened to luck out. But because of your beliefs, you saw precisely the opposite picture.

I don't doubt that walking through life with rose tinted shades is a nice way to deal with all of the pain, suffering and other bullshit. But at least have the intellectual honesty to see what you're really doing.

Who said the universe "gave a shit" about us anyway?

The universe itself isn't designed for human habitation.

A fish that spends too much time outside of the water would say: "the human world doesn't give a shit about us or we wouldn't die so quickly while we are there, so why would we say a God created it?"

It's all relative.

 

[Charmonium]

Who said the universe "gave a shit" about us anyway?

The universe itself isn't designed for human habitation.

A fish that spends too much time outside of the water would say: "the human world doesn't give a shit about us or we wouldn't die so quickly while we are there, so why would we say a God created it?"

It's all relative.

Out of that entire post, the 'give a shit' part is what you come away with? No wonder you what you do.

 

[Retro Rob]

Out of that entire post, the 'give a shit' part is what you come away with? No wonder you what you do.

Of course, because the other parts demonstrate that you know me better than I do.

 

[shira]

You should look up what a circular argument is. First, beauty is a completely subjective attribute. If the earth happened to get in the way of x-ray burst, which probably has happened at least once in the earth's history, your concept of beauty might be a little different. Just like I think cats are beautiful but if I were a mouse, I'd probably have a different opinion. It's only beautiful because you don't think it poses any danger to us but you'd be wrong.

Second, how is vastness any indication of a superior being? There are vast numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons in every drop of water but that doesn't make water special in any way.

No, what you've done is come to a conclusion and now you feel you need to find 'evidence' that supports that conclusion. However if you had true faith based on personal experience, such thoughts wouldn't even occur to you because you would have a visceral connection to some underlying truth that you knew existed with or w/o any evidence. THAT is what happens when you have a true religious experience. Unfortunately, Western religions don't encourage that sort of exploration. They much prefer simply brain washing you since it's so much easier and cost effective.

Retro Bob is a big adherent of the Teological Argument.

The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world". It is historically closely associated with the concept of Natural Theology.

As Dawkins notes:

The argument from improbability is the big one. In the traditional guise of the argument from design, it is easily today's most popular argument offered in favour of the existence of God and it is seen, by an amazingly large number of theists, as completely and utterly convincing. It is indeed a very strong and, I suspect, unanswerable argument—but in precisely the opposite direction from the theist's intention. The argument from improbability, properly deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist. My name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. The creationist misappropriation of the argument from improbability always takes the same general form, and it doesn't make any difference… [if called] 'intelligent design' (ID). Some observed phenomenon—often a living creature or one of its more complex organs, but it could be anything from a molecule up to the universe itself—is correctly extolled as statistically improbable. Sometimes the language of information theory is used: the Darwinian is challenged to explain the source all the information in living matter, in the technical sense of information content as a measure of improbability or 'surprise value'… However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747. …The whole argument turns on the familiar question 'Who made God?'… A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress from which he cannot help us to escape. This argument… demonstrates that God, though not technically disprovable, is very very improbable indeed.

In other words, if the "beauty" and "order" of the universe cannot be a consequence of random events, and MUST mean the hand of a "designer" was the cause, then how did God - the most beautiful and ordered of all things - come into existence? God could not just randomly arise in all his beauty and order, because that contradicts the assumption made in the argument. Which in turn implies that God himself was designed. And if so, who was God's designer? And God's designer's designer? And so on.

But, of course, adherents to the Teleological argument just get lazy and say "God always existed" completely ignoring the inherent self-contradiction in that position.

 

[Retro Rob]

Retro Bob is a big adherent of the Teological Argument.


I'm
As Dawkins notes:



In other words, if the "beauty" and "order" of the universe cannot be a consequence of random events, and MUST mean the hand of a "designer" was the cause, then how did God - the most beautiful and ordered of all things - come into existence? God could not just randomly arise in all his beauty and order, because that contradicts the assumption made in the argument. Which in turn implies that God himself was designed. And if so, who was God's designer? And God's designer's designer? And so on.

But, of course, adherents to the Teleological argument just get lazy and say "God always existed" completely ignoring the inherent self-contradiction in that position.

There is no contradiction. Christians belief that everything with a beginning has a cause. As far as the bible is concerned, God had no beginning, so he has no cause.

It's simply scriptural, insanely simple to understand.

It would be contradictory to say God has a beginning, but has no cause.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So, have we decided yet if evolution is the work of the devil?

 

[Charmonium]

Of course, because the other parts demonstrate that you know me better than I do.

Uh, sure. Well, you've built yourself a nice little wall there. Congrats. Unfortunately I have better things to do than try to lay siege to it.

I've been down the road you've taken and the only way it leads anywhere is if you're NOT too stupid and self-satisfied to ask any meaningful questions. However if you ever do decide to become a bit more inquisitive, let me know.

Retro Bob is a big adherent of the Teological Argument.



As Dawkins notes:



In other words, if the "beauty" and "order" of the universe cannot be a consequence of random events, and MUST mean the hand of a "designer" was the cause, then how did God - the most beautiful and ordered of all things - come into existence? God could not just randomly arise in all his beauty and order, because that contradicts the assumption made in the argument. Which in turn implies that God himself was designed. And if so, who was God's designer? And God's designer's designer? And so on.

But, of course, adherents to the Teleological argument just get lazy and say "God always existed" completely ignoring the inherent self-contradiction in that position.

Thanks for the confirmation and clarification. Intelligent design is born from a lack of understanding of any of the sciences. And since most Americans are functionally illiterate when it comes to science, it's the perfect argument to use for people like Carson.

 

[Charmonium]

So, have we decided yet if evolution is the work of the devil?

It both is and isn't and neither is nor isn't. That's the real truth of the matter. :biggrin:

 

[JSt0rm]

First of all it's 'your thinking' not 'you thinking' since gerunds take a possessive form.

Aside from that, I'm happy to hear that you're not serious. Dogma based religions prevent you from exploring your own spirituality. It's the archetypal version of the thought police.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how it was that I could have discerned it was a joke, but it's cool either way. I love talking to fundamentalists about what they believe is their religion only to blow their tiny minds.

I'm sure there is no way you could of discerned it was a joke. Autism is tough.

 

[shira]

There is no contradiction. Christians belief that everything with a beginning has a cause. As far as the bible is concerned, God had no beginning, so he has no cause.

It's simply scriptural, insanely simple to understand.

It would be contradictory to say God has a beginning, but has no cause.

So you accept on faith that it's possible for something to have "beauty and order" without a designer, as long as the thing has no beginning. Great.

The pre-Big Bang singularity had no beginning - it always existed. And all of the beauty and order you claim to see in the universe was just inherent in singularity (just as every aspect of a plant is inherent in the seed that grows up to be the plant). So by your own principle, there's no need for a "designer" to explain everything in the universe.