Just Accidental?

Deeje said:

What kind of response do these images evoke in you?

Now imagine these scenes without sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch.....it would all be completely useless....wasted.

The natural world tells us that it delights our senses for a reason.

If someone tells you that this is just the result of a series of fortunate coincidences, can we say in all honesty that none of this was designed purely for our enjoyment? Surely only a fool would deny it.

Click to expand...

Yes

The irony is that nature is so rich with creativity, a staunch naturalist can always write everything off as natural "This art gallery has been full of wonderful art as long as I can remember, that's just the way it is, no creativity needed"

So it is extremely difficult for us to truly look at nature objectively, not just the art, the inspiration, the love, the genius... but the engineering, the math, the algorithms, the digital information systems. As far as we can tell, they probably did not write themselves for no particular reason... they probably were designed. Empirically, we easily know enough now to recognize the fingerprints of design, we better understand the necessity of it, the mathematical problems facing creation without creativity... but as we see here, there is so much passion directing other preferred conclusions

Deeje said:

What kind of response do these images evoke in you?

Now imagine these scenes without sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch.....it would all be completely useless....wasted.

The natural world tells us that it delights our senses for a reason.

If someone tells you that this is just the result of a series of fortunate coincidences, can we say in all honesty that none of this was designed purely for our enjoyment? Surely only a fool would deny it.

Click to expand...

Only a fool looks at the world and assume it was created specifically for them to find pretty.

Seriously, this is a terrible argument.

... and a miscarriage doesn't look so pretty.

Guy Threepwood said:

Yes

The irony is that nature is so rich with creativity, a staunch naturalist can always write everything off as natural "This art gallery has been full of wonderful art as long as I can remember, that's just the way it is, no creativity needed"

So it is extremely difficult for us to truly look at nature objectively, not just the art, the inspiration, the love, the genius... but the engineering, the math, the algorithms, the digital information systems. As far as we can tell, they probably did not write themselves for no particular reason... they probably were designed. Empirically, we easily know enough now to recognize the fingerprints of design, we better understand the necessity of it, the mathematical problems facing creation without creativity... but as we see here, there is so much passion directing other preferred conclusions

Click to expand...

And yet according to you your designer and creator DOES exist naturally and wasn't designed and created for any specific purpose. No creativity needed for your designer and creator to exist. But a pretty duck? Oh yes, it must have been designed and created.

metis said:

... and a miscarriage doesn't look so pretty.

Click to expand...

... Nor do intestinal worms.

ImmortalFlame said:

Only a fool looks at the world and assume it was created specifically for them to find pretty.

Click to expand...

Since we have all the senses and a brain to interpret their input, it strikes me as obvious that the necessity to eliminate an Intelligent Designer, is what would describe a fool.

Do you understand what is involved in finding those scenes "pretty"? ...and why we are the only ones who do?

Seriously, this is a terrible argument.

Click to expand...

How could my argument be more "terrible" than yours?

If everything just evolved with no intelligent direction whatsoever, please explain why we find nature awe inspiring? Is there some survival advantage in that?

If I were an animal, I'd be happy eating grass like cows and sheep do all their lives without expecting anything different.

Why do we humans have so much variety in our diet when we could easily subsist on boring vegetation too, just like they do?

We could live on these.... but we'd have to grow them first.

But then we love these...
and these...

And these...
and these...

Why don't animals cook a variety of food and present it in an appetizing way? Why do most animals have inbuilt programming that ensures their survival, but humans must learn everything from their parents and peers?

Do you understand in how many ways we are not just a little different....but incredibly different?

We have skills that animals do not.....like communication. We can verbalize and hear like animals, but what we do with communication is amazing by comparison. We can write and speak in a way that communicates the same thoughts in two different ways. We communicate through the spoken word, the written word, through art and theater. We communicate using technology devised by intelligent minds over vast distances. TV, the internet, radio and telephone. We comprehend fiction.

We alone possess a concept of past, present and future. We alone possess the faculty of imagination....along with morality and conscience. We alone possess spirituality and express a need to worship. We plan our activities using all those things. Animals are driven almost entirely by instinct, we are not. Why?

Could it be because we are not animals?

overruled!

metis said:

... and a miscarriage doesn't look so pretty.

Click to expand...

You think God planned miscarriages? Sin causes all manner of human imperfections. "Sin" is simply the loss of the perfection that Adam was originally created with.

ImmortalFlame said:

... Nor do intestinal worms.

Click to expand...

The human immune system is compromised in many ways by pollution. If our immune systems worked at full capacity, we would not succumb to disease at all.



Who causes the pollution? Not God.

Are all intestinal worms detrimental to health?

They might sound gross, but intestinal worms can actually be good for you

osgart said:

overruled!

Click to expand...

By whom?

Deeje said:

By whom?

Click to expand...

actually that's my point!

everyone has their own logic, and claims their own superiority in judgment.

and they demand tangible physical evidence for every single remark.

yet what are these so called standards of affirmation and denial.

nothing more than opinions on both sides atheists and theists.

I remain non committal while holding the opinion of designed evolution.

am I to be darned for my belief?

osgart said:

am I to be darned for my belief?

Click to expand...

Oh, if only it was that simple .....we will all stand or fall by what we accept as truth. Our reasons for accepting them are sometimes a mystery even to us.....but they aren't to God. As the reader of hearts, he knows our true motives and desires.

The Bible says that there has been a battle waged for the hearts and minds of men ever since Adam was evicted from Eden.

One side is offering a simple truth, whereas the other is bent on twisting everything out of shape to make sure you fall for what he is offering......truth is, he has nothing to offer but death. Its an easy road and you don't have to do much. Its a dead end though.

The other road is "cramped and narrow" and its a difficult journey. I choose life on the difficult road because I know where it leads. (Matthew 7:13-14) We are all free to make our own choices for our own reasons.

nevertheless, I feel that Christians have me slated for eternal damnation because I can't accept Noahs ark as literal history.

I try very hard to see justice, and truth actually. I don't find it easy.

osgart said:

nevertheless, I feel that Christians have me slated for eternal damnation because I can't accept Noahs ark as literal history.

Click to expand...

No Christian has the ability to read another person's heart....only Jesus has that job.

If you can't accept Noah as a real person, then do you consider Jesus to be a real person?

If Jesus spoke about Noah, do you think he would speak about a fictitious person and base his return on a character that someone invented? (Matthew 24:37-39) The apostle Peter spoke about Noah too. (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5-7)

Paul too. (Hebrews 11:7)

osgart said:

I try very hard to see justice, and truth actually. I don't find it easy.

Click to expand...

Please don't expect to see justice and truth promoted in a world ruled by the devil....(1 John 5:19)

True justice will prevail in the new world, but it is not seen too often in this one. (2 Peter 3:13)

Truth is definitely here though....it is just buried under a pile of junk. Jesus said it was like buried treasure under that junk....you have to exert some effort to bring it to the surface....its a bit like trying to find diamonds in a pile of broken glass.

You have to be prepared to clear the junk away, piece by piece and then you will see it clearly. The junk is mostly contributed by Christendom.

i was raised in christendom, and it's a tremendously large amount of junk to escape from.

Jesus may in fact be a real person.

my motto is , as I judge so am I judged by that same standard, and as I choose to be in my heart, so am I that of which i choose.

so I am saved or damned by that in which I allow, and that of what I choose.

so whatever I am and do, I should expect the same in return.

I would expect we all get exactly what we deserve in the end.

Deeje said:

What kind of response do these images evoke in you?

Now imagine these scenes without sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch.....it would all be completely useless....wasted.

The natural world tells us that it delights our senses for a reason.

If someone tells you that this is just the result of a series of fortunate coincidences, can we say in all honesty that none of this was designed purely for our enjoyment? Surely only a fool would deny it.

Click to expand...

Well they're pretty but doctored. An illusion of perfection, of beauty. They're lies.

Incidentally have you ever read the Decay of Lying by Oscar Wilde? You sound like you could get along with the decadent/aesthetic artistic philosophy.
The essay itself is a tad tedious at times but he makes a good point about how someone can easily smooth out the imperfections of nature through art and its subsequent manipulation. And how the artist is merely exaggerating the beauty in nature through their artistic lens, as it were.
Photography is no different to the art forms he was referring to like paintings. A photographer choreographs beauty through their artistic eye. They manipulate their surroundings using angle, focus, lighting, the camera itself and even editing software afterwards. Hence why photos of nature done professionally are so beautiful to the eye. Hell with today's technology even noobs can do so. The ones you posted look a bit airbrushed, though.

SomeRandom said:

Well they're pretty but doctored. An illusion of perfection, of beauty. They're lies.

Incidentally have you ever read the Decay of Lying by Oscar Wilde? You sound like you could get along with the decadent/aesthetic artistic philosophy.
The essay itself is a tad tedious at times but he makes a good point about how someone can easily smooth out the imperfections of nature through art and its subsequent manipulation. And how the artist is merely exaggerating the beauty in nature through their artistic lens, as it were.
Photography is no different to the art forms he was referring to like paintings. A photographer choreographs beauty through their artistic eye. They manipulate their surroundings using angle, focus, lighting, the camera itself and even editing software afterwards. Hence why photos of nature done professionally are so beautiful to the eye. Hell with today's technology even noobs can do so. The ones you posted look a bit airbrushed, though.

Click to expand...

OMG! ......I have walked through places as beautiful as these.....where do you live so that you have missed out on seeing these beautiful places with your own eyes? What a distorted view of the world you have. It isn't nature that needs airbrushing....its man's impact on nature that is killing the beauty. Its selfish humans that need removing. Nature will then return to her natural beauty.

osgart said:

i was raised in christendom, and it's a tremendously large amount of junk to escape from.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I escaped over 40 years ago. I found the diamonds and got rid of the broken glass. I was surprised at how much there was.

Jesus may in fact be a real person.

Click to expand...

There would be few people who would question the existence of Jesus Christ. His impact on history makes him very real.
The question that needs to be answered is "was he the son of God"? "Did his life and death mean what the Bible says it did"?

my motto is , as I judge so am I judged by that same standard, and as I choose to be in my heart, so am I that of which i choose.

so I am saved or damned by that in which I allow, and that of what I choose.

so whatever I am and do, I should expect the same in return.

I would expect we all get exactly what we deserve in the end.

Click to expand...

I have to agree to a point. But we don't actually "deserve" to live because of sin, (Romans 6:23) but that didn't mean that God threw us away as hopeless. We are not a lost cause because he made the way out of this dilemma for us.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

How many times have you heard that scripture quoted? I used to hear it all the time. What I never noticed was the concluding part, because it was the first part that was always emphasized.

Those having faith in Jesus didn't have to "perish".

The Greek word is "apollymi" and it means......(Strong's)

"to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin.

render useless

to kill

to declare that one must be put to death

to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed."

So the scriptures tell us that those who do not "believe" will "perish....die...be destroyed."

So, the next logical question is what does it mean to "believe"? Does this just mean a mental acknowledgment? Or is there more to it than just belief?

Strongs elaborates on this word too.....

"in a moral or religious reference

used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul

to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith"

So it is more than a mere belief...it goes much further than that. It really means then to "exercise faith".

Its a bit like "having" a dog as opposed to "exercising" a dog. One involves action....taking the dog for a walk.

We have to walk the walk of our faith, not just talk the talk.

What do you think it means then to "be" a Christian in that context?

Deeje said:

OMG!

......I have walked through places as beautiful as these.....where do you live so that you have missed out on seeing these beautiful places with your own eyes? What a distorted view of the world you have. It isn't nature that needs airbrushing....its man's impact on nature that is killing the beauty. Its selfish humans that need removing. Nature will then return to her natural beauty.

Click to expand...

Oh I do not disagree with stopping pollution and destruction caused by humans. But can I point out that it is very arrogant to presume an entire planet is made purely for you as a species. Conceited much?
I walk through nature all the time. But beauty is derived from perspective. I can look out of a plane as the sun sets and the sight is truly beautiful. But am I perceiving it truthfully or the way I want it to be? The way that gives me joy because as a human I actively seek pleasure?
A scientist and an artist can look at a rainbow and enjoy it in different ways. Not because of how pretty it is but how each perceive it. The scientist could see the rainbow as a phenomonon. An artist could see the rainbow as a muse.
Each appreciated the rainbow uniquely, but for what purpose?

We perceive beauty because we want to. A religious person could argue that this earth pales in comparison to heaven and thus we only see a fraction of true splendour. Another could argue that we are too stunted to move beyond our tiny existence. That the beauty we perceive is nothing but a barrier to perceiving true existence.
Neither disproves evolution, but it doesn't have to be an Either or thing. At least not for some. Because these are philosophical queries designed to question or even explain one's perception and indeed beliefs. About God even.

faith and trust in Jesus that manifests in your actions. I would think you would have to believe in every word of the bible and live it out in your life.

trust and obey, both. you would have to accept that Jesus is the son of god, and that he defeated sin at the cross for all mankind.

here's the part that gets me, taking everything literally, and somehow putting it all in proper context. the who, what, when, where, and why of it. then finding historical evidence for it. and finally reconciling all the unmentionably wicked atrocities that happen to children on earth, with a plan of justice going on.

you are very sincere , like my nephew. he's a Christian too and he makes a lot of very good points to me but I never reconciled those things I mentioned.

osgart said:

here's the part that gets me, taking everything literally, and somehow putting it all in proper context. the who, what, when, where, and why of it. then finding historical evidence for it. and finally reconciling all the unmentionably wicked atrocities that happen to children on earth, with a plan of justice going on.

Click to expand...

If you get the horrors at all the unmentionably wicked things that happen to children, then I assure you that God does too.

He has given over world rulership to the devil to allow him to prove that his way of doing things is better than God's. That means that God cannot intervene until the allotted time is up. The only reason why he can allow the devil to do his darndest is because he has already allowed time to undo all of it. He can let him go to the fullest extent of wickedness, because he can reverse it all, and take us back to where we should have been. God is setting precedents so that his sovereignty can never be challenged again for all time to come. This guarantees that there will never be another "satan".

We have so much to look forward to.....

Isaiah 65:17 foretells...."For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be called to mind, Nor will they come up into the heart."

Peter talks about a "new earth" as well....."righteousness is to dwell" there. (2 Peter 3:13)

How amazing! None of those horrors caused by satan's rulership will even be remembered in the new world to come. There will be nothing to cause harm or distress during the reign of God's son. The Kingdom will "come" (Daniel 2:44) and God's will can then be done "on earth as it is in heaven." (Matthew 5:5) Nothing can stop what has been prophesied.