Meiosis: The Science of Messiah.

[John D. Brey]

We don't determine / conclude artificial design by being "impressed" or by complexity. Instead, we determine / conclude such by contrasting it to what naturally occurs and what we know is artificially designed.

In the case of pentium chips, they are highly organized, have labels on them like "made in china", they show signs of manufacturing processes and are made from materials that don't artifically occur and thus have to be manufactured at some chemical plant or whatever. Other materials do occur in nature, but require to be "purified" in order to occur like what we see in the chip.

Like if you find a sword. The metal it's made from occurs naturally. But it doesn't occur in such alloys in such shapes. Instead, it occurs in the form of ore, which has to be extracted and melted. The sword itself also bears signs of manufacturing. Engravings, signs of carving / hammering, etc.

Imo, your distinction between "natural" and "artificial" is problematic from a philosophical or scientific standpoint. If I find a metal sword, then I know that the materials for the metal sword are "natural," but that they have been manufactured by a process that uses a human brain.

If, for the sake of argument, I find a human brain lying next to the sword, I will have the same feeling that the materials the brain is made out of are natural materials, but that something more was required, some design process, just like is the case when my eyes spied the sword. In other words, if I believe the metal sword required a designer and a means of manufacture, I damn sure would think the same about the brain.

Truth-be-known, I'd be more shocked to find a human brain than a sword. . . Particularly around these parts where another part of human anatomy is too often too nakedly displayed.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Here's what your nonsense comes down to:

"The universe contains objects designed by humans. Therefor the universe itself is designed".

Absolute nonsense. Doesn't follow at all.

You are pretending any of the following to be true:
- the universe is the same as a pentium chip
- human design processes and natural design processes are the exact same and operate in the exact same way

If the universe contains objects that are "designed," and I think it's fair to say it does, then design is a product inherent to (or possible within) the laws of physics that rule the universe.

Hell, the word "rule," or "law," as in the "laws of physics," presupposes order and design rather than randomness. . . Which is to say the very nature of the universe has order rather than infinite randomness. And that order, say the laws of physics, make the design of the Pentium chip possible.

Without order, design is problematic. But order itself is synonymous, to some degree, with design.

Which shows that since humans can deny the most obviously thing in the universe, order, and thus design, well, Houston, we have a theological problem: people choosing to be blinded by the light since they seemingly prefer darkness and falsehood to truth and light.

That appears to be a theological, more than a logical, problem.

Design was in the world, and though the world was made through design, the world did not recognize design . . . what may be known about God's design is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's design, his eternal power, and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from the design inherent to what is made, so that men are without excuse.

John 1:10; Romans 1:19-20.​

John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . Naturally they don't all agree with me nor I completely with them in every case.

But your last question is the important one. You shouldn't trust mine or anyone else's interpretation without a criteria for why you trust it. It's that criteria that is extremely important. It's often times called your "epistemology." Your epistemology should determine what you accept as true and what you don't.

And if it does, then we can discuss the criteria that make up your epistemology to see if perhaps it's different than mine, and if so, why so, and is there perhaps an error in mine, or yours, from a logical or rational strand-point?



John

Just so we're clear here:

Are we in agreement on these descriptions?

For me:

What is existence? Experience. Any claims beyond that is uncertain; it is entirely possible that not only do I (and other humans) not understand the nature of reality, but that we are not capable of understanding in any detail the nature of reality.

What do I know? My experience.

How do I know it? Because I "remember" and "think" about it. My experience includes learning about 'objective reality' and how in some theories of knowledge, the only things that can be known to be even approximately true are those that careful observation and testing. My individual experiences, in such a system, count for--not quite naught--but are useful only in conjunction with the experiences of others. Justified knowledge/belief comes from the social processing of collecting and testing careful observations of the world against independent observation and testing conducted and reported by others.

As a pragmatist, I assert that I know nothing with certainty, and grant that the knowledge I hold is provisional, subject to falsification.

Now then, your example of 11 people reading a text and coming up with 11 different interpretations does not suggest to me that there is real knowledge there. In such a case, there would be 11 provisional cases, that would have to be closely examined and tested...and it is entirely possible that NONE of the readings are correct (at the one extreme) and at the other, that ALL are correct to some degree or other. But there is no basis, without further detailed study, for accepting ANY as true.

This means for me to accept YOUR reading of the text, you need to show EXACTLY you get from the vague text that can be interpreted 11 different ways, to how it specifically it originally MEANT what you say it means about the earliest life being immortal and so on...

 

[John D. Brey]

Just so we're clear here:

Are we in agreement on these descriptions?

For me:

What is existence? Experience. Any claims beyond that is uncertain; it is entirely possible that not only do I (and other humans) not understand the nature of reality, but that we are not capable of understanding in any detail the nature of reality.

What do I know? My experience.

How do I know it? Because I "remember" and "think" about it. My experience includes learning about 'objective reality' and how in some theories of knowledge, the only things that can be known to be even approximately true are those that careful observation and testing. My individual experiences, in such a system, count for--not quite naught--but are useful only in conjunction with the experiences of others. Justified knowledge/belief comes from the social processing of collecting and testing careful observations of the world against independent observation and testing conducted and reported by others.

As a pragmatist, I assert that I know nothing with certainty, and grant that the knowledge I hold is provisional, subject to falsification.

Now then, your example of 11 people reading a text and coming up with 11 different interpretations does not suggest to me that there is real knowledge there. In such a case, there would be 11 provisional cases, that would have to be closely examined and tested...and it is entirely possible that NONE of the readings are correct (at the one extreme) and at the other, that ALL are correct to some degree or other. But there is no basis, without further detailed study, for accepting ANY as true.

This means for me to accept YOUR reading of the text, you need to show EXACTLY you get from the vague text that can be interpreted 11 different ways, to how it specifically it originally MEANT what you say it means about the earliest life being immortal and so on...

. . . As I've used, and read, "ontology," it means the foundational essence, or element, of something that exists, as well as being used to speak of "being" or "existing" itself/themselves.

I believe truth is provisional and contextual, but that doesn't make it fatally relative, or merely subjective. Context is important. Different contexts can consider that what in one context is true, is in fact false in another. Much of Judaism considers much of Christianity untrue, and vise versa. But there are contexts where Jewish and Christians truths, that are treated as untrue by the other, can be seen to be true in both context if a superior third context transcends and transgresses the dualistic perspective of the two worldviews.

Same with even something as seemingly incompatible as atheism and theism. There are contexts where atheism can be seen to true even within a theistic context. And this expanded context (a theistic context that doesn't refute atheism) doesn't require the theistic belief to suffer or be inconsistent. Nor is its acceptance of atheism merely an open-minded gesture. The two can be unified in the proper context.

Epistemologically speaking, the above implies that my personal beliefs aren't too set in stone to be fully alive and able to bend, change, evolve, without eradicating or contradicting an onto-theological belief (or set of beliefs) that grounds my entire epistemology. There can be incredible flexibility that doesn't challenge or weaken an unbendable and unbreakable theological foundation.



John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . As I've used, and read, "ontology," it means the foundational essence, or element, of something that exists, as well as being used to speak of "being" or "existing" itself/themselves.

I believe truth is provisional and contextual, but that doesn't make it fatally relative, or merely subjective. Context is important. Different contexts can consider that what in one context is true, is in fact false in another. Much of Judaism considers much of Christianity untrue, and vise versa. But there are contexts where Jewish and Christians truths, that are treated as untrue by the other, can be seen to be true in both context if a superior third context transcends and transgresses the dualistic perspective of the two worldviews.

Same with even something as seemingly incompatible as atheism and theism. There are contexts where atheism can be seen to true even within a theistic context. And this expanded context (a theistic context that doesn't refute atheism) doesn't require the theistic belief to suffer or be inconsistent. Nor is its acceptance of atheism merely an open-minded gesture. The two can be unified in the proper context.

Epistemologically speaking, the above implies that my personal beliefs aren't too set in stone to be fully alive and able to bend, change, evolve, without eradicating or contradicting an onto-theological belief (or set of beliefs) that grounds my entire epistemology. There can be incredible flexibility that doesn't challenge or weaken an unbendable and unbreakable theological foundation.



John

Okay...I think I was following you up to "without eradicating or contradicting an onto-theological belief...that ground my entire epistemology." I think what you're saying is that you have a deep-seated belief that you are unwilling to change.

However, to the earlier text...I don't agree that there are 'truths' that are true in one context and not true in another...those aren't truths; those are beliefs. At best, they are justified beliefs. Provisional though they may be, such 'truths' have to be true regardless of context...or else they are not even potentially true.

 

[John D. Brey]

However, to the earlier text...I don't agree that there are 'truths' that are true in one context and not true in another...those aren't truths; those are beliefs. At best, they are justified beliefs. Provisional though they may be, such 'truths' have to be true regardless of context...or else they are not even potentially true.

. . . In my opinion, you're setting up a fundamentally important distinction between "belief" versus "truth." And in my opinion, although truth is absolute, and non-malleable, it can only manifest in beliefs that are non-absolute and malleable. . . Which is like saying truth is the guiding light that keeps belief on the path toward a future vouchsafed by truth.

My beliefs are open to a context where Judaism is as true as Christianity. But I must follow truth and hope it sanctions my open-mindedness to a theological other (Judaism or atheism). . . To date it has; although for me truth is far from utterly open-ended in where it will lead.


John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . In my opinion, you're setting up a fundamentally important distinction between "belief" versus "truth." And in my opinion, although truth is absolute, and non-malleable, it can only manifest in beliefs that are non-absolute and malleable. . . Which is like saying truth is the guiding light that keeps belief on the path toward a future vouchsafed by truth.

My beliefs are open to a context where Judaism is as true as Christianity. But I must follow truth and hope it sanctions my open-mindedness to a theological other (Judaism or atheism). . . To date it has; although for me truth is far from utterly open-ended in where it will lead.


John

Yes, there is a fundamental difference between truth and belief. We may never know the truth for certain. All we can do is attempt to find the truth...the effort will give us justified belief, beliefs for which there is objectively (meaning other people looking at the same evidence will reach the same conclusion--if they don't, then it wasn't justified belief) testable supporting evidence.

I don't know how a truth that we cannot know for certain can be a guiding light in deciding what else to believe, when in fact our understanding of the truth can be undermined and overturned by learning new knowledge. Such learning would then undermine all of the beliefs tottering on top...

So, sure, your idea that Genesis actually says something about the early biology of the earth is conceivable...but I don't find that to be a justified belief, although you seem to. Certainly, you have not presented any evidence that would undermine my justified belief that the Bible is just a collection of old myths and fables that have nothing to do with the modern science of biology.

 

[John D. Brey]

Yes, there is a fundamental difference between truth and belief. We may never know the truth for certain. All we can do is attempt to find the truth...the effort will give us justified belief, beliefs for which there is objectively (meaning other people looking at the same evidence will reach the same conclusion--if they don't, then it wasn't justified belief) testable supporting evidence.

. . . In Thomas Kuhn's classic, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he shows how once a belief is established based on objective criteria, and unanimous consent, it becomes the reigning orthodoxy. But for this reigning orthodoxy to advance, evolve, grow, requires new, "unorthodox" beliefs and theories that undermine the reigning orthodoxy.

At the point where a new, unorthodox belief, begins to support itself with evidence, the high priests of the current orthodoxy up their attack since the unorthodox belief threatens what they take to be the static truth of their orthodoxy. At some point, a new, unorthodox belief, is more fit for survival than the orthodox belief, and overcomes the orthodox belief to start a new orthodoxy.

Naturally this process is never-ending. It's the process of natural selection going on in the meme-sphere as it goes on, much more slowly, in the gene-sphere.

Which is where my quotations of Ray Kurzweil and Daniel Dennett comes into the picture since these two atheistic materialist scientists have come to realize that evolutionary advances that took millions and billions of years in the genes-sphere are now taking place in the twinkling of an eye in the meme-sphere.

This process is so outrageous that these atheist materialists now concede that the human mind doesn't appear to be a natural product of the evolution through which it allegedly arose since it completely transcends and has taken over the processes that allegedly gave it rise. It's like the kabbalistic principle of the son conceiving with his mother to give himself birth.

In an accurate translation of the Hebrew of Genesis 17:17, Abraham laughs at God not for saying Abraham is going to conceive a son when he's already 99 years old (since his own father was older than that when he conceived Abram). In the literal Hebrew Abraham asks, "Am I going to be born-again at 99 years of age? And is my barren wife going to be my mother?"

. . . Which makes the student of the Bible skip forward to Nicodemus laughing at Jesus when Jesus tells him that he, Nicodemus, must be born again (regardless of his age) and that he must conceive of his new birth himself.

Where a serious and careful exegete of the Bible is involved in the interpretation, Jesus goes much further since he specifically refers to Genesis 17:17 when he asks Nicodemus if he is a student of the Torah and yet unaware that God told Abraham, the father of Nicodemus, that he, father Abraham, must be born again, and that his sister/wife will conceive him.

The body of the human mind --- the brain ---- no doubt comes before the human mind, and is clearly an adult before the human mind is born. But make no mistake, according to the Bible, the human mind conceived itself in the flesh of biological-life long before its day of birth:

Human freedom is younger than the species. Its most important features are only several thousand years old--- an eyeblink in evolutionary history---but in that short time it has transformed the planet in ways that are as salient as such great biological transitions as the creation of an oxygen-rich atmosphere and the creation of multicellular life.

Daniel Dennett, Freedom Evolves, p. 305.​

In the twinkling of an eye the human mind, freed from the constrains of gene-evolution, has transformed its environment in ways that transcend the genes by almost infinity. And it's only just begun. What the human mind has in store in the next century will dwarf everything that has occurred in the previous billions of years of life. In one century, the next, the human mind is going to transform not just planet earth in ways completely unimaginable today, but it's going to justify the recent song by the Foo Fighters, The Sky is a Neighborhood.

The Biblical Kingdom of God is upon us and in us. Hope to see you there. There are some reading these words who will not die before it gives itself birth through us.



John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . In Thomas Kuhn's classic, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he shows how once a belief is established based on objective criteria, and unanimous consent, it becomes the reigning orthodoxy. But for this reigning orthodoxy to advance, evolve, grow, requires new, "unorthodox" beliefs and theories that undermine the reigning orthodoxy.

At the point where a new, unorthodox belief, begins to support itself with evidence, the high priest of the orthodoxy up their attack since the unorthodox belief threatens what they take to be the static truth of their orthodoxy. At some point, a new, unorthodox belief, is more fit for survival than the orthodox belief, and overcomes the orthodox belief to start a new orthodoxy.

Naturally this process is never-ending. It's the process of natural selection going on in the meme-sphere as it goes on, much more slowly, in the gene-sphere.

Which is where my quotations of Ray Kurzweil and Daniel Dennett comes into the picture since these two atheistic materialist scientists have come to realize that evolutionary advances that took millions and billions of years in the genes-sphere are now taking place in the twinkling of an eye in the meme-sphere.

This process is so outrageous that these atheist materialists now concede that the human mind doesn't appear to be a natural product of the evolution through which it allegedly arose since it completely transcends and has taken over the processes that allegedly gave it rise. It's like the kabbalistic principle of the son conceiving with his mother to give himself birth.

In an accurate translation of the Hebrew of Genesis 17:17, Abraham laughs at God not for saying that he is going to give birth when he's 99 years old (since his own father was older than that when he conceived Abram). In the literal Hebrew Abraham asks, "Am I going to be born-again at 99 years of age? And is my barren wife going to be my mother?"

. . . Which makes the student of the Bible skip forward to Nicodemus laughing at Jesus when Jesus tells him that he, Nicodemus, must be born again (regardless of his age) and that he must conceive of his new birth himself.

Where a Bible serious and careful exegete is involved in the interpretation, Jesus goes much further since he specifically refers to Genesis 17:17 when he asks Nicodemus if he is a student of the Torah and yet unaware that God told Abraham, the father of Nicodemus, that he, father Abraham, must be born again, and that his sister/wife will conceive him.

The body of the human mind --- the brain ---- no doubt comes before the human mind, and is clearly an adult before the human mind is born. But make no mistake, according to the bible, the human mind conceived itself in the flesh of biological-life long before its day of birth:

Human freedom is younger than the species. Its most important features are only several thousand years old--- an eyeblink in evolutionary history---but in that short time it has transformed the planet in ways that are as salient as such great biological transitions as the creation of an oxygen-rich atmosphere and the creation of multicellular life.

Daniel Dennett, Freedom Evolves, p. 305.​

In the twinkling of an eye the human mind, freed from the constrains of gene-evolution, has transformed its environment in ways that transcend the genes by almost infinity. And it's only just begun. What the human mind has in store in the next century will dwarf everything that has occurred in the previous billions of years. In one century, the next, the human mind is going to transform not just planet earth in ways completely unimaginable today, but it's going to justify the recent song by the Foo Fighters, The Sky is a Neighborhood.

The Biblical Kingdom of God is upon us and in us. Hope to see you there. There are some reading these words who will not die before it gives itself birth through us.



John

Kuhn is interesting...

But it seems that you don't allow his model to apply to belief in religious texts...I would say you are involved in hyper-defending your orthodox beliefs from the unorthodox beliefs of atheism...even though you claim to be willing to consider atheism, you do not question your underlying theism...and therefore, your scripture MUST still be relevant, even if it takes considerable mental gymnastics to keep it relevant to the new paradigm...the one that says that the scriptures are simply irrelevant to biology...

 

[John D. Brey]

So, sure, your idea that Genesis actually says something about the early biology of the earth is conceivable...but I don't find that to be a justified belief, although you seem to. Certainly, you have not presented any evidence that would undermine my justified belief that the Bible is just a collection of old myths and fables that have nothing to do with the modern science of biology.

. . . I mentioned epistemology because of what you say above since it appears you're using your own beliefs and particular worldview to discredit what appears to be a completely fair, objective, and legitimate argument I made about the Bible.

For instance, I said that because of the ancient environment in which the Bible text was written, it doesn't present its science for peer review as might occur today, but presents it according to the dictates of the time in which it was written, i.e, as sacred myth: mythological stories that reveal the science for those who are scientific, and which is used for moral guidance for everyone else.

Case in point. In the Bible, the first living human, representing the first life on the planet, is asexual just as we know the first living organisms were asexual. Similarly, in the Bible, the next fundamental evolution of the first human (representing the first living organisms) is the development of gender. Science implies the same thing. Finally, the two genders experiment, though warned of the danger that it would lead to death, with sex.

With only a handful of exceptions, single-celled organisms reproducing exclusively by simple fission lack one feature that ultimately brings death to all single-cells that have sex, and all multicellular organisms, including human beings: senescence, the gradual, programmed aging of cells and organisms they make up, independently of events in the environment. Accidental cell death was around from the very first appearance of anything we would call life. Death of the organism through senescence ---programmed death----- makes its appearance in evolution at about the same time that sexual reproduction appears.

Dr. William R. Clark.​

The myth of Adam and Eve circumscribes what we know about the beginnings of life, gender, sex, and programmed-death (through senescence) in a manner that any fair and objective person could concede is objectively, factually, parallel, such that only the presupposition that it can't, or doesn't matter, used as a feedback mechanism (flawed epistemological function) assumes that where there is meaningful and objective parallel it doesn't matter since one's current epistemological orthodoxy would discount the Bible no matter how many objective parallels existed.

This is to say that some people believe themselves to be objective purveyors of facts and objective reality when they are in truth unaware that they're merely denizens of the current orthodoxy they were born into, or chose of their own freewill. Their search for truth is circumscribe within the boundary composed of the core belief that their personal epistemology is a translucent window on objective reality.



John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . I mentioned epistemology because of what you say above since it appears you're using your own beliefs and particular worldview to discredit what appears to be a completely fair, objective, and legitimate argument I made about the Bible.

For instance, I said that because of the ancient environment in which the Bible text was written, it doesn't present its science for peer review as might occur today, but presents it according to the dictates of the time in which it was written, i.e, as sacred myth: mythological stories that reveal the science for those who are scientific, and which is used for moral guidance for everyone else.

Case in point. In the Bible, the first living human, representing the first life on the planet, is asexual just as we know the first living organisms were asexual. Similarly, in the Bible, the next fundamental evolution of the first human (representing the first living organisms) is the development of gender. Science implies the same thing. Finally, the two genders experiment, though warned of the danger that it would lead to death, with sex.

With only a handful of exceptions, single-celled organisms reproducing exclusively by simple fission lack one feature that ultimately brings death to all single-cells that have sex, and all multicellular organisms, including human beings: senescence, the gradual, programmed aging of cells and organisms they make up, independently of events in the environment. Accidental cell death was around from the very first appearance of anything we would call life. Death of the organism through senescence ---programmed death----- makes its appearance in evolution at about the same time that sexual reproduction appears.

Dr. William R. Clark.​

The myth of Adam and Eve circumscribes what we know about the beginnings of life, gender, sex, and programmed-death (through senescence) in a manner that any fair and objective person could concede is objectively, factually, parallel, such that only the presupposition that it can't, or doesn't matter, used as a feedback mechanism (flawed epistemological function) assumes that where there is meaningful and objective parallel it doesn't matter since one's current epistemological orthodoxy would discount the Bible no matter how many objective parallels existed.

This is to say that some people believe themselves to be objective purveyors of facts and objective reality when they are in truth unaware that they're merely denizens of the current orthodoxy they were born into, or chose of their own freewill. Their search for truth is circumscribe within the boundary composed of the core belief that their personal epistemology is a translucent window on objective reality.



John

Well, of course I'm using my beliefs. If I used yours, or you were using mine, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

My beliefs are that unless I'm provided with some convincing evidence--which you have not provided for my consideration--your assertions about what the Bible says about biology is neither fair, objective nor legitimate argument.

Based in my experience--which includes having read the Bible numerous times, and having read a lot of commentary on the Bible, and over the past few years, a lot of critical scholarship on the Bible...it also includes a lot experience in science...--I think I have justified belief that there is no 'scientific' content to the texts, and lots of evidence that scripture is a collection of myths, fables, and ancient beliefs about the world and human history. That does not mean that my beliefs are 'truth.'

I understand that you believe that you have justified belief in there being 'scientific' content to scripture. That does not mean that what you believe is 'truth.'

For me to accept your assertion, you would have to provide me with some substantial evidence, verifiable evidence; that is what my beliefs about knowledge and 'truth' requires. So far, you have given me your belief, and it seems to be rooted in the acceptance of scripture as a legitimate source. I am awaiting evidence that it is a legitimate source.

 

[soulsurvivor]

the Bible explains it to a tee in a manner that fits the current scientific framework of evolution and natural selection.

Are talking about Book of Genesis?

 

[John D. Brey]

Well, of course I'm using my beliefs. If I used yours, or you were using mine, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

My beliefs are that unless I'm provided with some convincing evidence--which you have not provided for my consideration--your assertions about what the Bible says about biology is neither fair, objective nor legitimate argument.

Based in my experience--which includes having read the Bible numerous times, and having read a lot of commentary on the Bible, and over the past few years, a lot of critical scholarship on the Bible...it also includes a lot experience in science...--I think I have justified belief that there is no 'scientific' content to the texts, and lots of evidence that scripture is a collection of myths, fables, and ancient beliefs about the world and human history. That does not mean that my beliefs are 'truth.'

I understand that you believe that you have justified belief in there being 'scientific' content to scripture. That does not mean that what you believe is 'truth.'

For me to accept your assertion, you would have to provide me with some substantial evidence, verifiable evidence; that is what my beliefs about knowledge and 'truth' requires. So far, you have given me your belief, and it seems to be rooted in the acceptance of scripture as a legitimate source. I am awaiting evidence that it is a legitimate source.

. . . The nature of the mediator and mediation between "belief" and "truth" is kinda what stands between us. Our "beliefs" are contaminated by our environment, upbringing, and education, such that without some serious effort, we tend more to subject truth to the scalpel of our beliefs, than vice versa.

Imo, there's not one man in a million who has taken the time, and gone to the effort, to learn how to use truth to correct his beliefs rather than using his beliefs as the prism for what is true.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Are talking about Book of Genesis?

. . . As one example. Yes.



John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . The nature of the mediator and mediation between "belief" and "truth" is kinda what stands between us. Our "beliefs" are contaminated by our environment, upbringing, and education, such that without some serious effort, we tend more to subject truth to the scalpel of our beliefs, than vice versa.

Imo, there's not one man in a million who has taken the time, and gone to the effort, to learn how to use truth to correct his beliefs rather than using his beliefs as the prism for what is true.



John

And I suppose you are one of those one-in-a-million?

You are still, as far as I can tell, making some prior assumption that is not in evidence as 'truth;' that scripture and your belief in God as the lens that everything else must be understood through, and indeed, even if science does not show support for scripture and your God, you must find in your scriptures and God conformance to science.

Well, it's been an interesting trip down your rabbit-hole, but I believe we are at an impasse now.

 

[John D. Brey]

Kuhn is interesting...

But it seems that you don't allow his model to apply to belief in religious texts...I would say you are involved in hyper-defending your orthodox beliefs from the unorthodox beliefs of atheism...even though you claim to be willing to consider atheism, you do not question your underlying theism...and therefore, your scripture MUST still be relevant, even if it takes considerable mental gymnastics to keep it relevant to the new paradigm...the one that says that the scriptures are simply irrelevant to biology...

. . . Everyone has some fundamental belief that undergirds their entire worldview. For instance, the atheist's worldview is built in a fundamental way on the belief that there's no God. That belief is obviously going to inseminate most of his thought in a fundamental way. Same with the theist's worldview.

The argument concerning design is a fitting topic to discuss the viewpoint of the atheist versus the theist since the atheist often says he sees no evidence for God in the same way some here claim they see no evidence for natural design in the universe, only artificial design carried out by say human animals.

Unfortunately, the atheist's position makes design products, like the Pentium chip, emergent phenomena, as though no design went into the design of the designer. That's more theological than logical.

In truth, it's difficult to debate someone willing to claim the human brain doesn't display design, order, intricacy, and an almost unthinkable parallel between inherent, biological, order, and the ability to order the world according to the order inherent in that 3 or 4 pounds of flesh.

For me, the inability, or unwillingness, to admit that the human brain is the most intricate and brilliant design artifact in the universe (so far as the universe has been explored) can only be a theological problem since it's utterly and purely illogical in every sense of the word.



John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . Everyone has some fundamental belief that undergirds their entire worldview. For instance, the atheist's worldview is built in a fundamental way on the belief that there's no God. That belief is obviously going to inseminate most of his thought in a fundamental way. Same with the theist's worldview.

The argument concerning design is a fitting topic to discuss the viewpoint of the atheist versus the theist since the atheist often says he sees no evidence for God in the same way some here claim they see no evidence for natural design in the universe, only artificial design carried out by say human animals.

Unfortunately, the atheist's position makes design products, like the Pentium chip, emergent phenomena, as though no design went into the design of the designer. That's more theological than logical.

In truth, it's difficult to debate someone willing to claim the human brain doesn't display design, order, intricacy, and an almost unthinkable parallel between inherent, biological, order, and the ability to order the world according to the order inherent in that 3 or 4 pounds of flesh.

For me, the inability, or unwillingness, to admit that the human brain is the most intricate and brilliant design artifact in the universe (so far as it's been explored) can only be a theological problem since it's utterly and purely illogical in every sense of the word.



John

Your argument from incredulity is noted. Your inability to accept that emergent phenomena in this cosmos might include undesigned but evolved biological entities capable of designing things like pentium chips is not my problem. What you have presented as your argument in this thread is predicated on misunderstandings of biology and evolution, and indeed the nature and function of science.

 

[John D. Brey]

You are still, as far as I can tell, making some prior assumption that is not in evidence as 'truth;' that scripture and your belief in God as the lens that everything else must be understood through, and indeed, even if science does not show support for scripture and your God, you must find in your scriptures and God conformance to science.

. . . Because of how much is riding on the belief, or disbelief, in God, the atheist is just as religious about his belief in the lack of God, as the theist is, in his belief in the existence of God. In either case, a bet, based on whatever evidence, or lack thereof you want to speak about, is being made.

Because of the size of the bet related to God, or no God, it's simply not correct, in my opinion, to think the atheist is less invested in his belief there's no God, than the theist is invested in the belief there is.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Your inability to accept that emergent phenomena in this cosmos might include undesigned but evolved biological entities capable of designing things like pentium chips is not my problem.

. . . I would say the problem is assuming the Pentium chip reflects design while the human brain doesn't.

Naturally it's fair to say the human brain wasn't designed in a man-made factory by a conscious human being. And yet if you categorize design as logical order of such a degree as to imply someone or something acted on it based on something other than random chance, the human brain possesses design.

If natural selection, based on evolving living organism, and functioning within the laws of physics, leads to something like a human eye, or brain (and the biologists tell us that the eye has occurred in more than one evolutionary path) then clearly the environment that selects for biological evolution is some sort of factory able to create functional order of biblical proportions.

Exhibit one, the human eye. Exhibit two, the human brain. That these two intricate design artifacts are connected in a manner that allows them to function together just multiplies the design obviousness exponentially and shows the non-theist's ability to shut down those parts of his brain designed to acknowledge the design and Designer of so great and gracious a gift to mankind.

Design was in the world, and though the world was made through design, the world did not recognize design . . . what may be known about God's design is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's design, his eternal power, and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from the design inherent to what is made, so that men are without excuse.

John 1:10; Romans 1:19-20.​

John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . Because of how much is riding on the belief, or disbelief, in God, the atheist is just as religious about his belief in the lack of God, as the theist is, in his belief in the existence of God. In either case, a bet, based on whatever evidence, or lack thereof you want to speak about, is being made.

Because of the size of the bet related to God, or no God, it's simply not correct, in my opinion, to think the atheist is less invested in his belief there's no God, than the theist is invested in the belief there is.



John

What does this hypothetical argument about belief in God have to do with justified belief in whether the Bible actually says something important about biology, which is what you are asserting? Pascal's Wager is irrelevant.

What is relevant to your assertion is any evidence that you have that the text of the bible says anything or importance about biology...something that EVERYONE who has read the scripture up to this point DID NOT RECOGNIZE, but YOU (finally) HAVE...

The request for verifiable, testable evidence to support your assertion is not unreasonable.