Creationism: Last Debate of 2010 on the subject.

[fossten]

And do those Americans all understand what Darwinian evolution is as opposed the "adaptation" of Darwinism which is what evolution has traditionally been understood as.

Is this evidence you cite anything more then simply evidence of how ignorant so many are on this subject?

This from the woman who didn't even understand the difference between 'strain' and 'species.'

Good ol' Wikipedia...Ya gotta watch closely - her lies are subtle.

 

[foxpaws]

And do those Americans all understand what Darwinian evolution is as opposed the "adaptation" of Darwinism which is what evolution has traditionally been understood as.

Is this evidence you cite anything more then simply evidence of how ignorant so many are on this subject?

And where is this evidence that there is ignorance on this subject shag... did Foss' survey go into anything regarding how well the participants understood evolution?

Check my links - the scientific community - who probably understands evolution in a large part, fall in overwhelming percentages on the 'side' of evolution.

This from the woman who didn't even understand the difference between 'strain' and 'species.'

Good ol' Wikipedia...Ya gotta watch closely - her lies are subtle.

Check wiki's sources - they are good - wiki in this case is a good gathering point of evidence.

So foss - you didn't answer - over 50% more people believe in evolution than don't in your survey - correct?

 

[fossten]

And where is this evidence that there is ignorance on this subject shag... did Foss' survey go into anything regarding how well the participants understood evolution?

Check my links - the scientific community - who probably understands evolution in a large part, fall in overwhelming percentages on the 'side' of evolution.

I love hearing arguments about understanding evolution from somebody who didn't even know the difference between 'species' and 'strain.'

"Probably?" Even you have to hedge your bets. :bowrofl:

Never mind the logically flawed 'appeal to authority' - Is this the same scientific community that believes global warming is manmade?

Check wiki's sources - they are good - wiki in this case is a good gathering point of evidence.

So foss - you didn't answer - over 50% more people believe in evolution than don't in your survey - correct?

Fox, you're using a red herring to distract from the FACT that my survey disproves your lie. You can try to twist the stats any way you want, but you're still wrong.

 

[shagdrum]

And where is this evidence that there is ignorance on this subject shag

While anecdotal, every single thread on this forum concerning the subject of Darwinism shows a profound ignorance of the distinction between Darwinian evolution and traditional evolution.

Also, considering the curriculum taught and the very statements of high profile professors teaching these ideas to young minds, there is a concerted effort to blur the lines between these different conceptions of evolution through equivocation.

Check my links - the scientific community - who probably understands evolution in a large part, fall in overwhelming percentages on the 'side' of evolution.

The scientific community is also overwhelmingly Athiest and dishonestly avoids confronting the findings of ID instead of honestly confronting it (Expelled demonstrated as much). Appeals to authority on this matter are all but an admission that the science cannot stand on it's own.

 

[hrmwrm]

The Bible clearly and repeatedly refers to God as male.

people refer to objects as he/she frequently. doesn't mean they actually are either.

Well if there is a need for God then there must be a God.

there is no need. that's the point. you're saying it doesn't make it so.
some like to believe. but then that's a preference, not a need.

And indeed there is a need for God, for the universe cannot create itself.

why not? things are created and destroyed daily/hourly/secondly, without a need for a god to do so.

This may not be "science" but it is logic - and even science must bow before logic.

science is logic. which is why it doesn't deal with the supernatural. there is no evidence for magical or devine.

Actually, by definition, you're the quintessential troll.

actually, not. i don't go thread to thread that he posts in making off topic comments to him. say he's on my ignore list, then start posting off topic commentary about him again, do i? no.
if you don't wish to answer things put forward to you fossten, then say so.
you don't need to send your little troll out to misdirect.

 

[fossten]

people refer to objects as he/she frequently. doesn't mean they actually are either.

I answered your question. You're arguing with yourself. Have fun...and if you start throwing punches, I recommend therapy.

science is logic. which is why it doesn't deal with the supernatural. there is no evidence for magical or devine.

Logic is a construct of the human mind and not subject to verification by experimentation. Science is.

 

[fossten]

there is no need. that's the point. you're saying it doesn't make it so.
some like to believe. but then that's a preference, not a need.



why not? things are created and destroyed daily/hourly/secondly, without a need for a god to do so.

Prayer Relieves Mind in Many Ways, Study Finds

Jeanna Bryner
LiveScience Managing Editor
LiveScience.com jeanna Bryner
livescience Managing Editor
livescience.com Tue Dec 14, 7:15 am ET

Getting on your knees and looking to the heavens may really bring comfort during tough times, new research finds.

This will come as no surprise to many Americans, as 75 percent say they pray on a weekly basis in order to manage hard situations, including illness, and emotions such as sadness and anger, according to the study researcher citing Pew Research Center data. And most Americans also think God is involved in their everyday lives and concerned with their personal well-being.

The new study aimed to find out how prayer leads to mental relief. Results suggested prayer can serve as a distraction and even as sort of a punching bag.

Always available

Lead researcher Shane Sharp, a graduate student studying sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, conducted in-depth interviews with 62 victims of violent relationships with intimate partners. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 72 (averaging 41) and represented a wide swath of the United States in geographic, educational and racial terms, with largely Christian backgrounds.

Results showed that in general that God or another figure from religion acted as a support system for the participants. The figure had certain perceived characteristics, such as being loving, powerful and caring, that influenced why participants sought him or her out. But unlike a flesh-and-blood shoulder to cry on or an abusive partner to rail at, God was available whenever and wherever the participant reached out, Sharp said.
"If they vented their anger to that abusive partner, the result was likely to be more violence," Sharp told LiveScience. "But they could be angry at God while praying, without fear of reprisal."

For those who are not religious, Sharp said, the findings of the study may not apply unless they look to another "virtual" friend, such as a celebrity, in times of crises. [Thinking of God Calms Believers, Stresses Atheists]

Victims' stories

One participant, Monica, a white 25-year-old, said she used prayer to manage her anger over being abused by a loved one. It's "kinda like getting something off your chest, you know. I mean, you're kinda talking about it with somebody, you know. I mean, it's just a way to kinda voice your opinion, you know, about something, or, you know, let the Lord know, you know, how you would like something," she was quoted as saying.

Sharp added that prayer seemed to help self-image. "During prayer, victims came to see themselves as they believed God saw them. Since these perceptions were mostly positive, it helped raise their senses of self-worth that counteracted their abusers' hurtful words," Sharp said.

Marianne, a white Southern Baptist in her early 50s who had been married to an abusive man for nearly 20 years, sighed as she said: "I guess the number one thing for me would be the realization that there's, there was, the God out there the whole time where I'm out thinking, well, 'This is my life so screwed up. I need to get drunk. No, I need to take drugs. No, I need to kill myself.' ... And just to, to be able to just sit down and think that God wanted to communicate with me and that I'm not a scumbag in front of his eyes no matter what. Wow, how cool is that?"

Prayer also served as a handy distraction for some, Sharp found. Folding one's hands and focusing on this conversation provided a reprieve from the anxiety of an abusive relationship.

Yet the consequences of prayer weren't always positive. "For some, through prayer they told me they learned to forgive their abusive partners, to let go of their anger and resentment," Sharp said. "But that's a double-edged sword. It's good for those who are out of that violent relationship to let go of it to a certain extent. But if they're still in their violent relationship, it may postpone their decision to leave, and that can be bad."
Religion is complicated

That double-edged sword highlights the complexity of religion and its effects. "Religion is often pointed to as a mostly positive or mostly negative thing. It's way more complicated than that," said Sharp, whose results are detailed in the current issue of the journal Social Psychology Quarterly.

Other research out this month shows that religious people are happier because of the social networks they build by attending religious services. Past research has shown that teen birth rates are higher in highly religious states, and another study suggested kids with religious parents are better behaved than others.


The findings have practical implications for mental health experts and researchers who study well-being. Sharp said future research should consider prayer as an interaction instead of a one-sided act.
In addition, "psychotherapists and other mental health professionals can try to develop similar, non-prayer ways to accomplish these tasks," Sharp told LiveScience. "Since one way that prayer helps is by providing another who will provide positive, self-esteem-boosting feedback, mental health professionals can develop therapy programs that will be sure to include positive, self-esteem-boosting feedback that can counteract negative feedback in patients' lives."

 

[shagdrum]

science is logic. which is why it doesn't deal with the supernatural. there is no evidence for magical or devine.

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

You really have no clue what you are talking about do you. "Science is logic".

Logic, generally speaking, does not depend on evidence.

:lol::lol::lol:

What you are talking about is empiricism and that is only one type of reasoning. To assume that is the only type of reasoning is either highly arrogant or highly ignorant.

When you are willing to admit to and confront the materialist assumptions that you habitually make concerning religion and the world in general; when you are willing to try and logically justify them, then you can lecture us on what logic is and is not. But as long as you are simply going to engage in misrepresentation of concepts to defend what you cannot honestly and accurately defend, don't expect anyone on this forum to take you seriously.

Got a cut and paste response for that or simply some snarky lie?

 

[fossten]

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

You really have no clue what you are talking about do you. "Science is logic".

Logic, generally speaking, does not depend on evidence.

:lol::lol::lol:

What you are talking about is empiricism and that is only one type of reasoning. To assume that is the only type of reasoning is either highly arrogant or highly ignorant.

When you are willing to admit to and confront the materialist assumptions that you habitually make concerning religion and the world in general; when you are willing to try and logically justify them, then you can lecture us on what logic is and is not. But as long as you are simply going to engage in misrepresentation of concepts to defend what you cannot honestly and accurately defend, don't expect anyone on this forum to take you seriously.

Got a cut and paste response for that or simply some snarky lie?

I have a feeling your post streaked right over his head. :lol:

 

[Federali Aundy]

So - we are pretty close - and I did mean the matter/energy/false vacuum that was reordered ala big bang - before 'reorder.' It always was, just as God - but one didn't create the other (leaving out the idea that man created God i.e. matter creating diety). I don't have trouble understanding 'time' either - chronos or kairos. I also don't really have any problem understanding that before the big bang there wasn't any 'time' at all - nothing.

St. Thomas Aquinas said that a thing can be self-evident in two ways: either in itself or in relation to us. In other words, 2+2=4 is self-evident in itself but if one doesn’t fully understand the concept of ‘2’ then it will be very hard for him to see that 2+2 indeed equals 4. In such a way you say that you “don't really have any problem understanding that before the big bang there wasn't any 'time' at all – nothing” but I question this assertion. Time and matter (and energy and false vacuums) are interdependent. They are like two sides of the same coin – you can’t have one without the other. If there is matter/energy/false vacuum, then there necessarily is time. Furthermore, this is time in the chronos sense, not only kairos sense. Again, the term ‘nothing’ is a far more metaphysically packed word than you might think.

Fed - I also understand the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning - and why we have to go with 'inductive' reasoning for some areas of study. Often it is the jumping off point, we need to have that avenue to explore theories. And often theories cannot be 'absolutely' tested at this time. As we understand the theory better - or as our 'hard science' catches up

I love the sciences, but they, like everything else (besides God) have their limits. Science is based off of inductive reasoning and as such, it can never, ever, ever be 100% sure of anything. It can’t even tell us if it is 99% or 90% sure. It can give us a best guess, but sometimes we give it this monolithic title of SCIENCE and then treat it like it has every possible answer, when indeed it does not. You echo my sentiments when you say: “if the path is looking pretty darn good - I am pretty willing to accept it as 'law'.” I would say that the endpoint is only deductive as it applies principles to certain observations to verify hypotheses – but the principles themselves must go back to the deductive laws of logic and metaphysics without which induction could not get off the ground to begin with.

I think it is safe to say that before the creation of the universe there was no space for time. If something had to exist before the big bang - energy, matter, false vacuums - whatever, it was in a time/space void - so in that void everything would have been there 'always' - including God because that is all there was - 'always'.

Ultimately my point is that science and philosophy are on my side on this one, not yours. Before the Big Bang, there was neither space nor time (nor energy or matter or false vacuums). There were no physical manifestations of any kind, much less ordered matter like stars, atoms, gasses and the like. What science has been able to tell us is as much as philosophy has been able to tell us: from nothing, only nothing comes – and therefore there must have been some transcendent being outside of our material existence which brought matter into existence and flung it out in brief but tremendously fast inflationary period.

Don't you have to have 'time' within your universe to relate to, in order to come up with the concept of eternity? But, what if you don't have time at all - either perceived or measurable? That is what you have before the big bang - no time. Does eternity go there - before the bang? It is a measurement of some sort of time, even without the need for minutes or seconds or millennium, it still defines time. Without time - what happens to eternity?

That’s a great question! Eternity does not mean infinite time – it means no time at all. Therefore nothing material can be essentially part of eternity because matter is united inextricably with time and you can’t have one without the other. In the context of God and eternity, we might be able to speak of kairos time, but certainly not chronos time. In a way we could say that (though this analogy uses parts, so, though helpful, it too ultimately falls to fully explain the point) time is to eternity as a circle is to a sphere. Eternity doesn’t make a line longer (or even infinite) but gives it depth so to speak. Ultimately, the most important thing to recognize about eternity is that it is one, never-ending moment. Eternity simply is. We cannot say the same about the universe (pre-Big Bang or post-Big Bang) because even if the universe existed prior to the Big Bang, it would still need infinite past-time to exist “always.” The only “always” we can speak of regarding the universe is that, because it is physical, it will ALWAYS depend on measureable time.

I don't think this is a question of the age of the universe - I think this is a question of what is before the bang - before the universe. We know there isn't time - so what ever was there has always been. God, energy, false vacuum, matter - whatever was there was always there.

In case I didn’t clarify above, the answer to the “question of what is before the bang” is nothing physical whatsoever. No energy. No false vacuum. No matter. No time. There was simply no “there” or “when” to speak of. No space-time. God existed, but He is in eternity, not in time or space.

There has been some great sci-fi written along those lines as well.

I particularly enjoyed the Ender’s Game series as well as a Canticle for Liebowitz. But alas, I digress…

 

[Federali Aundy]

I don't for a moment believe that Paul thought of God in a panentheism 'frame' but I do think that the quote very eloquently states how I think of God. Transcendent, eternal, infinite, spiritual, but of the universe as well, "who is above all, and through all, and in all."

First off, I am placing my comments to this in another post so as not to accidentally crowd out our discussion above. That particular discussion is more to the point of this thread and thus more important to this side-conversation about Paul and theology. I’m not sure if this should go somewhere else, but I certainly don’t want to confuse the discussion with things of a more theological nature.

That being said, if your God is “in” the universe, how is He also outside of the universe? I think God is present to the universe, keeping it in existence and even caring for those who need Him – but I do not identify Him as also existing in the universe. If He exists both “in” and “out” of the universe in the same way, then we must worship Him in nature as well as in His eternal state. But worshiping Him in nature would be idolatry, therefore I must insist He exists outside of the universe.

Pauline? It doesn't read like the rest of Paul's work - but I do think it was him as well, but maybe with a really good writer helping him out - since he knew it was going to be rather well circulated from inception. Whoops - back on track....

Don’t worry, you’re not dealing with a Biblical fundamentalist here.

But because God is outside of time and space I also think that He is outside of gender. If you aren't corporeal, why do you think there would be a need to be dependent on things like gender?

I would think you would be more consistent than you are. You have been making this huge case for God existing in the universe and now you’re really pushing the monotheistic notion of God’s existence as “outside of time and space” and it is very inconsistent. The point is that if God exists outside of time and space, then we would speak of God in a masculine way (i.e. as “He”) but if God exists inside of time and space, as you have also said, then we would speak of God in a feminine way (i.e. as “She”). This is the reasoning behind the term “Mother Earth” – like a mother, the earth is near us and gives us life from below, nurturing and caring for us. Earth is immanent to us, not transcendent. God isn’t a “He” because He has a penis, God is a “He” because He is transcendent, just as a man is transcendent of a woman. Our physical genders are reflections of a spiritual and metaphysical reality.

And just as a 'what if'... Males are becoming obsolete. Far faster than females. Wouldn't your concept of God have seen this point in time - realize that in reality, females are 'where it is at' when it comes to 'continuing' life. All the men in the world could be wiped out tomorrow - and we would survive. If all the women were to disappear - unless science moved darn fast - this would be an extinct species. Plus - it is always "Mars (or fill in your own place) Needs Women" never "Venus Needs Men".

This is a very interesting ‘what if’ – though my answer as a Catholic will undoubtedly be rather unlike anything you have ever heard. And before I go into that, I should say again that this is a matter of theology though I still think it makes for good philosophy. As a Catholic I believe we get natural life from women (what the Greeks would call ‘bios’) but supernatural life comes through men (what the Greeks would call ‘zoe’). And by men here I specifically refer to the Catholic order of deacons, priests, and bishops who bring to us the grace of God through the seven Sacraments of Christ’s Church. It is oddly ironic that God would choose a group of celibate men to ensure we have eternal life. Thus the idea of women’s take-over would lead to an ongoing natural life which only leads to eternal death.

In other words, God is telling us we do indeed need each other

 

[foxpaws]

Fox, you're using a red herring to distract from the FACT that my survey disproves your lie. You can try to twist the stats any way you want, but you're still wrong.

Not wrong foss - over 50% more people look at the evolution theory favorable than don't.

And in reality - 3/4 of this nation believe in evolution or don't care. Maybe you should look at the 36% who just don't care. That says a lot more about America than the other 2 numbers....

While anecdotal, every single thread on this forum concerning the subject of Darwinism shows a profound ignorance of the distinction between Darwinian evolution and traditional evolution.
<snip>
The scientific community is also overwhelmingly Athiest and dishonestly avoids confronting the findings of ID instead of honestly confronting it (Expelled demonstrated as much). Appeals to authority on this matter are all but an admission that the science cannot stand on it's own.

Ah shag - I haven't really gone into evolution here - we were talking big bang....

I was just replying to foss' misleading survey -

And maybe if God were scientifically 'provable' they might look at ID...

St. Thomas Aquinas said that a thing can be self-evident in two ways: either in itself or in relation to us. In other words, 2+2=4 is self-evident in itself but if one doesn’t fully understand the concept of ‘2’ then it will be very hard for him to see that 2+2 indeed equals 4. In such a way you say that you “don't really have any problem understanding that before the big bang there wasn't any 'time' at all – nothing” but I question this assertion. Time and matter (and energy and false vacuums) are interdependent. They are like two sides of the same coin – you can’t have one without the other. If there is matter/energy/false vacuum, then there necessarily is time. Furthermore, this is time in the chronos sense, not only kairos sense. Again, the term ‘nothing’ is a far more metaphysically packed word than you might think.

Blink - big bang - universe. However - Blink has no time - because there is no space (big band is the explosion 'of' space). So, you see it as the 'thing' that starts the big bang and the big bang occurring at exactly the same moment? But, that doesn't make any sense - isn't the big bang a 'trigger'?

I love the sciences, but they, like everything else (besides God) have their limits. Science is based off of inductive reasoning and as such, it can never, ever, ever be 100% sure of anything. It can’t even tell us if it is 99% or 90% sure. It can give us a best guess, but sometimes we give it this monolithic title of SCIENCE and then treat it like it has every possible answer, when indeed it does not. You echo my sentiments when you say: “if the path is looking pretty darn good - I am pretty willing to accept it as 'law'.” I would say that the endpoint is only deductive as it applies principles to certain observations to verify hypotheses – but the principles themselves must go back to the deductive laws of logic and metaphysics without which induction could not get off the ground to begin with.

You must adore math however - because it is 100% sure - oh wait - not really there is 'inductive' reasoning in math as well - the 'N+1' proof is inductive - and not always true -

Ultimately my point is that science and philosophy are on my side on this one, not yours. Before the Big Bang, there was neither space nor time (nor energy or matter or false vacuums). There were no physical manifestations of any kind, much less ordered matter like stars, atoms, gasses and the like. What science has been able to tell us is as much as philosophy has been able to tell us: from nothing, only nothing comes – and therefore there must have been some transcendent being outside of our material existence which brought matter into existence and flung it out in brief but tremendously fast inflationary period.

There may be 'sides' on this - but I look at them as different paths - like the paths I talked about before with inductive reasoning. You give 'God' as the impetus for the Bang - I look to see if there are other 'starts', the previous universe, an adjoining universe, a slip in time from the current universe. You lock yourself in with 'God', why?

That’s a great question! Eternity does not mean infinite time – it means no time at all. Therefore nothing material can be essentially part of eternity because matter is united inextricably with time and you can’t have one without the other. In the context of God and eternity, we might be able to speak of kairos time, but certainly not chronos time. In a way we could say that (though this analogy uses parts, so, though helpful, it too ultimately falls to fully explain the point) time is to eternity as a circle is to a sphere. Eternity doesn’t make a line longer (or even infinite) but gives it depth so to speak. Ultimately, the most important thing to recognize about eternity is that it is one, never-ending moment. Eternity simply is. We cannot say the same about the universe (pre-Big Bang or post-Big Bang) because even if the universe existed prior to the Big Bang, it would still need infinite past-time to exist “always.” The only “always” we can speak of regarding the universe is that, because it is physical, it will ALWAYS depend on measureable time.

But, before didn't you use eternity as a measure of time? Maybe I am confused here. So, before/after the universe there was eternity? Infinity is bound by time?

In case I didn’t clarify above, the answer to the “question of what is before the bang” is nothing physical whatsoever. No energy. No false vacuum. No matter. No time. There was simply no “there” or “when” to speak of. No space-time. God existed, but He is in eternity, not in time or space.

So, once again they occurred at exactly the same moment in time - that doesn't work - you need something to 'trigger' the bang, it isn't something that would happen simultaneously. Physics doesn't work that way. And if nothing else, the big bang is governed by physics. Would this be another law of physics then?

 

[fossten]

Not wrong foss - over 50% more people look at the evolution theory favorable than don't.

And in reality - 3/4 of this nation believe in evolution or don't care. Maybe you should look at the 36% who just don't care. That says a lot more about America than the other 2 numbers....

You mean maybe they don't care because they aren't well versed in the differences, like Shag pointed out? Now you're making his argument for him.

And here's another poll that discredits your 'pretty much accepted' bullcrap lie.

YOU were wrong, fox (can I call you Bob?)...get over it.

 

[foxpaws]

That being said, if your God is “in” the universe, how is He also outside of the universe? I think God is present to the universe, keeping it in existence and even caring for those who need Him – but I do not identify Him as also existing in the universe. If He exists both “in” and “out” of the universe in the same way, then we must worship Him in nature as well as in His eternal state. But worshiping Him in nature would be idolatry, therefore I must insist He exists outside of the universe.

Why can't He be in both - He is 'God'. And why must you 'worship' Him in nature - He just 'is' in nature - in our universe, but you worship his 'eternal' state. Just because He is in nature wouldn't mean that He can't be outside of the universe as well.

"who is above all, and through all, and in all."

Above all - outside the universe -
Through all - spiritually eternal -
In all - inside the universe -

My God isn't bound by the universe - but it doesn't mean He isn't here as well - aren't you 'binding' God by allowing him only to exist outside the universe.

I would think you would be more consistent than you are. You have been making this huge case for God existing in the universe and now you’re really pushing the monotheistic notion of God’s existence as “outside of time and space” and it is very inconsistent. The point is that if God exists outside of time and space, then we would speak of God in a masculine way (i.e. as “He”) but if God exists inside of time and space, as you have also said, then we would speak of God in a feminine way (i.e. as “She”). This is the reasoning behind the term “Mother Earth” – like a mother, the earth is near us and gives us life from below, nurturing and caring for us. Earth is immanent to us, not transcendent. God isn’t a “He” because He has a penis, God is a “He” because He is transcendent, just as a man is transcendent of a woman. Our physical genders are reflections of a spiritual and metaphysical reality.

Well, we will always differ on this - I feel that you are being very 'closed' when you place men above (or transcendent of) women. We are different - but that doesn't place one above the other. We are equals at the 'top level' - separate, different, but equals because we are humans. Our humanity defines us first. We are humans - equal. We are male/female - different, unequal. We are old/young - different, unequal. We are large/small - different, unequal. But at the top will always be 'human', we share that quality - equally.

This is a very interesting ‘what if’ – though my answer as a Catholic will undoubtedly be rather unlike anything you have ever heard. And before I go into that, I should say again that this is a matter of theology though I still think it makes for good philosophy. As a Catholic I believe we get natural life from women (what the Greeks would call ‘bios’) but supernatural life comes through men (what the Greeks would call ‘zoe’). And by men here I specifically refer to the Catholic order of deacons, priests, and bishops who bring to us the grace of God through the seven Sacraments of Christ’s Church. It is oddly ironic that God would choose a group of celibate men to ensure we have eternal life. Thus the idea of women’s take-over would lead to an ongoing natural life which only leads to eternal death.

In other words, God is telling us we do indeed need each other

Yep - a Catholic answer. So, what happens if Catholicism moves from 'male only' deacons, priests, et al. I think it will happen eventually. Do you?

I do think we indeed need each other. Yin/Yang. The completion of the circle - both equally needed - both empty without the other. What would the idea of a man's take over be? Not eternal life.

Natural life/eternal life - intertwined. Without either - death. We can't achieve eternal life without natural life. I think that is what Jesus was put on this earth for. Natural life - forgiveness of sin - eternal life.

You mean maybe they don't care because they aren't well versed in the differences, like Shag pointed out? Now you're making his argument for him.

And here's another poll that discredits your 'pretty much accepted' bullcrap lie.

YOU were wrong, fox...get over it.

And the people of the world believed it was flat as well.... we got better...

And pretty much accepted still holds - you keep looking at this in just a US context - look at it world wide. Oh, that is right, in your 'world' the rest of the 'world' doesn't count. It is red white and blue - or nothing.

 

[fossten]

My God isn't bound by the universe - but it doesn't mean He isn't here as well - aren't you 'binding' God by allowing him only to exist outside the universe.

Aren't evolutionists binding God by saying that He must abide by the very laws of physics that He created?

And the people of the world believed it was flat as well.... we got better...

And pretty much accepted still holds - you keep looking at this in just a US context - look at it world wide. Oh, that is right, in your 'world' the rest of the 'world' doesn't count. It is red white and blue - or nothing.

So you believe we came from apes, eh Bob?

 

[foxpaws]

So you believe we came from apes, eh Bob?

Nope - neither does science....

Aren't evolutionists binding God by saying that He must abide by the very laws of physics that He created?

Nope - why would you think that foss?

 

[fossten]

Nope - neither does science....

Who is "science", B. Smilt? Can you name these people? Science isn't an entity that believes something.

Nope - why would you think that foss?

Because they require a scientific constraint to explain a supernatural phenomenon.

And the people of the world believed it was flat as well.... we got better...

And pretty much accepted still holds - you keep looking at this in just a US context - look at it world wide. Oh, that is right, in your 'world' the rest of the 'world' doesn't count. It is red white and blue - or nothing.

Nope, wrong fox...

 

[foxpaws]

Who is "science", B. Smilt? Can you name these people? Science isn't an entity.

Smilt? Scientist? Evolutionist? I googled it, no one showed up. Got a link foss?

Nope, wrong fox...

Fox right - Foss wrong... got source? I did.

 

[fossten]

Smilt? Scientist? Evolutionist? I googled it, no one showed up. Got a link foss?

I just want to know if it's okay to call you Bob.

Fox right - Foss wrong... got source? I did.

I gave you several sources, you just decided to ignore them and redefine terms - pretty standard tactics for an Alinskyite liar.

Are you going to continue with the 'nope' defense? Stay classy! Let me know when you grow up.



Poll: Majority of Americans Don't Believe in Evolution

by Christine Dao *

Even two centuries after his birth, less than 40 percent of Americans believe in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection, a recent poll found.

The Gallup survey, released on Darwin’s 200th birthday, involved over 1,000 adults. When asked, “Do you, personally, believe in the theory of evolution, do you not believe in evolution, or don’t you have an opinion either way,” 39 percent answered yes to belief in evolution, a quarter said no to belief in evolution, 36 percent didn’t have an opinion, and one percent did not answer.

Those with high-school educations or less are much more likely to have no opinion than are those who have more formal education. Still, among those with high-school educations or less who have an opinion on Darwin’s theory, more say they do not believe in evolution than say they believe in it. For all other groups, and in particular those who have at least a college degree, belief is significantly higher than nonbelief.1

Since “belief” in evolution coincides with higher degrees of education according to the poll, evolution adherents would interpret the data as indicating that less educated people don’t believe in evolution. However, this interpretation doesn’t acknowledge that evolution is the only origins theory taught in most taxpayer-funded school systems. If students are getting only one side of the story and have to accept that one side to make the grade, guess what they’re going to grow up to believe?

“Americans who seldom or never attend church are slightly, but not overwhelmingly, more likely to correctly identify Darwin with this theory than are those who attend more often,” the Gallup report stated. “Correctly identifying the theory of evolution with Darwin is related to belief in the theory, but 29% of those who correctly link the two still say they do not believe in evolution.”1

In other words, church attendance does not coincide with ignorance of Darwinian evolution, but there was a distinct correlation between church attendance and belief in evolution. Twenty-four percent of people who attend church weekly believed in evolution while 41 percent did not. Of those who said they seldom or never attend church, 55 percent said they believe in evolution and 11 percent said they did not.

t is perhaps dismaying to scientists who study and respect [Darwin’s] work to see that well less than half of Americans today say they believe in the theory of evolution, and that just 55% can associate the man with his theory…. Still, the evidence is clear that even to this day, Americans’ religious beliefs are a significant predictor of their attitudes toward Darwin’s theory. Those who attend church most often are the least likely to believe in evolution, and most likely to say they do not believe in it.1

But it’s not all bad news for the Darwinists. The Gallup poll shows America’s ongoing loss of its Christian heritage and how the quality of American education has suffered for the sake of politics. As public and higher education becomes ever more secularized and censored by special interest groups,2 students will be even less equipped to face the daunting future that looms ahead.3

 

[shagdrum]

I particularly enjoyed the Ender’s Game series as well as a Canticle for Liebowitz. But alas, I digress…

Ender's Game is probably my favorite sci-fi novel.

And maybe if God were scientifically 'provable' they might look at ID...

If ID said anything about God or assume a god in it's reasoning, that might be a valid critique. But ID doesn't and you know it (we have had this discussion before).

You can tell the strength and validity of an argument not only on the strength of the reasoning and the certainty of the facts but by how accurately and fairly that argument represents opposing views.

 

[fossten]

If ID said anything about God or assume a god in it's reasoning, that might be a valid critique. But ID doesn't and you know it (we have had this discussion before).

You can tell the strength and validity of an argument not only on the strength of the reasoning and the certainty of the facts but on accurately and fairly that argument represents opposing views.

You can also tell the level of honesty of the person presenting the opposing argument.

 

[Federali Aundy]

Oh missed this - sorry.

So - you separate evolution of body and of spirit to get around the 'original sin' conundrum. I like it... Accept evolution - but put an 'out' in it, state that our 'souls' didn't evolve but are a direct line to God.

When did the point in evolution occur that we got our 'souls' inserted?

Just a thought... I do like this idea though - for Christianity - it gets around the whole problem of dealing with a pretty much accepted theory, evolution, while being able to keep original sin, a very necessary 'evil' when dealing with Jesus' purpose of being put on this earth.

My apologies for not getting back to this one sooner, too.

Again, I think the materialist lenses through which you view the world make for a diminished view of reality rather than a larger view. In these conversations, it is the theist who is far more “open minded” than the pantheist, panentheist, or atheist. We do not attribute divine things to merely physical realities (like believing God “exists in” nature).

The soul is a non-physical reality – and since science and evolution deal only with the material, neither can make any claim on the soul. I’m not sure how much we need to debate the “science” of original sin. I think G.K. Chesterton hit the nail on the head when he said that original sin is the one dogma that can be proven true simply by picking up the morning paper.

there is no need. that's the point. you're saying it doesn't make it so.
some like to believe. but then that's a preference, not a need.

But there is a need. The physical universe logically needs a First Cause. We both agree in one god or another – you attempt to make the universe God by giving it the divine attribute of sheer existence. This is illogical because of the physicality of the universe. I give divine attributes to what is truly divine: God.

things are created and destroyed daily/hourly/secondly, without a need for a god to do so.

Ah, but things are not created ex nihilo (i.e. from nothing) daily/hourly/secondly nor reduced to absolutely nothing. What we observe in the material universe is the re-ordering of the stuff that already exists. Science has pushed us back to say there was a moment that all this stuff came into existence. Philosophy makes the deductive step of saying that there must be a First Cause, which is sheer existence in itself, that can give existence to the physical universe. The First Cause may not be the Christian God, but it’s certainly enough to refute atheism.

science is logic. which is why it doesn't deal with the supernatural. there is no evidence for magical or devine.

I don’t think evidence is the problem (indeed I could show you documented accounts of the miraculous), but rather your philosophy which categorically rejects the possibility of the supernatural. This is what we call being closed-minded.

 

[Federali Aundy]

Blink - big bang - universe. However - Blink has no time - because there is no space (big band is the explosion 'of' space). So, you see it as the 'thing' that starts the big bang and the big bang occurring at exactly the same moment? But, that doesn't make any sense - isn't the big bang a 'trigger'?

I understand where you’re coming from, but I’m just giving you what the sciences have thus far had to offer. The standard scientific explanation of the universe is that all matter, space, and time came into existence at the Big Bang. Thus the scientific view of the universe is: (1) there is nothing, (2) there is something and that something immediately explodes and expands, and (3) the eventual cool-off following the explosion resulted in the universe as we now see it. Every model of the universe since the 1980s has verified and re-verified this fact.

You must adore math however - because it is 100% sure - oh wait - not really there is 'inductive' reasoning in math as well - the 'N+1' proof is inductive - and not always true

Well, actually, I disagree with you on this one. Inductive mathematics is not inductive reasoning but rather a form of mathematical reasoning that is itself based on the laws of pure deduction. Inductive mathematics relies on the foundation of deductive reasoning, even if the results of inductive mathematics are not always true. Again, let’s look at the foundation because there is an absolute need for a foundation, whether it is a foundation for higher-level mathematics or the universe itself.

I look to see if there are other 'starts', the previous universe, an adjoining universe, a slip in time from the current universe. You lock yourself in with 'God', why?

I was really hoping to avoid talking about a “previous universe, an adjoining universe, [or] a slip in time from the current universe.” All of these are purely hypothetical, have no basis in what has been observed through scientific research, and only can result in pushing our conversation back one level. We will still need to ask: where did these other things come from? The matter does not come down to why I lock myself in with ‘God,’ but whether or not I lock myself into reality. The reality is that the universe cannot explain itself, create itself, or sustain itself. I am following deductive reasoning to the ultimate conclusion: God.

But, before didn't you use eternity as a measure of time? Maybe I am confused here. So, before/after the universe there was eternity? Infinity is bound by time?

I don’t believe I used eternity as a measure of time. Eternity is neither before nor after the universe. Eternity simply is. It’s a never-ending, single moment. Infinity, similar to eternity, cannot be fully described or expounded within the realm of time or matter since neither time nor matter is infinite. There is simply no way to fully articulate infinity in the physical universe. Indeed, the only reason our minds can grasp the concept of infinity is because our minds are not wholly material. Even still, our minds, though partly immaterial, are not infinite and thus they too cannot fully grasp the infinite though they can grasp the concept (along with other concepts which are by definition non-material).

So, once again they occurred at exactly the same moment in time - that doesn't work - you need something to 'trigger' the bang, it isn't something that would happen simultaneously. Physics doesn't work that way. And if nothing else, the big bang is governed by physics. Would this be another law of physics then?

Again, I’m just offering the standard picture of the universe which the sciences have to offer. But I wouldn’t say that this “doesn’t work” categorically speaking. Why can’t the immaterial God, who is existence itself, share His existence and create the universe? I think there are two reasons some people oppose this: (1) the immaterial cannot work upon or effect something material, and (2) the idea of the immaterial seems to be less than, or not as great as, the material. To the first problem I point to the fact that my immaterial will has directly caused my very material fingers to strike each key I have typed in this post. To the second, I say that the immaterial is actually far more "real" than the material. It’s like the chronos-kairos time example. Matter works simply on chronos (measurable time) but kairos connects one to the immaterial, giving one depth and meaning. Matter cannot run on kairos, but the soul can run on both. Thus the material may have length and width, so to speak, but the immaterial has ‘depth’ in addition to this. The immaterial is more, much more, than the mere material.

Why can't He be in both - He is 'God'. And why must you 'worship' Him in nature - He just 'is' in nature - in our universe, but you worship his 'eternal' state. Just because He is in nature wouldn't mean that He can't be outside of the universe as well.

I suppose the real question comes down to this: Do you believe God “exists in” nature or merely is “present to” nature, giving it existence and holding it in existence? I logically believe in the latter, for if God really “exists in” nature (even if He also exists “outside” nature, too) then He (or rather She) should be worshiped “in” nature.

My God isn't bound by the universe - but it doesn't mean He isn't here as well - aren't you 'binding' God by allowing him only to exist outside the universe.

There are different – and still orthodox – theologies regarding this matter, but it is certainly safe to say that the idea of God existing in a timeless, infinite, eternal state “outside” the universe is far less binding than placing His existence “in” the universe itself (with its finite chronos time and material parts). God must logically have a connection to the universe, but I wouldn’t say that His existence is found in the universe because the universe is finite and created whereas He is infinite and uncreated.

Well, we will always differ on this - I feel that you are being very 'closed' when you place men above (or transcendent of) women.

Let’s be clear that “above” is your term, not mine. It is sadly the result of your philosophy acting as an interpretive lense through which you read the writings of others. I suggest you attempt to grasp my ideas rather than read your ideas and your philosophy into my words.

Transcendent does not mean “above” but “outside” and the male gender participates in God’s masculinity insofar as a man acts upon a woman and enters into her from “outside” to produce new life in her. Woman is receptive to man just as the universe is receptive to God. I am not saying that men are better than woman but that the sexes participate in something far more cosmic and far more grand than modern society seems to think. In any case, men must still be receptive (in a feminine sense) to God. In many ways, I think women can have a far easier time in responding to God because they literally embody receptivity. So if anything, being a woman is a help, not a hurt.

So, what happens if Catholicism moves from 'male only' deacons, priests, et al. I think it will happen eventually. Do you?

Nope. Not gonna happen. There are many historical and theological reasons for this, but that is really a matter for a whole other conversation. Suffice it to say that the ordination of women as deacons, priests, or bishops would simply be invalid and non-efficacious. Women do have important roles in the Church, but not in the context of the Sacrament of Holy Orders or in celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass. It should also be noted that the concept of “Holy Orders” is very different from the Protestant notion of ministers or pastors – so this is in no way a blanket condemnation of women in ministerial positions, but in the Catholic context, we will not see women receiving Holy Orders.

On a side note, Catholics would say that the greatest of God's creation is Mary, the Virgin Mother of God. By sheer gift, she is elevated above all else through grace. She may be the greatest, but she was never made a priest (or rather priestess). Nevertheless, the priest would have a higher dignity because he is mysteriously configured to the very person of Jesus Christ in such a way that his soul is ontologically changed for all eternity. I would say that the Catholic vision paints a greater picture of both genders - a picture which our sad society could greatly use right now.

What would the idea of a man's take over be? Not eternal life.

Thankfully I am not advocating a man’s take over. The role of man is to protect and minister to the feminine. We’re here to serve and protect

I think that is what Jesus was put on this earth for. Natural life - forgiveness of sin - eternal life.

There’s a wonderful saying that runs similar to your thought: born once, die twice; born twice, die once. What it means is that if we are born merely naturally, we will die naturally and die supernaturally – but if we’re born naturally and reborn supernaturally, then we shall only die the natural death and enter into eternal life. As a Catholic, I would say that our first mother can only give us a life that shall end in death – but our second mother, the Church, can give us eternal life. Or as the 3rd century bishop of Carthage (St. Cyprian) said: One cannot have God as his father without having the Church as his mother.

 

[hrmwrm]

you attempt to make the universe God by giving it the divine attribute of sheer existence.

nope. just we don't understand fully the whole picture.

Ah, but things are not created ex nihilo

that's what you believe. physics says different, with evidence.
particles continuously pop in/ out of existence. nothing magical/supernatural about it.

Philosophy makes the deductive step of saying that there must be a First Cause, which is sheer existence in itself, that can give existence to the physical universe. The First Cause may not be the Christian God, but it’s certainly enough to refute atheism.

trying to understand the first cause without understanding the workings is sheer folly.
that is what always brings you to a "magical" answer. the fact that something exists is not answered by invoking superstition. admit you don't yet understand it and leave it there. someday the true answer will come.
existance of a universe doesn't prove god, it only poses a question to answer.
refute atheism? maybe to believers looking for the simple, unproveable answer.
but without some weighing evidence for your shortsighted belief, no. the big picture still comes down to "nobody knows".
after all, god has always been invoked to explain unknown, yet natural phenomenon.
there is nothing magical about conception.
god is not needed to explain this, yet it was/still is used.
people aren't blessed with children, they have sex. as does the rest of the animal kingdom. it is not a mystery, it is biology.

I don’t think evidence is the problem (indeed I could show you documented accounts of the miraculous), but rather your philosophy which categorically rejects the possibility of the supernatural. This is what we call being closed-minded.

and you only look to the supernatural for your explanation. close minded is dependent on your view. you only accept the supernatural for your explanation of that which you don't understand. you reject natural cause as an explanation. that's close minded as well.
as i've said before. show me the evidence for it. something concrete.

Logic is a construct of the human mind

so is god and the supernatural.

and not subject to verification by experimentation. Science is.

you need logic to have science. you don't experiment on willy-nilly ideas.

I answered your question. You're arguing with yourself.

sorry. which 1? i must have missed alot of your answers. you posting them in another section?

Prayer Relieves Mind in Many Ways, Study Finds

Jeanna Bryner
LiveScience Managing Editor
LiveScience.com jeanna Bryner
livescience Managing Editor
livescience.com Tue Dec 14, 7:15 am ET

Getting on your knees and looking to the heavens may really bring comfort during tough times, new research finds.

This will come as no surprise to many Americans, as 75 percent say they pray on a weekly basis in order to manage hard situations, including illness, and emotions such as sadness and anger, according to the study researcher citing Pew Research Center data. And most Americans also think God is involved in their everyday lives and concerned with their personal well-being.

The new study aimed to find out how prayer leads to mental relief. Results suggested prayer can serve as a distraction and even as sort of a punching bag.

Always available

Lead researcher Shane Sharp, a graduate student studying sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, conducted in-depth interviews with 62 victims of violent relationships with intimate partners. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 72 (averaging 41) and represented a wide swath of the United States in geographic, educational and racial terms, with largely Christian backgrounds.

Results showed that in general that God or another figure from religion acted as a support system for the participants. The figure had certain perceived characteristics, such as being loving, powerful and caring, that influenced why participants sought him or her out. But unlike a flesh-and-blood shoulder to cry on or an abusive partner to rail at, God was available whenever and wherever the participant reached out, Sharp said.
"If they vented their anger to that abusive partner, the result was likely to be more violence," Sharp told LiveScience. "But they could be angry at God while praying, without fear of reprisal."

For those who are not religious, Sharp said, the findings of the study may not apply unless they look to another "virtual" friend, such as a celebrity, in times of crises. [Thinking of God Calms Believers, Stresses Atheists]

Victims' stories

One participant, Monica, a white 25-year-old, said she used prayer to manage her anger over being abused by a loved one. It's "kinda like getting something off your chest, you know. I mean, you're kinda talking about it with somebody, you know. I mean, it's just a way to kinda voice your opinion, you know, about something, or, you know, let the Lord know, you know, how you would like something," she was quoted as saying.

Sharp added that prayer seemed to help self-image. "During prayer, victims came to see themselves as they believed God saw them. Since these perceptions were mostly positive, it helped raise their senses of self-worth that counteracted their abusers' hurtful words," Sharp said.

Marianne, a white Southern Baptist in her early 50s who had been married to an abusive man for nearly 20 years, sighed as she said: "I guess the number one thing for me would be the realization that there's, there was, the God out there the whole time where I'm out thinking, well, 'This is my life so screwed up. I need to get drunk. No, I need to take drugs. No, I need to kill myself.' ... And just to, to be able to just sit down and think that God wanted to communicate with me and that I'm not a scumbag in front of his eyes no matter what. Wow, how cool is that?"

Prayer also served as a handy distraction for some, Sharp found. Folding one's hands and focusing on this conversation provided a reprieve from the anxiety of an abusive relationship.

Yet the consequences of prayer weren't always positive. "For some, through prayer they told me they learned to forgive their abusive partners, to let go of their anger and resentment," Sharp said. "But that's a double-edged sword. It's good for those who are out of that violent relationship to let go of it to a certain extent. But if they're still in their violent relationship, it may postpone their decision to leave, and that can be bad."
Religion is complicated

That double-edged sword highlights the complexity of religion and its effects. "Religion is often pointed to as a mostly positive or mostly negative thing. It's way more complicated than that," said Sharp, whose results are detailed in the current issue of the journal Social Psychology Quarterly.

Other research out this month shows that religious people are happier because of the social networks they build by attending religious services. Past research has shown that teen birth rates are higher in highly religious states, and another study suggested kids with religious parents are better behaved than others.


The findings have practical implications for mental health experts and researchers who study well-being. Sharp said future research should consider prayer as an interaction instead of a one-sided act.
In addition, "psychotherapists and other mental health professionals can try to develop similar, non-prayer ways to accomplish these tasks," Sharp told LiveScience. "Since one way that prayer helps is by providing another who will provide positive, self-esteem-boosting feedback, mental health professionals can develop therapy programs that will be sure to include positive, self-esteem-boosting feedback that can counteract negative feedback in patients' lives."

it wouldn't stay around if it didn't work for some.
i've never argued that some don't find relief in it.

 

[fossten]

sorry. which 1? i must have missed alot of your answers. you posting them in another section?

If you can't keep up with the conversation, it's your problem. I'm not going to do a bunch of busywork for you.

it wouldn't stay around if it didn't work for some.
i've never argued that some don't find relief in it.

Straw man.

so is god and the supernatural.


you need logic to have science. you don't experiment on willy-nilly ideas.

What do you think the Big Bang is?

and you only look to the supernatural for your explanation. close minded is dependent on your view. you only accept the supernatural for your explanation of that which you don't understand. you reject natural cause as an explanation. that's close minded as well.
as i've said before. show me the evidence for it. something concrete.

It's amusing that you don't see the irony in your challenge. The Big Bang is completely supernatural, and has no evidence whatsoever to back it up. It's circular reasoning to demand scientific evidence to explain a supernatural event. You believe in evolution by faith alone.