I guess, knowing you, AL, that you've put these statements here because you admire them.
But isn't Diderot's murderous? Steinem (a hero of mine) knocks down a straw man - Jesus taught love for your neighbor as the central motive. The anti-slavery movement was ignited by Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Finney invented the "altar call" for the purpose of recruiting volunteers in the anti-slavery movement. In Britain, Wilberforce gave much of his life to defeating the slave trade because of his conversion in the Wesleyan revival. The American civil rights movement, led by theologian Martin Luther King, was driven by Christians through churches (remember the bombings?), as were most of the ...

I guess, knowing you, AL, that you've put these statements here because you admire them.
But isn't Diderot's murderous? Steinem (a hero of mine) knocks down a straw man - Jesus taught love for your neighbor as the central motive. The anti-slavery movement was ignited by Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Finney invented the "altar call" for the purpose of recruiting volunteers in the anti-slavery movement. In Britain, Wilberforce gave much of his life to defeating the slave trade because of his conversion in the Wesleyan revival. The American civil rights movement, led by theologian Martin Luther King, was driven by Christians through churches (remember the bombings?), as were most of the great 19th-century social movements. Every city in America has a Mercy or Lutheran hospital, churches that care for the homeless, and many have universities founded by Christians (Harvard and Yale, for instance - lux et veritas!). Early Roman Christians raised the babies citizens left out to die, as African churches today raise the orphans of parents with AIDS. Sunday Schools were begun by churches in London to teach literacy to child laborers who had only Sundays free, and no other hope of escape from a lifetime of slavery.
It is true that people with vested interests have co-opted churches, persuading them to support immoral causes. But to let that foolishness justify reactionary statements like "every single bit of progress" has been opposed by churches - that is simply propaganda, a spin on the past that conveniently ignores reality in order to promote Russell's own view. Surely you see history more clearly than that. And, knowing you, surely you are more committed to accuracy than that.

I never suggested Christians didn't do good things. Many of them do. I think they ALL should. And I think everyone else should too.

But while Christians perpetrated evil deeds for centuries, some Christians, like the Quakers, fought openly against such evils, like slavery.

Interestingly, Jesus didn't come right out and speak up for freedom against slavery. And Jesus didn't answer the prayers of thousands of black slaves (even after they'd been indoctrinated into the Christian faith).

He didn't come to the rescue of black mothers whose babes were torn from their bosom to be sold to the highest bidder. He never showed up to tell the masters of slavery anything.

But it isn't about any o...

I never suggested Christians didn't do good things. Many of them do. I think they ALL should. And I think everyone else should too.

But while Christians perpetrated evil deeds for centuries, some Christians, like the Quakers, fought openly against such evils, like slavery.

Interestingly, Jesus didn't come right out and speak up for freedom against slavery. And Jesus didn't answer the prayers of thousands of black slaves (even after they'd been indoctrinated into the Christian faith).

He didn't come to the rescue of black mothers whose babes were torn from their bosom to be sold to the highest bidder. He never showed up to tell the masters of slavery anything.

But it isn't about any of that. It's about where would we be as a race (a human race), using truth as our guide instead of superstition.

Good deeds in favor of the human race, without the superstition, is secular humanism.

The good you cite... is humanism.

That they were Christian... does it erase the evil that it once supported (and in some cases still does)?

The "good" ... without the trimmings, is secular. The humanism ... without the trimmings, is secular.

There is no evil intent or evil authority in secular humanism. It's purpose is to do good for humans. When people come on board with that, good things happen, even if they're Christian!

9. Man will then be free to submit to their animal desires.

The theory of secular law is to prevent injustice. The pursuit of one's own happiness is freedom. If you don't wish to be free, you have the freedom to put chains on yourself.

15. Believe and serve your Creator for love not for the mere consequences of not loving Him.

If you've seen the cosmos, you'd know your creator couldn't possibly be jealous (or require the love) of a man.

5. Faith is a desire to know the fullness of Truth. By not seeking the Truth you end up with your own relative truth.
Faith is epistemologically invalid. It can neither confirm nor deny any falsehood or truth. Faith is willful credu...

9. Man will then be free to submit to their animal desires.

The theory of secular law is to prevent injustice. The pursuit of one's own happiness is freedom. If you don't wish to be free, you have the freedom to put chains on yourself.

15. Believe and serve your Creator for love not for the mere consequences of not loving Him.

If you've seen the cosmos, you'd know your creator couldn't possibly be jealous (or require the love) of a man.

5. Faith is a desire to know the fullness of Truth. By not seeking the Truth you end up with your own relative truth.
Faith is epistemologically invalid. It can neither confirm nor deny any falsehood or truth. Faith is willful credulity disguised as a virtue.

8. I believe in the Creator of nature and His goodness.

The Creator of Nature is not the biblical god. If it was, the biblical text would agree with every fact of Nature. Nature disproves the veracity of the bible and its supposed author.

3. All reason leads to God. All people who believe in God are thinkers.

"All reason leads to God" is evidence that all people who believe in God are not necessarily GOOD thinkers.


11. Matthew 18:3 (Jesus) said, "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

You assume that if it's written in the bible that it's true. But if no evidence can be found for the historical existence of Jesus, how can anything he supposedly said?


2. I am a good citizen (Samaritan) due to the morals and teachings of my God, not from the state.

If you require a god to keep you from doing evil, then by all means keep your god. But if you're caught breaking secular (state) law, you'll be punished in real life.


4. Churches are much more helpful than lighthouses.

Not when "light" is considered as "being able to see".

Faith is epistemologically invalid. It can neither confirm nor deny any
falsehood or truth. Faith is willful credulity disguised as a virtue.

A didn't understand, how the epistemological invalidity of faith (I understand this as 'believing in the existence of a creator') leads to the conclusion, that it is a 'credulity'.
The faith of a (wo)man in the existence of a creator, as a result of his/her observing&thinking&reflecting about the existing, can be as profound as the faith of a (wo)man in the non-existence of a creator, as a result of his/her observing&thinking&reflecting. What makes one more credulous than the orher?

Another thing that I couldn't understand...

Faith is epistemologically invalid. It can neither confirm nor deny any
falsehood or truth. Faith is willful credulity disguised as a virtue.

A didn't understand, how the epistemological invalidity of faith (I understand this as 'believing in the existence of a creator') leads to the conclusion, that it is a 'credulity'.
The faith of a (wo)man in the existence of a creator, as a result of his/her observing&thinking&reflecting about the existing, can be as profound as the faith of a (wo)man in the non-existence of a creator, as a result of his/her observing&thinking&reflecting. What makes one more credulous than the orher?

Another thing that I couldn't understand or sort out:

if no evidence can be found for the historical existence of Jesus, how can anything he supposedly said

If it cannot be ascertained, what he said, how can it be ascertained that for example

Jesus didn't come right out and speak up for freedom against slavery

or that

Jesus didn't answer the prayers of thousands of black slaves (even after they'd been indoctrinated into the Christian faith)

?
I want to emphasize, that no offense is meant to anyone. I'm trying to understand people's viewpoints...

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge?

Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

It has nothing to do with belief in god(s) but rather the validity of knowledge and how it is gained.

Faith has no means of determining if something is true or false. It therefore cannot be used to gain knowledge or as a form of knowledge. (It is thus epistemologically invalid.)
-----

Another thing that I couldn't understand or sort out:

[i] "...if no evidence can be fo...

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge?

Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

It has nothing to do with belief in god(s) but rather the validity of knowledge and how it is gained.

Faith has no means of determining if something is true or false. It therefore cannot be used to gain knowledge or as a form of knowledge. (It is thus epistemologically invalid.)
-----

Another thing that I couldn't understand or sort out:

"...if no evidence can be found for the historical existence of Jesus, how can anything he supposedly said.."

There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed as a real person.

In the bible, Jesus doesn't condemn slavery. And in real life, the slaves that prayed to him remained slaves until freed by law.

No offense taken.

I read a little about epistemology before writing my previous comment and I think I understand what you mean with (and why it is said that) "Faith is epistemologically invalid".
I also understand that epistemology has nothing to do with belief in God.
But 'faith' has to do with belief in God. It is partly defined as 'belief in God'. I understand your statement "Faith is willful credulity" as "the belief in the existence of God (creator), is a belief based on slight or uncertain evidence". Is this correct?
Or does your definition of faith contain the Bible and Christianity? (I want to make sure that we define it the same way before I get in a fuddle)

The term "justified belief...

I read a little about epistemology before writing my previous comment and I think I understand what you mean with (and why it is said that) "Faith is epistemologically invalid".
I also understand that epistemology has nothing to do with belief in God.
But 'faith' has to do with belief in God. It is partly defined as 'belief in God'. I understand your statement "Faith is willful credulity" as "the belief in the existence of God (creator), is a belief based on slight or uncertain evidence". Is this correct?
Or does your definition of faith contain the Bible and Christianity? (I want to make sure that we define it the same way before I get in a fuddle)

The term "justified belief" puzzled me a little. I saw something either as knowledge, or as belief (f.e. Faith is belief, not knowledge). Didn't know there is something called 'justified belief'. How it is determined if a belief is justified? Could someone recommend me some online literature about this (as factual and objective as possible)? It would be very appreciated...

-----

And in real life, the slaves that prayed to him remained slaves until freed by law.

Okay, I think I understand: You don't know&believe this is true. You don't claim that this is true. You just say that this is so according to the Bible and thus it is believed (or should be believed) by Christians. Am I going into the right direction?

I read a little about epistemology before writing my previous comment
and I think I understand what you mean with (and why it is said that)
"Faith is epistemologically invalid".
I also understand that epistemology has nothing to do with belief in God.
But 'faith' has to do with belief in God. It is partly defined as 'belief in God'. I understand your statement "Faith is willful credulity" as "the belief in the existence of God (creator), is a belief based on slight or uncertain evidence". Is this correct?
Or does your definition of faith contain the Bible and Christianity? (I want to make sure that we define it the same way before I get in a fuddle)

The
term "justified belief...

I read a little about epistemology before writing my previous comment
and I think I understand what you mean with (and why it is said that)
"Faith is epistemologically invalid".
I also understand that epistemology has nothing to do with belief in God.
But 'faith' has to do with belief in God. It is partly defined as 'belief in God'. I understand your statement "Faith is willful credulity" as "the belief in the existence of God (creator), is a belief based on slight or uncertain evidence". Is this correct?
Or does your definition of faith contain the Bible and Christianity? (I want to make sure that we define it the same way before I get in a fuddle)

The
term "justified belief" puzzled me a little. I saw something either as
knowledge, or as belief (f.e. Faith is belief, not knowledge). Didn't
know there is something called 'justified belief'. How it is determined
if a belief is justified? Could someone recommend me some online
literature about this (as factual and objective as possible)? It would
be very appreciated...

-----

And in real life, the slaves that prayed to him remained slaves until freed by law.

Okay, I think I understand: You don't know&believe this is true.
You don't claim that this is true. You just say that this is so
according to the Bible and thus it is believed (or should be believed)
by Christians. Am I going into the right direction?

My response to your responses:

9. Theories are well and nice but secular law never provide happiness for us. Freedom is knowledge of Truth, not the self satisfaction pleasure and materialism provide. To pursue one owns self satisfaction is to remain a slave to oneself.

15. God does not require our love. But He did create us and the splendor of the cosmos none the less so that we may come to admire His works and recognize the grandeuer and come to believe that there is a Creator.

5. Faith the substance of what we hope for. If there is no hope there is no faith to be attained. Epistomology is the theory of knowledge which should lead to what is true. Absolute and infinite Truth is from the ...

My response to your responses:

9. Theories are well and nice but secular law never provide happiness for us. Freedom is knowledge of Truth, not the self satisfaction pleasure and materialism provide. To pursue one owns self satisfaction is to remain a slave to oneself.

15. God does not require our love. But He did create us and the splendor of the cosmos none the less so that we may come to admire His works and recognize the grandeuer and come to believe that there is a Creator.

5. Faith the substance of what we hope for. If there is no hope there is no faith to be attained. Epistomology is the theory of knowledge which should lead to what is true. Absolute and infinite Truth is from the perfect God who created all which is what we hope for.

8. How so? The Bible clearly states that God created the universe out of nothing.

3. That is a mere opinion. The greatest philosophers believed in God. This is fact not opinion.

11. I was quoting my Master who says to become childlike in many ways is to know Him.

If you require proof of the existence of Jesus other than from the Scriptures then read the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus who was not a believer in Christ but yet wrote of Him.

2. Your belief in the supremecy of the state contradicts # 9. Any secular state can punish me for doing good. Like standing up for human rights which communism, for example will not tolerate.

4. Churches are lighthouses for the spiritual life which is eternal. Lighthouses are mere sources of light for the mortal eye which is not eternal.

But 'faith' has to do with belief in God. It is partly defined as 'belief in God'. I understand your statement "Faith is willful credulity" as "the belief in the existence of God (creator), is a belief based on slight or uncertain evidence". Is this correct?

Nope. Faith is a strong belief in the absence of evidence (to support that belief) or in spite of the evidence.

It is referenced to a god (even in the dictionary) typically because it's such a good example of its application.

I understand your statement "Faith is willful credulity" as "the belief in the existence of God (creator), is a belief based on slight or uncertain evidence". Is this correct?

No. F...

But 'faith' has to do with belief in God. It is partly defined as 'belief in God'. I understand your statement "Faith is willful credulity" as "the belief in the existence of God (creator), is a belief based on slight or uncertain evidence". Is this correct?

Nope. Faith is a strong belief in the absence of evidence (to support that belief) or in spite of the evidence.

It is referenced to a god (even in the dictionary) typically because it's such a good example of its application.

I understand your statement "Faith is willful credulity" as "the belief in the existence of God (creator), is a belief based on slight or uncertain evidence". Is this correct?

No. Faith is willful credulity because it purposely (willfully) ignores evidence to the contrary of the belief, or purposely believes in the absence of evidence. It has nothing to do with a god.

Faith makes a person gullible because it essentially requires a person to believe without (or in spite of) evidence.

Ignoring or discounting evidence CANNOT be an adequate avenue to knowledge. And since faith cannot determine if something is true or false, it leaves one dumb (laking in knowledge) or gullible, (accepting anything "as" knowledge).

Am I going into the right direction?

No. The salves became Christianized but remained slaves until freed by law. No Jesus came down and said "free the slaves".

@Efrain

You answer with platitudes. But they don't have relevant meaning. "Freedom is knowledge of Truth"?

Boy, tell THAT to a prisoner or slave. Truth has nothing to do with it. It's being unencumbered by the shackles of others, that define freedom. To pursue ones own happiness... That is the purpose of freedom!

"He created the universe so we could come to believe that there is a creator"? Your reasoning starts with the conclusion you wish to reach. Circular reasoning. But the facts of Nature do not agree with the biblical version. If god made nature, the bible could not be his word.

"Epistomology is the theory of knowledge which should lead to what is true." Agreed. Can faith do that...

@Efrain

You answer with platitudes. But they don't have relevant meaning. "Freedom is knowledge of Truth"?

Boy, tell THAT to a prisoner or slave. Truth has nothing to do with it. It's being unencumbered by the shackles of others, that define freedom. To pursue ones own happiness... That is the purpose of freedom!

"He created the universe so we could come to believe that there is a creator"? Your reasoning starts with the conclusion you wish to reach. Circular reasoning. But the facts of Nature do not agree with the biblical version. If god made nature, the bible could not be his word.

"Epistomology is the theory of knowledge which should lead to what is true." Agreed. Can faith do that?

"..read the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus".

His works contain known forgeries; besides Josephus was a Jew, forced by the Romans to coerce the other Jews into believing the story.. They still don't to this day. And Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. Was he? Nor any author during that time!


"Churches are lighthouses for the spiritual life which is eternal"? I don't know what you call spiritual, but there's a lot of evil coming out of churches these days, on all sides of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions.

I'm not saying religion is inherently bad. I just wish the believers didn't try so hard to harm others because of it. If they want to believe in things to make them feel good, that's fine. But don't call it truth when its not.

There's much more to be learned from the "actual" truth than the "pretend". I know your rational side agrees with that.

I do agree with the definition "firm belief in something for which there is no proof", where I understand the 'proof' as 'scientific proof', as profound as 2+2=4.

But I don't agree, that "belief in something in spite of/ignoring scientific evidence that proves the contrary" can be called also faith. I think we should not assign meanings to words, that they do not enclose/contain, right?
It could be called 'blind faith' maybe?

Ignoring or discounting evidence CANNOT be an adequate avenue to knowledge.

I totally agree with that. But there is something that confuses me: I was googling for "epistemologically invalid" and came across this [url=clipmark/5E80572B-0CBB...

I do agree with the definition "firm belief in something for which there is no proof", where I understand the 'proof' as 'scientific proof', as profound as 2+2=4.

But I don't agree, that "belief in something in spite of/ignoring scientific evidence that proves the contrary" can be called also faith. I think we should not assign meanings to words, that they do not enclose/contain, right?
It could be called 'blind faith' maybe?

Ignoring or discounting evidence CANNOT be an adequate avenue to knowledge.

I totally agree with that. But there is something that confuses me: I was googling for "epistemologically invalid" and came across this [url=clipmark/5E80572B-0CBB-4A05-B3D1-070E4990CDCE/]clip[/url] where you said in a comment:

Religion, to me, should mostly be concerned with conduct, with morals and ethics.

I also totally agree with that.
To me religion and science are totally different things with different goals/purposes and different fields of interest.
Therefore I don't understand why they are compared all the time.
Religion is/should not supposed to help you gain knowledge. That is why science is there for.
The usefulness and/or correctness of a religion can/should not be measured by its contribution to science, and/or to knowledge. So one can believe (have faith) in something, for which there is no scientific evidence (whether to support nor to falsify it), and can still value knowledge and science (following an adequate avenue to knowledge, as you said).

That's why I don't understand, why some people devoted to science (I don't know if 'devoted' is the right term, I couldn't find something more accurate in dict.cc) are confronting the two and emphasizing that "they have chosen knowledge against/instead of/despite belief", and somehow suggesting/implying that one has to choose between them.

It is also often said that people believ in things "to make them feel good". I think this is an unfair propos

@ Aces

I was hoping you would have gotten the gist of "Truth" (notice the capital "t").

Knowledge or reason is also known as "logos" in ancient Greece. This was a term used to come to a reason or a conclusion. This was done by spoken word of the giver and understanding of the recipient.

In ancient Judaism we have a term "memra". This was understood as a word or speech of God which was manifested as an action like a creation or directive.

This being understood Jesus is both Logos and Memra made flesh. Jesus who is God, is Creator of all including reason. He alone is Truth because He created it. To know Him is to know Truth which is greater than a mere self satisfaction.

There are and ...

@ Aces

I was hoping you would have gotten the gist of "Truth" (notice the capital "t").

Knowledge or reason is also known as "logos" in ancient Greece. This was a term used to come to a reason or a conclusion. This was done by spoken word of the giver and understanding of the recipient.

In ancient Judaism we have a term "memra". This was understood as a word or speech of God which was manifested as an action like a creation or directive.

This being understood Jesus is both Logos and Memra made flesh. Jesus who is God, is Creator of all including reason. He alone is Truth because He created it. To know Him is to know Truth which is greater than a mere self satisfaction.

There are and have been prisoners and slaves who know this who are happier than the next free guy because they have God in them. They have a freedom that no shackles could ever contain. A witness to this example is Josephine Bakhita. A short biography http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html paragraph 3.

What facts of nature contradict Scripture?

Even though Josephus was a Jew he wasn't a Christian and then pagan Rome had no reason to force Jospehus to make up a fictional person. Tacitus also claimed there was a Jesus who was a pagan Roman.

Speaking of the Church that I know of, there is no hatred what so ever being preached or instilled in their believers which is under the Pope. I can't speak for other religions but hatred was never taught by Jesus.

If people would follow Jesus "religiously" completely then they would never do no harm. Evil is contradictory to God so those who do evil in the name of God are not with God.

@splendidus

To me religion and science are totally different things with different goals/purposes and different fields of interest.

Therefore I don't understand why they are compared all the time.

Because religion "doesn't" concern itself with just conduct, morals, and ethics. It attempts to espouse "knowledge" that is either false or absurd, while claiming it to be true. Science typically exposes religious "truths" as false. This diminishes the power of the clergy, and they don't like it one bit.

"Religion is/should not supposed to help you gain knowledge. That is why science is there for."

Exactly! Yet they claim knowledge from god.

"...

read more»

@splendidus

To me religion and science are totally different things with different goals/purposes and different fields of interest.

Therefore I don't understand why they are compared all the time.

Because religion "doesn't" concern itself with just conduct, morals, and ethics. It attempts to espouse "knowledge" that is either false or absurd, while claiming it to be true. Science typically exposes religious "truths" as false. This diminishes the power of the clergy, and they don't like it one bit.

"Religion is/should not supposed to help you gain knowledge. That is why science is there for."

Exactly! Yet they claim knowledge from god.

"So one can believe (have faith) in something, for which there is no scientific evidence (whether to support nor to falsify it), and can still value knowledge and science (following an adequate avenue to knowledge, as you said)."

Excellent distinction, and I totally agree!

"That's why I don't understand, why some people devoted to science ...... are confronting the two and emphasizing that "they have chosen knowledge against/instead of/despite belief", and somehow suggesting/implying that one has to choose between them."

I think that's a misrepresented case. The conflict is when religion attempts to become science (evolution vs. Creationism, for example). In that case, one must chose between "evidence" vs. myth in a science class!

In theology class or Sunday school, people can make whatever claim they want, and believe it (even without evidence). But one may NOT teach it as science.

In that sense, that choice MUST be made.

@Efrain Alvarado

I did get it. Notice that it doesn't change anything that I said, but exemplifies it. For example: You stated: "Freedom is knowledge of Truth, not the self satisfaction pleasure and materialism provide."

Now substitute your clarification and watch what happens: "Freedom is knowledge of "knowledge or reason", not the self satisfaction pleasure and materialism provide."

See? It's still just a platitude with no real meaning in the real world. You're saying that "freedom" is knowledge, and by extension, knowledge of god.

Both are still false conclusions based on false presuppositions. Freedom is NOT knowledge, even if it were knowledge of a god. The faithful always claim the...

@Efrain Alvarado

I did get it. Notice that it doesn't change anything that I said, but exemplifies it. For example: You stated: "Freedom is knowledge of Truth, not the self satisfaction pleasure and materialism provide."

Now substitute your clarification and watch what happens: "Freedom is knowledge of "knowledge or reason", not the self satisfaction pleasure and materialism provide."

See? It's still just a platitude with no real meaning in the real world. You're saying that "freedom" is knowledge, and by extension, knowledge of god.

Both are still false conclusions based on false presuppositions. Freedom is NOT knowledge, even if it were knowledge of a god. The faithful always claim they know god. But their "knowledge" doesn't even agree with each other! (Some knowledge that is.)

Is it true? (Is it factual; is it actual; is it the actual state of affairs?) This is what I mean by Truth. It means it's really true! It is in fact the actual state of affairs.

See? No pretending. No platitudes. No trying to change the definition or simple meaning of a word. No lies.

--

"This being understood Jesus is both Logos and Memra made flesh. Jesus who is God, is Creator of all including reason."

See? You did it again! You started with the conclusion you were attempting to reason. Look at the presuppositions!

That Jesus (no actual historical evidence of his existence) is the Word (that there is a god and his word is used to create) that god made flesh (that a word can by magic become biological)!

This isn't knowledge!!!!!!

This is a best guess of the meaning of dogma consisting mostly of other platitudes, parables, myths, metaphors, and extravagant miracles from stories.

Nothing you said can be verified in any way whatsoever! So let's not pretend like it's "Truth".

---
What facts of nature contradict Scripture?

You need not go any further than page one of Genesis.

Because religion "doesn't" concern itself with just conduct, morals,
and ethics. It attempts to espouse "knowledge" that is either false or
absurd, while claiming it to be true.

Just to clarify the matter: here you mean knowledge that is observable and provable by science, right? A religion may claim to have "knowledge" about the afterlife for example (which would be 'knowledge' for its followers, although just theory for others).

I think that's a misrepresented case. The conflict is when religion attempts to become science (evolution vs. Creationism, for example). In that case, one must chose between "evidence" vs. myth in a science class!...

read more»

Because religion "doesn't" concern itself with just conduct, morals,
and ethics. It attempts to espouse "knowledge" that is either false or
absurd, while claiming it to be true.

Just to clarify the matter: here you mean knowledge that is observable and provable by science, right? A religion may claim to have "knowledge" about the afterlife for example (which would be 'knowledge' for its followers, although just theory for others).

I think that's a misrepresented case. The conflict is when religion attempts to become science (evolution vs. Creationism, for example). In that case, one must chose between "evidence" vs. myth in a science class!

I had given an example to a friend, who asked me how I was able to believe in the existence of a creator (it is a common example i guess, nothing new): When I see a book that contains knowledge (ink purposefully arranged on paper, forming knowledge, some Information for me to find), then I conclude that someone owning this knowledge did write it. The universe is full of knowledge and information we continue to find, so I conclude that it was formed by someone owning this knowledge. This is a reasoning, no proof.
As far as I know, Creatonists (basically) try to scientifically prove this. I think there is nothing against trying it, altough I believe that it is not possible. If they can make it: I am open to persuasion.
But it's the same as trying to prove the contrary (that it emerged/developed/evolved itself).
Does the evolution theory contradict with the claim, that everything is created?
After what I read about evolution, I was not able to imagine how this 'evolving' could happen by chance, without control. But since so many people can imagine it, there must be something I don't know. Could you recommend me some online resource you think might be helpful in that matter?
I would like to know, if there are profound proofs, or merely conclusions drawn from some observatio

@Aces
If freedom does not come from God and the relationship established between Him and man, then what does make one free?
Clearly if your beliefs of God contradict the obvious in nature or science then you must come to the conclusion that either your beliefs in God are faulty or the works of God are. When one sees that His belief in God (we will call this faith) is examplified by his surroundings in nature and is no conflict between the two then how is this "slavery"? Maybe its just me but this state of fairs I have concluded is true.

Now lets look at the alternative you offer: To do ones will is freedom. What if your own will contradicts or is at odds with nature? Is it acceptable becaus...

@Aces
If freedom does not come from God and the relationship established between Him and man, then what does make one free?
Clearly if your beliefs of God contradict the obvious in nature or science then you must come to the conclusion that either your beliefs in God are faulty or the works of God are. When one sees that His belief in God (we will call this faith) is examplified by his surroundings in nature and is no conflict between the two then how is this "slavery"? Maybe its just me but this state of fairs I have concluded is true.

Now lets look at the alternative you offer: To do ones will is freedom. What if your own will contradicts or is at odds with nature? Is it acceptable because you are free? Will it cause you happiness?

First page of Genesis states that God created everything out of nothing. How does this contradict nature and science? If you undersood science you would understand that nothing causes nothing. If at the begining there was nothing then there must have been a Creator, a first cause.

@Efrain
I think what Aces means is the order, in which the Bible says things were created.
1. Heavens and Earth, Light
2. Dome (which is the Sky, here I didn't understand what is meant with 'waters that were above the dome')
3. Dry land & vegetation
4. The lights in the sky (including the sun and the moon I understand)
...

According to this description, the light and the earth (with its land and vegetation) were created prior to the sun and the stars (the sources of light).
Could there have been life/vegetation on earth, without the sun being there? Could there be light without the stars?
(Sincere questions, no offense meant).

The statement "God created everything out of nothing" doesn't...

@Efrain
I think what Aces means is the order, in which the Bible says things were created.
1. Heavens and Earth, Light
2. Dome (which is the Sky, here I didn't understand what is meant with 'waters that were above the dome')
3. Dry land & vegetation
4. The lights in the sky (including the sun and the moon I understand)
...

According to this description, the light and the earth (with its land and vegetation) were created prior to the sun and the stars (the sources of light).
Could there have been life/vegetation on earth, without the sun being there? Could there be light without the stars?
(Sincere questions, no offense meant).

The statement "God created everything out of nothing" doesn't contradict science. It is even a possible explanation to the question "what was prior to the big bang, how came this point of 'infinite density and temperature' into existence and exploded?".

A religion may claim to have "knowledge" about the afterlife for example (which would be 'knowledge' for its followers, although just theory for others).

No. How can it be called "knowledge" if it's not KNOWN? For a religion to claim "knowledge" of an afterlife is a lie, for the simple fact that it is not known.

---

The universe is full of knowledge and information we continue to find, so I conclude that it was formed by someone owning this knowledge. This is a reasoning, no proof.

It's a wonderful analogy; I like it. But let's not add to it what's not rightfully to be assumed. A book is not a product of Nature. So you are right to assume its contents (misnome...

A religion may claim to have "knowledge" about the afterlife for example (which would be 'knowledge' for its followers, although just theory for others).

No. How can it be called "knowledge" if it's not KNOWN? For a religion to claim "knowledge" of an afterlife is a lie, for the simple fact that it is not known.

---

The universe is full of knowledge and information we continue to find, so I conclude that it was formed by someone owning this knowledge. This is a reasoning, no proof.

It's a wonderful analogy; I like it. But let's not add to it what's not rightfully to be assumed. A book is not a product of Nature. So you are right to assume its contents (misnomer: knowledge) was owned by a creator (person).

If your analogy is to remain pure, you must hold that IF there is a creator of Nature, then Nature is the book, and the "knowledge" it contains is from that creator.

Then you need only compare that book (Nature) to what is written in man's book (bible, koran, etc..) to see if they agree. If man's book claims information from god, and man's book does not give true (correct) information about Nature, then you know man's book is not from god. [This is what science keeps proving!]

"Does the evolution theory contradict with the claim, that everything is created?"

Yes. In evolution there is a progression of cause and effect.

"Could you recommend me some online resource you think might be helpful in that matter?"

Go to this website ( http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007 ) and Scroll down a bit; on the right you'll see a short video called "How Evolution REALLY Works". (Takes less time than reading books.) Click on it and watch.

If freedom does not come from God and the relationship established between Him and man, then what does make one free?

If freedom does not come from God...? See how you constantly embed the conclusions you wish to achieve directly into your questions? Look up "confirmation bias" and you'll see a constant logical mistake that you might recognize.

How about, "Where does freedom come from?" That question is cleaner and without the bias.

Anyway... freedom comes from the ability to make our own choices. To the extent our choices are unencumbered, is the extent we have freedom.

When one sees that His belief in God (we will call this faith) is
examplified by his surroundi...

read more»

If freedom does not come from God and the relationship established between Him and man, then what does make one free?

If freedom does not come from God...? See how you constantly embed the conclusions you wish to achieve directly into your questions? Look up "confirmation bias" and you'll see a constant logical mistake that you might recognize.

How about, "Where does freedom come from?" That question is cleaner and without the bias.

Anyway... freedom comes from the ability to make our own choices. To the extent our choices are unencumbered, is the extent we have freedom.

When one sees that His belief in God (we will call this faith) is
examplified by his surroundings in nature and is no conflict between
the two then how is this "slavery"?

I never made or suggested such a connection. I apologize if that's the message you got. I can't answer it because it doesn't follow.

Now lets look at the alternative you offer: To do ones will is freedom.
What if your own will contradicts or is at odds with nature? Is it
acceptable because you are free? Will it cause you happiness?

Again, I'm sorry. You're basing this on something I didn't say. But I'm sure you don't understand. There is nothing I, you, or anyone else can do that is against the laws of Nature. Nature is the efficacy of Existence, outside of which has no existence.

Something from nothing is an impossibility.

"If at the begining there was nothing then there must have been a Creator, a first cause."

If in the beginning there was nothing, there is where it would have to remain. (Nothing includes "no creator".)

No. How can it be called "knowledge" if it's not KNOWN? For a religion
to claim "knowledge" of an afterlife is a lie, for the simple fact that
it is not known.

Sorry, I didn't explain myself correctly.
What I wanted to say was: A religion can claim/declare that there will be an afterlife, such a claim of a religion is not scientifically provable/falsifiable and therefor can not be used to test the correctness of a religion. Its followers would believe these things to be true, not 'knowing them to be true. --> It would be not knowledge, but believe; but not believe against scientific evidence and/or logic.

But let's not add to it what's not rightfully to be assumed. A bo...

read more»

No. How can it be called "knowledge" if it's not KNOWN? For a religion
to claim "knowledge" of an afterlife is a lie, for the simple fact that
it is not known.

Sorry, I didn't explain myself correctly.
What I wanted to say was: A religion can claim/declare that there will be an afterlife, such a claim of a religion is not scientifically provable/falsifiable and therefor can not be used to test the correctness of a religion. Its followers would believe these things to be true, not 'knowing them to be true. --> It would be not knowledge, but believe; but not believe against scientific evidence and/or logic.

But let's not add to it what's not rightfully to be assumed. A book is
not a product of Nature. So you are right to assume its contents
(misnomer: knowledge) was owned by a creator (person).

Hmm... I didn't understand what exactly you mean by "Nature". And a product of nature...? Because what I compare to the book, is Nature itself. There is some ambiguity/misunderstanding here here.?.
By the way: it was clear that didn't mean any particular book here, right? A physics book would be a perfect example for what I meant...

If your analogy is to remain pure, you must hold that IF there is a
creator of Nature, then Nature is the book, and the "knowledge" it
contains is from that creator.
Then you need only compare that book (Nature) to what is written in
man's book (bible, koran, etc..) to see if they agree. If man's book
claims information from god, and man's book does not give true
(correct) information about Nature, then you know man's book is not
from god. [This is what science keeps proving!]

You said 'Nature is the book', that's exactly what I meant.
And I also totally agree, that if there is incorrect information in a book (that claims to be the word of God), cannot be the word of God.

to be continued...

Yes. In evolution there is a progression of cause and effect.

I dont't see, why this should contradict with the claim, that everything is created. Can it not be, that just this 'progression of cause and effect' was created?
I think you understand something different under the term of 'creating' than me.
People can make things (write books, build cars), as a result of a process. But they did make it nevertheless.
I'm not sure this analogy is correct though. Most certainly there is a main difference: making things out of things, and making things out of nothing.

Anyway: what I mean is, the universe could have been created in such a way, that it works as it ...

Yes. In evolution there is a progression of cause and effect.

I dont't see, why this should contradict with the claim, that everything is created. Can it not be, that just this 'progression of cause and effect' was created?
I think you understand something different under the term of 'creating' than me.
People can make things (write books, build cars), as a result of a process. But they did make it nevertheless.
I'm not sure this analogy is correct though. Most certainly there is a main difference: making things out of things, and making things out of nothing.

Anyway: what I mean is, the universe could have been created in such a way, that it works as it does, continuing its 'process of being shaped' (since it is not static);
created in a sense 'at once' by bringing matter&energy into existence, and in a sense 'progressively', by creating the laws that make it work/evolve as it does.
After all, it isn't a clump of matter and energy, acting according to no law whatsover (containing build-in information so to say).

to be continued...

Go to this website ( http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007 ) and Scroll down a bit;

I
did watch the video. Great, spectacular background music by the way. And I loved the quote "Truth is NOT a Democracy"

The video says basically

Natural selection + Mutations + Time = EVOLUTION.
This is true as 2+1=3.

But there is no proof.

I know about natural selection and
mutations .

My problem is with what I observe about how the universe and nature
works, what I know/think is possible and what is not, and what could be
possible by chance (randomly); combining that with what is there (of
variaty); starting (imagening) with a world containing nothing (no
life), and arriving (afte...

Go to this website ( http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007 ) and Scroll down a bit;

I
did watch the video. Great, spectacular background music by the way. And I loved the quote "Truth is NOT a Democracy"

The video says basically

Natural selection + Mutations + Time = EVOLUTION.
This is true as 2+1=3.

But there is no proof.

I know about natural selection and
mutations .

My problem is with what I observe about how the universe and nature
works, what I know/think is possible and what is not, and what could be
possible by chance (randomly); combining that with what is there (of
variaty); starting (imagening) with a world containing nothing (no
life), and arriving (after much much time, no matter how much) at our
current status quo. I cannot imagine that.

Maybe my knowledge about 'what can possibly happen by chance' is incorrect/insufficient? That was what I meant, when I asked for resources: documentation of what is observed under what circumstances?

But apart from my being
able to imagine it or not: the fact that mutations happen to some extent (as sayed in the video: it is a fact...), and that
natural selection exists, does not actually proof that, say, the ape evolved to human. It is a conclusion that is drawn, it is said "this might have happened". But it is not 'observed'. And it is certainly not proved with a certainty as is for example the fact that "two objects
will attract each other with a force proportional to their masses and inversely
proportional to the square of distance between them".
The same holds for the Big Bang Theory for example. We observe the universe expands (that's a fact so far). We make calculations to guess what happened, how it all began and how this universe evolved. But we don't know actually.

I don't say it didn't happen. It may have happened: randomly, or maybe not. It may have happened in the extent it is claimed that it did, or maybe not. But is it a fact? Is it '[i]profound knowledg

So you agree with and understand how evolution works.

What you cannot imagine is starting with a world containing nothing (no life), and arriving at our current status quo.

It is because the process of evolution over time is longer than you can realistically conceptualize. Just looking at the fossil record from just 100k years ago yields differences, never mind many millions! So I don't blame you at all.

Nevertheless, you need only to compare what is "known" from the process of evolution we document constantly in the microbiology area over "short" periods of time to the vast time scales you 'can't' imagine.

You can at least see the probability, as these claims are documented at ...

So you agree with and understand how evolution works.

What you cannot imagine is starting with a world containing nothing (no life), and arriving at our current status quo.

It is because the process of evolution over time is longer than you can realistically conceptualize. Just looking at the fossil record from just 100k years ago yields differences, never mind many millions! So I don't blame you at all.

Nevertheless, you need only to compare what is "known" from the process of evolution we document constantly in the microbiology area over "short" periods of time to the vast time scales you 'can't' imagine.

You can at least see the probability, as these claims are documented at least on a small time scale causing significant differences in forms of life.

"...and that natural selection exists, does not actually proof that, say, the ape evolved to human."

I don't know where you got that from (usually religious literature makes that erroneous claim to confuse its subjects -- I suggest you get your science from science, not from other sources).

Humans did NOT evolve from Apes. But rather, if you understand evolution correctly, evolution asserts that apes and humans shared a common ancestor. (Big difference, isn't it?)

It also confirms what you observe! (Ever seen a ape?)

Evolution is more like a tree, with many branches that branch off into other branches. Apes and humans share a common branch on that tree, but are not the same branch. At some point, the common ancestor diverged!

Compare that to... an invisible man in the sky formed each life species out of clay (or dirt) and blew into its nose, and presto, it woke up and became alive.

Evolution is observed, through the fossil record and in the lab. And you agree it makes sense. But the other... is not observed and is basically as good a story as any other unobserved story anyone can make up.

Follow the evidence, as they say in CSI.

There. There's the flaw (and the confirmation bias)! Your thinking
wants to "assume" the conclusion before (or as part of) the reason.

I
didn't understand what you mean here. I was not trying to conclude
something from another thing. All I said was theory. Non-scientific
theory.

I was just saying, the statement/theory "God created everything, out of
nothing, by bringing this universe into existence" doesn't contradict
science (scientific observation/fact). Doesn't contradict evolution.

It also doesn't contradict the fact, that there is a progression of cause and effect 'within this universe'. In the following sense:

Please, explain the concept of "something f...

read more»

There. There's the flaw (and the confirmation bias)! Your thinking
wants to "assume" the conclusion before (or as part of) the reason.

I
didn't understand what you mean here. I was not trying to conclude
something from another thing. All I said was theory. Non-scientific
theory.

I was just saying, the statement/theory "God created everything, out of
nothing, by bringing this universe into existence" doesn't contradict
science (scientific observation/fact). Doesn't contradict evolution.

It also doesn't contradict the fact, that there is a progression of cause and effect 'within this universe'. In the following sense:

Please, explain the concept of "something from nothing". Conservation
of Energy says "something from nothing" is an impossibility. I think
it's a logical one, too.

Within
this universe "something from nothing" is not possible. I agree. But
the 'Conservation of Energy' holds only within the boundaries of this
space-time we can observe.

We cannot claim/prove anything about something outside the observable. We can not claim&prove that there is something outside the observable, and also that there is nothing outside the observable.

It cannot be scientifically analyzed what was before the big bang, if
there the laws of physics for example did also hold (were also existent).


We cannot even know, whether or not time exists outside the observable universe.

In this sense, I also find that the questions

"How did this Universe came into existence" and the question

"How (then) came the Creator into existence"

are not equal/comparable.

In the first case you ask about the beginning of something from which
you observe that it has a beginning (logical, scientific question).

In the second case you ask about the beginning of something not bound
to this universe, something not observable, from which you cannot
claim/know that it 'has to have' a beginning (non-scientific question).

Humans did
NOT evolve from Apes. But rather, if you understand evolution
correctly, evolution asserts that apes and humans shared a common ancestor. (Big difference, isn't it?)

It also confirms what you observe! (Ever seen a ape?)

From my point of view, it doesn't change much. Then (according to evolution) there was some other species other than human and other than ape, which evolved into human. So one can just replace the word 'ape' in my example with the name of this species.

That this theory confirms what you observe, is not a proof that the theory is correct. There may be theories conforming the same observation but are false/incorrect. So my question still rema...

Humans did
NOT evolve from Apes. But rather, if you understand evolution
correctly, evolution asserts that apes and humans shared a common ancestor. (Big difference, isn't it?)

It also confirms what you observe! (Ever seen a ape?)

From my point of view, it doesn't change much. Then (according to evolution) there was some other species other than human and other than ape, which evolved into human. So one can just replace the word 'ape' in my example with the name of this species.

That this theory confirms what you observe, is not a proof that the theory is correct. There may be theories conforming the same observation but are false/incorrect. So my question still remains: Is it scientific fact? Is it profound knowledge?

Compare that to... an invisible man in the sky formed each life species
out of clay (or dirt) and blew into its nose, and presto, it woke up
and became alive.

First, I don't understand why one should think of the creator as 'a man in the sky'. It seems to me that you limit/restrict your thinking about these things with "popular illustrations/descriptions" and illustrations from the bible (which you don't believe are true I understand).

Second, who says that the 'creating' has happened in the way you described?
I compare that to... A creator; existing outside this universe, far from resembling a human, or any other being; creating this universe by just bringing it into existence (for example with an explotion) in such a way, that it evolved into its status quo and that continues to evolve according to (or bound to) the rules he set/created.

This alone doesn't even contradict to evolution, let alone science. As I said, I don't say evolution didn't happen (in some extent). I just say there is no profound proof that it had happened.

Apart from all that, it all comes down to the question: do I believe
there is a creator, or do I believe there is not? This is a
non-scientific matter/topic.
"Do I think/know/conclude evolution happened/happens" is a scientific matter/topic.

In this sense you cannot compare "I believe in the existence
of a creator" to "I know/guess/conclude evolution happened and happens". They are propositions of different kinds.

So regardless of my thoughts/knowledge about evolution, I still have to answer (for myself) the very first question in this comment.

And as I said before, from the knowledge this universe contains, I conclude that there is a creator owning this knowledge. Which is not a scient...

Apart from all that, it all comes down to the question: do I believe
there is a creator, or do I believe there is not? This is a
non-scientific matter/topic.
"Do I think/know/conclude evolution happened/happens" is a scientific matter/topic.

In this sense you cannot compare "I believe in the existence
of a creator" to "I know/guess/conclude evolution happened and happens". They are propositions of different kinds.

So regardless of my thoughts/knowledge about evolution, I still have to answer (for myself) the very first question in this comment.

And as I said before, from the knowledge this universe contains, I conclude that there is a creator owning this knowledge. Which is not a scientific conclusion I claim to be a 'fact'.

This reminds me of my previous question: Could you explain, what exactly you mean with 'Nature' when you say "a book is not a product of Nature"?

I was just saying, the statement/theory "God created everything, out of nothing, by bringing this universe into existence" doesn't contradict science (scientific observation/fact). Doesn't contradict evolution.

But it does. That's why I mentioned the Law of Conservation. It also contradicts reason. Something from nothing is not logically sound. In the absence of "something" there can be no CAUSE. Besides, a god creator would not qualify as "nothing".

--

Within this universe "something from nothing" is not possible. I agree. But the 'Conservation of Energy' holds only within the boundaries of this space-time we can observe.

And what is it called when you imagi...

I was just saying, the statement/theory "God created everything, out of nothing, by bringing this universe into existence" doesn't contradict science (scientific observation/fact). Doesn't contradict evolution.

But it does. That's why I mentioned the Law of Conservation. It also contradicts reason. Something from nothing is not logically sound. In the absence of "something" there can be no CAUSE. Besides, a god creator would not qualify as "nothing".

--

Within this universe "something from nothing" is not possible. I agree. But the 'Conservation of Energy' holds only within the boundaries of this space-time we can observe.

And what is it called when you imagine there is "another" universe that we can't observe (and thus have no way of confirming its existence, let alone its properties), but attribute impossibilities in "this" universe to it, as a cause?

We call it _______ !

We cannot even know, whether or not time exists outside the observable universe.

Not to worry. If time didn't exist, nothing could move or change! So it couldn't be a cause.

So one can just replace the word 'ape' in my example with the name of this species.

Correct. But if you're looking for this species it has long since evolved out of existence into what you see today. I'm sorry, I don't know what the name of that bridge is.

That this theory confirms what you observe, is not a proof that the theory is correct.

No, it doesn't; it was meant to serve as an example against the "creation" story as unobservable at all. Observation is a method of learning.

"I compare that to... A creator; existing outside this universe..."

Yes; you may START with whatever conclusion you wish to believe and then just make stuff up from there. Sure, anyone can make up whatever they want. No problem there.

But science searches for the truth, so if it can't be observed in some way, it's not science.

But it does. That's why I mentioned the Law of Conservation. It also
contradicts reason. Something from nothing is not logically sound. In
the absence of "something" there can be no CAUSE. Besides, a god
creator would not qualify as "nothing".

There is a misunderstanding.
"The creator did create this universe out of nothing" doesn't mean
"There was nothing (including a creator), and then a creator created this universe". The second doesn't make any sense. How can there be nothing, and then, all of a sudden, there be a creator?
Lets consider the following statement (creation story):
"This universe, the energy&matter&time this universe consists of, were not there/existent....

But it does. That's why I mentioned the Law of Conservation. It also
contradicts reason. Something from nothing is not logically sound. In
the absence of "something" there can be no CAUSE. Besides, a god
creator would not qualify as "nothing".

There is a misunderstanding.
"The creator did create this universe out of nothing" doesn't mean
"There was nothing (including a creator), and then a creator created this universe". The second doesn't make any sense. How can there be nothing, and then, all of a sudden, there be a creator?
Lets consider the following statement (creation story):
"This universe, the energy&matter&time this universe consists of, were not there/existent. The creator was there/existent. It was not a nothingness. There were possibly also other things than the creator. Then the creator created the energy&matter&time (this universe)."
How could this possibly falsified by science?

it was meant to serve as an example against the
"creation" story as unobservable at all.

Do you see your example also as an example "against" the creation story I wrote above? How?

if it can't be observed in some way, it's not science.

That's exactly what I mean. My creation story above cannot be observed, it is not science. It is not a scientific theory. It cannot be falsified by science.
To say "It contradicts science" would mean, "it can be observed and falsified scientifically".

And what is it called when you imagine there is "another" universe that
we can't observe (and thus have no way of confirming its existence, let
alone its properties), but attribute impossibilities in "this" universe
to it, as a cause?

It would be another non-scientific, non-falsifiable theory. Just as the 'creation' theory.

anyone can make up whatever they want

Yes, as long as they not claim it to be scientific.

The point we couldn't agree on was, whether or not the creation theory is scientif

The point we couldn't agree on was, whether or not the creation theory is scientific. If you think, that the creation theory (the creation story above) is not scientific, then we agree.
If you think it is scientific, could you then please explain how it could be falsified.

science searches for the truth

I would rather say: Humans/people are searching for the truth. Science is a means for people to find the truth about everything observable. Would you agree?

Grab a book. Find a flower in the ground. Put the book next to it. Can
you tell which was produced by Nature? The flower is a product of
nature. The book is a product of Man.

I didn't compare the book to a flo...

The point we couldn't agree on was, whether or not the creation theory is scientific. If you think, that the creation theory (the creation story above) is not scientific, then we agree.
If you think it is scientific, could you then please explain how it could be falsified.

science searches for the truth

I would rather say: Humans/people are searching for the truth. Science is a means for people to find the truth about everything observable. Would you agree?

Grab a book. Find a flower in the ground. Put the book next to it. Can
you tell which was produced by Nature? The flower is a product of
nature. The book is a product of Man.

I didn't compare the book to a flower in my analogy. I compared it to the universe.
The universe is also not a product of nature. The Conservation of Energy, the law of gravity, laws of thermodynamic etc, all exist and hold; regardles of the flower, or us or any other 'lifeform' being there to understand them via science.

You assume that the written word of God and evolution are somehow incompatible with each other. We must first acknowledge that the Bible's primary function is not meant to be an account of scientific facts but rather it is the revalation of God in written form for His people.

As you may or may not be aware that the Church does not condemn the actual theory of evolution. The universe itself is dynamic and evolution of some kind is evident in nature. What the Church will say is that it is God's creation and under His guidance and impetus He developed His plan. It is not the work of the Church to state how but to affirm it is the work of the Creator who created everything that is seen and unse...

You assume that the written word of God and evolution are somehow incompatible with each other. We must first acknowledge that the Bible's primary function is not meant to be an account of scientific facts but rather it is the revalation of God in written form for His people.

As you may or may not be aware that the Church does not condemn the actual theory of evolution. The universe itself is dynamic and evolution of some kind is evident in nature. What the Church will say is that it is God's creation and under His guidance and impetus He developed His plan. It is not the work of the Church to state how but to affirm it is the work of the Creator who created everything that is seen and unseen out of nothing, ex nihilo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

Another point the Church will affirm is the creation of the soul. Whether we developed from other species or not, at some point God distinguished man from other lifeforms by giving each one of us a soul. We do not receive our soul hereditarily from our parents and is not evolved from something else.

~~~

Concerning our dialogue regarding freedom, I must apologize for not stating my thoughts any clearer. What I must clarify is that I believe that the state of one's soul is also susceptible to a type of freedom or lack there of. Being also that I believe the soul to be eternal while the earthly body obviously is not, the state of one's soul is to be held of greater importance. While I will agree with you that any hindrance caused by other men towards another can certainly limit someone's freedom, by no means is it possible for man to placate the soul of another. No man can take another's free will.

At the same time the effect of one's choices, caused by the freedom of free will, can lead one's own soul into spiritual slavery. So while the body might be free to seek pleasure and other happiness what will it profit if the soul does not gain joy as a result?

How can there be nothing, and then, all of a sudden, there be a creator?

Exactly! Now just apply that same reasoning to the creator. He couldn't have come from just "nothing". So he must have come from "something".

Now, if you say "but he's ALWAYS been here", then you must logically conclude that the substance of the universe is none other than this creator itself. (Because nothing else has existence and something can't come from nothing.)

This is Deism, and to an extent Pantheism if described as Nature. Which, by the way, is consistent with physics (the Conservation of Energy) in that matter / energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

The stuff of the universe, in othe...

How can there be nothing, and then, all of a sudden, there be a creator?

Exactly! Now just apply that same reasoning to the creator. He couldn't have come from just "nothing". So he must have come from "something".

Now, if you say "but he's ALWAYS been here", then you must logically conclude that the substance of the universe is none other than this creator itself. (Because nothing else has existence and something can't come from nothing.)

This is Deism, and to an extent Pantheism if described as Nature. Which, by the way, is consistent with physics (the Conservation of Energy) in that matter / energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

The stuff of the universe, in other words, is eternal -- having no "start point" and no ending. That is, the sum of all energy remains universally constant.

We can "label" this phenomenon god; but it doesn't imply an independent consciousness directing the flow of cause / effect. There is no evidence of Nature having its own "beingness".
---

The creator was there/existent. It was not a nothingness. There were possibly also other things than the creator. Then the creator created the energy&matter&time (this universe)."

How could this possibly falsified by science?

It can't. That's why it's not science. It's make believe.

"The point we couldn't agree on was, whether or not the creation theory is scientific."

Whether or not the creation story is TRUE! We have known facts that prove the creation story is factually false.

---

Science is a means for people to find the truth about everything observable. Would you agree?

Yes.

The universe is also not a product of nature.

American Heritage dictionary:

na·ture (nā'chər) pronunciation

1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.

ME: How could this possibly falsified by science?

YOU: It can't. That's why it's not science. It's make believe.

YOU: Whether or not the creation story is TRUE! We have known facts that prove the creation story is factually false.

I didn't claim that the creation story is TRUE! I did claim that it is a possibility that cannot be proved/falsified by science.

Now you first say, that it can't be scientifically falsified, because it's not science, it's make believe. And then you say there are known facts that the creation story is factually false, thus scientifically falsified.
Which one is true?

Now, if you say "but he's ALWAYS been here", ...

read more»

ME: How could this possibly falsified by science?

YOU: It can't. That's why it's not science. It's make believe.

YOU: Whether or not the creation story is TRUE! We have known facts that prove the creation story is factually false.

I didn't claim that the creation story is TRUE! I did claim that it is a possibility that cannot be proved/falsified by science.

Now you first say, that it can't be scientifically falsified, because it's not science, it's make believe. And then you say there are known facts that the creation story is factually false, thus scientifically falsified.
Which one is true?

Now, if you say "but he's ALWAYS been here", then you must logically
conclude that the substance of the universe is none other than this
creator itself.

Why do I have to conclude this? "Must logically conclude" means: If the premise is true, than the conclusion must be true. I don't see why the conclusion must be true.

The stuff of the universe, in other words, is eternal -- having no
"start point" and no ending. That is, the sum of all energy remains
universally constant.

This is also a non-scientific theory, which can be true or false. One can believe this theory is more probable. No problem with that.

@Efrain Alvarado

You assume that the written word of God and evolution are somehow incompatible with each other.

Quite the contrary. If god wrote a book, it would agree with every fact of Nature, and probably contain knowledge well beyond that of 16th century man.

We must first acknowledge that the Bible's primary function is not meant to be an account of scientific facts but rather it is the revalation of God in written form for His people.

What kind of god is this that lacks the knowledge of a modern day high school student? What kind of god tells his "people" to stone to death a woman who's not a virgin on her wedding night? What kind of god savors the sm...

@Efrain Alvarado

You assume that the written word of God and evolution are somehow incompatible with each other.

Quite the contrary. If god wrote a book, it would agree with every fact of Nature, and probably contain knowledge well beyond that of 16th century man.

We must first acknowledge that the Bible's primary function is not meant to be an account of scientific facts but rather it is the revalation of God in written form for His people.

What kind of god is this that lacks the knowledge of a modern day high school student? What kind of god tells his "people" to stone to death a woman who's not a virgin on her wedding night? What kind of god savors the smell of the burnt flesh of innocent animals as atonement for the sins of a man?

Do you honestly think I can "acknowledge" that these are the inspired words of a god?

the Church will affirm is the creation of the soul.

The Church will affirm anything that can benefit its belief system. But can the Church "demonstrate" the existence of a soul? Can anyone?

The Church has no direct knowledge of a soul. It therefore cannot honestly "affirm" anything of the sort, without lying.

At the same time the effect of one's choices, caused by the freedom of free will, can lead one's own soul into spiritual slavery.

You might not see this, but that's exactly what I see when I look at religious fundamentalists!

So while the body might be free to seek pleasure and other happiness what will it profit if the soul does not gain joy as a result?

If by soul you mean psychological or mental joy, then one's actions should account to the happiness of the entire person.

Meaning: why suffer in "this" life, hoping to "not suffer" in a life you know nothing about ?

What if when you die (like ALL the evidence shows), you're actually dead... forever!

To me, to live one's life as if it's the only one, is to respect the gift of life fully.

I didn't claim that the creation story is TRUE! I did claim that it is a possibility that cannot be proved/falsified by science.

Then you'd be incorrect. It can, and has been for a long time.

Now you first say, that it can't be scientifically falsified, because it's not science, it's make believe. And then you say there are known facts that the creation story is factually false, thus scientifically falsified.

Which one is true?

To say "In the beginning, god created the heaven and the earth..." can't be falsified, because there is no test to disprove a god.

To say the earth is the oldest object in the universe (created on Day 1) CAN be te...

I didn't claim that the creation story is TRUE! I did claim that it is a possibility that cannot be proved/falsified by science.

Then you'd be incorrect. It can, and has been for a long time.

Now you first say, that it can't be scientifically falsified, because it's not science, it's make believe. And then you say there are known facts that the creation story is factually false, thus scientifically falsified.

Which one is true?

To say "In the beginning, god created the heaven and the earth..." can't be falsified, because there is no test to disprove a god.

To say the earth is the oldest object in the universe (created on Day 1) CAN be tested. We need only find one object older. Been there, done that. That makes the story FALSE.
--

Now, if you say "but he's ALWAYS been here", then you must logically conclude that the substance of the universe is none other than this creator itself.

Why do I have to conclude this?

Because nothing else has existence. (And something can't come from nothing; the only "something" that exists would be this creator.)

The stuff of the universe, in other words, is eternal -- having no "start point" and no ending.

This is also a non-scientific theory, which can be true or false.

I don't mean it "stretches" into spacial infinity. I mean the longevity of it is eternal. (It can neither be created nor destroyed.)

In 1842, Julius Robert Mayer discovered the Law of Conservation of Energy. In its most compact form, it it [sic] now called the First Law of Thermodynamics:

energy is neither created nor destroyed.

To say "In the beginning, god created the heaven and the earth..."
can't be falsified, because there is no test to disprove a god.

To say the earth is the oldest object in the universe (created on Day 1) CAN be tested. We need only find one object older. Been there, done that. That makes the story FALSE.

After I stated/said what I mean with "creation theory" (see "Let's consider the following statement" in one of my previous comments), and then said

"The point we couldn't agree on was, whether or not the creation theory is scientific."

I thought it was clear that I refer to this theory only all the time. I wrote my defi...

To say "In the beginning, god created the heaven and the earth..."
can't be falsified, because there is no test to disprove a god.

To say the earth is the oldest object in the universe (created on Day 1) CAN be tested. We need only find one object older. Been there, done that. That makes the story FALSE.

After I stated/said what I mean with "creation theory" (see "Let's consider the following statement" in one of my previous comments), and then said

"The point we couldn't agree on was, whether or not the creation theory is scientific."

I thought it was clear that I refer to this theory only all the time. I wrote my definition intentionally, to avoid ambiguities and misunderstandings arising from different understandings/definings of the same word(s).

I never said anything like "the earth is the oldest object".
You refer to what is written in the Bible. But I do/did not claim the "creation story written in Genesis" to be true, to be possible, or to be the word of God at any point.

I don't understand why you assume, that I speak of the one definition (the first you give above) at some point, and then of the other definition (the second you give, from the Bible) at some other point. Is there something in my comments suggesting that?

And something can't come from
nothing; the only "something" that exists would be this creator.

As I understand it, energy cannot be created or destroyed within this universe, according to the laws of this universe. Can you scientifically disprove, that it could have been created by a being with the ability, to make something from nothing?

I mean the longevity of it is eternal. (It can neither be created nor destroyed.)

Can you scientifically prove, that the energy&matter of this universe has always been there?
I think those things cannot be proved or falsified. Thus are non-scientific theories which can be true or false.
That is all I'm sa...

And something can't come from
nothing; the only "something" that exists would be this creator.

As I understand it, energy cannot be created or destroyed within this universe, according to the laws of this universe. Can you scientifically disprove, that it could have been created by a being with the ability, to make something from nothing?

I mean the longevity of it is eternal. (It can neither be created nor destroyed.)

Can you scientifically prove, that the energy&matter of this universe has always been there?
I think those things cannot be proved or falsified. Thus are non-scientific theories which can be true or false.
That is all I'm saying. I don't try to prove something 'True' or 'False'.
I understood from your comments, that you see some things as "scientifically provable/falsifiable" which I think are not. And I'm trying to understand your viewpoint; how you see those things and how you think them to be provable/falsifiable.

na·ture (nā'chər) pronunciation0
1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.

Then it is nature (all the material world) I compare the book to.

If nature is all the material world, than what you call 'products of
nature' are actually 'parts of nature' I understand. Not something
apart from nature that the nature did produce?

Do I understand this right: The forces and processes that produce and
control all the phenomena of the material world are called "the laws of nature"? If they are controlling the phenomena in nature, can they at the same tim...

na·ture (nā'chər) pronunciation0
1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.

Then it is nature (all the material world) I compare the book to.

If nature is all the material world, than what you call 'products of
nature' are actually 'parts of nature' I understand. Not something
apart from nature that the nature did produce?

Do I understand this right: The forces and processes that produce and
control all the phenomena of the material world are called "the laws of nature"? If they are controlling the phenomena in nature, can they at the same time be the products of nature (produced by nature)?

"They are a part of nature" makes more sense to me...

And I still conclude that there must be someone having the knowledge contained in this universe/nature (including "the laws of nature"), who made this universe/nature and built this laws
into it.

As I said before, I don't claim this is true. It is my personal
inductive inference. From my viewpoint this is the most probable conclusion.

As I said before, I don't claim this is true. It is my personal inductive inference. From my viewpoint this is the most probable conclusion.

Perhaps at some point you'll challenge your own beliefs against the verifiable, instead of maintaining them via the unverifiable.

It is of no consolation to say "but what if there's another universe where...." when you have no way to verify anything about another universe.

It's just something you made up to account for the contradictions between the truth of THIS universe and the beliefs of your ideas.

In other words...

The real universe does not support your ideas, so you mentally make up another universe and say, "but what about ...

As I said before, I don't claim this is true. It is my personal inductive inference. From my viewpoint this is the most probable conclusion.

Perhaps at some point you'll challenge your own beliefs against the verifiable, instead of maintaining them via the unverifiable.

It is of no consolation to say "but what if there's another universe where...." when you have no way to verify anything about another universe.

It's just something you made up to account for the contradictions between the truth of THIS universe and the beliefs of your ideas.

In other words...

The real universe does not support your ideas, so you mentally make up another universe and say, "but what about another universe..."

And since its completely made up, you then say "therefore its not falsifiable...so it "could" be true since we can't disprove it's not!"

You can't disprove invisible pink elephants either.

Here's a thought: Try testing your ideas against the verifiable. See if they hold up in the "real" world. That way its truthfulness could be of value to all.

It's just something you made up to account for the contradictions
between the truth of THIS universe and the beliefs of your ideas.

How can you say that, without knowing what my belief is? To this point the only thing I said I believe in is "the existence of a creator that created this universe at the beginning". You agreed this cannot be falsified. So this belief does not contradict the truth of this universe. So, what belief of mine is it you mean above?
I do not make up anything to account for a contradiction, because there is no contradiction so far.

Here's a thought: Try testing your ideas against the verifiable. See if
they hold up in the "real" world. That ...

read more»

It's just something you made up to account for the contradictions
between the truth of THIS universe and the beliefs of your ideas.

How can you say that, without knowing what my belief is? To this point the only thing I said I believe in is "the existence of a creator that created this universe at the beginning". You agreed this cannot be falsified. So this belief does not contradict the truth of this universe. So, what belief of mine is it you mean above?
I do not make up anything to account for a contradiction, because there is no contradiction so far.

Here's a thought: Try testing your ideas against the verifiable. See if
they hold up in the "real" world. That way its truthfulness could be of
value to all.

The ideas, that can be tested, I do test against the verifiable. The idea of the existence of a creator cannot be tested against the verifiable.

And yet there are two possibilities: either there is , or there is not. So I think about it. My thoughts and conclusions do not have to be of value to all. Each individual has to think and decide for himself/herself. Or decide not to think about it. That's not a scientific matter, where I can find a scientific proof that woul be of value for all. That's the way I perceive it.
Is there something illogical about it?

You can't disprove invisible pink elephants either.

I agree that there are also other things which cannot be tested against the verfiable. To draw an analogy to the case above: There are two possibilities: either invisible pink elephants exist, or they do not. I decide that the answer to this question is of no value to me (I decide not to think about it). But when I think about it, I would say "most probably not". This would be my conclusion I couldn't prove, which would be of no value to anyone.

I do not compare the 'relevance' of the existence of a creator to the existence of invisible pink elephants.

I believe you're a good thinker, splendidus.

One trap that all thinkers fall victim to is "confirmation bias".

Consider; you could spend eternity collecting evidence that confirms what you believe. But you need only find ONE piece of evidence to prove the belief wrong.

In other words it's far more efficient to discover the truthfulness of a proposition by looking for its dis-proof than by any other means.

Try to find just one thing that proves your idea wrong, instead of spending the time confirming you're right. And you'll develop a whole new (much more efficient) way of thinking that I think you'll enjoy!

You'll find it to be a very sharp tool, that cuts through the confirmation bias...

I believe you're a good thinker, splendidus.

One trap that all thinkers fall victim to is "confirmation bias".

Consider; you could spend eternity collecting evidence that confirms what you believe. But you need only find ONE piece of evidence to prove the belief wrong.

In other words it's far more efficient to discover the truthfulness of a proposition by looking for its dis-proof than by any other means.

Try to find just one thing that proves your idea wrong, instead of spending the time confirming you're right. And you'll develop a whole new (much more efficient) way of thinking that I think you'll enjoy!

You'll find it to be a very sharp tool, that cuts through the confirmation bias we all have.

Learn it with yourself, and I think you'll find yourself an intellectual warrior.

It's been a pleasure talking with you, splendidus.
Thanks.

Consider; you could spend eternity collecting evidence that confirms
what you believe. But you need only find ONE piece of evidence to prove
the belief wrong.

Totally agree, if the said belief is falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, I can spend eternity to find evidence against it.

Try to find just one thing that proves your idea wrong, instead of spending the time confirming you're right.

As I said, I do test my (falsifiable) ideas against verifiable facts. That was (partly) what I was doing in my comments here: I misunderstood one of your comments and thought you say that there are facts against the creation theory I stated (not the Biblical cr...

Consider; you could spend eternity collecting evidence that confirms
what you believe. But you need only find ONE piece of evidence to prove
the belief wrong.

Totally agree, if the said belief is falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, I can spend eternity to find evidence against it.

Try to find just one thing that proves your idea wrong, instead of spending the time confirming you're right.

As I said, I do test my (falsifiable) ideas against verifiable facts. That was (partly) what I was doing in my comments here: I misunderstood one of your comments and thought you say that there are facts against the creation theory I stated (not the Biblical creation story), which I -by the way- was thinking of as non-falsifiable, and was wondering what these could be...

I don't say I am free from any Conformation Bias. I would prefer to be right in my beliefs, just as much as anyone else. But I don't close my eyes to possible counterevidence (it seems I will keep wandering what this contradiction was you said exists between the truth of this universe and my belief(s)).

It was a pleasure for me too, thank you for your time and effort.
I wish you happiness, health and success in the new year.