The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by SigTerm Perhaps "random" was not the right word, but the point was that the process is not predictable. At least half of definitions of "Random" match "unpredictable". Check the dictionary.

I'm not interested in arguing over definitions. The link I posted discusses the different sense of random as used in science vs. common usage.

We need to distinguish between two senses of "random": the one kind that involves a total break in the causal chain, and in which the event is essentially chaotic; the other that requires only unpredictability, such as the decay of unstable atoms, or Brownian motion, but which remains a caused event. These get confused all the time. There is nothing about changes in a genome or a gene pool that is random in the first sense, but much of the second sense. For example, shuffling a deck of cards results in a properly physical process of the rearrangement of each card, yet there is no real way to predict the order of a random shuffle. Cards don't just materialise in place, but you don't know what you will end up with (unless you bias the shuffling so it isn't random). Gould [1993: 396f] has written about the different senses of "random" and "chance" in science: "In ordinary English, a random event is one without order, predicatability or pattern. The word connotes disaggregation, falling apart, formless anarchy, and fear. Yet, ironically, the scientific sense of random conveys a precisely opposite set of associations. A phenomenon governed by chance yields maximal simplicity, order and predictability--at least in the long run. ... Thus, if you wish to understand patterns of long historical sequences, pray for randomness."

Mostly when people attempt to criticize evolution and natural selection, they are using randomness to mean something operating through pure chance, and pull out Hoyle's fallacy. If evolution was "random" according to their caricature, it would indeed be an absurd proposition. But evolution through natural selection, being a causal process, can give rise to the appearance of design.

Incorrect. I'd say this is a "backwards" definition that implies existence of some kind of direction of evolution, which is not the case. You forget about situation when species cannot adapt and go extinct. IMO the proper definition is that natural selection kills off everything that cannot adapt and does not guarantee statistic increase of survival, since entire species can die as a result of natural selection. It does not guarantee advancement or survival. Your definition implies some kind of selecting hand. The proper definition should imply a slaughterhouse with insane owner.

How does that imply direction or ignore times when species are unable to adapt? If a gene expresses itself in such a way that it out competes other genes and thereby increases its frequency in the gene pool, that is what is meant by "selected for". Obviously, there are contingent circumstances that can nip a gene that, all things being equal, would have been more successful, such as your cataclysmic event scenario.

I have impression that author of this sentence does not understand "random" and have a severe case of tunnel vision. In my understanding, natural selection is a duel between random mutations and random changes in environment. The reason why it normally works, is because environment NORMALLY changes significantly slower than living organisms, but there are exceptions which include various cataclysmic events (meteorites, volcano eruptions, forest fires, tornadoes, etc).

A changing environment can act as a catalyst for evolution, but is not required. For example, there was the famous Lenski experiment with test tube bacteria. The environment was stable, but one "lineage" of bacteria evolved to feed on citrate as well as glucose.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Perhaps "random" was not the right word, but the point was that the process is not predictable. At least half of definitions of "Random" match "unpredictable". Check the dictionary.

The word you're looking for is not "random," it's "chaotic." Chaotic systems cannot be predicted, but that doesn't mean they're random. It just means they're influenced by too many variables, many of which cannot be observed ahead of time.

Originally Posted by reed9 Mostly when people attempt to criticize evolution and natural selection,

I honestly do not find it interesting or relevant.

Originally Posted by reed9 How does that imply direction or ignore times when species are unable to adapt?

Because you concentrate on "advancement", genes and life too much. IMO because of definitions like this people ask stupid questions like "why doesn't shark evolve to have laser turrets". The main element of natural selection is death. Evolution/genes are side effects that will cease to exist as soon as conditions change too much and everything goes extinct. Survival rate can be reduced to zero because of outside influence.

Originally Posted by reed9 A changing environment can act as a catalyst for evolution, but is not required. For example, there was

For example, there was St. Matthew Island and its reindeer story. Classic example of natural selection if you ask me.

I do not find this direction of discussion interesting. If you wish to argue about evolution, you'll have to find somebody else.

Originally Posted by SigTerm For example, there was St. Matthew Island and its reindeer story. Classic example of natural selection if you ask me.

I don't get it. This is a story about overpopulation and the effects of weather events on extinction. I assume you're saying that because the reindeer couldn't evolve in a handful of decades to survive the conditions on the island, it is therefore about natural selection? That doesn't tell us much about how natural selection works beyond saying major changes don't happen rapidly.

I do not find this direction of discussion interesting. If you wish to argue about evolution, you'll have to find somebody else.

I don't particularly. I mostly wanted to correct the erroneous notion that evolution through natural selection is a random process.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Not answering the question. If salvation from Christ was available before Jesus lived on earth, why had god to sacrifice him nonetheless?

The sum total cost to atone for human sin is every drop of blood from every animal sacrifice (to YHWH) from Adam's fall plus the consumating sacrifice, that being the blood of Christ.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Completely ignoring the question. Even if Adam willfully disobeyed god he couldn't know better, because god designed him not to know about good and evil. Conclusion: God punished mankind for his own design flaw.

A good Father disciplines his son when he disobeys him, and doing so helps him learn what's right.

Originally Posted by sycamorex Funny you should say it. It seems you don't get the nature of your faith/belief. I don't think even the pope would be so arrogant and short-sighted to claim that he knows it to be the truth.

Originally Posted by sycamorex Confusing what you know with what you think/believe you know just MIGHT be a sign of delusion. How can you know it to be the truth? Are you omniscient? If not, your claim is unsupported rubbish.

I'm hardly omniscient, but the Spirit of Christ does testify to my spirit, according 1) to my experience and 2) according to Romans 8:16, which verse can only be understood having put your faith in Christ

Originally Posted by SL00b So still not seeing the sadism, then? Why do you insist on saying so many things that are obviously not true? Show me one instance of Abraham talking of Christ. Just one.

You're an adult, and you should know the little value found in "talk."

The fact is that Abraham's life testified sublimely to Christ. But if you will only take an account to human "talk," read Genesis 22. The synopsis is that Abraham is lead by God to sacrifice his only son Isaac, who asks, "but Father, where is the lamb for the sacrifice?" Abraham answers, "God himself will provide the lamb." Isaac's life was spared by the death of Christ.

Originally Posted by SL00b If Adam's pride were the problem, then why did God make him so full of pride?

The origin of Adam's pride is not God, but in his being taken by the tempter. The effect is seen more clearly in his son Cain's fall later: Cain is dejected because God shows his brother Abel better favor, so Cain is angry. God warns Cain, "You will be accepted if you do what's right. But if you refuse, then watch out! Sin is. . . eager to control you. But you must subdue it and be its master."

In the same way Adam was responsible to refuse the fruit. God had given the command. When a mere man willfully disobeys God, either at the dawn of time or today, he's responsible, whether he's worldly-wise or not. You don't have to be worldly-wise to obey God.

Originally Posted by bluegospel A good Father disciplines his son when he disobeys him, and doing so helps him learn what's right.

What god did is like kicking his kids (that were not old enough to know about morality) out of his house for the very first mistake they made. Doesn't sound like a good father to me. But still not answering the question.
Once again: Adam and Eve didn't know about good and evil. They simply couldn't know that it is evil to not obey god. Se he punished them, because god didn't make them awarwe of that. Please explain that to me.

The origin of Adam's pride is not God, but in his being taken by the tempter.

God is the creator of all things, so he must have created pride in the first place. Also once again, how can anyone be tempted before even knowing about good and evil.


In short: Still avoiding to answer the questions.

These firm believers are just as bad as politicians round and round we go and hopefully forget what the question was in the first place .

Originally Posted by bluegospel The sum total cost to atone for human sin is every ...

Doesn't matter. You're still avoiding the most important question:

"why does the god test people if he knew result in advance even before he/she/it created universe?"

Answer it. Failure to answer will indicate that christianity is based on a lie (question is basic/simple, and christians had 2000 years to think about it). You have one more attempt.

Originally Posted by bluegospel You're an adult, and you should know the little value found in "talk."

I'm not even going to pretend I know what this nonsense statement is about. The ability to communicate ideas to each other is central to who we are as a species. Isn't that why your god "talks" to various individuals throughout the Bible? Aren't you Christians supposed to be busy pretending he "talks" directly to you?

Originally Posted by bluegospel The fact is that Abraham's life testified sublimely to Christ. But if you will only take an account to human "talk," read Genesis 22. The synopsis is that Abraham is lead by God to sacrifice his only son Isaac, who asks, "but Father, where is the lamb for the sacrifice?" Abraham answers, "God himself will provide the lamb." Isaac's life was spared by the death of Christ.

Oh, I get it. Abraham testified about Christ through the agencies of anachronism and illiteracy. When Abraham says "God himself will provide the lamb," he's quite obviously LYING TO HIS SON, because in this case the "lamb" is Isaac himself. But then God stops Abraham from Isaac... and does Christ magically appear? No, but a ram does.

Obviously you did some spectacular mental gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion that this story has anything to do with Jesus, but you really fell hard on the landing.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The origin of Adam's pride is not God, but in his being taken by the tempter. The effect is seen more clearly in his son Cain's fall later: Cain is dejected because God shows his brother Abel better favor, so Cain is angry. God warns Cain, "You will be accepted if you do what's right. But if you refuse, then watch out! Sin is. . . eager to control you. But you must subdue it and be its master."

If Adam is full of pride, then this is a property of the personality he was made with. There's no arguing this point. God has basically made a sandwich, and now he's freaking out because it has mustard, because he hates mustard. If he hated mustard so much, he should have reached for the mayo instead.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I'm hardly omniscient, but the Spirit of Christ does testify to my spirit, according 1) to my experience and 2) according to Romans 8:16, which verse can only be understood having put your faith in Christ

While we're making nonsense statements, my garthrung volcernizes to my seertaag, according to my experience, and according to the second chapter and the third verse of the book of Newt, which you can only properly understand while vigorously stroking your falchor.

Aren't non-sequiters wrapped in self-sealing fallacies fun?

Originally Posted by reed9 Natural selection

Natural selection doesn't program anything, it just uses ready code. In case of successful selections there is still loss of data and never an increase...

What I find so sad about creationism is that you all use the same arguments, and inevitably these arguments have been utterly demolished by anyone with half a brain, often decades ago. But I have no doubt you all will continue to spout them in feigned ignorance of how truly bad these arguments are. Sigh, the intellectual bankruptcy of religion.

Yea them with half a brain are very good at demolishing that which can't be understood with half a brain. That's the plague of our age, to be sure.

The 2nd law refers to the total entropy of a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, we have energy from the sun coming in.

Right, the Earth is open system in that energy from the sun is being invested into this system. So instead of DNA you get ... fried DNA, that's it. Unless DNA has mechanisms to transform energy from sun into increased complexity of DNA itself... which are not known to exist with DNA.
So there's NO calculation of probabilities of random combinations to produce increased level of information, cause it is NOT a lottery where you actually CAN win by pulling a lucky one. It is a firmly established fundamental law of our Universe which says you CAN'T win in SUCH way.

It is just amazing how you guys ALWAYS seem to thoroughly study only such factual evidence as seems to support your theory and turn blind eye on the rest of science.
That's why I didn't even post my impressions from reading Dawkins -- there's NOTHING there to talk about. I expected at least something, but there's nothing at all. He JUST takes it all for granted and those who don't are in "feigned ignorance", "uneducated fools" and other suchlike expression which sound so familiar in your posts.
That man is a fanatic and not a scientist when God/creation/evolution issue is concerned. He reminds me the darkest characters of witch hunting times -- only this time equipped with evolutionist stuff.
(Sure I can't evaluate his knowledge of the species, he may be good enough at it.)

Originally Posted by kostya Right, the Earth is open system in that energy from the sun is being invested into this system....

Even if you were able to somehow disprove evolution, that wouldn't prove your religion and wouldn't prove existence of your god. Concentrate on your religion instead of bashing things you don't understand. Evolution has nothing to do with it.

You were given a simple question:

"why does the god test people if he knew result in advance even before he/she/it created universe?"

And you have to answer it. Failure to answer will indicate that christianity is based on a lie (question is basic/simple, and christians had 2000 years to think about it). You have one more attempt. Currently you're running away from the question and trying to divert attention from the question. Be a man and answer the question.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Russians don't have it (aside from bible).

You're kiddin' me or what?
Russians as a "nation" only exist 300-400 years. The very word doesn't appear any earlier than that. And earlier roots have been blotted out by the Orthodox, so they're the worst example you could use (did you know it, are you kiddin me??).

Greek mythology doesn't have it.

Read about it in your trusty Wikipedia and also here. You know it sometimes depends on what you're searching for .

Can't say I researched every single myth, but judging from ALL mythical stores I ever come across, only bible mentions flood. Nobody else. Of course, MAYBE somebody worked really hard and hidden flood tales from general public, but that's unlikely to happen.

I'd say someone worked really hard to blind the eyes of you people so you could NOT see obvious and even publicly available things.