Evolution Vs. God

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: whereislogic
... your version of the "truth".

Guess I was spot on then with bringing up the philosophy of relativism. As the article brings out:

... [According to Bible scholar R. C. H. Lenski, Pilate’s “tone is that of an indifferent worldling who by his question intends to say that anything in the nature of religious truth is a useless speculation.”]

Pilate’s skeptical view of truth is not uncommon today. Many believe that truth is relative​—in other words, that what is true to one person may be untrue to another, so that both may be “right.” This belief is so widespread that there is a word for it​—“relativism.”

Other ways of putting it is the slogan that everyone makes their own truth, which relates to the way you said it, "your version of the truth".

MANY religious organizations claim to have the truth, and they offer it eagerly to others. However, between them they offer a dizzying profusion of “truths.” Is this just another evidence that all truths are relative, that there are no absolute truths? No.

In his book The Art of Thinking, Professor V. R. Ruggiero expresses his surprise that even intelligent people sometimes say that truth is relative. He reasons: “If everyone makes his own truth, then no person’s idea can be better than another’s. All must be equal. And if all ideas are equal, what is the point in researching any subject? Why dig in the ground for answers to archeological questions? Why probe the causes of tension in the Middle East? Why search for a cancer cure? Why explore the galaxy? These activities make sense only if some answers are better than others, if truth is something separate from, and unaffected by, individual perspectives.”

In fact, no one really believes that there is no truth. When it comes to physical realities, such as medicine, mathematics, or the laws of physics, even the staunchest relativist will believe that some things are true. Who of us would dare to ride in an airplane if we did not think that the laws of aerodynamics were absolute truths? Verifiable truths do exist; they surround us, and we stake our lives on them.

Relativism does not represent open-mindedness, it actually closes the mind to verifiable truths. Because it leads people to the same attitude as Pontius Pilate as described in the footnote by R. C. H. Lenski. And in the title of the book The Closing of the American Mind, which said: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” Bloom found that if he challenged his students’ conviction on this matter, they would react with astonishment, “as though he were calling into question 2 + 2 = 4.”

Of course, the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is an example of such a verifiable truth. As is this one:

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

As demonstrated by all those who believe, or say they believe, that truth is relative (on ATS I have noticed they prefer the term subjective, but then if you dig a little deeper into their thoughts, you find out that their view of truth is the same as those ancient pagan religious philosophers quoted in the article and Pilate, i.e. they are thinking "relative" rather than "subjective", the terms are so similar that it allows some propagandists to capitalize on the ambiguity of language and make people forget what it actually is that they are talking about, the notion that real truth cannot be known, "real knowledge is unattainable", Parminedes, "We know nothing for certain", Democritus and South Park's Agnostic Code says something similar, or to refer back to a phrase I used, that you can't figure out the truth of a matter for certain/sure, especially when it comes to truths taught in the Bible, which "the father of the lie" and all his pawns would like you to believe that you can't find out for sure anyway, so why bother looking into it; hook, line and sinker). More religiously motivated dogma that they are stuck in. Here are some synonyms for "true": absolute/certain/conclusive/factual/correct, without error.

"Relative" or "subjective" are not synonyms for "true".

South Park's Agnostic Code even ends with the true motive for conditioning and indoctrinating people with the notion that we can't be certain of anything, especially the truths discussed in the Bible concerning God and Creation for example (although the Code replaces God with Jesus Christ, as Trinitarians do, cause that's part of the programming by the father of the lie as well): "So it's pointless to talk about". That's what you are supposed to think, I described it before as, "why bother looking into it", and the article I used says: "Do you believe that truth is relative or nonexistent? [or that you can't figure it out for certain/sure anyway] If so, searching for it may strike you as a waste of time." Hook, line and sinker. At that point, you cease to be truth seeker, preferring speculations and the "false stories" that 'tickle your ears' as described at 2 Tim 4:3,4. Which is exactly the attitude that the father of the lie wants people to have, makes his job so much easier, people will stop searching for the truths that matter most, as described in the Bible). This is the way you condition people not to do this (making them believe that they can't do it anyway, giving up in trying to figure it out in essence):

“Make sure of the more important things.”—PHIL. 1:10.

“Do not treat prophecies with contempt. Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:20,21)

“But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar.” (Romans 3:4)

originally posted by: whereislogic
Guess I was spot on then with bringing up the philosophy of relativism.

No, truth isn't relative.

It is just that your truth might be wrong but you clinging to it is religious dogma.

Meanwhile, "ancient aliens" leaves open possibilities that your specific belief doesn't leave room for. Even if you want to say technically "god and his angels would be ancient aliens", it is a package deal that doesn't include other possibilities.

ETA:

Of course, the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is an example of such a verifiable truth. As is this one:
“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

Perfect example of your blind faith. That bible quote isn't as verifiable as 2 + 2 = 4.

Honestly, that is just something that tickles your ears, that is why you believe in it.

originally posted by: daskakik
It is just that your truth might be wrong ...

If it's wrong then it isn't true or truth. Wrong/false/incorrect is the opposite of true/right/factual/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error.

... but you clinging to it is religious dogma.

If it's wrong, then yes (but you have provided neither an argument nor evidence that it is wrong, so I'm going to have to go on the evidence at hand#). Just like it is with religiously motivated and rooted evolutionary myths/false stories and philosophical naturalism ('nature did it, by chance/accident' or supposedly because of the way the forces of nature operate, often incorrectly referred to as 'by necessity', in spite of the forces of nature having the opposite effect as observed my mankind for centuries*). #: which I have provided a summary of when I was talking about inductive reasoning accompanied by a more detailed playlist that I take it you haven't looked at nor do you seem interested in looking at that evidence or drawing any general conclusions from it by induction, as you also haven't answered that question when I presented 2 simple, well-established and observed facts that allow one to draw such a conclusion: "What general conclusion by induction can one draw from these facts/truths/realities/certainties?" Note that this behavioural pattern is a demonstration of what's described at 2 Tim 4:3,4; and it's not just 'not looking at it', or 'not being interested', you're not even talking about it, or answering the simple question or challenging any of the 2 facts I presented, and since you are still talking about other things, that makes it appear you have been actively avoiding that question or challenging any of the 2 facts on which the question is based, so far; I may have asked other questions as well that could still be answered perhaps, I'd have to check; one question was about whether or not you think you can ever figure out the truth of a matter, such as how life came to be, for certain, if it's possible to make sure of anything as advised at 1 Thess 5:21 and Phil 1:10.

*: Which Approach Is More Reasonable? (Awake!—2011)

...

Which View Fits All the Facts?

With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following:

1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.

2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.

3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.

How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. [whereislogic: 'nature did it'; and now comes the subject where I placed my footnote earlier:]

What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things​—machines, houses, and even living cells—​in time break down.* [Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.] Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”

To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order​—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building.* Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed. [*: DNA can be altered by mutations, which can be caused by such things as radiation and certain chemicals. But these do not lead to new species.​—See the article “Is Evolution a Fact?” in the September 2006 issue of Awake!]

On the other hand, when we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms.*​—Isaiah 40:26.

Belief in a Creator also harmonizes with the now generally accepted view that the physical universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1.

Invariably, new discoveries tend to make the philosophy of materialism [whereislogic: a.k.a. philosophical naturalism/'nature did it'] increasingly hard to defend, a fact that has moved some atheists to revise their views.* Yes, some former atheists have come to the conclusion that the wonders of the universe are visible evidence of the “invisible qualities” and “eternal power” of our Creator, Jehovah God. (Romans 1:20) Would you consider giving the matter further thought? No subject could be more important or of greater consequence.

You have already somewhat demonstrated your answer to that last question in the past.

Meanwhile, "ancient aliens" leaves open possibilities that your specific belief doesn't leave room for. Even if you want to say technically "god and his angels would be ancient aliens", it is a package deal that doesn't include other possibilities.

It identifies which specific ancient alien is responsible for the origin of life and the universe. Once you've figured out the right/correct answer, it indeed excludes (or you can scratch off) other potential candidates to answer the question concerning the origin of life and the universe. Obviously, aliens who had their beginning in this universe already cannot be responsible, or the cause, for the origin of the universe, or its creation; that option also leaves open the question: where did they come from, how did they originate if they haven't always been there (i.e. if they are not eternal aliens)?

Perfect example of your blind faith. That bible quote isn't as verifiable as 2 + 2 = 4.

Definitely not as easily, still verifiable by means of observation and logical reasoning though, so my observation of it does not rest on blind faith. The phenomenon, attitude and behavioural pattern described at 2 Tim 4:3,4 is demonstrated on ATS, the internet and society in general numerous times. So often, that it becomes increasingly difficult to encounter a different pattern and attitude towards the specific beneficial teaching and truths or the false stories/myths spoken of there. Just to be clear again which "beneficial teaching" and "truth" is spoken of there, the last 2 verses in the preceding chapter say:

“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight,* [Or “correcting.”] for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16,17)

Another fact/certainty/truth/reality that I have been able to verify by means of personal experience, observation, or study. Did I already mention that science*/knowledge (*: from the Latin scientia meaning "knowledge", which is also still a synonym) essentially means familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. I.e. things that are factual/true/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error?

Honestly, that is just something that tickles your ears, that is why you believe in it.

I don't think it actually does, cause I don't think I'm enjoying observing/seeing the reality/fact and phenomenon, the behavioural pattern, described there all that much (it's not really what I want to see; nor is it something that I want to believe, but it is what it is), I would actually prefer it to be different. But I can't deny the evidence I'm seeing with my own eyes, or hearing with my own ears. I could be dishonest about what I'm seeing though, but I don't feel like doing so. Or to use a popular phrase in this system of things: 'what has been seen cannot be unseen'.

originally posted by: daskakik
...
That bible quote isn't as verifiable as 2 + 2 = 4.

Mind you, by stating it like that, you have acknowledged that both statements are verifiable at least. I.e. you can make sure of it. If you meant to say the bible quote isn't verifiable, i.e. you can never be 100% certain of it (one can't make sure of it), you should have put it like this:

'That bible quote isn't verifiable like 2 + 2 = 4.'

Honestly, that is just something that tickles your ears, that is why you believe in it.

And in your view, am I the only one behaving that way? Cause if you are seeing many others who do that as well, then you are already well on your way of proving to yourself (verifying) that the statement there at 2 Tim 4:3,4 is accurate (another synonym for true/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error). I take it you believe this is the case for the millions of witnesses of Jehovah in this world? Or anyone else who has come to the conclusion and consequently believes that we (and the machinery and technology that makes up life) are the product of creation (engineering specifically in the case of machinery and technology) by God (either the One presented in the Bible or another one that people often talk about)?

Or how about those who believe that ancient aliens from another planet did it (either through directed panspermia followed by chemical evolution followed by biological evolution or by engineering the whole endproduct or endproducts, the interdependent machinery and technology that now makes up life and complete living organisms, the complete system of machinery and technology that can reproduce), or at least believe this is a possibility? Is that a different matter altogether or not? In what way (if it is)? If the behaviour and attitude isn't different (or much different) from what you ascribed to me, I guess you can add it to your personal pile of evidence for the accuracy and reliability of 2 Tim 4:3,4 (or at least the part that speaks about people believing things that 'tickle their ears', as that's the only behavioural pattern described there that you ascribed to me, you didn't argue that what I believe is wrong, or not beneficial teaching, or not true but false, based on false stories/myths; as I mentioned in my previous comment, but I guess we both know if you did any of that, I might ask for a presentation of evidence accompanied by a logical argument for such a claim, or at least something that might convince me of that*, otherwise, I'd just have to take your word for it, for which I would have no motive or good reason to do so, especially not based on what I have seen in your commentary so far).

*:
At least Daniel Dennett is clear about when he thinks other people are wrong about something at 2:58 below (depending on his target market for that meme):

At least I won't respond like this if you did tell me that what I believe is wrong without presenting anything of significance to back up such a claim (or if it's somehow implied, there do seem to be some indications in your commentary that you think that is the case, or at least likely the case, but you haven't really spelled it out yet, you've only said some incorrect things about religious dogma and blind faith to indicate that you might be thinking either):

More discussion on the matter of the 'burden of proof' (a good trick to avoid the burden of proof is not to spell out your claim, or what you are really thinking about concerning the things I've been talking about, such as the origin of life and the universe being a product of creation and engineering, i.e. not to take a position on the matter, as those who adhere to South Park's Agnostic Code would do, or just agnosticism in general), from 6:00 - 9:31:

originally posted by: daskakik

It is just that your truth might be wrong but you clinging to it is religious dogma.

In light of my previous comment, and in particular those parts where I talked about you not saying that I'm wrong about something specific, not taking a position on the matter and not backing it up with anything of significance (evidence accompanied by arguments), I'd like to rephrase my previous response (although the way I put it earlier is correct/true as well).

Only if I actually am wrong. Since you won't argue that that is the case, or for that position, do we have something to talk about or did you just wanted to share that incorrect meme and paintjob (something that is only true if that were the case, and not the way you phrased it, as if the last part is always true regardless if I'm actually wrong or not about something that I'm saying is true, and backing up with evidence and arguments of induction; presumably because some of the things I've been talking about are associated with religious dogma, especially by those reading your incorrect description of me, potentially the real target audience for the meme and paintjob since it's so useless and uninformative to me unless you can tell me how to find out that I'm wrong about something specific that I said or presented, and what evidence for this you have to offer me, the way I presented my evidence concerning a number of subjects and facts/truths/certainties/realities concerning both evolutionary philosophies and myths as well as the accuracy of the Bible and the claims or teachings found therein)?

After all, prejudice causes people to distort, misinterpret, or even ignore facts that conflict with their predetermined opinions. Or just expressing their predetermined opinions without backing them up with anything of significance, and even on occasion presenting them in an incorrect or misleading fashion. Such as in the example described above (where what you said is not always automatically the case, it really depends on whether or not I'm wrong about something specific that I presented as true/factual/certain/correct, without error).

a reply to: whereislogic

originally posted by: whereislogic
If it's wrong, then yes (but you have provided neither an argument nor evidence that it is wrong, so I'm going to have to go on the evidence at hand.

I don't have to because that isn't my point. My point is just that "ancient aliens" doesn't have the limitations that your belief has.

'That bible quote isn't verifiable like 2 + 2 = 4.'

I meant it the way it is written, you can verify that the verse actually says that but you can't verify that what it says is true.

And in your view, am I the only one behaving that way?

No, but seems you think you are not.