Biomimicry - Intelligence In Design

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776

As far as your comment for Astyanax goes, I agree with his rather eloquent rendition of my argument, and would have you know that if you were to apply that comment to me also, you would be dead wrong, as I'm a Vegan. I made the decision not to kill or cause suffering to anything so that I may survive.

Dead wrong?

Something died so you could eat it.

A plant is still life.

The harvesting of plants for food, causes the destruction of habitat, insects and animals are accidentally killed in the process.

The technology you use has caused the destruction of the environment and the death of animal life.

I am truly baffled by your position.

That being said, your quick dismissal of my arguments without addressing what I said, instead making personal attacks, has lead my to once again abandon my efforts to bring some understanding to people of your beliefs.

I am sorry, but I was not aware that disagreeing with a position illustratively, is considered a personal attack.

I disagree with Atheism, and, let me throw in Veganism.


I see nature as a wonder.

This thread is a highlight of the marvels of nature.

I could spend the rest of my life highlighting the positive things on this planet.



But your position seems to highlight the negative.

You believe that you come from nature, yet you find the natural world, to be wrong somehow.





Dude, you need to get out more......

reply to post by dusty1

So did you by chance, ponder your moral argument against nature, over a meal? Something died so you could enjoy your food. But you ate it anyway.

Against nature? No, against the concept of an omnipotent yet moral creator.

Yes, I have pondered the point over dinner. Permit me to carry your objection a step farther. It is not just a question of slaughtering animals; plants do not grow and reproduce purely in order to be fodder. Apart from fruits, which really are ’intended’ to be eaten as part of the reproductive process of the plants that bear them, no part of any living thing can be consumed without causing death, or at least damage, to that living thing.

I did not create the Earth and the organisms that live upon it. I am a living thing, forced to survive by the same means as all the others. Whether I am a meat-eater or a vegan, I must live by causing death. If there is a God, it is He, not I, that makes the rules. If my behaviour partakes of the inevitable cruelty of his creation, that is not my fault.

But really, dusty1, you seem to have missed the point. It is not that I kill to eat; it is that a wasp must, or a virus, or a leopard. You may argue that I have a choice; but they do not. And indeed, it is impossible to walk a step or draw a breath without destroying life. God, if He made us, made us this way. Even if you maintain the farcical blame-shift known to theologians as Original Sin, it makes no difference because God, being omniscient, must have known that things would turn out like this.

If you want to believe in a creator God, you have to give up on belief in a good God, or vice versa. This is something a believer can only deny by refusing, blindly and steadfastly, to face facts.

reply to post by Astyanax

And indeed, it is impossible to walk a step or draw a breath without destroying life. God, if He made us, made us this way. Even if you maintain the farcical blame-shift known to theologians as Original Sin, it makes no difference because God, being omniscient, must have known that things would turn out like this. If you want to believe in a creator God, you have to give up on belief in a good God, or vice versa. This is something a believer can only deny by refusing, blindly and steadfastly, to face facts.

Astyanax,


You would be correct if God left things as they are.

That is why I believe the Christian Bible has the only good explanation.



We are only half way through the story.




God did a magnificent job in creating a self maintaining, self recycling, biosphere.

How long would your plants and pets survive in your home, if you stopped taking care of them for 6000 years?


Free Will has currently interrupted our regularly scheduled program.


God used His son to hit a big fat re-set button.


If you could live forever on this planet, could you selectively breed the creatures of earth to be kinder and gentler?

How about the flora and fauna?

Psalms 37:29
Isaiah 65:21-25

reply to post by dusty1

You would be correct if God left things as they are.

You mean Mr. Omnipotent had to go back and fix the things he messed up the first time? Gosh.

That is why I believe the Christian Bible has the only good explanation.

The one about God sacrificing Himself to Himself in order to atone to Himself for what He caused His creatures to do? By using them to crucify Himself, thereby getting yet more blood on their hands?

I find that one a little far-fetched, to be honest. And more than a little bloodthirsty. Not to say morally retarded.

God did a magnificent job in creating a self maintaining, self recycling, biosphere. How long would your plants and pets survive in your home, if you stopped taking care of them for 6000 years?

The Earth is clearly several billion years old and shows absolutely no evidence, factual or circumstantial, of being deliberately created. Your question has no meaning.

Free Will has currently interrupted our regularly scheduled program.

Free will cannot exist in a universe ruled by an omniscient creator unless that creator deliberately blinds itself and ceases to be omniscient. Are you saying that God did such a thing?

If you could live forever on this planet, could you selectively breed the creatures of earth to be kinder and gentler?

No. But then, I do not claim to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. I am an evolved organism, not a metaphysical contradiction in terms.

How about the flora and fauna?

I’m sorry to break this to you, but ‘flora and fauna’ are the creatures, as you call them, of earth.

reply to post by Astyanax




Ouch,

you seem cranky.

You mean Mr. Omnipotent had to go back and fix the things he messed up the first time? Gosh.

Creating other beings with free will and a breathtaking universe, isn't "messing up". Shucks.

The one about God sacrificing Himself to Himself in order to atone to Himself for what He caused His creatures to do? By using them to crucify Himself, thereby getting yet more blood on their hands? I find that one a little far-fetched, to be honest. And more than a little bloodthirsty. Not to say morally retarded.

That statement only makes sense if you believe in the Trinity.

I don't.

The Earth is clearly several billion years old and shows absolutely no evidence, factual or circumstantial, of being deliberately created. Your question has no meaning.

I believe the earth could be billions of years old.

There is no evidence that life came into existence on it's own.

The earth does sustain itself beautifully, even if you are blind to the fact.

Free will cannot exist in a universe ruled by an omniscient creator unless that creator deliberately blinds itself and ceases to be omniscient. Are you saying that God did such a thing?

If you traveled forward in time and had foreknowledge of the future, would that negate free will?



Never mind, that question might take imagination on your part....

No. But then, I do not claim to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. I am an evolved organism, not a metaphysical contradiction in terms.

No, you won't live forever, or no you don't want to live forever?

Dmitry K. Belyaev is not omnipotent, omniscient nor omnibenevolent, but he was able to do some amazing things with silver foxes.

I’m sorry to break this to you, but ‘flora and fauna’ are the creatures, as you call them, of earth.

Oops,

Flora

Just kinda rolled off my fingers.........

reply to post by dusty1

Creating other beings with free will and a breathtaking universe, isn't "messing up".

Have you already forgotten what has been discussed so far on this thread? Creating a universe full of wickedness, death and misery, if one has foreknowledge of how things will turn out, is more than just messing up. It is an act of premeditated evil. And forcing life to prey on other life in the sadistically imaginative ways we see all around us in nature is not just premeditatedly evil, it also suggests some kind of psychopathology.

Originally posted by Astyanax
The one about God sacrificing Himself to Himself in order to atone to Himself for what He caused His creatures to do? By using them to crucify Himself, thereby getting yet more blood on their hands? I find that one a little far-fetched, to be honest. And more than a little bloodthirsty. Not to say morally retarded.

Originally posted by dusty1
That statement only makes sense if you believe in the Trinity. I don't.

I see. Well, if whatever heresy you adhere to repudiates the divinity of Christ, then you will readily concede that whoever died on that cross must have been human. So God sacrificed a human being to Himself instead of Himself. Do you really think that makes things better? Do you approve of human sacrifice?

There is no evidence that life came into existence on it's own.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence and not one iota of an argument to prove it cannot or did not. On the other hand, there is not a speck of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, for a benevolent divine creator, and everything we see in the world around us argues powerfully that such a being does not and cannot exist.

The earth does sustain itself beautifully, even if you are blind to the fact.

Yes, it does, doesn’t it? On it rolls, with nary a touch of the Divine Finger to guide it. More evidence, were any more needed, that there is no benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God.

If you traveled forward in time and had foreknowledge of the future, would that negate free will?

No, it would not. It would simply imply that whatever one did would not affect the outcome of events. We know this anyway, but it is not an argument for or against free will.

Now let’s see you prove that free will is possible. Never mind humans; prove to us how even divine free will can exist in a universe that is observed by an omniscient entity.

No, you won't live forever, or no you don't want to live forever?

No, I couldn’t selectively breed the creatures of Earth to be kinder and gentler.

Dmitry K. Belyaev is not omnipotent, omniscient nor omnibenevolent, but he was able to do some amazing things with silver foxes.

So what? Of course it is possible to breed animals for temperament. Horse-breeders do it. Dog-breeders do it. But I am not an animal breeder.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Very cool thread OP, and one I'd love to know more about. Why try and reinvent the wheel if a certain process has already been perfected in nature. I think this is truely the way of the future and one of the ways humanity will slowly crawl out of the hole we've been digging for ourselves since the industrial revolution.

As for randomn processes or intelligent design I lie sort of in the middle. I do believe in a God of sorts, and I don't beleive in coincidence, but at the same time I don't believe in Intelligent Design as it's been presented by the majority of its proponents.

u said:

I don't believe in Intelligent Design as it's been presented by the majority of its proponents.

Now you know why - I said Intelligence In Design not "Intelligent Design" as presented by the majority of its proponents.

Any idea as to what is the difference between the two?

Have you already forgotten what has been discussed so far on this thread? Creating a universe full of wickedness, death and misery, if one has foreknowledge of how things will turn out, is more than just messing up. It is an act of premeditated evil. And forcing life to prey on other life in the sadistically imaginative ways we see all around us in nature is not just premeditatedly evil, it also suggests some kind of psychopathology.

reply to post by Astyanax


If one has foreknowledge of how things will turn out.

I am guessing you are no fun to watch sports with. When things look bad, you seem the type that wants to shut the TV off and declare the game over only halfway through.

There is an old saying "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings".

I see. Well, if whatever heresy you adhere to repudiates the divinity of Christ, then you will readily concede that whoever died on that cross must have been human.

I believe Jesus is the son of God Almighty,

I believe They are separate Beings

So God sacrificed a human being to Himself instead of Himself. Do you really think that makes things better?

The Romans killed Jesus.

God did not.

Do you approve of human sacrifice?

If powerful men, entered your home, wanting to do evil to someone you love, and you stood in their way knowing that you would die........

Upon hearing of your death, I would weep that you were gone. I would curse the men that killed you.

If the person you loved was worth it, I would approve of your sacrifice.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence and not one iota of an argument to prove it cannot or did not. On the other hand, there is not a speck of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, for a benevolent divine creator, and everything we see in the world around us argues powerfully that such a being does not and cannot exist.

Spontaneous Generation. Life cannot originate from inanimate matter.

There is design in nature, that is what this thread is about.

Now let’s see you prove that free will is possible. Never mind humans; prove to us how even divine free will can exist in a universe that is observed by an omniscient entity.

As far as humans.

Original sin proves free will.

Did you really think that the issue was about a piece of fruit hanging from a tree?



If you are asking whether or not God has free will.

God cannot lie. The bible does not say that He chooses not to lie. He cannot lie.


I would say that a parent had free will in deciding whether or not to have children.

Once a child is born, freedom is certainly limited.

God's actions revolve around His children.

He considers them all, with every move He makes.

That is why God is love.

No, I couldn’t selectively breed the creatures of Earth to be kinder and gentler.

Someday, I will remind you of that statement.

So what? Of course it is possible to breed animals for temperament. Horse-breeders do it. Dog-breeders do it. But I am not an animal breeder.

I believe that it is possible to breed all creatures for temperament.

It would take a very, very, long time.

The people who worked on that, would really have to love animals.



Maybe they would even be considered the embodiment of love.........

reply to post by dusty1

Originally posted by Astyanax
Have you already forgotten what has been discussed so far on this thread? Creating a universe full of wickedness, death and misery, if one has foreknowledge of how things will turn out, is more than just messing up. It is an act of premeditated evil.

Originally posted by dusty1
If one has foreknowledge of how things will turn out.

God, if omniscient as claimed, does have foreknowledge how things will turn out. Or do you not believe that God is all-knowing? Are you saying that God cannot foretell the future?

There is an old saying "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings".

Are you saying that the cruelty and misery of the world will some day be justified by the good that results from it? That the end justifies the means? Is that your idea of Christian charity and compassion? Nothing can possibly justify God’s imposition of cruelty and misery on His creation. No matter how much He dries their tears and heals their wounds afterwards, it cannot wipe out the suffering He has already made them undergo.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I see. Well, if whatever heresy you adhere to repudiates the divinity of Christ, then you will readily concede that whoever died on that cross must have been human.

Originally posted by dusty1
I believe Jesus is the son of God Almighty. I believe They are separate Beings.

That is called Arianism. It is considered the greatest and most vile of Christian heresies.

The Romans killed Jesus. God did not.

Fiddlesticks. God, we are told, sent Jesus down to be killed, ‘in order that the prophecy might be fulfilled.

Besides, God, being able to prevent the Crucifixion and not having done so, bears the responsibility for it – just as He bears the responsibility for all the other suffering and wickedness in the universe He created.

What you believe God did is actually more evil than if God had struck Jesus down dead with a bolt of lighting. God used human beings as puppets, forcing them to do evil according to His will by torturing and murdering Jesus.

If the person you loved was worth it, I would approve of your sacrifice.

There is a difference between self-sacrifice and sacrificing others to yourself. You can’t have it both ways; if Jesus is not God the Father, then God the Father sacrificed Jesus to Himself. Your deceitful sophistries will get you nowhere; kindly answer the question, or admit that you have no honest reply to it.

Life cannot originate from inanimate matter.

Says who? Louis Pascal?

Original sin proves free will.

Original sin is not proven, neither is it provable. When you can prove that there is such a thing as original sin, use it to prove free will. If you can. You will find it very difficult to argue from original sin to free will; the argument actually goes in the opposite direction. You need free will to validate original sin.

If you are asking whether or not God has free will. God cannot lie. The bible does not say that He chooses not to lie. He cannot lie.

So God has no free will. His will is limited in at least one aspect. What then, makes Him God? Why should we worship Him and not any other automaton? Might as well bow down before the Terminator.

Enough of this nonsense. So far, your responses have been the usual evasive, deliberately confusing ones religious propagandists always use to promote their viewpoint and baffle ill-informed unbelievers. You will not get away with that sort of trick in argument with me.

God, if omniscient as claimed, does have foreknowledge how things will turn out. Or do you not believe that God is all-knowing? Are you saying that God cannot foretell the future?

God can foretell the future.

Are you saying that the cruelty and misery of the world will some day be justified by the good that results from it? That the end justifies the means? Is that your idea of Christian charity and compassion? Nothing can possibly justify God’s imposition of cruelty and misery on His creation. No matter how much He dries their tears and heals their wounds afterwards, it cannot wipe out the suffering He has already made them undergo.

God didn't impose cruelty and misery on His creation.

You seem to have a difficult time understanding the concept of personal responsibility.

You should direct your anger at the people responsible for human suffering.

To you everything is God's fault. Scapegoat much?

The suffering of this world will be just a bad dream in the future.

That is called Arianism. It is considered the greatest and most vile of Christian heresies.

I don't believe in Arianism.

Besides, God, being able to prevent the Crucifixion and not having done so, bears the responsibility for it – just as He bears the responsibility for all the other suffering and wickedness in the universe He created.

God gave Jesus the power to save himself. Mathew 26:52,53

Jesus chose not to.

By that reasoning nothing should ever be invented or created 'cause it might be misused.

What you believe God did is actually more evil than if God had struck Jesus down dead with a bolt of lighting. God used human beings as puppets, forcing them to do evil according to His will by torturing and murdering Jesus.

God didn't force anybody to do anything.

Free will.

Your deceitful sophistries will get you nowhere; kindly answer the question, or admit that you have no honest reply to it.

Ouch.

You twist the scriptures, and I am deceitful?

Do I believe in sacrificing humans like the Incas practiced?

No.

Sacrificing a human is detestable to God.

Says who? Louis Pascal?

Louis Pasteur.

Original sin is not proven, neither is it provable. When you can prove that there is such a thing as original sin, use it to prove free will. If you can. You will find it very difficult to argue from original sin to free will; the argument actually goes in the opposite direction. You need free will to validate original sin.

According to the story,

God said don't

but they did anyway.

They had a choice.

So God has no free will. His will is limited in at least one aspect. What then, makes Him God? Why should we worship Him and not any other automaton? Might as well bow down before the Terminator

(In a thick Austrian accent)

"Astyanax, I know now why you cry"




Yes, God cannot lie.

You apparently think that is a weakness.

I think it is a strength.

God should be worshiped because He earned it.

Enough of this nonsense. So far, your responses have been the usual evasive, deliberately confusing ones religious propagandists always use to promote their viewpoint and baffle ill-informed unbelievers. You will not get away with that sort of trick in argument with me.

reply to post by Astyanax


Nonsense?

I have attempted to put thought and effort, into my responses.

I have tried, to the best of my ability, to answer every one of your questions.

I am not trying to trick you.

reply to post by edmc^2


I know that Janine Benyus buys into evolution, but I really enjoy her enthusiasm when talking about the design in nature.

She made an interesting point about how human technology has been based on Heat, Beat, and Treat.

I think as engineers continue to turn toward Biomimicry they will begin to question whether or not nature could come up with these designs on their own.


It is also nice to hear Janine gush about the positives and beauty in nature.

reply to post by dusty1

I have tried, to the best of my ability, to answer every one of your questions. I am not trying to trick you.

I apologize for implying that you were practising deliberately to deceive. I do not believe you were. It is simply that your religious indoctrination has been extremely successful. You are not aware of the deceitful nature of your words because you are programmed to believe in their truth. Thus you quote Scripture to unbelievers, as if we would ever accept it as proof of anything. In solemn truth, you are not interested in persuading others with Scripture; you are using it to comfort and reassure yourself.

Now let us return to our argument.

God can foretell the future.

Does he also have the power to change it? If he does not, he fails the omnipotence test. If he does, but allows wickedness and misery to prevail nevertheless, he is responsible for that wickedness and misery.

God didn't impose cruelty and misery on His creation. You seem to have a difficult time understanding the concept of personal responsibility.

I certainly have difficulty understanding how personal responsibility for sin lets God off the hook. Of course I am responsible for my actions; but God, if he made me and the world I inhabit, is responsible for everything, me included. That is what omnipotence implies: with infinite power comes infinite responsibility.

You should direct your anger at the people responsible for human suffering. To you everything is God's fault.

You forget that I do not believe in God as you define the concept. I am not blaming a real entity; I am pointing out that if such an entity existed, then it would be to blame for the miseries of the world. Since it cannot logically exist (that being my point), it cannot be blamed for anything.

The blame devolves upon those who invented this concept of God, and still more on those who continue to believe in him in this day and age, using that belief to justify the evil they do and cause to have done.

The suffering of this world will be just a bad dream in the future.

Is this Christian truth? Is this Christian morality? That evil is excusable so long as it is forgotten? This is the morality of the historical revisionist, the holocaust-denier, the Soviet airbrush artist. In the spirit of it, I shall do my best to forget that you ever said anything so vile and contemptible.

I don't believe in Arianism.

You earlier stated that you believed in the key doctrinal proposition of Arianism. If that doesn’t make you a believer in Arianism, could you please explain the difference to me?

God gave Jesus the power to save himself. Mathew 26:52,53

Yes, God does love confronting people with impossible choices, doesn’t he? Abraham, Moses, Job, Jesus, just to mention the four most salient examples. Save yourself and damn the world or save the world and go hang yourself – literally. That’s a choice? How God must have laughed at his Only Begotten Son.

God didn't force anybody to do anything. Free will.

There can be no free will when God already knows what you are going to do.

Louis Pasteur.

Well caught. Pasteur worked in the middle of the nineteenth century. In his time, spontaneous generation meant the belief that rotten meat spontaneously generates maggots and wet straw spontaneously generates mice. He wasn’t thinking about the spontaneous generation of replicating molecules from organic elements naturally present. We already know that amino acids and RNA bases are generated spontaneously; and there is no law in Heaven or Earth that forbids the evolution of life from inanimate matter.

According to the story, God said don't but they did anyway. They had a choice.

And so free will exists. Because of the story. Can’t you see how vacuous that defence is? You can’t use what is said in the Bible to prove that what is said in the Bible is true.

God cannot lie.

Then he is not omnipotent, and we need not be having this argument.

I apologize for implying that you were practising deliberately to deceive. I do not believe you were. It is simply that your religious indoctrination has been extremely successful. You are not aware of the deceitful nature of your words because you are programmed to believe in their truth. Thus you quote Scripture to unbelievers, as if we would ever accept it as proof of anything. In solemn truth, you are not interested in persuading others with Scripture; you are using it to comfort and reassure yourself.

reply to post by Astyanax


Astyanax, the truth will set you free....

Does he also have the power to change it? If he does not, he fails the omnipotence test. If he does, but allows wickedness and misery to prevail nevertheless, he is responsible for that wickedness and misery.

God's will, does not change. When He sets it into motion it does not return to Him without results.

I don't think He cares about your omnipotence test.

If He allowed wickedness to continue forever, you would be correct.

I certainly have difficulty understanding how personal responsibility for sin lets God off the hook. Of course I am responsible for my actions; but God, if he made me and the world I inhabit, is responsible for everything, me included. That is what omnipotence implies: with infinite power comes infinite responsibility.

Did you get that from Spiderman?

He is responsible for creating creatures with free will.

The blame devolves upon those who invented this concept of God, and still more on those who continue to believe in him in this day and age, using that belief to justify the evil they do and cause to have done.

Then you agree that the evil men do, is their responsibility, and that using God as an excuse is wrong.

I agree with you.

Is this Christian truth? Is this Christian morality? That evil is excusable so long as it is forgotten? This is the morality of the historical revisionist, the holocaust-denier, the Soviet airbrush artist. In the spirit of it, I shall do my best to forget that you ever said anything so vile and contemptible.

Humans forget.

God Almighty does not.

One day those that died in Auschwitz, will wake up on a beautiful spring day. Forget-me-nots will blanket the ground before them. They will be welcomed by loved ones, who missed them, very, very much.

When they have walked this earth for a thousand years, they will forget.

But God will not.

You earlier stated that you believed in the key doctrinal proposition of Arianism. If that doesn’t make you a believer in Arianism, could you please explain the difference to me?

I believe that God Almighty created Jesus.

The Holy Spirit is not a person, but Gods active force.

It is my understanding that Arianism believes that Jesus was used to create the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that to be true.

I do believe that Jesus was used by God to create all other things.

How God must have laughed at his Only Begotten Son.

You do not know God.

There can be no free will when God already knows what you are going to do.

There is free will.

The issue is not what God knows you will do, but what the rest of his creation sees you do.

Well caught. Pasteur worked in the middle of the nineteenth century. In his time, spontaneous generation meant the belief that rotten meat spontaneously generates maggots and wet straw spontaneously generates mice. He wasn’t thinking about the spontaneous generation of replicating molecules from organic elements naturally present. We already know that amino acids and RNA bases are generated spontaneously; and there is no law in Heaven or Earth that forbids the evolution of life from inanimate matter.

You must be a mind reader, 'cause you always seem to KNOW, what other people are thinking.

I fail to see how scientists go to college, get grants, set up a complex laboratories, gather ingredients, shock them with electricity thereby "baking bricks" and that is "proof" of spontaneous brick production.
Then I am supposed to believe that the "bricks" or building blocks created complex, breathtaking feats of engineering, all by themselves.

That seems to be a leap of faith. A big leap.

Life can only come from existing life.

That is a fact.

And so free will exists. Because of the story. Can’t you see how vacuous that defence is? You can’t use what is said in the Bible to prove that what is said in the Bible is true.

You are the one that keeps bringing it up.

Then he is not omnipotent, and we need not be having this argument.

God decides to create a universe.

It happens.

God says, "Be fruitful, become many and fill the earth".

It happens.

God says that the "meek will inherit the earth",

it will happen.

reply to post by dusty1

God's will, does not change. When He sets it into motion it does not return to Him without results.

Then God’s will is responsible for all creation, and therefore for all the evil and misery in it. Read again the list of natural horrors I posted in my reply to the guy with the Jimmy Page avatar. If there is a divine creator, that creator is responsible for every one of them. Humanity is an innocent bystander to the evil of the toxoplasma virus and the ichneumon wasp.

Originally posted by Astyanax
With infinite power comes infinite responsibility.

Originally posted by dusty1
Did you get that from Spiderman?

No, I got it (slightly modified) from here.

Then you agree that the evil men do, is their responsibility, and that using God as an excuse is wrong. I agree with you.

Glad to hear it. Because God is precisely the excuse Christians use to excuse their crimes – they claim that God forgives them.

You do not know God.

Very true. And neither do you. The thing you think you know, and call God, is a self-created mental image.

There is free will. The issue is not what God knows you will do, but what the rest of his creation sees you do.

What nonsense. If even one person knows the future, then the future must be foreordained. And if the future is foreordained there is no free will.

I fail to see how scientists go to college, get grants, set up a complex laboratories, gather ingredients, shock them with electricity thereby "baking bricks" and that is "proof" of spontaneous brick production. Then I am supposed to believe that the "bricks" or building blocks created complex, breathtaking feats of engineering, all by themselves. That seems to be a leap of faith. A big leap.

You are somewhat behind the times. Amino acids have been found in cosmic dust clouds millions of light-years from Earth. RNA bases spontaneously generate without needing to be shocked by anything. Even RNA chains have been found to form spontaneously. And your description of the Miller-Urey experiment is highly biased; the assembled ingredients and electric charges simply reproduce the conditions thought to be found on the primeval Earth. In fact, the formula has been changed plenty of times and the amino acids still appear.

Life can only come from existing life.

Evidence?

reply to post by Astyanax

You are somewhat behind the times. Amino acids have been found in cosmic dust clouds millions of light-years from Earth. RNA bases spontaneously generate without needing to be shocked by anything. Even RNA chains have been found to form spontaneously. And your description of the Miller-Urey experiment is highly biased; the assembled ingredients and electric charges simply reproduce the conditions thought to be found on the primeval Earth. In fact, the formula has been changed plenty of times and the amino acids still appear.

Life can only come from existing life.

Evidence?

Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete principle regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). The theory was synthesized by Aristotle,[1] who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory.

Did you know that a cake can spontaneously generate?

Yep, it happened on its own.

I simply replicated the conditions.

I preheated an oven, mixed flower, eggs, sugar, milk, some baking soda, a pinch of salt, then put it in a pan.

I then observed the cake spontaneously generate.

I let it cool, cut it into pieces, put it on plates, and submitted it to a peer review process.





If life has been proven to come from something other than life, then what about this?

Wanted Dead or Alive: The Origin of Life

No. But then, I do not claim to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. I am an evolved organism, not a metaphysical contradiction in terms.

Are you serious? Philosophers have pretty much given up on the logical problem of evil since Plantinga's free will defense. Atheist philosophers have since moved on to the probabilistic problem of evil, as should you.

Free will cannot exist in a universe ruled by an omniscient creator unless that creator deliberately blinds itself and ceases to be omniscient. Are you saying that God did such a thing?

How does simple foreknowledge of the future in any way necessitate it's occurrence? Let's say that I know for certain that someone loves chocolate, but hates fish. This person is at my house and tells me that they are really craving chocolate. It so happens that I have plenty of chocolate in stock. So I give this person the option of having some fish or some chocolate. The person unsurprisingly chooses the chocolate. How did my knowledge in any way necessitate that person to choose chocolate? It is because the person loves chocolate that I'm able to have the knowledge, not the other way around. Also, you might want to read up on Molinism:
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by cLOUDDEAD

Of course I’m serious. The kind of desperate philosophical scratching-around you cite just shows how intractable the Problem of Evil is.

Plantinga:

God is omnipotent, and it was not within His power to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil.

That’s omnipotence?

Plantinga again:

A world containing creatures who are [free to make moral choices] is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil.

A world containing creatures who are free to make moral choices is more valuable than a world without suffering? Really? According to whom?

Why, if God is good, would he create the world at all, and sully himself with this evil? Because, as dusty1 says, he has a greater purpose which will justify it? And all will be revealed in the final reel? Pathetic.

As for Molinism, it belongs to that can of worms known to humankind as Catholic apologetics. It demands a pre-existent reality independent of God, in which absolute truths subsist over which God has no control. So much, once again, for Mr. Omnipotent.

Besides, it makes of God the ultimate manipulator by claiming that he knows how freely willing beings will act in any circumstances, and therefore achieves his ends by placing them in circumstances that will cause them to act in such a way as to serve his ends, even by doing evil. That, of course, is what you were trying to show by your chocolate/fish example. How this absolves God of blame for the evil that is then done is a question only someone deeply schooled in Jesuit casuistry could answer.

Besides, neither Plantinga nor Molina address the problem of cruelty and suffering in the animal kingdom, uncaused by humans, which is the aspect of the problem of evil primarily addressed in this thread. You have to go back to the silly Bible story of the Fall to justify that.

And once again you keep on repeating that "chance" nonsense

Scientists aren't saying it was chance or a coincidence...they try to explain things rationally by backing it up with objective evidence. And those processes do NOT require intelligence. Evolution doesn't require intelligence, the way the earth revolves around the sun doesn't require intelligence, a plant growing doesn't require intelligence...so I'm not sure why you keep on repeating that hogwash.

Originally posted by dusty1

Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete principle regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). The theory was synthesized by Aristotle,[1] who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory.

Are you aware of how deceitful that is? Either you're a liar, or you've been cleverly duped by one.
(I don't know how to word that to not sound offensive.)

Link

Certain creationists correctly point out that abiogenesis must have taken place at some point to begin the process of evolution. They then attempt to use this premise to "disprove" evolution, claiming that Francesco Redi disproved abiogenesis in 1668.

In fact, Redi did no such thing. He worked to disprove the idea life forms such as maggots form spontaneously on raw meat.

The fact that the original organisms posited by abiogenesis are of the kingdom Archaea (and are therefore significantly less complicated than maggots), and that they had millions (or billions) of years on a planetary surface full of organic molecules that was being constantly bombarded by cosmic rays and racked by volcanic eruptions during which to arise, does apparently not occur to most creationists. This leads to stupid ideas like the Peanut Butter Argument[10].

Another creationist statement often made is that evolution is abiogenesis, this is simply ignorance of scientific terminology. Evolution is the gradual change of organisms over time, whereas abiogenesis is the start of life itself.

Yet more creationist illogic is, "Scientists can't explain the origin of life, therefore it must have been God and God must be the God of the Bible." (Protestant version, Roman Catholic version according to choice)