Smart Kid

[Dunstan]

It would be extremely rare for a one character change to add a new feature or even modify a feature to make it better. Doing those types of operations takes planning, design, and implementing many changes at once. If I were to treat a gene sequence as a computer program, and I altered portions of it at random, it would destroy the gene just as it destroys a program.

Well, it's an imperfect analogy to be sure, but one thing to remember is the staggeringly long time frame that evolution has had to work with. There's been plenty of time for "extremely rare" events to accumulate.

Let's pretend that modifying a character made something useful happen. The "code" would be chaotic and not elegantly planned out at all - it certainly wouldn't look like the mirror image human body with it's form, functions, and purpose behind each part of its design.

There are lots of examples of "bad design" in animals, including humans. Here are a few.

I just can't see that happening at all based on my years of seeing code and how I only see planned organized purposeful information being created by intelligence while it is destroyed by random flaws.

Let's slow down here. I was asking the question of whether computer viruses can evolve. I wasn't suggesting that computer software is a great comparison to the evolution of living things.

Do we have any example of sigificanly new genetic code being created out of random mutations?

As far as I know, all "new" genetic code has to come from random mutations. So now I guess you need to define "significantly." The other thing to remember is the time frame. Contrary to the creationist straw-man, evolution doesn't say that an ape gave birth to a human. Nor do new organs or limbs just appear in one generation. Small changes accumulate over time. Again, note the evidence of "jury-rigged design" in the link above.

P.S. Faith is a belief based on evidence that moves a person to action. Religion has evidence, just as evolution does. Religion has witnesses, evolution doesn't. They both have unanswered questions too. Looking through other atheist and evolution threads on this site, I think we're all better just walking away now agreeing to disagree as nothing good seems to come of these discussions.

Well, if you don't think learning something new is good, that's your prerogative.

 

[rcronk]

Speaking of timeframe - as I was reading around I saw the "ev" program that was simulating random mutations and it was looking like the creation of just an e.coli was going to take longer than the age of the earth. So I'm not too sure we can just throw a billion years at it and call it good. I'd like to see more tests done. Even considering the timeframe involved, we're skipping right over the fundamental origins of life itself and what is at the source of it and the order, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and self-will that is in place that allows these genes to mutate through the generations.Sure there are some strange designs but to me, that doesn't detract from the overall elegance of the mirror image amazing human body. A few jury riggings doesn't even compare.Computer viruses can and do evolve with human intervention - the virus writer creates the virus, the virus detection software detects it, so the virus writer modifies it to go undetected a little longer, exploiting different vulnerabilities. So that evolution is driven by and intelligent being at its source.What about arms turning into wings? Wouldn't the poor genetic line who mutated slowly along that path be killed first - half a wing, half a leg - can't run very well but can't fly either?I do want to learn - and I guess we can all learn together here if we all choose to. My lack of faith in the learning process was based on the evidence I had seen in other threads. Who knows, maybe this thread can be different?Thanks again for the thoughtful responses everyone.

 

[Dunstan]

Speaking of timeframe - as I was reading around I saw the "ev" program that was simulating random mutations and it was looking like the creation of just an e.coli was going to take longer than the age of the earth. So I'm not too sure we can just throw a billion years at it and call it good.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it's something by Behe or some other Intelligent Design advocate.

I'd like to see more tests done.

Fortunately for you, it's not like this isn't a well-studied topic. There should be plenty of stuff already out there.

I've got to break up this next sentence to unpack it a little;

Even considering the timeframe involved, we're skipping right over the fundamental origins of life itself

Yes, evolution is not the same thing as abiogenesis, though I'm sure there's some overlap in the concepts.

and what is at the source of it and the order, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and self-will that is in place that allows these genes to mutate through the generations.

I really don't understand what you're getting at here. Genetic mutation doesn't require thoughts, feelings, emotions, or "self-will." If you mean "how does evolution lead to life forms that have (or appear to have) thoughts, etc.," well, brains evolve. If you want to get into a whole mind/body dualism debate, there's a bunch of folks here who will oblige you on that.

Sure there are some strange designs but to me, that doesn't detract from the overall elegance of the mirror image amazing human body. A few jury riggings doesn't even compare.

"Mirror image" (by which I assume you mean symetrically-shaped bodies) seems to be to be remarkable unsurprising. There's a pretty clear survival advantage to having limbs of similar length and location on both sides of your body. (And many aspects of our bodies aren't symmetrical: we only have one heart, liver, spleen, etc., and they aren't all lined up right in the middle of our bodies. Left/right brain specialization, too.)

But here's the thing. "Believing" in evolution isn't about being reductionist and saying that humans in particular, or nature in general, is humdrum and boring. When I started reading about evolutionary biology (a few years ago, as an adult; I took pathetically little biology in high school), I found it fascinating. So do the people who study it. Duh, that's why they study it!

Here, for example, is what Richard Dawkins wrote in the preface to The Blind Watchmaker (which I'm giving a second reading at the moment):

The brain with which you are understanding my words is an array of some ten million kiloneurones. Many of these billions of nerve cells have each more than a thousand 'electric wires' connecting them to other neurones. Moreover, at the molecular genetic level, every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. No, on second thoughts I don't give up, because one of my aims in the book is to convey something of the sheer wonder of biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to it. But having built up the mystery, my other main aim is to remove it again by explaining the solution.

emphasis mine.

By the way, returning to the "random chance" thing that got this discussion started, here's the opening of Chapter 3:

We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence?

So there you have one of the big names in the field, a man often referred to as "Darwin's Rottweiler," voicing part of the sentiments you have: that the life forms we know (including ourselves) are too complex, too amazing and fascinating, to have come about by mere chance.

Intrigued yet?

By the way, whatever you may think of Dawkins from his recent book The God Delusion, his earlier works like Watchmaker and The Ancestor's Tale, are fascinating reading on evolution for the intelligent layperson. Although he does express his exasperation with certain creationists on occasion in those books, they're hardly atheist propaganda. But you can certainly find other writers in the field; perhaps something from this reading list

Computer viruses can and do evolve with human intervention - the virus writer creates the virus, the virus detection software detects it, so the virus writer modifies it to go undetected a little longer, exploiting different vulnerabilities. So that evolution is driven by and intelligent being at its source.

Yeah, it's not really analogous. To be comparable to evolution by natural selection, you'd have to give the virus the ability to "mutate" randomly on its own, and set it up so that viruses that successfully infiltrated their target(s) were more likely to reproduce, i.e. the "bad" mutations tend to get caught by virus detection software and don't reproduce, while the "good" mutations (rare as they might be) get through and do reproduce. But I don't think I want to torture this analogy any further.

What about arms turning into wings? Wouldn't the poor genetic line who mutated slowly along that path be killed first - half a wing, half a leg - can't run very well but can't fly either?

Coincidentally, the chapter of The Blind Watchmaker I've been reading today discusses some of those issues. "Half a wing" can in fact be useful -- ask a flying squirrel, which has flaps of skin extending between arms and legs. They can't actually fly, but they do glide.

I do want to learn - and I guess we can all learn together here if we all choose to.

Well, hey, it is an Educational Foundation, after all.

My lack of faith in the learning process was based on the evidence I had seen in other threads. Who knows, maybe this thread can be different?Thanks again for the thoughtful responses everyone.

Most evolution threads degenerate because, quite frankly, the vast majority of creationists aren't interested in honest discussion. I don't expect you to take my word for it, but if you do some digging, you'll notice that most "evolutionist" websites, books, etc. cite and respond to creationist arguments, whereas the creationists for the most part continue to spout the same lies and misconceptions. It's one thing for you to come into a thread, say that evolution is just random chance, and then listen to why it's not and genuinely think about it. Most creationists show up, barf up their standard "arguments" (Random! Second Law of Thermodynamics! The eye! No transitional fossils!), and then ignore the rebuttals and continue to spit out more long-debunked arguments, until they run out. Then they run off, presumably to another website, and rinse, lather, repeat.

Anyway, at this point I think I'm going to drop out of the discussion. If you really want to learn more, check out some of those reading suggestions. I'm sure other folks can point you to some more; I think there was a recent thread on the subject in a different subforum. It really is a cool area to learn about. Thanks for keeping things civil.

 

[BillyJoe]

Speaking of timeframe - as I was reading around I saw the "ev" program that was simulating random mutations and it was looking like the creation of just an e.coli was going to take longer than the age of the earth. So I'm not too sure we can just throw a billion years at it and call it good.

Did they simulate random mutation + natural selection?

Even considering the timeframe involved, we're skipping right over the fundamental origins of life itself and what is at the source of it and the order, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and self-will that is in place that allows these genes to mutate through the generations.

I don't understand this sentence.
Would you please rephrase it?

Sure there are some strange designs but to me, that doesn't detract from the overall elegance of the mirror image amazing human body. A few jury riggings doesn't even compare.

The point about the "strange" designs, is that they are very easily explained if evolution (random mutation + natural selection) is true. But they are pretty hard to explain if they were intelligently designed.

Computer viruses can and do evolve with human intervention - the virus writer creates the virus, the virus detection software detects it, so the virus writer modifies it to go undetected a little longer, exploiting different vulnerabilities. So that evolution is driven by and intelligent being at its source.

Firstly you are assuming your conclusion. If, instead, humans are the result of evolution, then human artifacts are also the result of evolution (ie humans evolved to produce artifacts - such as computers and computer viruses).
Secondly, you haven't explained anything by assuming an intelligent being because now you have to explain something even more complicated than a human, namely the intelligent being.

What about arms turning into wings? Wouldn't the poor genetic line who mutated slowly along that path be killed first - half a wing, half a leg - can't run very well but can't fly either?

The use of any characteristic depends on the environment in which the animal finds itself. If the forest floor is teeming with predators, animals that can climb trees to escape the predators are more likely to survive. As predators evolve to climb trees as well, animals that evolve skin flaps to glide from tree to tree have an advantage. When predators evolve to jump or glide from tree to tree, animals whose skin flaps evolve into wings can escape by taking to the air.

I do want to learn - and I guess we can all learn together here if we all choose to. My lack of faith in the learning process was based on the evidence I had seen in other threads. Who knows, maybe this thread can be different?Thanks again for the thoughtful responses everyone.

I know what you mean.
It's a sad fact of life.

 

[rcronk]

@ Dunstan – thanks for the reply – I’ll check out the reading list.

@ Billy Joe – Yes, they modeled mutation AND natural selection and it was actually evolutionists who wrote the program, wrote a paper based on some hasty cherry picked numbers and someone challenged their numbers and with further investigation, the simulation has now shown that evolution is not possible in the timeframe we have to work with. Of course, even to this day, both sides don't see eye to eye so there seems to be a lot to work out and resolve still. Unfortunately, the thread looks like it degenerated over its 32-page lifespan...

A link to the thread discussing the above issue and computer model (including a link to the java version that you can run for yourself) is here: http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348

At the very least, the thread is very educational (at least the first third of it). Don’t mind the website name. ;-) I think I actually found the link to that thread from a thread here at jref.

As for me talking so much about the origins or meaning of what life is and how it started and what makes something living or not – I just can’t get past all I’ve seen of living things going about their business in an orderly fashion (like when a cell divides and you get the microtubules delving into the nucleus and attaching to the DNA and all of it lining up and pulling apart – what drives that? What’s moving those things around, lining them up and causing the orderly cell division? We can explain what happens, but is there an explanation for how these things move around in there in such an orchestrated united manner? Does anyone here have the answer? Also, when differentiation in a fertilized egg occurs, who decides (in 3D) which end of the group of identical cells is going to be the head and which side will be the front and where each organ is going to differentiate? I know this is an argument from ignorance, so educate me – I’ve been looking for some time now and haven’t found these answers yet – everything I’ve read so far just says, “and then the cells differentiate into specialized cells” without any further explanation.)

I’m glad you brought up the point of intelligent design producing some jury rigged items. My belief is that God respects our right to choose (as opposed to a lot of people I know) and designed things in such a way that people aren’t compelled to believe/trust in Him because He’s the only possible explanation. I think He’d rather we all choose to believe and trust in Him or not. If He designed things in such a way that people could come up with other theories, then we’d all be on a level playing field and be able to choose of our own free will. That’s my theory anyway.

By the way, there are computer viruses (or is it viri?) that mutate themselves to avoid detection, but not randomly, they have to do it in a very specific way to change their own fingerprint but still purposefully remain valid and executable. If mutations were random in a computer virus, you’d probably have a 1 in 4 billion chance that it would survive the first mutation because random mutations in software are usually fatal, and that one would surely not survive the second mutation.

As for assuming an intelligent being, my belief is that God is our father, so just like parents, we come from him and progress as children, learning for ourselves what works and what doesn’t work as far as things that produce the best good for the most people for the longest amount of time, etc. I don’t want to derail the thread with my beliefs though, I was here looking for some answers about others’ beliefs and to throw out a different point of view where I saw some disrespect toward people who believe that God exists.

Fair enough on the flying squirrel. ;-)

 

[toddjh]

Yes, I know that M&M's aren't "alive". In theism, living things have spirits that are at the source of thought, reason, movement, order, etc. I'm asking what's the source of life for atheism? What was the first "living" thing and what changed it from non-living to living?

It all depends on your definition of "living." Since that's a very slippery thing to define, yours is a very difficult question to answer. However, the best answer I can give is that the first entity which might be considered by some to be alive was most likely a pretty simple self-replicating protein in some tidal pool on the primordial earth.

As for what changed it from non-living to living, it was probably just a matter of the right set of molecules coming together under the right conditions. I know, it's easy to balk at this, but remember we're talking about a very simple protein, nowhere near as complex as a modern cell, or even a modern virus. And also remember it had hundreds of millions of years to happen, and it only had to happen once, somewhere on the planet...

P.S. Faith is a belief based on evidence that moves a person to action.

I disagree. Faith is a belief not based on evidence, or based on insufficient evidence. If you have sufficient evidence, then you don't need faith, just rationality.

 

[toddjh]

@ Billy Joe – Yes, they modeled mutation AND natural selection and it was actually evolutionists who wrote the program, wrote a paper based on some hasty cherry picked numbers and someone challenged their numbers and with further investigation, the simulation has now shown that evolution is not possible in the timeframe we have to work with.

Given mounds and mounds of fossil and genetic evidence showing evolution over time as well as some insights into the mechanisms by which it takes place, compared to a computer model that is definitely oversimplified and probably based on a lot of shaky assumptions, I know which one I'd pick.

This is like those early computer simulations which "proved" that bumblebees are aerodynamically incapable of flight. I'm sorry, but cold hard facts trump flawed computer models every time.

As for me talking so much about the origins or meaning of what life is and how it started and what makes something living or not – I just can’t get past all I’ve seen of living things going about their business in an orderly fashion (like when a cell divides and you get the microtubules delving into the nucleus and attaching to the DNA and all of it lining up and pulling apart – what drives that? What’s moving those things around, lining them up and causing the orderly cell division? We can explain what happens, but is there an explanation for how these things move around in there in such an orchestrated united manner?

Sure: billions of years of practice. Seriously, what you see today is the end result of eons and eons of gradual refinement. Given that amount of time, it's hardly surprising that some pretty darn efficient mechanisms have developed. If you went back four billion years and looked at some of the earliest forms of life, I think you'd find things to be a lot less elegant.

Does anyone here have the answer? Also, when differentiation in a fertilized egg occurs, who decides (in 3D) which end of the group of identical cells is going to be the head and which side will be the front and where each organ is going to differentiate?

As far as I know, that's the topic of continuing study. Nobody claimed to have all the answers, but we have enough to be pretty certain of the general idea, even if there are still a lot of details to fill in along the way.

My belief is that God respects our right to choose (as opposed to a lot of people I know) and designed things in such a way that people aren’t compelled to believe/trust in Him because He’s the only possible explanation.

Let me ask you a question: do you believe that God can know the future with 100% accuracy?

 

[rcronk]

I'd like to see those first living/semi-living RNA and how they originally formed and how they became living. I'd like to see some experiments to see how it started and how it continued and how it could have done this without human intervention. Until then, it's just a theory, like theism.

As for faith, I would say it is based on evidence but not absolute proof. When we have absolute proof, we have knowledge instead of faith.

For example, we see all of creation around us and we see beings of intelligence creating order in cities, etc. and this combined with people recording that they have seen God and that God has revealed our purpose for being here and how we can become better people - so we can come up with a theory of an intelligent being setting this up for us and our progression based on the above evidence, without a complete firsthand proof of God's existence. We can then test this theory by doing the things that the people who claim to have communicated with God have said and see for ourselves if the experiments produce the claimed results - like loving your enemies, not stealing, killing, being generous, praying, being humble/self-honest etc.

The same is true for evolution. We see animals that are similar and we see adaptation and natural selection and so based on this partial evidence, we have faith that evolution is how it all came about without firsthand proof (by observing it happen ourselves).

The same is true for science, we believed in atoms way before we had visible proof of their existence. The scientists had faith that atoms existed and were configured a certain way. This faith moved them to action to perform more and more tests and eventually, we were able to see more and more artifacts and eventually the curves of the atoms themselves and faith became knowledge. And now it moves on to string theory - we have no way of directly seeing the strings so string theory scientists work and move and experiment based on the faith they have in the partial evidence they have so far.

I think religion and science should really be the same thing - partial evidence, faith moving us to experimentation, results, and finally knowledge. There are blind followers and abusers in both religion and science - it seems to have more to do with the specific integrity of the individuals involved rather than whether it's science or religion we're talking about though.

I hope that explains better what I'm trying to convey.

 

[rcronk]

P.S. Those mounds of fossils can be explained by more than one theory. Yes, we can't explain it all through science and evolution. That's why I go with theism, which explains it to me more thoroughly and with much more meaning and reason than evolution does to me. Of course, we can all pick which theory we want to adhere to and I have picked atheism and evolution in the past.

The knowledge of God question smells like a trap, but I'll step in it anyway. Yes, I think God can know the future with 100% accuracy.

 

[toddjh]

P.S. Those mounds of fossils can be explained by more than one theory.

I don't think so. Or at least, I think all of the options are just minor variations on the general theme of descent with modification, or trivial alternatives like solipsism or "last-thursdayism."

Yes, we can't explain it all through science and evolution.

Yet. Our evidence is incomplete, so naturally there will be some ideas which can't currently be confirmed. But we're working on it; filling in the gaps with the supernatural doesn't make sense.

The knowledge of God question smells like a trap, but I'll step in it anyway. Yes, I think God can know the future with 100% accuracy.

Well, it's a trap only insofar as the answer exposes some logical contradictions in what you're saying. I'm not trying to put one over on you or anything. I was asking because I didn't want to put words in your mouth when I started down that road.

But if God can predict the future with 100% accuracy, then that means that the future is predetermined, which in turn means our universe is deterministic. Free will in such a system is not possible -- we are, by necessity, more or less automatons under the metaphysical system you believe in.

So basically, God created a bunch of puppets, some of whom are predetermined to believe in him, and some of whom aren't. I fail to see any meaning or reason in that idea, nor why God should find it gratifying that we behave in predetermined ways he set out for us.

 

[jimlintott]

The knowledge of God question smells like a trap, but I'll step in it anyway. Yes, I think God can know the future with 100% accuracy.

What god? Which god? What is god? Please define god.

God is a completely foreign and unknown concept to me. Here is your chance to explain it.

 

[rcronk]

I don't think so. Or at least, I think all of the options are just minor variations on the general theme of descent with modification, or trivial alternatives like solipsism or "last-thursdayism."

Theism is one of the "other" explanations I was talking about.

Yet. Our evidence is incomplete, so naturally there will be some ideas which can't currently be confirmed. But we're working on it; filling in the gaps with the supernatural doesn't make sense.

It may not make sense to some, but I assert that it is possible that there is a God and therefore the theories involving a supreme being should not be dismissed unless there is proof to the contrary.

Well, it's a trap only insofar as the answer exposes some logical contradictions in what you're saying. I'm not trying to put one over on you or anything. I was asking because I didn't want to put words in your mouth when I started down that road.

But if God can predict the future with 100% accuracy, then that means that the future is predetermined, which in turn means our universe is deterministic. Free will in such a system is not possible -- we are, by necessity, more or less automatons under the metaphysical system you believe in.

So basically, God created a bunch of puppets, some of whom are predetermined to believe in him, and some of whom aren't. I fail to see any meaning or reason in that idea, nor why God should find it gratifying that we behave in predetermined ways he set out for us.

I've struggled with that idea before and here's what I've come up with so far.

When I see my child with her arm raised and that look in her eye when she's angry at her sister - can I pre-determine that she's going to take a swing at her? My track record with that prediction is probably about 99% correct. If I can guess the result with 99% accurracy and I'm limited in my knowledge, biased in my opinions, and limited to my five senses, would it not be too far a stretch to think that a God without imperfections or biases, and with greater senses could do 1% better than I can in predicting behavior?

Does that mean that my child's actions are predetermined? Does my knowledge of her actions have any effect whatsoever upon her free will? I don't think so.

If God is more perfect than we are, I expect Him to be able to predict what's going to happen without His own knowledge affecting our own free will in any way.

 

[toddjh]

Theism is one of the "other" explanations I was talking about.

Theism is not a scientific explanation; it is an appeal to the supernatural. That's fine if you want to believe it, but it means you're abandoning science.

God is, at best, irrelevant in scientific inquiry, and at worst contradictory.

It may not make sense to some, but I assert that it is possible that there is a God and therefore the theories involving a supreme being should not be dismissed unless there is proof to the contrary.

As I said, I know of no scientific theories which involve divine intervention. There's plenty of rampant speculation by theists, but that's another thing entirely.

When I see my child with her arm raised and that look in her eye when she's angry at her sister - can I pre-determine that she's going to take a swing at her? My track record with that prediction is probably about 99% correct. If I can guess the result with 99% accurracy and I'm limited in my knowledge, biased in my opinions, and limited to my five senses, would it not be too far a stretch to think that a God without imperfections or biases, and with greater senses could do 1% better than I can in predicting behavior?

No, that's entirely reasonable.

Does that mean that my child's actions are predetermined? Does my knowledge of her actions have any effect whatsoever upon her free will? I don't think so.

Here's where we part ways. Yes, that absolutely means your child's actions are predetermined. That's what "predetermined" means: 100% predictable in advance.

If God is more perfect than we are, I expect Him to be able to predict what's going to happen without His own knowledge affecting our own free will in any way.

It's not a matter of "affecting" free will. The problem is much more fundamental: free will is, by definition, incompatible with determinism. In a deterministic universe, we are robots inhabiting a giant clockwork device, nothing more.

ETA: Or, to put it in a clearer way, let me ask another question: can we, by exercising what you perceive to be our free will, choose to act in a way God does not expect? Or do we have no choice but to march down the precise path he has already foreseen for us?

If the former, then God's powers of prediction seem to be on the fritz. And if the latter, what separates us from robots marching down the precise path determined by their programming?

 

[rcronk]

What god? Which god? What is god? Please define god.

God is a completely foreign and unknown concept to me. Here is your chance to explain it.

Ok - I'll explain who I believe God is - my theory. [thread derail warning]

Each one of us has a spirit within us. It has the same organs and organization that our physical body has. It is where our free will and consciousness originates. "God" is the father of our spirits. Before this world was created, God created our spirits and we were His children. He taught us and helped us to acquire as much knowledge as we could as spirits. He then knew that to progress further and to know "right" from "wrong" or in other words to know what gives the most people the most lasting joy and what doesn't, we needed to have physical bodies and be away from him so we could act for ourselves - kind of like finding out how hard an employee will work when the boss is gone. So, he created a world for us so we could come down here to get a physical body that would further help us acquire knowledge and also it would help us to experience each other being nice and mean, sharing and stealing, giving new life and murdering. So that we could all know what "works" and what "doesn't work" in a society and within ourselves. I think he organized things here so that we could choose to believe in him or not. He actually appeared to some people and told them to go give people hints as to what works and what doesn't (the "right" and "wrong" ways). He did this, keeping himself hidden so that we could all choose of our own free will to choose good or evil and to follow His ways or not with no compulsion whatsoever. So, God is our father and we are all his children, all living and experiencing life and learning as we go - acquiring knowledge in ways that we otherwise couldn't have and choosing all the while what we want for ourselves. He wants the best for us, but wants us to choose it. He is all powerful and all knowing and he is perfected in all of his attributes such as mercy, justice, forgiveness, honesty, truth, etc. He will not take away our right to act in the ways we desire and so we see much good and much evil in the world.

So there's a basic theory that I believe in currently based on my own research, study, and experiments that I have performed throughout my life to see if He exists and to find out who He is. The theory evolves (no pun intended) as I learn more and as I try to refine my own biases and weaknesses out of myself using the processes He has given to prophets through the centuries. I've tried them and they work. That's my understanding of God, His plan for me, and how He relates to me.

As I have said before, I have been an atheist and I have believed in evolution before and my theories have changed based on evidence, testimonies, and my own experiences.

 

[rcronk]

Hmm - I can't figure out how to delete this duplicate post, so I'll just edit it into something useful instead. ;-)

toddjh - "Religion" to me is just like science. I observe something, I form a theory, I test the theory, I acquire knowledge, etc. It's not an appeal to the supernatural unless you stop before you get to a knowledge of the truth - which many people do. I don't plan on stopping until I have not just a belief, but a knowledge of the truth, which is entirely possible.

Saying that God can never enter the picture in the realm of science is a fallacy. That's like seeing a cup on the table one day and then seeing it on the floor the next and saying "well, since I can't explain the cup's movement by experiment yet and the only other option is that an intelligent being bumped it in the night, I have to keep looking for a theory that doesn't involve an intelligent being because that would be an appeal to the supernatural." I don't understand that logic. If God did put things together, which is possible, science will find that out eventually. It's not valid to throw God under the bus because we've seen blind true believers stop looking for the truth.

With respect to determenation - we'll have to agree to disagree. I see your explanation as the tail wagging the dog. Perhaps you can see what I'm saying if you address my questions directly - If I know what you're going to do next, does it affect you? Does it force you to do what I already know you're going to do or does it just make me really smart and really have no effect upon you whatsoever? Does my super smartness make you programmed and make you follow what I know - or am I just really smart and have no connection or effect upon you whatsoever?

P.S. Sorry Dunstan for hijacking your thread...

 

[jimlintott]

Ok - I'll explain who I believe God is - my theory. [thread derail warning]

Each one of us has a spirit within us. It has the same organs and organization that our physical body has. It is where our free will and consciousness originates. "God" is the father of our spirits. Before this world was created, God created our spirits and we were His children. He taught us and helped us to acquire as much knowledge as we could as spirits. He then knew that to progress further and to know "right" from "wrong" or in other words to know what gives the most people the most lasting joy and what doesn't, we needed to have physical bodies and be away from him so we could act for ourselves - kind of like finding out how hard an employee will work when the boss is gone. So, he created a world for us so we could come down here to get a physical body that would further help us acquire knowledge and also it would help us to experience each other being nice and mean, sharing and stealing, giving new life and murdering. So that we could all know what "works" and what "doesn't work" in a society and within ourselves. I think he organized things here so that we could choose to believe in him or not. He actually appeared to some people and told them to go give people hints as to what works and what doesn't (the "right" and "wrong" ways). He did this, keeping himself hidden so that we could all choose of our own free will to choose good or evil and to follow His ways or not with no compulsion whatsoever. So, God is our father and we are all his children, all living and experiencing life and learning as we go - acquiring knowledge in ways that we otherwise couldn't have and choosing all the while what we want for ourselves. He wants the best for us, but wants us to choose it. He is all powerful and all knowing and he is perfected in all of his attributes such as mercy, justice, forgiveness, honesty, truth, etc. He will not take away our right to act in the ways we desire and so we see much good and much evil in the world.

So there's a basic theory that I believe in currently based on my own research, study, and experiments that I have performed throughout my life to see if He exists and to find out who He is. The theory evolves (no pun intended) as I learn more and as I try to refine my own biases and weaknesses out of myself using the processes He has given to prophets through the centuries. I've tried them and they work. That's my understanding of God, His plan for me, and how He relates to me.

As I have said before, I have been an atheist and I have believed in evolution before and my theories have changed based on evidence, testimonies, and my own experiences.

I don't see a theory there but if you believe you have a theory then please falsify your theory.

 

[JLam]

rcronk,
You seem to misunderstand the concept of faith. Scientists did not have "faith" that atoms existed before they were able to see them. They drew inferences based on evidence. BIG difference.

When a scientist has an idea, the first thing he does is to think of all the different ways he might be wrong. He purposely tries to discredit his own idea to make sure he's not fooling himself. That's the exact opposite of faith.

 

[toddjh]

toddjh - "Religion" to me is just like science. I observe something, I form a theory, I test the theory, I acquire knowledge, etc. It's not an appeal to the supernatural unless you stop before you get to a knowledge of the truth

It's an appeal to the supernatural as soon as you invoke the concept of divine intervention to explain observed phenomena.

With respect to determenation - we'll have to agree to disagree. I see your explanation as the tail wagging the dog. Perhaps you can see what I'm saying if you address my questions directly - If I know what you're going to do next, does it affect you? Does it force you to do what I already know you're going to do or does it just make me really smart and really have no effect upon you whatsoever?

It doesn't affect me, exactly, but it does reveal that I have no choice in the matter, and never did. I'm not saying that predetermination somehow removes free will that was there before; I'm saying that determinism simply reveals the fact that it never existed in the first place. If I truly had free will, then it would be impossible to predict my actions. Conversely, if you can predict my actions with 100% accuracy, then I am, by definition, an automaton and not a free agent.

Does my super smartness make you programmed and make you follow what I know - or am I just really smart and have no connection or effect upon you whatsoever?

Neither. I'm saying that, in a universe where free will existed, you wouldn't be able to predict the actions of another being, no matter how smart you were. Some degree of unpredictability is an absolute prerequisite of free will.

Consider the opposite: how can you possibly claim a being is capable of making choices it is absolutely impossible for him to choose opposite the way you expect?

 

[rcronk]

rcronk,
You seem to misunderstand the concept of faith. Scientists did not have "faith" that atoms existed before they were able to see them. They drew inferences based on evidence. BIG difference.

I guess it's a matter of natural language ambiguity. To me, faith and inferences are the same thing because I don't separate religion and science and I don't think of faith as a blind, baseless following of the unknown, which is apparently what some other people think. That's completely fine - I'm willing to call my faith, "inference" if it helps other people understand what I'm really saying.

When a scientist has an idea, the first thing he does is to think of all the different ways he might be wrong. He purposely tries to discredit his own idea to make sure he's not fooling himself. That's the exact opposite of faith.

Exactly! Why do you think I'm here amongst atheists? I'm trying to find holes in my theories and better understand their theories. Hanging out with only like-minded people tends to get people into self gratifying feedback loops that deter them from finding the truth. Thanks for the comments.

 

[rcronk]

I don't see a theory there but if you believe you have a theory then please falsify your theory.

The whole description I gave is a theory about the reality of our situation and I'm here partly to falsify my theory and partly to learn more about other theories as I have explained above.