DiscussMormonism.com

LittleNipper wrote:The summary text is generic.

It was, however; written by someone, edited by someone, and published by e-notes online. Unless the person who wrote it, edited it, and published it was you, then that alternate source deserves attribution.

It would be so much better, if you'd just admit that Scrooge idolized money above all else, and then move on.

Have I denied that is what it's about? It would be so much better, if you'd just admit that you made a plagiarism boo-boo -- unless you don't find plagiarism to be ethically problematic.


"Thou shall not steal." ~Ghandi

LittleNipper wrote:
So, you do believe that there must be a GOD and that HE created life.

I have no idea how you reached this conclusion based on what I wrote.

LittleNipper wrote: Evolutionists must believe that the "life" GOD must have created, merely became more complex as a result of some environmental necessity. Is that what evolutionists say?

Well, that's just restating the question I asked you. I don't know, LittleNipper, IS that what the theory of evolution teaches about the origins of life on Earth?

LittleNipper wrote: And with all this "evolutionistic understanding", society is fast becoming so much more GODLY.

I get that you think you're being really clever, but I have no idea what you mean here.

LittleNipper wrote:

Some Schmo wrote:If there was one post that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what you're talking about, this is it.

So, what is the "scientific" proof of how life originated here on earth?

Wow... yet another creationist who conflates abiogenesis with evolution. I'm shocked, I tells ya. Shocked!

If you're going to attempt to argue against evolution, I recommend you learn something about it first. Then you might be able to respond intelligently to the point Molok was making.

And until you gain even a rudimentary understanding of the science, you don't get to quote the Laws of Thermodynamics. You've forgone the privilege of using science to back up your assertions when you don't support (or deny, or are willfully ignorant of) science.

LittleNipper wrote: Evolutionists must believe that the "life" GOD must have created, merely became more complex as a result of some environmental necessity. Is that what evolutionists say? And with all this "evolutionistic understanding", society is fast becoming so much more GODLY.

Nipper, Some time past some people pushed narrow ideas of survival of the fittest such as only the meanest most ruthless survive. I can see how those ideas could corrupt moral understanding. Actual evolution shows a very different picture. Those creatures who form healthy communities have much better survival possiblities. In that sense evolution progress toward moral sense not away from it.

If you look at evolution as a function of enviromental necessity you probably will miss the reasons for moral improvement. The developement of enviromental possibities is a stronger path for life to develop in. That path at least has possibilities of moral developement and improvement.

I was thinking about your comment which suggested that the presence of evolutionary think has decreased moral values in our society. I do not think that fits history. In 1830 before Darwin published the United States had severe alcohol problems, pervasive prostitution and slavery. It was in serious ways a moral cesspool. We are not now living in a perfect society but I think that large strides of moral improvement have been made, I am thankful we live with an improved moral sense.

Historically a variety of things have happened including important Christian reform movements. It would not do to hang all the improvement on one source. Even so I think that there are ways in which evolution has contributed to moral sense and societies moral improvement. It has made people think of life as a process of relationships that is looking for improvement. We are not simply missing the mark of some past perfect time of legal superiority. That search for legal correctness which was so common in preevolutionary thinking is the essence of what the New Testament calls Phariseeism. It is the kind of thinking that would not see the harm of slavery because people believed that it represented Gods given order of society. If that false search for the correct legal order is replaced by an evolutionary search for better human relationships and human understanding then real moral improvement happens. People see the evil of slavery and prostitution because they look at the effects on the people involved (Just as Jesus told us to do)

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:To summarize.

God created everything.

He did? Literally?

The elements? Love? Peace? Evil? Light? Darkness? Creativity itself? Goodness? And so on...

You believe this? Would a religionist be obligated to believe this...logically?

I doubt God himself would say He created everything.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:God knows exactly what He's doing.

You would hope/think! But that may include knowing exactly how to adapt to changing/variable/messy circumstances that humans have a tendency to create for themselves and others. Knowing what He's doing may also involve letting things go along in their natural state or course of things. Things acting and being acted upon.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:God is timeless...

In the sense that He was always God? Always in the same state of being...place (sitting on a throne)...etc.?

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:...and knows all creations' actions from alpha to omega...

He knew I was going to pick my nose just now?

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:...the moment He designs and creates them.

He knew I was going to pick my nose just now...again?

And you know this how? Why would God concern himself with whether or not I choose to pick my nose at a particular time and place?

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:To sin is to disobey God, but we're doing exactly as we're created to do from start to finish.

But we choose to sin, don't we? So I suppose we could say God created us or put us in a position by which we can make choices. We ARE created to do that. The cool thing is...we can learn through this process. What is good. What is bad. What is a waste of time and/or unproductive. Etc.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Sin is impossible with an all-knowing (and I say all-powerful and all-good) God.

When we choose to do something evil and/or sinful through our own initiative...that's impossible? I see it happening all over the place. Why would God stop it? What would be the point? People would continue to do dumb/stupid things anyway.

Stalin was a jerk.

Regards,
MG

MG,

If we're talking about an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present god that exists in and out of our space-time continuum then the following applies:

mentalgymnast wrote:

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:To summarize.

God created everything.

He did? Literally?

Of course. If you take the Big Bang to its logical conclusion the above-described God had to have created it.

The elements? Love? Peace? Evil? Light? Darkness? Creativity itself? Goodness? And so on...

You believe this? Would a religionist be obligated to believe this...logically?

There's nothing logical about god-belief because it's subjective.

I doubt God himself would say He created everything.

I'm amazed you know the mind of God!

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:God knows exactly what He's doing.

You would hope/think! But that may include knowing exactly how to adapt to changing/variable/messy circumstances that humans have a tendency to create for themselves and others. Knowing what He's doing may also involve letting things go along in their natural state or course of things. Things acting and being acted upon.

Please watch the video I posted. Start at 5:07 if you're impatient.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:God is timeless...

In the sense that He was always God? Always in the same state of being...place (sitting on a throne)...etc.?

F*** if I know. I'm just trying to make sense of the absurd assertions being made by religionists.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:...and knows all creations' actions from alpha to omega...

He knew I was going to pick my nose just now?

Yes. 4th dimension. He can't help but know it. In fact, you were designed to pick your nose just then. Freedom is an illusion if you're the product of an omniscient/present/powerful being who exists outside the space-time continuum.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:...the moment He designs and creates them.

He knew I was going to pick my nose just now...again?

And you know this how? Why would God concern himself with whether or not I choose to pick my nose at a particular time and place?

Please see above, and please watch the video.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:To sin is to disobey God, but we're doing exactly as we're created to do from start to finish.

But we choose to sin, don't we?

No. We're designed to do what we do. Please see above.

So I suppose we could say God created us or put us in a position by which we can make choices. We ARE created to do that. The cool thing is...we can learn through this process. What is good. What is bad. What is a waste of time and/or unproductive. Etc.

No. Please see above. It's an impossibility to do anything other than His will if He is omniscient/present/powerful and exists outside the space-time continuum.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Sin is impossible with an all-knowing (and I say all-powerful and all-good) God.

When we choose to do something evil and/or sinful through our own initiative...that's impossible? I see it happening all over the place.

We aren't choosing anything under the current definition of God.

Why would God stop it?

He wouldn't. He's perfect, and he designed them to be that way, and they're acting in perfect harmony with all his other creations.

What would be the point?

I have no idea what our existential point is to begin with, and I'm not an omniscient/powerful/present god.

People would continue to do dumb/stupid things anyway.

Of course they would. It's by design.

Stalin was a jerk.

As he was designed to be.

Regards,
MG

V/R
Doc

ETA: In order to discuss God effectively from this point forward, we need to agree on its nature otherwise we'll be talking past one another. I need to know your god ground rules in order to understand how to proceed within the narrative.

Some Schmo wrote:

LittleNipper wrote:Wow... yet another creationist who conflates abiogenesis with evolution. I'm shocked, I tells ya. Shocked!

If you're going to attempt to argue against evolution, I recommend you learn something about it first. Then you might be able to respond intelligently to the point Molok was making.

And until you gain even a rudimentary understanding of the science, you don't get to quote the Laws of Thermodynamics. You've forgone the privilege of using science to back up your assertions when you don't support (or deny, or are willfully ignorant of) science.

If you are going to defend evolution, you ought to realize its ultimate conclusion. True science can be seriously proven through repeatable experimentation and not through "educated" opinion. We have a long history of breeding cattle, horses, dogs and cats. We have spent countless years hybridizing all sorts of plants. And yet in all this time, no one has created a new species of animal. Plants are still plants. Mathematically, with all the human assistance "evolution" is proven to be a "natural" impossibility. Millions of years could never change passing generations of dinosaurs into birds. There is simply not enough time (if such time was ever even a reality). And evolutionists have no personal claim or special privilege to "science". It belongs to everyone and not a select elite fraternity. In fact, such thoughts as yours are why education in public school suffers and turns students off.

Anyone saying evolution violates the laws of physics, does not have a clue about said laws.

Oh, birds from dinosaurs http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... n-science/

Fully evidenced by science.

LittleNipper wrote:If you are going to defend evolution, you ought to realize its ultimate conclusion.

And what do you think that is? (I hate to admit I'm curious about that, but there it is).

True science can be seriously proven through repeatable experimentation and not through "educated" opinion.

Uh huh...

We have a long history of breeding cattle, horses, dogs and cats. We have spent countless years hybridizing all sorts of plants. And yet in all this time, no one has created a new species of animal.

Ah ha! I get to call BS!

Man evolved dogs from wolves. Man also evolved bananas into their current incarnation. I'm sure with a little research, I could come up with several more examples. I know man has helped evolve several new species of bacteria.

Unless what you're saying is that man's never done it in a single generation, in which case I'd have to say, again, you have no idea what evolution is.

Plants are still plants.

And animals are still animals. So what?

Mathematically, with all the human assistance "evolution" is proven to be a "natural" impossibility.

To whom? Your religious friends? Color me unimpressed.

Millions of years could never change passing generations of dinosaurs into birds.

Except for the fact that they have.

There is simply not enough time (if such time was ever even a reality). And evolutionists have no personal claim or special privilege to "science". It belongs to everyone and not a select elite fraternity. In fact, such thoughts as yours are why education in public school suffers and turns students off.

There was so much gobbledygook in this last bit, I will only respond to it by saying this is all I'm going to say by way of response.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Please watch the video I posted. Start at 5:07 if you're impatient.

Watched the whole thing. Yay! Rob Bryanton has a blog. Rob Bryanton has some cosmic ruminations. Rob Bryanton has spent his career as a sound mixer and composer. Nice. Now he's making some Talking Dog presentations based on his ruminations/theories. That's cool.

So you're saying, in essence, that as you have looked at and spent time ruminating about the theory of everything you've found Rob's ideas and ruminations to be the explanation for "no God"? That's IT?

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:ETA: In order to discuss God effectively from this point forward, we need to agree on its nature otherwise we'll be talking past one another. I need to know your god ground rules in order to understand how to proceed within the narrative.

I am at a loss or under no pretensions to make up "ground rules" for the existence of God. Greater minds than mine over centuries have tried to do so. A creator/God either exists...or doesn't. It is THAT simple. Are there any other alternatives available that I'm not thinking of?

My post in which you kept deferring to a video presentation as the rebuttal was simply taking the assumption that there IS a creator/God that placed us in a position of acting and being acted upon and gave us agency. And that this progressive model, with God being the architect of our mortal experience of "choosing" and agency, didn't suddenly spring up as we find ourselves on this planet. It extends back into eons of time.

Question. What logical reason can you think of that would explain why a creator/God would not architecturally design a universe in which created beings would not be placed in a position by which they are free to choose?

You said:

God created everything.
God knows exactly what He's doing.
God is timeless, and knows all creations' actions from alpha to omega the moment He designs and creates them.
To sin is to disobey God, but we're doing exactly as we're created to do from start to finish.
Sin is impossible with an all-knowing (and I say all-powerful and all-good) God.

You're basing your assumptions and rather dogmatic conclusions in regards to "the theory of everything" on a video created by some guy? What are his qualifications?

The longer I'm on this planet the less I know. And I AM open to learning. I've read a bit here and there along the same track of trying to understand the physical universe.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fabric-Cosmos ... gy_b_img_z

I own the book and have read it. I've read other stuff dealing with cosmic/physical/quantum theories and so forth. But I make no claims to have figured it all out.

But I'm also realizing that there may be merit to the scriptural injunction that says that we can be ever learning and NEVER come to a knowledge of the truth. in my opinion, that's saying that if we leave God out of the picture...we will ultimately find our efforts futile in looking for "truth". Mr. Bryanton's series of videos is another attempt at trying to explain how the universe works. That's cool. No problem with that. Awesome special effects/animation.

Where in the series does he talk about a creator/God? Or is there so much theory and confabulation going on in his meanderings of meaning that he somehow leaves God out of the picture? I would be interested in a time stamp link to one of his videos in which he states his position as to whether or not he believes in the possibility of a creator/God.

If he as a matter of fact leaves no room for a creator/God or is making the argument that there is no God, I'm not all that interested in looking to him as a guru in my search for meaning/purpose in the universe. Even though the fourth through tenth dimension stuff looks like a lot of fun to try and wrap one's mind around.

Regards,
MG