Exoplanets Extraterrestrial life Intelligent Design Origin Of Life

At Earth Sky: How likely is an Earth-like origin of life elsewhere?

Spread the love

Paul Scott Anderson writes:

We know that life originated on Earth some 3.7 billion years ago. But we still don’t understand exactly how life came to be. Likewise, we know little to nothing about life on other rocky worlds, even those that might be similar to Earth. Is life a rare occurrence, or is it common? Or somewhere in between? Scientists debate the subject of abiogenesis, the idea of life arising from non-living material. If it can happen on Earth, can it happen elsewhere, too? A new paper from retired astrophysicist Daniel Whitmire at the University of Arkansas argues that it can.

Whitmire published his new peer-reviewed paper in the International Journal of Astrobiology on September 23, 2022.

Abiogenesis and our own existence

Basically, the paper is a counter-argument to the view held by Brandon Carter, an Australian-born astrophysicist. Carter asserts that our own existence constrains our observations of other worlds where life might exist. What does he mean? Essentially, he says, we ourselves happen to exist on a planet where abiogenesis did occur. But – since we only have our own planet as an example so far – it’s not possible for us to determine how likely it is for life to have emerged elsewhere.

Carter says that Earth can’t be considered “typical” yet … because there’s no set of known Earth-like planets to compare it to.

How likely is an Earth-like origin of life elsewhere?

Scientists tend to be conservative. They don’t like to speculate that something exists until they have the evidence in hand. So many scientists seem to accept Carter’s theory. But Daniel Whitmire doesn’t accept it. He contends that Carter is using faulty logic.

He points to what philosophers call the the old evidence problem. That philosophical problem concerns what happens when a theory or hypothesis is updated, following the appearance of new evidence. Whitmire says basically that Carter doesn’t take into account the long cosmic timescales at play in the universe, for example, the length of time it takes life to emerge on a planet. Whitmire writes:

… The observation of life on Earth is not neutral but evidence that abiogenesis on Earth-like planets is relatively easy. I … give an independent timescale argument that quantifies the prior probabilities, leading to the inference that the timescale for abiogenesis is less than the planetary habitability timescale and therefore the occurrence of abiogenesis on Earth-like planets is not rare.

Note: This attempt at philosophical reasoning stumbles with the loaded presupposition that life on Earth arose by natural processes, even though numerous decades of origin-of-life research have shown that any pathway to life from non-life would be exponentially more complicated than any natural mechanism ever investigated.

In late September, I wrote about recent discoveries that add to the accumulation of evidence that life does indeed exist elsewhere. In other words – from ocean moons like Europa and Enceladus, to the latest understanding of organics and ancient habitable conditions on Mars – conditions for life seem to abound, even here in our own solar system. In the vast Milky Way galaxy beyond, astronomers have discovered many thousands of exoplanets. So we know other solar systems exist. And, to me, as I write about these discoveries, the odds seem pretty good that life is out there somewhere.

Here’s another example from the realm of exoplanets. New studies suggest that some (or many) super-Earths might exist as water worlds that aren’t just habitable, but potentially even more habitable than Earth. Some may even be completely covered by oceans.

Whitmire and Carter’s approach – a philosophical approach – to the question of life on other worlds is interesting. But, as the philosophers argue the question, the pace of scientific discovery continues. And many scientists believe we’re now on the verge of finding our first definitive evidence of alien life. Some think it will come within the next decade or two … or sooner.

If Whitmire is right, that first discovery will be exciting indeed.

Earth Sky

Optimism about the possibility of extraterrestrial life has always been popular. However, for a natural mechanism to be able to generate the amount of information found in the vast amounts of biochemical complexity within a “simple” cell, known laws of physics would have to be violated. Ideas which violate established science are usually bogus, unless they’re simply refinements that apply in certain limits of physical parameters. (Such as Einstein’s theory of relativity, which modified Newton’s laws of mechanics in the limit of speeds approaching the speed of light.)

220 Replies to “At Earth Sky: How likely is an Earth-like origin of life elsewhere?

  1. 1
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    As a Creationist, let me ask an obvious question of our Atheist friends

    Here it is:
    What emprirical evidence do Scientists have that the first life did NOT come from supernatural causes?

  2. 2
    Sir Giles says:

    TLH: What emprirical evidence do Scientists have that the first life did NOT come from supernatural causes?

    None. But there is also no empirical evidence that unicorns, leprechauns and Bigfoot doesn’t exist.

  3. 3
    AaronS1978 says:

    “But there is also no empirical evidence that unicorns, leprechauns and Bigfoot doesn’t exist.”

    That’s a strawman

    Supernatural can be anything outside this universe. Trying to parallel obviously false fairytales to something supernatural like god on the basis that they both lack evidence is fallacious, especially given the historicity of Jesus

  4. 4
    Sir Giles says:

    That’s a strawman

    I have found that the best response to a strawman is another strawman.

  5. 5
    AaronS1978 says:

    Hmmm
    I think you need a better definition of a “strawman”

  6. 6
    Sir Giles says:

    Hmmm
    I think you need a better definition of a “strawman”

    I was just using the same definition as TLH did. I didn’t think it was correct, but maybe you should take it up with TLH.

  7. 7
    AaronS1978 says:

    “What emprirical evidence do Scientists have that the first life did NOT come from supernatural causes?“

    This is a question, I cannot make a strawman out of it, there’s no insinuation and no parallel other than maybe it’s not just to dismiss out of hand a supernatural cause

    It is a cornering question, but it is not a strawman

    You use the strawman to answer her question so I have no intention of taking it up with her about her question. It’s a simple yes or no question which is no, there’s no empirical evidence of it. You could also say there is no empirical evidence of the former either.

    But that could actually lead to a discussion about what counts as empirical evidence versus you just drum up a bunch of fairytales, and tried to relate the two too discredit the other, which is a strawman

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES/1

    As a Creationist, let me ask an obvious question of our Atheist friends

    Here it is:
    What emprirical evidence do Scientists have that the first life did NOT come from supernatural causes?

    None, but your question is a reversal of the burden of proof. If you claim that first life did come from supernatural causes then, if you want to persuade others that your claim has merits, it is for you to provide the arguments and evidence, not for others to prove it is untrue.

    From my perspective, there is no such thing as the supernatural only the unknown.

  9. 9
    AaronS1978 says:

    It is ok to reverse the burden of proof as burden of proof is often used simply to back the opponent into a corner. To claim there is no god is the same as to say there is. Both require a burden of proof, both are direct claims about the nature of existence. The only correct answer is to say “no one knows” and to look for proof.

    Now the definition of supernatural is something not subject to our laws of physics. I do not understand how there could not be SN things as anything out side of our universe would be, by definition SN, as our physics are very likely specific to our universe. We could know of their existence and that would not make them any less SN

    Of course I will shut it now and wait for Tammy to respond, I appreciated 8

  10. 10
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    Following up, we have a dichotomy:

    1) The first life was due to supernatural causes.
    2) The first life was NOT due to supernatural cuases.
    Us Crationists we say that no 1 is true.
    Our Atheists friends say that no 2 is true.
    In a dichotomy, any evidence in favor of one proposition is evidence against the other proposition.

    Now if life did originate from natural causes, it came from a sequence of unguided chemical reactions. So it should be reproducable in a lab. Indeed, the world’s top Scientists have been trying to do just that for 100 years. Boatloads of money spent. Scads of experiments. Libraries of empirical evidence.
    We all know their results. Nothing nada zilch.
    And that’s powerful evidence (not proof, of course) that life’s origin was supernatural, which is Creationism.

    And as our Atheist friends graciously point out, they got no Scientific evidence aganst supernatural origin. So the only empirical evidence, it supports Creationism.

    So now consider the Creationist Law of Biogenesis “Absent Divine Intervention, life comes only from life”
    Scientific laws, can never be proven being as they are inductive.
    But they become “settled” if they meet two criteria
    1) The proposed law is supported by all relevant empirical evidence.
    2) It is falsifiable (Falsifiable means there there is a way to demonstrate it’s false if indeeed it is false. In this case, you just make some life in a lab)
    The Creationist Law meets those two criteria.

    Does everyone agree that the Creationist Law of Biogenesis is the settled science?
    And if you dont agree, why?

  11. 11
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ tammie
    I would not say it is settled science but current science supports something “extra” or “supernatural” had to occur for life to get started. It certainly looks like life has to come from life. Now you can say human ingenuity will eventually figure it out or if you’re part of the cult of scientism, “science” will eventually figure it out. But even if they succeeded in creating some form of life in the lab, that doesn’t mean that life, as we know it, wasn’t the result of special creation.

    Now before anything else gets started and tries to pull a “I gotcha” moment, Craig Venter did not create life. He hijacked a living cell’s dna and replaced it with his synthetic dna code. The cell already existed and was alive

  12. 12
    relatd says:

    AS1978 at 11,

    Craig Venter. Depending on the news outlet, he “created life” or “created a synthetic life form” or “artificial life.” This great lack of precision can confuse the public. He didn’t build a cell using dead (inorganic) chemicals.

  13. 13
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ Relatd
    I know, it drives me crazy, just googling “created life from nothing” gets you exactly everything you mentioned. Many science articles will use this type of deception to make it seem far more then it really is.

  14. 14
    relatd says:

    AS1978 at 13,

    I lament the loss of good, tell it like it is journalism. And this should be the case with so-called science journals. Why would they deceive us? Sell ads? Promote the “God did not do it” agenda regarding the origin of life? It seems to be both.

  15. 15
    chuckdarwin says:

    Seversky/8

    From my perspective, there is no such thing as the supernatural only the unknown.

    My organic chem professor from decades back was fond of saying “there are no mysteries, just uncontrolled variables.”

  16. 16
    relatd says:

    I think I saw that in The Journal Irreproducible Results.

  17. 17
    groovamos says:

    there is no such thing as the supernatural only the unknown
    Yes of course, nature, devoid of inherent intelligence, was somehow smart enough to create itself at the big bang. Or as an alternative, maybe “only the unknown” was the creator of nature, even. But then that would render “the unknown” as superior to nature. Indeed, as superior, rather “supernatural” such a powerful “unknown”, and extremely powerful being the “only” thing of consideration.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    “there is no such thing as the supernatural only the unknown”

    Paul’s Address in the Areopagus
    Acts 17:22-25
    Then Paul stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and examined your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
    TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.
    Therefore what you worship as something unknown, I now proclaim to you.
    The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples made by human hands. Nor is He served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.

  19. 19
    BobRyan says:

    Can life come from no-life through natural means? Not without violating the laws of physics, which can’t be broken.

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, crisp and on target, AD 50 at Athens was a hinge of civilisation history. KF

  21. 21
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77/18

    The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth…(emphasis added)

    Including all of the pernicious evil with which we have to contend day in and day out. Definitely “crisp and on target…”

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    ChuckyD, by you admitting that such a thing as ‘evil’ exists in the world, you have just admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil and have, by default, conceded the existence of God.

    Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
    The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video
    https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

    C.S Lewis, a former atheist who converted to Christianity, (in spite of having lived through the evil of WWI), put the self-refuting failure of the atheist’s ‘argument from evil’ like this: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,,”

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,,
    in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
    – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. Harper San Francisco, Zondervan Publishing House, 2001, pp. 38-39.

    And as Dr. Egnor explains, “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.”

    The Universe Reflects a Mind – Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018
    Excerpt: Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

    Verse:

    Matthew 19:17-19
    And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
    He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
    Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    Supplemental quote: “He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”

    “It is a glorious phrase of the New Testament, that ‘he led captivity captive.’
    The very triumphs of His foes, it means, he used for their defeat. He compelled their dark achievements to sub-serve his end, not theirs.
    They nailed him to the tree, not knowing that by that very act they were bringing the world to his feet.
    They gave him a cross, not guessing that he would make it a throne.
    They flung him outside the gates to die, not knowing that in that very moment they were lifting up all the gates of the universe, to let the King of Glory come in.
    They thought to root out his doctrines, not understanding that they were implanting imperishably in the hearts of men the very name they intended to destroy.
    They thought they had defeated God with His back (to) the wall, pinned and helpless and defeated: they did not know that it was God Himself who had tracked them down.
    He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”
    – James Stewart (1896–1990) was a minister of the Church of Scotland

  23. 23
    Seversky says:

    AaronS1978/9

    It is ok to reverse the burden of proof as burden of proof is often used simply to back the opponent into a corner.

    If someone makes a claim and I ask for some reason why I should accept it, that is not backing the claimant into a corner, it’s asking a reasonable question. If you were to appear in court charged with a criminal offense you would expect the prosecution to present evidence to support their case. The allegation should not be accepted as proven just on their word, nor should you be required to prove your innocence while the prosecution does nothing.

    No, it is not okay to reverse the burden of proof.

    To claim there is no god is the same as to say there is. Both require a burden of proof, both are direct claims about the nature of existence. The only correct answer is to say “no one knows” and to look for proof.

    I agree. It is for anyone who makes a specific claim to support it, if they want to persuade others it has any merits.

    Now the definition of supernatural is something not subject to our laws of physics. I do not understand how there could not be SN things as anything out side of our universe would be, by definition SN, as our physics are very likely specific to our universe. We could know of their existence and that would not make them any less SN

    If anything impinges on the physical Universe in any observable way then it is arguably part of the natural order. Ghosts are usually thought of as supernatural but if we were to find evidence of their existence then, however elusive they might be, they would again be a part of the natural order.

    Now the definition of supernatural is something not subject to our laws of physics. I do not understand how there could not be SN things as anything out side of our universe would be, by definition SN, as our physics are very likely specific to our universe. We could know of their existence and that would not make them any less SN

    By that argument, inhabitants of another universe, could regard us as supernatural. Do you feel natural or supernatural?

  24. 24
    Seversky says:

    Groovamos/17

    there is no such thing as the supernatural only the unknown
    Yes of course, nature, devoid of inherent intelligence, was somehow smart enough to create itself at the big bang. Or as an alternative, maybe “only the unknown” was the creator of nature, even. But then that would render “the unknown” as superior to nature. Indeed, as superior, rather “supernatural” such a powerful “unknown”, and extremely powerful being the “only” thing of consideration.

    As we’ve been saying, we don’t know how life arose from inanimate matter. But “don’t know” does not mean the same as supernatural.

    What we do know is that we have inanimate matter as well as living organisms in this Universe so there is a good chance that, whether God did it or it arose naturally, life came from non-life.

  25. 25
    Seversky says:

    Chuckdarwin/15

    My organic chem professor from decades back was fond of saying “there are no mysteries, just uncontrolled variables.”

    So Christians are just worshipping the biggest uncontrolled variable of them all?

  26. 26
    chuckdarwin says:

    Seversky/25
    Yup—and one impossible to operationally define….

  27. 27
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/22

    ChuckyD, by you admitting that such a thing as ‘evil’ exists in the world, you have just admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil and have, by default, conceded the existence of God.

    No, there is nothing to prevent us from formulating our own subjective standards of good and evil so there is no need to look for guidance to a God whose own grasp of the subject looks a bit shaky to say the least.

    As for Craig’s argument, it fails because the premises are easily attacked.

    C.S Lewis, a former atheist who converted to Christianity, (in spite of having lived through the evil of WWI), put the self-refuting failure of the atheist’s ‘argument from evil’ like this: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,,”

    And the obvious answer to Lewis’s facile argument is to ask him if he is saying that he would have no idea what constitutes good or evil unless God had told him. If he saw a child being murdered in front of him he would not know whether it was right or wrong unless God told him?

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, on the one hand states, “there is nothing to prevent us from formulating our own subjective standards of good and evil”, and yet on the other hand Seversky appeals to objective morality in that C.S. Lewis should intuitively know, if he saw it, that it is objectively morally wrong to murder an innocent child.

    And so it goes, the atheist’s worldview, as Dr. Egnor has noted, is a morass of self-refuting claims,.

    Self-refutation and the New Atheists: The Case of Jerry Coyne
    Michael Egnor September 12, 2013
    Excerpt: One of the more bizarre ideological tics of the New Atheists is their indifference to self-refutation.
    Their ideology is a morass of bizarre self-refuting claim. They assert that science is the only way to truth, yet take no note that scientism itself isn’t a scientific assertion. They assert a “skeptical” view that thoughts are only constructed artifacts of our neurological processing and have no sure contact with truth, ignoring the obvious inference that their skeptical assertion is thereby reduced to a constructed artifact with no sure contact with truth. They assert that Christianity has brought much immorality to the world, yet they deny the existence of objective morality. They assert that intelligent design is not testable, and that it is wrong.
    And they assert that we are determined entirely by our natural history and physical law and thereby have no free will, yet they assert this freely, claiming truth and personal exemption from determinism.,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2013/09/self-refutation/

    Of sidenote, since Seversky, with the overturning of Roe, has recently come out strongly supporting unrestricted abortion, and since he has voiced anger towards those who are pro-life, one is forced to wonder whether Seversky would really know, if he saw it, that it is objectively morally wrong to rip apart, limb from limb, an innocent unborn baby or not. Or is his conscience seared to the point that even that barbaric cruelty is beyond him?

    Watch (pro-choice) minds (immediately) change on abortion (after watching the abortion procedures video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWQHhqOAcg

    If a psychopath did to a child what the abortion industry routinely does to unborn children, via ‘dismemberment abortions, the psychopath would be sentenced to death, and/or life in prison, and the vast majority of people would agree wholeheartedly with that punishment.

    Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A.
    Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018)
    https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf

    100 million views: People respond to the viral ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos
    Excerpt: In these videos, Dr. Levatino, who committed over 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, explains in detail what occurs when the life of a preborn child is destroyed during an abortion during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters.
    Each of the Abortion Procedures videos describes in detail how each abortion procedure is carried out and how the preborn child dies. The realization of abortion’s barbarity, cruelty, and inhumanity has impacted many viewers who were not expecting to see what they saw.,,,
    https://www.liveaction.org/news/live-action-abortion-procedures-impact/

    Abortion Procedures: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Trimesters
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk

    Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News, (she witnessed a dismemberment abortion first hand)
    https://youtu.be/NXQjCuWFdzI?t=100

    Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults)
    https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/

    Sept. 2022 – (Just) maybe we ought not rip apart, limb from limb, unborn babies in the womb? Especially unborn babies who can “Taste And Smell”, as well as display love and care towards other people?
    https://uncommondescent.com/human-life/at-medical-express-first-direct-evidence-that-babies-react-to-taste-and-smell-in-the-womb/#comment-765700

    Verse:

    1 Timothy 4:2
    Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

  29. 29
    Viola Lee says:

    re 19: Bob Ryan writwes, “Can life come from no-life through natural means? Not without violating the laws of physics, which can’t be broken.”

    Life ultimately is based on physics, via bio-chemistry. You may believe that it is not possible that life could have arisen originally because of probability arguments, but the argument that getting life from non-life would break laws of physics is a different argument, and wrong. There is nothing about an amoeba, for instance, that breaks any laws of physics.

  30. 30
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77/22

    ChuckyD, by you admitting that such a thing as ‘evil’ exists in the world, you have just admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil and have, by default, conceded the existence of God.

    I not going down this rabbit hole yet again with you or any other creationist/IDer that improperly uses the term “objective morality” when the correct term is “absolute morality” when linking it to ontology. I’m done with this childish gotcha by default nonsense. It’s not even worthy of a twisted FOX News pundit.
    Premise No. 1 in Craig’s syllogism is wrong. Objective morality is a human-created code, adopted by the relevant group either democratically or by coercion. It can be subject to change, negotiation, mitigation, elimination None of these features are present in God’s absolute morality.
    Objective morality as I have outlined is not a “subjective” morality. “Subjective” means, literally from the “self,” the individual; subjective morality is a morality of one. It can best be described as one’s own personal code of conduct.

  31. 31
    AaronS1978 says:

    “I’m done with this childish gotcha by default nonsense. It’s not even worthy of a twisted FOX News pundit.“

    Lol this coming from the king of it.

  32. 32
    AaronS1978 says:

    Seversky
    October 15, 2022 at 8:33 am
    AaronS1978/9

    “No, it is not okay to reverse the burden of proof.”

    Turnabout is fair play sorry you’re wrong,
    And if you think it’s an issue, don’t do it yourself, I’m really sorry if it takes you from being on the aggressive to the defensive which is the reason why you don’t think it’s OK

    “I agree. It is for anyone who makes a specific claim to support it, if they want to persuade others it has any merits.”

    Finally, something we can agree on.

    “If anything impinges on the physical Universe in any observable way then it is arguably part of the natural order. Ghosts are usually thought of as supernatural but if we were to find evidence of their existence then, however elusive they might be, they would again be a part of the natural order.”

    The definition of supernatural is anything, not subject to the laws of nature. Simply put if it is outside of our natural universe it is not subject to our laws it’s then supernatural. Beings from outside of our universe would very likely be subject to their laws and not our own, making them unnatural to our universe and possibly supernatural per the definition. Ghost are considered supernatural because they are no longer subject to our laws. And they would be outside of our universe. Inter-dimensional beings also would be considered this. I’m sorry if I do not accept your extended version of your universe, because effectively you make it to where everything is natural.

    “By that argument, inhabitants of another universe, could regard us as supernatural. Do you feel natural or supernatural?”

    This is a very silly strawman not your best work.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    ChuckyD claims, “Objective morality is a human-created code, adopted by the relevant group either democratically or by coercion. It can be subject to change, negotiation, mitigation, elimination”

    Yet objective morality is NOT an invention of man that is “subject to change”.

    For instance, German society, (under the influence of Darwinian ideology no less), ‘democratically’ agreed that it was a morally good thing to try to eradicate the Jewish population from Germany.

    CD, might it be too obvious to point out to you that it is objectively morally wrong to kill six million Jews in concentration camps?, and that that objective moral fact is not ‘subject to change’?, or does even this blatantly obvious objective moral fact have to be spelled out for you?

    A few notes,

    Darwin’s theory is not only amoral, (pitilessly indifferent, Dawkins), but it is downright ANTI-moral.

    How Has Darwinism Negatively Impacted Society? – John G. West – January 11, 2022
    Excerpt: Death as the Creator
    A third big idea fueled by Darwin’s theory is that the engine of progress in the history of life is mass death. Instead of believing that the remarkable features of humans and other living things reflect the intelligent design of a master artist, Darwin portrayed death and destruction as our ultimate creator. As he wrote at the end of his most famous work: “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”13
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/how-has-darwinism-negatively-impacted-society/

    “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

    Adolf Hilter himself, (whom I would hope even atheists will agree was a psychopath of the first order), directly echoed Charles Darwin’s words when he stated, “Nature,,, wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”

    “A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”
    – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – pg 248

    As should be needless to say, wiping out the weak to give place to the strong is directly opposed to the primary Christian ethic of the strong looking after the weak. i.e. altruism

    Matthew 25:34-40
    “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
    “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
    “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

    As Sir Arthur Keith noted shortly after WWII, “the (moral) law of Christ is incompatible with the (moral) law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”

    “for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
    – Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15

    Moreover, Hitler was hardly the only murderous, psychopathic, tyrant who based his worldview on Darwinian evolution. In fact all the leading Atheistic Tyrants of the communist regimes of the 20th century, who murdered tens of millions of their OWN people, based their murderous political ideologies on Darwin’s theory and the ‘ANTI-morality’ inherent therein.

    Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their Atheistic ideology https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/david-berlinski-the-bad-boy-philosopher-who-doubts-darwinism-is-back/#comment-749756

    Atheism’s Body Count *
    It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world.
    https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/

    Of related note, multicellular life would not even exist unless cooperative and altruistic behavior existed at the molecular and cellular level. (which is the antithesis of Darwin’s selfish ‘survival of the fittest’ presupposition)

    Richard Dawkins’s ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but ‘selfish’ as Dawkins himself held. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be exist in an extensive holistic web of mutual inter-dependence and cooperation (which is, obviously, the very antithesis of being selfish as Richard Dawkins had erroneously envisioned).

    Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis.
    But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,,
    One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out.
    Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/

    Again, such extensive, even astonishing, ‘holistic cooperation’ between genes is the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’ as Richard Dawkins had erroneously envisioned genes to be via his Darwinian presuppositions., (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of a religion for atheists, count as yet another powerful falsification of Darwin’s theory)

    it is also interesting to note that the highest possible morality within Christian ethics is the altruistic morality of someone giving his life so that others may live.

    John 15:13
    Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

    Indeed, the medal-of-honor, which is the highest medal awarded for military service, is based on self-sacrificial, altruistic, morality where a man either dies, or puts his life in extreme jeopardy, for the sake of his fellow soldiers.

    Yet, such self sacrificial altruistic behavior, which is central, even defining, to the Christian’s entire view of objective morality, is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s one ‘general law’ of “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

    Yet, if it were not for such self-sacrificial altruistic behavior in multicellular organisms, at the cellular level, we simply would not even be here to argue whether morality was objectively real or not.

    Specifically, ‘apoptosis’, which means programmed cell death, is a necessary part of embryological development for multicellular organisms.

    Apoptosis in Embryonic Development
    Excerpt: As cells rapidly proliferate during development, some of them undergo apoptosis, which is necessary for many stages in development, including neural development, reduction in egg cells (oocytes) at birth, as well as the shaping of fingers and,, organs in humans and other animals. Sydney Brenner, H. Robert Horvitz, and John E. Sulston received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002 for their work on the genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death.
    https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/apoptosis-embryonic-development

    Thus in conclusion, multicellular life simply would not even possible if the cellular level of life was not, in large measure, Intelligently Designed along, and/or based upon, the highest, altruistic, moral principles found within Christian Theism of self sacrifice. i.e. of altruism.

    Simply put, if certain cells did not die for the good of other cells during embryonic development, multicellular life, as we know it, simply would not exist.

    John 3:16
    For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

    Of supplemental note

    Darwin’s (falsified) predictions – altruism – Cornelius Hunter
    Conclusions
    “Darwin’s theory of evolution led him to several expectations and predictions, regarding behavior in general, and altruism in particular. We now know those predictions to be false.,,,”
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/altruism

  34. 34
    Sir Giles says:

    BA77: CD, might it be too obvious to point out to you that it is objectively morally wrong to kill six million Jews in concentration camps?

    Yet it was obviously objectively morally right to massacre the Amalekites, every man, woman and child, and their livestock. And it was obviously objectively morally right to kill homosexuals and women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night.

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:

    Sir Giles, thanks for conceding the existence of objective morality and therefore the conceding the necessary existence of God, as to your objection that God does not live up to objective morality, that claim, via God rendering justice for evil, is found to be false,

    Peter J Williams on New Atheists & Old Testament (incl. The Canaanites)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCbh_1SlwE

    “My last resistance to the idea of God’s wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, the region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and 3,000,000 displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry.
    Though I used to complain about the indecency of God’s wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn’t wrathful at the sight of the world’s evil. God isn’t wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love.”
    – Miroslav Volf – Croatian theologian
    https://books.google.com/books?id=BkwnAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA59

  36. 36
    AaronS1978 says:

    @Sev

    “If someone makes a claim and I ask for some reason why I should accept it, that is not backing the claimant into a corner, it’s asking a reasonable question. If you were to appear in court charged with a criminal offense you would expect the prosecution to present evidence to support their case. The allegation should not be accepted as proven just on their word, nor should you be required to prove your innocence while the prosecution does nothing.”

    Now, I wanted to post this one separately

    This is a spectactur strawman. You relate a very real life situation, which has very real truth behind it, and you use it to throw my argument out of context.

    Yes, the prosecution has to present evidence that you have committed a crime

    However, we are not dealing with this situation. We are dealing with an atheist who claims there is no God and theist that claims there is a God, which you agree both have to present evidence of their claim.

    It is common practice for an atheist to stand their ground that there is no God, and that is the default stance to take, since there’s no immediate evidence of God, guilty of not exist until proven innocent.

    This has been, your(atheists) argument style for years and it’s proven over and over again on this site

    The problem is is that you are making a claim there is no God while stating that we need to provide you with evidence. Good for me not for thee.

    Any evidence presented to you is often dismissed out of hand, so if we want to take your analogy, any time anyone has tried to produce evidence of their own innocence, the prosecutor (atheist) simply dismiss’ it out of hand and I remain guilty forever putting us on the defensive.

    You seen your analogy would really work if the atheist wasn’t the prosecutor to begin with. And the intent of you asking us to produce evidence is simply to back us into a corner by putting us on the defensive. I pointed this out to sir Giles as the was Tammies intent with her question. It is an age old debate tactic and it is 100% OK to reverse it onto the individual making the attack.

    Asking for evidence is one thing, but what you guys are doing is not that.

    You, ChuckieD, and Alan Fox are all very guilty of this. Particularly ChuckyD and AF

    You see there are so many different misgivings in your arguments about whether God exists or not, and many of which all fit the tropes of “good for me, but not for thee”
    “Guilty until proven innocent” and “dismissed out of hand”

    But one thing I do appreciate about you Sev
    Is you don’t mock the people you were arguing with that I appreciate very much. Thank you.

  37. 37
    Sir Giles says:

    BA77, it is very disturbing that you believe that it is objectively morally right to kill children, homosexuals and women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night.

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    Of course I did not say that. And it is typical, and pathetic, for an atheist to try to twist what I said. I said that “your objection that God does not live up to objective morality, that claim, via God rendering justice for evil, is found to be false,”

    Peter J Williams on New Atheists & Old Testament (incl. The Canaanites)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCbh_1SlwE

    “My last resistance to the idea of God’s wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, the region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and 3,000,000 displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry.
    Though I used to complain about the indecency of God’s wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn’t wrathful at the sight of the world’s evil. God isn’t wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love.”
    – Miroslav Volf – Croatian theologian
    https://books.google.com/books?id=BkwnAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA59

    Context is everything,

    Sept. 2021 – So did God have good moral justification for Noah’s flood, and for, say, the often mentioned destruction of the Canaanites?
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lutheran-religious-studies-prof-asks-is-methodological-naturalism-racist/#comment-737262

  39. 39
    Sir Giles says:

    BA77, was it objectively morally wrong for God to order the killing of all Amalekite children? Was it objectively morally wrong for God to order the killing of homosexuals and non-virgin women? Was it objectively morally wrong for God to kill all but a handful of people on earth, including children and the unborn? Was it objectively morally wrong for God to kill almost all air breathing animals on earth?

    Personally, I think that any being that would do these sorts of things is utterly detestable and reprehensible. And anyone who defends these acts is equally detestable and reprehensible.

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    Sir Giles, again, thanks for conceding the existence of objective morality and therefore the necessary existence of God. I take it, since you are a ‘raging moralist’ who believes, apparently whole-heartedly, in objective morality, that you are no longer an Darwinian atheist?

    Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
    The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video
    https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

    The fatal flaw in the atheist’s moral objection that God was not morally justified in, say Noah’s flood, or the destruction of the Canaanites, is that God was rendering justice for evil done against Him. And justice is punishment for moral evil.

    For instance, a man would be morally justified in killing another man’s children if that other man had first ripped apart, limb from limb, the first man’s children. In fact, the first man would be morally justified in killing that other man as slowly, and painfully, as he so desired once he had killed the other man’s children in front of his eyes.

    Again, It is called moral justice, and it is on moral justice that the atheist’s objection against God’s punishment against moral evil in the OT, flounders.

  41. 41
    Sir Giles says:

    BA77: For instance, a man would be morally justified in killing another man’s children if that other man had first ripped apart, limb from limb, the first man’s children. In fact, the first man would be morally justified in killing that other man as slowly as he so desired once he had killed the other man’s children in front of his eyes.

    Is there anyone else here that agrees with BA77 that killing babies can be morally justified?

  42. 42
    relatd says:

    CD at 21,

    Because God gave the first man and first woman actual free will – instead of being robots who served without question – sin and death, and all the rest, entered the world when they chose to disobey the ONE command He gave them.

    Romans 8: 22

    “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.”

    23

    “And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.”

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    SG: “Is there anyone else here that agrees with BA77 that killing babies can be morally justified?”

    First, you do realize that one of the primary reasons that God destroyed the Canaanites was because the Canaanites burned, i.e. sacrificed, their children to false gods do you not?

    Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel – By Heath D. Dewrell – 2017
    Excerpt: This is a warning to the Israelites not to imitate the depraved Canaanites by sacrificing Israelite children to Yahweh in the same way that Canaanites sacrificed their sons and daughters to their gods.
    https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2017/12/child-sacrifice-ancient-israel/

    Secondly, If I remember correctly, you yourself are very much ‘morally OK’ with killing unborn babies with abortion.

    Thirdly, Peter Singer, tenured chair at the Center for Human Values at Princeton University, and
    via hls ‘Darwinian morality’, has advocated for infanticide,

    Fact Sheet on Peter Singer
    Infanticide
    It may be all right, according to Singer, to kill infants. Because they are not “persons,” they have no interest in staying alive, and it is only superstition that makes us think that killing them is intrinsically wrong.
    https://www.independentliving.org/docs5/singer.html

    So apparently, under “Darwinian morality”. killing babies can be easily morally justified simply by saying that the children are ‘inconvenient’ to the parents.

    So thus again, in order for you to even have the capacity to argue that it is objectively morally wrong for God to kill the children of a people who have sinned against Him, you have to ‘borrow’ objective morality from Theism in order to do it.

    In short, you have to presuppose the existence of God in order to even have the capacity to ague against Him. It is very much a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ situation for you.

    Once while Van Til was a youth traveling on a train in Holland, he noticed a father with his young daughter sitting in his lap. Apparently, the father urged his daughter to do something when she suddenly slapped her father in the face. Van Til’s application? The girl’s behavior illustrates rebels who live in God’s world and who are supported by God’s common grace (Ps. 24:1). They sit, as it were, on the lap of God, and it is precisely because they sit on God’s lap that they are able to deliver the slap of ingratitude. Thus unbelievers who toot their own independence and autonomy are only able to do so as they are supported by God Himself (Jn. 19:10 -11).
    https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/van-tils-illustrations

  44. 44
    Sir Giles says:

    BA77, I’m not the one who is claiming that it is objectively morally justified to kill children. You are.

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    Sir Giles, but alas, you have recently advocated for unrestricted abortion. Have you now changed your stance on killing ‘inconvenient’ unborn babies?

  46. 46
    JVL says:

    Sir Giles asked (among other things): Was it objectively morally wrong for God to order the killing of homosexuals and non-virgin women?

    Bornagain77 replied (not necessarily to that point in particular): The fatal flaw in the atheist’s moral objection that God was not morally justified in, say Noah’s flood, or the destruction of the Canaanites, is that God was rendering justice for evil done against Him. And justice is punishment for moral evil.

    I would like to clear up the particular point of God ordering the death of homosexuals.

    Is that correct? Are there Biblical references establishing that? Is Leviticus 20:13 correct?

    If that is substantiated by Biblical passages then how is that morally justified? As justice for evil done against God? How so? Because he says not to do it? Does that mean that violating all the precepts given in Leviticus are punishable by death because God once said: don’t do that?

  47. 47
    Sir Giles says:

    BA77: Sir Giles, but alas, you have recently advocated for unrestricted abortion.

    Really? Where exactly did I do this? Or are you just lying because you can’t logically address the morality of a God who kills children and the unborn.

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    Sir Giles, so you are not for unrestricted abortion?

    “Anybody who thinks that women don’t think long and hard about an abortion, or who think that they see it as a convenient form of birth control, is just an insensitive jerk.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/human-life/at-medical-express-first-direct-evidence-that-babies-react-to-taste-and-smell-in-the-womb/#comment-766081

    Of note to being an ‘insensitive jerk’

    Will Laws Protecting the Unborn Endanger Mothers?
    Michael Egnor – August 2, 2022
    Excerpt: Medically Necessary?
    The vast majority of abortions committed in the U.S. are elective and are done without even the pretense to protect the health of the mother. Situations in which a mother’s life is genuinely in danger and for which removal of the child is the necessary medical treatment are quite rare. Neonatologist Dr. Kendra Kolb has an excellent discussion of whether abortion can be medically necessary:
    “It is often said that abortion is sometimes medically necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. This is simply not true.
    As a neonatologist, I am regularly consulted to advise mothers with high-risk pregnancies, and I routinely care for their babies. I have also personally gone through two very difficult pregnancies each requiring hospitalization. So I have great empathy and respect for all women who are pregnant, especially those with difficult or high-risk pregnancies.
    What women deserve to know, however, is that even in the most high-risk pregnancies, there is no medical reason why the life of the child must be directly and intentionally ended with an abortion procedure.
    In situations where the mother’s life is truly in jeopardy, her pregnancy must end, and the baby must be delivered. These situations occur in cases of mothers who develop dangerously high blood pressure, have decompensating heart disease, life threatening diabetes, cancer, or a number of other very serious medical conditions. Some babies do need to be delivered before they are able to survive outside of the womb, which occurs around 22 to 24 weeks of life. Those situations are considered a preterm delivery, not an abortion.
    These babies deserve to be treated with respect and compassion, and parents should be given the opportunity to honor their child’s life… A mother’s life is always of paramount importance, but abortion is never medically necessary to protect her life or health.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/will-laws-protecting-the-unborn-endanger-mothers/

    Hillary Clinton is Wrong: OBGYN Says Abortion is Never Necessary to Save the Life of the Mother – MICAIAH BILGER OCT 24, 2016
    Dr. Lawrence Koning, an OB-GYN in Corona, California, said Clinton also is wrong about late-term abortions being necessary to save a woman’s life or health, according to Christian News Network.
    “As an OB/GYN physician for 31 years, there is no medical situation that requires aborting/killing the baby in the third trimester to ‘save the mother’s life,’” Koning wrote on social media after the debate. “Just deliver the baby by C-section and the baby has 95+% survival with readily available NICU care even at 28 weeks. C-section is quicker and safer than partial birth abortion for the mother.”
    https://catholiccitizens.org/views/68533/hillary-clinton-wrong-obgyn-says-abortion-never-necessary-save-life-mother/

    Abortion: The Lies Women Are Told
    https://spectator.org/abortion-the-lies-women-are-told-2/

  49. 49
    Sir Giles says:

    BA77@48: Sir Giles, so you are not for unrestricted abortion?

    Why didn’t you include my entire comment? Just so people can see it without the dishonest quote mining attempt, I have included it below.

    As I mentioned, my daughter is in the process of deciding how she will terminate her pregnancy. She has two options.
    1) have labour induced and give birth to a baby who will not survive for long. Undergo the pain of labour.
    2) go to a clinic and have an abortion. Pass through a line of harassing protesters but undergo far less pain.

    Anybody who thinks that women don’t think long and hard about an abortion, or who think that they see it as a convenient form of birth control, is just an insensitive jerk.

    And if you had bothered to follow that thread you will have noted that my daughter’s embryo was nonviable and was putting her health at risk.

    No sane person could conclude from my comments here that I am in favour of unrestricted abortion.

    But let’s stick to the point that you believe that killing babies and the unborn can be objectively morally justified. Those are your words, not mine.

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL: “violating all the precepts given in Leviticus are punishable by death because God once said: don’t do that?”

    Well JVL, to refresh what I learned in Sunday school, the punishment for any and all sin, no matter how great or small the sin may be, is ultimately death,

    Moreover, all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God so all men are deserving of death.

    To make matters worse, there is no way that we, by our own efforts, can atone for our sins.

    Yet, the great news is that God Himself paid the penalty for our sins, via the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, so that we might be rescued from sin and death and have eternal life with Him in heaven.

    John 3:16
    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    Sir Giles, you claim that ‘no sane person’ would say you are for unrestricted abortion, but in that thread you made no caveat whatsoever as to when you would be for restricting abortion.

    You told me to ‘go to hell’ in that thread, but never did you once make a specific caveat as to when you would personally be for restricting abortion.

    The quote I highlighted from you in that thread is what I, rightly or wrongly, took to be your ‘official’ position on abortion. I am sorry if your are not for unrestricted abortion. But I seriously have nothing else to go on but what you actually wrote in that thread.

    If you are indeed not for unrestricted abortion, please state so clearly now, for all to see, so that that issue may be cleared up once and for all.

    I look forward to having you join with me in being against the particularly barbaric practice of ‘dismemberment abortions’ where an unborn baby is ripped apart, limb from limb.

    Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A.
    Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018)
    https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf

    Watch (pro-choice) minds (immediately) change on abortion (after watching the abortion procedures video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWQHhqOAcg

    100 million views: People respond to the viral ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos
    Excerpt: In these videos, Dr. Levatino, who committed over 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, explains in detail what occurs when the life of a preborn child is destroyed during an abortion during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters.
    Each of the Abortion Procedures videos describes in detail how each abortion procedure is carried out and how the preborn child dies. The realization of abortion’s barbarity, cruelty, and inhumanity has impacted many viewers who were not expecting to see what they saw.,,,
    https://www.liveaction.org/news/live-action-abortion-procedures-impact/

    Abortion Procedures: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Trimesters
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk

    Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News, (she witnessed a dismemberment abortion first hand)
    https://youtu.be/NXQjCuWFdzI?t=100

    Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults)
    https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/

    Sept. 2022 – (Just) maybe we ought not rip apart, limb from limb, unborn babies in the womb? Especially unborn babies who can “Taste And Smell”, as well as display love and care towards other people?
    https://uncommondescent.com/human-life/at-medical-express-first-direct-evidence-that-babies-react-to-taste-and-smell-in-the-womb/#comment-765700

  52. 52
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Well JVL, to refresh what I learned in Sunday school, the punishment for any and all sin, no matter how great or small the sin may be, is ultimately death,

    Sure but certain acts are singled out or mentioned whereas others are not.

    Moreover, all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God so all men are deserving of death.

    Uh . . . again, why are certain acts mentioned and others not?

    To make matters worse, there is no way that we, by our own efforts, can atone for our sins.

    So, why try and follow the rules if we cannot alter our ultimate judgement?

    Yet, the great news is that God Himself paid penalty for our sins, via the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, so that we might be rescued from sin and death and have eternal life with Him in heaven.

    Does that mean that all the injunctions mentioned in the Old Testament no longer apply, if they ever did?

    What is now, still, considered a sin or bad? Is it only things mentioned in the New Testament? How is one to know what the objective morality says?

  53. 53
    relatd says:

    JVL at 52,

    Really? There are those who make up their own version of morality. Those who actually want to follow Biblical morality need to be spiritually as well as intellectually inclined to read and understand. Yes, because certain disordered sexual acts and lifestyles are being heavily promoted today, they are being addressed specifically. They are bad for all concerned. But if the words “sin” and “sinful” are alien to you, why ask?

  54. 54
    zweston says:

    JVL @ 52, the Ten Commandments (moral law) continue onto the New Testament as Jesus affirms them (except the sabbath) and then he even further goes to the heart (read sermon on the mount).

    Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself…. this encompasses the moral law. It is further defined by Jesus in his teachings and later also with the apostles.

  55. 55
    groovamos says:

    Including all of the pernicious evil with which we have to contend day in and day out. Definitely “crisp and on target…”

    Yes someone calling themself Chucky Darwin, wishes to let us know that had he, Darwin acted as the Great Designer of the cosmos, then He would surely have not designed evil into it. What original philosophy there if you would even grace it with such categorization.

    Better philosopher Robert Jastrow, planetary physicist and astrophysicist: “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” (interview in Christianity Today)

    Actually the best description of the place and purpose of evil in the cosmic game might be this talk by the author taken from the book “The Cosmic Game” here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNSMDWBSv54

    Quite entertaining with plenty of humor.

  56. 56
    Viola Lee says:

    This ties into the discussion on free will going on extensively on the “infinity/Cosmology thread.” Moral decisions are like other decisions, as we consult everything we consider part of our self, including our moral sense and moral principles, to self-determine our beliefs and specific judgments. Some may believe part of their nature has access to moral standards from elsewhere, but that belief is still part of their self. Others may have different beliefs about the source and content of their moral sense and principles, and that becomes part of their idea of their self. Believing that one has access to an external source of morals does not make that belief true. We all have the same human nature, so there is some commonality that runs throughout human morals, but, like everything else, there is lots of variation, and so we all struggle with the difficulties of decision-making.

    We’re all in the same boat, though. One’s metaphysical beliefs don’t change the situation. If you believe God has an objective standard that getting a vasectomy is wrong (to mention a recently-discussed example), then that belief will be part of your decision making. But it is wrong to think that your belief about God and the objectivity of that belief applies to anyone else unless they choose to adopt that same framework.

    One may offer other reasons why something is wrong, using reason, facts, emotional appeals, etc., but the goal can only be to influence others to adopt beliefs similar to yours. Declaring that your beliefs are “objective” and others aren’t adds nothing to the discussion, other than to claim some arrogant and erroneous access to special knowledge that you don’t have.

    I will regret opening up this rabbit hole, but the relevance to the discussion on free will set me off. I, like CD, don’t intend to get dragged into another argument, but I have at least reiterated my position for others to consider.

  57. 57
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/50

    Well JVL, to refresh what I learned in Sunday school, the punishment for any and all sin, no matter how great or small the sin may be, is ultimately death,

    So you are saying that no matter what the offense – be it murder, rape, shoplifting, jaywalking or just taking the Lord’s name in vain – the punishment is always death? Isn’t that somewhat extreme? Whatever happened to “let the punishment fit the crime”?

    Moreover, all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God so all men are deserving of death.

    All men have “fallen short of the glory of God”? What does that even mean? Why does it deserve the death penalty?

    Besides, who designed human beings to be capable of sin? Hint: nothing happens but by His will.

    To make matters worse, there is no way that we, by our own efforts, can atone for our sins.

    To atone for something is to make reparations for some kind of damage or harm or wrong done to another. But your God, by definition, is utterly impregnable. There is literally nothing we can do to cause Him harm or damage or to wrong Him. So what exactly are we supposed to be atoning for, using bad language that you fear He finds offensive?

    Yet, the great news is that God Himself paid the penalty for our sins, via the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, so that we might be rescued from sin and death and have eternal life with Him in heaven.

    Jesus and God are essentially one and the same thing and that thing is immortal. We cannot kill Jesus or God. God cannot kill Jesus and Himself, can He? The only thing that was killed in this story is the body God – manifested as Jesus – inhabited for a few years, a bit like the “Edgar-suit” from Men in Black. So where is the sacrifice and how does it atone for harm that can never be caused?

  58. 58
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, honest question, did you drink a few brewskis tonight before you decided to ‘dazzle’ us with your Theological brilliance? 🙂

  59. 59
    Seversky says:

    Viola Lee/55
    Concur.

  60. 60
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    I’d like to repeat a question I asked of our Atheist friends, that they must of forgotten to answer

    its about the Creationist Law of Biogenesis “Absent Divine Intervention, life comes only from life”
    The Creationist Law 1) is supported by all relevant empirical evidence, and 2) is falsifiable.
    Those are criteria for a Scientific Law to be “settled science”. One responder preferred the term “current Science”

    (Falsifiable means there there is a way to demonstrate it’s false if indeeed it is false. For example you can falsify the Law of Energy Coservation by showing a case where energy is either created or destroyed. To falsify the Creationist Law, you just got to make some life in a lab)

    Anyhow, my question was this:
    Does everyone agree that the Creationist Law of Biogenesis is the settled (or current) science?
    And if you dont agree, why?

    The answer is obvious. So fellas dont be afraid to admit you agree.
    Who knows maybe Scientists will someday be able to make some life in a lab. Maybe in the year 2525, if man is still alive.

    But guys, the top gurus have been trying to falsify the Creationist law for 150 years. And they still got zilch. So until they do, when you talk about what Scientists are doing, doesnt it kind of sound like one of them check-in-the-mail promises?

  61. 61
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    Guys could we get back to a question I asked our Atheist friends
    They seem to of forgotten to answer it.

    I pointed out that the Creationist Law of Biogenesis (“Absent Divine intervention, life comes only from life”) meets the 2 criteria for being a law of “settled science ” (one commenter thought the term “current science” was better)

    And I asked
    Does everyone agree that the Creationist Law of Biogenesis is the settled science?
    And if you dont agree, why?

    Guys, the answer is obvious. So dont be afraid to agree.
    I know it means that Atheism is kaput from being at odds with settled Science. That’s tough,
    But if you disagree you’ll look like a goof. And us Creationists we dont want that to happen to some smart guys who just got unlucky and backed the wrong horse.

    Okay, who knows. It looks hopeless now, but maybe someday somebody might invent a way to make life in a lab, or get water to go uphill, or show that conservation energy is wrong. You never know about the future.

    But honest guys, after Origin of Life Scientists have had 150 years of total failure, wont your latest origin-of life breakthough sound like a check-in-the-mail scam?

  62. 62
    Seversky says:

    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES/60

    Does everyone agree that the Creationist Law of Biogenesis is the settled (or current) science?

    And if you dont agree, why?

    Yes, currently, life is only observed to come from life.

    We do not know whether living organisms can arise from inanimate matter but we cannot exclude the possibility at this time.

    Yes, the claim can be disproven by demonstrating life can arise from non-life.

    Creationists have yet to demonstrate the existence of their preferred Creator or even the need for one.

    No, the Creationist Law of Biogenesis may be religious doctrine but it is not yet settled science so, “top gurus” notwithstanding, there is nothing there yet to be disproven.

  63. 63
    Viola Lee says:

    TLH writes, “its about the Creationist Law of Biogenesis “Absent Divine Intervention, life comes only from life”. The Creationist Law 1) is supported by all relevant empirical evidence.”

    Tammi, we don’t know how life originally arose billions ago. If you are not talking about the origin of life, but rather about the chain of common descent that comes from reproduction, then yes, living things come from other living things. You are confusing origin of life with common descent from prior organisms. This really doesn’t have to do with atheism. it’s just currently “settled science”, although that is a poor term.

  64. 64
  65. 65
    vividbleau says:

    “We do not know whether living organisms can arise from inanimate matter but we cannot exclude the possibility at this time.”

    Just like child sacrifice is still around so is the discredited and unscientific notion of spontaneous generation, but hey it’s slow spontaneous generation.

    Vivid

  66. 66
    vividbleau says:

    “One may offer other reasons why something is wrong, using reason, facts, emotional appeals, etc., but the goal can only be to influence others to adopt beliefs similar to yours. Declaring that your beliefs are “objective” and others aren’t adds nothing to the discussion, other than to claim some arrogant and erroneous access to special knowledge that you don’t have.”

    Can we agree that if I think there is such a thing as objective truths (A) and somebody else says there is no objective truths ( non A)that one of us is objectively wrong?

    Vivid

  67. 67
    vividbleau says:

    “Declaring that your beliefs are “objective” and others aren’t adds nothing to the discussion, other than to claim some arrogant and erroneous access to special knowledge that you don’t have.”

    Talk about arrogance, pot kettle black.

    Vivid

  68. 68
    Viola Lee says:

    Vivid writes, “Can we agree that if I think there is such a thing as objective truths (A) and somebody else says there is no objective truths ( non A)that one of us is objectively wrong?”

    No.

    You and I have been around this circle before.

    Tell me what you mean by “objective” truth, and, once that is done, how does one confirm that a truth is “objective.” What’s your philosophy about this?

  69. 69
    vividbleau says:

    “Tell me what you mean by “objective” truth,”

    That which corresponds with reality.

    “ No”

    So A can be A and non A at the same time and the same relationship ?

    Vivid

  70. 70
    Viola Lee says:

    OK, objective truth means that which corresponds with reality.

    How do you confirm that a moral belief corresponds with reality, and is thus objective? And exactly what is the nature of the reality to which moral belief refers?

  71. 71
    Viola Lee says:

    OK, objective truth means that which corresponds with reality.

    How do you confirm that a moral belief corresponds with reality, and is thus objective? And exactly what is the nature of the reality to which moral belief refers?

  72. 72
    vividbleau says:

    VL
    “How do you confirm that a moral belief corresponds with reality, and is thus objective?”

    Not so fast let’s settle one thing at a time. Do you agree that an objective truth is that which corresponds to reality and can A be A and non A at the same time and the same relationship ?

    Vivid

  73. 73
    Viola Lee says:

    I said OK to that definition, although the phrase “corresponds with reality” assumes a reality with entities that a truth is meant to correspond with, and such a reality or entities might not exist.

    That’s why I ask how do you confirm that a moral belief corresponds with reality, and is thus objective? And exactly what is the nature of the reality to which moral belief is supposed to correspond with?

  74. 74
    vividbleau says:

    “That’s why I ask how do you confirm that a moral belief corresponds with reality, and is thus objective? “

    Your the one that brought up moral beliefs in 56 , which by the way I agree with most of what you said. The questions I am asking have nothing to do whatever with how someone confirms their moral belief actually corresponds to reality. Here was my questions that you disagreed with.

    “Can we agree that if I think there is such a thing as objective truths (A) and somebody else says there is no objective truths ( non A)that one of us is objectively wrong?”

    You answered no so I take it that a truth that corresponds with reality is not objectively true?

    That A can be A and non A at the same time and the same relationship

    Vivid

  75. 75
    Viola Lee says:

    Vivid, your sentence includes too many assumptions and ambiguities to stand as a clear yes/no proposition. It’s way too broad.

    The proposition only makes sense, among other things, if you assume A’s framework is true and things can be objectively right or wrong.

    A thinks that “objective truths” exist in that there are statements that correspond with reality. In our discussions here that has almost always referred to moral principles or other metaphysical ideas, which is usually what the non-A people are referring to. We are not talking about whether the statement “a tree is in my front yard” is objectively true.

    So what reality is your statement referring to?

    An underlying problem here is the difference between a logical truth and applying a logical truth, which always involves substituting in various concepts that are not necessarily well-defined, or even wrong. You sentence is not a straightforward, unambiguous application of “either A or not A is true”.

  76. 76
    vividbleau says:

    “The proposition only makes sense, among other things, if you assume A’s framework is true and things can be objectively right or wrong.”

    I am not assuming A’s framework is true I am saying that if I believe A is true and you claim that you believe my claim, the exact opposite of my claim ( non A) ,is not true, one of us is objectively wrong. One of us believe something that does not correspond to reality. We both cannot be objectively right.

    Vivid

  77. 77
    Sandy says:

    “Do good to others and expect bad from them. “

  78. 78
    Viola Lee says:

    But without further specificity we don’t know whether A or non A correspond to reality.

    Person B doesn’t exist. No one says there are absolutely no statements that correspond to reality. You have a strawman statement.

    It is true, logically, that either there exists statements that correspond to reality or there does not exist any statements that correspond to reality (although even this leaves unclear what reality, and how we confirm correspondence.) However, also note that I changed this to logically true rather than objectively true, because the question as to how logical truths correspond to reality (logical reality?) is also an issue.

    Surely you understand that your sentence is full of complex, undecided issues that you can’t just cram into an A or not-A framework.

  79. 79
    vividbleau says:

    “But without further specificity we don’t know whether A or non A correspond to reality.”

    Irrelevant to my point which is If someone believes in A and another persons exact opposite belief is non A both beliefs cannot correspond to reality unless A can be A and non A at the same time and in the same relationship.

    “Surely you understand that your sentence is full of complex, undecided issues that you can’t just cram into an A or not-A framework.”

    LOL so A cannot be A and non A at the same time and in the same relationship is to complex for you.

    Vivid

  80. 80
    vividbleau says:

    I wonder what the over under is for “ but, but , the quantum world”

    Vivid

  81. 81
    vividbleau says:

    VL
    “OK, objective truth means that which corresponds to reality”
    “I said OK to that definition,”

    Oh but wait you don’t agree anymore

    “However, also note that I changed this to logically true rather than objectively true”

    Ok so you don’t agree with me that what is objectively true is that which corresponds with reality whatever that reality might be. So I am saying that which corresponds with reality is objectively true ( A) and you are saying that which corresponds with reality is not objectively true (non A). We both can be wrong but we both can’t be right. The reason you put forth is because

    “because the question as to how logical truths correspond to reality (logical reality?) is also an issue”

    I read this to mean that the LNC may not have a correspondence with reality correct?

    Vivid

  82. 82
    Alan Fox says:

    How to say garbage in French?

    Only if you are putting waste into a waste bin. “You’re talking rubbish/garbage” is:

    Tu dis des bêtises.

    ETA

    Also:

    C’est n’importe quoi !

  83. 83
    Alan Fox says:

    Isn’t qualifying truth similar to qualifying death or pregnancy?

  84. 84
    vividbleau says:

    “However, also note that I changed this to logically true rather than objectively true”

    Yes of course after all you have spent years on this site denying the existence of objective truth and then realized you unwittingly gave away the store by agreeing that that which corresponds with reality is objectively true. Can’t have that can we?

    Vivid

  85. 85
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, re:

    objective truth means that which corresponds with reality.

    Far better, objectivity provides adequate warrant for a truth claim. Where truths are accurate descriptions of entities and states of affairs.

    Thus, we may have objective truths regarding right conduct, duty and the good, with evil being understood as the privation of what is good out of alignment with its due end. Thence, truth claims or suggested truths regarding morality can be evaluated for warrant. In particular, there are no objective moral truths is self referentially incoherent — claiming or implying its own objective character — and falsifies itself.

    Indeed, it can be shown that any distinct domain of contemplation will have at least some minimal objective truths.

    KF

    PS, some algebra with meaning as was already shown:

    Objective, so know-able moral truth is widely denied in our day, for many it isn’t even a remotely plausible possibility. And yet, as we will shortly see, it is undeniably true; as is so for other reasonably identifiable fields of discussion. This marginalisation of moral knowledge, in extreme form, is a key thesis of the nihilism that haunts our civilisation, which we must detect, expose to the light of day, correct and dispel, in defence of civilisation and human dignity.

    Let a proposition be represented by x
    M = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding right conduct, duty/ought, virtue/honour, good/evil etc (i.e. the subject is morality) is the case [–> truth claim]
    O = x is objective and generally knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true [–> notice, generally knowable per adequate warrant, as opposed to widely acknowledged]

    It is claimed, cultural relativism thesis: S= ~[O*M] = 1

    [ NB: Plato, The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, in the voice of Athenian Stranger: “[Thus, the Sophists and other opinion leaders etc — c 430 BC on, hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.” This IMPLIES the Cultural Relativism Thesis, by highlighting disputes (among an error-prone and quarrelsome race!), changing/varied opinions, suggesting that dominance of a view in a place/time is a matter of balance of factions/rulings, and denying that there is an intelligible, warranted natural law. Of course, subjectivism then reduces the scale of “community” to one individual. He continues, “These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might . . . ” [–> door opened to nihilistic factionalism]]

    However, the subject of S is M,
    it therefore claims to be objectively true, O, and is about M
    where it forbids O-status to any claim of type-M
    so, ~[O*M] cannot be true per self referential incoherence [–> reductio ad absurdum]

    ++++++++++
    ~[O*M] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above]
    ~[~[O*M]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true]
    __________
    O*M = 1 [condensing not of not]
    where, M [moral truth claim]
    So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true]

    That is, there UNDENIABLY are objective moral truths; and a first, self-evident one is that ~[O*M] is false.

    The set is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it. That’s important.

  86. 86
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, I suggest that truth as Ari said in paraphrase, says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. Absolute truth is complete, undiluted, untainted. Objective is what is warranted and credibly true so know-ABLE and of course relable, which is why many in a looser sense hold it tantamount to truth simplicitas. Though of course, some refuse to acknowledge what they should know. Subjective is what I perceive as true which can indeed be so. KF

  87. 87
    Peter says:

    The probability of dna = 0. Scientists are supposed to understand math. Why does no-one mention this? (I suppose they wouldn’t get any funding and it disturbs the presuppositions of the atheists) Nevertheless, according to Drake’s equation and elementary mathematics the number of life bearing planets N is Rxfpxnexf1xfixfcxL where fl=0, therefore N=0.

  88. 88
    Viola Lee says:

    to Vivid.

    Your sentence is: ““Can we agree that if I think there is such a thing as objective truths (A) and somebody else says there is no objective truths ( non A)that one of us is objectively wrong?

    Suppose I write instead,

    ““Can we agree that if I think that warbles are pink (A) and somebody else says warbles are not pink ( non A), that one of us is objectively wrong?”

    Is the second sentence true? Why not?

  89. 89
    Viola Lee says:

    Vivid writes, “Yes of course after all you have spent years on this site denying the existence of objective truth.”

    That’s not true. “A tree in my yard” is objectively true. It corresponds with reality and there are clear ways it can be confirmed as such. I’ve never denied that type of objective truth. That is why I asked you above to clarify your definition by discussing what reality and what means of confirmation to are describing.

    What I have denied is objective moral truths. Above I asked you, “How do you confirm that a moral belief corresponds with reality, and is thus objective? And exactly what is the nature of the reality to which moral belief refers?”

    You didn’t answer that question.

  90. 90
    jerry says:

    You didn’t answer that question.

    Been answered in other places.

    All this is a repeat and the answers are obvious. Round and round we go. That is the objective, not understanding. So we get nonsense repeated over and over.

    Aside: morality is not the sole property of religion. It comes from human nature which has been discussed ad nauseam. But people want to insist it is all about religion – both sides.

    Aside2: no one discusses the morality of toads or wooly mammoths or fruit flies especially toads, mammoths and fruit flies.

    Aside3: truth and how to justify it has been discussed to where it is tiresome to have to repeat the obvious.

    Aside4: its a beautiful sunny morning in New Hampshire.

  91. 91
    Viola Lee says:

    I am looking for Vivid’s answer, not yours, Jerry.

    And if it is so tiresome to repeat the obvious, why did you bother?

    Here’s a verse from Dylan, from “Floater”:

    Romeo, he said to Juliet, “You got a poor complexion
    It doesn’t give your appearance a very youthful touch!”
    Juliet said back to Romeo, “Why don’t you just shove off
    If it bothers you so much”

  92. 92
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77/40

    For instance, a man would be morally justified in killing another man’s children if that other man had first ripped apart, limb from limb, the first man’s children. In fact, the first man would be morally justified in killing that other man as slowly, and painfully, as he so desired once he had killed the other man’s children in front of his eyes.

    So now we move from “objective” morality to moral “justification” to satisfy our untempered lust for revenge–the morality of rage–eerily akin to what we are treated to in the Bible. So much for the moral high ground……..

  93. 93
    Sir Giles says:

    Objective Truth: A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being.

    Given that the concept of objective moral truth is theistic in origin, and strongly held by those who follow their religious faith, I don’t see how it can be argued that objective moral truths exist when it would be impossible to demonstrate that the proposition was not influenced by bias. Their belief in objective moral truths precede any argument they make for the existence of objective moral truth.

  94. 94
    Sir Giles says:

    Objective Truth: A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being.

    Given that the concept of objective moral truth is theistic in origin, and strongly held by those who follow their religious faith, I don’t see how it can be argued that objective moral truths exist when it would be impossible to demonstrate that the proposition was not influenced by bias. Their belief in objective moral truths precede any argument they make for the existence of objective moral truth.

  95. 95
    groovamos says:

    As we’ve been saying, we don’t know how life arose from inanimate matter. But “don’t know” does not mean the same as supernatural.

    So it seems contributor has a need to come on here and explain himself but forgot to explain who is the “we” referenced, who “don’t know”. But I get it, ‘they’ are ignorant. Interesting because I’ve been wondering why these folks are so intent on coming on here, because you would think they would get by now they aren’t going to educate the rest of us to admire the ignorance.

    Well it seems astrophysicist Robert Jastrow quoted above at 55, isn’t impressed by this category of ignorance, excerpt: : “And [astronomers, astrophysicists] have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.

    That’s right, no hope for reductionist science to ever understand the so-called “unknown”. A modicum of understanding requires a different set of knowledge and experience, as plainly obvious to most on here, and most from every civilization and tribal culture in history. But these materialists on here are intent on following their hopeless religion to its hopeless dead end.

  96. 96
    Sir Giles says:

    Jerry: Aside: morality is not the sole property of religion. It comes from human nature which has been discussed ad nauseam. But people want to insist it is all about religion – both sides.

    I haven’t seen anyone here claim that morality is the sole property of religion. However, that there are objective unchanging moral truths is owned by religion.

  97. 97
    kairosfocus says:

    SG:

    >>Objective Truth: A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being.>>

    1- That is, it is adequately warranted, as I already pointed out.

    >>the concept of objective moral truth is theistic in origin, and strongly held by those who follow their religious faith, I don’t see how it can be argued that objective moral truths exist>>

    2- Actually, the likes of a Plato and Cicero were not theists. let me cite Cicero in De Legibus, on roots of law of our nature, I guess for record:

    —Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [–> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for . “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . .

    They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law [–> a key remark] , whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans [–> esp. Cicero, speaking as a leading statesman], an equitable discrimination between good and evil.

    The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.

    [–> this points to the wellsprings of reality, the only place where is and ought can be bridged; bridged, through the inherently good utterly wise, maximally great necessary being, the creator God, which adequately answers the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume’s guillotine argument surprise on seeing reasoning is-is then suddenly a leap to ought-ought. IS and OUGHT are fused from the root]

    This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.

    3: The matter was already shown, PS to 85, once we can recognise morality and duty etc. Your objections pivoting on errors of fact and obvious anti-theistic bias (could not be source of objective truth), does not overturn what is established as undeniably true.

    KF

  98. 98
    jerry says:

    However, that there are objective unchanging moral truths is owned by religion

    Not aware of that.

    Can you justify that opinion?

  99. 99
    Sir Giles says:

    KF: Actually, the likes of a Plato and Cicero were not theists.

    I am afraid that you are incorrect. They were not Christian, but they were, nonetheless, theists.

    Your objections pivoting on errors of fact and obvious anti-theistic bias

    Not being a theist does not make me anti-theist. Just as not being female does not make me anti-female.

  100. 100
    Sir Giles says:

    Jerry: Not aware of that.

    Can you justify that opinion?

    You are correct. I misspoke. It would be more accurate to say theism rather that religion.

  101. 101
    jerry says:

    I misspoke. It would be more accurate to say theism rather that religion

    Not aware of that.

    Can you justify that opinion?

  102. 102
    jerry says:

    if it is so tiresome to repeat the obvious, why did you bother?

    Every once in awhile it’s an irresistible impulse.

    You see I have no free will. So I just do it occasionally when there is nonsense going on.

  103. 103
    chuckdarwin says:

    For those involved in the conversation, particularly SG and KF, it would be helpful if you defined “theist” and “theism.” What these terms mean is far from universally agreed upon…….

  104. 104
    Sir Giles says:

    CD, I just follow the classical definition. Belief in a supreme being or beings. And if you want a little more granularity, I would limit it to supreme being(s) that have or had a special interest in humans.

  105. 105
    jerry says:

    However, that there are objective unchanging moral truths is owned by theism

    Replacing religion with theism.

    Not aware of this. What is the basis for this?

  106. 106
    relatd says:

    CD at 92,

    Railing against the Bible? What do you get out of it? Cheap thrills?

  107. 107
    vividbleau says:

    VL

    ““Can we agree that if I think that warbles are pink (A) and somebody else says warbles are not pink ( non A), that one of us is objectively wrong?”

    Is the second sentence true?”

    IF it corresponds to reality. As I wrote in 81 we both can be wrong but we both can’t be right.

    Vivid

  108. 108
    vividbleau says:

    VL
    “But without further specificity we don’t know whether A or non A correspond to reality.”

    I think we are talking past one another. Let me repeat the above is irrelevant , how many times do I have to say this? I am not making any claim as to the nature of reality.

    Vivid

  109. 109
    tjguy says:

    Paul Scott Anderson writes:
    “We know that life originated on Earth some 3.7 billion years ago.”

    Actually Paul, that is not true. We do not KNOW this in the scientific sense of the word. It might be current scientific concensus, but we do not KNOW this as a fact. If he said “It is currently believed that ….” or “thought that…” or “the data seems to indicate that ….”, that would be fine, but he claims to know this as fact.

    And even IF the timing is correct, scientists do not know whether life was created or evolved. Of course, the only answer permissible in science is that “it evolved somehow”, but be that as it may, they still do not know that to be true.

    So this claim presents huge problems for me.

  110. 110
    bornagain77 says:

    ChuckyD at 92,

    Nothing like a Darwinist, whose worldview was responsible for a few hundred million murders in the 20th century, hypocritically ‘borrowing’ the Christian ethic of turning the other cheek, i.e. the ‘moral high ground’, in order to try to lecture a Christian that vengeance for a moral injustice should be left to civil authorities and/or to God.

    Romans 12:19
    Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

    Matthew 5:38-40
    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

    I am well aware of the Christian principle of ‘turning the other cheek’. In fact, I have had to deal with ‘turning the other check, and forgiving a man who had murdered my Mom. Although it took several years for me to be able to forgive him, I was finally able to do it and to finally have some sense of peace of mind about it.

    Sure, the ‘moral high ground’ would be for the man to let civil authorities and/or God handle the man who had tortured and murdered his children, but none of that lessens the fact that a man would still be morally justified if he took matters in his own hands and sought vengeance on a man who had tortured and murdered his children.

  111. 111
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 90,

    I think you missed a few things here.

    “Aside: morality is not the sole property of religion. It comes from human nature which has been discussed ad nauseam. But people want to insist it is all about religion – both sides.”

    What is “human nature”? SERIOUSLY. WHAT IS IT? I decide to steal from my neighbor because I want what he has. That’s OK? I grew up in a family of crooks so that’s all I know. I don’t think you really understand human nature. Or I grew up in a ghetto – dirt poor. I decide to start stealing cars or selling drugs. I don’t care if people die from the drugs I sell. I didn’t force them to buy them, right? It’s on them. Right?

    Unless you have a very clear definition of what you mean by “human nature,” I don’t think you understand it.

  112. 112
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77/110
    My “Darwinism” has allowed us to evolve to the point where we can discuss morality. Contrarily, I fail to see anywhere in your Bible any “moral justification” for revenge torture and killing. And, I was always taught by the Catholic priests that educated me that the Church in promoting life condemns not only abortion but also capital punishment. It is the only consistent “pro-life” policy, one in which even the state is not justified in penal retribution.
    The practice of moral justification that you promote coupled with the Christian evangelical lunacy over guns, right to carry, castle doctrines, and conspiracy paranoia, would rapidly turn the US into a war zone. As I said before, you are promoting a morality of rage, plain and simple…………..

  113. 113
    chuckdarwin says:

    SG/104
    Thanks…

  114. 114
    relatd says:

    CD at 112,

    You appear to be obsessed. “Christian evangelical lunacy”???

    “The practice of moral justification that you promote coupled with the Christian evangelical lunacy over guns, right to carry, castle doctrines, and conspiracy paranoia, would rapidly turn the US into a war zone. As I said before, you are promoting a morality of rage, plain and simple…………..”

    “morality of rage”? I see THE MEDIA promoting outrage and subsequent rage. Rioting. Setting fires. Is that evangelical Christian? No.

    And let’s break down some terms to plain English. So-called “CASTLE DOCTRINE.” It comes from an old statement: “A man’s home is his castle and even a King may not enter without his permission.” So, even though I can’t give legal advice, this very old idea is worth upholding. It is not new.

    Conspiracy involves a group of people working in secret toward some goal. That’s it. And if a group of people have reason to believe something then that’s what they will do. Believe it.

    “… turn the US into a war zone.” Really? Based on what?

    In the 1970s, I heard rumors of a race war. Blacks and whites were just going to start killing each other. It seemed plausible. The Black Panthers were out there. By the 1980s, that threat disappeared.

  115. 115
    bornagain77 says:

    CD: “My “Darwinism” has allowed us to evolve to the point where we can discuss morality.”

    Your Darwinism, besides being completely amoral, couldn’t evolve its way out of a paper bag.

    The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17
    John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner
    Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,,
    Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information.
    While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man.
    It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC4573302/

  116. 116
    AaronS1978 says:

    “My “Darwinism” has allowed us to evolve to the point where we can discuss morality“

    Lol, let my fix this for you as you continue to be the atheist trope you always wanted to be

    “My “GOD” has allowed us to evolve to the point where we can discuss morality”

    There fixed.

  117. 117
    AaronS1978 says:

    Hey CD I want to know the source of your information. Your comment at 112 has a lot of amazing very super insane no where near accurate almost racist allegations over a very specific group of individuals namely Christians.

    Not only is everything that you said just an absolute stereotype that has been perpetuated by atheist liberals FOR DECADES, but it’s mostly untrue and involves willfully misrepresenting, misunderstanding, and misinterpreting everything about Christians. I’ve gotten all over Sev for this type of falsifiable bullshit. Like this is the type of opinion you get when you decide to never ask the people you’re accusing of being a lunatic what they actually believe.

    Like everything you said is right from the script of people who suffer from Trump derangement syndrome on the left. Must be really hard that CNN fired all of those people that really promote that type of opinion.

  118. 118
    kairosfocus says:

    SG, basic error of fact, Plato and Cicero were pagan. It seems that it is a common error today to forget that theism is short form for monotheism. Polytheism, dualism, henotheism, pantheism, panentheism all use the concept of supernatural being but in such radically distinct ways that it is a gross error to conflate them such as in the common rhetorical stunt that atheists believe in one fewer gods than monotheists. As to antitheism, your loaded dismissal that theism instantly locks out the possibility of objective truth on morality is absolutely telling; especially given that there has been for months at UD a reason to hold that a core of moral knowledge is in fact self evident thus warranted and objective. Until very recently with the rise of radical atheism and relativism, the amoral and untrustworthy were described by the term, unprincipled. If it walks and quacks etc like a duck, we have an epistemic right to infer, duck. KF

  119. 119
    chuckdarwin says:

    AaronS1978/117
    I know exactly what you believe, you plaster it all over these comments, day in and day out.
    I didn’t designate all Christians, only evangelicals. There are a lot of good, sincere Christians that would never condone guns in churches or schools or courthouses. There are a lot of good Christians that didn’t hypocritically support a moral sleaze for president in 2020. There are a lot of good Christians who got vaccinated because it was the right thing to do, not just for themselves, but their communities. There are a lot of good Christians that know that there was no fraud in the 2020 election. There are a lot of good Christians that want their kids taught real science instead of creationism and intelligent design. And so on and on and on….

  120. 120
    Sir Giles says:

    KF: It seems that it is a common error today to forget that theism is short form for monotheism.

    Contrary to dictionary definitions of theism. Let me remind you:

    Merriam-Webster-Webster: belief in the existence of a god or gods

    Collins: the belief in the existence of a God or gods

    Besides, I already explained how I defined theism in respect to my comment that objective moral truths are theistic in origin. A claim I stand by.

  121. 121
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, Let;s take SG at 93 on points:

    >>Given that the concept of objective moral truth is theistic in origin,>>

    1- No, it is a common experience of humanity, with voice of conscience, voice of moral prudence, voice of justice, voice of duty to truth and to right reason, etc. These duties are primary and branch on which we all sit, including you SG in making your objection.

    2- Already in thread, it is shown that the attempt to deny objectivity to core moral truth is itself a claimed objective truth on that subject and refutes itself. It is a prejudice to imagine that as an outsider one is objective but those blind men groping around the elephant are only subjective.

    >>and strongly held by those who follow their religious faith,>>

    3- The dirty words fallacy, tainting religion, the religious and the faithful as inferior intellectually. This is the prejudice Sagan expressed in his The Demon-Haunted World, as Lewontin inadvertently exposed.

    4- In fact, precisely in the context that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill willed, we can readily see that a claim A requires B, thence C, etc. Infinite regress and question begging circularity being indefensible, we are left with first plausibles F, or more precisely F1, F2 . . . defining our worldviews faith points.

    5- That is, ever since Agrippa or in fact Plato and Aristotle, it was understood that we all have finitely remote first plausibles of various characters; all of which face difficulties. A main philosophical method, then, is to exercise comparative difficulties analysis across factual adequacy, coherence and balance of explanatory power.

    6- As we therefore all have first plausibles defining faith points in the cores of our worldviews, the issue is not whether faith, but which, why and how such fare on comparative difficulties.

    >> I don’t see how it can be argued that objective moral truths exist when it would be impossible to demonstrate that the proposition was not influenced by bias.>>

    7- Little more than expressing and attempting to relieve cognitive dissonance by projection to the despised other.

    8- This assertion neatly sidesteps what it cannot answer, namely that:

    * morality is a distinct subject, regarding right conduct, duty, justice etc
    * truth claims, explicit or implied, claim or suggest accurate description of entities, states of affairs etc
    * the attempt to deny objectivity to moral truth is itself a truth claim on the relevant subject
    * it implies that it is well founded truth
    * in this particular case, projection to the other is used
    _________________________
    * it therefore claims to be an objective truth on a distinct subject, what it denies as possible
    * we thus readily see, for cause, self referential incoherence

    >>Their belief in objective moral truths precede any argument they make for the existence of objective moral truth.>>

    9- The thesis of hopeless bias used to dismiss millions out of hand before they open their mouths as deluded, inferior, not worth listening to. Bias or even bigotry.

    10- It is high time this was recognised for what it is and was turned from. Instead, going forward, we should proceed instead by recognising worldviews, their first plausibles and comparative difficulties.

    KF

  122. 122
    kairosfocus says:

    SG, the dictionaries may well reflect recent trends of usage but in fact the worldviews framework makes it manifest that various worldviews addressing the supernatural of one form or another are so disparate that it is poor and philosophically indefensible usage to try to lump them together; especially with dismissive intent as you showed. It is a well established longstanding usage in our civilisation that theism is short for monotheism, belief in the one supreme being who is inherently good and utterly wise, our creator and lord, eternal and even necessary in the ontological sense. Such is the context in which God receives the capital letter and in which substitutions of respect or even refraining from vowels are used, G_ d. I think you should take due notice of this, rather than trying to suggest that I am making idiosyncratic usage. KF

    PS, kindly observe the following jury of dictionaries:

    the·ism (th???z??m)
    n.
    Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
    the?ist n.
    the·is?tic, the·is?ti·cal adj.
    the·is?ti·cal·ly adv.
    American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

    theism (??i??z?m)
    n
    1. (Theology) the form of the belief in one God as the transcendent creator and ruler of the universe that does not necessarily entail further belief in divine revelation. Compare deism [–> a subset]
    2. (Theology) the belief in the existence of a God or gods. Compare atheism
    [C17: from Greek theos god + -ism]
    Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

    the•ism (??i ?z ?m)

    n.
    1. belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (disting. from deism). [–> notice the subset issue]
    2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).
    [1670–80; < Greek the(ós) god + -ism]
    the?ist, n., adj.
    the•is?tic, the•is?ti•cal, adj.
    Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

    theism
    1. a belief in the existence of God or gods.
    2. a belief in one god as creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of special revelation. Cf. deism. — theism, n.
    See also: God and Gods
    -Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

    So, no, you do not get the privilege of inserting inferior and rhetorically convenient, prejudice laced usage.

  123. 123
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: A summary of major Worldview options, based on C. Stephen Evans:

    Polytheism: there is a plurality of personal gods, as with the Greeks and Egyptians.

    Monotheism: there is but one God, the personal being who created all things from nothing, and is supreme in power, knowledge and moral worth. (Sometimes simply called “theism” for short.)

    Animism: tends to see a High (often, a sky) God, but there is an intermediary chain of sky- and/or earth- bound spirit beings, with whom one must deal in day to day life. Sometimes it is argued that polytheism and monotheism evolved from animism.

    Agnosticism: the truth about “God” is not, or even cannot be, known; people should suspend judgement on the question.

    Atheism: Goes beyond this: “God” does not exist, save as an imaginary figure.

    Henotheism: There is a plurality of gods, but one serves a particular god, either because s/he is superior, or because that is the god of one’s community.

    Dualism: there are two gods, in mutual opposition – often one is viewed as “good,” the other as “evil.”

    Pantheism: rejects the concept of God as personal, and identifies God with the cosmos as a whole

    Panentheism: A variant on pantheism in which God is more than, but includes the universe.

    Deism: Agrees with theism that there is one God, but holds that God [currently] does not interact with creation. In effect, God made and wound up the clock then lets it run on its own.

    Absolute monism: God is an absolute unity which is somehow manifest in a less-than-fully-real world of apparent plurality.

    Naturalism: instead of focusing on the explicit rejection of God, this version of atheism asserts that the natural order we see around us exists on its own; often using materialistic evolutionary theories to try to explain its evolution “from hydrogen to humans.”

    Trinitarian monotheism: The specifically Christian contention that God is manifest through unity of being (there is but One God) and diversity in person (God is manifest as Father, Son and Spirit). Thus, it holds that the unity of the Godhead is complex rather than simple.

    COMMENT: Of these, the “live” broad philosophical alternatives seem to be (a) theism, (b) pantheism/ panentheism/ monism and (c) agnosticism/atheism. (In practice, people often blend aspects of the major views – even when this involves logical contradictions; and it is particularly common for animist survivals or fragments to be embedded in other views.)

    KF

  124. 124
    AaronS1978 says:

    @CD
    Oh really you do know I what I believe because I plaster it all over the forum. Lol, are you serious?! What’s the likelihood you read anything of that, hmmmmmm I’d say none to no. So short of you probably know I hate Darwinian evolution and I’m vehemently against abortion(catholic) you know jack shit about me and my belief.

    Second good Christians don’t condone guns?
    That’s just a plain stupid statement, whether Christian does or does not condone a gun in any situation doesn’t constitute a good Christian. When did condoning guns in any situation constitute the worthiness of a Christian or any person for that matter. Guns are inanimate objects no different then a pencil or a hammer. It’s a tool, and it is as evil or as good as user.

    Christians are good if they got vaccinated? That’s one of the most politically liberal things I’ve heard. That’s very totalitarian of you, and shows why the “greater good” isn’t always good but often blind. My mother couldn’t get the vaccine. She has chronic lymphatic leukemia. Turns out she would’ve had an adverse reaction like her friend with MS did (she was a good Christian and got her self hospitalized and still hasn’t fully recovered I guess that just a one off). Tru-facts the vaccine wasn’t as cracked up as it was made out to be and had quite a few adverse reactions. As Fauci stated before he retired, “the vaccine didn’t preform as advertised” So this tells me that you were willing to risk other peoples lives as long as you feel safe.

    And there was no fraud in the 2020 election that’s just laughable! There’s fraud in every election. Your credibility can be tossed out the window. If you think your government is honest when your side wins that just makes you biased and ignorant.

    So pretty much you think someone is good as long as they believe and follow what you believe. That’s kinda why we need moral objectivity. You’re no different than the people you criticize.

  125. 125
    vividbleau says:

    Aaron

    “Tru-facts the vaccine wasn’t as cracked up as it was made out to be and had quite a few adverse reactions. As Fauci stated before he retired, “the vaccine didn’t preform as advertised” So this tells me that you were willing to risk other peoples lives as long as you feel safe.”

    How many times do people have to be gaslit before they wake up that they have been lied to about the vaccine?

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-if-vaccinated-wont-get-covid/

    https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/22/joe-biden/biden-says-vaccinated-people-cant-spread-covid-19-/

    Then there is Birks who wrote in her book that the 6 ft and 10 person gathering limit was pulled from her ass. And of course the gaslighting Fauci with the lie about masks.

    CD is quite the critical thinker, not!

    Vivid

  126. 126
    vividbleau says:

    “Second good Christians don’t condone guns?”

    Well I don’t condone guns either because condoning is not their purpose .I have a concealed carry permit and I carry especially when I go to Church to protect myself from a crazy like CD.

    Vivid

  127. 127
    Alan Fox says:

    I have a concealed carry permit and I carry especially when I go to Church to protect myself from a crazy like CD.

    I’m sorry you feel the need. I have never even held a gun (apart from a sporting gun when trying clay pigeon shooting years ago) let alone considered buying one and can’t imagine living somewhere where routinely carrying a weapon designed to kill people is accepted as normal.

  128. 128
    vividbleau says:

    AF

    Yes it is to bad I feel the need to carry. I guess when one labels me as a fascist my mind wanders “hmmm what do you to fascist’s? Do we tolerate them? Do we kill them? “ Do we jail them? Biden and the left have declared that people like me are fair game, damn right I carry a gun!!

    If you don’t want a gun good for you that is your right and I have a right to own one.

    Vivid

  129. 129
    Alan Fox says:

    If you don’t want a gun good for you…

    I don’t need a gun where I live. Nobody other than law enforcement carry firearms. The US (maybe not all states, I’ve never been closer to the US than Canada, and am never likely to) is not normal in this respect. I know of no other country where gun ownership is so widespread and thought so necessary.

  130. 130
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, do you remember the Paris attacks several years ago? KF

    PS. Let us not allow side tracking.

  131. 131
    whistler says:

    Spewizer Representant admitted :Was about control and money.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKIg2RmQJ8s&t=179s

  132. 132
    Alan Fox says:

    PS. Let us not allow side tracking.

    says Kairosfocus, sidetracking.

  133. 133
    jerry says:

    sidetracking

    That’s all there really is here.

    Few here are really interested in ID. Other than making ad hominem, irrelevant or inane comments. The anti ID are constantly answered and the response back is to ignore unless they believe there is a gotcha on something irrelevant.

    But to be fair, a lot of the sidetracking comes in the form of religion introduced by pro ID commenters but immediately exploited by anti ID commenters. Few if none of the anti ID commenters want to resort to science.

    That’s why ID is more science interested than anti ID.

  134. 134
    Alan Fox says:

    That’s why ID is more science interested than anti ID.

    Doesn’t make sense grammatically. Are you suggesting pro ID people who post here are more interested in science than ID skeptic commenters? I don’t think the evidence in these threads wholly supports that claim. 😉

  135. 135
    chuckdarwin says:

    KF/123
    “Trinitarian monotheism” a/k/a polytheism…….

  136. 136
    Alan Fox says:

    @ Jerry

    I recall there used to be threads on ID theory where informed critics commented and authors defended their views. Here is one thread authored by Winston Exert. I don’t see those discussions happening now.

  137. 137
    jerry says:

    I don’t think the evidence in these threads wholly supports that claim

    I do.

    I find almost no discussion of science by anti ID. How could there since there is no science that disputes ID.

    A lot of ID commenters are interested in religion and like to discuss that. But anti ID posters push that topic a lot.

    Anti ID commenters believe that is a negative for ID. They avoid science like the plaque since they know it supports ID.

    Aside: ID’s basis is the creation of the universe. Such a mind with this much power could have easily figured out how to create life through initial conditions. And complex life too. There just is zero evidence for it.

    Aside2: why are there such disputes over the obvious? That’s the real question.

    We must inhabit alternate realities

    Yet, you cannot defend yours and I can defend mine.

    I use science to defend my position and skeptics use Ad hominems and distortion. As I said, that is the interesting question. What drives such attitudes?

  138. 138
    Alan Fox says:

    We must inhabit alternate realities, Jerry

  139. 139
    Alan Fox says:

    @ Jerry

    ID critics criticize ID. Why wouldn’t they, given the opportunity? This is an ID -friendly website (about the only one left that allows comments) and, quite reasonably, the management get to choose the content of opening posts.

    I used to come here when Denyse posted on scientific news because it was a handy source of what is new in science. The threads rarely generated discussion of science. Did you follow my link to an older UD thread? We are in a twilight zone compared to that, here at UD, these days.

  140. 140
    Alan Fox says:

    Yet, you cannot defend yours [alternate reality] and I can defend mine.

    Not really bothered about your alternate reality, Jerry, not that you do more than hint at it. Mostly now, I point out errors and misrepresentations regarding biology and biochemistry (though I’m sure professional scientists could do a much better job) and point out that ID has no basis in science until it begins to develop its own hypotheses.

    I’ll be back out and about in a day or two, I hope, so there will be much less input from me then.

  141. 141
    jerry says:

    Not really bothered about your alternate reality, Jerry, not that you do more than hint at it.

    It’s truth!

    It is based on science and logic. I see no anti ID person using either.

    ID has no basis in science until it begins to develop its own hypotheses.

    More nonsense.

    Why do you have to distort? ID is based solely on science and logic.

    That why I call it science+

  142. 142
    relatd says:

    Vivid at 125,

    Your reasoning is poor.

    “Tru-facts the vaccine wasn’t as cracked up as it was made out to be and had quite a few adverse reactions. As Fauci stated before he retired, “the vaccine didn’t preform as advertised” So this tells me that you were willing to risk other peoples lives as long as you feel safe.”

    No one was forced – at gunpoint – to take the vaccine. No one. Those who took it were taking a risk AS INDIVIDUALS. And those who were forced, who was forcing them? Certainly not anyone here.

    Why is China locking down due to the virus? WHY? Fauci and company have no control over what happens there.

  143. 143
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 137,

    This site MUST be monitored by atheists and others with an agenda. I was reading so-called reviews of an ID book. Guess what? What most reviewers cared about was ID getting into schools. About kids being told that an INTELLIGENCE, not blind, atheist forces, made them. People like you, Jerry, have to be watched. Because once ID gets popular among the unwashed masses, ATHEISM goes out the window. So, the pro-evolution troops have been stationed here because certain people don’t want kids to be taught ID. I hope that was clear.

  144. 144
    AaronS1978 says:

    “No one was forced“ tell that to the millions of government and medical employees that forced by a mandate. Figurative gun point their career and livelihood..

    Why is China locking down due to the virus? WHY? China is a totalitarian communist shit hole that blatantly lied on the number of infected in their country, why would we consider their behaviors honest and an example of what we should do in the first place?

  145. 145
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, really. Your ignorance of both theology and philosophy shows. Go to a site that discusses such and get yourself sorted out. Maybe, the scutum fidei will help. KF

  146. 146
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry et al, over time I have concluded on long experience that the issues are not with evidence or cases. We are literally dealing with people who will not examine the history of discovery of the genetic code, or the system architecture that shows why it is a code, nor the direct emphatic statements by leading authorities. They know what complex coded algorithms — thus language and goal directed process — point to and are determined never to go there. If that case is not clear enough for such, no case will be, we are dealing with ideologically driven hyperskepticism. The knowledge commons is broken, what is claimed as knowledge has been taken captive to ideological agendas and so we are left to start afresh with a reformation. For instance, it is fruitful to recognise science as reverse engineering nature. From that perspective, we readily recognise the codes and algorithms in action in the cell. This points to intelligently directed configuration. As to fine tuning, that is comparably obvious but as long as hyperskepticism driven by ideology has power, such will never be acknowledged by those driven by ideological, crooked yardsticks. And, fine tuning points to intelligently directed configuration of the cosmos. But the obvious case is D/RNA and protein synthesis. KF

  147. 147
    AaronS1978 says:

    @KF
    Are you referring to his comment at 135? The one where he purposefully misinterprets the trinity and tries to link it to polytheism? This is what was talking about before. It’s willful ignorance. There’s no attempt to find out why it’s thought of as one God. It helps maintain the bias and hate that they have for Christians if they maintain their misunderstanding of what we believe.

  148. 148
    relatd says:

    AS1978 at 144,

    Poor reasoning about China. WHO CARES what kind of government China has? THEY are losing money every time they shut down. Billionaires like Elon Musk and Tesla are losing money every time they shut down. And that means the Chinese aren’t getting AMERICAN dollars every time they shut down. If you want to be rich in the U.S. you have to be CHEAP. Cheap labor and cheap material costs for HIGHER profits. Obviously, they don’t care what kind of government China has.

    So some people decided to risk their lives, and risk side effects, so they wouldn’t lose their jobs? What was the alternative? Do nothing? No vaccine? Don’t even try to make a vaccine? People get flu sots every year. Every year. No noise about flu shots and the various shots you have to get to travel to a foreign country.

  149. 149
    kairosfocus says:

    AS78, that and other cases, overnight I gave a corrective above and am also giving SG a little time to acknowledge how he cherry picked dictionary statements to give a highly misleading claim about what theism normally means. I have to wonder if atheist sites and books have been running riot by conflating monotheism with polytheism, animism, etc etc. That will then feed endless confusion, KF

    PS, went trolling in Wiki’s waters and came up with this pretzel-strawman:

    Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities.[1][2] In common parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of God that is found in monotheism (also referred to as classical theism) – or gods found in polytheistic religions—a belief in God or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism.[3][4]

    Atheism is commonly understood as non-acceptance or rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. non-acceptance or rejection of belief in God or gods.[5][6] The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is agnosticism.[7][8]

    Notice, a rhetorically loaded definition of atheism was pushed in [it actually is denial of existence of God], and an utterly ill-founded conflation of theism with paganism.

    This is a case of toxically laced conceptual confusion, relevant to onward projections to the despised other, loaded into what such use as a dirty word, religion. Which is how they get to propping up amorality or the like by pretending hopeless “bias” — i.e. delusion. And of course the deluded have nothing to say worth ten seconds of pause on science. The invitation to prejudice is clear.

  150. 150
    whistler says:

    Kairosfocus
    CD, really. Your ignorance of both theology and philosophy shows. Go to a site that discusses such and get yourself sorted out. Maybe, the scutum fidei will help. KF

    KF people with multicolored hair, greasepaint grins, comically large shoes, old bowler hat and red ball nose know everything about theology and philosophy.

  151. 151
    Sir Giles says:

    KF: AS78, that and other cases, overnight I gave a corrective above and am also giving SG a little time to acknowledge how he cherry picked dictionary statements to give a highly misleading claim about what theism normally means.

    Shortly after I stated that objective moral truths are owned by theism, I was asked by CD how I defined theism, which I responded to.

    “ Belief in a supreme being or beings. And if you want a little more granularity, I would limit it to supreme being(s) that have or had a special interest in humans.”)

    Which is consistent with definitions found in various dictionaries.

    Now, if you want to address by claim on those grounds, I welcome the discussion. But if you are just going to argue about the correct definition of theism, I am not interested.

  152. 152
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Re OP:

    . . . the view held by Brandon Carter, an Australian-born astrophysicist. Carter asserts that our own existence constrains our observations of other worlds where life might exist. What does he mean? Essentially, he says, we ourselves happen to exist on a planet where abiogenesis did occur. But – since we only have our own planet as an example so far – it’s not possible for us to determine how likely it is for life to have emerged elsewhere.

    Wrong approach.

    Observe the system architecture of the cell, and the complex code and algorithms in it. What is the normal source of such, involving language and goal directed process?

    Now, what is the plausibility that such could come about by blind, spontaneous forces? Essentially nil on gamut of our cosmos.

    Next, what about terrestrial habitable zone, roughly earth like planets? There may be a good number based on exoplanet work.

    However, the likelihood of life based on similar architecture is the question of intent of capable designers, which we can but speculate on at present.

    KF

  153. 153
    kairosfocus says:

    SG, you used up your free shot, badly.

    Go back to your comment at 120:

    Collins: the belief in the existence of a God or gods

    To go there, as 122 shows, you had to skip over defn 1 in that dictionary:

    1. (Theology) the form of the belief in one God as the transcendent creator and ruler of the universe that does not necessarily entail further belief in divine revelation. Compare deism [–> a subset]

    As you full well know but chose to cherry pick out, defn 1 is the normal meaning of theism, for reasons and with history outlined in 122.

    It’s over, you have shown your true colours.

    KF

    PS, an in the wild case https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5219

  154. 154
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS, another in the wild, Swinburne’s opening remarks in his The Coherence of Theism, Oxford:

    By ‘theism’ I understand the doctrine that there is a God in the sense of a being with most of the following properties: being a person without a body (that is, a spirit), present everywhere (that is, omnipresent), the creator of the universe, perfectly free, able to do anything (that is, omnipotent), knowing all things (that is, omniscient), perfectly good, a source of moral obligation, eternal, a necessary being, holy, and worthy of worship.

    I am doing this, not so much because I like to discuss “religion,” but primarily so we can further understand how newspeak, doubletalk, doublethink games are being played with language by the agendas of crooked yardstick thinking posing as champions of knowledge and science.

    For weeks, maybe more, we have been seeing it with codes and algorithms, instantiation as a recognisable case, and oh we can tag as analogies and dismiss.

    It is time to expose corrupt, crooked abuses of a key, precious tool for thought, reasoning, communication, truth.

    But then, if someone denies plain duty to truth, right reason and warrant, much less sound conscience or even patent manifest facts, what else are we to expect?

    Nor is such excusable, we are playing with first principles of sound civilisation here.

  155. 155
    jerry says:

    Now, if you want to address by claim on those grounds, I welcome the discussion. But if you are just going to argue about the correct definition of theism, I am not interested.

    You are misrepresenting what has been said.

    I asked you to justify your position and you have not responded. I can show that there is a basis for morality that does not include religion or theism. That does not mean that one’s theistic views does not influence their understanding of morality.

    This was discussed in detail on this site over 18 months ago. Everything is a repeat as is most of the comments on this site.

  156. 156
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 155,

    Would you mind posting a link or a few lines about where morality comes from if it’s not religion or theism? And if you mention “human nature,” please define it.

  157. 157
  158. 158
    AaronS1978 says:

    @148 WHAT?! Who cares?! Are you insane?
    Who cares if one of the most power governments in the world currently is a collection of totalitarian dictators willing to sacrifice their own peoples well being to save face to the rest of the world.

    They are one of the most deceptive nations on the planet. Why in the world would it NOT matter.

    “So some people decided to risk their lives, and risk side effects, so they wouldn’t lose their jobs? What was the alternative? Do nothing? No vaccine? Don’t even try to make a vaccine? People get flu sots every year. Every year. No noise about flu shots and the various shots you have to get to travel to a foreign country.“

    You were wrong the first time you argued this with me and you are still wrong about the vaccine now. I’m not gonna even get into this with you and I will simply leave you with a perfect example of the attitude of Pro covid vax morons

    Joe Biden “do you want to know how to prepare for a hurricane? You get the vaccine”

    Anything you say about this topic falls upon deaf ears with me for very good reasons

  159. 159
    relatd says:

    AS1978,

    Who is financing China right now? Businesses in the United States. They are sending China American dollars. Billionaires don’t care. They want CHEAP Chinese labor and CHEAP Chinese products. Go to a store. Any store. And see that most items you pick up have Made in China on them. THAT’S what I mean. PROFITS are the most important thing.

    And you know what? According to the business sources I read, if the U.S. government decides to stop doing business with China, they’ve already got a NEW source of cheap labor and cheap production already set up – Mexico.

  160. 160
    vividbleau says:

    Related

    “Your reasoning is poor.”

    Keep drinking the kool aid Related. BTW I agree with Aaron your comments are astoundingly ignorant .

    Vivid

  161. 161
    Sir Giles says:

    KF: To go there, as 122 shows, you had to skip over defn 1 in that dictionary:

    I noticed that you cherry-picked the second dictionary I referenced. The first line in Merriam-Webster:

    belief in the existence of a god or gods

    And here is Oxfords:

    belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

    Which, btw, is very close to how I defined it for CD.

    And here is Wikipedia:

    Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities.

    If theism actually means mono-theism, why the use of terms like mono, poly and pan theism?

    But I find it incredibly amusing that you are getting your panties in a knot over how I have defined theism.

  162. 162
    chuckdarwin says:

    SG/161

  163. 163
    kairosfocus says:

    SG, you continue typing, snipping and sniping. Picking up from 122, notice how — apart from in antitheistic circles who grudge even that much respect — God is capitalised, carrying the effective force of a proper name? That’s a huge clue as to the primary understanding of divinity in our civilisation for the past 1500 years or so. One in which theism is in effect a short form for monotheism and the normal term for believers in many gods has been pagans, with polytheism a key characteristic, sometimes called idolatry; the attempt to fuse the two by treating theism as an umbrella term is in fact a clanger — and frankly it is disrespectful too: there is a vast and irreconcilable disparity between theism and paganism. So, keep on trying to make up a narrative to make that vanish, it tells us that you are playing 1984 games and that the corruption of our language is making its way into dictionaries. As we know from too many other cases. The bottomline on long history is, theism is as primary meaning a short form for monotheism and that needs to be recognised and respected. KF

    PS, as historical marker, Webster’s 1828, “THE’ISM, noun [from Gr. God.] The belief or acknowledgment of the existence of a God, as opposed to atheism. theism differs from deism, for although deism implies a belief in the existence of a God, yet it signifies in modern usage a denial of revelation, which theism does not.”

  164. 164
    chuckdarwin says:

    SG/161

    If theism actually means mono-theism, why the use of terms like mono, poly and pan theism?

    Because Christianity routinely obfuscates to cover its bases. For example, there is a very strong historical and logical argument that can be made that the Christian doctrine of the trinity leads inescapably to the conclusion that Christians are polytheists, not monotheists. If you broaden it out enough to bring Mormons into Christianity’s big tent, then you have polytheism on steroids (or to use KF-speak, “hyperpolytheism”) because everyone baptized in the temple has a shot at being a god in the afterlife…..

  165. 165
    relatd says:

    CD at 164,

    The trinity means what? The Catholic understanding is one God composed of three persons – Father, Son and Holy Ghost or Spirit. No polytheism. You should learn what Mormons actually believe:

    https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-mormons

  166. 166
    AaronS1978 says:

    CD
    Hey captain stereotype here

    https://www.catholic.com/qa/isnt-holy-trinity-christian-polytheism

    I’ll file it under “won’t read”

  167. 167
    AaronS1978 says:

    I’m sure you can grasp the idea of the “living tribunal” from marvel comics, three that are one entity. I mean the concept is very common, in multiple literatures of one being that is composed of multiple but still is a single entity, however I’m sure the concept escapes you when it comes to addressing your favorite religion(emphasize sarcasm)

  168. 168
    vividbleau says:

    “If you broaden it out enough to bring Mormons into Christianity’s big tent, then you have polytheism “

    I think Mormons more closely resemble henotheism.

    Vivid

  169. 169
    vividbleau says:

    VL
    Still waiting for your response to my post # 81

    VL “because the question as to how logical truths correspond to reality (logical reality?) is also an issue”

    Vivid “I read this to mean that the LNC may not have a correspondence with reality correct?”

    Vivid

  170. 170
    Viola Lee says:

    No, of course I didn’t mean that.

    But I am bowing out from UD again, so we’ll just have to leave this discussion unfinished.

  171. 171
    Sir Giles says:

    KF: God is capitalised, carrying the effective force of a proper name? That’s a huge clue as to the primary understanding of divinity in our civilisation for the past 1500 years or so

    Zeus is capitalized. Odin is capitalized. Poseidon is capitalized. Thor is capitalized. Osiris is capitalized. Horus is capitalized. Even my name is capitalized. Does that make me God?

    Again, you are getting all hot under the collar over an insignificant matter of whether the term “theism” is restricted to your flavour of “ism”. The fact that various qualifiers are frequently added to this term (eg, mono, poly, pan) clearly indicates that “theism” is an inclusive term, not a restrictive one.

  172. 172
    vividbleau says:

    VL re 170

    No problem thanks for the discussion.

    Vivid

  173. 173
    Belfast says:

    I’m truly sorry you are leaving, VL.

  174. 174
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, “Christianity routinely obfuscates to cover its bases” is an example of denigratory projection of a strawman, and you would be well advised to seek understanding rather than project caricatures, the scutum fidei and question, is a shamrock one leaf or three may help you begin. This is consistent with the 1984 game pivoting on corruption of language. There are movements afoot that in summary hate our civilisation and seek to denigratorily caricature every significant institution, symbol or historic figure, document etc that would normally be upheld by reasonably informed people, even in the context of seeking onward reformation. We therefore need to ask fairly pointed questions as to whether we see responsible reform or misanthropic, power hungry anticivilisational attitudes that, if they gain power would predictably fall into lawless ideological, destructive or outright murderous oligarchy. Which, historically, is the natural state of government and it is why there is a saying that the revolution eats its children. KF

  175. 175
    AndyClue says:

    @Sir Giles & kf:

    Zeus is capitalized. Odin is capitalized. Poseidon is capitalized. Thor is capitalized. Osiris is capitalized. Horus is capitalized. Even my name is capitalized. Does that make me God?

    My understanding is that christians use “God” as a name, so they capizalize it. However I don’t use it as a name, so for me it would be incorrect to capizalize god (like capitalizing “human”). Do I have the right understanding?

    In my native language it’s much easier to deal with this: every noun is capitalized. So things like kinds of machines, countries, monotheistic gods, polytheistic gods, concepts, are always written the same way.

  176. 176
    kairosfocus says:

    SG, that you apparently think and are willing to publicly argue that capitalisation of a character name, Zeus, is substantially equivalent to a general title, God, taking on aspects of a name because of its unique and significant reference lets a family of cats out of the bag. You would be well advised to revise your understanding of what informed people mean when they speak of divine things, referring to God or to the theistic understanding of God. No, this is by no means a minor storm in a teacup, God and matters about God, contrary to a lot of ill informed, hostile atheistical and fellow traveller rhetoric, are central to a sound understanding of our civilisation, for one, and for two corruption of language is the undermining of one of the key tools that enables a civilisation to function well. Undermining language itself on pivotal topics, is a destructive pattern that predictably will not end well, hence, 1984. And BTW, notice, in normal use, the primary meaning of theism is a short form for monotheism, which makes sense given the history of our civilisation. When distinctions need to be made in particular relevant contexts, we speak of poly-, heno-, pan- or panen- as well as related concepts such as animism etc. That several of these prefixes are quite rare itself underscores the point. I doubt that I have had to speak of henotheism half a dozen times in my life, even though it is a significant historic pattern connected to classical pagan cultures and those of the fertile crescent and its river valleys. KF

  177. 177
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, you may think it is a clever barb to push an imaginary dismissive term hyper+ in my mouth. Polytheism is enough all on its own, historically speaking of cases of dozens to hundreds to indefinitely many — easily thousands plus — of gods in pantheons that include major and minor gods. Try, Lares and Penates for size. The attempt to brush aside what I have spoken to, global and selective hyperskepticism, shows a failure to recognise a serious disease of thought in our day. Global hyperskepticism tries to deny the possibility of knowledge and ends in self referential incoherence. Selective hyperskepticism tries to shut out unwelcome warranted claims by in effect demanding that “extraordinary” claims require conveniently unattainable extraordinary evidence. In fact all that can be responsibly required is adequate warrant suitable for the class of matter, without evidentiary double standards. But then, what we are seeing here is in reality the fallacy of the hostile, indoctrinated, polarised and likely closed mind. This is the context in which I have put on the table an adaptation of the JoHari window pivoting on usage by intel agencies. Ideologues having taken the knowledge commons captive to their agendas, it is time for reformers to declare knowledge independence and seek to reform knowledge on a sounder footing. As a key test case, consider the coded, algorithmic information and associated molecular nanotech in D/RNA thus use of language and goal directed processes in the architecture of the cell. Strong signatures of design. KF

    PS, is anyone seriously willing to argue for an infinite actual, causal-temporal, thermodynamically constrained past?

    PPS, is anyone seriously willing to argue with sound observational evidence that Tour’s concerns are of no substantial character regarding claimed spontaneous origin of cell based molecular nanotech life? See https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-rice-u-dr-tour-exposes-the-false-science-behind-origin-of-life-research/ for details. I am pretty sure that if the usual penumbra of objectors had sound answers we would not see a grand total to date of six comments in that thread. That tells us a lot.

  178. 178
    kairosfocus says:

    AC, the history of anglophone praxis is significant and the patent, relevant context. This language does not capitalise every noun, but capitalises proper names. In that context and reflecting much wider and deeper praxis such as abbreviations and substitutions of respect sch as LORD English has capitalised God when referring to the God of ethical theism, the — notice, not a or an — supreme being [sometimes that gets the capitals too], the inherently good and wise Creator [another case in point], a necessary and maximally great being worthy of respect, of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident, morally governed nature. You also need to be aware of the context, one that sought to stigmatise all theists as hopelessly biased and warped in thinking so dismissible without serious concern on pointing to the objectivity of moral knowledge. It is highly significant, that the pointing out of how the rejection of objective moral knowledge is itself a claimed objective point of knowledge on that subject and refutes itself has been side stepped. The ill founded marginalisation of moral knowledge is a misanthropic, anticivilisational, ruinous and potentially deadly trend. KF

  179. 179
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: A basic note on Zeus, to draw out an ontological point

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zeus

    According to a Cretan myth that was later adopted by the Greeks, Cronus, king of the Titans, upon learning that one of his children was fated to dethrone him, swallowed his children as soon as they were born. But Rhea, his wife, saved the infant Zeus by substituting a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes for Cronus to swallow and hiding Zeus in a cave on Crete. There he was nursed by the nymph (or female goat) Amalthaea and guarded by the Curetes (young warriors), who clashed their weapons to disguise the baby’s cries. After Zeus grew to manhood he led a revolt against the Titans and succeeded in dethroning Cronus, perhaps with the assistance of his brothers Hades and Poseidon, with whom he then divided dominion over the world.

    Zeus is a proposed contingent being, not even in the same class of being as God. And yes, that is highly significant. e.g. as the ground of moral government must be inherently good, utterly wise and necessary being.

    It is unsurprising that Zeus is seen as an often irresponsible playboy and pederast.

    KF

  180. 180
    chuckdarwin says:

    KF/177
    It is a clever (and deserved) barb–at least clever enough to rock your world.
    It’s not surprising that VL is bowing out; This is the state of the “discussion” going on in this thread:
    First, AaronS1978 @ 167 tries to school me on the trinity (or is it, Trinity?) by referring to comic book characters. I don’t know whether to laugh or be insulted.
    Next, you use the old St. Patrick’s three leaf clover children’s story (particularly popular in Catholic grade schools) as if that is more heuristically enlightening than Marvel comics.
    Then, you launch into a frankly weird set of posts concerning the rules of capitalization vis a vis various deities using words like “praxis,” “patent” and “pederast,” (nice alliteration) topped off with this gem:

    [I]s anyone seriously willing to argue for an infinite actual, causal-temporal, thermodynamically constrained past?

    What that word salad has to do with the trinity or names of gods, totally escapes me. If it wasn’t for the sheer amusement I get from this blog, I’d be running for the door too…..

  181. 181
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ KF
    Ignore the troll it’s not a clever and deserved barb it’s CD being a d1ck he is willfully intolerant, will definitely not see anything from your point of view, he is not here for any form of knowledge on a conflicting view, he is here to throw dirt in peoples eyes and rile people like you up. On this thread alone he has willfully repeated an atheist trope and continuously jabs at Christians.

    @ CleverDumb@ss and there was no schooling idiot you should be insulted because how stupid you are.

    The only thing laughable is the circus chimp that you are thinking you’re intelligent

    I mean, I dumbed the concept down for a child using Marvel comics, which I immediately said that concept escapes you when you’re addressing specifically, Christianity. There’s no level of schooling for you here, you’re just a willful idiot and you’re purposely being a d1ck.

  182. 182
    Sir Giles says:

    AC: My understanding is that christians use “God” as a name, so they capizalize it. However I don’t use it as a name, so for me it would be incorrect to capizalize god (like capitalizing “human”). Do I have the right understanding?

    I would agree. Christians capitalize God because that is the name they apply to their god.

  183. 183
    chuckdarwin says:

    AaronS1978/181
    At least I don’t resort to vulgarity and name-calling when posting my comments, my good Christian friend……

  184. 184
    Alan Fox says:

    @Aaron1978S (181)
    When trying to achieve an effective insult, you should be aware that your own lack of coherence can backfire on you, as it has in your comment.

  185. 185
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ClearlyaD1ck 183 Lol I never claimed to be a good Christian or even good for that matter. Nor do I use the Bible for any argument, short of correcting misquoting from your end.

    And vulgar name calling!? I’m insulted, more like clever labeling of a manipulative childish troll. Can’t blame me for calling it like it is.

    And I might call people names but at least I don’t go on to sites with the sole purpose trolling communities and wasting their time like you do my tolerant liberal friend.

  186. 186
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ 184 sure whatever you say buttercup

  187. 187
  188. 188
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ 187
    I like you lucid explain for your argument style 😉 noice!
    https://tenor.com/sbt1.gif

  189. 189
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ 188 Lol example not explain
    I deserve that

  190. 190
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, you simply confirm yourself as irresponsible and trollish. You know full well that you have been directed elsewhere for serious discussion of the Triune concept of God, I simply pointed to the scutum fidei and shamrock as very simple points showing that unity is a more complex concept than you may imagine; which still stands by default as you failed to speak to substance. As you full well know, UD is not the place for long discussion of complex Scripture driven debates on theological matters; hence your repeated trollish attempt to drag off topic. As for your onward dismissiveness on simple facts about why theism has primary reference to monotheism, that speaks for itself, you refuse to even recognise why God has taken on characteristics of a proper name; which, AC, is independent of your our our preferences, that is a matter of longstanding history, but then the 1984 game rewrites history as it pleases, having no regard for truth or right reason. Where, of course, both Plato and Cicero were pagans (not theists), and the attempt to plaster all theists as hopelessly biased and dismissible before they open their mouths is as ugly a piece of bigotry as one could want. Which, notice, you CD, conspicuously failed to correct. Given the wider context, you show just how ideologues have broken the knowledge commons and why it is time to declare knowledge independence. KF

  191. 191
    kairosfocus says:

    AS78, I understand the sentiment, however please remember the broken window theory. Lowering the level of discussion only invites trolls who have no limit on their perversity. KF

  192. 192
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Meanwhile, the trollish objectors have signally failed to address the substantial matter in the OP. We can take it to the bank, that is because they have no substantial answer. We can again highlight Dr Tour’s point: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-rice-u-dr-tour-exposes-the-false-science-behind-origin-of-life-research/ — it is noteworthy that after attention was drawn, they STILL had nothing of substance there or here. KF

  193. 193
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ 191 under stood

  194. 194
    chuckdarwin says:

    Kairosfocus/192

    Meanwhile, the trollish objectors have signally failed to address the substantial matter in the OP. We can take it to the bank, that is because they have no substantial answer.

    Address what? Whether space aliens exist? Or more accurately whether planets exist where space aliens could come from? The bottom line of the OP, aside from being simply another iteration of Caspian’s trope that life is too complex to have originated and evolved through natural means therefore there must be a designer, is that we don’t know. So why beat this dead horse?

    Many months ago, I commented that I visit this blog for two reasons–to keep up on the world of ID and because I find the blog amusing. The blog has become so stultifying repetitive and obnoxiously preachy that the former is virtually non-existent, and the latter has become the only thing of interest. But it grows old too. Which leads me to one final point: the more you harangue on irrelevant posts, the more it simply shines a light on your continued violation of this “policy.” You meander into everything, politics, philosophy, theology, sociology, psychology, history, etc., with impunity. So why not everyone else? What’s that saying about what’s good for the goose………….

  195. 195
    AaronS1978 says:

    “because I find the blog amusing“
    I need not say more

  196. 196
    Alan Fox says:

    @ CD
    Reasons I post here:
    1. Yes, interactions here can be fun, Jerry is my all-time favourite though Upright Biped came close. Very few remaining now that had the stature of Vincent Torley, the madness of JoeG, or the laconic wit of Mung.
    2. Trying to find out what “Intelligent Design” science is supposed to be.
    3. Trying to correct egregious errors in biochemistry made by other posters.
    4. A little foray into amateur philosophy, which has been enlivened by Dogdoc recently.

    Also I’ve had too much time on my hands due to a bout of COVID which seems to be clearing at last, reducing my opportunities to waste my time as well as everyone else’s.

  197. 197
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, we do know from a massive base of experience, that sophisticated, systems architecture comes from intelligently directed configuration. Thus, insistence that inference to design on sign is an empty trope and that instead agnosticism is preferred is a strawman caricature. But, one that inadvertently implies something huge: you do not have a cogent, plausible explanation on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. So, in effect, you are holding out for something from non being or the like mysterious fourth undisclosed alternative. For thousands of years we have been aware of causal factors. We do not pull rabbits out of non-existent hats, mechanical necessity is a chain, not a source, chance circumstances do not plausibly give functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, blends of the last two do not miraculously increase the odds of a golden search, intelligently directed configuration on trillions of cases routinely creates such FSCO/I. Where, the systems architecture of a massively fine tuned cosmos that sits at a deeply isolated operating point for C-Chem, aqueous medium, codes and algorithms using molecular nanotech cell based life exhibits such FSCO/I; where cell based life is also chock full of such FSCO/I. Therefore, on abductive inference to best current explanation, we are well within epistemic rights to infer design as plausible cause of such a cosmos and of the cell based life and body plans in it up to our own. That’s a positive case and it trumps a denial or dismissal based on little more than hyperskeptical hostility to and ideologically loaded question begging against inferring design on signs. KF

  198. 198
    chuckdarwin says:

    AF/196
    I imagine the half-life of skeptics on this blog is relatively short. Being retired I have the luxury of time to waste between rounds of golf and training a new pup. The sociology of this blog can be fascinating at times. I have enjoyed your comments, those of Seversky, Sir Giles, JVL and Viola Lee and will continue to pop in and out.
    For the time being, I found this quote by Bertrand Russell about six months ago and it has become my new motto: The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time…….

  199. 199
    jerry says:

    Trying to find out what “Intelligent Design” science is supposed to be.

    You have been told several times.

    ID is science plus logic. Or it’s the best –

            ID is science+

    It’s the best science in the world!!!

  200. 200
    AaronS1978 says:

    “I have enjoyed your comments, those of Seversky, Sir Giles, JVL and Viola Lee”

    So literally only the people that share your point of view and politics…….

  201. 201
    Alan Fox says:

    Jerry

    You have been told several times.

    ID is science plus logic. Or it’s the best –

    ID is science+

    It’s the best science in the world!!!

    Jerry, you’re the best! 🙂

  202. 202
    chuckdarwin says:

    AaronS1978/200
    Don’t take it personally. I suppose I also enjoy the IDer’s comments calling me an “idiot,” or a “dick” (that one is particularly classy), etc., in a kind of twisted way. But like I said above, IDer “comments” get to be stultifyingly repetitive.

  203. 203
    relatd says:

    CD at 202,

    I’m putting a download of your comments in for the 2022 Repetitive Comments Award.

  204. 204
    chuckdarwin says:

    Cool, I can always use one more plaque on my wall…….

  205. 205
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ Chuck
    You don’t need to enjoy my commentary no more than I enjoy your one-line jabs of ID. I mean your tag says it all.

    But you know what I’m getting at on 200, especially after you told me what constitutes a good Christian….

  206. 206
    jerry says:

    Cool, I can always use one more plaque on my wall

    For “Inane comments of the year” award, all you need is a mirror.

  207. 207
    kairosfocus says:

    Notice, how the thread has been derailed, no prizes for guessing why. But in the end derailing is a backhanded admission that the objectors do not have a substantial case but hope to stir toxic distractions. I trust, too, the lesson is clear that a broken window invites a rush to the bottom. We do not need that. Onward, it is clear that the knowledge commons have been tainted through ideological imposition and that we need to set out on knowledge independence. KF

  208. 208
    Sir Giles says:

    KF: Notice, how the thread has been derailed, no prizes for guessing why.

    It was derailed because a certain individual kept insisting that it can be objectively morally justified to kill children and the unborn. And by another individual who kept insisting that theism is limited to monotheism. Ignoring the fact that “mono” is a qualifier of the root word “theism”.

  209. 209
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: A point of reference on fine tuning, for those of serious intent:

    In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [–> given “enough time and search resources”] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense.

    We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).

    [–> or, there may not be “enough” time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 – 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 – 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]

    Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [–> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ –> notice, the “loading”] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). [“The “Hard Problem” of Life,” June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]

    more on the anthropic principle from Lewis and Barnes https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hitchhikers-guide-authors-puddle-argument-against-fine-tuning-and-a-response/#comment-729507

    There is of course no reason to think we have had enough scope for metric transitivity to be remotely relevant, and so once we see the special nature of life and its antecedents, i/l/o the islands of search in phase space, fine tuning actually is an expectation.

    KF

  210. 210
    kairosfocus says:

    SG, this and many other threads have been derailed because of trollish behaviour of too many objectors. Were there a cogent objection case to ID we would see serious argument. The absence of that is why determined ideologues resort instead to toxic distraction. KF

    PS, SG, what is your basis for moral response, apart from emotion or ideological agenda? Where, I cannot but note that there has been no cogent response to why the attempt to deny objective, knowable moral truth (as a case of a general pattern for any reasonably identifiable domain of thought) is self defeating. That tells us a lot in a day when the knowledge commons has been tainted through ideological capture and there is urgent need for sound reformation. BTW, Science has been embroiled in the tainting and needs to be refocussed on a systems engineering guided perspective, reverse engineering nature that identifies its architecture.

  211. 211
    Viola Lee says:

    to Vivid and other old-timers. I had occasion to look at some old files today and ran into a discussion with vivid that he and I had more than 20 years ago at ARN about the same topic from this thread that we were discussing. Thought it might be of some historical interest: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. [Note: I am not restarting this discussion. I’m just pointed out that the issues have not changed.]

    From 2/21/2002

    Vivid writes,

    “[name deleted| I really hate doing this [answering the questions that I’ve asked] as we have not finished up with what we originally started with. I hate to move on when there are still unresolved questions on the table. But you have been very patient with me, and have answered some but not all my questions ( the ones you have not answered are the most important). But as I said you have been very patient so in spite of my misgivings I will respond.

    I don’t see this as “moving on” – I see it as trying to clarify what exactly the issue is. It seems like you continue to claim that I give knowledge of the external world, knowledge that is capable of accumulating “objective verifiable evidence”, a “privileged position” (your phrase.)

    And yet I think I am arguing the opposite – that certain kinds of knowledge that are derived from internal experiences are just as important to us even though they cannot accumulate “objective verifiable evidence” because they cannot be commonly experienced, because they are internal.

    Because you don’t seem to understand my position, i though it would be useful for you to state what you think is this case, and that’s why I asked the questions I did.

    You say “It is not my philosophical belief that the only objective verifiable evidence is empirical driven.” and you go on to say “I also would add logic as a different and also IMO a reliable way to demonstrate objective verifiable facts.”

    I agree that logic is as an additional component of knowledge and I also agree that logic itself cannot produce knowledge, although logic can and must be used in assembling the various portions of a belief systems.

    So, looking back at your quote above, I ask: other than logic and empirical experience of the external world, are there other ways to get “objective verifiable evidence?” You seem to imply that there are.
    =================
    Here’s something you wrote (with typos cleaned up) that might help clarify the matter:

    Vivid writes,

    However what you do believe that as it relates to what can be used as a truth claim must be factual. That is, it must be backed up with objective verifiable evidence.

    You indeed allow for different types of knowledge but in judging the factuality of these different types of knowledge you apply one standard…ie empirical knowledge. That’s my point, not that you don’t allow that there are different types of knowledge. Just that one type of knowledge can be deemed factual and objective and the other type is unobjective, subjective, and not factually verifiable. That is why to you when it comes to metaphysical , philosophical beliefs no one can say that their beliefs are factual unless they can be empirical demonstrated. If this is not the case tell me where I am wrong about this?

    But I don’t apply one standard. I believe that one type of knowledge is amenable to “objective verifiable evidence” and the other is not, but Ido not say that one is better than the other. (I have not also, by the way, used the word “fact” or “factual”)

    To you subjective is a bad word and objective is a good word; and only objective things are factual and subjective things are not factual; and therefore, to you, saying that metaphysical beliefs are subjective relegates them to an inferior status.

    But that’s not what I believe!

    Subjective experiences and subjective beliefs are vitally important and deserve as much, if not more, thought and consideration in our lives than do “objective ones.” (And here I am using your word, subjective, to refer to the entire class of beliefs based on our internal experience: emotions, values, aesthetics, spiritual and metaphysical experiences, and so on.) Yes indeed, the nature and content of subjective beliefs are different than the nature and content of objective beliefs, and those differences need to be recognized.

    So, in summary, I still think it would good for you to explain more about what you believe, especially in regards to the question I asked earlier in this post: other than logic and empirical experience of the external world, are there other ways to get “objective verifiable evidence?” You seem to imply that there are. What are they?

  212. 212
    Viola Lee says:

    P.S. Just dropped back in to post the above, but leaving again. Carry on.

  213. 213
    Sir Giles says:

    VL: P.S. Just dropped back in to post the above, but leaving again. Carry on.

    Don’t be a stranger. Your calm reasoned approach is refreshing.

  214. 214
    es58 says:

    KF wrote: “this and many other threads have been derailed ”
    Why not create forums so. Topics can be pursued to an end?

  215. 215
    vividbleau says:

    VL
    “Note: I am not restarting this discussion. I’m just pointed out that the issues have not changed.]”

    You know when you bowed out of our discussion on this thread I had no problem with it because no one should be forced to carry on a discussion on this site if they no longer wish to do so, I said no problem but thanks for the discussion. So from my subjective perspective this is nothing but a hit and run non bowing out bowing back in through the back door and totally disingenuous on your part.

    VL (or whoever you were 20 years ago“) are there other ways to get “objective verifiable evidence?” You seem to imply that there are. What are they?”

    Yes nothing has changed except your screen name even though mine has been consistent all through the ARN years as well as here at UD ,that in itself is telling. So one more time
    how many times do I have to say this? I am not making any claim as to the nature of reality!!.

    I am saying, here in 2022 , that that which is objectively true is that which corresponds with reality and nothing you have cut and pasted from my conversation with you 20 years ago, whoever you were back then, contradicts what I have put forth here 20 years later.

    VL if you want to bow out of a conversation don’t try coming back in through the back door!!
    One more thing if your going to post something between you and I have the courage to use your ARN screen name.

    Vivid

  216. 216
    kairosfocus says:

    ES58,

    there are many forums out there and it takes 15 minutes to set up one’s own blog. There is nothing that prevents inviting people to discuss a topic that incidentally arises here, elsewhere. Though, these days, admittedly there is a policing challenge; you can easily be set up for legal liability and institutional expulsion, online censorship or even financial lockout through subversive tactics.

    You will note, I regularly point those who want to discuss Bible and Theology topics to go where there are highly qualified experts who set up sites for that, say, starting with Wm Lane Craig. No, that is not the problem, for some years we have been increasingly dealing with insistent, willful, dirty tactic distraction and denigration coming in key part from an organised penumbra of attack sites.

    ID threatens powerful worldviews, cultural and policy/political agendas and so it is targetted.

    The lawfare and wider deceitful agitprop that came to a head in the dirty Dover trial is emblematic of the problem. Wikipedia’s hit pieces against ID typify the lying partyline talking points, yes lying as willful violation of duty to truth and to prudent restraint leading to material falsity, quarter truths and slander is, plainly, lying. Going forward, we need to recognise that the civilisation level knowledge commons has been ideologically tainted and that we need to build a reformation.

    In my view, this includes clarifying what knowledge, foundations of reason and the basic logic of being are, and restoring the vision that science reverse engineers nature to understand its architecture. The design inference on complex coded algorithms in the cell is a telling test case, as is willingness to acknowledge that there is considerable, serious evidence of cosmological fine tuning.

    These and other cases justify the design inference, growth of design theory and paradigm, as well as a wider supportive movement.

    But in a day of dirty attack politics, such will be embattled.

    KF

  217. 217
    jerry says:

    Is ARN the best source for information on ID?

    It seems so. Somethings are missing but not much. I didn’t know they had a blog.

    http://www.arn.org/

    Aside:the anti ID people are best classified by what they refuse to answer or ignore. Also somewhat true of pro ID commentators.

  218. 218
    Viola Lee says:

    My goodness. My apologies, vivid. I really didn’t anticipate my post from the past being poorly received. I thought it was interesting and sort of fun to see the same issues being discussed way back then. I would take back my post if I could.

    However, I don’t see why deleting my user name then means anything. Neither vivid, my name then, or my name now are real, so I don’t see what difference it makes.

    Anyway, I’m sorry, and I apologize, for my post.

  219. 219
    vividbleau says:

    VL
    “My goodness. My apologies, vivid. I really didn’t anticipate my post from the past being poorly received.”

    No VL it is I that needs to apologize. I totally overreacted, I can’t believe I posted what I did I was out of line. How funny we have been going back and forth for 20 years! Pretty cool we both are still alive. Anyway I am sorry and I am the one that owes you an apology.

    Vivid

  220. 220
    Viola Lee says:

    All is well, vivid. I think we have both been good advocates for our philosophies and perspectives, and obviously have been committed enough to keep plugging away discussing them with others with both similar and differing views.

Leave a Reply