Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Quora: Is it possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that intelligence was required to create life?

Categories
Intelligent Design
specified complexity
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Josh Anderson writes:

Yes, it is. Here’s the question you should ask yourself: Is symbolic code something that blind, intelligence-free physical processes could create and use? Or is mind alone up to the task?

The legendary John Von Neumann did important work on self-replicating systems. A towering giant in the history of mathematics and pioneer in computer science, he was interested in describing machine-like systems that could build faithful copies of themselves.

Von Neumann soon recognized that it would require both hardware and software. Such a system had to work from a symbolic representation of itself. That is, it must have a kind of encoded picture of itself in some kind of memory.

Crucially, this abstract picture had to include a precise description of the very mechanisms needed to read and execute the code. Makes sense, right? To copy itself it has to have a blueprint to follow. And this blueprint has to include instructions for building the systems needed to decode and implement the code.

Here’s the remarkable thing: Life is a Von Neumann Replicator. Von Neumann was unwittingly describing the DNA based genetic system at the heart of life. And yet, he was doing so years before we knew about these systems.

The implications of this are profound. Think about how remarkable this is. It’s like having the blueprints and operating system for a computer stored on a drive in digital code that can only be read by the device itself. It’s the ultimate chicken and egg scenario.

How might something like this have come about? For a system to contain a symbolic representation of itself the actualization of precise mapping between two realms, the physical realm and an abstract symbolic realm.

In view here is a kind of translation, mechanisms that can move between encoded descriptions and material things being described. This requires a system of established correlations between stuff out here and information instantiated in a domain of symbols.

Here’s the crucial question: Is this something that can be achieved by chance, physical laws, or intelligence-free material processes? The answer is decidedly NO. What’s physical cannot work out the non-physical. Only a mind can create a true code. Only a mind can conceive of and manage abstract, symbolic realities. A symbolic system has to be invented. It cannot come about in any other way.

If you think something like this – mutually interdependent physical hardware and encoded software  can arise through unguided, foresight-less material forces acting over time, think again. If I were to ask you to think of something, anything that absolutely requires intelligence to bring about, you’d be hard pressed to think of a better example. It’s not just that no one understands how it could be done, it’s that we have every reason to believe that it is impossible in principle. No intelligence-free material processes could ever give you something like this.

But wait, how can we be so sure this feature of life was not forged by evolution, built up incrementally by the unseen hand of natural selection? What’s to say this is beyond the ability of evolution to create?

The question answers itself. In order for evolution to take place you have to have a self-replicating system in place. You don’t evolve to the kind of thing we’ve been describing. That is, necessarily, where you begin.

The DNA and the dizzyingly complex molecular machinery that it both uses and describes did not evolve into existence. This much is clear. Any suggestion that it did is not based on a scintilla of empirical evidence or any credible account of how it could have come about in this way.

The conclusion is clear: The unmistakable signature of mind is literally in every cell of every living thing on earth.

Watch a few seconds of this to remind yourself of the kind of mind-bending sophistication in view here:

Quora

Note that John von Neumann mathematically showed that the information content of the simplest self-replicating machine is about 1500 bits of information. This is a vast amount of information, since information bits are counted on a logarithmic scale, and it cannot be explained by any natural process, since it far exceeds the information content of the physical (non-living) universe. Therefore, since self-replicating organisms obviously exist on Earth, their origin must come from the only known source of this level of information – an intelligent mind of capability far beyond our mental ability – consistent with the biblical view of God.

Comments
"What do you mean by ‘true meaning’?" I mean 'real', i.e. 'not illusory'. Since truth, love, beauty, personhood, purpose, meaning, etc..,, can only be reasonably grounded in, and derived from, an 'ontology of God", then God alone is capable of giving 'real' meaning and purpose to our lives. Whereas the Darwinian atheist must hold that all meaning and purpose for our lives is 'illusory' since a meaningless and purposeless universe can't possibly give what it doesn't have, namely meaning and purpose. ,, It ain't rocket science. "Please explain how the resurrection of Jesus ‘bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics’" In so far as the 'incomplete' (Godel), but 'miraculous' (Wigner and Einstein), mathematics that describe this universe are, rightly, held to be God's thoughts,
Keep It Simple - Edward Feser - 2020 Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-­divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our ­experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order. How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple
In so far as the 'incomplete' (Godel), but 'miraculous' (Wigner and Einstein), mathematics that describe this universe are, rightly, held to be God's thoughts, then God bridging the, (non-renormalizable), 'infinite mathematical divide' that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics readily follows, and Christ resurrection from the dead becomes a very plausible solution for the quote-unquote 'theory of everything'. Especially considering that, as the Shroud of Turin itself testifies to, both quantum mechanics and general relativity, (i.e. gravity), were dealt with in Christ's resurrection from the dead. https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-766384bornagain77
December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Bornagain77/112
The trouble with JVL’s claim is that none of those things, (i.e. “People”, ‘love’, “work, “play”, “hobbies”, “beauty in art and nature”), would exist without God.
Since you have stressed the importance of empirical support for claims, what is your empirical or experimental evidence for your claim?
JVL’s worldview of Darwinian Atheism simply lacks the ‘ontological basis’ to ground any of the those things he appealed to in order to try to derive true meaning and purpose for his life.
What do you understand by "ontological basis" and what it means to "ground" the things JVL referred to?
Again, it is simply impossible for Darwinists to derive any true meaning and purpose for their lives in an objectively meaningless and purposeless universe.
What is the difference between "meaning" and "true meaning"? How did your God derive His "true meaning"? If He invented a meaning for Himself, what is to prevent us doing the same?
Yet, contrary to what atheists, (and the vast majority of people, including Christians), believe nowadays, the Copernican Principle, and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, has now been overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science: (as well as being overturned by several other lines of powerful scientific evidence)
No, there is nothing in relativity or quantum theory or the CMBR anomalies to support any claim to a privileged status for humanity in this Universe.
As the late Stephen Weinberg, an atheist, put the dilemma for atheists, “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”
If nothing exists until human beings observe it then what happened to the Universe before we were here to observe it? Or, to put it another way, if nothing exists until we observe it, what are we observing in the first place? And if the nature of reality depends on the observer, why do we all seem to be observing the same thing?
Yet, regardless of how Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.
Or Christians, presumably.Seversky
December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: Again, it is simply impossible for Darwinists to derive any true meaning and purpose for their lives in an objectively meaningless and purposeless universe. What do you mean by 'true meaning'? allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything” Please explain how the resurrection of Jesus 'bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics'. The resurrection was not a mathematical event nor has it been described in mathematical terms.JVL
December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
At 39 JVL, a Darwinian Atheist, argued, basically, that people don’t need God in order to “find significance, or hope or meaning”. He gave several examples of people, supposedly, finding “significance, or hope or meaning” all without God.
“They find those things in the interactions they have on a daily basis with people they love and like and enjoy being with. They find those things in their work or play or hobbies. They find those things in various art forms they experience. They find those things just walking through the woods or climbing mountains or watching the waves crash against a beach. They find those things everywhere in life. They don’t need to be told what should be significant or meaningful or hopeful; they find out for themselves.”
Yet, as I pointed out in posts 43 and 44, The trouble with JVL’s claim is that none of those things, (i.e. “People”, ‘love’, “work, "play", "hobbies”, "beauty in art and nature"), would exist without God. JVL’s worldview of Darwinian Atheism simply lacks the 'ontological basis' to ground any of the those things he appealed to in order to try to derive true meaning and purpose for his life. At 46, JVL hand-waved off the fact that Darwin atheism lacks the 'ontological basis' to ground any of those things as 'just an opinion'. But alas for JVL, the fact that Atheistic Naturalism can't ground 'real' meaning and/or purpose for life is not just an opinion but it is a fact that is repeated, ad nauseam, like some kind of religious mantra by leading atheists. Repeated, ad nauseam, by leading atheists such as the late Steven Weinberg, and the late Stephen Hawking, and also currently by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Sean Carrol, Brian Greene,, Katie Mack, and etc.. etc..,,,
Learning to Live in Steven Weinberg’s Pointless Universe - Dan Falk on July 27, 2021 Excerpt: “The more the universe seems comprehensible,” he (Weinberg) wrote, “the more it also seems pointless.”,,, The philosophy that Weinberg laid out in The First Three Minutes is now echoed in many popular physics books. In The Big Picture (2016), physicist Sean Carroll sees nothing to fear in an amoral universe. Our task, he writes, is “to make peace with a universe that doesn’t care what we do, and take pride in the fact that we care anyway.” In a similar vein, string theorist Brian Greene is adamant that it’s physics all the way down. In Until the End of Time (2020) he writes: “Particles and fields. Physical laws and initial conditions. To the depth of reality we have so far plumbed, there is no evidence for anything else.” As for meaning, he is firmly in the Weinberg camp: “During our brief moment in the sun, we are tasked with the noble charge of finding our own meaning.” In The End of Everything (2020), astrophysicist Katie Mack relays the existential opinions of an array of astronomers and physicists, most of whom repeat some version of the Weinberg-Carroll-Greene position: The universe doesn’t come laden with meaning; instead, you have to find your own.,, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-to-live-in-steven-weinbergs-pointless-universe/
Again, it is simply impossible for Darwinists to derive any true meaning and purpose for their lives in an objectively meaningless and purposeless universe. The best the Darwinian atheist can hope for is to create some 'illusion of meaning and purpose' for their lives. i.e. an objectively meaningless and purposeless universe simply can't give what it doesn't have.,,, It ain't rocket science!
Study: Atheists Find Meaning In Life By Inventing Fairy Tales – Richard Weikart March 29, 2018 Excerpt: However, there is a problem with this finding. The survey admitted the meaning that atheists and non-religious people found in their lives is entirely self-invented. According to the survey, they embraced the position: “Life is only meaningful if you provide the meaning yourself.” Thus, when religious people say non-religious people have no basis for finding meaning in life, and when non-religious people object, saying they do indeed find meaning in life, they are not talking about the same thing. If one can find meaning in life by creating one’s own meaning, then one is only “finding” the product of one’s own imagination. One has complete freedom to invent whatever meaning one wants. This makes “meaning” on par with myths and fairy tales. It may make the non-religious person feel good, but it has no objective existence. http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/29/study-atheists-find-meaning-life-inventing-fairy-tales/
The main supposedly "scientific' arguments that atheists have tried to use to support their false claim that the universe, and therefore our lives, are objectively meaningless and purposeless is the Copernican Principle, and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, (as well Darwinian atheists have also tried to use the false narrative of human evolution to try to undermine the Christian's claim that out lives are meaningful and purposeful). Yet, contrary to what atheists, (and the vast majority of people, including Christians), believe nowadays, the Copernican Principle, and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, has now been overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science: (as well as being overturned by several other lines of powerful scientific evidence) March 2022 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/neil-thomas-on-evolutionary-theory-as-magical-thinking/#comment-748883 Perhaps the best and most impressive scientific evidence to come forward to prove that our lives have far more meaning, purpose, and significance in this universe than is presupposed by atheists is the closing of the 'freedom of choice' loophole in quantum mechanics. Which is to say, instead of humans being the result of impersonal physical laws as is held by Atheistic Naturalists, in quantum mechanics we find that humans, (via their free will), are brought into the laws of nature at their most fundamental level. This presents quite the dilemma for atheists. As the late Stephen Weinberg, an atheist, put the dilemma for atheists, “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf
In fact the late Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave. In 2018, just 1 year after Weinberg wrote that article, (and before Weinberg passed away in 2021), Anton Zeilinger and company closed the 'freedom of choice' loophole.
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Abstract: This experiment pushes back to at least 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
As Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
And indeed a very big part of that "very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe" is that our lives are not nearly as insignificant, meaningless, and purposeless, as atheists have falsely presupposed them to be via the Copernican principle. As physics professor Richard Conn Henry stated “It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.”
“It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial, and have fears and agonies that are very similar to the fears and agonies that Copernicus and Galileo went through with their perturbations of society.” – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics – John Hopkins University http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html
As much as it may hurt atheists’ feelings to know this, and as far as our best science can now tell us, we are not merely to be considered insignificant “chemical scum” as Hawking and other atheists, via the Copernican Principle, have tried to imply,
“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,” – Stephen Hawking – 1995 TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken,
Hopefully atheists will soon get over the ‘sad’ fact that they are not merely to be considered ‘chemical scum’ in short order? As I asked earlier in this thread at post 84, "what have atheists got to lose save for the utter despair that is inherent in the nihilism of their atheism?"
Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
Supplemental note, When we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally held with the presupposition of ‘contingency’), and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
Oct. 2022 - although there will never be, (via Godel), a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between quantum mechanics and general relativity, all hope is not lost in finding the correct ‘theory of everything’. https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-766384
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77
December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
The Paradox of Tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. [Popper]
Are the intolerant our tribal enemies?Origenes
December 12, 2022
December
12
Dec
12
12
2022
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT
But that will be better than ruling out members of different perspectives as tribal enemies.
Indeed. Live and let liveAlan Fox
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT
Hi Caspian. Thanks for your reply at 79. I got involved in responding to CD and relatd, and tried to clarify my point at 23 by writing, “My answer was that people with non-Biblical religious beliefs can find significance, hope, and meaning in their lives. Do you think that is true?” Let me point out that my question did not include materialism. To clarify, I was asking about perspectives that would agree that, in some ways and through some means, there is design in the world. But I will claim that belief in design does not necessarily imply an immortal soul, or life after death, or even some “ultimate meaning” for human beings. Those are Christian beliefs that are, of course, consistent with design but not necessarily implied by design. So I’d like to ask you a question similar to what I have asked realtd: Do you believe that people with various kinds of non-Biblical religious beliefs can find meaning and purpose in life, equivalent in validity according to their beliefs although different than Biblical beliefs?Viola Lee
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
No, I said we shouldn't see people as tribal enemies. Instead we should try to work with people even if their basic loyalties are to a different perspective.Viola Lee
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
VL at 106, "tribal enemies"? YOU are drawing uncrossable lines here.relatd
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Realtd asks, "How then shall we live? ... There are rules that work right now. They are based on a simple premise: This is good for you and others. This is not good for you and others." This isn't very helpful, because as Origenes points out, we are not going to agree about some of those rules, and we're not going to agree about what we think is the philosophical foundation for those rules. So, as Origenes says, "So, what is the way forward here?" That's really the question. How can we live with so many diverse perspectives? I offer that one way is to pay less attention to philosophical and religious differences—to not draw uncrossable lines in the philosophical sand—but focus on actual issues and attitudes irrespective of philosophy and religion. There will still be disagreements that may need political solutions, cultural changes, civil discourse and compromise, etc. But that will be better than ruling out members of different perspectives as tribal enemies.Viola Lee
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
Origenes at 104, The question is: How then shall we live? Just whatever we want? Or is there a reasonable answer that is good for people in general? This is not a "modern" problem. There are rules that work right now. They are based on a simple premise: This is good for you and others. This is not good for you and others.relatd
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
The "problem" is that people can find significance, hope, and meaning in stuff that is clearly misguided. People were willing to do anything for the glory of the German Reich. The Incas sacrificed their children. On a lighter note, some Argentines are selling their cars in order to see Messi play in Qatar. I take it we will never agree on what is true meaning and what's not. So, what is the way forward here?Origenes
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
Good. Thanks for answering my question. Again, I apologize for thinking you meant that people couldn't find significance, hope, and meaning outside of a Biblical worldview. As you have said, I should have asked questions about what you meant rather than jumping to a conclusion.Viola Lee
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
VL at 101, Of course I do. However, you appear to want to only stick to declarations. That is not discussion, it is declaring something without an explanation. No one learns anything. Do you understand? The origin of significance and meaning in life remains unexplained by you.relatd
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
Realtd, I'm not talking about my own beliefs. I'm talking about the more general question of whether you, in your comment at 16, meant to imply that significance, hope, and meaning can only be found by those who have a Biblical belief system, or whether those of other, non-Biblical, religious belief systems can also find significance, hope, and meaning through their belief systems. Hence my question. In response to your post at 16: do you believe that people who believe in other non-Biblical religions can find significance, hope, and meaning through their particular religious beliefs?Viola Lee
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
VL at 99, I will assume, in this case, that you are not a Biblical person, so, here is a specific question: What - exactly - is the origin of your significance and meaning? What exactly? Or, Where does it come from?relatd
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
OK: Do you believe that people who believe in other non-Biblical religions can find significance, hope, and meaning through their particular religious beliefs?Viola Lee
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
VL at 90, Your question is not a question. You have made a declaration and then ask if I agree or disagree. Something other than presenting me with a declaration would have been preferable.relatd
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
JVL at 96, We did not all go to the same Church. Different people were not born in the U.S., including my parents. We did get along. People did illegal things but we were taught to stay away from that. In the 1950s and 1960s, legal meant the right thing to do. That was deviated away from. That action, actually, a number of bad decisions, created problems. It created what some call a "culture war." It has nothing to do with culture but everything to do with some specific groups of people getting "permission" for their behavior. So some laws today have created permissions that are not good for society at large.relatd
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Relatd: By the way, I don’t mean rejecting the people but their ‘lifestyle choices.’ I’ve known gays and have an acquaintance who went through a process and now presents as a woman. He said he was going to marry his boyfriend. I did not give him a hard time over what he chose to do. I'm glad you were tolerant. And I did read your entire response and I do appreciate that you took the time to give a detailed answer. It gave me a better understanding of your perspective. I'm not sure that you and I are that much different in how we deal with the world on a daily, practical, sensible way. I think we are very different in how we view purpose and underlying morals and ethics. But if we both agree to live by the civil laws of the countries we are in, if we both agree to mostly adopt a live-and-let-live approach, if we both stand up for the legal rights of everyone regardless of race, creed, colour, orientation, etc, etc then perhaps we don't actually have that much that needs to be argued about. Perhaps we should all start by considering each other as neighbours. You don't have to like the same food, you don't have to like the same music, you don't have to support the same football club (ooo, controversial I know), you don't have to go to the same church . . . but you should be able to let them borrow your lawnmower. Not every weekend mind you, but sometimes when they really need it. I am convinced that the now absent ET and I would have been excellent neighbours even though we disagreed over many, many things. And, as I have already mentioned several times, he changed my mind on a couple of evolutionary points. The thing about neighbours is: you give them the time of day because they are your neighbours. And that's a good thing.JVL
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
JVL at 94, "find their own way in the world."? In any Christian household, you raise up your children to be Christians. Period. Human children are not birds who fly from the nest at 18. And when they have children, you teach them about God as a grandparent. I am a professional researcher who has studied many cultures, from Africa, Asia and other countries. There is a book titled The Hero with a Thousand Faces. I did not like the book but the basic idea is sound. Whether you are from Japan or China or a Native American, the qualities that make a hero are universal. The qualities of beauty are universal. In art. In real life. I also have an arts background. I am thoroughly familiar with the requirements for a good painting and know the basics of color theory. (My favorite book is Color Image Scale by Shigenobu Kobayashi.) At my job, I am called into the head of the graphic arts office to get my opinion on the four pencil roughs which are required by us for a book cover. Sometimes, not always, I am asked to explain my selection. My answer must be brief, detailed and accurate. It is based on years of experience. When instructing children in Christianity, you send them to a religious school. I was in Religion class and we went, as a class, to Church once a week. In my neighborhood, I was blessed with good role models. I liked most of my neighbors. We had a few oddballs but we were never taught to hate anyone. I understood who homosexual persons were in the early 1960s. Again, I was not taught to have negative feelings toward them or anyone else. The "right way" is the right way, not just for religious reasons but practical reasons. Children, as they grow, go through stages. I saw it in all the kids I knew. We knew, that as young adults, we would begin dating. Most of us would get married and have families. It was the natural, not just a religious order. Staying away from excessive drinking, from smoking, from illegal drugs, profanity and pornography were essential actions. Our good behavior was based on years of experience. Our parents had also been teenagers at one time. Self-discipline created good character. You, and your family, had a good name, a good reputation based on your actions. Being a Bohemian was right out, or a Beat or a Hippie. Life is too short for cheap thrills, (morally) loose women and certain other activities. Doing it right was a literally more healthy way. Even in my late teens, I saw what those who think differently were up to. It was no good for them or society at large. It was to be rejected. By the way, I don't mean rejecting the people but their 'lifestyle choices.' I've known gays and have an acquaintance who went through a process and now presents as a woman. He said he was going to marry his boyfriend. I did not give him a hard time over what he chose to do.relatd
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Relatd: So God gave them free will. The ability to choose Him or the wrong thing. As a loving and caring parent is that what you said to your children? Children you wanted to find their own way in the world. Children who you knew might see things differently from you. Children who you loved more than you loved yourself. Do it my way or the wrong way. Is that what you said? Is that what your dad said to you: son, there are only two ways this can happen, my way or the wrong way. You choose.JVL
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
JVL at 85, You're no Bible scholar - at all. When God created the first man and first woman, he could have created robots. They would obey every command. But you can't force anyone to love you, can you? So God gave them free will. The ability to choose Him or the wrong thing. You seem to think 'religion limits me.' "I want total control of my life. To do whatever I want!" And what does that get you? Personal pleasure - hopefully - without feelings of guilt? That's it? Get all the fun you can because you might kick off tomorrow and you want to sample all that fun before you go? That is the friction point. There is a lawgiver. When man makes himself god, he sees nothing but death and all that pleasure he wants to experience. But instead of focusing on God and His laws, which are meant for the good of all people, God is rejected. He will punish sinners - those who break His laws - and I am a sinner as well. So the risk of going to Hell is real. It's not fiction. But it disappears under the effects of all that pleasure, doesn't it? Romans 2:14 "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law." Romans 2:15 "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them."relatd
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: JVL, it is obvious that you have a pretty deep emotional hang-up towards Christianity. So, you cannot define what you mean by 'real meaning'? Why is that? Before I sent that reply I had typed out a long, argumentative post which I decided was out of order and so I excised it and replaced it with something I thought was much more significant: asking you to define your terms. And, as I have said many, many times before: I have a lot of good, devote Christian friends. And none of them espouse the views you embrace. I don't have a problem with Christianity. It's your views that I find appalling at times. And you know I've said that and you still choose to pretend that it's me that hates Christianity. Which is incorrect.JVL
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Relatd: I got an answer… to my question? Hey, you know what rhymes with assume? Asinine. You and Viola Lee would get kicked out of the United Nations and the Diplomatic Corps for making assumptions. I did try and answer your actual question. And then, after that, I tacked on some other things. Just like you do. All the time. You always make assumptions about what other people think. You always make assumptions about what conclusion other people will come to. You always make assumptions about how conversations will go before they actually happen. That blind spot you've got is the mote in your own eye. Maybe you should look in a dark glass until the image resolves itself a bit better. Oh, and by the way, the leaders of the punk movement were not tribal leaders. They were mostly middle-income kids who were bored and wanted to stir things up a bit. And, in a few years, they all calmed down and got jobs and raised families and paid taxes and got boring. So what? The remaining Russian Federation, and Vladimir Putin, is trying to show that it can and will protect its “interests.” And what do you think its interests are with regards to Ukraine?JVL
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Relatd, I apologize for starting my post at 18 with the assumption that you were saying that only those with a Biblical worldview could find significance, hope, and meaning. However later (64) I did try to get some clarification. I wrote,
Realtd, your question was “Where do people find significance, or hope or meaning, outside of a Biblical worldview?” My answer was “there are billions of people of non-Biblical religions who also find significance, hope, and meaning in their lives through their religious beliefs: Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists being the major religions.” Do you agree with my answer: that people can find significance, hope, and meaning through religions other than Biblical ones?
Would you be willing to answer that question?Viola Lee
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
JVL, it is obvious that you have a pretty deep emotional hang-up towards Christianity. Sorry, I don't do 'emotional hang-ups'. :)bornagain77
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: And I have merely pointed out, a few times now, the blatantly obvious fact that Atheistic Naturalists cannot possibly derive any real meaning for life in a worldview that denies the entire universe has any real meaning behind its existence. It ain’t rocket science. You can’t have real meaning for life in a worldview that insists the entire universe has no real meaning behind its existence. i.e. the universe can’t give what it ain’t got! What do you mean by 'real meaning'?JVL
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Origenes writes, "To be clear, do we agree that, the meaning atheists find in their lives, does not come from their belief that they will end up as fertilizer?" First, Origenes, let’s be clear that atheists are not necessarily materialists. I, at least, am talking about non-theistic, non-Biblical philosophical/religious views, which encompasses much more than materialism. Second, yes, of course, “the meaning atheists find in their lives, does not come from their belief that they will end up as fertilizer.” The meaning such people find in their lives comes the experience of how they live their lives, not from what happens after they die. The “fertilizer” part is just an acknowledgment that the span of their existence is finite and must come to an end.Viola Lee
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
JVL at 39, I got an answer... to my question? Hey, you know what rhymes with assume? Asinine. You and Viola Lee would get kicked out of the United Nations and the Diplomatic Corps for making assumptions. Ambassador from Christian Country: How do people people find significance and purpose outside of a Biblical worldview? Viola Lee: You bad, bad man. You tribalist! You: You don't know NOTHING about the rest of the world because you're a Christian! So instead of assuming things about me - AND MAKING ACCUSATIONS - just ask questions like a good diplomat. OK? In the late 1960s and early 1970s, I was bombarded by "alternate lifestyles.' I read the Marxist-Communist-Anarchist "underground newspapers.' Buddhism and other Eastern beliefs were the new/old big thing. I had a friend who went religion/belief shopping, so I spent some time asking questions in a Krishna temple. Don't you dare assume anything about me. If you believe people should understand each other then stop with the assumptions. In the late 1970s, I became friends with one of the tribal leaders of the Punk Rock scene. I went to their special hangouts, listened to them and observed their behavior. To me, the world is very black and white. Right and wrong are clearly defined. Believe me, I've seen people living otherwise. I have heard the "it's all grey" argument before so you're assuming I don't know - again. Viola Lee thinks hiding behind 'billions of people' is what? A reason to actually live differently? A big excuse? Her personal desire? Based on the latest figures, there are 2.56 billion Christians and 1.97 Muslims. That's over half the planet. Don't be stupid about Russia, OK? Do the research. Vladimir Putin lived through most of the Cold War. He only cares about what the Soviet Union cared about: get as much as land as you can. A little background about Patriarch Kirill. Metropolitan Anthony of Volokolamsk is in charge of foreign relations for the Russian Orthodox Church. 'The metropolitan noted that Pope Francis’ comment earlier this year that the Russian patriarch should not “become Putin’s altar boy” was “unexpected” and “not useful for Christian unity.” The support the Patriarch is giving the Russian government is viewed as the wrong thing to do by Pope Francis. So your attempt to place blame on religion is misplaced. A reminder to all reading: The Soviet Union, the Workers' Paradise, crashed and burned. The remaining Russian Federation, and Vladimir Putin, is trying to show that it can and will protect its "interests."relatd
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
1 11 12 13 14 15 16

Leave a Reply