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?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
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
Origenes, I see you added more to 45 after I responded to it. You wrote, “Instead, it follows that one’s life can only have meaning for (and can only be experienced by) something external to oneself.” But that is not what intrinsic means. You also wrote, “My point is that such a concept has no (ultimate) meaning to a person. That’s why I say “one’s life has no intrinsic meaning.” It does not matter to the person what happens after personal existence, the person is gone, it has dissolved into nature, the cosmos or into, as you call it, the “universal ocean.” That is not what “intrinsic” means either. Intrinsic means “of or relating to the essential nature of a thing”. My life has intrinsic meaning in that I manifest my nature in my existence. My existence, and its intrinsic meaning and value, does not have to go on forever, or be in respect to something external to myself, to exist. It is one possible philosophical/religious perspective to think that it does, but not a necessary perspective.Viola Lee
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
VL/50 That is why I hate the term “worldview.” I’d like to wring the person’s neck that came up with it…….chuckdarwin
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Viola Lee @
Ori: Any worldview/religion that involves the end of personal existence, posits necessarily that one’s life has no intrinsic meaning.
No. That is a Christian view …
Not exclusively I would like to note.
but is not necessarily true at all.
I argue that it is.
One Eastern perspective is that our individual soul is present in this life only, and that at death it goes back to the “universal ocean” of the universal soul.
Indeed, that’s what I meant by ‘Brahman’. My point is that such a concept has no (ultimate) meaning to a person. That’s why I say “one’s life has no intrinsic meaning.” It does not matter to the person what happens after personal existence, the person is gone, it has dissolved into nature, the cosmos or into, as you call it, the “universal ocean.”Origenes
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Origenes Thanks for mentioning Topoisomerases. yes, I am aware of this molecular machines. Like DNA proofreading/repair, it is fundamental to life. Without this feature, no life. The existence of topoisomerases is another UNDENIABLE proof of designed cell. DNA supercoiling problem - it did not occur to me .... I, as an engineer, i feel ashamed ... i have to say, that our Creator thought of everything ... not to mention, how this supercoiling problem is being fixed. Would YOU be able to find just the right spot(s) where to cut this extremely long molecule in order to fix the supercoiling problem ? All these cell's features like DNA proofreading/repair, topoisomerases, programmed cell death, various cell cycle checkpoints, etc ... make Darwinists look as stupid as it gets ... Darwinism = fake news/hoax/conspiracy.martin_r
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: You overt hostility towards Christianity not withstanding. I actually have a lot of good Christian friends who don't look down on every non-Christian on the planet. They understand that there are other points of view. They love their non-Christian friends and don't tell them that their non-Christian love is meaningless and has no basis in reality. They don't think they are better than everyone else. It's your blatant, rude, superior attitude I deplore. In fact, I find it very un-Christian when I compare it to people like The Archbishop of Canterbury or even my local vicar. One of the reason some people don't like Christians or Christianity is because of people like you who tell them they have no right to claim meaning or love or purpose or even some basic legal rights. You are part of the problem.JVL
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
CD writes, "This “foundation” is a simple, but insidiously circular formulation." That's an excellent line about all these worldview discussions in general. We build systems of understanding that have thoroughly embedded chosen assumptions that, due to their circular existence as both assumption and conclusion, create an internally consistent system that is nevertheless not necessarily true if the underlying assumptions are removed.Viola Lee
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
JVL/46 JVL, take heart and remember George Bernard Shaw's observation: "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who do not have it." The "foundational basis" for everything BA77 writes, irrespective of topic is this:
The trouble with JVL’s claim is that none of those things [that provide meaning or significance] would exist without God. (emphasis added)
This "foundation" is a simple, but insidiously circular formulation. Everything else is pedantic window dressing--reams and reams and reams of it.chuckdarwin
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
at 45 Origenes says, "Any worldview/religion that involves the end of personal existence, posits necessarily that one’s life has no intrinsic meaning." No. That is a Christian view, but is not necessarily true at all. One Eastern perspective is that our individual soul is present in this life only, and that at death it goes back to the "universal ocean" of the universal soul. Individuality has existence, and intrinsic value and meaning, during life, but it is transitory comes to an end at death. I'm not saying that is the way it is: I'm just saying that the Christian view is not the only one, and has no privileged position. This is why CD’s comment at 40 to Caspian (and implicitly to relatd) is important: is a Biblical view the only route to finding significance and meaning in life, or just one of a number of alternate views?Viola Lee
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Whatever JVL, the post stands on its own merits. You overt hostility towards Christianity not withstanding.bornagain77
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: The trouble with JVL’s claim is that none of those things would exist without God. JVL’s worldview of Darwinian Atheism simply lacks the basis to ground any of the things he appealed to. For instance, “People”, i.e. humanity in general, much less “love” for other people, simply can find no grounding within his worldview Darwinian Atheism. And What about grounding our ‘love’ of fellow humans within Darwinian atheism? Forget about it! Love, and/or morally noble altruistic behavior of any sort, is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s “One general law” of letting “the strongest live and the weakest die”, i.e. Darwin’s ‘death as creator’ view of reality. All of the above (and many comments after these) are just an opinion. An opinion held by many people, especially on this forum, but an opinion nonetheless. Yet, the fact that people “don’t need to be told” that those things are inspirational is proof, in and of itself, that people intuitively know that all those good and beautiful things come from God. Of course you mean the Christian God, not just any old god from Greek or Roman or Norse or Egyptian or Hindu or Zoroastrian (to name just a few) traditions. It also, basically sideline Muslims and Jews because the Christian God is the one that supposedly sacrificed his 'only begotten son' (no daughters and wasn't Adam made in God's image?). Which means that until about 2000 years ago all the people who loved and lost, who painted and sculpted, who built astonishing buildings and structures, who gave thanks before killing animals for food, who found meaning and purpose in their lives before then were basically just deluding themselves. And I'm portrayed as the horrible cynic who might as well just go out and kill and maim and destroy. I feel sorry for anyone who considers themselves and their beliefs so superior to everyone else and their beliefs that the rest of the world is just wrong. In the history of the earth Christians are in the minority. And they probably will be for as long as people are still around. To have that little respect or care for other humans is just appalling. By your own standards.JVL
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Any worldview/religion that involves the end of personal existence, posits necessarily that one's life has no intrinsic meaning. Instead, it follows that one's life can only have meaning for (and can only be experienced by) something external to oneself — 'society', 'nature', 'cosmos', 'Brahman', or whatever.Origenes
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Moreover, the existence of 'objectively real' beauty turns out to be a fairly powerful argument for the existence of God.
Beauty and the Imagination (The Argument From Beauty) – Aaron Ames – July 16th, 2017 Excerpt: Beauty… can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this ‘idea’ of beauty were not found in the Mind in a more perfect form…. This consideration has readily persuaded men of ability and learning… that the original “idea” is not to be found in this sphere (Augustine, City of God). https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/07/beauty-imagination-aaron-ames.html The Reason Why God Is the Beauty We All Seek – Sept. 4, 2019 Excerpt: God loves beauty. As Thomas Aquinas asserts, God “is beauty itself”[1] St. Anselm argues that “God must be the supreme beauty for the same reasons that He must be justice and other such qualities.”[2] As the contemporary theologian Michael Horton so aptly states in his book The Christian Faith, “God would not be God if he did not possess all his attributes in the simplicity and perfection of his essence.”[3] The reason why we gravitate toward beauty is because God created us in his image.,,, In a chapel sermon titled, “Can Beauty Save the World,” Albert Mohler explains, “The Christian worldview posits that anything pure and good finds its ultimate source in the self-existent, omnipotent God who is infinite in all his perfections. Thus the Christian worldview reminds us that the “transcendentals”—the good, the true, and the beautiful—are inseparable. Thus when Psalm 27 speaks of the beauty of the Lord, the Psalmist is also making a claim about the goodness of the Lord and the truthfulness of the Lord. While we distinguish God’s attributes from one another in order to understand them better, we must also recognize that these attributes are inseparable from one another.[19]” Mohler goes on to state, “Our job as Christians is to remember the difference between the beautiful and the pretty,” because pure beauty is found in goodness and truth.[20] When we gaze upon ascetically pleasing objects or witness kind deeds in this world, we are at best seeing imperfect versions of the pure beauty that can only be found in God. https://www.beautifulchristianlife.com/blog/reason-why-god-is-the-beauty-we-all-seek
JVL goes on to say, people "find those things, ("significance, or hope or meaning"), 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, the fact that people "don’t need to be told" that those things are inspirational is proof, in and of itself, that people intuitively know that all those good and beautiful things come from God. You see, the 'default', intuitive, belief of people, including atheists, when shown beautiful landscapes in rapid succession, (before they have time to censor their reactions), is to believe that beautiful landscapes are 'purposely made'.
Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study - Mary Papenfuss - June 12, 2015 Excerpt: Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or "default" human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether "any being purposefully made the thing in the picture," notes Pacific-Standard. "Religious participants' baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher" than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants "increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made" when "they did not have time to censor their thinking," wrote the researchers. The results suggest that "the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs," the report concluded. The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US. "Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richard-dawkins-take-heed-even-atheists-instinctively-believe-creator-says-study-1505712
So yes, I agree wholeheartedly with JVL, people 'don't need to be told' that the things he listed are meaningful, beautiful, and inspirational. Yet, the reason we do find inspiration in those things is because God "spiritually hardwired" the ability to draw inspiration from those beautiful things into us. It is JVL himself, via his Darwinian materialism, that is, number 1, at a complete loss to explain the 'objectively real' existence of beauty in the first place, and number 2, much less can JVL, with his Darwinian atheism, possibly explain why we should find such deep inspiration in such beautiful things.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.
bornagain77
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
at 39 JVL, a Darwinian Atheist, argues, basically, that people don't need God in order to "find significance, or hope or meaning". JVL gives some 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."
The trouble with JVL's claim is that none of those things would exist without God. JVL's worldview of Darwinian Atheism simply lacks the basis to ground any of the things he appealed to. For instance, "People", i.e. humanity in general, much less "love" for other people, simply can find no grounding within his worldview Darwinian Atheism. People, i.e. "Man, the universal", simply does not exist within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution.
Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f
What about grounding our 'love' of fellow humans within Darwinian atheism? Forget about it! Love, and/or morally noble altruistic behavior of any sort, is simply completely antithetical to Darwin's "One general law" of letting "the strongest live and the weakest die”, i.e. Darwin's 'death as creator' view of reality.
“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 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/ 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
How about grounding "work or play or hobbies"? Can Darwinian atheism possibly ground any of those inspirational things? Well, working, playing and/or doing a hobby, all entail that some goal, and/or purpose, is trying to be achieved by someone, or by some group of people. Yet, teleological, goal-oriented,, purpose of any kind can simply find no grounding within JVL's worldview of Darwinian Atheism.
Teleology and the Mind – Michael Egnor – August 16, 2016 Excerpt: In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/
How about people finding "significance, or hope or meaning" in the "various art forms they experience"? Can Darwinism materialism ground the inspirational beauty we find in art? In a word, No! As the following video makes clear, art is merely a reflection and imitation, of the beauty that an artist finds in the world,
The Artists - The Artists is a short film about two rival painters who fail to see the bigger picture. http://vimeo.com/33670490
And Darwinian Atheists are simply at a complete loss to explain the beauty we see in nature. In fact, Charles Darwin himself denied the objective reality of beauty and even said that, “This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”
“The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists, against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.” (Charles Darwin – 1859, p. 199)
In short, Darwin, because of his reductive materialistic presuppositions, was forced to hold beauty to be, merely, 'illusory'. Might it be too obvious to point out that, directly contrary to what Charles Darwin believed, that we live in world overflowing with 'objectively real' beauty?
Beauty, Darwin & Design – video – 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ax-lkRoES8 The Biology of the Baroque – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FothcJW-Quo
bornagain77
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Viola Lee: Thanks to JVL at 39 and CD at 40 for adding some more substance to some of what motivated my post at 18. :-) I think what annoyed Relatd (in this particular case) is that you didn't directly answer his question; you tried to get at the assumptions and attitude behind the question which, of course, he found offensive. He'll probably find my response offensive as well. Oh well. He never worries about offending others so it would be disingenuous for him to get all worked up over some he disagrees with.JVL
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Thanks to JVL at 39 and CD at 40 for adding some more substance to some of what motivated my post at 18.Viola Lee
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
TLH/38 My question at Comment No. 15 was specifically directed to Caspian's Comment No. 12. To the extent that Caspian, the moderator, puts something in play, my view is that it is fair game for comment. Understanding also that implicit in every question is a comment, I am trying to find out the scope of Caspian's claim, i.e., if the ID/biblical path is the only path to "significance" or simply one of many ways to manifest meaning, significance and hope in one's life. If he intended the latter, then I have no problem with Caspian's observation. If he intended the former, then VL's Comment No. 18 is spot on...chuckdarwin
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
Bornagain77 & Relatd: Where do people find significance, or hope or meaning, outside of a Biblical worldview? 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. They are not children that need to be disciplined or held to a particular moral line. Most importantly of all: they do not have to agree with you what is significant or hopeful or meaningful. You've spent decades on this planet and you don't understand billions of other human beings and what they value then I think you should spend some time getting to know something about the world you live in. You should learn how to see things from other people's point of view. You expect others to respect your stance but you clearly have not even bothered to make an attempt to find out what makes others tick. Why else would you ask the question you asked? The world is not black and white, it's many, many lovely shades, like a coat of many colours. Thank goodness! Maybe you should experience some of those colours and see if they 'suit' you? After the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, religion returned. And that's worked well for them hasn't it? Let's see . . . under their new Christian tolerant regime they have supported genocide in Syria, annexed Crimea, invaded Ukraine killing thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children. All good then.JVL
December 11, 2022
December
12
Dec
11
11
2022
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT
In this thread, our Atheist and Agnostic friends have once again avoided discussing the scientific evidence for a belief in a non-supernatural origin of life.
What scientific evidence?Alan Fox
December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
Above in this thread details are given about various cellular mechanisms/machinery including repair, etc. These are observed and still there is a demand for proof that they require design. The same people demanding such proof would fully understand that if a claim were made that the simplest of machines, eg toothpicks, screws, pins, safety pins, let alone a piece of cloth, were produced by natural processes, the burden of proof would be on the one making the claim. Absurd!es58
December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT
I beleive we are diverging far from the topic of this thread. In this thread, our Atheist and Agnostic friends have once again avoided discussing the scientific evidence for a belief in a non-supernatural origin of life. Thus I enourage them to state their position clearly on whether or not there is ANY scientific evidence that life originated without a supernatural cause.. But nowadays, Creationism is in the catbird seat largely because of they have no case on this matter.TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
Dear Viola Lee My understanding is that Islam IS a Biblical religion. Moslems themselves regard it Biblical, calling themselves Abrahamic, as their foundation is the Old Testament. Christians have historically agreed. For example, in his Divine Comedy, Dante regarded Islam as a Christain heresy, somewhat like Arianism. That is becuase Moslems, like Arius, do not believe that Jesus is God, but they do believe that He was a great prophet. They call Him the "Gentle Prophet". They often exchange gifts on Christmas, and believe that Mary was a virgin and that she is the highest woman in heaven.TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals the Words 'The Lamb' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC59NxpKyu4 1 Peter 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Brooke Fraser - CS Lewis ("Hope is coming for me") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4RzmlWZ5fU Mandy Moore - Only Hope (A Walk To Remember) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXetsxNT9QM Graves Into Gardens - ft. Brandon Lake | Live | Elevation Worship https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwX1f2gYKZ4
bornagain77
December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
Post 32 by relatd appears to be in response to BA's post about atheism, not in response to my posts about non-Biblical religions. Do I understand that correctly?Viola Lee
December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
There are many warnings but some ears do not hear. Psalm 14:1 'The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.' Luke 16:31 "He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” The State religion in the Soviet Union was atheism. After the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, religion returned.relatd
December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Scroll, scroll, scroll.Sir Giles
December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Exactly how does one go about finding any real significance, purpose, and meaning for life, (much less finding any real hope for eternal life), within Atheistic Naturalism?,,, A worldview which explicitly denies that such 'abstract' entities as "significance, purpose, meaning, and hope" even exist?
"Life is never made unbearable by circumstances, but only by lack of meaning and purpose." - Viktor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning - 1946 - Austrian psychiatrist, Auschwitz survivor
,,, Atheistic naturalism is an inherently nihilistic worldview which explicitly denies that we have any real significance to our lives,,, even engendering a claim from the late Hawking that our lives have no more significance than 'chemical scum',,,,, a nihilistic worldview which also claims that the universe, and therefore our lives in the universe, have no real, and ultimate 'teleological purpose', behind their existence, (it's all a big ole purposeless accident of some random quantum fluctuation),,,,, and that, therefore, there simply can be no real meaning ever found for our lives in this big ole 'accidental' universe which just so happened to spring into existence, in a flash of light, for absolutely no reason whatsoever,,, a naturalistic worldview which also entails that we are purely physical beings, with no immaterial, i.e. spiritual, component to our being, and that, therefore, life ends at the grave and there simply can be no real hope for life beyond death? Fortunately for us, and thank God, all these nihilistic claims inherent within atheistic naturalism are all found to be false claims.
You Chemical Scum, You Raymond Tallis engages with the dregs of philosophy. Excerpt: Significant Insignificances Voltaire got things off to a jolly secular start quite a while back, by instructing the eponymous hero of his novel Zadig (1747) to visualise “men as they really are, insects devouring one another on a little atom of mud.”,, The philosopher and professional misanthrope John Gray has argued that Darwin has cured us of the delusions we might have had about our place in the order of things – we are beasts, metaphysically on all fours with the other beasts. “Man” Gray asserts in Straw Dogs (2003), “is only one of many species, and not obviously worth preserving.” And in case you’re still feeling a bit cocky, he adds: “human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.” Slime mould? Yikes! Can it get any worse? Yes it can. For physics has again been recruited to the great project of disproving our greatness. Stephen Hawking’s declaration in 1995 on a TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken, that “the human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate size planet, orbiting round a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a billion galaxies” is much quoted. If we beg to differ, perhaps is it only because we are like the mosquito who, according to Nietzsche, “floats through the air… feeling within himself the flying centre of the universe”? (‘On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense’, 1873.) There is something repugnant about this nihilistic grandstanding. For a start, it’s insincere. Voltaire did not consider himself merely an insect, any more than Gray considers slime mould his peer, or Hawking regards Hawking as a quantum of chemical scum. https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/You_Chemical_Scum_You Teleology and the Mind - Michael Egnor - August 16, 2016 Excerpt: In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/ 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 Easter Question - Eben Alexander, M.D. - Harvard - March 2013 Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,, Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that -- a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn't simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one. But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it's-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,, We are, really and truly, made in God's image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation -- one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone. But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It's not the world we actually live in.,,, ,, He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer... and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-alexander-md/the-easter-question_b_2979741.html
Verse:
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. Only Hope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnH9xU5qyVo
Of supplemental note
since Darwinian Atheists, as a foundational presupposition of their materialistic philosophy, (and not from any compelling scientific evidence mind you), deny the existence of souls, (and since the materialist’s denial of souls, (and God), has led to so much catastrophic disaster on human societies in the 20th century), then it is VERY important to ‘scientifically’ establish the existence of these ‘souls’ that are of incalculable worth, and that are equal, before God. Nov. 2022 https://uncommondescent.com/mind/at-evolution-news-does-a-new-scientific-study-offer-evidence-of-life-after-death/#comment-769693
bornagain77
December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
Relatd, I don't see how you can say I don't want a discussion? You asked a question. I provided an answer, and want to know whether you agree with my answer or not. That seems like the kind of thing that takes place in a discussion. What kind of response would you want me to provide that would qualify in your eyes as being part of a discussion?Viola Lee
December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
VL, I would argue that for many, significance, meaning and hope can be enhanced by religious beliefs, but they can’t be created by them.Sir Giles
December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
VL at 26, It appears you don't want to have a discussion. Oh well.relatd
December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
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?Viola Lee
December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
1 13 14 15 16

Leave a Reply