OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 12:29:15 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.2%)
both metaphorically and literally - 156 (46.2%)
Total Voters: 338

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 328791 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #585 on: June 01, 2008, 05:12:21 AM »

The fossil record shows no evidence, what so ever that leads to the theory of evolution. Where did you hear that?
Actually there are such large gaps that no one can fill the holes.
Would you like to tell us where these gaps are?  You have a lot of scientists, including our own resident biologist Heorhij, who will disagree vehemently with your interpretation of the fossil record.

Quote
And I have showed you that science needs observable data to verify a theory.
No you haven't, though I do understand this principle.  Many scientists, though, will preach that the fossil record provides much of the data they need to verify that the theory of evolution is for right now the most plausible explanation for what they see.


It is a problem: replication is one of the requirements of the scientific method, said to be at the basis of modern science.
The Big Bang theory is generally accepted as the best explanation for the phenomena we see in the universe today, but can we replicate the Big Bang?  If not, why do scientists accept the theory as the best explanation?  Studies into evolution and the Big Bang are evidence that science also tries to explain how things came to be what they are today, and in this type of historical study, replication is often not considered applicable.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 05:13:34 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,815



« Reply #586 on: June 01, 2008, 07:30:18 AM »

Children, although my wife and I are currently look at some bigger homes with lots of land out in the country and after the move it will no doubt result in an increasing brood! Of course, as the seven of us swam and built a bonfire tonight, a couple more would have just have made it merrier!

I like your attitude.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,815



« Reply #587 on: June 01, 2008, 07:33:34 AM »

As man proves, there would be the oddball pair giving it a swing!

On a serious note, they can potentially breed(I imagine anyone sick enough to try it would use artificial insemination if the female was a Chihuahua), although a female impregnated by a lab would have a good chance of dying in child birth or earlier during the pregnancy due to the probable size of the puppies.  In the coincidence category, my grandfather was actually a breeder of Chihuahuas, and coon dogs. Never together though that I know of!

Someone I know had a spontaneous experience with the scenerio laid out (or close to it, I think it was a Great Dane and one of those toy poddles I think (I don't know breeds)).  He had the puppies aborted because of fear of the size of them, so never found out if they were fertile.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,815



« Reply #588 on: June 01, 2008, 07:39:29 AM »

Would you like to tell us where these gaps are?  You have a lot of scientists, including our own resident biologist Heorhij, who will disagree vehemently with your interpretation of the fossil record.
And they dissagree vehemently amonst themselves.  Point?

Quote
No you haven't, though I do understand this principle.  Many scientists, though, will preach that the fossil record provides much of the data they need to verify that the theory of evolution is for right now the most plausible explanation for what they see.
Which is intertesting, as they are not above doctoring it to fit their theory.  Example: scientist find a hip bone which they identify as australopithicus I believe, but the configuration is not what their theory predicts.  Answer: postulate that some bovine stepped on the bone during fossilization, altering it.

Quote
The Big Bang theory is generally accepted as the best explanation for the phenomena we see in the universe today, but can we replicate the Big Bang?  If not, why do scientists accept the theory as the best explanation?  Studies into evolution and the Big Bang are evidence that science also tries to explain how things came to be what they are today, and in this type of historical study, replication is often not considered applicable.

If I recall correctly, the particle accelerators were supposed to do this.  And it has been theorized that the universe will collapse on itself, and the process will start all over.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #589 on: June 01, 2008, 11:31:24 AM »


No you haven't, though I do understand this principle.  Many scientists, though, will preach that the fossil record provides much of the data they need to verify that the theory of evolution is for right now the most plausible explanation for what they see.

Plausible doesn't make it actual. It's an educated guess.  laugh

Quote
The Big Bang theory is generally accepted as the best explanation for the phenomena we see in the universe today, but can we replicate the Big Bang?  If not, why do scientists accept the theory as the best explanation?  Studies into evolution and the Big Bang are evidence that science also tries to explain how things came to be what they are today, and in this type of historical study, replication is often not considered applicable.

This theory is also questionable because it lacks a good explanation of where matter came from.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #590 on: June 01, 2008, 02:45:50 PM »

Plausible doesn't make it actual. It's an educated guess. 

I think it's important to note the word educated.  The paleontologists are making things up or pulling things out of nothing.  There has been study and the collection of data and analysis of fossils and more. And when new information, fossils and data is found old ideas may change which doesn't mean that they were bad, but that they were based on incomplete data.

Quote
This theory is also questionable because it lacks a good explanation of where matter came from.

Just because something is not known *now* doesn't mean that it may not be found some time in the future.  And future science and knowledge is built on earlier foundations.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #591 on: June 01, 2008, 03:33:16 PM »

This theory is also questionable because it lacks a good explanation of where matter came from.

Was I the only person here paying attention in Quantum Mechanics? Perhaps you remember this Heisenberg fellow from...oh, I don't know...THE FIRST WEEK OF CLASS??? Roll Eyes
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #592 on: June 01, 2008, 03:40:34 PM »

Primordial soup etc. is beyond the scope of the theory of biological evolution, that's the realm of a different theory (abiogenesis).

Which is built on sound molecular biology. The fact that there is less observable evidence for abiogenesis than for evolution doesn't make the rejection of the theory any less absurd...especially when the alternative is to say an invisible guy in the sky did it. A googol to one odds of molecules bonding together at random would be infinitely more likely than any alternative theory thusfar presented.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,815



« Reply #593 on: June 01, 2008, 03:46:10 PM »

Which is built on sound molecular biology. The fact that there is less observable evidence for abiogenesis than for evolution doesn't make the rejection of the theory any less absurd...especially when the alternative is to say an invisible guy in the sky did it. A googol to one odds of molecules bonding together at random would be infinitely more likely than any alternative theory thusfar presented.

hello Greeki.  I was beginning to think extinction had caught up with you.

Actually the "invisible guy in the sky" is logically more consistent that your pet theory.  I've yet to see an explanation of how random abiogenesis overcomes entropy.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 04:51:36 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #594 on: June 01, 2008, 04:13:26 PM »

And they dissagree vehemently amonst themselves.  Point?
Yes, the point is that I wanted Demetrios to defend his statement that the fossil record offers absolutely no evidence for evolution, that the holes in the fossil record are too big.

Quote
Which is intertesting, as they are not above doctoring it to fit their theory.  Example: scientist find a hip bone which they identify as australopithicus I believe, but the configuration is not what their theory predicts.  Answer: postulate that some bovine stepped on the bone during fossilization, altering it.
Maybe the unscrupulous among evolutionary scientists, but can you apply "they" to ALL evolutionary scientists in such an attempt to discredit their science?

Quote
If I recall correctly, the particle accelerators were supposed to do this.
How so?

Quote
And it has been theorized that the universe will collapse on itself, and the process will start all over.
This, too, is no more a theory than the Big Bang, and even less testable.  It's difficult enough trying to understand the cosmic past without also trying to predict the future.  You think any scientist in the next thousand generations will still be around to witness this event?  SWYP?
Logged
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #595 on: June 01, 2008, 10:28:54 PM »

hello Greeki.  I was beginning to think extinction had caught up with you.

Actually the "invisible guy in the sky" is logically more consistent that your pet theory.  I've yet to see an explanation of how random abiogenesis overcomes entropy.

Although I don't want to agree with GIC (Cheesy) The fact (statistically) that ANY random number of events that could lead to create life are more probable and acceptable then to believe in a metaphysical realm and the existence of an omnipotent being. It's basic "easiest explanation is MOST (not always) true"
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #596 on: June 01, 2008, 10:30:05 PM »

hello Greeki.  I was beginning to think extinction had caught up with you.

Now don't you worry...me and my type of people are the intellectual future of the human race. The great thing about science is that is true, regardless of how many people believe in it or follow it...religion without followers has no value.

Quote
Actually the "invisible guy in the sky" is logically more consistent that your pet theory.  I've yet to see an explanation of how random abiogenesis overcomes entropy.

With no disrespect intended towards your flying spaghetti monster is it really that hard to see how atoms might somehow bond together to make the organic molecules that form the basis of life? Oh, and the argument about the Second Law of Thermodynamics is moot...it only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not and while a small degree of order may have been created a greater degree of chaos would have resulted on a subatomic level.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,815



« Reply #597 on: June 01, 2008, 11:18:40 PM »

Although I don't want to agree with GIC (Cheesy) The fact (statistically) that ANY random number of events that could lead to create life are more probable and acceptable then to believe in a metaphysical realm and the existence of an omnipotent being. It's basic "easiest explanation is MOST (not always) true"

Actually the postulate of an omnipotent being, who ipso facto could create life, is much simpler than running probability streams on all the variables.  It is also self contained consistent.  Btw, you don't need to get into the existence of a metaphysical realm.

Now don't you worry...me and my type of people are the intellectual future of the human race.


Ah, Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.  Aren't you the one against all this reproducing going on?  I didn't know that the pin head allele was adventageous.  Usually those who have it aren't mating.


Quote
The great thing about science is that is true, regardless of how many people believe in it or follow it

That's great to know, 'cause I just bought tons of stock in aether and phlogiston.  And I guess I have to admit to the truth of evolution.  After all, we can observe recapitulation, and that proves evolution, no?

Quote
...religion without followers has no value.

He makes the rain fall on the righteous and wicked.

Quote
With no disrespect intended towards your flying spaghetti monster is it really that hard to see how atoms might somehow bond together to make the organic molecules that form the basis of life?


Given the complexity, yes.

If it was so simple, your intellectual future of the human race should have been able to replicate it by now.

Quote
Oh, and the argument about the Second Law of Thermodynamics is moot...it only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not and while a small degree of order may have been created a greater degree of chaos would have resulted on a subatomic level.

Ah, exceptions, exceptions, exceptions.

So much for Great Unified Field.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 11:43:33 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #598 on: June 01, 2008, 11:47:54 PM »

Actually the postulate of an omnipotent being, who ipso facto could create life, is much simpler than running probability streams on all the variables.

Actually no the belief in an omnipotent deity is literally infinitely more complex to fathom and believe then to first believe that an almost statistically improbable event occurred (come on GIC back me up Cheesy). But seriously

It is also self contained consistent.  Btw, you don't need to get into the existence of a metaphysical realm.

So the existence of a metaphysical realm need not exist for an omnipotent THEISTIC deity to exist? I don't think its possible, but I could be wrong. and I assume your a theist (since you are Christian) unlike GIC which can get away with the whole metaphysical system.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 11:54:40 PM by prodromas » Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Stephans
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Western
Posts: 23

Jesus said I am the way and the truth and the life


WWW
« Reply #599 on: June 01, 2008, 11:53:28 PM »

No its not a "fact"...it is a theory with no evidence at all to back it up. I am not the most scientific person in the world but there are more and more books by reputable sciencists showing the weaknesses in the arguments for it from a purely scientific point of view.

Theologically of course what you just wrote is blasemphy.

You make God responsible for all the suffering, misery, sin and death- you are saying that the creation He brought out of nothing and described as very good wasnt really that good at all. You accuse Him of creating this world in a fallen state- of using "natural selection". If that is all true what does that make of the Cross of Christ? You also accuse of the Holy Spirit of lying to Moses when He inspired him to write the account of the creation of the world in Genisis. You accuse our Holy Fathers who noetically rose above time and in the Uncreated Grace of God and beheld the beginning and end of all things as being in Prelest.

You have also just called the righteous St John of Kronsdaht "just silly, stupid, plain ignorant"-

 "The Holy Scriptures speak more truly and more clearly of the world than the world itself or the arrangement of the earthly strata; the scriptures of nature within it, being dead and voiceless, cannot express anything definite. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Were you with God when He created the universe? "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counseller, hath taught Him?" And yet you geologists boast that you have understood the mind of the Lord, in the arrangement of strata, and maintained it in spite of Holy Writ! You believe more in the dead letters of the earthly strata, in the soulless earth, than in the Divinely-inspired words of the great prophet Moses, who saw God."

MY LIFE IN CHRIST

[translated, with the Author's sanction, from the Fourth and Supplemented Edition by E.E. Goulaeff, St. Petersburg]

(p. 41,42) 

Now that you have seen what that Holy man of God has written will you repent of your blasemphy?

Theophan.


Well said, Theophan.

To put it another way, if one were to accept evolution then the Kenosis of Christ does not exist and He died on the Cross for no reason other than the hatred of His enemies. Also, if one were to accept evolution then the Resurrection of Christ (a total impossibility in the opinion of evolutionary scientists) is nothing more than a forlorn wishful thinking by his apostles. The real reason for the anti-gospel of evolution as a supposed fact obviating and voiding the Christian faith of the believer is to bring in the Pantheistic-Monist en-sof of the qabbalists and the neo-gnostic hatred of the flesh leading to full gratification thereof; as well as many other objections to the Gospel of Christ. In short, though many who might try to defend evolution may not see themselves in this fashion, they are pandering to the apostasy that will bring in the Antichrist. I am not saying they do this on purpose, but they fall into a trap laid carefully for them. Our Lord Jesus Christ was born of the most Blessed Theotokos, the Virgin Mary, an impossibility in an evolutionary universe. Our Lord Jesus Christ walked on water and transformed five loaves and a few fishes into a huge amount and raised the dead including Lazarus who was rotting already. All of this is impossible in an evolutionary universe. Our  Lord Jesus Christ made the singular sign of proof of His divine mission His own Resurrection from the dead in the flesh and showed this forth as the promise of our own resurrection at His return from heaven from the Father's right hand. All of this is impossible and unthinkable in an evolutionary universe. We have to face the question, which is impossible and unthinkable? The Truth of Christ or evolution? I say evolution is impossible and unthinkable.

A few scriptures to think on:

2Pt:3:
2  That you may be mindful of those words which I told you before from the holy prophet and of your apostles, of the precepts of the Lord and Saviour.
3 ¶ Knowing this first: That in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4  Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? For since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5  For this they are wilfully ignorant of: That the heavens were before, and the earth out of water and through water, consisting by the word of God:
6  Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
7  But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of the ungodly men.

1Cor:15:
1 ¶ Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received and wherein you stand.
2  By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.
3  For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures:
4  And that he was buried: and that he rose again according to the scriptures:
5  And that he was seen by Cephas, and after that by the eleven.
6  Then was he seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep.
7  After that, he was seen by James: then by all the apostles.
8  And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time.
12 ¶ Now if Christ be preached, that he arose again from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13  But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again.
14  And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain.
15  Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ, whom he hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again.
16  For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again.
17  And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain: for you are yet in your sins.
18  Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19  If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20 ¶ But now Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep:
21  For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead.
22  And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.
23  But every one in his own order: the firstfruits, Christ: then they that are of Christ, who have believed in his coming.


And of course the genealogies in St. Matthew's Gospel and St. Luke's Gospel make it clear that 70 human generations passed between the first man Adam and Christ. Without redemption from the death brought in by Adam's sin then both the Kenosis of Christ and His Resurrection become meaningless. They are not meaningless but the Truth.
Logged

* * *

Lk:7:35:
35  And wisdom is justified by all her children.
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #600 on: June 02, 2008, 12:08:11 AM »

A little aside to state the obvious, since statistics is, "a mathematical science pertaining to the collection, analysis, interpretation or explanation, and presentation of data." I don't see how it could come up with any sort of probability on something like the existence of a creator who lives outside the scientific realm. Any "probability" someone posited would just be a random, unscientific guess.  Which of course is why someone like GIC says any probability of existence from atoms bonding together is greater than the probability of the existence of a metaphysical creator, they've lost their faith and reject any data that might point to God. Ultimately, you either believe in a metaphysical God (or a flying spaghetti monster as some so charitably describe it) or you don't. You won't find statistics to back you up one way or another. Of course, when you have faith in God you don't normally feel the need to back it up with statistics. And when you don't have faith in God, nothing posited as data for his existence like the resurrection, miracles, etc. would you consider as credible evidence that you would then enter into any sort of statistical equation. This of course, is why 2000 years after the resurrection we are still here arguing whether God exists, miracles occur, etc.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 12:36:20 AM by livefreeordie » Logged
LakaYaRabb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 209



WWW
« Reply #601 on: June 02, 2008, 12:17:30 AM »

Quote
Quote
Science has not and cannot determine what constitues a human being. Why? Because science cannot prove the existence of the soul. Science takes a very materialistic very of the human being. They ask questions like "How big is his brain? How tall was he? What was the shape of his skull". Last time I checked, Christianity does not consider materialism as a the definitive qualifier for what makes a human being human.

Also regarding "ensoulment", God created man in His Image and Likeness. Of Cro-Mag's and Neanderthals are our biological ancestors, but didn't have a soul, then God would have inserted a soul into an pre-existing animal species. Lame.

Bottom line: If Cro-Mag's and Neanderthals aren't human, then they were animals without a soul. IMHO, they were less advanced in skills and technology, but were still humans with a soul.



But where do we go from here? What are you implying? Yes, science cannot define or study soul, and it doesn't do it. Yes, scientifically speaking, we are absolutely unable to say, just who was this first owner of a "truly human" soul. So... what?


Where we go is to the creation of man. We can have endless discussions from a scientific point of view as to "when" man became man. Why? Because the scientific qualkifier for "when" is human consciousness.

For Christianity, it is an open and closed book. Man was created by God with a soul and consciousness of who he was. There was no "pre-human" ape roaming around that was zapped with a soul after evolution and natural selection ahd produced it's flesh.

THe so what is that science creates a dualistic body-mind divide by evolution. There is no soul for man in science, there is only consciousness and according to the current theory of evolution, consciousnes "developed" over time.

To this I say, huh? Really?

I reject a marixist view of the human person, that is that unconscious man "created" and "evolved" himself over time from a primate. I alos reject a deistic view of the human person in which God created a system and leaves it to "play out as he designed it" from the beginning without intervention.

Rather, God gives us every breath of every moment of our existence. He blesses us with each movement of every motion. He loves us so intimately that He IS the very life and energy we live. This isn't some Pantheistic view of creation, but rather creation as Communion with God. I do not believe that God needs natural selection or evolution to determine how creation works, especially not for man.

IN the end, science is a great discipline to study the world around us. But the best science pales in comparison to the worst (but honest) pursuit of holiness by living life in Christ. Man is made for deification;this is something science cannot understand.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #602 on: June 02, 2008, 12:36:41 AM »

To put it another way, if one were to accept evolution then the Kenosis of Christ does not exist and He died on the Cross for no reason other than the hatred of His enemies. Also, if one were to accept evolution then the Resurrection of Christ (a total impossibility in the opinion of evolutionary scientists) is nothing more than a forlorn wishful thinking by his apostles. The real reason for the anti-gospel of evolution as a supposed fact obviating and voiding the Christian faith of the believer is to bring in the Pantheistic-Monist en-sof of the qabbalists and the neo-gnostic hatred of the flesh leading to full gratification thereof; as well as many other objections to the Gospel of Christ. In short, though many who might try to defend evolution may not see themselves in this fashion, they are pandering to the apostasy that will bring in the Antichrist. I am not saying they do this on purpose, but they fall into a trap laid carefully for them. Our Lord Jesus Christ was born of the most Blessed Theotokos, the Virgin Mary, an impossibility in an evolutionary universe. Our Lord Jesus Christ walked on water and transformed five loaves and a few fishes into a huge amount and raised the dead including Lazarus who was rotting already. All of this is impossible in an evolutionary universe. Our  Lord Jesus Christ made the singular sign of proof of His divine mission His own Resurrection from the dead in the flesh and showed this forth as the promise of our own resurrection at His return from heaven from the Father's right hand. All of this is impossible and unthinkable in an evolutionary universe. We have to face the question, which is impossible and unthinkable? The Truth of Christ or evolution? I say evolution is impossible and unthinkable.
This, however, is based on the premise that ALL who argue in favor of evolution are necessarily motivated by an anti-Christian spirit of materialism.  This is just an overly broad induction from the fact that a few evolutionists are indeed materialists, IMO.  Your reasoning doesn't take into account, however, the many genuine Christians who seek to reconcile the evidence for evolution (apart from the naturalistic agendas of many of the theory's most militant advocates) with their unwavering faith in the salvific work of Jesus Christ through human history.  In short, I don't think evolutionary science and materialist/naturalist philosophy are necessarily inseparable.


BTW, welcome to the forum, Stephans. Grin
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 12:38:08 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Stephans
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Western
Posts: 23

Jesus said I am the way and the truth and the life


WWW
« Reply #603 on: June 02, 2008, 01:56:03 AM »


...


BTW, welcome to the forum, Stephans. Grin

Thank you! Glad to be here.


Logged

* * *

Lk:7:35:
35  And wisdom is justified by all her children.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #604 on: June 02, 2008, 09:07:58 AM »

Was I the only person here paying attention in Quantum Mechanics? Perhaps you remember this Heisenberg fellow from...oh, I don't know...THE FIRST WEEK OF CLASS??? Roll Eyes

You missed a good show. the Six Billion Dollar Experiment on the science channel. It was on this morning. They are trying to prove, Heisenberg uncertainty principle. http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/special.html?paid=48.15158.25615.0.0

Trying and proving are two different things. Wink
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #605 on: June 02, 2008, 10:43:18 AM »

You missed a good show. the Six Billion Dollar Experiment on the science channel. It was on this morning. They are trying to prove, Heisenberg uncertainty principle. http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/special.html?paid=48.15158.25615.0.0

Trying and proving are two different things. Wink

Wow...you don't buy the Uncertainty Principle either...LMAO. Cheesy And while there are a handful of interpretations other than the uncertainty principle (though none nearly as well developed) for the universal absence of vacuum, not one denies the observable fact that mass spontaneously appears.

I guess you ditched Physics as often as you ditched Biology. If you want to believe in a supernatural entity, that's your business, but it's just comical when you try to make your superstitions out to be reasonable.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #606 on: June 02, 2008, 10:21:14 PM »

Wow...you don't buy the Uncertainty Principle either...LMAO. Cheesy And while there are a handful of interpretations other than the uncertainty principle (though none nearly as well developed) for the universal absence of vacuum, not one denies the observable fact that mass spontaneously appears.

I guess you ditched Physics as often as you ditched Biology. If you want to believe in a supernatural entity, that's your business, but it's just comical when you try to make your superstitions out to be reasonable.
The First Law of Thermodynamics is called a "law" because within the bounds of scientific observation it has been proven true beyond all reasonable doubt. The First Law of Thermodynamics asserts that matter or its energy equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed under natural circumstances. Matter cannot create itself and, in the real world, cannot arise from nothing. Within the bounds of natural law all effects must have a cause. Because of this fact, the spontaneous appearance of hydrogen atoms out of nothing (ex nihilo creation) is a definite breach of the First Law of Thermodynamics which asserts that matter, under natural  circumstances, can neither be created nor destroyed.
   Lets not forget Isaac Newton's Law of Inertia. which declares that a body at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. Wink
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #607 on: June 03, 2008, 12:03:47 AM »

The First Law of Thermodynamics is called a "law" because within the bounds of scientific observation it has been proven true beyond all reasonable doubt. The First Law of Thermodynamics asserts that matter or its energy equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed under natural circumstances. Matter cannot create itself and, in the real world, cannot arise from nothing. Within the bounds of natural law all effects must have a cause. Because of this fact, the spontaneous appearance of hydrogen atoms out of nothing (ex nihilo creation) is a definite breach of the First Law of Thermodynamics which asserts that matter, under natural  circumstances, can neither be created nor destroyed.
   Lets not forget Isaac Newton's Law of Inertia. which declares that a body at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. Wink

You do understand that these 'laws' only apply to classical systems don't you? If you don't believe that matter can be destroyed, pray tell, how do you explain Hiroshima? What do you think is the significance of the famous equation E=mc^2? And, quite frankly, how can I possibly discuss scientific issues with someone who obviously has zero grasp of even the most basic principles of Quantum Mechanics? You really need to go back and revisit your education in the sciences.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #608 on: June 03, 2008, 12:15:27 AM »

You do understand that these 'laws' only apply to classical systems don't you? If you don't believe that matter can be destroyed, pray tell, how do you explain Hiroshima?

It would probably be more accurate to say that matter was converted or transformed to energy at Hiroshima, or even rearranged.  But not destroyed.  Of course, I'm sure you knew that! You just got a little carried away.  Wink And of course, we could probably also argue the semantics of "destroyed".
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 12:32:39 AM by livefreeordie » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #609 on: June 03, 2008, 01:30:05 AM »

It would probably be more accurate to say that matter was converted or transformed to energy at Hiroshima, or even rearranged.  But not destroyed.  Of course, I'm sure you knew that! You just got a little carried away.  Wink And of course, we could probably also argue the semantics of "destroyed".

Actually, there's an even more fundamental problem...I implied a fundamental divide between matter and energy, whereas the two are essentially the same thing; but the example does illustrate the absurdity of applying laws of classical thermodynamics to nuclear physics and quantum mechanics, matter in the classical understanding of the term (the understanding in the laws of thermodynamics) actually was destroyed with a release of energy (the exact thing the first law of thermodynamics says cannot happen...you see, sometimes 'theories' are better supported and developed than 'laws'...in fact most 'laws' in physics are technically wrong).

The better example is vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles...which is what I was getting at with all my talk of the uncertainty principle. The response was a red herring, criticizing the Copenhagen Interpretation...but regardless of your opinion of the Copenhagen Interpretation (assuming someone on this board is even in a position to offer an opinion one way or the other), vacuum fluctuations are strongly supported by experimental evidence.

So what's the response? Dismissing quantum mechanics based on the classical laws of physics. This may be the only thing I've read on this board that is more absurd than attacking the Theory of Evolution...the effects of vacuum fluctuations and virtul particles can be observed over and over again, it is a repeatable and verified experiment. Heck, Willis Lamb got his Noble Prize for measuring the effect back in '53, this stuff is ancient history. I simply don't see how any sane and rational person could dismiss these well established fundamentals of quantum mechanics...the experiments have been published, if you doubt the results you can reproduce them, try it for yourself, see what happens...physicists don't make a mystery out of these things, everything's freely available to the world.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 01:31:39 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #610 on: June 03, 2008, 12:03:19 PM »

Actually, there's an even more fundamental problem...I implied a fundamental divide between matter and energy, whereas the two are essentially the same thing; but the example does illustrate the absurdity of applying laws of classical thermodynamics to nuclear physics and quantum mechanics, matter in the classical understanding of the term (the understanding in the laws of thermodynamics) actually was destroyed with a release of energy (the exact thing the first law of thermodynamics says cannot happen...you see, sometimes 'theories' are better supported and developed than 'laws'...in fact most 'laws' in physics are technically wrong).

The better example is vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles...which is what I was getting at with all my talk of the uncertainty principle. The response was a red herring, criticizing the Copenhagen Interpretation...but regardless of your opinion of the Copenhagen Interpretation (assuming someone on this board is even in a position to offer an opinion one way or the other), vacuum fluctuations are strongly supported by experimental evidence.

So what's the response? Dismissing quantum mechanics based on the classical laws of physics. This may be the only thing I've read on this board that is more absurd than attacking the Theory of Evolution...the effects of vacuum fluctuations and virtul particles can be observed over and over again, it is a repeatable and verified experiment. Heck, Willis Lamb got his Noble Prize for measuring the effect back in '53, this stuff is ancient history. I simply don't see how any sane and rational person could dismiss these well established fundamentals of quantum mechanics...the experiments have been published, if you doubt the results you can reproduce them, try it for yourself, see what happens...physicists don't make a mystery out of these things, everything's freely available to the world.
There is currently no evidence that proton decay exists. Some are claiming that it does. Nothing has yet to be proven.

« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 12:07:46 PM by Demetrios G. » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #611 on: June 03, 2008, 01:40:00 PM »

The response was a red herring, criticizing the Copenhagen Interpretation...but regardless of your opinion of the Copenhagen Interpretation (assuming someone on this board is even in a position to offer an opinion one way or the other), vacuum fluctuations are strongly supported by experimental evidence.

If your knowledge is so superior to that of the OC.net community (which it probably is, I was a Math major and you touch on things I've long lost a good understanding of) that you question whether anyone here can even have an opinion on statements like the Copenhagen Interpretation and other issues of higher Mathematics and Physics you like to pontificate upon, then the really interesting question is, why do you bother?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #612 on: June 03, 2008, 09:55:02 PM »

If your knowledge is so superior to that of the OC.net community (which it probably is, I was a Math major and you touch on things I've long lost a good understanding of) that you question whether anyone here can even have an opinion on statements like the Copenhagen Interpretation and other issues of higher Mathematics and Physics you like to pontificate upon, then the really interesting question is, why do you bother?

For what it's worth, I don't consider myself to be in a position to opine on the viability of the Copenhagen Interpretation, while my physics training is grounded in it and I have a descent grasp of the main concepts, I still take issue with it at times. Furthermore, I am not really familiar enough with Mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics to make a truly informed judgement, especially the developments over the last 50 years or so. Many physicists would question whether anyone is truly in a place to offer an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (other than the so-called 'null interpretation': 'Shut up and calculate!' Cheesy Wink), but the experiments and mathematical equations still stand, regardless of how one interprets them, and those are what I was addressing when referring to vacuum fluctuations.

As for why do I bother...guess I just don't have anything better to do. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #613 on: June 03, 2008, 09:57:49 PM »

There is currently no evidence that proton decay exists. Some are claiming that it does. Nothing has yet to be proven.

And WHAT, pray tell, does that have to do with vacuum energy? Now you're just begging the question. Roll Eyes
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,815



« Reply #614 on: June 03, 2008, 11:00:56 PM »

Actually no the belief in an omnipotent deity is literally infinitely more complex to fathom and believe then to first believe that an almost statistically improbable event occurred (come on GIC back me up Cheesy). But seriously

Actually, theologically speaking, God is simple, although inifinite.  Actually, being inifinite is connected to Him being simple.

Quote
So the existence of a metaphysical realm need not exist for an omnipotent THEISTIC deity to exist? I don't think its possible, but I could be wrong. and I assume your a theist (since you are Christian) unlike GIC which can get away with the whole metaphysical system.
Yes, theism comes with the Creed.  But since physics (science in general) depends on the finite analysis of finite beings of finite data, something beyond that finite realm is an easy concept.  As to supernatural, that would depend on it being brought within that finite data, another issue.  As for the ominpotent, or better, necessary being, He is a case unto Himself, and one need only prove the logical possibility/inevitability of such a being transending the limits of finite man's knowledge:the God of the Philosophers. Not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  But that's why we have revelation.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #615 on: June 04, 2008, 12:48:15 AM »

Actually, theologically speaking, God is simple, although inifinite.  Actually, being inifinite is connected to Him being simple.

That's nice and all, but let's, for just a minute, pretend we're rational beings rather than 'theological' ones.

I know it's probably too much to expect everyone here to at least have a basic grasp of topology and/or computability theory, but here we go. The infinite is only simple if it lacks or has a very mundane topology, an infinite plane for instance. Otherwise it has the potential of being a computational level beyond the finite, it could solve the halting problem, or even more complex problems depending on the degree of infinity...but then, of course, it's no longer simple. If the infinite is useful it cannot be simple, if it is simple it cannot be useful.

I personally like the 'simple god' theory...no person, no consciousness, no will...simply the impersonal reality of consistency...but I would have thought that you would disagree.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #616 on: June 06, 2008, 02:07:41 PM »

I believe that the Church Fathers, the Saints, all the Apostles, the Disciples and Prophets will always be more correct than Science ever could dream to be.

While the Bible is not a book meant to be taken historically or scientifically, it nevertheless, speaks the truth, and the truth in the Bible, as preached by the Prophets all the way to the Church Fathers and the Orthodox Church, has not changed.

I think I have heard from an Orthodox person whom is very respected today, that it is simply "unorthodox" for Orthodox people to look at things soley from a philosophical and scientific perspective. From what I heard said, was that instead we need to balance it with theological knowledge and always (in a sense) weigh it against what we already know.

Example: The Church Fathers wrote and taught many things, and they themselves said they may not always be correct. Therefore we cannot take one Church Father's opinion/teachings over another or study it always by itself, instead we must look at them together. Those teachings that are true, generally do not contradict. The same goes for Science. We cannot simply say that God exists, and this is how Science says everything occurs... No, instead we must weigh science with others, including the many Saints, Prophets, Apostles etc... as well as the Scriptures.

Another thing, from what I understand about Orthodoxy so far, is that what has always been taught by the Church as a whole, is true and right. The Creed has always been taught and accepted by the Church. We KNOW that God created the heavens and the earth. We know God created man in his image. We know that man was given "dominion" over all the animals. We know that man fell into sin and thus the result is death. We know many things which are true and MUST be believed by any Christian. From what I understand, anything beyond what we know is true, and what is required "doctrine" simply does not matter, and are not things we really have to know.

Forgive me if I am wrong in anything I said about Orthodoxy, I'm still trying to learn, and please, correct me if I'm wrong about it.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2008, 02:09:22 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #617 on: June 06, 2008, 03:44:25 PM »

And WHAT, pray tell, does that have to do with vacuum energy? Now you're just begging the question. Roll Eyes
I didn't relate them to vacuum energy. Atoms don't exist outside of matter. I was just making a general statement that even though Atoms break down during an explosion. Protons are indestructible.
Quantum mechanics and the big bang haven't bin proven. I myself prefer the Schrödinger's cat paradox over both of them.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
EofK
Mrs. Y
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 3,976


lolcat addict


« Reply #618 on: June 06, 2008, 04:01:42 PM »

Can't... resist... must post... lolcat:



Seriously though, Schrodinger's paradox seems silly to me.  I'm no scientist by any stretch of the imagination but just because you don't know if the cat is alive doesn't mean it's both alive and dead.  Reality is one way or the other. 
Logged

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #619 on: June 06, 2008, 04:23:07 PM »

I didn't relate them to vacuum energy. Atoms don't exist outside of matter. I was just making a general statement that even though Atoms break down during an explosion. Protons are indestructible.

Who said anything about protons? The spontaneous unification of three quarks absent confinement is theoretically possible but would be exceedingly rare. Of course, if the universe was confined in a single point it would happen quite frequently. The spontaneously generated particles that create vacuum fluctuations are much smaller.

Quote
Quantum mechanics and the big bang haven't bin proven. I myself prefer the Schrödinger's cat paradox over both of them.

It's not a paradox, it's a metaphor.

Seriously though, Schrodinger's paradox seems silly to me.  I'm no scientist by any stretch of the imagination but just because you don't know if the cat is alive doesn't mean it's both alive and dead.  Reality is one way or the other. 

At the quantum level the double-slit experiment would suggest otherwise. You send a single electron through a paper with several slits you will find that it takes all possible paths simultaneously, but the act of observation will alter the path, kinda. The fallacy is in applying logic from the classical world to the quantum level.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
EofK
Mrs. Y
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 3,976


lolcat addict


« Reply #620 on: June 06, 2008, 04:25:50 PM »

The fallacy is in applying logic from the classical world to the quantum level.

That would be why I'm no scientist.   Grin  I just can't seem to think on a quantum level.
Logged

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #621 on: June 06, 2008, 05:45:36 PM »

Quantum mechanics and the big bang haven't bin proven. I myself prefer the Schrödinger's cat paradox over both of them.
Actually, the Schrödinger's cat metaphor is used to describe a principle of quantum mechanics, so to talk about the former is to talk about the latter.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2008, 05:47:41 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,815



« Reply #622 on: June 06, 2008, 08:52:35 PM »

That's nice and all, but let's, for just a minute, pretend we're rational beings rather than 'theological' ones.

I'd rather deal with the reality that we are beings with reason.

Quote
I know it's probably too much to expect everyone here to at least have a basic grasp of topology and/or computability theory, but here we go. The infinite is only simple if it lacks or has a very mundane topology, an infinite plane for instance. Otherwise it has the potential of being a computational level beyond the finite, it could solve the halting problem, or even more complex problems depending on the degree of infinity...but then, of course, it's no longer simple. If the infinite is useful it cannot be simple, if it is simple it cannot be useful.

I personally like the 'simple god' theory...no person, no consciousness, no will...simply the impersonal reality of consistency...but I would have thought that you would disagree.
The reason why Pascal sought the God of Abraham, and not the god of the philosophers.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #623 on: June 06, 2008, 09:41:45 PM »

I'd rather deal with the reality that we are beings with reason.

Apparently not all of us...you, after all, still believe in an invisible man in the sky who cares about your personal sex life.

Quote
The reason why Pascal sought the God of Abraham, and not the god of the philosophers.

I can forgive him, he lived in a superstitious time without sound scientific explinations for the origins of the world around him. As for those who follow in his footsteps in the modern world...I fear there can be no reprieve.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,815



« Reply #624 on: June 06, 2008, 09:46:38 PM »

Apparently not all of us...you, after all, still believe in an invisible man in the sky who cares about your personal sex life.

And you conceive of yourself as an embodied libido.  How rational.  Isn't that all hormone? no thought involved at all.

Quote
I can forgive him, he lived in a superstitious time without sound scientific explinations for the origins of the world around him. As for those who follow in his footsteps in the modern world...I fear there can be no reprieve.

Poor Greeki and his kind.  Can't accept his heros as they are: has to sanitize them to fit his pre(mis)conceived notions.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2008, 09:47:28 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #625 on: June 06, 2008, 09:57:16 PM »

And you conceive of yourself as an embodied libido.  How rational.  Isn't that all hormone? no thought involved at all.

I am a biochemical machine, in large part programmed through natural selection to reproduce...thought initially augmented my means to survive and reproduce, today we can be greatful that it has met and exceeded this goal. But yes, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but there is no meaning to life, no higher power loves you, you are but a speck in a cold dark universe, get over it and get on with life, or fantasize about it until you die, your mind decays, and you enter into utter nothingness...doesn't bother me either way.

Quote
Poor Greeki and his kind.  Can't accept his heros as they are: has to sanitize them to fit his pre(mis)conceived notions.

Heros? Heros are for religions, you can't have Buddhism without Buddha, you can't have Islam without Mohammed, you can't have Christianity without Jesus. But with science, it's the idea that is significant...if Pascal hadn't made his discoveries, someone else would no doubt have...he was the first to see something, but by no means the only person in history capable of doing so; even without him science would have advanced. In fact, religion has long been the bane of science and human advancement, even in great minds. Pythagoras had an absurd religious adversion to irrational numbers, had he simply focused on the mathematics and forgot about the philosophical non-sense who knows how much further he could have pushed the boundaries of mathematical knowledge? Likewise with Pascal, had he not been such a fool as to abandon the pursuit of science for such useless trivia as religion and philosophy perhaps he could have made even greater contributions to science, instead the opium of masses stole from science and human progress a few precious years of his research. Religion can be the bane and humiliation of great men, but never their glory.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #626 on: June 06, 2008, 10:05:56 PM »

Actually, theologically speaking, God is simple, although inifinite. 

Isn't this the argument heretics use to deny the distinction between the Divine Essence and the Divine Energies?
One Essence, three Hypostases, the Second of which is One Prosopon and two Ousia in one Hypostasis and is homoousious with the First and Second Hypostases.
Yeah, simple aint it? Cheesy
« Last Edit: June 06, 2008, 10:11:53 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #627 on: June 06, 2008, 10:20:12 PM »

I am a biochemical machine, in large part programmed through natural selection to reproduce...thought initially augmented my means to survive and reproduce, today we can be greatful that it has met and exceeded this goal. But yes, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but there is no meaning to life, no higher power loves you, you are but a speck in a cold dark universe, get over it and get on with life, or fantasize about it until you die, your mind decays, and you enter into utter nothingness...doesn't bother me either way.

Now I know why you've spent so much here and can't keep away, your "cold dark universe" must be a cold dark lonely place considering you see us all as specs.  Pimping on us spaghetti worshipers must be like firing up the hearth and sipping on a cup of hot chocolate!  Wink If you've been programmed to enjoy such a thing that is! Wink

The problem with God, and Love, and Jesus is they are irresistable.  As much as we might mock, doubt, scourge or vent on them, our hearts keep dragging us back.  And thank God, they are always welcome to receive us.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2008, 10:21:40 PM by livefreeordie » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #628 on: June 06, 2008, 10:26:38 PM »

Now I know why you've spent so much here and can't keep away, your "cold dark universe" must be a cold dark lonely place considering you see us all as specs.  Pimping on us spaghetti worshipers must be like firing up the hearth and sipping on a cup of hot chocolate!  Wink If you've been programmed to enjoy such a thing that is! Wink

The problem with God, and Love, and Jesus is they are irresistable.  As much as we might mock, doubt, scourge or vent on them, our hearts keep dragging us back.  And thank God, they are always welcome to receive us.

Yes, yes, yes...homo sapiens are social animals, they want to be loved and accepted because it ultimately helps form societies which are beneficial for survival and procreation from an evolutionary perspective. Religion is simply a misplaced attempt to pursue something that truly is good, social behaviour.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #629 on: June 06, 2008, 10:35:14 PM »


 But with science, it's the idea that is significant...never their glory.

Give Glory to him who gave us ideas than.

Philon said: That ideas were the thoughts of God. They were not above God. They were within God.  Ideas are the fixed basis on which the world depended. Phenomena are variable. Whatever we see in this world, changes constantly.   
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.164 seconds with 74 queries.