Was life on Earth created by an evil designer?

[Jan Ardena]

The idea of spontaneous generation of life (maggots) was based on observation of the world. For example, it was observed that if one left raw meat out for a while, often maggots would be seen on the meat after some time. So, the hypothesis was formed that maggots generated spontaneously.

Why didn't it remain that maggots generate from meat?
I would say, because some people knew that they didn't, and of course they were right.

However, further careful testing showed that the maggots wouldn't form if, for example, the meat was placed in a sealed container. Therefore, the spontaneously generation hypothesis eventually had to be ditched for a better idea.

It wasn't replaced. It was simply wrong.

And what led to the better idea? Was it faith that the cause of maggots was supernatural? No, it was science.

People already knew maggots didn't spontaneously generate out of mean, long before scientists found that they didn't.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you grow up in a community where religion dominates and even the "smart folk" go along with the idea there are few who would challenge or think things through and not blindly accept the made up stuff the ancients used to explain cosmology.

Are you saying that people are in a religion are dumb?

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Are you saying that people are in a religion are dumb?

Not in this instance.
Try " even the most respected people in the community".
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Do you really believe that God is a made concept?
Why do you?

Yes that is my belief.

I believe humans enjoy "make believe" and in the absence of any facts I can only conclude the concept of God was made up, if not you could point to facts that would put aside my belief. But you never provide facts...never Jan.
You argue very well and such that one can forget you do not support your argument with facts.
And that is understandable because you seek to argue for something that has no basis in fact.
Its wonderful you have a strong belief but it is very wrong to suggest to others that you present a truth that is self evident and that is somehow a fact. It is not and your skill in argument will not change that.

Who said they made it up?
That is what they observed.

I say their interpretation was made up, they observed maggots and made up an explanation which was wrong.
They tried to interpret the world and made up reasons for maggots and no doubt made up a lot of stuff about anything they tried to explain.

How did the world come into being?
Well someone made it let's call him God...if you can offer an alternative to my speculation please ...let's hear how they developed their cosmology.

And so if there was a flood it was God's will rather than something now understood even by children, if the volcano erupted.. yes Gods will..a terrible accident.. Gods will.

Its all made up I can not understand why that is so difficult to understand Jan particularly when there is a never ending supply of examples.


Oh ..and if you said otherwise or even hinted God was not involved in everything ...well you do know the consequences back then don't you Jan...not much opportunity to go against the made up stuff was there...

And ask why is it God's will and all the ancients could answer (and this is even carried to the modern era) ...God works in mysterious ways.

Is there a hint that anything was more than simply made up?

Alex

 

[wellwisher]

It's not asking the layman at all but rather asking the one making the claim to simply support that claim in a manner that science can understand and acknowledge. But you can't do that because God is outside of the purview of science; it is an unscientific concept.
The reason that it has persisted is because it helps provide answers to the questions that humanity has (who are we, where did we come from, what is our purpose etc) while itself remaining elusive to falsification, and the answers it gives remaining as elusive. The comfort people get from the answers provided, that in many cases allay fears of death and insignificance and the ilk, helps support the concept from which those answers arise.

Science is about sensory based reality, using tools to extend out sensory limits. The example I used, about being left in the woods, is an experiment, designed to induce affects that begin within the person. If we placed cameras, microphones and other types of scientific sensory enhancement tools, to watch this experiment, none of the tools will pick up the bear in shadows. Since we may record the person running, the affect is real to them. However, it can only be viewed from the inside their mind.

If we took all the scientists, who were previously running the tools and then, one by one, place them in similar dark woods situations, some will have a similar experience, and be able to collect data. But once again no external data, using cameras or microphones will be recorded. Science is not equipped to deal with certain types of data, using only external data collection procedures.

There are things that exist, that can motivate, which science can't see. Very few people are aware of this type of data, but it impacts all theory. Dark energy has never been proven with any sensory based enhancement tools. It can only be witnessed, in the minds of those who like this theory. I can place my tools around you while you like dark energy, but nothing will ever register on my tools to prove this is real. I might need to go to lecture, where someone can created the dark woods for me, so I can have that inside experience.

 

[Sarkus]

The example I used, about being left in the woods, is an experiment, designed to induce affects that begin within the person. If we placed cameras, microphones and other types of scientific sensory enhancement tools, to watch this experiment, none of the tools will pick up the bear in shadows. Since we may record the person running, the affect is real to them. However, it can only be viewed from the inside their mind.

Yes. We call this evidence subjective.

There are things that exist, that can motivate, which science can't see.

Like what?
The motivation is quite real, and does exist - it will be a mix of chemicals (e.g. adrenalin) and processing.
What is perceived by the individual is a subjective interpretation. It no more exists than anything else that doesn't exist.
But what can motivate is that interpretation - but the what gives rise to the interpretation within the mind is very real in that it is chemicals and processing etc.

Very few people are aware of this type of data, but it impacts all theory. Dark energy has never been proven with any sensory based enhancement tools. It can only be witnessed, in the minds of those who like this theory. I can place my tools around you while you like dark energy, but nothing will ever register on my tools to prove this is real. I might need to go to lecture, where someone can created the dark woods for me, so I can have that inside experience.

You still seem to be mixing notions here.
Dark energy is merely a hypothesis - it is merely a black-box for something that is needed to bridge our current theoretical understanding of cosmology to what we observe. There are no claims of the truth of its existence as there are with God, and it is open to falsification, unlike God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes that is my belief.

I believe humans enjoy "make believe" and in the absence of any facts I can only conclude the concept of God was made up, if not you could point to facts that would put aside my belief. But you never provide facts...never Jan.

So humans enjoy making up a concept that they could never conceive of because its non existent?
Why did you conclude that God was made up? Where are the facts

You argue very well and such that one can forget you do not support your argument with facts.
And that is understandable because you seek to argue for something that has no basis in fact.

Where are the facts that humans created God?

I say their interpretation was made up, they observed maggots and made up an explanation which was wrong.
They tried to interpret the world and made up reasons for maggots and no doubt made up a lot of stuff about anything they tried to explain.

They were being truthful (in some cases) because they said it as they saw it.
Knowing the truth is not necessarily about having all the information, or knowledge about that thing. It is about being honest, and seeing things as they are, and conducting yourself from that platform when obtaining information, and knowledge.

There were people, and information around at that time, that knew maggots, and all life forms didn't spontaneously generate.

Some people though, weren't being honest. They wanted spontaneous generation to be true, so that it would fit into their atheist ideal. They even tried to force spontaneous generation in a scientific experiment. That is how important it was.

How did the world come into being?
Well someone made it let's call him God...if you can offer an alternative to my speculation please ...let's hear how they developed their cosmology.

I'm going to leave you with that speculation, because you are comfortable with it.

And ask why is it God's will and all the ancients could answer (and this is even carried to the modern era) ...God works in mysterious ways.

Is there a hint that anything was more than simply made up?

Not from your perspective. No.

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Why did you conclude that God was made up? Where are the facts

Hi Jan
My conclusion arose over a long period of time but finally confirmed in my mind when I read the bible (all of it) and I could tell from the start that the cosmology did not rely upon observation and was clearly at odds with what we now know from peer reviewed research. Translation ...it was clearly made up..no contest.

I am not going to say more than this ...if you read the bible with an open mind I would be surprised if you did not draw the same conclusion.

The high intelligence you display just can't shut down when considering my claim and therefore I think you must agree with my claim as being more than reasonable.



I need not point out the obvious because, well, the obvious is so obvious.

The fact is whoever made up the cosmology got it very wrong but in doing so clearly proves that it was made up, in muvh the same way as the maggot interpretation being wrong proves it was made up.

Further questioning me on this matter won't take you anywhere and I suggest your questions now are best directed at your belief and understandings and where they may require realistic adjustment.

Where are the facts that humans created God?

Page 1 of the bible.
I don't have my bible in front of me but if you open yours you can read for yourself, rather than me quoting, and it is clear.

Knowing the truth is not necessarily about having all the information, or knowledge about that thing.

Jan I really don't like to disagree with you but to say you can make something up without all the facts is not really getting into the concept of truth.

Truth is a word science avoids because it recognises truth may never be known to a precision to declare it an absolute fact.

That is and can only be a generslisation but hints that truth does indeed require often more facts than those we claim that has given us our truth.

Nevertheless I think I know what you are driving at and feel that you think truth is guided by conscience somehow, and that is nice but probably not entirely a safe way to think about truth.

I just know I am right is not a good way to arrive at the truth.

You do see that don't you?

If not you really need to try and understand what I am saying and ask " Is that how I arrive st the truth , can that be right?"

There were people, and information around at that time, that knew maggots, and all life forms didn't spontaneously generate.

Now Jan without their sworn written testimony can you forgive me for saying you have simply made that up.

Some people though, weren't being honest. They wanted spontaneous generation to be true, so that it would fit into their atheist ideal.

Making stuff up is not working in your favour Jan.

This attempt of an atheist slur is well below your usually higher standard.

But I appreciate that you are offering your beliefs rather than questions that lead no where. I do.

Am I to assume before science destroyed the maggot myth the spontaneous creation of maggots was due to God, is that what you suggest? and those damn atheists ruined it?

I must be wrong.

I'm going to leave you with that speculation, because you are comfortable with it.

I call it a speculation but I can not see an alternative , can you?

Not from your perspective. No.

I was hoping for a meaningful comment rather than a side step Jan.

Is there a hint that there is anything more than just made up stuff... from your perspective.

Alex

 

[DaveC426913]

Is that true?

Judging by the amount of questions you have, I can see you're really struggling with this.

Imagine you and I are trapped in an impenetrable bubble, cut off from the outside world.
The only thing we have is a couple of apples.
We agree they're apples because we've created a common language.
We agree one is red and the other is green because of our common perceptions (and some experiments - whose results we agree on).
We agree that one apple plus another apple equals two apples, because we have developed a math that we agree to.
We agree that one red apple plus one green apple equals the same number as one green apple plus one red apple, because we agree that addition is a commutative operation.

Notice that - while we can build an entire functioning micro-world inside our bubble - at no time do we ever have access to - let alone refer to - any "greater truths" about apples or addition. And we acknowledge that we can't have access to any greater truths - yet that does not prevent us from building a perfectly serviceable world, describing everything we care to.

This is how logic works. It is internal consistency. At every point along the way, you and I have agreed upon what we decide is working knowledge. So asking if anything is "true" is meaningless. It is forever outside our bubble.

Notice that the size of the bubble and the number of occupants is arbitrary. It could be ten feet in diameter containing 2; it could be 150 billion light years in diameter containing 7 billion (or 7 quintillion).

 

[Jan Ardena]

Hi Jan
My conclusion arose over a long period of time but finally confirmed in my mind when I read the bible (all of it) and I could tell from the start that the cosmology did not rely upon observation and was clearly at odds with what we now know from peer reviewed research. Translation ...it was clearly made up..no contest.

Cosmology: the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern cosmology is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.

Where in the bible does it talk of the origin and development of the universe?

Further questioning me on this matter won't take you anywhere and I suggest your questions now are best directed at your belief and understandings and where they may require realistic adjustment.

Do you comprehend what I believe?

Jan I really don't like to disagree with you but to say you can make something up without all the facts is not really getting into the concept of truth.

I think you are interchanging truth, and fact (scientific), which is why we're getting nowhere.

Page 1 of the bible.
I don't have my bible in front of me but if you open yours you can read for yourself, rather than me quoting, and it is clear.

What about Page 1 of the Bible?

Jan I really don't like to disagree with you but to say you can make something up without all the facts is not really getting into the concept of truth.

I didn't say you make stuff up.
Why do you feel you have to (negatively) para-phrase what I say?
Didn't you understand what I wrote?

Truth is a word science avoids because it recognises truth may never be known to a precision to declare it an absolute fact.

Science deals with facts, despite the truth. Because the truth isn't all about information and facts. Information and facts helps in determining the truth. In that sense, science is about the truth, because from it we can get good information and facts about the material world we live in.

That is and can only be a generslisation but hints that truth does indeed require often more facts than those we claim that has given us our truth.

Truth doesn't rely on fact, it stands alone. An intelligent person will aquire, but not depend on facts. The truth will reveal more of itself, cas the individual understands more. We may not know the absolute truth, but if we connect ourselves to it, we shall come to know more of it. It makes sense to me that God is the Absolute truth, because from Him everything comes.

I just know I am right is not a good way to arrive at the truth.

You do see that don't you?

Again with the negative para-phrasing.
The discussion becomes tedious if you keep doing that.
Try and respond to what I write, or at least ask me to reiterate any points you don't grasp. Needless to say I didn't say or mean that.

This attempt of an atheist slur is well below your usually higher standard.

I didn't mean all atheist, just those that think like that.

Am I to assume before science destroyed the maggot myth the spontaneous creation of maggots was due to God, is that what you suggest? and those damn atheists ruined it?

I'm saying they were what they were, and they still are what they are. Some people would have understood that life comes from life, and know that life doesn't spontaneously generate, even though it may give the appearance of. As far as we know, that's the truth.
You may say '' it's not the truth, because we are not aware of all the facts and observations'' But that is simply truth from a different perspective. If it is possible that not all life comes from life, you're still appealing to a standard of what is to be regarded as truth. Ultimately it's the same truth from different perspectives.

I call it a speculation but I can not see an alternative , can you?

You're right I can't.

I was hoping for a meaningful comment rather than a side step Jan.

Is there a hint that there is anything more than just made up stuff... from your perspective.

It really isn't a side step Alex. I'd just rather go down that road.
I'll happily concede, if it makes you stop.

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Where in the bible does it talk of the origin and development of the universe?

The first page.

Do you comprehend what I believe?

Maybe yes maybe no.

I think you are interchanging truth, and fact (scientific), which is why we're getting nowhere.

If we are getting nowhere can we say we are getting somewhere.
I do not think my proposition is unreasonable but if you say you can know the truth without knowing everything I will try tobe accommodating however dont think you have licence to make things up because you somehow feel it is the truth.

What about Page 1 of the Bible?

It is the first page and it contains made up stuff.

Didn't you understand what I wrote?

Why do you think that I misunderstood.
Assume that I did what do you think you could say to clear up what you think is my misunderstanding.

Science deals with facts, despite the truth. Because the truth isn't all about information and facts. Information and facts helps in determining the truth. In that sense, science is about the truth, because from it we can get good information and facts about the material world we live in.

Is that the truth?
I will go along butI think you should think carefully about your original statement to me about truth.

. It makes sense to me that God is the Absolute truth, because from Him everything comes.

Well I can not argue against that and you know this because???? All you need to know is you know Jan I will respect that...

Try and respond to what I write, or at least ask me to reiterate any points you don't grasp. Needless to say I didn't say or mean that.

I do Jan and in the future I will so what did you mean?

I'm saying they were what they were, and they still are what they are. Some people would have understood that life comes from life, and know that life doesn't spontaneously generate, even though it may give the appearance of. As far as we know, that's the truth.
You may say '' it's not the truth, because we are not aware of all the facts and observations'' But that is simply truth from a different perspective. If it is possible that not all life comes from life, you're still appealing to a standard of what is to be regarded as truth. Ultimately it's the same truth from different perspectives.

Thank you for trying to explain the matter.

You're right I can't.

Thank you for your honesty.

It really isn't a side step Alex. I'd just rather go down that road.
I'll happily concede, if it makes you stop.

I will stop Jan I should not have even started. I am sorry if I have become tiresome and more so because you need to point that out to me.

You display a high intellect and it is unfortunate that discussing religion is the only way we find to interact but it is your intellect that causes me to engage. I find it stimulating.
You are a fine person and say I will always be on your side even if it may seem otherwise.
I hope you are well and happy.
Best wishes
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

The first page.

Can you be more specific?

If we are getting nowhere can we say we are getting somewhere.
I do not think my proposition is unreasonable but if you say you can know the truth without knowing everything I will try tobe accommodating however dont think you have licence to make things up because you somehow feel it is the truth.

What have I made up?

It is the first page and it contains made up stuff.

Please point out what you think is made up cosmology on page 1.

Why do you think that I misunderstood.
Assume that I did what do you think you could say to clear up what you think is my misunderstanding.

I said.. Knowing the truth is not necessarily about having all the information, or knowledge about that thing.

If it is true that life comes from life, and someone, through their belief in God comes to understand that life comes from life, and a biologist comes to that conclusion based on research, observation, and testing. Are they both telling the truth?

Is that the truth?

It is the truth as far as I know and experience.

Truth: the quality or state of being true.
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

There is nothing in that definition that states the truth is knowledge of everything.

I will go along butI think you should think carefully about your original statement to me about truth.

To avoid confusion, let's just go off the dictionary definition. Is that okay with you?

Well I can not argue against that and you know this because???? All you need to know is you know Jan I will respect that...

I didn't say I know, I said 'it makes sense to me'.
Are you going to continue with this, because it is very tedious.

I will stop Jan

Hope so.

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Can you be more specific?

No.

What have I made up?

My reference was to possible future events.

Please point out what you think is made up cosmology on page 1.

I decline as I do not have my bible in front of me.
If you have yours read it. If you find no problem leave it there, and there would be no point for me to argue further.
You will read and agree or you won't.

Are they both telling the truth?

One is but including a belief is wrong particularly when that belief has no foundation other than reliance on ancient writings.

To avoid confusion, let's just go off the dictionary definition. Is that okay with you?

Yes Jan of course it is OK with me.
I shall not add to what I have said, I am not trying to win the arguement , my goal has been to point out little aspects that indicate to me an approach I would not follow.
If you see merit in anything I have said that is OK but if you miss the point I wish to convey that's OK also.

Hope so.

Consider me stopped.
I won't be able to respond to anything you now say.
You know my concerns.
I have made my point that its all made up, simple, and that is easy for you to reject.
May facts won't change I don't care if you reject them in fact I hope you some how use this experience to strengthen your faith.
Good luck.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Imagine you and I are trapped in an impenetrable bubble, cut off from the outside world.
The only thing we have is a couple of apples.
We agree they're apples because we've created a common language.
We agree one is red and the other is green because of our common perceptions (and some experiments - whose results we agree on).

It would be true that they would be now called apples, but even without a name, they would still be what they are, and serve the same purpose.

So if someone else who happened to live in your community, used an entirely different word for apple. Known only to them-self. They would also be telling the truth.

If apples grew in other parts of the universe, which you weren't aware of, they would still be apples.

Notice that - while we can build an entire functioning micro-world inside our bubble - at no time do we ever have access to - let alone refer to - any "greater truths" about apples or addition.

''Greater truths'', I regard that as a Freudian Slip, because you know there are different degrees of truth (greater/lesser). A lesser truth is still truth, but it is not the Absolute Truth. Thanks for letting that one rip.

And we acknowledge that we can't have access to any greater truths - yet that does not prevent us from building a perfectly serviceable world, describing everything we care to.

I don't agree that we can't have access to greater truth, as lesser or greater, it is still truth. We may live in a neighborhood where the air is polluted, but it doesn't mean we can't have access to cleaner air.

This is how logic works. It is internal consistency. At every point along the way, you and I have agreed upon what we decide is working knowledge. So asking if anything is "true" is meaningless. It is forever outside our bubble.

Logic is based on truth, not the other way round. Sure you can make logical deductions based on non truth, but that only serves to show how one makes logical deductions for real.

All men are tidal waves
Alex is a man
Alex is a tidal wave

While the above is logical, it is not the truth. What would be the truth is all men are whatever a man actually is. So what is a man?
Now we employ information and facts to get a clearer insight into the truth of the matter.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

One is but including a belief is wrong particularly when that belief has no foundation other than reliance on ancient writings.

Which one is telling the truth (bearing in mind they have both come to the same conclusion)?

Should your comprehension of how the believer came to know the truth, really matter in your answer?

May facts won't change

I'm sorry but have presented no facts, or plausible explanations at all.

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Which one is telling the truth (bearing in mind they have both come to the same conclusion)?

Should your comprehension of how the believer came to know the truth, really matter in your answer?



I'm sorry but have presented no facts, or plausible explanations at all.

jan.

Jan I have stopped. I stopped because you asked and I feel you will be happy not to have me saying its all made up.
I feel that I may be causing you to think too deeply about "its all made up".
Alex

 

[DaveC426913]

So if someone else who happened to live in your community, used an entirely different word for apple. Known only to them-self. They would also be telling the truth.

You have just asserted that in your view, truth can be self-contradictory.

If I call it one thing and insist that's the truth (I don't need evidence, I know it's called an "apple"), while someone else insists they have the truth (I don't need evidence, I know it's called a "--")
then neither of us speak a universal truth.

Yet you would call both of them the truth: "They would also be telling the truth"


Counter-intuitively, that actually works for me.
The word might be more properly "version" or "opinion".

And I am OK with God's existence being your version or opinion of the world.

''Greater truths'', I regard that as a Freudian Slip, because you know there are different degrees of truth (greater/lesser).

Did you not notice the double quotes deliberately emphasizing the term?

Indeed there are.

There is

1. truth that is based on our logic and senses, that we define as true as far as we understand it (inside the bubble - or - in the natural world ).
2. truth that is based on faith, rather than logic or our senses. (outside the bubble - or - in the supernatural world).

 

[DaveC426913]

IF All men are tidal waves
Alex is a man
Alex is a tidal wave

I have corrected it.

While the above is logical,

It wasn't. It is now.

it is not the truth.

It does not speak to truth. It was never intended to.

That's why your version wasn't logical or truthful. Your first line made an assertion.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have corrected it.


It wasn't. It is now.


It does not speak to truth. It was never intended to.

That's why your version wasn't logical or truthful. Your first line made an assertion.

Couldn't resist this one.
Are you saying that...

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

...is not a logical deduction?
Notice the first line, it also makes an assertion.

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Jan sorry I took back a like.
I use a touch screen and have given you a like whilst scrolling.
I did not mean to.
Alex