That's a ridiculous statement to make. Many historical figures are assumed to be real. Jesus has just as much evidence of his existence as say King Leonidas, that is to say the only evidence is historical documents.I don't even understand why there is a debate at all on whether Jesus existence or not, apart from it steaming from Anti-Christian propaganda.
By the way, I'm part of a church that does believe in evolution, in terms of change. The fact of the matter is that you have billions of people worldwide - myself included - who don't believe that evolution is the answer to the very origin of life (specifically, the part where we turned from nothing into single cells)..
Hey man, I asked for your thoughts on the science behind the idea, not your thoughts on the church at large or their willingness to spread "propaganda" (which, by the way, some consider a theory). I'm just getting a bit tired of constantly being met with a back-handed dismissal of anything I ask about - its not like I'm trying to preach at you or anything; I'm just asking for thoughts. Thanks for trying though.
Actually, here's a slightly unrelated question, if I could be forgiven a slight digression: Michael Behe, one of the major proponents of the idea, holds qualifications in biochemistry (B.Sc in Chemistry, PhD in Biochemistry) - do you consider his qualifications valid? Or does his personal beliefs or perspective affect the validity of his qualifications?
There is no science behind these ideas, it is lies formulated to muddy the waters and distract people from the very real facts and evidence behind evolution.
See, I don't get this. You act like religious folks are the only people who disagree with evolution - in fact, isn't it fair to say that among atheistic, non-believing scientists there is still disagreement on whether evolution was the beginning of life?Heck, even Dawkins admits that there is a chance of creation by higher intelligence - in the movie "Expelled", he is directly quoted as saying "I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer ... Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point." As the film-makers point out, it sounds like he isn't against design, just certain types of designer - say, god(s).
See, I don't get this. You act like religious folks are the only people who disagree with evolution - in fact, isn't it fair to say that among atheistic, non-believing scientists there is still disagreement on whether evolution was the beginning of life?
quick question cobra: do you believe in free will? That is, do you believe you have the ability to make conscious decisions, and consciously act by your own will?This is going to back to a topic I was discussing a few weeks back, but never got to back to you about...
are you psyche?
The trouble with superstitious world views is they feel divinely justified - be it shooting doctors or quoting scientists out of context to try and reinforce their intellectually corrupt worldview.
The Pontiff said that recently the tomb was “subject to a scientific investigation. A small hole was drilled in the sarcophagus, unopened for centuries, and a probe was introduced. It found traces of a valuable purple fabric, in linen and gold layer-laminated, and a blue fabric with linen threads. Red incense grains and substances containing proteins and limestone were also discovered. Small fragments of bone were found and radiocarbon dated by experts who did not know their place of origin. Results indicate that they belong to someone who lived between the 1st and 2nd century A.D. This seems to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition according to which these are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul. All this fills our soul with deep emotion.”
You're asking that question in such a loaded manor it's not funny."Free Will" is as much of an illusion as a "Higher Power" is, for the exact same reasons covered in this thread a thousand times. Action/Reaction is the only true god, be it in the physical world, or our minds, which funnily enough are nothing more than part of the physical world. If you believe in free will, then you may as well believe in God too. Both are equally irrational.
If you have no free will, then you can't be rational at all, because you don't have the ability to make rational decisions.
If you have no free will, then you can't be rational at all, because you don't have the ability to make rational decisions.And it's you that thinks it's an illusion, it's fair enough that you make that conclusion for yourself, but don't pretend it's a fact. The debate on whether humans have free will has been going on for centuries and is still going on.
The debate on whether humans have free will has been going on for centuries and is still going on.
Rational decisions can be made with or without free will. I would contend that it is easier to make rational decisions when you don't have free will
That's just the way I see it. Not that I have a choice. Like any 'decision' I make in life, the outcome is always going to be governed by what I know, how my physical mind perceived and processed it, and the chemical state it's in at the time. None of you are any different, other than the way your own mind perceives the data it's received.
Why? Because whatever decision you make becomes the basis for further action/decision making. Even if you were to have complete randomness, you can still create a semblance of order by following some strict rules.
HOWEVER: In the event that you DONT have free will then everything you do is pre-ordained and therefore nothing you do actually matters[1] UNLESS you have some form of creator who falls outside of the wheel of karma/dharma[2] .... who falls prey to the 'creations are my slaves!' argument I put forth earlier
Why do you insist that none of us are 'different', do you see me going around to people saying "You do have free will and you got not choice about it!". No, I don't, i'm not qualified to make judgments about other people, because I can only see reality from my perceptive. I can come to a conclusion about my reality as I perceive it, and if I have free will, but I can't do that for someone else because I don't know how they perceive reality, or even if they perceive reality at all.
