Is there or is'nt there...

[hikehunter]

How to prove an unknown?
In math you start with the things that are known.
You multiply, devide, add, and subtract; the known veriables to prove the unknown factor.

Laws of pysics say this is that, and that can be this.

Up is down and inside is outside.

PROSPECTIVE

Where arer you at in relation to what you are looking at.

Are you outside looking in..............or................inside looking out............?

Are you above or below???

Let us start from a point all can agree on...................young life with are care takers when we were all just babes.

Did your mother or nurse hold you and rock you to sleep?
Did your mother or nurse sing to you to calm your fears?
Did your mother or nurce feed you when you were ravonous of hunger?

This is the base line for all humans that have reached the age of self - knowing.

Now to the real question................

ARE YOU A PRODUCT OF FREE WILL TO CHOOSE OR A PRODUCT OF YOU ENVIROMENTALY UP BRINGING ?????


Did you learn what you know or did it come from your own work and study. Did someone that came before you ....."rub off on you"????

What came first the chicken or the egg???

Do I hold to the upbringing or do I reject it????


Food for thought..............................................more to come later.

[Scott]

So,

Nature or Nurture?

Fate/Destiny or self determination?

[BillyBob66]

What came first the chicken or the egg???

Do I hold to the upbringing or do I reject it????


Food for thought..............................................more to come later.

I find "What came first the chicken or the egg??? " to be one of hundreds of excellent questions for the evolutionist of the atheist persuasion. Very simple ( I'm sure many would say "for the simple minded among us" LOL! but don't say it keep it polite ) for the creationist: God ( or at east some designer) created/designed a chicken with sexual reproductive abilities, and later came the egg. But when the evolutionist asks the same question, it becomes quite a bit more complicated to say the least. To the point, IMHO, that the question remains unanswered.

How do you get an egg full of all the myriad things required to produce an adult chicken without having a chicken to 1st lay the egg, and feed/take care of the chicks? How do you evolve a grown chicken without 1st evolving the egg which will produce the chicken? Quite the head scratcher!

We could ask the same question in relation to our relationships. Just think: from the evolutionary standpoint, once there was nothing, Then there was a Big Bang and all of the dead material came to exist(Paraphrasing/summarizing), and then some of the dead material came to life through spontaneous generation(disproving the Law of Biogenesis) and the one celled organism was produced. The one celled organism keeps self reproducing and improving itself through the billions of years until it is no longer a self reproducing organism, but an organism of which is male and female and each needs the other for reproduction. So did you ever think about the spectacular mathematical odds that must be shattered to produce such a result?

First either a male or female has to appear/evolve, where one has never been seen before. Let's just say it is the male. Now this male must have a full set of reproductive organs that are functioning, and some sort of desire for a female (who presumably doesn't exist yet). And not a desire to kill and eat her, mind you, but rather to cuddle up with her so to speak. Which will produce offspring, though neither sex knows this.

Now if memory serves, evolutionary theory says that certain traits evolve through random mutations, and if these mutations increase the ability to survive, they will be passed on to the offspring resulting in new species overtime. But what is this male who has evolved going to do with his desire for a female and this new ability to reproduce with her passing on the sexual reproductive trait, unless at exactly the same time a female of the species with fully functioning organs(that are complimentary reproduction wise to the male organs) also appears on the scene? If the female does not appear at the same time, the males(and females) newly evolved reproductive organs will be quite useless, and I can't think of how they might increase his ability to survive or pass on his genes through reproduction. So then those brand-new organs that resulted from those many mutations should logically disappear. Now mind you, it's not just that a male and female with functioning organs must appear at the same time for sexual reproduction to happen thus passing on the genes responsible for sexual reproduction. They must not only have the correct and complementary organs, they must also have a desire for each other, enough desire to overcome the natural fear of all these other species out there that are different and which generally desired to kill and eat you. Evolution really pulled off quite the trick with this one!

Since I started another thread about Thanksgiving/George Washington and the founders, I can't help but wonder what they thought about such theories?(Yes, I know the theory of evolution by Darwin had not yet been put forth, but still they must've asked themselves about some of these eternal questions like the chicken and the egg)

[DuxDawg]

Nicely put BB66.

There are hundreds of logical arguments against evolution, atheism, etc. Not one logical, consistent argument for.

[Scott]

if looking for input, and not just rhetorical questions:

Now to the real question................

ARE YOU A PRODUCT OF FREE WILL TO CHOOSE OR A PRODUCT OF YOU ENVIROMENTALY UP BRINGING ?????
YES. Always a free will to choose, but very much influenced by my environment and upbringing.


Did you learn what you know or did it come from your own work and study. If asking if it was learned as a small child, or by my own conscious intentional effort, again, yes. I cannot separate them. Did someone that came before you ....."rub off on you"???? Several somebodies, but I am not a clone of any of them.


What came first the chicken or the egg??? Chicken

Do I hold to the upbringing or do I reject it???? This seems to be the true question, and one that none of us have enough background or insight to answer well. There is definitely a strong pressure to conform and therefore please those who taught us, and an equally strong drive to reject and make our own way. Conflicting needs are hard. By definition faith is not provable in the worldly scientific sense. We can have evidence, personal witness, etc, but facts and figures are not part of the faith equation.

Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen



Food for thought..............................................more to come later. I am interested in the more...

[hikehunter]

I was wondering if someone would reference Hebrews.

[Scott]

Years ago I made a conscious decision to not try to prove my faith to anyone. I have often explained what I believe, why I believe, etc. But there is no way to prove it. I have a fair background in science, and am very analytical. There are portions of my belief that I let go and have faith. As I evaluated what I was learning in college compared to what I learned in religion, it was clear there are areas in both where we wave our arms, jump past the parts we can't explain, and come up with a conclusion. For example, lets say that the big bang happened, whether by act of God, or nature (who lit the match?) doesn't matter for the moment. Where did it come from? What was there before? What about before that? At some point we have to have faith that it just was. Science says you can't create something out of nothing, but logically if you go far enough back, it had to come from somewhere, so even the science is limited. The logic of a beginning conflicts with the concept that you can't create from nothing.
What about magnetism, or gravity? We know HOW they work, we can quantify them, predict them, experiment with them, but we don't know WHY they work.

I believe God uses natural laws to create and do what He does. We may not understand it, yet. I lean much more to the Intelligent design concept than to the "poof there it is" concept. God lit the match.

I really am interested in the why of your initial post. I believe we all have a time (or times) where we ponder the big questions and how we fit into them, and why.

[hikehunter]

Why I made the post. Good question.

I belive that "man" can really mess-up most anything. Humans can break an anvil with a rubber hammer.

The problem with choice is that often the bad choice is made.

The universe is a large and complex place, I do not think it just made itself.
Was it started by God and then left to its own devices ? Maybe? Maybe, not ?

I think that God (or how ever you name the trinity), still nudges things from time to time to get them to go where he wants it.

I like hearing other folks thought. I never know when I might learn something new and different.

[sarge]

Well, I'll ask this question:

What is the evolutionary advantage to an appreciation of beauty?

And follow up with:

Are there any disadvantages?

[hikehunter]

Sarge, the answer to you first question is in the quoted scripture at the bottom of you post.

I want to think about your second question, if you please.

[sarge]

Sarge, the answer to you first question is in the quoted scripture at the bottom of you post.

I want to think about your second question, if you please.

Actually, the answer is none. There is no evolutionary advantage to having an appreciation of and for beauty. It does not make you warmer, resitant to disease, digest food better, stronger, or better able to get food.

Furthermore, there can be some disadvantages to a creature that will climb to the top of a mountain just to wath the sunset. Injury or death resulting from a fall, getting caught in dangerous weather, not hearing the bear behind you because you are so intent on the beauty of the sunset.

By all the laws of Evolution, this should have been bred out of us. Yet cave paintings show that even in what science would call pre-homo sapiens populations show that there was an appreciation for beauty. The painting are stylized, not realistic, the colors and compostion balanced and nuanced. Pre-historic necklaces, pottery and carvings on implements show that this one creature appreciated a tool more than for just what it could do to help gather or grow food, but also for how he could make it more pleasing to the eye.

None of that should exist on a planet ruled by the Laws of Evolution, and thier existence cannot be explained without using the words "maybe", "perhaps", or any number of equivocations.

Evolution explains the ability to draw a simple map, it doesn't explain intricate designs and pictures of dragons on the borders. Evolution explains the ability to mimic birds and other prey animals, it can't explainO Holy Night.

[Scott]

Why I made the post. Good question.

I belive that "man" can really mess-up most anything. Humans can break an anvil with a rubber hammer.

The problem with choice is that often the bad choice is made.

The universe is a large and complex place, I do not think it just made itself.
Was it started by God and then left to its own devices ? Maybe? Maybe, not ?

I think that God (or how ever you name the trinity), still nudges things from time to time to get them to go where he wants it.

I like hearing other folks thought. I never know when I might learn something new and different.

I agree. But the VERY basic tenant of my belief system is free will. That does not remove persuasion, or the occasion reset because things are SOOO bad, but by and large we have the will to make our own choices and live with whatever consequences come. Often that means living with the consequences of others bad choices. It is easy to get jaded. I have to have faith that we are toddlers at best in comparison to God, and we will make many mistakes individually and collectively. But I believe He has the bigger picture in view, and won't let things get beyond repair.

If I don't have free will, then nothing I do matters, so there is no need to try. I believe goodness is innate. It has always intrigued me that some of the most humanitarian, earth saving, good hearted people, do not believe in anything past this life, or before this life. I commend their good nature, but question why they are not more self promoting? Why do good to others and live an ethical life if there is nothing beyond? Why does life matter if it does not continue? What makes it the 'right thing' to do, if there is no higher power directing that? More food for thought I suppose.

I asked about your initial post intent because this is under Atheism/agnosticism I wanted to be sure we were not promoting religion in a 'non-religion' conversation, respecting the opposite view if you will. It appears you are open to input from all sides on this.

Sarge - I appreciate your insight

[BillyBob66]

Sarge, the answer to you first question is in the quoted scripture at the bottom of you post.

I want to think about your second question, if you please.

Actually, the answer is none. There is no evolutionary advantage to having an appreciation of and for beauty. It does not make you warmer, resitant to disease, digest food better, stronger, or better able to get food.

Furthermore, there can be some disadvantages to a creature that will climb to the top of a mountain just to wath the sunset. Injury or death resulting from a fall, getting caught in dangerous weather, not hearing the bear behind you because you are so intent on the beauty of the sunset.

By all the laws of Evolution, this should have been bred out of us. Yet cave paintings show that even in what science would call pre-homo sapiens populations show that there was an appreciation for beauty. The painting are stylized, not realistic, the colors and compostion balanced and nuanced. Pre-historic necklaces, pottery and carvings on implements show that this one creature appreciated a tool more than for just what it could do to help gather or grow food, but also for how he could make it more pleasing to the eye.

None of that should exist on a planet ruled by the Laws of Evolution, and thier existence cannot be explained without using the words "maybe", "perhaps", or any number of equivocations.

Evolution explains the ability to draw a simple map, it doesn't explain intricate designs and pictures of dragons on the borders. Evolution explains the ability to mimic birds and other prey animals, it can't explainO Holy Night.

I would add: evolution predicts(IMO) that there should be many other creatures that appreciate beauty, if there is even one that does. Since large numbers (speaking as though I am an evolutionist which I am not) of creatures all evolved from the same primordial soup, and maybe from the same original 1 celled organism, then we should all share many characteristics. And indeed, there have been a myriad of creatures which have evolved many of the same or very similar physical qualities: limbs, neck, eyes, optic nerve, brain, heart, veins/arteries, digestive tract including an insulin secreting pancreas, sexual reproduction, etc etc etc. And yet some how only one creature has evolved an appreciation for beauty, which could get you killed? Or the ability to do readin, writin and rithmatic, or to give your life to spread the Gospel, etc etc etc. Why only one, when multitudes evolved everything else?

Conversely, as I have said before, The Bible predicts what we actually observe. It says that God created man separate from all else, in His image, "7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.". Created differently from all other creatures. So what would be predicted from this? Perhaps an appreciation for beauty? And all of the other characteristics which belong to mankind alone.