Can you know God without understanding or recognizing his perfect works?

[Greatest I am]

I suppose "no known glitches" is extremely subjective, in the end. Anyone could argue there are glitches in the universe, because whether in space or in life on this planet- calamities happen. I would call extinctions and explosions in space glitches. The "blue screen of death" could happen at any time. It just hasn't yet, doesn't mean it won't, and doesn't mean the universe is perfect.

Because I believe perfection is not a natural concept, but one of fantasy from our human mind alone, I don't believe the universe could be perfect. It can only exist on the natural continuum functionality. I would argue it functions fairly well.

Fairly well!

When you were born, can it be said that nature created the best it could with the D N A and conditions at hand?

If not, how could things have been any different or better?

With all the available conditions.

Regards
DL

 

[Pet Sounds]

Secular law call it mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or evil intent.
That is why the insane are not so much found guilty as sick.

Animals do not see evil in dispatching an animal for food.
It's intent is to eat and would likely take a dead offering over a live one.
Easy pickings are safer.

Regards
DL

You could never prove intent, evil, or anything of the kind. You would have to believe in free will to even entertain those notions. And there is no evidence of free will. There is also usually no medical pathology or mechanism to back up this claim of "insanity". Just outward behavior. The only thing labelling them insane are their actions, not some physiological evidence. They could have the same exact thought process, but act differently, but wouldn't be classifed as insane. Only the action makes them insane. So insanity is based on outward behavior only. That is a medieval definition, and it still prevails.

Nodody does things they think are wrong. Obivously they wouldn't do them if they did. What is wrong to one person, isn't to another. What is wrong to a human, isn't wrong to an animal. So they are all "sick" by your reasoning. There is no way to ever find a peron's real intent on anything. That is a philosophical question that can't be answered. I could just as much argue that a human is in no more control of his actions than an animal. The fact that you label certain humans evil doesn't make them evil. It just means you label them that. You believe them to be so. Belief does not equal truth.

 

[Panacea]

Fairly well!

When you were born, can it be said that nature created the best it could with the D N A and conditions at hand?

If not, how could things have been any different or better?

With all the available conditions.

Regards
DL

I do not think it would be wise to say I know nature created the best it could with the DNA and conditions at hand because I do not think (for reasons I have exhausted) nature is capable of perfection at any given time.

 

[Greatest I am]

You could never prove intent, evil, or anything of the kind. You would have to believe in free will to even entertain those notions. And there is no evidence of free will. There is also usually no medical pathology or mechanism to back up this claim of "insanity". Just outward behavior. The only thing labelling them insane are their actions, not some physiological evidence. They could have the same exact thought process, but act differently, but wouldn't be classifed as insane. Only the action makes them insane. So insanity is based on outward behavior only. That is a medieval definition, and it still prevails.

Nodody does things they think are wrong. Obivously they wouldn't do them if they did. What is wrong to one person, isn't to another. What is wrong to a human, isn't wrong to an animal. So they are all "sick" by your reasoning. There is no way to ever find a peron's real intent on anything. That is a philosophical question that can't be answered. I could just as much argue that a human is in no more control of his actions than an animal. The fact that you label certain humans evil doesn't make them evil. It just means you label them that. You believe them to be so. Belief does not equal truth.

The issue was evil. Not the definition of insanity.
As to animals knowing good and evil, it seems they do.
They would not likely call it that but, in their name, we can say that cooperation is good and competition is evil.

You might also consider that as evolving creatures, that is also all you and I can and ever do.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I do not think it would be wise to say I know nature created the best it could with the DNA and conditions at hand because I do not think (for reasons I have exhausted) nature is capable of perfection at any given time.

There goes the survival of the fittest. Oh well. I guess Darwin got it wrong.

Regards
DL

 

[Pet Sounds]

Survival of the fittest/natural selection is a useless tautology. This coming from somebody with a degree in biology. It can be summed up like this, "survivors survive". How does that help? Animals that don't live, won't survive. Animals with traits that help them live will survive. But the only way to measure this fitness is by their existence themselves. Their very existence is what proves their fitness. Why does this organism still survive? Because it wouldn't be here otherwise. That is a tautology. "It's here because otherwise it wouldn't be here." Can you imagine me asking a doctor why I have a bloody nose, and he answered with "Because it wouldn't be bleeding otherwise." That is the same answer natural selection gives as to why a certain organism has a phenotype. "Because it wouldn't be there otherwise." And they can never actually prove why any phenotype is actually there. Just that it is there. But there are plenty of traits that have no function. Look up the term "spandrel" in the biological context. I'm not saying evolution isn't true, it is. I am saying it is the most overrated theory in human history, and much more popular for its philosophical implications than practical science. I mean, who knows who Mendel was? He is much more important than Darwin.

DNA isn't perfect, it errs. But without those errors we wouldn't be here. It is DNA errors that seperate us from bacteria and all other forms of life. As somebody once said:

"The capacity to blunder slightly is the real marvel of DNA. Without this special attribute, we would still be anaerobic bacteria and there would be no music."

 

[Panacea]

Survival of the fittest/natural selection is a useless tautology. This coming from somebody with a degree in biology. It can be summed up like this, "survivors survive". How does that help? Animals that don't live, won't survive. Animals with traits that help them live will survive. But the only way to measure this fitness is by their existence themselves. Their very existence is what proves their fitness. Why does this organism still survive? Because it wouldn't be here otherwise. That is a tautology. "It's here because otherwise it wouldn't be here." Can you imagine me asking a doctor why I have a bloody nose, and he answered with "Because it wouldn't be bleeding otherwise." That is the same answer natural selection gives as to why a certain organism has a phenotype. "Because it wouldn't be there otherwise." And they can never actually prove why any phenotype is actually there. Just that it is there. But there are plenty of traits that have no function. Look up the term "spandrel" in the biological context. I'm not saying evolution isn't true, it is. I am saying it is the most overrated theory in human history, and much more popular for its philosophical implications than practical science. I mean, who knows who Mendel was? He is much more important than Darwin.

DNA isn't perfect, it errs. But without those errors we wouldn't be here. It is DNA errors that seperate us from bacteria and all other forms of life. As somebody once said:

"The capacity to blunder slightly is the real marvel of DNA. Without this special attribute, we would still be anaerobic bacteria and there would be no music."

I emphatically agree.
*Namely. the way the general public perceives the function of "survival of the fittest", hell, even the phrase itself is misleading.

 

[Pet Sounds]

I emphatically agree.
*Namely. the way the general public perceives the function of "survival of the fittest", hell, even the phrase itself is misleading.

Well survival of the fittest is true. As all tautologies are. It just tells us nothing. Like saying all white things are white. It's true, but it doesnt tell us anything about white or white things. Genetics and DNA, which Darwin didn't know anything about, are actually what explains the diversity of species on the planet.

 

[Panacea]

Well survival of the fittest is true. As all tautologies are. It just tells us nothing. Like saying all white things are white. It's true, but it doesnt tell us anything about white or white things. Genetics and DNA, which Darwin didn't know anything about, are actually what explains the diversity of species on the planet.

Understood, ya, I admittedly have less knowledge than I would like regarding biology so I try not to act as though I know it all regarding DNA.

I suppose my opinion/point this whole time has been just that saying something is perfect because it exists does not make it so, and doesn't take into account error and variance, which I think cannot be overlooked.

With your other point in mind, I think the Creationist movement sort of overstated the perceived value of Darwin over other individuals/fields.

 

[Pet Sounds]

Understood, ya, I admittedly have less knowledge than I would like regarding biology so I try not to act as though I know it all regarding DNA.

I suppose my opinion/point this whole time has been just that saying something is perfect because it exists does not make it so, and doesn't take into account error and variance, which I think cannot be overlooked.

With your other point in mind, I think the Creationist movement sort of overstated the perceived value of Darwin over other individuals/fields.

I think it is the opposite. The biggest utility for the theory of evolution seems to be for atheists to be able to beat religious people over the head with it and use it as evidence that their beliefs are myths, God isn't real, etc.. Then you have the most famous evolutionary biologist alive, Dawkins, completely overstating its importance, calling it "the theory of all theories", "the theory that makes all other theories possible" and "if aliens visited earth the first thing they would ask us to test our intelligence is if we know what evolution was." All obviously laughable. Darwin is a patron saint of this atheist movement and evolution is the most sacred text.

 

[Panacea]

I think it is the opposite. The biggest utility for the theory of evolution seems to be for atheists to be able to beat religious people over the head with it and use it as evidence that their beliefs are myths, God isn't real, etc.. Then you have the most famous evolutionary biologist alive, Dawkins, completely overstating its importance, calling it "the theory of all theories", "the theory that makes all other theories possible" and "if aliens visited earth the first thing they would ask us to test our intelligence is if we know what evolution was." All obviously laughable. Darwin is a patron saint of this atheist movement and evolution is the most sacred text.

That may be the feeling to someone catching bits and pieces of the atheist movement- the outliers or most loud and uninformed people. I like Dawkins, but he sometimes embarrasses me. When I read his works, I go d'oh! and kind of wince at certain things... but evolution has nothing to do with the probability of the existence of god, and most educated atheists seem to know that. Evolutionary biology is merely evidence against young earth creationism, a fairly fundie movement that doesn't necessarily represent most people of faith's beliefs.

Even in the face of evolution, a healthy debate about the probability of god(s) is still alive.

I've been involved in a lot of atheist forums and the number one complaint is always that people assume Darwin is somehow idolized. There is widespread atheist rejection of the term "Darwinism".

Hearing a YEC say an atheist who accepts evolution as true is just following Darwin's religion is like nails on a chalk board, but I know transferring a god concept is common when that's the frame of reference, and I partially blame those damn Darwin Jesus fish decals for being too clever too not be misconstrued.

 

[Pet Sounds]

That may be the feeling to someone catching bits and pieces of the atheist movement- the outliers or most loud and uninformed people. I like Dawkins, but he sometimes embarrasses me. When I read his works, I go d'oh! and kind of wince at certain things... but evolution has nothing to do with the probability of the existence of god, and most educated atheists seem to know that. Evolutionary biology is merely evidence against young earth creationism, a fairly fundie movement that doesn't necessarily represent most people of faith's beliefs.

Even in the face of evolution, a healthy debate about the probability of god(s) is still alive.

I've been involved in a lot of atheist forums and the number one complaint is always that people assume Darwin is somehow idolized. There is widespread atheist rejection of the term "Darwinism".

Hearing a YEC say an atheist who accepts evolution as true is just following Darwin's religion is like nails on a chalk board, but I know transferring a god concept is common when that's the frame of reference, and I partially blame those damn Darwin Jesus fish decals for being too clever too not be misconstrued.

I think atheism has become some sort of suburban, hipster, teenage fad. Kind of like PETA for boys. And it annoys me to no end. Especially when they all give the same canned responses and act like they actually know something about science or philosophy because they read a popular science book. That's all they talk about "science, reason, blah blah blah" They don't know a damn thing about these subjects! Neither does Dawkins btw. The guy is not a real scientist. He has not done any science in my lifetime, and earned his degree when my parents were in elementary school. He is hopelessly outdated and can't even get evolution right. He also totally misrepresents the subject and is totally dogmatic. The man is a fucking animal behaviorist. That's isn't even a real science. He's as much of a scientist as the crocodile hunter and the girls swimming around with Shamu at Sea World. All from the same field with the same degree. Can you imagine how ridiculous the crocodile hunter would look if he always beat his chest about science and how he is an extreme authority on it? He would look as ridiculous as Richard Dawkins does right now.

Atheism is becoming dogmatic, organized, and profitable. Sound familiar? Dawkins is as good at emptying the pockets of his flock as any preacher. It also has a ton of groupthink.

I would honestly like good arguments from atheists but I honestly see few. There is a ton of groupthink and I keep hearing the same shallow ones over and over. This forum included. Much smarter people than Richard Dawkins have been arguing this subject forever and it can't just be summed up by one of his lazy arguments.

What most annoys me is how atheists think they are so damn smart. Calling themselves free thinkers, brights, religious people are so stupid and unreasonable etc.. Like atheism is some inherently intellectual position. It's really just a shortcut for the mediocre to appear smart without actually demonstrating it.

 

[Panacea]

I think there is some truth to that. Humans are certainly prone to groupthink. College kids and the hipster crowd tend to be liberal and atheist, and the emphasis has been so much on education in that/my generation we may all think we know more than we actually do, collectively.

I genuinely and honestly do not feel there is a high probability of the existence of god as we have defined it. This has been a personal decision made alone...I didn't even look into religion and atheism until I realized I didn't believe in my late teens. Nothing else I can do but call myself an atheist in the most simple terms and move on with my life.

 

[Tim]

I would honestly like good arguments from atheists but I honestly see few. There is a ton of groupthink and I keep hearing the same shallow ones over and over. This forum included.

I really don't understand this statement. What kind of arguments are you looking for?

As Panacea put it, evolution has nothing to do with Atheism. An Atheist might argue the point, but it isn't necessarily the basis of where he stands.
It's actually quite simple for me. I call myself an Atheist because I don't believe there is a god, period. It doesn't have anything to do with whether I believe in evolution or not.

So what good argument can we possibly have about my not believing in god? It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so I don't try...

 

[Greatest I am]

I really don't understand this statement. What kind of arguments are you looking for?

As Panacea put it, evolution has nothing to do with Atheism. An Atheist might argue the point, but it isn't necessarily the basis of where he stands.
It's actually quite simple for me. I call myself an Atheist because I don't believe there is a god, period. It doesn't have anything to do with whether I believe in evolution or not.

So what good argument can we possibly have about my not believing in god? It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so I don't try...

I find it strange that believers want to argue their side and that all their arguments end either in others having to prove what is impossible to prove or the non believer having to settle for faith as proof.

How can anyone debate against such tactics. Impossible.

They cannot put up, will not admit defeat and continue to tell us to turn or burn.
It is no wonder that religions are on the way out.

Since believers cannot argue their side, they always end up preaching as a defense. That or bob and weave so much in debate that it becomes useless at some point.

Regards
DL

 

[Sparkey Duck]

loling at the candide quote. Voltaire was ridiculing Dr. Pangloss' leibnizian rhetoric, not embracing it.

Oh, if I could believe or even understand that! :surrender

 

[Pet Sounds]

I really don't understand this statement. What kind of arguments are you looking for?

As Panacea put it, evolution has nothing to do with Atheism. An Atheist might argue the point, but it isn't necessarily the basis of where he stands.
It's actually quite simple for me. I call myself an Atheist because I don't believe there is a god, period. It doesn't have anything to do with whether I believe in evolution or not.

So what good argument can we possibly have about my not believing in god? It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so I don't try...

How about arguments that aren't totally and scientifically and philosophically naive? I keep hearing atheists preach on here about the scientific method, peer review, logic, etc.. having no formal training or experience in these subjects. And it shows. You're just parroting what you heard elsewhere.

 

[Greatest I am]

Oh, if I could believe or even understand that! :surrender

He is just another who would rather believe someone else's evaluation instead of looking at the quote and deciding if it is a truth or not.

Many think it cynicism yet no one has ever refuted the quote or indicated how it is untrue.

Regards
DL

 

[Panacea]

How about arguments that aren't totally and scientifically and philosophically naive? I keep hearing atheists preach on here about the scientific method, peer review, logic, etc.. having no formal training or experience in these subjects. And it shows. You're just parroting what you heard elsewhere.

I have formal training in all three of those subjects you have listed.

 

[Pet Sounds]

I find it strange that believers want to argue their side and that all their arguments end either in others having to prove what is impossible to prove or the non believer having to settle for faith as proof.

How can anyone debate against such tactics. Impossible.

They cannot put up, will not admit defeat and continue to tell us to turn or burn.
It is no wonder that religions are on the way out.

Since believers cannot argue their side, they always end up preaching as a defense. That or bob and weave so much in debate that it becomes useless at some point.

Regards
DL

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't know what proof or truth is. Truth is not a computable property. Fact is, your materialistic view of the world is based on philosophical assumptions you can't back up/prove. How can one debate somebody who uses subjective sensory information as objective truth?

I'm not really sure religion is dying, considering the most secular countries are the ones dying out. It is places the Muslim/African and Latin worlds that are exploding, places like Europe will be overtaken by those populations soon enough. Compare the birth rates and shifting demographics

Who is telling you to burn? Nice strawman. Can't debate an atheist without wading through a huge web of logical fallacies.

You cannot argue your side either. You can't offer any proof, or admit defeat. So you just attack the other side.