Want young people in church make god a video game.
Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church
Posts
Total:
563
-->
@Athias
Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with "indistinguishable from randomness"?Yes, it does. Natural selection does this as well through a converse construction of the orthogenesis argument, but instead having "nature" as the designer--or as it's usually disguised, "randomness." Asserting randomness is also beyond the epistemological limits of science.
Or do you have some other term in mind?
-->
@Athias
Yes, it does. Natural selection does this as well through a converse construction of the orthogenesis argument, but instead having "nature" as the designer--or as it's usually disguised, "randomness." Asserting randomness is also beyond the epistemological limits of science.
Just because we cannot know for absolute certain that randomness exists does not mean randomness is not a useful concept or an accurate way to describe some phenomena. If a process is indistinguishable from random, then treating it a random can provide an accurate model.
Also, while it is true that evolutionary theory treats genetic variation from mutations as random, natural selection itself is decidedly non-random.
Explaining how science "works" isn't necessary. We are not speaking to science in general. We speaking specifically to evolutionary theory.
My point was that evolutionary theory works just like any other branch of science. Theories do not ultimately change because people's ideologies change. Theories change to fit current evidence.
That's the exact reason it changed. Evolutionists were receiving criticisms of teleology until Ronald Fisher popularized "natural selection" despite Charles Darwin writing about it 70 years prior. The majority of evolutionary biologists still believed in orthogenesis until the 1930's. Once again, the shift was made through consensus, not evidence. Because the "evidence" which informs natural selection was there for decades before the shift.
Yes, orthogenesis was an entrenched idea, and it took decades for the consensus to shift to natural selection. But again, the shift did not occur because of ideological change. It occurred because it became increasingly apparent that natural selection more closely matches what we observe in nature.
The genetic code wasn't "discovered" until 1961.
Yes, I should have said population genetics.
-->
@Stronn
@3RU7AL
Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with "indistinguishable from randomness"?
My comfort is irrelevant. And "indistinguishable from randomness" would necessitate an ontological statement beyond epistemological limits. Have you observed randomness to an extent where you can relate it?
Or do you have some other term in mind?
No, I do not. I've perhaps been the one person here trying to avoid disputes over semantics.
Just because we cannot know for absolute certain that randomness exists does not mean randomness is not a useful concept or an accurate way to describe some phenomena. If a process is indistinguishable from random, then treating it a random can provide an accurate model.
Randomness is an epistemological insignificance. As I told @3RU7AL, it would require ontological statements beyond your pay-grade.
Also, while it is true that evolutionary theory treats genetic variation from mutations as random, natural selection itself is decidedly non-random.
If you're asserting that it's decidedly "non-random," what is it? In other words, what significance is there in ascribing it the quality of "non-random"?
My point was that evolutionary theory works just like any other branch of science. Theories do not ultimately change because people's ideologies change. Theories change to fit current evidence.
Other branches of science are irrelevant. We are specifically discussing evolution. Your presumable lack of knowledge on the conception of modern evolutionary theory is leading you to generalize. Evolutionary theorists change the premise of their theory because their ideologies changed. Those are the parameters of this discussion, not once again, science in general. The evidence didn't change; the science didn't change. Only the consensus did. And I must stress this once more: evolution is not based on fact. Evolution is based on an assumption, especially of a past for which it lacks observable data.
Yes, orthogenesis was an entrenched idea, and it took decades for the consensus to shift to natural selection. But again, the shift did not occur because of ideological change. It occurred because it became increasingly apparent that natural selection more closely matches what we observe in nature.
No it does not. There's yet to be any observable data which informs either. Your statement is ideological projection. (Or delusion.)
Yes, I should have said population genetics.
Population genetics wasn't discovered in the 1930's either. And the conception of natural selection preceded any standards set by population genetics. Your knowledge of this is clearly lacking. Do yourself a service and peruse not just the content of modern evolutionary theory, but also its development through the centuries. Until then, I await a more cogent response.
Reasons why young people are leaving the church.
# 81 : Jesus and or God doesn't have a Facebook account.
# 266 : Because church is over.
# 33 : Because you can't smoke meth at church.
# 29 : Because fees are due.
# 113 : Because your friends may find out.
# 18 : The Internet.
# 78 : Scared of priests.
# 351 : If they stay they will be wife number 4.
# 253 : Because they seen the movie The Craft
-->
@Athias
In the context of evolution 'random' means that mutations occur with no regard to the consequences. It doesn't mean all mutations are equally likely - they certainly aren't mathematically random! It means that whether a mutation happens or not is a 'chance event' unrelated to the benefit or damage it will cause.
I'm not bothered if 'that isn't what random means'! It is what what 'random' means in this context. It is intended to imply that intelliegence and teleology play no role in determining the what and when of mutations - they happen 'randomly'.
-->
@keithprosser
@Stronn
@3RU7AL
@Athias
The veracity of evolution is unimportant as a matter of salvation.
It is not important. The reason why it became an issue in western theology has to do with Roman Catholicism digging itself into a hole after their schism by embracing scholasticism. The post-reformation churches inherited this. The logical progression of protestant scholasticism is secular paganism.
The veracity of evolution does not effect Orthodox theology in the slightest. I can't say it enough, it is truly unimportant! An irrelevant issue.
I would also like to point out that the existence of God is the surest scientific fact there is.
-->
@Mopac
Evolution negates the need for salvation and gods and afterlives ergo religion.
-->
@Mopac
The veracity of evolution is unimportant as a matter of salvation.
I think creationists are worried that if people don't believe Gen 1 they will end up not believing in any of the bible. Charles Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey, alongside Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking. The Church of England its faults,but at least it has no problem with science or scientists.
Darwinists are probably more welcome in heaven than most creationists!
I would also like to point out that the existence of God is the surest scientific fact there is.
You do indeed like to 'point that out' - you've been doing it for months. I don't think you've convinced anybody yet...
-->
@keithprosser
Even in rhe earliest days of the church, Genesis 1 was understood as allegorical, without necessarily excluding the literal.
The important things to take home are that God created everything and human beings are made in God's
You know The Ultimate Reality exists. You won't call it God because you are a MURDERER.
# 211 : Because Mopac turned them off.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
They were turned off before I came into the picture.
Faithless and perverse, hearts full of wickedness. Crucifiers of Christ.
Jesus Christ gave his life for these, because He still loves them.
-->
@Mopac
You know The Ultimate Reality exists. You won't call it God because you are a MURDERER.
I'm fairly sure I'm not.
As I have not been tutored in the special language of the orthodox church, it is not clear to me what the difference between 'reality' and 'ultimate reality' is. I am happy to agree that I know reality exists! But I can't say I know 'the ultimare reality' exists without knowing what the term refers to.
You say I know TUR exists, but I would say what I know exists is just 'plain old' reality. But I can't equate plain old reality with God. Plain old reality is just stuff - ashtrays, my socks, gettin old and dieing.... but God (I am told) is an entity that (amongst much else) judges my actions and will reward or punish me accordingly when I am dead. I can assure you that I DO NOT know that such an entity exists even if you do call it TUR.
In summary then I concede that reality - ashtrays and socks etc- undeniably exist. But that existence of such things as socks establishes the existence of God (particularly proving the Chrustian God) well, I don't think it does.
-->
@Athias
Randomness is an epistemological insignificance. As I told @3RU7AL, it would require ontological statements beyond your pay-grade.
Models that incorporate randomness can closely match reality. I would not call that insignificant.
If you're asserting that it's decidedly "non-random," what is it? In other words, what significance is there in ascribing it the quality of "non-random"?
If you are as versed in evolutionary theory as you claim you ought to know this. For natural selection to be random it would have to select genetic variants purely by chance. But the theory says the opposite. Genetic variants are selected based on proclivity to produce viable offspring, not on chance.
Other branches of science are irrelevant. We are specifically discussing evolution. Your presumable lack of knowledge on the conception of modern evolutionary theory is leading you to generalize. Evolutionary theorists change the premise of their theory because their ideologies changed. Those are the parameters of this discussion, not once again, science in general. The evidence didn't change; the science didn't change. Only the consensus did. And I must stress this once more: evolution is not based on fact. Evolution is based on an assumption, especially of a past for which it lacks observable data.
Discussing how science in general works is hardly irrelevant when discussing a particular branch of science.
Your assertion that we have no observable data about the past is just flat out wrong. The past has left evidence all over the Earth, in fossils, geologic formations, and radioisotopes, just to name a few. We can figure out a vast amount about the past based on evidence it left behind.
No it does not. There's yet to be any observable data which informs either. Your statement is ideological projection. (Or delusion.)
Yes, it does. I've given four lines of evidence that support natural selection over orthogenesis, none of which you even attempted to address, merely dismissing them as mere "semantics". Sorry, but calling something "semantics" is not a refutation.
Population genetics wasn't discovered in the 1930's either.
"The field of population genetics came into being in the 1920s and 1930s..." (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/population-genetics/)
Population genetics signaled the final death-knell for orthogenesis. Up to the 1930's, the biggest weakness for natural selection was the lack of a mechanism for inheritance. It was only once population geneticists demonstrated mathematically that the variety in evolution could be accounted for with Mendelian inheritance that natural selection became the overwhelming consensus.
-->
@keithprosser
Essentially the Orthodox Church defines the Ultimate Reality as "the reality above which there is no other reality." They believe that the reality we observe has a higher reality above it.
-->
@keithprosser
Reality as it truly is. Reality in the truest sense. The reality that gives existence to all reality.
The Ultimate Reality.
That which is ultimately real.
Not that which exists in some sense, but in the total sense.
It is the necessary existence.
-->
@Stronn
Observable reality is by definition contingent on observation, and therefore cannot be The Ultimate Reality, which is not contingent.
-->
@Mopac
Observable reality is by definition contingent on observation, and therefore cannot be The Ultimate Reality, which is not contingent.
I think people should try harder to make themelves clearer!
What you are trying to say is that 'plain old' reality does not have to exist - there is nothing about ordinary things (such as ashtrays and socks) that forces them to exist. There could be nothing at all.
But clearly there is a 'plain old' reality, ergo there must be something that brings 'reality' into existence. To avoid infinte regress that something must be 'necessarily existing', and in Orthodoxy that something is called 'the ultimate reality'.
Basically, its a rehash of the kalam.
Whtever you make of the kalam and its variants, its most fatal defect comes when you try to equate the UR with God. Nothing in the kalam establishes the UR has the properties of God. The kalam does not prove the UR hears or answers prayers nor that it cares whehter people are good or bad. It does not show there is a heaven and hell. It does not show that the UR so loved the world he gave his only begotten son.
It is the belief of many theists that what the kalam claims to proves to exist is their God, but the features of an entity that make it a god are not proven to apply to the UR.
The validity of the kalam argument is debatable, but it is also moot because even if it is valid it doesn't prove anything about the god of any religion, let alone of a particualar religion.
-->
@keithprosser
The Ultimate Reality is what we mean by God.
You are talking nonsense.
And you are skipping ahead by trying to conform qnd reconcile this with your undoubtedly superstitious understanding of our theology.
You should get the God.part down first.
-->
@keithprosser
The Ultimate Reality is exactly what fulfills what that means. If it doesn't exist, THERE IS NO REALITY.
This is so obvious it is a wonder that anyone could question this.
This should be universal common ground. Thst God exists. How wicked do you have to be in order to deny The Truth itself?
It is foolishness.
-->
@Mopac
Observable reality is by definition contingent on observation, and therefore cannot be The Ultimate Reality, which is not contingent.
I don't think it necessarily follows that a reality that is observable is contingent on observation. Observability is a property. Reality can have this property regardless of whether there are any observers. It is not contingent on the property, or contingent on being observed, it just happens to have the property that it is observable.
After all, the Ultimate Reality must have certain properties. If observable reality by definition is contingent on observations, then precisely the same logic says that the Ultimate Reality by definition is contingent on there being no higher reality.
-->
@Stronn
Is it possible to observe everything all at once as it truly is?
Of course not.
You can't even see everything in the universe, how much less The Ultimate Reality.
-->
@Mopac
I fully addressed all that in my post. The issue is whether identifying the UR with God has any basis.
Can you demostrate that the UR is the God of Christianity, or are you doing no more than asserting it?
-->
@Mopac
This is so obvious it is a wonder that anyone could question this.
Most people here don't question that there is Ultimate Reality. What they question is how anyone can know that observable reality isn't Ultimate Reality, how you can reliably know anything about something that is beyond observation, and whether it is appropriate or useful to label Ultimate Reality with the word "God."
-->
@Mopac
Is it possible to observe everything all at once as it truly is?Of course not.You can't even see everything in the universe, how much less The Ultimate Reality.
Your just helping make my point that the observable universe is not contingent on observation.
-->
@Stronn
If you say the universe is the Ultimate Reality, you are a pantheist. You still believe God exists.
But this is a conception of God, and. a conception of God is an understanding, it isn't God.
-->
@keithprosser
This is not a reasonable request so long as you have a false understanding of Christianity.
-->
@Mopac
If you say the universe is the Ultimate Reality, you are a pantheist. You still believe God exists.But this is a conception of God, and. a conception of God is an understanding, it isn't God.
Your use of capital G is confusing. A pantheist may have the universe as his god, but that does not mean he believes capital-G God exists.
-->
@keithprosser
The word "God" means "The Ultimate Reality,"
Of course, your conception of God is not God. The Trinity addresses this, but you have no understanding of this.
And you can't because you are faithless and refuse to accept instruction.