Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Mike Cl]

Well thank you, wait till you get to the part that we are doomed to be perfected and live eternally! *hiding*

Your thoughts, so far, are not that unfamiliar to me.  I've read them before.  Very 'Eastern'.  And Charles Fillmore of the Unity movement nobbles around the edges of those ideas.

[Ananta Shesha]

Your thoughts, so far, are not that unfamiliar to me.  I've read them before.  Very 'Eastern'.  And Charles Fillmore of the Unity movement nobbles around the edges of those ideas.

I blame perennial wisdom ;)

The East has had a far head start over the West.

My ideas are born of my own logistic and formulation,  any resemblance to pastor currently existing ideas is purely coincidental. Lol

[Baruch]

Drew - "even Baruch" ... wrong parity ... I am odd Baruch ;-))

[Hydra009]

I believe and I think anyone undecided would agree this fact comports with theistic belief the universe was intentionally and intelligently designed than the belief it was caused by mindless naturalistic forces.

A scientist discovers cold fusion, and apparently that substantiates the existence of God in your mind.  That's some flawless logic right there.  And you wonder why you don't get much respect from us heathens.  :P

[Mike Cl]

I blame perennial wisdom ;)

The East has had a far head start over the West.

My ideas are born of my own logistic and formulation,  any resemblance to pastor currently existing ideas is purely coincidental. Lol

I have come to realize that each of us has formulated our own set of ideas revolving death and god.  I have not found any two people who think (or believe) exactly the same in this area.

[Baruch]

I have come to realize that each of us has formulated our own set of ideas revolving death and god.  I have not found any two people who think (or believe) exactly the same in this area.

If we all believed or thought the same things, there would be no need for more than one person to exist.  Subjectivity is a necessary correlate to individuality.  Supposed objectivity is a conceptual utopia (and equally masturbative).  But I agree with Ananta ... that the West can learn a lot from the East ... we don't because we are ignorant peasants ... we can't learn from the East, when we can't even learn from the West.  In modernity, we are in a perpetual futile attempt to escape from the past ... particularly the SJWs who suffer from White Man's Burden.  I find I don't need to escape into the future or the past ... I am happy right where I am now, but to do this, I had to abandon the notion that virtue is desirable.

[Mike Cl]

If we all believed or thought the same things, there would be no need for more than one person to exist.  Subjectivity is a necessary correlate to individuality.  Supposed objectivity is a conceptual utopia (and equally masturbative).  But I agree with Ananta ... that the West can learn a lot from the East ... we don't because we are ignorant peasants ... we can't learn from the East, when we can't even learn from the West.  In modernity, we are in a perpetual futile attempt to escape from the past ... particularly the SJWs who suffer from White Man's Burden.  I find I don't need to escape into the future or the past ... I am happy right where I am now, but to do this, I had to abandon the notion that virtue is desirable.

I basically agree.  And I will further say that virtue is totally subjective--so trying to figure out what it is is like trying to grab a greased pig; just when you have finally captured it, it squirts away from you again.

[Drew_2017]

A scientist discovers cold fusion, and apparently that substantiates the existence of God in your mind.  That's some flawless logic right there.  And you wonder why you don't get much respect from us heathens.  :P

I thought you were more intelligent then to have to misrepresent my post, my bad...

Here's the actual exchange.

author=Hydra009 link=topic=11330.msg1174731#msg1174731 date=1492190996]
You love to bring up the fact that some of the greatest scientists in history have been theists, seemingly implying that their worldview somehow contributed to their discoveries or that their great accomplishments somehow confers legitimacy to their beliefs.  (the fact that some great scientists were atheists is conveniently ignored)

Its almost like a law of physics how often you are incorrect. I have quoted from an avowed atheist (Sir Martin Rees) on several occasions. The fact remains several of those scientists pressed forward because they believed they were reverse engineering the universe therefore it made sense to them it should be knowable, logical and explicable mathematically but the kicker is they were right! Today I believe around 90% of scientists claim to be atheists or agnostics. But they still operate under the same assumptions even though there is no expectation it should be that way if caused by mindless naturalistic forces. The worth of this argument isn't really up to me or you or even Baruch, its really up to people who haven't made up their minds on this issue. 

So I have a question.  Let's say that tomorrow a scientist invents cold fusion.  If this scientist had a Marxist worldview, would that be relevant?  Let's say he's a libertarian.  Or an anarchist.  Or an orthodox Jew.  Or a devout Muslim.  Or a born-again Christian.  Or an atheist.  What conclusions should we draw based on that?

Buy stock in that company as soon as possible!

At this time it wouldn't mean anything because extracting laws, formulas and mathematical equations, making predictions, using logic induction and deduction works and is how science is done. I believe and I think anyone undecided would agree this fact comports with theistic belief the universe was intentionally and intelligently designed than the belief it was caused by mindless naturalistic forces.

[Drew_2017]

All life on earth is composed of "left handed" molecules.

Watch DNA structure form in micro G  from an inert plasma crystal that is rapidly cooled.

Go to 4:00. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kanYuBptuZ0

So the theory is the precursors for life began in space? I still don't think it can be listed as a fact in favor naturalism.

[Baruch]

So the theory is the precursors for life began in space? I still don't think it can be listed as a fact in favor naturalism.

The reason for left vs right handed molecules?  Accident of evolution.  They could have been all right handed.  The point being, a simple reaction produces half and half ... but a handed reaction is the result of biological processes.  Which aren't just chemistry, but are the result of billions of years of evolution.  If one claims that both basic chemistry and biochemistry are just physics (reductionism) ... then checkmate again.  The naturalist ideology is just as slippery as any theistic theology .. the preference is reductionism vs the opposite ... which is ape people prejudice in either case.

[Drew_2017]

The reason for left vs right handed molecules?  Accident of evolution.  They could have been all right handed.  The point being, a simple reaction produces half and half ... but a handed reaction is the result of biological processes.  Which aren't just chemistry, but are the result of billions of years of evolution.  If one claims that both basic chemistry and biochemistry are just physics (reductionism) ... then checkmate again.  The naturalist ideology is just as slippery as any theistic theology .. the preference is reductionism vs the opposite ... which is ape people prejudice in either case.

I suspect the day will come we will actually discover the formula to how life began on earth and the naturalists will claim another feather in their cap because they can say it has a naturalistic cause (assuming as they always do) the universe and the laws of physics are also by products of naturalism. It won't change the landscape much in my thinking, it will just add to the # of conditions necessary for life to begin. If we find right handed biological molecules on some other planet or moon that would change the landscape significantly it would prove life somewhere apart from earth started. At this moment the scale tips in favor of theism (my opinion) but my point of view isn't evidence and data proof. I believe in theism because of the data and facts not in spite of them. Ironically the only person in here whose made a case for naturalism is me...

[Hydra009]

I thought you were more intelligent then to have to misrepresent my post, my bad

LOL.  Misrepresented.  A likely story.

By Intelligent Design you're referring to...what?  Space aliens?

[Hydra009]

I suspect the day will come we will actually discover the formula to how life began on earth and the naturalists will claim another feather in their cap because they can say it has a naturalistic cause (assuming as they always do) the universe

Well, it should be pretty obvious to most people that strengthening the scientific case for abiogenesis would undermine alternative views, like the super scientific view that god magicked life into existence one day.

It won't change the landscape much in my thinking

And nothing will.

At this moment the scale tips in favor of theism (my opinion)

Strange how you can view pretty much anything as justifying your preconceived religious beliefs.  Did I say strange?  I meant pitiable.

[Baruch]

I suspect the day will come we will actually discover the formula to how life began on earth and the naturalists will claim another feather in their cap because they can say it has a naturalistic cause (assuming as they always do) the universe and the laws of physics are also by products of naturalism. It won't change the landscape much in my thinking, it will just add to the # of conditions necessary for life to begin. If we find right handed biological molecules on some other planet or moon that would change the landscape significantly it would prove life somewhere apart from earth started. At this moment the scale tips in favor of theism (my opinion) but my point of view isn't evidence and data proof. I believe in theism because of the data and facts not in spite of them. Ironically the only person in here whose made a case for naturalism is me...

Magical thinking.  Equations aren't magic.  Pythagoras was a used triangle salesman, not a magician.  Things are what they are, regardless of how they are described, with or without mathematics.

[Ananta Shesha]

The reason for left vs right handed molecules?  Accident of evolution.  They could have been all right handed.  The point being, a simple reaction produces half and half ... but a handed reaction is the result of biological processes.  Which aren't just chemistry, but are the result of billions of years of evolution.  If one claims that both basic chemistry and biochemistry are just physics (reductionism) ... then checkmate again.  The naturalist ideology is just as slippery as any theistic theology .. the preference is reductionism vs the opposite ... which is ape people prejudice in either case.

Look up circumpolarized star light.  Depending on its polarization, it will engender left-handed or right-handed molecular formation in surrounding nebula clouds saturated with amino acids.