Do non physical things exist?

[Sparhafoc]

And Adam, first man, set out on a journey that would take him hundreds of years, require him to grow gills and the ability to withstand pressures of the deepest depths, discovering all the extant species and naming them.... and here we are with thousands of us labouring for generations and still finding species he missed all that time ago. I guess that's just what you get when you ask a neolithic man to catalogue the world's biota.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Bearing in mind defining "God" runs into all sorts of contradictions, one first of all needs to suspend judgement.

If I were to define "God", I'd say it would be a supernatural being of pure spirit, and, therefore, genderless.

It would need to have sufficient power, and foresight/knowledge, to create the universe.

Beyond that, I can't say more - whether it's deistic or theistic, for example, is irrelevant.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 42253]

@Dragan Glas The bible itself defines its god as male and female at the same time(Man was created in gods image, i.e. mankind). So .. lets hoist the pride flag in front of every church.

Mr Zeppelin defined what god is to him and it seems to be a personal version of god, rather than the bible sanctioned one. Thats more modern spiritualism, rather than old school christianity and many people mean something like that, when talking about god.
Which shows the importance of asking people, what god means to them.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

@Dragan Glas The bible itself defines its god as male and female at the same time(Man was created in gods image, i.e. mankind). So .. lets hoist the pride flag in front of every church.

Actually, it doesn't.

The Israelites, being a patriarchal culture, had a male god, Yahweh, the storm god of the Canaanite religion.

When the bible says that god created Man in his own image, the only interpretation that makes sense is as pure spirit.

The bible says that god created Adam, and only later Eve, referring to physical beings. But the word Adam has several meanings depending on the context - it can mean "a man", or it can mean "Man", as in mankind.

In Genesis, when it says, "God created Adam", it means "God created Man(kind)". Later, in the verse, "Adam had two sons, Cain, and Abel", it means "A man had two sons, ....". Eve comes from the Hebrew word for "life", as she gave birth to humanity.

It can be argued that "God created Adam, and Eve" means "God created Man(kind),, and Life".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Greetings,


Actually, it doesn't.

The Israelites, being a patriarchal culture, had a male god, Yahweh, the storm god of the Canaanite religion.

When the bible says that god created Man in his own image, the only interpretation that makes sense is as pure spirit.

The bible says that god created Adam, and only later Eve, referring to physical beings. But the word Adam has several meanings depending on the context - it can mean "a man", or it can mean "Man", as in mankind.

In Genesis, when it says, "God created Adam", it means "God created Man(kind)". Later, in the verse, "Adam had two sons, Cain, and Abel", it means "A man had two sons, ....". Eve comes from the Hebrew word for "life", as she gave birth to humanity.

It can be argued that "God created Adam, and Eve" means "God created Man(kind),, and Life".

Kindest regards,

James

I know of some Christians who say that the image is something that is apart from Himself. That the image is basically just a shape that God liked. I would love to know your thoughts on this.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

That's absurd.

Then do it. Make a chicken egg from the basic components of the universe.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Then do it. Make a chicken egg from the basic components of the universe.

That would require magic.

Or a chicken. I could easily do it if you give me a chicken.

However, I doubt anyone really understands what point you're trying to make as it does seem like you're demanding an absurdity.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

Then do it. Make a chicken egg from the basic components of the universe.

Have you heard of the vegan alternative to meat, completly lab grown?

No-kill, lab-grown meat to go on sale for first time

Singapore’s approval of chicken cells grown in bioreactors is seen as landmark moment across industry

www.theguardian.com

Its no egg, but close enough imho. And synthesizing an egg is very well in the realm of possibilities, its just that no one is gonna spend trillions and decades on that, cause there is no point.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Then do it. Make a chicken egg from the basic components of the universe.

I think you might have missed the point. You're arguing for a literal paradox. You're suggesting that a creator proves no creator. In formal logic, A=>¬A.

As it happens, though, the universe fulfils all your requirements for a demonstration that a creator is not necessary by creating eggs via natural processes routinely.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Ok, found it....

If you wanted me to believe there is no need for a creator you would have to do something extraordinary, like create a chicken egg from scratch, starting with elements.

How does this make any sense. If I could conjure a chicken egg from nothing, that would prove to you that god doesn't exist?

It's not coherent at all - the two parts have no relationship with one and other.

Chicken eggs haven't existed since the beginning of the universe: they've existed for as long as there have been chickens. God didn't make chicken eggs, chickens did.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

I'd be interested to learn what you think macroevolution is, because I never met somebody who said they rejected it but actually knew what it was.

Macroevolution is the idea that consciousness arises naturally. It has never been observed.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

@Led Zeppelin Uhm no .. thats not what macroevolution means.

Macroevolution:
major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Macroevolution is the idea that consciousness arises naturally. It has never been observed.

Never in my life have I ever heard that as the definition of macroevolution.

However, consciousness absolutely arises naturally. For example, during embyogenesis, the fetus goes from not having any working consciousness to having a working consciousness, but no gods are tinkering around each time.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Macroevolution is the idea that consciousness arises naturally. It has never been observed.

I don't know where you got that from, but it doesn't resemble any definition of macroevolution I've encountered, either in the science nor in its denial. That sounds like an apologetic.

Macroevolution is variation in allele frequencies at or above species level, and it is observed.

That said, you've raised another example of a word that gets lobbed about an awful lot, and most of what's said about it is nonsense. Consciousness isn't a thing, it's a behaviour.

And once again, we have the double standard. What observation has ever been made of god?

 

[Deleted member 42253]

@hackenslash I see god every time I look in the mirror ... handsome bugger, looks quite a bit like Shrek.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I have never seen X = / = X has never been seen

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Are you lot really expecting honest answers from a bad faith actor?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Macroevolution:
major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.

This is a pretty terrible definition. Sorry, but it's reflective of a broad class of definitions that actually obfuscate what macroevolution is and the way that the term is used in the primary literature. In particular, macroevolutionary processes are ongoing with every single birth and death.

Micro- and macroevolution are terms that pertain only to the domain of applicability of given processes. Some of them, such as speciation, extinction, large-scale morphological change, etc., are macroevolutionary processes that manifest in obvious ways, but every shared allele between species varies with every birth and death, and those are macroevolution as well.

It's not simply a matter of scale of change, it's about the scale at which particular changes are measured.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Let me drop this here:

Has Evolution Been Proven?

What does it mean to 'prove' something? What is proof? What would it mean to 'prove' evolution? Often, one comes across the claim that evo...

www.hackenslash.co.uk

Everything you ever wanted to know about evolution and how it really works.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

@hackenslash That was the wikipedia definition, the most broadly used one and the first place anyone looks. Also, more than enough to clear up that misunderstanding.

First step .. make sure everyone agrees on the dictionary definition of a term, before even starting to discuss em.