Evolution 2.0, Creationism, or Bunk?

[Mountaineer]

Here is an interesting audio presentation for you evolutionists.  What do you think?  Does he make a good case for creationism?  The presentation is about 1 hour long and given by a professor who taught anatomy for 35 years or so at Washington University, Saint Louis.  Whether you buy his logic or not, it is a very interesting discussion of various aspects of the way creatures are constructed.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6cc88j74ea2w2 ... n.mp3?dl=0

... M

[moda0306]

What aspects of "irreducible complexity" are mentioned?  The eye?  The flagella?  Others?

Just curious what I'm getting myself into before I dive in...

[Mountaineer]

What aspects of "irreducible complexity" are mentioned?  The eye?  The flagella?  Others?

Just curious what I'm getting myself into before I dive in...

moda,

As much as I would like to give you a summary, I am not going to any more than to say, I think the professor makes a pretty convincing case - probably not perfect in every last detail, but convincing.  I may be very wrong (and I apologize if you consider your time was wasted), but I think this is one you should listen to and form your own conclusions without me doing any more to bias you than I've already done.  Seriously.  If you choose to listen, I really am interested in what you think. 

... M

[Fred]

What aspects of "irreducible complexity" are mentioned?  The eye?  The flagella?  Others?

Just curious what I'm getting myself into before I dive in...

I actually gave it a go but didn't get far enough to tell you what the nature of the irreducible complexity arguments were. All I can tell you is that it started with the assertion that "evolutionists" claim that everything came about by pure chance. When I hear a straw-man argument like that I figure there is no point in continuing, especially when it's delivered in the mocking tone of the typical Christian apologist preaching to the choir (and that's what I took it for though I admittedly only listened briefly. I don't think it was a serious attempt to change the mind of someone who already believes in evolution based on scientific evidence).

[rickb]

Here is an interesting audio presentation for you evolutionists.  What do you think?  Does he make a good case for creationism?

I listened to the whole thing. 

He starts out (at about minute 12:00) with an ad hominen attack on Richard Dawkins (providing an excuse to avoid addressing any of the points Dawkins raises in his book "The Blind Watchmaker").  He describes some complex biological structures that (in his opinion) were clearly designed (the metacarpal bone of a vulture's wing which looks like a Warren truss, the velcro like properties of feathers) - without even making a case for irreducible complexity.  He then proceeds to explain that differentiation within a species is entirely different than one species changing into another, and claims species change has never been observed (but if it were to happen species becoming more complex would violate the second law of thermodynamics), and cites a fruit fly study that claims that "random" radiation-induced mutations are nearly always bad ("no beneficial mutation has ever been observed").  He apparently believes the earth is 6000 years old (because the Bible says so??), and so fossils that appear to be 100 million years old simply can't be.  And, even if you believe in fossils (??!!), there are fossils of  creatures that are hundreds of millions of years old nearly identical to current creatures - and how could this be?  And, he uses as his clincher, the fact that hemoglobin is a protein made of 500 or so amino acids and the chance of randomly stringing together amino acids to make hemoglobin is about 1 out of 4 x 10^600 - which is inconceivably improbable.

At the end he makes a case that belief in evolution is inconsistent with Christianity.  This is because the Bible says God made Adam and Eve perfect, which he interprets to mean immortal, so death is not the "natural" state of life as it was originally created by God - but evolution is based on the idea of countless generations of organisms living and dying under selective pressure.  This conflicts with the "God originally made us perfect" belief, so therefore if you believe in evolution you can't be a Christian.  He doesn't exactly put it this way, but definitely implies you'll go to Hell if you believe in evolution - even theistically controlled evolution (i.e. the theory that evolution happened but under God's control).

I suspect to anyone who does not already believe the Bible's creation story is a literal account of the origin of the earth this guy is going to come across as a lunatic.  He's apparently a scientific adviser for the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

My impression is with this talk he's trying to convince Christians, not anyone else, that they shouldn't believe in evolution.

[moda0306]

Here is an interesting audio presentation for you evolutionists.  What do you think?  Does he make a good case for creationism?

I listened to the whole thing. 

He starts out (at about minute 12:00) with an ad hominen attack on Richard Dawkins (providing an excuse to avoid addressing any of the points Dawkins raises in his book "The Blind Watchmaker").  He describes some complex biological structures that (in his opinion) were clearly designed (the metacarpal bone of a vulture's wing which looks like a Warren truss, the velcro like properties of feathers) - without even making a case for irreducible complexity.  He then proceeds to explain that differentiation within a species is entirely different than one species changing into another, and claims species change has never been observed (but if it were to happen species becoming more complex would violate the second law of thermodynamics), and cites a fruit fly study that claims that "random" radiation-induced mutations are nearly always bad ("no beneficial mutation has ever been observed").  He apparently believes the earth is 6000 years old (because the Bible says so??), and so fossils that appear to be 100 million years old simply can't be.  And, even if you believe in fossils (??!!), there are fossils of  creatures that are hundreds of millions of years old nearly identical to current creatures - and how could this be?  And, he uses as his clincher, the fact that hemoglobin is a protein made of 500 or so amino acids and the chance of randomly stringing together amino acids to make hemoglobin is about 1 out of 4 x 10^600 - which is inconceivably improbable.

At the end he makes a case that belief in evolution is inconsistent with Christianity.  This is because the Bible says God made Adam and Eve perfect, which he interprets to mean immortal, so death is not the "natural" state of life as it was originally created by God - but evolution is based on the idea of countless generations of organisms living and dying under selective pressure.  This conflicts with the "God originally made us perfect" belief, so therefore if you believe in evolution you can't be a Christian.  He doesn't exactly put it this way, but definitely implies you'll go to Hell if you believe in evolution - even theistically controlled evolution (i.e. the theory that evolution happened but under God's control).

I suspect to anyone who does not already believe the Bible's creation story is a literal account of the origin of the earth this guy is going to come across as a lunatic.  He's apparently a scientific adviser for the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

My impression is with this talk he's trying to convince Christians, not anyone else, that they shouldn't believe in evolution.

SMH.

Guess I'm glad I didn't listen to it.  The best "arguments" I've heard are the irreducible complexity arguments.... which are quickly then debunked by the people that actually know the science.  And the funny thing is, even if I were to be sympathetic of certain areas of intelligent design "theory," it would be in certain areas of irreducible complexity... but even within that possibility, it would be very easy to imagine ape-like creatures evolving into humans.  However, that doesn't align with the worldview of most of the proponents of ID-esque theories.

Desert didn't like his attitude (or content, if memory serves), but Neil DeGrasse Tyson recently did a presentation about "ID" that illustrated how people of centuries past, including scientists, including Isaac Newton himself, would get to a point where they had figured a lot of stuff out, but got stumped at something that seemed impossible/unnatural/"irreducibly-complex."  As smart as these guys were, their instinct was to attribute the phenomenon they discovered to "God," as what they were seeing was "irreducibly complex" given the knowledge/models they were employing.

I'll repeat... even Isaac Newton did this, and in a way that has of course since then been proven to have a basis in science.

Tyson is a bit of a story-teller, but his analysis was spot-on. People have a tendency to come to the edge of knowledge on a topic and want to make a leap of faith right at the end of it rather than admit that there's just another level of knowledge that they haven't acquired yet.

[Mountaineer]

Guess I'm glad I didn't listen to it. 

moda,

I must say, I'm disapointed that you did not listen and form your own conclusions - regardless of how they might have turned out. 

This is not PC, but you are falling into the same camp of what I perceive as many who just "refuse to hear something other than what they think is different or might not align with their presuppositions".  That is not being objective in my opinion.  rickb came out a different place than I did but at least he listened and had his own opinions.  I think he got somewhat sidetracked on side issues but he heard what he heard.  What more can you ask of someone?

... M

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

I tried listening to it on my phone and didn't have space because of all my podcasts.  Then I just went back to listening to podcasts.

Not that I couldn't have gotten on my computer to do it, but just so you know it wasn't totally a conscious avoidance.

In the end, when you boil these arguments, they're built on a few premises.  A lot of these have been debunked by science, others perhaps have not.  Rick summarized the arguments being made, and it would appear that the thing you want me to "hear" relies on ridiculous premises, so "hearing" it isn't going to make those things true.  For instance, if I sent you a link to something that included the premise that the world was flat and that unicorns exist, you probably wouldn't feel like bothering to listen to it.

Your not wanting to listen to it wouldn't be "objective" or "subjective" so much as "selective."  As in it makes no sense to entertain premises that you've already rejected unless there's actual new proof for those premises being included that you haven't been exposed to.

But all-in-all this sounds like the same $hit, different pile.  However if you really think it makes some unique and intriguing arguments, I'll be sure to listen to it from my laptop later.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

I tried listening to it on my phone and didn't have space because of all my podcasts.  Then I just went back to listening to podcasts.

Not that I couldn't have gotten on my computer to do it, but just so you know it wasn't totally a conscious avoidance.

In the end, when you boil these arguments, they're built on a few premises.  A lot of these have been debunked by science, others perhaps have not.  Rick summarized the arguments being made, and it would appear that the thing you want me to "hear" relies on ridiculous premises, so "hearing" it isn't going to make those things true.  For instance, if I sent you a link to something that included the premise that the world was flat and that unicorns exist, you probably wouldn't feel like bothering to listen to it.

Your not wanting to listen to it wouldn't be "objective" or "subjective" so much as "selective."  As in it makes no sense to entertain premises that you've already rejected unless there's actual new proof for those premises being included that you haven't been exposed to.

But all-in-all this sounds like the same $hit, different pile.  However if you really think it makes some unique and intriguing arguments, I'll be sure to listen to it from my laptop later.

moda,

You are probably right and it was rude of me to suggest otherwise.  I do understand that what seems to make good sense to me does not to others who are coming from a different place.  This is going to sound strange to those with a different worldview than me, but I just really hate to see you sacrifice the eternal long term for what I perceive is the siren call of one who is trying to lure you into an erroneous way of viewing the world.  As I've said before, it is not up to me to change you.  I honestly was not trying to waste your time, I thought the presentation was interesting, especially if you can get past the fluff and listen to the substance.  Do as you wish, you owe me nada, and thanks for your reply.  Really.

... M

[MediumTex]

I'll bet the scribes who penned the versions of the books of the Bible that made it into the final version would be very pleased to know that their words have had so much impact over a thousand years later.

The real loser, of course, is Neanderthal man.  No love, not even a mention.  I guess he was just another beast of the field, even though his brain was larger than ours.

Truly, history is written by the winners.

[Fred]

On Darwin vs. Moses

Darwin is an easily established, historical real human being who submitted a well-reasoned theory of natural selection to the scientific community for further investigation. His testable theories have become a cornerstone of modern biological sciences leading to many discoveries that have been of great benefit to humans.

Moses is a figure from antiquity known only from the Bible. There is NO independent verification of his existence from any other source. It is said in the Bible that he received direct revelation from God in matters pertaining to the creation of the world in the book of Genesis and in the giving of the divine law that God's people were to live by. Moses asserts in his creation account that the world was created in six days, with the waters above the heavens being separated from the waters below the heavens by a firmament which came into being by the spoken word of God. In other words, the universe first consisted of nothing but water until God made a separation in the middle and let the dry land appear. If you only have ancient beliefs to go on, then this would be entirely plausible. There is water above that falls in the form of rain, and water below, which seeps up from the earth. The sun, moon, and stars, appeared somewhat later on in the chronology.

So who are you going to believe about all this in the year 2015? Better believe the Bible, the Christians tell us. If you don't, it will piss this God of creation off and you will end up in hell being tortured forever and ever, world without end.

[MediumTex]

I think Darwin was a lot more honest than today's neodarwinists.  Here's one of my favorite Darwin quotes:

“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”

And another good one:

If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection.

I'm pretty sure Darwin wouldn't be a Darwinist if he were still alive to see the actual fossil record, highlighted by the Cambrian Explosion and an impressive absence of transitional forms.

Maybe there are no transitional forms because transitional forms are, as their names would suggest, transitional and thus don't occupy much space on the evolutionary time continuum.

The transitional life forms either mutated in ways that made them better adapted to survival, or they became extinct.

If your thesis is that the diversity of life suggests that a Creator built it all with a lot of biological diversity on Day One, how do we fit something like the dinosaurs into that narrative?  Did God build a world full of diverse types of dinosaurs and then decide to start over with something more mammal-oriented, but with a similar level of Day One diversity?

I agree that it's hard to imagine a process wherein a series of favorable environmental adaptions could lead to giant tortoises that can live over 200 years and insects that only live a few days.  Maybe our inability to comprehend that is more a function of the limits of our own understanding, though.

Wherever you believe we started out, though, the existence of some kid of original creative force is still implicit in the fact that creation exists, and thus maybe it doesn't matter that much whether the creator started things off with a fully stocked zoo or a single cell.

[Greg]

Maybe there are no transitional forms because transitional forms are, as their names would suggest, transitional and thus don't occupy much space on the evolutionary time continuum.

The transitional life forms either mutated in ways that made them better adapted to survival, or they became extinct.

If your thesis is that the diversity of life suggests that a Creator built it all with a lot of biological diversity on Day One, how do we fit something like the dinosaurs into that narrative?  Did God build a world full of diverse types of dinosaurs and then decide to start over with something more mammal-oriented, but with a similar level of Day One diversity?

I agree that it's hard to imagine a process wherein a series of favorable environmental adaptions could lead to giant tortoises that can live over 200 years and insects that only live a few days.  Maybe our inability to comprehend that is more a function of the limits of our own understanding, though.

Wherever you believe we started out, though, the existence of some kid of original creative force is still implicit in the fact that creation exists, and thus maybe it doesn't matter that much whether the creator started things off with a fully stocked zoo or a single cell.

That's one of the reasons I like theistic evolution. Trying to tie together science and religion (BioLogos-style) so that things can be mutually compatible and everything be right with the world.

[Xan]

The issue with theistic evolution, of course, is the presence of death before the Fall.  Not only that, but death effectively as the means of creation.  I look at modern biology as a model which produces useful results, and as for whether or not it's true, I don't know.  If there were a way to reconcile the worldviews that would be great.  Fortunately I'm not required to have all the answers and am happy to abdicate that responsibility.

One idea I've tossed around is that the Fall was so cataclysmic that it affected all of Creation, meaning, time and space, backwards and forwards, and that Creation became so broken and infused with death that it became not only our present and future but our past as well.

[Fred]

One idea I've tossed around is that the Fall was so cataclysmic that it affected all of Creation, meaning, time and space, backwards and forwards, and that Creation became so broken and infused with death that it became not only our present and future but our past as well.

Sounds like you're doing what I once did trying to make the book of Genesis work. I remember reading an article by a Christian physicist who said that it was theoretically possible that events occurring in the present could alter the past. So there you have it - Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit in a pristine creation only six days old plus a little time to name the animals and then all of a sudden we end up with a 4 billion year old earth complete with dinosaurs, fossils, neanderthals, and civilizations much older than the 6,000 or so years as indicated by the Bible story.

And then Hawking came along with his parallel universe theory which sounded even more promising. Maybe when the Bible said Adam and Eve were driven out of the garden, it really meant they were transferred into another parallel universe - the "original sin" universe, if you will.

Today, I guess you might say I have returned to my roots as a fundamentalist.  I do believe that they are right in saying that we are supposed to take it all literally and all of those hidden meanings we look for to reconcile the story with science should be eschewed. So, to my way of thinking, this leaves you with the choice of accepting the Christian account that once made sense to the primitive mind but can't possibly be reconciled with modern science, or rejecting it all as mythology. Personally, I've chosen the latter, but everyone is entitled to his own opinion (depending on when and where you live, of course).

[MediumTex]

One idea I've tossed around is that the Fall was so cataclysmic that it affected all of Creation, meaning, time and space, backwards and forwards, and that Creation became so broken and infused with death that it became not only our present and future but our past as well.

Sounds like you're doing what I once did trying to make the book of Genesis work. I remember reading an article by a Christian physicist who said that it was theoretically possible that events occurring in the present could alter the past. So there you have it - Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit in a pristine creation only six days old plus a little time to name the animals and then all of a sudden we end up with a 4 billion year old earth complete with dinosaurs, fossils, neanderthals, and civilizations much older than the 6,000 or so years as indicated by the Bible story.

And then Hawking came along with his parallel universe theory which sounded even more promising. Maybe when the Bible said Adam and Eve were driven out of the garden, it really meant they were transferred into another parallel universe - the "original sin" universe, if you will.

Today, I guess you might say I have returned to my roots as a fundamentalist.  I do believe that they are right in saying that we are supposed to take it all literally and all of those hidden meanings we look for to reconcile the story with science should be eschewed. So, to my way of thinking, this leaves you with the choice of accepting the Christian account that once made sense to the primitive mind but can't possibly be reconciled with modern science, or rejecting it all as mythology. Personally, I've chosen the latter, but everyone is entitled to his own opinion.

Couldn't you also accept it all as mythology?

People act like calling something a myth means it isn't true.  To me, elevating a symbolic representation of the world to mythology means that it contains fundamental truths that resonate within at least one culture.

It's interesting how the thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to create elaborate symbolic mental models that enhance our understanding of the world around us immeasurably, and yet when it comes to matters of religion people often find symbolic interpretations unsatisfying.

If we accept that our little mortal minds are incapable of grasping the nature of whatever supernatural forces may exist in other dimensions, then wouldn't a symbolic understanding of those forces be about the best we could ever hope for anyway?  Following that logic, shouldn't we embrace symbolic representations of the supernatural?

I can easily see the truth of our existence being that God DID create us, and that he DID endow us with a divine nature that competes with our animal nature, and the extent to which we embrace our ability to comprehend our world in symbolic terms is a measure of how close to the divine that we may come.

Ironically, I feel like the quest of many people for immortality is, ironically, almost purely a function of their animal nature and its endless preoccupation with personal survival and control of its external environment.  When people talk about their salvation in terms of an insurance policy, that is animal thinking.  It's a squirrel talking about an everlasting acorn.

[Fred]

Today, I guess you might say I have returned to my roots as a fundamentalist.  I do believe that they are right in saying that we are supposed to take it all literally and all of those hidden meanings we look for to reconcile the story with science should be eschewed. So, to my way of thinking, this leaves you with the choice of accepting the Christian account that once made sense to the primitive mind but can't possibly be reconciled with modern science, or rejecting it all as mythology. Personally, I've chosen the latter, but everyone is entitled to his own opinion.

Couldn't you also accept it all as mythology?

People act like calling something a myth means it isn't true.  To me, elevating a symbolic representation of the world to mythology means that it contains fundamental truths that resonate within at least one culture.

In my currently evolved state of mind, no. I've been programming computers for over 40 years so I've developed a tendency to see things in binary. Before that, I was a Vietnam veteran which probably left me with some kind of deeply instilled resistance to mythological beliefs.

It's interesting how the thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to create elaborate symbolic mental models that enhance our understanding of the world around us immeasurably, and yet when it comes to matters of religion people often find symbolic interpretations unsatisfying.

If we accept that our little mortal minds are incapable of grasping the nature of whatever supernatural forces may exist in other dimensions, then wouldn't a symbolic understanding of those forces be about the best we could ever hope for anyway?  Following that logic, shouldn't we embrace symbolic representations of the supernatural?

Is there any solid evidence that supernatural forces exist in other dimensions, beyond human intuition? I don't know of any. If any is found I believe it would probably be well worth looking into.

I can easily see the truth of our existence being that God DID create us, and that he DID endow us with a divine nature that competes with our animal nature, and the extent to which we embrace our ability to comprehend our world in symbolic terms is a measure of how close to the divine that we may come.

Sounds kind of like the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" where the vision of the mountain where the aliens intended to land was implanted in certain people. Those who got the message were allowed to board the spaceship. Actually, as a long time student of the Bible I immersed myself in its symbolism and thought I saw all kinds of wondrous things. It's pretty easy to do with a little imagination. I'll bet you could pick up any literary work, even Alice in Wonderland, and do the same thing if you can become convinced it is the "Word of God".

Ironically, I feel like the quest of many people for immortality is, ironically, almost purely a function of their animal nature and its endless preoccupation with personal survival and control of its external environment.  When people talk about their salvation in terms of an insurance policy, that is animal thinking.  It's a squirrel talking about an everlasting acorn.

I think it is very possible that there is some form of life after death. Just look at Quantum Mechanics. Did consciousness invent the brain or was it the other way around? There is a lot of debate about this and I think we have a lot to learn about human consciousness. If I'm wrong I won't be disappointed unless I end up in the Christian or Moslem hell for failing to choose the correct religious dogma (which hell is worse, BTW - does anybody know?)

TPG edit: I thought this was a very interesting conversation, so I cleaned up the attributions.

[Pointedstick]

The idea of accepting mythology is a deep one. When we read a book or watch a movie based on Greek mythology, for example, do we worry ourselves with whether it's true? Of course not. Even though we now know that Greek mythology is incorrect, in that much of it cannot possibly describe the world we inhabit, it's still interesting from the perspective of being a whole set of culturally meaningful stories that have been preserved and transmitted through the ages.

For that matter, most stories are like this. We read a novel or watch a TV show or play a video game and don't bother wondering whether the story we're presented with is true or not. It's fun and engaging and potentially even moving or powerful or emotionally meaningful without needing to be true at all. I think the conflict with religion comes from the fact that it encourages and inspires people to go around declaring that it is true, when it clearly can't be due to the typical contradictions between what happens in a story and what can happen in real life. Even religions that are highly observational, like Buddhism, make tons of claims for things that are implausible at best and patently false at worst, such as reincarnation. But that doesn't necessarily close the door on there being meaning there anyway. This guy Buddha didn't have to have everything right for his musings on a variety of subjects to be wise and meaningful, and same with Jesus and all the others.

[Mountaineer]

The idea of accepting mythology is a deep one. When we read a book or watch a movie based on Greek mythology, for example, do we worry ourselves with whether it's true? Of course not. Even though we now know that Greek mythology is incorrect, in that much of it cannot possibly describe the world we inhabit, it's still interesting from the perspective of being a whole set of culturally meaningful stories that have been preserved and transmitted through the ages.

For that matter, most stories are like this. We read a novel or watch a TV show or play a video game and don't bother wondering whether the story we're presented with is true or not. It's fun and engaging and potentially even moving or powerful or emotionally meaningful without needing to be true at all. I think the conflict with religion comes from the fact that it encourages and inspires people to go around declaring that it is true, when it clearly can't be due to the typical contradictions between what happens in a story and what can happen in real life. Even religions that are highly observational, like Buddhism, make tons of claims for things that are implausible at best and patently false at worst, such as reincarnation. But that doesn't necessarily close the door on there being meaning there anyway. This guy Buddha didn't have to have everything right for his musings on a variety of subjects to be wise and meaningful, and same with Jesus and all the others.

PS,

You, in my opinion, are correct about Bhudda but not about Jesus.  Have you considered, if there is a God (and I believe in the Christian God as you know), that your statement could be taken as you know more than God ... and just because you consider some/all of what God said to not make sense, perhaps it is you that are not able to understand the infinite vs. the infinite not being able to make sense to the finite?  Just something to ponder the next time you muse about "Is there a God and if so, what would He be like in comparison to myself?"

... M

[Pointedstick]

The thing is, Mountaineer, I don't muse that. God doesn't interest me; truth does. My musings are usually more along the lines of, "If there are elements of morality that are more than simply culturally relative social constructions, what is the source of truth that they must be based on?"

[MediumTex]

The thing is, Mountaineer, I don't muse that. God doesn't interest me; truth does. My musings are usually more along the lines of, "If there are elements of morality that are more than simply culturally relative social constructions, what is the source of truth that they must be based on?"

To me, the presumption in any discussion about religion should be that God and all supernatural personalities are human constructs and projections, and if someone wants to argue that supernatural beings exist outside of our imaginations, then the burden of proof is on them to make their case persuasively.

For some reason, people always want to put the burden of proof onto people with whom they disagree, no matter how flimsy the position they are defending may be.

My most serious problem with the notion of God is that it's all based on hearsay.  Most of what people know about God is what they've been told by other people, who themselves learned about it from other people, who learned about it from what a scribe 2,000 years ago wrote about what someone else said he saw.  That's not proof of anything.  That's a mystical game of "telephone", and what you ultimately hear may be exactly what you want to hear, which may or may not have any relationship to the truth whatsoever.

[Mountaineer]

The thing is, Mountaineer, I don't muse that. God doesn't interest me; truth does. My musings are usually more along the lines of, "If there are elements of morality that are more than simply culturally relative social constructions, what is the source of truth that they must be based on?"

PS,

Your statement implies you do not equate God with truth.  Perhaps that is a factual, perhaps not.  Best to ponder all views of the sphere rather than propagate the myth it is merely a circle.  Best not to be a flatlander.  My guess is as you perceive you are nearer the end than the beginning, you will develop a stronger interest in some things that do not interest you at the moment.  Unfortunately, one does not always know when the end may happen near the beginning.  Be ready, grasshopper. 

What is truth?  Where does it come from?  Why do we seek it?  What is its source?  Why am I here?  Why am I not there?  Why do I exist in this particular time and space?  What happens when I no longer seek truth?  What is infinity?  How do I know there is such a thing as infinity?  Am I finite?  Why am I not infinite?  Why am I unable to know everything that ever was, is, and will be?  Why do I have limits?  Why am I interested in certain things and not others?  Why speak of grasshoppers? 

... M

[Pointedstick]

Mountaineer, I'm beginning to suspect that our differing perspectives simply come from the different cosmological questions we're interested in pondering. Questions like, "Why am I here?" and "What is infinity?" and "Why do I have limits?" don't really hold much interest for me, and, because these questions, metaphysically speaking, are basically unanswerable without mythology and religion, I suppose those subjects don't really hold much appeal for me.

So no, I do not equate God with truth, probably because I am not religious. I don't even know if there is a God or not, but I do know that truth exists. Strictly speaking, I can test truth's existence for myself by simply saying aloud something like, "I speak." Within the boundaries of the definitions of the words "I" and "speak," that is a true statement by definition. So I know there is such a thing as truth. But I know of no similar method to verify the existence of God.

[Fred]

To me, the presumption in any discussion about religion should be that God and all supernatural personalities are human constructs and projections, and if someone wants to argue that supernatural beings exist outside of our imaginations, then the burden of proof is on them to make their case persuasively.

I read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins a while ago and in it he deals with the assertion made by religious folks that the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically but has to be accepted as a matter of faith. He asks what I thought was a very good question of why should we accept this as true? Why can't there be proof for the existence of God? As an ex-Christian myself I know that the Bible says that God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so why doesn't he just go ahead and provide us with some proof that he actually exists? If he intends to send us to hell for not believing in the absence of proof, just what kind of cosmic game is this that he is playing and how do you reconcile that with what the Bible says about him?

[MediumTex]

To me, the presumption in any discussion about religion should be that God and all supernatural personalities are human constructs and projections, and if someone wants to argue that supernatural beings exist outside of our imaginations, then the burden of proof is on them to make their case persuasively.

I read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins a while ago and in it he deals with the assertion made by religious folks that the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically but has to be accepted as a matter of faith. He asks what I thought was a very good question of why should we accept this as true? Why can't there be proof for the existence of God? As an ex-Christian myself I know that the Bible says that God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so why doesn't he just go ahead and provide us with some proof that he actually exists? If he intends to send us to hell for not believing in the absence of proof, just what kind of cosmic game is this that he is playing and how do you reconcile that with what the Bible says about him?

From what the Old Testament tells us about God, he is exactly the kind of being that would arbitrarily sentence someone to eternal suffering.

To me, the worst sort of tragedy is the senseless killing of a child, and the Old Testament finds God doing this on a number of occasions, often to make points that seem trivial.  I believe he killed one of David's children to encourage him to stop sleeping around so much.

In the case of Job, I think that God killed all of his kids just to see if it would cause him to stop being a believer.  Whatever that is, it doesn't seem very kind and loving.

And then with the Flood, God pretty much killed everyone except Noah and his family.  Think about how many kids were in the whole world at that time.  All of them killed deliberately...by God.  We view that recent picture of the Syrian child who drowned and it's heartbreaking.  In the Flood story, God did that to every single child on earth apart from a single family.