Does God exist?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

"Suffering- evil in the world: that disturbs you profoundly because you have not understood that this was the suffering of Christ radiating everywhere. The suffering he took upon himself in order to create the world, so that you might have souls. And as soon as you have to bear the smallest particle of that suffering, you howl.

And despair. Christ's despair, when he believed that God had forsaken him. He had made himself a man to that point, to the lowest point that he had to believe himself forsaken of the Father: for in that belief is all sin. So he cried: Why? and he died. Of course. What would it have mattered to him to die and suffer knowing all the time that he was God? That was too easy. That would not have been creation: he had to take on all sin and all suffering, and descend so low as to be cut off from the Father altogether- and yet in that state to say: Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit. He had to withdraw entirely from his Godhead to create the world, he had to give himself up, in order to create sinners, evil, men, the world. Otherwise he would have remained God, God only- there would have been no world, no souls, no men.

All the despair of mankind, from end to end of the ages, what is it ever but the re-echoing down the courses of time of this despair of Jesus. Man also, did he always know, that God the Father is there, what merit would man have in his work, in his suffering? How would man prove to God that he loves him? It would be merely in man's interest to love God, were man sure that God exists. One can only truly love a God whom one does not know for sure to exist. One can love truly the God that does not exist."

-Seurat.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Tell me Skywalker.

Do you agree that one of the greatest influences on evolution seem to be natural disasters, or great sudden changes, rather than the steady-state theories of Darwin?

Do you understand Darwin at all?

Evolution, survival of the fittest, all those are the perfection of organisms for a particular environment.

Obviously evolution will occur faster during rapid environmental change.

[Ljube]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Tell me Skywalker.

Do you agree that one of the greatest influences on evolution seem to be natural disasters, or great sudden changes, rather than the steady-state theories of Darwin?

Darwin is not steady-state Ben. I'd like to discuss Darwin with you, if you dispute it.

[Drogue]

What Ben means, I believe, is that some Darwinians believe that in the majority of change occurs over the short shocks, as opposed to the longer periods of gradual change. Some believe the other way. We know the rate is quicker during the shocks, but the time is much shorter. Personally, I tend more towards the longer periods, since with attractors, useful change can occur faster. However the shocks are still very important.

[Ben Kenobi]

I believe, is that some Darwinians believe that in the majority of change occurs over the short shocks, as opposed to the longer periods of gradual change. Some believe the other way. We know the rate is quicker during the shocks, but the time is much shorter. Personally, I tend more towards the longer periods, since with attractors, useful change can occur faster. However the shocks are still very important.

Yes.

Altogether, a steady rate of change.

[Ben Kenobi]

Obviously evolution will occur faster during rapid environmental change.

Yes, but do you believe that the majority of the changes attributed to evolution occur during these catastropic periods?

[Ljube]

In short, yes.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, but do you believe that the majority of the changes attributed to evolution occur during these catastropic periods?

Does it matter? (no)

Obviously, if evolution proceeds more quickly during these periods, a greater number of the changes it makes will occur during these periods.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes.

Altogether, a steady rate of change.

I know where you're going, and it's BS. No scientist disagrees that evolution occurs; they disagree as to when. If you manage to prove that punctuated equilibrium is the rule, as opposed to gradualism, you won't have helped your case any.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Obviously, if evolution proceeds more quickly during these periods, a greater number of the changes it makes will occur during these periods.

That's not true. Short periods where it proceeds quickly vs longer periods it proceeds more slowly. A greater number of changes could occur in either.

[Ben Kenobi]

Does it matter? (no)

Sure it does. It matters a great deal to evolutionists. Are you telling me the details don't matter to you?

If you manage to prove that punctuated equilibrium is the rule, as opposed to gradualism, you won't have helped your case any.

That's what you think.

There's a reason why drogue is steering this away from punctuated equilibrium.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Well, that I can't satisfy. You can see the evidence in front of your nose, but it's up to you whether you find the evidence convincing or not.

It's not what I meant actually. I admire Dante's incredible knowledge of all these people, myths and stories. Also his poetry is really nice to read and his allegories are always composed very thoughtfully. Actually the whole book is a masterpiece.

But still his view on heaven and hell, is just that: his personal view. The mix of ancient myths and christian traits is interesting, but there's no reason at all to actually believe it's true.
That's not the point anyway, he's mostly talking with allegories anyway. His point is simply that God exists and you will endure horrible pain if you don't live saintly!

He too assumes God exists already, that' the issue here. Hell that's why it's called a 'belief'. It's not real

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure it does. It matters a great deal to evolutionists. Are you telling me the details don't matter to you?

Given that we're not debating the means, but rather the fact of evolution, no, it doesn't.

That's what you think.

There's a reason why drogue is steering this away from punctuated equilibrium.

Because you're going to suggest, on no grounds at all, that such serendipity, despite having simple, purely scientific explanations, is the result of divine intervention.

And you'll be hopelessly wrong.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There's a reason why drogue is steering this away from punctuated equilibrium.

Actually, that's because strictly, I'm not a Darwinian, because I don't believe in random mutations. But then I don't believe in randomness. However I like being given credit for being cunning when it was merely good fortune

[Immortal Wombat]

I would've thought that although the mutations which lead to diversity tend to occur and accumulate during equilibrium, the increased selection pressure of a natural catastrophe would cause the less specialised genes to be bred out. At that point there is more natural selection- new species would emerge probably, others would die out, but the genes that would save or kill would almost certainly have been in the gene pool from pre-event times when they were neither especially advantageous or especially disadvantageous. Saying evolution goes slower or faster during either phase is meaningless.

A divine being may well be able to design and effect a catastrophe that weeds out precisely the genes it doesn't want to remain in the gene pool, possibly an omniscient being could even engineer humanity out of the soup using a series of such. But I don't see how this negates the evolutionary process, and it certainly does not mean that this is the only way it could have happened. Of course the genes most fit for survival would survive: advanced life was inevitable barring the complete extinction of life.