Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

skwayred

Advanced member
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About skwayred

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Female
  • How old are you?
    19
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
    Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Magrathea
  1. skwayred

    Are Prayers Really Effective?

    I mean, does God really answer prayers? If you request for something but everything is also dependent on his own will, then what's the use of praying? And will more faith actually make a prayer more effective?
  2. skwayred

    How Will God Judge Mentally Ill People?

    Ok, I think this should be moved to Bible Q&A. Sorry, I posted on the wrong forum.
  3. I've recently read an article about a 7 year-old schizophrenic and ever since, my heart has been broken for this kid. When she's normal, she knows that hurting people is bad but when her illness takes over her, she hurts other people and herself. Why does God allow it? And how will God judge this kid (especially when she grows up) if 95% of the time, she's in her delusional state (as stated in the news)?
  4. skwayred

    How Does God Create Other Minds?

    Recently, I've been reading about solipsism. Solipsism is the highest form of skepticism which states that either: only I exists or the only thing I could ever know (with 100% certainty) is that I exist (ala-Descartes). This is bothersome because it is logically coherent. It is actually possible that everything is just my illusion or that I am the sole conscious being who creates reality. Every dialogue I hear from other people, every information I collect actually came from me. Perhaps, I was just bored by being alone so I created a reality with people who seem to possess minds but the thing is, they really don't. Perhaps, I just intentionally forgot that I created everything so that I can live in a dreamworld where I am not alone. Of course, this is totally absurd if taken at face value. But the thing is, if one would think about it, there is a possibility that it is true. There is nothing that could refute solipsism. I am not saying that it is true. It's just that there is no way to verify whether it is true or not. Just like in a dream -- when I dream, the pavement I walk on seems solid, the people I talk to seems to be alive, the people I talk to seem to tell me things that I did not consciously make up (e.g. I meet a guy in my dream and he says, "You know that guy is a crank, blah, blah, blah" whereas I am not consciously thinking about that particular sentence at that moment [where did it come from?]). I also do not doubt that the reality I experience in my dream until I wake up. I also create the reality in my dream by "mere thought." The questions now are: 1. How can I verily say that this reality is not just my own concoction/imagination [just like in a dream]? [You might say that I cannot do anything I want here and now but a solipsist can say that perhaps, he sort of programmed everything before he entered the dreamworld so that they will remain consistent and constant until the solipsist's death wherein he'll come back to his existence as the sole being. A solipsist can intentionally lie to himself so that he'll feel the comfort that other minds exist.] The only refutation I can think of right now is the most logical thing a solipsist can do to solve his problem is to create "other minds." This is a parallel example of why God created "other minds" -- to share his overflowing love. The problem is: Is it logically coherent to create other minds? I mean, is it logically coherent to detach from yourself a particular consciousness so that it can live independently? What if there is really just one conscious being who just lives different lives by creating different realities (at one point or another)? What if, it is logically incoherent that "two minds exist" or that a "mind can create another mind"? Surely I can create thoughts, I can perceive, I can think. But I cannot think of a logical way (in principle) of how to create another being who can have separate thoughts from me. I hope some rocket philosopher here can answer this question. Thanks.
  5. I saw this post from telic-meme.blogspot.com a while ago while I was looking for the video responses for the video, "The Inner Life of the Cell": Basically, what the author was saying is that it is ridiculous to think that a cell is powered by nanomachines just as it is ridiculous to think that little nanomachines operate the sun to produce light or that sea currents are operated by small turbines. IOW, what he's saying is that if we'll consider the molecular processes/generation of the different functionalities of a cell as a work of intelligence, we might as well also consider the generation of light or the generation of sea currents as works of intelligence too. I know there is something awfully wrong with the argument but I just can't seem to pinpoint where exactly it went wrong. I think it has a similar form to the snowflake analogy. Can anyone here help me point out where the quoted text above went wrong? Thanks.
  6. Most deviant behavior now are considered to be a disorder rather than a sin. Most serial killers are called psychopaths or anti-social. People who persistently brood over bad thoughts are called depressed. People who are in excessive doubt about the people around them are called paranoid. Anti-social behavior, depression and parnoia are all mental disorders. Not only that, these types of mental disorders also have various cures. A depressed person just needs a dose of serotonin to snap back to a happy mood. The important question now is this: How can you tell if it's you that is the problem or it's just your brain malfunctioning? What if an evil person takes a pill for his bad behavior and become a good person afterwards? If more and more bad behaviors are attributed to mental disorder, how can we be held responsible for the bad things we do? What if we do bad things just because our brain lacks a particular chemical which allows us to make good judgements?
  7. skwayred

    Abiogenesis Revisited

    Saying that chance produced life by the mere fact that life exists is a circular argument. There is no going around that. Hence by saying that the only possible cause of life's existence is chance alone, you're being illogical. You've already proven it before even proving it. Also as Springer has raised, the existence of life is against the odds (due to 2nd law of thermodynamics). Living things contain highly organized energy just as machines. Nature's natural tendency is to disorganize heat, that is, heat will always, without fail, tend to disorganize, not localize. Only intelligent beings can temporarily localize heat. That is an empirical observable fact. I'm not directing my post to anyone in particular. I just want to contribute to the discussion. Good day to all!
  8. skwayred

    Does Anyone Have A Newbie Guide?

    It is still a hot topic because of its ties with the materliaism ideology. Materialism is a worldview which states that the material universe/matter is all there is. BTW, yeah, I think the H on IMHO really stands for Honest. Thanks for correcting me.
  9. skwayred

    Miracles: Evidence Of Diety

    Why do atheists always bring the lightning issue up? Ancient civilizations didn't have what we now call "scientific method." They postulated that based on ignorance and superstition. Now is different. We postulate design out of what we "know" and not on what we don't know. We postulate design out of knowing how things work and not the other way around.
  10. skwayred

    How Is God Perfect?

    Have you ever read Drange's Incompatible-Properties of God? There he mentioned a lot of instances where the law of non-contradiction argues against God's existence (as the Bible depicts Him so anyway). Others are weak but I think his argument with regard to these two are pretty substantial: 1. God's Own Freewill vs Omniscience 2. Immutability vs Creation 1) I think this could be demolished since God is timeless (and timeless states are being discussed in physics, hence it is possible). There is no such thing as a "future" to foreknow. (BTW, I am an open theist so with regard to human free will, omniscience is perfectly compatible.) But if you have any more idea as to 1), you could state them here. 2) As you can see, the core of these contradiction lies on how we define "perfection." What Drange is saying is that if there is a God, he must be perfect. If he is perfect, then he must be immutable (not changing). He cannot be "perfect" and "changing" at the same time. What is there need to change if you're already in a perfect state? If you can't change for the better/worse, then you do not change at all. I know God doesn't change in relation to time like we do (e.g. eating at time t1 while watching TV at time t2). But since he is a free agent too (like us) he must be able to think of different thoughts and create things according to what he thinks (act of creation). My question is, does this undermine his immutability or perfection? What does it mean to be immutable (unchanging)? And what does it really mean to be perfect? How can God change thoughts, create other things and be perfectly and eternally content at the same time? If he creates other things, then he must not be content. Hence, he cannot be perfect. Any takers?
  11. I've seen this spectacular documentary video on YouTube. Everyone should watch it: Part I Part II Part III If you can post other articles or videos, much better. It got me really thinking. I think animals are robots that are just made of organic materials. We all obviously know that animals don't think. They do not rationalize. But hey, they do certain things that baffle even our engineers and scientists. They're like programmed to do "certain" things (but not all). G.K. Chesterton also stated this observation in the book "The Everlasting Man." He said that by the mere fact that birds create "something" (that is a nest) and never improves from that creation (they just create nests and nothing else) shows how animals differ from us human beings. Animals do different sorts of things, depending on their species or kind but they never improve from it, their abilities are stagnant. OTOH, we human beings can create or conceive almost anything. That's why we have the capacity invent diffent things unlike again, birds since they've always (and will always) just create "nests." Nothing more. They're pre-programmed, just like any robots we now have. They're mindless and they require an outside input of intelligence to do what they have to do. It's just ironic that atheists would look for signs of intelligence, maybe metal-clad line-following microbots as a proof of intelligence. They do not realize that just by looking at an ant, they're already looking at a magnificent microbot which could perfectly interact with its environment (not just a light-sensing one). Not only that, a microbot that can reproduce by itself. With all our sophisticated technology, we cannot even create a robot as small and efficient as an ant, much less, a robot that can self-replicate.
  12. skwayred

    Does Anyone Have A Newbie Guide?

    OTOH - On the other hand IMHO/IMO - In my humble opinion/In my opinion IOW - In other words
  13. skwayred

    The Blasphemy Challenge

    Have you heard of this stuff? Atheist laymen are now busy video-taping themselves cussing, swearing and blaspheming Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit and feel good about their boldness (for doing so) later on. I think it's so tasteless and puerile but ridiculously funny. They really cracked me up these kids: http://www.blasphemychallenge.com Your thoughts?
  14. It's a satire on creation science, made into a song. Prft. He created a strawman and made fun of it. Creation Science per se does not nessarily invoke the Bible to disprove evolution, like what he purports. I'm irritated by this man. But I like idea, I hope someone will create a song "Evolution Science 101."
  15. I've read an article that dolphins have a mind and understanding of a 5 y/o. But what is the difference of a human 5 y/o and an adult dolphin? If a dolphin can think like a 5 y/o child, then what prevents it from being human (if not for its physical appearance)? Or vice versa. What makes a 5 y/o child a human if a dolphin, which is an animal, has the same mental capacity? If a 5 y/o dies, he is also unaware of what he is doing (no firm sense of morality) like a dolphin. So where will God put him? And shouldn't a dolphin be granted the same privilege since it has the mental capacity of that 5 y/o? Their only difference is the physical appearance/language/habitat. If an adult dolphin dies and a 5 y/o child dies, then both should have the same afterlife fate. That also includes the imbeciles/mentally incapacitated humans since they cannot reason like animals. What gives them the privilege not given to animals if both of them think alike? And what about feral children (e.g. Amala & Kamala)? Those who act, think, eat, behaves like an animal? What will God do to them after they die? I understand that no one is innocent and that if they are not mentally incapacitated, they will sin (capacity to act on its own will). But since they are, they are helpless. They do not know anything about sin or forgiveness, just like animals. How will God judge them?
×

Important Information

Our Terms