Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Made God?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9489
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 6.3


(1)
Message 46 of 872 (689290)
01-29-2013 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by GDR
01-29-2013 11:54 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
There is nothing that you will accept as evidence for a god.
He probably would accept the same as I would, namely evidence.
Please provide some so we can consider whether in fact it is evidence or not.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by GDR, posted 01-29-2013 11:54 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by GDR, posted 01-29-2013 2:07 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9583
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.7


(3)
(1)
Message 47 of 872 (689297)
01-29-2013 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by GDR
01-29-2013 11:54 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
GDR writes:
There is nothing that you will accept as evidence for a god.
Of course there is. There's a thousand things I could think of that I would accept as proof but the very simplest would be a single, non-controversial miracle.
Just one amputated arm regrown would do it. He's supposed to answer other healing prayers so why not one that's provable? The Pope requires a couple of miracles to beatify a saint. Let's see one.
But no, I'm supposed to have faith. Well I don't have faith in obvious nonsense, sorry.
A couple of years ago I remember seeing a handful of dowsers being scientifically tested to see if they could detect water. They were shown the experiment and they agreed that it was a fair test and that they could be expected to find the water. They all failed miserably. But not one of them would even consider that it was all in their imagination - they all rationalised their failure one way or another.
They needed to believe, so they did.
A modern Christian wouldn't recognise the beliefs of a 17th century Christian; they believed in the absolute literal truth in the bible as taught by their preacher. The majority of Christians these days have had their beliefs rationalised down to the bare bone by one scientific discovery after another. They've rationalised because they have to in order to keep believing.
It's highly likely that in the next ten years or so we'll find that we can make life from simple chemicals and another piece of the jigsaw will be found which will erode another chunk of belief and be rationalised.
The multitude of God stories invented around the world all have their source in our deep desire not to be insignificant. We are the first creatures to evolve the knowledge of our own future deaths and it's a hell of a burden to carry.
If you've ever had to explain to a child why their mother is no longer with them, the easiest way is to say that she's in heaven with the angels looking down on us now. And one day we'll all be back together and happy. It's a fairy story, nothing else.
If there is a god out there he's not the sort you think - he's the non-interventionist kind that pouffed this lot into existence 14bn years ago then found a new toy to play with.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by GDR, posted 01-29-2013 11:54 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by GDR, posted 01-29-2013 2:06 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 01-29-2013 2:19 PM Tangle has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 48 of 872 (689308)
01-29-2013 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Tangle
01-29-2013 12:35 PM


What Constitutes Evidence?
GDR writes:
There is nothing that you will accept as evidence for a god.
Tangle writes:
Of course there is. There's a thousand things I could think of that I would accept as proof but the very simplest would be a single, non-controversial miracle.
I apologise. I phrased that badly. What I meant is that you don’t agree that things that we can know about this world constitute evidence even though the evidence doesn’t lead us to the same conclusions.
I’ll repeat what I said in my last post.
GDR writes:
I’m not claiming that the Bible is inerrant and I’m not saying that other holy books don’t have truth in them as well. Yes I believe the account in the Bible of the resurrection of Christ as being historical however that isn’t the only evidence. The world and specifically all life does appear to be designed. We do seem to desire purpose in our lives as you said earlier. Things like thoughts and emotions are real but not physical. Particles appear and disappear. QM indicates that there are other dimensions/universes that we are unable to perceive. All these things are evidence that we draw our conclusions from and form our own beliefs.
I think that we would agree that those things are realities of our existence. If we are going to consider whether or not there is a creative intelligence that is responsible for our existence we can draw our conclusions from that type of evidence.
Let’s look at another reality. Evolution is a process that has produced through the ages the life forms we see in this world today. It allows for our physical properties to change in order to better adapt to our environment. Look at the incredibly complex properties of DNA and our whole genetic makeup. Frankly, if you want miracles just consider the miracle of evolution.
That is all evidence and we will all come to our own conclusions about where the evidence leads us.
Tangle writes:
A modern Christian wouldn't recognise the beliefs of a 17th century Christian; they believed in the absolute literal truth in the bible as taught by their preacher.
Actually that isn’t true. Even back 1600 years ago Augustine held these views.
From wiki writes:
In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul ("he created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally.[77] Augustine also does not envision original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall.[citation needed] Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.[78]
Tangle writes:
The majority of Christians these days have had their beliefs rationalised down to the bare bone by one scientific discovery after another. They've rationalised because they have to in order to keep believing.
Paul writes that we are to learn from what God has created. I would have a problem if we didn’t learn from new information. IMHO science is simply a natural theology. We have the gift of reason and we continue to learn and I expect that in the years to come we will gain an even greater understanding. The internet has also changed our views as so many people now have access to the collected wisdom of centuries of religious, philosophical and scientific thinker.
Tangle writes:
It's highly likely that in the next ten years or so we'll find that we can make life from simple chemicals and another piece of the jigsaw will be found which will erode another chunk of belief and be rationalised.
That is simply "science of the gaps" thinking. However what would that prove? It will simply demonstrate that it took intelligence and effort to make it happen.
Tangle writes:
The multitude of God stories invented around the world all have their source in our deep desire not to be insignificant. We are the first creatures to evolve the knowledge of our own future deaths and it's a hell of a burden to carry.
If you've ever had to explain to a child why their mother is no longer with them, the easiest way is to say that she's in heaven with the angels looking down on us now. And one day we'll all be back together and happy. It's a fairy story, nothing else.
That is your opinion. I agree that it can bring comfort whether it is true or not but so what? Frankly, the basic message is in my signature. It is my belief that if we have hearts that consciously desire humble mercy and justice then we needn’t concern ourselves with the next life. The Bible if read in context is clear that it is about our hearts and not our doctrine. The point isn’t about going to heaven or hell, the point is about making this a better world for all.
Tangle writes:
If there is a god out there he's not the sort you think - he's the non-interventionist kind that pouffed this lot into existence 14bn years ago then found a new toy to play with.
Maybe, but I don’t think it particularly plausible that this hypothetical god would create a world where intelligence could morality are part of existence and then be uninterested and uninvolved in the ongoing process. I agree though that it is possible and a reasonable position to hold.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Tangle, posted 01-29-2013 12:35 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Tangle, posted 01-29-2013 5:54 PM GDR has replied
 Message 54 by onifre, posted 01-30-2013 2:41 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 49 of 872 (689309)
01-29-2013 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Theodoric
01-29-2013 12:00 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Theodoric writes:
Please provide some so we can consider whether in fact it is evidence or not.
Please see my reply to Tangle.
Cheers

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 01-29-2013 12:00 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 01-29-2013 2:52 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 55 by xongsmith, posted 01-30-2013 3:31 PM GDR has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 50 of 872 (689313)
01-29-2013 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Tangle
01-29-2013 12:35 PM


Re: Evidence
There's a thousand things I could think of that I would accept as proof but the very simplest would be a single, non-controversial miracle.
Why do you personally have to witness this miracle? God gave us evidence galore in the Bible of all kinds of miracles to prove exactly what you say it would take a miracle to prove, but you won't believe what the Bible says. Matthew, Mark, John and Peter who wrote parts of the New Testament all personally claimed to have witnessed Jesus' miracles of healing, healing lifelong blindness, causing people who couldn't walk to walk, even restoring people to life, changing water into wine, but you won't believe them. The Books of Moses attest to the miracles God did in Egypt and the pillars of fire and cloud that led the people, the manna from heaven that fed them, and so on and so forth, but you won't believe Moses either, probably won't even believe there WAS a Moses. So, you've been GIVEN evidence, the very kind you say you want, all you have to do is believe the people who reported it, but you won't.
Neither will GDR, not all of it, only parts here and there that he's decided he'd better believe.
You say Christians nowadays are forced to compromise because of science and sadly that's true, there are a lot of Christians who do, but there are also a lot of Christians who don't, that you never hear from. I'm one who doesn't compromise, I take every word of the Bible as true, trumping anything that contradicts it, because I have come to the conclusion that it was inspired by God Himself.
You shrug it off as a myth and me as an idiot, but you COULD choose instead to think maybe so many people who believe it have good reason to.
You won't.
Point is you've been given evidence. You've refused it. It's on your head.
Afterthought: Funny you think you'd believe a miracle if you personally witnessed it. Somehow THAT would trump all the evidence you think you have from science against such things? Why would your own personal witnessing have such power over science but all the testimony of all the people in the Bible to such miracles doesn't? And you probably can't even see why this is bizarre.
Thomas wouldn't believe either, all the testimony of the other disciples who told him they'd seen Jesus risen from the dead.
Jhn 20:24-29 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.
Jhn 20:30-31 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Isn't the message clear? You've been given fair and trustworthy witnesses, it is nothing but stubborn insistence that you be given something personal that keeps you from the very evidence you say you want.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Tangle, posted 01-29-2013 12:35 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 01-30-2013 11:50 AM Faith has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9489
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 6.3


(1)
Message 51 of 872 (689316)
01-29-2013 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by GDR
01-29-2013 2:07 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
So no evidence?
Color me surprised.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by GDR, posted 01-29-2013 2:07 PM GDR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9583
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.7


(2)
Message 52 of 872 (689335)
01-29-2013 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by GDR
01-29-2013 2:06 PM


Re: What Constitutes Evidence?
GDR writes:
Maybe, but I don’t think it particularly plausible that this hypothetical god would create a world where intelligence could morality are part of existence and then be uninterested and uninvolved in the ongoing process. I agree though that it is possible and a reasonable position to hold.
A god, being a god, can of course do anything - inluding ignoring his creation. What you mean is that the version of a god that you prefer to believe in wouldn't do that.
But of course is a hoary old fallacy to equate the possibility of the existence of a god with the conclusion that it is therefore a Christian god (or any other that mankind has made up.)
And, of course, intelligence and morality has nothing to do with it. We know the process of evolution created both of these things. If it hadn't - and there was no guarantee that it would and there's no guarantee that it will continue for long - the universe and all in it would still exist.
The fact that there's 100 thousand million stars in the Milky Way alone, with thousands of millions of galaxies beyond it should be a bit of a clue that maybe we're not as important as we thought we were. The gospel stories were invented by people who thought that they were at the centre of a very small place with the heavens painted onto the sky above them. They, like many other primitive peoples made stories to explain why they were the so special to be on stage in God's theatre.
We're insignificant, we need to get over our self-importance.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by GDR, posted 01-29-2013 2:06 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by GDR, posted 01-30-2013 6:34 PM Tangle has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
(1)
Message 53 of 872 (689403)
01-30-2013 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
01-29-2013 2:19 PM


Re: Evidence
Faith writes:
You've been given fair and trustworthy witnesses, it is nothing but stubborn insistence that you be given something personal that keeps you from the very evidence you say you want.
Fair and trustworthy witnesses would be good enough for me. I base a lot of things on fair and trustworthy witnesses like my friends/family/co-workers/peers/authority figures. Of course, there are also lots of friends/family/co-workers/peers/authority figures who are not fair or trustworthy and are therefore not good enough to base anything important on as well.
The sticking point is the fairness and trustworthyness.
I have met some "God-witnesses" that are fair and trustworthy. They all seem to have one thing in common, though. None of them try to actively convince other people that God is in fact real. None of them tell other people "you just aren't looking at the evidence!" When someone says this to an honest person, and doesn't show what the evidence is, they are actually not being fair. When they say this, and don't describe how the evidence is convincing, they are not being trustworthy.
Fairness and trustworthyness always seems to lead God-witnesses to say "this works for me, I'm not sure why it doesn't work for you... I have faith that it does, but, no, there is no evidence."
Which is perfectly valid, just not entirely convincing.
Ironically, though, it is more convincing than showing your self to be unfair and untrustworthy by using certain forms of "evidence" for things like mortgages, family matters and life but a different form of "evidence" for things like God and the Bible.
Those who are fair and trustworthy seem to understand that they cannot convince others, and leave this to God. They are okay with, and sometimes even promote other people not believing in God because it is between "those others and God."
When people talk about things that cannot be validated, they are lowering their trustworthyness.
When people do not stay consistent when dealing with varying situations, they are not being fair.
Sometimes it can be difficult to tell when someone is not being fair or trustworthy because there are many ways to hide such things from the surface. Those who simply make statements like "you just aren't looking at the evidence!" are acting from the surface. Without clarifying and explaining what the evidence is, they are refusing to delve underneath and actually look at the subject matter. Going around making statements and not taking the time to discuss alternative possibilities is a mark of being unfair and untrustworthy.
Matthew, Mark, John and Peter who wrote parts of the New Testament all personally claimed to have witnessed Jesus' miracles of healing, healing lifelong blindness, causing people who couldn't walk to walk, even restoring people to life, changing water into wine, but you won't believe them. The Books of Moses attest to the miracles God did in Egypt and the pillars of fire and cloud that led the people, the manna from heaven that fed them, and so on and so forth, but you won't believe Moses either, probably won't even believe there WAS a Moses. So, you've been GIVEN evidence, the very kind you say you want, all you have to do is believe the people who reported it, but you won't.
The Bible has shown itself to sometimes not be fair and sometimes not be trustworthy. These miracles are, of course, extraordinary events. It's not fair to just "believe the people who reported it" because it's quite possible that some of those people are mistaken or even misleading.
You shrug it off as a myth and me as an idiot, but you COULD choose instead to think maybe so many people who believe it have good reason to.
You won't.
I have chosen to think "maybe so many people who believe it have good reason." That avenue just doesn't seem very promising. There are so many more people that do not believe in it and also have good reason. There doesn't seem to be any difference from believing or not believing.
Some believers are happy, some are sad. Some unbelievers are happy, some are sad. No significant advantage to either side.
Some believers are rich, some are poor. Some unbelievers are rich, some are poor. No significant advantage to either side.
Some believers are respected, some are despicable. Some unbelievers are respected, some are despicable. No significant advantage to either side.
I don't think you're an idiot. I just think you can't describe an actual difference between believers and unbelievers. This makes me think that there is no difference between believers and unbelievers. This may indicate that God exists and doesn't care to (or can't) make a difference. Or it may be because God doesn't exist.
But you saying that we should believe because others do isn't fair. There's lots of things others do that we shouldn't do.
You saying we should believe because some miracles are described in the Bible isn't fair. There's lots of miracles described in non-Bible books and places. None of them seem to be true either, just like the ones from the Bible.
Point is you've been given evidence. You've refused it. It's on your head.
This is not a threat, it's a simple fact. Saying this as if it is some sort of threat has the effect of making you seem unfair and untrustworthy.
Afterthought: Funny you think you'd believe a miracle if you personally witnessed it. Somehow THAT would trump all the evidence you think you have from science against such things? Why would your own personal witnessing have such power over science but all the testimony of all the people in the Bible to such miracles doesn't? And you probably can't even see why this is bizarre.
I think you are confusing things. Nobody is asking to simply witness a miracle by seeing it once. People are asking to be able to witness a miracle by verifying it. The verifying would likely be through some sort of scientific methodology. Not understanding this is, again, not fair.
The Bible writes:
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed."
I never understand when someone tries to convince an unbeliever with the story of Thomas. Thomas did not believe and God came and convinced him personally. Regardless of the threatening (unfair, untrustworthy) moral of the story, bringing up Thomas only serves to add more fuel to an unbeliever feeling justified in asking to be personally convinced by God and not you because that's what God did in the story.
TL/DR - I've never met a fair and trustworthy God-witness who has convincing evidence for believing in God. If you know of one, feel free to point them out. Without such a thing, it certainly seems to me like we've gotten it backwards. God didn't make people, people made God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 01-29-2013 2:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 8:17 PM Stile has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 54 of 872 (689414)
01-30-2013 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by GDR
01-29-2013 2:06 PM


Re: What Constitutes Evidence?
You seem to be arriving at your conclusion based on a very obvious misunderstanding of science.
If in fact you believe the accounts of the Bible to be true, then you don't need to twist up science to support your beliefs.
The world and specifically all life does appear to be designed.
Life is barely able to exist on a small planet in a vast, vast universe. In our solar system alone only 1 planet has life, and ONLY for a short period of time. It will eventually vanish either through catastrophic events on Earth or when the Sun has exhasted it's fuel.
Some design, huh?
We do seem to desire purpose in our lives as you said earlier.
One species out of BILLIONS has a brain complex enough to have what you call "desires" and has given itself "purpose", but these qualities are not typical. It is not in abundance. No other species posses this, so it's simply a by-product of one species evolution.
It allows for our physical properties to change in order to better adapt to our environment.
Our physical properties do no such thing. If I throw you in the ocean as a baby you will not produce gills by adulthood.
It's such a big misunderstanding of evolution that it would derail this thread trying to explain it. So it's probably best if you head over to the evolution threads and start from scratch.
That is all evidence and we will all come to our own conclusions about where the evidence leads us.
Then you have manipulated the evidence to fit a very narrow religious view.
It will simply demonstrate that it took intelligence and effort to make it happen.
...and you continue to do it. What it will prove is that life DOES NOT need any intelligence to guide it, as it will obviously show that life can arrise from simple chemicalreactions.
Maybe, but I don’t think it particularly plausible that this hypothetical god would create a world where intelligence could morality are part of existence and then be uninterested and uninvolved in the ongoing process.
Where is this universe you speak of? I see one planet where ONE particular species has evolved a trait that is beneficial to them, but may end up destroying them. Some design. Some purpose. Is this what "god" intended?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by GDR, posted 01-29-2013 2:06 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 01-30-2013 7:19 PM onifre has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2620
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


(1)
Message 55 of 872 (689417)
01-30-2013 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by GDR
01-29-2013 2:07 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Look GDR, i have found a number of things I like about your posts, but this:
Please see my reply to Tangle.
Cheers
just sucks as an answer...."oooh - i've already answered this. "
Just provide the link to the message already.
Do your civilzed EvC basic homework. Just a friendly tip.
NEVER EVER POST A POST TO SOMETHING DOWNSTREAM WITHOUT PROVIDING A LINK TO IT. And if you don't know how, READ. It is just vulgar and rude to not do so.
And even more friendly, quote-box the part you are talking about with the link. Just the part. Don't quote the whole fuckin message!
Nothin aginst ya, pal. I been around a while on usenet and this can be tiring, EvC has been at the top of my internet experiance, and you have too. I just don't like these cut'n'run posts here.
Cheers!

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by GDR, posted 01-29-2013 2:07 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AZPaul3, posted 01-30-2013 3:47 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 60 by GDR, posted 01-30-2013 6:45 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8656
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 56 of 872 (689419)
01-30-2013 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by xongsmith
01-30-2013 3:31 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Yah, xongsmith, but how do you really feel?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by xongsmith, posted 01-30-2013 3:31 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10304
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 57 of 872 (689426)
01-30-2013 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by GDR
01-28-2013 11:40 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
They were written as historical documents and as such we can view them as we do any other historical documents.
Joseph Smith's accounts of finding the golden tablets and having them translated by an angel are also written as history. That doesn't mean that they happened.
Is it rational to believe that an incredibly complex cell could come into existence from a random collection of particles? Is it really rational to believe that intelligence could also emerge from this same random collection of particles?
Is it rational to believe that the Earth orbits the Sun, and not the other way around even though we do not feel the Earth move and can see the Sun moving?
Is it rational to believe that light can be a particle or a wave, but never both at the same time?
Is it rational to believe that fire is caused by an invisible gas?
The evidence has led us to many conclusions that seemed irrational at the outset. The importance is that we are following the evidence and not what we want to be true.
You have discounted all the work done by centuries of scientific minds who have worked hard at trying to understand how this all works. It is your view that the idea that God, god or gods exist is imaginary. Maybe you’re right but most of the world’s population disagree with you.
They can disagree all they want. What is important is that theists have failed to demonstrate that they are right. What we keep seeing is a set of beliefs that people want to be true, but can never demonstrate that they are true.
The Theory of Evolution is as near as I can tell a well evidenced theory as to the process that led to life today. It is not evidence of why we exist. It would be like looking at a car assembly line and claiming that the assembly line just came into existence on its own and is solely responsible for the existence of cars.
But we actually have evidence for people building car factories. That's the difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 01-28-2013 11:40 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Theodoric, posted 01-30-2013 4:32 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 62 by GDR, posted 01-30-2013 7:46 PM Taq has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9489
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 6.3


(1)
Message 58 of 872 (689430)
01-30-2013 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taq
01-30-2013 4:25 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Is it rational to believe that fire is caused by an invisible gas?
I think that it is Phlogiston. I don't care what [derision]scientists[/derision] say.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 01-30-2013 4:25 PM Taq has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 59 of 872 (689442)
01-30-2013 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tangle
01-29-2013 5:54 PM


Re: What Constitutes Evidence?
GDR writes:
Maybe, but I don’t think it particularly plausible that this hypothetical god would create a world where intelligence could morality are part of existence and then be uninterested and uninvolved in the ongoing process. I agree though that it is possible and a reasonable position to hold.
But of course is a hoary old fallacy to equate the possibility of the existence of a god with the conclusion that it is therefore a Christian god (or any other that mankind has made up.)
Tangle writes:
A god, being a god, can of course do anything - inluding ignoring his creation. What you mean is that the version of a god that you prefer to believe in wouldn't do that.
If you notice I said hypothetical god and not a specific god. It had nothing to do with my version of God.
Tangle writes:
And, of course, intelligence and morality has nothing to do with it. We know the process of evolution created both of these things. If it hadn't - and there was no guarantee that it would and there's no guarantee that it will continue for long - the universe and all in it would still exist.
Just because you keep saying it doesn’t make it true. We do not know that an unguided process of evolution created intelligence and morality. What you are doing is no different than what Faith does when she says that the Bible is literally true and inerrant.
Tangle writes:
The fact that there's 100 thousand million stars in the Milky Way alone, with thousands of millions of galaxies beyond it should be a bit of a clue that maybe we're not as important as we thought we were. The gospel stories were invented by people who thought that they were at the centre of a very small place with the heavens painted onto the sky above them. They, like many other primitive peoples made stories to explain why they were the so special to be on stage in God's theatre.
You keep going on about us being special. I haven’t claimed that we are particularly special and I don’t claim that we are alone in the universe. Interestingly enough though, as I understand it, according to QM a particle that we perceive doesn’t take it on its form until we perceive or measure it. Maybe the universe wouldn’t exist if life on this planet wasn’t around to perceive it. (That just comes from reading Brian Greene so maybe a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. )
Tangle writes:
We're insignificant, we need to get over our self-importance.
I’ve never understood your point but I’ll somehow manage to get over my self-importance as that seems to be what you’re implying. It does seem to me though that your position would make you the highest life form in terms of intelligence and morality. My position acknowledges that there is at least one life form and maybe more, more moral than mankind.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Tangle, posted 01-29-2013 5:54 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Tangle, posted 01-31-2013 8:53 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 60 of 872 (689444)
01-30-2013 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by xongsmith
01-30-2013 3:31 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
xongsmith writes:
Look GDR, i have found a number of things I like about your posts, but this:
Please see my reply to Tangle.
Cheers
just sucks as an answer...."oooh - i've already answered this. "
Just provide the link to the message already.
Do your civilzed EvC basic homework. Just a friendly tip.
NEVER EVER POST A POST TO SOMETHING DOWNSTREAM WITHOUT PROVIDING A LINK TO IT. And if you don't know how, READ. It is just vulgar and rude to not do so.
And even more friendly, quote-box the part you are talking about with the link. Just the part. Don't quote the whole fuckin message!
Nothin aginst ya, pal. I been around a while on usenet and this can be tiring, EvC has been at the top of my internet experiance, and you have too. I just don't like these cut'n'run posts here.
Cheers!
Thanks xongsmith.
Good point. It was just that Theo and Tangle had essentially made the same point at roughly the same time. The replyto Tangle that I referred to was the post immediately prior to that post to Theodoric. There was no need to go through the thread to see my answer to his post. My intent was that I was answering both posts at once and that I didn't want Theodoric to think I was ignoring his post and only answering Tangle. I just assumed that Theodoric would see that in the thread.
I actually thought I was doing the courteous thing. However. thanks and I take your point.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by xongsmith, posted 01-30-2013 3:31 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024