Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God created evolution
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 76 of 118 (596016)
12-12-2010 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by shadow71
12-12-2010 10:50 AM


shadow71 writes:
If you are discussing the Supernatural, then I believe you have to accept the definition of supernatural. A supernatual being is all knowing, all powerful, all loving and eternal. By definition that being cannot design defectively or be immature or inexperienced.
Why not?
There are many supernatural critters that exhibit all of those traits, immature, inexperienced, unable to design as well as peckish, mean, vindictive, cruel, incompetent.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 10:50 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 1:27 PM jar has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 77 of 118 (596018)
12-12-2010 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by shadow71
12-12-2010 10:50 AM


Definition Games
Hi Shadow,
If you are discussing the Supernatural, then I believe you have to accept the definition of supernatural.
Agreed.
A supernatual being is all knowing, all powerful, all loving and eternal.
Really? That's not a definition that I've ever seen in a dictionary. Care to provide a citation for that definition there fella?
By definition...
By which definition? The one you just made up? Oh sure. You can win any argument if you are willing to arbitrarily redefine the terms to encompass your conclusions. Round these parts though, we would call that "Begging the Question". It's an informal logical fallacy. It's not going to impress anyone.
Perhaps you would have more luck if you stuck to the generally recognised meanings of words in the English language.
You cannot judge a supernatural being by human standards.
But using that logic, there could never be any evidence for any supernatural being and we would never be able to even speculate about their intentions or wishes. Personally, I can live with that, but I'm a little surprised that you want to...
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 10:50 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 1:21 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 78 of 118 (596021)
12-12-2010 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by shadow71
12-12-2010 10:50 AM


shadow71 writes:
You cannot judge a supernatural being by human standards.
That's an odd notion. What other standards do we have?
Are you suggesting that we should judge a supernatural being by his own standards? That would be like judging a criminal by his own standards instead of ours.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 10:50 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 1:24 PM ringo has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 79 of 118 (596027)
12-12-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Granny Magda
12-12-2010 11:24 AM


Re: Definition Games
Granny magda wrote,
quote:
By which definition? The one you just made up? Oh sure. You can win any argument if you are willing to arbitrarily redefine the terms to encompass your conclusions. Round these parts though, we would call that "Begging the Question". It's an informal logical fallacy. It's not going to impress anyone.
Perhaps you would have more luck if you stuck to the generally recognised meanings of words in the English language.
Here is def of supernatural from Concise Oxford American Dictionary.
("of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature: a supernatural being."
Based on that defilnition can man judge a supernatural being? Man may know of a supernatual being by words of revelation, actions made know to man etc. but man can never judge a supernatural. If the supernatural is beyond scientific understanding how can man judge this being?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Granny Magda, posted 12-12-2010 11:24 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 12-12-2010 1:57 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 89 by Granny Magda, posted 12-12-2010 5:00 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 90 by Drosophilla, posted 12-12-2010 5:32 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 80 of 118 (596028)
12-12-2010 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
12-12-2010 12:28 PM


ringo wrote,
quote:
Are you suggesting that we should judge a supernatural being by his own standards? That would be like judging a criminal by his own standards instead of ours.
No, I am suggesting that you cannot judge a supernatural being. See definition in reply to granny magda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 12-12-2010 12:28 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 12-12-2010 1:51 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-12-2010 4:49 PM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 81 of 118 (596031)
12-12-2010 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
12-12-2010 11:15 AM


jar posts
quote:
Why not?
There are many supernatural critters that exhibit all of those traits, immature, inexperienced, unable to design as well as peckish, mean, vindictive, cruel, incompetent.
Can you give me an example of some of those "supernatural critters"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 12-12-2010 11:15 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by frako, posted 12-12-2010 1:38 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 84 by jar, posted 12-12-2010 1:55 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 82 of 118 (596033)
12-12-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by shadow71
12-12-2010 1:27 PM


leprechaun
They came to mind

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 1:27 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 83 of 118 (596036)
12-12-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by shadow71
12-12-2010 1:24 PM


shadow74 writes:
No, I am suggesting that you cannot judge a supernatural being. See definition in reply to granny magda.
There's nothing in the definition you provided that has anything to do with judgement.
We can - and do - judge the creation as imperfect. The question is why is it imperfect?

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 1:24 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 2:27 PM ringo has replied
 Message 93 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 7:55 PM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 84 of 118 (596037)
12-12-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by shadow71
12-12-2010 1:27 PM


Sure, the God in Genes 2&3 is afraid, unsure, immature and learning on the job. The god in Genesis 18 is not all knowing and has to have his morality corrected by a human. Coyote and Loki are just tricksters, the god is Job is just plain cruel and the Satan character in the story is totally amoral, the god character in Exodus is just plain immoral, even changing the Pharaoh's mind just to show he can; the Greek Gods are vain and jealous; Leprechauns are just plain mischievous.
Need more examples?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 1:27 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 85 of 118 (596038)
12-12-2010 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by shadow71
12-12-2010 1:21 PM


judging the supernatural beings
Based on that defilnition can man judge a supernatural being? Man may know of a supernatual being by words of revelation, actions made know to man etc. but man can never judge a supernatural. If the supernatural is beyond scientific understanding how can man judge this being?
Sheesh. That is what Genesis 18 is all about and the important lesson to be learned from Genesis 3. Not only can we judge supernatural beings we are charged to do so.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 1:21 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 86 of 118 (596048)
12-12-2010 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ringo
12-12-2010 1:51 PM


[quote]There's nothing in the definition you provided that has anything to do with judgement.
We can - and do - judge the creation as imperfect. The question is why is it imperfect?[quote/]
How can we judge what we cannot understand?[

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 12-12-2010 1:51 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 12-12-2010 2:49 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 87 of 118 (596049)
12-12-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by shadow71
12-12-2010 2:27 PM


shadow71 writes:
How can we judge what we cannot understand?
Human judges do that all the time. Do you think they "understand" pedophilia or mass murder? Judging isn't about understanding. It's about reacting to "something", either natural or supernatural, that has an effect on our society. It's about fighting back to defend our princples.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 2:27 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 88 of 118 (596060)
12-12-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by shadow71
12-12-2010 1:24 PM


No, I am suggesting that you cannot judge a supernatural being.
And yet there are all these people who go about saying that God is good and the Devil is bad. Perhaps you should explain your new doctrine to them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 1:24 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 7:47 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 89 of 118 (596061)
12-12-2010 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by shadow71
12-12-2010 1:21 PM


Re: Definition Games
Okay, you have provided one single definition. However, this is not the only possible definition of the term "supernatural", there are others. You know this already of course; you will have seen them there on the page when you cherry picked the one most useful to your argument. This is a trick known as No webpage found at provided URL: "equivocation".
You don't get to enforce which meaning of a word you prefer to use. There are plenty of other meanings of the word "supernatural" that do not entail anything "all knowing, all powerful, all loving and eternal" as you put it. You've already been shown several examples of supernatural beings that do not fit these criteria.
It occurs to me, that if you mean the Christian God, you could just say so. it would mean that you wouldn't have to go into all this odd business over the definition of supernatural beings. What you really seem to be getting at is that the Christian God is beyond our judgement.
Based on that defilnition can man judge a supernatural being? Man may know of a supernatual being by words of revelation, actions made know to man etc. but man can never judge a supernatural.
In which case, how can we claim that God is good?
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 1:21 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 7:43 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 90 of 118 (596064)
12-12-2010 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by shadow71
12-12-2010 1:21 PM


Re: Definition Games
Based on that defilnition can man judge a supernatural being? Man may know of a supernatual being by words of revelation, actions made know to man etc. but man can never judge a supernatural. If the supernatural is beyond scientific understanding how can man judge this being?
Of course sentient and moral humans can judge actions of others - even supernatural. We judge things all the time by our own moral codes. I long ago dismissed Yahweh as morally inferior to almost the entire human species - based on his own actions as lovingly described throughout the bible - literally condemned by his own words....I defy you to mount a defence of 'his' morality - in an appropriate thread of course.
As far as this OP is concerned Occam's razor says it all...
No evidence whatsoever of any designer and, instead, a mechanism explained quite happily by science in absence of a designer...quite simple really. Since around 1859 we really haven't needed the 'God' hypothesis at all (I'll let you work out the significance of the date if you haven't already).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by shadow71, posted 12-12-2010 1:21 PM shadow71 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