- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote Lastly we have those of us (myself included) that say while there is strong evidence, it is still incoAmplete and the final conclusion may deviate from Darwin's original hypothesis. At any rate we view this as in no way incompatible with God and creation, and the usual argument a false dichotemy set up by those with political rather then spiritual motivations. These false science versus God conversations are rather medieval. Does anyone here still think the Sun revolves around the Earth? I'd be interested to know what you mean by this. I thought it was false science in support of god, which is as you say medieval.
We already have a pretty good idea what Darwin had right and what he had wrong. He was right about natural selection causing gradual change, and he was wrong about inheritance of 'acquired traits', although to be fair to him he could not have known the source of the mutations that natural selection works on, but this last point does not significantly impact on the rest of his theory.
As soon as you start postulating a supernatural cause, no matter what it is meant to have caused, you are asserting something that cannot be tested. I think if it could be tested you would probably stop calling it god. If it can't be tested it can never be part of a scientific explanation. I couldn't agree more that it is important that we suspend judgement on things of uncertainty, but really what is there to be that uncertain about? The universe before the Big Bang, and abiogenesis are the only two things I can think of, and they are things that are definitely testable.
Stuart
If science is by definition: the a. observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena; and in my view God (which can not be proven for or against) is the architect and maker of such natural phenomena, then there is no discrepancies between science and God as one merely describes the actions set in motion by the other. Now where I made the medieval claim is those, like in the old Catholic Church, who try and refute these observations (usually by calling them demonic deception) when they conflict with their interpretations of religion, belief or scripture.
I however recognize that since I imply causation from such an undefinable force I can not prove such from that very science as it is beyond this natural universe of which science seeks to explain. So on that point and that point only we reach a dead end where reason and intellect can only ponder.Hi Cato
We reach a philosophical point when we run out of science. That point give gives the two outcomes “we don't know any more than that” or “god is responsible for the bit we can't explain”.
Somewhere between deist and theist (to oversimplify) there is a view that the creator has not only kicked things off, but he is still in the background meddling, or indeed is in full view of believers actively operating the control room.
Your one illogical assertion is that there is anything other that what we call the natural world. If we accept that, then everything else flows logically from then on. The conclusion that science makes about the universe is that there is no evidence for a first cause. There is also no particular need to postulate one. Why is a prime motive needed, except to give a god something useful to do? The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no cause at all, unless evidence comes to light that there is one. That does not limit the putative cause to the natural world, but it does limit our knowledge of it to the empirical world. As a point of philsophy I happen to think they are the same thing, and that believers are in practice not experiencing anything unique to them, but as you say I can't prove it.
However, there are theological problems here. No only is there no evidence for a god-cause, but such a being would be an ever-shrinking god-of-the-gaps. The gods of the mainstream churches have consistently had large chunks removed as science provides explanations that are far better, and truer than 'god did it'. Extrapoliate that graph to the origin and there is no gap for a god to hide in. There is also a great challenge to explain how the environment has been constantly manipulated to ensure the evolution of humans, and why only relatively recently, if we are to be considered an important focus of 'creation'.
If you go with the control-room god, and one who is just, then thing get more immediately difficult. We can accept that after at least 3.7 billion years of meddling, natural selection has produced humans, although the problem of why it too so long remains (I am ruling out the crackpot view of young-earthers). Why does this god never measurably respond to prayer? Why does it send natural disasters to all parts of earth exactly according to the naturally explained weather patterns we observe and not according to any other discernable formula? In short, why does this god make everything look like 'he' does not exist?
Stuart
“Your one illogical assertion is that there is anything other that what we call the natural world.”
I guess it is a matter of defining boundaries and terms rather then a flaw in logic. According to a strict materialist view, if something exists at all, it is by definition not supernatural. Certainly there may be things outside of human understanding, and some might term these “supernatural”. The distinction is our ability to measure. One has only to look at quantum physics and Schrödinger’s Cat experiment to show that our understanding of the natural world is limited. There is even scientifically based theory of multiple worlds that comes from this. To Quote from Paul Davies, Professor of natural philosophy in the Australian Centre for Astrobiology:
“Despite its stunning success in describing a wide range of phenomena in the micro-world, quantum mechanics remains a source of puzzlement. The trouble stems from meshing the quantum to the classical world of familiar experience. A quantum particle can be in a superposition of states – for example it may be in many places at once – whereas the “classical” world of observation reveals a single reality. This conundrum is famously captured by the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat, in which a quantum superposition is amplified in order to put an animal into an apparently live-dead hybrid state.
Physicists divide into those who believe quantum mechanics is a complete theory that applies to the universe as a whole, regardless of scale, and those who think it must break down at some level between atom and observer. The former group subscribe to the “many universes” interpretation, according to which all branches of a quantum superposition are equally valid and describe parallel realities. Though many physicists reject this interpretation as unacceptably bizarre, there is no consensus on the alternative. Quantum mechanics does not seem to fail at any obvious scale of size or mass, as the phenomenon of superconductivity attests.”My point here being that the boundaries of the natural world are open to definition and that there may be other planes of existent outside of our own. God therefore, as an agent outside of this boundary, is plausible.
As for first cause and the need to postulate, it is human nature to contemplate such and is a discussion of philosophy. Lack of evidence when our abilities to reach but a fraction of the known universe means little, and is not a telling argument against such at this point.
As for the ever shrinking god problem you have a point, but one that is leveled at those who blindly and literally follow scripture of whatever their faiths are.
As for the control room god, well in that view such a being would have the big picture and we in a limited perspective might not see or understand the shaping hand thereof. Perhaps God looks as if he is not there because his scope is so large in time and power that we can not measure or even separate him from what we see around us. This would be an omnipotent entity, not a Zeus throwing thunderbolts, but something that is so vast as to be beyond our comprehension.
Hi Cato
Quote My point here being that the boundaries of the natural world are open to definition and that there may be other planes of existent outside of our own. God therefore, as an agent outside of this boundary, is plausible.
It is a big leap from ‘we have trouble comprehending the world of quantum mechanics’ to ‘god is plausible’. Is our ignorance an argument for the plausibility of god? Creationists will repeat this false logic, but it has no validity whatever.Quote As for first cause and the need to postulate, it is human nature to contemplate such and is a discussion of philosophy. Lack of evidence when our abilities to reach but a fraction of the known universe means little, and is not a telling argument against such at this point.
It remains a telling argument against it because although our knowledge of the universe increases and clarifies all the time, there has never developed any need within the laws of physics for there to be such a first cause. In my experience first causes are only of interest in the heads of the religious.It is not unreasonable to conclude that the universe is just more of the kind of thing we can see from here, indeed it is an important principle.
Quote As for the ever shrinking god problem you have a point, but one that is leveled at those who blindly and literally follow scripture of whatever their faiths are.
I think it is less aimed at them than those who care to think critically about their scripture. Fundamentalists have no respect for reality. To them reality is defined as everything that agrees with scripture, there are no gods of the gaps because there are no gaps. It is those who are happy with the reality of our evolutionary origins but have to use god to fill in the bits that they don’t get who have shrinking gods.Quote As for the control room god, well in that view such a being would have the big picture and we in a limited perspective might not see or understand the shaping hand thereof. Perhaps God looks as if he is not there because his scope is so large in time and power that we can not measure or even separate him from what we see around us. This would be an omnipotent entity, not a Zeus throwing thunderbolts, but something that is so vast as to be beyond our comprehension.
Is your god more likely because you say he can do more stuff that Zeus? Doesn’t each have exactly the same objective credibility? You have still actually explained nothing. ‘God did it’ is not an explanation for anything. It can’t help to explain, it won’t measurably answer prayers, it ‘reveals’ knowledge identical to that already known by humans at the time and it’s perceived effects upon the human psyche are being explained by neuroscience and evolutionary psychology in ‘natural’ terms. We can live perfectly good lives (many say better) without it. What use is this god?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 22 2008,18:57) Quote As for the control room god, well in that view such a being would have the big picture and we in a limited perspective might not see or understand the shaping hand thereof. Perhaps God looks as if he is not there because his scope is so large in time and power that we can not measure or even separate him from what we see around us. This would be an omnipotent entity, not a Zeus throwing thunderbolts, but something that is so vast as to be beyond our comprehension.
Is your god more likely because you say he can do more stuff that Zeus? Doesn’t each have exactly the same objective credibility? You have still actually explained nothing. ‘God did it’ is not an explanation for anything. It can’t help to explain, it won’t measurably answer prayers, it ‘reveals’ knowledge identical to that already known by humans at the time and it’s perceived effects upon the human psyche are being explained by neuroscience and evolutionary psychology in ‘natural’ terms. We can live perfectly good lives (many say better) without it. What use is this god?Stuart
Stuart,You have stated before the one flaw of logic in my statements and beliefs is that I view that there are things outside of the natural universe. I pointed to quantum physics to show one, that our understanding of the natural universe is still quite limited and secondly, to the theory of alternate planes of existence which then would show that there are indeed things outside of our natural universe so to speak. No proof here I admit, but neither is it without basis or reason.
As for your comparison that Zeus and God have the same objective credibility not really. My point, here was that when you say God gives no sign of his existence my answer was that unlike the conception of Zeus which has definite limitations being essentially a “superhuman” and thus be in the realm of understanding and examination, God's vastness as an omnipotent, ominscient, creator entity is beyond our ability to understand and measure. So in essence in Zeus we know what we are looking for, but God we really do not. While this is obviously not any reason for you to believe it does explain that looking for and not seeing is no reason to refute either.
Again you will not like my line here but it is not without thought, a being who has the knowledge and wherewithall to create the universe could certainly work his will through the mechanism and laws of his own creation thus to give natural explanations for events does not preclude God's invisible hand directing the exact chain of “natural events” to happen. Thus to say I can explain something does not necessarily take God out of the equation. People always are looking to some sort of divine magic, some see it happen because they want so to believe convincing themselves, others never see it so they then conclude the whole concept is the foolish imagining of weak minds. My view is that the Creator works through the tools of his creation so most never see the workings thereof and in a few cases where it in truth seems to be magic it is just part of nature we do not yet fully understand.
Yes you can live a perfectly good life without believing in the almighty, he unlike Zeus, is not dependent on our beliefs yet I would say you will have a better one with the belief. I am not talking about religion or creed here but the knowledge that there is order and meaning to existence and our actions and even our thoughts do ripple outward and effect the world around us and that death is not the end. What use is God you ask? If we look beyond the idea that if he exists our existence is then dependent on him, he shows us that by his very being there is so much more to the world, life and the universe then we can even imagine and that we may have all eternity and not just one life to learn, grow and explore it.
Stuart I realize that I lack the eloquence or knowledge to make a proper case for a Creator but I hope that I can at least show, however improbable to you, the possibility thereof. I in turn recognize that the reverse is true, I may be wrong, I can not prove my beliefs. In the end the answer goes beyond where reason and science can carry us. I understand your viewpoint for in the past I held them as well. I had one of those obscure epiphanies you mentioned in a previous thread discussing a show on athiests and Christians. Well I feel that here I have once again “beat the dead horse” and sidetracked the conversation on evolution.
Hi Cato
Quote You have stated before the one flaw of logic in my statements and beliefs is that I view that there are things outside of the natural universe. I pointed to quantum physics to show one, that our understanding of the natural universe is still quite limited and secondly, to the theory of alternate planes of existence which then would show that there are indeed things outside of our natural universe so to speak. No proof here I admit, but neither is it without basis or reason.
I still can’t see what the reason is. You haven’t described anything that I would need to put ‘outside’ the natural world; aren’t you just saying that the building blocks of the natural world are a bit difficult for most hunter-gatherer-brained humans to comprehend?Quote As for your comparison that Zeus and God have the same objective credibility not really. My point, here was that when you say God gives no sign of his existence my answer was that unlike the conception of Zeus which has definite limitations being essentially a “superhuman” and thus be in the realm of understanding and examination, God's vastness as an omnipotent, ominscient, creator entity is beyond our ability to understand and measure. So in essence in Zeus we know what we are looking for, but God we really do not. While this is obviously not any reason for you to believe it does explain that looking for and not seeing is no reason to refute either.
It could be argued I suppose that the probability of Zeus existing is higher because the number of magical powers he is attributed with are fewer than the Judeo-christian god. I suppose I have to concede that credibility does not have a mathematical definition. Maybe I use probability as a substitute for credibility. Is Zeus a bit less mythological than god? I do have a mental image of angels dancing on the head of a pin now!Quote Again you will not like my line here but it is not without thought, a being who has the knowledge and wherewithall to create the universe could certainly work his will through the mechanism and laws of his own creation thus to give natural explanations for events does not preclude God's invisible hand directing the exact chain of “natural events” to happen. Thus to say I can explain something does not necessarily take God out of the equation. People always are looking to some sort of divine magic, some see it happen because they want so to believe convincing themselves, others never see it so they then conclude the whole concept is the foolish imagining of weak minds. My view is that the Creator works through the tools of his creation so most never see the workings thereof and in a few cases where it in truth seems to be magic it is just part of nature we do not yet fully understand.
There is no way to disprove the existence of gods, but there is a very good argument that if there is a god, it is not the one described in the Judeo-christian. Here is one (somewhat flawed) attempt at the argument; you could probably write a better one yourself!:
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_impossible.htmlYou quote Clarke’s third law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
which has the difficulty that you cannot know anything about that ‘technology’ being deployed, and you are therefore inventing a sort of god of the gaps. If god is present in absolutely every detail, then your pantheism makes god identical to the laws of physics, which as we have described, have not indicated any need for a first cause. It still seems to me that we have an 'argument from ignorance' here.Quote Yes you can live a perfectly good life without believing in the almighty, he unlike Zeus, is not dependent on our beliefs yet I would say you will have a better one with the belief. I am not talking about religion or creed here but the knowledge that there is order and meaning to existence and our actions and even our thoughts do ripple outward and effect the world around us and that death is not the end.
What is the difference between this and the disproven argument from design in biology? I guess from my point of view you are adding a placebo effect. You can’t know that ‘death is not the end’, and I can’t see why life is better with that belief included.Quote What use is God you ask? If we look beyond the idea that if he exists our existence is then dependent on him, he shows us that by his very being there is so much more to the world, life and the universe then we can even imagine and that we may have all eternity and not just one life to learn, grow and explore it.
But 'he' doesn’t show anyone that! Not if the word show has any real meaning. If you go on learning for an eternity you will at some point know everything there is to know, by definition. In fact it is logically impossible to continue learning for an eternity if there are not an infinite number of things to know. I can imagine boredom setting in quite soon, unless the almighty removed some circuitry from the brain, which he seems to have already done in some of his followers, your good self excepted!Quote Stuart I realize that I lack the eloquence or knowledge to make a proper case for a Creator but I hope that I can at least show, however improbable to you, the possibility thereof.
I in turn recognize that the reverse is true, I may be wrong, I can not prove my beliefs. In the end the answer goes beyond where reason and science can carry us...in a ‘realm of understanding’ that itself may not exist…
Quote I understand your viewpoint for in the past I held them as well. I had one of those obscure epiphanies you mentioned in a previous thread discussing a show on athiests and Christians.
If it is a personal that you may be reluctant to share with the internet-reading world I would understand, but the collective reluctance or inability of the whole christian world to articulate these experiences in clear objective terms puts such claims in the same category as the cold reading techniques of the illusionists. A medium can be very clear about the fact that he is communicating with the dead and give persuasive demonstrations of his supposed powers, but when it comes time to actually reveal information, suddenly everything is very foggy. With christianity we are talking about various claims of having some knowledge of a supremely powerful being here, why are accounts of t
hat supposed experience so confusing, contradictory and out of keeping with the consistently describable experiences of the non-believing 30% of the population?Stuart
Stu you do not seem to be able to understand that Zues is a character and has no bearing in this debate whatsoever.
We are not debating whether certain characters exist or have existed here. You can always start up a discussion regarding that if it is important to you.
What we are looking at here is Evolution as a theory and an opposing view Creation as another.
Regarding these, we are looking at their merits or lack of such.
Introducing characters such as leprechauns does no one a favour including yourself as you risk coming across as not being able to make such a separation to see logically and clearly.
Remember that what you say and what you are not able to grasp or rightly divide can be seen by those who read your posts. So if you have a gospel to preach, you should at least come across with clear thoughts or thought processes, without prejudice and bias, if you are to convince anyone, otherwise people will just see a repetitive lack of understanding, and reason to themselves that ignorance plays a part as to why you believe as you do.
In other words, introducing Zeus or fairies in this discussion only demeans your position because they seem more like things someone would say when they have no good or logical argument against the existence of God.
You know what I am saying. People often resort to exaggerating what others are saying to try and make it look silly by making silly comments that are often have nothing to do with what is being said. But if the exaggeration is not valid, then the method in trying to coax someone to believe as you do and not as your opponent, is really not based on honesty and is a misrepresentation.
A good debate is won when an argument is made that is sound and paints a picture that has no holes in it. If that cannot be accomplished, then you can always ridicule the other side to make yourself look better. But any honest person can see that for what it is and it might work in the world of dirty politics, but in a forum about being honest and seeking truth, my opinion is that this tactic will not really persuade many if any.
If you do not believe in God, then prove it. Zeus's existence or lack thereof will not do it. You need a better argument than that Stu.
Hi t8
Quote you do not seem to be able to understand that Zues is a character and has no bearing in this debate whatsoever.
We are not debating whether certain characters exist or have existed here. You can always start up a discussion regarding that if it is important to you. What we are looking at here is Evolution as a theory and an opposing view Creation as another. Regarding these, we are looking at their merits or lack of such.
If there was a theory of divine creation, would it not be critically important to consider the role of the creator in that? Wouldn’t we be discussing exactly the mechanisms by which It joined bases to ribose molecules backed by a polyphosphate backbone to make DNA? The nature of the creator is pivotal. The fact that no-one can describe this mechanism in creationist terms does cast very serious doubts on the kind of creation they are attempting, but failing to describe.Quote Introducing characters such as leprechauns does no one a favour including yourself as you risk coming across as not being able to make such a separation to see logically and clearly.
I haven’t mentioned leprachauns here, have I? Certainly not recently. Tell me what the difference is between a ‘character’ for which there is no evidence of existence and a ‘god’ for which there is equally no evidence. Also please tell me how you would avoid offending a Leprachaunist in the same way I have apparently been offending godists.Quote Remember that what you say and what you are not able to grasp or rightly divide can be seen by those who read your posts. So if you have a gospel to preach, you should at least come across with clear thoughts or thought processes, without prejudice and bias, if you are to convince anyone, otherwise people will just see a repetitive lack of understanding, and reason to themselves that ignorance plays a part as to why you believe as you do.
I would be delighted to be shown what I have written that is not crystal clear. Perhaps you might like to point out what I have got wrong. I do not fear being read; my words are genuine. As I have stated a number of times I do not preach. What on earth would I try to convert people to? I have no dogmas to push, I completely acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong but I give objective reasons for what I believe. Can you claim the same?Quote In other words, introducing Zeus or fairies in this discussion only demeans your position because they seem more like things someone would say when they have no good or logical argument against the existence of God. You know what I am saying. People often resort to exaggerating what others are saying to try and make it look silly by making silly comments that are often have nothing to do with what is being said. But if the exaggeration is not valid, then the method in trying to coax someone to believe as you do and not as your opponent, is really not based on honesty and is a misrepresentation.
I do know what you are saying. But when I challenge people on the point that Zeus is objectively the same as the Judeo-christian god, and the response is exactly what you might get from one of those people who write letters to 221b Baker St, when challenged on the difference between Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot. So there is no limit to how far that point could be pushed. No believer has a defense against the existence claims of any fictional character or god and so the comparison will begin to look silly because no-one here can honestly dispute it. I might also point out that Zeus was indeed a god in Greek mythology, referred to poetically as ‘Father’. The opinion that Zeus is a ‘character’ is subjective.
Quote A good debate is won when an argument is made that is sound and paints a picture that has no holes in it. If that cannot be accomplished, then you can always ridicule the other side to make yourself look better. But any honest person can see that for what it is and it might work in the world of dirty politics, but in a forum about being honest and seeking truth, my opinion is that this tactic will not really persuade many if any.
Well it is interesting you write that in light of the kind of debates that have gone on here. Whose picture has no holes in it? An evolutionary theory that could be wrong and could be proven wrong but never has been, versus a creation hypothesis that contains many contradictions and really explains nothing? Who has resorted to ridicule? I have in regards to the supernatural creator you propose without evidence. Perhaps such ridicule shows undesirable personality traits on my part, but there are no logical holes there. On the other hand science has been ridiculed by people here from their position of ignorance, and science has given answers every time except on the points about which it clearly concedes less than adequate evidence. I write in honesty and I do not write what I cannot back up. I do think several fundamentalist christians have mocked me. Perhaps people think I am mocking them because they cannot view their belief as an idea system; they have done the islamic thing of equating their entire being with the ideas they hold in their heads. I don’t have a political agenda, although I do support the secular ideal for public life, partly because it guarantees the freedom of religion.Quote If you do not believe in God, then prove it. Zeus's existence or lack thereof will not do it. You need a better argument than that Stu.
I don’t think you want me to prove that I don’t believe in god. I’m not sure if even that is possible. The Zeus argument simply is that the evidence for Zeus is exactly the same as the evidence for your god. Why do you not believe that Zeus is ‘king of the gods’?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 24 2008,10:00) If there was a theory of divine creation, would it not be critically important to consider the role of the creator in that? Wouldn’t we be discussing exactly the mechanisms by which It joined bases to ribose molecules backed by a polyphosphate backbone to make DNA? The nature of the creator is pivotal. The fact that no-one can describe this mechanism in creationist terms does cast very serious doubts on the kind of creation they are attempting, but failing to describe.
Yes of course. But working the other way and saying that leprachauns cannot be God, therefore believing in God is silly is not a clear and fair way to look at it is it Stu.In order to find out who, you need to find out if, first.
Likewise, there is no point in talking about solar systems in other universes till you are convinced or have proof of multiple universes first.
It is a simple and logical progression. If one step fails, then it is silly to talk about steps further on from there. And it is even worse to take a silly theory or belief that hinges on a base theory and throw away the base theory because of a foolish branch theory.
For example, even though I do not believe that we actually came from primitive apes through a process of natural selection as you see it, it still wouldn't be fair or scientific to discredit evolution based on Piltdown Man.
Comprehendo?
Hi t8
Stu: If there was a theory of divine creation, would it not be critically important to consider the role of the creator in that? Wouldn’t we be discussing exactly the mechanisms by which It joined bases to ribose molecules backed by a polyphosphate backbone to make DNA? The nature of the creator is pivotal. The fact that no-one can describe this mechanism in creationist terms does cast very serious doubts on the kind of creation they are attempting, but failing to describe.
Quote Yes of course.
So what is the exact role of the creator? How did he do the biochemistry?Quote But working the other way and saying that leprachauns cannot be God, therefore believing in God is silly is not a clear and fair way to look at it is it Stu.
The argument equates the likelihood that they exist, not the powers attributed to them by the believers in each. This is not an argument for belief being silly. That absurdity really does not even need pointing out. I thought most christians accepted that what they believe is absurd. Didn’t Jesus supposedly prime his followers on the disparaging way others would treat them? Or was that all invented by Paul as an immunity against critical thinking?Quote In order to find out who, you need to find out if, first. Likewise, there is no point in talking about solar systems in other universes till you are convinced or have proof of multiple universes first. It is a simple and logical progression. If one step fails, then it is silly to talk about steps further on from there.
I notice Zeus has disappeared from your discussion. No-one describes leprachauns as gods, but Zeus was considered to be one. You have really tried to avoid a valid point, and you do demonstrate that what I wrote above holds true: you have no honest basis to argue that Zeus was not king of the gods.Quote And it is even worse to take a silly theory or belief that hinges on a base theory and throw away the base theory because of a foolish branch theory. For example, even though I do not believe that we actually came from primitive apes through a process of natural selection as you see it, it still wouldn't be fair or scientific to discredit evolution based on Piltdown Man.
Well I think that is completely the point. If Piltdown Man had not been shown to be a fraud, then evolution would have been completely overturned, or at least shown to be seriously flawed with regards to the evolution of humans. The fact that biologists used evolution to predict that Piltdown would be shown to be a fraud, shows you how these things work. Evolution is a biologist’s tool in the same way that a calculator is an accountant’s tool. Evolution is the central organising principle of biology; the living world makes no sense at all without it. Creationists have nothing at all to contribute to the organisation of our understanding of the biological world, and over the past 149 years they have entirely failed to disprove it, even though it is falsifiable. You claim not to share ancestry with other great apes but you have no alternative explanation at all for how you came to be.Quote Comprehendo?
Are you trying to impress people with rudeness now?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 24 2008,18:51) If there was a theory of divine creation, would it not be critically important to consider the role of the creator in that?
You missed the point entirely.Either there is a God or there isn't.
If there isn't, then Evolution is one of the names of this cause/nothing/nobody/unGod/eternal-inimate-something, and there maybe other possibilities too.
If reason demands a creator, then we can move on to figuring out things about the creator in a scientific manner by studying his creation and other attributes.
But you are not yet passed base one Stu.
No need to try and jump ahead, a measure of maturity and patience is truly required.
If you jump ahead of yourself too much, you will miss some very important foundational points and may fall over later unnecessarily.
You first need to admit that you cannot disprove that there is a God and then actually say to me that it is possible that there is a creator. When you have reached that point, make a post and we can go from there.
Otherwise it is pointless debating with a biased man. It is like watching a game of Rugby with a biased referee. i.e., just a frustrating waste of everyone's time.
You get the picture.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 24 2008,18:51) Are you trying to impress people with rudeness now?
No. I was asking if you comprehended what I said, because you do not seem to have a great track record of understanding what people are actually saying.Just a reality statement.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 24 2008,18:51) I notice Zeus has disappeared from your discussion. No-one describes leprachauns as gods, but Zeus was considered to be one. You have really tried to avoid a valid point, and you do demonstrate that what I wrote above holds true: you have no honest basis to argue that Zeus was not king of the gods.
Actually leprechauns were mentioned because you have mentioned fairies in the past. I sort of put them on the same level.Your intellect (or pride) doesn't seem to be able to allow your understanding the permission to gain insight to see God and you were the one who mentioned fairies and that is the result of your way of thinking. When you ridicule, then you often miss out on understanding something.
i.e., if I ridiculed those who said the earth was a sphere in times past (if I was alive when flat earthed people dominated), then my pride and understanding wouldn't probably allow me the advantage of seeing the evidence of a spherical world and then I would be the one missing out.
Same for you Stu. If you ridicule sphere earth believers, then you are denying yourself the proof because you wouldn't lower yourself to hear the truth. Now all you need to do is replace sphere earth believer with a believer in God and you should understand what I am saying.
Alas I, by Jove, was the one to bring our much maligned Olympian into the fray for which I now regret. I did so in response to a claim by Stuart who said, “In short, why does this god make everything look like 'he' does not exist?” My point was that God, is not a definable figure and is beyond our means to understand and measure so we don't even know what to look for or what we are seeing or not. I brought in Zeus because many have used him as a proxy for why belief in God is ridiculous, being a figure many used to worship, but now who is almost universally counted as myth (my apologies to those few remaining Greco-Roman pagans) and so God is no different. My answer was Zeus even as king of the gods, was limited in scope and power, he was born, and he was anthropomorphic, and so within the boundaries of comprehension and measure, so could be looked for and when not found conclusions drawn that are not applicable to the great unmanifest (ie. God) Evidently my argument was insufficiently laid out and my point either misunderstood or was merely uncompelling, but the fault lies in my poor abilities rather then the argument itself, which is not to prove the Godhead exists (for I can't), but to refute one argument why he is not plausible (I don't see evidence so he is imaginary like Zeus or unicorns). Having said that we can all return to topic if we have not already reached a dead end for the nonce.
Quote (Cato @ Feb. 26 2008,02:04) Alas I, by Jove, was the one to bring our much maligned Olympian into the fray for which I now regret. I did so in response to a claim by Stuart who said, “In short, why does this god make everything look like 'he' does not exist?” My point was that God, is not a definable figure and is beyond our means to understand and measure so we don't even know what to look for or what we are seeing or not. I brought in Zeus because many have used him as a proxy for why belief in God is ridiculous, being a figure many used to worship, but now who is almost universally counted as myth (my apologies to those few remaining Greco-Roman pagans) and so God is no different. My answer was Zeus even as king of the gods, was limited in scope and power, he was born, and he was anthropomorphic, and so within the boundaries of comprehension and measure, so could be looked for and when not found conclusions drawn that are not applicable to the great unmanifest (ie. God) Evidently my argument was insufficiently laid out and my point either misunderstood or was merely uncompelling, but the fault lies in my poor abilities rather then the argument itself, which is not to prove the Godhead exists (for I can't), but to refute one argument why he is not plausible (I don't see evidence so he is imaginary like Zeus or unicorns). Having said that we can all return to topic if we have not already reached a dead end for the nonce.
Hi CatoI have mentioned Zeus before in a similar context.
So you are saying that Zeus was considered to be a god and now is not because people stopped believing he was, but that the Judeo-christian god really is there because people believe he is?
I think the discussion is certaintly not at an end if we are going to accept that logic! Have I missed some important 'therefores' anywhere?
Stuart
Hi t8
Stu: If there was a theory of divine creation, would it not be critically important to consider the role of the creator in that?
Quote You missed the point entirely. Either there is a God or there isn't. If there isn't, then Evolution is one of the names of this cause/nothing/nobody/unGod/eternal-inimate-something, and there maybe other possibilities too.
You are trying to name something that not even you think exists! Just shows you what a powerful delusion the argument from design is.Quote If reason demands a creator, then we can move on to figuring out things about the creator in a scientific manner by studying his creation and other attributes. But you are not yet passed base one Stu.
Reason does not demand a creator t8. This is the ‘base one’ that you are stuck on.No need to try and jump ahead, a measure of maturity and patience is truly required.
I think it is quite telling that you post insults more frequently now. Will that substitute for having a good argument, do you think?
Quote If you jump ahead of yourself too much, you will miss some very important foundational points and may fall over later unnecessarily.
See above.Quote You first need to admit that you cannot disprove that there is a God and then actually say to me that it is possible that there is a creator. When you have reached that point, make a post and we can go from there. Otherwise it is pointless debating with a biased man. It is like watching a game of Rugby with a biased referee. i.e., just a frustrating waste of everyone's time.
So first we admit there is a god. Then we discuss whether it exists or not??I have time and again said that I leave open a tiny chance there is a god of which you write. You have never admitted the converse, so please reflect your words on yourself.
Quote You get the picture.
More discourtesy.Stu: Are you trying to impress people with rudeness now?
Quote No. I was asking if you comprehended what I said, because you do not seem to have a great track record of understanding what people are actually saying. Just a reality statement.
Once again this says more about you than about me.Stu: I notice Zeus has disappeared from your discussion. No-one describes leprachauns as gods, but Zeus was considered to be one. You have really tried to avoid a valid point, and you do demonstrate that what I wrote above holds true: you have no honest basis to argue that Zeus was not king of the gods.
Quote Actually leprechauns were mentioned because you have mentioned fairies in the past. I sort of put them on the same level.
I rather thing that is not a fair assumption, and it goes against your pleading for the special nature of your supernatural being. Are you sure you want to argue that?Quote Your intellect (or pride) doesn't seem to be able to allow your understanding the permission to gain insight to see God and you were the one who mentioned fairies and that is the result of your way of thinking. When you ridicule, then you often miss out on understanding something.
Aren’t fundamentalist christians so judgemental! My pride?! Just because I don’t hold your worldview does not mean that I am wrong. I think there might be some things stopping you from seeing that.Quote i.e., if I ridiculed those who said the earth was a sphere in times past (if I was alive when flat earthed people dominated), then my pride and understanding wouldn't probably allow me the advantage of seeing the evidence of a spherical world and then I would be the one missing out.
The bible says the earth is flat. Are you contradicting scripture now t8?Quote Same for you Stu. If you ridicule sphere earth believers, then you are denying yourself the proof because you wouldn't lower yourself to hear the truth. Now all you need to do is replace sphere earth believer with a believer in God and you should understand what I am saying.
My conclusion is that the flat-earther is as wrong as the god-believer. I could be wrong. I don’t have little voices in my head telling me truth, I have to rely on evidence.Stuart
Stuart,
“So you are saying that Zeus was considered to be a god and now is not because people stopped believing he was, but that the Judeo-christian god really is there because people believe he is?”
This was not my point (though it may have some validity psychologically).
No my point was that Zeus was discarded because of his nature, he was no longer compelling, being anthropomorphic he could be examined and tested. The Judeo-Christian God however is the great unmanifest beyond the scope of examination and test so could not be discarded (again I stress this is not an argument for, only a reason why we can't discard when we don't see). I recognize this is a frustrating response as God is effectively undefined, so we are left with nonfunctional equations that neither prove nor disprove. As in all such arguments proof one way or another will not be forthcoming.
Quote (Cato @ Feb. 26 2008,23:58) Stuart, “So you are saying that Zeus was considered to be a god and now is not because people stopped believing he was, but that the Judeo-christian god really is there because people believe he is?”
This was not my point (though it may have some validity psychologically).
No my point was that Zeus was discarded because of his nature, he was no longer compelling, being anthropomorphic he could be examined and tested. The Judeo-Christian God however is the great unmanifest beyond the scope of examination and test so could not be discarded (again I stress this is not an argument for, only a reason why we can't discard when we don't see). I recognize this is a frustrating response as God is effectively undefined, so we are left with nonfunctional equations that neither prove nor disprove. As in all such arguments proof one way or another will not be forthcoming.
But I cannot let you away with your claim that you know the nature of Zeus. Can you tell me how you can test the nature of something that never existed?Being 'no longer compelling' would be the main reason for the emptying of the pews in mainstream churches on a scale never seen before.
Stuart
Quote (Cato @ Feb. 26 2008,06:58) Stuart, “So you are saying that Zeus was considered to be a god and now is not because people stopped believing he was, but that the Judeo-christian god really is there because people believe he is?”
This was not my point (though it may have some validity psychologically).
No my point was that Zeus was discarded because of his nature, he was no longer compelling, being anthropomorphic he could be examined and tested. The Judeo-Christian God however is the great unmanifest beyond the scope of examination and test so could not be discarded (again I stress this is not an argument for, only a reason why we can't discard when we don't see). I recognize this is a frustrating response as God is effectively undefined, so we are left with nonfunctional equations that neither prove nor disprove. As in all such arguments proof one way or another will not be forthcoming.
I think you'll also find that through the course of scripture, the number of miracles that were on a grand scale no longer took place. Why? As time passes, people start calling your bluff.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
