or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This. - Page 10

post #361 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post



Sorry Marc, don't mean to imply that you are a blasphemer, but you have given me some insight into perhaps A NOT SO GOOD IDEA (profitwise) for a theme park! Perhaps there already is/are web based virtual theme parks based on this idea?

This "theme park" would sorta be an Epcot of Faiths, but really, Really, REALLY twisted! Way past demonic AND way past blasphemous!

Oh, I'm sorry, such a "real" place already exists, doG created it, it's called "Planet Earth!"

And I'm going home!


just dont forget to pay your taxes
post #362 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK


heres a bit of the golden nugget of truth about the Creation story

Garden of Eden

you probably cant accept this, thats ok, what it does explicitly tell us though is that the Genesis story isn't about the creation of the universe, but if there is any truth in it, it can only be found in the philosophy and spirituality that developed from these motifs.

The Bible was written by ancient scholars who had strange ideas about the world. They wrote what made sense to them at the time. Yet, by a strange coincidence, what they wrote can be understood differently today, in light of our scientific knowledge. Here is something I wrote regarding Genesis for a church bible study. It's nice to know the historic roots of what we read today.

By the way, please feel free to criticize this, and correct any errors I've made. I'd be very appreciative.



Quote:

When the book of Genesis was written, early Hebrews had very unusual ideas about the earth and sky. They didn't have our understanding of the universe, scientific facts we take for granted today. Rather, they believed the sun, moon and stars were some kind of lights traveling across a dome called the firmament in the King James Version of Genesis. This dome was above the sky and covered the earths entire earth, which was shaped like a pancake under the dome. To people of that time, the universe did not even exist. They knew nothing about outer space. Nor did they know how big and far away the stars are, and that light from some takes millions of years to get here. It was to these people with their strange ideas about the cosmos that God originally spoke, and inspired them to write the scriptures.

Todays Hebrew scholars have researched these early beliefs about the earth and sky, and are able to tell us what the Bible is saying in terms of ancient beliefs. Their work shows us the original literal interpretation of the creation account, as understood by those living long ago. To learn more about these ancient beliefs, read Richard Elliot Friedman's, Commentary on the Torah, HarperSanFrancisco, 2001.

Water, Water Everywhere

The first concept to grasp is that the earth was thought to be initially submerged within a vast quantity of water. The creation story then explains how God made it suitable for habitation. It was during the second day of Gods creative work that he made a living space for mankind on earth, inside a giant air bubble. This bubble, or dome protected the earths living space by holding back the surrounding water. To form the bubble, God made a firmament (KJV) within the water. It separated water from earths surface, but left some of it behind, on earths surface. This is a picture of the world as it was known to the ancient Hebrew people.

Genesis 1:6 describes making the bubble in this way, "And God said let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." The NIV translation uses the word expanse, but we shall mostly use firmament, the KJV translation. Firmament appears in the first chapter of Genesis and in the book of Ezekiel, but nowhere else in the Bible. It is interesting to note that the two Hebrew words that are used together and translated between, are only given this meaning three times in the entire Bible. A much more common translation of these Hebrew words is within or simply in, which occurs sixty times in the Bible, and better portrays the ancient beliefs. Since earth was submerged within the water, God made the firmament within the water to form a protective air bubble for people to live in.

As Friedman describes the firmament, it is a transparent dome that holds back the waters above it. If we like science fiction analogies, we might say it is a force field, akin to the shields of the Starship Enterprise. The Hebrew root of firmament refers to the way in which a goldsmith hammers gold leaf very thin. As ancient Hebrews no doubt believed, this thin and transparent dome was able to support millions of tons of water above it. Air and the sky were below this thin dome, and below the sky was dry land surrounded by water, or great seas. The sun, moon and stars were lights that traveled on the dome, as mentioned before. Under the surface of the earth was still more water, since the ancient world was thought to be literally immersed in water. This view of the earth and cosmos is what Hebrew scholars in ancient times wrote about.

Fear of a Watery Doom

To us, the ancient Hebrew culture seemed obsessed with water. They believed it was everywhere, above, below and all around. Apparently God let water above the dome leak down to moisten the land. Ancient people also thought that water was the reason for the sky's blue color, since the firmament was thin and transparent. When a hole was dug deep enough, it filled with water from below the earth's dry ground, and the seas were visible all around and formed earth's boundary.

People of ancient times were not only obsessed with water, they likely dreaded it. The earth and firmament formed something like a giant submarine, giving them an air space for living and breathing while submerged in water. Can you imagine what it was like? if something went wrong they could perish, with the water rushing in from all directions. This is apparently what the Bible describes during the flood in Noah's time. Reading the flood story and keeping in mind what Hebrews believed and feared back then, we see things in a new light. The flood of Noahs time was like the Hebrews worst nightmare coming true, with people perishing in the torrent of water coming from everywhere, the earth below and the sky above.

A Watery Creation

Since ancient Hebrews believed the earth was submerged in water, and God made a dome, the firmament, to cover it and provide an air space for life, its not surprising that they pictured earth beginning in the water. Psalm 136:6, speaking of creation says, "who spread out the earth upon the waters, . . ," Without knowing ancient beliefs about earth, this psalm may seem backward. Today, we might understand if it said, who spread out the waters upon the earth. Also, we read in Genesis 1:2, ". . . the spirit of God was hovering over the waters," and think of a great ocean of water cover earths surface. Hebrews of ancient times likely pictured, a very large chaotic ball of water with a rather flat, pancake-like earth fully immersed in it.

We miss much when we do not know these beliefs of long ago, and there are many other examples. After God made the firmament or dome to give us a living space, Psalm 148:4 gives us this picture of it, "Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies." Todays knowledge of science keeps us from seeing the original meaning of this sentence, that there was thought to be an large quantity of water above the sky, above the dome.

It is difficult, or even impossible, for us to discover these ancient beliefs by reading the Bible. Genesis 1:2 does not give us a clue about what people in ancient times thought about early earth. It simply says, Now earth was formless and empty, . . Checking the the Hebrew word formless, we find it is more normally translated as nothing or empty. So it is like repeating an idea for emphasis. We might say, Now earth was empty, really empty. This statement does not suggest much, but possibly that the earth containing no life or vegetation.

Supernatural Light from the Sky

Yes, ancient people certainly had unusual ideas about the world and cosmos, and none are any stranger or shocking than what they thought of daylight, the sky and the sun. (Of course nothing shocks Indiana Jones, because hes a great scientist.) Today we know that the sun produces the light that comes from the sky. The suns rays illuminate the air above us. However, ancient folks didn't know where skylight came form. To them, skylight was was supernaturally produced, and began every morning. Skylight was responsible for the day-night cycle. Sunlight was important, but was secondary to the reliable daylight shining from the heavens. The sun did not always appear, and when it did, it was only after skylight been around for a while. Ancient people knew the sun could cast shadows, but otherwise the sun was really more symbolic than necessary, or so it seemed to them.

In Genesis 1:14 and on, the sun is simply referred to as a light, with no particular importance and is not even given a name. In 1:16 the Bible mentions the greater light to "govern the day" and a lesser light to "govern the night." That is all. The sun did not exist to produce light, but simply rule the sky during the daylight hours. Ancient Hebrews may have thought the sun concentrated skylight, but we can only speculate about such ideas. With their view of skylight and the sun, it is no wonder ancient Hebrews were comfortable with light being created on the first day, while the sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day. To them, the light on earth did not depend on the sun for its existence. Skylight was supernaturally provided by God.

All these ancient ideas about the earth and cosmos can be summarized in three simple sentences. First, skylight is supernatural, and does not depend on the sun. Second, the firmament is a dome that keeps water above it from flooding earth, thus giving mankind a space to live in. Third, the sun, moon and stars are simply lights that travel across this firmament dome.


post #363 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

The Bible was written by ancient scholars who had strange ideas about the world. They wrote what made sense to them at the time. Yet, by a strange coincidence, what they wrote can be understood differently today, in light of our scientific knowledge. Here is something I wrote regarding Genesis for a church bible study. It's nice to know the historic roots of what we read today.

By the way, please feel free to criticize this, and correct any errors I've made. I'd be very appreciative.


congrats, ever realised that what you just described is actually a description of a baby inside a womb? And not just any baby either - you infact.
post #364 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

God has a will. Evolution does not. That is one obvious difference, and it is a massive one.

How can you tell?

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

Surely some kind of historical precedent for a god is a requirement for belief. I don't know the theist mind, but is it common practice to merely invent one's own and be ok with that?

It's not so much inventing a new one but taking a more basic concept of a creator and ignoring the details that organised religion projects onto it. I'm not saying they cannot conjecture about the nature of a creator but they can't and shouldn't teach it as the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

That makes no sense. Could you explain it to me?

When you look at the evidence for evolution, you look at it with the preconception that evolution is correct and you will find it supports it. If you look at it with the preconception that it came about from an act of creation, you also see no problem. It's only when you look at it with prejudice do you dismiss one in favour of the other when in fact you can accept both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

All things studied by science are theoretically provable

And what makes the concept of a creator theoretically unprovable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

There is extremely solid scientific foundation for the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

What makes you think they aren't the creators I've been discussing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

And theoretical physics is meant to answer existing questions and provide tests for proving those answers; there are tests on the way to see what particles make up dark matter, for instance.

How do you prove the universe has 11 dimensions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

I do not know how many people, if any, would state that there absolutely is no god. The only reasonable stance is agnosticism. Atheists simply lack belief in god.

Richard Dawkins for one and mostly all the atheists in the TV show I watched who said exactly that and were subsequently called arrogant by the presenter. If you have nothing against the possibility that god exists then that is all I ask.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

No study has ever been done to show a hopelessness in atheists. The only in-depth study I have ever seen on the social side of atheism versus theism showed that Christians were 4-5% more likely to get divorced than atheists.

Given that my parents are currently divorcing, I would be inclined to agree with those stats. This doesn't mean that a belief in a creator causes that, merely that organised religion that tries to impose unjustified rules and regulations on people can cause it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

I think a supernatural creator is an extremely far-fetched idea.

Inconceivable? No. Of course not.
What is inconceivable?

Well I don't think that a creator is any more far-fetched than an alien life form but I suspect you are again trying to limit the definitions that the word god can encompass by using the adjective 'supernatural'. Wouldn't you say that gravity is supernatural? We only see it's effect, not the cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton

You know, this is all very, very Buddhist.

No way I'm having the same religion as Richard Gere. See this is what I don't like about organised religion is that so often it develops into a state where one belief is defined by a set of unchanging sub-beliefs. You can't be such and such a Christian if you don't believe in baptism or whatever. Even if my core beliefs were more or less compatible with Buddhism, I would never class myself as a Buddist simply because I may reach an idea in the bhuddist religion that I don't agree with. Does that then make me not a buddhist? I think it's silly if that's the case but that's how organised religion tends to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HansPiet

I think all that bla bla bla is caused by fear. Fear of that your live has no reason, fear that everything you do is in vain, fear that there is no live afterward, fear that manhood will disappear in some time, fear that manhopod is on his own in the universe.
Take a drink and let go those fears go. Live your life, thinking, especially discussing about the origin of lifet is completely useless and leads to nowhere. Believe is not meant to be proven and you are here, so why discuss the reason, other then that your father and mother did a good job.

But why should I live my life if it ultimately leads nowhere? It's not so much fear but a sense of pointlessness. If I found out for certain that we came here without purpose and that once we die there is nothing then I would kill myself. The reason being that I see nothing in my life that would warrant continuing it to a natural conclusion. However, there have been events in my life which suggest that there is something deeper. It may well just be that certain things have appealed to my desire for there to be something deeper but I can only form my opinions from my experiences. Such is the curse of living in a closed system.
post #365 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post




But why should I live my life if it ultimately leads nowhere? It's not so much fear but a sense of pointlessness. If I found out for certain that we came here without purpose and that once we die there is nothing then I would kill myself.

If thats how you view this magnificient thing called life, please go quickly.

Lets see, the universe is about 16 billion years old and will probably last another 50 billion, and you are fortunate enough to be a sentient being for about 80 years of that (0.00000000012%) to contemplate the mystery of it - but if theres no grand purpose for that you'd rather die....
post #366 of 522
Thread Starter 
That's the problem with intellectuals, isn't it? Too much thinking, not enough living.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #367 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

But why should I live my life if it ultimately leads nowhere? It's not so much fear but a sense of pointlessness. If I found out for certain that we came here without purpose and that once we die there is nothing then I would kill myself. The reason being that I see nothing in my life that would warrant continuing it to a natural conclusion.

What exactly constitutes having your life lead "somewhere"? That some deity has planned out a bunch of experiences for you to have? That you will someday go to heaven and sing the praises of said deity for eternity? That you're here to fulfill some noble cause -- like, say, helping the blind or deaf -- which said deity could have dealt with better by sparing those people their disabilities in the first place?

What's so much better about being "created with" a purpose as opposed to simply choosing your own purpose for yourself?

What purpose does a deity serve? Is it just another convenient magical regression terminator? Just like God gets to be the Uncaused Cause, the Uncreated Creator, God also gets to be His own Purpose?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #368 of 522
.dbl post oops
post #369 of 522
Jesus virgin mother is a scaly dragon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6196225.stm
post #370 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

Jesus virgin mother is a scaly dragon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6196225.stm

If it is possible to activate parthenogenesis in humans, then it will be popular...
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #371 of 522
Marvin:

Quote:
How can you tell?

God has commanded people to do things (or at least that is what we are led to believe by god's followers). What has evolution ever commanded?

Quote:
It's not so much inventing a new one but taking a more basic concept of a creator and ignoring the details that organised religion projects onto it.

Taking it from where, though? Surely there must at least be a book or some other tangible source.

Quote:
And what makes the concept of a creator theoretically unprovable?

The statement from theists that god is not provable in any way. How do you test for god?

Quote:
What makes you think they aren't the creators I've been discussing?

Because all you are doing is pushing the question back. Who, then, made those extra-terrestrial creators? The answer leads an infinite regress.

Quote:
How do you prove the universe has 11 dimensions?

I do not know, I am not schooled enough in that to understand. However, I do not take my own ignorance of that highly complex subject as any indication as to that subject's scientific qualities.

Quote:
Richard Dawkins for one and mostly all the atheists in the TV show I watched who said exactly that and were subsequently called arrogant by the presenter. If you have nothing against the possibility that god exists then that is all I ask.

If you knew anything at all about Richard Dawkins and had bothered to read any of his work you would know that he explicitly states that agnosticism is the only reasonable view towards the existence of god. But you do not know, because you stay half-informed to maintain your ignorant prejudices.

Quote:
Well I don't think that a creator is any more far-fetched than an alien life form but I suspect you are again trying to limit the definitions that the word god can encompass by using the adjective 'supernatural'. Wouldn't you say that gravity is supernatural? We only see it's effect, not the cause.

We do not fully understand what causes gravity to happen, but that is temporary ignorance. Our ignorance of a scientific principle does not make it supernatural. "Supernatural" means "outside of nature". God is defined by his followers as supernatural.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #372 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

If it is possible to activate parthenogenesis in humans, then it will be popular...

It is impossible... Jesus would have had to have been a woman...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #373 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

If thats how you view this magnificient thing called life, please go quickly.

I'll try my best. What in your life do you consider magnificent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

to contemplate the mystery of it - but if theres no grand purpose for that you'd rather die....

So you're saying our purpose is to figure out why we're here? The problem there is that people have lived and died for millennia not finding their purpose so the odds aren't in our favour for finding any.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Too much thinking, not enough living.

Yeah, I've tried this whole 'living' thing. It doesn't really appeal to me. My colleagues keep saying for me to do the same and I ask what they're going to do and their answer is 'get drunk'. In other words try to escape reality. I ask my relatives what they will do and they want to worship God, which similarly doesn't appeal to me. There's more of course but nothing more meaningful than either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

What exactly constitutes having your life lead "somewhere"? That some deity has planned out a bunch of experiences for you to have? That you will someday go to heaven and sing the praises of said deity for eternity? That you're here to fulfill some noble cause -- like, say, helping the blind or deaf -- which said deity could have dealt with better by sparing those people their disabilities in the first place?

So your opinion is that life in fact leads nowhere? It is just an empty existence like I described?

Having life lead somewhere to me is a necessity for it not being worthless. I don't know exactly what that might constitute but I would hope that it involves giving everyone an equal chance.

If this is all there is then it's another reason why I don't want to take part in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

What's so much better about being "created with" a purpose as opposed to simply choosing your own purpose for yourself?

We can't choose a meaningful purpose in a system we don't control, we can only choose a purpose within the constraints of the system. We don't have free will because there are things we can imagine that can't be achieved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

What purpose does a deity serve? Is it just another convenient magical regression terminator? Just like God gets to be the Uncaused Cause, the Uncreated Creator, God also gets to be His own Purpose?

The purpose of a creator is reason. To me it is unreasonable that a universe like this would be here for no overwhelming purpose. If it's true that our purpose is to explore what is here then surely it was placed here for us to explore.

You're right in that a creator is convenient but conversely there is a great inconvenience without one. It's only magic in the same way that gravity is magic. It has a very visible effect but what is it really and why do we need it? Magic is just a way to describe something we don't understand.

Out of all the imaginable scenarios that it is possible to exist in, why is this the one we get? Just because that's the way it is right? No explanation, just acceptance. That sounds like religion to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

God has commanded people to do things (or at least that is what we are led to believe by god's followers). What has evolution ever commanded?

Evolution commands nothing but some of its followers require that there be no creator. As you correctly point out, it's only some followers of organised religions who impose their rules on people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

Taking it from where, though? Surely there must at least be a book or some other tangible source.

Just like there has to be a higher power you mean? Theological or philosophical books are written by men just like us. In no way were they privy to anything more than we have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

How do you test for god?

How do you test for alien life or gravity? Just because we currently don't know how to test for it doesn't mean we can make the assertion that it cannot be tested for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

Because all you are doing is pushing the question back. Who, then, made those extra-terrestrial creators? The answer leads an infinite regress.

That's assuming they don't know the answer and that they have the same limitations we do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

However, I do not take my own ignorance of that highly complex subject as any indication as to that subject's scientific qualities.

But why do you assume that a concept that arises from a scientific context has any more scientific validity than one that arises from a philosophical context? At the end of the day, both are developed by the human mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

If you knew anything at all about Richard Dawkins and had bothered to read any of his work you would know that he explicitly states that agnosticism is the only reasonable view towards the existence of god.

I watched him state otherwise but I'm aware that human beings make mistakes so I won't hold him to any particular opinion but agnosticism is equally arrogant because instead of saying that a creator does not exist, it says that we can never know if that's the case based on no evidence whatsoever. What would lead an agnostic to believe we cannot prove a creator? What is proof anyway? The deeper we go into any theory there has to be an assumption made at some point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

We do not fully understand what causes gravity to happen, but that is temporary ignorance. Our ignorance of a scientific principle does not make it supernatural. "Supernatural" means "outside of nature". God is defined by his followers as supernatural.

The effect of gravity is natural, that's as much as we know. We can't say its cause is any more natural than the cause of life. But I would say that an ultimate creator would have to be outside of natural boundaries, not necessarily our immediate creator. I don't see that as being a problem.
post #374 of 522
Alright, I did some poking about...

...first of all, in regards to scrutinizing God, my original point stands -- it just can't be done in the terms offered. Either you have those omni- adjectives attached to Him, or you don't. Once you cop to a "omniscient" God, ripping Him for this or that is essentially biting your own argumentative tail. And in any case, you might be able to condemn Him on your own terms, but certainly not His.

Origin of sin....

...a little more interesting, there is an account of an angelic uprising, which, at least metaphysically, removes the origin of sin from Earth/Time. In any case God 'allowed it/preordained it' for one of His omniscient reasonings.

In any case, His 'Providential Care' should be seen in His timeline, not ours, His [time being irrelevant] being ongoing from our perspective.

And maybe the biggest point: these issues aren't nullified with the idea of a omni-whatever God. They get transferred to personal salvation trips -- politics as salvific, or science as predictive/predestinative -- a way to plan to eventually and ultimately avoid our problems.

In the end, fingerpointing aside, we need to admit that our problems are moral, and accept the Grace of Christ for the answer.

See you after the first of the year, we can beg the question more -- God bless us one and all -- Merry Christmas!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #375 of 522
Marvin:

Quote:
Evolution commands nothing but some of its followers require that there be no creator. As you correctly point out, it's only some followers of organised religions who impose their rules on people.

Who has said that no creator is "required"? Further, what does that have to do with what we were talking about?

Quote:
Just like there has to be a higher power you mean? Theological or philosophical books are written by men just like us. In no way were they privy to anything more than we have.

I think you misunderstand my question: If one is to believe in god, then must that person must pull that belief from a pre-existing divine work? (I do not think any book on earth as divine origin, so when I say "divine work" I mean "supposedly divine work".)

Quote:
How do you test for alien life or gravity? Just because we currently don't know how to test for it doesn't mean we can make the assertion that it cannot be tested for.

Test for alien life: Search for organized signals that might resemble purposeful communiation.
Test for gravity: Drop a stone from increasing distances and measure the speeds at which they fall.

Theoretically both of these tests will, upon their full completion, produce a "yes" or "no".

Quote:
But why do you assume that a concept that arises from a scientific context has any more scientific validity than one that arises from a philosophical context? At the end of the day, both are developed by the human mind.

Ah, I see. You have painted yourself in a corner so you want to bring in Philosophy 101 in an attempt to destroy the entire world. We know what we can know, so that is what we work with. We cannot see what we cannot see, so there is little point in pretending that we can.

Quote:
I watched him state otherwise but I'm aware that human beings make mistakes so I won't hold him to any particular opinion but agnosticism is equally arrogant because instead of saying that a creator does not exist, it says that we can never know if that's the case based on no evidence whatsoever. What would lead an agnostic to believe we cannot prove a creator? What is proof anyway? The deeper we go into any theory there has to be an assumption made at some point.

Agnosticism is merely claiming to not know whether or not god exists. It says nothing about the provability of god, that is a separate issue from agnosticism.

You really should learn more about this subject before stumbling so blindly and arrogantly right into the middle of it.

Quote:
The effect of gravity is natural, that's as much as we know. We can't say its cause is any more natural than the cause of life. But I would say that an ultimate creator would have to be outside of natural boundaries, not necessarily our immediate creator. I don't see that as being a problem.

If our supernatural creator is outside of natural boundaries, how did the supernatural create the natural? Surely, at some point, that boundary must have been crossed.


dmz:

Quote:
And in any case, you might be able to condemn Him on your own terms, but certainly not His.

That's the whole point. His terms are self-serving and contradictory, so of course they withstand all the attacks of logic and sanity.

God is great, because God says he is great. It is amazing that you accuse others of biting their own tails.

Quote:
In any case, His 'Providential Care' should be seen in His timeline, not ours, His [time being irrelevant] being ongoing from our perspective.

How does one see it in "His timeline"? Peyote?

Quote:
And maybe the biggest point: these issues aren't nullified with the idea of a omni-whatever God. They get transferred to personal salvation trips -- politics as salvific, or science as predictive/predestinative -- a way to plan to eventually and ultimately avoid our problems.

It is a simple transfer, like money between bank accounts? You might as well say, "Because!" and leave it at that.

What faculties do I have to deal with any problem or temptation that was not created by god?

Quote:
In the end, fingerpointing aside, we need to admit that our problems are moral, and accept the Grace of Christ for the answer.

To fully understand this topic, all you need is a little delusion and a whole lot of gullibility.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #376 of 522
Marvin:

Quote:
Evolution commands nothing but some of its followers require that there be no creator. As you correctly point out, it's only some followers of organised religions who impose their rules on people.

Who has said that no creator is "required"? Further, what does that have to do with what we were talking about?

Quote:
Just like there has to be a higher power you mean? Theological or philosophical books are written by men just like us. In no way were they privy to anything more than we have.

I think you misunderstand my question: If one is to believe in god, then must that person must pull that belief from a pre-existing divine work? (I do not think any book on earth as divine origin, so when I say "divine work" I mean "supposedly divine work".)

Quote:
How do you test for alien life or gravity? Just because we currently don't know how to test for it doesn't mean we can make the assertion that it cannot be tested for.

Test for alien life: Search for organized signals that might resemble purposeful communiation.
Test for gravity: Drop a stone from increasing distances and measure the speeds at which they fall.

Theoretically both of these tests will, upon their full completion, produce a "yes" or "no".

Quote:
But why do you assume that a concept that arises from a scientific context has any more scientific validity than one that arises from a philosophical context? At the end of the day, both are developed by the human mind.

Ah, I see. You have painted yourself in a corner so you want to bring in Philosophy 101 in an attempt to destroy the entire world. We know what we can know, so that is what we work with. We cannot see what we cannot see, so there is little point in pretending that we can.

Quote:
I watched him state otherwise but I'm aware that human beings make mistakes so I won't hold him to any particular opinion but agnosticism is equally arrogant because instead of saying that a creator does not exist, it says that we can never know if that's the case based on no evidence whatsoever. What would lead an agnostic to believe we cannot prove a creator? What is proof anyway? The deeper we go into any theory there has to be an assumption made at some point.

Agnosticism is merely claiming to not know whether or not god exists. It says nothing about the provability of god, that is a separate issue from agnosticism.

You really should learn more about this subject before stumbling so blindly and arrogantly right into the middle of it.

Quote:
The effect of gravity is natural, that's as much as we know. We can't say its cause is any more natural than the cause of life. But I would say that an ultimate creator would have to be outside of natural boundaries, not necessarily our immediate creator. I don't see that as being a problem.

If our supernatural creator is outside of natural boundaries, how did the supernatural create the natural? Surely, at some point, that boundary must have been crossed.


dmz:

Quote:
And in any case, you might be able to condemn Him on your own terms, but certainly not His.

That's the whole point. His terms are self-serving and contradictory, so of course they withstand all the attacks of logic and sanity.

God is great, because God says he is great. It is amazing that you accuse others of biting their own tails.

Quote:
In any case, His 'Providential Care' should be seen in His timeline, not ours, His [time being irrelevant] being ongoing from our perspective.

How does one see it in "His timeline"? Peyote?

Quote:
And maybe the biggest point: these issues aren't nullified with the idea of a omni-whatever God. They get transferred to personal salvation trips -- politics as salvific, or science as predictive/predestinative -- a way to plan to eventually and ultimately avoid our problems.

It is a simple transfer, like money between bank accounts? You might as well say, "Because!" and leave it at that.

What faculties do I have to deal with any problem or temptation that were not created by god?

Quote:
In the end, fingerpointing aside, we need to admit that our problems are moral, and accept the Grace of Christ for the answer.

To fully understand this topic, all you need is a little delusion and a whole lot of gullibility.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #377 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

So your opinion is that life in fact leads nowhere? It is just an empty existence like I described?

I asked you to tell me what "leading somewhere" means. What's a good enough "somewhere" for your life to be worth living? You still haven't answered that.

Further, I disagree with the premise of your question that "not leading somewhere" = "empty existence". I'd say that life leads all of us on different journeys, via a combination of luck and personal choices. Could there be "something more" beyond that? I suppose. But if there is, I don't think any of us have a clue what it might be. Why should the value of existence hinge on a hypothetical and unknown "something more"?

Quote:
Having life lead somewhere to me is a necessity for it not being worthless. I don't know exactly what that might constitute but I would hope that it involves giving everyone an equal chance.

An equal chance at what?

Quote:
We can't choose a meaningful purpose in a system we don't control, we can only choose a purpose within the constraints of the system. We don't have free will because there are things we can imagine that can't be achieved.

...The purpose of a creator is reason. To me it is unreasonable that a universe like this would be here for no overwhelming purpose. If it's true that our purpose is to explore what is here then surely it was placed here for us to explore.

You're just wandering off into a vagueness, slippery word usage, and unfounded assumptions.

"The purpose of a creator is reason."? What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

Do you know what "infinite regress" means? Do you realize when you're extending one for no good reason and leaving yourself with the same unanswered questions?

To imagine that there was a reason to create the universe is to imagine some sort of pre-universe situation containing some sort personality or intelligence capable of having desires, formulating goals, having needs to fulfill, to which the creation of our universe was an answer.

If that's what you're imaging, then don't you see that there already was a universe, the one containing this "God" or these "gods", that what we're calling "the universe" isn't a universe at all, but just a new addition to an existing universe, and that you haven't really answered the question you think you're providing an answer to?

Why should there have been a God, sitting around in some pre-universe universe? Wouldn't consistently applying the same broken logic mean that you need a creator for God, and a purpose for creating God? If, for some magic reason, you decide those questions don't need to be answered, why not let the physical universe itself be the thing which can rise from nothing and which doesn't need a purpose to come into existence?

Isn't the ultimate question "Why is there something, anything, instead of absolutely nothing?" Have you put any thought into the fact that time itself might not exist outside of our universe, that words like "create" and "exist" are defined in terms of time, and that talking about the "creation" of the universe, as if there was a time it didn't exist before it existed, might make about as much sense as asking "How high is up?"?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #378 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

Who has said that no creator is "required"? Further, what does that have to do with what we were talking about?

You asked what has evolution ever commanded and I said nothing but some followers of evolution require that there be no creator, one of those people being Richard Dawkins. Even Hawking I believe tried to prove that a creator was not necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

I think you misunderstand my question: If one is to believe in god, then must that person pull that belief from a pre-existing divine work? (I do not think any book on earth as divine origin, so when I say "divine work" I mean "supposedly divine work".)

I think the answer is no. I have no reason to consider that any book on earth has a divine origin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

Test for alien life: Search for organized signals that might resemble purposeful communication.
Test for gravity: Drop a stone from increasing distances and measure the speeds at which they fall.

The second tests the effect not the cause. For the first, you'd be as well saying that you can test for a creator by asking for something and see if you get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

We cannot see what we cannot see, so there is little point in pretending that we can.

Who is pretending? All I'm saying is that there is a possibility that we were created.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

Agnosticism is merely claiming to not know whether or not god exists. It says nothing about the provability of god, that is a separate issue from agnosticism.

You really should learn more about this subject before stumbling so blindly and arrogantly right into the middle of it.

Maybe I should stop relying on the Oxford dictionary:

"agnostic |ag?nästik|
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena"

The insults are really unnecessary btw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

If our supernatural creator is outside of natural boundaries, how did the supernatural create the natural? Surely, at some point, that boundary must have been crossed.

I don't know what significance crossing a boundary has to this. Also what if the natural is a subset of the supernatural?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

I asked you to tell me what "leading somewhere" means. What's a good enough "somewhere" for your life to be worth living? You still haven't answered that.

I did but I also asked you the opposite question as part of that answer, which you kind of answered next.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

Further, I disagree with the premise of your question that "not leading somewhere" = "empty existence". I'd say that life leads all of us on different journeys, via a combination of luck and personal choices.

Ok so here we have a life that goes through a variety of scenarios both good and bad and some people may not see that as empty. But let's consider what all these events achieve. Everyone without question is going to die right? What do our lives mean then? That people remember us for what little impact we've made in the world?

I'm not looking for generalities anyway, I mean specifically what is meaningful about your life? Is it your family, your job?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

An equal chance at what?

Well in life we are all born into unequal circumstances. I would hope that this is not the case if indeed there is a life beyond this one. I don't like to look at people who are suffering and just pass it off as bad luck or some evolutionary f*ck up.

If there is nothing more then I don't agree with the system and I only have 3 choices, I can endure the system, try to change it or escape from it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

You're just wandering off into a vagueness, slippery word usage, and unfounded assumptions.

What did I assume? It seems to me that it's the people trying to dismiss a creator that are making all the assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

"The purpose of a creator is reason."? What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

It means that the purpose of a creator gives us a reason to be here. If you think what we have is enough reason for your life and you can convince yourself that it's logical you appeared from nothing then you don't need a creator.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

Do you realize when you're extending one for no good reason and leaving yourself with the same unanswered questions?

I never said that I would answer the questions. As I already said, I just won't dismiss the possibility of a creator simply because some people see one as unnecessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

To imagine that there was a reason to create the universe is to imagine some sort of pre-universe situation containing some sort personality or intelligence capable of having desires, formulating goals, having needs to fulfill, to which the creation of our universe was an answer.

If that's what you're imaging, then don't you see that there already was a universe, the one containing this "God" or these "gods", that what we're calling "the universe" isn't a universe at all, but just a new addition to an existing universe, and that you haven't really answered the question you think you're providing an answer to?

I never said I was providing an answer. Plus you're making assumptions about the act of creation and a creator in order to dismiss it again and contradicting your last paragraph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

Why should there have been a God, sitting around in some pre-universe universe? Wouldn't consistently applying the same broken logic mean that you need a creator for God, and a purpose for creating God?

Nope. We've covered that already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

If, for some magic reason, you decide those questions don't need to be answered, why not let the physical universe itself be the thing which can rise from nothing and which doesn't need a purpose to come into existence?

It is a possibility but believing the universe came from nothing is no worse than saying it came from something. In a way it is worse because it is an effect without a cause and science doesn't like those.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

Isn't the ultimate question "Why is there something, anything, instead of absolutely nothing?" Have you put any thought into the fact that time itself might not exist outside of our universe, that words like "create" and "exist" are defined in terms of time, and that talking about the "creation" of the universe, as if there was a time it didn't exist before it existed, might make about as much sense as asking "How high is up?"?

Exactly.
post #379 of 522
[deleted]
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #380 of 522
Marvin:

Quote:
You asked what has evolution ever commanded and I said nothing but some followers of evolution require that there be no creator, one of those people being Richard Dawkins. Even Hawking I believe tried to prove that a creator was not necessary.

If you have ever read anything on the subject by Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking you would know the neither of them has ever said that there absolutely is no god or that no god could possibly exist or that the lack of a creator is necessary.

You are making this up out of thin air. Do you know how I know? Because I have actually read a lot of the books by both of these men where they talk about exactly this subject.

Go read The God Delusion and you will see what I am talking about.

Or read this interview:
It's said that the only rational stance is agnosticism because you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural creator. I find that a weak position. It is true that you can't disprove anything but you can put a probability value on it. There's an infinite number of things that you can't disprove: unicorns, werewolves, and teapots in orbit around Mars. But we don't pay any heed to them unless there is some positive reason to think that they do exist.

Quote:
I think the answer is no. I have no reason to consider that any book on earth has a divine origin.

From where, then, would you get your ideas about what god is?

Quote:
The second tests the effect not the cause. For the first, you'd be as well saying that you can test for a creator by asking for something and see if you get it.

As I said, my inability (and your inability) to comprehend the existing scientific understanding of gravity only illustrates our own inadequacies, not science's.

Quote:
Maybe I should stop relying on the Oxford dictionary:

I agree, you should. Since when are scientific and philosophical discussions kept within the bounds of popular written for popular consumption?

Quote:
I don't know what significance crossing a boundary has to this. Also what if the natural is a subset of the supernatural?

Then god/creator enters into the natural, measurable world at some point.

You do realize that it is your desire to believe in this nonsense that leads to such mind-numbing and pointless conversation.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #381 of 522
Marvin:

Quote:
You asked what has evolution ever commanded and I said nothing but some followers of evolution require that there be no creator, one of those people being Richard Dawkins. Even Hawking I believe tried to prove that a creator was not necessary.

If you have ever read anything on the subject by Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking you would know the neither of them has ever said that there absolutely is no god or that no god could possibly exist or that the lack of a creator is necessary.

You are making this up out of thin air. Do you know how I know? Because I have actually read a lot of the books by both of these men where they talk about exactly this subject.

Go read The God Delusion and you will see what I am talking about.

Or read this interview:
It's said that the only rational stance is agnosticism because you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural creator. I find that a weak position. It is true that you can't disprove anything but you can put a probability value on it. There's an infinite number of things that you can't disprove: unicorns, werewolves, and teapots in orbit around Mars. But we don't pay any heed to them unless there is some positive reason to think that they do exist.

Quote:
I think the answer is no. I have no reason to consider that any book on earth has a divine origin.

From where, then, would you get your ideas about what god is?

Quote:
The second tests the effect not the cause. For the first, you'd be as well saying that you can test for a creator by asking for something and see if you get it.

As I said, my inability (and your inability) to comprehend the existing scientific understanding of gravity only illustrates our own inadequacies, not science's.

Quote:
Maybe I should stop relying on the Oxford dictionary:

I agree, you should. Since when are scientific and philosophical discussions kept within the bounds of popular written for popular consumption?

Quote:
I don't know what significance crossing a boundary has to this. Also what if the natural is a subset of the supernatural?

Then god/creator enters into the natural, measurable world at some point.

You do realize that it is your desire to believe in this nonsense that leads to such mind-numbing and pointless conversation.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #382 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Ok so here we have a life that goes through a variety of scenarios both good and bad and some people may not see that as empty. But let's consider what all these events achieve. Everyone without question is going to die right? What do our lives mean then? That people remember us for what little impact we've made in the world?

I'm not looking for generalities anyway, I mean specifically what is meaningful about your life? Is it your family, your job?

I don't know that my life is all that meaningful. At any rate, the idea of "meaningful" doesn't exist in isolation. Meaningful in what context? Meaningful to whom? I find that my life interesting and satisfying enough to want to keep living it, and that's enough for me.

Quote:
What did I assume? It seems to me that it's the people trying to dismiss a creator that are making all the assumptions.

What assumptions do you claim are being made by dismissing the existence or need for a creator? Are you claiming it takes fewer assumptions to assume there is creator?

Quote:
It means that the purpose of a creator gives us a reason to be here. If you think what we have is enough reason for your life and you can convince yourself that it's logical you appeared from nothing then you don't need a creator.

What does whether or not I think there's "enough reason for my life" have to do with anything? It's not the obligation of the universe to satisfy some need I might have for a "reason to live". The universe is as it is. I hope to discover as much about the nature of that universe as I can, but not by simply concocting satisfying-sounding answers and choosing to believe in them because they make me feel good.

And who's claiming to have "appeared from nothing"? I think my parents had something to do with my appearance in this world, tracing back through a long line of human and pre-human ancestry. Evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for that long line of descent. Go back far enough in time, or asks for a great amount of detail, and I have to say "I don't know". Throwing "God did it!" some in there back at the murky beginnings doesn't clarifying anything really, and just gives me one more unknown to explain.

Quote:
I never said that I would answer the questions. As I already said, I just won't dismiss the possibility of a creator simply because some people see one as unnecessary.

I don't dismiss the possibility of a creator either. I simply dismiss the usefulness of supposing that there is one and point out that there's no compelling evidence for such a thing.

Quote:
I never said I was providing an answer. Plus you're making assumptions about the act of creation and a creator in order to dismiss it again and contradicting your last paragraph.

I'm not making any assumptions, I'm proposing an interpretation of what it can possibly mean for there to have been a creator of the universe, and asking you (note, it was a question!) if that interpretation is what you have in mind. If that doesn't match what you have in mind for such a situation, you're supposed to tell me how and why what you're thinking is different.

What exactly am I supposed to have contradicted?

Quote:
Quote:
Why should there have been a God, sitting around in some pre-universe universe? Wouldn't consistently applying the same broken logic mean that you need a creator for God, and a purpose for creating God?

Nope. We've covered that already.

I've seen no clear coverage of this by you. Indulge me.

Quote:
It is a possibility but believing the universe came from nothing is no worse than saying it came from something. In a way it is worse because it is an effect without a cause and science doesn't like those.

What one says, which is the only honest thing you can say, it that we don't know how it all got started. The Big Bang looks like the best we can do for going back as far it time as we can, but that, of course, leaves open many questions about why there should have been a Big Bang at all -- questions to which replying "God did it!" really doesn't help in the slightest, by the way.

The "beginning" (if the word even applies) of the universe is obviously going to be a special boundary case, one where usual cause-and-effect reasoning, known laws of physics, conservation principles, etc., can't be applied. As for what "science doesn't like", you don't make things any better or worse for science by postulating uncaused causes, or pre-something somethings to patch up this boundary case.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #383 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

If you have ever read anything on the subject by Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking you would know the neither of them has ever said that there absolutely is no god or that no god could possibly exist or that the lack of a creator is necessary.

So what's the problem then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

There's an infinite number of things that you can't disprove: unicorns, werewolves, and teapots in orbit around Mars. But we don't pay any heed to them unless there is some positive reason to think that they do exist.

Oh wait, there's the problem. Just because it's a theory he happens to disagree with, he likens it to believing in flying teapots. Why don't I liken evolution to transmogrification and therefore demean it as a theory because it's been used in works of science fiction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

From where, then, would you get your ideas about what god is?

From the only creation that has the ability to create, which is why a teapot seems unreasonable given that it is one of our creations.

You are probably thinking that god can also be a creation of ours and it's a possibility I am willing to accept but everything else is a creation that exists beneath us and limited. The idea of a creator is an extension of the knowledge of our ability to create.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

As I said, my inability (and your inability) to comprehend the existing scientific understanding of gravity only illustrates our own inadequacies, not science's.

So you're saying science is above us? So if it comes up with something that we can't convince ourselves of then we should just accept it because of our on inadequacies. That sounds familiar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

I agree, you should. Since when are scientific and philosophical discussions kept within the bounds of popular written for popular consumption?

I didn't realise the word 'agnostic' was a scientific term. Please tell us where you get your definitions of words because there seems to have been a mix up earlier on the thread about definitions too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

Then god/creator enters into the natural, measurable world at some point.

Yet another unfounded assumption that again I don't see bears any significance on the existence of a creator.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

I find that my life interesting and satisfying enough to want to keep living it, and that's enough for me.

Ok, but for what reasons? Yes, you like your life but surely you only enjoy the things that you do and the circumstances you've been placed in. Also, satisfaction is just a result of your design.

Look around at all the things you see happening. People are just going about their daily lives keeping the system turning over. You can question why people go to church but you can equally question why people do anything. If satisfaction is it then why question what anyone does?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

What assumptions do you claim are being made by dismissing the existence or need for a creator? Are you claiming it takes fewer assumptions to assume there is creator?

Yes I think it takes fewer assumptions to assume there is one. To dismiss one requires that we know the nature of the creator in order to find fault with its existence. To consider there is one only requires that we have reason to believe there is one and that reason is we can create things ourselves and we know of nothing that can exist without creation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

What does whether or not I think there's "enough reason for my life" have to do with anything? It's not the obligation of the universe to satisfy some need I might have for a "reason to live". The universe is as it is. I hope to discover as much about the nature of that universe as I can, but not by simply concocting satisfying-sounding answers and choosing to believe in them because they make me feel good.

It has everything to do with it. If you don't see any deep reason to live out your life then why do you? Where is discovering the universe going to get you? A lot of people who say this to dismiss creation aren't even interested in astronomy. Usually they mean, they are waiting on some scientist to find out for them.

I'm also not concocting satisfying sounding answers in any greater sense than an evolutionist. I see the universe around me and consider theories that fit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

I don't dismiss the possibility of a creator either. I simply dismiss the usefulness of supposing that there is one and point out that there's no compelling evidence for such a thing.

And that's fine, if you don't feel the need to believe in it you can dismiss it just like how people who have no interest in theoretical physics can dismiss some of the crackpot theories they come up with. But some people see compelling evidence for it so don't deny them their right to have an opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

I'm not making any assumptions, I'm proposing an interpretation of what it can possibly mean for there to have been a creator of the universe and asking you (note, it was a question!) if that interpretation is what you have in mind. If that doesn't match what you have in mind for such a situation, you're supposed to tell me how and why what you're thinking is different.

Proposing an interpretation requires making assumptions if we're being critical of slippery word usage but I'll accept that you were posing a scenario and seeing if it's one I accept. The reason I was saying that contradicts what you said is that when you accept that you are bound by natural constraints then making up scenarios deliberately in the context of those constraints to disprove a creator makes no sense. Is it proof that there is no need to consider a creator when if a creator is the superlative that it means it's possible to create an unmovable stone? If it's possible then how does the creator move it?

Does this mean that a creator is beyond proof? Perhaps. But as quantum mechanics can teach you, there are things that can exist outside our comprehension.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

I've seen no clear coverage of this by you. Indulge me.

It's in the 11 pages somewhere. Think of it as a challenge.

Seriously though, it's just what I was saying. Logically dismissing a creator because you place the same constraints on it as we have makes no sense because we have no reason to consider that's the case. You said that yourself:

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

The "beginning" (if the word even applies) of the universe is obviously going to be a special boundary case, one where usual cause-and-effect reasoning, known laws of physics, conservation principles, etc., can't be applied.

Now yes you can say that's the same problem as considering whether or not we have a creator but we have no other explanation. If you choose to leave it at 'I don't know' then that's your choice. To me a creator explains why it is we see life begin and end in front of our eyes and yet we can't replicate it and we can't control it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

The Big Bang looks like the best we can do for going back as far it time as we can, but that, of course, leaves open many questions about why there should have been a Big Bang at all -- questions to which replying "God did it!" really doesn't help in the slightest, by the way.

Just because it doesn't help you individually doesn't mean it's not helpful and there's no harm done in considering it.
post #384 of 522
does this creator actually claim to have created anything? where would we look to find out?
post #385 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK


does this creator actually claim to have created anything? where would we look to find out?

Since you ask, here is what the first chapter of Genesis appears to say. It starts by saying God created the Heavens and the earth. The words 'heavens and earth' used this way can mean literally everything, just as we might say the 'whole shebang.' This is what I understand, but I'm no Hebrew scholar. Also, the Hebrew verb used is 'bara,' which means to create from nothing, something only God can do.

'Bara' is use in only three places in the creation story. The next place is when creating large sea mammals, apparently, and when creating humans. Since a verb translated 'made' is used for all other life forms, we can assume there is something special involved with the creation of mammals, and something even further special about humans.

The other verb of this kind used in chapter one is translated 'let there be,' which only implies that the object mentioned appears at this particular time. It is sometimes followed by 'and God made . . .' to indicate the act of making it. If it is followed by 'and it was so,' this only completes the thought without implying that God made it at that particular time.

post #386 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Since you ask, here is what the first chapter of Genesis appears to say. It starts by saying God created the Heavens and the earth. The words 'heavens and earth' used this way can mean literally everything, just as we might say the 'whole shebang.' This is what I understand, but I'm no Hebrew scholar. Also, the Hebrew verb used is 'bara,' which means to create from nothing, something only God can do.

'Bara' is use in only three places in the creation story. The next place is when creating large sea mammals, apparently, and when creating humans. Since a verb translated 'made' is used for all other life forms, we can assume there is something special involved with the creation of mammals, and something even further special about humans.

The other verb of this kind used in chapter one is translated 'let there be,' which only implies that the object mentioned appears at this particular time. It is sometimes followed by 'and God made . . .' to indicate the act of making it. If it is followed by 'and it was so,' this only completes the thought without implying that God made it at that particular time.


didnt we already discuss that earth is a biblical codeword, like the others, such as egypt and damascus
post #387 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Yes I think it takes fewer assumptions to assume there is one. To dismiss one requires that we know the nature of the creator in order to find fault with its existence. To consider there is one only requires that we have reason to believe there is one and that reason is we can create things ourselves and we know of nothing that can exist without creation.

By this logic, I should imagine there are invisible unicorns prancing around me right now. Since I don't know the exact nature of an invisible unicorn, how can I find fault in its existence?

Of course, the same reasoning applies to invisible crocodiles, dragons, mice, begonias, etc. I guess they all exist is their magical invisible way. I have "good reason" to believe they're there too, because it would be really cool if they were! Yeah! Who are YOU to tell ME that isn't good enough a reason, especially since you can't disprove them!?

Explain to me what makes God any different from invisible begonias in your accounting of which assumptions are being made when believing or disbelieving in either. What real difference is there between the begonias and God, as opposed to the emotional attachment you might have to the idea of God or a Creator -- that The Creator™ is just such a popular and regal and majestic idea -- differences which help truly argue for the existence of God, for the explanatory power of introducing that extra entity into one's world view.

Let me put it to you this way: Until you can explain this "creator" you have in mind in sufficient detail that you're telling me the a fair amount about nature of the creator in the process, giving me a clear target for applying reason and logic, then you're just spinning nearly meaningless, fluffy bits of fancy. It seems to me a very justifiable assumption that there are an infinite variety of imaginable vague fantasies for which their non-existence outside of the human imagination is the most reasonable default stance, until good evidence to the contrary, in favor of such existence, is found.

Quote:
It has everything to do with it. If you don't see any deep reason to live out your life then why do you? Where is discovering the universe going to get you? A lot of people who say this to dismiss creation aren't even interested in astronomy. Usually they mean, they are waiting on some scientist to find out for them.

The reasons for which people choose to live out their lives aren't necessarily clear to their own minds -- and that's hardly surprising. If we, as a species, were inclined toward suicide, for whatever reason, we'd die out as a species pretty soon. That we generally, with rare exception, have a drive to live is the completely expected naturalistic, evolutionary outcome. No creator required to get there.

What you seem to be assuming in your questions is that, should we ponder our existence and fail to find sufficient "reason" to keep going, (and by some bizarre logic, being created by a creator seems like a super duper reason to you), we'd have no other choice than to let out a giant existential sigh and throw ourselves in front of the next convenient bus.

If this is the premise of your questioning, it is absurd. If it is not your premise, you need to make yourself more clear.

Quote:
I'm also not concocting satisfying sounding answers in any greater sense than an evolutionist. I see the universe around me and consider theories that fit.

I see no evidence at all that you're engaging in more than conjecture. You show no signs of proposing a comprehensive theory of anything. And your metrics for what "fits" seem to be stunning bits of reasoning like, "Well, I just can't see a good reason for all this to be here if there wasn't a purpose!", as invoking the limits of your imagination, and earnestly professing your desire for a sense of purpose, carries the same intellectual weight as, say, natural selection.

Quote:
And that's fine, if you don't feel the need to believe in it you can dismiss it just like how people who have no interest in theoretical physics can dismiss some of the crackpot theories they come up with. But some people see compelling evidence for it so don't deny them their right to have an opinion.

I think I'm going to have to temporarily assume the existence of a deity just so I can drop my jaw and let out an exasperated "Oh... my... GOD!!!"

"deny them their right to have an opinion"? Who is denying whom a right to have an opinion? What form does this "denial" take?

You're throwing away whatever few scraps of credibility you might have retained when you sink to this level. With this, I abandon any further ambition to deal with the remainder of your remarks until you can prove yourself better than the banal stupidity above.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #388 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

Yes I think it takes fewer assumptions to assume there is one. To dismiss one requires that we know the nature of the creator in order to find fault with its existence. To consider there is one only requires that we have reason to believe there is one and that reason is we can create things ourselves and we know of nothing that can exist without creation.

What does the existance of god have to so with assumptions at any level? Faith is above assumption, no? Faith is above "reason to believe", no?

Your faith is crude, sir.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #389 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

By this logic, I should imagine there are invisible unicorns prancing around me right now. Since I don't know the exact nature of an invisible unicorn, how can I find fault in its existence?

There's no reason to consider a unicorn when we know they are like horses and are beneath us. In ascribing a particular form to a creator, you are making unjustified assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

The reasons for which people choose to live out their lives aren't necessarily clear to their own minds -- and that's hardly surprising.

It surprises me. Is there anything you do in life besides existing that you do without a known purpose?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

That we generally, with rare exception, have a drive to live is the completely expected naturalistic, evolutionary outcome. No creator required to get there.

Again, all you're doing there is using another word for a higher power. You speak of this evolutionary outcome in the same way religious people talk about god. What drives evolution?

It's hard to avoid but I'm trying not to put evolution against a creator because I don't see them as incompatible. I'm just saying using terms like evolution as a purposeful force is no better than using the term creator.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

What you seem to be assuming in your questions is that, should we ponder our existence and fail to find sufficient "reason" to keep going, (and by some bizarre logic, being created by a creator seems like a super duper reason to you), we'd have no other choice than to let out a giant existential sigh and throw ourselves in front of the next convenient bus.

If this is the premise of your questioning, it is absurd. If it is not your premise, you need to make yourself more clear.

Then by all means enlighten me. Don't just call what I say absurd without explaining yourself because that reduces the conversation to a 'I'm rubber you're glue' scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

"deny them their right to have an opinion"? Who is denying whom a right to have an opinion? What form does this "denial" take?

When you insult people for having a different opinion to yourself without convincing them otherwise, that is denying their right to an opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

You're throwing away whatever few scraps of credibility you might have retained when you sink to this level. With this, I abandon any further ambition to deal with the remainder of your remarks until you can prove yourself better than the banal stupidity above.

If you have nothing further to add then that's ok but don't cite me being stupid as the reason because I won't be the one throwing away any credibility. I have never offended you nor have I called your ideas stupid.

I don't know if you see this discussion as a means that other people on the forum will consider one person's philosphy greater than the other but it really isn't. It's not a competition and no one has to win or lose. I like to hear other people's views about these things and I'm grateful that you've added what you have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

What does the existance of god have to so with assumptions at any level? Faith is above assumption, no? Faith is above "reason to believe", no?

Your faith is crude, sir.

Faith is not above assumption. You are confusing it with blind faith. I'll need to check with groverat's dictionary though. It would probably be best to keep religious terms out of the discussion though because it brings in all sorts of other implications - I prefer to use creator instead of god for example.
post #390 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Faith is not above assumption. You are confusing it with blind faith. I'll need to check with groverat's dictionary though. It would probably be best to keep religious terms out of the discussion though because it brings in all sorts of other implications - I prefer to use creator instead of god for example.

Actually faith is defined as a belief that does not rest on logic or material evidence -- that is any belief logically derived from assumptions is just a belief, if you do not depend upon logic than you can call it a faith...

Interesting theological perspective, nevertheless, however weak. Are there people who worship your hypothetical creator? If yes, then it is a god.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #391 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

There's no reason to consider a unicorn when we know they are like horses and are beneath us. In ascribing a particular form to a creator, you are making unjustified assumptions.
.

I'm sorry, I have to intervene at this point. This is fucking hilarious.

Oh, now you want to get logical? You're defending the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence at all and is as likely to resemble a glowing, hovering string bag of leeks as much as large tub of peanut butter marked 'Deus' or an old man with a beard on a cloud... and you're saying that the Creator can't resemble a unicorn because unicorns... resemble horses.

You haven't just missed the point, you've missed... well, let's just say you woke up this morning to find you'd eaten your feet in your sleep and immediately began to look for your slippers.

Happy Christmas everyone!
post #392 of 522


Well I just saw "The Fountain."

Not much of a critic of movies, I tend to seek entertainment value, this one I found entertaining!

Tree of Life (to me this means creation/evolution).
Tree of Knowledge (to me this means the scientific method).

Trees, birth, death, rebirth, the universe. Interesting concepts metaphorically speaking.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #393 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah

You're defending the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence at all and is as likely to resemble a glowing, hovering string bag of leeks as much as large tub of peanut butter marked 'Deus' or an old man with a beard on a cloud... and you're saying that the Creator can't resemble a unicorn because unicorns... resemble horses.

I didn't say the creator can't resemble a unicorn, I just said that it's improbable. It's like me saying that gravity is just as likely to be falling pixie dust as it is to be a scientifically well-defined particle that we haven't found yet - the so called graviton. The only reason I would say pixie dust is to use a demeaning term in order to dismiss the whole idea of gravity i.e the cause, despite the fact we can see its effect.
post #394 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I didn't say the creator can't resemble a unicorn, I just said that it's improbable. It's like me saying that gravity is just as likely to be falling pixie dust as it is to be a scientifically well-defined particle that we haven't found yet - the so called graviton. The only reason I would say pixie dust is to use a demeaning term in order to dismiss the whole idea of gravity i.e the cause, despite the fact we can see its effect.

Where are you slippers?

It's equally probable for the creator to resemble a unicorn, a box of Frosties containing suet, a burning baobab tree made from aloe vera, a male member of the species homo sapiens sapiens with a beard or a billboard bearing the word 'Pope', because there is absolutely no evidence, none, that that the thing exists at all, and if you're going to define its resemblence in human terms then hey, go nuts.

I think a plate of baba ganoush with a sparkler in it is good.
post #395 of 522
Gee, I thought we'd finished beating this dead invisible unicorn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
"deny them their right to have an opinion"? Who is denying whom a right to have an opinion? What form does this "denial" take?

When you insult people for having a different opinion to yourself without convincing them otherwise, that is denying their right to an opinion.

The above is exactly why it seems pointless to argue with you.

1) The only opinion of yours I outright called stupid was the "denying opinions" stuff, a tangential issue. Yes, I've been less than kind to the rest of your argument, but I call 'em like I see 'em. If you think what you've got is better than I think it is, stand up and defend it with some clarity instead of whining preposterously about somehow being denied your right to your opinions.

2) All criticisms I've made have been directly at what I see as specific flaws in those differing opinions -- I've not derided a single opinion on no other basis than it being different than my own.

3) Even if I'd been viciously scathing and insulting your ancestors unto the tenth generation, for no good reasons at all, you'd obviously still be in possession of your opinions (not that you might not be better off without some of them! ), free to state them as much as you like -- you'd have been denied not a single thing.

If you think your opinions should always be greeted with flowers and candy as liberators, I'm sorry to say it doesn't work that way, and not getting the red carpet for your opinions hardly amounts to being denied them.

That you don't automatically understand the above without having it carefully explained to you step by step is why I despair of making any headway discussing anything else with you, like the main topics of this thread. Your thinking and argumentation is just too mushy to work with.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #396 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

dmz:
That's the whole point. His terms are self-serving and contradictory, so of course they withstand all the attacks of logic and sanity.

No, there's nothing contradictory or illogical with positing, a priori, an omni-[insert adjective here] god. You might not like it very much, but we aren't discussing your personal predilections. For example, the concept of a wholly-other, impersonal god might not blow my skirt up, but it's still a valid, and very common, starting point.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #397 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

No, there's nothing contradictory or illogical with positing, a priori, an omni-[insert adjective here] god. You might not like it very much, but we aren't discussing your personal predilections. For example, the concept of a wholly-other, impersonal god might not blow my skirt up, but it's still a valid, and very common, starting point.

Valid for what and whom?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #398 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Valid for what and whom?

Valid for the sake of argument. What groverat is doing is allowing the positing of, in this case, an omniscient god, but then turning around and calling him "self-serving and contradictory;" it's lousy technique.

And a happy new year to you too.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #399 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Valid for the sake of argument. What groverat is doing is allowing the positing of, in this case, an omniscient god, but then turning around and calling him "self-serving and contradictory;" it's lousy technique.

And a happy new year to you too.

For the sake of argument it's valid to say that I created the universe this morning in my kitchen making a smoothie, then, because there's just as much evidence.

dmz, Groverat is not calling your omniscient god self-serving and contradictory, he's dissing the terms you use to defend the existence of such a god. Read his post.
post #400 of 522
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Yeah, I've tried this whole 'living' thing. It doesn't really appeal to me. My colleagues keep saying for me to do the same and I ask what they're going to do and their answer is 'get drunk'. In other words try to escape reality. I ask my relatives what they will do and they want to worship God, which similarly doesn't appeal to me. There's more of course but nothing more meaningful than either.

Interesting you immediately thought of alcohol. I don't drink.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This.