Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Working Definition of God
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 136 of 332 (200704)
04-20-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
04-20-2005 11:17 AM


Faith writes:
What would you recommend I read, Percy?
I wasn't so much recommending that you read, though that is one of the effective approaches you could take, so much as recommending that you inform yourself. The means you choose are up to you.
This is an interesting thread because it inverts the position of the debaters from what was the case in the science threads in which you participated. We would offer evidence and explanations and descriptions of scientific theories only to have them rejected out-of-hand as inadequate. Here in this thread you and MTW are doing the same thing for your definition of God and finding it treated the same way.
The only way to put the discussion on a solid footing and open up the channels of communication is to agree on what constitutes evidence. I tried to answer your question about evidence at the top of Message 85, but you didn't reply. Evidence is anything you can see, hear, touch, taste or smell.
I also addressed yours and MTW's concern about rejecting Biblical evidence out of hand in both the aforementioned Message 85 and in Message 113. I believe God created the universe and that he would not lie to us or try to trick us. Man created the Bible, and man is known to be fallible. I see the Bible as a record of a people's striving to make sense of their world, and I interpret it in historical context with other available evidence.
If, as you and MTW argue, God is defined by deeds, then that contradicts Magisterium Devolver's definition of God as love, given the evils in the world like war, plague, pestilence and tsanamis. When you're source of information for God's deeds is the Bible then you can't chalk all evil up to the devil since the OT contains many incidences of God directing atrocities.
The introduction of the devil and a hierarchy of angels and so forth is indicative of developing ad hoc answers to address questions and contradictions, but the web just grows more and more confused. You say God is good, we then ask what about evil. You say the devil is responsible for evil, we ask how the devil is permitted to do this if God is omnipotent. You say God chooses to allow the devil a place, but that is permitting evil, and we're back where we started, though a debate can go round and round and round on these points forever.
Religion, especially institutionalized religion, is prone to such complicating inventions. To see the true God you need to simplify. Eliminate the hash of Bible stories with their confused and contradictory variety of perspectives and look at the universe around you, for there lies truth.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 04-20-2005 11:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 04-20-2005 2:20 PM Percy has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 137 of 332 (200710)
04-20-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Percy
04-20-2005 1:14 PM


quote:
The only way to put the discussion on a solid footing and open up the channels of communication is to agree on what constitutes evidence. I tried to answer your question about evidence at the top of Message 85, but you didn't reply. Evidence is anything you can see, hear, touch, taste or smell.
Thanks for the reminder, I had lost track of it. That was a long detailed post, and I planned to get back to it but I wanted to come up with the very best statement about why evidence includes at least witness testimony first, and then I got distracted. All the evidence of the senses can determine is things that pertain to the senses. If there is a reality beyond the senses, you have ruled out all possible evidence for it a priori. This would no doubt be a VERY long discussion and unfortunately I don't feel equipped for it at the moment.
quote:
I also addressed yours and MTW's concern about rejecting Biblical evidence out of hand in both the aforementioned Message 85 and in Message 113. I believe God created the universe and that he would not lie to us or try to trick us. Man created the Bible, and man is known to be fallible. I see the Bible as a record of a people's striving to make sense of their world, and I interpret it in historical context with other available evidence.
But that has been argued here already and all I can do is repeat myself to no purpose: You are wrong, the Bible IS God's word. It was written DOWN by men but it did not spring from the mind of men, it came from God Himself. Many of its authors claim specifically to have received their message directly from God; other authors have declared that all scripture is given by God; those who formed the canon formed it on the basis of their determination of each book's having been inspired by God; and that has been the view of it by believers since it was written. You will no doubt go on denying our judgment of it though, so what's the point in repeating it?
The universe is in fact pretty much undecipherable as is. The history of science should tell you how hard it was for human beings to even start to get it right. In fact, Christianity had a big role in inspiring empirical science, on the basis of faith that God is rational and that he made the physical world to operate by rational laws that can be discovered. There is nothing in the physical world as-is that would lead to such an idea. Its lawfulness is not apparent to the eye, it must be discovered. This too would no doubt be a long and probably futile discussion.
quote:
If, as you and MTW argue, God is defined by deeds, then that contradicts Magisterium Devolver's definition of God as love, given the evils in the world like war, plague, pestilence and tsanamis.
No it just makes the discussion more complex than anybody is up to. I believe one reason the universe is NOT clearly lawful and decipherable on first inspection is because of the confusion, suffering, violence and death in it. Nothing explains that except Biblical theology, however, which recognizes that human beings and in fact the entire Creation are Fallen, meaning we are NOT what we were originally made to be. Our first parents were created immortal and in communion with our Creator God. They disobeyed and death entered the world, and both sin and death have accumulated down to the present. Nobody would ever intuit that. Nobody ever has. No manmade religion has come close -- I take that back, Hinduism and Buddhism recognize that we are in "ignorance" but they are wrong about the nature of this ignorance, and they recognize "karma" or the spiritual law that judges us, but they don't understand it. It can only be known by the revelation of God, but everybody here dismisses even the possibility of that. Through all this God is Love and remains Love, Love that forgives as soon as we seek Him in willingness to do things His way, and Love includes also His punishment for sin. But fallen humanity has a problem with a God who punishes sin so they reject the idea that He is Love for that reason.
quote:
When you're source of information for God's deeds is the Bible then you can't chalk all evil up to the devil since the OT contains many incidences of God directing atrocities.
That is also a long and complex discussion. I just answered part of it above, that evil entered the world when the first humans disobeyed God. Death entered just has He said it would, and death is defined Biblically as "the wages of sin." What you call atrocities by God are God's justice against sin, carefully explained for our sake in His word. If you reject the idea of a spiritual Law that governs the universe and judges us all then you will also misjudge everything that happens in this world.
quote:
The introduction of the devil and a hierarchy of angels and so forth is indicative of developing ad hoc answers to address questions and contradictions,
Not at all. I certainly haven't used them that way. They are part of the big picture which is given in the Bible. I know they are real, and I know something about their modus operandi, and I only know this because I believe the Bible.
quote:
but the web just grows more and more confused. You say God is good, we then ask what about evil. You say the devil is responsible for evil, we ask how the devil is permitted to do this if God is omnipotent. You say God chooses to allow the devil a place, but that is permitting evil, and we're back where we started, though a debate can go round and round and round on these points forever.
I've never given these answers. I've never said the devil is responsible for evil, I've said human sin/disobedience of God is. The devil is certainly there to provoke as much of it as possible however, but what is the devil anyway but the FIRST being to rebel/sin against God? ALL the suffering in the universe is due to God's creatures' rebelling against Him. Again a HUGE topic.
quote:
Religion, especially institutionalized religion, is prone to such complicating inventions.
I can see how it seems that way to you but to me the more I know about Biblical truth the more I understand the reality I live in. When I first started to believe, it was as if the world which had been upside down and twisted was untwisting and righting itself and making sense for the first time in my life. This has only increased over time.
quote:
To see the true God you need to simplify. Eliminate the hash of Bible stories with their confused and contradictory variety of perspectives and look at the universe around you, for there lies truth.
I find it to be exactly the opposite. I find the contradictions to be inherent in the universe, and the resolution of them in God's Word, which He mercifully gave us for the purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 04-20-2005 1:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 04-20-2005 4:28 PM Faith has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 138 of 332 (200723)
04-20-2005 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
04-20-2005 2:20 PM


Faith writes:
If there is a reality beyond the senses, you have ruled out all possible evidence for it a priori.
If there were a reality beyond the senses that were objective and not personal then there wouldn't be so many religions, denominations sects and offshoots. You wouldn't have Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and so forth. Within Christianity you wouldn't have Catholocism and Protestantism. Within Protestantism you wouldn't have Baptists and Presbyterians and Congregationalists and Methodists and Lutherans and on and on. And if even after all that you can still claim with a straight face that they all actually think of God in the same way, let's not forget the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists (Hi, Buzsaw!), the Church of Scientology, Christian Scientists, the Quakers, the Mormons, the Unification Church, not to mention the really wacko sects like Koresh's and Jonestown.
If everyone who felt they knew God or felt that God spoke to them in their heart was actually hearing the same God then there would be more uniformity and commonality. This huge variety of belief stems from the lack of any underlying reality. Those of a relgious bent join the religion whose beliefs they feel most comforable with. Desiring a connection to the spirtual is part of the makeup of human beings.
I think even very conservative evangelical theologians would think the mission the Christians have set themselves in this thread very weird and misguided. By answering Dan's challenge you concede his unsaid assumption, that defining God has any meaning. God is what we experience in our hearts, and he can't be explained to others. God is a very personal thing, and religions are only groups of people whose personal experience of God is similar and compatible.
When you try to define God by his deeds you step onto even less firm ground, because deeds take place in the natural world. Deeds are what everyone can perceive and from which objective impressions can be formed. Deeds are things that actually happen. But when we peer about the natural world we find that if God performs deeds, they are indistinguishable from normal natural phenomena.
The deeds that God performs are not physical deeds, for to seek such deeds is to test the Lord thy God. God performs spirtual deeds. He leads us toward the good and the right, and we experience this internally and personally. We can testify to what God has done for us, but we cannot provide natural world evidence of it. Those who know God will know our testimony is true and recognize God working through ourselves.
This would no doubt be a VERY long discussion and unfortunately I don't feel equipped for it at the moment.
This is because you know in your heart it is the wrong path.
You are wrong, the Bible IS God's word. It was written DOWN by men but it did not spring from the mind of men, it came from God Himself.
You may believe this, but you do not know this. Not you or anyone was witness to God's inspiration experienced by the Bible's authors. Like your personal experiences of God, you can only give testimony to them, you cannot provide evidence of them. If you believe the words in the Bible are inspired by God and are therefore God's Word, then this is true for you, but God is a spirtual being, and once again to expect evidence in the natural world of what you know in your heart is true is to test the Lord thy God.
Many of its authors claim specifically to have received their message directly from God; other authors have declared that all scripture is given by God; those who formed the canon formed it on the basis of their determination of each book's having been inspired by God; and that has been the view of it by believers since it was written.
You are again trying to give objective reality to a spirtual belief. Even if you know in your heart that this is true, it is not part of the natural world, and you can't expect other people, especially adherents to other religions, to accept that your book contains the Word of God and theirs do not. You're trying to convince people's minds when you should be trying to convince their hearts. Accepting God as a real presence in your life comes from the inside through the heart, not from the outside through the senses.
The universe is in fact pretty much undecipherable as is.
Someone of your abilities must respect them by considering your words more carefully. The reason your posts attract so much attention is because of your proclivity for casually throwing off howlers like this one, and it's beneath you. The complex electronic instrument you're using now represents so many resolved scientific problems that all by itself without considering any other evidence we know the universe is decipherable.
In fact, Christianity had a big role in inspiring empirical science, on the basis of faith that God is rational and that he made the physical world to operate by rational laws that can be discovered. There is nothing in the physical world as-is that would lead to such an idea.
On the contrary, the very regularity of the universe speaks of rationality. The sun rises and sets every day, cooked food tastes better, clay dries into useful containers, small-stone-small-splash, big-stone-big-splash, and so on. The confusion derives not from any lack of rationality, but from the mixture of rationality and randomness. The days are regular, but one day brings sun and another brings storms. The seasons are regular, but one spring brings rains and plenty, another spring brings floods and doom.
Nothing explains that except Biblical theology, however, which recognizes that human beings and in fact the entire Creation are Fallen, meaning we are NOT what we were originally made to be. Our first parents were created immortal and in communion with our Creator God. They disobeyed and death entered the world, and both sin and death have accumulated down to the present.
It is fine to believe this, but do not forget that this is a matter of faith, not fact. You cannot objectify the spirtual reality of God. The more you explain the contradictions the more obviously contradictory they become to the rational mind. You accepted these stories not because they appealed to your intellect but because they brought joy to your heart. Speak with your heart to other people's hearts and not to their minds, for such is the way of the Lord.
I find it to be exactly the opposite. I find the contradictions to be inherent in the universe, and the resolution of them in God's Word, which He mercifully gave us for the purpose.
But the contradictions are not in the universe but are of your own making. You read your Bible which speaks of a great flood, and you look to the evidence which is silent about a flood, and this must be very confusing. Dealing with all the contradictions you yourself create is why you keep abandoning discussions and saying things like "I don't feel equipped for it at the moment," and "This too would no doubt be a long and probably futile discussion," and so forth. God speaks to you from the wonders of the universe, not from the pages of a book, but you have closed your heart to him.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 04-20-2005 2:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 04-20-2005 9:20 PM Percy has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 139 of 332 (200728)
04-20-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Mammuthus
04-20-2005 7:18 AM


Mammuthus writes:
That is why I did not lump you in with Faith or mike since you at least seemed to be attempting to seriously address Dan's question.
ah...I see. Thank you.
Just to be fair, I think Faith and Matthew make very valid points that I, from my own perspective of "faith", would agree with.
But, to be fair to Dan's Clever Alias' initial question, we need to first present a basic working definition of God -- like a spirutal matrix or over-arching pattern which DCA can then compare and contrast against the claims of the evidence within nature that supposedly point toward God's existence.
Mammuthus writes:
However, you started to work on a definition of god as love, then what kind of love and then stopped. Could you continue to refine what you mean to provide a working definition of god as love?
Sure. I'll offer my own thoughts on the matter. I'll admit ahead of time that it will probably be lacking in many areas -- probably distorted too -- but I'll try my best to submit to the Spirit in order to present a basic concise definition that others can then examine against the backdrop of nature.
I started before saying that God is love. But, to be more precise, it seems to me that God is actually the substance of that which is good (and that evil is the absense of God) -- or, stating it in the negative, that God is the absense of evil.
I'd also mentioned before, in conjuntion with the God is love thought, that God was also spirit -- spirit in the sense of an "inspiration" that has a very tangible exitence beyond the material world -- but that could also manifest periodically and even be felt at the points were he contacts his creation.
In order to see an example of this within the real world, look to the very theoretical nature of mathematics itself. Many will tell you that mathematics exists independantly of reality -- they realise that pure maths exists independently of the observable universe.
As one person once noted it:
quote:
Pure maths deals with the properties of mathematical concepts defined without reference to the physical world. Applied maths is the (well) application of these ideas to analyse the behaviour of the universe by modelling physical objects and concepts in mathematical terms. We do this because it lets us use the rules of mathematical logic to draw conclusions from our observations. So mathematics itself exists independently of the physical universe, but is nonetheless a very useful tool for trying to understand how it works.
It think that, just as many will tell you that mathematics exists independantly of reality (they realise that pure maths exists independently of the observable universe) -- that God too exists independantly of reality (they realise that a pure Spirit exists independently of the observable universe).
It is interesting to note that some savant autistic children display an almost intuitive knowledge of mathematics without being taught the structures and logistics of the math involved. Some of them even have difficulty perceiving the world around them -- their senses are tremendously broken -- and yet still seem to comprehend mathematical complexities is great detail. Note: I'm talking about the rare severely savant autistics -- like the one portrayed by Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man.
Nonetheless, perhaps God's prophets are like autistic savants that some whacky connection to God by the Holy Spirit -- to the point that they can actually see things around them that us "normal people" do not see.
Consequently, I do beleive that "mentally handicapped children" are much closer to God than I am. They see the word from a unique vantage point, often not even able to grasp why someone would want to hurt others or steal or lie.
I guess the Greek concept of the Logos could also be invoked here as well. In this sense, the Logos is believed to be the Supreme Will undergirding all of creation, the reason for all existence.
The word Logos is the Greek term used in Christian theology to designate the Word of God -- the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. It should be noted that before St. John consecrated this term, various Greek philosophers and commentators within Judaism used it to express religious conceptions. For example, the term appears within Stoic thinking within the context of the demiurge. The Old Testament, from which the New Testament is derived, also represents the "creative act" as the word of God (sometimes it seems to attribute to the word action of itself, although not independent of God).
While these previous concepts, under various titles, have exercised certain strong influences on Christian theology, the Word of God analogy should not be limited simply to the word spoken by the lips. It rather applies to the interior speech of the soul, whereby we may in some measure grasp the Divine mystery. Engendered by the mind it remains therein, is equal thereto, and is the source of its operations.
At the same time, the Logos is the hyperspatial substrate upon which all else hinges, a living force and a breathing law. As a force, it is irresistible and bears along the entire world and all creatures to a common end. As a law it is holy and inevitable, something from which nothing can withdraw itself. When combined, it is someone which every reasonable being should willingly follow. He is divine and alive.
In other words, at least within my own view, Jesus is Lord.
But discussing God as the hyperspatial substrate on which all else hinges, I suppose I look toward the very nature of atomic particles or perhaps even the very nature of light itself. In others words, God seems to represent a spritual matrix similar to the most basic trinitarian formluae that apparently guide most of the basic formulae of the physics of the universe.
Unlike the formulae of physics, however, God would be like a divine eternal law of physics which is very sentient and aware, nearly omniscient, nearly omnipotent, and fully omnibenevolent.
Picture something like Kepler's 3 Laws of Plantary Motion, but that it is a "living being" that can actually think, act, and even change his mind if he so choses -- and his ultimate purpose is love all things in the sense of preventing evil from happening to them.
In this sense, the following formulae could be symbolic of God's triune nature -- and one will note that one cannot usually have these things unless they are fully in triplicate (but not always).
For example, one could say that M = D * V (mass equals density times volume). Similarly, in metaphorical language, one could say F = J * HS (the Father equals Jesus times the Holy Spirit).
Or, in another area, one could note that light is a wavelength, frequency and a direction. Similarly, one could note that the Holy Spirit is symbolic of the wavelength, the Son is symbolic of the frequency, and the Father is symbolic of the direction. Even more, just as one does not have light if the light lacks either a wavelength, frequency or direction -- so too, one does not have God if the "god" does not have The Holy Spirit, The Son and the Father.
Within the atomic analogy, I suppose that the Trinity could be considered symbollically represented by protons, neutrons and electrons within an atom. The atom seems to be a good starting point because, althought it can be broken up futher, it still seems to represtent the smallest particle that exhibits the unique chemical characteristics of an element.
In this sense, the Father would be akin to the atomic particles within the nucleus which are represented by the collective protons. Protons are the subatomic particles that have a significant mass and contributes the single positive electrical charge to an atom.
The Holy Spirit would also reside within the nucleus with the Father, but he would be symbollically represented by the collective neutrons. In this sense, the Holy Spirit, much like a neutron, would also have a significant mass but no electrical charge. Similarly, even as the neutron is unstable outside the nucleus, because it then decays into a proton and electron, the Holy Sprit is unstable outside the Trinity's influence because he then returns to both the Father and the Son.
Christ himself would probably be akin to the electrons -- with all that this implies.
Incidently, in regards to my favoring an omnibenevolent God over an omnipotent or ot omniscient God, I would interject the following.
Some passages say that God cannot look upon the face of sin. To be fair, I'm not sure if he is unwilling or incapable of doing so.
Some would suggest that he is simply unwilling to do so due to justice -- because basically people deserve it.
Others would suggest he is incapable of doing so by his "very good" nature -- because looking upon it would cause him to be evil.
I'm strongly in favor of the second position personally.
Other passages seem to say that God will discover sins by searching them out -- which begs the question, why would an omniscient God need to "search out" anything if he already knows everything?
It also bring up another question too: why would God need angels if he was already omniscient and omnipresent?
It seems to me that God would percieve evil as an inperceptible "void" that he cannot see into. This doesn't mean that he wouldn't be aware of a person who "sins" for lack of better words. Rather, as his love radiates otuward. it would be like a radar signal bouncing off all things good on both a phsycial and spiritual level.
For example, even though he wouldn't know the sinful thoughts -- he would know that their body is physcially there, and that they are feeling sad, happy, angry, etc.
Plus, as people pray to him (and I think he hears all prayers, not just Christian ones), he would filter out the "sin" to get a better grasp of what's going on.
In some cases, some prayers may come through severely distorted. For example, if the prayer is directed to another divinity, he probably wouldn't necessarily hear the part the blasphemed his own name by invoking a "false god" -- but he could still decipher at least those parts of the meassege that didn't sin against him. I suppose it depends on how much the "false god" is integrated into the wording of the prayer. Some messaes may come through so totally garbled that they are basically meaningless...
"help...pain...mother...did not...cancer..."
In my opinion, God is omnibenevelent -- but not necessarilly omniscient or omnipresent (at least within the universe). However, I do beleive him to be omniscient and omnipresent to all things good. This is to say, although "slightly limited", he still has an infinite amount of good knowledge and good presence within things that are not contrary to his existence or purpose.
The mere concept that God would give us a free-will seems to indicate -- from my Judeo-Christian background -- that God willingly and lovingly relinquished some degree of control over things so that people could have free-will. I suppose one could say that our very existence leads to God's humiliation -- and that he did this of his own free-will out of love.
Summing this up, I simply believe he's omnibenevelant to the point that he's not aware of evil. Either evil doesn't exist to him, or maybe his presense destroys evil (and thus he keeps at a distance for our safety?).
What I think is this: if God even thinks of evil, then he is partly evil -- which undermines his omnibenevelence. To me his omnibenevelance is more important than his omnipotence or omnipresence.
Let's face it: God can't be omnipotent if he desires for people to not kill -- and yet we are able to kill. Clearly, his desires are not being fulfilled -- at least as far as we're able to determine.
It is very important to note that I'm not saying he's powerless to act. Many tracts in the Scriptures clearly describe some magnificient acts on his part when he decides to take action -- and I personally have no doubt that those actions described in the Scriptures are generally real. I guess my point is that his willingness to give us a free-will seems to undermine his omnipotence -- but it was his choice in the first place to submit himself to our existence.
I guess I picture omnipotence being in total control of everything. Since things happen that do not jive well with God's plans (from my own Judeo-Christian perspective -- such as murder, stealing, lying etc, etc), it seems as though he has given up some of his omnipotence in order to let us have a free-will.
I could be wrong but it makes sense to me. I also beleive that many people get confused by this paradox because they're definition of all-powerful is perhaps different from his definition. I believe that the ability to genuinnely forgive and really love your enemies is the most powerful and perplexing force humanity has ever faced. People just don't know what to do when they strike someone, and the person turns around and turns the other cheek. True, they might continue hurting them, but it totally blows their mind if they have any sense whatsoever.
This is to say, I think that the ability to forgive others is what truly constitutes an all-powerful act. Transforming evil into good is a most excellent thing. Destroying evil is not an all-powerful act because evil has a tendency to destroy itself without God having to act at all. In short, anyone can do that. And wherever forgiveness happens, I think God is responsible by the Holy Spirit.
Also, although I don't think he's omnipotent (as carefully desribed above), I do believe he is omnibenevelent and also eternal. My understanding seems to lead me in the direction that he is eternally good without measure -- and that not even the thought of evil could enter his mind. His awareness of evil would rather be by virtue of the absense of his presence in a particular area.
When he encounters an area void of his presence, I think he sends his angels in to see what's going on -- and listens to the prayers of those who are aware of what's going on. I really think in more ways than one that God really needs to hear from us.
This is all my own belief of course. I'm not saying that anyone has to accept it. But since you asked...
I suppose in Christian theology there is the concept of the New Heavens and New Earth -- it's found in one way or another in many different Christian denominations -- and I guess that during that time God would resume his former position of omnipotence and omnipresence -- the same way he was [before] he created everything.
That's how I see it anyway.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-20-2005 04:40 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-20-2005 04:57 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-20-2005 05:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Mammuthus, posted 04-20-2005 7:18 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by mike the wiz, posted 04-20-2005 6:22 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 168 by Mammuthus, posted 04-21-2005 2:57 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 170 by Mammuthus, posted 04-21-2005 5:31 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 174 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-21-2005 9:09 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 176 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-21-2005 10:22 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 140 of 332 (200743)
04-20-2005 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-20-2005 5:00 PM


Well I can tell you that that was a waste of time.
Nobdoy will listen to that. I tell you this because as you can see, I've been here a while, and here's what happens.
The evo/atheist insists on playing the EvC game his way. In this topic, here's what the evo/atheist wants to achieve;
He wants us to bend over backward in a futile effort to define God, knowing that God must be - if he is real, pretty unfathomable and thereby the atheist knows that we will at best produce a hundred defintions from the bible that will make us look like a bunch of incoherent nonsense in a bid to meet their criteria. This is irrelevant dear atheist, because as you know - nothing on earth or in the region of Pluto, is going to be recognizable as God, and the chap would HAVE TO BE indescribably unfathomable - to be God.
It's a game that I can see happening logically and I sit here knowing EXACTLY what their motives are after studying their strange behaviour for two years.
All this means that if you wrote an essay, addendum or bible NOTHING would satisfy the atheist as a workable definition. An what is that anyway? "workable"? Like God has to be worked on? That just proves their thinking is self-rigteouss. They think they can analyze God and then tell him if he exists or not. Lol.
Answer; Don't play their game in the first place. Just refute them by learning their own way of playing.
Nevertheless, you rightly said;
I started before saying that God is love. But, to be more precise, it seems to me that God is actually the substance of that which is good (and that evil is the absense of God) -- or, stating it in the negative, that God is the absense of evil.
This is correct biblically as there is no darkness in God at all according to the bible, and Christ said "only one is good, that being God".
We have our definition friend. The topic was over when we gave it. And now what, "it's too vague" and/or "whine, whine, you haven't gave us a definition".
It was game set match mikey, at mikey's first post.
Well done for this highly knowledgeable post which will only be apreciated by me. Oh sure, they might say "well done, you tried BUT,........I don't buy it, but thanks for playing the definitions game".
PS. There's no reason why a synergetic group of agreed upon demands are correct = we don't have to refute them on their terms, we just have to obey logic fairly reasonably, and I'm confident many don't know why, that logically, it is moot to carry on, since mike's first post.
Also, since the concept is that God is indescribable and unfathomable (everybody knows he must be in some way) then agian, this makes definition moot logically.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-20-2005 05:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-20-2005 5:00 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-20-2005 8:23 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 175 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-21-2005 9:15 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 141 of 332 (200768)
04-20-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by mike the wiz
04-20-2005 6:22 PM


I know what your saying Mike and I respect it.
But the central point still stands, if we are claiming to know God, then we should at lest be able to give some type of symbolic represenation within nature which in some way depicts the nature of God.
We know by the Holy Spirit that Christ is the exact representation of the Father. But many who hear our words do not accept that.
In response to this, I've chosen to focus on God as Spirit with a triune nature -- as demonstrated probably imperfectly within the physical triune patterns which are evident all throughout nature -- and eventually point to Christ in this manner.
I don't claim this as proof. Rather it seems to be an over-arching pattern within physics itself which seems to reflect God's triune nature.
It is interesting to note that many of the sciencitists in the past were influenced by their beleif that God was reflected in nature, and that by studying nature they could gain a better grasp of the God who made all things (combined with the assumption that nature itself is fallen and bound to break down under certain conditions).
Certainly Boyle, Newton (although he wasn't trinitarian), Galileo, and Bacon seemed to work from something similar to this scientific paradigm -- and it has borne much fruit it wittling away the myths of science so that people may have a clearer pciture of what God is by pointing to what God isn't, basically filling in our gaps of knowledge so a clearer resolution of God's divinity may be perceived.
In doing this, I'm still making an appeal to Scriptures by suggesting that these similarities between God's triune nature and the triune nature of the formulae of physics may rest squarely on passages such as this:
Romans 1:20 writes:
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Or, similarly, as the Scriptures say:
Hebrews 11:1-2 writes:
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
In pointing to the trine God as the source of creation, it seems resonable to conclude that the physics of his creation should in some way mirror their creator -- which is something that I've attempted to do by pointing to the basic triune nature of physics found nearly everywhere we look.
Newton's laws of motion: F = m x a
Work and energy: W = Fx
Power: P = W/t
Pressure: P = F/A
Density: D = m/V
Electricity: V = IR
Obviously, if one looks further into these formulae, things get more and more complicated. For example, if one looks at the speed of a circle, one would see a formula like:
v = 2 pi R / T
However, these additions are there because new variables have been added to the initial basic trinitarian formula. In most cases, the basic formula seems to happen based on three basic variables. It might even be found in the future that other more complicated formulae may also be reduced to "threes" as more knowledge becomes available -- an interesting scientific prediction in itself based on our perception of and faith in God.
I suppose even the very nature of time might reflect this possibility. Past, present and future may reflect the triune nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is to say the past may be symbolic of the Father (the very essence from which all things proceed), the present may be symbolic of the Son (since he ever-present with us), and the Holy Spirit may be symbolic of the future (which points in the direction of where our destiny flows).
Even more so, when we look at the present, we see that it is constantly shifting and ever-present. For example, right now it is the present...but if I wait three seconds...
...1...2...3...
...viola, we're still in the present.
Can anyone really say exactly where the pasts ends and the future begins?
Was not the past at one time also the present?
Will the future not also someday be the present?
Won't the future and the past someday be the same?
Do not the Scriptures say that God knows the end from the beginning -- and do they not suggest that one day, at the literal end of time, we will experience God's timeless nature in the beautific vision of heaven which transcends time and space and may even have all time being experienced from one singular point of view?
If this is indeed true, it is in this way that we see that past, present, and future overlap with one another in a very deeply interwoven reality -- something which perfectly reflects the deeper mystery of the trinity and our future glory of residing with him.
Like I said, I might be wrong. I don't really need this to "prove" God exists for myself. However, to be fair to Dan's request, I've attempted to display a basic idea as to what God might be in a deinition that may or may not appeal to him.
Dan has the right to poke holes in my thoughts. Maybe he will accept them. Maybe he won't. But, then again, maybe he will start to look a little deeper into what we're claiming that we know.
We must never give up being creative in response to those who would challenge us to explain God more clearly. So long as we understand that these are "theories" not meant to be infallible, I don't see the harm in it.
In fact, I think we are made stronger by honestly listening and responding to the criticisms they level against us. Some of our "scientific" theories may be wrong -- and it might be for these exact reasons that they reject God in the first place.
Whether we are right or wrong, God will eventually make the truth known -- regardless of our input or lack thereof.
Who knows?
Maybe we might actually learn something.
That's my $0.02 worth anyway.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-20-2005 07:36 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-20-2005 07:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by mike the wiz, posted 04-20-2005 6:22 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Brad McFall, posted 04-20-2005 8:42 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 142 of 332 (200772)
04-20-2005 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-20-2005 8:23 PM


I trace this "lack of threes" in science (if indeed it was a truely successful motivation) to be traceable to Boole's WORDING of his "Rules of Thought" which is only narrative to symbols of the order x=x^2 and not even that at that much. x=x^3 is not even logically attempted in general.
I have mentioned this in passing before but I cant seem to find my reference on EVC. Ill look again but the content is the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-20-2005 8:23 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 143 of 332 (200781)
04-20-2005 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Percy
04-20-2005 4:28 PM


quote:
Faith writes:
If there is a reality beyond the senses, you have ruled out all possible evidence for it a priori.
If there were a reality beyond the senses that were objective and not personal then there wouldn't be so many religions, denominations sects and offshoots. You wouldn't have Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and so forth. Within Christianity you wouldn't have Catholocism and Protestantism. Within Protestantism you wouldn't have Baptists and Presbyterians and Congregationalists and Methodists and Lutherans and on and on. And if even after all that you can still claim with a straight face that they all actually think of God in the same way, let's not forget the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists (Hi, Buzsaw!), the Church of Scientology, Christian Scientists, the Quakers, the Mormons, the Unification Church, not to mention the really wacko sects like Koresh's and Jonestown.
There is a Biblical understanding of all these confusions although explaining it to you may not get me anywhere as usual. Even when we are saved and restored we are all more or less stuck in our fallen minds until we die, and that means NOBODY ever has complete and perfect knowledge of God. This is why God gave the Bible, His own word, to guide us in our fallenness, our spiritual blindness. We all grasp its message to different degrees, so that even among Bible believers there will always be disputes on some points -- but they won't be points that compromise one's salvation.
But some on your list depart so far from the Biblical standard that those who DO follow the Biblical standard have no trouble recognizing it. And here is where the devil DOES enter the picture too, as he and his billions of minions are busily doing their best to confuse the Christian message in an attempt to thwart God's plan (impossible but that doesn't stop them from trying), as well as invent counterfeits to keep the unbelievers from getting anywhere near the truth. The ONLY refuge in this storm is the Biblical word, and anyone who dares to make himself the judge of that word, instead of submitting to it as given, is just cutting off his nose to spite his face as it is the ONLY saving help in all this confusion.
quote:
If everyone who felt they knew God or felt that God spoke to them in their heart was actually hearing the same God then there would be more uniformity and commonality.
Absolutely wrong because the great majority of such experiences are engineered by the evil one, and his purpose is always to counterfeit God and Christ to mislead. The only protection against this kind of deception is always the Biblical word and always has been. Even believers may be deceived however. The great Christian mystics over the centuries often had direct communications within their spirits but they also had teachers who warned them against trusting such communications as they are often not from God. Again, the standard is always God's word and protection against delusion comes from obedience to its directives. The Bible reveals what nobody would ever figure out on their own, that Satan is the author of all the religions other than Biblical religion. This is insulting on the face of it but ultimately a merciful revelation that can save people. He has his servants same as God does. He inspires false doctrine about God. His servants are able to influence people's minds and feelings, sometimes even possess their souls completely. Some religions SEEK this kind of possession. All shamanistic religion does so. Now we have the New Age version of this, as channelers (they do what mediums have always done) and psychics and card readers and spiritual gurus abound.
quote:
This huge variety of belief stems from the lack of any underlying reality. Those of a relgious bent join the religion whose beliefs they feel most comforable with. Desiring a connection to the spirtual is part of the makeup of human beings.
It's always amazing to me how people who know nothing about it speak so dogmatically about something they know nothing about.
quote:
I think even very conservative evangelical theologians would think the mission the Christians have set themselves in this thread very weird and misguided. By answering Dan's challenge you concede his unsaid assumption, that defining God has any meaning. God is what we experience in our hearts, and he can't be explained to others. God is a very personal thing, and religions are only groups of people whose personal experience of God is similar and compatible.
I gave a partial defintion of God that is consistent with 2000 years of Christian Confessions, Creeds and Catechisms. I would be very surprised to find even one conservative evangelical theologian in disagreement. Even Magisterium Devolver, who has to be Catholic judging from his name, has said he agrees with most of what I've said, as well as with Mike the Wiz. We all agree on the basics because there IS a basic body of Christian truth that all Christians subscribe to across all kinds of differences, and I'm far from accepting most Catholicism. I have said nothing at all about personal experience as a defining principle, not one word. Your latter statement that birds of a feather flock together is true but the rest is not. As soon as God becomes "a personal thing" I know the devil is calling the shots.
quote:
When you try to define God by his deeds you step onto even less firm ground, because deeds take place in the natural world. Deeds are what everyone can perceive and from which objective impressions can be formed. Deeds are things that actually happen. But when we peer about the natural world we find that if God performs deeds, they are indistinguishable from normal natural phenomena.
I don't recall what all deeds I listed in that first definition but I don't think there was anything that would be detected by fallen humanity, who simply interprets it all naturalistically if it is noticed at all. But I will have to review my post to be sure.
quote:
The deeds that God performs are not physical deeds, for to seek such deeds is to test the Lord thy God. God performs spirtual deeds. He leads us toward the good and the right, and we experience this internally and personally. We can testify to what God has done for us, but we cannot provide natural world evidence of it. Those who know God will know our testimony is true and recognize God working through ourselves.
I have certainly agreed that there is no NATURAL WORLD evidence for any of it. There isn't, so the naturalistic definition of evidence does not apply though people are always applying it to deny the reality of God, which it cannot do. What we have however is witness evidence. God performs all kinds of deeds, both physical and spiritual. I recognize the testimony of Mike the Wiz and Buzsaw and Magisterium and Pecos George and a couple others here, but nobody else.
This would no doubt be a VERY long discussion and unfortunately I don't feel equipped for it at the moment.
This is because you know in your heart it is the wrong path.
You are wrong, the Bible IS God's word. It was written DOWN by men but it did not spring from the mind of men, it came from God Himself.
You may believe this, but you do not know this. Not you or anyone was witness to God's inspiration experienced by the Bible's authors. Like your personal experiences of God, you can only give testimony to them, you cannot provide evidence of them. If you believe the words in the Bible are inspired by God and are therefore God's Word, then this is true for you, but God is a spirtual being, and once again to expect evidence in the natural world of what you know in your heart is true is to test the Lord thy God.
There is no such thing as something's being true for one person but not for another, and scientists have not been known to accept such relativist nonsense either. I'm rather surprised to hear it from you as a matter of fact.
What ARE you saying? I have so CLEARLY said I do NOT "expect evidence in the natural world!!!" I have referred only to WITNESS evidence, NOT physical evidence. God did the physical evidence once and for all and now expects us to believe or not believe and that isw that. And NONE OF THIS is "testing God" in any case. I have no idea what that could possibly mean. Testing God is expecting him to save you from dangers you've purposely put yourself in the way of.
quote:
Many of its authors claim specifically to have received their message directly from God; other authors have declared that all scripture is given by God; those who formed the canon formed it on the basis of their determination of each book's having been inspired by God; and that has been the view of it by believers since it was written.
You are again trying to give objective reality to a spirtual belief.
It IS objective. God is an absolutely objective reality and His communications to His prophets are objectively real and objectively factual and objectively true and believers know this. That's the whole point. None of this is dependent on physical proof, but the writers of the Bible are telling objective truths.
I do not accept your definition of objectivity as being synonymous with what is learnable from the senses at all. Objectivity simply refers to a reality outside oneself and being an accurate witness.
quote:
Even if you know in your heart that this is true, it is not part of the natural world, and you can't expect other people, especially adherents to other religions, to accept that your book contains the Word of God and theirs do not.
God RUNS the natural world, which is why naturalistic premises which relegate him to some other realm can never discover him. I don't EXPECT anything about convincing people, I merely hope and pray, as ONLY the Bible is the truth. And yes, I KNOW that.
quote:
You're trying to convince people's minds when you should be trying to convince their hearts.
Absolutely not. Jeremiah said: "The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it?" The heart is absolutely NOT trustworthy, NOT the way to know anything about God. God is an objective reality who should inspire the deepest love in the heart, but we cannot know anything with the heart otherwise. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy MIND... Many of the problems of today's churches have come in with the idea that this is not about the mind. It has led to a terrible anti-intellectualism. But Christianity was once the inspirer of all the deepest thought, of all the academic disciplines, and referred freely to God Himself in all of it.
quote:
Accepting God as a real presence in your life comes from the inside through the heart, not from the outside through the senses.
I never said it did, Percy. There is some kind of strange miscommunication going on here. We learn all this in the spirit, yes, but it is ABOUT everything in the world.
quote:
The universe is in fact pretty much undecipherable as is.
Someone of your abilities must respect them by considering your words more carefully. The reason your posts attract so much attention is because of your proclivity for casually throwing off howlers like this one, and it's beneath you. The complex electronic instrument you're using now represents so many resolved scientific problems that all by itself without considering any other evidence we know the universe is decipherable.
I appreciate the compliment but you missed my context. I kept saying "AS IS" and I appreciate that I no doubt needed to explain better, but I have to say that I it is very hard to guess where I'm going to be misunderstood. I also pointed to the HISTORY OF SCIENCE as evidence for its undecipherability, the strange ideas people started out with about it. Rendering it decipherable took centuries, because IN ITSELF IT IS NOT DECIPHERABLE. That is what I was trying to say. There is too much apparent UNlawfulness in it to make its lawfulness obvious to the natural man. It only appears lawful NOW after centuries of acquired knowledge that took prodigious thought and trial and error and experiment and doubt -- that's how NONobvious the lawfulness of the universe is. And I also believe that without the inspiration of Biblical Christianity NONE of modern day science would ever have come about because the natural man simply cannot decipher this only-sometimes-predictable universe.
quote:
In fact, Christianity had a big role in inspiring empirical science, on the basis of faith that God is rational and that he made the physical world to operate by rational laws that can be discovered. There is nothing in the physical world as-is that would lead to such an idea.
On the contrary, the very regularity of the universe speaks of rationality. The sun rises and sets every day, cooked food tastes better, clay dries into useful containers, small-stone-small-splash, big-stone-big-splash, and so on. The confusion derives not from any lack of rationality, but from the mixture of rationality and randomness.
Good points and they help clarify what I was trying to say. Yes that was my point, and better put. The confusion is because of this apparent conflict, only I proposed the fact of suffering and strife and death as the biggest confuser of the idea of lawfulness.
quote:
The days are regular, but one day brings sun and another brings storms. The seasons are regular, but one spring brings rains and plenty, another spring brings floods and doom.
Yes, that is one of the ways the universe appears not to be lawful but incomprehensible, as every apparently regular thing is subject to unpredictable disruption. That was said very clearly and it is what I was trying to say.
quote:
Nothing explains that except Biblical theology, however, which recognizes that human beings and in fact the entire Creation are Fallen, meaning we are NOT what we were originally made to be. Our first parents were created immortal and in communion with our Creator God. They disobeyed and death entered the world, and both sin and death have accumulated down to the present.
It is fine to believe this, but do not forget that this is a matter of faith, not fact.
I disagree. It is completely a matter of fact. Just because I cannot prove it with naturalistic evidence, or prove it to your satisfaction by any means whatever, does not mean it is not fact. YOu want evidence but the only evidence is the Bible witness in this case, and, I would add, how this view explains so much that is otherwise unexplainable. What true faith in the true God teaches IS what is really real. You have a false idea of faith.
quote:
You cannot objectify the spirtual reality of God. The more you explain the contradictions the more obviously contradictory they become to the rational mind. You accepted these stories not because they appealed to your intellect but because they brought joy to your heart. Speak with your heart to other people's hearts and not to their minds, for such is the way of the Lord.
Absolutely false. They appealed to my intellect first. They made sense to my mind first. The most satisfying point of my original spiritual explorations was when I understood Original Sin. That was the concept that made everything in this nutty universe make sense -- that we are FALLEN, and are not what we were meant to be. That explains all the misery in this world, all the stupidity, all the confusion, all the clashing opinions, all the harm people do to one another. All that is absolutely inexplicable without understanding our Fall in Eden. Discovering that was a decidedly INTELLECTUAL joy, and the intellectual joys have only multipled since then.
quote:
I find it to be exactly the opposite. I find the contradictions to be inherent in the universe, and the resolution of them in God's Word, which He mercifully gave us for the purpose.
But the contradictions are not in the universe but are of your own making. You read your Bible which speaks of a great flood, and you look to the evidence which is silent about a flood, and this must be very confusing. Dealing with all the contradictions you yourself create is why you keep abandoning discussions and saying things like "I don't feel equipped for it at the moment," and "This too would no doubt be a long and probably futile discussion," and so forth. God speaks to you from the wonders of the universe, not from the pages of a book, but you have closed your heart to him.
This is really a very insulting ad hominem you have written here. All I will say is how very very wrong you are about my motivations, my thoughts, my feelings, my reasons for my actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 04-20-2005 4:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Percy, posted 04-21-2005 4:42 PM Faith has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 144 of 332 (200825)
04-20-2005 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
04-20-2005 12:57 AM


Either I have read you wrong, or you didn't realize that you were rather unclear to what you were referring (the topic or the site), but let me review so you see why I replied how I did...
(bold added by me)
MtW: Don't waste your time. Mike's fundamental dogma is elementary principles of naturalism. He only accepts evidence if it fits his premise of naturalism. If it doesn't, it doesn't exist in his world.
quote:
Faith: That seems to be the case with many on this site. Sad but true. I don't know if it's a waste of time. I may come to that conclusion eventually but up to a point it can be an entertaining challenge to try to explain something to people from a totally other frame of reference. You never know who's reading and may get the point in spite of this nutty naturalistic dogma here.
Schrafinator: Hmm, the idea of verifiable, reliable cause and effect in nature that anyone, regardless of religious belief, can also witness and observe and experience, that ha led to cures for disease, space exploration, vaccinations, and computers.
Yeah, that's pretty nutty.
Silly, one might say.
quote:
Totally, when it comes to this topic.
As you might notice above, there qwas really no indication in your message that you were referring to this topic only. In fact, it certainly seemed as though you were referring to the whole site.
quote:
It's great for cures for disease, space exploration, vaccinations and computers but it's absolutely irrelevant for knowing anything about God or spirit beings or anything else having to do with spiritual life. It's the wrong tool for the job, and insisting on making it the method and the standard where it is unfitted to the task IS pretty nutty.
Well, I generally agree, and I wouldn't have commented the way I did if I thought you were referring to just this subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 04-20-2005 12:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 04-21-2005 12:40 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 145 of 332 (200828)
04-20-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
04-20-2005 1:05 AM


Re: There's the unfalsifiable theory again
quote:
Finally figured out that MOY means "millions of years." Yeah, isn't it amazing how whatever really does falsify the idea of MOY doesn't even get a blink of recognition from them? They just toddle right on MAKING the data fit the theory, denying the contradiction. That's the problem with a theory that can't be falsified, but is all a matter of interpretation -- we can interpret ad infinitim without ever having to touch down to reality. So now it's soft dinosaur parts. It would be hilarious if it weren't just, well, nutty.
Yeah.
All of those scientists are just a huge pile of steaming LIARS, aren't they?
Not an honest one among the entire bunch, those scientists. They must take classes at scientist school on how to be a really good LIAR. That way, when they go to the secret Illuminati-style meetings (usually held every February in Vegas) they can all figure out how to best maintain THE BIG CONSPIRACY TO LIE TO THE ENTIRE WORLD ABOUT EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE THAT CONTRADICTS A LITERAL READING OF THE BIBLE.
I hear the head LYING SCIENTIST gets to wear a cool cape.
Well, maybe only SOME of them are LIARS. The rest of them are IDIOTS. Utter, raving MORONS who just follow the LIARS. It's a wonder that they got such good grades in all of those difficult college courses, passed all of those graduate school entrance exams, survived Prelims, and went on to complete their PhD dissertations! How did such clearly RETARDED and MORONIC people manage to do that? You tell me!
And to THINK that we trust them to try to cure DISEASES!
Man, I don't know about you, but I'm ONLY going to trust my health to the FAITH HEALER down at the local Pentacostal church from now on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 04-20-2005 1:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 04-21-2005 12:48 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 146 of 332 (200830)
04-21-2005 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Dan Carroll
04-20-2005 10:10 AM


Re: What is this thread about anyway?
quote:
I like the idea that I disappeared, though. Probably wouldn't have wasted my time with all those posts if I'd known I was invisible.
Sorry, Dan.
Your powers only work, a la The Invisible Boy, when nobody is looking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-20-2005 10:10 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-21-2005 9:07 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 147 of 332 (200832)
04-21-2005 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
04-20-2005 11:47 AM


Re: There's the unfalsifiable theory again
quote:
No, it's my view of evolutionism which is not science.
Biology isn't science?
How so?
quote:
No, it's a definition of science when it pretends to be able to pronounce on the nature and reality of things outside its area of applicability.
"Bio" means "life".
"Ology" means "study of".
So, "Biology is "The study of life".
So, is it your contention that those who are trained in "Biology" should not be studying life?
What should they be doing, according to you?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-20-2005 11:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 04-20-2005 11:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 04-21-2005 12:43 AM nator has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 148 of 332 (200836)
04-21-2005 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by nator
04-20-2005 11:32 PM


quote:
Either I have read you wrong, or you didn't realize that you were rather unclear to what you were referring (the topic or the site), but let me review so you see why I replied how I did...
MtW: Don't waste your time. Mike's fundamental dogma is elementary principles of naturalism. He only accepts evidence if it fits his premise of naturalism. If it doesn't, it doesn't exist in his world.
Faith: That seems to be the case with many on this site. Sad but true. I don't know if it's a waste of time. I may come to that conclusion eventually but up to a point it can be an entertaining challenge to try to explain something to people from a totally other frame of reference. You never know who's reading and may get the point in spite of this nutty naturalistic dogma here.
Schrafinator: Hmm, the idea of verifiable, reliable cause and effect in nature that anyone, regardless of religious belief, can also witness and observe and experience, that ha led to cures for disease, space exploration, vaccinations, and computers.
Yeah, that's pretty nutty.
===
Silly, one might say.
===
Totally, when it comes to this topic.
===
As you might notice above, there qwas really no indication in your message that you were referring to this topic only. In fact, it certainly seemed as though you were referring to the whole site.
===
MTW said (bolded above): "He only accepts evidence if it fits his premise of naturalism. If it doesn't, it doesn't exist in his world."
And I answered (also bolded above): "That seems to be the case with many on this site."
Which I believe is true, that there are many on this site who believe that nothing exists if it can't be validated by naturalistic assumptions. And that's about this topic because it is about things of the spirit that can't be validated naturalistically. According to many here there is simply NO way to establish the truth of ANY spiritual claim -- God, witness testimony to God's words and actions, anything along these lines -- unless it can be established naturalistically, which is impossible with such claims. In other words if it can't be established on naturalistic assumptions it doesn't exist.
quote:
It's great for cures for disease, space exploration, vaccinations and computers but it's absolutely irrelevant for knowing anything about God or spirit beings or anything else having to do with spiritual life. It's the wrong tool for the job, and insisting on making it the method and the standard where it is unfitted to the task IS pretty nutty.
===
Well, I generally agree, and I wouldn't have commented the way I did if I thought you were referring to just this subject.
I hope it's cleared up then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by nator, posted 04-20-2005 11:32 PM nator has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 149 of 332 (200837)
04-21-2005 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by nator
04-21-2005 12:11 AM


Re: There's the unfalsifiable theory again
quote:
No, it's my view of evolutionism which is not science.
----
Biology isn't science?
How so?
Biology is science, evolutionism isn't.
quote:
No, it's a definition of science when it pretends to be able to pronounce on the nature and reality of things outside its area of applicability.
====
"Bio" means "life".
"Ology" means "study of".
So, "Biology is "The study of life".
So, is it your contention that those who are trained in "Biology" should not be studying life?
What should they be doing, according to you?
Biology should be doing what it is doing, but they should do it without the evolutionism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by nator, posted 04-21-2005 12:11 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by arachnophilia, posted 04-21-2005 12:59 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 150 of 332 (200838)
04-21-2005 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by nator
04-20-2005 11:47 PM


Re: There's the unfalsifiable theory again
quote:
Finally figured out that MOY means "millions of years." Yeah, isn't it amazing how whatever really does falsify the idea of MOY doesn't even get a blink of recognition from them? They just toddle right on MAKING the data fit the theory, denying the contradiction. That's the problem with a theory that can't be falsified, but is all a matter of interpretation -- we can interpret ad infinitim without ever having to touch down to reality. So now it's soft dinosaur parts. It would be hilarious if it weren't just, well, nutty.
Yeah.
All of those scientists are just a huge pile of steaming LIARS, aren't they?
Not an honest one among the entire bunch, those scientists. They must take classes at scientist school on how to be a really good LIAR. That way, when they go to the secret Illuminati-style meetings (usually held every February in Vegas) they can all figure out how to best maintain THE BIG CONSPIRACY TO LIE TO THE ENTIRE WORLD ABOUT EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE THAT CONTRADICTS A LITERAL READING OF THE BIBLE.
I hear the head LYING SCIENTIST gets to wear a cool cape.
Well, maybe only SOME of them are LIARS. The rest of them are IDIOTS. Utter, raving MORONS who just follow the LIARS. It's a wonder that they got such good grades in all of those difficult college courses, passed all of those graduate school entrance exams, survived Prelims, and went on to complete their PhD dissertations! How did such clearly RETARDED and MORONIC people manage to do that? You tell me!
And to THINK that we trust them to try to cure DISEASES!
Man, I don't know about you, but I'm ONLY going to trust my health to the FAITH HEALER down at the local Pentacostal church from now on.

If you're through raving, my answer is that none of what scientists do requires any notion of millions of years. It's just hung on their work, it doesn't have anything to do with their work. It's just a habit of thought they all take for granted but it's completely irrelevant to the actual work of science.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-20-2005 11:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by nator, posted 04-20-2005 11:47 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by nator, posted 04-21-2005 2:22 PM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024