|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God caused or uncaused? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
mike the wiz:
That quote about philosophical coherency is interesting. This part is interesting; " science does not consider issues of "meaning" and "purpose" in the world ". For me - it is frustrating that people therefore dismiss such things. It is frustrating, because the logical quesiton is, 'why'? They have to have a philosophical purpose for doing so. they cannot just pull it out of thin air... But that is exactly what they do. They have to get outside of the box to make it stick. It is utterly sophist. But I don;t think all that many are aware of it. It takes a pretty keen discernment to uncover the contradiction. I didn't find it myself... But now that I see it, it is becoming more clear all the time, and it is getting easier to communicate. mike the wiz: Such arguments are powerful in regards to a formal cause, etc...that being that entities have the nature of that which they come from, within them etc...so the statement doesn't rule out value to philosophy. Not only that, the statement is based upon a philosophical pressuposition. And that, my dear Watson... is the whole point. ps. hope you don't mind me calling you Watson...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
No, you are believing an account that is (& even that isn't the case)internally consistent. yes, i was going to say, rob must be reading a very different bible than i am. what do we make of the fact that the god of the bible is internally inconsistent? that in some books, he punishes the wicked and rewards the just (the torah), and in other punishes the just just for the sake of proving a point (job), and in still others, forgives everyone (the gospels).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
Are you saying that if we could duplicate that, you would beleive that the universe is essentially one giant lab, and that God used? No, if god did it, not us. I'm not talking about genetic manipulation, I'm talking about going "allakazam" & pop, there is a completely & unambiguously new organism in front of us, by magic. I'd allow he/she/it to use dust, but it would have to be on the spot created ex nihilo dust . Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Arach,
I'd expect some gymnastic philosophism that makes it all consistent even though it obviously isn't, but perhaps that's off topic. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Arachnophilia:
yes, I was going to say, rob must be reading a very different bible than i am. what do we make of the fact that the god of the bible is internally inconsistent? that in some books, he punishes the wicked and rewards the just (the torah), and in other punishes the just just for the sake of proving a point (job), and in still others, forgives everyone (the gospels). I've argued this one before, but not here at EVC. God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. How can he be all three? Well it's easy to see that they are interdependant. You couldn't be omnipotent, unless you were also omniscient. And you couldn't be omnisicent, without being omnipresent. It's the same with Justice and mercy. If one is merciless toward the victem, then one cannot deliver justice to the guilty. As for job, it doesn't take a great deal of faith to believe that omnipotence knows how to dispense both... for the goal of total justice when all is said and done. If we look at a smal frame in time, then justice appears to be lacking in some cases. But in the eternal scheme of things (which is the proper Biblical context), God is absolutely Just, while being absolutely merciful. I would however, expect it to be a bit of a mystery to us as we are very impatient creatures. And that leads to unecessary criticisms which really reveal a lack of belief, rather than any actual shortcomings of the concepts in question. No gymnastic philosophism necessary. it's rather logical and straightforward thoelogy. But it will take some baseless assertions (inevitably founded on 'unkown to the author gymnastic philosophisms') to argue against it. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
mark24:
No, if god did it, not us. I'm not talking about genetic manipulation, I'm talking about going "allakazam" & pop, there is a completely & unambiguously new organism in front of us, by magic. Well that's easy... according to some of our most sophisticated scientific theorists, the whole universe... 'Life and all (irrespective of time)' did just that!
Bang! We are here mark24... I guess if you can't be God (which would be required to witness such an event), you won't believe in the Biblical God. And the Historical accounts of the miracles are not valid either I presume? Has it ever occured to you what a miracle really is? They're ultimately, not all that miraculous really... May I reccomend 'Miracles' by C.S. Lewis to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
Well that's easy... according to some of our most sophisticated scientific theorists, the whole universe... 'Life and all (irrespective of time)' did just that! You're not listening. The big bang didn't have to have god light the blue touch paper. But to have acceptable evidence that a being exists that can create universes, I want to see it, or anything else that is attributed to god. Having something happen doesn't mean god did it. You asked what evidence I would accept, & the answer is to see under lab conditions a being do things attributed to god.
And the Historical accounts of the miracles are not valid either I presume? The mythical acounts, you mean? Or what about the "Historical" accounts of other religions that contradict yours? Logic again. But back to the topic in hand. In order to ask the question whether god is caused or uncaused? We must first have evidence of gods existence, or we may as well be asking what colour unicorns eyes are. We don't know god exists, so the question is moot. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
mark24:
You asked what evidence I would accept, & the answer is to see under lab conditions a being do things attributed to god. Something necessarily designed... I see! Will a bacteria do? The Evolution of the Flagellum Or try this one: Abiogenesis and click the play button on the 'Harvard Biovisions' video. mark24: The mythical acounts, you mean? Or what about the "Historical" accounts of other religions that contradict yours? Logic again. Well some people don't believe in the Holocaust you know? Your point is valid... But that only goes to show that someone is wrong, and that the truth is exclusive. At least your not one of those who believe 'we are all right' (except that I'm wrong not to believe that of course) kind of guys. I can respect that. However, we have tests for historical credibility and accuracy. One of which you have already mentioned, and that is the test of internal consistency. Do you know them? Put the Bible on trial alongside other history that is considered fact: http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/bible.html mark24: But back to the topic in hand. In order to ask the question whether god is caused or uncaused? We must first have evidence of gods existence, or we may as well be asking what colour unicorns eyes are. Nah... unicorn is not synonymous with reality. Of course God exists... it is not possible for reality not to exist. And that is the context of 'the God' of the Bible. The creator of all things. Like logic, He is axiomatic or self evident. Not some being that exists in reality, but is what it is. When Moses asked God's name, what did God say? "I am that I am". You cannot make the connection?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I'd expect some gymnastic philosophism that makes it all consistent even though it obviously isn't, but perhaps that's off topic. EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused? Edited by Admin, : The link had been rendered improperly, so just rerendering to fix it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
mike the wiz:
May I ask though Rob - do you think ID should be a part of science then? Well ID is not science by definition. But that is because science is defined as 'methodological naturalism'. What I was showing is that that is a contradiction. Methodological naturalism is based upon a philosophical assumption that contradicts it's own claim to be non-philosophical. So the problem isn't really that ID isn't science. The problem is that so called science isn't what it claims to be. And since both are ultimately only philosophical constructs, and ID is ultimately more philosophically coherent (logical) than 'methodological naturalism', then if anything, ID is more scientific than so-called emperical science. ID is certainly an inference to the best explaination. If you want to chew on that, here is a link to an excellent video which explains what I have just said 'in their own words': Abiogenesis Give it a moment to load, and then just scroll down to the man on the chalkboard. After clicking play, watch the clip (which is clip 6, about ten minutes) and then watch clip 7 by finding it in the menu that should pop up automatically after clip 6 is finished. Study it carefully....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pbee Member (Idle past 6056 days) Posts: 339 Joined: |
Fascinating video Rob, thanks for sharing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
pbee:
Fascinating video Rob, thanks for sharing. It my utmost honor maddam... watch the whole thing (about 18 times). The only one better (or equal) is called 'The Privilaged Planet'. But rather than biology it deals with the cosmological side of the issue. I don't however know of any links to it online. I own both (well I did... until I gave my copies away). Just can't seem to keep it to myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pbee Member (Idle past 6056 days) Posts: 339 Joined: |
Rob, I don't mean to be the party basher but I would like to know what you think of this comment regarding the Video in question.
quote: Again, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I thought it was interesting that some would contest that the information given here is not accurate or honest. Personally, despite my own fascination with science and evolution, this stuff is beyond my own understanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
Will a bacteria do? Did god do it in a lab with credible witnesses & recording equipment? If not, no. But apply the same design inference to god & by your own logic he must be designed.
But that only goes to show that someone is wrong, and that the truth is exclusive. It goes to show that at least one account is wrong, it does nothing to show that one of them is right, or that even one of them is right.
However, we have tests for historical credibility and accuracy. One of which you have already mentioned, and that is the test of internal consistency. Watership Down with talking rabbits is internally consistent, that doesn't stop it being fiction.
Do you know them? Put the Bible on trial alongside other history that is considered fact: Most fiction is set against a historical or contemporary (at the time of writing) setting. Doesn't make it true. As mentioned, Watership Down is set against a latter half of the twentieth century setting in England. Complete fiction.
Nah... unicorn is not synonymous with reality Exactly, neither is god.
Of course God exists... it is not possible for reality not to exist. Baseless assertion. As far as you are concerned it is perfectly possible for reality to exist without god. Reality is everything, therefore it is uncaused. Your logic, not mine. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
So the problem isn't really that ID isn't science. The problem is that so called science isn't what it claims to be. But it is, I have given you a standard of empirical evidence that I & science would accept as valid evidence of god. There could be evidence of god, there just isn't. ID as it stands just doesn't meet the standard. You are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphyshical naturalism. The former merely requires physical evidence, the other rejects the supernatural. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024