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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theistic Evolution
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 78 (60348)
10-09-2003 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by emotional
07-21-2003 12:49 PM


As if God exists solely to do us favours. No, we're not talking about what is useful, we're talking about what is true.
Why would somebody believe in such a god?
I mean, if this god never intervenes nor gives any hint of its existence, why believe in god? Because you "feel" that there's a god? What?
I've never understood the faith of people like you. Maybe you can help me out. Why do you believe in god? Is there evidence? Or do you just need there to be a god? And how do you know there's not many gods?
Look into atheism. It makes a lot more sense than your belief.
It is true that the universe is managed according to strict operation of natural law
So what purpose does god serve/have? Why not just shave him away with Occam's Razor, like we do to any untestable, non-intervening, inconsequential entity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by emotional, posted 07-21-2003 12:49 PM emotional has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Pringlesguy7, posted 10-10-2003 3:46 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 78 (60472)
10-10-2003 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Pringlesguy7
10-10-2003 3:46 PM


Honestly answer this one question for me. Look into the mirror, look at the ground, take a swim in the ocean, look into the sky at the stars, and think about it for a while, and honestly tell me that this was not intelligently designed (that God made it),
Ok, done all that. And I'm honestly telling you, God had no part in it, because God doesn't exist.
I'm being totally honest with you. When I see those things and have those experiences, it's plain as day to me that there's no god and everything around is is the way it is simply because if it wasn't that way, it would be another way.
and say that this all came to be through chance, becuase isnt that what the big bang is....just chance?
Yup. Chance.
If it wasn't this way, it would be another way. If this is one of the few ways that allows for intelligent life, then it's just chance that it's this way for us, and if it wasn't, well, we wouldn't be here to notice, now would we?
also, enlighten me on how atheism make more sens than my belief, is it becuase it takes less thought and less vulnerbility?
It actually takes a whole lot more thought to be an atheist. The first thought is "well, how do I have morals"? Intelligent people come to the conclusion pretty quickly that it's pretty impractical to be truly amoral. If you're the only amoral person, the moral people lock you up. If everybody's amoral, the human race is extinct in a generation.
So, you tell me which method of determining moral precepts takes more thought: 1) Looking them up in a book; or 2) Determining rationally what morals are best for the human community.
Atheists may be many things, but intellectually lazy isn't one of them. Lazy atheists fall too easily into religion.
Anyway, as far as "more sense than your belief" goes, I wasn't talking about your beliefs - I don't know what you believe, after all - but emotional's beliefs, who apparently believes in an unteastable, unfalsifiable God. I question the rational utility of believing in untestable, unfalsifiable things.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Pringlesguy7, posted 10-10-2003 3:46 PM Pringlesguy7 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 78 (62457)
10-23-2003 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Thanos6
10-23-2003 10:04 PM


The old 'First Cause' argument (was it Voltaire who proposed this, or am I mixing up my philosophers?).
Easily dismissed. Causality is a property of the universe - not even a universal property, as it doesn't hold at the quantum scale - and so there's no reason to suppose it extends beyond the boundaries of time and space. Ergo there's no need for the universe to be caused for it to exist, even if it's finite in time and space.
The human soul. You may disagree with me, and if so, I feel we have no choice BUT to agree to disagree. But I feel that humans have a soul, something that exists separate of the matter and energy that makes up our corporeal forms.
Then it's a contradiction in terms. If it's beyond matter and energy and can't be affected by them, then there's no way you can know it exists, because it can never interact with anything in the universe. Therefore Ockham's Razor removes it, because natural law sufficies to explain the phenomenon of human consiousness.
On the other hand, if you suppose the soul must interact with the physical world, it becomes falsifiable. It should be possible to determine the difference between souled matter and unsouled matter. Since we can determine that there's no difference, we know that such a soul does not exist.
Either way you're in a bind - the only souls that can exist are the ones that have no effect on the universe. There's no other option. So what's the difference between my conception of the universe, with humans who don't have or need souls, and yours, which is just like mine, except that you add something that has no effect and cannot be observed? As Rrhain likes to say, "why add the chocolate sprinkles?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Thanos6, posted 10-23-2003 10:04 PM Thanos6 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Thanos6, posted 10-23-2003 10:42 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 68 of 78 (62494)
10-24-2003 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Thanos6
10-23-2003 10:42 PM


Something I can't really find the right words to describe. So I'm not even going to try because a substandard attempt wouldn't do it justice.
Well, you may very well have a gut feeling that tells you what to believe. But stop and ponder for a moment - how much of your gut is really culture? Would you still have a gut feeling to believe in God if you had been raised in a Buddist culture? Or Moslem? Why do you call your god "God" and not "Supremo" or "Sky-Father" or any other names?
yes, the word "God" may seem the most right to you. But ponder if that would still be so if your cultures word for "god" was something else. If in fact the entire nature of their god was different.
You put a lot more stock in feelings, I guess, than I do. Given the demonstratable biochemical and cultural basis for feeling, I don't see why you would.
You have (or at least seem to have ) a lot more class than most atheists in your position, many of whom tend to denigrate all believers in any deity as moronic fools.
Well, I did used to be a believer, and since I don't think was any stupider then than I am now, I don't think what you believe has much to do with how smart you are. In fact studies show that it's generally the higher-IQ folks that wind up believing the really stupid stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Thanos6, posted 10-23-2003 10:42 PM Thanos6 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024