Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 12:51 PM
372 online now:
Aussie, caffeine, Coyote, DrJones*, Faith, kbertsche, Meddle, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (10 members, 362 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,283 Year: 23,889/21,208 Month: 1,854/2,468 Week: 363/822 Day: 23/66 Hour: 6/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Still small voice of God found
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 61 of 77 (789878)
08-21-2016 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Tangle
08-21-2016 12:36 PM


Re: God In A Box
Tangle writes:

Yes, it's exactly like that. At the moment I'm trying to get you to talk about what's happening at the lightbulb - the generator is a different problem altogether. I'm allowing you a god given generator for the process of evolution, I'm trying to understand why you seem to be talking about empathy being driven by a different and supernatural process.

OK, so you are conceding the idea of a prime mover although you are actually agnostic on the point yourself.

As part of that idea that we might also believe that the prime mover could have planned at the beginning, an evolving sense of right and wrong leading to empathy as part of the evolutionary process. Actually I believe that to be the case although I would think it is done more through Dawkin's memes than I do through biology, and from what you've said I think that you would agree with that. This is essentially the point I was trying to make in the other thread.

However, again I do believe more than that, and for this I concede that it is primarily by belief and secondarily through experience, This is where we do really come apart on our conclusions. I do believe that in subtle ways, that we can't directly perceive, God does touch our hearts and minds. This is part of my faith for which I can present no evidence that would resonate with the non-theistic community.

Tangle writes:

Traced back to god directly - ie he's intervening minute by minute with our lives? or indirectly by kicking off evolution billions of years ago on a path that he knew would give us these traits? When we look at that picture, what do you think is happening to us? Are we reacting naturally or is there supernatural intervention making us feel sorry for the guy andmaking us want to help him?

I know that this sounds like a cop-out but I think it is all of the above. I want to emphasize that I really mean it is what I "think". I don't "know" the answer. As I've said in other threads my fundamental belief as a theist is that God is always, good, loving, kind and just and that He wants us as humans to reflect those qualities into the world.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Tangle, posted 08-21-2016 12:36 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2016 3:24 AM GDR has responded
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 08-22-2016 7:09 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 62 of 77 (789880)
08-21-2016 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Tangle
08-21-2016 7:33 AM


Tangle writes:

If it helps, let's be specific, when you see a picture like this, is it god telling you to feel sorry for this person and want to help or is it a universal human reflex that's built into us - something we can't help?

When you see people who are prepared to blow themselves up in order to kill others including children then at the very least I would say that it isn't universal. For those of us that it does touch, I contend that one way or another it touches us because the ability to love is a gift that comes from God, no matter how He did it. I suggest also that it is a gift we can reject.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Tangle, posted 08-21-2016 7:33 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2016 4:56 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 63 of 77 (789881)
08-21-2016 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ringo
08-21-2016 2:11 PM


Re: God In A Box
ringo writes:

So you're just preaching Intelligent Design, which is just another form of creationism.


No. I'm theistic so I believe that there is an intelligent designer but I do not agree with "Intelligent Design" the political movement. They have corrupted a self-explanatory phrase and turned it into a movement to discredit evolution.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ringo, posted 08-21-2016 2:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 08-22-2016 11:44 AM GDR has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5060
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 64 of 77 (789902)
08-22-2016 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by GDR
08-21-2016 9:10 PM


Re: God In A Box
GDR writes:

OK, so you are conceding the idea of a prime mover although you are actually agnostic on the point yourself.

To be clear, I gave you a prime mover only for the purpose of the argument. My personal position is that we do not know and may never know but I believe (proper use of the word) that there isn't/wasn't one.

As part of that idea that we might also believe that the prime mover could have planned at the beginning, an evolving sense of right and wrong leading to empathy as part of the evolutionary process. Actually I believe that to be the case although I would think it is done more through Dawkin's memes than I do through biology, and from what you've said I think that you would agree with that. This is essentially the point I was trying to make in the other thread.

There is no difference between this position and an absence of god as the initiator. Remove god and nothing about the outcome changes, so we can set this aside (for the purpose of the argument.)

But as a matter of pure fact, empathy is a physical emotion that we are born with just like all our others. To some degree it can and is changed in a positive or negative way by our upbringing, but if there is a defect, it can not be added - hence sociopaths and pyschopaths.

However, again I do believe more than that, and for this I concede that it is primarily by belief and secondarily through experience, This is where we do really come apart on our conclusions. I do believe that in subtle ways, that we can't directly perceive, God does touch our hearts and minds. This is part of my faith for which I can present no evidence that would resonate with the non-theistic community.

Ok. I'm forced to dismiss it then.

So we're left with a pure belief unsupported by any evidence at all. That at least honest but

1) we have strong measurable evidence of how empathy - and other emotions - actually works in people and other related animals

2) the claim is that god is intervening routinely and in real time with our physical bodies. If this was the case we should see it. Read the first post again. When the scientists are doing things like this....

quote:
Dr Lockwood said: 'A specific part of the brain called the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex was the only part of the brain that was activated when learning to help other people. Put another way, the subgenual anterior cingulate seems to be especially tuned to benefiting other people.

'However, this region of the brain was not equally active in every person. People who rated themselves as having higher levels of empathy learnt to benefit others faster than those who reported having lower levels of empathy. They also showed increased signalling in their subgenual anterior cingulate cortex when benefitting others.'


...is god making interventions by miraculously triggering reactions in the subgenual anterior cingulate? If so why is he doing it less in some more in others and not at all in a few? And to what end? And are we not then puppets in his strings?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 08-21-2016 9:10 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by GDR, posted 08-22-2016 1:50 PM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5060
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 65 of 77 (789906)
08-22-2016 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by GDR
08-21-2016 9:17 PM


GDR writes:

When you see people who are prepared to blow themselves up in order to kill others including children then at the very least I would say that it isn't universal.

We KNOW it isn't universal. We can measure and test for it. The people lacking empathy are called sociopaths and pychopaths. But the people who blow themselves up are not suffering from pycopathy - they're suffering a religious delusion. They have been taught to believe that those they kill are not human - they're infidels and heretics and therefore outside of their empathetic systems. You can't feel sorry for them because they are 'other'. But it's more complicated - you also have to put yourself in the future imagining the suffering that's been caused in order to feel sympathy. In this case the bomber is thinking not of that but of being at god's right hand and basking in the eternal light. In other worlds, totally deluded - all normal human feelings put into suspension.

For those of us that it does touch, I contend that one way or another it touches us because the ability to love is a gift that comes from God, no matter how He did it.

Touch? We either have the ability to empathise or we don't. The vast majority do.

I suggest also that it is a gift we can reject.

This 'gift' is actually an evolved trait, just like all the rest. But you are correct to say that we can reject it. Just like we can feel anger without killing, lust without raping - and suicide bomb without concern who you kill. Emotions are reflexive. We can't stop feeling them but our rational mind can modify our reaction to them.

Those that kill others do it for many reasons - when your country dropped the A bomb twice on Japan it did it for complex competing and very human reasons and despite our knowledge of the devastating human consequencies. When we saw the picture of the napalmed girl in the Vietnam war we all instinctively cried out for her - only a psycopath couldn't. But the war continued. Our evolved brain has both primitive and automatic functions and the later developed cognative functions that overcome them.

You have your target incorrectly identified. Empathy is a primitive reflex developed in other primates and lower order animals, we are the only species that is able to override those reflexes with conscious thought of cause and effect. If you must plant your god somewhere in us it's in the prefrontal cortex where executive processing and cognitive functioning occurs.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by GDR, posted 08-21-2016 9:17 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 08-22-2016 2:02 PM Tangle has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1771
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 66 of 77 (789909)
08-22-2016 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by GDR
08-21-2016 9:10 PM


Re: God In A Box
GDR writes:

OK, so you are conceding the idea o a prime mover although you are actually agnostic on the point yourself.

That's what gets me to know that a lot of religious people talk nonsense. Trying to provide evidence for 'prime movers' more that 13 billion years ago doesn't provide any evidence that any forms of the 'prime movers' exist today. At all.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 08-21-2016 9:10 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13638
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 67 of 77 (789927)
08-22-2016 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by GDR
08-21-2016 9:22 PM


Re: God In A Box
GDR writes:

I'm theistic so I believe that there is an intelligent designer but I do not agree with "Intelligent Design" the political movement.


That's a pretty fine distinction - like saying you like everything about Donald Trump except his socks.

GDR writes:

They have corrupted a self-explanatory phrase....


It isn't self-explanatory; it's an empty catch-phrase.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by GDR, posted 08-21-2016 9:22 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by GDR, posted 08-22-2016 2:09 PM ringo has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 68 of 77 (789946)
08-22-2016 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Tangle
08-22-2016 3:24 AM


Re: God In A Box
Tangle writes:

To be clear, I gave you a prime mover only for the purpose of the argument. My personal position is that we do not know and may never know but I believe (proper use of the word) that there isn't/wasn't one.

I think that's what I said but if it wasn't clear that's what I meant.

Tangle writes:

But as a matter of pure fact, empathy is a physical emotion that we are born with just like all our others. To some degree it can and is changed in a positive or negative way by our upbringing, but if there is a defect, it can not be added - hence sociopaths and pyschopaths.

It seems to me that when a child is born it really doesn't have anything more than a survival instinct, primarily the need to be fed. I would think that the child's emotional development starts pretty much right away after birth and starts to receive love, or possibly an absence of love which starts off the emotional development.

I agree that there can be a defect that causes psychopathic behaviour but I also think that this can come about through abuse or other triggers.

Tangle writes:

When the scientists are doing things like this....

But there are also scientists that do believe that God touches our heart so it isn't all that cut and dried. We both gravitate towards the ones that agree with our own position.

I am not going to debate about something that I have no idea of how to even pronounce.

Tangle writes:

If so why is he doing it less in some more in others and not at all in a few? And to what end? And are we not then puppets in his strings?

We are not puppets as we can observe, (on the assumption that my position is correct), people do respond to a large extent or to virtually no extent at all. We are free to reject it completely.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2016 3:24 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2016 3:56 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 69 of 77 (789948)
08-22-2016 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tangle
08-22-2016 4:56 AM


Tangle writes:

Those that kill others do it for many reasons - when your country dropped the A bomb twice on Japan it did it for complex competing and very human reasons and despite our knowledge of the devastating human consequencies. When we saw the picture of the napalmed girl in the Vietnam war we all instinctively cried out for her - only a psycopath couldn't. But the war continued. Our evolved brain has both primitive and automatic functions and the later developed cognative functions that overcome them.

First off, I'm Canadian. There is nothing there though that I don't agree with. I just don't see that as either supportive of either the theistic or the atheistic position.

Tangle writes:

You have your target incorrectly identified. Empathy is a primitive reflex developed in other primates and lower order animals, we are the only species that is able to override those reflexes with conscious thought of cause and effect. If you must plant your god somewhere in us it's in the prefrontal cortex where executive processing and cognitive functioning occurs.

Fair enough, but as I said in another thread there is a big difference between feeling empathy for the starving children in Africa for example and actually doing something about it that negatively affects our own situation. Some people will feel empathy and say "isn't that awful"; some will donate financially and maybe even enough that they keep the old car instead of buying a new one, and some, like some of the doctors I know, actually travel there risking there own health in order to help out.

There is a difference between feeling empathy and actually doing something sacrificially.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2016 4:56 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2016 4:29 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 70 of 77 (789949)
08-22-2016 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by ringo
08-22-2016 11:44 AM


Re: God In A Box
ringo writes:

That's a pretty fine distinction - like saying you like everything about Donald Trump except his socks.

There is the "Intelligent Design" movement which purports to be scientific and argues against evolutionary theory. I mean it only in the sense that we are the result of an intelligent designer without suggesting any methodology as to how it was done, and without suggesting that it is science based.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 08-22-2016 11:44 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 08-23-2016 11:52 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5060
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 71 of 77 (789955)
08-22-2016 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by GDR
08-22-2016 1:50 PM


Re: God In A Box
GDR writes:

It seems to me that when a child is born it really doesn't have anything more than a survival instinct, primarily the need to be fed. I would think that the child's emotional development starts pretty much right away after birth and starts to receive love, or possibly an absence of love which starts off the emotional development.

That's just what you want to believe and of course it's at best only partially true. Empathy is a built in part of us like all emotions and depends on upbringing and environment to determine its development. All, of course, human provided.

quote:
The authors investigated the development of a disposition toward empathy and its genetic and environmental origins. Young twins' (N = 409 pairs) cognitive (hypothesis testing) and affective (empathic concern) empathy and prosocial behavior in response to simulated pain by mothers and examiners were observed at multiple time points. Children's mean level of empathy and prosociality increased from 14 to 36 months. Positive concurrent and longitudinal correlations indicated that empathy was a relatively stable disposition, generalizing across ages, across its affective and cognitive components, and across mother and examiner. Multivariate genetic analyses showed that genetic effects increased, and that shared environmental effects decreased, with age. Genetic effects contributed to both change and continuity in children's empathy, whereas shared environmental effects contributed to stability and nonshared environmental effects contributed to change. Empathy was associated with prosocial behavior, and this relationship was mainly due to environmental effects.

I agree that there can be a defect that canuses psychopathic behaviour but I also think that this can come about through abuse or other triggers.

Why do you 'think' that when we actually know some of these things? Pyschopathy is largely genetic and their brains are structurally different. Did god make their brains different deliberately?

quote:
In the past several years studies of brain activity in individuals meeting the criteria for psychopathy have yielded some groundbreaking findings. CAT scans reveal that with psychopaths, areas of the brain typically associated with emotion, especially the integration of emotion with other mental constructs, do not operate in the same manner as they do with normal individuals. Show most people a picture of something typically associated with a sentiment (e.g., a wedding ceremony), and areas of the brain that process information about the event as well as areas of the brain involved in emotion both show activity. But show the same image to a psychopath, and although the area of the brain recognizing the image or event is active, the area of the brain typically associated with an emotional response appears dormant. Other brains studies measuring different aspects of the integration of emotions with other human experiences have shown the same abnormalities when it comes to psychopaths.

So, what does this all mean? And would it be fair to say that all the disturbed characters among us are simply born the way they are? Naturally, the answer is not all that simple. Suffice it to say that many of the traditional assumptions about traumatic or impoverished environments being the “cause” of some of these conditions have now been rightfully and significantly challenged. There are biological factors at work and some of these factors are strong contributors to some of our more serious character disturbances. And there at least appears to be a strong genetic component to an individual’s capacity to experience empathy, guilt, and remorse. And while all this might come as welcome news to those exasperated parents who used to blame themselves and who we used to blame for raising monsters, there’s still a lot we don’t know about all the factors that contribute to someone becoming a full-blown psychopath.


But there are also scientists that do believe that God touches our heart so it isn't all that cut and dried. We both gravitate towards the ones that agree with our own position.

Now that is total rubbish. Science deals with observations. There are no scientists observing god intervening in people's emotions. But if you can find one, I'd be very interested. Pointing to research that supports a line of argument is not cherry picking, it's how science works. The fact that you can't support your argument with similar evidence should tell you something.

We are not puppets as we can observe, (on the assumption that my position is correct), people do respond to a large extent or to virtually no extent at all. We are free to reject it completely.

If this god of yours IS directly intervening, sometimes strongly, sometimes weakly, sometimes not at all but randomly - which is what we know happens in life - he's the worst kind of puppetmaster, he's just tormenting us.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by GDR, posted 08-22-2016 1:50 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5060
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 72 of 77 (789956)
08-22-2016 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by GDR
08-22-2016 2:02 PM


GDR writes:

Fair enough, but as I said in another thread there is a big difference between feeling empathy for the starving children in Africa for example and actually doing something about it that negatively affects our own situation. Some people will feel empathy and say "isn't that awful"; some will donate financially and maybe even enough that they keep the old car instead of buying a new one, and some, like some of the doctors I know, actually travel there risking there own health in order to help out.

Yes there is and I'm trying to get you to make the distinction between the reflexive feeling of empathy - the thing that creates the desire to help - and the decision to do something about it or not.

There is a difference between feeling empathy and actually doing something sacrificially.

Correct. They're seperate processes. Both are beginning to be understood. Nothing points to external intervention. Everything points to physical and environmental factors.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 08-22-2016 2:02 PM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Phat, posted 08-23-2016 12:07 PM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13638
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 73 of 77 (790004)
08-23-2016 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by GDR
08-22-2016 2:09 PM


Re: God In A Box
GDR writes:

There is the "Intelligent Design" movement which purports to be scientific and argues against evolutionary theory.


Well, you're arguing against evolutionary theory by bringing God into it. Superfluous additions to reality are just as bad as denying reality.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by GDR, posted 08-22-2016 2:09 PM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Phat, posted 08-23-2016 12:04 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9754
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 74 of 77 (790007)
08-23-2016 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ringo
08-23-2016 11:52 AM


God steps out of the box yet remains quiet
Ringo writes:

Well, you're arguing against evolutionary theory by bringing God into it. Superfluous additions to reality are just as bad as denying reality.

Oh how we love to argue!

So tell me why evolutionary theory couldn't be factual with God as a reality?

Seems to me that God is not only outside of the box but made the very box possible. That being said, I will agree with the argument that says that God is un necessary to explain evolution.

Thats as far as I will go. I am not prepared to support the idea that God is un necessary period...nor should you, Ringo. Being agnostic is enough for you to handle. Atheism is an unnecessary step.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 08-23-2016 11:52 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 08-23-2016 12:15 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9754
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 75 of 77 (790008)
08-23-2016 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Tangle
08-22-2016 4:29 PM


Refusal to believe without Evidence
Nothing points to external intervention.
Nothing in your mind, perhaps. But you want it that way.

I have a theory--in general,not about you personally.

Humans that believe in anything prefer their beliefs to be agreeable to themselves.
Humans do not want/need or have to believe in something disagreeable.

My premise is that GOD is agreeable to some and disagreeable to others. I would expect that this by and large determines their stance on His possible/probable existence.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2016 4:29 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Tangle, posted 08-23-2016 12:32 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017