Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does God Really Exist???
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 305 (86931)
02-17-2004 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CreationMan
02-16-2004 5:21 PM


Creation Man writes:
THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS, EVER WAS, OR EVER WILL BE"
~ Carl Sagan
Is this statement true? Or is there really a God?
Firstly, I’m not sure that that is what Sagan was getting at. But assuming it was...
It’s entirely possible that there are gods bodding around incorporeally somewhere. One thing we can be pretty certain of, however, is that if there really is a god, it is not the one advertised.
"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"
... And the wise man says it out loud.
But Dan is quite right. Who cares? I’ll start showing an interest in god when he starts showing an interest in us. Fixing malaria would be a start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CreationMan, posted 02-16-2004 5:21 PM CreationMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Lizard Breath, posted 02-17-2004 9:09 PM Darwin's Terrier has replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 305 (87192)
02-18-2004 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Lizard Breath
02-17-2004 9:09 PM


Re: Malaria?
Where'd you get malaria from?
Technically I suppose, your answer should be 'god'. You see, you get it from an Anopheles mosquito injecting Plasmodium when she drinks your blood. The Plasmodium then goes through a series of phases, multiplying and multiplying, gutting then exploding out of countless blood cells, then liver cells, till it's ready to get sucked up by another mozzie. Where they have to get from gut to salivary glands, ready to get injected again.
Plasmodium is amazingly well adapted to live in a mosquito and in a mammal; mosquitoes are incredibly good at getting a blood meal from a mammal (or bird). So, if things such as eyes (or pick your own favourite example), in all their amazing complexity, are that way because they were intelligently designed by a creator, then so too must be the intricate relationship between these parasites and their hosts.
Hence, if these things were created, the creator is responsible for malaria.
Simple, really. And utterly sadistic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Lizard Breath, posted 02-17-2004 9:09 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Phat, posted 02-18-2004 6:50 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 305 (87197)
02-18-2004 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Phat
02-17-2004 2:19 PM


By logic, why then will He not fix everything? What type of world would it be then?
That was not my point. I said I'd take an interest in him when he starts taking an interest in us. If this is what the world is like while he is taking an interest, then he is clearly relishing watching the vast quantities of death and suffering caused by parasites; or he is unable to help. Either way, this is not the advertised god.
This alleged god might not be expected to fix those things that are within our power to fix ourselves -- famine, perhaps, and people being nasty to each other. But those things surely constitute enough causes of misery on their own for whatever purpose suffering is for. But pathogens, earthquakes and cancer are beyond our abilities. Yet he does nothing about these.
Worse, much worse: according to creationists, he actually, deliberately created these things. Did he not form the human body louse, so specialised as it is to live on us? And did he not form the Rickettsia parasite that lives nowhere else but in us and these lice? Why then are they so well adapted (fitted to their lifestyle)? And yet Rickettsia is the cause of epidemic typhus, which has killed more people than all wars (which we ourselves might presumably avoid) -- all wars combined.
So if he wants to show us some care, he could change R prowazekii to a harmless form, or fix the lifecycle of P falciparum so it didn’t need to destroy our body cells while just doin’ its thing.
TTFN, DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Phat, posted 02-17-2004 2:19 PM Phat has not replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 305 (87205)
02-18-2004 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Phat
02-18-2004 6:50 AM


Re: Who created Malaria?
No. Malaria came from a created thing. A Mosquito. Not from a Creator.
No. Malaria comes from a created thing, a single-celled parasite. Sorry, I guess I forgot to mention Plasmodium.
So, like, where did the created thing come from? Might it be from... the creator? You seem to be saying that if I invent a gun that can load itself and fire at people on its own, and set it loose, that I'm not somehow responsible for it.
Weird logic!
Inconclusive. Perhaps another event caused the need for the Mosquito to carry Malaria.
Mosquitoes don't carry malaria. They carry a parasite that is exquisitely adapted to doing its thing, which happens to result in it killing one million people each year, about 3,000 a day: the majority of victims are children under five years of age.
You are ignoring the fact that both Anopheles and Plasmodium are very well adapted to their way of living. Whence the mosquito’s hypodermic mouthparts, anticoagulant saliva, and heat- and carbon dioxide-detecting equipment, if not from the creator’s designs? Whence the Plasmodium’s abilities to move from mosquito gut to salivary gland, from saliva to blood cell, from blood cell to lots of blood cells, from blood cells to liver cells, from liver back to blood, back to mosquito... all the while taking what it wants from each micro-environment, and all the while in a body amazingly appropriate to that stage of its life?
Perhaps another event caused this stuff, eh? If this other event has the creationary / design capabilities necessary to produce these things, let’s hear what it might be. Because this sure as shit looks like the same sort of amazing design that your god applied elsewhere, in eyes, ears, wings, blood clotting cascades or whatever is flavour of the month with the latest wave of IDiots.
Unless God so loved the parasites that...He allowed other creatures to die so that they may live.
By George, I think he’s got it!
I somehow am not convinced that He did this.
Oh? Why not? I suggest you look up the life cycle of phorid flies, or ichneumon wasps. How do they do that? Why are they so good at it?
Shall we all pray and ask Him?
I’ll pass, thanks. But let me know what he comes back with. For he stands accused of being a sadistic bastard.
TTFN, DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Phat, posted 02-18-2004 6:50 AM Phat has not replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 305 (87226)
02-18-2004 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Chris
02-18-2004 8:18 AM


I think we also should look from how people that don't believe in God point of view..
Erm, that’s what most of us do do...
not just only arguing and attacking from how people who believe in GOD.
Well, if I’m understanding your mangled sentence correctly, what we generally do is take the theists’ claims at face value, and subject them (where possible) to reality-comparison testing. That means understanding the other POV.
If you don't believe that God created us
I don’t believe we evolved either. I have seen more than enough evidence that we have, and none at all that we were created.
then you must believe that we are here by chance of random process, right?
Depends on what you mean by us being here. If you mean that, were we to re-run earth’s history again, Homo sapiens would be an outcome again, then I’m with S J Gould in thinking ‘no way’. There’s far too many contingent factors involved, not least umpteen bloody great rocks smashing into the planet annoyingly frequently.
But that doesn’t seem to be what you’re saying. We’re here by chance of a random process? Which random process did you have in mind?
I just want to add something I got from a website: ( Answers in Genesis )
Oh dear. That doesn’t exactly bode well...
1. A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’
Then he is very ill-informed. Cosmologists do not ‘believe’ in the Big Bang -- they have quite a bit of evidence for it. Little things like the fact that the universe is expanding, and the fact of the cosmic background radiation, as predicted by the theory. And evolution by natural selection is in no way a random process. So the guy’s a twit.
I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness.
Correct. The straw man is nicely demolished.
So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’
Irrelevant flummery.
The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.
And if this tale isn’t apocryphal, I’m a banana.
2. On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’
Another idiot. Or rather, another straw man. Whilst it is true that there is no absolute certainty in science, this ignores the fact that we can still rule some -- many -- possible options out. And we can formulate hypotheses and test them. What we are left with, after ruling some options out by testing, and being unable to demolish the others, is an approximation to the truth, to reality.
There is no absolute certainty, no ‘proof’, in science, because, as with mathematics, proof is only possible if you define the universe you’re talking about at the start. As they say, 2+2=4, but only for certain values of 2. But with science, we cannot define the universe at the start, because what it is like is precisely what we’re trying to find out.
So one cannot be absolutely sure of reality, because new information may still turn up. However, we can still be pretty damned sure, can be pretty confident that some things are too unlikely. The man in this tale would have us believe that, since we cannot be absolutely certain that a well-constructed bridge will stay up, there’s no point in building it at all.
I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied.
Solipsistic crap, I’d reply.
‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.
< sigh > It is not a good point at all, and saying ‘what point’ doesn’t get him out of the accusation of sophistry. Sure, his home might not be there. But barring very unusual events, he has every reason to assume it will be. The universe does seem to operate to regular rules... like things being where you left them (with the possible exception of car keys and pens ).
If I hold my pen thus... and let go of it... maybe I should pick it up, said the man.
Maybe it won’t fall, our anally retentive friend stated.
Good point, said the poor chap, unversed in rhetorical bullshit.
This young man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality?
If there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh, may her hooves never be shod), ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality?
If there are no ravenous bugblatter beasts on Traal, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality?
If there are no egg-laying mammals, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality?
Uh, by checking to see? By seeing what predictions the idea makes, and finding out whether they are right... or whether the opposite is the case? Just a thought.
How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?
‘How the universe is’ is how I’d define ‘the truth’. And I decide what that is by taking a look-see. Personally, I tend to look at the world, rather than up my own rectum, but that’s just me I guess.
TTFN, DT
{Fixed (closed) one qs box. This also fixed the shading in the following quote boxes - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-18-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Chris, posted 02-18-2004 8:18 AM Chris has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by CreationMan, posted 02-18-2004 4:45 PM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 305 (87240)
02-18-2004 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Chris
02-18-2004 10:47 AM


So we are not in the position to say God does not exist.
Actually, we are entirely in a position to say that certain varieties of god do not exist. One is a highly-intelligent single creator-designer, operating always at the height of its powers. Another is one that is omni-benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. In short, we can be sure that there is no literal Biblical creator.
So please define this god of yours!
TTFN, DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Chris, posted 02-18-2004 10:47 AM Chris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Chris, posted 02-18-2004 11:22 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 305 (87256)
02-18-2004 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Chris
02-18-2004 11:22 AM


Thanks, I have (well, large chunks of it at least). And I guess you are justified in your beliefs, for the biblical god does indeed seem to be a sadistic bastard, just as he would be if he created living things! And that Jesus wasn't much better: not a jot or tittle from the old laws to be ignored? Things like Leviticus, presumably.
Say, having read your bible, am I right in thinking you would have people stoned to death? Jesus was okay with it... so you must be too, yeah?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Chris, posted 02-18-2004 11:22 AM Chris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Chris, posted 02-18-2004 12:53 PM Darwin's Terrier has replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 305 (87431)
02-19-2004 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Chris
02-18-2004 12:53 PM


Hi Chris
Could you please tell me the verses which tell about that [stoning to death, and Jesus being okay with it]?
No problem!
From: Bible Study – Christian Education Resource :
In early Bible History, stoning was the (perhaps surprising to many) God-commanded Israelite method of executing those found guilty of the most serious offenses against His Law.
and
God commanded stoning for violations of The Ten Commandments, any of them:
"And The Lord [see Rock Of Ages] said to Moses ... He who blasphemes the Name of The Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." (Leviticus 24:13,16 RSV)
"If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods ... You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from The Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." (Deuteronomy 13:6,10 RSV)
"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day ... And The Lord said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." (Numbers 15:32,35 RSV)
See also Stoning in the bible and Nave's Topical Bible (scroll down to ‘stoning’).
Reasons to be put to death (don’t know if by stoning, but I suspect it would have been -- except Lev 20:14 which stipulates burning alive) include:
Cursing your parents:
"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:9)
Adultery: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
Shagging your step-mother, or daughter-in-law:
And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:11-12)
Homosexuality:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
Shagging your mother-in-law:
And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. (Leviticus 20:14)
Bestiality -- note that the ‘beast’ has to be killed too:
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:15-16)
Having a familiar spirit, or being a wizard (I presume you believe in ‘familiar spirits too?):
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:27)
And of course, just to show where God’s coming from in all this, note that one can be ‘cut off from’ your people for merely having sex with your wife if she is menstruating at the time. The Bible doesn’t seem to record whether ‘just starting’ and ‘just finishing’ counts.
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. (Leviticus 20:18)
There’s plenty more, but it gets boring after a while.
And here’s Jesus’s take on the matter:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(Matthew 5:17-18)
Enough to be going on with?
And what I believe about judging is on...
(Mat 7:1-5): Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.... etc.
So which bits of the Bible do you follow, and which do you reject, and why?
TTFN, DT
[This message has been edited by Darwin's Terrier, 02-19-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Chris, posted 02-18-2004 12:53 PM Chris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Chris, posted 02-19-2004 6:32 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied
 Message 138 by Phat, posted 02-19-2004 7:28 PM Darwin's Terrier 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