|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the I in ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
pink sasquatch writes: god = "an entity who does things without a means to do so." sidelined writes: Now that is a disappointing statement from you since that is a contradiction in terms. The contradiction is exactly my point. I'm not saying it's logical - but is it logical to hold an entity outside of existence to any sort of rules we can conceive of? Why not define a god as one who can create and manipulate without cause and effect? So I'll ask again: Why would an omnipotent god be bound by material laws? Is a god itself material? Is a god biological? Is a god made up of atoms, or strings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Hopefully you realize that I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent here - I think jar's last message stating "we can't test it" perhaps summed things up more simply.
God seems to be that which cannot test, or understand.
You can say that an omnipotent God is not bound by material laws only if he never interacts with those laws, including their establishment. I feel like this is a statement based on our material framework. If we can't test or understand God, how do we know that he is incapable of creating a system he isn't bound by?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
then we cannot even have a hint at his existence and therefore are contemplating the existence of what? Hence, "faith". I think this is an underlying (negative) issue with most discussions around here: some arguing "the testable" with an opposition that is arguing "that which is untestable". I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the concept of testing for something that interacts with the universe on solely supernatural terms. As a side-note, I'm perusing a book on Kabbalistic stories and OT interpretations - in that the interpretation of the act of creation is "fanning an ember", with that ember symbolizing humankind's unique "awareness". A different take on 'let there be light'... I've enjoyed the discussion, too...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Ifen, you asked in response to one of posts:
Is material itself material? And what are entities? Hopefully you'll understand my post in the context of this thread, where some are seeking a cause-effect mechanism testable by natural science to explain a supernatural or spiritual event. The questions I asked in my original post are similar in intent, I think, to your questions I quote above - to point out the problems of defining/confining the spiritual with simple natural concepts. I agree with much of your post - I just wanted to clarify my intent. Peace back at ya-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
dandon writes:
i said [the quran] is true and i prooved that no one can write like it. you claim that it is not , i asked you to write like 1/10 of it,but you did not answer . Dandon, I claim that Darwin's Origin of Speciesis correct. In order to prove me wrong, please "write like 1/10 of it." If you cannot, we can assume the theory of evolution is proven (by your odd logic...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I wish is that I could write 1/10 as good as Mark Twain. That guy had an amazing way with language. For me it is Peter Matthiessen who I envy for linguistic skills - have you read his The Snow Leopard? Based on your posts I think you would enjoy it and its Buddhist undertones.
Mostly I like to examine and open up a question until I end up scratching my head wondering what is it now that I'm looking at. A slightly more scientific version of the koan? This kind of thinking is important to science though few seem to practice it regularly - lateral thinking opens up new hypotheses and experiments.
"it's turtles all the way down"! This might have brought us back on topic if the topic was "What is the D in ID?" - for one could argue "it's designers all the way back!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
But I suspect this thread would it be better focused on whether it's designed or not first. Then if design can be established look at whether the design is intelligent or not. In a sense to show one is to show the other, as you describe well in your comment that the phrase "intelligent design" is redundant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
when i asked charles knight to write 1/10 of the quran that was because he claimed that quran is man-wrote , not to prove if it is correct! Okay, then: I assert that The Origin of Specieswas written by God, using Darwin as a messenger, in order to reveal to humankind the nature of God's creation. In order to prove to me that The Origin of Speciesis simply a work of man, please write "like 1/10 of it". If you cannot, then God wrote The Origin of Species, by your (still) faulty logic...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
And Allah says... This shows that humans and most kinds of animals and plants were created in male and female. This is what the Quran tells us and Biology teacher. Dandon - this actually suggests that the Quran was written by humans who did not know that most species on the planet reproduce asexually (without male/female). Since those species are microscopic, a human writer would not take them into account, but a God would surely know of them. The implication of the passage you give is that the only life that is mentioned is that which can be seen by humans. Imagine if the Quran had said something like, "most types of life cannot be seen with the naked eye, these reproduce without male and female and vastly outnumber those kinds of life that can be seen." Now that would be some evidence for your side - something humans didn't know at the time of the Quran's writing, and specific enough to not be discounted as poetic or symbolic writing that is falsely being interpreted as scientific in nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Interesting, but I don't see that you've actually cited a verse that mentions male and female non-living things. You cite a verse that uses the word "everything", but state that it is in the midst of all of the verses regarding life. (My interpretation in that context would be that everything refers to all life.)
In any case, since most life on the planet is not "male and female" the verse contradicts modern science. I'm assuming you've heard of Taoism? Taoism predates Islam by about a thousand years, and the bulk of the teachings of Taoism are much better suited to describing the "duality" of matter than your interpretation of a single phrase in the Quran. The Yin Yang symbol is not as old as Taoism, but was adopted as a symbol of its philosophy, (and it predates Islam):
How did Taoists know that the entire substance of the universe was a balance of opposites, a century before Allah passed this wisdom to humankind through the Quran?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024