What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator

Im focusing on the word "absolutely". In regards to how we think, my point is that there is no absolute standard in regards to Faith/Belief issues such as the existance of a Creator.I know how you detest MacArthur, but his viewpoint is the crux of much of the fundamentalist mindset.I guess that my objective is to show how no evidence can rule out the possibility of a Creator. Its like you say about "her" existing!

it's when words are allocated different, often contradictory meanings, outside any dictionary, that I get really confused.So, for example, one minute 'tempting God' means "not to put ourselves in danger counting on God to get us out of the jam " (i.e. having faith in him)
The next minute (when the first definition doesn't fit the bill any longer) 'tempting God' means "complaining rather than having faith in Him".One minute, 'good' and 'loving' means sacrificing his only begotten Son to save us. The next minute it means massacring scores of babies and women who are in the way of His chosen people.I could go on for a while here but this is getting OT and I'm getting more perplexed.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

"Postmodernism" means whatever you want it to mean. Maybe that's already a postmodernist principle. As I sometimes like to say, show me an absolutist and I will show you a relativist who absolutely wants to impose his relative views on everybody else. Too much of the literature on relativism gets tied in knots with the alleged proof that relativism is self-refuting. I did find Laudan's book "Science and Relativism: Some Key Controversies in the Philosophy of Science" to be useful.

So according to your own source post-mdoernism involves: Well that's ironic because you're calling people post-modernists FOR applying critical thinking. This suffers from the same flaw.
How about this, from the same article: This is where I completely part company with post-modernism. The success of science is because it works. While the other factors may have an effect - people being people - the scientific method is a powerful means of overcoming them. And that is why I do not consider your religious beliefs about the history of the Earth to be on a par with the discoveries of science, let alone above them.Equally the truths of logic are necessary truths, and they are not sociallty constructed either.So on the relevant points I am not a post-modernist. If anything you and Robin are closer to that position, in insisting that something that seems obvious to you should be accepted as true - and even logical - on those grounds alone. Only a post-modernist could consider such a position to be valid.

No, for having no real standards, or having the standards defined at that site, standards that eliminate all absolutes and objective judgments for instance, that insist everything is subjective, which is false. They thus make it impossible to "adopt a reasonable way to tell the good stuff from the bad stuff" as the quote says.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-14-2006 11:51 AM

But I'm not eliminating objective judgements. In objective terms "it seems obvious to me" is just a subjective opinion. That is an objective fact. You are attacking people for recognising the distinction between objective facts and your subjective opinions. And that's another objective fact.Your problem is not that your opponents lack standards - it is that they DO have standards. And "it seems obvious to me" falls frmly into the "bad stuff" side.

I never saw a storm or a lightening bolt or a giant hand come out of the sky....it was the "chosen" people themselves who did the killing---apparantly convinced that they heard from God.Does that remind you of any current people?(off topic, BTW)The Topic----again for those who wanna stay the course---is: I would say that creationism is shot down, but I dont think that humans can dare to define God as far as judging Him. (well...we can try, puny though we are...)

We could say that "I believe in objectivity and thus apply this awareness to God as I understand Him." This still would be my subjective opinion from your standpoint.OR...a scientist could say that they have examined evidence and have objective beliefs based on the evidence.To me, the educated conclusions could be subjective as I either do not value the evidence, do not understand the evidence, or willfully ignore the evidence as I see it as an attack on my fundamentals.COMING SOON: FUN: The Mentals. The Movie.

I find it interesting that in 11 pages of wrangling the most simple point concerning RR's position has been neglected. As I understand it, RR's position is that certain points of the TOE (principally the well documented transitionals) provide logical proof that there is no deity.RR is, unfortunately, completely incorrect and the error would seem to stem from a complete misunderstanding of what logic is and what it can do. For instance, it is important to remember that it is impossible to prove a negative. No supporting logic can support the propositionm that there is no god. Logic just doesn't work that way.

The point is clear and completely logical. If evolution is true then the GOD OF WESTERN TRADITION is false, because they are mutually exclusive, and the points on which they contradict one another have been spelled out over and over. To the usual deaf ears.

Perhaps I was unclear. I doubt it, but it could have happened.I was address one point and one point only. The claim that RR is making is not logical. That doesn't mean it is incorrect, merely that it cannot follow from his premises. You too, Faith, seem to be quite unclear on what logic is and what it can and can't do.What you are proposing would look like this:Where A is the TOE and B is the existence of Faith's concept of a deity,P1. If A then not B.
P2. If B then not A.Not A, therefore B.The conclusion is the same as the propositions. That is what is called circulus in demonstrando, or circular argument.Remember that this doesn't mean you are factually incorrect, just that your argument is faulty. Your conclusion does not follow.Finally, on a personal note (and with full knowledge of the risks I run of suspension), it is tiresome to yet again be subjected to your lament that your arguments are not duly considered by those who read and respond to them, that they fall on "deaf ears". It may be wise for you to consider instead that your ideas have been heard, considered and with good cause rejected.

quote:

---

If evolution is true then the GOD OF WESTERN TRADITION is false, because they are mutually exclusive, and the points on which they contradict one another have been spelled out over and over.

---

No, what has been spelled out over and over is that evolution and robinrohan's (and presumably Faith's) conception of God is mutually exclusive. That may very well be true, but seems to me to be uninteresting (although I can see how it would be interesting to you).The theory of evolution does not rule out:(1) That the universe and the earth were created by some sort of deity;(2) that this deity is interested in humanity; and(3) that the Christian Bible is an imperfect record of humans coming to know this deity.Added by edit:Oops. Forgot to start with "Hi Faith", just so you realize I'm not piling on just to bash you.Further added by edit:I should also add that the theory of evolution also does not preclude the essential feature of the "God of Western Tradition", namely(4) it remains possible that the god might have a purpose for humans and might have standards;(5) humans have fallen far short of his standards, as explained metaphorically in Genesis; and(6) this god might have an afterlife prepared for humans where people will get there just desserts.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 15-Mar-2006 02:43 AM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

The theory of evolution does not rule out: None of this is possible but there is a dilemma involved.But I'll just go ahead and type out what I wrote in a notebook today. It's rather simple.If we are going to discuss the traditional God of Western tradition, then it is also appropriate to think in terms of traditional ethics. According to traditional ethics--endorsed, I suppose, by most any religion, it is not right for us to harm others. There are special cases in which force is justified--such as a desperate battle with a powerful and vicious regime--but in ordinary life it is generally agreed that we ought not to harm our fellow creatures.According to several religions, there is such a thing as "sin," which cannot be committed unless we are aware of right and wrong. If we did not know in basic terms what is right and what is wrong, the concept of sin would be meaningless. We would have the moral status of animals. Animals cannot commit sin, just as they cannot commit a crime.According to this tradition, then, we know what's right and wrong, and we can examine events and make judgements. There may be complicated situations which are puzzling, but we know the basics.When we look at the history of evolution, we see a world in which creatures are constantly doing harm to other creatures. If one of these animals has refined sensory equipment, he can be subjected to excruciating physical pain. At least one of these creatures, man, also has mental anticipation of pain, which creates terror.Since no animal can sin, these creatures who kill other creatures are not responsible for the harm they do to others. Nonetheless, the harm has been done and someone is responsible. This someone is God.God need not have chosen the set-up of life as it is under evolution. He might have made all animals herbivores; he might have tossed manna from heaven on a daily basis. He did not do this. Instead he chose a killing field.There are two possible answers: (1) this God of Western tradition does not exist; or (2) there was a Fall.But if evolution is true, there could be no Fall. Therefore, the transitional fossils eliminate the God of Western tradition.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-14-2006 09:56 PM

The can be a fall as the Catholic official position seems to believe.As I read what the CC has stated regarding evolution God used evolutionary processes to gradually create Man's physical form. Then he instilled some sort of spirit or soul into that form. At least that is my reading of the church's position.The Genesis account may be describing that. The fall is only possible for a creature with a soul and aware of good and evil. This is, as is used by various Christians from time to time a "spiritual fall".Now we have foreknowledge of our own fate and the terror that goes with that. Before we reached the point of enough sentience we didn't have that.What that point is becomes an interesting discussion point. Was it about 40 to 60 k years BP when we apparently made a jump to language, culture, etc?Was it 200,000 years ago when the first archaic forms of H. sapiens arose?Was it 2 to 5 M years BP when creatures at least as smart and aware as a chimp arose?Was it 30 to 50 M years ago when some mammals became aware enough?

I suppose animal pain doesn't matter since animals have no souls, or perhaps animals didn't feel pain--until after the Fall. Or maybe they don't feel pain now.