Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 10:12 PM
25 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,850 Year: 4,887/19,786 Month: 1,009/873 Week: 365/376 Day: 42/116 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   Why'd you do it that way, God?
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3257 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 121 of 137 (541889)
01-06-2010 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by New Cat's Eye
01-06-2010 3:09 PM


Re: Falling came after the fall.
So there's your increase in complexity that you said was impossible.

I said "not natural."
With God all things are possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-06-2010 3:09 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-06-2010 5:19 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 123 by Parasomnium, posted 01-06-2010 5:52 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Taz, posted 01-07-2010 2:39 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 137 (541890)
01-06-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Sky-Writing
01-06-2010 5:17 PM


Re: Falling came after the fall.
So there's your increase in complexity that you said was impossible.

I said "not natural."
With God all things are possible.

So when salt is vaporized, god is doing it!?

You sir, are an idiot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-06-2010 5:17 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(1)
Message 123 of 137 (541894)
01-06-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Sky-Writing
01-06-2010 5:17 PM


Re: Falling came after the fall.
Sky writes:

With God all things are possible.

Then how on earth can you accept the God-story as an explanation for anything? If anything is possible, then nothing is certain. That's why God as an explanation is completely and utterly useless. It boggles the mind how anyone cannot grasp this simple point.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-06-2010 5:17 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 124 of 137 (542075)
01-07-2010 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Peepul
01-05-2010 9:16 AM


quote:
I don't think that makes sense. Our knowledge of how the naturalistic processes work is very recent - no more than 200 years or so, much of it in the last 100. That knowledge has not generally led people to the conclusions you reach. In fact it has led to the widespread secularization of Western society. So the message it conveys has effectively been 'there is no need for God to explain the Universe'.

Our knowledge of naturalistic processes keeps improving, of course. But even the ancients had some knowledge of natural processes. Job (probably the earliest-written book of the Bible) describes the natural process of the water cycle in chapter 36.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Peepul, posted 01-05-2010 9:16 AM Peepul has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 125 of 137 (542080)
01-07-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Sky-Writing
01-06-2010 10:32 AM


Re: Gradualistic-ing
I wrote:
We are insignificant in the vast size of the cosmos, and likewise we are insignificant in the vast history of the cosmos.

You replied:
quote:
This is entirely opposite of God's message to us, so the source of that thinking is from......another place.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Take another look at Psalm 8:
Psalm 8:3-4, NET writes:

When I look up at the heavens, which your fingers made, and see the moon and the stars, which you set in place, of what importance is the human race, that you should notice them? Of what importance is mankind, that you should pay attention to them?


David's point is that on our own, in light of the cosmos, we are insignificant. Our significance derives from nothing inherent in ourselves or from our place in the cosmos, but from God Himself. God has placed us in a position of authority over all the rest of creation, not because we somehow "deserve" it, but because He is gracious:
Psalm 8:5-6, NET writes:

You grant mankind honor and majesty; you appoint them to rule over your creation; you have placed everything under their authority ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-06-2010 10:32 AM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-07-2010 4:35 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1396 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 126 of 137 (542082)
01-07-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Sky-Writing
01-06-2010 5:17 PM


Re: Falling came after the fall.
Sky writes:

With God all things are possible.


This statement reminds me of organic chemistry in college (a kazillion years ago). I signed up for the class knowing it was going to be a damn tough class to pass. I even planned ahead for extra time to study for the class. And half the homework problems I did them twice to make sure I got them down. In fact, I think I spent more time studying for that class than any other class. And during those nights when I couldn't figure out a problem for hours, I really did wish that I could just use "goddunit" as the answer and go straight to bed.

But you see, if "goddunit" is a viable answer to these problems in life, then people like Peter Popoff will be the ones teaching at our universities rather than honest to god scientists. Here is a video about Peter Popoff in case you don't know who he is.

So, you see, "goddunit" can be used as the answer to everything. And this is why it is the answer to nothing. After it is given as the answer, nothing is actually answered. We are still left with an unsolved problem and a crank like you trying to make millions of dollars by scamming the most vulnerable members of our society.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-06-2010 5:17 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3257 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 127 of 137 (542105)
01-07-2010 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by kbertsche
01-07-2010 2:31 PM


Re: Gradualistic-ing
"David's point is that on our own, in light of the cosmos, we are insignificant. "

That's actually your point, rather than David's. He was aware of the size of the sky and the amazing size of cloud formations. And the sheer voulume of birds that could fill the sky on occasion.

And of the thousands of animals that could fill the sky, he was amazed that God would talk to us.

But lets not pretend that he got stoned like Sagan and dreamed of flying past other planets or galaxies.

He was just amazed that the Creator of the Sky and the clouds and the light disks and dots had time for man as well.

I really, really, doubt he ever felt insignificant.
Moses maybe. He felt ill equiped. But David felt Honored and blessed. I think he felt very significant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by kbertsche, posted 01-07-2010 2:31 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by greyseal, posted 01-08-2010 1:30 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1967 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 128 of 137 (542260)
01-08-2010 1:23 PM


if you're gonna ask why...
then why not start with the big ones (I don't think it's OT for here, forgive me if I'm wrong).

There's this thing called the geologic column - it's remarkably consistent the entire world over. It's been consistently dated such that similar formations are estimated to be the same age wherever these similar formations are found.

Note: you may disagree with the dates, but not with the consistency that all the myriad dating systems give us as answers. If you do, you're a Liar4Jesus.

Back to the question at hand - now, we've got these dating systems that give us an amazingly accurate and concise and consistent dating of all the rocks and layers and fossils and whatnot in the geologic column. There's one intriguing layer (I give! many! geologists don't shoot me!) of iridium which is found at the same apparent point in history all over the planet. Now, iridium is pretty rare - except that in this layer it's relatively plentiful.

We've also got a huge crater that was found in New Mexico I believe - co-incidentally dated to roughly the same time-frame as this iridium layer. Don't ask me how you date a crater, the last one I stalked set a restraining order on me, but somebody has the trick of those things down, again consistently. It's so big that the asteroid that made it must have kicked up a dust-cloud big enough to cover the face of the planet, changing it's weather systems for many years to come, perhaps causing an ice-age.

Another interesting find is that asteroids and meters have lots of iridium in them for some reason (again, it's a fact borne out by observation).

So, these things apparently add up - iridium layer, crater, asteroids.

The final interesting piece is that beneath this layer are all the dinosaurs. After it? None.

So, whether you believe in natural history or think the world is only 6000 years old, why the heck would god do the following:

1) create an apparent crater in the planet to make it look, to all intents and purposes like it was 65 million years old if it wasn't, or allow something that could potentially kill off most of the life on the planet, including his pet project if it was real after all and we just have the dates wrong?

2) presuming you believe in the Flud, he put all the dinosaurs who died in it in the earth beneath this layer that he not only put down to fool the apostates, but set up absolutely every dating method, everywhere, to agree with falsely that the Earth is far older than it really is in a flawlessly consistent manner, for people who wouldn't be born for another 4000 years using technology that wouldn't exist for another 4000 years.

3) not to mention all the other animal fossils and boundaries that he put down in so consistent a manner, so created that the dating methods which otherwise are so dependable could be so easily fooled

4) and yes, he MUST be attempting to fool the apostates because the dating methods all agree so perfectly with one another, with the tree rings, sediment layers, geologic features, KT boundaries and all that are ALL consistent and the math and science is all so consistent that it must have been specifically created to appear old - infact the laws of the universe must have been so created to fool these people during this time.

why?


Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Meldinoor, posted 08-15-2010 12:43 AM greyseal has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1967 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 129 of 137 (542261)
01-08-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Sky-Writing
01-07-2010 4:35 PM


Re: Gradualistic-ing
But lets not pretend that he got stoned like Sagan and dreamed of flying past other planets or galaxies.

no, in the bible we only get sane visions, like ten-headed monsters and whores, and four-headed creatures who can take your heart out, clean it, and put it back. the visions in the bible are sensible ones that deal with everyday occurences like raining blood, seas boiling, plagues, darkness that lasts a thousand years, eternal lakes of fire and the dead rising up.

He was just amazed that the Creator of the Sky and the clouds and the light disks and dots had time for man as well.

I really, really, doubt he ever felt insignificant.
Moses maybe. He felt ill equiped. But David felt Honored and blessed. I think he felt very significant.

You will never understand the awe and wonderment somebody like Sagan, Dawkins or Darwin feels about the universe. You will never understand the depth of perception such people have.

They and theirs will inherit the galaxy - as the man himself said, it's not a sunrise but a galaxy-rise, of 400 billion suns.

You've got one planet you're determined to destroy because you feel your sky-daddy has already said he'll get you a better one in your spiritual sweet sixteen.

but that's off-topic - although i would like to know more about just why people who claim to be god's children really don't give a damn about the one planet we have, whilst at the same time telling us that those damned atheists don't give a damn about how important we are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-07-2010 4:35 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by bluescat48, posted 01-08-2010 11:11 PM greyseal has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 130 of 137 (542336)
01-08-2010 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by greyseal
01-08-2010 1:30 PM


Re: Gradualistic-ing
no, in the bible we only get sane visions, like ten-headed monsters and whores, and four-headed creatures who can take your heart out, clean it, and put it back. the visions in the bible are sensible ones that deal with everyday occurences like raining blood, seas boiling, plagues, darkness that lasts a thousand years, eternal lakes of fire and the dead rising up.

All one has to do is remove the word Bible and replace with any other mythology. It is the same mass of stories created by human imagination.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by greyseal, posted 01-08-2010 1:30 PM greyseal has not yet responded

    
Dexx
Junior Member (Idle past 3043 days)
Posts: 7
From: Perth, WA, Australia
Joined: 08-12-2010


Message 131 of 137 (573899)
08-13-2010 1:34 AM


The question harkens back to Epicurus' dilema.
Why would an all powerful, loving God put humanity through this imperfect life? Couldnt He just skip Earth all together and create us in heaven in our final form? Some possibilities:

- God is limited. Humans have to go through their experience of life on Earth as its not something God can build into us.

- God is limited. He could just make us in our final form. But an aspect of his character requires that he "do it the hard way".

- There are conditions/considerations that we know nothing about.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by onifre, posted 08-14-2010 5:05 PM Dexx has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1056 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 132 of 137 (574208)
08-14-2010 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dexx
08-13-2010 1:34 AM


If...

God is limited.

...then it is not a god.

- Oni

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dexx, posted 08-13-2010 1:34 AM Dexx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Dexx, posted 08-14-2010 10:05 PM onifre has responded
 Message 137 by Huntard, posted 08-16-2010 10:18 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
Dexx
Junior Member (Idle past 3043 days)
Posts: 7
From: Perth, WA, Australia
Joined: 08-12-2010


Message 133 of 137 (574232)
08-14-2010 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by onifre
08-14-2010 5:05 PM


Then what is the definition of God? Omnipotent? The term is paradoxical. Personally i dont believe in God. But if i did, a very powerful being doing the best he can within some tight constraints is more consistent with what i see here on Earth.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by onifre, posted 08-14-2010 5:05 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by onifre, posted 08-16-2010 10:08 AM Dexx has not yet responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2913 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 134 of 137 (574257)
08-15-2010 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by greyseal
01-08-2010 1:23 PM


In case anyone wants to address the actual topic
Hello greyseal,

I just realized that your post was a general response to my thread that I didn't notice way back when. I hesitate to reply, since it's so dated, but seeing how the thread has been bumped up recently anyway...

greyseal writes:

then why not start with the big ones (I don't think it's OT for here, forgive me if I'm wrong).

You are (or rather... were) completely and utterly OT. This topic is not supposed to be about dating methods or how the age of the universe is ascertained. I for one favor the scientific explanations for the evolution of the cosmos.

Beside that fact, I find your assumption that just because I'm a theist I must also believe in a flud or a recent creation highly offensive. Your tone comes across as needlessly sarcastic, or perhaps its just that you simply assumed that I have not but an elementary understanding of science. I'm not normally thin-skinned, but when someone confuses me for a moron and a YEC just because I express religious belief, I take offense.

And just in case anyone is interested in posting something OT:
This topic is about why God decided to use naturalistic processes to produce the world we live in. It makes three assumptions for the sake of argument.

A. A God was somehow involved in the creation of the universe
B. The scientific consensus is accurate regarding the age and evolution of the cosmos
C. The Creator is omnipotent and thus could have done things differently

The reason I started this thread was that I was then pondering why God chose to take a less direct approach, making his hand in creation less apparent (or completely unapparent).

Anyway, couldn't just let that pass unanswered.

-Meldinoor

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by greyseal, posted 01-08-2010 1:23 PM greyseal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by nwr, posted 08-15-2010 11:00 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 135 of 137 (574319)
08-15-2010 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Meldinoor
08-15-2010 12:43 AM


Re: In case anyone wants to address the actual topic
Meldinoor writes:
This topic is about why God decided to use naturalistic processes to produce the world we live in.

Because an entity worthy of the title "God" would know that is the best way.

As humans, we know a lot about design because humans design a lot. And one of the things we know is that all designs are flawed. And they are flawed because they design to meet some intention, but it invariably turns out that the designed thing starts being used in unintended ways. And it is in that use in unintended ways that leads one to see that the design is flawed.

The way around this is to have systems that are constantly redesigning themselves so as to work best as they are actually used. And that is pretty much what evolution achieves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Meldinoor, posted 08-15-2010 12:43 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019