My Beliefs- GDR

Well, you seem to be saying that God was "needed" to pull the trigger on creation. Science has been closing the gaps in our knowledge about the "creation". Evolution is an example; God is not needed to mould each species. Your position is closer to the current edge of scientific knowledge but it isn't fundamentally different from the creationists'. Your position seems to be the equivalent of admitting that we understand how lightning works but still insisting that only God can flip the switch. If we can figure things out, why would you conclude that there must be a limit to what we can figure out? You do realize that that joke is intended to ridicule your position, don't you? It's more like I'm rejecting your definition of "reasoning".How do you rationally distinguish between your beliefs and belief in the Tooth Fairy? I don't believe that your beliefs are right. That is not the same as believing that your beliefs are wrong. Lack of belief is not a belief.

In Fred Flintstone's opinion, lightning would always be beyond human understanding. He was wrong. Apparently he underestimated the length of "always". We could also ask whether God and/or Jesus can be better understood through religion than science. Religion likes to say, "We know better than you," but it has a pretty poor track record of knowing anything.

Well in one very real sense I am a creationist in that I believe that God is responsible for the fact that we exist at all. I simply don't see scripture as a means to determine what processes God used to make it happen. Scientific study is the only means that we have to answer that kind of question.If you are saying that I am trying to fill in a gap with God, when I cite HIm as being responsible for our existence, then I'd like you to explain why it isn't "science of the gaps" for you to fill in that gap with science. Also I'd like you to tell me what experiment or study that science could perform that would rule God out of the picture. OK let's look at lightning. We have figured out why we have lightning and all the laws of electrical reactions that cause it to happen. That still tells us nothing about how the system exists at all. Sure we can demonstrate that we don't need a switch flicker for lightning but it tells us nothing about whether or not it was a system designed to function on its own or not. We've got satellites whizzing around in space functioning on their own. It still took someone to design them. (This was in reference to the turtles.) Of course I do. The point was that you do exactly the same thing. You are saying that since we've discovered evolution we understand the process of how we have come to the point we are at today, and that science will eventually discover the means by which the process started naturally, and then we will discover the process that started the process that started evolution.............. and it is turtles all the way down. I distinguish my theistic beliefs from the tooth fairy by subjective reasoning. We decide lots of things subjectively. Things like does my wife love me, whether or not something is beautiful, etc. What is closer to the point is whether or not if what someone says is a lie or if it is correct, and if not to what degree is it wrong. That is what I do when I study the Bible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe in a materialistic world, although you would likely acknowledge the possibility of their being an intelligence that is responsible for our existence. I believe that there is an intelligence that is responsible for our existence but I acknowledge the possibility that I could be wrong. We both have our beliefs. The only difference is that mine are much more reasonable.

Once again, it's the aim of science to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. Religion uses what we don't know as an excuse for belief. Science uses what we don't know as a jumping-off point to learn more. Nobody is trying to rule God out of the picture. Things that have been ruled into the picture are the only things that are useful to us. Who designed the moon?What we've done is mimic the natural behaviour of a naturally-formed satellite. Once again, all a designer can do is work with existing natural processes. Postulating that "there must be a designer" tells us nothing about the origin of the processes. Slight correction: Science might eventually discover.... Even if there is a limit to what we can learn, there's no way of predicting what that limit is.Of course the difference between science and religion is that science is discovering more turtles all the time. Science won't predict that the turtle is standing on another turtle but we think it's probably standing on something, so we look for that something. Religion just claims an infinite stack of turtles. Certainly, I decide lots of things subjectively but I distingish between subjective thinking and reasoning.Even the Bible associates reasoning with tangible effects:

quote:

---

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. (Isaiah 1:18-20)

---

You're wrong. As I've said, there's a difference between belief and lack of belief. I have a lack of belief in anything non-material. I have an equal lack of belief in intelligent designers, bigfeet and tooth fairies.

No disagreement there. All that religion has to say about science is that as our existence has an intelligent root it is discernible to us. Again, no disagreement there. You didn’t answer the first part of the question. However with the first quote you seemed to be trying to rule God out of the picture, and I assume by your answer that there is no experiment or study that can rule God out of the picture.If of course there is no god then there is no value in having god in the picture. If however God does exist and we truly are part of something greater than we perceive, then maybe that should be the focus of the picture. I agree with the first statement. As far as religion is concerned I’ve already given one possibility of why that isn’t a valid argument. The discussion with Straggler was interesting as it made me realize that if my speculation about us being an emergent property of a greater whole with higher time dimensions is correct, then our universe doesn’t require a first cause. However all life on earth has been finite and so even if the universe doesn’t require a first cause, life as we understand it still does. I’m pretty sure that you apply reason to your subjective conclusions. I have used reason to come to my theistic beliefs and I have used reason to believe that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. Then I have a lack of belief in the idea that the material world that we perceive is all that there is. I’m quite happy to admit that it is my belief that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist and call it a belief. If you have come to a conclusion which seems pretty clear that you have then it is a belief.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

So the "intelligent root" is dscernible but not perceivable? Religion says, "Hey, there's a gap here. God must be in it." Science fills in the gap with real-world knowledge. Are you seriously telling me you don't see the difference? It's always difficult and often impossible to prove a negative. Scientists don't waste their time trying to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist. They try to find out if he does. Unfortunately, Bigfootists contribute little but belief. If there is a God that is not perceivable, there is no value in having him in the picture. That's very different from the lack of belief in God. I "believe" in (I'd rather say I "accept") what can be objectively demonstrated. I lack a belief in anything that has not been objectively demonstrated yet. You believe in something that has not been objectively demonstrated and you also believe that it can never be objectively demonstrated. Objectivity is pretty much out the window in your thinking.

I could have phrased that better. My point was that if we have an intelligent root, then with intelligence the science of our existence would be discernible to us through biology, physics etc. An intelligent root should mean that we would expect order in science. I didn't mean that the root itself is discernible to us but I see why you would think that's what I meant. Again, where have I done that?I agree that science fills the gap with real world knowledge but filling in gaps with the idea that science just hasn't discovered yet is very much the same thing. However, I am largely in agreement with you but the implication is that I have done that and in my view I haven't.If we look at the resurrection as a miracle then the claim is that it was unique. That isn't a gap. Actually I agree but you had said this earlier which I kinda took you to suggest that science would eventually disprove God's existence.

quote:

---

Your position seems to be the equivalent of admitting that we understand how lightning works but still insisting that only God can flip the switch. If we can figure things out, why would you conclude that there must be a limit to what we can figure out?

---

Actually we can never really know if God is perceivable or not. I generally use the term directly perceivable but that isn't really correct either. The only way that we would know is if God were removed and then compare the difference. Fortunately I have it on good authority that we won't have the opportunity to make that comparison. However, even if God isn't directly discernible I contend that trutrh matters even if we can't objectively prove it. I think it matters that we know that we are ultimately teleogenic beings. I think it matters that we know the origin of our morality. I think it is important to know that what we do matters. I think it is important to know whether or not their is ultimate justice.None of that is to say that atheists can't be moral, just, loving etc but part of my belief is that if we truly do open our hearts to God to be changed that as individuals we become more moral, just and loving. We all believe things that can't be objectively demonstrated. We all have our subjective beliefs and you can rationalize all you want but simply put you believe that God doesn't exist. I am never quite clear why you atheists make such an issue of that.

I would tend to see it more as "Human Wisdom" fills in the gap. This is true to a degree, but I believe that human wisdom will ever erase the reality of, never-mind the need of God.I believe that God actually gives men wisdom. Obviously I cant support the idea that the written word was the living word, except through lengthy observation and acquaintance with modern day Solomons. Also, were Solomon alive today in today's context he would not simply sit on some mountain top like an aloof sage. He would interact with modern education and media to a degree...but I believe that the root of his wisdom would come about through his relationship with God on a daily basis.

Order is a property of reality. Look at the periodic table. Look at crystals. Intelligence tends to interfere with order, turning simplicity into complexity. Again, all intelligence can do is manipulate existing order. It doesn't create order (or reality) in the first place. Science has a good track record for filling in gaps. There's no reason to think that that trend will end any time soon. Religion, on the other hand, has a track record of being wrong (and of stubbornly clinging to ideas that are wrong). The directions are opposite. Of course it is. It's a gap that you impose by insisting it's a miracle that we can't understand in rational terms. A gap that you insist we can't fill is the worst kind of gap. I contend that if we can't ojbectively "prove" it, it isn't truth. We do. It's survival (evolution). Matters to whom? To some alien spook or to us? Tell it to the dinosaurs. They didn't get any. Then you believe that baldness is a hair colour. I'm not an atheist.

I agree. Science is just the most rigorous version of human wisom. He seems to give it equally to those who believe in Him and those who don't. The belief seems to be redundant.

Intelligence can take a random stack of books and arrange them alphabetically creating order. Whether or not our existence is the result of an external intelligence is a matter of our own subjective beliefs but my only point was that if we are the result of an external intelligence then we should expect that there would be order. No it is not a gap. It would be like asking science to confirm any historical event. Science can't replicate the Battle of Hastings. We look for historical evidence and we come to our own conclusions of what happened. In the case of the resurrection we have the historical accounts in the Gospels and we come to our own subjective conclusions about the accuracy of the accounts. I could tell you who I voted for in the last election but I can't prove it. Is it the truth? It may or may not be but there is truth to be had. Can you prove love? Is it real? That is your subjective belief, and you can't objectively prove it. It may or may not be true. I'd say that it matters to all of creation, including ourselves. Says who? We all die sometime and we'll be in a better position to discuss the question of ultimate justice then. What label would you use?

And it takes intelligence to recognise alphabetical order as order. Detecting order can be a self-fulfilling prophecy; seek it and ye shall find it. But in the big picture, alphabetic order is no more significant than any random order.On the other hand, order like in crystals doesn't require intelligent input. There's no reason to conclude that order suggests intelligence. Science can confirm that a battle did occur at Hastings and it can approximate the date and compare its findings to the historical accounts. Objective conclusions do not have to be absolutely correct.In the case of the resurrection, there is no physical confirmation at all. All there is is second-hand accounts from people who may or may not have existed at all. If there was truth "to be had", we could have it. If we can't get the truth, there's no way of confirming it as true and t makes no sense to call it true. We can detect some of the physiological manifestations of love, so it is real to some extent. Of course, most of what we call "love" at weddings and such is just fiction. It's better supported - i.e. more objective - than the belief that morality is injected into us by some unperceived external entity. It approaches "the truth" more closely, which is all we can ever do. So it's pretty hard to distinguish "ultimate justice" from injustice. That's just the point; I don't label myself as anything but ringo.Edited by ringo, : iSpelling - removed superfluous "i". Apples are attacking my Windows!

Granted that if you throw up a deck of cards into the air and then randomly gather them up it is possible that they will be perfectly sorted by suit and number but when you see a deck of cards perfectly sorted chances are there was intelligence involved. The Bible is an historical document and we can choose, as in any historical document, to accept, reject or partly accept its accuracy. If I tell you how I voted I know I'm telling you the truth and it remains the truth even though neither of us are able to confirm it. That's rather a bizarre argument you're making. Aren't you the romantic. Once again it ios only your subjective opinion that it approaches "the truth" more closely. I would say just the opposite. That's a cop-out, but it is probably a good position to take rather than having to defend a rationally indefensible position.

All that shows is that two intelligences are choosing the same pattern and calling it "order". Since the intelligent designer was made up by human intelligence, it's no coincidence that it would have the same notions of "order" that we do. You wouldn't be surprised if James Bond had similar views to Ian Fleming.Why don't you use crystals as an example if order that suggests intelligence? You used the Battle of Hastings as an example. We have more than just one document as evidence that it happened. We also have physical evidence. There's much less "choice" about whether or not you accept it. You're equivocating "telling the truth" with truth. Saying something you believe to be true is not the same as saying something that is true. Once again, it's the difference between subjective and objective "truth". Not at all. There is objective evidence that morality evolved in humans as well as in other animals. The fact that different codes of morality exist in different circumstances is an example. For the Inuit people, it isn't (wasn't) immoral to abandon the sick and aged to die. It was necessary for survival. Feel free to point out where my defense has been irrational. I have asked you more than once to show the rational difference between your belief and belief in the Tooth Fairy.

I can't answer all your strange accusations. But just to be clear, faith in the death of Christ for salvation is clearly given in scripture as not a work, though you keep saying it is. Paul said salvation is by "grace, not works, a gift of God, lest any man should boast."In other words, faith itself is a gift of God, nobody can trump up faith in themselves.Your calling the doctrine of salvation "selfish" is just strange. Salvation is the beginning of the reversal of the Fall, restoring humanity to something like our original state in Eden, which won't be realized until the resurrection. It's God's plan to "create all things new" through the sacrifice of Christ which wipes out the sin that destroyed the original Creation.But I guess if you want to call all that "selfish" I can't really argue with you. I'm very grateful for my salvation, grateful and amazed to have been so blessed.