Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
562 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, jar, Tangle (4 members, 558 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,315 Year: 4,427/6,534 Month: 641/900 Week: 165/182 Day: 45/27 Hour: 1/6

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Links for the Creation/Evolution Controversy (not a debate topic)
Phat
Member
Posts: 15958
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 76 of 147 (732216)
07-04-2014 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
12-04-2008 1:33 AM


New Link from NPR
Evolution was herky-jerky

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—nothing more nor less.”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-04-2008 1:33 AM Adminnemooseus has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Tali_Zorah, posted 09-30-2014 9:37 AM Phat has taken no action

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15958
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 111 of 147 (816667)
08-09-2017 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Tangle
08-09-2017 8:44 AM


Re: God, Gods, and Fairies
Tangle writes:

For some reason believers need to make it a really complicated thing invoving all sort of pseudo-philosophical bunk like this. Accept it.

Accept what?

I dont think you are addressing the philosophical argument behind this article.

Perhaps many believers do attempt to make it complicated, but you are dismissing a concept without providing any reason other than the simple idea that you don't embrace or accept it. Do you have any idea of the basic argument in this piece?

  • First, you cannot simply make the argument that you are merely ignoring something with no evidence. You are ignoring a philosophical assertion without providing a counter-philosophy.

    quote:
    To speak of “God” properly—in a way, that is, consonant with the teachings of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Vedantic and Bhaktic Hinduism, Bahá’í, much of antique paganism, and so forth—is to speak of the one infinite ground of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.

    God so understood is neither some particular thing posed over against the created universe, in addition to it, nor is he the universe itself. He is not a being, at least not in the way that a tree, a clock, or a god is; he is not one more object in the inventory of things that are. He is the infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom all things live and move and have their being.


    Do you believe that there is no infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom all things are quite literally defined? Of course, you do...you believe in human wisdom and assemblage of evidence and scientific methodology. All that the article is saying is that God=Reality. Would you be prepared to defend the idea that consciousness=reality, or would you argue only that matter and the behavior of matter (as observed through consciousness) = reality?


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 110 by Tangle, posted 08-09-2017 8:44 AM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 113 by Tangle, posted 08-09-2017 10:09 AM Phat has seen this message
     Message 115 by Stile, posted 08-09-2017 10:31 AM Phat has seen this message

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 112 of 147 (816668)
    08-09-2017 9:41 AM
    Reply to: Message 109 by CRR
    08-09-2017 6:45 AM


    Re: God, Gods, and Fairies
    CRR writes:

    More to the point, it is an utterly nonsensical claim—so nonsensical, in fact, that it is doubtful that those who make it can truly be considered atheists in any coherent sense.

    I wouldn't call the philosophy nonsense, but I would agree that in order to be classified as an atheist one has to have a deeper philosophy than simply “I believe neither in God nor in the fairies at the bottom of my garden” or “Everyone today is a disbeliever in Thor or Zeus, but we simply believe in one god less”!

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 109 by CRR, posted 08-09-2017 6:45 AM CRR has taken no action

    Replies to this message:
     Message 114 by Tangle, posted 08-09-2017 10:14 AM Phat has seen this message
     Message 116 by dwise1, posted 08-09-2017 10:33 AM Phat has seen this message
     Message 117 by ringo, posted 08-09-2017 3:34 PM Phat has seen this message

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.1
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022