Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1066 of 3207 (857049)
07-05-2019 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1065 by Pressie
07-05-2019 6:38 AM


The Many and the Few.
Glad you edited that. Everyone can and should investigate a claim, but the claim itself states that few will find it.(or agree with the claim)
Meanwhile in Washington DC on the 4th of July, Trump spoke and seemed to voice the common goal of the US population:
quote:
"We will always be the people who defeated a tyrant, crossed a continent, harnessed science, took to the skies, and soared into the heavens," Trump said. "We are one people, chasing one dream, and one magnificent destiny."
Two other notable themes of the Bible are the fact that the majority prefers a popular pardon as opposed to pardoning Jesus (or Christ as living philosophy in today's world). The Christian view is strongest when a minority embrace it and live it. Too many of todays Christians are posers and wannabe believers...they want a God who will make them rich, but do not want to die to themselves and actually take up Larosse and follow Him (as jar would say)
Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

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
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1065 by Pressie, posted 07-05-2019 6:38 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1067 by Pressie, posted 07-05-2019 8:08 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 1067 of 3207 (857053)
07-05-2019 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1066 by Phat
07-05-2019 6:47 AM


Re: The Many and the Few.
You don't make any sense. If it doesn't make sense, it probably is untrue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1066 by Phat, posted 07-05-2019 6:47 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1068 of 3207 (857067)
07-05-2019 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1051 by Dredge
07-04-2019 11:35 PM


Re: In Defense Of The Book
Yeah the Pope barely scrapes by. Those Cardinals can barely get to and from work or get a healthy meal.
I have known a fair amount of priests in my life. They all lived in very nice homes and drove very nice vehicles. When they did have to travel they traveled first class. Yes they had very little personal assets but that is much different than a vow of poverty.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1051 by Dredge, posted 07-04-2019 11:35 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 595 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1069 of 3207 (857076)
07-05-2019 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1056 by GDR
07-05-2019 1:15 AM


Re: chances
You're missing the point. It's not the origin of your god that's the issue, it's the fact that you believe that complexity and intelligence cannot develop naturally. So you believe that intelligence cannot develop without there being intelligence in the first place. That gives a contradiction!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1056 by GDR, posted 07-05-2019 1:15 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1070 by GDR, posted 07-05-2019 10:42 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1070 of 3207 (857082)
07-05-2019 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1069 by Sarah Bellum
07-05-2019 9:46 AM


Re: chances
Sarah Bellum writes:
You're missing the point. It's not the origin of your god that's the issue, it's the fact that you believe that complexity and intelligence cannot develop naturally. So you believe that intelligence cannot develop without there being intelligence in the first place. That gives a contradiction!
Two things then. Firstly, It is my subjective belief that God is not restricted to linear time as we are. Science feels free to speculate about other dimensions of time.
Secondly even if the intelligence that created us did require an intelligent origin then it doesn't negate the idea of us being created by that intelligence. However, I don't believe that to be the case, and I realize it brings up the turtles all the way down argument, I still maintain that it raises the same issue for there being nothing but natural processes. What process was responsible for evolution and what process was responsible for that process and again it's turtles all the way down.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1069 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2019 9:46 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1071 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2019 11:18 AM GDR has replied
 Message 1078 by Theodoric, posted 07-05-2019 12:14 PM GDR has not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 595 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


(1)
Message 1071 of 3207 (857086)
07-05-2019 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1070 by GDR
07-05-2019 10:42 AM


Re: chances
Two things then. First, "not restricted to linear time" sounds like something out of C. S. Lewis or A. A. Attanasio, an issue of belief or fantasy rather than rational thought (at least until science is doing more than "speculating")
Second, new living organisms have been observed to evolve without intelligent intervention. Why should it have been different in the past?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1070 by GDR, posted 07-05-2019 10:42 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1072 by GDR, posted 07-05-2019 11:24 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1072 of 3207 (857089)
07-05-2019 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1071 by Sarah Bellum
07-05-2019 11:18 AM


Re: chances
Sarah Bellum writes:
Second, new living organisms have been observed to evolve without intelligent intervention. Why should it have been different in the past?
That is simply part of the evolutionary process. How did the evolutionary process start: what was the process for the first cell; how about consciousness etc.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1071 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2019 11:18 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1077 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2019 11:59 AM GDR has replied
 Message 1079 by NosyNed, posted 07-05-2019 1:29 PM GDR has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1073 of 3207 (857091)
07-05-2019 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1044 by GDR
07-04-2019 7:10 PM


Re: chances
GDR writes:
It is true that we only have objective knowledge of natural processes but that tells us nothing about the root cause of natural processes regardless of how many stages we want to back.
"Root causes" is a red herring. If you propose pre-existing intelligence as a root cause of processes, you still don't know the root cause of the root cause.
GDR writes:
Regardless of which option we choose we can be accused of making a positive claim on lack of evidence.
"We can not find any sign of God," is not a positive claim. It can be backed by lack of evidence.
GDR writes:
What is the evidence for the why these natural processes exist?
"Evidence for why" is another red herring. It gets you nowhere.
GDR writes:
You claim that you have evidence that we got from there to here through mindless random processes without any intelligent involvement.
We have evidence that it could have happened that way.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1044 by GDR, posted 07-04-2019 7:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1081 by GDR, posted 07-05-2019 4:07 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1074 of 3207 (857092)
07-05-2019 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1045 by GDR
07-04-2019 7:21 PM


Re: In Defense Of The Book
GDR writes:
We all pay taxes to the same degree depending on income. The net difference is what we do with our after tax income.
You can't separate good done through taxes from good done through other means.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1045 by GDR, posted 07-04-2019 7:21 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1082 by GDR, posted 07-05-2019 4:10 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1075 of 3207 (857093)
07-05-2019 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1057 by Phat
07-05-2019 2:52 AM


Re: AZ GDR and ringo.
Phat writes:
... it seems that evidence is required before you will believe anything. Not a bad survival trait, but a stumbling block on the path to Christ.
Indeed it is. Maybe that's a clue that you shouldn't be on the path to Christ.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by Phat, posted 07-05-2019 2:52 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1076 of 3207 (857094)
07-05-2019 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1064 by Phat
07-05-2019 6:35 AM


Re: AZ GDR and ringo.
Phat writes:
The Bible speaks of two distinct groups of people. The many and the few.
You probably don't want to go down the "few are chosen" road unless you're ready to admit that the many are going to roast in Hell.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1064 by Phat, posted 07-05-2019 6:35 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 595 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1077 of 3207 (857095)
07-05-2019 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1072 by GDR
07-05-2019 11:24 AM


Re: chances
There is no intelligent agency carving those beautiful snowflakes from ice crystals, why should there be an intelligent agency carving out the laws of chemistry and physics that produce those snowflakes?
Humans have always looked at the world and seen an intelligent agency where there really was none, from Hephaestus as the reason for volcanoes belching lava and fire to modern-day conspiracy theories.
The deeper we look, year after year, the more we find natural origins as answers to scientific questions. Hypothesizing an intelligent agency somewhere "at the bottom of all of this" doesn't lead to anything that can be objectively checked, just an ever-receding nebulous object of faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1072 by GDR, posted 07-05-2019 11:24 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1083 by GDR, posted 07-05-2019 4:15 PM Sarah Bellum has replied
 Message 1248 by Phat, posted 07-12-2019 2:15 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1078 of 3207 (857097)
07-05-2019 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1070 by GDR
07-05-2019 10:42 AM


Re: chances
Majick!

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1070 by GDR, posted 07-05-2019 10:42 AM GDR has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1079 of 3207 (857100)
07-05-2019 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1072 by GDR
07-05-2019 11:24 AM


GotGs
How did the evolutionary process start: what was the process for the first cell; how about consciousness etc.
You are playing at extremely simple minded and poor theology. God of the gaps has been used to death over the centuries and always ends up looking foolish.
Bad choice of argument according to both theologians and scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1072 by GDR, posted 07-05-2019 11:24 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1080 by dwise1, posted 07-05-2019 2:17 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 1086 by GDR, posted 07-05-2019 4:30 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 1144 by Dredge, posted 07-07-2019 1:08 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 1080 of 3207 (857101)
07-05-2019 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1079 by NosyNed
07-05-2019 1:29 PM


Re: GotGs
You are playing at extremely simple minded and poor theology. God of the gaps has been used to death over the centuries and always ends up looking foolish.
Bad choice of argument according to both theologians and scientists.
Wikipedia's God of the gaps article presents the idea as being opposed by theologians and having been invented by theologians to serve explicitly as the bad example that Christians must avoid.
IOW, GotG was invented by theologians in order to describe and criticize really bad ideas that constitute bad theology.
Some quotes from that page (for those who insist on being spoon-fed):
quote:
The concept, although not the exact wording, goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th-century evangelist lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on The Ascent of Man. He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain”"gaps which they will fill up with God"”and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."
In 1933, Ernest Barnes, the Bishop of Birmingham, used the phrase in a discussion of general relativity's implication of a Big Bang:
Must we then postulate Divine intervention? Are we to bring in God to create the first current of Laplace's nebula or to let off the cosmic firework of Lematre's imagination? I confess an unwillingness to bring God in this way upon the scene. The circumstances with thus seem to demand his presence are too remote and too obscure to afford me any true satisfaction. Men have thought to find God at the special creation of their own species, or active when mind or life first appeared on earth. They have made him God of the gaps in human knowledge. To me the God of the trigger is as little satisfying as the God of the gaps. It is because throughout the physical Universe I find thought and plan and power that behind it I see God as the creator.
. . .
In his 1955 book Science and Christian Belief Charles Alfred Coulson (1910’1974) wrote:
There is no 'God of the gaps' to take over at those strategic places where science fails; and the reason is that gaps of this sort have the unpreventable habit of shrinking.
and
Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He's not there at all.
Coulson was a mathematics professor at Oxford University as well as a Methodist church leader, often appearing in the religious programs of British Broadcasting Corporation. ... It is claimed that the actual phrase 'God of the gaps' was invented by Coulson.
. . .
Bube attributed modern crises in religious faith in part to the inexorable shrinking of the God-of-the-gaps as scientific knowledge progressed. As humans progressively increased their understanding of nature, the previous "realm" of God seemed to many persons and religions to be getting smaller and smaller by comparison. Bube maintained that Darwin's Origin of Species was the "death knell" of the God-of-the-gaps. Bube also maintained that the God-of-the-gaps was not the same as the God of the Bible (that is, he was not making an argument against God per se, but rather asserting there was a fundamental problem with the perception of God as existing in the gaps of present-day knowledge).
. . .
The term was invented as a criticism of people who perceive that God only acts in the gaps, and who restrict God's activity to such "gaps". It has also been argued that the God-of-the-gaps view is predicated on the assumption that any event which can be explained by science automatically excludes God; that if God did not do something via direct action, that he had no role in it at all.
The "God of the gaps" argument, as traditionally advanced by scholarly Christians, was intended as a criticism against weak or tenuous faith, not as a statement against theism or belief in God.
GotGs is bad and stoopid theology that I see being used by too many creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1079 by NosyNed, posted 07-05-2019 1:29 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1182 by Dredge, posted 07-08-2019 2:32 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024