|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Hitch is dead | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Phat writes: Belief in what though. I contend that there is no rational argument to support the belief that we exist only as a result in mindless processes evolving form an endless stream of mindless processes all resulting in life as we know it. Because there is no rational argument apart from belief. IMHO it is more rational to believe that there is an intelligent agency responsible for our existence. To get from deism to theism is another discussion. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: It is the most parsimonious explanation, with no obvious inadequacies. That makes it the most rational explanation. And your desperate rationalisations suggest that you know that.
quote: Funny how you can’t find any decent rational arguments for it, then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: The obvious inadequacy is that the evolutionary process requires a process to get it started, which required a process etc, all by mindless chance. The most parsimonious answer is that an intelligent agency is behind it all regardless of how it was accomplished. It is the most parsimonious explanation, with no obvious inadequacies. That makes it the most rational explanation. And your desperate rationalisations suggest that you know that.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That’s a nice example of rationalisation. Any explanatory chain has to eventually run out, so that’s a problem for any view. And since there is no clear need for intelligence, assuming unintelligent causes is the parsimonious view (also note that intelligence is one of the things that cries out for explanation so assuming it without explanation actually is a problem)
quote: That’s the sort of nonsense answer I’d expect from Faith. Parsimony is about throwing out unnecessary assumptions, not making massive assumptions you happen to like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
GDR writes: I don't see why that's circular. It involves creating a world that involved bringing about creatures that were able to be involved in the creation of more life. It evolved the way it is. 'It is the way it is' has no explanatory value. All Polkinghorne is saying is that if god wanted us to be this way, then the way we got to be this way is necessary. That's circular, explains nothing and does not even need to be true. For almost all of the time Christians had held beliefs, they believed that our existence was puffed into being all at once as we see it now. That, at least has explanatory value and requires a god. Now that we know that both the universe and all living things evolved over billions of years, the god is no longer required except - in a deist's view - at the inception. Hence the need for rationalisations.
Not at all. It's an argument for a god that created beings, that would being given the ability to sub-consciously connect to His loving concern for the creation, and choose to care for that creation. That's just poetic pulpit waffle.
You could do better I suppose [] So maybe God does have limitations That's the understatement of the year. It also removes god's omnipotence. Oops, there goes a cornerstone of monotheism.
Every living thing eh. Personally I'm not feeling the torture. Yes, every living thing that there has ever been and will ever be suffers and dies. You are not an exception. Maybe you'll get lucky and get hit by a bus rather than die slowly in pain like my brother-in-law, but you will die. So far, you've had the best life available to modern humans - being born in a wealthy Western country with access to education, work, justice and health systems. You tell us that you spend a lot of time you helping the suffering, making life better for those not so lucky. Please don't pretend that suffering doesn't exist. I keep reminding you, is not about you or me.
And you know that how? The Garden of Eden is a metaphorical location and heaven is simply God's dimension. And you know that how? Of course both are imaginary. I'm simply playing back believer's beliefs. Both are biblical. You guys just pick and choose and rationalise.
Also the goal of ultimately getting to heaven is the Platonic beliefs that crept into Christianity early on. The Biblical view is that this world will be renewed and that somehow God's heavenly, and our earthly dimension in some manner. Your interpretation of the biblical view is simply one of several. It's another belief. But you all admit to an afterlife. Are you telling me that the afterlife will contain suffering and death?
In the meantime I'll let go deal with that stuff and get on as best I can with my life now in this universe/dimension. Which does not require all the artefacts of religious practice and paraphernalia. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Phat writes: You likely would state that IF God exists and is all-powerful He not only has the ability but the responsibility to shield us and protect us from every harmful event that comes our way. No I don't say that. I say that if your god is a loving all powerful god, then he wouldn't have created anything like the universe that exists.
Of course, we can claim to define His responsibility, but we are not the final arbiter of His duties and responsibilities. And point out the contradictions between your belief and his values. A creature that ran such an obnoxious experiment as this is not the benevolent god that you worship, nor the god of the new testament.
There are certain conditions on this planet which are a part of the natural order and which...even if God had the power to change...are meant to be part of our character development. If you practiced even a tiny part of those 'character development' activities on your own child you'd be imprisoned for life - if you survived the public wrath.
And of course, you have already concluded that God is a myth...despite having no conclusive proof that this is so. So on and on we go. As have you, save one.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
PaulK writes: And that is how you rationalize your way around an endless non-evidenced stream of processes to arrive at our present world. That’s a nice example of rationalisation. Any explanatory chain has to eventually run out, so that’s a problem for any view. And since there is no clear need for intelligence, assuming unintelligent causes is the parsimonious view We have no way of knowing whether there is a need for an intelligent agent or not. Tangle claims that the process is the agency. That is a belief. WE can study the evolutionary process all we want but all that is going to give us is the latest process that got us to where we are. We don't know whether an intelligent agent was required or not.
PaulK writes: Sure it's a problem. Of course the theistic view is that God is not restricted to our one dimension of time and is eternal. also note that intelligence is one of the things that cries out for explanation so assuming it without explanation actually is a problem) Of course I don't know that nut IMHO it makes a great deal more sense to believe that than it does to believe that sentient life could have arisen from mindless chemicals without even asking where those chemicals came from.
PaulK writes: OK, but then that is the case for both of us. You are simply assuming that we are the result of mindlessness and claiming that no intelligent agency is necessary. That’s the sort of nonsense answer I’d expect from Faith. Parsimony is about throwing out unnecessary assumptions, not making massive assumptions you happen to like.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Tangle writes: Yes, there is suffering and lots of it. I have acknowledged that suffering is the biggest problem that Christians have to face. We can reject God on that grounds and easily justify it. However, I chosen to accept that suffering is a part of this world and that God suffers along with us. Jesus suffered on the cross. God gets it. Yes, every living thing that there has ever been and will ever be suffers and dies. You are not an exception. Maybe you'll get lucky and get hit by a bus rather than die slowly in pain like my brother-in-law, but you will die. So far, you've had the best life available to modern humans - being born in a wealthy Western country with access to education, work, justice and health systems. You tell us that you spend a lot of time you helping the suffering, making life better for those not so lucky. Please don't pretend that suffering doesn't exist. I keep reminding you, is not about you or me. On that basis I simply assume on faith that this is how it has to be and do my best to respond to the call to live out the life as seen in my signature.
Tangle writes: As you have said before, except I don't know what it has to do with monotheism.
That's the understatement of the year. It also removes god's omnipotence. Oops, there goes a cornerstone of monotheism. Tangle writes: Yes, it is all belief. It isn't something we can examine in a test tube or with a telescope, Your interpretation of the biblical view is simply one of several. It's another belief. But you all admit to an afterlife. Are you telling me that the afterlife will contain suffering and death? Edited by GDR, : typoHe 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Tangle writes: Correct me if I'm wrong...but what you basically say is that if the universe exists and arose without a Creator than it is what it is, but that if God were involved He has a lot of 'splaining to do...in order to satisfy the charges that are leveled through humans. Essentially you are saying that God cannot be all-powerful and all-loving because___(fill in the blank)_________________. You are framing the argument so that belief in God makes no sense.
I say that if your god is a loving all-powerful God, then he wouldn't have created anything like the universe that exists. Tangle writes: OK, but I will only use the red-letter words of Jesus in order to define God. I won't use the OT because I have no way of knowing if God were actually talking or if humans wrote what they felt He said and/or meant to satisfy their own behaviors. It is clearer with Jesus. point out the contradictions between your belief and his values. I will use a few precepts from the OT, however. We can debate the rationality of them later. Allow me a bit to study what the book actually says that "God" and/or Jesus actually says.The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.Calvin Coolidge "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith - You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. Anne Lamott Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.~Andre Gide
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It’s not a rationalisation. I don’t accept your decree that there has to be an infinite regress. That’s just your invention.
quote: Then assuming that there is an intelligent agent involved is not a rational position.
quote: Yes you handwave away the problems of your assumption with another problematic assumption. But it doesn’t address the issue. So that’s just another example of irrationality.
quote: In fact it makes less sense if we know that the chemicals were present. Accepting known facts without an explanation is fine. Making things up and calling them facts is not. But it is also something of a strawman since science certainly is looking into the origins of the chemicals. So there’s a double dose or irrationality there.
quote: Well no. Since we don’t know of any need the parsimonious position is to assume that there isn’t one. So again you fail to understand parsimony.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
GDR writes: Yes, it is all belief. And I'm providing you with reasons why the belief is an error. But you skipped answering whether there is suffering and death in the afterlife?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: Correct me if I'm wrong...but what you basically say is that if the universe exists and arose without a Creator than it is what it is, but that if God were involved He has a lot of 'splaining to do...in order to satisfy the charges that are leveled through humans. Essentially you are saying that God cannot be all-powerful and all-loving because___(fill in the blank)_________________. You are framing the argument so that belief in God makes no sense. It's not a new argument Phat, it's been made here dozens of times. Your god can not be both all powerful and all loving if he creates/allows suffering. GDR has surrendered the all powerful bit to get round it. A massive weakening of theology.
OK, but I will only use the red-letter words of Jesus in order to define God. I won't use the OT because I have no way of knowing if God were actually talking or if humans wrote what they felt He said and/or meant to satisfy their own behaviors. It is clearer with Jesus. So now, like GDR, you're throwing away half of the bible. Your god is shrinking in size and shape with every sentence.
Allow me a bit to study what the book actually says that "God" and/or Jesus actually says. Surely you know that already - it's a small book, not the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. You guys are supposed to be reading it all day everyday... Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
PaulK writes: OK. Let's make it easy. Just outline the process that was responsible for the process of evolution. Maybe when you've done that start thinking about the process that started that process.
It’s not a rationalisation. I don’t accept your decree that there has to be an infinite regress. That’s just your invention. GDR writes: We have no way of knowing whether there is a need for an intelligent agent or not. Tangle claims that the process is the agency. That is a belief. WE can study the evolutionary process all we want but all that is going to give us is the latest process that got us to where we are. We don't know whether an intelligent agent was required or not.PaulK writes: ...then assuming that there is no intelligent agency involved isn't a rational position either. In either case we look at what we know and come to a subjective conclusion. I have subjectively concluded that sentient life evolving through a series of mindless chemical processes is far less likely than there being an intelligent agency responsible for all of the processes. I know that Tangle would say that only gets us to deism. It is a different discussion to get to theism from deism.
Then assuming that there is an intelligent agent involved is not a rational position. PaulK writes: But the issue is how do we get sentient life from the mindless fundamental particles from the big bang. That is without even asking where those particles were before the BB. Did that all happen with or without intelligent agency?
Yes you handwave away the problems of your assumption with another problematic assumption. But it doesn’t address the issue. So that’s just another example of irrationality. PaulK writes: That just isn't correct. Your position requires a series of processes each requiring a cause. I take the parsimonious position that there is only one cause which is that there is an intelligent agency responsible for the whole shebang. Well no. Since we don’t know of any need the parsimonious position is to assume that there isn’t one. So again you fail to understand parsimony.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: As I have provided you with reasons that your belief is in error. And, if you want to say that you have no belief then how about settling on your belief that I am wrong.
And I'm providing you with reasons why the belief is an error. Tangle writes: Well I do believe that in the next life our world won't be subject to time in one direction as we know it, and as a result death and decay aren't a factor. I don't believe that there will be suffering as we know it, but I do believe that the lives that we are living now will have an impact on how we live in the next life. I tend to think of it in the ways that your favourite philosopher C S Lewis wrote about it in The Great Divorce and in some ways even more so in The Last Battle. I do believe that we won't be subjected to a theological quiz to make sure we got our theology right. But you skipped answering whether there is suffering and death in the afterlife?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That’s just changing the subject. So let’s deal with the original point. You don’t get to artificially limit the possibilities available to me. And to accuse me of rationalisation because I refuse to accept your diktat is pretty disgusting. And to answer your question I think the idea that there is a process responsible for the process of evolution is daft.
quote: Yes it is. Parsimony is rational.
quote: However, my position is more rational which is the point of discussion. Your opinion lacks any firm basis.
quote: In the absence of any solid reason to think otherwise the rational answer is yes. And in fact we do know quite a bit about these things and nowhere do we see any clear sign of intelligent agency.
quote: So you say, but I don’t assume any processes without evidence. The idea that I believe in an infinite chain of additional processes is simply something you made up.
quote: That isn’t parsimonious at all. My actual position is the parsimonious one because it avoids all the unnecessary assumptions of yours.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024