Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8924 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2019 10:38 PM
25 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Theodoric (3 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 859,867 Year: 14,903/19,786 Month: 1,626/3,058 Week: 404/868 Day: 43/70 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Who Made God?
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 13 of 750 (688062)
01-18-2013 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Thugpreacha
03-14-2006 3:58 AM


The question of eternal existence.
I think that it might be an idea to get away from this discussion being Christian specific. How about we just start with either a theistic or deistic creative intelligence. In other words who or what would have created the creative intelligent agent that brought our world into existence.

I think that we could also ask the question from a different POV. The question would be, "how could a creative agent exist infinitely". If that question can be hypothetically answered then we would have at least one possible explanation that would make the original question moot.

In "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene, (one of my favourite books), he writes the following after talking about how we only experience time in one direction, and that we would expect there to be a law that confirms this.

quote:
"The perplexing thing is that no one has discovered any such law. What's more, the laws of physics that have been articulated from Newton through Maxwell and Einstein, and up to until today, show a complete symmetry between past and future. Nowhere in any of these laws do we find a stipulation that they apply one way in time but not the other. Nowhere is there any distinction between how the laws look or behave when applied in either direction in time. The laws treat what we call past and future on a completely equal footing."

It seems that our current understanding of the laws of physics indicate that theoretically it should be possible to exist by either going forward or back in time. This alone would allow for an infinite existence. We also know that some scientific theories such as “string theory” suggest that there might be even more, and maybe even 26 spacetime dimensions. In our existence that has 3 spatial dimensions we can move infinitely around our globe. I am not claiming this as anything but highly speculative but it seems to me that If our intelligent creator experienced existence in a world with 3 dimensions of time, then he/she/it would be able to move around infinitely in time just as we can travel infinitely around our globe.

It seems to me that this gives one possible explanation that allows for a creator that has always existed, and will always exist, negating the need for a creator of the creator.


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 1 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-14-2006 3:58 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by AZPaul3, posted 01-18-2013 10:52 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 15 of 750 (688084)
01-18-2013 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by AZPaul3
01-18-2013 10:52 PM


Re: The question of eternal existence.
AZPaul3 writes:

Excellent GDR. However I think ramoss may have a point.


I agree he has a point but I don't see it as being germane to the topic. It seems to me that the topic is based on the debating point that if God exists and He created us then who created God and it's turtles all the way down. The argument is based on the assumption that God exists.

AZPaul3 writes:

It seems useless to show in the science one possible explanation that allows for some entity to be infinite in time when no one can show in the science that such an entity exists or could exist.

Once again the discussion is based on the assumption that God exists. The question then is who created God and I am saying that one possible answer would be that it isn't necessary for God to have been created.

AZPaul3 writes:

Seems to me that since the existence of some creator is born of the magic of faith it is disingenuous to try to usurp science into explaining any of its attributes.

It seems to me that what we generally call faith is more than about whether or not there is an intelligent first cause. Faith generally refers to what we believe about the nature of this intelligence.

Beyond faith the question of who created the creator is essentially a question that can best be addressed by science. What is disingenuous about that?

All I am saying is that theoretical physics does present us with the possibility of eternity. I am not trying to say that my answer is conclusive, but it does provide one possible answer that is consistent with our current scientific knowledge.

AZPaul3 writes:

But I do applaud your creativity.

Thanks


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 14 by AZPaul3, posted 01-18-2013 10:52 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by AZPaul3, posted 01-19-2013 12:02 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 18 of 750 (688102)
01-19-2013 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by AZPaul3
01-19-2013 12:02 AM


Re: The question of eternal existence.
AZPaul3 writes:

If your best science cannot address the very existence of such a thing then how can any science address any of its attributes?


I agree that science is not the place to look for the attributes of any intelligent first cause, but the point I was trying to make is not about any attributes of that intelligence. It is simply that the idea of an eternal existence can be explained using what is currently theoretical science. It is just one possible explanation as to the answer of "Who Made God". The answer if this speculation is correct is that God, (or any other intelligent first cause) did not require a creator because he/she/it just always was and always will be.

AZPaul3 writes:

But, I see my error. If the opening axiom is "it exists" then I'm in the wrong thread and will try to gracefully bow out

I think it's just a case of that I probably didn't make my point clear enough. I wasn't arguing for the existence of God but only that if God exists that there is at least one plausible answer to the question asked in the title of the OP.

AZPaul3 writes:

without further stepping on my dick


Bragging again are we.....

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 16 by AZPaul3, posted 01-19-2013 12:02 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


(2)
Message 25 of 750 (688909)
01-26-2013 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tangle
01-20-2013 4:18 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Tangle writes:

This has always been a puzzle to me. Believers always say this, but it's plainly false, if He wanted to talk to me He can, I'm here and happy to listen. Never has. Odd that.

Hi Tangle

You're walking down the street and there is a blind street person who is asking for a few coins. You feel the need to help this person and so you take him with you to the deli and buy him a meal.

I'm a Christian, and as such, I would suggest that was God speaking to you and you did indeed listen. An atheist would say that this feeling and action is just something that has culturally and socially evolved over thousands of years from a completely natural, non-moral and non-intelligent beginning.

We have no way of proving which is correct. We all have our own specific beliefs but hopefully that gives you an idea of what Phat is talking about.


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 21 by Tangle, posted 01-20-2013 4:18 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tangle, posted 01-26-2013 2:53 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 27 of 750 (688923)
01-26-2013 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tangle
01-26-2013 2:53 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Tangle writes:

But it wasn't God speaking at all was it? There were no words or any indication at all that the motivation came from outside the individual. Nothing.

Absolutely. That was the point. It is my belief as a Christian that God speaks through our hearts, minds and imaginations. I wasn’t suggesting that it was an audible voice, and as I said there is no way to prove that it is anything external to the individual.

Tangle writes:

The instinct is also there in Muslims and atheists so, obviously, it can't have anything to do with being a Christian.

I agree that God speaks to the hearts, minds and imaginations of all mankind and not just Christians.

GDR writes:

An atheist would say that this feeling and action is just something that has culturally and socially evolved over thousands of years from a completely natural, non-moral and non-intelligent beginning.

Tangle writes:

That's correct - and unlike the God thing, we have evidence for it an d can see it happening in the brain using fMRI scans.

You can’t see a thought with a brain scan. An idea is non-physical. You can see the impact that an idea has on the brain but that tells us nothing about the impetus for the thought itself.

Tangle writes:

The thing is, if you think that your God is interfering with your emotions in a direct and physical way such that we can actually see parts of the brain being stimulated by moral emotions then there's no such thing as free will.

I don’t see it as God interfering. I believe that God in general implants in our minds a concept of doing the loving thing and we have the free will to accept or reject the unselfish loving thought or action.

Tangle writes:

But all this aside, when a believer says that God speaks to him, they give the the impression that this is a personal and direct experience, but when quizzed, it turns out to be a very, very indirect affair.

I think that it sometimes is a direct experience. A number of years ago out of nowhere I felt that I should go and become a lay-reader in our church. I hadn't considered it previously but I felt this urge that that was what I should do. One of the things that the lay-readers did in that church, was to go into a Montreal senior’s residence and lead a Sunday worship service. This in turn led to a ministry, (over 30 years so far), with seniors leading sing-a-longs. I choose to believe that it was God that put that idea into my head but I obviously have no conclusive proof of that.

However, I think that is more the exception than the rule. I think God is that still small voice or conscience that nudges us towards having loving unselfish hearts.

Tangle writes:

To admit that they actually converse with god is an admission of mental derangement because we all know that it doesn't actually happen that way

That is true of my experience but I can’t speak for anyone else.

Tangle writes:

it's a one way process that results in a requirement to attribute a reply through indirect means, which to everybody else are simply everyday, common phenomenon.

That is how it appears but there is a great many things about our existence that aren't what they appear.

BTW. I think we may be a tad off topic.


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 26 by Tangle, posted 01-26-2013 2:53 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Tangle, posted 01-27-2013 3:16 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 32 of 750 (689027)
01-27-2013 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tangle
01-27-2013 3:16 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Tangle writes:

It looks like we're done - you simply believe something for which there isn't a scrap of evidence yet there's an everyday explanation and I find that totally preposterous, but that's hardly new here

Well, that's not quite true. There is the story of the resurrection of Jesus. I'm not saying that it is conclusive but people took the time to write those stories down and we can believe them are not which is a matter of faith. However, it is evidence.

I can say though that "you simply believe something for which there isn't a scrap of evidence". There is no evidence that God doesn't exist yet you believe it.

I realize that there is no evidence for pink unicorns or the FSM either but I haven't met anybody yet who believes in their existence.

Personal experience aside it all boils down to plausibility. Is it more plausible that our intelligence and sense of morality was the result of an intelligent and moral first cause or, did our intelligence and morality result from a fortunate, natural, non-intelligent, non-moral chance combination of pre-existing particles?

I choose door 1 and it appears, correct me if I'm wrong, that you choose door 2.


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 28 by Tangle, posted 01-27-2013 3:16 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 01-27-2013 4:58 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 34 of 750 (689048)
01-27-2013 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tangle
01-27-2013 4:58 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Tangle writes:

I'm afraid it's not even evidence, it's hearsay at best. Like you say, a story.

It is clear in reading the accounts that the disciples, and Paul for that matter, believed that the resurrection was an actual historical event. The question is did they get it right or not, like any other historical account.

GDR writes:

I can say though that "you simply believe something for which there isn't a scrap of evidence". There is no evidence that God doesn't exist yet you believe it.

Tangle writes:

That's silly. And you know it. (I hope)

Why? This world exists and we exist. We have no objective evidence concerning a first cause. If you think you have some I'm all ears metaphorically speaking of course.

Tangle writes:

I think that you also know that FSMs and so on are exaggerations to make a point. You need to ask yourself why billions of people believe in things that you don't and have done so for thousands of years. It's the atheist's view that pink unicorns are are viable as Vishna, Thor, fairies and Father Christmas. The Christian god is just another in a long line of fantasies.


That is the atheist's POV. So what? The Christian belief is that God is real.

GDR writes:

Personal experience aside it all boils down to plausibility. Is it more plausible that our intelligence and sense of morality was the result of an intelligent and moral first cause or, did our intelligence and morality result from a fortunate, natural, non-intelligent, non-moral chance combination of pre-existing particles?

Tangle writes:

You also know that arguments from ignorance aren't any use here either.
But yes, the latter is far more probable. Particularly given the evidence for it and the absence of evidence for the former.


Again, what evidence would that be?

Edited by GDR, : typo


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 33 by Tangle, posted 01-27-2013 4:58 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2013 9:32 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 36 of 750 (689128)
01-28-2013 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tangle
01-28-2013 9:32 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Tangle writes:

The stories in the bible are anecdotal - they're a million miles from evidence - we don't even know who wrote them, but we do know they weren't eye witnesses. Many historians are not even convinced that JC actually existed, let alone rose from the dead.

They were written as historical documents and as such we can view them as we do any other historical documents. We can accept them completely or partially, or we can reject them totally but somebody took the time write them all those years ago so it is evidence. Concerning the accuracy of the writings as evidence is a different debate.

Tangle writes:

You've been here long enough to know that rationalists like me, do not believe something just because it can't be disproven. You're exactly the same, you can't prove that Islam isn't the only way to eternal happiness, but you don't believe it do you?
You make a claim, you prove it. I'm prepared to believe things that have some supporting evidence. If you believe in the risen christ and all the god made everything just for us stuff, that's fine, so long as you don't try to pretend it's rational.

Is it rational to believe that an incredibly complex cell could come into existence from a random collection of particles? Is it really rational to believe that intelligence could also emerge from this same random collection of particles? Apparently that is your claim, so prove it.

Tangle writes:

The first cause idea is simply a philosophical construct - it's not real. I'm simply not interested in it because it gets us nowhere - making up an imaginary first cause (a god) in order to get around a lack of a first cause is just silly.
Nor do I necessarily need a first cause (physics tell me I don't). I don't even expect to be able to understand how the universe works - I'm just a lump of primitive protein, why should I (ie humans) expect to understand how this all wo rks?

You have discounted all the work done by centuries of scientific minds who have worked hard at trying to understand how this all works. It is your view that the idea that God, god or gods exist is imaginary. Maybe you’re right but most of the world’s population disagree with you.

GDR writes:

Again, what evidence would that be?

tangle writes:

The Theory of Evolution.


The Theory of Evolution is as near as I can tell a well evidenced theory as to the process that led to life today. It is not evidence of why we exist. It would be like looking at a car assembly line and claiming that the assembly line just came into existence on its own and is solely responsible for the existence of cars.

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 35 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2013 9:32 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2013 12:45 PM GDR has responded
 Message 41 by xongsmith, posted 01-29-2013 1:26 AM GDR has responded
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 01-30-2013 4:25 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 42 of 750 (689250)
01-29-2013 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tangle
01-28-2013 12:45 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
GDR writes:

Is it rational to believe that an incredibly complex cell could come into existence from a random collection of particles? Is it really rational to believe that intelligence could also emerge from this same random collection of particles?

Tangle writes:

Yes. We call it biology.

You're smarter than that. Obviously biology is the study of how things are and not about the cause of a cell's existence.

Tangle writes:

The Theory of Evolution provides the evidence and the proof for the second, for the first, science is still stumped and maybe always will be. But obviously that's not evidence for a god - as has been said many times on these boards. [God of the gaps.]

I am not claiming that it is evidence for God.I am only saying that it doesn't tell us one way or the other. It is you who claimed that evolution was evidence against there being a god which is simply "science of the gaps".

Tangle writes:

What I do know is that the God theory has had its day. It's had thousands of years to prove its point and it's failed at every attempt. There is not one single incident of a provable supernatural event - not one.

OK but so what? I'm not claiming that it is provable, but that it also doesn't mean or prove that God doesn't exist.

Tangle writes:

Primitive beliefs are being chipped away at in all modern societies. Education and economic development sees them off. They'll be out of the way in another millennia.

There are many people brighter and better educated than either of us who believe in what you condescendingly call "primitive beliefs".

Tangle writes:

There's no reason at all - other than self-importance - for there to be a reason why we exist beyond the obvious one that we evolved from simpler organisms.

The simplest organisms that we know of, (correct me if I'm wrong), consist of one incredibly complex single cell. You have faith in the fact that mindless particles could by chance come together to form the original cell which then some how was able to reproduce itself. Personally, even though I can't prove that to be false I can't muster up enough faith to believe that it's true.

Tangle writes:

The desire to find purpose, led to the invention of that purpose. That's just the way we deal with life - we pretend that that we're special. We ain't.

Your line of reasoning means that we are no more special than a rock if both you and a rock are nothing more than a random collection of atoms. You however have intelligence, motor skills and a set of values. You can make intentional changes to the world. A rock can't, so just maybe you are more special than a rock after all.

Tangle writes:

Aren't you bored reading the same old analogies followed by the same old explanations why the analogy is just plain silly? I am.

I suppose, but I am a little bored of hearing the ridiculous idea that evolution provides an explanation for how life came into existence in the first place.

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 37 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2013 12:45 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 01-29-2013 3:15 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 43 of 750 (689251)
01-29-2013 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by xongsmith
01-29-2013 1:26 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
xongsmith writes:

This is patently obvious in a society of human beings - except for the last bit - the "walk humbly with your God" part. You don't need a God to walk humbly. All of the good behaviors of mankind do NOT need some God to be obvious and well-attended to in the course of human civilization.

The sentiment can be found in all the major religions in the world, as well as in the secular world as an ideal. Frankly, that is what I would expect of there was a god/gods influencing us in that direction.


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 41 by xongsmith, posted 01-29-2013 1:26 AM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 45 of 750 (689289)
01-29-2013 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Tangle
01-29-2013 3:15 AM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Tangle writes:

Biology studies how thing got to be what they are as well as what they are now. Homo sapiens evolved from ape like ancestors which in turn evolved from simpler animals and so on.

OK. So far so good.

Tangle writes:

That is the cause of our existence.

There is no evidence for that. That is simply a matter of belief.

Tangle writes:

Absolutely not. I have rejected your premise that because I can't prove there in n o god, that I therefore should believe in one


I did not say that. I can’t prove that there is a god and you can’t prove there isn’t. It is a matter of belief. Aside from other things I contend that an intelligent first cause is more plausible than is intelligence and morality evolving from mindless particles.

Tangle writes:

Instead I insist that in order for me to believe in something I need evidence for it. You have provided none other than the existence of stories in a book that you personally believe to be true. Others believe other books with similar lack of evidence.

I’m not claiming that the Bible is inerrant and I’m not saying that other holy books don’t have truth in them as well. Yes I believe the account in the Bible of the resurrection of Christ as being historical however that isn’t the only evidence. The world and specifically all life does appear to be designed. We do seem to desire purpose in our lives as you said earlier. Things like thoughts and emotions are real but not physical. Particles appear and disappear. QM indicates that there are other dimensions/universes that we are unable to perceive. All these things are evidence that we draw our conclusions from and form our own beliefs.

Tangle writes:

I'm not an atheist because science has proven the stories in the bible to be wrong - tho' obviously that's important and devastating for those that believed in them

Science has proven that one particular way of understanding the Bible is wrong. I agree that there was no 6 day creation, and I agree that there was no worldwide flood but so what.

Tangle writes:

I'm an atheist because I can find no evidence at all - and I do mean none - for a god.

There is nothing that you will accept as evidence for a god.

Tangle writes:

So all the rest of your arguments are straw men. I don't need a first cause, I don't need to believe that my existence here is important in any cosmic sense, I don't think there is any important difference between me and a rock, I'm not searching for the meaning of life and I don't need a "why".

Just because you don’t feel the need for a “why” doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist. We can all exist without needing anything beyond ourselves but that tells us nothing about whether something beyond ourselves actually exists, or not.

Tangle writes:

In fact, if I believe in anything of this sort, it's that the search for a why - in a philosophical and religious sense - is the cau se of most of our problems. And the sooner we get over our massive egos, the sooner we will come to terms with developing ways of making our short lives here more pleasant and equitable for everyone.

My understanding of my faith has nothing to do with ego and is in fact just the opposite, and the goal of my faith is to do in whatever small way I can to make the short lives of myself, and more importantly others more pleasant and equitable. (I am only saying that is the goal and I am not saying that I am particularly successful at achieving the goal.)

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 44 by Tangle, posted 01-29-2013 3:15 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 01-29-2013 12:00 PM GDR has responded
 Message 47 by Tangle, posted 01-29-2013 12:35 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 48 of 750 (689308)
01-29-2013 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Tangle
01-29-2013 12:35 PM


What Constitutes Evidence?
GDR writes:

There is nothing that you will accept as evidence for a god.

Tangle writes:

Of course there is. There's a thousand things I could think of that I would accept as proof but the very simplest would be a single, non-controversial miracle.

I apologise. I phrased that badly. What I meant is that you don’t agree that things that we can know about this world constitute evidence even though the evidence doesn’t lead us to the same conclusions.

I’ll repeat what I said in my last post.

GDR writes:

I’m not claiming that the Bible is inerrant and I’m not saying that other holy books don’t have truth in them as well. Yes I believe the account in the Bible of the resurrection of Christ as being historical however that isn’t the only evidence. The world and specifically all life does appear to be designed. We do seem to desire purpose in our lives as you said earlier. Things like thoughts and emotions are real but not physical. Particles appear and disappear. QM indicates that there are other dimensions/universes that we are unable to perceive. All these things are evidence that we draw our conclusions from and form our own beliefs.

I think that we would agree that those things are realities of our existence. If we are going to consider whether or not there is a creative intelligence that is responsible for our existence we can draw our conclusions from that type of evidence.

Let’s look at another reality. Evolution is a process that has produced through the ages the life forms we see in this world today. It allows for our physical properties to change in order to better adapt to our environment. Look at the incredibly complex properties of DNA and our whole genetic makeup. Frankly, if you want miracles just consider the miracle of evolution.

That is all evidence and we will all come to our own conclusions about where the evidence leads us.

Tangle writes:

A modern Christian wouldn't recognise the beliefs of a 17th century Christian; they believed in the absolute literal truth in the bible as taught by their preacher.

Actually that isn’t true. Even back 1600 years ago Augustine held these views.

From wiki writes:

In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul ("he created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally.[77] Augustine also does not envision original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall.[citation needed] Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.[78]

Tangle writes:

The majority of Christians these days have had their beliefs rationalised down to the bare bone by one scientific discovery after another. They've rationalised because they have to in order to keep believing.

Paul writes that we are to learn from what God has created. I would have a problem if we didn’t learn from new information. IMHO science is simply a natural theology. We have the gift of reason and we continue to learn and I expect that in the years to come we will gain an even greater understanding. The internet has also changed our views as so many people now have access to the collected wisdom of centuries of religious, philosophical and scientific thinker.

Tangle writes:

It's highly likely that in the next ten years or so we'll find that we can make life from simple chemicals and another piece of the jigsaw will be found which will erode another chunk of belief and be rationalised.


That is simply "science of the gaps" thinking. However what would that prove? It will simply demonstrate that it took intelligence and effort to make it happen.

Tangle writes:

The multitude of God stories invented around the world all have their source in our deep desire not to be insignificant. We are the first creatures to evolve the knowledge of our own future deaths and it's a hell of a burden to carry.
If you've ever had to explain to a child why their mother is no longer with them, the easiest way is to say that she's in heaven with the angels looking down on us now. And one day we'll all be back together and happy. It's a fairy story, nothing else.

That is your opinion. I agree that it can bring comfort whether it is true or not but so what? Frankly, the basic message is in my signature. It is my belief that if we have hearts that consciously desire humble mercy and justice then we needn’t concern ourselves with the next life. The Bible if read in context is clear that it is about our hearts and not our doctrine. The point isn’t about going to heaven or hell, the point is about making this a better world for all.

Tangle writes:

If there is a god out there he's not the sort you think - he's the non-interventionist kind that pouffed this lot into existence 14bn years ago then found a new toy to play with.

Maybe, but I don’t think it particularly plausible that this hypothetical god would create a world where intelligence could morality are part of existence and then be uninterested and uninvolved in the ongoing process. I agree though that it is possible and a reasonable position to hold.


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 47 by Tangle, posted 01-29-2013 12:35 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Tangle, posted 01-29-2013 5:54 PM GDR has responded
 Message 54 by onifre, posted 01-30-2013 2:41 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 49 of 750 (689309)
01-29-2013 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Theodoric
01-29-2013 12:00 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
Theodoric writes:

Please provide some so we can consider whether in fact it is evidence or not.


Please see my reply to Tangle.

Cheers


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 46 by Theodoric, posted 01-29-2013 12:00 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 01-29-2013 2:52 PM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 55 by xongsmith, posted 01-30-2013 3:31 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 59 of 750 (689442)
01-30-2013 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tangle
01-29-2013 5:54 PM


Re: What Constitutes Evidence?
GDR writes:

Maybe, but I don’t think it particularly plausible that this hypothetical god would create a world where intelligence could morality are part of existence and then be uninterested and uninvolved in the ongoing process. I agree though that it is possible and a reasonable position to hold.
But of course is a hoary old fallacy to equate the possibility of the existence of a god with the conclusion that it is therefore a Christian god (or any other that mankind has made up.)

Tangle writes:

A god, being a god, can of course do anything - inluding ignoring his creation. What you mean is that the version of a god that you prefer to believe in wouldn't do that.

If you notice I said hypothetical god and not a specific god. It had nothing to do with my version of God.

Tangle writes:

And, of course, intelligence and morality has nothing to do with it. We know the process of evolution created both of these things. If it hadn't - and there was no guarantee that it would and there's no guarantee that it will continue for long - the universe and all in it would still exist.


Just because you keep saying it doesn’t make it true. We do not know that an unguided process of evolution created intelligence and morality. What you are doing is no different than what Faith does when she says that the Bible is literally true and inerrant.

Tangle writes:

The fact that there's 100 thousand million stars in the Milky Way alone, with thousands of millions of galaxies beyond it should be a bit of a clue that maybe we're not as important as we thought we were. The gospel stories were invented by people who thought that they were at the centre of a very small place with the heavens painted onto the sky above them. They, like many other primitive peoples made stories to explain why they were the so special to be on stage in God's theatre.

You keep going on about us being special. I haven’t claimed that we are particularly special and I don’t claim that we are alone in the universe. Interestingly enough though, as I understand it, according to QM a particle that we perceive doesn’t take it on its form until we perceive or measure it. Maybe the universe wouldn’t exist if life on this planet wasn’t around to perceive it. (That just comes from reading Brian Greene so maybe a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. )

Tangle writes:

We're insignificant, we need to get over our self-importance.

I’ve never understood your point but I’ll somehow manage to get over my self-importance as that seems to be what you’re implying. It does seem to me though that your position would make you the highest life form in terms of intelligence and morality. My position acknowledges that there is at least one life form and maybe more, more moral than mankind.

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 52 by Tangle, posted 01-29-2013 5:54 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Tangle, posted 01-31-2013 8:53 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 60 of 750 (689444)
01-30-2013 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by xongsmith
01-30-2013 3:31 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
xongsmith writes:

Look GDR, i have found a number of things I like about your posts, but this:
Please see my reply to Tangle.
Cheers
just sucks as an answer...."oooh - i've already answered this. "

Just provide the link to the message already.

Do your civilzed EvC basic homework. Just a friendly tip.

NEVER EVER POST A POST TO SOMETHING DOWNSTREAM WITHOUT PROVIDING A LINK TO IT. And if you don't know how, READ. It is just vulgar and rude to not do so.

And even more friendly, quote-box the part you are talking about with the link. Just the part. Don't quote the whole fuckin message!

Nothin aginst ya, pal. I been around a while on usenet and this can be tiring, EvC has been at the top of my internet experiance, and you have too. I just don't like these cut'n'run posts here.

Cheers!

Thanks xongsmith.

Good point. It was just that Theo and Tangle had essentially made the same point at roughly the same time. The replyto Tangle that I referred to was the post immediately prior to that post to Theodoric. There was no need to go through the thread to see my answer to his post. My intent was that I was answering both posts at once and that I didn't want Theodoric to think I was ignoring his post and only answering Tangle. I just assumed that Theodoric would see that in the thread.

I actually thought I was doing the courteous thing. However. thanks and I take your point.


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 55 by xongsmith, posted 01-30-2013 3:31 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019