Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God's purpose
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 91 of 101 (356732)
10-15-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ringo
10-15-2006 5:17 PM


Ringo writes:
That's like saying, "I'm curious as to how you can ride a horse without ice cream."
You have two separate concepts there - creation and conscious decision. If you think there's a connection, you'll have to explain it more thoroughly.
For a start we assume that we are living in a created universe. Taking that as a given I don't see how you can get around the point that the creator would require intelligence. Can you give me an example of anyone who with intelligence created something without conscious thought? Creation requires something to be done on purpose and if it is done on purpose then it has to be done with purpose.
Ringo writes:
Yes, I get that that is your opinion. I just haven't seen that "compelling" argument in this thread. You admitted in Message 87 that you are assuming a purpose. I don't see how an assumption is a "compelling" argument.
It depends on what you mean by compelling. If you only accept empirical evidence I have no case. This is what I wrote in a previous post which you either ignored or don't accept as evidence.
"I'm not a literalist but I take the phrase from the Bible that we are created in God's image seriously. The Bible supports the concept of being created out of love, but it is also supported by the beings (us)that are created in his image. Certainly the desire to love is often perverted in humans but it I contend a basic feature of our consciosness."
I experience love and I have a desire to love. Where does that come from? I contended earlier as well that there is a parallel betwen our desire to have children and even pets so that we have a recipient for our love and affection. We appreciate the beauty of our created world. We can use all of our senses in ways that bring pleasure. It seems to me that we have been given a gift by a creator that cared very much about us.
Now you can say that is all based on assumption but if that is the case then what can we know that isn't assumption. Even something that can be tested empirically cannot be proven absolutely. Every time I've dropped something it has fallen down and not up , so I ASSUME that next time it will fall down as well. It might not.
My assumption is not based on science and it also assumes that we are created beings in a created universe.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 10-15-2006 5:17 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by ringo, posted 10-15-2006 6:14 PM GDR has replied
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2006 8:07 PM GDR has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 92 of 101 (356734)
10-15-2006 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by GDR
10-15-2006 5:53 PM


GDR writes:
Can you give me an example of anyone who with intelligence created something without conscious thought?
Almost every artist who ever lived.
Ever hear of unconscious thought? I would almost define creativity as an accumulation of unconscious thoughts. The only time that conscious thought is used at all is in choosing which "accidents" to keep.
If I recall correctly, you are willing to accept evolution. There is no conscious thought in how we developed from chemical to cell to human. Even the selection of the lucky accidents was not done by conscious thought.
Empirically, at least, there is no need for conscious thought in the whole "creation" process.
Creation requires something to be done on purpose and if it is done on purpose then it has to be done with purpose.
There's a difference between "on purpose" and "with purpose". I can take a brush in hand on purpose, but with no purpose in mind but to paint, to create. Similarly, God could have snapped His fingers on purpose to get the ball rolling, but with no purpose in mind.
Now you can say that is all based on assumption but if that is the case then what can we know that isn't assumption.
For one thing, I know it isn't assumption that I can create with no "purpose" in mind. I do it all the time.
I don't see why you think God can't.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by GDR, posted 10-15-2006 5:53 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by GDR, posted 10-15-2006 6:22 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 93 of 101 (356736)
10-15-2006 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by ringo
10-15-2006 6:14 PM


Ringo writes:
Almost every artist who ever lived.
Ever hear of unconscious thought? I would almost define creativity as an accumulation of unconscious thoughts. The only time that conscious thought is used at all is in choosing which "accidents" to keep.
It still however took conscious thought to sit down and start painting or composing.
Ringo writes:
For one thing, I know it isn't assumption that I can create with no "purpose" in mind. I do it all the time.
Can you give me an example?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ringo, posted 10-15-2006 6:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 10-15-2006 6:38 PM GDR has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 94 of 101 (356739)
10-15-2006 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by GDR
10-15-2006 6:22 PM


GDR writes:
It still however took conscious thought to sit down and start painting or composing.
It's a far cry from "deciding to sit down" to claiming that God had a "purpose" in creating us.
Can you give me an example?
Sorry, I don't have anything in digital format, if that's what you mean.
(Still in the 20th century, technology-wise. )

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by GDR, posted 10-15-2006 6:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by GDR, posted 10-15-2006 6:43 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 95 of 101 (356744)
10-15-2006 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by ringo
10-15-2006 6:38 PM


Ringo writes:
For one thing, I know it isn't assumption that I can create with no "purpose" in mind. I do it all the time.
GDR writes:
Can you give me an example?
Ringo writes:
Sorry, I don't have anything in digital format, if that's what you mean.
I don't mean anything digital. If you are talking about a drawing you had at least the purpose of seeing what you could come up with. I was just asking for you to give an account of something that you created without purpose.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 10-15-2006 6:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ringo, posted 10-15-2006 6:59 PM GDR has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 96 of 101 (356745)
10-15-2006 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by GDR
10-15-2006 6:43 PM


GDR writes:
I was just asking for you to give an account of something that you created without purpose.
Have you ever doodled? An artist is basically just a doodler with an ego.
Somebody who works to a plan is a technician, not an artist. There is little creativity in "purpose".

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by GDR, posted 10-15-2006 6:43 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by GDR, posted 10-15-2006 7:09 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 97 of 101 (356749)
10-15-2006 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ringo
10-15-2006 6:59 PM


Well I still maintain that it takes conscious thought to doodle but I'm not sure that it’s relevant. I don't see you or the universe as being the Divine equivalent of a doodle. Do you?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ringo, posted 10-15-2006 6:59 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 10-15-2006 7:17 PM GDR has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 98 of 101 (356754)
10-15-2006 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by GDR
10-15-2006 7:09 PM


GDR writes:
I don't see you or the universe as being the Divine equivalent of a doodle. Do you?
Yes. I certainly see that as a possibility.
The "bigger" God is, the more difference there is between Him and us, the more insignificant we are, the less likelihood of "purpose" in our creation. Humility denies purpose.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by GDR, posted 10-15-2006 7:09 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by GDR, posted 10-15-2006 7:47 PM ringo has not replied

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


Message 99 of 101 (356760)
10-15-2006 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by ringo
10-15-2006 7:17 PM


Ringo writes:
The "bigger" God is, the more difference there is between Him and us, the more insignificant we are, the less likelihood of "purpose" in our creation. Humility denies purpose.
Philosophically it also seems that we run the risk of understanding God to be so far beyond us that He becomes unknowable. From a Christian perspective we are told to understand God as Father. As I mentioned earlier we are created in his image.
Obviously we don't have His technical expertise when we consider creation. I do believe though that spiritually we are much closer to the mind of God. I believe that some where along the line we have been given the moral code. (I believe that is the main point of the Adam and Eve story.) This I believe is our connection to the mind of God and what it means to be made in His image.
It is partly through this understanding that I come to my conclusion about purpose. With the moral code implanted in our consciousness we have been given the choice to choose God or to choose the self. By choosing the way of God to the way of the self we can build relationship which starts in this life and continues into the next.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 10-15-2006 7:17 PM ringo has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 101 (356767)
10-15-2006 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by GDR
10-15-2006 5:53 PM


My point exactly
Taking that as a given I don't see how you can get around the point that the creator would require intelligence. Can you give me an example of anyone who with intelligence created something without conscious thought? Creation requires something to be done on purpose and if it is done on purpose then it has to be done with purpose.
I was trying to explain this to Ringo as well, but Ringo's forte is semantics and playing the Devil's Advocate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by GDR, posted 10-15-2006 5:53 PM GDR has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 101 of 101 (356861)
10-16-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Straggler
10-13-2006 6:38 PM


Re: Historically Speaking
Interesting. But are there really areas that we cannot investigate scientifically and if there are in what way can religion (for example) claim to have any knowledge that science cannot provide?
This is a new question. Your original question was whether there were areas science had adequately explained that were still attributed to God. Your point was that God is becoming irrelevant.
My point was to say supernatural events are still widely attributed to God, and it is an area--besides the three you mentioned--that science has not displaced God.
I was simply answering your question.
This question of yours is a whole new one on a subject I don't have time for right now. Sorry, I think it would be interesting, too, but I'd do you a disservice to answer you.
Anecdotal evidence is not scientific.
Maybe not, but I don't see this as relevant to your original question or assertion.
Anecdotal evidence is unreliable, but it is not simply false on the surface. People are put to death based on the "anecdotes" of witnesses, if there is enough anecdotal testimony to convince a jury that the crime certainly happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2006 6:38 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024