Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8924 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2019 5:28 AM
26 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 859,876 Year: 14,912/19,786 Month: 1,635/3,058 Week: 9/404 Day: 9/43 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
20212223
24
25Next
Author Topic:   Will The Real God Please Stand Up?
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12678
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 347 of 364 (849475)
03-11-2019 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by dwise1
03-10-2019 8:02 PM


Imagine A Deity. Write a Book About It.
dwise1 writes:

In other words, the gods we create tell us far more about ourselves than about those gods.

From a believers standpoint, the God I attempt to describe tells me more about my expectations, real or imagined relationship, and even my own belief as well as who He is. It also may shed light into whether or not I actually am making Him up or whether He becomes more real of an idea through definition.
So instead of "let's dream up some gods to discuss", why not ask more basic questions about the gods? Like what purpose they serve. What the gods we choose say about us. How we should think about the gods. How the gods should affect how we live our lives and treat one another. Even whether the gods should affect how we live our lives and treat one another.
Lets start with your questions and ringos.
ringo writes:

I would start with a "deity" that is in fact a race of deities, because I don't see any particular reason to limit them to one individual.

Naturally. The Mormons would be proud of you. It also could explain why seemingly different gods were described in the OT. Pehaps one was fired or replaced by the committee of the "god race".
ringo writes:

Their capabilities (technology) would be more advanced than ours but not necessarily by much.

Which would logically explain the stern yet "learning on the job" god(s) of early OT.
dwise1 writes:

why not ask more basic questions about the gods? Like what purpose they serve.

Fair enough. God as Moses describes him in Deuteronomy sounds like a stern patriarch oddly similar to Moses. Could we extrapolate that a god we make up today would serve a similar function in sociological moderation...sorta like a communal superego? Problem is, we voted to be so all-inclusive and politically correct that everyone gets to have their own god (or attitude) these days. There is no longer autocracy nor even a disciplined consensus. Or is there? Comments?

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 346 by dwise1, posted 03-10-2019 8:02 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by dwise1, posted 03-11-2019 7:53 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3637
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 348 of 364 (849498)
03-11-2019 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Thugpreacha
03-11-2019 2:56 PM


Re: Imagine A Deity. Write a Book About It.
Problem is, we voted to be so all-inclusive and politically correct that everyone gets to have their own god (or attitude) these days.

No, there was never any vote, nor has there ever been any decision to allow everyone to get their own god. That's how it has always worked. As Augustine of Hippo observed, nobody actually understands God and if they think they do then they are only deceiving themselves.

It's not a conscious decision (at least not usually), but rather everybody who is taught about God misunderstands the lesson in some way and creates his own version of "God" in the process -- for that matter, the teacher had also misunderstood his lessons and so passes his own misunderstood "God" on to his students to be further misunderstood. No deliberation needed.

So why is it that in so many churches throughout history (nearly) everybody would express believing in the same version of God? Part of that is psychological and part is naked power.

First the psychological. Stanley Milgram is best known for his infamous experiment on obedience (yes, that experiment!), but there was another more benign one that I associate with him that measures the effect of social and peer pressure. You have four or five "subjects", but in reality there's only one subject while the others are all confederates who are part of the experiment. You present them with simple questions, the true answer being obvious. All the confederates choose the wrong answer. Most of the time, the subject ends up going along his peers in choosing the wrong answer, even though he knows that it is wrong (maybe he tries to rationalize it).

So then in most churches, for psychological reasons even if you have different ideas about God than your congregation members, peer pressure will force you to conform with what they are saying, even though they are wrong according to your own version of God. And it's not just you, but everybody else is doing the same thing, so that there emerges some lip-service version of God that all congregation members can safely express agreement with. So then many personal versions, one group version?

But then there's naked power being used to impose a standard version. We especially find this in a single church which holds a political monopoly in the society, such as was the case of the Catholic Church in most of Europe and the Church of England (whose anti-Catholic persecutions led to the Gunpowder Plot). In those cases, if your theology (including your version of God) was not the officially correct version, then you would be a heretic who deserves to be executed. In such an environment, you would behave as in the peer pressure situation, but this time you are behaving yourself out of pure fear.

But then the Protestant Reformation opened another path. To quote Bertrand Russell from memory:

quote:
When a Catholic becomes a freethinker, he becomes an atheist. When a Protestant becomes a freethinker, he just creates a new church.

The part about Catholics derives from being branded a heretic, which to Catholics is paramount to being an atheist, at least to Russell. The part about Protestants is the basis for the rapid splintering of Protestantism into a multitude of different churches and denominations; any disagreement in a denomination can readily result in a new denomination (or of two new ones with the loss of the original). I've even met a fundamentalist who talked about there being a large number of such sects, all of whom look identical to outsiders but to insiders they are aware of every single minute difference in theology between their own "one true theology" and the "false" theologies that damn the others, and they can anger very quickly if you refer to them by the name of any of the other apostate fundamentalist sects. Since then, I've been trying to figure out how to refer to them as a group -- I'll just call them all "fundamentalists", since they're going to be angry with me anyway.

To illustrate the point, here's a cartoon drawn by former fundamentalist Ed Babinski, a parody of a standard creationist argument:

-------------------

Well, my basic question is: why choose to come up with a god which is a sentient entity?

That instinct goes far back into pre-history and is called animism.

The animistic view is that nature is inhabited by spirits and that natural events are caused by these spirits. So of course you need to find ways to appease these spirits to keep them from harming you and to entice them to bring you what you need to survive (eg, food (eg, animal migrations for the hunt, plants that grow), rain (but not too much), etc). You develop stories about these spirits, mainly to teach the next generation how to deal with them, but also to figure them out for yourself. Through observation of nature, you develop hierarchies that these spirits fit into and relationships between these spirits, adding to the stories about those spirits. At the top of the hierarchy of spirits would be the most powerful ones, such as the sun or the sea or storms and lightning. Especially from those more powerful spirits grew our first generations of gods. And so on into the present.

We have a fundamental need to make sense of the world. At first we needed to create the spirits to explain nature and we have developed that about as far as we possibly could. But we don't still need spirits to explain nature and how it works.

-------------------

"It's been a long time since we've worn feathers."
(José López Portillo, President of Mexico, in a 60 Minutes interview circa 1980)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-11-2019 2:56 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 349 of 364 (849546)
03-13-2019 11:45 PM


Can somebody adjust the formatting? I can't read the text on page 24
I think the image messed up the format.

I need to scroll a long distance right to read each and every line.

(the scroll is painfully slow)


Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-13-2019 11:59 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3892
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 350 of 364 (849547)
03-13-2019 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by LamarkNewAge
03-13-2019 11:45 PM


Re: Can somebody adjust the formatting? I can't read the text on page 24
Everything displays fine for me.

If you click on the graphic of message 348, it gets very large and will require horizontal scrolling to read (which is a pain). If you click on it again, the graphic size will be reduced and you shouldn't need any horizontal scrolling. At least, that's how it works for me.

If the graphic remains too large even if you click on it, something is working differently for you. Reply to this message and tell me if that is the case.

Adminnemooseus
Firefox in Windows 7


Or something like that©.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-13-2019 11:45 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-14-2019 1:19 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 351 of 364 (849549)
03-14-2019 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Adminnemooseus
03-13-2019 11:59 PM


Re: Can somebody adjust the formatting? I can't read the text on page 24
It is all good, now.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-13-2019 11:59 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-14-2019 1:22 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12678
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 352 of 364 (849550)
03-14-2019 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by LamarkNewAge
03-14-2019 1:19 AM


Re: Can somebody adjust the formatting? I can't read the text on page 24
we should talk. are you comfortable with messenger (on facebook)?

check your private message folder

Edited by Phat, : 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 351 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-14-2019 1:19 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 353 of 364 (849576)
03-15-2019 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Thugpreacha
01-22-2007 10:06 AM


Phat writes:

I want to start a semi humorous, semi serious discussion about the nature of God. Pretend that we hav a sort of a roundtable Town Meeting Group. There are four God candidates present. each one seeks to be recognized as God, Omnipotant Creator of all things.
at the table we have:
1) Jesus Christ, who is representing His Father.
2) Loki, the Trickster.
3) Sophia- the source of Wisdom.
4) The Flying Spaghetti Monster

I would say the problem with this is that there is no reason for the comparison to begin with without THE HIDDEN ASSUMPTION that there is some manner of equivalence to begin with. So they obviously share some basic elements but this doesn't make them equal if there are different reasons for why those elements may exist. For example Santa's invisibility is not the same as an atoms invisibility so if both are invisible this doesn't mean an atom is the same as Santa anyway.

If God exists and is invisible because He transcends the universe but these other things are invisible because they are false, then obviously they can't be truly equivalent. (yes I understand why atheists say they have to treat them equally but they are being facetious because they know there is no chance these other things are real.)

For example, it's obvious that something like the flying S-monster is fiction as we know it is invention, however what reason does that give us logically to compare it with Jesus Christ, and acknowledged to be genuine historical figure?

The problem is the comparison-table only suggests comparisons with things likely to be fiction. The adult mind innately knows that which is superficial and phoney or that which has no depth. Holy cows, Thor, Loki, etc, we know that these things are likely caused by primitive invention.

So to do a comparison we also have to compare the thing in question with other things which share it's elements.

For example our God is not physically detectable, and neither is a type of boson in another universe, so why not compare God to an undetectable type of higgs boson?

CONCLUSION: The error is in assuming that God can only be compared to things rigged to be false things, without comparing Him to things we don't know are false.

God us undetectable and invisible, but this doesn't mean God is comparable to a holy cow or an I.P.U necessarily because we also know there were many things which used to be undetectable and invisible but they turned out to be true, such as the higgs boson.

So ultimately you are playing the atheists game on his own terms by only comparing God to things which are reasonably false to most people.

There are also things which share God's characteristics which are reasonably true meaning that logically speaking you also have to compare God to those things if your position is that you don't know if God is there.

So my request is that I compare Jesus Christ to other historical figures such as Ghandi or Caesar rather than playing the infantile game of the atheist by comparing God to invisible, pink unicorns and Santa.

Why can't we compare abiogenesis and evolution to other fairytales since they share the same method of "long ago and far away"...

https://creationworldviews.blogspot.com/...pink-unicorn.html

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-22-2007 10:06 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Stile, posted 03-15-2019 9:20 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 355 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2019 9:20 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 354 of 364 (849579)
03-15-2019 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by mike the wiz
03-15-2019 8:45 AM


mike the wiz writes:

The problem is the comparison-table only suggests comparisons with things likely to be fiction. The adult mind innately knows that which is superficial and phoney or that which has no depth. Holy cows, Thor, Loki, etc, we know that these things are likely caused by primitive invention.

The comparison-table compares things that all have no objective evidence at all. Not even any objective evidence pointing in their direction.
It's not anyone's fault that the only things we know of that have "no object evidence at all" are "things likely to be fiction" or that "we know these things are likely caused by primitive invention."

If God fits the same mold... that's exactly what the comparison-table is intended to show.

For example our God is not physically detectable, and neither is a type of boson in another universe, so why not compare God to an undetectable type of higgs boson?

Because there is objective evidence that "some type" of a higgs boson exists right here in our local universe. We have that objective evidence. You can learn about it you'd like.

But, again, there is no objective evidence that "some type" of a God exists right here in our local universe.

The only other things with "no objective evidence of any kind" are those things that are known to be fiction - hence the comparison-table.

CONCLUSION: The error is in assuming that God can only be compared to things rigged to be false things, without comparing Him to things we don't know are false.

No.
The comparison-table contains only those things that have "no objective evidence of any kind."
The problem (for you) is that things we "aren't sure about are true - but think they likely exist here or there where we haven't tested yet..." are still based upon having objective evidence for them in places where we have been able to test.
Therefore - they don't belong in the table because they have more than "no objective evidence of any kind."

God us undetectable and invisible, but this doesn't mean God is comparable to a holy cow or an I.P.U necessarily because we also know there were many things which used to be undetectable and invisible but they turned out to be true, such as the higgs boson.

God - no objective evidence, not known to be made up
Holy Cow or I.P.U - no objective evidence, known to be made up
Higgs boson - some objective evidence exsits, known to not be made up

The comparison-table is built upon the first section - those things with "no objective evidence."
The difference of knowing if something is made up or not is irrelevant. It's only relevant to those who want to cling to a belief that God is real and hide from the obvious implications.

So my request is that I compare Jesus Christ to other historical figures such as Ghandi or Caesar rather than playing the infantile game of the atheist by comparing God to invisible, pink unicorns and Santa.

But, again, we have objective evidence of Ghandi or Caesar.
The point of the comparison-table is to list all things that have no objective evidence.

You can have this table, too... but it doesn't negate the factual existence (or the obvious implications) that God must be included on any list of things with "no objective evidence" along with all the known-to-be fictional ideas.

Why can't we compare abiogenesis and evolution to other fairytales since they share the same method of "long ago and far away"...

Because abiogenesis and evolution either have objective evidence, or they have objective evidence pointing in their direction.

Holy Cow? Not so much -> bucket #2
God? Not so much -> bucket #2

It's not anyone's fault that God deserves to be in the same "no objective evidence" bucket #2.

Of course, you can get God out of that bucket. Just provide some objective evidence. Or, even, provide objective evidence showing a level of confidence in the direction of God's existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by mike the wiz, posted 03-15-2019 8:45 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by mike the wiz, posted 03-15-2019 9:40 AM Stile has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7002
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 355 of 364 (849580)
03-15-2019 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by mike the wiz
03-15-2019 8:45 AM


MtW writes:

So my request is that I compare Jesus Christ to other historical figures such as Ghandi or Caesar rather than playing the infantile game of the atheist by comparing God to invisible, pink unicorns and Santa.

I suggest you start by comparing Jesus Christ to other figures that people have invested with equal beliefs and equal historicity (ie little to none.)

The prophet Mohammed
Lord Brahma
Krishna
Buddha
Etc (long list)


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by mike the wiz, posted 03-15-2019 8:45 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by mike the wiz, posted 03-15-2019 9:54 AM Tangle has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 356 of 364 (849583)
03-15-2019 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Stile
03-15-2019 9:20 AM


stile writes:

ut, again, there is no objective evidence that "some type" of a God exists right here in our local universe.

There is evidence consistent with God. God is a Creator, what is the usual evidence of creativity and intelligence? The usual evidence is intelligent design, order, aesthetics. Whether you like it or not there is evidence for God in that there are conditional implications where certain consequents MUST follow.

To say, "we wouldn't expect creativity from a Creator, we wouldn't expect ingenius solutions in nature to obscure problems"when those are the very things we find when we look at out own creators, is a contradiction.

Stile writes:

No.
The comparison-table contains only those things that have "no objective evidence of any kind."
The problem (for you) is that things we "aren't sure about are true - but think they likely exist here or there where we haven't tested yet..." are still based upon having objective evidence for them in places where we have been able to test.
Therefore - they don't belong in the table because they have more than "no objective evidence of any kind."

Objective evidence is qualified not by what atheists say but by what logical notation dictates. the only evidence atheists qualify for God is "that which they know is not there".

The correct qualification is to ask what would follow if God exists. To say an intelligible universe would follow from a big-banged tornado in a junkyard assembling it, is a contradiction. The true prediction for a Creator is a creation, and there is no escaping it. You can say there is no evidence for God all you want and that is all you guys do, repeat the falsehood. (ad nauseam fallacy)

Stile writes:

But, again, we have objective evidence of Ghandi or Caesar.
The point of the comparison-table is to list all things that have no objective evidence.

Qualify according to logical rules what evidence of God would be. I predict you will come up with any particular thing you already know is not there, rather than genuinely qualifying what usually would follow as signs of a Creator.

Specified complexity, contingency planning, information code, function, goals, irreducible complexity, when we look for where these things we find in life come from, 100% of the data shows they come from a creator/designer, and 0% of the data says they come from natural process.

Stile writes:

Of course, you can get God out of that bucket. Just provide some objective evidence. Or, even, provide objective evidence showing a level of confidence in the direction of God's existence.

I don't have to because I know a lot, lot more about evidence and how it is qualified, than you do. If you don't want there to be anything that evidences God you will say there is no evidence of God.

But logical rules show all of the expected evidence of an all-knowing God are right there is nature. Biomimetics alone proves the design in nature is smarter than our design because when we run out of ideas we have to plagiarise God's designs.

Think about the epitome of design. Surely we make the best lights, right? No, God does, such as the bioluminescence in fire-flies which has, "the efficiency with which this process turns chemical energy into light rather than wasting it as heat is extremely high; around 40%,1 some 20 times higher than an incandescent light bulb, and higher than the best fluorescent and LED bulbs"

You can read lots of evidence for a more intelligent designer than us, in this one article alone;
https://creation.com/...inescence-the-light-of-living-things

CONCLUSION: I can logically prove there is confirmation evidence for God's existence. You on the other hand can only monopolise the evidence by using HINDSIGHT to PRETEND you would expect this evidence from evolution.

Stile writes:

Because abiogenesis and evolution either have objective evidence, or they have objective evidence pointing in their direction.

Lol!

Is that so. Then can you show me the evidence that a DNA molecule comes about by chance outside of life or any other sophisticated polymers? Thought not. In fact all of the evidence by experimentation as pointed to the conclusion abiogenesis is science fiction, as for the "objective evidence" for evolution, what is that exactly? Are you saying you have now found the transitionals for bats, pterosaurs, insect wings, Ichthyosaurs and pine trees? What about the ancestors for all the phyla of the Cambrian? What about the ancestors for angiosperms? What about the ancestors for dinosaurs? Whatever you show me I can prove mathematically your evidence would represent less than 1% of the transitionals that would have had to exist in the past.

Question: Just how can you know what evolution would do? You can't, you can only use hindsight because there is no example of evolution outside of life. But with design we can correctly predict what the evidence would be.

So when you say there is evidence for evolution, how can you say that without having experienced macro evolution? How can you actually know what evolution would predict? For example when you are selective and say it would predict homology, did you also predict homoplasies?No, they didn't predict that for evolution, but now they PRETEND it is a prediction of evolution and call it, "convergent evolution."

Can you see what I am saying? I am saying your predicted evidence for evolution is based on HINDSIGHT, for all you know the correct evidence for evolution would be a barely viable bio-blob that belched then died.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Stile, posted 03-15-2019 9:20 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Stile, posted 03-15-2019 10:50 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 357 of 364 (849584)
03-15-2019 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Tangle
03-15-2019 9:20 AM


Tangle writes:

I suggest you start by comparing Jesus Christ to other figures that people have invested with equal beliefs and equal historicity (ie little to none.)

The prophet Mohammed
Lord Brahma
Krishna
Buddha
Etc (long list)

No I think I'll stick to a far clever method of using a fair comparison. If we treat the Lord God of the bible and Jesus Christ as, "unknown if He is God", then yes to some extent it is okay to say, "these other people claim to be God too", but obviously it takes a lot of digging to compare all of the things the bible says to the claims made from other religions.

Instead it might be better to say that if we look at adults, a big percentage do they would argue, have reason to believe in some greater being. But if we look at the adults that believe in invisible pink unicorns, holy cow or Santa, the truth of the matter is only some atheists consider these things realistically.

That is because they disingenuously PRETEND there is a comparison to be made, simple to mock God.

So we must start with the question, is God there? If there is an argument God is there, and God is a personal God we can then ask more questions before we get to the comparison stage.

For example there are some major themes that exist if a personal God exists. For example there are issues of morality, the problem of good and evil, etc....the real question is, if these are realistic questions for adults and we struggle with these big questions, then does Buddha do a good job of answering them?

Obviously there is reason to believe in God despite prejudiced atheist claims to the contrary, and there is reason because of the human condition, to believe God is a personal God. If we look at life itself we see there is a vast array of immensely brilliant strategies, contrivance and inventiveness in anatomies, which are all viable.

So just going from the facts if we say, "if God created life and if He is a personal God and exists" then we can reasonably say, "then if He created life as Creator, He would have to be an immensely brilliant strategist and have immense intelligence........

This leads to another step (as you can see I have of course, thought out all of these things long before now so I am just repeating the steps......so this is nothing new to me just because you bring the issue up)

The next step is to ask, "if we see this from life, then what must we infer if we look at religion, and God's strategies in dealing with it?"

Well, the answer is that the bible is a unique book as it is compiled over centuries and has the most powerful message of love in the gospel. Arguably this is more powerful than many other religions hence it is top of the best seller and the most influential to the world historically.

Question: If God is intelligent and is not the Lord God of the bible but is Thor or Allah or Buddha, then why even allow the bible to exist to then let those other religions pale by comparison?

Think about it, the intelligent strategies we see employed in life leads to a God that wouldn't be so very stupid to even allow the bible to exist.

Look at it from Allah's perspective. If God is Allah his strategy is to let the bible exist, let million be touched by it, then much later on as a johnny-come-lately god, he then introduces the Koran to have it struggle to compete. He also allows teh bible to have the best answers to the big questions of why we exist (being made in God's image) why we bahave as badly as we do (sin nature) etc........

Conclusion: We can very quickly rule out any personal God outside of the bible because being retarded doesn't match the level of intelligence we see in life.

Of course this is only the beginning of the comparison game Tangle, I would have to write a lot, lot more to reveal the full extent of my thoughts on this matter, though I definitely believe your thoughts on this matter are paper thin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2019 9:20 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2019 12:08 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 361 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-15-2019 1:43 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 362 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-19-2019 11:52 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 358 of 364 (849587)
03-15-2019 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by mike the wiz
03-15-2019 9:40 AM


mike the wiz writes:

There is evidence consistent with God. God is a Creator, what is the usual evidence of creativity and intelligence? The usual evidence is intelligent design, order, aesthetics. Whether you like it or not there is evidence for God in that there are conditional implications where certain consequents MUST follow.

Okay, so what's the evidence? What can you present that we can both verify?

Qualify according to logical rules what evidence of God would be.

Evidence = verifiable information pointing in the direction of the claim and nothing else. Some information we can both verify.

For example:
Evidence of posts from user "Stile" existing on EvC = Stile's EvC Topic Index.
Please note how we can both verify this.
Please note that the most reasonable conclusion about posts from user "Stile" existing on EvC according to this information is that such posts do, indeed, exist.

Now your turn:
Evidence of God existing anywhere = ?

Specified complexity, contingency planning, information code, function, goals, irreducible complexity, when we look for where these things we find in life come from, 100% of the data shows they come from a creator/designer, and 0% of the data says they come from natural process.

Okay, so what's the evidence?

If you don't want there to be anything that evidences God you will say there is no evidence of God.

I wish there was evidence of God.
I've just never seen any.
You claim to know of some.
Can you provide it?

But logical rules show all of the expected evidence of an all-knowing God are right there in nature.

Okay, so what's the evidence?

Biomimetics alone proves the design in nature is smarter than our design because when we run out of ideas we have to plagiarise God's designs.

Think about the epitome of design. Surely we make the best lights, right? No, God does, such as the bioluminescence in fire-flies which has, "the efficiency with which this process turns chemical energy into light rather than wasting it as heat is extremely high; around 40%,1 some 20 times higher than an incandescent light bulb, and higher than the best fluorescent and LED bulbs"

That is evidence that nature can be better than our designs. Here, you are assuming God exists.
What is the evidence that God exists or that God created nature?

You can read lots of evidence for a more intelligent designer than us, in this one article alone

I don't see any evidence of God there either.
Could you point it out?

CONCLUSION: I can logically prove there is confirmation evidence for God's existence.

Okay, so what's the evidence?
You seem very confused.
I would recommend picking the "best information" you can provide as evidence of God's existence and we can start there.

Can you see what I am saying? I am saying your predicted evidence for evolution is based on HINDSIGHT

Yes, you say a lot of things that are clearly wrong.
But the question that you appear unable to answer is: What is the evidence for God's existence? So far, there is still zero and God belongs in the comparison-table alongside other known-to-be-imaginary ideas. The implications are still obvious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by mike the wiz, posted 03-15-2019 9:40 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7002
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 359 of 364 (849589)
03-15-2019 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by mike the wiz
03-15-2019 9:54 AM


MtW writes:

Of course this is only the beginning of the comparison game Tangle, I would have to write a lot, lot more to reveal the full extent of my thoughts on this matter, though I definitely believe your thoughts on this matter are paper thin.

Let's start at the end. This arrogance of yours that only you have thought about this and have the intellect to get the right answers really gets in the way of adult discussion. You're not at Fairy Tales of Creation now, you're talking to people who have been deliberating this for years and heard every possible creationist argument many times.

No I think I'll stick to a far clever method of using a fair comparison. If we treat the Lord God of the bible and Jesus Christ as, "unknown if He is God", then yes to some extent it is okay to say, "these other people claim to be God too", but obviously it takes a lot of digging to compare all of the things the bible says to the claims made from other religions.

Well this is confusing, just a minute ago you were complaining that it's unfair - and presumably not 'clever' - to compare Jesus and/or God with Santa etc as we all know he doesn't exist. When I offer you properly equivalent beings, you complain again.

I'm not impressed with a rejection of the comparison just because it would take more work. Poor work, must try harder.

That is because they disingenuously PRETEND there is a comparison to be made, simple to mock God.

Just so you know and therefore can't claim not to later when you repeat this nonsense (which you will), from the atheist's viewpoint, there is no difference in a belief in god and a belief in Santa. We are not mocking god, because he's a fictional character, if we're mocking anyone, it's the holder of the belief - though mostly we hold back, like we do with children's Santa belief.

But I'm with you on your claim that it's not a true comparison, because we all agree that Santa is a human fiction. That's why I've given a real comparison.

So we must start with the question, is God there? If there is an argument God is there, and God is a personal God we can then ask more questions before we get to the comparison stage.

Well that's a waste of time isn't it? You believe in a God, Others believe in different one. You both agree there's a God so just get on with the comparison. I'm keen to watch.

Well, the answer is that the bible is a unique book as it is compiled over centuries and has the most powerful message of love in the gospel. Arguably this is more powerful than many other religions hence it is top of the best seller and the most influential to the world historically.

O dear. There are older religious books than yours and one of yours is older and belongs to the Jews. Are you seriously using the Amazon selling list as a proof of your particular god? Really? I think you need remind yourself of all those logical fallacies you're always so confused about.

Question: If God is intelligent and is not the Lord God of the bible but is Thor or Allah or Buddha, then why even allow the bible to exist to then let those other religions pale by comparison?

Because he doesn't exist. And...

... if God is intelligent and is the Lord God of the bible and not Thor or Allah or Buddha, then why even allow their books to exist to then let those other religions pale by comparison?

... works just as well.

Conclusion: We can very quickly rule out any personal God outside of the bible because being retarded doesn't match the level of intelligence we see in life.

As you can see a bad argument is just a bad argument - your domplaint works with any god you choose.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by mike the wiz, posted 03-15-2019 9:54 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12678
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 360 of 364 (849591)
03-15-2019 12:37 PM


Topic Synopsis
As long as we are discussing objective vs subjective, comparison charts, and keeping it all in a vein of humor (reason being I wanted to playfully spar with ringo and jar when I first created this topic) allow me to catch up by reading your collective replies. First off, I don't take sides between atheists, humanists, creationists, or Martians(none of whom have been objectively encountered thus far)

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


  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12678
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 361 of 364 (849595)
03-15-2019 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by mike the wiz
03-15-2019 9:54 AM


A Wiz Of A Wiz Of A Wiz He Was
Mikie, how you been? Dont run away from this topic. I want to get a conversation going. As you know, I am a believer. I often spend time understanding how opponents of religion reason with their minds. Thus I will lay devils advocate from time to time in order to stimulate dialogue. Tanypteryx had a post in another thread where he provided this link to this story: Intelligent design gets even dumber, By Jerry A. Coyne.

Not to get too far off of my topic, which is intended to be semi-humorous yet semi persuasive. I enjoy debates with everyone, mostly. Glad to see you back for this topic, Mike. I work today so I will finish my thoughts later tonight.


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 357 by mike the wiz, posted 03-15-2019 9:54 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
20212223
24
25Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019