Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
If I were coming to this without preconcceptions, I would say the rationalists are clearly way ahead in this debate against dogmatic christians. That said, I profess to be Christian, but not in any wacky bible literalism manner. For me, the meaning of the church is the "body of christ" and how we conduct out human interactions with fellow people.
It seems once you take a fundamentalist perspective, any rational consideration of things as plain as the nose on your face goes out the window.
If that makes me a bad christian, so be it. That's your problem. -
@jason_maranto said:
I'm also not a dummy (...)
So far, no-one's accused you of being a 'dummy'. Apart from a purely rhetorical one, there's no reason to keep emphasizing your intellect.
As for that friend of yours ... Newton was an alchemist. He came up with the theory of gravity, but somehow we manage to deter ourselves from believing we can turn lead into gold.
@jason_maranto said:
Science is the active discovery of the facts of Gods creation -- and from that point of view I find it very powerful and interesting. I am not excluding scientific knowledge (...)
But you do denounce its philosophical underpinnings? That, to me, is bizarre. Bear in mind, science isn't just what we know - first and foremost, it's a method.
@jason_maranto said:
I am simply including God into the equation when I consider the limits of human knowledge and our present limited extrapolation of data collected in a absurdly small sample size.
This is where things go weird. You point out there's limits to our knowledge, but you have no qualms about ignoring those exact limits by "simply" assuming there's a God? Don't get me wrong, now. I'm not saying you shouldn't believe what you believe, not in the least, it's just that it seems to me that what you're saying is somehow less rational than you make it out to be.
@jason_maranto said:
I could point out thousands of simple things we deal with each an every day that we do not understand (...)
Yet. We don't understand them yet. And we should try and find out how they work, rather than veer into metaphysics. Just to be on the safe side.
@jason_maranto said:
What you are doing is no different than what I am doing. It just appears to have a different veneer to you because it appeals to your intellect and pride in human accomplishment.
That's a very nice way of calling atheists arrogant and vain. What's that you said about about Alan's posts (or mine - not sure) being 'insulting'?
And no, I don't really take offense. Debates like these are bound to heat things up.
-
As for the -rather fundamental- difference between science and religion, this is pretty much how I see it:
Science:
*Given x works as expected, theory y, for the time being, seems, at least in part, valid.
Stay tuned.*
Religion:
*There's stuff. Someone must've made it. Some bloke. Did it in six days, too. Pretty impressive, that. Must be able to do anything. Not like us humans. But then he isn't human. Can't be. Just look at what he can do!
At some point, he did get it on with a human woman. Get this: didn't lay a finger on her, and he still managed to knock her up. Transcendent sperm, baby! Anyway, the son. He's our saviour.
Yeah. From what? Pretty much all the mental attributes his dad gave us. Why'd he given them to us then? Well, the thing you got to understand is, he moves in mysterious ways. Which is fancy speak for: we're to dumb to figure out what he's up to.
Oh yeah: he can do backflips and create solar systems at the same time.
Who's your daddy? WHO IS YOUR DADDY?*
Now I should really do the dishes.
-
@unknownuser said:
we're to dumb to figure out what he's up to.
Oh yeah: he can do backflips and create solar systems at the same time.
Who's your daddy? WHO IS YOUR DADDY?[/i]
so name calling and sarcasm will work where rational discussion doesn't? I guess that makes your points that much more valid.
-
Lighten up, it was a joke. Besides, I have made a handful of rational points, haven't I?
This all being said, I have no objections against removing my sarcastic post (yes, there's sarcasm in there - but name-calling?) if people find it insulting. Just let me know.
-
... gallop gallop gallop...
I suppose I agree generally with your points, but you are coming across super snarky. I still consider "dumb" to be name calling, but eh, well, pick your battles.
-
@unknownuser said:
It's pretty mind boggling, particularly when you get into the notion of observation affecting the outcome.
From what I understand the observation factor is merely the most popular hypothesis. There's been on a lot of woo built on that shaky foundation. The same goes for Schrödinger's cat, which was initially intended as a piece of satire.
-
@ andybot
You have a point. I do have a polemical streak. I'll try and keep it less snarky. As for the 'we' that are 'too dumb' - I'm in that group, aren't I?Whilst I obviously cannot tell theists how they should feel about what I wrote, they might possibly find some solace in the fact that I am by no means opposed to their right to believe in whatever they choose to.
@solo said:
@unknownuser said:
Lighten up, it was a joke. Besides, I have made a handful of rational points, haven't I?
Yes you have and so have Alan and Tig to name a few, however I have not noticed any rational debate from the pro God crew, is this because you cannot rationally defend fairy tales, lies and stupidity?
Unless bible passage regurgitation and dogma is a defense I clearly see a winner.
Stop leading me into temptation!
Dishes!
-
@solo said:
Unless bible passage regurgitation and dogma is a defense I clearly see a winner.
pass the popcorn, hold the dishes... let's see how the true believers respond! -
I guess I wasn't clear as to why I am distracted -- I am on a deadline and I have a complex software to teach so my mental focus is elsewhere... I cannot go blow for blow with every point made so I was speaking in basic generalizations to at least put it out there. I am also not inclined to allow myself to get drawn in by the more mean-spirited qualities of this conversation as I am prone to become a rather big bastard when pushed... and while I have no doubt I could silence the critics with enough time and energy, I have neither. And anyway ultimately it may not open any hearts, and in fact may have the outcome of further hardening hearts.
So since, I don't have the time or energy to see this through properly at this point and rather than do a half-way job I'm excusing myself. Since I never come to this section of the forum and only found this yesterday because Jeff mentioned it in the gallery and I was curious... you should not miss my contribution.
Suffice to say I am a believer -- and I find less incongruity between "science" and the Bible than you do -- but I also allow for more things than you do as possible, so I am not limiting myself to only discussing what we currently know as "fact".
I honestly do hope you find peace -- the alternative is not very pretty and it is completely needless to end up that way due to the Grace of God... nothing is needed but faith.
As a last aside: Gravity is a bit of sticky subject because while we do "appear" to have a handle on this subject here, when you get down to the quantum level things get much stranger in relation to gravity -- this is one of the things which string theory attempts to resolve ( as one of the purported theories of everything). However there are several competing ideas being thrown out that either downgrade or completely discard the theory of general relativity... so it is not so cut and dry. But again as I say I do not have the time or energy to dig into these subjects properly for the next 8 weeks.
Now I must attempt to successfully try to pry myself away from this distraction and get back to work.
Best,
Jason. -
@jason_maranto said:
(...) and while I have no doubt I could silence the critics with enough time and energy, I have neither.
[trying not be too snarky] I'll gladly wait until you find both. Please do consider this an invitation. [/trying not be too snarky]
-
Maybe it's time to stop:
-
Some parting thoughts, since I have some work to do too, thankfully.
Like Pete said, Jesus was a radical socialist. He turned political and religious structures on their heads. But that's the point, Jesus operates in the human faith and relationship realm, not the scientific realm, and to conflate the two is pointless. IMHO -
But whose reply was the 666th? Ah!
-
@jason_maranto said:
... and while I have no doubt I could silence the critics with enough time and energy, I have neither.
I'm also rather curious on how you are gonna do what no one else on Earth managed to do concerning this subject. I'm gonna watch this space.
-
No, you're not.
The winner, I mean. -
You guys do know that the number of the beast is actually 616, right?
Or you can try 01562 55789....that's the fax no. of the beast.
-
@solo said:
Funny thing is if he was around today the exact folk that worship him would hate his social liberal ways and he'd be dismissed and persecuted...oh wait he was back then also.....hmmmm.
A point that most believers tend to miss.
When you critique the current North American view of Christianity you are critiquing a caricature of what following Christ really means.
-
What I do notice about this thread is that non believers are very supportive of others statements. Whilst believers are largely left unsupported or have separate ideas. Understandable considering the amount of variants to follow.
I do think both Brodie and Jason have a firm grasp on their faith and I commend them for taking the time to share that belief. Whether you agree with it or not.
On such a divisive subject it's nice to see a wholesome debate as such.
Has any believer questioned their thinking after reading the non believer responses?
-
@unknownuser said:
I do think both Brodie and Jason have a firm grasp on their faith and I commend them for taking the time to share that belief.
Agreed.
Advertisement