NationStates Jolt Archive

Every now and then we see a Christian post up some point that s/he thinks is devastating proof of Chistianity, but is mind boggling niave, and gets shot down very quickly by the atheists.

Well. I'm giving the Intelligent Design people a chance. Here's my naive post about ID.

Intelligent Design suggests that humans are too complex to have come together due to the random chance of evolution. The complexity means there must be a creator. My question then.

I would think God is more complex than a human. Thus who created God?

Any response of "you must have faith", etc is meaningless to me. If that is what gets you through the day, I'm happy for you, but it doesn't answer my question. I would like an answer to the question "Who created God" in a logical way, as ID suggests it is logical and scientific.

I think we scared all the IDers away with the power of scientific method.

God has always been. He isn't a finite being like us and operates under different physical 'laws' as well as on a different physical dimension.

Every now and then we see a Christian post up some point that s/he thinks is devastating proof of Chistianity, but is mind boggling niave, and gets shot down very quickly by the atheists.

Well. I'm giving the Intelligent Design people a chance. Here's my naive post about ID.

Intelligent Design suggests that humans are too complex to have come together due to the random chance of evolution. The complexity means there must be a creator. My question then.


I am personally a deist, but I would like clarification on what you mean by "too complex". It is relative, after all.

God has always been. He isn't a finite being like us and operates under different physical 'laws' as well as on a different physical dimension.

I think your brain must exist in a different physical dimension :p

God has always been. He isn't a finite being like us and operates under different physical 'laws' as well as on a different physical dimension.Show your evidence.

I think your brain must exist in a different physical dimensionYeah, one of those without extension... :)

Then one has to wonder why such a being would give a damn (pun unintended) about a speck in the universe.

The Ultimate Nosey Neighbour!

God has always been. He isn't a finite being like us and operates under different physical 'laws' as well as on a different physical dimension.

Then one has to wonder why such a being would give a damn (pun unintended) about a speck in the universe.

Then one has to wonder why such a being would give a damn (pun unintended) about a speck in the universe.

Remember George Costanza with the zipper on his jacket? or Jerry looking at "The Dream Café" across the street?

Remember George Costanza with the zipper on his jacket? or Jerry looking at "The Dream Café" across the street?

.....O_o can't say I even know what you're talking about, much less remember.

my answer:

skip to 2:50 if you must I suppose (http://youtube.com/watch?v=dPh8zr0ddek&feature=related)

ok, this rant goes a little beyond ID, but it ties in, and I need to get it off my chest anyway.

There is no proof of any god, excluding the bible, which is of dubious and contradicting value in and of itself In fact, science has replicated some of the miracles in the bible, and theorised about how some would have occurred, with small scale tests behaving accordingly. Their is proof of evolution, of a godless start to the universe. We know evolution occurs, we've seen it in bacteria colonies, and we know natural selection occurs, by the same bacteria. The Theory of evolution is simply on how Evolution occurs, and is really no more a theory than gravity is. Their are also gaping holes in the bible, as it mentions no other planets, stars, or galaxies, all of which we hold to be true. Religion's lies have been shattered one by one, starting with an Earth Centred universe, to the origins of life. How long before we disprove any and all gods? Hopefully, not long.

And lets assume that the bible is 100% fact, and Jehovah is real. Would you worship him? I wouldn't. Why?, you might ask? god loves us!.

No, no he doesn't. The biblical god would be the worst tyrant in the history of man, making Hitler look like Gandhi. he has committed the worst acts imaginable, such as genocide of 99% of all life simply because of one species inability to behave, stared countless wars, committed acts of terrorism, promoted rape, slavery, genocide, discrimination, war and torture. In fact, Jehovah is so vicious, vengeful, and evil that the only way for him to keep people in line to to threaten them with eternal punishment if they think too hard, and eternal "reward" if they smile and nod their heads. (The "reward" BTW, is to sit around on clouds and pray to god all day. Not my idea of a good time.)


And even hell, a place of eternal torment, sounds pretty good. Now, what's in hell, you might ask? Fire, brimstone, and pain? Not even close. Hell is where Jehovah sent those who rebelled against him. And why did they rebel? because they wanted more power? I don't think so. I think they rebelled because they know, as I know, that Jehovah is a tyrant, and they were trying to dispose of him before he could inflict more harm. And who else is hell? Those who refused to buy into Jehovah's illusions, all the great minds of science are there, and I would kill to meet any of them.

In short, their is no proof of god, their are proofs of alternatives, even if there was a god, Satan would be a welcome alternative to him.

Intelligent Design suggests that humans are too complex to have come together due to the random chance of evolution. The complexity means there must be a creator. My question then.

I would think God is more complex than a human. Thus who created God?
I do hereby bestow upon myself the title of "Devil's Advocate". It's a bit ironic in the context, but anyway.

The obvious answer is that God did, given that we're assuming God to be "the initial cause". However, it obviously didn't do it directly, because that wouldn't make sense. You can't come out of nothing and construct yourself; you have to come out of a previous construction before you can do anything else (even incremental building requires a trigger point).

What I propose is that God, being a thing outside of time, was created by a future version of itself, then went on to go back in time and create a past version of itself.

The interesting thing about this is that we needn't assume that God is capable of constructing something as complex as itself in order for this to hold. All that God needs to do is to construct the blueprints for the assembly of God and some means by which these blueprints can be realised.

One hypothesis is that the world is itself this construction process; that God made the world as a means of creating itself. And now we're getting into really interesting theological territory...

I do hereby bestow upon myself the title of "Devil's Advocate". It's a bit ironic in the context, but anyway.

The obvious answer is that God did, given that we're assuming God to be "the initial cause". However, it obviously didn't do it directly, because that wouldn't make sense. You can't come out of nothing and construct yourself; you have to come out of a previous construction before you can do anything else (even incremental building requires a trigger point).

What I propose is that God, being a thing outside of time, was created by a future version of itself, then went on to go back in time and create a past version of itself.

The interesting thing about this is that we needn't assume that God is capable of constructing something as complex as itself in order for this to hold. All that God needs to do is to construct the blueprints for the assembly of God and some means by which these blueprints can be realised.

One hypothesis is that the world is itself this construction process; that God made the world as a means of creating itself. And now we're getting into really interesting theological territory...

hmmm interesting.
But in order to be in the future you have to have been in the past first, and in order to be in the past you have to have been created.
I think the idea of an infinite God get's around this problem, but this leads to tricky areas of interpretation. For starters what is the definition of God?

Why would a God need to create himself if he was already existing?
(this is all assuming that time travel is possible, even for a God)



Every now and then we see a Christian post up some point that s/he thinks is devastating proof of Chistianity, but is mind boggling niave, and gets shot down very quickly by the atheists.

Well. I'm giving the Intelligent Design people a chance. Here's my naive post about ID.

Intelligent Design suggests that humans are too complex to have come together due to the random chance of evolution. The complexity means there must be a creator. My question then.

I would think God is more complex than a human. Thus who created God?

Any response of "you must have faith", etc is meaningless to me. If that is what gets you through the day, I'm happy for you, but it doesn't answer my question. I would like an answer to the question "Who created God" in a logical way, as ID suggests it is logical and scientific.

It's possible however that there is no God currently, like someone else said we could be part of the blue prints for a future God, which would be able to prevent the end of the universe and earth.

Or that God is part of the Universe and vice versa so both are infinite therefore both were created at the big bang, before that you can go into endless speculation but i'd hazard a guess that the current universe goes in a loop, so it's created then destroyed then created etc endlessly. maybe.

Either you choose to believe that there is something bigger and better than human life out there and we exist for a reason, or you don't. it's as simple as that

Small nitpick: the existence of God or gods does not necessarily lead to us existing for a reason. Quite a few religions put us down as (unintentional) byproducts.

in reality there is no finite way to prove the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas and Peter Abelard tried, and all we got was a really confusing and circular argument. It all comes down to a matter of choice. Either you choose to believe that there is something bigger and better than human life out there and we exist for a reason, or you don't. it's as simple as that

Every now and then we see a Christian post up some point that s/he thinks is devastating proof of Chistianity, but is mind boggling niave, and gets shot down very quickly by the atheists.

Well. I'm giving the Intelligent Design people a chance. Here's my naive post about ID.

Intelligent Design suggests that humans are too complex to have come together due to the random chance of evolution. The complexity means there must be a creator. My question then.

I would think God is more complex than a human. Thus who created God?

Any response of "you must have faith", etc is meaningless to me. If that is what gets you through the day, I'm happy for you, but it doesn't answer my question. I would like an answer to the question "Who created God" in a logical way, as ID suggests it is logical and scientific.

It wasn't God, it was aliens.

God has always been. He isn't a finite being like us and operates under different physical 'laws' as well as on a different physical dimension.

How do you know?

[devil's advocate]
God is actually an extremely simple being: He is immaterial, and as such is not subject to the complexities found in the physical bodies of animals, He is eternal and as such requires no DNA sequence, and He is of only one essence. God is probably the most simple being immaginable.
[/devil's advocate]

:p;)

God is probably the most simple thing imaginable.What else would you expect from a Jewish invention?

I think we scared all the IDers away with the power of scientific method.

"The power of science suggests that your arguments lack logic and thus will fail, though this may require more experimentation."

Sometimes I think that the ID type arguments if applied to evolution would go something like this:

We come from monkeys because we kind of look like them. Monkeys have tails and are furry and humans stopped growing all that hair and we cut off our tails. The end.

Either you choose to believe that there is something bigger and better than human life out there and we exist for a reason, or you don't. it's as simple as that

Small nitpick: the existence of God or gods does not necessarily lead to us existing for a reason. Quite a few religions put us down as (unintentional) byproducts.

another nitpick: Doesn't mean it is "bigger and better" either.

But in order to be in the future you have to have been in the past first, and in order to be in the past you have to have been created.
Thus my suggestion: The God that is in the future is the future version of the God in the past, but that the God in the past is a creation of its future self.

Think of it like a sort of divine Grandfathering paradox. Although you can't go back in time and kill your grandfather before he gives birth to your father, you can still go back in time and be your own grandfather as long as your grandfather is actually, and has always been, you.

The same thing is happening here.

Why would a God need to create himself if he was already existing?
(this is all assuming that time travel is possible, even for a God)
Hmm. This is actually a good point, but if God doesn't create itself then it follows that God never changes, because the God that goes back in time would be the same God that is a result of all of the experience leading up to the point at which time loops back on itself. If God does create itself then God can change, because the jump back in time allows the God that follows from the jump to be different to the one that experiences the successive events.

(Gotta love para-temporal logic! :D )

For starters what is the definition of God?
The only response I can give to this question is "If you find out, let me know". The notion of God is very poorly defined, primarily because nobody can get religious people to agree to it in any meaningful way.

I know that I'm going to get a buttload of "the burden of truth is on you" posts after this, but meh.

I personally have seen no evidence that is absolute and concrete, that God doesn't exist. Until it is proved either way, which is basically impossible, I think that people should be able to make their own mind up.

I realise that many feel that I am wrong, and that atheism should be put into place everywhere, but it is people right to pick whatever religion or non-religion they want, be it teapot worship or an Abrahamic religion. You can't make people think what you want them to think, and even if religion is just a psychological crutch for those unable to contemplate the totalness of death, it is still their choice to have that crutch, or not, as the case often is.

However, I do think that having "THERE IS NO BIBLICAL GOD" in inch high letters in your sig isn't going to exactly attract people to the atheism. It’s just a bit.... pushy.

And to make this even mildly on topic, god was always there, since before the big bang.

RhynoDD;13503436']And thus, God invented the aneurysm. "You're thinking too hard. Stop it."
My work here is done!

*Disappears in a puff of unsmoke and time-warping*

Hmm. This is actually a good point, but if God doesn't create itself then it follows that God never changes, because the God that goes back in time would be the same God that is a result of all of the experience leading up to the point at which time loops back on itself. If God does create itself then God can change, because the jump back in time allows the God that follows from the jump to be different to the one that experiences the successive events.

(Gotta love para-temporal logic! :D )

And thus, God invented the aneurysm. "You're thinking too hard. Stop it."

My work here is done!

*Disappears in a puff of unsmoke and time-warping*
This disappearance is generally accepted to be the cause of Hilary Clinton and her penis.

RhynoDD;13503570']This disappearance is generally accepted to be the cause of Hilary Clinton and her penis.
Funny how causality works, isn't it?

(That was a past me disappearing, by the way)

Great. The first topic that gets me to reply and it has to be this one.

(sigh)

Here goes nothing....

For the record, I do believe in God.

I can tell you where God came from right after someone tells me where all the 'initial density and temperature' came from that eventually expanded into the Universe.

I know that I'm going to get a buttload of "the burden of truth is on you" posts after this, but meh.

I personally have seen no evidence that is absolute and concrete, that God doesn't exist. Until it is proved either way, which is basically impossible, I think that people should be able to make their own mind up.

And how do you propose to implement that, if not through secular education that does not teach any specific religion as the only real truth ?

Let us be honest: quite a few religions do not have "people should be able to make up their own minds" as their agenda. They want people to pick their faith - and will lie, deceive and whatever else to reach that goal.
That after all is how we ended up with the sham that is Intelligent Design.

I can tell you where God came from right after someone tells me where all the 'initial density and temperature' came from that eventually expanded into the Universe.

"We do not know".
See ? Easy and honest answer.

Your turn.

"We do not know".
See ? Easy and honest answer.

Your turn.

Where did God come from?

We do not know.

See? Easy and honest answer.

Funny how causality works, isn't it?

(That was a past me disappearing, by the way)

Yep. People try to question where God comes from, blah, Hilary Clinton and her penis.

And the morale is: Don't question. Aneurysms and HC&P. Such a shame.

Where did God come from?

We do not know.

See? Easy and honest answer.

Good. So on what do you base your ideas about him ?
Scientists after all have all kinds of nifty stories on how they arrived at the idea of a big bang and all, complete with references to something called "reality".

What do you have ?

And how do you propose to implement that, if not through secular education that does not teach any specific religion as the only real truth ?

Let us be honest: quite a few religions do not have "people should be able to make up their own minds" as their agenda. They want people to pick their faith - and will lie, deceive and whatever else to reach that goal.
That after all is how we ended up with the sham that is Intelligent Design.


Hey, I'm not saying my religion is the best- all I'm saying is my view. Up to a certain age, children have to do what they're told- and if the parent wants to force the child to be a certain religion, they can try. But once the child is 16, they can pick their own religion. Religion is not a choice for life- they can change later if they feel that they were forced or duped into believing certyain things.

As to having a secular education- well, where I come from, its pretty secular. RS teachers say that "<enter religion> believes"... rather than "This is the truth." If a child was told by a teacher that a certain religion was true, there''d be a hell of an uproar. Kids tend to learn what their parents tell them. And until we can force parents to teach their children a prescribed doctrine, which will almost certainly never happen, thats the way its going to stay.

Good. So on what do you base your ideas about him ?
Scientists after all have all kinds of nifty stories on how they arrived at the idea of a big bang and all, complete with references to something called "reality".

What do you have ?

Actually, I'm big on reality. I believe in the Big Bang, and I believe in evolution.

I just happen to believe that God is far more imaginative and creative than most Christians believe.

Hey, I'm not saying my religion is the best- all I'm saying is my view. Up to a certain age, children have to do what they're told- and if the parent wants to force the child to be a certain religion, they can try. But once the child is 16, they can pick their own religion. Religion is not a choice for life- they can change later if they feel that they were forced or duped into believing certyain things.

That is far harder than you make it seem.
First -the thoughtpatterns learned at a young age are very hard to shake off. Even someone who completely abandons their religion will still have remnants in their psyche. Religion is much, much more than just "believing in god".
Second - how are the kids going to find out they were deceived ? Lots of grown ups believe the ID crap put forward by the Discovery Institute.

And before people get confused: believing that something higher created everything is NOT the same as believing in the teachings of the Intelligent Design movement. Far from it in fact.

Thus my suggestion: The God that is in the future is the future version of the God in the past, but that the God in the past is a creation of its future self.

Think of it like a sort of divine Grandfathering paradox. Although you can't go back in time and kill your grandfather before he gives birth to your father, you can still go back in time and be your own grandfather as long as your grandfather is actually, and has always been, you.

The same thing is happening here.


So basically you’re proposing that somewhere, right now, God is frozen in a cryogenics lab with a tattoo of a robot on his ass?

:pI personally have seen no evidence that is absolute and concrete, that God doesn't exist. Until it is proved either way, which is basically impossible, I think that people should be able to make their own mind up.
Whilst it appears impossible to empirically disprove the existence of a god, the commonest train of reasoning to this end is to force the theist into a position where they must either reject their belief, due to logical inconsistencies or intolerable practical consequences, or to reject logic. You typically do not want to do the latter, since that would call into serious doubt our understanding of fundamental principles of logic such as 1+1=2 (I'm sure there are better examples... I just woke up :p). It is not inconceivable that every (relevant) logical argument for the existence of god could be falsified.

Whilst this would still not show absolutely that god does not exist, as some thiests would still argue that this is why you need faith, it would show that belief in it is hopelessly irrational. We could therefore ask the question - why is it that belief in god is exempt from such criticism whilst other irrational beliefs are not and are thus to be discarded?

RhynoDD;13503715']And the morale is: Don't question. Aneurysms and HC&P. Such a shame.
Don't you mean "moral"? Oh, shi...

*Spawns another Hillary*

So basically you’re proposing that somewhere, right now, God is frozen in a cryogenics lab with a tattoo of a robot on his ass?
That's exactly what I'm saying.

*Nods*

... wait, what?

Futurama FTW!

Don't you mean "moral"? Oh, shi...

*Spawns another Hillary*

No, I totally meant morale. The morale of the story is, consequently, rather low.

*Spawns another Hillary*

Not enough minerals!

Good. So on what do you base your ideas about him ?
Scientists after all have all kinds of nifty stories on how they arrived at the idea of a big bang and all, complete with references to something called "reality".

What do you have ?

Well.... the Bible is full of 'nifty stories' on God and creation, complete with 'references to something called reality'.

So... now what?

Whilst it appears impossible to empirically disprove the existence of a god, the commonest train of reasoning to this end is to force the theist into a position where they must either reject their belief, due to logical inconsistencies or intolerable practical consequences, or to reject logic.
There is one fault with this technique: namely that it's trying to score a goal against aribtrarily replaceable goalposts. As Mad Hatters pointed out earlier, we don't actually have a coherent and agreed definition as to what we mean by God. Thus, as faults, contradictions and inconsistencies appear, the definition of God can be refined to remove them, rather (and I'm being the ultimate heretic here) like the Scientific method of model construction.

There are many things you can make a theist reject about their belief in God, but ultimately, the only way they're going to drop the idea altogether is if having a belief in any sort of God is no longer worth their while maintaining. Given that God is a concept arising from social convenience, this requires more than just reasoned theoretical argument, and is reliant on practical, contextual evaluation.

Well.... the Bible is full of 'nifty stories' on God and creation, complete with 'references to something called reality'.

So... now what?

Worship the Nifty.

(Ten points to the first person who gets this reference)

reality sucks.

end of 'nifty story' about reality.

Jesus Timmy-fucking Christ. Just because the last ID thread is now on page 2 doesn't mean it's time for another one.

God has always been. He isn't a finite being like us and operates under different physical 'laws' as well as on a different physical dimension.
Why can't the universe always have been.

Why can't the universe always have been.

but what if it isn't, and you are just a figmant of His imagination, and maybe He's the only thing that's actually real in this imaginary world.

but what if it isn't, and you are just a figmant of His imagination, and maybe He's the only thing that's actually real in this imaginary world.
Then clearly I'm God. Cogito Ergo Sum and all that.

Then clearly I'm God. Cogito Ergo Sum and all that.

Cogito Eggo Sum. I think, therefore I am a waffle. Cogito Eggo Deo. I am the waffle God. (I think. I don't actually know latin)

RhynoDD;13503953']Cogito Eggo Sum. I think, therefore I am a waffle. Cogito Eggo Deum. I am the waffle God. (I think. I don't actually know latin)

Cognito Eggo Deo. Invisible waffle God.

There is one fault with this technique: namely that it's trying to score a goal against aribtrarily replaceable goalposts. As Mad Hatters pointed out earlier, we don't actually have a coherent and agreed definition as to what we mean by God. Thus, as faults, contradictions and inconsistencies appear, the definition of God can be refined to remove them, rather (and I'm being the ultimate heretic here) like the Scientific method of model construction.

There are many things you can make a theist reject about their belief in God, but ultimately, the only way they're going to drop the idea altogether is if having a belief in any sort of God is no longer worth their while maintaining. Given that God is a concept arising from social convenience, this requires more than just reasoned theoretical argument, and is reliant on practical, contextual evaluation.
Agreed. It appears as though reasoned argument has a somewhat narrower ability than knock-down in such cases, since the theist could, after exhaustive logical deconstruction of their beliefs, grant that their beliefs are positively irrational yet maintain them (perhaps saying that this is not contrary to the ability of a <insert arbitrary goalposts> god to be unbound in any logic whatsoever.). Or they could simply say that it doesn't matter to them whether god actually exists or not, belief in it is a defining characteristic of them. It would however require a special sort of delusion to place such belief in such a concept - such a 'nomological dangler' - whilst no other concept is able to with any sort of validity.

Perhaps herein is the difference between the 'refinement' of belief in god vs the scientific method (well for my sake I hope there's a difference lol).

Perhaps herein is the difference between the 'refinement' of belief in god vs the scientific method (well for my sake I hope there's a difference lol).

A small point, if I may.

By definition, the Scientific Method means that not only is a hypothesis testable, but that it is repeatable.

If I'm not mistaken, the Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang Theory are still just that, theories. Why? Because they can't be proven let alone repeated.

While we're at it, the definition of a theory includes the following: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action.

So in the end, neither argument is better than the other (or more 'rational' or 'informed' as some would like us to believe) because neither can be 'proved' in the sense that the other side would like and both are based, in the end, upon a belief.

RhynoDD;13503852']Worship the Nifty.

(Ten points to the first person who gets this reference)

Hooray for Sluggy!

Hooray for Sluggy!

*GASP!*

You get ten points, sir! Bah and crotch!

A small point, if I may.

By definition, the Scientific Method means that not only is a hypothesis testable, but that it is repeatable.

If I'm not mistaken, the Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang Theory are still just that, theories. Why? Because they can't be proven let alone repeated.

While we're at it, the definition of a theory includes the following: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action.
I cannot thoroughly comment on the big bang theory, but to say that evolutionary theory is 'just a theory' (or, just a 'belief' in the same way god is just a 'belief') is a bit of an underestimation of the veracity of a theory in science. Evolution most definitely is a repeatable observation, this much can be demonstrated even in a high school science lab. Evolution is an intrinsic property of life, intrinsic because it follows logically from a system (life) in which organisms die, those that are least well-adapted to their environment are more likely to die, and the survivors reproduce with variation. I will grant, however, that this is not 'proof' of evolutionary theory in the same sense as a mathematical or logical proof, which is why science does not set out to 'prove'. We can only falsify our best explanations of nature and replace them with better ones, but this is not to say that 'belief' in these well-established theories is the same as 'belief' in any old thing, no matter how delusional or contradictory. Which brings me to the next point...

So in the end, neither argument is better than the other (or more 'rational' or 'informed' as some would like us to believe) because neither can be 'proved' in the sense that the other side would like and both are based, in the end, upon a belief.
This could be interpreted as 'my belief in evidence is the same as your non-belief in evidence', aka. we can never reliably know anything, therefore we should believe anything we choose. But we can... scientists do not want creationists to provide proof of intelligent design, the request is actually much simpler (Although, creationists are constantly scoffing at scientists for not providing 'proof', demonstrating little more than their misunderstanding of the scientific method in the process). Creationists are asked to provide the best, most coherent presentation of their theory of intelligent design, and then asked to provide empirical evidence which supports it. They certainly have not provided such evidence (ie: show me where it is published), therefore we can reliably dismiss I.D. with equal veracity. All they have is speculation, strawman misinterpretations of scientific theory and arguments from ignorance. This is not the same as 'belief' in the logical deduction of sound and repeatable physical evidence.

A small point, if I may.

By definition, the Scientific Method means that not only is a hypothesis testable, but that it is repeatable.

If I'm not mistaken, the Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang Theory are still just that, theories. Why? Because they can't be proven let alone repeated.

While we're at it, the definition of a theory includes the following: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action.

So in the end, neither argument is better than the other (or more 'rational' or 'informed' as some would like us to believe) because neither can be 'proved' in the sense that the other side would like and both are based, in the end, upon a belief.

First, the scientific method says that an experiment must be repeatable, not a hypothesis or a theory. Nothing says that a theory must be repeatable.
Second, evolution has happened and is currently happening, so it passes that test even though it doesn't have to. (The Big Bang is proven based on observation, mostly because if it ever repeated the universe as we know it would probably cease to exist.)
Third, you do not know the scientific definition of theory. A theory is a collection of hypotheses to explain a phenomenon. Remember, it is still the theory of gravitation, the theory of heliocentricity and the theory of relativity. The word you are looking for is hypothesis.

And also, if you think anything in science can ever be proven, you don't know the first thing about science. Evolution, the Big Bang, gravitation and heliocentricity are all unproven and will stay unproven until the end of the universe.

when god travels time does s/he follow terminator rules or back to the future rules??
if god is not in need of creation why are we?

If I'm not mistaken, the Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang Theory are still just that, theories. Why? Because they can't be proven let alone repeated.
Not to trample over your argument here, but although the Big Bang is a theory, Evolution is an observation. Biogenesis is a theory, though, which might be what you meant.

So in the end, neither argument is better than the other (or more 'rational' or 'informed' as some would like us to believe) because neither can be 'proved' in the sense that the other side would like and both are based, in the end, upon a belief.
Your assertion that neither argument is better is entirely correct. Your implication that neither theory is better is not. Although all theories carry the same weight in discourse as suppositions untested, the Big Bang/Biogenesis theories are of better quality, independently of any claims to their accuracy, because they're easier to prove wrong.

Sorry if I misstated. I'm at work and trying to hurredly type.

While I do believe that things evolve (ie, change or adapt) I do not believe that we came from some monkeys which in turn came from ooze.

When I used the term 'Theory of Evolution' I was referring to the latter and not the former.

Sorry if I misstated. I'm at work and trying to hurredly type.

While I do believe that things evolve (ie, change or adapt) I do not believe that we came from some monkeys which in turn came from ooze.

When I used the term 'Theory of Evolution' I was referring to the latter and not the former.

Nobody claims that we did. A few people continually claim that the ToE and scientists claim that, but, to be perfectly honest, they're complete morons and you shouldn't listen to them. I mean, for the love of Christ, one of them actually thinks that the sun is on fire. Another thinks that ozone is better to breathe than oxygen. None of them have ever shown even the most basic understanding of science, math, and logic.

This thread is about Intelligent Design. Darwin himself said that there is no way to know what happened at the beginning of the Universe. There is no way to say that the big bang actually happened right now, and so people must content themselves with being at most agnostic. God could exist, but I tend to go along the lines of a watchmaker-god instead of a creepy-guy-who-lives-next-door-god.

As for evolution- it exists, and unfortunately has been proven time and time again to win out versus the ID theory. The problem with ID is that it doesn't fit the new definition of science that came from the late 19th century. Before that, ID was the way of the world and I'm suprised that more ID supporters don't quote Paley. This aside, Evolution is a developing theory- and though there could be a minute hole in the chain, for the most part it is filled and the parts that aren't filled will soon be filled.

To end, I quote a line from a semi-quality movie (but really from Huey P. Long) "Time brings all things to light- I trust it so."

While I do believe that things evolve (ie, change or adapt) I do not believe that we came from some monkeys which in turn came from ooze.

When I used the term 'Theory of Evolution' I was referring to the latter and not the former.
The theory of evolution is an attempt to describe what has been observed and what you profess belief in, ie: that things (living things?) evolve (though as CthulhuFhtagn pointed out, the theory of evolution does not suggest we came from monkeys or that they came from ooze). Are you suggesting that, unlike humans, all other creatures evolved?

As for evolution- it exists, and unfortunately has been proven time and time again to win out versus the ID theory. The problem with ID is that it doesn't fit the new definition of science that came from the late 19th century. Before that, ID was the way of the world and I'm suprised that more ID supporters don't quote Paley.
The problem is, most of intelligent design appears to be based entirely on Paley, whether the proponents of ID realise they are essentially quoting him or not. Paley's arguments are very good ones, and they work if we assume biological reproduction occurs with perfect fidelity, which has been known for well over 100 years not to be the case. Organisms are not watches. So essentially, all 'intelligent design' reincarnates over the 20th century fail because they are just re-hashes of the same, discredited argument.

Rolling squid;13503036']ok, this rant goes a little beyond ID, but it ties in, and I need to get it off my chest anyway.

There is no proof of any god, excluding the bible, which is of dubious and contradicting value in and of itself In fact, science has replicated some of the miracles in the bible, and theorised about how some would have occurred, with small scale tests behaving accordingly. Their is proof of evolution, of a godless start to the universe. We know evolution occurs, we've seen it in bacteria colonies, and we know natural selection occurs, by the same bacteria. The Theory of evolution is simply on how Evolution occurs, and is really no more a theory than gravity is. Their are also gaping holes in the bible, as it mentions no other planets, stars, or galaxies, all of which we hold to be true. Religion's lies have been shattered one by one, starting with an Earth Centred universe, to the origins of life. How long before we disprove any and all gods? Hopefully, not long.

And lets assume that the bible is 100% fact, and Jehovah is real. Would you worship him? I wouldn't. Why?, you might ask? god loves us!.

No, no he doesn't. The biblical god would be the worst tyrant in the history of man, making Hitler look like Gandhi. he has committed the worst acts imaginable, such as genocide of 99% of all life simply because of one species inability to behave, stared countless wars, committed acts of terrorism, promoted rape, slavery, genocide, discrimination, war and torture. In fact, Jehovah is so vicious, vengeful, and evil that the only way for him to keep people in line to to threaten them with eternal punishment if they think too hard, and eternal "reward" if they smile and nod their heads. (The "reward" BTW, is to sit around on clouds and pray to god all day. Not my idea of a good time.)


And even hell, a place of eternal torment, sounds pretty good. Now, what's in hell, you might ask? Fire, brimstone, and pain? Not even close. Hell is where Jehovah sent those who rebelled against him. And why did they rebel? because they wanted more power? I don't think so. I think they rebelled because they know, as I know, that Jehovah is a tyrant, and they were trying to dispose of him before he could inflict more harm. And who else is hell? Those who refused to buy into Jehovah's illusions, all the great minds of science are there, and I would kill to meet any of them.

In short, their is no proof of god, their are proofs of alternatives, even if there was a god, Satan would be a welcome alternative to him.

You haven't actually read a single word of the NT have you? Nor do you understand the concepts of Heaven, or Hell at all... your ignorance makes all your arguments void.

However, I do think that having "THERE IS NO BIBLICAL GOD" in inch high letters in your sig isn't going to exactly attract people to the atheism. It’s just a bit.... pushy.

Nope, everyone knows that only religious people can force their beliefs on others, whats more, should a religious person put a similar (though, implicitly opposite) message in their sig, they would probably be constantly (and rightly) flamed for all time.[/sarcasm]

In reality, I agree with you.

The real problem with trying to prove that God exist is that we try to use methods that are right. How do we prove that the Big Bang happened? We just guessed it. With that theory, we based more theories off of it. As I write, we have theories that are based off other theories.

So how does this relate to proving a God? In any religion, a god is clearly not a being of our world. Meaning...he/she/it doesn't have the same laws that we abide by ex. ignoring gravity, can control nature, bring back the dead....

Ya, having faith is a head-start, but even us Christians get to see our share of proof. I have seen almost certainly dead people that were guarantied to die by morning have a group of people pray for that person out side the hospital room and rise in the morning out of bed and check out of the hospital by evening. I have seen the a person die right be my eyes after a pray saying "Father, if you want to take *leaving out name* into your kingdom, please allow him to come at the end of this pray." and at that, he died. It was a bit creepy.

So, I can't show you anymore physical proof than the Bible. I can't give you a hair of God, a pic of him, or anything physical. That's the problem. A god isn't physical. I don't know what evidence you want, but that's all I can show you. You will have to see it with you own eyes and feel the might of the Lord within yourself. All I will say, that the first time you feel the Holy Spirit, you will feel a fire in you heart, and a feeling like a truck just hit you.

You are probably saying, "Ya, ya...blah blah blah," but I don't care. It's just one of those things I'm use to. I really hope that the Lord God and Jesus Christ show you Their might and Love. Ya, the Old testament God was all, "Smite you, Kill you, obey me," but the New Testament God is different. After the birth of his son, God showed more love to use and forgave us more. We have now sinned more and more, but He still loves us. I hope you see what I mean.

If God DID create the universe, the way I see it, he would be within his rights to do whatever he wished with his new toys. He could be a Hitler god, a Mother Teresa god, or somewhere inbetween. The key is, as his project, we would have no right to object to anything. Morality would be irrelevant, because said God would define "good," and not be limited by any morals we project on to him.

On the other hand, if God is outside of time, as is required to make any sense of God, he would be uncapable of change. So he couldn't change his mind from being a vengeful, smiting God to become a hugs and kisses God. He must always stay the same, as an infinite being cannot change.

Proving the existance of God can only be proved through a negative argument. "Nothing else makes sense, therefore this does." That's why you see so many Christians attacking evolution rather than building up the theory of ID. Irreducible Complexity just makes everything outside of God really hard to explain, it doesn't necessarily prove God.

Anyway... that's my blathering on the issue.

More rubbish is written in these kinds of threads than any other.

Essentially it's like asking the question:

If nothing was something, what would that something be?

Mindless speculation.

The way I see it, I believe that God is the one what done it. Science gets to tell me how he done did it. Because I see God as some sort of cosmic Rube Goldberg, who delights excessively in seeing the gears in his complex machinery turn.

Irreducible Complexity? I think he'd prefer evolution, getting to watch as his creation constantly adapts, expands and changes to accommodate to their surroundings.

You haven't actually read a single word of the NT have you? Nor do you understand the concepts of Heaven, or Hell at all... your ignorance makes all your arguments void.

I have read the NT, I do understand the concepts of Heaven and Hell, and I agree with him (mostly).
(Proof:
His description of Heaven is more or less the same as one I saw Zilam give, and considering Zilam is one of the most religious posters here he's probably right.
His description of Hell is IMO the most sensible view of Hell. After all, why would Satan rebel against God if he just wanted power? He apparently had MORE power before, and also had a guaranteed lock on it for all time. Considering all the absolutely evil things God does in the OT, and the above, relatively common, description of heaven, it makes sense that he rebelled because he saw God for the tyrant he is.
(Not, of course, that I believe that any of the above corresponds to reality in any way.)
And I really don't see what the NT has to do with it. The fact that Jesus is much nicer then OT God is totally irrelevant. And of course, in the NT are both the first (and second, and third) mention of hell, and Jesus' endorsement of every single word in the OT.)

As usual, these threads get off topic quickly. No-one has given anything about ID that is logically consistent.... and I don't think they can. There's been religious people saying, well that's what faith is, etc. but it seems I haven't got a hard core ID believer to post.

It seems there is no logical ID answer to who created God. He just is, is a croc. If he just is, then humanity can just be. This is not disproof of god, but it is a disproof of ID.

Not surprisingly, I am an atheist, and I have no problem with people believing in God, even though I think they are deluded, but ID. It's just makes no sense. Even from a faith perspective.

Every now and then we see a Christian post up some point that s/he thinks is devastating proof of Chistianity, but is mind boggling niave, and gets shot down very quickly by the atheists.


Hey man.
Don't be hatin'..
'Cause I'm still waitin'.
Fo' yo evidence from Satan.
Yo.
Dawg.
Peace out.

I'm not really a Christian or anything, but the OP's logic is flawed. Time is relative to the matter in the universe. It is relative in many different ways. For example, the atoms inside of an object move "fast" because we're much bigger than it, and we relate the speed to our lifetimes. I'm sure if a conscious being was large enough to watch the whole solar system through a microscope, the Earth would be revolving around the sun very "fast". Because time is completely relative to matter, a universe with no matter has no time. Also, since entropy is increasing, the universe can't have always existed, otherwise entropy would have reached it's maximum levels and everything would have been dark and at absolute zero. So this proves the universe had to have a start. Even if you believe in the Big Bang, the matter in the big bang has its own origin, doesn't it?

And none of this proves a "God", much less a Christian God, but it adds philosophy and thought to blatant atheism.

And by the way, I think anyone with a sense of logic can understand the entire book of Genesis is a parable and not a historical account.

As usual, these threads get off topic quickly. No-one has given anything about ID that is logically consistent.... and I don't think they can. There's been religious people saying, well that's what faith is, etc. but it seems I haven't got a hard core ID believer to post.

It seems there is no logical ID answer to who created God. He just is, is a croc. If he just is, then humanity can just be. This is not disproof of god, but it is a disproof of ID.

Not surprisingly, I am an atheist, and I have no problem with people believing in God, even though I think they are deluded, but ID. It's just makes no sense. Even from a faith perspective.

Well you're discounting the people who are totally unreligious but believe in ID through logic.

I think there is essentially a middle ground. I believe in evolution but wouldn't go so far into believing in the Big Bang in it's current state. Even if the Big Bang is true, there was a universe before the Big Bang and a force that set the stage for all of the matter to gather. And before all of these universes, there's a starting cause.

No-one has given anything about ID that is logically consistent...
Even though I was playing the Devil's Advocate, my suggestion that God created himself still stands.

Even though I was playing the Devil's Advocate, my suggestion that God created himself still stands.

Not really, the way you put it, in terms of future/past is merely a cancellation.

There's no need for future God to return to the past and create himself, it's an unnecessary move and, in my opinion of God, he either wouldn't bother or, if he's infinite, he both did it and didn't do it at the same time.

My version is heaps better.

God has always been. He isn't a finite being like us and operates under different physical 'laws' as well as on a different physical dimension.

That doesn't work by means of the OP. Try again.

Show your evidence.Sorry, left it IN another dimension :rolleyes:

How do you know?

It was whispered to them from another dimension.
I would never tell you anything that wasn't absolutely true
That didn't come right from His mouth
And He wants me to tell you

Sometimes I think that the ID type arguments if applied to evolution would go something like this:

We come from monkeys because we kind of look like them. Monkeys have tails and are furry and humans stopped growing all that hair and we cut off our tails. The end.o.9

Aren't you dead?

Thus my suggestion: The God that is in the future is the future version of the God in the past, but that the God in the past is a creation of its future self.

Think of it like a sort of divine Grandfathering paradox. Although you can't go back in time and kill your grandfather before he gives birth to your father, you can still go back in time and be your own grandfather as long as your grandfather is actually, and has always been, you.

The same thing is happening here.


Hmm. This is actually a good point, but if God doesn't create itself then it follows that God never changes, because the God that goes back in time would be the same God that is a result of all of the experience leading up to the point at which time loops back on itself. If God does create itself then God can change, because the jump back in time allows the God that follows from the jump to be different to the one that experiences the successive events.

(Gotta love para-temporal logic! :D )


The only response I can give to this question is "If you find out, let me know". The notion of God is very poorly defined, primarily because nobody can get religious people to agree to it in any meaningful way.How about a multiple loop on that, like God's Groundhog Day?
Further - mutability of the soul for each turn means we further intermix with each reboot God gives the universe, what with the significance of "soul" in the first place, and its merits.
It poses peculiarity about why there's still the unedited, asshole version in the old testament (Never Forget! Yellow Ribbon 'round the old Oak Tree!)
..other than to allow that people can easily learn that god started as a significant prick with a lot of mistakes to work through.

Well you're discounting the people who are totally unreligious but believe in ID through logic.

I think there is essentially a middle ground. I believe in evolution but wouldn't go so far into believing in the Big Bang in it's current state. Even if the Big Bang is true, there was a universe before the Big Bang and a force that set the stage for all of the matter to gather. And before all of these universes, there's a starting cause.
But if that starting cause is God, what caused God? The only answer is a mickey mouse one that has no grounding in logic. "God just is". "He's outside of time and space." "He caused himself".

ID has a huge logical hole. Faith also has a huge logical hole but it's allowed to have it. That's what faith is about. ID tries to act scientific and logical but it is not, and can't be, due to the question "Who created God?" which it can't answer.

Well you're discounting the people who are totally unreligious but believe in ID through logic.

Which ID are we talking about here ?
The ID as put forward by the ID movement, represented for instance by Behe and the Discovery institute - or the idea that something created us all ?

I would like to see your logic steps...

My favorite way of discounting the existence of any creator deity, particularly Christian, based roughly on ID's own logic.


1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.


I disagree. The creation of a perfect world would be the most marvellous acheivment possible. Clearly it isn't perfect, so the whole train of thought kind of derails.

Perfection is only definable by the person perceiving it. Ergo, it isn't logical to assume perfection makes something better, since perfection can mean anything to anyone.



That said, assuming there was a way to do so, I suppose it would fall apart, yes. In such case, I have another logic train for you to derail.

1. All evil in the kinds of created entities are the result of the fallibility of one or more of its creators.
2. The universe is a created entity.
3. The universe contains evil.
4. Evil is the result of the actions of a fallible creator(s) or is not the result of any creator(s).
5. If god created the universe, then he is fallible.
6. Therefore, god did not create the universe, is imperfect, or does not exist.

Every now and then we see a Christian post up some point that s/he thinks is devastating proof of Chistianity, but is mind boggling niave, and gets shot down very quickly by the atheists.

Well. I'm giving the Intelligent Design people a chance. Here's my naive post about ID.

Intelligent Design suggests that humans are too complex to have come together due to the random chance of evolution. The complexity means there must be a creator. My question then.

I would think God is more complex than a human. Thus who created God?

Any response of "you must have faith", etc is meaningless to me. If that is what gets you through the day, I'm happy for you, but it doesn't answer my question. I would like an answer to the question "Who created God" in a logical way, as ID suggests it is logical and scientific.

Who created God? Nothing. Before there was anything there was God, and God created all from Godself.

There you go easy!

The problem with that is that, is that it's like asking a scientist what came before the big bang. It doesn't really do anything but taunt the person in question with a (currently) unanswerable question.

I prefer making the silly believer either reject logic or recognize their deity is a contradiction of logic. The mental turmoil they go through afterwards is fun to watch. :D


Heh or not. We can easily admit that belife in God is not rational, I would just shrug and say so what? Not every asspect about living is rational, where does it say one has to be a wholey rational being to get the most out of life? And even if you could point me to such a place, I'd strongly disagree with it.

The problem with that is that, is that it's like asking a scientist what came before the big bang. It doesn't really do anything but taunt the person in question with a (currently) unanswerable question.

I prefer making the silly believer either reject logic or recognize their deity is a contradiction of logic. The mental turmoil they go through afterwards is fun to watch. :D

I can tell you where God came from right after someone tells me where all the 'initial density and temperature' came from that eventually expanded into the Universe.

Nah, you first.

If you acknowledge your "belief" is not rational, you have accepted your "belief" is no better than the delusions held by a schizophrenic. I believe that says enough, don't you think?

No not at all, and I can't clearly see why you would make such a link?

Are you saying then that all aspects of life are 100% ratinal all of the time?

Heh or not. We can easily admit that belife in God is not rational, I would just shrug and say so what? Not every asspect about living is rational, where does it say one has to be a wholey rational being to get the most out of life? And even if you could point me to such a place, I'd strongly disagree with it.

If you acknowledge your "belief" is not rational, you have accepted your "belief" is no better than the delusions held by a schizophrenic. I believe that says enough, don't you think?

'All aspects of life' is not part of the statement. Your beliefs are. You, it seems, are the one not understanding.

I will neither confirm nor deny that all aspects of life are 100% rational, as the sweeping generalization would be my undoing regardless of answer.

Nope sorry, I understand what you are talking about. Clearly you didn't read my first post, and the one to which you replied trying to equate my belife with schizophrenia, properly.

Because if you did you would find exactly where all aspects of life is certianly part of my statment.

Come on now, you can't have it both ways. Either some parts of living are not rational, in which case what does it matter whether you have faith or not, or all parts of living are wholey rational, so which is it?

Not really, the way you put it, in terms of future/past is merely a cancellation.

There's no need for future God to return to the past and create himself, it's an unnecessary move and, in my opinion of God, he either wouldn't bother or, if he's infinite, he both did it and didn't do it at the same time.

My version is heaps better.
You're right about self-creation being unnecessary if God is infinite. But we haven't assumed that God is infinite, and to make that jump is perhaps outside of the most basic statement of God as being the creator of the world. Futhermore, if God is not infinite then the creation of God is necessary, either by something that is infinite or that is ultimately self-creating; we can without loss of generality assume that we're talking about God as being the top-level creator.

Although yours is nicer given a particular understanding of God, mine applies more generally.

No not at all, and I can't clearly see why you would make such a link?

Are you saying then that all aspects of life are 100% ratinal all of the time?

'All aspects of life' is not part of the statement. Your beliefs are. You, it seems, are the one not understanding.

I will neither confirm nor deny that all aspects of life are 100% rational, as the sweeping generalization would be my undoing regardless of answer.

Of course belief is irrational; thats what it is. However, some people can live with that element of irrational uncertanty in their lives, while others can't.

If you want to have the most enlightened beliefs possible, you shouldn't be content with logical fallacies and irrationality. Otherwise, your only recourse is either throwing debate out the window, or acknowledging your belief has no more credibility than the delusions of a schizophrenic.

Heh and can you clearly show why that is the case? I mean why do you belive that you should not be content with irrtionalities? This seems to me to say that you belive a life worth living is 100% rational? Can you rationaly show me why?

Can you not see the defferance, or a scale of irrational belifes, or is it your belife that such a scale does not exist, or is meaningless?

All of us our little 'moral's to live life, by, them platitudes that stear our way, from the 'Swings and roundabaouts' to 'an eye for an eye' can you explaine to me how all of yours are well thoughtout 100% rational, and how you upbringing, brain chemsitry, etc.. have no irrational influsence on this at all?

Of course belief is irrational; thats what it is. However, some people can live with that element of irrational uncertanty in their lives, while others can't.

Belief is not irrational. It is...

1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

Meaning it is, by definition, a synonym for an opinion. I can say I have a belief that invisible, intangible, three-legged velociraptors in my garage exist and should be worshiped, but the problem is the sheer irrationality of such a belief. Similarly, you can hold the belief that the earth is a sphere and be quite rational in such a belief.

If you want to have the most enlightened beliefs possible, you shouldn't be content with logical fallacies and irrationality. Otherwise, your only recourse is either throwing debate out the window, or acknowledging your belief has no more credibility than the delusions of a schizophrenic.

Nope sorry, I understand what you are talking about. Clearly you didn't read my first post, and the one to which you replied trying to equate my belife with schizophrenia, properly.

Because if you did you would find exactly where all aspects of life is certianly part of my statment.

Come on now, you can't have it both ways. Either some parts of living are not rational, in which case what does it matter whether you have faith or not, or all parts of living are wholey rational, so which is it?

All parts of life may encompass your belief structure, but it is irrelevant to the question. Life is quite separate from your belief in irrational things, and therefore cannot be lumped together with it. I also cannot answer before, as I said before, you make a sweeping generality and expect an absolute answer.


...I must say, this time warp is getting irritating. It makes it difficult trying to find your replies.

All parts of life may encompass your belief structure, but it is irrelevant to the question. Life is quite separate from your belief in irrational things, and therefore cannot be lumped together with it. I also cannot answer before, as I said before, you make a sweeping generality and expect an absolute answer.

Irrelevant? How so? Is it not your position that any irrational belife has no merit? Isn't that your own sweeping generalisation. The question is easy to answer, in light of your stance, do you think that your life is 100% rational 100% of the time?

1. All evil in the kinds of created entities are the result of the fallibility of one or more of its creators.

Once again, this is an assumption. As before, evil is different things to different people. And things nearly all agree are evil, like murder, are addressed in various free will arguments: bascially for our actions to have consequence, there must be a bad possibility. If we went through life without having anything bad happen, we would never mature or become better people. Thus evil can be a result of decisions made by people, or just be part of the natural order of things- predators kill and eat other animals, and sometimes those other anumals are people.

If you believe in the garden of Eden (which I don't) then this all goes away. But many Christians don't, and this is one of the many issues we spend time racking our brains over.

Next plese :P

(and sorry for the double post.)

You're right about self-creation being unnecessary if God is infinite. But we haven't assumed that God is infinite, and to make that jump is perhaps outside of the most basic statement of God as being the creator of the world. Futhermore, if God is not infinite then the creation of God is necessary, either by something that is infinite or that is ultimately self-creating; we can without loss of generality assume that we're talking about God as being the top-level creator.

Although yours is nicer given a particular understanding of God, mine applies more generally.

Actually my version is in another thread, like God, I can't be bothered to go back and find it but it's currently on page 1 so I give you free will to do so yourself - I'd caution that it's not really worth the effort.

So, back to this..

If God is not infinite under your version, he still has to go back to create himself, given that, he was there at creation and again, there's no point in His going back in the future - it continues to cancel itself out.

That's why, in the other thread, I place 'everything' at the start, not 'nothing'. We were 'everything' and we blew ourselves into 'somethings', in the process creating 'nothing'.

For me, it seems more logical to say everything existed first, from which nothing came because, as we all know, why nothing comes from nothing.

The question is easy to answer, in light of your stance, do you think that your life is 100% rational 100% of the time?

So?

Belief is not irrational. It is...

1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.


Yeah, sorry. I should have checked my dictionary. >.<

But yeah, I think I can live with the logical falacies inherent in my faith.

So?

What?

Heh and can you clearly show why that is the case? I mean why do you belive that you should not be content with irrtionalities? This seems to me to say that you belive a life worth living is 100% rational? Can you rationaly show me why?

Can you not see the defferance, or a scale of irrational belifes, or is it your belife that such a scale does not exist, or is meaningless?

All of us our little 'moral's to live life, by, them platitudes that stear our way, from the 'Swings and roundabaouts' to 'an eye for an eye' can you explaine to me how all of yours are well thoughtout 100% rational, and how you upbringing, brain chemsitry, etc.. have no irrational influsence on this at all?

To be content with irrationality is to be willfully ignorant, uncaring that your beliefs are flawed and illogical. I did not say I believed a life worth living is 100% rational, though. Because of this, I have no reason to show you what I did not advocate.

There may be a scale, there may not be. That is subjectivity and personal perception speaking. Logic and illogic, though, are binary. You either have it, or you do not. However, illogical behavior is not always irrational, and so on.

Certainly, we all have morality, but you are mistaken if you believe I've ever implied or stated my morality is 100% rational. Therefore, I do not have any reason to explain anything as the question doesn't apply.

Irrelevant? How so? Is it not your position that any irrational belife has no merit? Isn't that your own sweeping generalisation. The question is easy to answer, in light of your stance, do you think that your life is 100% rational 100% of the time?


I did not say it had no merit, merely it is about equal to hallucinations and delusions in credibility. It is not a sweeping generalization, and I advise you look up what a generalization is in a dictionary so you do not misuse words you seemingly don't understand.

That said, it is not easy to answer because the question is too broad to be answered in an absolute, binary fashion.

Yeah, sorry. I should have checked my dictionary. >.<

But yeah, I think I can live with the logical falacies inherent in my faith.

Then you have resigned from the debate, since logic is the only thing one can truly debate with. Unless you enjoy fighting in the metaphorical arena of debate unarmed, that is.

Once again, this is an assumption. As before, evil is different things to different people. And things nearly all agree are evil, like murder, are addressed in various free will arguments: bascially for our actions to have consequence, there must be a bad possibility. If we went through life without having anything bad happen, we would never mature or become better people. Thus evil can be a result of decisions made by people, or just be part of the natural order of things- predators kill and eat other animals, and sometimes those other anumals are people.

If you believe in the garden of Eden (which I don't) then this all goes away. But many Christians don't, and this is one of the many issues we spend time racking our brains over.

Next plese :P

(and sorry for the double post.)


I believe you missed this part here...



...All evil


Kinda rules out subjectivity when every form of evil is encompassed, regardless of what it is. I should also add every main premise of a logical argument tends to be an assumption. Logic does not tend to be motivation to do anything, merely continue with what has been started.


Furthermore, evil acts do not promote character growth. Bad decisions, perhaps. Suffering? Certainly. But evil does nothing but spawn more of itself. Ironically, evil in its roots is purely religious, used to describe the wicked in a more potent and emotion-loaded sense.


I'm retiring from the thread. I really should've been in bed about 8 hours ago. If I come back, maybe we can continue this.

To be content with irrationality is to be willfully ignorant, uncaring that your beliefs are flawed and illogical. I did not say I believed a life worth living is 100% rational, though. Because of this, I have no reason to show you what I did not advocate.

So to be content with one part of your life that is irrational is equal to being willfully ignorant, and uncaring that this particular belife may be flawed, and may even be illogical?

Okay so why tell me this, if as you suggest you may still find some merit in it? I mean to me it looks to be the words of somebody who sees no merit in irrationality.

I mean what is the point you are trying to make here?



There may be a scale, there may not be. That is subjectivity and personal perception speaking. Logic and illogic, though, are binary. You either have it, or you do not. However, illogical behavior is not always irrational, and so on.

There may be a scale, but you do not belive so? If you did belive that this scale of irratioanlity exists, why then would you 'generalise' and say that belief in God is equal to schizophrenic delusions?



Certainly, we all have morality, but you are mistaken if you believe I've ever implied or stated my morality is 100% rational. Therefore, I do not have any reason to explain anything as the question doesn't apply.

Now this I love, you have twice questioned my comprehension of your posts, and here you show a distinct lack of the same. Who mentioned morality? That is just not what I meant at all.


I did not say it had no merit, merely it is about equal to hallucinations and delusions in credibility. It is not a sweeping generalization, and I advise you look up what a generalization is in a dictionary so you do not misuse words you seemingly don't understand.

That said, it is not easy to answer because the question is too broad to be answered in an absolute, binary fashion.

So it is not a generalisation to suggest that an irrational belife in God is in someway equal to a schizophrenic delusion? Then either you lie, or you don't know too much about either.

It's very easy to answer, let me give you context in which I ask, that should help you.

You give the impression that you find no merit in any other type of thought than logical, you equate an irrational belife in God to the delusions of a schizophrenic. In light of this the assumption I make is that you view a life free from irritional thought, or belifes to be better than one that has such irrationality.

Would I be right in making these assumptions?

If so then you should easly be able to tell me that yes your life is 100% free from such irrationality. So is it?

What?

So you're saying the reason you believe in your faith, despite recognising it as irrational, is that you enjoy a little irrationality once in a while?

I believe because I like being mad?

Essentially you're saying you do religion like you take a drug and, while that may be true and while it may be fine, it destroys the point of religion - it's like Morris Dancing, it's not a true belief but a hobby for you.

So you're saying the reason you believe in your faith, despite recognising it as irrational, is that you enjoy a little irrationality once in a while?

I believe because I like being mad?

Essentially you're saying you do religion like you take a drug and, while that may be true and while it may be fine, it destroys the point of religion - it's like Morris Dancing, it's not a true belief but a hobby for you.

No, I was asking if Vectrova belives that all life is 100% rational.

If you want to glean any of my stance, then perhaps you could say that I relasie by thevery defintion of the word that any belife in God(unproven that is) must be irrational, and I have no problems with that.

Furthermore, evil acts do not promote character growth. Bad decisions, perhaps. Suffering? Certainly. But evil does nothing but spawn more of itself. Ironically, evil in its roots is purely religious, used to describe the wicked in a more potent and emotion-loaded sense.

No, but taking the option of good over the option of evil is. And for there to be an option of good, there must be an option of evil.

Then you have resigned from the debate, since logic is the only thing one can truly debate with. Unless you enjoy fighting in the metaphorical arena of debate unarmed, that is.

Perhaps I misspoke. What I meant was, that I can live a little uncertainty. That doesn't mean that I abandon logic completely. Maybe my beliefs are as rational as the ravings of a madman. But perhaps they are the truth- rational or not. And personally, I think that they are indeed the truth. Why? I'm not quote sure. But nevertheless, I think that it is. I can quite understand others disagreeing- sometimes I look at myself objectively, and think that I am a fool. But then, a few moments later, I am sure again. It is stupid, irrational, and foolish. That doesn't not mean that I am always stupid, irrational and foolish. I'd like to think that this is often the case.

Furthermore, evil acts do not promote character growth. Bad decisions, perhaps. Suffering? Certainly. But evil does nothing but spawn more of itself. Ironically, evil in its roots is purely religious, used to describe the wicked in a more potent and emotion-loaded sense.

I dunno. I'd say it promotes character growth...just EVIL character growth. And if you're a cleric, that means you get to control undead.