Religion, Darwinism, Creationism and cu20052003ism

[JTrader]

You do not believe that what is written in the Christian religious texts is factually correct in the present day - Fine. What this has to do with God existing or not, I don't know.

As I mentioned... Religion and God are seperate issues.

What r u talking abt bible prophecy now? end of days etc?

 

[trendie]

What r u talking abt bible prophecy now? end of days etc?

when are the end of days supposed to be?

 

[MrGecko]

I am suggesting that would could have been correct then may not be correct now.

 

[JTrader]

when are the end of days supposed to be?

Bible Code

 

[trendie]

Bible Code

" ...... Three years were clearly encoded with "the great terror": 2000, 2014, and 2113" .....

I guess the nuclear holocaust wont be anytime soon, if the year 2113 is listed.

reminds me of the story of the oracle at the Delphi, when some great leader wanted to know the outcome of a battle. the answer was (I think a turtle shell was set on fire, and the way it cracked gave the answer), " a great army will be destroyed". the general thought it meant his enemies would be destroyed. but it turned out that his own great army was destroyed.

my point is, it could be "us" that is the great terror, raining horror upon a far off land.

 

[temptrader]

God is anything we dont understand.

There are loads of things we don't understand - doesn't mean God's behind them.

It is entirely possible god exists. But, being utilitarian, what difference does it make if god exsits?
If you are ill, and god exists, you are no better off if you are ill and god doesnt exist. Either way, your best course of action is to go to a doctor.
If a tsunami is coming towards you, and god exists, you are no better off if god doesnt exist and a tsunami is coming towards you. Either way, your best course of action is to seek high ground or move inland.

This is the standard response, but some religious nuts would interpret events to be God's doing.

Whether god exists is irrelevant, from a utilitarian view.

This is so IF you believe He has not interfered or is influencing our affairs. Some deranged nut cases think that he is influencing human affairs - and no argument to the contrary will satisfy them.

Science has been wrong in the past, and will continue to stumble its way towards the light.
The luminiferous ether as a medium through which light travels, and the use of trepanning ot "release evil spririts" from people. thankfully these ideas have been abandoned, but only becuase somebody came up with better ideas. I think phlogiston was an early attempt to describe oxygen.

And science will continue to be wrong sometimes - so what?

But I'll tell you one thing: it got us here didn't it? We wouldn't have planes, cars, fridges, computers, satellites and technological advancement without it.

We throw away "wrong" theories because that's progress. As one brilliant mathematician once put it: forgetting is a very healthy activity. If only most people could use that on the religious texts.

My key beef with god is that god explains nothing.
The universe exists. Its magical. How did it come to be? God created it! Fine. I am, however, none the wiser.
The rose is a beautiful flower. How did it come to be red, and have the shape it does? It is gods will! Fine. I am none the wiser.
I am feeling unwell and a little under the weather. How come? (bacteria/virus/onset of physical infirmity?) Its gods will? ok. Does that mean I am defying gods will by deciding to go to the doctor for a second opinion?

I'm sure religious people will have a different view, and you'll get just a load of f*cked up explanations too . . .

Religion discourages thought and critical thinking. And the ones in power manipulate natural events to reinforce religious notions. (Hurricanes are gods punishment for some arbitrarily chosen "crime" that society has committed)

It depends on the religion actually, but generally yes. And that is what people in religious power actually do. The real tragedy is that they believe in their own BS too.

Attila made some great posts over the weekend about the inability of science to explain love/art/music. Which is fine. and right. somehow a scientific explanation of such things may actually be detrimental to our sense of wonder. the perception what is art and beautiful is also a whole field to explore.

so, what difference does it make if god does actually exist?
how does belief in god make us any more knowledgeable about anything?

Why should science explain EVERYTHING? (And if it could, only a tiny absolute minority of the population are capable of understanding it anyway!!)

the last two points are standard responses. Science does not care if God exists or not, since there is no data either way.

 

[MrGecko]

God is anything we dont understand.

Disagree.

At one point we didnt understand thunder and lightning. We worshipped. Now, we can recreate lightning bolts at will, harness them in a more controlled way and light up our dark nights.

There are examples of such things in religious texts for most faiths, the existence of God from Religious Experience and the Argument from Miracles. The difference between understand and creating, rather than attributing to God, are of no relevance when discussing the matter of his existence.

Proof of god, and faith in god are quite different things.

Absolutely agree.

It is entirely possible god exists. But, being utilitarian, what difference does it make if god exsits?

Please clarify; are you referring to Utilitarianism in the JSM sense?

If you are ill, and god exists, you are no better off if you are ill and god doesnt exist. Either way, your best course of action is to go to a doctor.
If a tsunami is coming towards you, and god exists, you are no better off if god doesnt exist and a tsunami is coming towards you. Either way, your best course of action is to seek high ground or move inland.

This statement cannot be true unless you understand the nature of God. (to clarify, i am not talking about the best thing to do in any given situation; the point is that you cannot know whether God existing makes a difference or not unless you know what God is going to do; you dont).

Whether god exists is irrelevant, from a utilitarian view.

Secular utilitarianism, perhaps. But there can be forms of religious utilitarianism too (Situation Ethics and Agape are along the lines I'm thinking).

Science has been wrong in the past, and will continue to stumble its way towards the light.
The luminiferous ether as a medium through which light travels, and the use of trepanning ot "release evil spririts" from people. thankfully these ideas have been abandoned, but only becuase somebody came up with better ideas. I think phlogiston was an early attempt to describe oxygen.

Yes... but what does this have to do with God?

My key beef with god is that god explains nothing.

Then you don't understand. Your ability to accept or reject explanations has nothing to do with the existence of God.

The universe exists. Its magical. How did it come to be? God created it! Fine. I am, however, none the wiser.

see Cosmological argument. Again, your ability to understand the universe has nothing to do with the existence of God.

The rose is a beautiful flower. How did it come to be red, and have the shape it does? It is gods will! Fine. I am none the wiser.
I am feeling unwell and a little under the weather. How come? (bacteria/virus/onset of physical infirmity?) Its gods will? ok. Does that mean I am defying gods will by deciding to go to the doctor for a second opinion?

Do not make the assumption you understand Gods will, or the nature of God.

Religion discourages thought and critical thinking. And the ones in power manipulate natural events to reinforce religious notions. (Hurricanes are gods punishment for some arbitrarily chosen "crime" that society has committed)

Subjective speculation.

Attila made some great posts over the weekend about the inability of science to explain love/art/music. Which is fine. and right. somehow a scientific explanation of such things may actually be detrimental to our sense of wonder. the perception what is art and beautiful is also a whole field to explore.

A flower can remain aesthetically beautiful to those who understand it's biology and those who don't. "It only adds, I don't understand how it subtracts" (Feynman).

so, what difference does it make if god does actually exist?

Not sure I'm with you... your view on whether God exists or not - and, more relevant to the discussion - can we determine whether God exists - is "who cares"?

how does belief in god make us any more knowledgeable about anything?

Perhaps you need to believe on God to understand...

There are loads of things we don't understand - doesn't mean God's behind them.



This is the standard response, but some religious nuts would interpret events to be God's doing.



This is so IF you believe He has not interfered or is influencing our affairs. Some deranged nut cases think that he is influencing human affairs - and no argument to the contrary will satisfy them.

an Ad Hominem attack is a logical fallacy. Your subjective speculations add nothing to the discussion bar friction.

Science does not care if God exists or not, since there is no data either way.

Absolutely disagree. Scientists care quite a bit about things that which they cannot explain or understand, God included. Who is Science to say that God is of a data exhibiting nature?

__________________________________________________________________________

This is quite frustrating. Without meaning to cause offence to the remainder of the forum, but to discuss the nature and existence of God meaningfully, one must posess a certain amount of philosophical and theological skill. In particular, this thread falls at the first hurdle of philosophical language.

In order to progress with an argument about the existence or non existence of God, the participants must agree on the language and concepts being discussed. There are ideas that a discussion about the existence of God cannot escape, ergo they must be fully understood before one can embark on the subject.

If there is genuine interest in discussing the problem of God, perhaps you would all do well to go away and read an agreed introductory text, return and discuss. You will find the clarity of argument and language used by a professional philosopher or theologian a welcome break from the misunderstanding and crossed purposes that arise here.

I will add that one only need to be of average intelligence to understand the issues at hand, an A level text will provide plenty to discuss. Consider it like trying to explain teh derivation of Pythagoras' theorem, without an understanding of the associative law.

 

[cofton]

Brilliant view trendie ! Made me think a little and I tend to agree with much of what you said.

I particularly like your signature 'If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail - Abraham Maslow
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those that understand binary, and those that dont. -Anon'

Very, very thought provoking !

God is anything we dont understand.
At one point we didnt understand thunder and lightning. We worshipped. Now, we can recreate lightning bolts at will, harness them in a more controlled way and light up our dark nights.

Proof of god, and faith in god are quite different things.
It is entirely possible god exists. But, being utilitarian, what difference does it make if god exsits?
If you are ill, and god exists, you are no better off if you are ill and god doesnt exist. Either way, your best course of action is to go to a doctor.
If a tsunami is coming towards you, and god exists, you are no better off if god doesnt exist and a tsunami is coming towards you. Either way, your best course of action is to seek high ground or move inland.

Whether god exists is irrelevant, from a utilitarian view.

Science has been wrong in the past, and will continue to stumble its way towards the light.
The luminiferous ether as a medium through which light travels, and the use of trepanning ot "release evil spririts" from people. thankfully these ideas have been abandoned, but only becuase somebody came up with better ideas. I think phlogiston was an early attempt to describe oxygen.

My key beef with god is that god explains nothing.
The universe exists. Its magical. How did it come to be? God created it! Fine. I am, however, none the wiser.
The rose is a beautiful flower. How did it come to be red, and have the shape it does? It is gods will! Fine. I am none the wiser.
I am feeling unwell and a little under the weather. How come? (bacteria/virus/onset of physical infirmity?) Its gods will? ok. Does that mean I am defying gods will by deciding to go to the doctor for a second opinion?

Religion discourages thought and critical thinking. And the ones in power manipulate natural events to reinforce religious notions. (Hurricanes are gods punishment for some arbitrarily chosen "crime" that society has committed)

Attila made some great posts over the weekend about the inability of science to explain love/art/music. Which is fine. and right. somehow a scientific explanation of such things may actually be detrimental to our sense of wonder. the perception what is art and beautiful is also a whole field to explore.

so, what difference does it make if god does actually exist?
how does belief in god make us any more knowledgeable about anything?

 

[cofton]

Religion and God are seperate issues ?

Yes Religion and God 'per se' are seperate issues but most religions tend to attach themselves to a 'particular kind of God' and this is when they are not seperate issues and this is where the problems and troubles and wars and arguments begin.

There is either one God or no God in my opinion. There can be no 'in between', there is either a supreme being or there isn't.

You do not believe that what is written in the Christian religious texts is factually correct in the present day - Fine. What this has to do with God existing or not, I don't know.

As I mentioned... Religion and God are seperate issues.

 

[new_trader]

There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those that understand binary, and those that dont. -Anon'

I wonder how many people actually 'get' this?

 

[MrGecko]

about 1 in 10100 i reckon

 

[new_trader]

about 1 in 10100 i reckon

 

[Atilla]

about 1 in 10100 i reckon

You mean 1 in 14?

 

[new_trader]

You mean 1 in 14?

 

[MrGecko]

lol

 

[Atilla]

lol

Nice to have us all having a laugh for once eh?

Minds meet at last... :clap:

 

[temptrader]

an Ad Hominem attack is a logical fallacy. Your subjective speculations add nothing to the discussion bar friction.

I was quoting off hand - nothing more. I'm not writing a paper to be refereed by my peers, so there is no need for me to be totally consistent.

Absolutely disagree. Scientists care quite a bit about things that which they cannot explain or understand, God included. Who is Science to say that God is of a data exhibiting nature?

No, YOU care. Some groups of scientists care. Some do NOT. I did not say that God should exhibit data, but that how science works. No data - no theory. End of. If you work with axiomatic systems you can generate your own imaginary data following your rules - but these are only of interest to specialists who may or may not find use for them in fitting other observed physical data from experiment.

This is quite frustrating. Without meaning to cause offence to the remainder of the forum, but to discuss the nature and existence of God meaningfully, one must posess a certain amount of philosophical and theological skill. In particular, this thread falls at the first hurdle of philosophical language.

In order to progress with an argument about the existence or non existence of God, the participants must agree on the language and concepts being discussed. There are ideas that a discussion about the existence of God cannot escape, ergo they must be fully understood before one can embark on the subject.

If there is genuine interest in discussing the problem of God, perhaps you would all do well to go away and read an agreed introductory text, return and discuss. You will find the clarity of argument and language used by a professional philosopher or theologian a welcome break from the misunderstanding and crossed purposes that arise here.

I will add that one only need to be of average intelligence to understand the issues at hand, an A level text will provide plenty to discuss. Consider it like trying to explain teh derivation of Pythagoras' theorem, without an understanding of the associative law.

Pythagoras' theorem is trivial, but I ask you what associative law you speak? (a + b) + c = a + (b + c)? you need more than that to prove the theorem.

Perhaps you could tell us the issues from YOUR point of view, that might be helpful - at least it is a start.

For myself, since this thread was about Darwin and Creationism, I came here to state that:

1) there is one theory of evolution and it is sufficient to disprove claims in various religious texts
2) this calls the religious texts into question
3) creationists fought back by discrediting evolution, find flaws in its present state etc. . . and added unfalsifiable concepts of their own to make fall in line with their "beliefs"
4) it is therefore a judgment call for anyone who see both sides to see what they make of all this

For MYSELF, if a book claims to be the word of a God, and fails in some of its claims, then this particular God's existence that this book stands for is in doubt - along with the other unfalsifiable claims.

 

[MrGecko]

I was quoting off hand - nothing more. I'm not writing a paper to be refereed by my peers, so there is no need for me to be totally consistent.

Nonetheless, please lets keep the loaded statements for elsewhere, they are not conducive to intelligent discussion.

No, YOU care.

I have revealed nothing of what I do or don't care about, or what I do or I don't believe in. Speculation.

Some groups of scientists care. Some do NOT. I did not say that God should exhibit data, but that how science works. No data - no theory. End of. If you work with axiomatic systems you can generate your own imaginary data following your rules - but these are only of interest to specialists who may or may not find use for them in fitting other observed physical data from experiment.

This is an example of where we are talking at crossed purposes. I presume it is this

Scientists care quite a bit about things that which they cannot explain or understand

to which your response refers (my comment about the phenomena of God was infact a question). Please elaborate on what form of Science, or group of scientists, you believe to not have a care for things they cannot understand nor explain (again, I will assume you are not making the statement "SOME scientists dont care about the FA cup final" or similar).

Is the pursuit of understanding and explantion not the very essence of science?

Science does not care if God exists or not, since there is no data either way

My critique of this statement has two parts:

1) the point I made earlier - It may be possible to prove the existence of God independant of Data, whether it exists or not.

2) many would argue that there is data (read evidence), illustrated by our existence.

Pythagoras' theorem is trivial, but I ask you what associative law you speak? (a + b) + c = a + (b + c)? you need more than that to prove the theorem.

Second hand trivial - that is, once it has been explained; and which tools are necessary to prove the theorem are not the issue at hand. The point was made to illustrate that without guidance, most are wholly ill-equipped to tackle the issue of God.

I came here to state that:

1) there is one theory of evolution and it is sufficient to disprove claims in various religious texts
2) this calls the religious texts into question
3) creationists fought back by discrediting evolution, find flaws in its present state etc. . . and added unfalsifiable concepts of their own to make fall in line with their "beliefs"
4) it is therefore a judgment call for anyone who see both sides to see what they make of all this

For MYSELF, if a book claims to be the word of a God, and fails in some of its claims, then I'm afraid this particular God that this book stands for is in doubt - along with the other unfalsifiable claims.

OK, you have stated your position. Books are pages of words in a row. The ordering of words in a book is not suitable evidence to determine whether God exists, be it the religious God you are talking of here, or the idea of God. You can question the testimony of the author, but not God. I can say

"This post is the word of God"

or

"I am writing this post as God tells me to"

but you cannot determine anything about God from either.

 

[lote_tree]

For MYSELF, if a book claims to be the word of a God, and fails in some of its claims, then this particular God's existence that this book stands for is in doubt - along with the other unfalsifiable claims

I completely agree with this statement. The only problem is how many of us actually come to a book that claims to be the word of god in a completely neutral state? How many of us leave our preprogrammed bagage at the door before we can study the books arguments with pure objectivity?

Compare two people that sit down and study the bible. Both of them are not religious. One is an atheist who has everything going for him in this life.. Great job, loads of cash, fast cars and beautiful women throwing themselves at him, life is good .
The other bloke is an agnostic who has an ordinary job and a pleasant existence, nothing spectacular, but pleasant. Yesterday he just survived a horrific car accident on the M25 where 20 other people lost their lives.

Who's more likely to come to the bible with an objective frame of mind? The answer is neither.

Bloke no 1 will just regurgitate the same old arguments he learnt from his fellow atheists while strengthening his beliefs by reminding himself on how life is so wonderful without religion.

Bloke no 2 on the other hand has started his search for “truth” and a higher power after his near death experience.

The point is both individuals will look through different prisms when studying the bible. They will refract the meanings from the bible in different ways. Neither in reality will have a complete handle on pure objectivity. IMHO pure objectivity can be attained when you temper your study of any holy book with the study of scholarly literature that explains how to interpret the meanings in the book. Until you can grasp that you can’t build solid arguments to refute any holy book because you haven’t taken the time to study the context of its meanings.

A very well renowned Muslim scholar in the 11th century managed to refute many of the major arguments posed by Aristotle and Plato on the existence of God. He said that before he responded he made sure he studied Greek philosophy in its entirety and in great depth so that he could compare their arguments with their rules of logic. Which reinforces the idea that you can’t intelligently refute any scripture or argument until you’ve studied its context thoroughly.

The question in the end becomes: Do you have the motivation and desire to take the time to study before you pass a reasonable verdict?

Interesting topic

 

[temptrader]

I have revealed nothing of what I do or don't care about, or what I do or I don't believe in. Speculation.

I believe in unobservable pink elephants - what's your position?

Is the pursuit of understanding and explantion not the very essence of science?

Yes, it is. But man's present knowledge is a limitation. Which is why I refer to technological feasibility as well. There is absolutely no point in discussing the possibility of splitting the atom in the 17th century - this would waste everyone's time.

You do not need to know the group of individuals who don't care. That I am one of them is sufficient. And don't bore me with your logic.

My critique of this statement has two parts:

1) the point I made earlier - It may be possible to prove the existence of God independant of Data, whether it exists or not.

2) many would argue that there is data (read evidence), illustrated by our existence.

1 might be possible - but no one has done so, so what position are we to take? Non Euclidean geometry was possible long before any physical phenomena was observed exhibiting it.

2 if these people have data, please come forward, because at present science has discredited them, or rather they have been subsumed to show that they do no prove anything to do with a God. How is our existence sufficient to prove the existence of a God. It is not. It's purely your OPINION, your own personal OPINION - and nothing more. Science requires proof, proper concrete proof, not philosophical arguments that depend on the unfalsifiable.

Second hand trivial - that is, once it has been explained; and which tools are necessary to prove the theorem are not the issue at hand. The point was made to illustrate that without guidance, most are wholly ill-equipped to tackle the issue of God.

Without guidance you say? Tell me of your guidance? Because it appears to me it is you who are moving towards the realm of making things up, being vague, to stir the debate/doubt about logic, reasoning and evidence.

ALL are ill equipped to tackle the issue of God period. No one has come up with any "guidance" to tackle the issue, they mainly spout rubbish. If there is such "guidance" I would very much like to hear about it. Until then please stop talking vague rubbish and either produce the body (legal expression) or leave the court.

OK, you have stated your position. Books are pages of words in a row. The ordering of words in a book is not suitable evidence to determine whether God exists, be it the religious God you are talking of here, or the idea of God. You can question the testimony of the author, but not God. I can say

"This post is the word of God"

or

"I am writing this post as God tells me to"

but you cannot determine anything about God from either.

That may be so, Sir. But has it not occurred to you that there are people who take such works seriously, and it is a reference point for their beliefs, and they have their "scholars" who study the works, and much of moral interpretations is derived of such works? No matter what, there has to be a "foundation" laid somewhere. By your logic these religious people cannot determine anything about their God from their religious text - a view which they will look upon as absurd, and will vehemently oppose.

Yes, of course, the testimony of the author can be questioned. But can't you see then that it becomes an issue of credibility anyway. If it's the author's fault that he lied about Adam and Eve, is it not possible that it's the author's fault that he lied about the afterlife? having a soul? heaven and hell? how will we know?