quote:I thought you were basing your arguments on an overarching principle, not just numbers of adherents. Your way leaves us to the point where in some communities it'll be critically important to teach ID in great detail while in others it'll be given no time at all. IMHO. This is our current situation and, to my mind, no solution at all. It dooms kids in Kansas who may not be interested EVER to have to sit through ID lessons (in some districts, but not others) while in PA (and most other states) they escape it.
Well... yes, it would mean the importance of teaching it would vary by community or state. In some areas it might be unneccessary, for the time being at least. I wouldn't say it "dooms" kids though. From their perspective, I suspect a discussion of ID would be rather interesting. And from a learning perspective, I suspect it would teach them a lot about how to think about theories and how to judge their merit.
As for overaching principles, I was basing this on a number of overaching principles about what I think science should be. It should be something that derives its value from the evidence it presents, rather than from the inherent authority of scientists. And it is something that integrates and applies to other disciplines, not a thing in isolation. I think these principles, if we are following them, include ID as a topic that could fit into a science class - but whether or not it would be a priority enough to justify teaching it rather than some other material does come down to the liklihood that they will confront it in life, and thus comes down to the number of adherents.
quote:Right, by `qualified' I meant trained in the methods of the discipline. It seems just obvious to me, in the extreme example, that if you don't know math you have no grounds for questioning anyone's mathematical results unless you think that math is not in general a good way to get at the truth.
Yes, but there could be a difference between being 'trained in the discipline of math' and 'knowing math'. You can't really question a mathematical result unless you know math, but you might be able to know math without having an advanced degree in the field, or without working in the field, etc. If an amatuer mathematician finds a mistake in some mathematical theory that nobody else has seen, that mistake is not invalidated just because he is not as qualified as those who laid out the original theory. If the mistake can be verified by valid math, then it is correct to question it, even if you are not 'qualified'.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Can you provide a piece of evidence that supports evolution contrary to ID?"
No I can't, because of the unscientific nature of ID. Any peice of evidence can be claimed by the IDer to exist because of the intelligent nature of the designer.
Well... If we take 'Intelligent' to mean 'a good engineer', ie the usual sense of the word, then you can point to any number of bad designs in nature. Consider the human spine, for example, plainly intended for a four-legged gait. (I'm sure starLisa would agree with that one.) Or the human eye, whose sensory cells are upside-down and therefore less acute than those of the octopus.
So next time you design an ecosystem, you do it the way you think is right. Maybe those items are like that for a reason.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Gah, isn't this thread dead yet? I wish starLisa would come back, at least she was willing to argue on actual evidence. Well, up until that started going against her, anyway.
How cool. I don't even have to be here to be the target of smarminess from KoM. I feel special.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh good, you're back. Do you feel like responding to my previous post directed at you, or are you going to prove me right by chickening out?
And incidentally, I'm not talking about ecosystems, but individual animals. For example, just what do you think is the reason for the human spine, so badly adapted (as you are apparently well aware) for bipedal walking?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Premise: God created the universe, man, and everything.
Premise: God is perfect and so He created things perfectly.
Refutation: The universe, man, and everything suck. They're poorly designed, fall apart at the slightest breeze, mean and nasty and brutish and short, etc., etc., etc.
Counter: That's just the way God intended it to be. Isn't that just so perfect?!?
[sounds of heads banging on a wall]
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Premise: God is perfect and so He created things perfectly.
Can't a person that is perfect make something intentionaly imperfect?
quote:Refutation: The universe, man, and everything suck. They're poorly designed, fall apart at the slightest breeze, mean and nasty and brutish and short, etc., etc., etc.
It wasn't until we made it that way.
quote:Counter: That's just the way God intended it to be. Isn't that just so perfect?!?
So what your saying is that you want to understand the creator of the universe with a mind that could possible understand enough to even begin to? ( Thats not a shot at your mental capabilitys, just saying that its impossible)
Posts: 503 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, we are saying that IDers say they understand the mind of their designer. Which is the simpler explanation : The 'Intelligent' designer, for some convoluted reason of its own, does deliberately shoddy work; or evolution just takes whatever works?
In other words, why are you suddenly arguing for a Shoddy Designer? Could it be that you are not really arguing on the evidence, but - gasp - have an outside agenda?
There is a name for this fallacy : Special pleading. If you are attempting to show that something must be intelligently designed because it works so marvellously well, then it is dishonest to turn around and argue that there must be a reason for the parts that don't work very well. Either it's intelligent, or it's not. Make up your mind to one of the two, and stick to it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can't really question a mathematical result unless you know math, but you might be able to know math without having an advanced degree in the field, or without working in the field, etc. If an amatuer mathematician finds a mistake in some mathematical theory that nobody else has seen, that mistake is not invalidated just because he is not as qualified as those who laid out the original theory. If the mistake can be verified by valid math, then it is correct to question it, even if you are not 'qualified'.
Yeah, Tres, but if the people who do have formal qualifications look at the 'mistake', say "No, you forgot this, that, and the next theorem, and anyway you got this sign wrong, and also you didn't integrate xe^x correctly, oh, and 5 plus 3 is usually considered equal to 8", and the amateur goes on arguing, saying "well you're only saying that because I made you look bad! OMG scientist conspiracy!" - that's when people begin using roll-eyes smileys and calling for real, formal qualifications. And I'm sorry, but this is the level of ID discourse today.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem is that if ID is right we still can' can't answer it until apcolipse when Jesus comes back. And if evolution is right we will have to have some major break-through in science to anwser it.
Posts: 503 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vasslia Cora: And if evolution is right we will have to have some major break-through in science to anwser it.
What the heck does this sentence mean? Evolution isn't a question, it is an answer. Granted it's an answer to a specific question, and there are many other questions that Evolution doesn't answer, but those remaining questions, in and of themselves, do not constitute a failing of Evolution. Evolution is the major break-through in science.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
She's using the word "answer" to mean "prove," Karl. In other words, she's saying that you won't be able to prove ID until Jesus returns, and won't be able to prove evolution barring a major scientific breakthrough.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vasslia Cora: I think the problem is that if ID is right we still can' can't answer it until apcolipse when Jesus comes back.
Wow. You're going to have a really long wait, then.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Refutation: The universe, man, and everything suck. They're poorly designed, fall apart at the slightest breeze, mean and nasty and brutish and short, etc., etc., etc.
It wasn't until we made it that way.
Hmm...let me guess how you were brought up.
You'll have to provide some reasoning, proof, or other evidence that "we made it that way." And blaming it on "Adam and Eve"...well you can if you must, but I was seriously hoping for something, you know, not based purely in mythology.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Did you note the "persecution" statement from the opposition?
This kind of thing will never work to end the debate or satisfy those who wish to see ID mainstreamed into the science curriculum.
And it probably will just give them ammunition to complain about the perversion of religious instruction in major universities.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Score one for the science guys in Kansas-- ID = Religious Mythology
Hmmm.... If some professor created a course called "The Inherent Wrongness of the Iraq War", do you think that would help or hurt the anti-war cause?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe this topic is still here. Anyways, this seems pretty off the current string of conversation, but this relates to fugu's suggestion (way back on the 1st page) that the universe simply existed and had no beginning in a similar manner as I had described God existed. I don't think this is a reasonable possibilty considering that the universe is composed of matter. Like fugu said, there are definte limitations to the universe, and matter needs to have come from something. Inanimate matter cannot have simply existed with no beginning because matter does not simply exist.
The only way something could have existed for all "time" is if the thing in question is not made of matter and thus, not limited to it's laws. This can be described as spirit, since God in not made of matter (except Christ, but that's beside the point). I also want to stress the point that there is a difference between a soul and a spirit. A soul is defined as "something which animates life", thus, all living things hace a soul, but only human beings have a spirit.
Furthermore, I don't think evolution is any evidence against the existence of God. Intelligent design refers to the creation of matter while evolution refers to the developement of matter. Evolution seems to be anything but evidence against Intelligent design, and therefore, a God
Posts: 52 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pericles: why must the matter have come from something? Do you have any justification for that?
If anything, that as far as we can tell matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed (despite our best efforts to do both, and not succeeding in the least) seems to strongly suggest that it did not come from somewhere.
Also, your characterization of ID is wrong. I do not know of any proponent of any note who suggests ID involves the creation of matter, only that God causes genetic changes. Evolutionary theory most definitely speaks to whether or not that is scientifically supportable.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, but can you clearly state what Intelligent design argues then please. I'm not sure if we're even arguing the same theory anymore when you stated that ID does not involve God creating the universe.
From what I believe, Intelligent design suggests that due to the complexity of the universe, it is unlikely that it had randomly arranged itself into order. And the current result of the universe can thus be traced back to a first uncaused cause, that is God.
God created matter and the laws of science, arranged the universe into an orderly fashion and set it into motion. I don't see how that is against evolution. God created matter and got it going. He was the first cause of the universe, that does not necessarily mean He is the constantly manipulating it.
Since He created the universe and its laws, evolution, a natural part of our world, is also a by-product of His intelligent design. If I am wrong of ID, please correct me in the most criical fashion.
posted
Actually fugu, the links provided by Paul Goldner at some earlier point in this thread pretty much made it clear that ID is no longer a "pure" theory about genetic changes and the impossibility of "descent with modification" through natural selection to account for SOME phenomena. btw, Pericles, that's pretty much the ORIGINAL meaning of ID.
Nowadays, it has come to mean the same thing as Creationism (and not even the abortive "Creation Science"). That is, everything we see is due to God's activity in constant stream of creation and adjustment, etc.
It is a "theory" only in the sense that religion is a theory rather than a theology. It has ceased to even make a pretense of vagueness on WHO the intelligent designer must be. It's God. The God of Abraham, by the way, and none other.
Period.
I was shocked to find this out, but it is clear to me that the ranks of ID proponents and the responsibility for pushing the "theory" into the limelight has been taken over 99.9% by the Christian Right wing (StarLisa is perhaps in that remaining .1%) and turned into a statement about God, not about science.
(Not that ID ever was about science in the first place, but it at least pretended better than it does now)
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
1. An uncaused first cause does not have to be capital-G God. It could just as well be the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
2. An extra layer is unnecessary anyway. We know the Universe exists; therefore at some point there was an uncaused cause. Why not make the Universe its own cause? Cut out the middleman, as 'twere.
3. You have absolutely no information on the probability of the current Universe, because you have no data sample. 'Probability' has a precise, mathematical definition, but it only applies to things that are in principle repeatable. There are only two answers you can properly give to 'what is the probability of the current Universe' : Either 'insufficient data, not defined' or '100%'. The latter being the result of the calculation 'the number of this kind of Universes divided by all the Universes we know'.
In short, you are using bad logic and worse math to support your particular version of a feel-good Universe. That's fine, but don't expect to get taken seriously in a scientific discussion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
It really depends on how that course is taught, don't it?
BTW, Pericles, I have a real difficulty with something coming from nothing. I guess we're on the same page, there.
So, where did this "God" thing come from? I mean, the universe is a pretty complicated place--it has to have been created by something. And if this "God" thing you talk about supposedly created the universe, then it must be just as complicated--if not more so. And something that complicated OBVIOUSLY needs to have been created by something else, and from something else.
I mean--come on! We all know; I mean that common sense tells us that complicated things don't just arise out of nothing, and they just can't "have been around for ever"!
So what created this "God" thing you're talking about?
Actually, other than (supposedly) creating this current universe, what else do we know about this "God" thing? How else would we know that it's a "real" thing, and not just some made-up thing? Or how would we know if it was the right thing, and not some poser? What evidence or proof do we have for it even existing? What tests have been performed on it? Pictures taken? Fossils found? Anything?
posted
Thanks King, I’ll try to be more careful in my wording.Probability was a wrong choice. You’re right that this god may not be the God, or a god at all. It may just be a creator.
Ssywak, I actually had a vey similar discussion with fugu at the beginning of this thread. If God was so complex, shouldn’t he/she/it have a creator as well. The simple answer is no, because He having a creator Himself would be paradoxical in His nature. It is helpful to understand the Christian perspective of God.
Most Christians recognize God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite being who exists through His own will. He didn’t come into existence through His will since this implies He must have existed before in order to do the willing in the first place. The only logical answer (albeit not scientifically sound) is that He always existed.
God does not have a creator Himself because that would be a direct paradox to His omniscience, omnipotence, and infinite being. He cannot be these things and rely on another being for existence because then those listed characteristics would not be true.
Another aspect of Christian God that people often forget is that He isn’t a biological nor physical being at all (except for Christ at one point), He is spirit. Since He is not composed of matter, His existence does not depend on laws and theories concerned with biology, physics or chemistry. He is infinite, therefore impossible to fully comprehend by finite minds. If people fully understood God’s nature, He wouldn’t be God since He must not be infinite, and therefore not God at all.
Another example of ID could be that a staircase represents causality or the universe while the base represents God. The base does not rely on another plateau for it wouldn’t be a base in the first place.
As opposed to proof, there are only personal testimonies from witnesses, miracles, and photos that the Vatican has accepted but most people still deny as sound scientific proof. One example of a miracle is that which occured at Fatima. Around 70,000 witnesses all claiming to see the same thing but still people believe that every single one of these people had simply seen the same thing because they wanted to see the same thing. Please note that the crowd was not simply composed of devout or ignorant Christians, there were also scientists, news reporters, atheists and agnostics, and they claim to have seen the same things as those around them.
The reasons why you don’t see them in scientific journals or scientific articles is that either they will be ridiculed by the scientific community or that since the ’miracles’ cannot be explained by science, it must be an anomaly, a mistake that is simply discarded and ignored. They simply believe that this occurence was simply a coincidence that just happened to occur in a place of faith.
Please recognize that I’m not expecting for all these sudden converts due to what I’ve written, but I find it helpful to understand both sides. I much appreciate people correcting my logic as long as they explain why it’s wrong. I simply wanted to tell you about what I believe. I’m not denying the fact that our universe is heavilly based on scientific laws and theories and proofs and etc, I’m simply saying that’s not all it relies on.
posted
I've been checking in on this thread every few pages and I thought Tresopax's post higher up was one of the most cogent arguments yet on why we should bring up ID in the classroom. I don't think we should "teach" it, but I do think there is a place to discuss it.
There is a time in every teaching of evolution where the instructor needs to talk about what has not yet been proven, how evolutionary theories have changed from new discoveries, and what scientists are still debating over. This is the time and place for a discussion of ID and the controversy. Spend two weeks discussing evolution, spend an afternoon discussing alternative theories and popular beliefs.
In the textbook it should be one of those colored sidebars on one page. In this way you address a very real topic -- many people believe in a directed design -- without assigning it equal weight. And students would see how scientific studies have effects in non-scientific aspects of life outside the classroom.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>>Another example of ID could be that a staircase represents causality or the universe while the base represents God. The base does not rely on another plateau for it wouldn’t be a base in the first place.
If the base itself weren't resting on something, it wouldn't be very steady. I wouldn't trust it.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Most Christians recognize God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite being who exists through His own will. He didn’t come into existence through His will since this implies He must have existed before in order to do the willing in the first place. The only logical answer (albeit not scientifically sound) is that He always existed.
That's all very well and good, but your argument for ID then rests on shaky ground. If something cannot exist without being created -- as you insist the rest of the universe cannot -- then you need to explain why God can exist without being created. Otherwise, we clearly have "evidence" of something existing without being created, and therefore it's conceivable that the universe, like God, could have either sprung into being or always existed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
God can exist without being created because He is God. He is infinite, He always was, always is, and always will be. He is omniscient, all powerful and capable of doing everything. Like I’ve stated before, it is impossible to know in scientific detail how He is capable of existing from infinity, it is also impossible to comprehend in, scientific detail, how He can do anything. The only answer I can give you that is for certain is because He is God.
It is impossible to understand every possible detail of God and explain it in a logical, scientific, and finite manner. This is because God is an infinite being. Finite minds cannot comprehend the infinite. If a person discovered and understood the fullness of God and tried to write it in a scientific journal, it would take him forever and ever and he would never be able to finish it, even if the writer could live forever himself. That is how complex and great and powerful God is. He is simply beyond human comprehension.
This is why millions of people worship Him, because God is God. He is what He is, His existence does not depend on anything but Himself. He sustains Himself. These traits in themselves deserve worship and praise. That’s why it is important to accept with humility that we simply can’t understand Him and never will.
St Thomas Aquinas, after writing the five possible reasons for God’s existence informed his fellow brother to destroy all his writings and documents saying ’’It is straw’’. His proofs and writings could not possibly convey the love he had for God, and the infinite love that God had for everyone.
If someone told you to make a list of why you love your children, your wife, your friends, you would realize that a list on paper could not possibly convey the fullness of your intentions. It would be nothing, it is straw.
I could go on and on why God can do this and how He can do that, but in the end, it is all just straw.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why can't The Universe exist without being created because It is The Universe? Why can't The Universe's existence only depend on Itself? What if The Universe was, always is, and always will be?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
You have yet to explain why it would be impossible for the Universe to have always existed, and for the universe itself to be infinite. If we're going to claim that something -- God -- can do it, why can't we make the same claim about the universe with just as much justification?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, ID theory is not at all about this - these are purely philosophical/logical arguments for God's existence, and they revolve around the origin of the universe. ID theory only refers to the attempted use of scientific data to justify God's existence, and revolves around the complexity of life, not the question of the origin of the universe.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The universe cannot exist through its own will because, well, it doesn’t have a will. Please correct me if I’m wrong in making this assumption, but I believe you are suggesting that if one follows the string of cause and effect, it is possible that it leads to the whole universe’s own existence and that it had always existed. If this is the case, a cause could not be traced back to a single factor but an infinite amount of causes, considering there be an infinite amount of space in the universe with galaxies with their own solar systems, and solar systems having their own planets, and so on and so forth, leading to an infinite web of causality that cannot be traced back to a single cause at all.
We know through science that energy cannot be created or destroyed but we do know that matter can be destroyed. This was shown through the breaking of the atom. The atom is the smallest intact divisible form of matter before it just becomes energy.
Please note that I am now delving into assumptions and these following thoughts are in no way the thoughts of the Christian Church.
Now, we must assume that energy has always existed, due to the law of conservation of energy, it cannot be created or destroyed. This is where I believe ID comes in. The universe does not yet exist except as protons, eletrons and neutrons floating in space. Space, a measurable, physical quantity must have always existed as well in order to contain these particles. Then instantly all these particles begin arranging themselves into atoms, atoms into molecules, molecules to structures, structures to gas, liquid, or solid, all arranging themselves infintely into planets with orbits and solar systems and galaxies and finally we have the infinite universe. This would undoubtedbly have involved a span of time, so time must have existed for always as well.
I could simply state that this design of the universe could not possibly have arranged itself so perfectly and say that I’m done but I’ll try to continue to explain. Returning to when the universe was simply in a state of energy, this state could simply not exist since these energy particles would instantaneously begin to bond due to their charges would always have attracted, therefore there may have been a state before the particles even existed for that state of energy to even have been. The only explanation I can think of that could have possible have existed before this state is God, a being not composed of matter, a spirit.
So if we were to go back and break things down as far as we could, three things might have always existed, time, space, and energy. We know that time and space can be manipulated so it is not a concrete example. So all that’s left is energy. But energy cannot be simply in a state of energy because it must instantly become something. Therefore, I think there must have been something before the energy to be able to put it into a ’’dissociated’’ state and then begin the universe having designed energy, knowing that it would follow the rules of physics and chemistry and then biology.
I know that seems like a farfetched example but that all I can think of at the moment. I’ll try to give it more thought. So my answer for now is that if you reduced the universe to a state of energy there must be something before this state to have designed and set the energy into motion.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pericles, no one said that the universe had a "will," or existed because of its will. Who says that "will" is a prerequisite for existence? Rocks do not have will, yet they exist.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most Christians recognize God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite being who exists through His own will. He didn’t come into existence through His will since this implies He must have existed before in order to do the willing in the first place. The only logical answer (albeit not scientifically sound) is that He always existed.
God does not have a creator Himself because that would be a direct paradox to His omniscience, omnipotence, and infinite being. He cannot be these things and rely on another being for existence because then those listed characteristics would not be true.
Ah...St. Anselm's "Most Perfect Island" theory.
Think of a [God/Island]. Think of a perfect [God/Island]. If that [God/Island] did not exist, then it would not be perfect. Therefore: This perfect [God/Island] MUST EXIST.
But how do you know that it is this particular infinite God that created the universe. What if he created a number of semi-infinite Gods, and each one of those created a universe? How could you know, or tell the difference?
quote:Another aspect of Christian God that people often forget is that He isn’t a biological nor physical being at all (except for Christ at one point), He is spirit. Since He is not composed of matter, His existence does not depend on laws and theories concerned with biology, physics or chemistry. He is infinite, therefore impossible to fully comprehend by finite minds. If people fully understood God’s nature, He wouldn’t be God since He must not be infinite, and therefore not God at all.
How convenient and anti-thought. If you try to know God, then you lose God. So stop trying to know God, and just...accept it.
But accept what? That something created the universe? And if I accept that (I'll accept "something," but I won't accept "God." Let's continue), then what about all the other attributes assigned to "God"? Are they necessary, or sufficient, for a universe-creator? Does the creator of a universe need to be omniscient? Does it need to be all-powerful? You know, if it didn't need to be "all powerful" that would get rid of a lot of silly paradoxes (large rocks, etc., come to mind). Does it need to be infinite? It could be semi-infinite--it could have no meaningful beginning, but could have died 2.87 billion years after creating the universe.
A universe-creator might just have to be "powerful enough," and "knowledgable enough." It wouldn't even have to love us, or care about us. We could be an interesting experiment. Or an oversight. Or a complete mistake. This universe-creator might have had a real keen interest on sponges and fungi, and we just sort of snuck in.
You really don't know all that much about this "God" thing, do you? You have one book, you have all these horribly documented "Miracles" (I researched "Fatima" on the NY Times archives--there is no record of any article, let alone a front-page article, across a +/- 5 year span around 1917, and the only useful article I could find dated from 1952, when the "Keepers of the Shrine" discredited the only known "photographs" of the "Miracle of the Sun" as fakes), and you have all these screwy, contradictory, and unrealistic claims. Yet you call it "Certain" knowledge, and I've heard many call God "The Ultimate Truth," as if calling it thus will somehow make it so.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ssyak, I’m not saying you should stop trying to know God, that is actually contrary to what Christians believe in. Realization that God can not be fully understood is basically knowing that people just don’t know everything. Accepting something is not always ignorance, it’s can also be humility.
I’m not quite sure which paradox you are referring to in terms of ’’large rocks’’ and the all-powerful. If you could clarify, that would be greatly appreciated.
In terms of a God being so great that He doesn’t need our praise and love, well, I frankly am very thankful that I exist. You would then probably argue that we’re not products of some untanglible being, but merely a union between a sperm and an egg, developing into a human being. I find it difficult that human beings just evolved a conscience, evolved emotions, and evolved a sense of reflective thought. Nomatter how far into the future we go, I doubt that chimpanzees will evolve into an intelligence that encompasses these traits.
I also reject the thought that humans are just animals who are slaves to their passions. I don’t believe that love is merely a byproduct for survival. We have a fundamental knowledge between right and wrong although it might vary between people. When a person you love romantically loves someone else, you are hurt, not because your chances of ’’mating’ with that person is lower, but because you wanted them to love you back.
You know that adultery is wrong because you have a conscience. You know killing is wrong because you have a conscience.
Getingt back to the topic, I want to clarify that God does not require our praise. Sincerely, God does not need us. But God does find joy through our seemingly futile attempts as a parent finds joy despite their children’s small attempts to love you. We love Him because He loves us. We know this since He humbled Himself to the state of humanity, became man to redeem us. (I could go on about the duality of Christ but it would take too long). This sacrifice would be infintely greater than a person to sacrifice his humanity to become a bacterium to save bacterium.
The idea of humanity being an oversite is doubtful if one takes into mind that He is omniscient. Everything is known to Him. He knows all the infinite possibilities of every single piece of His creation but does not manipulate our free will since that would be against His loving nature.
I find it hard to believe that the New York times would document anything occuring besides what was happening in WWI. Fatima is also an extremely small village so I doubt news would have reached America. I suggest you research newspapers of the country itself rather than relying on the all-knowing New York Times. A miracle you should look into is the one link I gave previously about the Eucharistic miracle. The link for scientific analysis about the miracle are also given.
If you don’t mind, if you could list off some of the contradictions of the New Testament, please allow me to clarify them for you.
You're clearly reading from texts that no one's posted here.
"Doesn't need our praise and love" ?? When did I say that?
"humans are just animals are slaves to their passions" Again: ?? I didn't say that, either.
And if you look up "Fatima", you will find that there are many references to atheists and NY Times reporters being there to witness the "predicted event" (of course, who could tell them apart?). And that it received front-page coverage on the NY Times. And, yeah, I'll trust a local Fatima paper over the NY Times. Maybe it'll show up right next to the report of a sighting of Batboy.
quote:..if one takes into mind that He is omniscient
He is not omniscient. "He" does not exist. Please show me how he is omniscient, and how you know that he experiences joy at....anything. You're making this up, or you're parroting something that you've read in one particular book, or books directly derived from that book, or people who get their statements from that book. You go and make all these unsupported claims, and then use these claims to prove that these claims are true. Yikes!
quote:No matter how far into the future we go, I doubt that chimpanzees will evolve into an intelligence that encompasses these traits.
You know, they said the same thing about Homo Erectus about 5 milion years ago...
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’m sorry ssyak if you think that I am the only Christian that believes God is omniscient. But I’m prety sure all Christian books, cathechisms, and the Bible claim this. I’m also not ’parroting’ something I’ve read either. And I’m sorry if you feel inclined to purge the world of god, God, or a creator and people like me are standing in the way.
The statment that God does not need our praise and love was not a direct quoation but a seemingly obvious hidden premise in your statement.
’’A universe-creator might just have to be "powerful enough," and "knowledgable enough." It wouldn't even have to love us, or care about us.’’
Perhaps I was mistaken and apologize if I was wrong. The point about humans not being slaves to their passions was simply me trying to emphasize how not all things are scientifcally based.
About Fatima, I was wondering if you happened to find any quotes from the atheists themselves. I’m pretty sure these atheists claim to have seen the same thing as the religious, many of them having been converted.
I will gladly show you, ssyak, that God is omniscient if you can prove that a God cannot exist.
And this is me just being a bugger but, could you get me the name of the person who said that Homo Erectus quote, because if you could that’d be great!
Posts: 52 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pericles, I'm just wondering why you think a discussion of the (or really your) Christian idea of god is appropriate here. If the "scientific" theory of Intelligent Design can even hope to make it into schools, it has to be a theory outside of the Christian idea of god. You seem to draw the conclusion that IF "god" performed certian miracles (Eucharist, Fatima), THEN he must have created teh world because the Bible says that that is the way god is. But, guess what? I'm not Christian, the U.S.A. is NOT a Christian nation, and school is not a place to indoctrinate children in far-fetched understandings of the world, such as the unporoved and unsustained christian idea. Or Jewish or muslim, etc etc. Convince me that ID is valid without delving into any sort of religious explanation, and then I'd consider taking it seriously.
>>>About Fatima, I was wondering if you happened to find any quotes from the atheists themselves. I’m pretty sure these atheists claim to have seen the same thing as the religious, many of them having been converted.
I was wondering if YOU had any quotes from those former athiests. If I'd "seen the light" after doubting, I'd be shouting from the mountaintops to show others that my former disbeleif was wrong. *looks around* Hmm.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I have realized that the current conversations have little relation to the actual topic of this thread. I originally stated that the existence of God is not counterintuitive of evolution as some people believe, so I wished to clarify this point. I also realize that the majority of the people on this thread are agnostics and atheists, but if you can offer your point of view, why can’t I.
And honestly, I don’t think ID can be explained without involving a relgious or philosophical explanation, sorry.
Here are some quotes
1) One of the principal anti-clerical publications of the day was O Dia, a major Lisbon newspaper. On October 17th, O Dia reported the following:
At one o'clock in the afternoon, midday by the sun, the rain stopped. The sky, pearly gray in color, illuminated the vast arid landscape with a strange light. The sun had a transparent gauzy veil so that eyes could easily be fixed upon it. The gray mother-of-pearl tone turned into a sheet of silver which broke up as the clouds were torn apart and the silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy gray light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds. A cry went up from every mouth and people fell on their knees on the muddy ground. The light turned a beautiful blue as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands. The blue faded slowly and then the light seemed to pass through yellow glass. Yellow stains fell against white handkerchiefs, against the dark skirts of women. They were reported on the trees, on the stones and on the serra. People wept and prayed with uncovered heads in the presence of the miracle they had awaited.
2) Another observer who witnessed these events was Joseph Garrett, a natural sciences professor at Coimbra University. Dr. Garrett described the events in a similar manner:
This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmamant and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during these moments was terrible.
3) The other major Lisbon newspaper, O Seculo, sent its editor, Avelino de Almeida to the scene. He had been quite dismissive of the entire story of Fatima and its predicted miracle in an article he wrote on the morning of the 13th. However, now as a witness to the events of Fatima, he noted the following:
From the road, where the vehicles were parked and where hundred of people who had not dared to brave the mud were congregated, one could see the immense multitude turn toward the sun, which appeared free from clouds and in its zenith. It looked like a plaque of dull silver and it was possible to look at it without the least discomfort. It might have been an eclipse which was taking place. But at that moment a great shout went up and one could hear the spectators nearest at hand shouting: " A miracle! A miracle!" Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was Biblical as they stood bareheaded, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside any cosmic laws - the sun "danced" according to the typical expression of the people.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So if we were to go back and break things down as far as we could, three things might have always existed, time, space, and energy. We know that time and space can be manipulated so it is not a concrete example. So all that’s left is energy. But energy cannot be simply in a state of energy because it must instantly become something. Therefore, I think there must have been something before the energy.
One thing that you're not quite getting is that matter, energy, and time are all the same thing. One cannot really exist without the other, or the potential for the other. In other words, there could not have been any time before there was energy, because there would not have been Time without energy. Time started at the moment we got energy, whenever that was or however it happened. There's a reason that most "creation of the universe" theories postulate a multiverse, and this is it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Omniscience is a trait that I figure all Christians attribute to their "God." And not just Christians, either. I think that it's a trait attributed to all world-creating "entities." Why is it so attributed? Who knows; but it commonly is.
And unless you have direct evidence, or a method to determine this independently, then you're "parroting" something you've either heard or read. And you don't have direct evidence that your "God" is omniscient.
And the "God does not need our praise..." How did I imply that? I don't think that your God exists at all, not that he doesn't need this or that.
And how do I prove that an invisible, undetectable entity does not exist? You're the one making the odd claims, the burden of proof is on you. Proove existence fist, then try for omniscience. And don't go using the Bible--the Bible states the premise; it does not provide the proof.
BTW, glad to hear you say that ID = "God did it." We can therefore keep it completely out of public schools. So at least that's decided.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pericles, I suggest that you never try to argue physics with anyone who actually knows whereof he speaks. Which, interestingly enough, is a reasonably large minority on this board. You plainly haven't the least conception of what energy, time, or matter are; not only that, you can't even conceal your ignorance in math like the rest of us. Come back when you have equations - preferably consistent both with QM and GR, or you'd best have a damn good explanation why not - showing why there must have been something 'before the energy'.
Also, your assertions on what energy can and cannot do make no sense.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be interested in seeing your openness to alternative theories, Pericles. If intelligent design is valid, then are you willing to accept different theories about the designer?
I assume you presume the single-creator theory already, but why not multiple creators? Given how many different types of species there are in the world -- and how many variations exist between "irreducibly complex" organs -- wouldn't it be equally, if not more valid to hypothesize multiple independent creators vying their designs against one another?
Or why not incompetent creators? A ridiculous number of species have died out, as proven by the fossil record, more by the day -- is whoever designed these species too incompetent to provide them with traits needed to survive in this world?
To assume a single, perfect (and what a subjective word that is) deity is to assume a great many things that don't make sense even relative to polytheistic theories, which are a fairly lunatic step as is. Are you as willing to insist on intelligent design if it means teaching children some rather heathen ideas like polytheism and divine incompetence?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
