Celebrate Religion here
Quote: NareedSure, but then each person would wind up with their own moral code
Quote: thecesspitNot if there IS an Universal Morality.
Exactly, just as different rational thinkers can come up with the same single solution to an algebra problem, or many scientists can come up with the same measurement of g.
Quote: Galatians 3:28There does not exist among you Jew or Greek, slave or freeman, male or female. All are one in Christ Jesus.
So, what happened to the Greeks? Look at Jews in America! But this verse anyway is about a theological matter, that in theory at least there is no "rank" in the world of spiritual truth and "salvation". But just as quickly Paul is eager to tell only women to keep quiet in church, not permitting them to teach or even ask a simple question:
Quote: I Corinthians 14:34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law
Why the claim of "equality" in Christ, alongside conformity to the expired Jewish taboo and ordinance to the contrary?
Quote: MoscaIn the period between the American Revolution and The War of the States, religion was used by both slavery and anti-slavery factions to justify their positions.... The truth is that during the first half of the 19th century Christianity was such a powerful force in the United States that no social or cultural movement could have been successful without invoking it. For anyone to imply that the end of slavery was a triumph of secular humanism, they are just flat out wrong.
I agree, and I don't seek to suggest that forthright atheistic secular humanism produced emancipation. That, just like the inarticulate P.O.S. final draft of the First Amendment by Madison, was finally the result of compromise between exhausted warring factions (in the case of the Civil War, literally!), ultimately by Abe Lincoln to keep the nation together and halt secession. The Civil War only proved the hopelessness of reconciliation between the "North" and the "South".
Quote: NareedWhat we see is religion fighting on both sides of the [slavery] issue, right? Not, as modern revisionists would have us believe, that religion opposed slavery. Some religious people opposed it, some embraced it, some didn't give a damn one way or the other. I hardly see it as crucial. Necessary, maybe.
Indeed, inevitable.
Quote: NowTheSerpentExactly, just as different rational thinkers can come up with the same single solution to an algebra problem, or many scientists can come up with the same measurement of g.
But not all rational thinkers will come up with the solution.
Quote: NareedQuote: NowTheSerpentExactly, just as different rational thinkers can come up with the same single solution to an algebra problem, or many scientists can come up with the same measurement of g.
But not all rational thinkers will come up with the solution.
They don't all have to - not every scientist discovered radiation; not every physicist discovered relativity; not every philosopher discovered logic. And the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to one outstanding individual in a particular field.
Quote: s2dbakerNot all prophets come up with the same religion.
Mysticism isn't like logic or empiricism which derive data and make inferences drawn from solid sensory experience. Religion develops from the same unconscious which creates imaginary friends. Ockham's Razor would starve religion.
Quote: NowTheSerpentMysticism isn't like logic or empiricism which derive data and make inferences drawn from solid sensory experience. Religion develops from the same unconscious which creates imaginary friends. Ockham's Razor would starve religion.
Yet William of Ockham was a monk...
Quote: thecesspitYet William of Ockham was a monk...
But not a mystic. And St. Thomas Aquinas was a theologian who was influenced by Aristotle (as differentiated from St. Augustine who was a Neo-Platonist) and who brought the application of logic to the interpretation of scripture as well as a more man-centered view of the meaning of the Gospel, so what? We've always had our infiltrators. It's interesting how little commendation you hear of Ockham and Aquinas in Catholic literature.
Quote: NowTheSerpentIt's interesting how little commendation you hear of Ockham and Aquinas in Catholic literature.
Occam's Razor: "The simplist explanation is usually the
right one." What religious person wants to hear that.
(I paraphrased the hell out of it, but thats basically
what it says.)
Quote: EvenBobOccam's Razor: "The simplist explanation is usually the
right one." What religious person wants to hear that.
(I paraphrased the hell out of it, but thats basically
what it says.)
What could be more simple than the idea of an unmoved mover or first cause of everything - which many call God. Trying to imagine that the stuff around us has always exisited and had no beginning and somehow became this wonderful world we live in is the furthest thing from simple you can get.
Quote: FrGambleTrying to imagine that the stuff around us has always exisited and had no beginning and somehow became this wonderful world we live in is the furthest thing from simple you can get.
I understand that concept immediately. Its religion
thats complicated and convoluted.
Quote: NowTheSerpentIt's interesting how little commendation you hear of Ockham and Aquinas in Catholic literature.
I don't know what you are reading but primacy of place is always given to the Angelic Doctor. In John Paul II's encyclical Fides et Ratio he dedicates a section to the importance of St. Thomas Aquinas. Here is a couple of snipets from paragraphs 43 and 44:
The enduring originality of the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas
"In an age when Christian thinkers were rediscovering the treasures of ancient philosophy, and more particularly of Aristotle, Thomas had the great merit of giving pride of place to the harmony which exists between faith and reason. Both the light of reason and the light of faith come from God, he argued; hence there can be no contradiction between them."
"More radically, Thomas recognized that nature, philosophy's proper concern, could contribute to the understanding of divine Revelation. Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trust in it. Just as grace builds on nature and brings it to fulfilment, so faith builds upon and perfects reason. Illumined by faith, reason is set free from the fragility and limitations deriving from the disobedience of sin and finds the strength required to rise to the knowledge of the Triune God. Although he made much of the supernatural character of faith, the Angelic Doctor did not overlook the importance of its reasonableness; indeed he was able to plumb the depths and explain the meaning of this reasonableness. Faith is in a sense an “exercise of thought”; and human reason is neither annulled nor debased in assenting to the contents of faith, which are in any case attained by way of free and informed choice."
"This is why the Church has been justified in consistently proposing Saint Thomas as a master of thought and a model of the right way to do theology."
"Profoundly convinced that “whatever its source, truth is of the Holy Spirit” (omne verum a quocumque dicatur a Spiritu Sancto est) 50 Saint Thomas was impartial in his love of truth. He sought truth wherever it might be found and gave consummate demonstration of its universality. In him, the Church's Magisterium has seen and recognized the passion for truth; and, precisely because it stays consistently within the horizon of universal, objective and transcendent truth, his thought scales “heights unthinkable to human intelligence”. Rightly, then, he may be called an “apostle of the truth”."
Quote: EvenBobI understand that concept immediately. Its religion
thats complicated and convoluted.
According to the easily observable and evident principle that everything we see around us was created by something else and is dependent on something that came before it for its existence we can reason that if we go back far enough we either come to an infinite regress, which is infinitly complex and non sensical, or we come to the idea that there is out of neccesity a creator who neither has a beginning nor is dependent on any other for its existence. Please explain how you understand the concept that the things around you have always and forever existed?
Quote: FrGambleWhat could be more simple than the idea of an unmoved mover or first cause of everything - which many call God.
Simple? Since there's no evidence for god, you need to twist logic into a pretzel to achieve such "simplicity." Just for starters you need to make exception to every rule for god. Everything needs a cause, except god. Everything has a beginning, except god. Everything needs to be supported by evidence, except god... Do you begin to see the problem?
Quote: FrGamblePlease explain how you understand the concept that the things around you have always and forever existed?
Because thats how it seems and feels. Its also how many
primitive cultures view the universe before they're corrupted
by religious intellectuals. Its simple and uncomplicated,
the universe has always been here in one form or another.
Forever and ever, world without end..
Quote: NareedSimple? Since there's no evidence for god, you need to twist logic into a pretzel to achieve such "simplicity." Just for starters you need to make exception to every rule for god. Everything needs a cause, except god. Everything has a beginning, except god. Everything needs to be supported by evidence, except god... Do you begin to see the problem?
You've said this before but will not apply it to the idea that there is no God. You seem to be offering that as an alternative to a creator that everything has a beginning, except everything. Everything needs to be supported by evidence, except everything. You are offering nothing. You are also failing to see that God is a logical consequence to the observable fact, based on evidence, that everything does indeed have a beginning - except for the one and only thing that began it all. So yes, God or in philosophical terms the 'first cause' or "unmoved mover" is an exception in that for anything to have a beginning there must be something that does not. Are you saying that nothing had a beginning? If this is true, not only does it not make sense, it is not at all simple.
Quote: FrGambleAre you saying that nothing had a beginning? If this is true, not only does it not make sense, it is not at all simple.
Take away all the man made labels we have on
absolutely everything, and look at the world
around you the way it really is, and you won't
see any beginnings or ends, all you'll see is
continuation. Thats why primitive uneducated
people are often far closer to the truth than
all of us ed-u-ma-cated folks put together.
Quote: FrGambleWhat could be more simple than the idea of an unmoved mover or first cause of everything - which many call God. Trying to imagine that the stuff around us has always exisited and had no beginning and somehow became this wonderful world we live in is the furthest thing from simple you can get.
Occam's Razor is not a theorem or law: the simplest explanation is not always correct. "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" (H.L. Mencken).
Moreover, please do not commit the logical fallacy of believing that something which is difficult to comprehend is necessarily wrong. 2000 years ago, "trying to imagine" atomic theory would also have been the furthest thing from simple you could get, but that turned out to be correct.
Quote: FrGambleYou've said this before but will not apply it to the idea that there is no God.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Quote:You seem to be offering that as an alternative to a creator that everything has a beginning, except everything.
No, I'm not. I don't claim everything had, or has to have, a beginning. I don't know that. You, ont he other hand, assert everything has to have a beginning, but make an exception for god.
See the difference?
Quote:Everything needs to be supported by evidence, except everything.
I don't say this very often: LOL!
I've never claimed there's anything which does not need to be supported by evidence.
Quote:You are offering nothing.
Which paradoxically s more than you're offering.
Quote:You are also failing to see that God is a logical consequence to the observable fact, based on evidence, that everything does indeed have a beginning - except for the one and only thing that began it all.
Please show me the evidence, theory and proof that "everything has a beginning." Then we'll talk.
Quote:Are you saying that nothing had a beginning? If this is true, not only does it not make sense, it is not at all simple.
If the universe has always existed, in some form or another, then it had no beginning. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Why can you accept an eternal god, but not an eternal universe? Why do you need to pose infinite regress, then cut it short, and then have the gall to call it "simple"?
Quote: NareedIf the universe has always existed, in some form or another, then it had no beginning. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
This is far more enigmatic and far more interesting
than any god could be, waving his hand and 'creating'.
It makes the universe a fascinating place. Religions
alterntive is the Parker Bros board game I mention
so often. Boring.....
Quote: MathExtremistOccam's Razor is not a theorem or law: the simplest explanation is not always correct. "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" (H.L. Mencken).
Good point. But the fact that any explanatory model or strategy is not always reliable and therefore doesn't make us omniscient doesn't mean that use of models or strategy is dangerous. Omniscience isn't the goal of the intellectually curious, skeptical investigator, nor can it be the standard against which reasonableness is measured. Imagination itself must ultimately be restrained by Reason. The Razor just helps to keep us from settling for "mothership" and "brain electrode implant" explanations as the first club out of the proverbial bag.
I like the way Ayn Rand described knowledge like architecture - proceeding from the ground level of unmistakable sensory perception, then upward one storey (abstraction or conclusion) at a time
Quote: FrGambleI don't know what you are reading but primacy of place is always given to the Angelic Doctor. In John Paul II's encyclical Fides et Ratio he dedicates a section to the importance of St. Thomas Aquinas. Here is a couple of snipets from paragraphs 43 and 44:
The enduring originality of the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas
"In an age when Christian thinkers were rediscovering the treasures of ancient philosophy, and more particularly of Aristotle, Thomas had the great merit of giving pride of place to the harmony which exists between faith and reason. Both the light of reason and the light of faith come from God, he argued; hence there can be no contradiction between them."
"More radically, Thomas recognized that nature, philosophy's proper concern, could contribute to the understanding of divine Revelation. Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trust in it. Just as grace builds on nature and brings it to fulfilment, so faith builds upon and perfects reason. Illumined by faith, reason is set free from the fragility and limitations deriving from the disobedience of sin and finds the strength required to rise to the knowledge of the Triune God. Although he made much of the supernatural character of faith, the Angelic Doctor did not overlook the importance of its reasonableness; indeed he was able to plumb the depths and explain the meaning of this reasonableness. Faith is in a sense an “exercise of thought”; and human reason is neither annulled nor debased in assenting to the contents of faith, which are in any case attained by way of free and informed choice."
"This is why the Church has been justified in consistently proposing Saint Thomas as a master of thought and a model of the right way to do theology."
"Profoundly convinced that “whatever its source, truth is of the Holy Spirit” (omne verum a quocumque dicatur a Spiritu Sancto est) 50 Saint Thomas was impartial in his love of truth. He sought truth wherever it might be found and gave consummate demonstration of its universality. In him, the Church's Magisterium has seen and recognized the passion for truth; and, precisely because it stays consistently within the horizon of universal, objective and transcendent truth, his thought scales “heights unthinkable to human intelligence”. Rightly, then, he may be called an “apostle of the truth”."
I'm glad to have been wrong about the veneration of St. Thomas Aquinas by His Excellency. But, to be fair there are many Catholic authors, such as Michael Budde and Robert Brimlow, in their book Christianity Incorporated: How Big Business Is Buying The Church (which I fervently recommend to any and all who may or may not be familiar with Magus Lavey's Ninth Satanic Statement!), who find Centesimus Annus by Pope John Paul II troubling in its ambivalence toward both liberal capitalism on one hand and loyal Christian altruism on the other and who also seem to frown upon the Holy Church's acceptance of Aquinian apologetics and hermeneutics.
So what FrGamble is telling us is that through the use of logic, there must be some single event or events that started the universe and through faith we know that to be a God or Gods.Quote: Steve EleyInvisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.
Keep in mind that all of this chicanery is for the sole purpose of inventing a place that you go to after you die; a place where existence continues after life ceases. In order to invent such a place, you need a God or Gods to take you there. When given a choice of a God or Gods, people are going to invent the most powerful one that they can dream up. Logically, a God or Gods have to be omniscient and omnipotent otherwise they are an inferior God or Gods.
Which brings up some other logic problems. Why does an all powerful God or Gods allow mosquitoes to bite humans and spread malaria? If the all powerful God or Gods really liked us, the mosquitoes would hate the taste of humans. The explanation comes in the form of some Anti-God or Anti-Gods that the God or Gods can't be bothered to eliminate or that the God or Gods work in mysterious ways or some other weak bleating from the soldiers of the faith. Logic Shmogic!
Recently (by historical standards), Edwin Hubble went and observed that the Universe is expanding. The Universe is larger today than it was yesterday! Logically, in some yesterday long long ago, the Universe and everything in it was tiny, perhaps even a pinpoint. Since we measure time by the change that happens within this Universe, we can logically say that this "Big Bang" is when time started ticking for us and all of the Gods that we've invented. That's a problem because Gods are omniscient and omnipotent. They can't begin or end.
I think the religious are still struggling with how to put their Gods outside of the known universe and still keep them credible. Good luck with that.
Quote: s2dbakerSo what FrGamble is telling us is that through the use of logic, there must be some single event or events that started the universe and through faith we know that to be a God or Gods.
Actually what I am saying is that it makes sense that there is a single event that started the universe. Based on our common sense and sense experience we know that things that exist come from something else and are dependent on the things that existed before them. As you mentioned Hubble also shows us scientifically that the universe can be traced back to an ultimate beginning. This is a first step just using human reason to come to the conclusion that something made all of this and this something or someone obviously must not have had a beginning. Granted this is an exception, but it is a necessary one in order for anything at all to have a beginning. I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp.
Quote: s2dbakerWhich brings up some other logic problems. Why does an all powerful God or Gods allow mosquitoes to bite humans and spread malaria? If the all powerful God or Gods really liked us, the mosquitoes would hate the taste of humans. The explanation comes in the form of some Anti-God or Anti-Gods that the God or Gods can't be bothered to eliminate or that the God or Gods work in mysterious ways or some other weak bleating from the soldiers of the faith. Logic Shmogic!
You strain out the gnat (or mosqutio) and swallow the camel. I too wonder about mosquitoes, according to me they seem to have no purpose but to annoy me. I also wonder about the purpose of an appendix and I would like to ask God why our teeth can cause so much pain. However is it not worth mentioning in the same breath how exact and perfect the force of gravity is or the composition of water or any multitude of amazing parts of nature that make life possible and give us a way to fight against such things like malaria. I don't know why mosquitoes or all of the parts about life that are awful make us have the conclusion that there is no God, but like you said, Logic Shmogic!
Mosquitoes are not "proof" that there is no God, they are proof that if there is a God, then He's really not that into us.Quote: FrGambleI don't know why mosquitoes or all of the parts about life that are awful make us have the conclusion that there is no God, but like you said, Logic Shmogic!
Quote: FrGambleWhat could be more simple than the idea of an unmoved mover or first cause of everything - which many call God. Trying to imagine that the stuff around us has always exisited and had no beginning and somehow became this wonderful world we live in is the furthest thing from simple you can get.
The world is not simple, and cannot be shoehorned into simplicity.
Quote: FrGambleAs you mentioned Hubble also shows us scientifically that the universe can be traced back to an ultimate beginning.
Hubble did not discover the Big Bang. But that's beside the point.
Quote:This is a first step just using human reason to come to the conclusion that something made all of this and this something or someone obviously must not have had a beginning.
All the Big Bang suggests is that at some point the universe was contained in an small volume of space, and has been expanding ever since. it does not say it was made or manufactured by someone or something, and much less by something or someone which must not have had a beginning.
For all we know a previous universe, so to speak, collapsed into the cosmic egg that "blew up" to form our universe. For all we know, it lasted an infinitesimal fraction of a picosecond in such a state. And for all we know, it lasted a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion years in such a state. I have no more basis to pick one alternative, or even to say that a previous universe collapsed first, than you have for saying "it was all created by an uncreated creator."
So, let's stick to logic and observation. We know that simple things like atoms can combine with other atoms to form more complex structures we call molecules. We know carbon, in particular, can be the basis of very complex molecules, such as amino acids. We know amino-acids can form proteins, and proteins can form living cells. Cells in turn can gather in colonies and specialize, creating multicellular organisms such as birds, reptiles and people, among others. All this happens without any evidence of meddling by outside sentient beings such as deities.
We also know this is where the progression breaks down. Living beings can create complex structures and artifacts, but less complex than themselves. A beehive is less complex than a bee, a birds nest is less complex than a bird, and a supercomputer is less complex than a human brain.
What is more logical to assume? That a relatively simple collection of atoms and subatomic particles have always existed and have evolved into the universe we have today, or that an über-complex entity has always existed? Bear in mind we have evidence for the existence and evolution of the universe, but none for that which you call god.
Quote:Granted this is an exception, but it is a necessary one in order for anything at all to have a beginning. I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp.
Because it's baseless, illogical, without foundation and completely lacking in evidence. I can grasp it just fine. Well enough to reject it after a little thought.
Quote: Nareed
For all we know a previous universe, so to speak, collapsed into the cosmic egg that "blew up" to form our universe. For all we know, it lasted an infinitesimal fraction of a picosecond in such a state. And for all we know, it lasted a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion years in such a state. I have no more basis to pick one alternative, or even to say that a previous universe collapsed first, than you have for saying "it was all created by an uncreated creator."
Okay the alternatives are some type of collapsing and expanding cosmic egg that blew up to form our universe or that maybe a previous universe collapsed first, which may mean a previous universe to that collapsed even before that and so on and so on. Or another alternative is that the universe and all that exists did indeed have an absolute beginning from a creator. I'm glad you recognize it is an alternative and I am fine with that. It seems like it boils down to us saying either you believe that somehow the universe has always existed or that the universe was created by something. I'm fine with those choices, now as you say let's look at logic and observation.
Quote: NareedSo, let's stick to logic and observation. We know that simple things like atoms can combine with other atoms to form more complex structures we call molecules. We know carbon, in particular, can be the basis of very complex molecules, such as amino acids. We know amino-acids can form proteins, and proteins can form living cells. Cells in turn can gather in colonies and specialize, creating multicellular organisms such as birds, reptiles and people, among others. All this happens without any evidence of meddling by outside sentient beings such as deities.
What do you mean by no evidence? Do you want a signature or a stamp on everything that says, "Made by God". Could you not look at the amazing nature of what you so aptly described in regards to the combination of atoms which leads to life as we know it to be at the very least awesome, maybe miraculous?
Quote: NareedWe also know this is where the progression breaks down. Living beings can create complex structures and artifacts, but less complex than themselves. A beehive is less complex than a bee, a birds nest is less complex than a bird, and a supercomputer is less complex than a human brain.
excellent point but you are jumping ahead. This logical truth about the progression of more complex beings creating things less complex than themselves leads us to why we can know at the very least that this creator force/being is infinitely complex.
Quote: NareedWhat is more logical to assume? That a relatively simple collection of atoms and subatomic particles have always existed and have evolved into the universe we have today, or that an über-complex entity has always existed? Bear in mind we have evidence for the existence and evolution of the universe, but none for that which you call god.
Maybe your reaction to this question is based on a fear that you would be backed into a corner to believe in God as Jews, Christians, or Muslims understand Him. This is not true. S2dbaker seems to believe in a God that is indifferent or at worst actually doesn't seem to like us. You can believe in some ultra complex impersonal force and still have a completely random collection of atoms that evolve through random luck and form this amazing Earth and this amazing you. The fact remains it is just as logical and I think much more logical to believe in a creator than to believe that everything has always existed and did not have a beginning.
Quote: EvenBobThis is far more enigmatic and far more interesting
than any god could be, waving his hand and 'creating'.
It makes the universe a fascinating place. Religions
alterntive is the Parker Bros board game I mention
so often. Boring.....
I don't follow you. How is stuff always existing for no apparent reason more fascinating than stuff being created by God?
I've always wondered about your board game analogy. Don't you like playing games that have a purpose and a goal? To me it sounds boring and dead to hand me a Rubik's cube that has been super glued together so you can't do anything with it but look at all the random pretty colors. I would much prefer a real Rubik's cube that I can try to figure out and make sense of. This gives us a real curiosity and excitement that there is some pattern to look for some clues to figure out and work towards a goal.
What you believe to be a remaining fact is actually just pure conjecture. But like you say, Logic Shmogic.Quote: FrGambleThe fact remains it is just as logical and I think much more logical to believe in a creator than to believe that everything has always existed and did not have a beginning.
If we accept "God" created the universe as an axiom, I can't see a useful logical step from that axiom. It tells us nothing about the purpose or reason for the creation by God, it does not tell us he sent his only son to die for our sins, or anything. It just requires more faith and wish that "I'd like the universe to work that way, so therefore it must work that way". The God is just. That God loves us. That God made human beings to have free choice and belief enters us into the kingdom of heaven. None of that follows from "God started the universe". It's not a "I think there for I am" revelation (which can be used to posit a belief in God as being a logical conclusion, but requires some leaps I wouldn't take).
All you that argue here about religion are gays. Im outa here....please selfexclude me from this forum
Quote: edwardplease selfexclude me
That's hysterical.
Quote: FrGambleOkay the alternatives are some type of collapsing and expanding cosmic egg that blew up to form our universe or that maybe a previous universe collapsed first, which may mean a previous universe to that collapsed even before that and so on and so on.
And I thought I did run-on sentences too often...
No, those are not alternatives. They are possibilities.
Quote:Or another alternative is that the universe and all that exists did indeed have an absolute beginning from a creator.
That's no even a possibility. More like wishful thinking. There's no evidence or even a hint of possible evidence about that.
Quote:I'm glad you recognize it is an alternative and I am fine with that.
See above. I'm sorry if that ruins your Sunday.
Quote:It seems like it boils down to us saying either you believe that somehow the universe has always existed or that the universe was created by something. I'm fine with those choices, now as you say let's look at logic and observation.
Item: there is evidence the universe exists.
Item: there is no evidence a creator exists.
Do the math.
Quote:What do you mean by no evidence? Do you want a signature or a stamp on everything that says, "Made by God". Could you not look at the amazing nature of what you so aptly described in regards to the combination of atoms which leads to life as we know it to be at the very least awesome, maybe miraculous?
Mosquitoes, birth defects, predators, diseases, genetic defects, congenital defects, earthquakes, floods, ice-ages, warm eras, comet strikes, asteroid strikes, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, pests, plagues, drought, fair-weather gales, blizzards, solar flares, coronal ejections, solar eruptions, volcanoes, supernovae, crop failures, crop diseases, cattle diseases, among others.
Does it take a miracle for so many ways to suffer and die to exist?
Note I'm not including war,crime, assault, rape, abuse, torture, maiming, genocide, the gulag system, concentration camps, forced labor, slavery, sexual slavery, drugs, drunk driving, collapsing buildings, collapsing dams, and other things, because they are, mostly, willful actions by people, rather than natural events. However, your ever-loving god doesn't stop all that, either, the way he does in the Bible (and apparently it's worse to be under bondage in Egypt than slaughtered in mass quantities in Easter Europe, go figure).
So, no evidence of god. None.
But to paraphrase J. Michael Straczynski, again, "Wouldn't it be worse if there was a god, and all these things happened on purpose?"
Quote:excellent point but you are jumping ahead. This logical truth about the progression of more complex beings creating things less complex than themselves leads us to why we can know at the very least that this creator force/being is infinitely complex.
No, we can't.
Living beings cannot create things more complex than themselves, yet, because of inherent limitations to their abilities. An infinitely complex, omnipotent being wouldn't have any limitations. He should be able to create his equal at any time, logically.
Quote:Maybe your reaction to this question is based on a fear that you would be backed into a corner to believe in God as Jews, Christians, or Muslims understand Him. This is not true.
Of course it's not true. I'm not afraid of anything regarding god, just as I'm not afraid of anything to do with vampires. And for the same reason: none of them exist.
Quote: thecesspitIf we accept "God" created the universe as an axiom, I can't see a useful logical step from that axiom. It tells us nothing about the purpose or reason for the creation by God, it does not tell us he sent his only son to die for our sins, or anything.
Actually it would. the Bible begins with god deciding to create the universe. So if he did that, then the thinking is the rest of the Bible is also true, word for word the actual, factual word of god. It also grants god the rank of father of all that exists, and the right to set rules therefore.
That's why the good father spends so much time asserting there is a "logical" reason to suppose a creator. And why Creationists spend so much time twisting evidence and adapting to circumstances to push their intellectual garbage.
Quote: FrGambleI don't follow you. How is stuff always existing for no apparent reason more fascinating than stuff being created by God? Don't you like playing games that have a purpose and a goal?
Ever notice the purposes and goals in your life
change? The things I was excited about 40
years ago are long gone, the goals I had are
gone, I can't imagine they were ever important
to me now. The universe is about constant
change, we even change ourselves without being
aware of it. Inventing a god is us trying to control
change, trying to control the universe. But even
god changes with the times, he's constantly
being reinvented, like every imaginary character.
Quote: FrGambleit is beyond intellectual garbage to not acknowledge the possibility of creation.
Ah, yes. And all those who believe in god are mentally ill.
See? We can both do the argument from intimidation. If that's the level of argument you prefer, though, then quit bugging me.
Quote:Just because evil exists is not a reason to not believe there is a creator.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the world god created is evidence that god created the world, because it's so lovely and fantastic and so well-suited to us humans, then turn around and say all the things that are bad, ugly, awful, deadly adn dangerous don't count.
Quote:In fact as I have shown earlier on one of these threads it is not even a logical reason to not believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God.
I won't repeat myself.
Quote:You have nothing to stand on to show why it makes more sense to believe in a universe that happens to be without any cause than to believe in a universe that has a cause.
I still won't repeat myself.
Quote:Please believe me I am not trying to push any type of God, gods, or some cosmic force on you
I'm sure evangelization isn't part of your job description, and rain isn't wet.
Quote:but I can't believe you are unable to see with just the light of your substantial human reason that creation is a very real and logical possibility? I know you are not that blinded by your obvious passion.
Again, I don't want to repeat myself.
Quote: NareedActually it would. the Bible begins with god deciding to create the universe. So if he did that, then the thinking is the rest of the Bible is also true, word for word the actual, factual word of god. It also grants god the rank of father of all that exists, and the right to set rules therefore.
Well you could, but that's a logical fallacy as well, as taking one item of evidence to be true from a disputed source does not make the rest of the source true. Besides, my point is that a creator does not lead ispo facto to the Christian God of the Bible.
Quote:That's why the good father spends so much time asserting there is a "logical" reason to suppose a creator. And why Creationists spend so much time twisting evidence and adapting to circumstances to push their intellectual garbage.
Waste of time anyways. Young Earth creationists are kinda deluded. I've stated before I don't really argue with the Deistic view of the universe either (Deistic being as in there is a creator, but he does not interfere with the day-to-day lives of man, that the deity is unknowable and unengaged with the details of his creation, like I am engaged with the transistors in my computer).
Quote: edwarddamn, looks like this forum is full of GAYS.
All you that argue here about religion are gays. Im outa here....please selfexclude me from this forum
Oh thats nothing, they're somewhat tame today.
Ken
Quote: FrGambleThis logical truth about the progression of more complex beings creating things less complex than themselves leads us to why we can know at the very least that this creator force/being is infinitely complex.
This claim isn't true in the case of man, who constantly builds things more complex than himself. Also, complexity per se isn't necessarily the hallmark of intelligent design. And the simplest and most pervasive thing of all, Evolution (in the form of death) will eventually end us all, one at a time and as a species.
Lastly, the Creator force/being would, at best, be shown to be more complex, not infinitely complex.
Quote: NowTheSerpentThis claim isn't true in the case of man, who constantly builds things more complex than himself.
Beat me to it. As soon as a mother puts a shawl around her newborn she has created something more complex than a human; she has created a human with a shawl.
Quote: NowTheSerpentThis claim isn't true in the case of man, who constantly builds things more complex than himself.
Interesting. Can you name one?
Quote:Also, complexity per se isn't necessarily the hallmark of intelligent design.
True. A bird can build something far more complex, and functional, than I can. I expend all my creativity in the kitchen and at the keyboard, where my talents lie.
Quote: NowTheSerpentAnd the simplest and most pervasive thing of all, Evolution (in the form of death) will eventually end us all, one at a time and as a species.
Its almost like life is an artform, constantly changing
and evolving, but never arriving because there's no
place to arrive at. Eternity is now.
Quote: EvenBobIts almost like life is an artform, constantly changing
and evolving, but never arriving because there's no
place to arrive at. Eternity is now.
In a sense, yes. Not to get all Tibetan on anybody's ass, but there is, objectively speaking, no such thing as present time - only past and future, since a timeline, like any other number line, is infinitely divisible. On the other hand, subjectively speaking there is only present time, neither past nor future, since all moments - both memories and predictions are equally directly accessible by the Will. Thus, Now is the the only time we truly live in.
Quote: Nareed
Quote: NowTheSerpentThis claim isn't true in the case of man, who constantly builds things more complex than himself.
Interesting. Can you name one?
Governments, corporations, and other bureaucracies. But also, AI-driven elevators in high-rise buildings, mass-production inventions like the cotton gin, the rifle, as well as higher education, cathedrals, Spanish (nod) and French cuisine, marriage, military ranks, mathematical models (I'm just rattling these off as I think of them; the list is endless) none of which any army ant or prairie dog "community" could ever build. And because we now have the power to replicate the gene, it is essentially less complex than we are - human Spirit (intellect) transcends the limits of matter.
