RE: God: Misinterpreted as an extraterrestrial?
September 26, 2011 at 7:58 pm
(This post was last modified: September 26, 2011 at 8:00 pm by lucent.)
It's well within sanity to state that "we don't know". You believe that you know, but believing and knowing are not directly equivalent. Not in common usage, not in definition, not in any way whatsoever, period.
You can say that you don't know, but can't speak for what I know or don't know. Not believing and knowing are not directly equivalent. Since you don't know, neither do you know if I am correct or not.
God is by no means a simpler idea than descent with modification. The god concept doesn't even show up as a blip on the radar of simplicity.
It is a very simple idea to say that a higher intelligence created the Universe. If there was a cohesive, plausible theory as to how it happened "naturally", that actually worked, you would almost have some philosophical ground to stand on, but that isn't the case.
There is no explanation for origins, no explanation for how the Cosmos came to be..not even the basics like why objects have mass, how stars or planets form, how light or heavy elements form, the list goes on and on. Saying I don't know is not a better explanation. Saying that Universe popped into existence out of nothing and organized itself into elegant machinery that produces life is not a better explanation. It is actually a really stupid explanation that requires a much bigger leap of faith to believe.
If you want to say God is too complex, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity
There are claims as to what god has given us, and of course claims as to which god gave us exactly what. Claims. Nothing more, unless you have evidence?
There is historical evidence, evidence from archaelogy, evidence from fulfilled prophecy etc. What do you want to discuss? What evidence are you looking for?
Any part of the visible world is proof of the visible world, not faeries. The entirety of the visible world is again proof of the same, and again, not faeries. Everything answers are nothing answers.
God cannot be compared to faeries. This is a false analogy, because faeries explain approximately nothing. God is a philosophical idea, at the least, which has explanatory power.
Using logic, if God exists the entire Universe is in fact evidence for His existence.
If we have evidence of the universe's beginning, it is evidence only of that. It does not extend to "goddidit" unless you have evidence for the existence of god. Your if is showing.
It is evidence that the Universe began, ie, it had a cause. Science used to believe the Universe was eternal and people would use that for evidence of Gods non-existence. Now they try to explain God away by saying that something can come from nothing. That's what is embarassing. The mere fact the Universe began to exist is a point of evidence in Gods favor. The discoverer of the CMB stated that there wasn't a better theory (ie, the big bang) which could match up with the Genesis account.
Actually, the "only way a naturalistic origin is plausible" is by realizing that this sort of origin is exactly what has happened here, unless you have evidence that would suggest otherwise? A creator is not yet required to deal with this one universe, why then would he be more necessary to account for more than one? Honestly, just give some evidence for fine tuning or stop talking about it, it's embarrassing.
You have no evidence either way. You like to make these blanket statements of truth in favor of naturalistic materialism, where Science has a theory, which again does not work, and say that is what happened. Where is your evidence that "this sort of origin is exactly what has happened here"? Do you have any? Where is your evidence that "A creator is not yet required to deal with this one universe"? How do you know that? Obviously if God exists a Creator is in fact required. Here is a good list of fine tuning parameters:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
Evidence of a creator, communication from said creator, the lack of limits to his abilities? You'll have to forgive me if I fail to see the value of a practical application of christianity in my life (especially considering the way in which christians cavort around this website making their entire faith look like complete morons).
The practical application of Christianity is the adjudication of your sins. Your sin is a legal matter between you and God that only Christ can mediate for you. The penalty for sin is death, and if you were to face God on your own merits, you would be found guilty. That is why He went to the cross, so that anyone who believes in Him would be saved. He paid the penalty for our crimes, so we could be declared not guilty and have eternal life.
The practical application of Christianity has everything to do with your personal responsibility to God. Whether you think me stupid, or not is irrelevent. I'll happily be insulted to tell you about the Lord, and what He has done for you..and especially, how much that He loves you.
I'm well aware you don't believe the bible is authentic. I don't have to prove the bible for that statement to be true. It is obvious by logic alone. If God exists, everything in existence is evidence for the existence of God.
You can say that you don't know, but can't speak for what I know or don't know. Not believing and knowing are not directly equivalent. Since you don't know, neither do you know if I am correct or not.
God is by no means a simpler idea than descent with modification. The god concept doesn't even show up as a blip on the radar of simplicity.
It is a very simple idea to say that a higher intelligence created the Universe. If there was a cohesive, plausible theory as to how it happened "naturally", that actually worked, you would almost have some philosophical ground to stand on, but that isn't the case.
There is no explanation for origins, no explanation for how the Cosmos came to be..not even the basics like why objects have mass, how stars or planets form, how light or heavy elements form, the list goes on and on. Saying I don't know is not a better explanation. Saying that Universe popped into existence out of nothing and organized itself into elegant machinery that produces life is not a better explanation. It is actually a really stupid explanation that requires a much bigger leap of faith to believe.
If you want to say God is too complex, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity
There are claims as to what god has given us, and of course claims as to which god gave us exactly what. Claims. Nothing more, unless you have evidence?
There is historical evidence, evidence from archaelogy, evidence from fulfilled prophecy etc. What do you want to discuss? What evidence are you looking for?
Any part of the visible world is proof of the visible world, not faeries. The entirety of the visible world is again proof of the same, and again, not faeries. Everything answers are nothing answers.
God cannot be compared to faeries. This is a false analogy, because faeries explain approximately nothing. God is a philosophical idea, at the least, which has explanatory power.
Using logic, if God exists the entire Universe is in fact evidence for His existence.
If we have evidence of the universe's beginning, it is evidence only of that. It does not extend to "goddidit" unless you have evidence for the existence of god. Your if is showing.
It is evidence that the Universe began, ie, it had a cause. Science used to believe the Universe was eternal and people would use that for evidence of Gods non-existence. Now they try to explain God away by saying that something can come from nothing. That's what is embarassing. The mere fact the Universe began to exist is a point of evidence in Gods favor. The discoverer of the CMB stated that there wasn't a better theory (ie, the big bang) which could match up with the Genesis account.
Actually, the "only way a naturalistic origin is plausible" is by realizing that this sort of origin is exactly what has happened here, unless you have evidence that would suggest otherwise? A creator is not yet required to deal with this one universe, why then would he be more necessary to account for more than one? Honestly, just give some evidence for fine tuning or stop talking about it, it's embarrassing.
You have no evidence either way. You like to make these blanket statements of truth in favor of naturalistic materialism, where Science has a theory, which again does not work, and say that is what happened. Where is your evidence that "this sort of origin is exactly what has happened here"? Do you have any? Where is your evidence that "A creator is not yet required to deal with this one universe"? How do you know that? Obviously if God exists a Creator is in fact required. Here is a good list of fine tuning parameters:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
Evidence of a creator, communication from said creator, the lack of limits to his abilities? You'll have to forgive me if I fail to see the value of a practical application of christianity in my life (especially considering the way in which christians cavort around this website making their entire faith look like complete morons).
The practical application of Christianity is the adjudication of your sins. Your sin is a legal matter between you and God that only Christ can mediate for you. The penalty for sin is death, and if you were to face God on your own merits, you would be found guilty. That is why He went to the cross, so that anyone who believes in Him would be saved. He paid the penalty for our crimes, so we could be declared not guilty and have eternal life.
The practical application of Christianity has everything to do with your personal responsibility to God. Whether you think me stupid, or not is irrelevent. I'll happily be insulted to tell you about the Lord, and what He has done for you..and especially, how much that He loves you.
(September 26, 2011 at 5:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Evidence of a creator, communication from said creator, the lack of limits to his abilities? You'll have to forgive me if I fail to see the value of a practical application of christianity in my life (especially considering the way in which christians cavort around this website making their entire faith look like complete morons).
I'm well aware you don't believe the bible is authentic. I don't have to prove the bible for that statement to be true. It is obvious by logic alone. If God exists, everything in existence is evidence for the existence of God.
(September 26, 2011 at 5:15 pm)ElDinero Wrote: DOESN'T UNDERSTAND CAUSALITY OR EVIDENCE ALERT!!!
Whew, sorry about that. Your post set off my in built alarm. Here we go again:
You can't use a Bible verse to prove the existence of God. We doubt the authenticity of the Bible. You haven't proven the 'evidence' that is all around us was made by God. It's what's known as a circular argument. If you want to see how puerile and idiotic this line of thinking is, take God out of the premise and replace it with ANYTHING ELSE, like this:
'I know Allah exists because it says in this book I have that we've all seen him at work, and the evidence for Allah's existence is therefore all around you'
Do you believe the statement I just made?
