God: Misinterpreted as an extraterrestrial?

[Epimethean]

"Humanity has always believed in God before skeptics gained traction and then claimed the territory for themselves."

Incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya

[Shell B]

Thank you, lucent. That is much easier to follow now.

[Cyberman]

Easier to follow indeed; but we're still being led around in circles.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can understand your perspective. I used to think along the same lines. I have a lot of respect for science..I used to want to be an astronomer personally, but found out im terrible at math. I know from your perspective that although science hasn't explained everything, that what it has explained seems sufficient to rule out the supernatural. That's where you and I must disagree, however, because I don't think science has the right to claim all of this territory. It's not just that science hasn't explained everything, it's that it hasn't explained how to get from point a. to point b. without major leaps of faith.

It isn't a God of the gaps argument when there isn't a mechanism or theory which satisfactorly explains any of the major mechanisms for existence, life or consciousness. Humanity has always believed in God before skeptics gained traction and then claimed the territory for themselves. Now, God is unnecessary..why? There's no proof the Universe wasn't deliberately created, and certainly no proof that an explosion creates order instead of disorder. There's no proof of life from non-life. There's no proof the mechanisms for evolution actually work. No theory for consciousness. We can't observe or test any of these things. That's not a gap, that's a grand canyon. In light of that, God certainly seems very necessary to me.

I think it is easy to explain away things which are philosophically hard to prove, to attribute things to mere chemicals because the worldview demands this perspective..but when you think about the deeper things of life, what and how we love..about morality, meaning and purpose. How things are valued, how truth is derived..do chemicals appreciate beauty? Do chemical sacrifice their lives for others? There is no satisfactory explanation for why chemicals should do any of those things. There is no unifying principle to anything without God...it's just a gobbledegook of just so explanations.

There is plenty of evidence as to why evolution is a bogus theory..and I will provide that by starting another thread in the next day or so..I would continue on with you but at the moment, my cat is missing and I am worried about him..so I am going to go look for him. I'll be back in a bit.

Science hasn't ruled out "the supernatural" in totality, it's ruled out all supernatural claims thusfar. Big difference. Something tells me you have your own definitions for point a and point b in any given situation.

It is precisely a god of the gaps argument. In fact, the sentences you strung together are precisely the definition of a god of the gaps argument, whether you agree or not. Again, your god, your baby, your deliberate creator, you prove it. The argument from rubble at a demolition site? Give me a fucking break. Ah, no proof of life from non-life, good, then you wont mind me claiming that this conclusively proves your god to be a living breathing thing, that of course also requires life to create him so on and so forth, ad infinitum. The bit about evolution is blatantly ignorant. Oh, no theory, nothing about a brain at all eh? More blatant ignorance regarding our ability to perform experiments. God seemed necessary to you at the first keystroke, so no surprise that he still seems to be necessary to you at this point. This is one giant argument from ignorance.

No worldview demands this perspective, this is where the evidence leads. No, chemicals don't, but complex creatures composed of chemicals do...next? There is no unifying principle with god, because we have no evidence for such a things existence, nor do we have any arguments that fit the bill.

There is not "plenty of evidence that evolution is a bogus theory" because evolution is not a theory. It's an observation. You'd know that if you "learned these things in class". Natural selection is a theory. Jesus fucking christ man. Go find your cat. Tell you what, if you find him in the stomach of a tyrannosaur along with human remains you will have proved your point, hands down. So good luck with that.

[Cyberman]

Science hasn't ruled out "the supernatural" in totality, it's ruled out all supernatural claims thusfar. Big difference.

Indeed. Anything 'supernatural' that has an effect on the Universe falls exactly in the realm of science, because then it can be tested.

By the same token, as I've tried to point out elsewhere, a 'supernatural' phenomenon that has no effect whatsoever on the Universe can safely be considered nonexistent. That's why nobody's managed to claim James Randi's million dollars yet; everyone who's put themselves up to be tested has mysteriously failed.

[lucent]

I can understand your perspective. I used to think along the same lines. I have a lot of respect for science..I used to want to be an astronomer personally, but found out im terrible at math. I know from your perspective that although science hasn't explained everything, that what it has explained seems sufficient to rule out the supernatural. That's where you and I must disagree, however, because I don't think science has the right to claim all of this territory. It's not just that science hasn't explained everything, it's that it hasn't explained how to get from point a. to point b. without major leaps of faith.

It isn't a God of the gaps argument when there isn't a mechanism or theory which satisfactorly explains any of the major mechanisms for existence, life or consciousness. Humanity has always believed in God before skeptics gained traction and then claimed the territory for themselves. Now, God is unnecessary..why? There's no proof the Universe wasn't deliberately created, and certainly no proof that an explosion creates order instead of disorder. There's no proof of life from non-life. There's no proof the mechanisms for evolution actually work. No theory for consciousness. We can't observe or test any of these things. That's not a gap, that's a grand canyon. In light of that, God certainly seems very necessary to me.

I think it is easy to explain away things which are philosophically hard to prove, to attribute things to mere chemicals because the worldview demands this perspective..but when you think about the deeper things of life, what and how we love..about morality, meaning and purpose. How things are valued, how truth is derived..do chemicals appreciate beauty? Do chemical sacrifice their lives for others? There is no satisfactory explanation for why chemicals should do any of those things. There is no unifying principle to anything without God...it's just a gobbledegook of just so explanations.

There is plenty of evidence as to why evolution is a bogus theory..and I will provide that by starting another thread in the next day or so..I would continue on with you but at the moment, my cat is missing and I am worried about him..so I am going to go look for him. I'll be back in a bit.

Science hasn't ruled out "the supernatural" in totality, it's ruled out all supernatural claims thusfar. Big difference. Something tells me you have your own definitions for point a and point b in any given situation.

It is precisely a god of the gaps argument. In fact, the sentences you strung together are precisely the definition of a god of the gaps argument, whether you agree or not. Again, your god, your baby, your deliberate creator, you prove it. The argument from rubble at a demolition site? Give me a fucking break. Ah, no proof of life from non-life, good, then you wont mind me claiming that this conclusively proves your god to be a living breathing thing, that of course also requires life to create him so on and so forth, ad infinitum. The bit about evolution is blatantly ignorant. Oh, no theory, nothing about a brain at all eh? More blatant ignorance regarding our ability to perform experiments. God seemed necessary to you before you typed the first letter, so no surprise that he still seems to be necessary to you at this point. This is one giant argument from ignorance.

No worldview demands this perspective, this is where the evidence leads. No, chemicals don't, but complex creatures composed of chemicals do...next? There is no unifying principle with god, because we have no evidence for such a things existence, nor do we have any arguments that fit the bill.

There is not "plenty of evidence that evolution is a bogus theory" because evolution is not a theory. It's an observation. You'd know that if you "learned these things in class". Natural selection is a theory. Jesus fucking christ man. Go find your cat. Tell you what, if you find him in the stomach of a tyrannosaur along with human remains you will have proved your point, hands down. So good luck with that.

The gaps are infinitely wide. Again, your faith in things like precision and order from an explosion, and life from non-life are not based in reality. They are faith based claims, and metaphysics. And Science certainly hasn't ruled out all supernatural claims. Science can't even prove science, let alone disprove supernatural claims. Again, science doesn't prove or disprove anything. Your scientism is showing again.

The evidence leads many more people to God than it does to your little corner. Complex creatures made of chemicals are still made of chemicals. Do chemicals have free will? What if your chemicals make you atheist and my chemicals make me a Christian? Do we have any choice? I don't believe in God because I think He is necessary. I believe in God because I know He exists. My experience is experiential. And God isn't created. Life can only come from life, and there is no example of it coming from non-life..ever.

Evolution most certainly is a theory. If you're to say it isn't a theory you'll have to call 100's of science publications and take it up with them. It's also funny that you would say evolution has been observed, because that is precisely the problem with evolution; it hasn't been observed. There is no way to observe and test whether all organisms have a common ancestor. It is pure metaphysics. The explanation is derived from what seems *plausible*, it is not about what is actual. Unless someone goes back in a time machine, there is no way to test it. Take it from one of your heros:

MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?

DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

MOYERS: What do you mean it's been observed.

DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And youÖ the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detectiveÖ

MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence.

DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. Evolution is true. I mean it's as circumstantial as that, but it's as true as that.

It is your presuppositions which leads you to these conclusions, and the world provides all the evidence you need to think you're right. Just like dawkins. His worldview presupposes that things evolved naturally, so when he looks at the evidence that is what he sees. He presupposes a common ancestor and rules out a common Creator. It is a theory, which hasn't been observed, only inferred by circumstantial evidence, as dawkins himself admitted. IE, no direct proof.

[The Grand Nudger]

Evidence? Where was your cat btw? Just so I can cross tyrannosaurs off the list.

You obviously weren't aware, but "The Theory of Evolution" or "Evolution" is conversational shorthand for "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection". Evolution is the change observed in the distribution and composition of fossil remains we find as we dig through the strata. Natural Selection is the theory that proposes a mechanism for how this occurred. That life evolved is obvious to anyone with a shovel. How, is the part that was elusive until fairly recently (when genetic sequencing nailed the door shut on your djinn and his little genesis narrative). Of course this is all a massive conspiracy.

Science teachers get paid btw.

You know what, I'm going to help you here because you're doing so poorly that it's starting to feel like I'm kicking a corpse.

Step 1, decide on a date or range of time for the moment of creation. Try to be as specific as possible. Now show that nothing existed before this date. You like the "in the beginning" verse, so, when was that?
(spare me links to creation journals, if that's the only source you have, just cliff note it, your own words)

[Epimethean]

Why do I sense a faith-based response coming?

[lucent]

Evidence? Where was your cat btw? Just so I can cross tyrannosaurs off the list.

You obviously weren't aware, but "The Theory of Evolution" or "Evolution" is conversational shorthand for "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection". Evolution is the change observed in the distribution and composition of fossil remains we find as we dig through the strata. Natural Selection is the theory that proposes a mechanism for how this occurred. That life evolved is obvious to anyone with a shovel. How, is the part that was elusive until fairly recently (when genetic sequencing nailed the door shut on your djinn and his little genesis narrative). Of course this is all a massive conspiracy.

Science teachers get paid btw.

You know what, I'm going to help you here because you're doing so poorly that it's starting to feel like I'm kicking a corpse.

Step 1, decide on a date or range of time for the moment of creation. Try to be as specific as possible. Now show that nothing existed before this date. You like the "in the beginning" verse, so, when was that?
(spare me links to creation journals, if that's the only source you have, just cliff note it, your own words)

You obviously weren't aware, but "The Theory of Evolution" or "Evolution" is conversational shorthand for "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection". Evolution is the change observed in the distribution and composition of fossil remains we find as we dig through the strata. Natural Selection is the theory that proposes a mechanism for how this occurred. That life evolved is obvious to anyone with a shovel. How, is the part that was elusive until fairly recently (when genetic sequencing nailed the door shut on your djinn and his little genesis narrative). Of course this is all a massive conspiracy.

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Please educate yourself before you correct others:

http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/Courses/SE302/ste1/ste1.html

You know what, I'm going to help you here because you're doing so poorly that it's starting to feel like I'm kicking a corpse.

Please. Your entire argument can be summed up thusly: "Nu uh"

Step 1, decide on a date or range of time for the moment of creation. Try to be as specific as possible. Now show that nothing existed before this date. You like the "in the beginning" verse, so, when was that?

To do that, we'll have to talk about dating methods. I have testimony from secular scientists about the fallability of dating methods, however, if you're going to be intellectually dishonest and rule out testimony from Creationists as well, then you've proven your inherent bias and hostility towards evidence which doesn't agree with you. To say that creationists aren't scientists is indefensible. As I said earlier, I'll be starting another thread on this topic. You're free to participate there if you want. Unless you want to talk your blinders off and have a real conversation.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd rather you give the dates first and talk about dating methods afterwards. Tired of hearing you bitch and moan, I just want to see some of that evidence you said you had.
(not sure why you think that article is saying anything contrary to what I said btw)