Richard Dawkins Hero

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 17 of 22 < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Jun 15 4.01pm
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 3.34pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 3.22pm Quote Lyons550 at 17 Jun 2015 2.41pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 10.44am Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period. Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation. What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all? Or that they all tie into a greater cosmic reality, that people of ages, including this one, are attempting to relay. One should always accept the very strong likelihood that people thousands of years ago might have been very much 'filling in the gaps' and relying on their knowledge of the times and existent knowledge's / experiences. The Catholic church struggled a long time with many of these arguments, and came to a number of interesting to absurd conclusions, based on their faith, some of which were quite surprising (they saw the pagan faiths as evidence of the age of the Nephilim in genesis, for example) and the idea or purgatory and the harrowing of hell etc. We're always limited by what our 'situated knowledge's', and we will likely as not look as limited in our capacity to people in several hundred years. Such as visiting Aliens Pending sufficient evidence, yes. At present its a no, on the basis that there is no credible evidence of extra terrestrial life, let alone visitations to earth You assume that people on earth will be more advanced in several hundred years. Not sure that is the case if current 'progressive' politics is going to lead us there. Perhaps we have peaked? No evidence of extra terrestrial life but the sheer numbers of stars and planets suggest that it is highly likely. Based on existing patterns of data. Of course its entirely a prediction, humanity could be back in the stone age. I think extra terrestrial life is almost a certainity, of course that doesn't mean it will have any relevance to humanity, or even capable of leaving the ground. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 17 Jun 15 4.01pm

Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 3.34pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 3.22pm

Quote Lyons550 at 17 Jun 2015 2.41pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 10.44am

Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am

One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality.

Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period.

Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place.

The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation.

What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all?

Or that they all tie into a greater cosmic reality, that people of ages, including this one, are attempting to relay. One should always accept the very strong likelihood that people thousands of years ago might have been very much 'filling in the gaps' and relying on their knowledge of the times and existent knowledge's / experiences.

The Catholic church struggled a long time with many of these arguments, and came to a number of interesting to absurd conclusions, based on their faith, some of which were quite surprising (they saw the pagan faiths as evidence of the age of the Nephilim in genesis, for example) and the idea or purgatory and the harrowing of hell etc.

We're always limited by what our 'situated knowledge's', and we will likely as not look as limited in our capacity to people in several hundred years.

Such as visiting Aliens

Pending sufficient evidence, yes. At present its a no, on the basis that there is no credible evidence of extra terrestrial life, let alone visitations to earth

You assume that people on earth will be more advanced in several hundred years. Not sure that is the case if current 'progressive' politics is going to lead us there. Perhaps we have peaked?

No evidence of extra terrestrial life but the sheer numbers of stars and planets suggest that it is highly likely.

Based on existing patterns of data. Of course its entirely a prediction, humanity could be back in the stone age.

I think extra terrestrial life is almost a certainity, of course that doesn't mean it will have any relevance to humanity, or even capable of leaving the ground.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 17 Jun 15 4.41pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 4.01pm Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 3.34pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 3.22pm Quote Lyons550 at 17 Jun 2015 2.41pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 10.44am Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period. Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation. What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all? Or that they all tie into a greater cosmic reality, that people of ages, including this one, are attempting to relay. One should always accept the very strong likelihood that people thousands of years ago might have been very much 'filling in the gaps' and relying on their knowledge of the times and existent knowledge's / experiences. The Catholic church struggled a long time with many of these arguments, and came to a number of interesting to absurd conclusions, based on their faith, some of which were quite surprising (they saw the pagan faiths as evidence of the age of the Nephilim in genesis, for example) and the idea or purgatory and the harrowing of hell etc. We're always limited by what our 'situated knowledge's', and we will likely as not look as limited in our capacity to people in several hundred years. Such as visiting Aliens Pending sufficient evidence, yes. At present its a no, on the basis that there is no credible evidence of extra terrestrial life, let alone visitations to earth You assume that people on earth will be more advanced in several hundred years. Not sure that is the case if current 'progressive' politics is going to lead us there. Perhaps we have peaked? No evidence of extra terrestrial life but the sheer numbers of stars and planets suggest that it is highly likely. Based on existing patterns of data. Of course its entirely a prediction, humanity could be back in the stone age. I think extra terrestrial life is almost a certainity, of course that doesn't mean it will have any relevance to humanity, or even capable of leaving the ground. Well yes, if ISIS win for example, or TUSC came to power. Edited by derben (17 Jun 2015 4.41pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

17 Jun 15 4.41pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 4.01pm

Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 3.34pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 3.22pm

Quote Lyons550 at 17 Jun 2015 2.41pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 10.44am

Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am

One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality.

Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place.

We're always limited by what our 'situated knowledge's', and we will likely as not look as limited in our capacity to people in several hundred years.

Such as visiting Aliens

Pending sufficient evidence, yes. At present its a no, on the basis that there is no credible evidence of extra terrestrial life, let alone visitations to earth

You assume that people on earth will be more advanced in several hundred years. Not sure that is the case if current 'progressive' politics is going to lead us there. Perhaps we have peaked?

No evidence of extra terrestrial life but the sheer numbers of stars and planets suggest that it is highly likely.

Based on existing patterns of data. Of course its entirely a prediction, humanity could be back in the stone age.

I think extra terrestrial life is almost a certainity, of course that doesn't mean it will have any relevance to humanity, or even capable of leaving the ground.

Well yes, if ISIS win for example, or TUSC came to power.

Edited by derben (17 Jun 2015 4.41pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 17 Jun 15 7.17pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm About sums up the level of scientific knowledge being shown here. In science, the term 'theory' is only used for well-established principles. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis. Any debate about creationism over evolution / big bang, should start with this tiny, but oh-so important, clarification. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 17 Jun 15 7.17pm

Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm

About sums up the level of scientific knowledge being shown here. In science, the term 'theory' is only used for well-established principles. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis.

Any debate about creationism over evolution / big bang, should start with this tiny, but oh-so important, clarification.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 17 Jun 15 7.22pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 12.32pm Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 11.19am Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 9.27am Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 8.49am Quote reborn at 17 Jun 2015 8.36am LOL sadly for you I live it, I spend all my days when I am not working trying to help other people and significant amounts of my money. You see its not a club, its a way of life. I think the thing that irritates you the most is I don't fit into your close minded and prejudiced view of what a Christian is. I will pray for you, not least for a sense of humour. Lighten up man, you seem so angry at everything. I fail to see how god has anything to do with being charitable. Anyone can be charitable. I have always thought that people who are always helping strangers are really doing it for themselves anyway. Is there really such thing as a selfless act ? Not according to Dawkins. I 100% agree with him. Edited by TheJudge (17 Jun 2015 8.51am) Dawkins would be incorrect, except on a genetic level (however we cannot presume that genetics defines all behavior and genes are sentient), as such degrees of altruism exist and what is more the case is that people who don't believe resort to rhetoric and abstraction of the individual, in order to demonstrate this. Its a move the goal posts argument, similar to that used in religion, by saying god creates evolution or the big bang, its hiding in the semantic limitations of proof (ie that you can neither truly prove or disprove something). Granted no act is truly selfless, as existence is experienced existentially, so it must tie back to the individual making the action, but that doesn't distract from the fact that its more selfless than selfish (and we shouldn't mistake selfish for egocentric either, a selfish act is not immoral, unless it is committed egocentrically). Wow. Where to begin. Firstly, genes determine behavior for their own survival using the animal as a vehicle. Not very romantic I concede. Human behavior is complex but we must not let that cloud the reality of existence. As for proof of anything. You must realise that just because you cannot disprove something does not make it more or less likely. This is the kind of absurd argument that followers of religion use. The fact that you cannot disprove god is irrelevant. As Dawkins would say: You cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster either. Only if you discount evidence from psychological sciences, that demonstrate quite adequately that genes at best have a influence on behavior and in no what categories it. The paradigm limitations of Biology, which has limited capacity to study behavior, relates to species not individual behavior. Its convenient when dealing with species and generations, but ultimately its reductionist and unsupported from outside of biology. There is a relationship between genetics and behaviors, but in no way is it definitive, and evidence suggests that experience plays a far more important role in determining how we react than genetics. Even neurology suggests that the role of genes in behavior is limited to structural influence, rather than determinism. Whilst humans do not possess free will, its equally absurd to suggest that they lack agency. This is rather applying a macro explanation to a micro system. I don't really accept that biology has the limitations of which you speak. Our very consciousness is biological/physiological and all behaviors must ultimately be biological in nature. The gene is the only thing that must survive for life to continue in it's current form. (There may only be one) You might prefer a more fluffy interpretation, but its only man's own arrogance that allows him the luxury of delusion regarding his consciousness and his significance beyond being some animate matter.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

17 Jun 15 7.22pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 12.32pm

Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 11.19am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 9.27am

Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 8.49am

Quote reborn at 17 Jun 2015 8.36am

LOL sadly for you I live it, I spend all my days when I am not working trying to help other people and significant amounts of my money. You see its not a club, its a way of life.

I think the thing that irritates you the most is I don't fit into your close minded and prejudiced view of what a Christian is.

I will pray for you, not least for a sense of humour. Lighten up man, you seem so angry at everything.

I fail to see how god has anything to do with being charitable. Anyone can be charitable.
I have always thought that people who are always helping strangers are really doing it for themselves anyway.
Is there really such thing as a selfless act ? Not according to Dawkins. I 100% agree with him.

Edited by TheJudge (17 Jun 2015 8.51am)

Dawkins would be incorrect, except on a genetic level (however we cannot presume that genetics defines all behavior and genes are sentient), as such degrees of altruism exist and what is more the case is that people who don't believe resort to rhetoric and abstraction of the individual, in order to demonstrate this.

Its a move the goal posts argument, similar to that used in religion, by saying god creates evolution or the big bang, its hiding in the semantic limitations of proof (ie that you can neither truly prove or disprove something).

Granted no act is truly selfless, as existence is experienced existentially, so it must tie back to the individual making the action, but that doesn't distract from the fact that its more selfless than selfish (and we shouldn't mistake selfish for egocentric either, a selfish act is not immoral, unless it is committed egocentrically).

Wow. Where to begin.

Firstly, genes determine behavior for their own survival using the animal as a vehicle. Not very romantic I concede. Human behavior is complex but we must not let that cloud the reality of existence.

As for proof of anything. You must realise that just because you cannot disprove something does not make it more or less likely. This is the kind of absurd argument that followers of religion use. The fact that you cannot disprove god is irrelevant. As Dawkins would say: You cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster either.

Only if you discount evidence from psychological sciences, that demonstrate quite adequately that genes at best have a influence on behavior and in no what categories it. The paradigm limitations of Biology, which has limited capacity to study behavior, relates to species not individual behavior. Its convenient when dealing with species and generations, but ultimately its reductionist and unsupported from outside of biology.

There is a relationship between genetics and behaviors, but in no way is it definitive, and evidence suggests that experience plays a far more important role in determining how we react than genetics. Even neurology suggests that the role of genes in behavior is limited to structural influence, rather than determinism.

Whilst humans do not possess free will, its equally absurd to suggest that they lack agency.

This is rather applying a macro explanation to a micro system. I don't really accept that biology has the limitations of which you speak. Our very consciousness is biological/physiological and all behaviors must ultimately be biological in nature. The gene is the only thing that must survive for life to continue in it's current form. (There may only be one)
You might prefer a more fluffy interpretation, but its only man's own arrogance that allows him the luxury of delusion regarding his consciousness and his significance beyond being some animate matter.

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 17 Jun 15 7.33pm
Quote Ray in Houston at 17 Jun 2015 7.17pm Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm About sums up the level of scientific knowledge being shown here. In science, the term 'theory' is only used for well-established principles. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis. Any debate about creationism over evolution / big bang, should start with this tiny, but oh-so important, clarification. There is no debate. Creationism is a non starter. If the Universe was "designed" the designer would be so far removed from the Biblical that the two would not withstand any sort of comparison. As an example, take the latest rehashed idea that the universe as we see it is just a copy or recreation made by beings (maybe humans) that have advanced to the required level of technology. They would be creators from our perspective. The logical question would then be; Who created the creators ? The same question could be asked of God, if he were real.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

17 Jun 15 7.33pm

Quote Ray in Houston at 17 Jun 2015 7.17pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm

About sums up the level of scientific knowledge being shown here. In science, the term 'theory' is only used for well-established principles. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis.

Any debate about creationism over evolution / big bang, should start with this tiny, but oh-so important, clarification.

There is no debate. Creationism is a non starter.

If the Universe was "designed" the designer would be so far removed from the Biblical that the two would not withstand any sort of comparison.
As an example, take the latest rehashed idea that the universe as we see it is just a copy or recreation made by beings (maybe humans) that have advanced to the required level of technology. They would be creators from our perspective. The logical question would then be; Who created the creators ? The same question could be asked of God, if he were real.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 17 Jun 15 7.45pm
Quote Brentmiester_General at 17 Jun 2015 11.54am Religion, as Dawkins has stated, is in the death throes. Not in Texas it isn't. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 17 Jun 15 7.45pm

Quote Brentmiester_General at 17 Jun 2015 11.54am

Religion, as Dawkins has stated, is in the death throes.

Not in Texas it isn't.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 17 Jun 15 7.52pm
Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 7.33pm There is no debate. Creationism is a non starter. Not in Texas it isn't. [Link] We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 17 Jun 15 7.52pm

Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 7.33pm

There is no debate. Creationism is a non starter.

Not in Texas it isn't.
[Link]

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 17 Jun 15 8.03pm
Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 7.33pm If the Universe was "designed" the designer would be so far removed from the Biblical that the two would not withstand any sort of comparison. As an example, take the latest rehashed idea that the universe as we see it is just a copy or recreation made by beings (maybe humans) that have advanced to the required level of technology. They would be creators from our perspective. The logical question would then be; Who created the creators ? The same question could be asked of God, if he were real. The difference, as I see it, is that religion starts with "God exists", and then works backwards from that locked-in premise trying to explain all the crazy s* that happens in the universe. Science starts from the only thing it can know for sure "I'm standing here right now" and tries to figure out how all of that came to pass, building knowledge upon knowledge as it goes. I am a fan of the latter. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just waing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 17 Jun 15 8.03pm

Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 7.33pm

The difference, as I see it, is that religion starts with "God exists", and then works backwards from that locked-in premise trying to explain all the crazy s*** that happens in the universe. Science starts from the only thing it can know for sure "I'm standing here right now" and tries to figure out how all of that came to pass, building knowledge upon knowledge as it goes.

I am a fan of the latter.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 17 Jun 15 9.23pm
Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 7.33pm Quote Ray in Houston at 17 Jun 2015 7.17pm Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm About sums up the level of scientific knowledge being shown here. In science, the term 'theory' is only used for well-established principles. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis. Any debate about creationism over evolution / big bang, should start with this tiny, but oh-so important, clarification. There is no debate. Creationism is a non starter. If the Universe was "designed" the designer would be so far removed from the Biblical that the two would not withstand any sort of comparison. As an example, take the latest rehashed idea that the universe as we see it is just a copy or recreation made by beings (maybe humans) that have advanced to the required level of technology. They would be creators from our perspective. The logical question would then be; Who created the creators ? The same question could be asked of God, if he were real. But if God is omnipotent, God has unlimited powers. This would include the power to create itself or even retrospectively make itself exist from eternity!
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

17 Jun 15 9.23pm

Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 7.33pm

Quote Ray in Houston at 17 Jun 2015 7.17pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm

About sums up the level of scientific knowledge being shown here. In science, the term 'theory' is only used for well-established principles. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis.

Any debate about creationism over evolution / big bang, should start with this tiny, but oh-so important, clarification.

There is no debate. Creationism is a non starter.

But if God is omnipotent, God has unlimited powers. This would include the power to create itself or even retrospectively make itself exist from eternity!

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 17 Jun 15 9.53pm
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 9.23pm Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 7.33pm Quote Ray in Houston at 17 Jun 2015 7.17pm Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm About sums up the level of scientific knowledge being shown here. In science, the term 'theory' is only used for well-established principles. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis. Any debate about creationism over evolution / big bang, should start with this tiny, but oh-so important, clarification. There is no debate. Creationism is a non starter. If the Universe was "designed" the designer would be so far removed from the Biblical that the two would not withstand any sort of comparison. As an example, take the latest rehashed idea that the universe as we see it is just a copy or recreation made by beings (maybe humans) that have advanced to the required level of technology. They would be creators from our perspective. The logical question would then be; Who created the creators ? The same question could be asked of God, if he were real. But if God is omnipotent, God has unlimited powers. This would include the power to create itself or even retrospectively make itself exist from eternity! OK. Accepting for the sake of argument that there were such an entity, it would not be the God of the Bible and consequently would have no real relation to religion. You could of course argue that point i an intellectual way but religion has little to do with intellectualism. The idea that some scientists claim to believe in God is a bit of a myth. Any who really do need to be pushed as to exactly how that plays out. Edited by TheJudge (17 Jun 2015 9.54pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

17 Jun 15 9.53pm

Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 9.23pm

Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 7.33pm

Quote Ray in Houston at 17 Jun 2015 7.17pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm

About sums up the level of scientific knowledge being shown here. In science, the term 'theory' is only used for well-established principles. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis.

Any debate about creationism over evolution / big bang, should start with this tiny, but oh-so important, clarification.

There is no debate. Creationism is a non starter.

But if God is omnipotent, God has unlimited powers. This would include the power to create itself or even retrospectively make itself exist from eternity!

OK. Accepting for the sake of argument that there were such an entity, it would not be the God of the Bible and consequently would have no real relation to religion. You could of course argue that point i an intellectual way but religion has little to do with intellectualism. The idea that some scientists claim to believe in God is a bit of a myth. Any who really do need to be pushed as to exactly how that plays out.

Edited by TheJudge (17 Jun 2015 9.54pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 17 Jun 15 10.01pm
Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 9.53pm Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 9.23pm Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 7.33pm Quote Ray in Houston at 17 Jun 2015 7.17pm Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm About sums up the level of scientific knowledge being shown here. In science, the term 'theory' is only used for well-established principles. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis. Any debate about creationism over evolution / big bang, should start with this tiny, but oh-so important, clarification. There is no debate. Creationism is a non starter. If the Universe was "designed" the designer would be so far removed from the Biblical that the two would not withstand any sort of comparison. As an example, take the latest rehashed idea that the universe as we see it is just a copy or recreation made by beings (maybe humans) that have advanced to the required level of technology. They would be creators from our perspective. The logical question would then be; Who created the creators ? The same question could be asked of God, if he were real. But if God is omnipotent, God has unlimited powers. This would include the power to create itself or even retrospectively make itself exist from eternity! OK. Accepting for the sake of argument that there were such an entity, it would not be the God of the Bible and consequently would have no real relation to religion. You could of course argue that point i an intellectual way but religion has little to do with intellectualism. The idea that some scientists claim to believe in God is a bit of a myth. Any who really do need to be pushed as to exactly how that plays out. Edited by TheJudge (17 Jun 2015 9.54pm) Not necessarily, an omnipotent God can do absolutely anything, including setting various religious hares running.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

17 Jun 15 10.01pm

Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 9.53pm

Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 9.23pm

Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 7.33pm

Quote Ray in Houston at 17 Jun 2015 7.17pm

Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm

About sums up the level of scientific knowledge being shown here. In science, the term 'theory' is only used for well-established principles. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis.

Any debate about creationism over evolution / big bang, should start with this tiny, but oh-so important, clarification.

There is no debate. Creationism is a non starter.

But if God is omnipotent, God has unlimited powers. This would include the power to create itself or even retrospectively make itself exist from eternity!

OK. Accepting for the sake of argument that there were such an entity, it would not be the God of the Bible and consequently would have no real relation to religion. You could of course argue that point i an intellectual way but religion has little to do with intellectualism. The idea that some scientists claim to believe in God is a bit of a myth. Any who really do need to be pushed as to exactly how that plays out.

Edited by TheJudge (17 Jun 2015 9.54pm)

Not necessarily, an omnipotent God can do absolutely anything, including setting various religious hares running.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 17 Jun 15 10.01pm
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 9.23pm But if God is omnipotent, God has unlimited powers. This would include the power to create itself or even retrospectively make itself exist from eternity! This is where the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory" becomes really important. In fact, your claims don't even rise to the level of hypothesis - something based on limited evidence; they're merely speculation - conjecture lacking evidence. Claiming that "my God can beat up your science" does not make it so. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 17 Jun 15 10.01pm

Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 9.23pm

But if God is omnipotent, God has unlimited powers. This would include the power to create itself or even retrospectively make itself exist from eternity!

This is where the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory" becomes really important. In fact, your claims don't even rise to the level of hypothesis - something based on limited evidence; they're merely speculation - conjecture lacking evidence.

Claiming that "my God can beat up your science" does not make it so.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 17 of 22 < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Richard Dawkins Hero

Site Map

Sponsors