|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
 Posted - 02/17/2006 : 11:22:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
When I considered all the evidence for God, and then pondered on it, I have concluded that based on the evidence I would put my faith in God.
And this evidence would be....? And which god are you talking about?
The very creation itself.... And the God who created the universe..
Ah, so you don't have any evidence.
Ah, so you don't have any evidence.
(bill) No I have a whole universe of evidence
Hmmmm. Messed that up. Let me try again.....(note to self, always click "preview" before posting)
Bill, I mostly lurk here, but I'm posting now because I'm very interested in what kind of evidence you find convincing for the existance of God. Could you be more specific than whe "whole universe"? Maybe just one or two of what you find to be the most compelling.
Personally I find evidence for God to be lacking, but I always keep a look out in case I missed something. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 12:03:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
When I considered all the evidence for God, and then pondered on it, I have concluded that based on the evidence I would put my faith in God.
And this evidence would be....? And which god are you talking about?
The very creation itself.... And the God who created the universe..
Ah, so you don't have any evidence.
Ah, so you don't have any evidence.
(bill) No I have a whole universe of evidence
Hmmmm. Messed that up. Let me try again.....(note to self, always click "preview" before posting)
Bill, I mostly lurk here, but I'm posting now because I'm very interested in what kind of evidence you find convincing for the existance of God. Could you be more specific than whe "whole universe"? Maybe just one or two of what you find to be the most compelling.
Personally I find evidence for God to be lacking, but I always keep a look out in case I missed something.
Moderator: Copyrighted material deleted. Original text can be found here. Bill, I warned you about this before. This is your second warning.
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/bdka_myopening.htm |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/17/2006 15:16:51 |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 12:18:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
When I considered all the evidence for God, and then pondered on it, I have concluded that based on the evidence I would put my faith in God.
And this evidence would be....? And which god are you talking about?
The very creation itself.... And the God who created the universe..
Ah, so you don't have any evidence.
Ah, so you don't have any evidence.
(bill) No I have a whole universe of evidence
Hmmmm. Messed that up. Let me try again.....(note to self, always click "preview" before posting)
Bill, I mostly lurk here, but I'm posting now because I'm very interested in what kind of evidence you find convincing for the existance of God. Could you be more specific than whe "whole universe"? Maybe just one or two of what you find to be the most compelling.
Personally I find evidence for God to be lacking, but I always keep a look out in case I missed something.
Moderator: Quoted copyrighted material deleted. Please see response above for text.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/17/2006 15:18:02 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 12:39:19 [Permalink]
|
Yet another undocumented copy/paste from copyrighted material?
As to the acutal text, old creationst/ID stuff that is easily argued against. Can't you find anything better? (sigh) |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/17/2006 12:41:22 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 12:46:20 [Permalink]
|
I will hasten to add that arguing against creationism/ID is not the same as saying "There is No God and God is not even possible."
So how does this creationist gibbah-gabbah has anything at all to do with the exitenence of god, or absolute morality?
You still never answered what religious sect you ascribe to, though it is becoming quite plain that you are nothing more than a plain-jane christian evangelical. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 12:58:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In my experience, probably not because your belief is based upon faith and requires no more than that.
(bill) You misuse faith in your context. When I fly I understand the concept of thrust and lift. I have a fair knowledge on the mechanics of the plane. I know the safety record of said airline etc... etc... I take all those factors into consideration and then based off that I decide to put my FAITH in the airplane to get me to where I want to go. Is this a leap of blind faith I have just made to get on the airplane? No. It faith based on evidence. When I considered all the evidence for God, and then pondered on it, I have concluded that based on the evidence I would put my faith in God. Far from closing one's eyes and just shooting in the dark, like how the doubters like to portray it.
And of course, I am in the same boat as you because I can no more disprove God than you can prove that such a critter exists.
(bill) I would agree. At the end of the day neither one of us can bottle up our worldview in a mason jar and set it on the counter for all to see. We look at the evidence, we evaluate the evidence, and the we decide what we are going to put our or faith and trust in. So both of us work off of faith. You have placed your faith in atheism, while I have placed mine in creationism.
I have no faith in atheism; after all, that could change with the introduction of some evidence or other.
TalkOrigins nicely puts the "creation" story in it's proper perspective. I again suggest a lengthly browse of that heavily referenced and researched, and well-written site.
And your faith in airplanes -- I myself, refuse to fly -- is based upon your experience of never having been inside one when it refused to fly, as well as your technical knowledge. My faith that the earth will continue to rotate in such a way that the sun will appear to rise in the east on any, uncloudy day is the same. At the same time, I know that someday, far beyond our lifetimes, that will cease and life thereon will cease with it. If we haven't managed to kill ourselves off sooner...
And it seems we lose an airplane or two, with all hands aboard, every month or so.
Dictionary definitions are by their very nature all too incomplete. There is simply not enough space to do an in-depth work on anything. Here's a better one: quote:
atheism
I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. -- George Herbert Walker Bush*
Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God. This definition does not capture the atheism of many atheists, which is based on an indifference to the issue of God's existence.
However, since there are many concepts of god(s) and these concepts are usually rooted in some culture or tradition, atheism might be defined as the belief that a particular word used to refer to a particular god is a word that has no reference. Thus, there are as many different kinds of atheism as there are names of gods or groups of gods.
Some atheists may know of many gods and reject belief in the existence of all of them. Such a person might be called a polyatheist. But most people today who consider themselves atheists probably mean that they do not believe in the existence of the local god. For example, most people who call themselves atheists in a culture where the Judeo-Christian or Islamic God (JCoIG) dominates would mean, at the very least, that they do not believe that there is an Omnipotent and Omniscient Providential Personal Creator of the universe. And, people who believe in the JCoIG would consider such disbelief tantamount to atheism. Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677), on the other hand, defined God as being identical to Nature and as a substance with infinite attributes. Many Jews and Christians considered him an atheist because he rejected both the traditional JCoIG and the belief in personal immortality. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was also considered an atheist because he believed that all substances are material and that God must therefore be material. Yet, neither Spinoza nor Hobbes called themselves atheists.
It continues at some length and is an enlightening read.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/17/2006 13:11:12 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 14:05:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
In my experience, probably not because your belief is based upon faith and requires no more than that.
(bill) You misuse faith in your context. When I fly I understand the concept of thrust and lift. I have a fair knowledge on the mechanics of the plane. I know the safety record of said airline etc... etc... I take all those factors into consideration and then based off that I decide to put my FAITH in the airplane to get me to where I want to go. Is this a leap of blind faith I have just made to get on the airplane? No. It faith based on evidence. When I considered all the evidence for God, and then pondered on it, I have concluded that based on the evidence I would put my faith in God. Far from closing one's eyes and just shooting in the dark, like how the doubters like to portray it.
And of course, I am in the same boat as you because I can no more disprove God than you can prove that such a critter exists.
(bill) I would agree. At the end of the day neither one of us can bottle up our worldview in a mason jar and set it on the counter for all to see. We look at the evidence, we evaluate the evidence, and the we decide what we are going to put our or faith and trust in. So both of us work off of faith. You have placed your faith in atheism, while I have placed mine in creationism.
I have no faith in atheism; after all, that could change with the introduction of some evidence or other.
TalkOrigins nicely puts the "creation" story in it's proper perspective. I again suggest a lengthly browse of that heavily referenced and researched, and well-written site.
And your faith in airplanes -- I myself, refuse to fly -- is based upon your experience of never having been inside one when it refused to fly, as well as your technical knowledge. My faith that the earth will continue to rotate in such a way that the sun will appear to rise in the east on any, uncloudy day is the same. At the same time, I know that someday, far beyond our lifetimes, that will cease and life thereon will cease with it. If we haven't managed to kill ourselves off sooner...
And it seems we lose an airplane or two, with all hands aboard, every month or so.
Dictionary definitions are by their very nature all too incomplete. There is simply not enough space to do an in-depth work on anything. Here's a better one: quote:
atheism
I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. -- George Herbert Walker Bush*
Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God. This definition does not capture the atheism of many atheists, which is based on an indifference to the issue of God's existence.
However, since there are many concepts of god(s) and these concepts are usually rooted in some culture or tradition, atheism might be defined as the belief that a particular word used to refer to a particular god is a word that has no reference. Thus, there are as many different kinds of atheism as there are names of gods or groups of gods.
Some atheists may know of many gods and reject belief in the existence of all of them. Such a person might be called a polyatheist. But most people today who consider themselves atheists probably mean that they do not believe in the existence of the local god. For example, most people who call themselves atheists in a culture where the Judeo-Christian or Islamic God (JCoIG) dominates would mean, at the very least, that they do not believe that there is an Omnipotent and Omniscient Providential Personal Creator of the universe. And, people who believe in the JCoIG would consider such disbelief tantamount to atheism. Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677), on the other hand, defined God as being identical to Nature and as a substance with infinite attributes. Many Jews and Christians considered him an atheist because he rejected both the traditional JCoIG and the belief in personal immortality. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was also considered an atheist because he believed that all substances are material and that God must therefore be material. Yet, neither Spinoza nor Hobbes called themselves atheists.
It continues at some length and is an enlightening read.
I will give these links a look over when I get chance. Thanks and have a nice weekend |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 14:08:00 [Permalink]
|
Bill scott's evidence for the existence of God is EXACTLY the same as Fred Williams as seen on this web site. What are the odds of that happening!!! Praise the lord!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 14:11:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Moderator: Quoted copyrighted material deleted. See original for link to text.
 Did it again. Sheesh.
Thanks for your prompt response.
I find these arguments to be unconvincing. Mostly they seem like arguments from lack of imagination: "I can't imagine how such complicated things came to be", so it must be God. I find that _really_ unconvincing.
As far as life being fine-tuned, I dont find it surprising that life that evolved on Earth would be fine-tuned for the conditions on earth. I'd expect it. That it would not exist under different conditions is not surprising. (I don't understand the point about the moon. If it were further away, or closer, the tides would just be smaller or greater)
Whats the point of M., Rushmore? That humans are good at recognizing things created by humans? OK. I'm not sure what that says about something God would design, or how to recognize it.
If the new species that "suddenly appear" are a whole lot like the ones that came before, then I think that supports evolution. What does evolution have to so with the existance of God?
I appreciate the responce.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/17/2006 15:19:37 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 14:30:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I will give these links a look over when I get chance. Thanks and have a nice weekend
All that I ask....
And a good weekend back at ya!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 15:11:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Bill scott's evidence for the existence of God is EXACTLY the same as Fred Williams as seen on this web site. What are the odds of that happening!!! Praise the lord!
With Fred's permission. I have converesed with him several times. But thanks for the input. Is that all? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 15:58:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
With Fred's permission. I have converesed with him several times.
Yeah but this site's operators do not know that, and I don't think they will take your (or anybody else's except for Mr. Williams) word for it. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/17/2006 15:59:34 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 16:05:54 [Permalink]
|
Always give attribution, Bill. The moderators here are are pretty much live and let live, and pass that bottle my way, but they are deadly serious about that.
And rightly so; nobody wants to get into some dumb copyright hassle.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
nescafe
New Member
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 20:54:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Also, I'm not an “anti-theist”. I have a Unitarian bumper sticker on my car advertising my embrace of religious pluralism.
So you believe in God, or a god, or a deity, and pretty much everyone can think whatever they want about the deity, or his nature, because we are all going to heaven in the end anyway? Am I close? That was pretty much the dictionary version of Unitarian.
If you do believe in some kind of God, or deity as the first cause, or being responsible for the reality in which we all live and exist, then would not that deity have the authority to set the moral standard? Who could out trump the authority of the creator of the universe?
um, since when did the UU include "going to heaven" as dogma? If anything, judging from the principles of the Unitarian Universalist Association and the UU members I count as friends, their guiding principles are more akin to Secular Humanism than anything else (except for the bit about supernatural explanation).
Also, if any "First Causer" did inflict their morality on that which they caused (an assertion I do not ascribe to -- the ability to do something does not imply that it is inevitable to do that thing), then said First Causer is wasteful and belives in testing to destruction. Repeatedly.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
< some snippage >
Obviously the physical and mental/emotional are intertwined.
I was not asking about how our bodies react to different emotions or how situations cause emotions. I am asking, in a completely materialistic world, where do emotions such as love, a completely immaterial object, come from? And who created them?
It seems like you are making a category mistake here, Bill. Nothing prevents emergent phenomena (like love or any other emotional state) from arising in a purely materialistic world.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Bill wrote: Why does this only happen to the human animal species?
You might as well pick out any unique trait of any animal or plant species and ask “Why does this only happen to (fill in the blank) species?” I told you bonobo apes engage in homosexual acts just as often as heterosexual acts. Why are bonobos the only entirely bisexual ape? I don't know....
Well if you don't know then you don't know. If you insist that it was a completely natural func |
Insert witty saying here. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 03:15:22 [Permalink]
|
(marf)So you assume evolutionary psychology and sociobiology are bad science,
(bill) Yes I do.
You assume they are bad science, even though you are ignorant of them. If you are ignorant of them, what do you base your assumption on?
Bill wrote: What is the difference between an atheist and a anti-theist?
You tell me since you brought up the term. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in a god. Just by breaking up the word “anti-theist”, it would logically either be someone who is against God (which doesn't make sense in the way you used it) or someone who is against the belief in God; basically someone who is anti-religious.
(marf)People said similar things about Galileo when he theorized about the earth being round.
(bill) Not me.
My point made a great whooshing sound as it flew right over your head.
(bill) While I can appreciate your honesty, and I understand that changing your worldview can be traumatic experience to go through. However, that does not make it a barometer for truth.
It was not an emotional appeal. In response to one of my arguments, you wrote: It is just the anti-theist's lame attempt to rationalize away the fact that immaterial emotions such as love, hate, heartache, loneliness, exist in a, supposed, purely materialistic universe, driven forward by chance, with NS at the controls., and so my personal testimony was meant to point out that your accusation of me being an “anti-theist” was false.
(bill) So you believe in God, or a god, or a deity, and pretty much everyone can think whatever they want about the deity, or his nature, because we are all going to heaven in the end anyway?
No. I've stated before in this conversation that I am a materialist atheist and philosophical Humanist. Many atheists are members of UU churches, and the UU church leaders know this and have no problem with it. In fact, the Unitarian church in my old town of Columbus Ohio has a UU Humanist group and I once did a talk at one of their services.
That was pretty much the dictionary version of Unitarian.
Um, no, that hasn't been the definition for many decades. Unitarianism was originally a branch of Christianity, but it changed over time and eventually merged with Universalists. Here is an actual dictionary definition of Unitarianism(American Heritage):
1. An adherent of Unitarian Universalism.
2. A monotheist who is not a Christian.
3. A Christian who is not a Trinitarian.
I appeal to the first definition. And here is an encyclopedia definition of “Unitarian Universalism” (wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism This entry includes a poll taken in 1997 that showed than only 13.1% of American UUs identified as “Christian”. The majority identified as “Humanist”.
Again, Bill, I request that if you are going to talk about something that you actually know about it.
Bill wrote: If you do believe in some kind of God, or deity as the first cause, or being responsible for the reality in which we all live and exist, then would not that deity have the authority to set the moral standard?
I don't believe in a deity, but I've actually already answered this question a couple times. To sum up: Authority means having the power to make and enforce rules. You have provided no evidence that the things you claim are absolutely immoral are punished accordingly. So if there is a god, even if he has the authority, he certainly doesn't choose to use it. Maybe the Creator cares about human morality as much as most humans care about the social habits of ants.
Why are you so convinced that the creator cares about human morality? Humans care about morality for sure. But gods? What evidence is there for that?
Bill wrote: I was not asking about how our bodies react to different emotions or how situations cause emotions.
That's good because I didn't give examples of either |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/18/2006 03:39:15 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
