U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-03-2019, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,342 posts, read 2,971,301 times
Reputation: 2026

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
exactly clintone. not all atheist are part of the group that feels we need to deny everything. In fact, most atheist believe we are part of a larger more complex system.

Deny everything to stop religion is unscientific.
There are a grand total of 0 and a half (of zero) atheists who feel we need to deny everything.

Also, every single time someone says they're an atheist, they mean they don't believe in some kind of intelligent ruler of the universe.


Also, every single one of them, along with every single human being with the mental capacity to be self-aware, believes we are part of a larger more complex system.

 
Old 07-03-2019, 06:39 PM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
There are a grand total of 0 and a half (of zero) atheists who feel we need to deny everything.

Also, every single time someone says they're an atheist, they mean they don't believe in some kind of intelligent ruler of the universe.


Also, every single one of them, along with every single human being with the mental capacity to be self-aware, believes we are part of a larger more complex system.
well, thats wrong. its not zero. tran's told me to do it. and thats just one. there are millions more of them.

Yes, I agree with the intelligent ruler part. but some of us express that differently.

yes, its so obvious a child can see it.
 
Old 07-03-2019, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,342 posts, read 2,971,301 times
Reputation: 2026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
yeah, thats just wrong then.

"no any god" is just blind faith. its more like a comfy blanket than anything else. The world is a big place and some people need comfy's to keep them safe. so hold on to that "no any god".

some of the traits that they claim their god has match the standard model and some of them don't. Bt if you need the "no-any-god" comforter to wrap yourself in ... thats is your right.
That's not blind faith...it's just meaningless semantic disagreements between you and the person you quoted. I have zero problem with people calling the universe God, or whatever source reality emerged from...but none of those are the dominant meaning of God.
 
Old 07-03-2019, 06:43 PM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
That's not blind faith...it's just meaningless semantic disagreements. I have zero problem with people calling the universe God, or whatever source reality emerged from...but none of those are the dominant meaning of God.
yeah, I agree with ya again. I have said this exact thing many times.

Because of what you said ... "no god of any kind" is a comfy blanket.
 
Old 07-03-2019, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,342 posts, read 2,971,301 times
Reputation: 2026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
God created an orderly universe that is capable of being investigated and to a large degree understood. God blessed humans with investigative and analytical abilities that make them able to undertake this task. This "coincidence" is in itself a rather large clue for those with eyes to see and ears to here.

Until comparatively recent times, there was no disconnect between science and religion. Virtually all of the great scientists, including giants like Newton, were believers. They took for granted that the "coincidence" I describe in the above paragraph was simply God's plan.

The problem today is that science is essentially a religion with its own creed. One axiom is that we live in a naturalistic, materialistic universe in which there is no room for God or any supernatural forces. This is as much an "article of faith" as any religious claim.

The role of science is to investigate and attempt to explain that which can be investigated and explained through scientific methodology. When science remains within its proper sphere, there is no disconnect between science and religion. When science claims to have answered the ultimate metaphysical questions, then it simply makes itself look ridiculous.

All of this is brilliantly explained in Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga.
The PDF is 604 pages. It can be found here:

https://www.difa3iat.com/wp-content/...ookZZ.org_.pdf

I wasn't too fond of what Plantinga said...but I liked Richard Dawkn's statement here:

All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.
A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.19



I noticed that Plantinga didn't really have much of a response to that. He basically just said that there's nothing implying that the process was unguided because God could have just intended everything to be the way it turned out.


Plantinga totally ignores the emphasis of Richard Dawkins's message: yeah, I suppose it could have been intelligently designed...but that's not the kind of environment that seems like it was. That is the sign that it was unguided.


Plantinga mentions that Richard Dawkin's ignores John Locke's claim of the following: Among those he ignores, for example, is John Locke’s claim that “it is as impossible to conceive that ever pure incogitative Matter should produce a thinking intelligent Being, as that nothing should of itself produce Matter.”


Plantinga ignores that John Locke's claim clearly should be ignored...because John Locke didn't state anything of substance. He just made an assertion. What's more, there very statement he makes implies that he shouldn't believe a God made that stuff happens either...but he doesn't really get that.


And that's where I stopped reading. That's why I typically avoid reading philosophy either. I don't want to wade through 600 pages by Plantinga after Richard Dawkins...who isn't even a philosopher, just stomped Plantinga into the ground in Plantinga's own article.
 
Old 07-03-2019, 07:14 PM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
The only thing that is in question is "totally unguided"?

I mean individuals have variations that can be past on or used to its advantage as the the system around it changes. for example, both "fatter' and "slimmer" models are produced to account for climate changes. Mutations that offer better survival rates are put into play as the system changes.

The code was designed to change. that change looks unguided, but the fact that is is coded in means something.

"no intelligent thing watching over us" fits. But if thats not it, does that make the claim "totally unguided" true?
 
Old 07-03-2019, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,342 posts, read 2,971,301 times
Reputation: 2026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
The only thing that is in question is "totally unguided"?

I mean individuals have variations that can be past on or used to its advantage as the the system around it changes. for example, both "fatter' and "slimmer" models are produced to account for climate changes. Mutations that offer better survival rates are put into play as the system changes.

The code was designed to change. that change looks unguided, but the fact that is is coded in means something.

"no intelligent thing watching over us" fits. But if thats not it, does that make the claim "totally unguided" true?
That's why I think the "blind watchmaker" analogy fits so well. There's still a force trying to create a watch...a blind, fumbling force dropping springs and screws about and fiddling away not really knowing what will come out. Similarly, there are still forces trying to spread genetics...blind, fumbling forces.
 
Old 07-03-2019, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
22,437 posts, read 10,385,168 times
Reputation: 20299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
Scientism - in contrast to honest science - is predicated on an unassailable axiom that reality can be explained in purely naturalistic terms. Scientism hasn't proved God doesn't exist. Scientism isn't even predicated on a scientific conclusion that God doesn't exist. Scientism rules out the existence of God from the get-go.

An axiom that reality can be explained in purely naturalistic terms is not predicated on verifiable evidence. Indeed, it's flatly contradicted by quantum physics. See Bernardo Kastrup's The Idea of the World for an excellent, peer-reviewed discussion from many perspectives.

This is why scientism is dishonest. It presents this axiom, which is in fact an article of faith, as though it were a settled conclusion based on verifiable evidence. This is why scientism goes to absurd lengths to resist the findings of quantum physics and why it seeks to shout down the Intelligent Design movement. The findings of quantum physics expose naturalism as simply false. The ID movement confronts scientism on its own turf and its own terms, and scientism can't handle it. Like any fundamentalist religion, scientism does not want to debate its axioms.

There are sound - indeed, logically irrefutable - "proofs" for the existence of God. There is abundant evidence, including verifiable laboratory evidence, for the existence of phenomena that cannot be accommodated by naturalism. There are scientists and scientific papers of the highest caliber that point toward a designed reality. There are mountains of anecdotal and to some extent scientific evidence for the continuation of consciousness after bodily death. For many people, there are personal experiences that they believe can best be explained as the workings of a providential God. A belief in God can be entirely rational, as legions of scientists, philosophers and other scholars will attest.

A belief in naturalism likewise can be entirely rational. In either case, it is simply a matter of how informed the believer is and how he or she assesses the best evidence from all available subject areas.

The dishonesty of scientism is in pretending that its naturalistic paradigm is in some entirely different epistemological category from a belief in God. Fundamentalist scientists are no different in essence from religious fundamentalists. There is no disconnect whatsoever between honest science and a belief in God.

Try reading Alvin Plantinga's work that I cited above. He is widely recognized as the premier epistemologist of the twentieth century.
So to Alvin, who said, "Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence "intelligently designed"", my response is prove it. Until he (or someone else can), I have no reason to believe it. Consider it...yes. Believe it...no.
 
Old 07-03-2019, 10:38 PM
 
40,034 posts, read 26,715,004 times
Reputation: 6047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
Apparently you believe the creators of the Dictionary.com are guilty of "extraordinary arrogance and hubris."

the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute:
the God of Islam.
(lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception:
the god of mercy.
SEE MORE
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/god


There isn't a definition in there that refers to something that is just the source of all that exists. They all tack on other stuff. If you click "see more" there isn't anything better.
Why you think what humans THINK about God should play any role in determining whether or not God exists is beyond me. Humans think all kinds of things that have little to do with what exists. I simply maintain that at a MINIMUM the concept of God would include being the source of everything that exists and the establishment of all processes that exist! Just because humans demand more attributes cannot take anything away from the minimum attributes that define God.
 
Old 07-03-2019, 11:07 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,342 posts, read 2,971,301 times
Reputation: 2026
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Why you think what humans THINK about God should play any role in determining whether or not God exists is beyond me. Humans think all kinds of things that have little to do with what exists. I simply maintain that at a MINIMUM the concept of God would include being the source of everything that exists and the establishment of all processes that exist! Just because humans demand more attributes cannot take anything away from the minimum attributes that define God.
God is just a word. You are the one demanding that other people give it characteristics that word lacks...not anyone else.

Being nothing more than the source of everything is not a definition on dictionary.com, nor is it in most people's minds. Therefore, you have zero reason to expect anybody else to perceive it that way...much less get annoyed when they do not.

If you want to invent a new, personal definition for God, like many people do...I don't particularly care, because I understand that using certain words can be fun for people in a kind of silly, trivial way.

If you believe in something you consider important...it shouldn't matter to you what we call it. You can just describe it via it's characteristics and it won't matter whether you use the word "God" or not anyway.

Last edited by Clintone; 07-03-2019 at 11:21 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top