19 Jun 06
Originally posted by flyUnityWhat a load of junk. An atheist does not make his judgement based upon perfect knowledge. That's absurd. In the same way, of course, neither can a christian make their mind up about the presence of god based on perfect knowledge. By your argument there can be no true christians either! Atheism is a lack of belief in something for which there is (can be) no evidence, nothing more nothing less.
There can be no such things as an atheist. This is why:
Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know ev ...[text shortened]... solute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by flyUnityNo, your senses may be decieving you. Without perfect knowledge you cannot rule that out.
Actually you cant, If I find one ounce of Gold in China, I "know" there is gold in China, and I don't have absolute knowledge of China, but you would have to have absolute knowledge of China to say there is no gold in China,
If I have a Television set, and pictures are coming on it, I "know" that there are radio waves in the air, but in order for you t ...[text shortened]... ssible to prove radio waves exist in the air by just sight. (without seeing a receiver)
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by Big MacYour definition of a chair is poor. You seem to expect every chair to hold the weight of every individual no matter how obese.
to clarify...
my belief in the existence of a god who is both creative and personal is based in reality.
my belief in the god of the bible is based on (shhhh, don't tell anybody. i don't feel like being chastised so late at night, early in the morning) faith (buzz-word i know).
related to:
i believe in the existence of that old wooden chair that's fall ...[text shortened]... so to speak.
could you go into more detail on the "spiritual" aspects of the universe?
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by amannioni understand exactly what you mean about the universe. when i look at the sky, i am in awe. i can't help but "believe" there's something out there greater than me. now, this is where we differ. you, if i'm not mistaken (please tell me if i am), don't know what that "thing" is. i believe it is god.
Yeah, I can see what you mean about Hinduism, although given my views I'm clearly not inot the idea of reincarnation and all the animism aspects that go along with it.
I spend a bit of time with my work in the outdoors, and I get a sense - some people call it the numinous - of my insignificance in the face of the greater universe when I'm outdoors. Lying ...[text shortened]... self-importance, which most of us have to one degree or another.
That's sort of what I mean.
and i understand not going for the whole reincarnation and animism thing. it gets way too confusing trying to figure out past-lives, social castes, and which ancestors will help with which problem. (ancestor worship seems like a problem with some "xians" too in the form of saints)
self-importance. i think we all have a bit of that in us. none of likes to be wrong. everything we each believe in, we "know" to be true, even in the face of opposition. logically, why would we believe something we knew was not true. i am daily confronted with how arrogant and selfish i am. this is why i sin. i think i know better than god how to live my life. i know, usually, what is the right thing to do. and, unfortunately, it is rare that i do the right thing.
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by amannioni would typically agree with you. my belief that all things come ultimately from god is based on faith. but that does not exclude human responsibility to figure out as much of the world as one can. as another poster said before, "xians don't check their heads at the door when they become believers." at least we shouldn't. now, yes, out mode thinking changes dramatically, but we must not stop THINKING and reasoning and figuring things out. if this means that we are now able to explain some things that were once considered miracles, that's ok. that does not threaten my belief in god. he does things the way he chooses. he orchestrates event to bring about his purposes, but we are delving into the faith issue here, and that cannot be debated.
From my perspective I'm very sceptical, obviously. I would view 'inexplicable' events as just that - inexplicable.
Sort of like many of the unknown phenomena that people see in the sky sometimes. Using this as an analogy, when someone sees unexplained aerial phenomena, some people will, almost automatically go to the 'alien spacecraft' explanation. Others ...[text shortened]... enced before using the easiest and simplest explanation - which for some is supernatural.
so as to the posed question:
inexplicable phenomena:
you: chance, yet mysterious
me: providential, ordained, yet mysterious
do you agree?
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzthis is a good point. i was not precise enough. i was thinking averages, but as we all know some countries have "heftier" people on average than others.
Your definition of a chair is poor. You seem to expect every chair to hold the weight of every individual no matter how obese.
i will try to think of a better example. please forgive my poor definition.
19 Jun 06
rationale two:
exact design.
i used this term deliberately instead of intelligent design. id is presupposing the outcome without looking completely at the facts.
by in large, most plants and animals, atoms and molecules, planets, stars, and solarsystems, all seem to have an exactness about them. i'm not saying they're perfect. most are not. but they are pretty precise. there are laws that govern the universe.
i believe this points to a designer. one who at the very least set everything up and let it go.
this leads into rationale three:
stuff
where did matter come from? i understand the big bang theory. but what banged? i can't wrap my mind around it. what was the "primary mover?" i believe this points to a creator. on who is not made of stuff and existed before stuff.
20 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Big Macrationale 2;
rationale two:
exact design.
i used this term deliberately instead of intelligent design. id is presupposing the outcome without looking completely at the facts.
by in large, most plants and animals, atoms and molecules, planets, stars, and solarsystems, all seem to have an exactness about them. i'm not saying they're perfect. most are not. but they a " i believe this points to a creator. on who is not made of stuff and existed before stuff.
This is very "anthropic" thinking. basically, if anything were different we wouldn't be here. This is a falacious argument. The fact that we are here, only proves things are the way they are - nothing more.
I'll agree that most things are good for their "purpose". Galaxies orbit in ways that gravitation predicts. If they don't, the planets crash into the sun and it goes supernova. Life evolves to become pretty good at living in it's environment. There are still inperfections - like the human appendix.
Ultimately, stability wins out over instability. The universe has been here a long time, and only the stable things remain. For example, there are elemental isotopes that are postulated to have existed, and can be made in a cyclotron, but don't exist in nature - they all decayed already. The isotopes that exist in nature are either ones that have a very long half life, and/or where in great adundance in the past or are produced naturally.
rational 3;
Like in rational 2, the existance of everything only proves the existance of everything, not necessarily of god. We cannot preclude natural explanations just because we don't know what they are! Personally, I would say that the question about a cause for the universe is loaded, since cause and effect are time dependant and, according to relativity, time only exists within the universe. It's like trying to measure a closed packing crate with the ruler inside it.
Your writing style is similar to another (sadly currently inactive) poster here, Omnislash. You'd like Omni, everyone does. Whilst Omni is religious, he's not part of the "goddunit" squad, and believes the universe to be understandable - even by the likes of me!
20 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzif this is a compliment, i thank you.
Your writing style is similar to another (sadly currently inactive) poster here, Omnislash. You'd like Omni, everyone does. Whilst Omni is religious, he's not part of the "goddunit" squad, and believes the universe to be understandable - even by the likes of me![/b]
i appreciate many of your posts, as well. when you're not ranting angrily (please don't be offended), i think many of your arguments are sensical and lucid. i may not agree but i appreciate a spirited and intelligent debate.
thank you again for keeping this discussion on the level.
20 Jun 06
Originally posted by Big MacIt was a compliment.
if this is a compliment, i thank you.
i appreciate many of your posts, as well. when you're not ranting angrily (please don't be offended), i think many of your arguments are sensical and lucid. i may not agree but i appreciate a spirited and intelligent debate.
thank you again for keeping this discussion on the level.
Thanks, I try to stay on topic, but when you've answered the same dumb question for the 12 billionth time you can get a bit tetchy sometimes, especially if it's to the same person (say, where is dj2becker?).
You shouldn't worry about asking me things on evolutionary theory, radiodating / fossils etc. I enjoy the challenge, and have some knowledge on some of these topics. I enjoy talking to people who are willing to listen, learn and grow. You seem to be one of those people, I hope the same can be said of me.
20 Jun 06
Originally posted by Big MacNo I wouldn't say mysterious - I'd prefer to use 'unexplained'.
i would typically agree with you. my belief that all things come ultimately from god is based on faith. but that does not exclude human responsibility to figure out as much of the world as one can. as another poster said before, "xians don't check their heads at the door when they become believers." at least we shouldn't. now, yes, out mode thinking changes ...[text shortened]...
you: chance, yet mysterious
me: providential, ordained, yet mysterious
do you agree?
20 Jun 06
Originally posted by Big MacNo, it isn't that I don't know what this 'greater thing' is. I know (or believe) that the universe exists as particles and energies. What I mean is that I have a sense of being a small part of something bigger. It's not unkown to me, just awe inspiring and, for me at least, I feel this as a spiritual connection with the universe.
i understand exactly what you mean about the universe. when i look at the sky, i am in awe. i can't help but "believe" there's something out there greater than me. now, this is where we differ. you, if i'm not mistaken (please tell me if i am), don't know what that "thing" is. i believe it is god.
and i understand not going for the whole reincarnation and ...[text shortened]... is the right thing to do. and, unfortunately, it is rare that i do the right thing.
20 Jun 06
Originally posted by Big MacActually, there are some counter examples to this.
rationale two:
exact design.
i used this term deliberately instead of intelligent design. id is presupposing the outcome without looking completely at the facts.
by in large, most plants and animals, atoms and molecules, planets, stars, and solarsystems, all seem to have an exactness about them. i'm not saying they're perfect. most are not. but they a ...[text shortened]... " i believe this points to a creator. on who is not made of stuff and existed before stuff.
The chlorophyll cells that power photosythesis are not the most ideal cells that could do this process. Some analysis has shown them to be fairly inefficient and with some significant modification they would be much better at doing what they do.
So, has the intelligent creator said, 'stuff it, I can't be bothered making a better photosynthesizer - this'll do'?