Evolution? How?

cicerone imposter wrote:

If science is limiting, religion is open to all manners of human imagination.
I'd rather believe in science with its limits.

Then you are only limiting yourself considering science knows less than 1% of what is knowable.

0 Replies

And religion knows exactly zero. 1 percent looks pretty good.

0 Replies

For those that enjoy pondering the infinite (or pondering their navel - whichever is closer - and in some poster's cases their belly may be the decisive factor)

1% is an infinite increase over zero.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Hi Neo,

If you remember, in order for me to demonstrate the validity of the proposition that all types of God have equal merit, I would have to prove God exists.

Thus spake Chum: if there is a god of any sort, the Rational Theist is guaranteed to cover it, something that cannot be said for most (all?) theologies/religions.

Thus spake Chum: the validity of the proposition that all types of God have equal merit can only be expressed by saying that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Rational Theist is on firmer theological ground than all others.

It's irrational to expect an answer to the equal merit / necessity question, but it's not necessarily irrational to abide by the present state of general theological understanding (or lack thereof).

So I figure you would put love as you #1 axiom not humor, and you would be right, but I can't help the tongue in cheek stuff!

I don't believe you would have to prove God exists to see the qualitative and quantitative difference between an all powerful God and one bound by necessity. They are different by definition.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I don't believe you would have to prove God exists to see the qualitative and quantitative difference between an all powerful God and one bound by necessity. They are different by definition.

OK, but that is not what you challenged me with originally however, and I quote you: "But you were never able to demonstrate the validity of the proposition that all types of God have equal merit." Of which I have correctly responded (here and elsewhere): "If you remember, in order for me to demonstrate the validity of the proposition that all types of God have equal merit, I would have to prove God exists."

Now you are saying something entirely different with the massive and wholly unsupported presupposition that there is a god, and that this god must fall into some sort of categorization idealized by your precepts of "all powerful God" / "one bound by necessity".

OK, I'll make change the topic........with two caveats:
a) You have not addressed my response to you vis-a-vis "all types of God have equal merit".

b) You are rather determined to bring the dialog ?'round to your pet idealization of the selective god!

Remember however, if you are going to make your argument as per a selective god I did say "let's look at your biblical references first, as you should be able to provide ample support for such a positively pivotal, persuasively pervasive precept."

PS: mayhap it's bad form to be OT, OTOH some are waiting with baited breath to push the ?'1000 post button', and considering how often this thread has been mangled and wrangled into the predictable recycling of "what is god?" I say:

"Once more into the breach my old friend" are sediments we should be able to unearth without disturbing too many of the old fossils around here.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
I don't believe you would have to prove God exists to see the qualitative and quantitative difference between an all powerful God and one bound by necessity. They are different by definition.

OK, but that is not what you challenged me with originally however, and I quote you: "But you were never able to demonstrate the validity of the proposition that all types of God have equal merit." Of which I have correctly responded (here and elsewhere): "If you remember, in order for me to demonstrate the validity of the proposition that all types of God have equal merit, I would have to prove God exists."
. . .

Why?

0 Replies

Because there is no evidence to suggest one version of god or god(s) is more likely to be true than another.

If all possibilities are similar or equal you have:

1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 etc = T

Where "1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc" ad infinitum are the permutation of god(s) and where "T" is the truth.

Remember however, that it's just as likely there is more than one answer for "T" such that:

1 = T
2 = T
3 = T

0 Replies

Look at it this way since you are a fan of monotheism:

Unproven assumption: some version of some god somewhere is the correct one and all others are false. This argument only has assumable merit under the precept of monotheism. Without the assumed precept of monotheism this dog doesn't just not hunt, this dog was never born.

Anywho......

If we then assume some version of some god somewhere is the correct one and all others are false, we need to do one of two things:

a) prove the one correct version as being right (which by default exempts us from b)

or

b) prove all the other incorrect versions as being wrong (which by default gives us a)

As you can see in both a) and b) the existence of god as proof is mandated, if that cannot be accomplished, we are back to my prior proof!

0 Replies

That's Allah bunch of speculation.

0 Replies

Yes, but it's built on the flimsiest and most whimsical of premises!
That makes it A-OK for the powers that be that pride themselves in the flimsy and whimsical.

0 Replies

It's successful in controlling people, isn't it?

0 Replies

No kidding, once it's caught them by the short and curlies they're hooked! Even to begin to speculate on it, you have to make so many irrational unprovable assumptions. The old shopworn & euphemistic leap of faith.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Because there is no evidence to suggest one version of god or god(s) is more likely to be true than another.

If all possibilities are similar or equal you have:

1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 etc = T

Where "1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc" ad infinitum are the permutation of god(s) and where "T" is the truth.

Remember however, that it's just as likely there is more than one answer for "T" such that:

1 = T
2 = T
3 = T

But all possibilities are not equal.

0 Replies

That's right, neo, all possibilities are not equal. Most are the product of subjective observation and belief.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

But all possibilities are not equal.

A disputation bereft of substance will not get you any homemade cookies.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Look at it this way since you are a fan of monotheism:

Unproven assumption: some version of some god somewhere is the correct one and all others are false. This argument only has assumable merit under the precept of monotheism. Without the assumed precept of monotheism this dog doesn't just not hunt, this dog was never born.

Anywho......

If we then assume some version of some god somewhere is the correct one and all others are false, we need to do one of two things:

a) prove the one correct version as being right (which by default exempts us from b)

or

b) prove all the other incorrect versions as being wrong (which by default gives us a)

As you can see in both a) and b) the existence of god as proof is mandated, if that cannot be accomplished, we are back to my prior proof!

How can you do any better than prove the correct version to be right once you have defined it as being 'correct'? :wink:

OK, I'll go with 'a' if I am allowed to define the God as the one reputedly calling himself "He who causes to become." and "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be." This is the God who has no limitations.

However, it would be presumptuous of me to offer anything claiming to be definitive proof. The best I can do is offer articulate reasons for my belief. Part of my job would be to show how traditional priesthoods have adulterated the truth in order to gain control over the masses. I've actually offered a few trial balloons in this direction, only to face stiff challenge from Setanta, Timber and Farmer, to name a few. Of course, I am right and they are wrong; but nevertheless I respect their opinions.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

How can you do any better than prove the correct version to be right once you have defined it as being 'correct'? :wink:

I know you are poking fun, but what the heck. b) is as valid as a) because as per Arthur Conan Doyle: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." And who better than to enlist the services of Sherlock Holmes in aid of the Monotheist's investigations for the one true God?

neologist wrote:

OK, I'll go with 'a' if I am allowed to define the God as the one reputedly calling himself "He who causes to become." and "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be." This is the God who has no limitations.

Sure you can define God as to whatever satisfies you, this part is doable enough I guess.

neologist wrote:

However, it would be presumptuous of me to offer anything claiming to be definitive proof. The best I can do is offer articulate reasons for my belief.

Well there's the crux of the biscuit and why I assert "there is no evidence to suggest one version of god or god(s) is more likely to be true than another."

neologist wrote:

Part of my job would be to show how traditional priesthoods have adulterated the truth in order to gain control over the masses. I've actually offered a few trial balloons in this direction, only to face stiff challenge from Setanta, Timber and Farmer, to name a few. Of course, I am right and they are wrong; but nevertheless I respect their opinions.

This I cannot comment on, as I know nothing of your job or your trial balloons. You can tell me about both, if you wanna.

0 Replies

BTW, even if one is willing to blindly accept that man was created magically, a belief in the supernatural does not adequately explain "why" man is here, it simply obfuscates the question.

0 Replies

It gets back to this;

1. No one knows the nature of God.

2. Therefore all Gods are man's creation.

3. Everyone likes to think their creation is the perfect creation, hence the true God.

4. How else can one explain the thousands of Gods in the Christian religion not to mention the tens of thousands of Gods that have existed since man first created them and religion.

0 Replies

One question I would like to ask our head-in-the-sand creationist; do you think God will punish you if you believe in evolution? Will he send you to hell?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know