@lemonjellosaid Wrong. Apparently, you have very little comprehension of the video that you yourself posted. Lennox does not merely point out that multiple explanations are possible (which is a trivial claim — as I said of course this is the case, as there are multiple levels of explanation with some being more fundamental, some more emergent). Rather, he goes on explicitly to put forth ...[text shortened]... ue to ignore this and seem incapable of grappling with legitimate criticisms of the video’s content.
The thrust of the talk was explanation, given that He put forward why God is not dismissed from the discussion simply due to science's take on explaining why something works. You again, are pushing complaints about something you'd rather talk about than what is there.
@moonbussaid The bottom line for KJ and many other Chrtistians I might add, is: they believe that belief matters, that God is going to judge what is in their minds.
It is a bizarre dogma, that only people who have a certain set of beliefs are going to heaven and that everyone else is going to hell in a handbasket.
God is going to judge us in righteousness!, you are suggesting a checklist?
@moonbussaid I've tried all kinds of things without believing anything about them in advance.
You tried them, because, you were looking for a way that would work? Unless you were brain dead and totally ignorant and were acting without any reason or hope.
@moonbussaid Why this insistence that belief is religion? Belief is peculiarly Christian. Pagans and Buddhists don't care what people believe; paganism and Buddhism are religions focused on practises, not beliefs. 'But you have to believe in what you're doing to practise anything.' No, one doesn't. Buddhism is quite explicit about this: it does not matter what one believes, you can even b ...[text shortened]... ieve Buddhism is the right thing you should be practising.' No, you don't even have to believe that.
You have to believe that what you are doing will show you what you are looking for, if that wasn’t true would you do it?
@spruce112358said FMF posted: "Belief in belief is the notion that religious belief has positive benefits and should be fostered or tolerated, without the need to subscribe to the belief in question. In western societies this is commonly expressed in cases where people feel that religious belief brings comfort and moral guidance. ~ rationalwiki
What are the strengths and weaknesses of ...[text shortened]... ist and the most hard-core atheist can build edifices that end in similar places.
That's amazing.
One point, belief in belief, makes belief the object of belief instead of whatever you really are putting your faith into.
We are not talking about the force young Skywalker. 😀
@lemonjellosaid Again, yes emergent level explanation can proceed aptly through talk of agency. It works fine for the coffee example, since we have good evidence for the agency of humans and its relation to objects of desire. So, again: where is the evidence for the agency of God?
It points out that it is NOT an either-or having a science explanation does not do away with agency one, you didn't understand that talk did you?
@lemonjellosaid Well, there you go prevaricating around the term ‘faith’ precisely as I predicted you would have to in trying to make any point there.
This really is amusing. The video that you posted had nothing to do with the term ‘faith’. Lennox employs the term precisely zero times by my count. Rather, Lennox makes specific claims about his conception of God and about theistic ...[text shortened]... as such by a mysterious supernatural agent whose existence has no evidential basis is crystal clear.
Why didn't you respond to this, and by responding to this, I mean the points?
"Well, a natural explanation of evolution and DNA, we can read the genetic code, which is different than just recognizing what one tree is compared to another, so within the genetic structure are syntactic and semantic information that directs forms and functions in life, information processing takes place where stored information as we find in seeds and eggs produce whatever life forms are associated with that life as they start to grow after their own kind. Nothing about these processes is haphazardous caused by indifferent, uncaring mindless directions built up over time, which would be completely unnatural. Evidence is there, blinders of those who only look at the universe through only those things that comply with their worldviews will always miss it, it is a faith thing."
@lemonjellosaid Please do not project the faith inherent to theistic “explanation” onto the subject of explanation simpliciter. Religion and science are of the same type of faith just as Grizzly 399 and Walter Payton are of the same type of bear. You have to prevaricate grotesquely to make the point.
I’m not sure why you think I was commenting on something imaginary and not put fort ...[text shortened]... gages in ad hoc stipulation in service to a God beyond falsification. It explains precisely nothing.
He didn't say God beyond falsification, merely staying on the point that more than one explanation was possible to explain a single event.
@lemonjellosaid Well, there you go prevaricating around the term ‘faith’ precisely as I predicted you would have to in trying to make any point there.
This really is amusing. The video that you posted had nothing to do with the term ‘faith’. Lennox employs the term precisely zero times by my count. Rather, Lennox makes specific claims about his conception of God and about theistic ...[text shortened]... as such by a mysterious supernatural agent whose existence has no evidential basis is crystal clear.
Yawn
Explanations were the topic, he was pointing out that more than one was possible. You want to add more to that and complain. Have at it.
@moonbussaid Scientists believe things, but that doesn’t mean that science is a kind of a religion. Are you one of these people who think that science is just an alternative religion with nobody in place of God?
The words “faith” and “belief” are used in common fashion across the board, and they remain no different regardless of the objects of focus. The objects of faith and belief focus may change, but faith and belief remain the same. Suggesting due to the objects of focus causes faith/beliefs to be redefined has more to do with worldview nothing else.
@suziannesaid Science is not about faith in the slightest. Science is about fact. Hypotheses are compiled then proven, or else proven wrong. There is nothing in science about faith.
Religion is about faith because it is not proved; it is the 'evidence' of things unseen.
You think all things we call facts are indeed facts as we believe them to be? Every single one of them!?
@lemonjellosaid Again, yes emergent level explanation can proceed aptly through talk of agency. It works fine for the coffee example, since we have good evidence for the agency of humans and its relation to objects of desire. So, again: where is the evidence for the agency of God?
Well, a natural explanation of evolution and DNA, we can read the genetic code, which is different than just recognizing what one tree is compared to another, so within the genetic structure are syntactic and semantic information that directs forms and functions in life, information processing takes place where stored information as we find in seeds and eggs produce whatever life forms are associated with that life as they start to grow after their own kind. Nothing about these processes is haphazardous caused by indifferent, uncaring mindless directions built up over time, which would be completely unnatural. Evidence is there, blinders of those who only look at the universe through only those things that comply with their worldviews will always miss it, it is a faith thing.
05 Apr '24 09:11
Back to Top