My Shortest Possible Replies

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't think you understood my hypothetical.

I was saying that for hypothetical purposes I take it as given that the universe WAS created
by some intelligent being or beings.


And then asking "Why should anyone, given the available evidence, rationally think that that
being was the god of the bible?"




My saying "let's be clear, there is no reason to think this" was not a premise of the question.

This is a difficult question to reply to without me wanting to write a substantial paragraph.

I guess my shortest possible reply is that detection of intelligence does not insist on the Bible's God.

However, further consideration of certain things make Him the better candidate IMO.

Originally posted by sonship
This is a difficult question to reply to without me wanting to write a substantial paragraph.

I guess my shortest possible reply is that detection of intelligence does not insist on the Bible's God.

However, [b]further consideration of certain things make Him the better candidate IMO.[/b]

Do those 'certain things' include the bible?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Do those 'certain things' include the bible?

Consideration of "further" things means not just science. So sacred texts of various kinds could be included.

Initially, intelligent design detection in nature, is not dependent on the Bible anymore than insurance fraud detection, forensic criminology or SETI would be.

Originally posted by sonship
This is a difficult question to reply to without me wanting to write a substantial paragraph.

Haha, buckling under the pressure already, are we? 😀

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Haha, buckling under the pressure already, are we? 😀

"We" aren't. Maybe you are.

( I don't do too well with interpreting graphic faces and their moods )

Originally posted by sonship
Consideration of "further" things means not just science. So sacred texts of various kinds could be included.

Initially, intelligent design detection in nature, is not dependent on the Bible anymore than insurance fraud detection, forensic criminology or SETI would be.

If you want to include something other than science as a method of determining
the nature of reality then you need to demonstrate it's effectiveness.

How do you propose demonstrating that the bible is a valid and reliable source of
information on the identity of this hypothesised universe creator or creators?

Originally posted by googlefudge
If you want to include something other than science as a method of determining
the nature of reality then you need to demonstrate it's effectiveness.

How do you propose demonstrating that the bible is a valid and reliable source of
information on the identity of this hypothesised universe creator or creators?

The average joe or jane wants to know what is the truth.
Part of knowing the truth can be supplied by science.
Part of that may include other means of finding truth.

The near universal approvedness, prophetic track record and durability of the Bible and its central character Jesus put it on the short list of books to have weigh in on the subject of truth.

you need to demonstrate it's effectiveness.

There is no guarantee that everyone will be opened to that demonstration. Some people have a vested interest in not accepting its authority for personal reasons of their own.

Originally posted by sonship
The average joe or jane wants to know what is the [b]truth.
Part of knowing the truth can be supplied by science.
Part of that may include other means of finding truth.

The near universal approvedness, prophetic track record and durability of the Bible and its central character Jesus put it on the short list of books to have weigh in on the subject of truth.[/b]

The "near universal approvedness [sic]..." of the bible???

What are you smoking?

When talking about the nature of reality (which includes the existence or otherwise of creator deities)
then what is TRUE is simply that which reality is.

So the statement "god exists" is true if and only if in reality god actually exists.

Now you accept that science is a method for determining what is true about reality...

But I ask... What other method is there that has ANY track record of actually being right?

What else is there moreover that has a BETTER track record of being right than science.

Do you think CS Lewis' handling of the "Problem of Pain" (similar to the Problem of Evil) is consistent with the way Job's suffering was answered by God? Why or why not?

Originally posted by sonship
This is a difficult question to reply to without me wanting to write a substantial paragraph.

I guess my shortest possible reply is that detection of intelligence does not insist on the Bible's God.

However, [b]further consideration of certain things make Him the better candidate IMO.[/b]

do you think that the conclusions you reach after your considerations as to what is the better candidate is in anyway influenced by the fact you were born and raised in christian country and culture? do you think you would be drawing the same conclusions if you had been born in pakistan or india?

Wow...for the first time in a long time I actually read the entirety of a jaywill post (and not just scrolling scrolling ... scrolling to the end of it). Indeed I was able to read all of them!

Let's hope he gets a taste for brevity.

Do you think CS Lewis' handling of the "Problem of Pain" (similar to the Problem of Evil) is consistent with the way Job's suffering was answered by God? Why or why not?

I have only read portions of Lewis's book on pain. And it was long ago. I don't remember a whole lot.

do you think that the conclusions you reach after your considerations as to what is the better candidate is in anyway influenced by the fact you were born and raised in christian country and culture? do you think you would be drawing the same conclusions if you had been born in pakistan or india?

I think the genetic fallacy may be worth some attention but not be taken too far.

"Oh you just believe that because you were born here or there ..."

It can apply just as easily to atheism on the level of country, family, school, peers, pop culture, neighborhood etc.

Originally posted by sonship

do you think that the conclusions you reach after your considerations as to what is the better candidate is in anyway influenced by the fact you were born and raised in christian country and culture? do you think you would be drawing the same conclusions if you had been born in pakistan or india?

I think the genetic fallacy may be worth ...[text shortened]... sily to atheism on the level of country, family, school, peers, pop culture, neighborhood etc.

"I think the genetic fallacy may be worth some attention but not be taken too far."

what do you mean by 'not taken too far'?

"Oh you just believe that because you were born here or there ..."

thats the essence of what im saying. its correct isnt it? thats why religious demographics are bunched together rather than random. what other reason is there?

i agree that some atheists are atheist because of their upbringing.