Dr. Richard Lewontin, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material caus ...[text shortened]... g/does-god-exist-c.htm
The difference being .. you think you're smart and I know i'm not.
Well, no. Give me experimental evidence that proves God and I'll accept it.
Originally posted by jammer It's a lifelong quest to "know" God, the alternative is to just give it up out of frustation, claiming, ' if I can't see, touch, or hear it .. it doesn't exist.'
I see nothing wrong with that 'alternative'. However I think that most theists will actually claim that God can be experienced in some way even if it is not physical seeing touching or hearing. I think that the claim that something that has no effect whatsoever on us does not exist is a valid claim. The only think that non theists ask for is evidence that the apparent 'effects' of God are the best explanation for them.
We can't prove God exists and we can't prove he doesn't .. we're stuck on Earth with the ability to reason and questions that can't be answered by logic. But making up illogical answers won't make the questions go away even if it does seem to satisfy many people.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem That's all we can really do: believe, or not believe, in a god or gods, based on which possibility we feel is the most likely. I would not fault someone for making their own determination. My main dispute is with the dogmatists who believe their path is the right one for everybody (especially if their philosophy is rife with irrationality and contradiction).
But surely, even though their philosophy is rife with irrationality and contradiction it does not appear to be so to them (or they wouldn't believe it would they?).
he's been creating the whole scenario, world, heaven, god-knows-what in a couple of days. HE did what one of us couldna have done in a couple of kyrs, so 2,000 yrs ain't nothin. Then: there may be other universes HE may have to look at, maybe an urgency some lightyears away. Let's be patient, that's all I say
Originally posted by OliverRook he's been creating the whole scenario, world, heaven, god-knows-what in a couple of days. HE did what one of us couldna have done in a couple of kyrs, so 2,000 yrs ain't nothin. Then: there may be other universes HE may have to look at, maybe an urgency some lightyears away. Let's be patient, that's all I say
This is what you believe, but have no evidence for. You cannot even empirically prove that God exists. How do you know it wasn't Muffy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Giant Celestial Chicken? The evidence for any of those is exactly the same as for your God.
Originally posted by twhitehead But surely, even though their philosophy is rife with irrationality and contradiction it does not appear to be so to them (or they wouldn't believe it would they?).
No, their attitude is that you must believe first, then turn to god or church to help you sort out the difficult passages. In practice, that usually just means ignoring them.
Originally posted by jammer Could be worse .. I coulda been born you.
I try not to judge others, but in your case i'll make an exception.
You do OK as long as you stick with the cut and paste BS. It when you try using your brain that you always step on your dick exposing yourself as a simpleton.
" To quote a zoologist as the representative scientific view of the universe goes a ...[text shortened]... at Harvard) shows what a fool you really are petrosianputz .. but then, I knew that already.
Again you make things up. I was not attacking the Prof. I was laughing at your idiotic attempt at false modesty whilst trying to imply that you understand people who are far smarter than you.
However as your redneck daddy never let you win an argument I suppose you need your make believe world.
I suggest that you go back to watching war films and leave reading alone, especially when it involves words of more than two syllables.
"I try not to judge others" That's a joke right. HYPOCRITE and a phoney.
By the way, thats at least two posts without you mentioning your repressive homosexual tendencies, you going to a shrink?
Originally posted by petrosianpupil Again you make things up. I was not attacking the Prof. I was laughing at your idiotic attempt at false modesty whilst trying to imply that you understand people who are far smarter than you.
However as your redneck daddy never let you win an argument I suppose you need your make believe world.
I suggest that you go back to watching war films ...[text shortened]... wo posts without you mentioning your repressive homosexual tendencies, you going to a shrink?
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem No, I don't acknowledge that God exists. My method is reductio ad absurdum, or an attempt to show that biblical claims about God lead to absurdity when taken to their logical conclusion.
Just a question to consider if you will. Does a child consider their parent to be "rational" 100% of the time? Does a parent consider their child to be rational 100% of the time? I think you will find that the concept of rationality depends heavily upon the perspective of the individual as well as intellectual capacity of the individual. The parent will have the advantage over the child in perceiving "their world" based upon their intellectual adavantage over the child. The child, on the other hand, is at a distinct disadvantage and has little hope of concieving of the adults world until their intellectual capacities progress and advance with maturity. Like you I thought many Biblical claims to be absurd and contridictory. However, with maturity within my own faith I have successfuly tackled many of them and have glimpsed the "rationality" of those claims such as some of the ones I have shared here. I will not say that I understand all of them, however. I will never have the capacity to understand my Creator intellectualy as my equal.
Originally posted by whodey Just a question to consider if you will. Does a child consider their parent to be "rational" 100% of the time? Does a parent consider their child to be rational 100% of the time? I think you will find that the concept of rationality depends heavily upon the perspective of the individual as well as intellectual capacity of the individual. The parent will h wever. I will never have the capacity to understand my Creator intellectualy as my equal.
If I felt I was encountering trivial doctrinal issues, I could follow your path.
When I find that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the biblical God does not exist, I have no choice but to abandon belief in the whole system.
Our minds may be limited, but they are all we have. I can't claim to be right about everything - I can only continue believing the most likely possibility, until evidence is found to shift the balance.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem If I felt I was encountering trivial doctrinal issues, I could follow your path.
When I find that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the biblical God does not exist, I have no choice but to abandon belief in the whole system.
Our minds may be limited, but they are all we have. I can't claim to be right about everything - I can only continue believing the most likely possibility, until evidence is found to shift the balance.
I guess it all comes down to the preponderance of evidence then. In your view it is one way and in my view it is another.
where is he...?????????????????????
14 Feb '07 07:19
Back to Top