Who's game?

Originally posted by Starrman
That's fine, but your alternative is even less likely than mine. Surely you must see this?

How is yours more likely than mine? By what measure do you use to determane this?

Originally posted by whodey
How is yours more likely than mine? By what measure do you use to determane this?

We use that finely honed tool, Occam's razor.

No evidence of magic man = probably no magic man.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
We use that finely honed tool, Occam's razor.

No evidence of magic man = probably no magic man.

One man's majic is another mans science. The magician knows how he does what he does. The only thing that makes it magic is not knowing how it is done.

I don't believe God uses magic either, rather, he simply has powers beyond our comprehension. Make no mistake, there are reasons for everything. The only difference is that I believe there is a being who has the answers as where you believe that no such being exist. I think we can both agree that there are answers, however. I would even say that perhaps we are unable to grasp the answers that exist. Would this constitute magic, I wonder?

No matter the issue of God or no God, I am 100% convinced that there are powers and forces out there that we can never know nor understand. Call it magic if you will.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I would probably classify myself as an atheist, since I do not believe in God (mind you, I don't believe in agnostics either), although I have no problem being described as an agnostic, although perhaps the term "implicit agnostic" might be more descriptive.

It's a shame that none of the theists have offered any information about what might constitut ...[text shortened]... idence or proof of God's non-existence. Why are they so unwilling to test this hypothesis?

I don't understand how you can look at the complexity of life and say this was all by accident or coincidence or chance.

Originally posted by chappy1
I don't understand how you can look at the complexity of life and say this was all by accident or coincidence or chance.

I don't.

As a professional biologist I do not look at life and say it is a result of accident, or (at least, random) chance.

Evolution is decidedly not random chance. A probability based algorithmic process perhaps, but not accident.

Originally posted by whodey
One man's majic is another mans science. The magician knows how he does what he does. The only thing that makes it magic is not knowing how it is done.

I don't believe God uses magic either, rather, he simply has powers beyond our comprehension. Make no mistake, there are reasons for everything. The only difference is that I believe there is a being ...[text shortened]... powers and forces out there that we can never know nor understand. Call it magic if you will.

One man's majic is another mans science. The magician knows how he does what he does. The only thing that makes it magic is not knowing how it is done.

"Illusion" is the word you are looking for. People being tricked. Seems apt, really.


Make no mistake, there are reasons for everything.

So God is inherently a logical creature then? If so, how do you reconcile free will and omniscience?

Would this constitute magic, I wonder?

No.

No matter the issue of God or no God, I am 100% convinced that there are powers and forces out there that we can never know nor understand. Call it magic if you will.

Is gravity magic? We don't understand it.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]One man's majic is another mans science. The magician knows how he does what he does. The only thing that makes it magic is not knowing how it is done.

"Illusion" is the word you are looking for. People being tricked. Seems apt, really.

I would not call it illusion. For example, if you went to the Amazon jungle and met a tribe of people that has been cut off from the rest of the world and show them a lighter they will think you might be tricking them. However, all you are doing is using what you have.

Originally posted by scottishinnz

Make no mistake, there are reasons for everything.

So God is inherently a logical creature then? If so, how do you reconcile free will and omniscience?

I suppose what you define as logic. I think of logic as sound having a sound reason for doing something. Then we get into how we define "sound reason". For example, is creation based upon "sonnd reason"? Is it enough to want to share your love with creation etc. as a "sound reason" for creating it as the Bible portrays him as doing?

As far as reconciling free will and omniscience, I think we have discussed this before. If God can do everything and has power over everything does this preclude him from being able to willfully surrender part of that power that is related to our free will? If he cannot then he cannot be considered omniscient. Why he does so, in my opinoin, is that he is a God of love. What pleasure is there in controlling every aspect of our existence? In effect, do you enjoy playing tic tac toe with yourself? Also, must there not be an aspect of free will for there to even be love? What is the last loving relaionship you were a part of in which you controlled every aspect of the other persons ability to love you back?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No matter the issue of God or no God, I am 100% convinced that there are powers and forces out there that we can never know nor understand. Call it magic if you will.

Is gravity magic? We don't understand it.[/b]

That is a great example. I don't think of it as "magic" and neither do you, however, that does not mean that we understand it, rather, we simply acknowledge that it is a power that is beyond our current ability to understand it. This ability to understand it is limited either by our limited knowledge of it and/or inability to conceptualize it.

I think by in large no one regards gravity as "magic" simply because it has been and always be part of our world. In effect, there is a familiarity with it that prevents it from being considered magic by those who do not understand it fully.

Originally posted by whodey
That is a great example. I don't think of it as "magic" and neither do you, however, that does not mean that we understand it, rather, we simply acknowledge that it is a power that is beyond our current ability to understand it. This ability to understand it is limited either by our limited knowledge of it and/or inability to conceptualize it.

I think by ...[text shortened]... th it that prevents it from being considered magic by those who do not understand it fully.

Whodey, mate, I'm glad to be back. I think our relationship is going to grow and prosper this time round, since we both seem to be willing to debate things in a responsible manner.

Do you think we're breaking some kind of Spirituality forum rules?

Originally posted by scottishinnz


Do you think we're breaking some kind of Spirituality forum rules?

Not yet, but you'll be cited if you keep this up.

Originally posted by bbarr
Not yet, but you'll be cited if you keep this up.

Geez! I wouldn't want "fraternizing with a theist" on my record!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Whodey, mate, I'm glad to be back. I think our relationship is going to grow and prosper this time round, since we both seem to be willing to debate things in a responsible manner.

Do you think we're breaking some kind of Spirituality forum rules?

Thanks, and its nice to see you back as well mate.

As for rules, I did'nt know we had rules. Anyhew, maybe if there are it is time to start breaking them. You know I am not a follower of the status quo. After all, my mentor will not allow it. 😉

As for our talks together, you inspired within me a willingness to question my once dogmatic stance on evolution. If you recall our first meeting was not on the best of terms as a result. I will not say that I embrace all the dogma surrounding evolution but I will say I now respect the science of it and respect it being based in truth. It is like my stance on Genesis. I respect the original text as being based in truth but do not necessarily embrace all the religous dogma that surrounds it. Really it has been a liberating experience to say the least in that I am now no longer bound dogmatically to either defend nor attack the science behind evolution in order to protect my belief about God.

As for bbarr, just ignore him. He's just jealous.

Originally posted by whodey
Thanks, and its nice to see you back as well mate.

As for rules, I did'nt know we had rules. Anyhew, maybe if there are it is time to start breaking them. You know I am not a follower of the status quo. After all, my mentor will not allow it. 😉

As for our talks together, you inspired within me a willingness to question my once dogmatic stance on ev ...[text shortened]... order to protect my belief about God.

As for bbarr, just ignore him. He's just jealous.

I certainly remember our first incarnation - who couldn't!!

I am glad that you are starting to open up to new ideas. If there is a God, and for me that's a big IF, then the world must be the evidence of how he works. It makes no sense for anyone, except absolute biblical literalists (which themselves make no sense often) to shun science.

I even respect your feeling that your God is relational in nature. I don't believe it, of course. But you recognise that it could be an internal deception, played by your brain. You don't think so, but you acknowledge the possibility. I respect you for that. Doubly so, in fact. I respect your moderate stance, and your new-found freethinking attitude, but also your resolve. I don't agree with you, I think by now that is patently clear, but I respect that you do not abandon your beliefs and your position without a significant balance of evidence.

But for me, one question remains. What evidence could there be which'd make you question God's existence, hypothetically speaking?

Originally posted by bbarr
Not yet, but you'll be cited if you keep this up.

What an honor! I would love to be cited in one of bbarr's papers.