Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
A lack of belief in god does not assume that the human race in the pinnacle of evolution at all.
These posts are hilarious.
Really? Science approximates it's knowledge of the universe to be around 3-5%. For the sake of argument, we'll say we know 10%. That leaves 90% of the universe for there to be a God lurking and doing his thing right?
Both are flawed assertions, but those asserting there is an "all powerful magic being up in the sky" are a going a LITTLE farther out on a limb than the "There is NO an all powerful magic being up in the sky" crowd.
By your own math, the non-magic crowd has a 10% advantage.Really? Science approximates it's knowledge of the universe to be around 3-5%. For the sake of argument, we'll say we know 10%. That leaves 90% of the universe for there to be a God lurking and doing his thing right?
Both are flawed assertions, but those asserting there is an "all powerful magic being up in the sky" are a going a LITTLE farther out on a limb than the "There is NO an all powerful magic being up in the sky" crowd.
par for the course.These posts are hilarious.
Nobody here is doing the above, but it was necessary to throw that out there... just in case?
I've don't fully understand this idea. Genesis 1, for example, is an analogy for what?
Growing up and losing your innocence
I assert with absolute certainty that nowhere in our universe exists a married bachelor.
If we define a god as an entity that merits our worship, I submit that gods are very much like married bachelors -- i.e., their existence can be ruled out because their defining characteristics are impossible to satisfy. (I believe that worship, the complete submission of one's will to another's, is morally irresponsible, and thus that no entity can ever merit our worship.)
We know for a fact that some creative forces exist outside our current understanding of natural law. Gravity, for example. I see no reason to refer to any such forces as "gods."
What something is or isn't has nothing to do with what you choose to call it.
I think this is a difficult position to maintain. I think there are plenty of beliefs that are held quite rationally despite a complete lack of evidence for them. Our belief that Last Tuesdayism is wrong is one example.
But you mentioned it was an analogy. An analogy to what?
It's a fable meant to impart a few key points. First, God created the universe and everything in it. Second, mankind plays a unique role in creation, having been specifically created in God's image. Finally, the physical world is positively good (a point that can be contrasted with Platonism, for example). It's not meant to be taken as literal history, because the author wasn't there to witness creation (unlike Luke, for example) and isn't claiming any special revelation (like John of Patmos, for example).
The point is not to be a historical text but rather a group of stories that act as a spiritual guide.
That's strikingly wrong. I try to call things what they are. What something is and what I choose to call it are therefore intimately related.Jayrod said:
Even you admit that you "try". And the relationship is entirely one way. The only relationship is that it is your explanation of what something is and has nothing to influence the essence of what that thing actually is. And in fact, your "try" could very well be way off base because of your limited or distorted understanding and therefore your calling something an incorrect name even based on your definition of that word. So therefore, what you choose to call something has nothing to do with what that thing actually is.
My understanding of the Judeo-Christian God is that He exists outside of the universe. Isn't that correct?The Commish said:Really? Science approximates it's knowledge of the universe to be around 3-5%. For the sake of argument, we'll say we know 10%. That leaves 90% of the universe for there to be a God lurking and doing his thing right?
Both are flawed assertions, but those asserting there is an "all powerful magic being up in the sky" are a going a LITTLE farther out on a limb than the "There is NO an all powerful magic being up in the sky" crowd.
To say that A has nothing to do with B is to say that they are uncorrelated. What something is and what I call it are very highly correlated. The correlation is less than one, but it's a helluva lot higher than "nothing to do with."
I see. Ivan's points are similar. I was thinking the idea of an analogy or "not to be taken literally" was thought to be intended instead of human error.Clifford said:
Wow. Let me back track for you why I'm even bothering along this tangent:
My criticism has nothing to do with religion, and I'm not saddened by people that have a different worldview.The statement "nothing could could convince me......" is sad regardless of how it finishes.
Yeah, that's the same thing. Exactly.
Honestly I would be certain that being wasn't God.
What if God himself appeared to you and stated "Jesus was not MY son. He was a prophet intrusted to speak my word but he was not my son. That was just a misunderstanding." You wouldn't change your mind?
I gather your point is that just because I see no reason to call gravity a god doesn't mean that gravity isn't a god.
I've seen Penn & Teller perform miracles. It didn't strike me as a good reason to worship them. Performing miracles is pretty weak evidence of godhood, IMO.
That really doesn't matter to the point attempting to be made. It's a philosophical perspective and is specific God irrelevantMy understanding of the Judeo-Christian God is that He exists outside of the universe. Isn't that correct?The Commish said:Really? Science approximates it's knowledge of the universe to be around 3-5%. For the sake of argument, we'll say we know 10%. That leaves 90% of the universe for there to be a God lurking and doing his thing right?
Both are flawed assertions, but those asserting there is an "all powerful magic being up in the sky" are a going a LITTLE farther out on a limb than the "There is NO an all powerful magic being up in the sky" crowd.
I know not the same thing, but this conversation reminds me of this:
My point is to not let you get away with just saying that gravity isn't a god. I'm trying to get you to dig deeper and seek out the truth of whether there really is a god or not and not just be satisfied with your personal definitions and understanding. God wants you to know he is there and to look past just what your senses can touch and your mind can comprehend. As a follower of God I want you to know him as I do and to believe. Not for myself, but for you because God loves you and therefore I do.
A little
I will neither confirm nor deny the existence of a gravity deity, but this subject is very heavy.
in fact, as Hitchens points out, performing miracles was somewhat of a banality in the bronze age. everyone was doing it
