seems like you are more into deleting responses that backhand the same rubbish you try and throw over the net with statements such as these
Last edited:
Defining what is God.
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
seems like you are more into deleting responses that backhand the same rubbish you try and throw over the net with statements such as these
Actually, I deleted them before someone gave you an infraction for "trolling/meaningless post content," since they were trolling and off-topic. See the rules, my friend. Off-topic posts are deleted. I will, however, let these two stand to remind us all of that fact.
Kenny,
Why do you judge one more reasonable than the other?
The fact of evolution has always been known and observed, and is a great reason to believe in an intelligent god. What you regard as evolution, is part fact and part fiction, designed to leave less room for believing in God.
I believe it to be the cause of ignorance.
No, I mean people who deny the authority of God, for whatever reason, and live by their code of denial, within their individual capacity.
Who would have known that while Anthony Flew, the rampant (ex)atheist, was banging on about atheist stuff, that all the while, he harboured an understanding of God, which later came to fruition.
You people have to fight hard to hold on to your belief, trying to find new ways to block out the light, and even though you have the might of essential industry, ie, the media, you still cannot acheive your task. This must make you very frustrated.
If you won £100,000, wouldn't you think you were lucky, despite the percentage of times people win £100,000? Maybe not, but would you criticise some who did?
My resoponse was to;
What's dumbass about me stating that you speak like a typical materialist?
There are lots of ways of feeding the population of the world, comfortably, without having to drive species into extinction.
Jan.
Why do you judge one more reasonable than the other?
The fact of evolution has always been known and observed, and is a great reason to believe in an intelligent god. What you regard as evolution, is part fact and part fiction, designed to leave less room for believing in God.
I believe it to be the cause of ignorance.
No, I mean people who deny the authority of God, for whatever reason, and live by their code of denial, within their individual capacity.
Who would have known that while Anthony Flew, the rampant (ex)atheist, was banging on about atheist stuff, that all the while, he harboured an understanding of God, which later came to fruition.
You people have to fight hard to hold on to your belief, trying to find new ways to block out the light, and even though you have the might of essential industry, ie, the media, you still cannot acheive your task. This must make you very frustrated.
If you won £100,000, wouldn't you think you were lucky, despite the percentage of times people win £100,000? Maybe not, but would you criticise some who did?
My resoponse was to;
What's dumbass about me stating that you speak like a typical materialist?
There are lots of ways of feeding the population of the world, comfortably, without having to drive species into extinction.
Jan.
Evolution doesn't say anything concerning the existence of gods so what exactly makes you think it was "designed" to leave less room for believing in a god?
As it stands your comment is part fact and part fiction. Yes, evolution is fact.. the entire latter part of your statement is fiction.
Astoundingly naive.
Do you mean specious Darwinian evolution, or evolution per se?
I just told you why. I can't really reduce my reasoning any lower than that. It's like asking why is natural birth more reasonable than virgin birth... It's a nobrainer.
Well I don't know what kind of evolution you are talking about, but science doesn't design any theory to reduce the role of god. Our mere understanding of nature and our discovery of explanations is what reduces the need for a supernatual god.
Good one... The same way astrologers consider skeptics ignorant too? haha.
God can only be found in literature created by humans. It would then be rather silly to worship something created by us. I can't remember who said it, but he stated that if he one day met god and was asked why he didn't believe, he would say "Not enough evidence, God". I mean, that's got to be a good reason, and if god doesn't like that, then someone should remove the stick from his ass.
Richard Dawkins joked that if he ever fell on hard times financially, he would renounce his atheism and give merit to religion to be in the running for the Templeton prize
Anthony Flew's reasons for suddenly becoming a deist were strange also. Argument from design? Weak. It took him 80 odd years to suddenly notice the universe was a complex place?
Belief? Blocking out the 'light'?
But yes, it is frustrating that a large amount of people are still superstitious. That is just a pet peeve of many atheists. But when it gets serious, is when you have people like George Bush becoming the most powerful man on the planet. Clearly regions infected with religious fundamentalism require the enlightenment that has benefitted Europe, to an extent. You may claim that fundamentalist theists in positions of power are more political influenced rather than religiously... but one way or the other, they clearly need a rational kick up the arse.
No, I'm talking about miracles, not luck. Luck is a chance event that goes in your favour whilst a miracle invokes something else.
But if you give me £100,000, I promise I will believe in god
Well then what way of life are you suggesting billions of people live? 10,000 years ago at the dawn of agriculture there weren't anything like 6.5 billion people that there are today. I'm not sure it would be much better for the environment if we ditched technology. Any species nearby would be fair game since we probably wouldn't get packaged meat from our local supermarket, meaning that surely, extinctions would happen just as much, if not more so.
kenny: regarding your last paragraph...humanity would be returned to it's stone age population limits within 1 year.
Assuming a God exists, I think a God must have the following characteristics:
1) Producer of energy - A God must be the source of all energy. Life and consciouness are a form of energy so he must be the source of that.
2) Perfect Consciousness - 100% Consciousness. This means God is 100% aware of the world around him. Humans are limited somewhat by our senses. We have 5 senses to observe the world around us. God doesn't need senses.
3) Zero Limitations - A God must have zero limitiations in terms of actions. Humans are limited in what we can think of by our imagination. We are limited in where we can go due to gravity, size, terrain, etc. God can think because he is conscious. This means he can have ideas. He has an imagination. He has creativity. He has unlimited imagination becuase he is the Ultimate Creator.
4) Perfect Logic - A God must have perfect logic. He must do everything for a specific reason. Everything a God does must be in order to make that God happy (Aristotle)
5) Multidimensional - Can exist in any dimension because he is the creater of dimensions
6) Good? - God doesn't have to be good. He can do whatever he wants. Since he is logical and uses reason he will do whatever makes him happy. If being "good" makes him happy he will do that. If creating Angels and humans makes him happy so he can share his greatness, he will do that.
This might be way off base, but those the characteristics I would attribute to a God.
As far as what God actually is, I think a God would have to be a source of energy which is conscious. God couldn't look like anything becuase he has no physical characteristics.
agreed - we have no experience of energy without the energetic
its not clear why 100% consciousness = no senses - there is the idea that god has perfect perception because he has perfect consciousness (he doesn't mistake a rope for a snake)
agreed - god must be fully independant, with no other equal and distinctly more superior than any other (no equal)
I am surprised that you can determine this nature of god - that god must is the constituitional position of everything in the universe (if you accept that it is the result of god's logic, which would fall in with your first point) is that it is meant for god's pleasure
agreed - sometimes people agrue that god cannot come to this earthly planet but its not clear why he should be limited in such a way - th eonly limitation is his desire
plato poses the question whether god is good or whether god is attracted to the activities of goodness - in other words whether what we determine as the nature of 'goodness' owes its existence to god's innate existence or whether goodness is an independant phenomena from god that god 9and ourselves, hopefully) are attracted to - he argues that the latter definition does not tally with the term "god", since he must be superior and the contingent cause of everything
that was quite a thoughtful list put together
the difficulty is how can the source of something be bereft of form?
There is the dualistic argument that there are spiritual and material aspects - god doesn't have a material form but he has a spiritual one
NDS1:
Incorrect: God is infinite and eternal, hence he cannot produce a thing. To produce implies the production of something outside of God. Something outside of infinity is a contradiction of terms and as he is eternal, all must always have been.
If God has no senses, he is not conscious. One can only think through sensory data. Similarly, what makes God conscious?
Zero limitations do not include such things as making square-circles, does it not?
God cannot be unhappy so he cannot act towards happiness. Unhappiness implies a lack. God cannot lack.
Prove there are other dimensions besides 3 + Time. Then we'll talk.
God cannot act, period. To act implies a lack.
Incorrect: God is infinite and eternal, hence he cannot produce a thing. To produce implies the production of something outside of God. Something outside of infinity is a contradiction of terms and as he is eternal, all must always have been.
If God has no senses, he is not conscious. One can only think through sensory data. Similarly, what makes God conscious?
Zero limitations do not include such things as making square-circles, does it not?
God cannot be unhappy so he cannot act towards happiness. Unhappiness implies a lack. God cannot lack.
Prove there are other dimensions besides 3 + Time. Then we'll talk.
God cannot act, period. To act implies a lack.
PJ
”
god can produce something that is contingent yet seperate from him, even to the point of obscuring him - just like the sun can produce sunshine, the sunshine can evaporate water, the water vapour can form clouds and the clouds can block the vision of the sun
agreed about the senses vs conscciousness - although I would argue that even though the senses are both outlets and inlets for consciousness, theyare ultimately an outlet (since the ears of a dead man don't hear)
he could make one for you
i agree in the sense that there is no distinction between god's direct actions and happiness - its a common experience amongst saintly persons that when they directly perceive the nature of god they perceive the goodness of it and feel that humanity at large is ungrateful and projects their own nasty images as the picture of god, and thus they dedicate the remainder of their life to promoting his goodness
proof of the spiritual world requires that some existential conditions be met - perhaps you might be more inclined to accept the concept of dualism (a spiritual and material realm) as a substitute for the time being
God's actions dictate our very norm of what is good
”
its not clear how action/influence is synonymous with lack (of course the platform of action for god is merely his desire - generally if we desire something we have to work for it)
LightGigantic:
SEparate from him in what sense? In an ultimate sense, it would be absurd to say an infinite being can somehow be "separate" from something else?
Consider this argument from Immanuel Kant (who funnyu enough, loves the word Transcendental as you do): Space must be infinite because two distinct spaces must be spatially related. Accordingly, all space must be ultimately singular.
There needs to be a (conscious) mind and attention to hear, yes. Daydreaming, death, sleep, and other states of half or non-awareness prove this.
He could make me think I am seeing an object that is both a square and a circle -possibly- (and even then I am skeptical and considering why this is not so) but he could not make a square which is simulteneously both square and circle in the same manner.
To be square is to not be a circle, as a square requires a definition that cannot be encapsulated in circlehood.
Yes, the notion also of supreme contentment is held in mystic visions of such things, so it is hard to argue from such evidence (although I would not give it epistemological validity in and of itself) that God would experience unhappiness.
I was thinking more in line with spatial dimensions, not necessarily "realms of existence". Realms of existence are probably more a matter of empirical consideration, rather than one of reason. That is to say, I am not aware how to reason the existence of a "heaven" or any other transcendental realm.
All action is directed towards a goal, is it not? Yet a goal implies that we have something to do, no? And that all voluntional actions require a desire, yes? And all desires require some lack? I cannot choose to do something for greater happiness and satisfaction if I all ready have infinite quantities of both.
SEparate from him in what sense? In an ultimate sense, it would be absurd to say an infinite being can somehow be "separate" from something else?
Consider this argument from Immanuel Kant (who funnyu enough, loves the word Transcendental as you do): Space must be infinite because two distinct spaces must be spatially related. Accordingly, all space must be ultimately singular.
There needs to be a (conscious) mind and attention to hear, yes. Daydreaming, death, sleep, and other states of half or non-awareness prove this.
He could make me think I am seeing an object that is both a square and a circle -possibly- (and even then I am skeptical and considering why this is not so) but he could not make a square which is simulteneously both square and circle in the same manner.
To be square is to not be a circle, as a square requires a definition that cannot be encapsulated in circlehood.
Yes, the notion also of supreme contentment is held in mystic visions of such things, so it is hard to argue from such evidence (although I would not give it epistemological validity in and of itself) that God would experience unhappiness.
I was thinking more in line with spatial dimensions, not necessarily "realms of existence". Realms of existence are probably more a matter of empirical consideration, rather than one of reason. That is to say, I am not aware how to reason the existence of a "heaven" or any other transcendental realm.
All action is directed towards a goal, is it not? Yet a goal implies that we have something to do, no? And that all voluntional actions require a desire, yes? And all desires require some lack? I cannot choose to do something for greater happiness and satisfaction if I all ready have infinite quantities of both.
Prince_James,
You describe God as being infinite. Infinite in what? Infinite in physical space? If something is a God, we are assuming that this God does not have physical size or dimensions. In fact, God is not infinite. The word "infinite" implies the existence of "space" or an area to be infinite in. However, a God must exist on a Spiritual plain, or realm, or whatever you want to call it. I'll call it a "realm" for now.
In this spiritual realm, there is no space. There is no numbers. There is no sequence of things. There is no size, no physical extensions, and there is no time. Humans would be incapable of understanding the nature of this realm. We can only know how this realm interacts with our "material" 3-D realm.
Again, God cannot be a physical being. He is not constrained to the physical way of observing things, which is through physical sensory organs. Since God is a spirit, he can perceive the world around him without having to use physical sensory organs (ears, eyes, nose, etc.) since spirits have no need of them.
A spirit in the spiritual realm can perceive what is going on in both the spiritual and physical realm without observing anything. Humans must observe things using sensory organs in order to perceive the world around them because the material realm limits us in that way.
True. Assuming the existence of God, God must have "created" the material realm, the one we live in. This material realm he created involves physical extensions, size, and shape. So when God is doing things in this lower realm he has created, then he must abide by the own physical limitiations he has placed over the realm (in terms of geometry, algebra, etc.). God can manipulate the laws of nature, but whatever he does still must abide by those laws.
For example, God can change a hydrogen atom into a helium atom. He could simply create the necessary protons, neutrons, and electrons and add them to the hydrogen atom. However, in doing this the change must be manifested under the physcial laws of nature.
So it would be impossible for God to create a square-circle in this realm, since it would contradict the Law of Identity. It would also be impossible in the spiritual realm since there is no space or time, and no physical extensions in that realm.
We can reason that something beyond our reason exists, such as other realms. We just can't reason about the nature of those realms.
Very good and interesting points.
So in order to address these points I guess we have to consider the nature of this spiritual entity called God.
Does God get lonely?
Does God get bored?
Does God like a good challenge?
Well, if we assume a God, we must assume then that it created us. Now, we know that a God would be perfectly logical and everything he does would be for a specific reason. So the question has to be addressed as to why God created mankind.
To me these are some possible options:
1) God, and therefore every other conscious spiritual entity can feel emotions. God was alone and had a deep desire to share his greatness and create other forms of consciousness to share it with. So he created mankind with free will (because without free will we would simply be like robots and God would attain no satisfaction from our existence.) So God has a new goal in this case: Get these free-willed humans to acknowlege my existence and to love me without inflicting upon their free will. This goal requires actions (interaction with humans, listening to prayers, etc.)
2) God creates the universe and mankind for pure entertainment value. He just wants to observe what would happen if he put humans on a small planet called earth and let them live out their lives.
3) The Satan Theory: One of God's Angels sinned (Lucifer) and was cast out of heaven. God needed a prison for Lucifer and his demons so he created the Universe and Earth. Then he decided that he must create man to live on this Earth to restore what was lost in heaven... (or something like that. I haven't really thought this one completely through.) So in this case their is goal, requireing actions from God (interaction with his people, etc.)
4) God wanted a challenge so he created the material realm (Universe) and humanity with free will to see if he could get all of mankind to love and worship him. In this case there is a goal requiring actions from God.
5) etc.
If he created us, he must lack in something. A God cannot lack in anything in terms of abilities. However, we can assume that a spirit has the ability to feel emotions (angry, sad, happy, etc.) So since God has feelings, he may lack in a feeling of completeness, or he may feel lonely. This is where he can lack.
So in order to act upon these feelings produced by his spirit, God must create other life or do something else to "feel" 100% happy. So we are assuming here that God has feelings, God is logical, God wants to be happy, and God must take action in order to be happy.
Humans can only think through sensory data, since we must observe things in the material realm through our physical sensory organs. We are limited to our bodies. God, however needs no senses or sensory organs because God is a spirit. Spirits are living beings which have no physical features because they must exist on a spiritual plain, or realm. Spirits can think, not through a physical brain, but through some other means which we don't know. Since spirits can think, they are conscious (I think, therefore I am). These thinking spirits can perceive what is going on around them (in both realms) without actual observing them through a physical sensory organ.
I can't prove that because there are no dimensions besides the 3 we know plus time. The three physical dimensions plus time can only exist in the material realm. I think space and time must exist together. They are inseparable. In any case, dimensions and realms must be separated as two distinct things.
Can I prove that a spiritual realm exists. No. That is a matter of individual belief since there is zero possible physical proof for the spiritual realm other than miracles which DEFINITELY defy the laws of nature. However, to me the purpose of this thread is to come up with theories which could be true, but which aren't necessarily proven.
Also, if we truly assume God is logical, we would have to assume that God would never openly proclaim to the world in clear audible words that he exists, because that would disrupt free will.
It's also interesting to note the idea of a fourth spatial dimension (if it weren't time):
Our eyes can only see things from 2-D view. When we look around we see the world as if it were flat, like a picture. However, things like shadows hint that there are three dimensions, not 2 in what we are seeing.
"Likewise the concept of shadows can help us better understand the theory of four dimensions. If you were to shine a light on three dimensional object, it would cast a two dimensional shadow. Therefore light on a two-dimensional object would cast a one-dimensional shadow (in a two-dimensional world), and light on a one-dimensional object in a one-dimensional world would cast a zero-dimensional shadow, that is, a point of non-light. This idea can be used in the other direction; light on a four-dimensional object would cast a three-dimensional shadow."
In order to view the world in 4-D we would need upgraded "eyes." They would need to be upgraded from three-dimensional eyes to four-dimensional eyes. "In this case, the 'retina' of the four-dimensional eye is a three-dimensional array of receptors. A hypothetical being with such an eye would perceive the nature of four-dimensional objects using indirect information contained in the images it receives in its retina. Perspective projection from four dimensions produces similar effects as in the three-dimensional case, such as foreshortening. This adds four-dimensional depth to these three-dimensional pictures."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension
Last edited:
KennyJC,
Because you have judgement?
Reasoning?
I'd give up on the analogies if I were you, they just anit cutting it.
I think you do know what "evolution" i'm talking about, and its not the explanations made up by men (of whatever proffession), whose aim is to destroy the idea of God within the minds of men.
I like the way you say "...reduces the need for a supernatual god..", it shows that you are opposed to God, as opposed to not believing in God, based on reason.
What discoveries of nature has "reduced the need for God"?
What if the skeptic is skeptical of skeptics who are skeptical of astrology?
Anybody can be skeptical, it doesn't take a great deal of intelligence.
When we were discussing Einsteins theism, you and others, showed a great deal of ignorance when confronted with the main thrust of his quotes regarding God. Choosing instead to use parts of his quotes which had words that could be manipulated (with a real stretch of imagination) to give a slight impression that he did not believe in an superior intelligent spirit.
Methinks your institution of atheism does the same with current scientific evidence.
Where can 'meaning' be found?
What a fool. Does he think he would still be the same person he was then, or is today?
Some atheists are really narrow-minded.
See what I mean?
Oh, its you.
He may be a decent biologist, but Dawkins is a joke, when he talks about religion. That famous video, where he was caught with his perverbial pants down, reveals his mind, perfectly.
Of course, you people think you've debunked the argument from design, ah well.
I know, if he actually did believe in God, instead of using 'GOD' as a crutch and reason, the world could be a better place.
You're quite right, it has nothing to do with real religion, or, there is no evidence, that they are indeed religious about God.
I know what the words mean, but i am talking about how the words are used.
Quite an interesting revelation by you.
You mean you will pretend to believe in god in order to get the money. A typical materialist. Maybe that's what societies powerful governments do to get into power.
We weren't discussing "...way of life..", we were talking about food and shelter for the millions of people who do not have.
Who said anything about ditching technology? Technology is not the problem, extreme selfishness is.
Not if you changed your diet.
Jan.
Because you have judgement?
Reasoning?
I'd give up on the analogies if I were you, they just anit cutting it.
I think you do know what "evolution" i'm talking about, and its not the explanations made up by men (of whatever proffession), whose aim is to destroy the idea of God within the minds of men.
I like the way you say "...reduces the need for a supernatual god..", it shows that you are opposed to God, as opposed to not believing in God, based on reason.
What discoveries of nature has "reduced the need for God"?
What if the skeptic is skeptical of skeptics who are skeptical of astrology?
Anybody can be skeptical, it doesn't take a great deal of intelligence.
When we were discussing Einsteins theism, you and others, showed a great deal of ignorance when confronted with the main thrust of his quotes regarding God. Choosing instead to use parts of his quotes which had words that could be manipulated (with a real stretch of imagination) to give a slight impression that he did not believe in an superior intelligent spirit.
Methinks your institution of atheism does the same with current scientific evidence.
Where can 'meaning' be found?
What a fool. Does he think he would still be the same person he was then, or is today?
Some atheists are really narrow-minded.
See what I mean?
Oh, its you.
He may be a decent biologist, but Dawkins is a joke, when he talks about religion. That famous video, where he was caught with his perverbial pants down, reveals his mind, perfectly.
Of course, you people think you've debunked the argument from design, ah well.
I know, if he actually did believe in God, instead of using 'GOD' as a crutch and reason, the world could be a better place.
You're quite right, it has nothing to do with real religion, or, there is no evidence, that they are indeed religious about God.
I know what the words mean, but i am talking about how the words are used.
Quite an interesting revelation by you.
You mean you will pretend to believe in god in order to get the money. A typical materialist. Maybe that's what societies powerful governments do to get into power.
We weren't discussing "...way of life..", we were talking about food and shelter for the millions of people who do not have.
Who said anything about ditching technology? Technology is not the problem, extreme selfishness is.
Not if you changed your diet.
Jan.
KennyJC,
Because you have judgement?
Reasoning?
I'd give up on the analogies if I were you, they just anit cutting it.
Well I'll give up on that, but only because you have nothing to offer in return as your above one liners go.
I still don't know what evolution you mean. Perhaps for the first time in your life you would like to explain something? And I think you know fine well that evolution of species is not something invented out of nothing - it is based on clear evidence, and god does not even come into it. People who reject evolution do so for the same reasons as they did when they heard Earth was not the center of the universe... ego.
With each new discovery comes an explanation. Without explanations we invoke god. Without discoveries like evolution, belief in a supernatural creator would be credible since how could a human being suddenly come out of nowhere? But evolution shows a slow and gradual natural process without any intelligence being required.
When we were discussing Einsteins theism, you and others, showed a great deal of ignorance when confronted with the main thrust of his quotes regarding God. Choosing instead to use parts of his quotes which had words that could be manipulated (with a real stretch of imagination) to give a slight impression that he did not believe in an superior intelligent spirit.
Methinks your institution of atheism does the same with current scientific evidence.
I think the one Einstein quote that expresses it clearly is:
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.
He used the word 'god' in the same way Stephen Hawking did:
'For then we should know the mind of God'
Entirely metaphorical, yet supernaturalists like yourself of course jump on it and call him a 'theist'. Talk about ignorance...
Wherever you want to find it.
The point he made, was that he would have nothing to apologise for if it turned out there really was a god. How was he to know?
And it was Bertrand Russell who said that... a narrow minded fool he is not
What video would this be? A great writer although he is, but often not quick witted in live debates.
The argument from design is not debunked as such - but meaningless. Creationists have tried to state that certain biological functions are irreducibly complexed because it is important for their case that they don't occur naturally from gradual complexity. Irreducible complexity was a key part of the Dover case of trying to get Intelligent Design taught in science class... and that was thoroughly debunked with the help of the man in the video I posted above.
Most certainly! I could buy that new iPod I've been wanting.
And politicians say they believe in god purely because they won't get elected as non-believers in many countries. Is it the politicians or the bias of the electorate that is to blame for that?
It's all relative. People less well off than yourself will think you are extremely selfish.
KennyJC,
I'm not suggesting the idea was invented out of nothing, but it was invented.
There can be a number of reasons why people reject macro-evol, one being that it is not a fact of life.
Huh!!
Macro-evol is not a discovery, it is an idea, or more precisely, an ideal.
sheesh!!
How indeed.
The one in which he was asked a question regarding genetic information, and couldn't find an answer, thereby creating alot of dead-air space. It was quite amusing, but he didn't see it that way. Instead he got mardy, blaming the interviewer saying he was tricked. The reality was written all over his face, he was stumped.
Meaningless to you.
I think it is a stupid idea to a) try and debunk the obvious appearance of design within our perception, and, b) to think that it could actually be debunked in reality. This is just one of a few examples of the fanatical atheists intention, which has nothing to do with science, and is neither rational or reasonable. The fact that this idealogical nonsense is credible, is a testament to the terrible times we live in, in my opinion.
Jan.
I'm not suggesting the idea was invented out of nothing, but it was invented.
There can be a number of reasons why people reject macro-evol, one being that it is not a fact of life.
Huh!!
Macro-evol is not a discovery, it is an idea, or more precisely, an ideal.
sheesh!!
How indeed.
The one in which he was asked a question regarding genetic information, and couldn't find an answer, thereby creating alot of dead-air space. It was quite amusing, but he didn't see it that way. Instead he got mardy, blaming the interviewer saying he was tricked. The reality was written all over his face, he was stumped.
Meaningless to you.
I think it is a stupid idea to a) try and debunk the obvious appearance of design within our perception, and, b) to think that it could actually be debunked in reality. This is just one of a few examples of the fanatical atheists intention, which has nothing to do with science, and is neither rational or reasonable. The fact that this idealogical nonsense is credible, is a testament to the terrible times we live in, in my opinion.
Jan.
Fair enough, theories are invented, but what they describe are not. Gravity is not invented for example, neither is evolution.
In what way? Sounds like a contradiction to me... without evolution there is no life.
It was an idea in Darwins day. Today, with an ever growing fossil record, revolutions in genetics and DNA studies, do nothing to contradict his idea.
He is always stumped when unexpected questions are levelled at him. He was on Irish tv recently and his 'challenger' in the debate read a footnote from The God Delusion which referenced how aliens may appear godlike to us, and the questioner asked why he believed this and what his proof was. Dawkins was clearly flabbergasted by the question and it even got a round of applause from the audience (being Ireland et all). I think all he could mustar was "You can not be serious!". All he had to say was something along the lines of there being billions upon trillions of stars in the visible universe and that since intelligent life happened around this one star, it's reasonable to think that there might be intelligent life elsewhere.
But in his book he told of a story about a debate taking place in the 19th century I think, and the defender of god put to the atheist (not exact wording) "2+2=4. Therefore god exists... RESPOND!"... The atheist of course couldn't think of a reply to such a silly question and the theist was declared the victor.
My point was, that in the Dover court case, the ID movement came forward with 'scientific explanations'. They had to, otherwise they couldn't get ID into the classroom. The explanations for ID where thoroughly debunked. The ID movement could not even debunk a small part of evolutionary theory.
NDS1:
Surely this is an incorrect claim. To have no space is to not exist - things which exist have space. Moreover, to claim that something is spiritual without proof (or even a strong definition!) is to have a flawed premise. Moreover, to say that God is not infinite in space is to deny his omnipresence, his omniscience, his omnipotence, his eternity, and various other attributes - in essence, to proclaim him none of these things and not God.
Consider this: What sort of object has no spatial extension?
God needn't have physical organs of sense if we admit of spirit, but we must ask how spirit can interact with matter and how spirit exists.
But even if we admit that God does not have physical organs but still senses, we must affirm that God senses and without such, could not think.
I would also claim that God must satisfy the Law of Identity and Non-Contradiction in the "spirit realm".
We can assume that such realms exist, but they cannot be demonstrated by the reason alone. At least as far as I know. Moreover, there is no empirical evidence so far of such things. Accordingly, such discussions are very much based in conjecture at best...
Before seeing how you address these things, I would affirm that I view the answer to all three as negative. All imply limitation.
It is a reasonable question, but one which I think is flawed for reasons of infinity, eternity, and other such things. But yes, let us address it nonetheless.
To feel a desire for another being is to note a lack. If God lacks, he is not perfect. Accordingly, he ceases to be God. Moreover, free will of humans cannot be assumed - in fact, free will is the most unsubstantiated of the possibilities for the human will.
Again: A lack. God must do something in order to gain something - entertainment. This implies he was bored beforehand.
God not having the ability to house Satan would also be a problem. But I don't think this consideration is amendable to philosophy. Lucifer (who by the way, is never Biblically spoken of at all) is not a proper topic of philosophic enquery.
How can something defined as perfect lack in anything? How can he be lonely, or sad, or upset, when he has all? Indeed, have you even considered that God is not conscious?
I do not claim they need a physical sensory organ, but thery must sense in some way, shape, or form. That is to say, they must be able to gather data from outside themselves through a spirit-organ analogous, in a loose way, to our physical ones. Without such spirit-sense, God cannot think.
Time, space, and relation are certainly united in a trinity.
But a spirit realm without these is also inconceivable.
The problem is substantiating that miracles happen. Without proof, we cannot say they exist, and accordingly can base no belief on it.
Does knowing an apple exists on a tree imply an abberation of free will? Why then would the reality of God?
In regards to a 4th spatial dimension:
The problem with such theories is that they do not take into consideration the union of the dimensions. A two dimensional object is actually illogical. A square extended purey in two dimensions would have no have no substance if viewed from a side in a 3 dimensional world over it. The lack of height, in essence, would make it as if it were not there.
Surely this is an incorrect claim. To have no space is to not exist - things which exist have space. Moreover, to claim that something is spiritual without proof (or even a strong definition!) is to have a flawed premise. Moreover, to say that God is not infinite in space is to deny his omnipresence, his omniscience, his omnipotence, his eternity, and various other attributes - in essence, to proclaim him none of these things and not God.
Consider this: What sort of object has no spatial extension?
God needn't have physical organs of sense if we admit of spirit, but we must ask how spirit can interact with matter and how spirit exists.
But even if we admit that God does not have physical organs but still senses, we must affirm that God senses and without such, could not think.
I would also claim that God must satisfy the Law of Identity and Non-Contradiction in the "spirit realm".
We can assume that such realms exist, but they cannot be demonstrated by the reason alone. At least as far as I know. Moreover, there is no empirical evidence so far of such things. Accordingly, such discussions are very much based in conjecture at best...
Before seeing how you address these things, I would affirm that I view the answer to all three as negative. All imply limitation.
It is a reasonable question, but one which I think is flawed for reasons of infinity, eternity, and other such things. But yes, let us address it nonetheless.
To feel a desire for another being is to note a lack. If God lacks, he is not perfect. Accordingly, he ceases to be God. Moreover, free will of humans cannot be assumed - in fact, free will is the most unsubstantiated of the possibilities for the human will.
Again: A lack. God must do something in order to gain something - entertainment. This implies he was bored beforehand.
God not having the ability to house Satan would also be a problem. But I don't think this consideration is amendable to philosophy. Lucifer (who by the way, is never Biblically spoken of at all) is not a proper topic of philosophic enquery.
How can something defined as perfect lack in anything? How can he be lonely, or sad, or upset, when he has all? Indeed, have you even considered that God is not conscious?
I do not claim they need a physical sensory organ, but thery must sense in some way, shape, or form. That is to say, they must be able to gather data from outside themselves through a spirit-organ analogous, in a loose way, to our physical ones. Without such spirit-sense, God cannot think.
Time, space, and relation are certainly united in a trinity.
But a spirit realm without these is also inconceivable.
The problem is substantiating that miracles happen. Without proof, we cannot say they exist, and accordingly can base no belief on it.
Does knowing an apple exists on a tree imply an abberation of free will? Why then would the reality of God?
In regards to a 4th spatial dimension:
The problem with such theories is that they do not take into consideration the union of the dimensions. A two dimensional object is actually illogical. A square extended purey in two dimensions would have no have no substance if viewed from a side in a 3 dimensional world over it. The lack of height, in essence, would make it as if it were not there.
That's a tough one. I don't know. You are right, any way you look at it, the fact that God could have created us implies a lack. If he was 100% perfect and satisfied he would no reason to create other life forms. The only way it wouldn't imply a lack is if something like The Satan Restoration Theory holds true. In this case, his the creation of mankind would be a response to the sin of Satan as an angel in heaven. Since the Angels would have free will, the creation of mankind would be due to an imperfection or lack in Satan, not in God.
It is also interesting to think about how boring being God would be. If I could just do anything and there is no hope of things "getting better" or improving, then I would probably go insane. Humans always have hopes which motivate us to continue on everyday. But if we were a perfect "God," then there is nothing to look forward to. The standard of living will never change for eternity.
It's true that he is never directly spoken of in the Bible. I think something is stated in Isaiah about the king of Babylon falling, and some scholars say that relates to the fall of Satan in some way, but personally I don't see it.
I agree. We can't believe in miracles from a God for sure unless it is something seen up close which cleary defies the laws of nature.
Last edited:
NDS1:
The creation of angels, specifically rebellious angels, would also imply a lack in God, unless angels shared in the necessity of God, in which case he would not be the creator of all.
Being God in such a sense would not be pleasant, no.
The creation of angels, specifically rebellious angels, would also imply a lack in God, unless angels shared in the necessity of God, in which case he would not be the creator of all.
Being God in such a sense would not be pleasant, no.