Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense! - Part 2

[spidergoat]

Personally, I like the idea that God exists. The pursuit for God is like the pursuit for happiness; it's just something that some people do to find joy in their lives. I like to see people who are experiencing joy in their lives.

...

What about those people who are the victims?

 

[Mazulu]

What about those people who are the victims?

Religious fanatics should not be allowed to burn witches at the stake because it is ethically and morally wrong. It is wrong to butcher and commit violence in the name of religion. It it better to let people debate these issues.

As for the hell and damnation issue, the problem of hell has been addressed. If you're worried about it, this is a good article to read.

What victims are not covered by these two categories?

 

[Quantum Quack]

There's only one universe that we know of.


No, I would say that omnipotence and restraint are more likely to be mutually exclusive.

why would you think that... if it was omnipotent. Isn't that a contradiction to say that an omnipotent being would not have self restraint/ discipline/ control

 

[Quantum Quack]

Again, you're assuming that the creation and management of the universe would be akin to the creation and maintenance of, I dunno, a UPS hub. For all you know, this deity could have no choice but to micro-manage. The point is that your argument relies on this deity being essentially a big human. I say that this assumption lacks creativity, and renders the discussion useless.

reminds me of the discussion about how a USA President retires from office and all he wants to do in his retirement is make hamburgers and fries for Hungry Jacks...
Is he allowed to do what he wants to do?
Who is stopping him from doing it?
If he was omnipotent and damn clever what would stop him from say, sweeping the floor [re: movie Bruce almighty] or being a window cleaner or even your regular boring accountant... nothing of course.

[video=youtube;QAK5sJ77J78]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAK5sJ77J78[/video]
and a sense of wacky humor to boot!

 

[spidergoat]

Religious fanatics should not be allowed to burn witches at the stake because it is ethically and morally wrong. It is wrong to butcher and commit violence in the name of religion. It it better to let people debate these issues.

As for the hell and damnation issue, the problem of hell has been addressed. If you're worried about it, this is a good article to read.

What victims are not covered by these two categories?

All the other ones? Religion is a far from benign force. Faith itself is a damaging ideal, since it values belief without evidence. The side effects include global warming and Republican politicians.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Indeed the almighty could be putting us through a simulation. Or this: there really was a Creator God fitting the Yahweh model. He, truly a fatherly male type, got a wild hare one "day" to have a Big Bang. However, upon simulating in His own infinite mind the outcome, and arriving at the predictable result--that the creation of evil would invariably ensue--discovered a paradox of His own simulated making. "I can not make a world that has both free will and also remains perfectly devoid of evil. I therefore am limited." At which time God melts down, explodes, goes singular, initiating the Big Bang, plus that fuzzy pseudo virtual realm we call consciousness, which mysteriously inhabits animal brain stems and spreads into the cortex and takes over--by both Godly and ungodly mechanisms that are utterly unknowable to us. Thus, here we are, figments of His imagination, His last vestiges, so to speak. And it is through some primal hard-wired memory of this that ancient myth makers have constructed stories of the god who became the universe, and the others who came up with the notion that we are created in His image and likeness.

And 7 seven days was amenable to the boys down at the Elks lodge who wanted Saturdays off for fishing, so God, in His infinite goodness saw this and wished it true and it became true, so the goatherds out in the wasteland of central Canaan became magically aware of this, which we call divine inspiration, and so they spun it into the rest of their yarn, and all was good and proper and just, and this is why we get Saturdays off.

But really all of this took place within one Planck time (5.4 x 10[sup]-44[/sup] sec), which is another story.

I might settle for this if I were and Elk or a Moose or a Caribou or even a Reindeer, but it would be no different for me to do so than it is for anyone else to settle for any other invention of how things actually work.

I would like to see a YEC or anyone else who might rise to the challenge to come here and and address the following:"Prove God existed within the first Planck time of the Big Bang." Then we can move on to discover how goo turned into prokaryotes and a billion years or so of stuff like that until the Great Oxygenation Event, the Pre-Camrian Explosion, Porifera, and everything up until ungulates, and finally cave-people, painting bison on their walls because either they were tired of the mauvre decor or else they were trying to remember some primal hard-wired memory of what was really some guys God saw sitting in a rickety fishing boat on a lazy Saturday afternoon passing around cans of Schlitz.

So that's my challenge. Let's get over some of the hangups and go from goo to man in, say, the next 100 posts, or whatever. No holds barred. And I will ante up with the following: Darwin was on top of his game WAY more than the authors of Genesis, simply because his ideas didn't come to him in a dream.

You raise an interesting point, that being freewill.

One of the greatest issues regarding this is that which prevents God from taking benefit from his creation due to the fact that his mere presense woud negate the fundamental of freewill.
However if god was so endowed with incredible self restraint could he indeed take benefit with out compromising the state of free will play at any given moment?
Could he play chess and win only according to intelligence and skill or would he be continuously wondering if he was somehow "cheating"?
Could he go to a cassino and place a bet on a roulette wheel and suffer the exact same odds as every one else? Or would he be in a state of Midas touch - where everything turns to boring Gold.?
If he had the self restraint/ discipline to manage his own power of influence would he not be able to participate in any way he so chose to do so?

 

[Quantum Quack]

What about those people who are the victims?

the price of freewill.... and an automated system of growth and evolution, would be to stand back and let it rip [ from the begining to the end ] sound a bit like a typical human state of apathy doesn't it?
and why couldn't a God be apathetic when most victims are created by other people slowly learning how to NOT abuse their power of freewill?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Personally I see no reason to discount the notion of a God that created evolution - that Darwin happens to work out.... If I was God I would say: "Go for it Charles... go for it!!!"
then smugly think to myself: "The more you learn about the universe the more you learn about me" -a vain God... why not?

I have often wondered why people, including religious devotees consider the notion of God to be in some sort or sub-human state... possibly it is our ego centric natures at work. [pride and arrogance]
surely a God would be superior to his own creation?

 

[spidergoat]

the price of freewill.... and an automated system of growth and evolution, would be to stand back and let it rip [ from the begining to the end ] sound a bit like a typical human state of apathy doesn't it?
and why couldn't a God be apathetic when most victims are created by other people slowly learning how to NOT abuse their power of freewill?

I wasn't even talking about the victims of God (there aren't any), just the victims of religion.

 

[spidergoat]

Personally I see no reason to discount the notion of a God that created evolution - that Darwin happens to work out.... If I was God I would say: "Go for it Charles... go for it!!!"
then smugly think to myself: "The more you learn about the universe the more you learn about me" -a vain God... why not?

That's not beyond the evidence (if the idea of God were an intellectually coherent one), but it begs the question, is an absentee landlord someone I want to worship?

 

[Quantum Quack]

That's not beyond the evidence (if the idea of God were an intellectually coherent one), but it begs the question, is an absentee landlord someone I want to worship?

well uhm you worship yourself don't you? You are self serving aren't you? Who are you really other than the name someone gave you at birth?
Nay! If this God exists he is is damn clever....[chuckle]

 

[Balerion]

Personally I see no reason to discount the notion of a God that created evolution - that Darwin happens to work out....

That's because you're not looking. I didn't realize you were a theist (or perhaps deist), but now that I know you are, the motivation behind your ridiculous theories is clear. To begin with, there's no reason to assume that a god created evolution. There's no evidence for it at all, and everything we know about religion shows that it was a man-made invention, so to begin with the premise that a god is at the beginning is stupid.There's absolutely no reason to do so.

If I was God I would say: "Go for it Charles... go for it!!!"
then smugly think to myself: "The more you learn about the universe the more you learn about me" -a vain God... why not

Again, because you'd have to assume that this god is basically a human, with human traits and characteristics. Why do you do that?

I have often wondered why people, including religious devotees consider the notion of God to be in some sort or sub-human state... possibly it is our ego centric natures at work. [pride and arrogance]
surely a God would be superior to his own creation?[/QUOTE]

I can't think of an instance in which the concept of God is considered to be sub-human. The monotheistic faiths view God as superhuman, a kind of being which humans are made in the image of but are lesser than. This is the standard model of religious belief. I have no idea where you get the idea that believers view their god as less than themselves.

The real problem is that you imagine a god that is for some reason just like humans. Why do you do this? Talk about egocentrism! You're going on about a god that would think like you do. You must have a high opinion of yourself.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There's no evidence for it at all, and everything we know about religion shows that it was a man-made invention, so to begin with the premise that a god is at the beginning is stupid.There's absolutely no reason to do so.

What I am suggesting is that in abstraction you consider that the universe and everything to do with it, including evolution, IS the evidence you talk of not having.

 

[Balerion]

What I am suggesting is that in abstraction you consider that the universe and everyting to do with it,including evolution, is the evidence you talk of not having.

In other words, take it on faith.

No thank you.

 

[Quantum Quack]

In other words, take it on faith.

No thank you.

nope not at all... just look at the evidence as you do every day of your life...

any ways... just abstraction... nothing to believe nor anything to have faith in...

 

[Quantum Quack]

To the religious the evidence is every where, to science it is no where... a rather interesting dichotomy if ever there was one...
and btw I have already indicated a number of times what theism I personally trend towards... Pantheism...

 

[Mazulu]

All the other ones? Religion is a far from benign force. Faith itself is a damaging ideal, since it values belief without evidence. The side effects include global warming and Republican politicians.

I dunno about that. I still think that "God said, "Let there be light!"", sounds an awful lot like the big bang.

From another point of view, who the heck wants their religion to be entrenched in scientific evidence? Is science a religion? How boring! I want a religion that enriches our lives, enhances our culture, creates bonds between me and my fellow man (person). I want a religion that upholds a standard of ethics and morals (even if that standard has to evolve and improve). When I see something shocking and astonishing, I like to say, "Oh My God!!!!" I like the interaction with occult and paranormal phenomena; it makes life more enjoyable and more excititing.

I like the fact that quantum randomeness and quantum uncertainty are doorways into our universe that God, or some other power, might use to touch our lives. What is wrong with that?

 

[Balerion]

nope not at all... just look at the evidence as you do every day of your life...

That's not at all what you're suggesting. You're suggesting that we just assume the universe is evidence for a god. Why would we possibly do that? What reason do we have to do that?

any ways... just abstraction... nothing to believe nor anything to have faith in...

Nonsense. You're advocating this.

 

[Balerion]

I dunno about that. I still think that "God said, "Let there be light!"", sounds an awful lot like the big bang.

It doesn't sound anything like the Big Bang. The universe was too hot for light to shine for its first 300,000 years.

From another point of view, who the heck wants their religion to be entrenched in scientific evidence? Is science a religion? How boring! I want a religion that enriches our lives, enhances our culture, creates bonds between me and my fellow man (person). I want a religion that upholds a standard of ethics and morals (even if that standard has to evolve and improve). When I see something shocking and astonishing, I like to say, "Oh My God!!!!" I like the interaction with occult and paranormal phenomena; it makes life more enjoyable and more excititing.

No one is advocating science as a replacement for religion. However, reason and logic certainly can be, because they actually help us discover the truths that religion can only lie about. I mean, what's more beautiful: a burning bush, or the Horsehead Nebula? What's more amazing, the concept of a bearded man in a cloud, or the idea that the universe has existed for billions of years? What's more meaningful, the idea that god chose a specific group of illiterate desert-dwellers to be the proponents of blood sacrifices and hatred in its name, or the genome project, which shows us all how superficial our racial differences are? Is it preferable to believe that animals are our subordinates, or that they're our cousins?

The real world is infinitely more sublime and amazing than anything offered up in an ancient holy book. Natural human interaction has built a better moral foundation than religion ever has. You want meaning to life? Find a vocation. Give to a charity and see if you can not feel like you serve a purpose. Have sex and tell me passion and love requires faith. The deepest, most profound moments of transcendence come in clear-minded meditation, not ruminating on some Bronze Age deity. The real world is awesome, and so much more so than the archaic, paranoid, simple-minded nonsense found in religion.

I like the fact that quantum randomeness and quantum uncertainty are doorways into our universe that God, or some other power, might use to touch our lives. What is wrong with that?

It's stupid, for one. It's useless, for another. There's noting right with it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

That's not at all what you're suggesting. You're suggesting that we just assume the universe is evidence for a god. Why would we possibly do that? What reason do we have to do that?



Nonsense. You're advocating this.

well it's mere existance is evidence of something I guess.....call it God or call it the universe ...doesn't matter