on God: The modernist's real problem.

[lightgigantic]

Light,

But the complexity of the NY utility system or a computer would be outside their ability without the benefits of evolutionary progress. I.e. we know of no instance of intelligence creating something complex that is outside of an evolutionary process. .

thats why i said the premise of intelligent design is deductive - if superior intelligence was subservient to the perception of our lower intelligence then it would be inductive

But the creationist concept that the universe was designed is based on the idea that anything complex is the result of intelligence and then man is quoted as an example of such an intelligent designer.

Not just man - even a bird that designs a nest is sentient

Now that you agree that our intelligence only operates within an evolutionary framework you now have no evidential precedent to speculate that the universe was the result of ID. The only evidence we do have is that everything that we know is the result of evolutionary processes.

That's why it is deductive knowledge - my point is that an impersonal view operates on a similar deductive principle, except it chooses to ignore the fact that our inductive reality is full of designs that owe their existence to intelligence (every life form designs something out of its environment) and that there is no example of material elements getting together and co-operating (except by forces such as gravity,etc - which just begs the question a little further)- all the deductive view of creationism requires is to extrapolilate from our inductive reality, which is the same thing the deductive view of an impersonal universe asks

The introduction of the qualification of perfection leaves you absolutely no point of comparison and you are reduced to the unsupported speculation that “God did it”. What example can you show of anything that was the result of a perfect intelligence?

Actually its the same stalemate that an impersonal universal view lands itself it - all you've actually revealed is the limits of deductive knowledge - don't forget that what goes down in science, despite clamouring around an inductive model, is mostly composed of deductive models (which is why it constantly requires to be re-written) and used to arrive at the "god didn't do it" although they are constantly revising exactly how god didn't do it (in otherwords they don't know how it was really done in the first place)

Intent. And most of your description on complexity implies intent.

Well a creative view of the universe also implies intent to - just like a jungle tribe wouldn't understand the intent of an oil filter for a car doesn't make it any less undesignable in origins - Intent may help us understand the purpose of design but understanding intent is not necessary for understanding whether something has a designer or not. To understand intent you would have to be on a similar level of intelligence as the designer (which is what the process of religion is about establishing ... but that's a bit too much for this thread to handle at the moment). Just because you do not see intent does not mean there is no intent there. But even in such a situation if something has a high level of functional orderliness you would think that it had a designer even if the proper intent was a mystery

That simply returns us to the basic forces again – try gravity for a start.

Then why isn't gravity random? Why are there 4 seasons in a year? Why are there solar and lunar calenders? Doesn't the lack of randomness indicate something fundamentally wrong with the idea of randomness governing the universe, or at least fundamentally wrong enough to support the deductive conclusion that intelligence governs the universe - I mean just take one step in a country that has no governing intelligence and you can notice very clearly the distinction between order and chaos

Absolute nonsense. Look at a snowflake under a microscope, beautiful order and symmetry and perfectly natural. Look at the incredible ordered atomic structure of a diamond. And there are endless examples of perfect order without recourse to intelligence.

Then if its so obviously designerless why can't our best designers create them - seems to indicate a higher intelligence - Even false diamonds require a designer.

 

[Michael]

I mean an atheist begins from the assumption that god does not exist.

As an Atheist I merely lack a belief in Gods.
From that starting point I may move on to the assumption that Gods do not exist if so inclined in debate.

Much the same way you probably lack a belief in The Flying meatball-Spaghetti God.

Michael

 

[perplexity]

But there is no deductive evidence of a created universe. Did you have anything specific in mind? There is evidence of complexity but that doesn’t imply design as evolution has demonstrated.

Evolution is a system is a design, not chaos.

--- Ron.

 

[perplexity]

light, it seems that you think that believing in a created universe is on equal footing with the disbelief of it. By nature, disbelief comes naturally first, and then belief comes with evidence. like snakelord said, if someone tells you there is a flying spaghetti monster, it would be illogical to immediately believe him and then search for evidence to disprove it, instead you wouldn't believe him and continue to not believe him unless evidence told you otherwise. Starting with belief and looking for disproof is almost impossible;...

How come then that kids believe in Santa Claus?

--- Ron.

 

[wsionynw]

How come then that kids believe in Santa Claus?

--- Ron.

Because kids have evidence that Santa Claus exists, in the form of presents on Christmas day. Kids also want to believe in Santa Claus, because it adds mystery and fun to a holiday that is already very enjoyable. I remember my first doubts about Santa Claus (or Father Christmas as he was known in my household), it was much the same as when I read about Dinosaurs and wondered whether they came before Adam and Eve.
Since my youth I've learned that both Father Christmas and the OT are complete bollocks.

 

[wsionynw]

As an Atheist I merely lack a belief in Gods.
From that starting point I may move on to the assumption that Gods do not exist if so inclined in debate.

Much the same way you probably lack a belief in The Flying meatball-Spaghetti God.

Michael

I keep reading about The Flying Spaghetti God. I'm fascinated, where can I found out more about this wise and powerful God?
Lawdog, can you help me on this? Perhaps you think a bowl of spaghetti evolved over millions off years until it grew wings and now lives in the clouds occasionally flying down to eat atheists??

 

[the preacher]

I'm surprised, you've never heard of him, the almighty Spaghetti Monster, you to can be a Pastafarian, you just need faith.
he's a popular as any other god/gods.
heres a few sites to read about him
http://www.venganza.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
http://flyingspaghettimonster.org/
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/19/pastafarianism_flyin.html
http://www.cafepress.com/venganza/
http://www.phobe.com/fsmhat/index.html
http://www.freeworldgroup.com/games2/gameindex/flyingspag.htm

 

[lightgigantic]

As an Atheist I merely lack a belief in Gods.
From that starting point I may move on to the assumption that Gods do not exist if so inclined in debate.

Much the same way you probably lack a belief in The Flying meatball-Spaghetti God.

Michael

When you start talking of human beings evolving from microscopic organisms an atheist starts shifting their stance of neutrality

 

[wsionynw]

I'm surprised, you've never heard of him, the almighty Spaghetti Monster, you to can be a Pastafarian, you just need faith.
he's a popular as any other god/gods.

WOW! I'm no longer an atheist, how can I be when the proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there for all to see! Join me Lightgigantic, read the gospel and you too could become a Pastafarian!

 

[Lawdog]

on the existance of God;

We can be certain that God exists because the Roman Catholic Church says so. No evidence needs to be produced. Only the Church has the right, given by God himself, to make authoritative pronouncements concerning the divine reality.The church also affirms that the human mind is capable of concluding, through various evidences, that God exists. However, to try and prove or disprove God from a scientific standpoint is useless and vain. The role of Science is not to be philosophical ground, but an instrument of coming to conclusions about the physical reality. God is pur spirit, therefore science can never make a certain conclusion concerning God.

 

[wsionynw]

on the existance of God;

We can be certain that God exists because the Roman Catholic Church says so. No evidence needs to be produced. Only the Church has the right, given by God himself, to make authoritative pronouncements concerning the divine reality.The church also affirms that the human mind is capable of concluding, through various evidences, that God exists. However, to try and prove or disprove God from a scientific standpoint is useless and vain. The role of Science is not to be philosophical ground, but an instrument of coming to conclusions about the physical reality. God is pur spirit, therefore science can never make a certain conclusion concerning God.

Lawdog, do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If not, then why not? If you DO, then why do you?
Thanks.

 

[Lawdog]

sounds fun, but you are trying to belittle the argument. Why?

 

[lightgigantic]

I think what you are missing wsion is that for every field of knowledge there are persons who are qualified and persons who are unqualified - if you cannot recognise the distinction then the field of knowledge appears absurd - in otherwords because you do not recognise the qualifications of persons who advocate the existence of god form those of unqualified persons who advocate the existence god you view god on par with a spaghetti monster

 

[wsionynw]

I think what you are missing wsion is that for every field of knowledge there are persons who are qualified and persons who are unqualified - if you cannot recognise the distinction then the field of knowledge appears absurd - in otherwords because you do not recognise the qualifications of persons who advocate the existence of god form those of unqualified persons who advocate the existence god you view god on par with a spaghetti monster

There is just as much proof for any particular God as there is for any other particular God. Be it the Christian God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I'm not qualified to translate scripture, but then it's just that isn't it, words on paper. Not God coming down from the clouds and throwing lightening bolts to form orders on slabs of rock for all humans to see. I simply don't believe in fairy tales, and neither do millions of others like me.

 

[lightgigantic]

There is just as much proof for any particular God as there is for any other particular God. Be it the Christian God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I'm not qualified to translate scripture, but then it's just that isn't it, words on paper. Not God coming down from the clouds and throwing lightening bolts to form orders on slabs of rock for all humans to see. I simply don't believe in fairy tales, and neither do millions of others like me.

the things about words on paper is they convey things - otherwise if you truly held a view that words are obsolete why would you even bother to post anything on forums like this?

Again I repeat, there is no question of proof for one who cannot distinguish between who is qualified and who is unqualified in a field of knowledge - that's why there is no distinction between god and a spaghetti monster for you

 

[wsionynw]

the things about words on paper is they convey things - otherwise if you truly held a view that words are obsolete why would you even bother to post anything on forums like this?

Again I repeat, there is no question of proof for one who cannot distinguish between who is qualified and who is unqualified in a field of knowledge - that's why there is no distinction between god and a spaghetti monster for you

Ok Lightgigantic, what proof is there for the Christian God? Solid, verifiable proof that we can all observe should we choose to? I tell you, I saw a video clip on Youtube of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but being a rational human I know it was just created by some guys on their computer. Why should I believe the musings of some guys thousands of years ago are proof of God?

 

[Lawdog]

As I just said in the first entry, proof cannot and should not be given. You rely on physical and visible proofs to come to conclusions about spiritual and invisible realities. What is true is not always subject to proofs. It can be demonstrated through logical argument that a first cause exists and a prime mover, but beyond the things Aristotle describes in his metaphysics, demonstration does not apply.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ok Lightgigantic, what proof is there for the Christian God? Solid, verifiable proof that we can all observe should we choose to? I tell you, I saw a video clip on Youtube of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but being a rational human I know it was just created by some guys on their computer. Why should I believe the musings of some guys thousands of years ago are proof of God?

Well what's the difference between a spaghetti monster and george bush - you have only ever encountered them both through re-presentation (ie electronic media)?

 

[wsionynw]

Well what's the difference between a spaghetti monster and george bush - you have only ever encountered them both through re-presentation (ie electronic media)?

The main difference is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a funny prank, and George Bush is a twat. What kind of argument are you trying to make? George Bush exists because thousands of people have seen him in the flesh, and he is human, therefore why shouldn't I believe he exists? Nobody has ever come into contact with God.
Lawdog, you have made no sense once again, apart from supporting my comparison between your God and the FSM. Both are human creations.

 

[lightgigantic]

The main difference is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a funny prank, and George Bush is a twat. What kind of argument are you trying to make? George Bush exists because thousands of people have seen him in the flesh, and he is human, therefore why shouldn't I believe he exists?

Because you haven't perceived him by your direct senses - you have faith in the reports of persons who have seen him and accept those reports as credible - in other words unconsciously you are applying general principles to determine who is a credible source and who is not a credible source for understanding that george bush actually exists.

Nobody has ever come into contact with God.

This is a statement contested by a plethora of saintly people - it may be true that you have never came in to contact with god but then you may not be an adequate yardstick to determine whether all people in all times and circumstances have never met god

Lawdog, you have made no sense once again, apart from supporting my comparison between your God and the FSM. Both are human creations.

Your conclusion that god is created by humans is not an idea confirmed by scripture - it raises the question what are the general princples you are applying to determine that god is created by man

- I mean its not sufficient for you to say that you have never met god, because there are very good reasons why god is not directly perceivable to everyone (just like there are very good reasons why george bush or even the perception of scientists are not directly perceivable to everyone)