Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 2:02:05 GMT
I see enough evidence to have faith to believe. Just curious - is it a goal of yours to have your beliefs match with reality? That is to say, in this case, you believe that god exists. Do you care whether you're right? Or is that not important to you? It's interesting that you bring this up. It makes me ponder what I said when I said "I see enough evidence to have faith to believe." I would believe in God via faith without my observations about the nature of matter. I wasn't looking for design or God when I came to my conclusions about the nature of matter, how so much had to go a certain way in some cosmic rulebook for there to even be a universe to have banged out regardless of the source. I was just marveling at all that I was pondering when I saw design, and that's when I connected my ponderings towards God. It's not like I was on some search for proof of God in my thoughts. I just jumped into the thread to share my observations and see where they led. It's interesting how the conversation can run as this discussion twists and turns. I could be absolutely wrong here. It wouldn't shake my faith. It's not like it's based on these observations, and I wouldn't be hurt if someone came along and said "Homergreg, your line of thought is utter shit." and thoroughly proved what I'm seeing as wrong such that even a dullard as myself could plainly see it. FilmFlaneur mentioned in this thread Antony Flew. I had never heard of him, as this is a subject I really haven't talked about or researched, other than hearing the term of "Intelligent Design" in the past, mainly as it related to biology debunked by Darwin, and not chemistry/physics. That and just my observation when pondering things like why anything exists, and why it exists as it does. I'm going to read his works, as it appears he spent a lifetime deeply pondering just these things at a much greater level than I could hope to. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_FlewThis is a really good conversation with everyone. It really makes one think about what it means to exist, well at least it makes me really think about what it means to exist, many may think I'm just rambling on, and that's OK.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,298
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 18, 2019 8:13:29 GMT
My belief in physicalism is what makes deity, in itself, incoherent. That is, concepts of God(s) do not cohere with my belief in physicalism. What if physicalism is wrong? Or suppose it's right though God actually is compatible with it but we lack the capacity to consider or express this in a coherent manner? There may be things that exist that it is simply beyond humans to conceptualise.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,298
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 18, 2019 8:35:50 GMT
Great, and lets take your sister at face value, I have shown comprehensively that there are academics and studies that disagree with her. ...butt NOT scientists in the field of genetics! Isn't Dean Hamer a geneticist? Not saying he's right and your sis is wrong but that would show at least some disagreement in the academic world.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 18, 2019 9:32:20 GMT
...butt NOT scientists in the field of genetics! Isn't Dean Hamer a geneticist? Not saying he's right and your sis is wrong but that would show at least some disagreement in the academic world. Let me know when Dean Hamer finds a link between genetics and 'religion'. His work is controversial enough dealing with the genetics of sexuality, without bring something undefined and nebulous like religious tendencies into it!
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,298
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 18, 2019 9:43:43 GMT
Isn't Dean Hamer a geneticist? Not saying he's right and your sis is wrong but that would show at least some disagreement in the academic world. Let me know when Dean Hamer finds a link between genetics and 'religion'. His work is controversial enough dealing with the genetics of sexuality, without bring something undefined and nebulous like religious tendencies into it! I'm waaaaaaay out of my depth here but could this be like string theory in physics? Some physicists think there could be something to it while others roll their eyes at it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 12:08:53 GMT
Just curious - is it a goal of yours to have your beliefs match with reality? That is to say, in this case, you believe that god exists. Do you care whether you're right? Or is that not important to you? It's interesting that you bring this up. It makes me ponder what I said when I said "I see enough evidence to have faith to believe." I would believe in God via faith without my observations about the nature of matter. Honestly, this makes it sound like you began with the belief in god and then decided that the universe must be designed because of it. You didn't answer the question, though. Does it matter to you whether you are objectively right to believe that god exists? You mention having faith in god. But I assume you know that faith is not a guide to truth. You can - and many do - have faith in things that are demonstrably, undeniably false. But if some faith can be wrong, then any faith can be wrong, so why rely on faith at all? Which is why I ask - if you know that faith can be wrong, but you rely on it anyway... does that mean you don't actually care if you're right or not? Is the truth irrelevant to you, on this question at least? I mean, I assume we agree that god's existence is a matter of objective fact, right? It can't be the case that god exists for you but not for me, any more than it can be true that the moon exists for me but not for you. These things either exist, or they do not. And given that it's a matter of objective fact, the statement "there is a god" is either true, or false. It can't be "your truth" or "my truth"; like any statement of objective fact, it is either so or it is not so. Now it's a goal of mine to believe as many objectively true things, and disbelieve as many objectively untrue things, as I possibly can. And my method of doing that is to only believe in propositions that have good compelling evidence to support them. There's plenty of good compelling evidence to support the existence of the moon, yes? So to me, the whole 'intelligent design' thing comes across as an argument of "the universe (or life, or whatever) shows design, and this is evidence that it was designed by an intelligent being". Which is why from my point of view it becomes a little disconcerting if you show somebody that there's no reason to think the universe or life does in fact have evidence of design... and that even if it did, that wouldn't be evidence of a designer... and their response is not just to reject the argument but to say "well that doesn't actually matter, I believe in the designer anyway just because I want to". I've had this happen many times, where a believer will say "well X Y Z proves god", and you go through a whole discussion about it and show that no, X Y Z doesn't prove god. And at the end of it you get "well that doesn't matter, I just believe". Yeah, okay, but why did you bring up the idea that X Y Z proves god in the first place then?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 12:54:51 GMT
It's interesting that you bring this up. It makes me ponder what I said when I said "I see enough evidence to have faith to believe." I would believe in God via faith without my observations about the nature of matter. Honestly, this makes it sound like you began with the belief in god and then decided that the universe must be designed because of it. You didn't answer the question, though. Does it matter to you whether you are objectively right to believe that god exists? You mention having faith in god. But I assume you know that faith is not a guide to truth. You can - and many do - have faith in things that are demonstrably, undeniably false. But if some faith can be wrong, then any faith can be wrong, so why rely on faith at all? Which is why I ask - if you know that faith can be wrong, but you rely on it anyway... does that mean you don't actually care if you're right or not? Is the truth irrelevant to you, on this question at least? I mean, I assume we agree that god's existence is a matter of objective fact, right? It can't be the case that god exists for you but not for me, any more than it can be true that the moon exists for me but not for you. These things either exist, or they do not. And given that it's a matter of objective fact, the statement "there is a god" is either true, or false. It can't be "your truth" or "my truth"; like any statement of objective fact, it is either so or it is not so. Now it's a goal of mine to believe as many objectively true things, and disbelieve as many objectively untrue things, as I possibly can. And my method of doing that is to only believe in propositions that have good compelling evidence to support them. There's plenty of good compelling evidence to support the existence of the moon, yes? So to me, the whole 'intelligent design' thing comes across as an argument of "the universe (or life, or whatever) shows design, and this is evidence that it was designed by an intelligent being". Which is why from my point of view it becomes a little disconcerting if you show somebody that there's no reason to think the universe or life does in fact have evidence of design... and that even if it did, that wouldn't be evidence of a designer... and their response is not just to reject the argument but to say "well that doesn't actually matter, I believe in the designer anyway just because I want to". I've had this happen many times, where a believer will say "well X Y Z proves god", and you go through a whole discussion about it and show that no, X Y Z doesn't prove god. And at the end of it you get "well that doesn't matter, I just believe". Yeah, okay, but why did you bring up the idea that X Y Z proves god in the first place then?! I didn't say it proved God. I see design there, if I could use that observation to prove God, it would change the world. If you could use that same observation to disprove God, it would change the world as well. I was simply sharing an observation I had made about the nature of the universe that shows design to me. I'm sorry that if I'm ever proven wrong about that observation (which I havent been BTW) that it won't shake my faith. All that set aside, to your question about being "objectively right that God exists." Man doesn't have the level of knowledge to even be close to being objectively right or wrong about God existing. We don't even have a clear comprehension about the nature of the universe. I understand there are people who have to have fact in hand to believe in something, and I also understand those same people are frustrated by people who believe in something that can't be proven or disproven no matter how hard those who need that fact in hand to believe. I'm sorry if it bothers you. I really am. If you look inside and sense a hole in your being that is wrestling with this, I'm ready to talk about that too, but since we are all different you may not have that hole in your being, then we'll be at loggerheads on the question just like man has been for thousands of years. And that's OK.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 18, 2019 13:20:44 GMT
I'm sorry that if I'm ever proven wrong about that observation (which I havent been BTW) that it won't shake my faith. It isn't even remotely an observation. It is an unjustified ideological projection.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 13:30:31 GMT
I'm sorry that if I'm ever proven wrong about that observation (which I havent been BTW) that it won't shake my faith. It isn't even remotely an observation. It is an unjustified ideological projection. Ok I observe that the fabric of the universe reminds me of tinkertoys, something that is designed,although much less complicated, and I ponder if they were designed or "just that way because... nature". Should I share that observation, or should I worry that faustus will think I'm projecting.... I'm gonna share it and faustus can just get over it.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 18, 2019 13:47:37 GMT
Should I share that observation, or should I worry that faustus will think I'm projecting.... You can share your unjustified bullshit as much as you want to. But when you choose to post bullshit, I'm going to call it out. Get over it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 14:14:22 GMT
Should I share that observation, or should I worry that faustus will think I'm projecting.... You can share your unjustified bullshit as much as you want to. But when you choose to post bullshit, I'm going to call it out. Get over it. Call it what you want. I see the tinkertoys and ponder design. Others dismiss it, it's ok. Funny thing is, I found yesterday others who spent a lifetime trying to see otherwise saw them too, so I'm at least not alone if this is "bullshit". en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Oct 18, 2019 14:39:26 GMT
What if physicalism is wrong? As I've said, I could be if someone were to show otherwise but I won't hold my breath. I don't buy into dualism or any form of idealism. It seems to me that historically deities were very much physical but as humans learned more and more about the world, these deities have retreated to non-physical, ineffable realms, hence the God of the Gaps. There maybe things that humans may never be able to fathom but deities are concepts we have already and I reject these concepts.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 18, 2019 15:29:21 GMT
Funny thing is, I found yesterday others who spent a lifetime trying to see otherwise saw them too, so I'm at least not alone if this is "bullshit". You can find scientists with PhD.'s who will tell you the universe is only 6,000 years old, if that's what you want to hear.The internet has tons of people who believe in all kinds of bullshit that you can cite in order to comfort yourself that your bullshit has merit and isn't really bullshit. Just try and find a consensus among physicists and cosmologists that your bullshit has merit, and you will spend a lifetime coming up empty handed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 15:40:34 GMT
Funny thing is, I found yesterday others who spent a lifetime trying to see otherwise saw them too, so I'm at least not alone if this is "bullshit". You can find scientists with PhD.'s who will tell you the universe is only 6,000 years old, if that's what you want to hear.The internet has tons of people who believe in all kinds of bullshit that you can cite in order to comfort yourself that your bullshit has merit and isn't really bullshit. Just try and find a consensus among physicists and cosmologists that your bullshit has merit, and you will spend a lifetime coming up empty handed. This was a pretty renowned and cited atheist. I already cited a cosmologist in this thread. It may be a minority thought in the area, and if one wishes to dismiss it, that's fine by me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 15:55:46 GMT
Honestly, this makes it sound like you began with the belief in god and then decided that the universe must be designed because of it. You didn't answer the question, though. Does it matter to you whether you are objectively right to believe that god exists? You mention having faith in god. But I assume you know that faith is not a guide to truth. You can - and many do - have faith in things that are demonstrably, undeniably false. But if some faith can be wrong, then any faith can be wrong, so why rely on faith at all? Which is why I ask - if you know that faith can be wrong, but you rely on it anyway... does that mean you don't actually care if you're right or not? Is the truth irrelevant to you, on this question at least? I mean, I assume we agree that god's existence is a matter of objective fact, right? It can't be the case that god exists for you but not for me, any more than it can be true that the moon exists for me but not for you. These things either exist, or they do not. And given that it's a matter of objective fact, the statement "there is a god" is either true, or false. It can't be "your truth" or "my truth"; like any statement of objective fact, it is either so or it is not so. Now it's a goal of mine to believe as many objectively true things, and disbelieve as many objectively untrue things, as I possibly can. And my method of doing that is to only believe in propositions that have good compelling evidence to support them. There's plenty of good compelling evidence to support the existence of the moon, yes? So to me, the whole 'intelligent design' thing comes across as an argument of "the universe (or life, or whatever) shows design, and this is evidence that it was designed by an intelligent being". Which is why from my point of view it becomes a little disconcerting if you show somebody that there's no reason to think the universe or life does in fact have evidence of design... and that even if it did, that wouldn't be evidence of a designer... and their response is not just to reject the argument but to say "well that doesn't actually matter, I believe in the designer anyway just because I want to". I've had this happen many times, where a believer will say "well X Y Z proves god", and you go through a whole discussion about it and show that no, X Y Z doesn't prove god. And at the end of it you get "well that doesn't matter, I just believe". Yeah, okay, but why did you bring up the idea that X Y Z proves god in the first place then?! I didn't say it proved God. You may not, but there are plenty who do. Much as I hate to get into semantics, would you clarify what you mean when you say you see "design"? What is design? The way most use that word, it clearly implies a deliberate, conscious, intelligent process. Is that what you mean by it? Because if so, then saying that you see design does mean you're saying it shows that there is a designer, yes? Also, do you accept that he appearance of design is different than actual design? The process of biological evolution produces the appearance of design, after all, but do so without any actual designer. Do you accept that the universe likewise may present the appearance of design but not have any actual design? That's a different issue. I'm perfectly happy to agree that mankind cannot at the moment discern the truth of whether god exists or not. But regardless, I say that whether god exists or not is a matter of objective fact. The answer to the question is "yes" or "no", and one of those is right, and one of them is not. That is correct, is it not? I wouldn't say that frustrates me as such. What does frustrate me are those people who give evidence-based rational reasons why they believe, and then when you point out that those reasons are flawed, just say it doesn't matter and they believe anyway. (Not accusing you of this, by the way, it's more of a general comment.) But if a believer just wants to believe regardless of logic and evidence, that's okay by me. But the person should admit that their belief is unfounded and irrational; that they aren't actually concerned with whether they are right or wrong. That's also okay by me, it would just be nice to see them admit to it. Again, I wouldn't say it bothers me as such. There are reasons to be concerned about it though, in a society where people's views impact on others. The 9/11 hijackers did what they did because they perceived that the universe was designed, and the designer would approve of their actions. I assume you'd at least object to the second of those propositions, but if they replied with "well I just have faith", what could you really object to about that, given that you agree with their reasoning? No, I really, really don't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 17:40:40 GMT
I didn't say it proved God. You may not, but there are plenty who do. Much as I hate to get into semantics, would you clarify what you mean when you say you see "design"? What is design? The way most use that word, it clearly implies a deliberate, conscious, intelligent process. Is that what you mean by it? Because if so, then saying that you see design does mean you're saying it shows that there is a designer, yes? Also, do you accept that he appearance of design is different than actual design? The process of biological evolution produces the appearance of design, after all, but do so without any actual designer. Do you accept that the universe likewise may present the appearance of design but not have any actual design? That's a different issue. I'm perfectly happy to agree that mankind cannot at the moment discern the truth of whether god exists or not. But regardless, I say that whether god exists or not is a matter of objective fact. The answer to the question is "yes" or "no", and one of those is right, and one of them is not. That is correct, is it not? I wouldn't say that frustrates me as such. What does frustrate me are those people who give evidence-based rational reasons why they believe, and then when you point out that those reasons are flawed, just say it doesn't matter and they believe anyway. (Not accusing you of this, by the way, it's more of a general comment.) But if a believer just wants to believe regardless of logic and evidence, that's okay by me. But the person should admit that their belief is unfounded and irrational; that they aren't actually concerned with whether they are right or wrong. That's also okay by me, it would just be nice to see them admit to it. Again, I wouldn't say it bothers me as such. There are reasons to be concerned about it though, in a society where people's views impact on others. The 9/11 hijackers did what they did because they perceived that the universe was designed, and the designer would approve of their actions. I assume you'd at least object to the second of those propositions, but if they replied with "well I just have faith", what could you really object to about that, given that you agree with their reasoning? No, I really, really don't. Ok, it's kinda weird for how my mind works to respond to those who chop up a post into pieces and address portions of a whole thought. I can live with it though, but when one truncates the post as well, it hinders our ability to communicate, so chop if it makes you happy, but please don't chop and cut. I don't pretend to talk for anyone who says something "proves God", I can't prove God, I don't pretend to, and if by what I'm bringing up anyone construes that I think I've got some kind of Q.E.D. for God I apologize, that is not the thought I'm trying to convey. I said I see design in the way matter is made, does that mean I'm right? Absolutely not. It by no means says I'm certain it's the designer. So I do accept that this could be only the appearance of design, yes! have I asserted otherwise? I'm absolutely not ready to dismiss what I observe though. If science gets to this point and some sort of Darwinian theory emerges for the nature of matter, I won't dismiss that either. And yes, God exists or God doesn't exist is a yes or no question. I don't think that was a contention. I'm just guessing you were trying to throw words In there amongst the chop up. I promise I won't use what I'm observing about the nature of matter to justify flying an airplane flying into a building, nor will I accept it as reasoning to do anything to anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 18, 2019 20:26:20 GMT
Let me know when Dean Hamer finds a link between genetics and 'religion'. His work is controversial enough dealing with the genetics of sexuality, without bring something undefined and nebulous like religious tendencies into it! I'm waaaaaaay out of my depth here but could this be like string theory in physics? Some physicists think there could be something to it while others roll their eyes at it. No, it is quite different. You are all missing the point. It is the methodology at fault here. I am not saying, and never have said that one cannot link certain identifiable human traits or phenomena such as homosexuality with a genetic component. My beef is with 'religious tendencies' and religion in general because it is and of itself undefinable in a way that meets even the most lax scientific standards. THE most important thing in science is to have an identifiable goal or hypothesis with clearly and isolated attributes/data for study. Hence genetic scientists have been very useful in linking human diseases such as diabetes, breast cancer etc etc. When it comes down to more complex issues like 'intelligence' it is problematic due to the variation in indices, however when you get to something completely nebulous like religious tendencies, there is no reliable evidence scientifically linking genes, only more anecdotally like the study that the other poster posted, done by 'psychologists' using inaccurate definitions.(such as fraternal twins sharing 50% identical DNA which is a fallacy) and a definition which was something like ( posted above) attending church and 'talking about religion'. Despite numerous attempts, I have failed to get from the other main poster in this debate, a definition of what he and/or the 'scientists' he spouts, as defining what 'religious tendencies' are that have been studied. BTW I support Dean Hamer's work and think that there is possibly a genetic link with homosexuals, because we know what homosexuals are that is identifiable. Homosexuals and real scientists have worked long and hard to identify their 'characteristic identity' as inborn and not a 'preference' such as religion. I hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 18, 2019 20:43:29 GMT
You may not, but there are plenty who do. Much as I hate to get into semantics, would you clarify what you mean when you say you see "design"? What is design? The way most use that word, it clearly implies a deliberate, conscious, intelligent process. Is that what you mean by it? Because if so, then saying that you see design does mean you're saying it shows that there is a designer, yes? Also, do you accept that he appearance of design is different than actual design? The process of biological evolution produces the appearance of design, after all, but do so without any actual designer. Do you accept that the universe likewise may present the appearance of design but not have any actual design? That's a different issue. I'm perfectly happy to agree that mankind cannot at the moment discern the truth of whether god exists or not. But regardless, I say that whether god exists or not is a matter of objective fact. The answer to the question is "yes" or "no", and one of those is right, and one of them is not. That is correct, is it not? I wouldn't say that frustrates me as such. What does frustrate me are those people who give evidence-based rational reasons why they believe, and then when you point out that those reasons are flawed, just say it doesn't matter and they believe anyway. (Not accusing you of this, by the way, it's more of a general comment.) But if a believer just wants to believe regardless of logic and evidence, that's okay by me. But the person should admit that their belief is unfounded and irrational; that they aren't actually concerned with whether they are right or wrong. That's also okay by me, it would just be nice to see them admit to it. Again, I wouldn't say it bothers me as such. There are reasons to be concerned about it though, in a society where people's views impact on others. The 9/11 hijackers did what they did because they perceived that the universe was designed, and the designer would approve of their actions. I assume you'd at least object to the second of those propositions, but if they replied with "well I just have faith", what could you really object to about that, given that you agree with their reasoning? No, I really, really don't. Ok, it's kinda weird for how my mind works to respond to those who chop up a post into pieces and address portions of a whole thought. I can live with it though, but when one truncates the post as well, it hinders our ability to communicate, so chop if it makes you happy, but please don't chop and cut. I don't pretend to talk for anyone who says something "proves God", I can't prove God, I don't pretend to, and if by what I'm bringing up anyone construes that I think I've got some kind of Q.E.D. for God I apologize, that is not the thought I'm trying to convey. I said I see design in the way matter is made, does that mean I'm right? Absolutely not. It by no means says I'm certain it's the designer. So I do accept that this could be only the appearance of design, yes! have I asserted otherwise? I'm absolutely not ready to dismiss what I observe though. If science gets to this point and some sort of Darwinian theory emerges for the nature of matter, I won't dismiss that either. And yes, God exists or God doesn't exist is a yes or no question. I don't think that was a contention. I'm just guessing you were trying to throw words In there amongst the chop up. I promise I won't use what I'm observing about the nature of matter to justify flying an airplane flying into a building, nor will I accept it as reasoning to do anything to anyone else. I am hoping Graham will reply to this post as you are having an excellent discussion and whilst I hesitate to interrupt, this is an open board so I will merely add two points that come to my mind, not chopped up. 1. To my mind it is telling that you find 'chopping' up challenging to your mindset. I believe that this causes you to analyse your thoughts into single sound bites or single logical entities where you don't run one on from the other which self aggrandises and reinforces your own previous thought pattern. Your warm fuzzy thoughts about your belief in God get interrupted by logic, perhaps forcing you to rethink things in a different way? 2. About 'design'. If I could put it this way....'natural forces invented the concept of design'. .. introduced the whole concept that we humans see as observers at the end or near the end of the evolutionary process, as design. Cool eh? Had we witnessed atoms of the periodic table forming, the earth cooling, then the primoridal slime and 'creatures' forming, we would have witnessed the formation of 'design' as WE know it. No God required.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 21:34:02 GMT
Ok, it's kinda weird for how my mind works to respond to those who chop up a post into pieces and address portions of a whole thought. I can live with it though, but when one truncates the post as well, it hinders our ability to communicate, so chop if it makes you happy, but please don't chop and cut. I don't pretend to talk for anyone who says something "proves God", I can't prove God, I don't pretend to, and if by what I'm bringing up anyone construes that I think I've got some kind of Q.E.D. for God I apologize, that is not the thought I'm trying to convey. I said I see design in the way matter is made, does that mean I'm right? Absolutely not. It by no means says I'm certain it's the designer. So I do accept that this could be only the appearance of design, yes! have I asserted otherwise? I'm absolutely not ready to dismiss what I observe though. If science gets to this point and some sort of Darwinian theory emerges for the nature of matter, I won't dismiss that either. And yes, God exists or God doesn't exist is a yes or no question. I don't think that was a contention. I'm just guessing you were trying to throw words In there amongst the chop up. I promise I won't use what I'm observing about the nature of matter to justify flying an airplane flying into a building, nor will I accept it as reasoning to do anything to anyone else. I am hoping Graham will reply to this post as you are having an excellent discussion and whilst I hesitate to interrupt, this is an open board so I will merely add two points that come to my mind, not chopped up. 1. To my mind it is telling that you find 'chopping' up challenging to your mindset. I believe that this causes you to analyse your thoughts into single sound bites or single logical entities where you don't run one on from the other which self aggrandises and reinforces your own previous thought pattern. Your warm fuzzy thoughts about your belief in God get interrupted by logic, perhaps forcing you to rethink things in a different way? 2. About 'design'. If I could put it this way....'natural forces invented the concept of design'. .. introduced the whole concept that we humans see as observers at the end or near the end of the evolutionary process, as design. Cool eh? Had we witnessed atoms of the periodic table forming, the earth cooling, then the primoridal slime and 'creatures' forming, we would have witnessed the formation of 'design' as WE know it. No God required. I used to do the chop up the thread game, but I found that one conversation lead to 5 or 6 going different directions, and the core thought was lost in the process. I can run from one to the other quite well and cover several different pieces with one whole, but if it needs to turn into one of those split it up instead of just reply to all the parts I can do that too if it really is needed. I'm more concerned when the chopping is combined with cropping, as information gets lost in the process. It's not like we are talking about some huge thesis here. I'm not saying a God was required to form what we see, I don't know, but so see something that indicates design to me, and science cannot explain it yet. I'm willing to accept a scientific explanation for all I ponder when it becomes available. Absent Life, where replicating molecules that can continue to replicate and survive and become more and more complex and grow from a primordial stew and grow via survival of the fittest to quite wondrous complexity, I see no driving force to make the fabric of the universe not be very disorderly vs the order and utility I'm seeing. Like I said before I see something akin to complex tinkertoys and when I see something akin to complex tinkertoys I tend to believe someone wanted to build something. I very well understand the debunking of the Watchmaker Analogy where life is concerned. I see a similar situation with the building blocks of the universe to the Watchmaker analogy, and I see no mechanism similar to Darwin's theory presented for stardust to counter it. So I merely point that out. I'm not sure how many ways I can say that I'm not saying it proves design, but to me, indicates the possibility, and I won't discount it, especially when science isn't even scratching the surface in this area.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 18, 2019 21:56:26 GMT
I am hoping Graham will reply to this post as you are having an excellent discussion and whilst I hesitate to interrupt, this is an open board so I will merely add two points that come to my mind, not chopped up. 1. To my mind it is telling that you find 'chopping' up challenging to your mindset. I believe that this causes you to analyse your thoughts into single sound bites or single logical entities where you don't run one on from the other which self aggrandises and reinforces your own previous thought pattern. Your warm fuzzy thoughts about your belief in God get interrupted by logic, perhaps forcing you to rethink things in a different way? 2. About 'design'. If I could put it this way....'natural forces invented the concept of design'. .. introduced the whole concept that we humans see as observers at the end or near the end of the evolutionary process, as design. Cool eh? Had we witnessed atoms of the periodic table forming, the earth cooling, then the primoridal slime and 'creatures' forming, we would have witnessed the formation of 'design' as WE know it. No God required. I used to do the chop up the thread game, but I found that one conversation lead to 5 or 6 going different directions, and the core thought was lost in the process. I can run from one to the other quite well and cover several different pieces with one whole, but if it needs to turn into one of those split it up instead of just reply to all the parts I can do that too if it really is needed. I'm more concerned when the chopping is combined with cropping, as information gets lost in the process. It's not like we are talking about some huge thesis here. I'm not saying a God was required to form what we see, I don't know, but so see something that indicates design to me, and science cannot explain it yet. I'm willing to accept a scientific explanation for all I ponder when it becomes available. Absent Life, where replicating molecules that can continue to replicate and survive and become more and more complex and grow from a primordial stew and grow via survival of the fittest to quite wondrous complexity, I see no driving force to make the fabric of the universe not be very disorderly vs the order and utility I'm seeing. Like I said before I see something akin to complex tinkertoys and when I see something akin to complex tinkertoys I tend to believe someone wanted to build something. I very well understand the debunking of the Watchmaker Analogy where life is concerned. I see a similar situation with the building blocks of the universe to the Watchmaker analogy, and I see no mechanism similar to Darwin's theory presented for stardust to counter it. So I merely point that out. I'm not sure how many ways I can say that I'm not saying it proves design, but to me, indicates the possibility, and I won't discount it, especially when science isn't even scratching the surface in this area. IMHO chopping up a thread into single logical units is helpful due to the fact ( as I previously stated) that otherwise one tends to following on from the previous thought, with the same possible misconception Wow, that is a big call. Are you seriously saying that science doesn't understand the basic elements that YOU see as design? Without being too rude, you are starting to sound like idiots such as Heeeeey who doesn't actually understand even the basics of scientific knowledge OR who wilfully discounts it as it does not fit her personal agenda. The way I look at it is the converse to your view. IMHO There IS enough knowledge and scientific evidence to understand the design and zero evidence of a 'designer'.
|
|