RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Moonhead -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 3:00:26 PM)
Goo goo goo joob!

Rule -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 3:07:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead That's actually a big contradiction right from the off there: either He's everything (the notion the Wiccans have picked up on in a big way) or he's outside of everything. It can't be both, however ineffable He is. If I chop off a finger, I am outside my finger, but it is still my finger. (It is more complicated than that, but it is a good analogy.)

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 3:08:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's quite possible to imagine a universe without a God, but you couldn't have a God without a universe. Probably not relevant, but I just thought I'd mention that. Thats an interesting point. Im not sure I agree with it, and I doubt any theists would agree with it, since if it is correct it leads inexorably to the conclusion that god could not have created the universe.

Moonhead -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 3:10:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's quite possible to imagine a universe without a God, but you couldn't have a God without a universe. Probably not relevant, but I just thought I'd mention that. Thats an interesting point. Im not sure I agree with it, and I doubt any theists would agree with it, since if it is correct it leads inexorably to the conclusion that god could not have created the universe. That's precisely why I like it, to be honest.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 3:12:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead That's actually a big contradiction right from the off there: either He's everything (the notion the Wiccans have picked up on in a big way) or he's outside of everything. It can't be both, however ineffable He is. If I chop off a finger, I am outside my finger, but it is still my finger. (It is more complicated than that, but it is a good analogy.) Not a good analogy because you are starting with something that is already "inside" the universe of your body and then moved it. In the second half of moonhead's premise god would be outside and always outside.

SlapMeUp4Fun -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 3:12:53 PM)
"God created man in his own image; and man, being a gentleman, returned the favor"

vincentML -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 4:00:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The problem is when your head is inside a box your own stupidity, insanity, and arrogance are reinforced... I will no longer contribute to the care and feeding of your childish vanity. Now, now... let's debate in a kindly fashion. K. Sigh, you're right K. I don't know what possessed me. Frustration at having my words twisted is a good guess. I should have said "...when your head is inside a box your own %#@#% are reinforced in a kindly fashion!* mea culpa and apologies to Rule. He can be as nuts as he wishes. vincent

vincentML -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 4:26:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's quite possible to imagine a universe without a God, but you couldn't have a God without a universe. Probably not relevant, but I just thought I'd mention that. Thats an interesting point. Im not sure I agree with it, and I doubt any theists would agree with it, since if it is correct it leads inexorably to the conclusion that god could not have created the universe. I don't see how you can say that Will. Is it not the theists' assumption that God is eternal but the Universe is not? I have always thought so. I mean I always thought that was the assumption. (I have some other thoughts now) Our Universe, at least, started with a big bang so they say. Consequently, there was a time zero for the Universe. Assuming for the moment that god was the creator, just humor me here, I have often wondered what he did during all the preceding eternity. Did he have conversations with himself, play games with himself, maybe even naughty games? What exactly does a god do in nothingness? Or does he fill up the nothingness with himself and so completely occupy himself with himself? And then to create a Universe does he have to move over, get himself out of the way, make a little room for the expanding matter and energy? He must have had to think it through carefully, don't you agree? Could have been a dilemma - to create or not create; that is the question. Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of a bunch of idiots saying nasty things on message boards, or just forget the whole thing. A crucial decision. Know what I mean? Vincent

mnottertail -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 4:31:58 PM)
well if the universe aint forever according to god, they are going to have to be doing some tinkering on that the earth will be made anew lie they been telling.........maybe they are having some trouble with the contractors, seeing as they are all certainly in hell. Satan

Kirata -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 4:37:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Assuming for the moment that god was the creator, just humor me here, I have often wondered what he did during all the preceding eternity. Did he have conversations with himself, play games with himself, maybe even naughty games? What exactly does a god do in nothingness? Or does he fill up the nothingness with himself and so completely occupy himself with himself? And then to create a Universe does he have to move over, get himself out of the way, make a little room for the expanding matter and energy? He must have had to think it through carefully, don't you agree? Could have been a dilema - to create or not create; that is the question. Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of a bunch of idiots saying nasty things on message boards, or just forget the whole thing. A crucial decision. Know what I mean? Much as you may enjoy finding opportunities to indulge in some gratuitous ridicule, there's no need to go out of your way to create them. In this case the proposition was, "you couldn't have a God without a universe." Know what I mean? K.

switch2please -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 4:48:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: switch2please There was some debate about my usage of 'belief'... When I state that I absolutely believe in evolution, I mean that I personally have not proved the theory of evolution - it is not fact, it is just a theory, there is always another option - but from what I've read, it makes the most sense. If I were to have faith in one theory in the creationism vs. evolutionism debate, I have faith in evolution. I've yet to see either of these viewpoints proved conclusively beyond a doubt, but I choose to believe in evolutionism. I sympathize with your point of view but I think you are stating a misconception about what constitutes a Scientific Theory. In the scientific method a theory is never proven. It is accepted to a degree of probability based upon the observations and data gathered and measured. Inferences are drawn and peer-reviewed and challenged. Whatever theory you are referring to is never static. It is always open to either adjustment or rejection pending new information or data that do not support it. No need to prove the theory of evolution. Don't let anyone pull that rhetorical gambit on you. The present collection of data from geology, genetics, microbe mutation, etc is pretty convincing.... until some data comes along to suggest otherwise. The Creationists do not offer any positive new data. Creationism is a "science of the gaps." You see, they say, here's a missing link, there's a missing link, so the theory must be wrong. They refuse to understand or admit that soft tissue fossils are very rare due to decomposition. They reject or refuse to take into account the 5 billion years of time involved in the long algorithmic process of change. Don't be fooled. When push comes to shove they reach for a supernatural skyhook. It is just theology camouflaged. vincent If you read the rest of my post, I was attempting to clarify my usage of the word 'belief' - I am well aware that nothing can ever truly be proven. That said, the constant nature of change makes the absolutes 'nothing' and 'ever' ridiculous, but they contribute to the context - without these absolute statements, my argument and yours would collapse into the unstable realm of metaphysics. As you said, the data is convincing - until new data suggests otherwise. My belief in evolution is reinforced by this current data. "It is always open to either adjustment or rejection pending new information or data that do not support it. No need to prove the theory of evolution." My point? I believe in evolution, and I don't require proof to do so. Since neither can offer conclusive proof, they are both theology. I am a disciple of science, by choice.

switch2please -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 4:53:58 PM)
God is always referred to in the context of power - benevolent or not, omniscient or not, he is a 'creator', 'lord', 'savior', whatever. Without a universe, god has power over nothing because there is nothing. Without a universe, god is out of context. You can have a universe and god, or a universe. You can't have just god.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 5:06:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's quite possible to imagine a universe without a God, but you couldn't have a God without a universe. Probably not relevant, but I just thought I'd mention that. Thats an interesting point. Im not sure I agree with it, and I doubt any theists would agree with it, since if it is correct it leads inexorably to the conclusion that god could not have created the universe. I don't see how you can say that Will. Is it not the theists' assumption that God is eternal but the Universe is not? I have always thought so. I mean I always thought that was the assumption. (I have some other thoughts now) Our Universe, at least, started with a big bang so they say. Consequently, there was a time zero for the Universe. Assuming for the moment that god was the creator, just humor me here, I have often wondered what he did during all the preceding eternity. Did he have conversations with himself, play games with himself, maybe even naughty games? What exactly does a god do in nothingness? Or does he fill up the nothingness with himself and so completely occupy himself with himself? And then to create a Universe does he have to move over, get himself out of the way, make a little room for the expanding matter and energy? He must have had to think it through carefully, don't you agree? Could have been a dilemma - to create or not create; that is the question. Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of a bunch of idiots saying nasty things on message boards, or just forget the whole thing. A crucial decision. Know what I mean? Vincent If there cannot be a god without a universe and there was ever a time when there was no universe then no god could have existed to create it. As I said, I dont know if I agree with the initial premise, though, and probably don't. It would not be so much an entity/force whatever "outside the universe" (and therefore not dependent on the existence of the universe) but something that "exists" in a manner that we just cant comprehend. But in the context of an Abrahamaic god, though, I would agree think that he/she/it could not exist without a universe...which in turn is probably colored by my atheism.

vincentML -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 5:09:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: switch2please If you read the rest of my post, I was attempting to clarify my usage of the word 'belief' - I am well aware that nothing can ever truly be proven. That said, the constant nature of change makes the absolutes 'nothing' and 'ever' ridiculous, but they contribute to the context - without these absolute statements, my argument and yours would collapse into the unstable realm of metaphysics. As you said, the data is convincing - until new data suggests otherwise. My belief in evolution is reinforced by this current data. "It is always open to either adjustment or rejection pending new information or data that do not support it. No need to prove the theory of evolution." My point? I believe in evolution, and I don't require proof to do so. Since neither can offer conclusive proof, they are both theology. I am a disciple of science, by choice. I was happily in agreement with you until I arrived at your last sentence which made me shudder. "Theology" assumes the action of a god agent. Quite a long way from what Darwin described as the process of Natural Selection which has been confirmed by laboratory experiments and the blossoming of our understanding of the genomes of various life forms. I must inquire what you mean by your demand for "conclusive" proof? What percentage of certainty do you require? I think we are pretty close to 100% but philosophically I have to leave open even that slightest bit of possibility that there was/is an agency at work as yet unidentified. I will concede that much but not much more. So, I ask you to clarify and/or amplify your use of the word "theology" in this context. Vincent

switch2please -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 5:17:26 PM)
I did use 'theology' incorrectly. I was typing quickly and should have used another word [:)] I meant that neither evolutionism or creationism can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, so neither can be construed as right or wrong. It's a matter of choice, and I choose evolution. I don't demand proof, that's just my point - it's a matter of belief.

Kirata -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 5:20:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy it leads inexorably to the conclusion that god could not have created the universe. That's precisely why I like it, to be honest. Well unh... "created" meaning what precisely? The usual options seem to be that either God created the universe out of some "stuff" or else he created it ex nihilo. But there is also a view which says that the universe is within God and of God; that the universe is, in different terms, God Immanent; and that creation stories like Genesis can only be correctly understood as metaphor and allegory for their archetypal content. K.

switch2please -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 5:26:41 PM)
There's a Robin Williams stand-up bit.... "'Let there be light' - could this be some metaphor for the big bang? - No. God just went 'click'."

vincentML -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 5:28:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's quite possible to imagine a universe without a God, but you couldn't have a God without a universe. Probably not relevant, but I just thought I'd mention that. Thats an interesting point. Im not sure I agree with it, and I doubt any theists would agree with it, since if it is correct it leads inexorably to the conclusion that god could not have created the universe. I don't see how you can say that Will. Is it not the theists' assumption that God is eternal but the Universe is not? I have always thought so. I mean I always thought that was the assumption. (I have some other thoughts now) Our Universe, at least, started with a big bang so they say. Consequently, there was a time zero for the Universe. Assuming for the moment that god was the creator, just humor me here, I have often wondered what he did during all the preceding eternity. Did he have conversations with himself, play games with himself, maybe even naughty games? What exactly does a god do in nothingness? Or does he fill up the nothingness with himself and so completely occupy himself with himself? And then to create a Universe does he have to move over, get himself out of the way, make a little room for the expanding matter and energy? He must have had to think it through carefully, don't you agree? Could have been a dilemma - to create or not create; that is the question. Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of a bunch of idiots saying nasty things on message boards, or just forget the whole thing. A crucial decision. Know what I mean? Vincent If there cannot be a god without a universe and there was ever a time when there was no universe then no god could have existed to create it. As I said, I dont know if I agree with the initial premise, though, and probably don't. It would not be so much an entity/force whatever "outside the universe" (and therefore not dependent on the existence of the universe) but something that "exists" in a manner that we just cant comprehend. But in the context of an Abrahamaic god, though, I would agree think that he/she/it could not exist without a universe...which in turn is probably colored by my atheism. The logical structure of your first sentence is quite sound, starting with the "if" statement and reaching the inevitable conclusion. If I were a theist I certainly would not agree with the initial premise either. Nor would I accept the Abrahamic god who seems too frail for the job. I would have to expand my cosmology to imagine the unimaginable entity/force greater than all mass/energy/time existence, a super-existence of sorts. Not impossible to imagine I don't think. I just can't fill in the details. The face remains blurry if you get my drift as do motivations and purposes if any. Could be just a great big cookie monster. My other choice is mass/energy without end (very Catholic rip off) in both directions. I find this latter somewhat easier to accept even though it leads me inevitably to my own non-existence. vincent

Sanity -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 5:28:33 PM)
What if the universe and everything in it is god. quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's quite possible to imagine a universe without a God, but you couldn't have a God without a universe. Probably not relevant, but I just thought I'd mention that.

switch2please -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 5:34:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML My other choice is mass/energy without end (very Catholic rip off) in both directions. I find this latter somewhat easier to accept even though it leads me inevitably to my own non-existence. vincent That's what I love about people - our ability to perceive the flaws in what we believe, and believe it anyway. Thank you.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125