#154295 - 13/04/2003 18:29
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: jasonc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
As wfaulk mentioned you cant use the bible to prove its validity. I wasn't trying to prove the validity of the bible, only give a few of the reasons that I believe in the resurrection. The evidence for the authority of the bible is a different subject. I was citing the biblical information as an ancient text, not authoritative scripture. Even if I grant for the sake of argument that the Bible contains mis-information, it still can be used to give evidence for the resurrection by piecing together accounts by differing authors that bear witness to one another. Anyway, my main point in my post wasn't that the resurrection is true, only that science doesn't refute the reasons I believe that it is.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154296 - 13/04/2003 19:10
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
that's what it says in the Bible You can't use the Bible as a reference to prove the validity of the Bible. I'm quite aware of that, thank you. I wasn't trying to prove the validity of the Bible, and I apologize if my command of language is so poor that you were led to infer that from my words -- perhaps you could show me what the problem was so that I don't make the same mistake again? Peter was making a suggestion for how things are based on a possibility. I offered a different suggestion for how things are. Please demonstrate, using the technology of 2000 years ago, how a virgin woman can naturally become pregnant without having sex. I was going to add, but left out for the sake of not being overly offensive, ``or falsehoods''. Oh, don't worry about that being offensive to me. I'm quite aware that the Bible has been meddled with by less than divinely inspired humans. I'm curious though, how do you purport to demonstrate that the story and circumstances surrounding Jesus' conception is irrefutably a falsehood? we have two choices: There are more choices than those two. In fact, the only mutually exclusive pieces of those two choices you provide are the ``there is no/a god'' parts. Yes. I'm sure that if you were to go count the number of words is my previous post that you'd find the number grievously too few to enumerate all the intricate possibilites. I just tried to boil it down into the two basic options that dealt with Peter's possibilty and my alternate possibility. You mean to tell me that this is all just a huge coincidence, despite the statistical probability of that ever occuring? Yeah, right -- just the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical." Yet people win the lottery all the time. Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean that it can't be.[emphasis mine] So remind me again why you argue so vociferously against the possibility of a god, that he has a direct hand in things, etc, etc?  For a lot of people, it's far simpler to pick option 2 It's also a lot simpler to assume that one plus one equals three than to go through the immensely complicated mathematics to prove that it, in fact, equals two. But just because it's simpler doesn't make it so. <pedantic> Actually, it's simpler to stick with the convention of 1 + 1 = 2 -- it's commonly accepted knowledge. </pedantic> Aside from that, the difficulty I see in your parallel is that, whereas 1+1=2 can be proven through complicated maths, no matter how complicated things get, you cannot prove either of option 1 or option 2. Particularly if they also have some sort of personal experience which they *can't* explain via option 1 Example? I'd bet that it's because they'd rather attribute it to option 2. Okay, an example. My mom, brother and I were driving down from Alberta to my grandparents' house in Missouri. My mother, who gets lost very, very easily, had some written directions, but no map. It had been so long since my mom had been there that for all intents and purposes, you could say she'd never been there before. My brother and I had never been there before, and I think we were both under the age of 10 when this happened. Well, my mother got lost, and we were out in the middle of nowhere (my grandparents lived on a farm). This was also long before the common existance of cell phones. My mom is rather religious, so she had us all pray for help in finding where we were going. About 5 minutes later, my brother, who had not read any of the directions, and who had no better an idea where we were than the rest of us, piped up and said "You need to turn right, here." Of course, that was the road my grandparents lived on. When my mom asked my brother how he knew where to turn, he said "God told me." I have not been able to think of any other more plausible explanation for that. Could it have been a guess? Sure. But then my brother would have been lying when he answered my mom, and that's completely out of character for him, even at that age. Furthermore, it wasn't an "I think you should turn here," it was "you need to turn here." I don't think it's a case of preferring to attribute this to option 2, so much as it's a case of I can't figure out how I can fit this into option 1, because to do so would require ignoring part of the evidence. Does that help?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154297 - 13/04/2003 20:03
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
If you aren't going to do that, then there's no point in arguing, because you haven't agreed on what you're arguing about yet. Absolutely true. I'd love clarification from both sides. That's why I started from the Bible. Right or wrong, at least it's something in common to start from. My point is that science describes the laws of the universe. Those laws may or may not have been put in place by a creator, but that point is irrelevant. Whether we're determining natural law of the rules put in place by that being is irrelevant. In fact, they may well be the same way of stating the same thing. Yup! In addition, any potential creator does not rig the results of this reality. That point could be debatable, hence the reason I asked "does God cheat at Solitaire?"  My ultimate point is that those of you that beileve that you can depend on said creator to provide you with things, physical or psychological, are mistaken and setting yourselves up for failure. Depend on yourself, not the boogeyman. I agree with that statement, but probably not for the same reasons. I certainly agree that if you just say "Hey god, get me a car," or "Hey god, make me happy", then just carry on life without doing anything more, one day you're going to say "dammit, where's that car I asked for" or "how come I'm not happy?" From what you wrote, it makes me think that your concept of God is that he ought to either be an indentured servant, or a parent that will spoil a child -- do this, do that, make me happy, etc. If that's the case, then yeah, you're going to have problems. I think it better to look at God as a parent who gives a kid a bit of guidance, then lets the kid go learn on his own. If the kid asks for help, sometimes the parent will help, sometimes the parent will wait a bit before helping, and sometimes the parent will say "you got into this mess, I'll let you get out of it on your own so that maybe you'll learn something from this." In otherwords, don't be afraid of asking for help if you're stuck, but be prepared to go it alone. Now, whether you choose to think of something that helps as having been provided by God or is just some random fluctuation in the entropy of the world, is up to you. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154298 - 13/04/2003 20:12
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I'm quite aware of that, thank you. Sorry. I got off track. You my point, really, was that the Bible, I don't think says that God existed in nothingness. It implies that he created everything we can comprehend, but it doesn't say that there weren't other things we can't comprehend that he could. how do you purport to demonstrate that the story and circumstances surrounding Jesus' conception is irrefutably a falsehood? I can't prove it irrefutably. But it seems much more likely that someone lied, or was mistaken. There is only one person who could really know if Mary was a virgin -- Mary herself. I'm not familiar with the ethics of the Jewish community 2000 years ago, but maybe she was raped by a Roman soldier and didn't want anyone to know. Maybe she'd slept with someone other than Jospeh and didn't want anyone to know. There are any number of potential explanations that don't involve virgin births. Also note that there is at least one report of a woman becoming pregnant in the US Civil War due to a bullet passing through a man's testicle and carrying sperm into her uterus/fallopian tubes/whatever. That may well be apocryphal, but it's not totally outrageous. So remind me again why you argue so vociferously against the possibility of a god, that he has a direct hand in things, etc, etc? Unlikely things that occur are no longer unlikely. They are a certainty. It is easy to prove that certain people have won the lottery. There is no evidence that anyone has ever been affected by God. it's commonly accepted knowledge. That's precisely my point. Just because it's commonly accepted doesn't mean that it's right at all. What I was saying is that if people feed you incorrect information, just because it was taught doesn't mean that it's so. cute story Did you question your brother? Did a voice pop into his head and tell him to turn right? I have no explanation for this, assuming it's true. But just because I have no explanation doesn't mean that I have to go making up imaginary people to explain it away.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154299 - 13/04/2003 20:20
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
That point could be debatable Looking back, it did not come across clearly, but I intended that as part of ``what I believe''.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154300 - 13/04/2003 21:19
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
I got off track. Happens to the best of us. You my point, really, was that the Bible, I don't think says that God existed in nothingness. It implies that he created everything we can comprehend, but it doesn't say that there weren't other things we can't comprehend that he could. I think you meant to say that there weren't other things we can't comprehend that someone other than God created. Having just dusted off my bible, I can see that as being a valid statement. I suppose that previously I'd always interpreted that bit about the earth being "without form and void" as meaning that there was just nothingness before hand. how do you purport to demonstrate that the story and circumstances surrounding Jesus' conception is irrefutably a falsehood? I can't prove it irrefutably. But it seems much more likely that someone lied, or was mistaken. Yes, it does seem much more likely that someone lied or was mistaken. But, as you've said before, just because something is unlikely does not mean that it can't happen. There is only one person who could really know if Mary was a virgin -- Mary herself. Yep. She's rather inconveniently dead, though. Also note that there is at least one report of a woman becoming pregnant in the US Civil War due to a bullet passing through a man's testicle and carrying sperm into her uterus/fallopian tubes/whatever. That may well be apocryphal, but it's not totally outrageous. Apocryphal, indeed, but no less plausible than a Holy Daddy. So remind me again why you argue so vociferously against the possibility of a god, that he has a direct hand in things, etc, etc? Unlikely things that occur are no longer unlikely. They are a certainty. It is easy to prove that certain people have won the lottery. There is no evidence that anyone has ever been affected by God. But conversely, there is no evidence that *no-one* has ever been affected by God. To support your claim, you must show that each and every person on the face of the earth has never been affected by God. I only have to show that one person has been so affected. I think your task is the more monumental. it's commonly accepted knowledge. That's precisely my point. Just because it's commonly accepted doesn't mean that it's right at all. What I was saying is that if people feed you incorrect information, just because it was taught doesn't mean that it's so. That's very true. But it's not true that if people feed you unverifiable information, just because it was taught doesn't mean that it is incorrect. It just means that it is unverifiable. If I tell you I have a black shirt on, there is no way for you to verify that. If I were blind, there's no way even *I* could verify that. Does that mean I'm not wearing a black shirt? cute story Did you question your brother? Did a voice pop into his head and tell him to turn right? From what I understood, it was this second. I have no explanation for this, assuming it's true. It is. But just because I have no explanation doesn't mean that I have to go making up imaginary people to explain it away. Hey, *I'm* not the one that made up the imaginary guy! It's the only explanation I've ever been offered, though, so I see no reason why I shouldn't accept it until a better reason is given in its stead. (On a side note to bring this semi-on-topic, I think the shielded computer speakers I'm listening to my empeg with are less than completely shielded... I've been watching an odd line on my monitor waver in time to the bass line coming from the empeg.)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154301 - 14/04/2003 02:43
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: muzza]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4172
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Rob should know that we all care about him by the sheer quantity and quality of the posts in this thread. In fact, if he were to read it, it would take so long that by the time he finished he'd be out of his depression. (i hope) Hear, hear. And, uh, yeah, we slightly hijacked your thread. Sorry Rob, that was partly my fault. I just wanted to supply some completely secular reassurance, but then somebody started posting a load of poor logic and I saw the red mist... 
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154302 - 14/04/2003 04:44
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Hear, hear. And, uh, yeah, we slightly hijacked your thread. Rob, If you're still reading, I really do apologize for hijacking this thread (because a large part of this was my fault). It wasn't my intention to set this thing down this road, only to give my belief about what "the bloody point is." However, philosophical/ theological arguments are generally not reassuring in and of themselves, and I'm sure this is not what you were looking for in the original post. I do hope (and pray) that everything is allright.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154303 - 14/04/2003 07:20
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
To support your claim, you must show that each and every person on the face of the earth has never been affected by God. Yet despite the fact that you have the easier job, you've yet to provide any real evidence (unverifiable anecdotal evidence does not count) that God does exist.
Also, it's not fair to claim that God exists, then rely on people who claim that statement invalid to prove their point. You're the one who made the assertion, not me. (And by ``you'', I mean your side. In all honesty, I don't remember how this got started, but I'm not of the nature to randomly go around calling out that God doesn't exist.) It's your responsibility to prove it. I've stated many times that it's possible that God exists. My only claim is that he does not interact with the universe in ways that violate static laws of nature.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154304 - 14/04/2003 08:32
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: wfaulk]
|
addict
Registered: 05/06/2002
Posts: 497
Loc: Hartsville, South Carolina for...
|
I have no desire to spend the amount of time that some of you do on this sort of argumentation. That's not a slam or a judgement, this sort of thing has its place. I just don't have time to do it justice. However I would like to make a few suggestions.
Number 1. For a great article on the supposed disparity (both current and historical) between Christianity and science pick up a current copy of Christian History. This is published by the same people as Christianity Today, which is generally evangelically conservative but not necessarily fundamentalist.
Number 2. The idea that God violates static laws of nature to create miracles is widely discussed within Christianity. For the best explanation see C.S. Lewis' Miracles
_________________________
Michael West
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154305 - 14/04/2003 08:51
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: wfaulk]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
My only claim is that he
Grammar! It should be "He".
does not interact with the universe in ways that violate static laws of nature.
But what do you consider static laws of nature?
Speed * Time = Distance?
Newton's laws?
Many of the 'static' laws of nature were changed with the Theory of Relativity and quantum physics.
Other aspects of physics that people consider standard are not really. There is a slight chance that all the molecules in your body will 'randomly' shoot upward at the same time causing you to fly 30 feet in the air. Most people would consider that a miracle, but it does not violate the 'static' laws of nature. The Red Sea parting for Moses does not violate the 'static' laws of nature.
We have only found the tip of the iceberg when it comes to comprehending how the universe works. In every generation throughout history, there were many people who thought they had it all figured out, only to be disproved by the next generation.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154306 - 14/04/2003 09:01
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Grammar! It should be "He" Only if I'm referring to God. I'm referring to some theoretical creator being, Many of the 'static' laws of nature were changed with the Theory of Relativity and quantum physics. No, they weren't. Our interpretations and models of them were, but the laws remain the same, even as our mathematical approximations of them improve.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154307 - 14/04/2003 09:43
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
To support your claim, you must show that each and every person on the face of the earth has never been affected by God. Yet despite the fact that you have the easier job, you've yet to provide any real evidence (unverifiable anecdotal evidence does not count) that God does exist. Which brings us directly back to the "You can't prove it/You can't disprove it" argument.  I've stated many times that it's possible that God exists. Hmm... perhaps I've missed those, then. Heaven knows I haven't been following the entire thread. My only claim is that he does not interact with the universe in ways that violate static laws of nature. In other words, for all phenomena, strange or otherwise, there exists a rational, and scientific explanation, and though we may not currently have the scientific language to describe all such phenomena, it will be developed over time. I think that's a reasonable assertion.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154308 - 14/04/2003 10:26
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: ]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 06/03/2003
Posts: 269
Loc: Wellingborough, UK
|
If there is a God, He has (at most) four options when it comes to interacting with us:
1. God can break , suspend or change the static laws. Most scientists that consider such things believe this is not an option for God.
2. God chooses the numbers that come out of the universal random number generator. It is possible that at some point in the future scientists will discover/proove that randomness isn't really random but just very very complicated chaotic mathematics (randomness is really pseudo-randomness) and that all randomness can be predicted. Some scientists already have theories for this. So believing in [2] might mean believing in a God-of-the-gaps.
3. God can interact and communicate with the soul (where I define the soul to be the ghost in the machine - not subject to the natural laws but somehow able to interact and communicate with our thoughts). It is possible that at some point in the future scientists will discover/proove that there is no ghost - that our brains, thoughts and consiousness are entirely anchored in the real and and can be entirely predicted. Some scientists already have theories for this. So believing in [3] might mean believing in a God-of-the-gaps.
4. God is an awesome mathematician and programmer (with some flair for artistry, beauty and abstraction). He analysed, designed and coded the laws of the Universe, then bootstrapped. Now He sits back and watches the Universe unfold in front of His eyes, totally unable to interact with it (if you want to debate this last statement, revisit 1, 2 or 3 above).
Personally, while I totally admire and respect the part of religion that deals with trying to live your life to a higher standard, I find the concept that some believers evangelise (not on this BBS) about God taking a special interest in Humans as arrogant as those that believe little green men are visiting us.
A friend of mine sent me a link about the speed of light after reading this thread. I think it might be of interest to other readers: http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154309 - 14/04/2003 14:31
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Through the refining in my moral character, unbelievable circumstances, and simply studying, worship, and experiencing God most of my doubts were eradicated. I must admit I sometimes question if it's all a grand dillusion....
As you can guess, I think it is, but I also think it does not matter, as least from the standpoint of ethics. The construct you have built to come to peace with your perceived 'sin problem' seems unnecessary to me, and attributing your morality to some external agent looks kind of unfair towards yourself, but I neither think our well argued skepticism has a chance of changing your perception of the world in general and yourself in particular, not do I see the need for that.
Unlike someone in this thread, I certainly did break my own moral code occasionally. However, the moral debt accrued I owe to people I wronged (and to myself, in order to restore my selfimage), not to some superbeing. I don't particularly like finality of death I am quite certain of, but I cannot make myself to disown everything I know about the world and believe in what I see as invention in order to have unreasonable hope (which could, after all, lead me to waste my mortal days, the only days I have).
To all, I'm sorry about this series of long posts. This is something that is obviously really important to me and I wish I could share with everyone.
Thank you for this attempt at sharing. However, I neither see nor feel need to postulate something unknowable beyond what I can (at least in principle) observe or deduce.
I think everyone should have an empeg, I hate it when people just don't "get it." In many ways, my faith in Jesus is the same only a billion times stronger!
This is certainly flattering to empeg and us empeggers!
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154310 - 14/04/2003 19:13
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5539
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
As I said before: because it's demonstrable.
Are you sure?
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154311 - 14/04/2003 19:37
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: m6400]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5539
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
2 days of fighting out numbered is wearisome.
Please, please, do not think that we are attacking you or in any way trying to denigrate you or your beliefs.
One of the things (probably the most important thing) that makes this bulletin board and the people on it so extraordinary is that we can address even "hot button" topics like creationism vs evolutioin and still remain civilized and non-inflammatory. And when we have someone such as yourself, exceptionally articulate and well-informed (I'm not conceding that your information is correct mind you, but I'm not dismissing it out of hand, either) then the temptation to engage in debate becomes irresistable, even though (or perhaps especially because) the nature of the topic encourages adversarial discussion.
My only disappointment with this thread is that I would like to see the Rev (revmlwest) join in and contribute more than he has so far.
Keep up the good work!
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154312 - 14/04/2003 19:42
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Yeah. Math becomes fun when you start dividing by zero.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154313 - 14/04/2003 21:18
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: wfaulk]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Our interpretations and models of them were, but the laws remain the same, even as our mathematical approximations of them improve.
Exactly, which means how can you say whether the static laws of nature were or weren't violated when we don't know exactly what those laws are. Secondly, how could a law be violated? If it happens, then it is obviously within the laws of nature. If an unseen entity such as God makes it happen, then it is also within the laws of our environment. Under the laws of nature that we know of (or our understanding of them), almost anything is possible.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154314 - 15/04/2003 02:51
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: ]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 06/03/2003
Posts: 269
Loc: Wellingborough, UK
|
I think the argument was that God can interact with us in inexplicable ways. That God can choose to do something with no rhyme or reason other than it is his will. Such acts would be completely illogical with no pattern such that we could never predict such behaviour or write a rule for it other than "every now and then, strange things happen".
If God changes the laws of Nature once his 'program' is running, and the laws before, during and after the change can be expressed mathematically (logically), then there is no real difference between God changing them 'on the fly' compared to writing the more complex rule before starting things off. They are just two different ways of looking at the same thing (so this is really option 4 in my original post - again remember the question is can God interact with us in inexplicable ways).
Regarding the "almost anything is possible" I would postulate that your statement is true only within the bounds of the four options I laid out in my original post.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154315 - 15/04/2003 04:23
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: mdavey]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
I have to say, this is a kind of interesting discussion to me. Recently I was involved in a small group that was going through a book dealing with questions skeptics would ask. One of the chapters was about miracles and how skeptics would claim that God couldn't violate the laws of nature. The thing was, we all felt it was a strange question and I must admit we didn't give it any serious thought. To us it was simply obvious that if there was a God he could interact with us and suspend the laws of nature at His will. On top of that, we just didn't see how anyone would see this as otherwise if they granted for the sake of discussion that there was a God. Now I see that this is indeed a topic that I should explore in more detail.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154316 - 15/04/2003 07:08
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
To find more information on this sort of thing, if you're looking for references, search for Deism. It's certainly not all that exists in this vein, but it's a good start, especially for someone coming from a more traditionally religious background.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154317 - 15/04/2003 07:26
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: wfaulk]
|
addict
Registered: 05/06/2002
Posts: 497
Loc: Hartsville, South Carolina for...
|
In reply to:
My only disappointment with this thread is that I would like to see the Rev (revmlwest) join in and contribute more than he has so far.
Ouch.... As in times past tanstaafl, you are used of the Holy Spirit to correct my laziness. However things seem to have calmed down a bit at this point. In rereading this thread, and its orginal question, I was reminded of this C.S. Lewis quote.
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
_________________________
Michael West
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154318 - 15/04/2003 10:18
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Bitt,
I clicked on the first few links (admittedly not really enough to find out what falls under the term “Deism”), but I think what I’d be most interested in hearing is why it seems you believe that if God exists that he cannot interact with His creation. I’ve known based on a previous post that you believe that if God does exists then He doesn’t interact with us, but what I see you (and others) saying is that scientifically (or philosophically) He cannot interact with us. If I’m stating your position correctly, I’d like to see your reasoning so I can better understand why you believe this.
From my perspective it makes mountains of sense that a Creator could interact with His creation, changing the rules He set up as necessary. As a programmer I can set up rules when I write a program, and then easily change them even as the program is running. I can make data appear that could have never naturally occurred without my outside intervention. Of course this is a very simplistic analogy, but I don’t yet see the argument that God cannot contradict the laws of science that He created.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154319 - 15/04/2003 10:31
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31565
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Yeah. Math becomes fun when you start dividing by zero. One of my favorite all-time taglines is "Black holes are where God divided by zero".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154320 - 15/04/2003 10:34
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I don't think God would be the type to run his creation under a debugger.
Well, when you get down to it, I don't really believe that God exists. This is a matter of faith as much as your opposing viewpoint, but it's based on my own experiences. However, that does not mean that God definitely does not exist, but I'm not inclined to believe it unless you can show me some proof. That's just the rational mind in action.
If I were to believe that God existed, I don't think that I'd assume that he couldn't affect our universe. But, to be honest, while that's a perfectly valid line of questioning, it's neither one I've thought much about nor am inclined to pursue, given my opinion above. It's also one that I don't believe that we have enough knowledge to make any sort of judgement on. If we currently cannot know whether or not God exists, then it's even less likely that we can make a rational judgement as to his abilities.
Edit: Fixed this: ``It also sertainly one that I don't believe ...''. I think something smashed my stack.
Edited by wfaulk (15/04/2003 10:38)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154321 - 15/04/2003 10:39
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
I don't think God would be the type to run his creation under a debugger. Well if He did, then perhaps we wouldn't have black holes.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154322 - 15/04/2003 10:44
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: JeffS]
|
addict
Registered: 05/06/2002
Posts: 497
Loc: Hartsville, South Carolina for...
|
Are we really going to lean toward the idea that a black hole is a mistake? Would not the creator of an enigma gain in stature instead of appearing foolish? To be more direct, a creator who only creates things that I understand would be somewhat boring.
_________________________
Michael West
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154323 - 15/04/2003 10:46
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: revlmwest]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
No, I was just rolling with Tony's joke. . . Of course I don't believe God makes mistakes.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#154324 - 15/04/2003 10:49
Re: Sometimes I wonder....
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index