OMG!OMG! OMG! I solved the problem for everybody!
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


http://www.e-prophetic.com/wp-conten...ower_Jesus.png


Jesus, where did you get your hair done? That's a smashing haircut you have. Good to see you're finally taking care of yourself.

The 1970s

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A..._3evult-OvWbdn
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...o73dIaYo5EVQxA


:hmmm:

Life is so amazing, the chances that billions of processes working perfectly in some imperfect way is beyond our minds to grasp. Time and space are eternal, can't grasp it. My views have changed, if God exist, I don't know that any one religion has any grasp on it, but I'm in the "I don't know" camp. I can understand anyone having faith to believe in God.

^ Billions of processes work out perfectly, in a way that we have what we have today ?
This is a completely wrong view. Those processes were not guided, nor were they intended to create the current situation or anything perfect. This all happened by chance - thinking "wow god put oxygen into the atmosphere so mankind has something to breathe" is a not a very clever way to think about it. Our predecessors adapted to breathing air, otherwise we would have died out. Oxygen was (and is) a poison lots of life died of, when it accumulated in the atmosphere during the Carbon age.
Would the dinosaurs have thought, they probably imagined they were the crown of evolution - which they certainly were, in their time. 160 million years ago.

Certainly the dinosaurs did not die out, they just changed and adapted and they are indeed all around us.

If may have happened by chance, maybe not. Certainly I agree that it was chaotic, but the fact remains the many energy sources that work together to give life are rather amazing that I have no problem with people believing in a creator.

"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than the atoms in your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about the universe:

You all are stardust.

You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded, because the elements (the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, all the things that matter for evolution) weren't created at the beginning of time - they were created in stars. So forget Jesus. Stars died so that you can live.

Lawrence Krauss, physicist



If evolution means developing things from simpler to more complex states of order and structure, then the absolutest form of complexity - the god that is claimed to have created it all - cannot have existed at the very beginning, but must be the final construction result at the very end of all evolutionary process. God did not create the universe - the universe creates God, so to speak.

free summary of a reasoning by Dawkins



All things, forms of existence, states of the universe, life forms, are absolutely perfect in every single present moment in the meaning of that they adapted to the conditions and variables of existence as best as was possible for them in the time so far having been available to the universe.

Not sure, I think again Dawkins, or an amalgamate by me from different sources that I threw together.

How do you know that? Answer: You don't. You only believe it.

Assuming you know the answer is not a very clever way to think about it either. You seem to be one of the people who were talked about before; you have so much faith in what you believe that you can preach it as absolute truth. It's not. It's where the evidence seems to lead, but you don't know it any more than the absolute believer "knows" there's a God.

Are you calling me a liar? :stare:

More religion, different coat.



Either you or Dawkins or both are making the same error in criticism. Dawkins asks the question in effect "if God created everything, then who created God?" He clearly doesn't understand that the traditional view is that God need not be created, since God is a per se necessary being, that is, a being whose essence includes existence. Not one single person I know who believes in God believes that He was created. It is a gaping hole in his discussions of philosophical theology. It doesn't matter whether God exists or not. If you are going to criticize an error at least get the error correct before doing so. It shows a lack of understanding in traditional theology that makes the argument somewhat less effective.

I thought I did. Webster's definition of 'Atheist' is "one who believes there is no deity". Fine so far. 'Agnostic' is defined as "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god". One believes there is no God; the other believes you can't know whether there's a God or not. By the definition you claim to use, you can't be both.

So it is just your belief, and not based on any real probalility one way or the other.

Neon went to great lengths to explain how the scientific method actually works, and you want to contradict that while ignoring everything else. Fine. You get to think what you want. You don't have to learn anything new.

Again you're talking about conventional logic. Neon was speaking only of the scientific method, but you don't seem willing to accept that.

That's great, but has nothing at all to do with what Neon was talking about. It is relevant to this discussion, and I have nothing to add or subtract since I feel pretty much the same way. Cool. :sunny:

I have a problem with people who claim that science would be a religion, or "just another belief". It is not.

Science has a certain view of aspects of the world, until another or better theory comes along. It is open to arguments, as long as those can be backed up by evidence. It can also change completely, if you think of relativistic effects or chaos theories.
No religion i know of is that open, or able to change or adapt.

You may be right, who am i to doubt that without evidence :salute:

But it may well be that the successors of the theropods (=some "dinosaur" species back then) survive us and deveklop intelligence as we know it, do you think those will have a religion where some god created just of all humans after his own image ? Or will he look like they do then ?

I admit i have less difficulties of a god or creator that does not resemble the one described by the bible (or Quran or whatever human religion), however if there is a god who created the whole universe with its billions of galaxies and even more stars and planets, do you think he would care so much for humans, especially in the state mankind is in now ?
Would 'he' really look like man, or dinosaur ?

I have nothing against believers of religions as long as they take tolerance and the freedom of dissenters earnest, but creationsists do not seem to belong to this fraction.

Back to the original poster - do you take the theory of this creationist mentioned by the OP serious ?

Catfish,

The idea that God made man in His "image" is not talking about physical form. Its dealing with the spirit - God created the spirit in humanity on the same "plane" or level as He is.

SailorSteve - by the definition of "agnostic" - wouldn't honest believers also have to be agnostic? While a believer accepts by faith the existence of a Supreme Being, the reality is that we cannot "Know" the Mind of God. Because God cannot be "proven" empirically, belief or faith that results in a "knowing" is only a surety of said belief or faith. Thus, one could say that I "know" God exists, but I am agnostic (since I cannot know as a human) as to WHAT God is - since all I "know" is what is provided historically. Since the human mind could not comprehend "God", then "I don't know" must be part of the equation. So are all honest believers still somewhat agnostic?

That is the definition you are insisting I use, not the one I claim and choose about atheism which is, one more time for clarity; One whom disbelieves in the existence of theistic god(s)

The clue is the word disbelieve, in this sense defined as 'A refusal to believe' - this does not mean belief professed or not in the non-existence of god(s) - again it is like the proof burden shifting, just because I refuse to believe does not mean I automatically believe nor am I required to believe in the negative. In fact Neon described the problem quite well with his use of 'anti-theism.' Your definition of atheism would be more appropriately labelled in this way. One who outwardly opposes the presumed truth of god(s)

Agnosticism is as I have said not about belief, it is about knowledge, and not exclusively about gods or primal truths but absolute knowledge in any way - like one of Neons absolute facts that would never change - these are unattainable or at least indistinguishable to us due to the limits of our perception, and the assumptions that must be made before any knowledge or value judgement of it has a basis as you put it. As such it is not mutually exclusive with either theism or atheism. It is a position of honesty about the ultimate limits of human knowledge.

No, I simply disagree. The scientific method could not exist without logic and reason. At this point I am not sure whether Neon has the best grasp of the scientific method, or that you are misunderstanding what he said.

OK, what is unconventional logic?

Hmmm, yes but again this is a value judgement Steve, as 3-1 against metaphysics being true in any way, It is the same as me saying I think it less than likely that god(s) exist, as god(s) are by definition included in metaphysics. Still... it is an opinion not a belief.

Like I stated I believe all 3 of our views are not as far removed from each other as they at first might seem.

Not religion, but by current cosmological paradigm: fact.

He does not ask that question, at least not in this context of the snippet of text you refer to. What he does is he points out two totally different timelines. He also does not refer to theology there, he simply does not care for it here. He comes to a conclusion on basis of the timeline from evolution: from simple to complex order. If that holds truth, it makes no sense that this process should have started with the utmost and absolute complex thing there is in this idea: a creator who then starts the process of creation from simple to complex.

And theology, that you referred to, it means nothing here, or else. It is not grounded on any facts or reproducible results. It is a set of unchecked fictional claims. It's no science and no experience. To claim that something is like it claims just because it claims so, is - rich in fantasy, to put it mildly.