| |
To my friends at LUGNET,
The United States, and the rest of the world by way of sympathy, have
suffered greatly this week. Here in our own little microcosm of the world,
we have shared news of tradgedy and sorrow, stories of hope and survival,
and words of thought and anger. All of this is to be expected at such a
time, and with understanding, it is my hope that all words of anger and
strife will be forgiven in these troubled times.
I personally apologize for any feelings I may have hurt, and beg the
understanding of those I may have offended...please know that, along with
you, I am hurting, but I am sorry.
President Bush has declared today a National Day of Prayer. While this
doesn't necessarily help everyone, I will offer my prayer here, for want of
an actual workplace or co-workers to share with. Please, feel free to take a
moment to reflect on the events of this week, and the troubled times we
likely have ahead of us...not just America, but for the entire world. And if
it is your desire, please also offer a prayer, either mine below, or one of
your own, that survivors might yet be found, that families might cope, and
that the government of the United States, and our allies, might take
rational courses of action in the hope that a tradgedy of this magnatude
need not happen ever again.
The President's proclimation follows:
________________________________________________________
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of
America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and
laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Friday, September 14, 2001, as
a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of the Terrorist
Attacks on September 11, 2001. I ask that the people of the United States
and places of worship mark this National Day of Prayer and Remembrance with
noontime memorial services, the ringing of bells at that hour, and evening
candlelight remembrance vigils. I encourage employers to permit their
workers time off during the lunch hour to attend the noontime services to
pray for our land. I invite the people of the world who share our grief to
join us in these solemn observances.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of
September, in the year of our Lord two thousand one, and of the Independence
of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.
GEORGE W. BUSH
________________________________________________________
This is my prayer:
Dear Lord God, savior of souls and path of peace,
I ask Your blessings for those who were touched by the tragedy in New York
and Washington D.C. this week. Please, be with those suffering the pain and
loss of spouses, fathers, mothers, children, family and friends. Please lend
Your everlasting comfort to those whose losses seem to great to comprehend.
Please guide the leaders of the world, as they struggle to cope with the
daunting task of leading their people on the right path.
I know we humans suffer daily, and many times that suffering is
self-inflicted, either psychologically, physically or emotionally, but we
poor beings have much trouble comprehending the scope of tragedy like we
have experienced this week. Some find no comfort in You at times like
these...and very often ask You why You would allow this sort of thing to
happen. In my belief, You have set our feet on the path of life, and the
death we cause our fellows is the inevitable effect of being sinful humans.
I pray that all peoples can someday return to the path of life, in order to
uphold each other in brotherhood and fellowship, and uplift You in name and
glory.
I thank You for Your forgiveness, as won for me by the death of Your Son,
Jesus Christ, and his triumphant resurrection. In Your name I pray,
Amen
Matt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Gerber writes:
> To my friends at LUGNET,
>
> The United States, and the rest of the world by way of sympathy, have
> suffered greatly this week. Here in our own little microcosm of the world,
> we have shared news of tradgedy and sorrow, stories of hope and survival,
> and words of thought and anger. All of this is to be expected at such a
> time, and with understanding, it is my hope that all words of anger and
> strife will be forgiven in these troubled times.
>
> I personally apologize for any feelings I may have hurt, and beg the
> understanding of those I may have offended...please know that, along with
> you, I am hurting, but I am sorry.
>
> President Bush has declared today a National Day of Prayer. While this
> doesn't necessarily help everyone, I will offer my prayer here, for want of
> an actual workplace or co-workers to share with. Please, feel free to take a
> moment to reflect on the events of this week, and the troubled times we
> likely have ahead of us...not just America, but for the entire world. And if
> it is your desire, please also offer a prayer, either mine below, or one of
> your own, that survivors might yet be found, that families might cope, and
> that the government of the United States, and our allies, might take
> rational courses of action in the hope that a tradgedy of this magnatude
> need not happen ever again.
>
> The President's proclimation follows:
> ________________________________________________________
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of
> America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and
> laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Friday, September 14, 2001, as
> a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of the Terrorist
> Attacks on September 11, 2001. I ask that the people of the United States
> and places of worship mark this National Day of Prayer and Remembrance with
> noontime memorial services, the ringing of bells at that hour, and evening
> candlelight remembrance vigils. I encourage employers to permit their
> workers time off during the lunch hour to attend the noontime services to
> pray for our land. I invite the people of the world who share our grief to
> join us in these solemn observances.
>
> IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of
> September, in the year of our Lord two thousand one, and of the Independence
> of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.
>
> GEORGE W. BUSH
> ________________________________________________________
>
> This is my prayer:
>
> Dear Lord God, savior of souls and path of peace,
>
> I ask Your blessings for those who were touched by the tragedy in New York
> and Washington D.C. this week. Please, be with those suffering the pain and
> loss of spouses, fathers, mothers, children, family and friends. Please lend
> Your everlasting comfort to those whose losses seem to great to comprehend.
> Please guide the leaders of the world, as they struggle to cope with the
> daunting task of leading their people on the right path.
>
> I know we humans suffer daily, and many times that suffering is
> self-inflicted, either psychologically, physically or emotionally, but we
> poor beings have much trouble comprehending the scope of tragedy like we
> have experienced this week. Some find no comfort in You at times like
> these...and very often ask You why You would allow this sort of thing to
> happen. In my belief, You have set our feet on the path of life, and the
> death we cause our fellows is the inevitable effect of being sinful humans.
> I pray that all peoples can someday return to the path of life, in order to
> uphold each other in brotherhood and fellowship, and uplift You in name and
> glory.
>
> I thank You for Your forgiveness, as won for me by the death of Your Son,
> Jesus Christ, and his triumphant resurrection. In Your name I pray,
>
> Amen
>
> Matt
Amen!
As you say, many are wondering where God is right now, or why He let this
happen. I'd like to say to them that He's very much present and hard at
work. We see it reflected all over:
- The government could be in much worse shape. The plane that crashed into
the Pentagon was supposed to hit the White House. The Pentagon is built
like a tank, so only one section was damaged. The White House would have
been flattened.
- Likewise, they think that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was bound
for the Capitol. Had the plane not been brought down prematurely by the
heroic passengers, the Capitol most likely would have been destroyed.
(Congress was in session, too.)
- The death toll at the WTC could be much higher than it is. Fifty thousand
people worked there, yet most were able to evacuate because the towers did
not collapse right away.
- The people of America have rallied like never before in this generation,
donating blood and money. Enlistments have risen substantially.
- There has been a tremendous outpouring of support all over the world.
Nearly every country has been horrified at the attack and has pledged
whatever support it can give.
Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Ian Warfield writes:
> As you say, many are wondering where God is right now, or why He let this
> happen. I'd like to say to them that He's very much present and hard at
> work. We see it reflected all over:
>
> - The government could be in much worse shape. The plane that crashed into
> the Pentagon was supposed to hit the White House. The Pentagon is built
> like a tank, so only one section was damaged. The White House would have
> been flattened.
> - Likewise, they think that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was bound
> for the Capitol. Had the plane not been brought down prematurely by the
> heroic passengers, the Capitol most likely would have been destroyed.
> (Congress was in session, too.)
> - The death toll at the WTC could be much higher than it is. Fifty thousand
> people worked there, yet most were able to evacuate because the towers did
> not collapse right away.
> - The people of America have rallied like never before in this generation,
> donating blood and money. Enlistments have risen substantially.
> - There has been a tremendous outpouring of support all over the world.
> Nearly every country has been horrified at the attack and has pledged
> whatever support it can give.
>
> Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
It's not my wish to deconstruct anyone's religion at a time like this, but
I must point out that all of the evidence you cite above would likewise have
been true even if He were not looking out for the Good Ol' US of A.
For many, it is sufficient to be impressed by the human capacity for
compassion, charity, and heroism without necessarily appealing to the
involvement of a higher power.
Dave!
|
|
| |
Without commenting on whether god had anything to do with this or not...
In lugnet.general, Ian Warfield writes:
> - The death toll at the WTC could be much higher than it is. Fifty thousand
> people worked there, yet most were able to evacuate because the towers did
> not collapse right away.
This particular one is noteworthy... you can see gods hand in it if you
like, it is said he moves in mysterious ways, but the reason these towers
didn't collapse right away is that they were designed with *great* skill.
It is a stunning testimonial to the architects and engineers of WTC... steel
melts, and concrete pulverises, at well below what Jet A burns at so the
upper floors were doomed no matter what, but even with supports unevenly cut
away the towers lasted a while, and when they went down, they went
*straight* down in a controlled collapse.
Think of how much worse things would have been, had they toppled sideways
instead of collapsing in a controlled way.
Small consolation to the thousands who died but I personally feel a huge
debt of gratitude to the (anonymous?) WTC engineering team, whoever they are.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In article <GJo2MB.Lp4@lugnet.com>, "Ian Warfield" <ipw47@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> As you say, many are wondering where God is right now, or why He let this
> happen.
I'm wondering how people can maintain their faith in the face of what
has just happened. If you believe God to be all-good and all-powerful,
then explain to me how this kind of horrible thing is allowed to happen.
And don't give me that "works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
> I'd like to say to them that He's very much present and hard at
> work.
Hmph.
> We see it reflected all over:
No we don't. I see PEOPLE coming together and helping.
> Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
-All the victims of the crashes
-The people who worked in the WTC
-The missing rescue workers
-The American Muslims who are being Persecuted in the Christian God's
name.
I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
--
Mark's Lego(R) Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Without commenting on whether god had anything to do with this or not...
>
> In lugnet.general, Ian Warfield writes:
>
> > - The death toll at the WTC could be much higher than it is. Fifty thousand
> > people worked there, yet most were able to evacuate because the towers did
> > not collapse right away.
>
> This particular one is noteworthy... you can see gods hand in it if you
> like, it is said he moves in mysterious ways, but the reason these towers
> didn't collapse right away is that they were designed with *great* skill.
Designed my great architects,engineers(many who are AFOL's) and BUILT by
skilled tradesmen/women.
> It is a stunning testimonial to the architects and engineers of WTC... steel
> melts, and concrete pulverises, at well below what Jet A burns at so the
> upper floors were doomed no matter what, but even with supports unevenly cut
> away the towers lasted a while, and when they went down, they went
> *straight* down in a controlled collapse.
>
> Think of how much worse things would have been, had they toppled sideways
> instead of collapsing in a controlled way.
>
> Small consolation to the thousands who died but I personally feel a huge
> debt of gratitude to the (anonymous?) WTC engineering team, whoever they are.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> It is a stunning testimonial to the architects and engineers of WTC... steel
> melts, and concrete pulverises, at well below what Jet A burns at so the
> upper floors were doomed no matter what, but even with supports unevenly cut
> away the towers lasted a while, and when they went down, they went
> *straight* down in a controlled collapse.
>
> Think of how much worse things would have been, had they toppled sideways
> instead of collapsing in a controlled way.
>
> Small consolation to the thousands who died but I personally feel a huge
> debt of gratitude to the (anonymous?) WTC engineering team, whoever they are.
It is amazing that the towers didn't collapse right away, and things could
have certainly been much worse. As an engineer, I'll be interested in future
reports that will discuss modes of failure.
Typically, building design adheres strictly to code, and unusual occurances
aren't covered. I haven't looked through the AISC-LRFD manual thoroughly,
but I doubt loads from jet plane crashes are considered. It's up to the
client to decide whether or not to spend the extra money and have their
building designed for some extraordinary event. The decision is usually
based on a risk assessment and a study of the consequences.
I believe the WTC towers were designed to handle the impact of a 707. I'm
sure this extra design criteria helped, but unfortunatly it wasn't enough.
Nevertheless, I agree with Larry and I'm thankful that someone had the
foresight and decided it was best to account for such an extraordinary
event, even though it was for a smaller plane.
I'm sure engineers and architects will see changes in building codes soon.
They'll seriously have to consider such events as car bombs, letter bombs,
plane crashes, etc. It's sad, but we'll all see changes in life in
everything we do.
TJ
|
|
| |
Mark, I'm glad you spoke up, because I was beginning to think I might be the
only one who thought this way.
Although I can't speak for Mr. Sandlin, I have the same feelings as Mark
wrote about, and I am an atheist. I am an archaeologist and one of the
things I have studied to some extent is the evolution of the human race,
which is extensive proof that there was no act of any higher being to create
our species. I don't really want to start a big religious debate here, I
echo the question how can people can maintain faith. Everyone can pray to
whichever being they want if that makes them feel better, but how can anyone
say or think that 'He' has shown any mercy on anyone.
I quote Ian Warfield:
- The government could be in much worse shape. The plane that crashed into
the Pentagon was supposed to hit the White House. The Pentagon is built
like a tank, so only one section was damaged. The White House would have
been flattened.
- Likewise, they think that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was bound
for the Capitol. Had the plane not been brought down prematurely by the
heroic passengers, the Capitol most likely would have been destroyed.
(Congress was in session, too.)
- The death toll at the WTC could be much higher than it is. Fifty thousand
people worked there, yet most were able to evacuate because the towers did
not collapse right away.
- The people of America have rallied like never before in this generation,
donating blood and money. Enlistments have risen substantially.
- There has been a tremendous outpouring of support all over the world.
Nearly every country has been horrified at the attack and has pledged
whatever support it can give.
And what Mark said is right on, these acts are people, coming together in
this terrible crisis.
As this is the first time I've spoken on the events of Tuesday here, I am
one of the people who supports the response to punish those responsible. If
it is bin Laden, there will be some difficulty even finding him, the US has
tried to eliminate him before and failed. Read Osama bin Laden's terrorist
'resume' here: http://www.adl.org/presrele/terrorismintl_93/bin_laden_93.asp
and tell me that he will make this easy for anyone to punish him, or even
find him. I heard on the news last night that the Taliban asked for
evidence to convict bin Laden, but to me it sounds like giving more time to
bin Laden to move around or do whatever he is doing now. He and other
terrorists must be eliminated. I do not wish for innocent people to have
caught in the middle of the war against terrorism, but that is now too late.
~Adam
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> In article <GJo2MB.Lp4@lugnet.com>, "Ian Warfield" <ipw47@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > As you say, many are wondering where God is right now, or why He let this
> > happen.
>
> I'm wondering how people can maintain their faith in the face of what
> has just happened. If you believe God to be all-good and all-powerful,
> then explain to me how this kind of horrible thing is allowed to happen.
> And don't give me that "works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
>
> > I'd like to say to them that He's very much present and hard at
> > work.
>
> Hmph.
>
> > We see it reflected all over:
>
> No we don't. I see PEOPLE coming together and helping.
>
>
> > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
>
> What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
>
> -All the victims of the crashes
>
> -The people who worked in the WTC
>
> -The missing rescue workers
>
> -The American Muslims who are being Persecuted in the Christian God's
> name.
>
> I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
> whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
>
> I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
> have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
>
> ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
|
|
| |
> I'm wondering how people can maintain their faith in the face of what
> has just happened. If you believe God to be all-good and all-powerful,
> then explain to me how this kind of horrible thing is allowed to happen.
> And don't give me that "works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
True; I can't say specifically why this happened. Perhaps, instead, I could
offer the "evil is a mystery" cop-out?
Perhaps He let this happen to shock us out of complacency. America is used
to living securely and safely; contented people are less likely to search
for meaning behind life than those in immediate danger. If God wanted
Americans to seek him, and subtler methods didn't seem to be working, He may
permit something of this magnitude to jump-start the process.
> What mercy?
Mercy that this tragedy was not worse than it is. (By no means do I want to
belittle the horrific magnitude of this situation, but suppose the White
House and the Capitol had been taken out, as was planned. We'd be running
the country from bunkers right now.)
> Where is the mercy for:
>
> -All the victims of the crashes
> -The people who worked in the WTC
> -The missing rescue workers
I can't say.
> -The American Muslims who are being Persecuted in the Christian God's
> name.
This is wrong and goes against the foundation of Christianity. I would say
to those contemplating this to remember "Love your neighbor as yourself" and
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> In article <GJo2MB.Lp4@lugnet.com>, "Ian Warfield" <ipw47@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > As you say, many are wondering where God is right now, or why He let this
> > happen.
>
> I'm wondering how people can maintain their faith in the face of what
> has just happened. If you believe God to be all-good and all-powerful,
> then explain to me how this kind of horrible thing is allowed to happen.
> And don't give me that "works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
No cop-outs. The question is not, "How can you believe in God?", but, "How
can you believe in man?!" God didn't do this, man did. I like how people
expect God to intervene in self serving ways but they don't want Him to
interfere with their "fun." If God were to intervene in such ways, some
would accuse Him of being too controlling. Bad men chose to do a bad thing.
Some people enjoy doing bad things. God has never made a promise obligating
Himself to intervene in such instances. He has given *us* freedom to choose.
This has nothing to do with His goodness. We tainted His perfect creation by
our sin. Your question is a cop-out, and is as old as the hills. Pain and
suffering are man's fault not God's.
>
> > I'd like to say to them that He's very much present and hard at
> > work.
>
> Hmph.
>
> > We see it reflected all over:
>
> No we don't. I see PEOPLE coming together and helping.
That's funny, I saw PEOPLE hijack and crash those planes. I also saw three
plane loads of PEOPLE sit by and "allow" those planes to be hijacked and
crashed (the fourth didn't).
>
>
> > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
>
> What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
>
> -All the victims of the crashes
If the next life can be said to be better than this, there it is. Same below.
>
> -The people who worked in the WTC
>
> -The missing rescue workers
>
> -The American Muslims who are being Persecuted in the Christian God's
> name.
Who said it was in the name of the Christian's God? It wasn't me.
>
> I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
> whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
>
> I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
> have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
Have you intervened to prevent every foul deed you have witnessed or new was
happening?
I didn't think so.
So, you yourself "allow" things to transpire that you do nothing to stop?
Hmmm. Why is that? Therein lies your answer.
It's convenient and easy to blame God because then you won't have to face
the deeper issues.
>
> ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
Respectfully,
Just plain Bill
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > In article <GJo2MB.Lp4@lugnet.com>, "Ian Warfield" <ipw47@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > As you say, many are wondering where God is right now, or why He let this
> > > happen.
> >
> > I'm wondering how people can maintain their faith in the face of what
> > has just happened. If you believe God to be all-good and all-powerful,
> > then explain to me how this kind of horrible thing is allowed to happen.
> > And don't give me that "works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
>
> No cop-outs. The question is not, "How can you believe in God?", but, "How
> can you believe in man?!" God didn't do this, man did. I like how people
> expect God to intervene in self serving ways but they don't want Him to
> interfere with their "fun." If God were to intervene in such ways, some
> would accuse Him of being too controlling. Bad men chose to do a bad thing.
> Some people enjoy doing bad things. God has never made a promise obligating
> Himself to intervene in such instances. He has given *us* freedom to choose.
> This has nothing to do with His goodness. We tainted His perfect creation by
> our sin. Your question is a cop-out, and is as old as the hills. Pain and
> suffering are man's fault not God's.
Who would accuse God or anyone of being too controlling if what happened
could have been prevented? And who would say God is controlling in anyway
now? You said yourself that bad men do bad things and some people enjoy
doing bad things, god never made a promise to intervene, god has given us
freedom etc. How would that be considered controlling in any way, or what
is he doing to be controling even a little bit? What is he doing then? I'm
not religious so please explain how we tainted his perfect creation? What
perfect creation? And if we've tainted this perfect creation of his why
doesn't he just 'clean up' and hit every building with a 767 jumbo jet? And
what about the people all over the world and through history fighting over
religion?
> > > I'd like to say to them that He's very much present and hard at
> > > work.
> >
> > Hmph.
> >
> > > We see it reflected all over:
> >
> > No we don't. I see PEOPLE coming together and helping.
>
> That's funny, I saw PEOPLE hijack and crash those planes. I also saw three
> plane loads of PEOPLE sit by and "allow" those planes to be hijacked and
> crashed (the fourth didn't).
Yes, see your own statement about how bad people do bad things and god
doesn't do anything about it. What point are you trying to make? There are
people and country's who are trying to repair damage done by sick and
twisted people, and I use the term people lightly as to me people would mean
that those responsible deserve basic rights that all people have, like
living a peaceful life, and not having a highjacked plane to crash into your
place of work. And I'm shocked that you would say that people 'allowed'
highjackers to take control of the plane. Where you there? Do you know how
it all exaclty happened? I don't think anyone does yet. Maybe they were
all busy praying to their god when the terrorists started killing
passengers. Maybe they were scared and couldn't do anything? Do you know?
Please share?
> >
> >
> > > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
> >
> > What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
> >
> > -All the victims of the crashes
>
> If the next life can be said to be better than this, there it is. Same below.
>
> >
> > -The people who worked in the WTC
> >
> > -The missing rescue workers
> >
> > -The American Muslims who are being Persecuted in the Christian God's
> > name.
>
> Who said it was in the name of the Christian's God? It wasn't me.
>
>
> >
> > I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
> > whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
> >
> > I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
> > have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
>
> Have you intervened to prevent every foul deed you have witnessed or new was
> happening?
>
> I didn't think so.
>
> So, you yourself "allow" things to transpire that you do nothing to stop?
> Hmmm. Why is that? Therein lies your answer.
And what about yourself? If you were on one of those planes would you have
become the hero of the nation? Fought all of the terrorists with knives or
other weapons? To me it sounds like you would, or you would have seen what
had tranpired from the Batcave and jumped into your Batmobile and race to
save the day. Or would have you began to pray to your god?
> It's convenient and easy to blame God because then you won't have to face
> the deeper issues.
And what issues do those who don't blame god face?
>
> >
> > ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
>
> Respectfully,
> Just plain Bill
|
|
| |
Everything has a purpose, whether we see that purpose in a few days, a year,
ten years, or even a century, God has a reason for everything. The reason
could be very suttle, it could be realised by only a few people, or there
could be a number of reasons for any one issue realized by many people.
Right now I can name a number of good things that God has brought us due to
this already:
It has brought the nation together,
It has brought most of the world together
People have opened up their houses to the people in need and therefore made
a few new friends, people have learned to appreciate others and be more
thankful.
respect for some political leaders has rose in the minds of many.
There are soo many more, Personally, I see God in my life everyday, helping
me through tough decisions, even small things, if I'm going to be late for
school or something, I pray, it's not by chance that I get there on time
almost all the time, even if I'm late, I find out I didn't miss much, or
that something happened and school was a little delayed in starting. All
sorts of things, I see God in my life all the time.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> In article <GJo2MB.Lp4@lugnet.com>, "Ian Warfield" <ipw47@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > As you say, many are wondering where God is right now, or why He let this
> > happen.
>
> I'm wondering how people can maintain their faith in the face of what
> has just happened. If you believe God to be all-good and all-powerful,
> then explain to me how this kind of horrible thing is allowed to happen.
> And don't give me that "works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
>
> > I'd like to say to them that He's very much present and hard at
> > work.
>
> Hmph.
>
> > We see it reflected all over:
>
> No we don't. I see PEOPLE coming together and helping.
>
>
> > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
>
> What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
>
> -All the victims of the crashes
>
> -The people who worked in the WTC
>
> -The missing rescue workers
>
> -The American Muslims who are being Persecuted in the Christian God's
> name.
-What about the mercy for the people rescued from the rubble?
-What about the mercy for those who were stuck in a airport and someone
opened up their house so they would have someplace to stay?
-What about the mercy for those who thought they had lost a family member,
but later found out they were alive?
-What about the mercy for those who were donated blood, when they were
injured in the hospital?
-What about the mercy for those who were late coming to work that day and
missed the explosion?
What about the mercy for those working in the white house, but the plane was
crash landed before it got there?
-What about the mercy for the families who have had money donated etc.?
This has to be God at work, whether you like it or not, God has shown
himself clearly in the face of tragedy.
-Geordan-
>
> I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
> whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
>
> I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
> have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
>
> ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
|
|
| |
Geordan, you talk about all this 'mercy' but as far I as I know there have
been 5 survivors found and still about 5000 missing or dead. Would you call
that mercy? I won't. And the plane 'missing' the white house to hit the
Pentagon and kill about 180? Or the plane that crashed in the Pittsburgh
area, was that mercy? I'm not sure what plane you are refering to? And you
talk about the situation bringing people and countries together, was that
god's plan for this, if, as you say, everthing has a purpose? Why doesn't
god just pop down here, give everyone the downlow on how he wants things run
down here, also confirming the exitence of the supreme being, and then jump
back up and continue about his business. Yes, I know that's a rhetorical
question.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Geordan Hankinson writes:
> Everything has a purpose, whether we see that purpose in a few days, a year,
> ten years, or even a century, God has a reason for everything. The reason
> could be very suttle, it could be realised by only a few people, or there
> could be a number of reasons for any one issue realized by many people.
>
> Right now I can name a number of good things that God has brought us due to
> this already:
>
> It has brought the nation together,
> It has brought most of the world together
> People have opened up their houses to the people in need and therefore made
> a few new friends, people have learned to appreciate others and be more
> thankful.
> respect for some political leaders has rose in the minds of many.
>
> There are soo many more, Personally, I see God in my life everyday, helping
> me through tough decisions, even small things, if I'm going to be late for
> school or something, I pray, it's not by chance that I get there on time
> almost all the time, even if I'm late, I find out I didn't miss much, or
> that something happened and school was a little delayed in starting. All
> sorts of things, I see God in my life all the time.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > In article <GJo2MB.Lp4@lugnet.com>, "Ian Warfield" <ipw47@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > As you say, many are wondering where God is right now, or why He let this
> > > happen.
> >
> > I'm wondering how people can maintain their faith in the face of what
> > has just happened. If you believe God to be all-good and all-powerful,
> > then explain to me how this kind of horrible thing is allowed to happen.
> > And don't give me that "works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
> >
> > > I'd like to say to them that He's very much present and hard at
> > > work.
> >
> > Hmph.
> >
> > > We see it reflected all over:
> >
> > No we don't. I see PEOPLE coming together and helping.
> >
> >
> > > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
> >
> > What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
> >
> > -All the victims of the crashes
> >
> > -The people who worked in the WTC
> >
> > -The missing rescue workers
> >
> > -The American Muslims who are being Persecuted in the Christian God's
> > name.
>
> -What about the mercy for the people rescued from the rubble?
>
> -What about the mercy for those who were stuck in a airport and someone
> opened up their house so they would have someplace to stay?
>
> -What about the mercy for those who thought they had lost a family member,
> but later found out they were alive?
>
> -What about the mercy for those who were donated blood, when they were
> injured in the hospital?
>
> -What about the mercy for those who were late coming to work that day and
> missed the explosion?
>
> What about the mercy for those working in the white house, but the plane was
> crash landed before it got there?
>
> -What about the mercy for the families who have had money donated etc.?
>
> This has to be God at work, whether you like it or not, God has shown
> himself clearly in the face of tragedy.
>
> -Geordan-
> >
> > I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
> > whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
> >
> > I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
> > have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
> >
> > ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
|
|
| |
In article <GJoA9E.IzC@lugnet.com>, "Bill Farkas" <wolfe65@msn.com>
wrote:
> No cop-outs. The question is not, "How can you believe in God?", but, "How
> can you believe in man?!" God didn't do this, man did.
Then how can anyone say that God has been merciful. Mercy implies
participation. If God isn't participating, then he couldn't have been
merciful.
> I like how people
> expect God to intervene in self serving ways but they don't want Him to
> interfere with their "fun."
What does that have to do with anything I've talked about? I thought the
discussion was about mercy?
> If God were to intervene in such ways, some
> would accuse Him of being too controlling. Bad men chose to do a bad thing.
> Some people enjoy doing bad things. God has never made a promise obligating
> Himself to intervene in such instances. He has given *us* freedom to choose.
> This has nothing to do with His goodness. We tainted His perfect creation by
> our sin. Your question is a cop-out, and is as old as the hills.
My question is a cop-out of what? I'm not following you here.
> Pain and suffering are man's fault not God's.
I agree. And by the same token, the rescue efforts are man's mercy and
not God's.
> > No we don't. I see PEOPLE coming together and helping.
>
> That's funny, I saw PEOPLE hijack and crash those planes. I also saw three
> plane loads of PEOPLE sit by and "allow" those planes to be hijacked and
> crashed (the fourth didn't).
Yes, I agree completely. And God did nothing, therefore he is showing no
mercy, since he's not involved.
> > > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
> >
> > What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
> >
> > -All the victims of the crashes
>
> If the next life can be said to be better than this, there it is. Same below.
Really? All the victims, or just the Christian ones? How do you know?
> > -The people who worked in the WTC
> >
> > -The missing rescue workers
> >
> > -The American Muslims who are being Persecuted in the Christian God's
> > name.
>
> Who said it was in the name of the Christian's God? It wasn't me.
All the people yelling on CNN said it was.
> > I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
> > whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
> >
> > I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
> > have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
>
> Have you intervened to prevent every foul deed you have witnessed or new was
> happening?
>
> I didn't think so.
>
> So, you yourself "allow" things to transpire that you do nothing to stop?
> Hmmm. Why is that? Therein lies your answer.
>
> It's convenient and easy to blame God because then you won't have to face
> the deeper issues.
I'm thoroughly confused by your last paragraph. It sounds kind of like
you're attacking my integrity because I don't agree with you. I met you
when you were out here in Seattle, and you seemed like a much nicer
person than that. I hope I'm misunderstood about your intent here.
~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
--
Mark's Lego(R) Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> In article <GJo2MB.Lp4@lugnet.com>, "Ian Warfield" <ipw47@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > As you say, many are wondering where God is right now, or why He let this
> > happen.
>
> I'm wondering how people can maintain their faith in the face of what
> has just happened. If you believe God to be all-good and all-powerful,
> then explain to me how this kind of horrible thing is allowed to happen.
> And don't give me that "works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
Don't forget that this was done in His name. And since an evil deed was done
in His name and he did not stop it, I cannot see how God can be kind and
merciful in any way.
Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> In article <GJoA9E.IzC@lugnet.com>, "Bill Farkas" <wolfe65@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> > No cop-outs. The question is not, "How can you believe in God?", but, "How
> > can you believe in man?!" God didn't do this, man did.
>
> Then how can anyone say that God has been merciful. Mercy implies
> participation. If God isn't participating, then he couldn't have been
> merciful.
My point was that He never obligated Himself to intervene in every
circumstance. But He is very active.
As some have said, it could have been much worse. Two planes were prevented
from hitting their targets. The Pentagon was hit in it's least populated
spot. The WTC could have collapsed sooner. Those are not very consoling, I
realize, but true none-the-less.
Such actions prove the existence of evil, not the efficacy of God's mercy.
It's hard to deal with this in a framework that does not accept God or the
Bible. Evil exists for a purpose. If God intervened in *every* circumstance
to prevent evil acts, then why allow evil to exist in the first place.
Notice I did not assert that God created or causes evil. Much of this is
contingent upon understanding God's nature and the nature of the creation
from the beginning thru to it's final state. I realize that many here will
nitpick each and every assertion I offer in this regard (been there, done
that) that's why I am hesitant to go at it again.
>
> > I like how people
> > expect God to intervene in self serving ways but they don't want Him to
> > interfere with their "fun."
>
> What does that have to do with anything I've talked about? I thought the
> discussion was about mercy?
As you said, His mercy implies active intervention. I was asserting that if
God was active to that extent some would accuse Him of being too
controlling. After all, we can't just expect Him to intervene when it's
convenient for us. Enjoying His presence comes with certain expectations as
well. We are to show our appreciation to Him by obeying Him - not
whimsically or arbitrarily, but because we trust His love and believe that
His ways are best. Without that love and trust, obedience is meaningless.
That's not to say that His mercy is contingent upon obedience - otherwise it
wouldn't be mercy, but debt. Mercy implies getting what you don't deserve.
That is where things get sticky.
>
>
> > If God were to intervene in such ways, some
> > would accuse Him of being too controlling. Bad men chose to do a bad thing.
> > Some people enjoy doing bad things. God has never made a promise obligating
> > Himself to intervene in such instances. He has given *us* freedom to choose.
> > This has nothing to do with His goodness. We tainted His perfect creation by
> > our sin. Your question is a cop-out, and is as old as the hills.
>
> My question is a cop-out of what? I'm not following you here.
Your question is a reflection of an accusation. It implies that God does
exist but not as He represents Himself to be, that He is unfair. Men have
been levelling this accusation for millennia. It totally denies the human
root of the problem.
>
> > Pain and suffering are man's fault not God's.
>
> I agree. And by the same token, the rescue efforts are man's mercy and
> not God's.
Why is it not the evidence that we have come from God, evidence of His
essence within us?
>
> > > No we don't. I see PEOPLE coming together and helping.
> >
> > That's funny, I saw PEOPLE hijack and crash those planes. I also saw three
> > plane loads of PEOPLE sit by and "allow" those planes to be hijacked and
> > crashed (the fourth didn't).
>
> Yes, I agree completely. And God did nothing, therefore he is showing no
> mercy, since he's not involved.
Did nothing? Preventing two planes from hitting their targets is nothing? I
don't know if the people on Capitol Hill would agree. Every person who did
not die in the tragedy is an act of mercy.
>
> > > > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
> > >
> > > What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
> > >
> > > -All the victims of the crashes
> >
> > If the next life can be said to be better than this, there it is.
>
> Really? All the victims, or just the Christian ones? How do you know?
This goes back to the definition of mercy. Think before you ask.
>
> > > -The people who worked in the WTC
> > >
> > > -The missing rescue workers
> > >
> > > -The American Muslims who are being Persecuted in the Christian God's
> > > name.
> >
> > Who said it was in the name of the Christian's God? It wasn't me.
>
> All the people yelling on CNN said it was.
Didn't see it. But does that mean CNN stands for Christian News Network?
>
>
> > > I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
> > > whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
> > >
> > > I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
> > > have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
> >
> > Have you intervened to prevent every foul deed you have witnessed or new was
> > happening?
> >
> > I didn't think so.
> >
> > So, you yourself "allow" things to transpire that you do nothing to stop?
> > Hmmm. Why is that? Therein lies your answer.
> >
> > It's convenient and easy to blame God because then you won't have to face
> > the deeper issues.
>
> I'm thoroughly confused by your last paragraph. It sounds kind of like
> you're attacking my integrity because I don't agree with you. I met you
> when you were out here in Seattle, and you seemed like a much nicer
> person than that. I hope I'm misunderstood about your intent here.
Not at all, no attacks. This is why I closed with "Respectfully" - hoping
you wouldn't misconstrue my remarks. I apologize if I was careless. I happen
to think I'm nice. :~) Thanx, by the way.
I was referring to some of the deeper, tougher stuff mentioned above. We all
allow evil deeds to transpire, sometimes at our own hands. Why? Questions
for introspection only. No accusations.
I like to lead people to ask questions rather than just give answers before
they ask.
>
> ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
PFC Bill
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas (T. J.) Avery writes:
> I believe the WTC towers were designed to handle the impact of a 707. I'm
> sure this extra design criteria helped, but unfortunatly it wasn't enough.
I acknowledge this is a morbid line to go down, but.. I'm fairly sure that
if the planes had had dry tanks instead of full transcontinental loads of
Jet-A, the towers would still be standing... the impacts didn't do enough
damage to cause the collapse, it was the melting of the structural steel
that caused it. Steel melts (and concrete fractures/pulverises) well below
the temp that Jet-A burns at, at least that's my understanding.
I don't know that there is any possible change away from Jet-A... there has
been talk of developing a fuel that is a jelly and not flammable until you
need to actually use it, but I don't know how realistic that is.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas (T. J.) Avery writes:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > It is a stunning testimonial to the architects and engineers of WTC... steel
> > melts, and concrete pulverises, at well below what Jet A burns at so the
> > upper floors were doomed no matter what, but even with supports unevenly cut
> > away the towers lasted a while, and when they went down, they went
> > *straight* down in a controlled collapse.
> >
> > Think of how much worse things would have been, had they toppled sideways
> > instead of collapsing in a controlled way.
That was the goal of the 1993 bombers, who hadn't thought things
through nearly so completely.
> > Small consolation to the thousands who died but I personally feel a huge
> > debt of gratitude to the (anonymous?) WTC engineering team, whoever they are.
>
> It is amazing that the towers didn't collapse right away, and things could
> have certainly been much worse. As an engineer, I'll be interested in future
> reports that will discuss modes of failure.
I can't recall if it's cnn.com or cbs.com, but they interviewed
five or six members of the design team who are still alive (the
prime architect died in Japan in the 1980s). They explained the
theory behind the construction and the suspected reasons for the
failure there.
> Typically, building design adheres strictly to code, and unusual occurances
> aren't covered. I haven't looked through the AISC-LRFD manual thoroughly,
> but I doubt loads from jet plane crashes are considered. It's up to the
> client to decide whether or not to spend the extra money and have their
> building designed for some extraordinary event. The decision is usually
> based on a risk assessment and a study of the consequences.
>
> I believe the WTC towers were designed to handle the impact of a 707. I'm
> sure this extra design criteria helped, but unfortunatly it wasn't enough.
IIRC, it was designed to take the impact from a 747 (the jumbo),
which was even larger than what hit the towers on Tuesday.
The problem was that the effects of a full load of fuel burning
just can't be countermanded--only slowed down, and hopefully
controlled. When the steel went, the upper floors pancaked down-
ward--the facade is what you see peeling outward. The concrete
floors went pretty much straight down, one on top of another
(which is another reason I'm not optimistic about survivors
from above the lower ten or so floors still being in the rubble).
> Nevertheless, I agree with Larry and I'm thankful that someone had the
> foresight and decided it was best to account for such an extraordinary
> event, even though it was for a smaller plane.
I've seen enough stories--and heard enough stories--of people,
some whom I know personally, getting out after the impacts.
That was critical time, and there is no question that it is
responsible for the death toll being 4,000-5,000 and not 30,000+.
> I'm sure engineers and architects will see changes in building codes soon.
> They'll seriously have to consider such events as car bombs, letter bombs,
> plane crashes, etc. It's sad, but we'll all see changes in life in
> everything we do.
So long as it does not impinge upon our Constitutional freedoms,
that's a small price to pay. Inconvenience does not equal a police
state, regardless of what a few alarmists would have us believe.
Fortunately, those in the world who must already deal with these
issues are at hand and willing to help us.
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Geordan Hankinson writes:
> Everything has a purpose, whether we see that purpose in a few days, a year,
> ten years, or even a century, God has a reason for everything. The reason
> could be very suttle, it could be realised by only a few people, or there
> could be a number of reasons for any one issue realized by many people.
Ah-ha! I see! God wants us to kill these evil people! Is that it? Maybe His
plan is to bring the nation and world together? Please, we are coming together
to do only two things: help those who have lost family/friends/property in the
attack and kill those who attacked us. In the first case, the vast majority of
those people were not in need before the attack, so why did God need to kill so
many to create a need? Why not create a non-tragic event that would cause
people to help those who were in need *before* the attack? In the second case,
how can killing people without a trial be good? How can god want this? isn't
there a Commandment that says "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?
> Right now I can name a number of good things that God has brought us due to
> this already:
>
> It has brought the nation together,
> It has brought most of the world together
> People have opened up their houses to the people in need and therefore made
> a few new friends, people have learned to appreciate others and be more
> thankful.
All of which SHOULDN'T take the deaths of thousands to perform. Besides, why
are we only helping the victims, and not people who were suffering *before* the
attack? Wouldn't it have been better to just leave it as it was?
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > In article <GJo2MB.Lp4@lugnet.com>, "Ian Warfield" <ipw47@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
> >
> > What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
>
> -What about the mercy for the people rescued from the rubble?
Oh, yes, half a dozen out of over 5000 is REAL merciful.
> -What about the mercy for those who were stuck in a airport and someone
> opened up their house so they would have someplace to stay?
The Kindness Of Man. Please, give credit where credit is due, and don't
shortchange the good people.
> -What about the mercy for those who thought they had lost a family member,
> but later found out they were alive?
What about the tens of thousands more who will never see their loved
ones/friends ever again? Mercy to a few is vindictive.
> -What about the mercy for those who were donated blood, when they were
> injured in the hospital?
The Kindness Of Man. See above, please.
> -What about the mercy for those who were late coming to work that day and
> missed the explosion?
Blind dumb luck. Happens to me all the time.
> What about the mercy for those working in the white house, but the plane was
> crash landed before it got there?
The mercy of good city planning, perhaps. I'm currently not entirely convinced
the White House was really a target
> -What about the mercy for the families who have had money donated etc.?
They wouldn't need it if the attack hadn't happened, and what about those who
have needed help longer?
> This has to be God at work, whether you like it or not, God has shown
> himself clearly in the face of tragedy.
I'm sorry, I don't see God there anywhere. I see the kindness of people being
unfairly credited to a non-existant being. Why is all the evil in this world
credited to man, but none of the good? God sure doesn't have anything to do
with my good deeds.
Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> No cop-outs. The question is not, "How can you believe in God?", but, "How
> can you believe in man?!"
The reason is that man acts to benefit man in countless, demonstrable, and
tangible ways daily, while this alleged "God" of your has sat on His Divine
Butt for two millennia or more without so much as a peep (unless we include the
wholly non-verifiable assertions of the faithful (which, plus $1.15, will buy
you a cup of coffee.))
> That's funny, I saw PEOPLE hijack and crash those planes. I also saw three
> plane loads of PEOPLE sit by and "allow" those planes to be hijacked and
> crashed (the fourth didn't).
I call that the most callous, disgusting, and non-Christian statement I have
read regarding this incident. How dare you accuse the passengers of those
three jets of "sit[ting] by" when you have no concept of what went on in that
plane? If Heaven is full of Christians with attitudes like yours, I want no
part of it.
> > > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
> >
> > What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
> >
> > -All the victims of the crashes
>
> If the next life can be said to be better than this, there it is. Same below.
Yeah, and if it's worse, than there it is, too. You're dissembling.
> > I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
> > whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
> >
> > I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
> > have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
>
> Have you intervened to prevent every foul deed you have witnessed or new was
> happening?
>
> I didn't think so.
>
> So, you yourself "allow" things to transpire that you do nothing to stop?
> Hmmm. Why is that? Therein lies your answer.
Really? If I'm going to worship a God, I'm going to hold him to a higher
standard of morality and integrity than I myself am able to follow. For a God,
alleged to be the pinnacle of goodness, to sit by while atrocities are commited
is the height of cruelty, especially when, in His allegedly infinite power He
could prevent such atrocities.
Further, it is indeed a cop-out to assert that "We Cannot Know His Plan," and
it's a loaded answer in any case. If We Cannot Know His Plan, then we cannot
know that His plan is Good and not Evil, either.
> It's convenient and easy to blame God because then you won't have to face
> the deeper issues.
I blame God for nothing, just as I blame Santa Claus for nothing. I am
perfectly willing to face any deep issue you care to mention, and I don't need
to appeal to any deific alpha-male primate figure for comfort.
|
|
| |
O.K...I fully intended to post just the one thing today, and let the chips
fall where they may...I knew I shouldn't have even looked back at LUGNET
until tomorrow...I knew people would get into it over my bringing up God at
a time like this...you don't know HOW sorry I am now...
Since there wasn't much going on with this thread in .general, I figure I'll
post this follow-up here in .debate...
Now, I don't intend to change anyone's mind or life with this post...this is
my personal belief, and many of you probably will not care one iota about
how I see things. I write this on the off chance that perhaps there is one
person out there, maybe not posting, but reading, who might take something
from what I write and apply it in such a way as to help them in their own
life...nothing more...
I have enough scientist, historian, archiologist and skeptic in me that I
can't fully allow blind faith in my life...never had it, never will <insert
old 7-UP guy laugh here>.
I need to balance the physical evidence of things like dinosaur bones,
evolution, carbon dating, etc., and the want of proof of aliens, ghosts,
psychic powers, etc. with my personal background of Catholic birth, imposed
then accepted Lutheran education, and many years of adult life spent working
with children in ministry and teaching.
To that end, I look at my faith like this:
There is a greater being, God to most, who put into place the seeds of life.
There is to much evidence of evolution to discount it...but here's the
kicker...the Bible says that God created the world in seven days...but what
is a day to God? I say seven days to God is many millions of years to man.
Life works to perfectly (the human brain, food chain, reproduction, etc.),
there must be a higher power involved. So that's taken care of...man can
evolve from primordial ooze and monkeys, and still believe in God. God
caused evolution.
Now, the Bible. The Bible was written a long time ago, and for the people of
that time. Anyone who tries to follow it blindly now is deluding
themselves...it is up to them to interpret it as best as they can to have it
relate to their modern lives. The Bible has to be truly the Word of God,
'cause there is no other explanation for its existence...there are things
contained in that book that the people who wrote it could have NO WAY of
knowing on their own...it's just not possible. It is SIMPLIFIED...don't get
me wrong...remember, it was writen for the people of the time, but it's to
dead on not to be the true Word.
Next, the question so many are arguing over..."If there is truly a God, why
did He let this happen?". Because God gave us the gift of life...that's why.
God created man, placed us on the path of life. God, for a long time, took a
guiding hand in mans development...until man got to big for his britches.
Man sinned, and in big ways. God sent Jesus, His Son, and yet a part of Him
also, as a human being, to understand humans and their sin, and to die as a
single death for all of our sins. Each and every human being, from that time
on, was forgiven their sins. That's right folks...in essence, yo can do
ANYTHING you want, and still find heaven awaiting you at the other end. If
you believe in Him. Now God is hands off...He's done everything we need, and
the rest only matters to us here and now...it's all up to us until Christ
returns. So, why did God let this happen? He didn't. He gave us the life, we
developed the knowledge and the technology. WE allowed this to happen. He
didn't.
We are human, and can only do the best we can. Hopefully more of us than
less try to follow the basic ideas of the Ten Commandmants, the teachings of
the Bible, related to todays life. It's the best we can do. It's all we can
do. It's what we are doing. Some express their Christian faith in God more
vehemently than others, I let mine gently guide me from behind, so I often
stumble big-time before I allow it to bolster me up. I do the best I can do
with what I have.
So, to the attacks:
America was attacked in a heinous way, by people who have for generations
worked themselves and their children into a political and religious fervor
over one belief, their idea of God. This is their failing. Combining their
politics with their religion. I've already written about this. I get it now,
in ways I never have before. Religion can exist WITH politics, but not AS
politics. My belief in God can co-exist with America's goals and ideals, and
America exists for me to believe in. Their belief in God doesn't allow this,
and they all must believe the same way, because their society, their
politics, says so. So some of theirs, bolstered in their religion/politics
with the idea that a suicidal death while killing countless innocents will
earn them their heroes heaven, killed many of ours. Now we, through the
actions of our elected officials, will do the best we can in dealing with
the people responsible for these attacks. In the end, it's all pretty
simple...these are the important words...do the best we can.
America has, countless times, turned the other cheek to this
terrorism...this time, our leaders, and many of our citizens, are all out of
cheeks to turn. Our elected officials will hopefully do the best they
can...regardless of any debate here on LUGNET, by the way...to find the
leaders who masterminded these attacks, and to put a stop to the aid that
props these groups up and allows them to function.
And if you are one of those who can't bring themselves to believe enough to
pray for guidance for our elected officials as they do their best, at least
keep good thoughts for them...maybe through a psychic resonance of good
thoughts you'll get through! At least I pray you will. 8?)
Matt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber writes:
> O.K...I fully intended to post just the one thing today, and let the chips
> fall where they may...I knew I shouldn't have even looked back at LUGNET
> until tomorrow...I knew people would get into it over my bringing up God at
> a time like this...you don't know HOW sorry I am now...
Don't be. I'm glad you did. Personally, even though I'm
not a Christian, I'm glad people find comfort in their faiths.
It's still an act of human communion--all religion has a basis
in people coming together for worship--and that in itself is
miraculous. Man or God, we can all take heart in the mighty
outpouring of goodwill and strength that's happening around
our country and around the world.
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > In article <GJoA9E.IzC@lugnet.com>, "Bill Farkas" <wolfe65@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No cop-outs. The question is not, "How can you believe in God?", but, "How
> > > can you believe in man?!" God didn't do this, man did.
> >
> > Then how can anyone say that God has been merciful. Mercy implies
> > participation. If God isn't participating, then he couldn't have been
> > merciful.
>
> My point was that He never obligated Himself to intervene in every
> circumstance. But He is very active.
I thought he was supposed to be good, and love us all. I wouldn't let one of
my loved ones be hurt or killed if I could prevent it, and since God is
omnipotent, he CAN prevent such tragedies. So why does he not? I can only
think of two possible reasons: Either He does not exist or He does not care.
> As some have said, it could have been much worse. Two planes were prevented
> from hitting their targets. The Pentagon was hit in it's least populated
> spot. The WTC could have collapsed sooner. Those are not very consoling, I
> realize, but true none-the-less.
>
> Such actions prove the existence of evil,
Ah, but does it? What is evil? It is not a tangible object, but an idea, and
everyone has different views on it. So who is right? The terrorists certainly
didn't think they themselves were evil, in fact, they felt we Americans were
evil.
> Evil exists for a purpose.
No it doesn't. Evil is just a word cultures use to define what is unnaceptable
to them. By the same token, good is a word that defines what *is* acceptable.
I do want to note, however, that I am glad that most modern cultures view
targeting civilians as evil.
> > > I like how people
> > > expect God to intervene in self serving ways but they don't want Him to
> > > interfere with their "fun."
> >
> > What does that have to do with anything I've talked about? I thought the
> > discussion was about mercy?
>
> As you said, His mercy implies active intervention. I was asserting that if
> God was active to that extent some would accuse Him of being too
> controlling.
So what if they do? Some people accuse the Government of being too
controlling. Personally, I'd rather have more control than anarchy. Anyway,
he is omnipotent, he could just make us not think it was too controlling.
> After all, we can't just expect Him to intervene when it's convenient for us.
So you're saying we shouldn't inconvenience him? He is omnipotent, isn't he?
How would it be an inconvenience to help us by preventing tragedy?
> Enjoying His presence comes with certain expectations as well. We are to show
> our appreciation to Him by obeying Him - not whimsically or arbitrarily, but
> because we trust His love and believe that His ways are best.
How are we supposed to know what to obey? There are so many versions and
translations of the Bible (which was written by men anyway) that his original
messages have long been lost. And don't even get me started on the Pope and
priests...
Please let me know when God writes the definitive text so I'll know what to
obey.
> > > If God were to intervene in such ways, some
> > > would accuse Him of being too controlling. Bad men chose to do a bad thing.
> > > Some people enjoy doing bad things. God has never made a promise obligating
> > > Himself to intervene in such instances. He has given *us* freedom to • choose.
> > > This has nothing to do with His goodness. We tainted His perfect creation • by
> > > our sin. Your question is a cop-out, and is as old as the hills.
> >
> > My question is a cop-out of what? I'm not following you here.
>
> Your question is a reflection of an accusation. It implies that God does
> exist but not as He represents Himself to be, that He is unfair.
Being merciful to some but not others when they have no control over their
circumstances IS being unfair. For example, why did God allow Jane Doe's
husband to survive the WTC, but Joan Dee's husband didn't?
> Men have been levelling this accusation for millennia. It totally denies the
> human root of the problem.
What "human root of the problem"?
> > > Pain and suffering are man's fault not God's.
> >
> > I agree. And by the same token, the rescue efforts are man's mercy and
> > not God's.
>
> Why is it not the evidence that we have come from God, evidence of His
> essence within us?
Because other creatures can go out of their way to help others, too. Dogs
being the best example, but dolphins and apes can be included. They must then
have God's essence, as well, but my understanding was that only we are supposed
to have it. But again, it ultimately means that we are not responsible for our
good deeds, and that is something I strongly disagree with.
> > > > No we don't. I see PEOPLE coming together and helping.
> > >
> > > That's funny, I saw PEOPLE hijack and crash those planes. I also saw three
> > > plane loads of PEOPLE sit by and "allow" those planes to be hijacked and
> > > crashed (the fourth didn't).
> >
> > Yes, I agree completely. And God did nothing, therefore he is showing no
> > mercy, since he's not involved.
>
> Did nothing? Preventing two planes from hitting their targets is nothing? I
> don't know if the people on Capitol Hill would agree.
One plane was foiled by good city planning, if indeed it was supposed to crash
into the White House. The second was foiled by the brave passengers and crew
on board who refused to allow themselves be used as a weapon against their
fellow citizens.
> Every person who did not die in the tragedy is an act of mercy.
But many more *did* die, which was an act of cruelty. If you attribute the
mercy to God, how can you not attribute the cruelty to him as well?
> > > > > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
> > > >
> > > > What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
> > > >
> > > > -All the victims of the crashes
> > >
> > > If the next life can be said to be better than this, there it is.
> >
> > Really? All the victims, or just the Christian ones? How do you know?
>
> This goes back to the definition of mercy. Think before you ask.
But under Christianity, only those who believe in Christian Doctrine will go to
Heaven. How can one call being denied entrance to Heaven merciful for any
victims of non-Christian faiths?
> > > > I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
> > > > whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
> > > >
> > > > I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
> > > > have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
> > >
> > > Have you intervened to prevent every foul deed you have witnessed or new • was
> > > happening?
> > >
> > > I didn't think so.
> > >
> > > So, you yourself "allow" things to transpire that you do nothing to stop?
> > > Hmmm. Why is that? Therein lies your answer.
> > >
> > > It's convenient and easy to blame God because then you won't have to face
> > > the deeper issues.
> >
> > I'm thoroughly confused by your last paragraph. It sounds kind of like
> > you're attacking my integrity because I don't agree with you. I met you
> > when you were out here in Seattle, and you seemed like a much nicer
> > person than that. I hope I'm misunderstood about your intent here.
>
> Not at all, no attacks. This is why I closed with "Respectfully" - hoping
> you wouldn't misconstrue my remarks. I apologize if I was careless. I happen
> to think I'm nice. :~) Thanx, by the way.
>
> I was referring to some of the deeper, tougher stuff mentioned above. We all
> allow evil deeds to transpire, sometimes at our own hands. Why? Questions
> for introspection only. No accusations.
I do my best to prevent deeds I feel are wrong when and where I can. I'm not
omnipotent or infallible, only human, so I can't do it everytime I wish I
could, and I make mistakes. God, hoever, is NOT human, nor is he supposed to
be fallible (looking at the human race as a whole has changed more than one
mind on that, though!). He should be held to a higher standard, and prevent
evil where and when he can. And since he is omnipotent, that would be
everywhere and everytime. ;)
Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > > In article <GJo2MB.Lp4@lugnet.com>, "Ian Warfield" <ipw47@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > As you say, many are wondering where God is right now, or why He let this
> > > > happen.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering how people can maintain their faith in the face of what
> > > has just happened. If you believe God to be all-good and all-powerful,
> > > then explain to me how this kind of horrible thing is allowed to happen.
> > > And don't give me that "works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
> >
> > No cop-outs. The question is not, "How can you believe in God?", but, "How
> > can you believe in man?!" God didn't do this, man did. I like how people
> > expect God to intervene in self serving ways but they don't want Him to
> > interfere with their "fun." If God were to intervene in such ways, some
> > would accuse Him of being too controlling. Bad men chose to do a bad thing.
> > Some people enjoy doing bad things. God has never made a promise obligating
> > Himself to intervene in such instances. He has given *us* freedom to choose.
> > This has nothing to do with His goodness. We tainted His perfect creation by
> > our sin. Your question is a cop-out, and is as old as the hills. Pain and
> > suffering are man's fault not God's.
>
> Who would accuse God or anyone of being too controlling if what happened
> could have been prevented?
We wouldn't have the perspective of knowing what came next. The accusation
might potentially arise because people would not know the true magnitude of
what was prevented.
> And who would say God is controlling in any way now? You said yourself that
> bad men do bad things and some people enjoy doing bad things, god never made
> a promise to intervene, god has given us freedom etc. How would that be
> considered controlling in any way, or what is he doing to be controling even
> a little bit? What is he doing then?
God is not always obvious about how He intervenes. The evidence we cite is
circumstantial, and not conclusive, but it can be attributed to God working
behind the scenes.
> I'm not religious so please explain how we tainted his perfect creation?
> What perfect creation? And if we've tainted this perfect creation of his why
> doesn't he just 'clean up' and hit every building with a 767 jumbo jet?
A couple of theological postulates need to be stated here:
1. Originally, God created everything good. There was no sin.
2. God created man with the primary purpose of having a loving relationship
with Him. As God wanted a reciprocal relationship, He gave man free will to
love Him back. Free will was necessary to allow true love, and not just
mindless robotic obedience.
3. Man chose to exercise his free will in rejecting God. This has become
known as original sin. Because of this first sin, Adam and Eve contaminated
themselves with a sinful nature. Since everyone is descended from them,
everyone shares in this sinful nature.
4. God, being perfect, cannot be in the direct presence of sin. His holy
nature demands that sin be eradicated and punished. From (3), all humanity is
under this curse.
5. Despite (4), God still wants a relationship with man. To get around the
penalty for sin, He sent Jesus to pay the penalty in lieu of us. If we have
faith in Him, we are reinstated into our original relationship. We are
granted a full, free, and absolute pardon.
6. Jesus was qualified to do this because a) He was God, and therefore had the
authority; b) He was human, and therefore could apply His coverage to us; and
c) He was sinless, and thus did not have to pay His own penalty. {Jesus got
around the obstacle of sinful nature affecting the entire human race (3)
because His biological father was God. Apparently, sin is only passed down
through the father.}
7. Our entire life is a grace period in which we choose whether to accept His
pardon. If not for this grace period, we would be immediately condemned
because of humanity's inherent sinful nature (3). If we accept the pardon, we
are reinstated (Heaven; 2, 5). If not, we are removed from God's presence and
punished (Hell; 4).
If God were to "clean up" immediately, the grace period would be over (7).
He patiently allows humanity to remain on Earth in order that they have as much
time as possible to make their decision.
> And what about the people all over the world and through history fighting over
> religion?
Man may choose to reject God's plan and invent his own religion(s). When
any of these different religions clash, conflicts erupt. Overzealous
behavior can also blind people; c.f. current hostility toward Muslims
despite "Love thy
neighbor".
>
> > > > I'd like to say to them that He's very much present and hard at
> > > > work.
> > >
> > > Hmph.
> > >
> > > > We see it reflected all over:
> > >
> > > No we don't. I see PEOPLE coming together and helping.
> >
> > That's funny, I saw PEOPLE hijack and crash those planes. I also saw three
> > plane loads of PEOPLE sit by and "allow" those planes to be hijacked and
> > crashed (the fourth didn't).
>
> Yes, see your own statement about how bad people do bad things and god
> doesn't do anything about it. What point are you trying to make? There are
> people and country's who are trying to repair damage done by sick and
> twisted people, and I use the term people lightly as to me people would mean
> that those responsible deserve basic rights that all people have, like
> living a peaceful life, and not having a highjacked plane to crash into your
> place of work. And I'm shocked that you would say that people 'allowed'
> highjackers to take control of the plane. Where you there? Do you know how
> it all exaclty happened? I don't think anyone does yet. Maybe they were
> all busy praying to their god when the terrorists started killing
> passengers. Maybe they were scared and couldn't do anything? Do you know?
> Please share?
"Allow" is probably the wrong word to use (which may be why it's in quotes).
The other three groups of people didn't know what would happen, so they
apparently just stayed put. The people on the fourth plane may have been
spurred to action because they phoned their families and found out about the
previous attacks.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
> > >
> > > What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
> > >
> > > -All the victims of the crashes
> >
> > If the next life can be said to be better than this, there it is. Same below.
> >
> > >
> > > -The people who worked in the WTC
> > >
> > > -The missing rescue workers
> > >
> > > -The American Muslims who are being Persecuted in the Christian God's
> > > name.
> >
> > Who said it was in the name of the Christian's God? It wasn't me.
In any case, persecution in the name of the Christian God is wrong. Jesus
said, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
> > > whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
> > >
> > > I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
> > > have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
> >
> > Have you intervened to prevent every foul deed you have witnessed or new was
> > happening?
> >
> > I didn't think so.
> >
> > So, you yourself "allow" things to transpire that you do nothing to stop?
> > Hmmm. Why is that? Therein lies your answer.
>
> And what about yourself? If you were on one of those planes would you have
> become the hero of the nation? Fought all of the terrorists with knives or
> other weapons? To me it sounds like you would, or you would have seen what
> had tranpired from the Batcave and jumped into your Batmobile and race to
> save the day. Or would have you began to pray to your god?
You misinterpret his point. He was not highlighting anyone's failure to do
anything, he was pointing out that just as humans do not intervene in every
situation, neither does God. The reason may be different, but the
comparison is valid.
>
> > It's convenient and easy to blame God because then you won't have to face
> > the deeper issues.
>
> And what issues do those who don't blame god face?
They face the same ones. The underlying issues in either case are the
postulates stated above. People who blame God may do so because they don't
want to consider that there may be a larger picture beyond the one that they
can immediately see.
>
> >
> > >
> > > ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Just plain Bill
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeff Stembel writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > > In article <GJoA9E.IzC@lugnet.com>, "Bill Farkas" <wolfe65@msn.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No cop-outs. The question is not, "How can you believe in God?", but, "How
> > > > can you believe in man?!" God didn't do this, man did.
> > >
> > > Then how can anyone say that God has been merciful. Mercy implies
> > > participation. If God isn't participating, then he couldn't have been
> > > merciful.
> >
> > My point was that He never obligated Himself to intervene in every
> > circumstance. But He is very active.
>
> I thought he was supposed to be good, and love us all. I wouldn't let one of
> my loved ones be hurt or killed if I could prevent it, and since God is
> omnipotent, he CAN prevent such tragedies. So why does he not? I can only
> think of two possible reasons: Either He does not exist or He does not care.
But God may have another reason. He may want to use these tragedies to
cause people to search for Him. He may also want to warn America against
future possible terrorist attacks, which may be even worse than this was.
If we are alerted to this attack, we can more easily spot others.
>
> > As some have said, it could have been much worse. Two planes were prevented
> > from hitting their targets. The Pentagon was hit in it's least populated
> > spot. The WTC could have collapsed sooner. Those are not very consoling, I
> > realize, but true none-the-less.
> >
> > Such actions prove the existence of evil,
>
> Ah, but does it? What is evil? It is not a tangible object, but an idea, and
> everyone has different views on it. So who is right?
Theologically, evil is rebellion against God and God's created order. Our
entire moral value system is defined by God. From humanity's point of view,
we do indeed have an objective standard of good and evil.
I can anticipate the argument that comes next: "But this merely redefines
where the idea comes from; good and bad are merely God's whim." Well, yes,
you can put it that way. But consider: God invested a huge amount of time
and resources into creating the universe. Not only that, but He still loves
us even after we rebelled against him and continue to rebel against him in
the most heinous ways. Surely he has our best interests at heart.
> The terrorists certainly didn't think they themselves were evil, in fact,
> they felt we Americans were evil.
Since our fellowship with God was lost as a result of original sin, man's
judgement has become clouded. The terrorists come from a culture that
redefines good and evil in conflict with God's will.
>
> > Evil exists for a purpose.
>
> No it doesn't. Evil is just a word cultures use to define what is
> unnaceptable to them.
Yes it does. Otherwise, God would have eradicated evil immediately. Evil
enhances God's goodness by its contrast. Our suffering at the hand of
sinful man only underscores our need for God.
> By the same token, good is a word that defines what *is* acceptable. I do
> want to note, however, that I am glad that most modern cultures view
> targeting civilians as evil.
Definitions of good and evil come from God; see above.
>
> > > > I like how people
> > > > expect God to intervene in self serving ways but they don't want Him to
> > > > interfere with their "fun."
> > >
> > > What does that have to do with anything I've talked about? I thought the
> > > discussion was about mercy?
> >
> > As you said, His mercy implies active intervention. I was asserting that if
> > God was active to that extent some would accuse Him of being too
> > controlling.
>
> So what if they do? Some people accuse the Government of being too
> controlling. Personally, I'd rather have more control than anarchy. Anyway,
> he is omnipotent, he could just make us not think it was too controlling.
But God doesn't want to relate to us like that. He wants us to seek Him
because we want to, not because we are forced to.
>
> > After all, we can't just expect Him to intervene when it's convenient for us.
>
> So you're saying we shouldn't inconvenience him?
You're misapplying man's convenience to God. Everything is convenient for
God. But *our* convenience doesn't always align with His will.
> He is omnipotent, isn't he? How would it be an inconvenience to help us by
> preventing tragedy?
Again, it's not inconvenient for God. God has a reason for not intervening.
>
> > Enjoying His presence comes with certain expectations as well. We are to show
> > our appreciation to Him by obeying Him - not whimsically or arbitrarily, but
> > because we trust His love and believe that His ways are best.
>
> How are we supposed to know what to obey? There are so many versions and
> translations of the Bible (which was written by men anyway) that his original
> messages have long been lost. And don't even get me started on the Pope and
> priests...
>
> Please let me know when God writes the definitive text so I'll know what to
> obey.
I heard somewhere that there are probably five surviving accounts of
Caesar's military campaigns, all rife with inconsistencies; yet no one
argues that they happened. The Bible has much more internal agreement than
those accounts. The Dead Sea Scrolls further reaffirm that the Bible has
been copied accurately for thousands of years.
Not only that, but we have external evidence as well. We know that Rome
conquered Europe because of the evidence it left behind. Likewise, we can
find out about God from the universe He created.
>
> > > > If God were to intervene in such ways, some would accuse Him of being too
> > > > controlling. Bad men chose to do a bad thing.
> > > > Some people enjoy doing bad things. God has never made a promise
> > > > obligating Himself to intervene in such instances. He has given *us*
> > > > freedom to choose.
> > > > This has nothing to do with His goodness. We tainted His perfect creation
> > > > by our sin. Your question is a cop-out, and is as old as the hills.
> > >
> > > My question is a cop-out of what? I'm not following you here.
> >
> > Your question is a reflection of an accusation. It implies that God does
> > exist but not as He represents Himself to be, that He is unfair.
>
> Being merciful to some but not others when they have no control over their
> circumstances IS being unfair. For example, why did God allow Jane Doe's
> husband to survive the WTC, but Joan Dee's husband didn't?
Life's not fair :). I can't say why God allows different things for
different people. I can only have faith that He has a reason.
>
> > Men have been levelling this accusation for millennia. It totally denies the
> > human root of the problem.
>
> What "human root of the problem"?
That humans are the ones spreading evil, not God. "Pain and suffering are
man's fault, not God's."
>
> > > > Pain and suffering are man's fault not God's.
> > >
> > > I agree. And by the same token, the rescue efforts are man's mercy and
> > > not God's.
> >
> > Why is it not the evidence that we have come from God, evidence of His
> > essence within us?
>
> Because other creatures can go out of their way to help others, too. Dogs
> being the best example, but dolphins and apes can be included. They must then
> have God's essence, as well, but my understanding was that only we are
> supposed to have it.
Every creature on earth is created by God, therefore every creature reflects
God in some way. Man is created in the *image* of God, which means that he
is intelligent and can understand the concept of God.
> But again, it ultimately means that we are not responsible for our good
> deeds, and that is something I strongly disagree with.
Every person is responsible for his or her own deeds. But it is God's moral
order that allows us to do good.
>
> > > > > No we don't. I see PEOPLE coming together and helping.
> > > >
> > > > That's funny, I saw PEOPLE hijack and crash those planes. I also saw three
> > > > plane loads of PEOPLE sit by and "allow" those planes to be hijacked and
> > > > crashed (the fourth didn't).
> > >
> > > Yes, I agree completely. And God did nothing, therefore he is showing no
> > > mercy, since he's not involved.
> >
> > Did nothing? Preventing two planes from hitting their targets is nothing? I
> > don't know if the people on Capitol Hill would agree.
>
> One plane was foiled by good city planning, if indeed it was supposed to crash
> into the White House
A U.S. representative says that he saw the plane circling the Capitol before
flying off to the Pentagon. For whatever reason, the pilot decided not to
crash there. City planning had nothing to do with it.
> The second was foiled by the brave passengers and crew on board who refused
> to allow themselves be used as a weapon against their fellow citizens.
Yes. But the passengers wouldn't have known if their families on the ground
hadn't told them. I know this is circumstantial, but I'm pretty sure God
was in it.
>
> > Every person who did not die in the tragedy is an act of mercy.
>
> But many more *did* die, which was an act of cruelty. If you attribute the
> mercy to God, how can you not attribute the cruelty to him as well?
No, many more did not die. The World Trade Center had a capacity of 50,000.
The current missing tally is hovering around 5,000. Even if they were not
filled to capacity, they had expected 30,000+ to die.
>
> > > > > > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
> > > > >
> > > > > What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
> > > > >
> > > > > -All the victims of the crashes
> > > >
> > > > If the next life can be said to be better than this, there it is.
> > >
> > > Really? All the victims, or just the Christian ones? How do you know?
> >
> > This goes back to the definition of mercy. Think before you ask.
>
> But under Christianity, only those who believe in Christian Doctrine will go
> to Heaven. How can one call being denied entrance to Heaven merciful for any
> victims of non-Christian faiths?
On the other hand, God's mercy allowed them to live an entire life with
every chance to turn to Him. They made the choice not to. God would have
been entirely within His rights to destroy all humanity immediately after
its first rebellion.
>
> > > > > I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
> > > > > whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
> > > > > have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
> > > >
> > > > Have you intervened to prevent every foul deed you have witnessed or new
> > > > happening?
> > > >
> > > > I didn't think so.
> > > >
> > > > So, you yourself "allow" things to transpire that you do nothing to stop?
> > > > Hmmm. Why is that? Therein lies your answer.
> > > >
> > > > It's convenient and easy to blame God because then you won't have to face
> > > > the deeper issues.
> > >
> > > I'm thoroughly confused by your last paragraph. It sounds kind of like
> > > you're attacking my integrity because I don't agree with you. I met you
> > > when you were out here in Seattle, and you seemed like a much nicer
> > > person than that. I hope I'm misunderstood about your intent here.
> >
> > Not at all, no attacks. This is why I closed with "Respectfully" - hoping
> > you wouldn't misconstrue my remarks. I apologize if I was careless. I happen
> > to think I'm nice. :~) Thanx, by the way.
> >
> > I was referring to some of the deeper, tougher stuff mentioned above. We all
> > allow evil deeds to transpire, sometimes at our own hands. Why? Questions
> > for introspection only. No accusations.
>
> I do my best to prevent deeds I feel are wrong when and where I can. I'm not
> omnipotent or infallible, only human, so I can't do it everytime I wish I
> could, and I make mistakes. God, hoever, is NOT human, nor is he supposed to
> be fallible (looking at the human race as a whole has changed more than one
> mind on that, though!). He should be held to a higher standard, and prevent
> evil where and when he can. And since he is omnipotent, that would be
> everywhere and everytime. ;)
>
> Jeff
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> Geordan, you talk about all this 'mercy' but as far I as I know there have
> been 5 survivors found and still about 5000 missing or dead. Would you call
> that mercy? I won't.
You forget that the World Trade Center has a capacity of 50,000. For
whatever reason - they were not at work yet, they were able to evacuate, or
they were rescued - 45,000 people were not killed.
> And the plane 'missing' the white house to hit the Pentagon and kill about
> 180? Or the plane that crashed in the Pittsburgh area, was that mercy?
Mercy in a different sense. If the plane had hit the White House, it would
have been destroyed. If the plane in Pittsburgh had gone on to hit the
Capitol, as they suspect, it too would have been destroyed. Neither are
built as well as the Pentagon. It is by God's grace and mercy that we are
not now at this very moment running the U.S. out of bunkers, with the
executive staff and most members of Congress dead.
> I'm not sure what plane you are refering to? And you talk about the
> situation bringing people and countries together, was that god's plan for
> this, if, as you say, everthing has a purpose? Why doesn't god just pop down
> here, give everyone the downlow on how he wants things run down here, also
> confirming the exitence of the supreme being, and then jump back up and
> continue about his business. Yes, I know that's a rhetorical question.
Whether rhetorical or not, it's a valid question. However, God already
popped down, in the person of Jesus - and many didn't believe him then. And
we already know how God wants things run - we have the Bible.
<snip>
--Ian
|
|
| |
Thank you for explaining in further detail that statement. Although I'm not
sure what you mean by "We wouldn't have the perspective of knowing what came
next. The accusation might potentially arise because people would not know
the true magnitude of what was prevented." But I believe it has something
to do with the mysterious ways that god acts, as I have heard. You have
written quite a bit about god and his plans and ideas, which I find
interesting. But I disagree, in fact I might say that you are wrong if I
wanted to continue this debate about religion, which I don't. I respect
other people's beliefs and thoughts, and will continue to do so, and hope
others will do the same for me and my thoughts. Everyone has there own
thoughts and ideas, and I'm not here, nor is anyone else I think, to change
the way other people think.
Adam
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > > > In article <GJo2MB.Lp4@lugnet.com>, "Ian Warfield" <ipw47@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As you say, many are wondering where God is right now, or why He let this
> > > > > happen.
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering how people can maintain their faith in the face of what
> > > > has just happened. If you believe God to be all-good and all-powerful,
> > > > then explain to me how this kind of horrible thing is allowed to happen.
> > > > And don't give me that "works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
> > >
> > > No cop-outs. The question is not, "How can you believe in God?", but, "How
> > > can you believe in man?!" God didn't do this, man did. I like how people
> > > expect God to intervene in self serving ways but they don't want Him to
> > > interfere with their "fun." If God were to intervene in such ways, some
> > > would accuse Him of being too controlling. Bad men chose to do a bad thing.
> > > Some people enjoy doing bad things. God has never made a promise obligating
> > > Himself to intervene in such instances. He has given *us* freedom to choose.
> > > This has nothing to do with His goodness. We tainted His perfect creation by
> > > our sin. Your question is a cop-out, and is as old as the hills. Pain and
> > > suffering are man's fault not God's.
> >
> > Who would accuse God or anyone of being too controlling if what happened
> > could have been prevented?
>
> We wouldn't have the perspective of knowing what came next. The accusation
> might potentially arise because people would not know the true magnitude of
> what was prevented.
>
> > And who would say God is controlling in any way now? You said yourself that
> > bad men do bad things and some people enjoy doing bad things, god never made
> > a promise to intervene, god has given us freedom etc. How would that be
> > considered controlling in any way, or what is he doing to be controling even
> > a little bit? What is he doing then?
>
> God is not always obvious about how He intervenes. The evidence we cite is
> circumstantial, and not conclusive, but it can be attributed to God working
> behind the scenes.
>
> > I'm not religious so please explain how we tainted his perfect creation?
> > What perfect creation? And if we've tainted this perfect creation of his why
> > doesn't he just 'clean up' and hit every building with a 767 jumbo jet?
>
> A couple of theological postulates need to be stated here:
> 1. Originally, God created everything good. There was no sin.
> 2. God created man with the primary purpose of having a loving relationship
> with Him. As God wanted a reciprocal relationship, He gave man free will to
> love Him back. Free will was necessary to allow true love, and not just
> mindless robotic obedience.
> 3. Man chose to exercise his free will in rejecting God. This has become
> known as original sin. Because of this first sin, Adam and Eve contaminated
> themselves with a sinful nature. Since everyone is descended from them,
> everyone shares in this sinful nature.
> 4. God, being perfect, cannot be in the direct presence of sin. His holy
> nature demands that sin be eradicated and punished. From (3), all humanity is
> under this curse.
> 5. Despite (4), God still wants a relationship with man. To get around the
> penalty for sin, He sent Jesus to pay the penalty in lieu of us. If we have
> faith in Him, we are reinstated into our original relationship. We are
> granted a full, free, and absolute pardon.
> 6. Jesus was qualified to do this because a) He was God, and therefore had the
> authority; b) He was human, and therefore could apply His coverage to us; and
> c) He was sinless, and thus did not have to pay His own penalty. {Jesus got
> around the obstacle of sinful nature affecting the entire human race (3)
> because His biological father was God. Apparently, sin is only passed down
> through the father.}
> 7. Our entire life is a grace period in which we choose whether to accept His
> pardon. If not for this grace period, we would be immediately condemned
> because of humanity's inherent sinful nature (3). If we accept the pardon, we
> are reinstated (Heaven; 2, 5). If not, we are removed from God's presence and
> punished (Hell; 4).
>
> If God were to "clean up" immediately, the grace period would be over (7).
> He patiently allows humanity to remain on Earth in order that they have as much
> time as possible to make their decision.
>
> > And what about the people all over the world and through history fighting over
> > religion?
>
> Man may choose to reject God's plan and invent his own religion(s). When
> any of these different religions clash, conflicts erupt. Overzealous
> behavior can also blind people; c.f. current hostility toward Muslims
> despite "Love thy
> neighbor".
>
> >
> > > > > I'd like to say to them that He's very much present and hard at
> > > > > work.
> > > >
> > > > Hmph.
> > > >
> > > > > We see it reflected all over:
> > > >
> > > > No we don't. I see PEOPLE coming together and helping.
> > >
> > > That's funny, I saw PEOPLE hijack and crash those planes. I also saw three
> > > plane loads of PEOPLE sit by and "allow" those planes to be hijacked and
> > > crashed (the fourth didn't).
> >
> > Yes, see your own statement about how bad people do bad things and god
> > doesn't do anything about it. What point are you trying to make? There are
> > people and country's who are trying to repair damage done by sick and
> > twisted people, and I use the term people lightly as to me people would mean
> > that those responsible deserve basic rights that all people have, like
> > living a peaceful life, and not having a highjacked plane to crash into your
> > place of work. And I'm shocked that you would say that people 'allowed'
> > highjackers to take control of the plane. Where you there? Do you know how
> > it all exaclty happened? I don't think anyone does yet. Maybe they were
> > all busy praying to their god when the terrorists started killing
> > passengers. Maybe they were scared and couldn't do anything? Do you know?
> > Please share?
>
> "Allow" is probably the wrong word to use (which may be why it's in quotes).
> The other three groups of people didn't know what would happen, so they
> apparently just stayed put. The people on the fourth plane may have been
> spurred to action because they phoned their families and found out about the
> previous attacks.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
> > > >
> > > > What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
> > > >
> > > > -All the victims of the crashes
> > >
> > > If the next life can be said to be better than this, there it is. Same below.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -The people who worked in the WTC
> > > >
> > > > -The missing rescue workers
> > > >
> > > > -The American Muslims who are being Persecuted in the Christian God's
> > > > name.
> > >
> > > Who said it was in the name of the Christian's God? It wasn't me.
>
> In any case, persecution in the name of the Christian God is wrong. Jesus
> said, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I fail to see any evidence of God's mercy. I only see evidence of people
> > > > whose lives have been destroyed and changed forever.
> > > >
> > > > I have the utmost respect for all those who have risen to help. But I
> > > > have no respect for a God who would allow this to happen.
> > >
> > > Have you intervened to prevent every foul deed you have witnessed or new was
> > > happening?
> > >
> > > I didn't think so.
> > >
> > > So, you yourself "allow" things to transpire that you do nothing to stop?
> > > Hmmm. Why is that? Therein lies your answer.
> >
> > And what about yourself? If you were on one of those planes would you have
> > become the hero of the nation? Fought all of the terrorists with knives or
> > other weapons? To me it sounds like you would, or you would have seen what
> > had tranpired from the Batcave and jumped into your Batmobile and race to
> > save the day. Or would have you began to pray to your god?
>
> You misinterpret his point. He was not highlighting anyone's failure to do
> anything, he was pointing out that just as humans do not intervene in every
> situation, neither does God. The reason may be different, but the
> comparison is valid.
>
> >
> > > It's convenient and easy to blame God because then you won't have to face
> > > the deeper issues.
> >
> > And what issues do those who don't blame god face?
>
> They face the same ones. The underlying issues in either case are the
> postulates stated above. People who blame God may do so because they don't
> want to consider that there may be a larger picture beyond the one that they
> can immediately see.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > > Just plain Bill
>
> --Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeff Stembel writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Geordan Hankinson writes:
> > Everything has a purpose, whether we see that purpose in a few days, a year,
> > ten years, or even a century, God has a reason for everything. The reason
> > could be very suttle, it could be realised by only a few people, or there
> > could be a number of reasons for any one issue realized by many people.
>
> Ah-ha! I see! God wants us to kill these evil people! Is that it? Maybe
> His plan is to bring the nation and world together? Please, we are coming
> together to do only two things: help those who have lost
> family/friends/property in the attack and kill those who attacked us.
Coming together to help those affected by the attack is a good thing. It
fosters a humble, generous spirit.
> In the first case, the vast majority of those people were not in need before
> the attack, so why did God need to kill so many to create a need? Why not
> create a non-tragic event that would cause people to help those who were in
> need *before* the attack?
The response would probably not have been as dramatic or as widespread.
Sometimes it takes a shattering tragedy to shock people out of complacency.
> In the second case, how can killing people without a trial be good? How can
> god want this? isn't there a Commandment that says "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?
In war, things are slightly different. The commandment actually says "Thou
shalt not murder" and I have to assume that in war, killing is not the same
as murdering. God in fact commanded many wars in the Old Testament. He
would not have commanded the Israelites to violate His law.
In any case, if we do nothing in response, the terrorism will increase. By
demonstrating force, we discourage future attacks, and by rendering justice,
we stop (or at least slow down or set back) the evil. What would have
happened if we had never gone after Hitler?
>
> > Right now I can name a number of good things that God has brought us due to
> > this already:
> >
> > It has brought the nation together,
> > It has brought most of the world together
> > People have opened up their houses to the people in need and therefore made
> > a few new friends, people have learned to appreciate others and be more
> > thankful.
>
> All of which SHOULDN'T take the deaths of thousands to perform. Besides, why
> are we only helping the victims, and not people who were suffering *before*
> the attack? Wouldn't it have been better to just leave it as it was?
You're right, it shouldn't have taken this tragedy to produce this good.
But none of this was happening before the attack. The attack shocked us
into action.
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > > In article <GJo2MB.Lp4@lugnet.com>, "Ian Warfield" <ipw47@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
> > >
> > > What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
> >
> > -What about the mercy for the people rescued from the rubble?
>
> Oh, yes, half a dozen out of over 5000 is REAL merciful.
Even *one* person is merciful. However, you forget that 50,000 people
worked at the World Trade Center daily. For whatever reason - they weren't
at work yet, they were able to evacute, or they were rescued, 45,000 people
were spared.
>
> > -What about the mercy for those who were stuck in a airport and someone
> > opened up their house so they would have someplace to stay?
>
> The Kindness Of Man. Please, give credit where credit is due, and don't
> shortchange the good people.
All goodness derives from God, but this is a technicality in this instance :).
>
> > -What about the mercy for those who thought they had lost a family member,
> > but later found out they were alive?
>
> What about the tens of thousands more who will never see their loved
> ones/friends ever again? Mercy to a few is vindictive.
Again, 45,000 people were saved vs. the 5,000 who died. See above.
>
> > -What about the mercy for those who were donated blood, when they were
> > injured in the hospital?
>
> The Kindness Of Man. See above, please.
>
> > -What about the mercy for those who were late coming to work that day and
> > missed the explosion?
>
> Blind dumb luck. Happens to me all the time.
What if God engineered it?
>
> > What about the mercy for those working in the white house, but the plane was
> > crash landed before it got there?
>
> The mercy of good city planning, perhaps. I'm currently not entirely
> convinced the White House was really a target.
What good city planning? Washington, D.C. was designed over 100 years
before the invention of the airplane. A Congressman saw one of the planes
circling the Capitol before it went off to hit the Pentagon. There had to
have been some reason why the pilot didn't crash then.
>
> > -What about the mercy for the families who have had money donated etc.?
>
> They wouldn't need it if the attack hadn't happened, and what about those who
> have needed help longer?
If the attack hadn't happened, nobody would be getting money anyway.
Sometimes it takes a dramatic event to jump-start people into doing something.
>
> > This has to be God at work, whether you like it or not, God has shown
> > himself clearly in the face of tragedy.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't see God there anywhere. I see the kindness of people being
> unfairly credited to a non-existant being. Why is all the evil in this world
> credited to man, but none of the good? God sure doesn't have anything to do
> with my good deeds.
The more I look at this attack, the more I see that it could have become
much worse in many ways, and yet it didn't. I see God's restraint
throughout the whole thing.
Evil is credited to man because it can't be credited to God -- God cannot
commit evil. I agree that each person is responsible for his or her own
deeds, but I believe it is God who prompts us to do good.
>
> Jeff
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> Thank you for explaining in further detail that statement.
You're welcome.
> Although I'm not sure what you mean by "We wouldn't have the perspective of
> knowing what came next. The accusation might potentially arise because
> people would not know the true magnitude of what was prevented." But I
> believe it has something to do with the mysterious ways that god acts, as I
> have heard.
Sorry, I tried to cram too much information into too few words :). I meant
to say that if God had prevented the attack, we wouldn't have appreciated
its sheer horrific magnitude, since we wouldn't have lived through it. If
God had substantially intervened, the accusation that He was being too
controlling might indeed have arisen. We would be blaming God unfairly,
because we would not have known what He was protecting us from.
> You have written quite a bit about god and his plans and ideas, which I find
> interesting.
Thank you.
> But I disagree, in fact I might say that you are wrong if I wanted to
> continue this debate about religion, which I don't. I respect other people's
> beliefs and thoughts, and will continue to do so, and hope others will do the
> same for me and my thoughts. Everyone has there own thoughts and ideas, and
> I'm not here, nor is anyone else I think, to change the way other people
> think.
Well, I pray you'll reconsider, but I'll respect your wishes and not debate
you further.
>
> Adam
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> God has a reason for not intervening.
When you make that non-falsifiable assertion, you are presumably implying
that We Cannot Know His Ineffable Plan, and therefore we must assume that
everything will work out for Good. However, if We Cannot Know His Plan, then
we certainly can't know that it's all for Good--it could as easily (and as
feasibly) work out for Evil. "Wait and See" just isn't a real answer.
> > How are we supposed to know what to obey? There are so many versions and
> > translations of the Bible (which was written by men anyway) that his original
> > messages have long been lost. And don't even get me started on the Pope and
> > priests...
Obviously, the failures of men aren't proof of God's nonexistence, any more
than the failures of some scientific theories invalidate all of science.
> I heard somewhere that there are probably five surviving accounts of
> Caesar's military campaigns, all rife with inconsistencies; yet no one
> argues that they happened. The Bible has much more internal agreement than
> those accounts. The Dead Sea Scrolls further reaffirm that the Bible has
> been copied accurately for thousands of years.
No one really denies the existence of Jesus the man, since the Gospels are in
themselves sufficient evidence for his mortal existence. However, the Gospels
are manifestly insufficient proof of his divinity for a number of reasons.
First among these is the obvious time gap between his life and the Gospels, not
to mention the lack of solid first-hand witnesses to the events. Second, we
are not able to rely solely on eyewitness testimony in this case, since the
people of that time were not (through no fault of their own) reliable witnesses
able to report on supernatural dealings. The functioning of a magnet would
have mystified them, but that doesn't make it a Divine Magnet. Even today,
creditable observers are fooled by sleight-of-hand magicians into believing
that psychic phenomena are at work, but that doesn't make them true. Third,
the divine events of the Bible have left no direct physical evidence, and they
are entirely in contrast to everyday experience. The life of Caesar, though
unusual, contains nothing in direct contradiction to mundane observation, and
as such can be reliably accounted for by mundane records, even if those
records are somewhat contradictory. The Divinity of Jesus and his miracles are
in fact in direct contrast to everyday experience, and as such require more
than mundane records to verify their occurrence. Fourth, we can discuss the
inconsistencies between the Gospels (which are, in fact, entirely consistent
with the process of revision and re-editing by each subsequent Gospel authors
in pursuit of a more effective work of propaganda.) Many Christians assert the
alleged internal consistency of the Gospels as proof of their validity, but I
see it much more clearly as evidence that each successive book of the Gospel
was based on those before it.
> Not only that, but we have external evidence as well. We know that Rome
> conquered Europe because of the evidence it left behind. Likewise, we can
> find out about God from the universe He created.
That's called Argument From Ignorance, and it's a falacy; we can't prove
Thing A, so therefore it must be Thing B.
From the existence of the universe we can only deduce that the universe
exists--we cannot prove that God created it unless we assume that God created
it, which I'm sure you recognize to be a circular argument.
We've all been down this rhetorical road before, but it's a particular
favorite, so I'm happy to travel it again.
Dave!
|
|
| |
I have reconsidered, and I conclude that I feel I need to say more. I
rarely have a chance to debate religion, as I come from a large Catholic
family, and I'm the only one who doesn't attend church, and no one will talk
about religion around me, unfortunately.
I've read the last few of your posts and I find some more interesting
information. In one message you say:
But God may have another reason. He may want to use these tragedies to
cause people to search for Him. He may also want to warn America against
future possible terrorist attacks, which may be even worse than this was.
If we are alerted to this attack, we can more easily spot others.
A wise man once said "If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts we'd all have
a merry christmas." You have said many things similar to what I quoted
above, and all of it is quessing and speculation on the mysterious ways that
god works. And this isn't an attack on just what you said, but what is a
regular occurance in any religion, how they approach events and how they
determine what god or gods that they believe in, had a hand in. You
yourself even used the term technicality, how could something created
'perfect' by god have a technicality.
You also talk about how god created man, and the universe, and to that I'm
going to say no. There is a huge amount of evidence against that any being
did either of that, and I'm not not go more into that. But that is your
belief and I'll respect that.
You said that I forgot about the 50,000 person capability of the WTC. I
certainly did not. You have repeatedly said that the reason of the tragedy
may have been to shock people into action, or two seek god or some other
reason. Would you not consider the 5000 people a large amount, even though
it wasn't the full 50,000? And what if it was the full 50,000 people?
Where would have been god's mercy there? The fact that it wouldn't have
been 100,000? One million? As I have said before, if god wanted to shock
people into action, or into a belief system, I think if he would have
stepped out of his 'kingdom in the sky' and layed the law down, I know that
would have personally shocked me. And no one would have had to die. But
instead god uses an old, ambiguous, long winded book.
You also said again that if god intervened he would have been accused of
being too controlling, and I may have missed further explaination, but how
is god being controlling in any way? And who would accuse him or anyone or
anything that of being too controlling to have this event not take place.
Adam
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> > Thank you for explaining in further detail that statement.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> > Although I'm not sure what you mean by "We wouldn't have the perspective of
> > knowing what came next. The accusation might potentially arise because
> > people would not know the true magnitude of what was prevented." But I
> > believe it has something to do with the mysterious ways that god acts, as I
> > have heard.
>
> Sorry, I tried to cram too much information into too few words :). I meant
> to say that if God had prevented the attack, we wouldn't have appreciated
> its sheer horrific magnitude, since we wouldn't have lived through it. If
> God had substantially intervened, the accusation that He was being too
> controlling might indeed have arisen. We would be blaming God unfairly,
> because we would not have known what He was protecting us from.
>
> > You have written quite a bit about god and his plans and ideas, which I find
> > interesting.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > But I disagree, in fact I might say that you are wrong if I wanted to
> > continue this debate about religion, which I don't. I respect other people's
> > beliefs and thoughts, and will continue to do so, and hope others will do the
> > same for me and my thoughts. Everyone has there own thoughts and ideas, and
> > I'm not here, nor is anyone else I think, to change the way other people
> > think.
>
> Well, I pray you'll reconsider, but I'll respect your wishes and not debate
> you further.
>
> >
> > Adam
>
> --Ian
|
|
| |
Hi Adam, and greetings from Australia!
I don't believe in god.
But for many years I thought I did, and came to realise that following god
*must* be based on faith. As soon as any conclusive eveidence for his existence
shows up, the whole christian belief will crumble. And simply put, those who
believe in such a god must explain everything in terms of that faith.
Thus god cannot intervene in any way that makes it obvious to everyone that
it's god intervening, or he instantly loses all his followers.
As to the creationist thing, well that's been debated here (and many other
places) before, and will be again, but I'm happy with the possibility that:
1. god, if he exists, is an entity beyond our understanding, so may in fact be
consistent with "proof" that no being (as per our knowledge of beings) could
have created the universe;
2. evolution may be the tool that god devised to create the universe (including
the world & man).
Dunno if this all makes sense or not...
ROSCO
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> I have reconsidered, and I conclude that I feel I need to say more. I
> rarely have a chance to debate religion, as I come from a large Catholic
> family, and I'm the only one who doesn't attend church, and no one will talk
> about religion around me, unfortunately.
>
> I've read the last few of your posts and I find some more interesting
> information. In one message you say:
> But God may have another reason. He may want to use these tragedies to
> cause people to search for Him. He may also want to warn America against
> future possible terrorist attacks, which may be even worse than this was.
> If we are alerted to this attack, we can more easily spot others.
>
> A wise man once said "If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts we'd all have
> a merry christmas." You have said many things similar to what I quoted
> above, and all of it is quessing and speculation on the mysterious ways that
> god works. And this isn't an attack on just what you said, but what is a
> regular occurance in any religion, how they approach events and how they
> determine what god or gods that they believe in, had a hand in. You
> yourself even used the term technicality, how could something created
> 'perfect' by god have a technicality.
>
> You also talk about how god created man, and the universe, and to that I'm
> going to say no. There is a huge amount of evidence against that any being
> did either of that, and I'm not not go more into that. But that is your
> belief and I'll respect that.
>
> You said that I forgot about the 50,000 person capability of the WTC. I
> certainly did not. You have repeatedly said that the reason of the tragedy
> may have been to shock people into action, or two seek god or some other
> reason. Would you not consider the 5000 people a large amount, even though
> it wasn't the full 50,000? And what if it was the full 50,000 people?
> Where would have been god's mercy there? The fact that it wouldn't have
> been 100,000? One million? As I have said before, if god wanted to shock
> people into action, or into a belief system, I think if he would have
> stepped out of his 'kingdom in the sky' and layed the law down, I know that
> would have personally shocked me. And no one would have had to die. But
> instead god uses an old, ambiguous, long winded book.
>
> You also said again that if god intervened he would have been accused of
> being too controlling, and I may have missed further explaination, but how
> is god being controlling in any way? And who would accuse him or anyone or
> anything that of being too controlling to have this event not take place.
|
|
| |
Hi Ross.
I would have thought if there was any conclusive evidence for the existence
of god that the christian belief wouldn't crumble, but be elevated to new
heights of wisdom and logic.
The statement that if god exists he, is beyond our understanding, is good
for those who have faith, but to me sounds like another excuse. I've heard
the arguments that evolution is the tool of god etc. but again, an excuse.
And until it is proven otherwise, I will continue to believe what extensive
scientific studies have shown.
Adam
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> Hi Adam, and greetings from Australia!
>
> I don't believe in god.
>
> But for many years I thought I did, and came to realise that following god
> *must* be based on faith. As soon as any conclusive eveidence for his existence
> shows up, the whole christian belief will crumble. And simply put, those who
> believe in such a god must explain everything in terms of that faith.
>
> Thus god cannot intervene in any way that makes it obvious to everyone that
> it's god intervening, or he instantly loses all his followers.
>
> As to the creationist thing, well that's been debated here (and many other
> places) before, and will be again, but I'm happy with the possibility that:
>
> 1. god, if he exists, is an entity beyond our understanding, so may in fact be
> consistent with "proof" that no being (as per our knowledge of beings) could
> have created the universe;
> 2. evolution may be the tool that god devised to create the universe (including
> the world & man).
>
> Dunno if this all makes sense or not...
>
> ROSCO
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> > I have reconsidered, and I conclude that I feel I need to say more. I
> > rarely have a chance to debate religion, as I come from a large Catholic
> > family, and I'm the only one who doesn't attend church, and no one will talk
> > about religion around me, unfortunately.
> >
> > I've read the last few of your posts and I find some more interesting
> > information. In one message you say:
> > But God may have another reason. He may want to use these tragedies to
> > cause people to search for Him. He may also want to warn America against
> > future possible terrorist attacks, which may be even worse than this was.
> > If we are alerted to this attack, we can more easily spot others.
> >
> > A wise man once said "If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts we'd all have
> > a merry christmas." You have said many things similar to what I quoted
> > above, and all of it is quessing and speculation on the mysterious ways that
> > god works. And this isn't an attack on just what you said, but what is a
> > regular occurance in any religion, how they approach events and how they
> > determine what god or gods that they believe in, had a hand in. You
> > yourself even used the term technicality, how could something created
> > 'perfect' by god have a technicality.
> >
> > You also talk about how god created man, and the universe, and to that I'm
> > going to say no. There is a huge amount of evidence against that any being
> > did either of that, and I'm not not go more into that. But that is your
> > belief and I'll respect that.
> >
> > You said that I forgot about the 50,000 person capability of the WTC. I
> > certainly did not. You have repeatedly said that the reason of the tragedy
> > may have been to shock people into action, or two seek god or some other
> > reason. Would you not consider the 5000 people a large amount, even though
> > it wasn't the full 50,000? And what if it was the full 50,000 people?
> > Where would have been god's mercy there? The fact that it wouldn't have
> > been 100,000? One million? As I have said before, if god wanted to shock
> > people into action, or into a belief system, I think if he would have
> > stepped out of his 'kingdom in the sky' and layed the law down, I know that
> > would have personally shocked me. And no one would have had to die. But
> > instead god uses an old, ambiguous, long winded book.
> >
> > You also said again that if god intervened he would have been accused of
> > being too controlling, and I may have missed further explaination, but how
> > is god being controlling in any way? And who would accuse him or anyone or
> > anything that of being too controlling to have this event not take place.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
>
> > God has a reason for not intervening.
>
> When you make that non-falsifiable assertion, you are presumably implying
> that We Cannot Know His Ineffable Plan, and therefore we must assume that
> everything will work out for Good. However, if We Cannot Know His Plan, then
> we certainly can't know that it's all for Good--it could as easily (and as
> feasibly) work out for Evil. "Wait and See" just isn't a real answer.
True. This assertion is based on faith more than fact.
(To clarify, the following is one of Jeff's paragraphs, not mine; and I
addressed it in my previous post.)
> > > How are we supposed to know what to obey? There are so many versions and
> > > translations of the Bible (which was written by men anyway) that his
> > > original messages have long been lost. And don't even get me started on
> > > the Pope and priests...
Additionally, I'm Protestant, so I too look with skepticism at some of the
Catholic doctrine: the existence of purgatory, the sinlessness of Mary,
papal infallibility, etc.
> Obviously, the failures of men aren't proof of God's nonexistence, any more
> than the failures of some scientific theories invalidate all of science.
Agreed.
> > I heard somewhere that there are probably five surviving accounts of
> > Caesar's military campaigns, all rife with inconsistencies; yet no one
> > argues that they happened. The Bible has much more internal agreement than
> > those accounts. The Dead Sea Scrolls further reaffirm that the Bible has
> > been copied accurately for thousands of years.
>
> No one really denies the existence of Jesus the man, since the Gospels are in
> themselves sufficient evidence for his mortal existence. However, the Gospels
> are manifestly insufficient proof of his divinity for a number of reasons.
> First among these is the obvious time gap between his life and the Gospels,
The Gospels were all written during the first century, two (Matthew and
John) by people who belonged to Jesus's closest group of disciples, the
Twelve. Having followed Him for His entire three-year ministry, they were
certainly capable of writing a faithful account.
> not to mention the lack of solid first-hand witnesses to the events.
Luke, in the introductions to his eponymous Gospel and the book of Acts,
says that he conducted painstaking research to prove to himself the accuracy
of what he wrote. This included conducting interviews with Jesus's close
associates, such as Mary and Peter.
> Second, we are not able to rely solely on eyewitness testimony in this case,
> since the people of that time were not (through no fault of their own)
> reliable witnesses able to report on supernatural dealings. The functioning
> of a magnet would have mystified them, but that doesn't make it a Divine
> Magnet. Even today, creditable observers are fooled by sleight-of-hand
> magicians into believing that psychic phenomena are at work, but that doesn't
> make them true.
Scattered witnesses here and there could be dismissed as unreliable. But
Jesus's life and miracles were witnessed by thousands of people, including
five hundred who saw Him after the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-6).
Anyway, where would Jesus have gotten enough bread and fish to feed five
thousand men (not including their wives and children) by slight-of-hand?
> Third, the divine events of the Bible have left no direct physical evidence,
At they time they did. "The blind received sight, the lame walked, those
who had leprosy were cured, the deaf heard, the dead were raised", etc.
This confounded the authorities, who could offer no explanation for what
happened.
> and they are entirely in contrast to everyday experience.
That's why they were miracles!
> The life of Caesar, though unusual, contains nothing in direct contradiction
> to mundane observation, and as such can be reliably accounted for by mundane
> records, even if those records are somewhat contradictory. The Divinity of
> Jesus and his miracles are in fact in direct contrast to everyday experience,
> and as such require more than mundane records to verify their occurrence.
Take Jesus's resurrection for an example. The disciples had been clueless
about most of Jesus's teachings during his entire ministry. When Jesus was
seized, they had all deserted Him. After He was crucified, they were scared
silly and afraid even to leave home. After the alleged resurrection, they
defiantly preached the Gospel in the very faces of those who had crucified
Jesus, and from there went out to spread the Gospel throughout the world.
Would there really have been such an abrupt change of behavior had Jesus not
risen from the dead?
> Fourth, we can discuss the inconsistencies between the Gospels (which are, in
> fact, entirely consistent with the process of revision and re-editing by each
> subsequent Gospel authors in pursuit of a more effective work of propaganda).
> Many Christians assert the alleged internal consistency of the Gospels as
> proof of their validity, but I see it much more clearly as evidence that each
> successive book of the Gospel was based on those before it.
These are two sides of the same coin. Mark wrote his Gospel first, and
successive writers drew from it in writing their own, adding extra material
that they had culled from their own experience. The Gospels are
superficially inconsistent because they are written from different points of
view, with emphasis on different details. When they are compared with this
in mind, the inconsistencies quickly resolve themselves.
> > Not only that, but we have external evidence as well. We know that Rome
> > conquered Europe because of the evidence it left behind. Likewise, we can
> > find out about God from the universe He created.
>
> That's called Argument From Ignorance, and it's a falacy; we can't prove
> Thing A, so therefore it must be Thing B.
I don't follow how this is ignorance. Please clarify.
> From the existence of the universe we can only deduce that the universe
> exists--we cannot prove that God created it unless we assume that God created
> it, which I'm sure you recognize to be a circular argument.
Yes, but we can derive the essentiality of a Creator from what we can see
about the universe. I have a whole library of proof on hand, but let me
cite just two very broad points:
-The finiteness of Time. Science has proven that Time has a beginning. How
did it begin, then? Before there was Time or Space, there was Nothing.
Nothing cannot create Something. (Any Something cannot create a Thing
greater than itself.) Since we live in a highly complex, structured
universe in which lives intelligent life, an Intelligence - even greater and
more intelligent than what we can see - must have been behind it.
-The anthropic principle. Science has found that the laws of physics and
chemistry are extroardinarily convenient for matter, let along life, to
exist as it does. The degree of precision is astronomical. Even one
parameter were to be different by as little as 10^-5, life could not exist.
This leads to the conclusion that a Creator had His hands meddling in the works.
> We've all been down this rhetorical road before, but it's a particular
> favorite, so I'm happy to travel it again.
Glad you like it. I've not participated in a LUGNET debate before, so I'm
interested to see what comes up.
> Dave!
Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> I have reconsidered,
Great! My prayer worked! You reconsidered!
> and I conclude that I feel I need to say more. I rarely have a chance to
> debate religion, as I come from a large Catholic family, and I'm the only one
> who doesn't attend church, and no one will talk about religion around me,
> unfortunately.
Sorry to hear that. Hopefully, we can accommodate you. (By the way, I'm
Protestant, so I may share some of your concerns with Catholicism.)
> I've read the last few of your posts and I find some more interesting
> information. In one message you say:
> But God may have another reason. He may want to use these tragedies to
> cause people to search for Him. He may also want to warn America against
> future possible terrorist attacks, which may be even worse than this was.
> If we are alerted to this attack, we can more easily spot others.
>
> A wise man once said "If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts we'd all have
> a merry christmas."
LOL. Who said that?
> You have said many things similar to what I quoted above, and all of it is
> quessing and speculation on the mysterious ways that god works. And this
> isn't an attack on just what you said, but what is a regular occurance in any
> religion, how they approach events and how they determine what god or gods
> that they believe in, had a hand in.
All religions are based to some extent on faith. One has faith that what he
believes is correct.
> You yourself even used the term technicality, how could something created
> 'perfect' by god have a technicality.
I didn't apply the term "technicality" to God. I meant that man's goodness
derives from God, since God is the source of all goodness. If you
presuppose the nonexistence of God, this is nearly impossible to prove.
That's why I referred to it as a technicality.
> You also talk about how god created man, and the universe, and to that I'm
> going to say no. There is a huge amount of evidence against that any being
> did either of that, and I'm not not go more into that. But that is your
> belief and I'll respect that.
I would disagree - in fact, there's a huge amount of evidence - both
philosophical and scientific - that a Creator exists, and a further huge
amount that this Creator is the God defined in the Bible. If you'd
reconsider, I could go into that further. (I pray you reconsider this, too :).)
> You said that I forgot about the 50,000 person capability of the WTC. I
> certainly did not.
Sorry. I should have said, "You didn't indicate the 50,000 person capacity".
> You have repeatedly said that the reason of the tragedy may have been to
> shock people into action, or two seek god or some other reason. Would you
> not consider the 5000 people a large amount, even though it wasn't the full
> 50,000? And what if it was the full 50,000 people? Where would have been
> god's mercy there? The fact that it wouldn't have been 100,000? One million?
I am not trying to dismiss the magnitude of this tragedy. Of course it is a
large amount. I merely say it could have been ten times this much, and it
wasn't.
> As I have said before, if god wanted to shock people into action, or into a
> belief system, I think if he would have stepped out of his 'kingdom in the
> sky' and layed the law down, I know that would have personally shocked me.
> And no one would have had to die. But instead god uses an old, ambiguous,
> long winded book.
I certainly agree with you on this. But this isn't the way God works. From
postulate 2, http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12833, I said that
God wants us to respond to Him of our own free will. God is willing to go
to extreme measures, even let Jesus be spat upon and killed, to let us
maintain our free will. If He suddenly appeared to us out of the sky with
an ultimatum, that would remove our option of making our own decision.
> You also said again that if god intervened he would have been accused of
> being too controlling,
I was addressing the point someone else raised that people might accuse God
of being too controlling if He interfered with their "fun".
> and I may have missed further explaination, but how is god being controlling
> in any way?
He's not being overtly controlling at all. He's allowing us to maintain our
free will. But He is engineering things behind the scenes.
> And who would accuse him or anyone or anything that of being too controlling
> to have this event not take place.
This is the point I tried to address before. If He had, people might accuse
Him because *they wouldn't have known what He was intervening to prevent*.
People can't see into the future and they don't know future potential
sequences of events. They would be unfairly accusing Him of inconveniencing
them by interfering, because they wouldn't be able to see that He was in
fact *protecting* them by His interference.
Again, they would not necessarily accuse Him this way if He had intervened,
but this argument anticipates the possibility.
>
> Adam
--Ian
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> > > Thank you for explaining in further detail that statement.
> >
> > You're welcome.
> >
> > > Although I'm not sure what you mean by "We wouldn't have the perspective of
> > > knowing what came next. The accusation might potentially arise because
> > > people would not know the true magnitude of what was prevented." But I
> > > believe it has something to do with the mysterious ways that god acts, as I
> > > have heard.
> >
> > Sorry, I tried to cram too much information into too few words :). I meant
> > to say that if God had prevented the attack, we wouldn't have appreciated
> > its sheer horrific magnitude, since we wouldn't have lived through it. If
> > God had substantially intervened, the accusation that He was being too
> > controlling might indeed have arisen. We would be blaming God unfairly,
> > because we would not have known what He was protecting us from.
> >
> > > You have written quite a bit about god and his plans and ideas, which I find
> > > interesting.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > > But I disagree, in fact I might say that you are wrong if I wanted to
> > > continue this debate about religion, which I don't. I respect other people's
> > > beliefs and thoughts, and will continue to do so, and hope others will do the
> > > same for me and my thoughts. Everyone has there own thoughts and ideas, and
> > > I'm not here, nor is anyone else I think, to change the way other people
> > > think.
> >
> > Well, I pray you'll reconsider, but I'll respect your wishes and not debate
> > you further.
> >
> > >
> > > Adam
> >
> > --Ian
|
|
| |
I'll try to address both Adam's and Ross's posts at the same time.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> Hi Ross.
>
> I would have thought if there was any conclusive evidence for the existence
> of god that the christian belief wouldn't crumble, but be elevated to new
> heights of wisdom and logic.
Exactly. I believe that too. As I mentioned in my other post, I can put my
hands on a huge amount of evidence for the existence of God - all
circumstantial, and none of it 100% conclusive, but incredibly convincing
nonetheless.
> The statement that if god exists he, is beyond our understanding, is good
> for those who have faith, but to me sounds like another excuse. I've heard
> the arguments that evolution is the tool of god etc. but again, an excuse.
> And until it is proven otherwise, I will continue to believe what extensive
> scientific studies have shown.
As I said before, faith is necessary to any religion. In Christianity, we
have a reason why we need faith (postulate 2, so that we can maintain our
free will of choice). Science does "prove" the existence of God. Not
conclusively, or else there would be no room left for faith, but still to
satisfy nearly anyone.
The very *study of science* itself presupposes the existence of God to for
it to work! Why?
-Rationality: Science assumes that there is a rational explanation for
everything.
-Logic: Science assumes that by studying details and making observations
about an unknown phenomenon, that phenomenon can be described. The whole
follows logically and naturally from the part.
-Coherence: Science requires evidence for proof. If evidence contradicts
existing explanations, they must be thrown out, because the explanation must
be coherent with all explanations.
These all presuppose that the universe is inherently ordered. If the
universe had haphazardly sprung into existence by itself, there would be no
outside governing force to make it behave logically, rationally, or
coherently. Right and wrong would have no meaning, and there would be no
guarantee that a phenomenon would have an intelligible order to it. Science
cannot function in a chaotic universe.
Point by point, here is the support for the above:
-Rationality: God is by definition rational - there is a reason for
everything. He is a God of Order, not Chaos.
-Logic: God makes His nature known in what He creates. Each of His
creations reflect Himself, for He cannot create something totally and
absolutely without relation or relevance to His nature. Thus, every detail
observed about God must reflect and describe God.
-Coherence: God is by definition coherent. He cannot contradict Himself or
do anything foreign or contrary to His nature. He is internally consistent.
>
> Adam
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > Hi Adam, and greetings from Australia!
> >
> > I don't believe in god.
I hope that you change your mind!
> >
> > But for many years I thought I did, and came to realise that following god
> > *must* be based on faith.
Exactly. While doubts remain, faith must provide the impetus for a belief
in God.
> > As soon as any conclusive eveidence for his existence shows up, the whole
> > christian belief will crumble. And simply put, those who believe in such a
> > god must explain everything in terms of that faith.
> >
> > Thus god cannot intervene in any way that makes it obvious to everyone that
> > it's god intervening, or he instantly loses all his followers.
Adam and I disagree; see above.
> >
> > As to the creationist thing, well that's been debated here (and many other
> > places) before, and will be again, but I'm happy with the possibility that:
> >
> > 1. god, if he exists, is an entity beyond our understanding, so may in fact
> > be consistent with "proof" that no being (as per our knowledge of beings)
> > could have created the universe;
He *Himself* is beyond our understanding, but His infiniteness can manifest
itself in finite ways that we can understand.
> > 2. evolution may be the tool that god devised to create the universe
> > (including the world & man).
Possibly. But I doubt God wasted His time by fiddling around with the laws
of chance and engineering evolution; that would have introduced a middleman.
I think He did it Himself.
> >
> > Dunno if this all makes sense or not...
Debate brings out the truth. Keep debating until it makes sense :).
> >
> > ROSCO
--Ian
|
|
| |
This debate is going nowhere, and no one's opinion is going to change here.
But you say there is convincing evidence that there is god, and yet I have
seen any. Let me put my opinion this way. I will believe that there is a
god when he shows himself, to everyone everywhere. I will not go by what an
ancient book says. I'm amazed that you said that the study of science
presupposes that there is a god. But I'm glad you wrote about that because
it gave me a good laugh. Science has disproved two of the supposed
theological events masterminded by god. You said that you believe god did
evolution all by himself without a middle man, and without 'fiddling'
around. I cannot believe that anyone denies the proof of evolution, even
the Pope himself has offically recognised it. I'm sorry, but there is
substantial evidence that it took 4 million years plus to get our species
where we are today, simply a primate, just like gorillas and chimpanzees.
And there is scientific proof that the universe that was created not by god.
Also, there are many things that we still haven't learned about the Big Bang
or evolution, which we may learn. Yet I see no proof that god did either of
that. You also said that god is beyond our understanding, which makes no
sense. Those who worship god would likely say that they understand him and
his ways, or at least try to understand, wouldn't they? But if he's beyond
our understanding as you say, wouldn't he be beyond our comprehension? Why
didn't evolution stop about 130,000 year ago before the Neanderthals began
to use burial practices, for whatever reason, maybe because of god?
Adam
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> I'll try to address both Adam's and Ross's posts at the same time.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> > Hi Ross.
> >
> > I would have thought if there was any conclusive evidence for the existence
> > of god that the christian belief wouldn't crumble, but be elevated to new
> > heights of wisdom and logic.
>
> Exactly. I believe that too. As I mentioned in my other post, I can put my
> hands on a huge amount of evidence for the existence of God - all
> circumstantial, and none of it 100% conclusive, but incredibly convincing
> nonetheless.
>
> > The statement that if god exists he, is beyond our understanding, is good
> > for those who have faith, but to me sounds like another excuse. I've heard
> > the arguments that evolution is the tool of god etc. but again, an excuse.
> > And until it is proven otherwise, I will continue to believe what extensive
> > scientific studies have shown.
>
> As I said before, faith is necessary to any religion. In Christianity, we
> have a reason why we need faith (postulate 2, so that we can maintain our
> free will of choice). Science does "prove" the existence of God. Not
> conclusively, or else there would be no room left for faith, but still to
> satisfy nearly anyone.
>
> The very *study of science* itself presupposes the existence of God to for
> it to work! Why?
> -Rationality: Science assumes that there is a rational explanation for
> everything.
> -Logic: Science assumes that by studying details and making observations
> about an unknown phenomenon, that phenomenon can be described. The whole
> follows logically and naturally from the part.
> -Coherence: Science requires evidence for proof. If evidence contradicts
> existing explanations, they must be thrown out, because the explanation must
> be coherent with all explanations.
>
> These all presuppose that the universe is inherently ordered. If the
> universe had haphazardly sprung into existence by itself, there would be no
> outside governing force to make it behave logically, rationally, or
> coherently. Right and wrong would have no meaning, and there would be no
> guarantee that a phenomenon would have an intelligible order to it. Science
> cannot function in a chaotic universe.
>
> Point by point, here is the support for the above:
> -Rationality: God is by definition rational - there is a reason for
> everything. He is a God of Order, not Chaos.
> -Logic: God makes His nature known in what He creates. Each of His
> creations reflect Himself, for He cannot create something totally and
> absolutely without relation or relevance to His nature. Thus, every detail
> observed about God must reflect and describe God.
> -Coherence: God is by definition coherent. He cannot contradict Himself or
> do anything foreign or contrary to His nature. He is internally consistent.
>
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > Hi Adam, and greetings from Australia!
> > >
> > > I don't believe in god.
>
> I hope that you change your mind!
>
> > >
> > > But for many years I thought I did, and came to realise that following god
> > > *must* be based on faith.
>
> Exactly. While doubts remain, faith must provide the impetus for a belief
> in God.
>
> > > As soon as any conclusive eveidence for his existence shows up, the whole
> > > christian belief will crumble. And simply put, those who believe in such a
> > > god must explain everything in terms of that faith.
> > >
> > > Thus god cannot intervene in any way that makes it obvious to everyone that
> > > it's god intervening, or he instantly loses all his followers.
>
> Adam and I disagree; see above.
>
> > >
> > > As to the creationist thing, well that's been debated here (and many other
> > > places) before, and will be again, but I'm happy with the possibility that:
> > >
> > > 1. god, if he exists, is an entity beyond our understanding, so may in fact
> > > be consistent with "proof" that no being (as per our knowledge of beings)
> > > could have created the universe;
>
> He *Himself* is beyond our understanding, but His infiniteness can manifest
> itself in finite ways that we can understand.
>
> > > 2. evolution may be the tool that god devised to create the universe
> > > (including the world & man).
>
> Possibly. But I doubt God wasted His time by fiddling around with the laws
> of chance and engineering evolution; that would have introduced a middleman.
> I think He did it Himself.
>
> > >
> > > Dunno if this all makes sense or not...
>
> Debate brings out the truth. Keep debating until it makes sense :).
>
> > >
> > > ROSCO
>
> --Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> > I have reconsidered,
>
> Great! My prayer worked! You reconsidered!
>
> > and I conclude that I feel I need to say more. I rarely have a chance to
> > debate religion, as I come from a large Catholic family, and I'm the only one
> > who doesn't attend church, and no one will talk about religion around me,
> > unfortunately.
>
> Sorry to hear that. Hopefully, we can accommodate you. (By the way, I'm
> Protestant, so I may share some of your concerns with Catholicism.)
>
> > I've read the last few of your posts and I find some more interesting
> > information. In one message you say:
> > But God may have another reason. He may want to use these tragedies to
> > cause people to search for Him. He may also want to warn America against
> > future possible terrorist attacks, which may be even worse than this was.
> > If we are alerted to this attack, we can more easily spot others.
> >
> > A wise man once said "If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts we'd all have
> > a merry christmas."
>
> LOL. Who said that?
Colby from Survivor 2.
> > You have said many things similar to what I quoted above, and all of it is
> > quessing and speculation on the mysterious ways that god works. And this
> > isn't an attack on just what you said, but what is a regular occurance in any
> > religion, how they approach events and how they determine what god or gods
> > that they believe in, had a hand in.
>
> All religions are based to some extent on faith. One has faith that what he
> believes is correct.
>
> > You yourself even used the term technicality, how could something created
> > 'perfect' by god have a technicality.
>
> I didn't apply the term "technicality" to God. I meant that man's goodness
> derives from God, since God is the source of all goodness. If you
> presuppose the nonexistence of God, this is nearly impossible to prove.
> That's why I referred to it as a technicality.
Mark said: The Kindness Of Man. Please, give credit where credit is due,
and don't shortchange the good people.
You said: All goodness derives from God, but this is a technicality in this
instance :).
So what did you mean exactly? In the reply to me you said: "I didn't apply
the term "technicality" to God. I meant that man's goodness derives from
God, since God is the source of all goodness. If you presuppose the
nonexistence of God, this is nearly impossible to prove. That's why I
referred to it as a technicality" What's the technicality then? The
kindness of people? More specifically the kindness of people who presuppose
the nonexistence of god?
> > You also talk about how god created man, and the universe, and to that I'm
> > going to say no. There is a huge amount of evidence against that any being
> > did either of that, and I'm not not go more into that. But that is your
> > belief and I'll respect that.
>
> I would disagree - in fact, there's a huge amount of evidence - both
> philosophical and scientific - that a Creator exists, and a further huge
> amount that this Creator is the God defined in the Bible. If you'd
> reconsider, I could go into that further. (I pray you reconsider this, too :).)
You do?!? Well lay it on me then brother! Finally, scientific evidence
that a creator exists!
> > You said that I forgot about the 50,000 person capability of the WTC. I
> > certainly did not.
>
> Sorry. I should have said, "You didn't indicate the 50,000 person capacity".
>
> > You have repeatedly said that the reason of the tragedy may have been to
> > shock people into action, or two seek god or some other reason. Would you
> > not consider the 5000 people a large amount, even though it wasn't the full
> > 50,000? And what if it was the full 50,000 people? Where would have been
> > god's mercy there? The fact that it wouldn't have been 100,000? One million?
>
> I am not trying to dismiss the magnitude of this tragedy. Of course it is a
> large amount. I merely say it could have been ten times this much, and it
> wasn't.
>
> > As I have said before, if god wanted to shock people into action, or into a
> > belief system, I think if he would have stepped out of his 'kingdom in the
> > sky' and layed the law down, I know that would have personally shocked me.
> > And no one would have had to die. But instead god uses an old, ambiguous,
> > long winded book.
>
> I certainly agree with you on this. But this isn't the way God works. From
> postulate 2, http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12833, I said that
> God wants us to respond to Him of our own free will. God is willing to go
> to extreme measures, even let Jesus be spat upon and killed, to let us
> maintain our free will. If He suddenly appeared to us out of the sky with
> an ultimatum, that would remove our option of making our own decision.
>
> > You also said again that if god intervened he would have been accused of
> > being too controlling,
>
> I was addressing the point someone else raised that people might accuse God
> of being too controlling if He interfered with their "fun".
>
> > and I may have missed further explaination, but how is god being controlling
> > in any way?
>
> He's not being overtly controlling at all. He's allowing us to maintain our
> free will. But He is engineering things behind the scenes.
>
> > And who would accuse him or anyone or anything that of being too controlling
> > to have this event not take place.
>
> This is the point I tried to address before. If He had, people might accuse
> Him because *they wouldn't have known what He was intervening to prevent*.
> People can't see into the future and they don't know future potential
> sequences of events. They would be unfairly accusing Him of inconveniencing
> them by interfering, because they wouldn't be able to see that He was in
> fact *protecting* them by His interference.
Here we disagree once more, or still, whatever. I understand your point you
make, sort of. Obviously people can't see the future, and yes, if god
prevented the events without making that known, no one would have known what
he did. I doubt anyone would accuse him of being inconvienient if he would
explain what he did and why, thus not an inconvienience and also a protector
and saviour etc. But there is no evidence that there was any involvement of
god, in any way.
Adam
> Again, they would not necessarily accuse Him this way if He had intervened,
> but this argument anticipates the possibility.
>
> >
> > Adam
>
> --Ian
>
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> > > > Thank you for explaining in further detail that statement.
> > >
> > > You're welcome.
> > >
> > > > Although I'm not sure what you mean by "We wouldn't have the perspective of
> > > > knowing what came next. The accusation might potentially arise because
> > > > people would not know the true magnitude of what was prevented." But I
> > > > believe it has something to do with the mysterious ways that god acts, as I
> > > > have heard.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I tried to cram too much information into too few words :). I meant
> > > to say that if God had prevented the attack, we wouldn't have appreciated
> > > its sheer horrific magnitude, since we wouldn't have lived through it. If
> > > God had substantially intervened, the accusation that He was being too
> > > controlling might indeed have arisen. We would be blaming God unfairly,
> > > because we would not have known what He was protecting us from.
> > >
> > > > You have written quite a bit about god and his plans and ideas, which I find
> > > > interesting.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > > But I disagree, in fact I might say that you are wrong if I wanted to
> > > > continue this debate about religion, which I don't. I respect other people's
> > > > beliefs and thoughts, and will continue to do so, and hope others will do the
> > > > same for me and my thoughts. Everyone has there own thoughts and ideas, and
> > > > I'm not here, nor is anyone else I think, to change the way other people
> > > > think.
> > >
> > > Well, I pray you'll reconsider, but I'll respect your wishes and not debate
> > > you further.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Adam
> > >
> > > --Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > > A wise man once said "If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts we'd all have
> > > a merry christmas."
> >
> > LOL. Who said that?
>
> Colby from Survivor 2.
Ack! No, don't tell me that Reality TV has provided *anything*
pithy!
> > I didn't apply the term "technicality" to God. I meant that man's goodness
> > derives from God, since God is the source of all goodness. If you
> > presuppose the nonexistence of God, this is nearly impossible to prove.
> > That's why I referred to it as a technicality.
>
> Mark said: The Kindness Of Man. Please, give credit where credit is due,
> and don't shortchange the good people.
>
> You said: All goodness derives from God, but this is a technicality in this
> instance :).
And, remember, if God created all and is omnipotent, God
also created evil and possesses the power to destroy it at
any time. Evil is not merely the absence of good.
> > I would disagree - in fact, there's a huge amount of evidence - both
> > philosophical and scientific - that a Creator exists, and a further huge
> > amount that this Creator is the God defined in the Bible. If you'd
> > reconsider, I could go into that further. (I pray you reconsider this, too :).)
>
> You do?!? Well lay it on me then brother! Finally, scientific evidence
> that a creator exists!
Yeah, I'd like to hear this. If you have real scientific
evidence--not Creationist chestnuts, but real bonafide evidence,
that points to the existence of the Christian God and *could not
point to anything else*, that would be the greatest find
in recorded history.
Unfortunately, most of the scientific and philosophical
"evidence" ends up being anti-logic (i.e., "It's not X so
it MUST be Y", which ignores the possibility of Z).
> > This is the point I tried to address before. If He had, people might accuse
> > Him because *they wouldn't have known what He was intervening to prevent*.
> > People can't see into the future and they don't know future potential
> > sequences of events. They would be unfairly accusing Him of inconveniencing
> > them by interfering, because they wouldn't be able to see that He was in
> > fact *protecting* them by His interference.
>
> Here we disagree once more, or still, whatever. I understand your point you
> make, sort of. Obviously people can't see the future, and yes, if god
> prevented the events without making that known, no one would have known what
> he did. I doubt anyone would accuse him of being inconvienient if he would
> explain what he did and why, thus not an inconvienience and also a protector
> and saviour etc. But there is no evidence that there was any involvement of
> god, in any way.
Religion operates within a faith paradigm. For example,
if a miracle occurred that sufficiently defied natural laws
(e.g., the planes stopping just inches from the WTC walls)
then I think your postulate about people not understanding
would be moot. When science tries to make statements about
the existence of God, or when religion tries to make statements
about the conclusions of science (note: I'm not saying the
*practice* here, because religion does come into bioethics
quite strongly), they're on really really really shaky ground
that I'd argue is really quite indefensible. You can't
prove the unprovable, and you can't deny the provable (though
people can, and do, try to challenge the proof).
I'm in the blind-watchmaker camp, myself. Religion comes
from humanity, not from God. Only the human spirit or soul
comes from there. Nothing divine can be articulated, but
rather lives within us and between us. No dogma can circum-
scribe that.
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> I'll try to address both Adam's and Ross's posts at the same time.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> > Hi Ross.
> >
> > I would have thought if there was any conclusive evidence for the existence
> > of god that the christian belief wouldn't crumble, but be elevated to new
> > heights of wisdom and logic.
>
> Exactly. I believe that too. As I mentioned in my other post, I can put my
> hands on a huge amount of evidence for the existence of God - all
> circumstantial, and none of it 100% conclusive, but incredibly convincing
> nonetheless.
>
> > The statement that if god exists he, is beyond our understanding, is good
> > for those who have faith, but to me sounds like another excuse. I've heard
> > the arguments that evolution is the tool of god etc. but again, an excuse.
> > And until it is proven otherwise, I will continue to believe what extensive
> > scientific studies have shown.
>
> As I said before, faith is necessary to any religion. In Christianity, we
> have a reason why we need faith (postulate 2, so that we can maintain our
> free will of choice). Science does "prove" the existence of God. Not
> conclusively, or else there would be no room left for faith, but still to
> satisfy nearly anyone.
>
> The very *study of science* itself presupposes the existence of God to for
> it to work! Why?
> -Rationality: Science assumes that there is a rational explanation for
> everything.
> -Logic: Science assumes that by studying details and making observations
> about an unknown phenomenon, that phenomenon can be described. The whole
> follows logically and naturally from the part.
> -Coherence: Science requires evidence for proof. If evidence contradicts
> existing explanations, they must be thrown out, because the explanation must
> be coherent with all explanations.
>
> These all presuppose that the universe is inherently ordered. If the
> universe had haphazardly sprung into existence by itself, there would be no
> outside governing force to make it behave logically, rationally, or
> coherently. Right and wrong would have no meaning, and there would be no
> guarantee that a phenomenon would have an intelligible order to it. Science
> cannot function in a chaotic universe.
>
> Point by point, here is the support for the above:
> -Rationality: God is by definition rational - there is a reason for
> everything. He is a God of Order, not Chaos.
> -Logic: God makes His nature known in what He creates. Each of His
> creations reflect Himself, for He cannot create something totally and
> absolutely without relation or relevance to His nature. Thus, every detail
> observed about God must reflect and describe God.
> -Coherence: God is by definition coherent. He cannot contradict Himself or
> do anything foreign or contrary to His nature. He is internally consistent.
>
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > Hi Adam, and greetings from Australia!
> > >
> > > I don't believe in god.
>
> I hope that you change your mind!
>
> > >
> > > But for many years I thought I did, and came to realise that following god
> > > *must* be based on faith.
>
> Exactly. While doubts remain, faith must provide the impetus for a belief
> in God.
>
> > > As soon as any conclusive eveidence for his existence shows up, the whole
> > > christian belief will crumble. And simply put, those who believe in such a
> > > god must explain everything in terms of that faith.
> > >
> > > Thus god cannot intervene in any way that makes it obvious to everyone that
> > > it's god intervening, or he instantly loses all his followers.
>
> Adam and I disagree; see above.
Yes, I re-read that and realised it wasn't a good description of my belief.
Perhaps closer: "...he instantly loses all his followers, *from his point of
view*, because they no longer have to make any choice to follow him."
> > > As to the creationist thing, well that's been debated here (and many other
> > > places) before, and will be again, but I'm happy with the possibility that:
> > >
> > > 1. god, if he exists, is an entity beyond our understanding, so may in fact
> > > be consistent with "proof" that no being (as per our knowledge of beings)
> > > could have created the universe;
>
> He *Himself* is beyond our understanding, but His infiniteness can manifest
> itself in finite ways that we can understand.
I agree with this - I don't think it contradicts my point 1.
> > > 2. evolution may be the tool that god devised to create the universe
> > > (including the world & man).
>
> Possibly. But I doubt God wasted His time by fiddling around with the laws
> of chance and engineering evolution; that would have introduced a middleman.
> I think He did it Himself.
Well I disagree that it necessarily introduces a "middleman" - the tools of
evolution & chance may have already been "available" to him - they may be
things he uses every day, so were the obvious choice when creating his
masterpiece.
Note that this doesn't necessarly contradict your assertion that he's a god of
order, either - to him, what we call evolution & chance may be the perfect
order. His "thoughts" are beyond our understanding.
> > >
> > > Dunno if this all makes sense or not...
>
> Debate brings out the truth. Keep debating until it makes sense :).
Well, it certainly brings out a lot of differing points of view, anyway...
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> said by Dave!
> > We've all been down this rhetorical road before, but it's a particular
> > favorite, so I'm happy to travel it again.
>
> Glad you like it. I've not participated in a LUGNET debate before, so I'm
> interested to see what comes up.
Some of us would rather see you expend your energy in reviewing what came
before rather than rehashing. Everything you've said has been said before in
some previous incarnation of this debate, so don't think you're adding any
new value or embarking on any noble quest to convert the heathens.
If, however, you're having fun and are debating for the sake of the debate
rather than to actually change anyone's mind, don't let me stop you. But I
find it tiresome as I said before.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> > > You yourself even used the term technicality, how could something created
> > > 'perfect' by god have a technicality.
> >
> > I didn't apply the term "technicality" to God. I meant that man's goodness
> > derives from God, since God is the source of all goodness. If you
> > presuppose the nonexistence of God, this is nearly impossible to prove.
> > That's why I referred to it as a technicality.
>
> Mark said: The Kindness Of Man. Please, give credit where credit is due,
> and don't shortchange the good people.
>
> You said: All goodness derives from God, but this is a technicality in this
> instance :).
>
> So what did you mean exactly? In the reply to me you said: "I didn't apply
> the term "technicality" to God. I meant that man's goodness derives from
> God, since God is the source of all goodness. If you presuppose the
> nonexistence of God, this is nearly impossible to prove. That's why I
> referred to it as a technicality" What's the technicality then? The
> kindness of people? More specifically the kindness of people who presuppose
> the nonexistence of god?
Oh dear. Let me start over.
God is good, and there is no evil or sin in him. God created everything, so
therefore everything reflects God's goodness in some way. People doing good
things don't do it because of their innate goodness; they reflect the
goodness of their Creator.
But to an outside observer, there is no apparent connection. People are
doing good things; God is also doing good things. Theologically, they are
connected. For the purposes of our discussion, I don't think it's relevant
whether they are connected or not. So I put the point forward, but I called
it a technicality.
> > > You also talk about how god created man, and the universe, and to that I'm
> > > going to say no. There is a huge amount of evidence against that any being
> > > did either of that, and I'm not not go more into that. But that is your
> > > belief and I'll respect that.
> >
> > I would disagree - in fact, there's a huge amount of evidence - both
> > philosophical and scientific - that a Creator exists, and a further huge
> > amount that this Creator is the God defined in the Bible. If you'd
> > reconsider, I could go into that further. (I pray you reconsider this, too :).)
>
> You do?!? Well lay it on me then brother! Finally, scientific evidence
> that a creator exists!
All righty then...
(This is one of many categories of proof. Much of the following data is
also posted at www.GodAndScience.org, an excellent site for this sort of thing.)
Given that the universe had a beginning, which is commonly known as the Big
Bang. Given that the laws of physics were set at the beginning and have
remained unchanged since.
The laws of physics must be extraordinarily precise for the universe to
function as we know it and remain functioning until today. The maximum
deviation from the following constants would have to be accurate to within
the given range, or else one of three things would happen: the universe
would not exist now (would have collapsed already), would not sustain
matter, or would not sustain life.
Ratio of Electrons to Protons, 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force, Gravity 1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe, 1:10^55
Mass of Universe, 1:10^59
Cosmological Constant, 1:10^120
If even one of those properties had deviated beyond the range indicated,
life would not be possible.
From Dr. Hugh Ross's *The Creator and the Cosmos*,
One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to
visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American
continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000
miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt
would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile
dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as
North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billion of piles of
dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he
will pick the red dime are one in 10^37. (p. 115)
Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
For general skepticism, athiests/agnostics should have a look here:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html
> > > And who would accuse him or anyone or anything that of being too controlling
> > > to have this event not take place.
> >
> > This is the point I tried to address before. If He had, people might accuse
> > Him because *they wouldn't have known what He was intervening to prevent*.
> > People can't see into the future and they don't know future potential
> > sequences of events. They would be unfairly accusing Him of inconveniencing
> > them by interfering, because they wouldn't be able to see that He was in
> > fact *protecting* them by His interference.
>
> Here we disagree once more, or still, whatever. I understand your point you
> make, sort of. Obviously people can't see the future, and yes, if god
> prevented the events without making that known, no one would have known what
> he did. I doubt anyone would accuse him of being inconvienient if he would
> explain what he did and why, thus not an inconvienience and also a protector
> and saviour etc. But there is no evidence that there was any involvement of
> god, in any way.
Not conclusive evidence. But there is circumstantial evidence, which can be
supplemented with faith.
>
> Adam
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> Oh dear. Let me start over.
>
> God is good, and there is no evil or sin in him. God created everything, so
> therefore everything reflects God's goodness in some way. People doing good
> things don't do it because of their innate goodness; they reflect the
> goodness of their Creator.
> ...
> All righty then...
> ...
> Given that the universe had a beginning, which is commonly known as the Big
> Bang. Given that the laws of physics were set at the beginning and have
> remained unchanged since.
So, here's how I like to see it. If God started everything off, what if He
let it play out - what if He wasn't sticking His oar in every five minutes?
What if we really do have free will, for a start? Who wants to live in a
universe where you can only be free up to point, then God intervenes, anyway?
If you fundamentally believe the bible, why do you think the tree of
knowledge was placed in the Garden of Eden in the first place? Even if it's
just a metaphor, it's a metaphor for freedom. I want to believe too, but I
want to make my own choice to do so.
> The laws of physics must be extraordinarily precise for the universe to
> function as we know it and remain functioning until today...
>
> Ratio of Electrons to Protons, 1:10^37
> Ratio of Electromagnetic Force, Gravity 1:10^40
> Expansion Rate of Universe, 1:10^55
> Mass of Universe, 1:10^59
> Cosmological Constant, 1:10^120
>
> If even one of those properties had deviated beyond the range indicated,
> life would not be possible.
>
> From Dr. Hugh Ross's *The Creator and the Cosmos*,
> One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to
> visualize. The following analogy might help...
Yes, thank you. Odds on life existing on any one planet? Remote? Well, we
must be very lucky here on Earth - but wait, if life didn't arise, we
wouldn't be having this discussion. So, big bangs could happen an infinite
number of times, or on an infinite number of quantum probabilities, throwing
up an infinite number of constants, squidgy lumps, and even the odd planet,
but we only actually get to gawp at it from the 1 in however many where it
all comes together - none of the others. So all those other possibilities
(count 'em if you like) are completely irrelevant.
Jason J Railton
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> This debate is going nowhere, and no one's opinion is going to change here.
> But you say there is convincing evidence that there is god, and yet I have
> seen any.
Refer to the post I just put up:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12873. There is more, if you're
interested.
> Let me put my opinion this way. I will believe that there is a god when he
> shows himself, to everyone everywhere. I will not go by what an
> ancient book says.
You'll get your wish, eventually. When we die, we all face God. And at the
end of the age, God will descend from Heaven in glory to set up His kingdom
on earth. Then there will be absolute proof. But I would not recommend
waiting until then to settle the question, because then it will be too late
to make a decision for God.
> I'm amazed that you said that the study of science presupposes that there is
> a god. But I'm glad you wrote about that because it gave me a good laugh.
> Science has disproved two of the supposed theological events masterminded by
> god. You said that you believe god did evolution all by himself without a
> middle man, and without 'fiddling' around. I cannot believe that anyone
> denies the proof of evolution, even the Pope himself has offically recognised
> it. I'm sorry, but there is substantial evidence that it took 4 million
> years plus to get our species where we are today, simply a primate, just like
> gorillas and chimpanzees.
I think the Pope made a mistake there. But then, he's fallible just like
every other human. :)
Evolution by chance is analogous to dumping your entire LEGO collection into
a clothes dryer (uh-oh, do we have to move this to an on-topic group?),
setting it to tumble-dry, and waiting around for it to randomly assemble
into something even remotely complex. It would never happen - the chance is
astronomical. Even if it eventually occurred, it would require a nearly
infinite period of time, and the universe has only been around for 15
billion years. Plus you eventually run into the situation where increased
complexity works against you: the more complex your assemblage of LEGOs is,
the more likely it is to break apart.
> And there is scientific proof that the universe that was created not by god.
There is no definitive proof that the universe was not created by God. That
is an act of faith, just as it is to believe that it was created by God.
> Also, there are many things that we still haven't learned about the Big Bang
> or evolution, which we may learn.
True. We learn new things all the time. But since God both created the
universe and wrote the Bible, we should expect them to agree. If they seem
not to, something is wrong with our interpretation of one or the other.
> Yet I see no proof that god did either of that. You also said that god is
> beyond our understanding, which makes no sense.
I don't think you meant what you wrote, but yes it does make sense. God is
infinite, we are not. Therefore He is beyond our understanding.
> Those who worship god would likely say that they understand him and his ways,
> or at least try to understand, wouldn't they?
We try. But we can never completely understand Him.
> But if he's beyond our understanding as you say, wouldn't he be beyond our
> comprehension?
The more we learn about His creation, the more we learn details about what
He is like.
> Why didn't evolution stop about 130,000 year ago before the Neanderthals began
> to use burial practices, for whatever reason, maybe because of god?
I'm not sure I follow you here.
The introduction of new species stopped after humans showed up on earth; no
new species have been seen since then. Before that, there had been a huge
explosion of species introduced continuously since the Cambrian age.
Coincidentally, this agrees with the creation account: God created the
universe, then the earth, then all its species, before topping it off with
man and resting.
>
> Adam
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> And, remember, if God created all and is omnipotent, God
> also created evil and possesses the power to destroy it at
> any time. Evil is not merely the absence of good.
>
> ...if you have real scientific evidence--not Creationist chestnuts, but real
> bonafide evidence, that points to the existence of the Christian God and
> *could not point to anything else*, that would be the greatest find
> in recorded history.
See http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12873 for a start.
Incidentally, Jesus was God in the flesh, and we have the recorded history
right in the Bible.
<snip>
> Religion operates within a faith paradigm. For example, if a miracle
> occurred that sufficiently defied natural laws (e.g., the planes stopping
> just inches from the WTC walls) then I think your postulate about people not
> understanding would be moot.
Possibly so. But then the hijackers would be making the accusations. God
loves even them so much that He does not deny them their free will.
> When science tries to make statements about the existence of God, or when
> religion tries to make statements about the conclusions of science (note: I'm
> not saying the *practice* here, because religion does come into bioethics
> quite strongly)
Ah, but you bring up another point of contention here. If there was no God,
there would be no objective standard of right and wrong, which would leave
the moral system in bioethics completely without a logical foundation.
> they're on really really really shaky ground that I'd argue is really quite
> indefensible.
Not always. There is a lot of junk science and junk religion floating
around, which can distract people from what is actually valid.
> You can't prove the unprovable, and you can't deny the provable (though
> people can, and do, try to challenge the proof).
>
> I'm in the blind-watchmaker camp, myself. Religion comes from humanity, not
> from God. Only the human spirit or soul comes from there. Nothing divine
> can be articulated, but rather lives within us and between us. No dogma can
> circumscribe that.
>
> best
>
> LFB
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > > As soon as any conclusive eveidence for his existence shows up, the whole
> > > > christian belief will crumble. And simply put, those who believe in such a
> > > > god must explain everything in terms of that faith.
> > > >
> > > > Thus god cannot intervene in any way that makes it obvious to everyone that
> > > > it's god intervening, or he instantly loses all his followers.
> >
> > Adam and I disagree; see above.
>
> Yes, I re-read that and realised it wasn't a good description of my belief.
> Perhaps closer: "...he instantly loses all his followers, *from his point of
> view*, because they no longer have to make any choice to follow him."
Okay. But this is what I say about the faith issue: God wants us to follow
Him by faith. If you have absolute proof, you remove the faith option.
> > > > As to the creationist thing, well that's been debated here (and many other
> > > > places) before, and will be again, but I'm happy with the possibility that:
> > > >
> > > > 1. god, if he exists, is an entity beyond our understanding, so may in fact
> > > > be consistent with "proof" that no being (as per our knowledge of beings)
> > > > could have created the universe;
> >
> > He *Himself* is beyond our understanding, but His infiniteness can manifest
> > itself in finite ways that we can understand.
>
> I agree with this - I don't think it contradicts my point 1.
Okay. But the universe had to be initiated by something, and if it wasn't
God, what was it?
> > > > 2. evolution may be the tool that god devised to create the universe
> > > > (including the world & man).
> >
> > Possibly. But I doubt God wasted His time by fiddling around with the laws
> > of chance and engineering evolution; that would have introduced a middleman.
> > I think He did it Himself.
>
> Well I disagree that it necessarily introduces a "middleman" - the tools of
> evolution & chance may have already been "available" to him - they may be
> things he uses every day, so were the obvious choice when creating his
> masterpiece.
>
> Note that this doesn't necessarly contradict your assertion that he's a god of
> order, either - to him, what we call evolution & chance may be the perfect
> order. His "thoughts" are beyond our understanding.
Okay. But they are ordered because they behave according to a certain
logic. Chance is random, but it can be measured by the laws of probability.
>
> > > >
> > > > Dunno if this all makes sense or not...
> >
> > Debate brings out the truth. Keep debating until it makes sense :).
>
> Well, it certainly brings out a lot of differing points of view, anyway...
1 Thes. 5:21, "Test all things" to find the truth.
>
> ROSCO
--Ian
|
|
| |
I neglected to respond to this...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> And, remember, if God created all and is omnipotent, God
> also created evil and possesses the power to destroy it at
> any time. Evil is not merely the absence of good.
God did not create evil. Evil is indeed the absence of good, just as cold
is the absence of heat, and centrifugal force is the absence of centripetal
force.
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > Oh dear. Let me start over.
> >
> > God is good, and there is no evil or sin in him. God created everything, so
> > therefore everything reflects God's goodness in some way. People doing good
> > things don't do it because of their innate goodness; they reflect the
> > goodness of their Creator.
> > ...
> > All righty then...
> > ...
> > Given that the universe had a beginning, which is commonly known as the Big
> > Bang. Given that the laws of physics were set at the beginning and have
> > remained unchanged since.
>
> So, here's how I like to see it. If God started everything off, what if He
> let it play out - what if He wasn't sticking His oar in every five minutes?
> What if we really do have free will, for a start? Who wants to live in a
> universe where you can only be free up to point, then God intervenes, anyway?
God reserves the right to engineer events, but He makes sure to allow us to
maintain our free will. Anyway it's God's universe; He can do what He wants
with it.
> If you fundamentally believe the bible, why do you think the tree of
> knowledge was placed in the Garden of Eden in the first place? Even if it's
> just a metaphor, it's a metaphor for freedom. I want to believe too, but I
> want to make my own choice to do so.
You have that choice. The tree of knowledge was placed in the Garden of
Eden to allow Adam and Eve their choice of whether or not to rebel. (Don't
forget, God allowed free and unfettered access to the other trees.)
> > The laws of physics must be extraordinarily precise for the universe to
> > function as we know it and remain functioning until today...
> >
> > Ratio of Electrons to Protons, 1:10^37
> > Ratio of Electromagnetic Force, Gravity 1:10^40
> > Expansion Rate of Universe, 1:10^55
> > Mass of Universe, 1:10^59
> > Cosmological Constant, 1:10^120
> >
> > If even one of those properties had deviated beyond the range indicated,
> > life would not be possible.
> >
> > From Dr. Hugh Ross's *The Creator and the Cosmos*,
> > One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to
> > visualize. The following analogy might help...
>
> Yes, thank you. Odds on life existing on any one planet? Remote? Well, we
> must be very lucky here on Earth - but wait, if life didn't arise, we
> wouldn't be having this discussion. So, big bangs could happen an infinite
> number of times, or on an infinite number of quantum probabilities, throwing
> up an infinite number of constants, squidgy lumps, and even the odd planet,
> but we only actually get to gawp at it from the 1 in however many where it
> all comes together - none of the others. So all those other possibilities
> (count 'em if you like) are completely irrelevant.
But our universe is extraordinarily logical, coherent, and reliable. The
chance that we happened to fall in the exact universe that not only fits
these (and other) requirements but fits them to a huge degree of precision,
is astronomical.
Either belief requires faith, because neither can be proven conclusively.
Would you rather have faith that there are an astronomical number of dead
and botched universes out there (none of which we can prove exists) which by
probability accompany our one coherent universe? Or would you rather have
faith that God designed our universe with us in mind, and only needing one
attempt?
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> Okay. But the universe had to be initiated by something, and if it wasn't
> God, what was it?
If you had been spending time reviewing past debates here you'd see that
this question has been dealt with before.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > You do?!? Well lay it on me then brother! Finally, scientific evidence
> > that a creator exists!
>
> All righty then...
> (This is one of many categories of proof. Much of the following data is
> also posted at www.GodAndScience.org, an excellent site for this sort of thing.)
It's not nearly so cranky as many of the others, but it's
still largely based on anti-logic. Why can't it be the Hindu
gods? Or why can't the Hare Krishnas be right?
> Given that the universe had a beginning, which is commonly known as the Big
> Bang. Given that the laws of physics were set at the beginning and have
> remained unchanged since.
But the physical state of the universe was quite different. We're
in a very small epoch during which stars and so forth can form.
> The laws of physics must be extraordinarily precise for the universe to
> function as we know it and remain functioning until today. The maximum
> deviation from the following constants would have to be accurate to within
> the given range, or else one of three things would happen: the universe
> would not exist now (would have collapsed already), would not sustain
> matter, or would not sustain life.
>
> Ratio of Electrons to Protons, 1:10^37
> Ratio of Electromagnetic Force, Gravity 1:10^40
> Expansion Rate of Universe, 1:10^55
> Mass of Universe, 1:10^59
> Cosmological Constant, 1:10^120
So you're basing it on an NRI universe, which isn't even
accepted in the scientific community? If you're setting
the rules, of course it'll benefit your interpretation.
These constants are, btw, not agreed upon even within
the "mainstream" community--all we know for sure is that
we're here, and whatever numbers we stuff on the constants
won't change that.
> If even one of those properties had deviated beyond the range indicated,
> life would not be possible.
So basically, if the constants were not what they are,
we wouldn't be here to argue about it. Fair enough.
What does that prove? Only that we're alive and the
constants are what they are, and that the laws of physics
are what they are. It's like, to quote Vic Stenger,
picking 8 cards at random from a deck and gasping at the
order because the probability of picking THAT EIGHT IN A
ROW is so very low! Or, if you wish a more immediate
and more absurd example, being shocked every morning to
wake up *yourself* and not *someone else*. The chance
of being you is only 1:6,000,000,000+ after all (and
that's before considering the animals)!
> From Dr. Hugh Ross's *The Creator and the Cosmos*,
> One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to
> visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American
> continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000
> miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt
> would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile
> dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as
> North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billion of piles of
> dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he
> will pick the red dime are one in 10^37. (p. 115)
>
> Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
This is interesting. Another site says that Ross claims
the ratio of protons to electrons must be equal. What's
the 10^37 thing? It sounds like it's the tolerance in the
ratio, not the ratio itself. And, the strange thing is,
if the ratio were different--the overall system would
equilibrate. It happened with protons and neutrons very
early on.
Scientifically, by the by, you have to have electrons =
protons, because those are the two elemental particles
a neutron decays into (with an antineutrino). Does Ross
say that there's an insane amount of ionized hydrogen out
there?
And, as a rebuttal to Ross, look here:
http://www.skeptic.com/04.2.stenger-cosmyth.html
(Vic Stenger wrote a few other pieces on Ross writing as well.)
It's also worth noting that Ross and his "Reasons to Believe" cadre
are old-Earth creationists, not YECs. The YECs absolutely *abhor*
Ross. Ross is also barely a blip on the screen of mainstream
science--his work (other works, including the Genesis Question)
is usually dismissed because it's laughably misinformed on
matters of biology, biochemistry, and geology. He's an astro-
nomer, after all.
> For general skepticism, athiests/agnostics should have a look here:
> http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html
There are so many logical leaps on that page I hardly know where
to begin. 95% is not scientifically acceptable for "proof" much
less to take as a "given certainty" to start out with. The
Bible is not a scientific document. "Information" is not
quantifiable. The presence of an "intelligent creator" does not
indicate that it is the Christian God. It cites the "Origin
of Life Prize," which is a red herring--I'll get more into that if
you wish, but in short they declare themselves that they're *not
scientists* and there's not a single name of a scholar who's
agreed to work with them. Misapplication of Occam's Razor.
The specious probability argument cited above. Finally, the
suggestion that you must accept Jesus to be able to test the
proposition, and if the proposition fails you must not have
accepted Jesus in your heart (faith). Basically, it boils down
to unprovability unless you're willing to accept the unfounded
suppositions on the page. The author of the page states that
atheism is based on an unprovable assertion, but ignores that
the same holds for religion.
I'd be interested to see if other scientifically-minded folks
agree with me. My aversion to Ross isn't so much because of
ID theory but because he links it necessarily to Christianity,
and believes in Special Creation (i.e., doesn't accept that
speciation or evolution even happened or can be demonstrated
--the former of which, at least, is a laughable assertion).
> Not conclusive evidence. But there is circumstantial evidence, which can be
> supplemented with faith.
Not supplemented--without the faith, the evidence just isn't
really evidence. The point is that in order to believe in a
God, as GodandScience itself implies, you have to first believe
in God.
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
<snip>
Excellent refutation. If Ian had been doing his homework reading what has
been said here before maybe he wouldn't be posting essentially the same
tired stuff all over again that we've all already heard.
If people want to take comfort in religion, bully for them, but I find it
rather tiresome to go over the same old same old over and over again
whenever some newcomer decides to start it up again instead of reviewing. My
hat's off to you for refuting in detail instead of just grousing like I am
doing.
This debate isn't going to go anywhere, no common ground.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> I neglected to respond to this...
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > And, remember, if God created all and is omnipotent, God
> > also created evil and possesses the power to destroy it at
> > any time. Evil is not merely the absence of good.
>
> God did not create evil. Evil is indeed the absence of good, just as cold
> is the absence of heat, and centrifugal force is the absence of centripetal
> force.
Sorry, if God created everything, God created evil--at least,
the capacity for it. Are you implying there are limits to the
power of God?
Also, good and evil are subjective concepts, arrived at by
consensus--though in dogmatic Judaeo-Christiano-Muslim thought
they're not, I realize that.
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > And, remember, if God created all and is omnipotent, God
> > also created evil and possesses the power to destroy it at
> > any time. Evil is not merely the absence of good.
> >
> > ...if you have real scientific evidence--not Creationist chestnuts, but real
> > bonafide evidence, that points to the existence of the Christian God and
> > *could not point to anything else*, that would be the greatest find
> > in recorded history.
>
> See http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12873 for a start.
> Incidentally, Jesus was God in the flesh, and we have the recorded history
> right in the Bible.
Sorry, that's not recorded history. It's a literary
chronicle--"history" as we know it today was part of
the Greco-Roman tradition, not the Judaeo-Christian one.
That, and the synoptic gospels have significant problems
innate to their production. We don't even need to discuss
the problems inherent in the canonification of Biblical
books, do we? The truth of the Bible's fantastic claims
is dependent on believing those writing and selecting its
books were divinely inspired. Both are unprovable--some
of the historical details can be corroborated, but that's
because the Bible rested its veneer of veracity upon known
place names and personal names, and a functionalist account
of actual events. Then, as now, the Bible is often propaganda.
Embellishment, by the way, is quite common in historical
chronicles. It's common in modern writing as well!
Read the collected stories that we call the "Epic of
Gilgamesh" to see what I mean.
> > Religion operates within a faith paradigm. For example, if a miracle
> > occurred that sufficiently defied natural laws (e.g., the planes stopping
> > just inches from the WTC walls) then I think your postulate about people not
> > understanding would be moot.
>
> Possibly so. But then the hijackers would be making the accusations. God
> loves even them so much that He does not deny them their free will.
Then God can't act at all--not in *any* way. Why would there
be any divine inspiration at *all* if God's Prime Directive
exists? Or is this God picking and choosing his battles as
a capricious Roman deity might?
> > When science tries to make statements about the existence of God, or when
> > religion tries to make statements about the conclusions of science (note: I'm
> > not saying the *practice* here, because religion does come into bioethics
> > quite strongly)
>
> Ah, but you bring up another point of contention here. If there was no God,
> there would be no objective standard of right and wrong, which would leave
> the moral system in bioethics completely without a logical foundation.
Sure. Then science would be conducted functionally with a specific
goal in mind rather than navigating a minefield of subjective
moralities. Bioethics exists because of the need to navigate
subjective religion. The existence or non-existence of a God
doesn't even come into the picture--only the existence of religion,
which isn't really doubtable unless one is a serious nihilist (in
which case one has much much bigger problems ;) ).
And there *is* no objective standard of right and wrong, merely
what we agree as a collective people is allowable and what is not.
The reason most morality on the planet is similar is because that's
what promotes the continuation and growth of societies, not the
other way around--and it varies depending on the regional specifics,
which is one of the reasons we have anthropologists and sociologists.
I'd like to think there's a recognition of the communal and spiritual
common to human societies, but there's no proof of that much less
the dogmatic basis of mainstream Judaeo-Christian religion.
> > they're on really really really shaky ground that I'd argue is really quite
> > indefensible.
>
> Not always. There is a lot of junk science and junk religion floating
> around, which can distract people from what is actually valid.
I'm pretty well-qualified to know the difference where science is
concerned. Scientific Creation = junk science, more clearly in
its YEC variety but often also in its OEC variant.
As for junk religion, how does one decide what junk religion is?
I have a feeling it's more subjective than most of us would like
to think.
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> If people want to take comfort in religion, bully for them, but I find it
> rather tiresome to go over the same old same old over and over again
> whenever some newcomer decides to start it up again instead of reviewing. My
> hat's off to you for refuting in detail instead of just grousing like I am
> doing.
Yeh, well, it's never for me so much as for the spectators. :D
> This debate isn't going to go anywhere, no common ground.
My only search for common ground is to get the agreement that
yes, belief in religion is a matter of faith and is therefore
unprovable positively *or* negatively. My aim, if you'd call
it one, is to get dogmatic obstructionism *out* of astronomy,
biology, geology, history, etc. [1]
best
LFB
[1] Note that I say "dogmatic" and not "religious," because
it's not people's beliefs in and of themselves that cause
the problem--it's the effort to push a particular *brand*
of that belief that does the damage.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > If people want to take comfort in religion, bully for them, but I find it
> > rather tiresome to go over the same old same old over and over again
> > whenever some newcomer decides to start it up again instead of reviewing. My
> > hat's off to you for refuting in detail instead of just grousing like I am
> > doing.
>
> Yeh, well, it's never for me so much as for the spectators. :D
>
> > This debate isn't going to go anywhere, no common ground.
>
> My only search for common ground is to get the agreement that
> yes, belief in religion is a matter of faith and is therefore
> unprovable positively *or* negatively. My aim, if you'd call
> it one, is to get dogmatic obstructionism *out* of astronomy,
> biology, geology, history, etc. [1]
>
> best
>
> LFB
>
> [1] Note that I say "dogmatic" and not "religious," because
> it's not people's beliefs in and of themselves that cause
> the problem--it's the effort to push a particular *brand*
> of that belief that does the damage.
Spot on. I have no beef with religion or any other dogma except when it
obstructs progress.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > but we only actually get to gawp at it from the 1 in however many where it
> > all comes together - none of the others. So all those other possibilities
> > (count 'em if you like) are completely irrelevant.
>
> But our universe is extraordinarily logical, coherent, and reliable. The
> chance that we happened to fall in the exact universe that not only fits
> these (and other) requirements but fits them to a huge degree of precision,
> is astronomical.
You're not getting it. Maybe there were 10^37 (or whatever) universal
incarnations that had nothing like us occur. That's fine. You're arguing
that a probability that doesn't actually have any bearing on our likelihood,
does. I'm sorry, but that's invalid. It's like claiming that since the
lottery is a 1:6x10^7 proposition, then it's impossible to win. Obviously
that's false.
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > But our universe is extraordinarily logical, coherent, and reliable. The
> > chance that we happened to fall in the exact universe that not only fits
> > these (and other) requirements but fits them to a huge degree of precision,
> > is astronomical.
>
> You're not getting it. Maybe there were 10^37 (or whatever) universal
> incarnations that had nothing like us occur. That's fine. You're arguing
> that a probability that doesn't actually have any bearing on our likelihood,
> does. I'm sorry, but that's invalid.
Yes indeed. Another way to approach it is to point out that we (life in
general) weren't running around looking for a universe to populate and were
lucky enough to find this one; we (again, life in general) arose within this
universe because the circumstances in this universe permitted life to arise.
Whether or not any or all other universes could support life is irrelevant;
this one does, and here we are.
> It's like claiming that since the
> lottery is a 1:6x10^7 proposition, then it's impossible to win. Obviously
> that's false.
I dunno--it's always seemed pretty impossible for me to win... 8^)
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > It's like claiming that since the
> > lottery is a 1:6x10^7 proposition, then it's impossible to win. Obviously
> > that's false.
>
> I dunno--it's always seemed pretty impossible for me to win... 8^)
Might that be because you don't play? That's *usually* my reason for not
winning, although once in a while (when the expected value (of the net
present value of the win after taxes) >100% of the cost to play) it is
because the gods don't like me as much as the guy with the missing teeth and
poor spending habits who does win. I've even promised the gods I'd blow a
lot of the dough on bowling balls and bass boats and get some teeth removed
but they must not believe me.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Spot on. I have no beef with religion or any other dogma except when it
> obstructs progress.
I think that this is the stance I have been leaning towards the past year or
so. I feel rather lonely in church these days as I no longer "see" as the
majority of the congregation seems to. Blind faith ("dogma" I suppose)
seems to work at keeping people ignorant rather than intelligent. I say
intelligent because of the very arguments in these recent threads. Many
times I have argued with "unbelievers" and said that Chrisianity was a
matter of faith, that it doesn't make sense without faith. You either
believe it or you don't. Little did I know just how much I myself really
didn't know.
"The more i know, the more I know I don't know"... and all that...
I am comming to realize that i can in fact still believe in an all powerful
God, just not as the Bible dictates that I should.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber writes:
<snipped all but one line>
> To that end, I look at my faith like this:
While I don't concur with some of your reasoning behind what you
believe, I wanted to thank you for your "Prayer posting" and for
the tribute page - both are excellent.
Unfortunately, here in Canada I doubt we would _ever_ get a proclamation
like that made by the President. I'd be interested in a video tape
(or better DVD) of the complete service at the National Cathedral,
or even a transcript of some kind - anywhere you could direct me?
SRC
LUGNet#765
http://216.18.91.29/SRC/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > Spot on. I have no beef with religion or any other dogma except when it
> > obstructs progress.
>
>
> "The more i know, the more I know I don't know"... and all that...
>
> I am comming to realize that i can in fact still believe in an all powerful
> God, just not as the Bible dictates that I should.
As a Christian, I agree that if many so-called Christian leaders had their
way we'd all be almost Amish. As I've said before, I believe it's because
most Christians are guilt-motivated. They really don't know what to think
and as such are afraid of everything.
Kirby, I don't know if I'd say, "just not as the Bible dictates" so much as,
"just not as the Bible is taught by most religious knuckle-heads." I'm a
firm believer in living what you yourself think and understand God to be -
after all, you must answer for yourself, not for what Pastor So-and-so said
you should. I'm one of the biggest cynics in Christendom - I don't take
anyone's word for anything without checking things out for myself.
Ekspecially if they're on TV - that pretty much shuts me off right away.
Live what *YOU* believe and phooey on them.
Bill
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber writes:
> <snipped all but one line>
> > To that end, I look at my faith like this:
>
> While I don't concur with some of your reasoning behind what you
> believe, I wanted to thank you for your "Prayer posting" and for
> the tribute page - both are excellent.
>
> Unfortunately, here in Canada I doubt we would _ever_ get a proclamation
> like that made by the President. I'd be interested in a video tape
> (or better DVD) of the complete service at the National Cathedral,
> or even a transcript of some kind - anywhere you could direct me?
Fox News Channel has been replaying the mass in its entirety since it
happened...if you have access to them on satellite/cable, I'd check them
late night tonight...also, try stations like EWTN and the like, I don't
watch them, but it seems like something they might re-run for you to record...
Not much help after all, I'm afraid...
Matt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber writes:
> <snipped all but one line>
> > To that end, I look at my faith like this:
>
> While I don't concur with some of your reasoning behind what you
> believe, I wanted to thank you for your "Prayer posting" and for
> the tribute page - both are excellent.
>
> Unfortunately, here in Canada I doubt we would _ever_ get a proclamation
> like that made by the President. I'd be interested in a video tape
> (or better DVD) of the complete service at the National Cathedral,
> or even a transcript of some kind - anywhere you could direct me?
WHOOPS! Forgot things:
Also, isn't it great that you DON'T have to agree with my view of faith? 8?)
Oh, and you're welcome...
Matt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
>
> > > You do?!? Well lay it on me then brother! Finally, scientific evidence
> > > that a creator exists!
> >
> > All righty then...
> > (This is one of many categories of proof. Much of the following data is
> > also posted at www.GodAndScience.org, an excellent site for this sort of thing.)
>
> It's not nearly so cranky as many of the others,
If that's a backhanded concession of any sort, I'll take it. :) Another good
site is www.swordandspirit.com. It's chock full of humor - about as far
from cranky as you can yet.
> but it's still largely based on anti-logic.
I don't see this. Can you cite an example?
> Why can't it be the Hindu gods? Or why can't the Hare Krishnas be right?
At this point in the debate, it certainly could be. At the moment I'm just
trying to establish that there was a Creator. If we can agree on that, we
can move on to who that specific Creator is.
> > Given that the universe had a beginning, which is commonly known as the Big
> > Bang. Given that the laws of physics were set at the beginning and have
> > remained unchanged since.
>
> But the physical state of the universe was quite different. We're in a very
> small epoch during which stars and so forth can form.
Yes, but the physical *laws* of the universe have remained consistent,
having been established within the first second after the Big Bang. The
laws are the same no matter what the universe's temperature, particle
distribution, or other attributes. When the universe consisted mostly of
free subatomic particles, electric and nuclear forces affected matter the
most. Now that matter has coalesced into molecules, forming stars, planets,
and nebulae, gravity dominates. The forces themselves haven't changed.
> > The laws of physics must be extraordinarily precise for the universe to
> > function as we know it and remain functioning until today. The maximum
> > deviation from the following constants would have to be accurate to within
> > the given range, or else one of three things would happen: the universe
> > would not exist now (would have collapsed already), would not sustain
> > matter, or would not sustain life.
> >
> > Ratio of Electrons to Protons, 1:10^37
> > Ratio of Electromagnetic Force, Gravity 1:10^40
> > Expansion Rate of Universe, 1:10^55
> > Mass of Universe, 1:10^59
> > Cosmological Constant, 1:10^120
>
> So you're basing it on an NRI universe, which isn't even accepted in the
> scientific community? If you're setting the rules, of course it'll benefit
> your interpretation.
I'll have to defer responding to this until I know what NRI stands for. =/
> These constants are, btw, not agreed upon even within the "mainstream"
> community--all we know for sure is that we're here, and whatever numbers we
> stuff on the constants won't change that.
True. But what's under scrutiny here is not the constants themselves, but
their extremely low tolerance for deviation.
> > If even one of those properties had deviated beyond the range indicated,
> > life would not be possible.
>
> So basically, if the constants were not what they are, we wouldn't be here to
> argue about it. Fair enough. What does that prove? Only that we're alive
> and the constants are what they are, and that the laws of physics are what
> they are. It's like, to quote Vic Stenger, picking 8 cards at random from a
> deck and gasping at the order because the probability of picking THAT EIGHT
> IN A ROW is so very low! Or, if you wish a more immediate and more absurd
> example, being shocked every morning to wake up *yourself* and not *someone
> else*. The chance of being you is only 1:6,000,000,000+ after all (and
> that's before considering the animals)!
But that's applying probability after the fact. Of course the current
probability of the universal constants being what they are now is 100%.
What's in question is the probability of the universe ending up like it is
now taken at the moment of creation. The article you cited even says, "As
pointed out by Stephen Jay Gould (1989), rewinding the tape of evolution and
playing it back again would have infinitesimal probability of once again
producing Homo sapiens."
And the existence in the universe is not like drawing cards or playing the
lottery, anyway. The rules mandate that *somebody* will win. There is no
such mandate if you assume the nonexistence of a Creator, because there
would be no outside authority setting the rules. The lottery would have to
play itself.
Let's say that a Creator indeed came up with the universe. Given that He
has His mind set on making one, one will indeed eventually exist. He could
decide to make any one of an infinite number of mathematically consistent
possible universes, any one of which would mandate a set of physical laws as
perfectly balanced as this universe. Only from that perspective is it
"shocking" to find that He chose this one. Since He intends to make one,
the probability that one eventually is made ("wins") is 100%. But if there
is no Creator, there is no mandate that any universe will "win."
> > From Dr. Hugh Ross's *The Creator and the Cosmos*,
> > One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to
> > visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American
> > continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000
> > miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt
> > would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile
> > dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as
> > North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billion of piles of
> > dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he
> > will pick the red dime are one in 10^37. (p. 115)
> >
> > Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
>
> This is interesting. Another site says that Ross claims the ratio of protons
> to electrons must be equal. What's the 10^37 thing? It sounds like it's the
> tolerance in the ratio, not the ratio itself.
Yup. It's the tolerance.
> And, the strange thing is, if the ratio were different--the overall system
> would equilibrate. It happened with protons and neutrons very early on.
How? If you have 300 protons and 400 electrons, you end up with a mix of 300
proton-electron pairs and 100 electrons left over. Where do they go?
> Scientifically, by the by, you have to have electrons = protons, because
> those are the two elemental particles a neutron decays into (with an
> antineutrino).
No one said that protons and electrons were only formed from decaying
neutrons; why couldn't the universe have formed with [as a gross
simplification] 100 protons, 3000 electrons, and 10,000 neutrons? The
balance would still be off.
> Does Ross say that there's an insane amount of ionized hydrogen out there?
If protons = electrons, no. I'm not sure of the meaning here.
> And, as a rebuttal to Ross, look here:
>
> http://www.skeptic.com/04.2.stenger-cosmyth.html
>
> (Vic Stenger wrote a few other pieces on Ross writing as well.)
(I want to clarify a position stated in this article: "In the Hawaii
debate...theologian Craig argued that this unimaginable low probability
[let's call it x] illustrates the need for a Creator, because the universe
could not have happened by chance." Certainly it could have; any time x is
not zero there is a chance of the event happening. But the odds would be 1
- x in favor of a Creator, and only x in favor of random chance. I believe
this is what Craig meant.)
I don't see how this article is a rebuttal. Stenger himself describes many
"coincidences" in the universe; he even concedes Gould's quote about the
improbability of humans appearing by chance [above]. He merely restates the
evidence and proposes an alternative hypothesis (the multiverse) to explain
it. This is entirely consistent with the scientific method, but is
certainly not a disproof of a previous hypothesis.
(He does state the "after the fact" lottery scenario mentioned previously.
But I repeat that naturally there is a 100% chance the universe exists now;
the relevant issue is not the current probability but the probability at the
formation of the universe.)
Stenger even admits, "Unfortunately, we have no way of talking about it with
strict rationality. We do not have enough information in the form of
examples of other universes to use as data to draw reasonable conclusions."
Thus the very existence of the multiverse must be accepted as an act of faith!
> It's also worth noting that Ross and his "Reasons to Believe" cadre are old-
> Earth creationists, not YECs. The YECs absolutely *abhor* Ross.
I'm of the old-earth crowd. (Incidentally, www.swordandspirit.com includes
a YEC satire page in its repertoire.)
> Ross is also barely a blip on the screen of mainstream science--his work
> (other works, including the Genesis Question) is usually dismissed because
> it's laughably misinformed on matters of biology, biochemistry, and geology.
> He's an astronomer, after all.
Hm. I haven't heard of him outside of the Internet, so I can't deny this.
I haven't found anything *wrong* on his site, though.
> > For general skepticism, athiests/agnostics should have a look here:
> > http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html
>
> There are so many logical leaps on that page I hardly know where to begin.
> 95% is not scientifically acceptable for "proof" much less to take as a
> "given certainty" to start out with.
This is not a scientific page, though - it's a summary of a position.
> The Bible is not a scientific document.
I beg to differ. There are many scientific principles accurately described
in the Bible. Bill Farkas even mentioned in another thread that "in
Medieval Europe, observant Jews would not contract many of the plagues and
diseases that killed so many" because they had a code of hygiene to follow.
> "Information" is not quantifiable.
Huh?
> The presence of an "intelligent creator" does not indicate that it is the
> Christian God.
True. But this can be addressed by investigating the claims (both
scientific and moral) in the Bible.
> It cites the "Origin of Life Prize," which is a red herring--I'll get more
> into that if you wish, but in short they declare themselves that they're *not
> scientists* and there's not a single name of a scholar who's agreed to work
> with them.
By all means, explain.
> Misapplication of Occam's Razor.
This is a matter of opinion, since I've seen it argued that both are the
simpler explanation.
> The specious probability argument cited above.
If you mean the "lottery" analogy, see my response above.
> Finally, the suggestion that you must accept Jesus to be able to test the
> proposition, and if the proposition fails you must not have accepted Jesus in
> your heart (faith). Basically, it boils down to unprovability unless you're
> willing to accept the unfounded suppositions on the page.
That does look a bit weird. But just as you say next, the existence of God
can't be proven conclusively. In order to wholeheartedly believe in God,
you need faith.
> The author of the page states that atheism is based on an unprovable
> assertion, but ignores that the same holds for religion.
He does say that: "In reality, the existence of God cannot be proven or
disproved absolutely." But I agree with your point. Since neither belief
can be proved, both are governed by faith.
> I'd be interested to see if other scientifically-minded folks agree with me.
I consider myself scientifically-minded. :)
> My aversion to Ross isn't so much because of ID theory but because he links
> it necessarily to Christianity, and believes in Special Creation (i.e.,
> doesn't accept that speciation or evolution even happened or can be
> demonstrated--the former of which, at least, is a laughable assertion).
Evolution is still a theory, after all; look here:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html. They do make a
distinction between microevolution (genetic mutation and variance within a
species) which exists and can be observed, and macroevolution (large-scale
changes, such as emergence of new species) which they say is unproven.
If you don't like Ross's www.reasons.org site, or www.GodandScience.org, try
these other sites:
www.swordandspirit.com
www.str.org
www.raptureready.com
They all present rational arguments for a belief in God.
> > Not conclusive evidence. But there is circumstantial evidence, which can be
> > supplemented with faith.
>
> Not supplemented--without the faith, the evidence just isn't really
> evidence. The point is that in order to believe in a God, as GodandScience
> itself implies, you have to first believe in God.
This is true, to a point. But circumstantial evidence goes a long way.
After all, when someone is tried for a crime, and there is no eyewitness,
the jury cannot convict him on anything but circumstantial evidence.
>
> best
>
> LFB
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > My aversion to Ross isn't so much because of ID theory but because he links
> > it necessarily to Christianity, and believes in Special Creation (i.e.,
> > doesn't accept that speciation or evolution even happened or can be
> > demonstrated--the former of which, at least, is a laughable assertion).
>
> Evolution is still a theory, after all;
I don't understand this argument. Everything science proposes is theory
(hypothesis, actually). It never goes beyond that. Everything science
determines is a tentative explanation, pending better.
It is not valid to claim that "evolution is _still_ a theory" as if it were
somehow going to _ever_ change that state. It won't. It can't. Rational
people prepare to adapt to new data and refine their hypotheses.
Gravity is still a theory, after all.
Your very existence is merely a theory too. It seems to be a darned good
explanation for what we are perceiving, so we act like you really exist. If
new data explains our perceptions better, we might revise that assumption.
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> >
> > > God has a reason for not intervening.
> >
> > When you make that non-falsifiable assertion, you are presumably implying
> > that We Cannot Know His Ineffable Plan, and therefore we must assume that
> > everything will work out for Good. However, if We Cannot Know His Plan, then
> > we certainly can't know that it's all for Good--it could as easily (and as
> > feasibly) work out for Evil. "Wait and See" just isn't a real answer.
>
> True. This assertion is based on faith more than fact.
Let's be honest about this--it's *entirely* based on faith, and not at all
on fact. And that's where the issue ends, for many people.
> > No one really denies the existence of Jesus the man, since the Gospels are in
> > themselves sufficient evidence for his mortal existence. However, the Gospels
> > are manifestly insufficient proof of his divinity for a number of reasons.
> > First among these is the obvious time gap between his life and the Gospels,
>
> The Gospels were all written during the first century, two (Matthew and
> John) by people who belonged to Jesus's closest group of disciples, the
> Twelve. Having followed Him for His entire three-year ministry, they were
> certainly capable of writing a faithful account.
Yes and no. They are capable of presenting a faithful account of their
own recollections and of their interpretations of other people's
recollections, but that's not the same as a record of fact. In addition,
many of the alleged miracles are second-hand accounts allegedly reported to
the Gospel authors by alleged first-hand witnesses. This two-step removal
from the event invites multiple opportunities for confabulation of memory,
errors in reporting, misinterpretation of perceptions, and simple
embellishment of story. Any event recorded by the Gospel writers but not
witnessed by them cannot in any way be regarded as first-hand accounts. In
any case I stress once again that the mundane record is not sufficient
evidence for miraculous events, especially considering the obvious problem
of circularity, since the Gospels are the only "evidence" of these miracles,
and only the Gospels report them.
> > not to mention the lack of solid first-hand witnesses to the events.
>
> Luke, in the introductions to his eponymous Gospel and the book of Acts,
> says that he conducted painstaking research to prove to himself the accuracy
> of what he wrote. This included conducting interviews with Jesus's close
> associates, such as Mary and Peter.
I don't necessarily doubt that Luke's research was painstaking, but as
Lindsay has ably pointed out, our notion of historical fact differs markedly
from the notions of history back then.
> > Second, we are not able to rely solely on eyewitness testimony in this case,
> > since the people of that time were not (through no fault of their own)
> > reliable witnesses able to report on supernatural dealings. The functioning
> > of a magnet would have mystified them, but that doesn't make it a Divine
> > Magnet. Even today, creditable observers are fooled by sleight-of-hand
> > magicians into believing that psychic phenomena are at work, but that doesn't
> > make them true.
>
> Scattered witnesses here and there could be dismissed as unreliable. But
> Jesus's life and miracles were witnessed by thousands of people, including
> five hundred who saw Him after the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-6).
> Anyway, where would Jesus have gotten enough bread and fish to feed five
> thousand men (not including their wives and children) by slight-of-hand?
Well, the first telling of that miracle story involved a smaller number, I
believe (I'm at work and don't have my references handy). Moreover, we
don't have any record of the 5000 men (plus wives & kids); what we have are
a very small number of men reporting events as they want them to be reported.
> > Third, the divine events of the Bible have left no direct physical evidence,
>
> At they time they did. "The blind received sight, the lame walked, those
> who had leprosy were cured, the deaf heard, the dead were raised", etc.
> This confounded the authorities, who could offer no explanation for what
> happened.
Again, this is hearsay. There is no record in the accounts of the
authorities, so the only evidence we have comes from men with a vested
interest in telling the story.
> > and they are entirely in contrast to everyday experience.
>
> That's why they were miracles!
And that's why they need greater evidence than is necessary for an episode
of everyday experience.
> Mark wrote his Gospel first, and
> successive writers drew from it in writing their own, adding extra material
> that they had culled from their own experience. The Gospels are
> superficially inconsistent because they are written from different points of
> view, with emphasis on different details.
Again though, this is entirely consistent with the process of editorial
revision when a succession of writers are working toward a common goal of
propaganda.
> When they are compared with this in mind, the inconsistencies quickly resolve >themselves.
I believe they do, but not in the way that I think you'd like them to.
> > > Not only that, but we have external evidence as well. We know that Rome
> > > conquered Europe because of the evidence it left behind. Likewise, we can
> > > find out about God from the universe He created.
> >
> > That's called Argument From Ignorance, and it's a falacy; we can't prove
> > Thing A, so therefore it must be Thing B.
>
> I don't follow how this is ignorance. Please clarify.
Sorry. It's not a statement of your ignorance, but rather about the
source of the argument's conclusion. Put simply, science cannot (yet) prove
the "cause" of the universe, so Creationists conclude that it therefore must
be God. In other words, "If we can't prove A, then it must be B."
Obviously, if "B" is true, it's true regardless of "A," but the lack of
proof for one is not proof of the other. We are "ignorant" of the true
cause of the universe, so we cannot therefore argue from this ignorance that
God caused the universe.
> > From the existence of the universe we can only deduce that the universe
> > exists--we cannot prove that God created it unless we assume that God created
> > it, which I'm sure you recognize to be a circular argument.
>
> Yes, but we can derive the essentiality of a Creator from what we can see
> about the universe. I have a whole library of proof on hand, but let me
> cite just two very broad points:
> -The finiteness of Time. Science has proven that Time has a beginning. How
> did it begin, then? Before there was Time or Space, there was Nothing.
> Nothing cannot create Something. (Any Something cannot create a Thing
> greater than itself.) Since we live in a highly complex, structured
> universe in which lives intelligent life, an Intelligence - even greater and
> more intelligent than what we can see - must have been behind it.
You are, in essence, saying that since fundamentally simple particles
cannot spontaneously arise (or cannot always have existed), then an
infinitely complex Creator must have spontaneously arisen (or always
existed). That's called the ontological argument, and it's a falacy.
In addition, if you're able to say that "God always existed, nuff said,"
then I can say that the universe always existed, nuff said.
> -The anthropic principle. Science has found that the laws of physics and
> chemistry are extroardinarily convenient for matter, let along life, to
> exist as it does. The degree of precision is astronomical. Even one
> parameter were to be different by as little as 10^-5, life could not exist.
> This leads to the conclusion that a Creator had His hands meddling in the works.
Actually, that leads to a conclusion that the postultor of such an
argument does not understand statistics, as Lindsay has also ably demonstrated.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Without commenting on whether god had anything to do with this or not...
>
> In lugnet.general, Ian Warfield writes:
>
> > - The death toll at the WTC could be much higher than it is. Fifty thousand
> > people worked there, yet most were able to evacuate because the towers did
> > not collapse right away.
>
> This particular one is noteworthy... you can see gods hand in it if you
> like, it is said he moves in mysterious ways, but the reason these towers
> didn't collapse right away is that they were designed with *great* skill.
>
> It is a stunning testimonial to the architects and engineers of WTC... steel
> melts, and concrete pulverises, at well below what Jet A burns at so the
> upper floors were doomed no matter what, but even with supports unevenly cut
> away the towers lasted a while, and when they went down, they went
> *straight* down in a controlled collapse.
>
> Think of how much worse things would have been, had they toppled sideways
> instead of collapsing in a controlled way.
Also, what would have been the outcome had the terrorists targeted the base
of the buildings? Had the collisions occurred in the lower 20 floors, most
folks would have been trapped inside, and toppling may have occurred.
> Small consolation to the thousands who died but I personally feel a huge
> debt of gratitude to the (anonymous?) WTC engineering team, whoever they are.
Indeed.
-Rob.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
>
> > > My aversion to Ross isn't so much because of ID theory but because he links
> > > it necessarily to Christianity, and believes in Special Creation (i.e.,
> > > doesn't accept that speciation or evolution even happened or can be
> > > demonstrated--the former of which, at least, is a laughable assertion).
> >
> > Evolution is still a theory, after all;
>
> I don't understand this argument. Everything science proposes is theory
> (hypothesis, actually). It never goes beyond that. Everything science
> determines is a tentative explanation, pending better.
That's exactly what I meant. It wasn't an argument; I was just restating
the fact that evolution is, indeed, a theory.
> It is not valid to claim that "evolution is _still_ a theory" as if it were
> somehow going to _ever_ change that state. It won't. It can't. Rational
> people prepare to adapt to new data and refine their hypotheses.
I wasn't claiming that it necessarily would. I was merely guarding against
the possibility of anyone claiming it as absolute proof.
> Gravity is still a theory, after all.
>
> Your very existence is merely a theory too. It seems to be a darned good
> explanation for what we are perceiving, so we act like you really exist. If
> new data explains our perceptions better, we might revise that assumption.
>
> Chris
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a minifig..." :)
--Ian
|
|
| |
Okay, I'm going to jump onto this one just this once...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeff Stembel writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Geordan Hankinson writes:
> > > Everything has a purpose, whether we see that purpose in a few days, a year,
> > > ten years, or even a century, God has a reason for everything. The reason
> > > could be very suttle, it could be realised by only a few people, or there
> > > could be a number of reasons for any one issue realized by many people.
> >
> > Ah-ha! I see! God wants us to kill these evil people! Is that it? Maybe
> > His plan is to bring the nation and world together? Please, we are coming
> > together to do only two things: help those who have lost
> > family/friends/property in the attack and kill those who attacked us.
>
> Coming together to help those affected by the attack is a good thing. It
> fosters a humble, generous spirit.
No God in there if you're not a religious person.
>
> > In the first case, the vast majority of those people were not in need before
> > the attack, so why did God need to kill so many to create a need? Why not
> > create a non-tragic event that would cause people to help those who were in
> > need *before* the attack?
>
> The response would probably not have been as dramatic or as widespread.
> Sometimes it takes a shattering tragedy to shock people out of complacency.
And all good religious people know this and STILL need this tragical event
to wake them up?
>
> > In the second case, how can killing people without a trial be good? How can
> > god want this? isn't there a Commandment that says "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?
>
> In war, things are slightly different. The commandment actually says "Thou
> shalt not murder" and I have to assume that in war, killing is not the same
> as murdering. God in fact commanded many wars in the Old Testament. He
> would not have commanded the Israelites to violate His law.
Whe quoting the bible, everyone can get his or her right. Check out the Old
Testament; it's full of contradictions within itself. (Sorry, I'm still in
the middle of a lot of boxes, so I can't find a bible).
>
> In any case, if we do nothing in response, the terrorism will increase. By
> demonstrating force, we discourage future attacks, and by rendering justice,
> we stop (or at least slow down or set back) the evil. What would have
> happened if we had never gone after Hitler?
And with every step we take against terrorism, we should ask ourselves
several questions. Questions like 'isn't this exactly what the terrorists
want us to do?' and 'what will be the consequences for THE WORLD? (not just
the USoA; the whole world is involved here!)'.
>
> >
> > > Right now I can name a number of good things that God has brought us due to
> > > this already:
> > >
> > > It has brought the nation together,
> > > It has brought most of the world together
> > > People have opened up their houses to the people in need and therefore made
> > > a few new friends, people have learned to appreciate others and be more
> > > thankful.
> >
> > All of which SHOULDN'T take the deaths of thousands to perform. Besides, why
> > are we only helping the victims, and not people who were suffering *before*
> > the attack? Wouldn't it have been better to just leave it as it was?
>
> You're right, it shouldn't have taken this tragedy to produce this good.
> But none of this was happening before the attack. The attack shocked us
> into action.
Again, this is due to the acts of God, if you are a religious person. To
others it's just men, behaving like men. Nature at its best: survival of
(part of) the species.
>
> >
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > > > In article <GJo2MB.Lp4@lugnet.com>, "Ian Warfield" <ipw47@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Let's be thankful for His mercy during such a tragedy.
> > > >
> > > > What mercy? Where is the mercy for:
> > >
> > > -What about the mercy for the people rescued from the rubble?
> >
> > Oh, yes, half a dozen out of over 5000 is REAL merciful.
>
> Even *one* person is merciful. However, you forget that 50,000 people
> worked at the World Trade Center daily. For whatever reason - they weren't
> at work yet, they were able to evacute, or they were rescued, 45,000 people
> were spared.
Tell that to the family and friends of the 5000+ dead.
>
> >
> > > -What about the mercy for those who were stuck in a airport and someone
> > > opened up their house so they would have someplace to stay?
> >
> > The Kindness Of Man. Please, give credit where credit is due, and don't
> > shortchange the good people.
>
> All goodness derives from God, but this is a technicality in this instance :).
Again, only if you're a religious person. This Goodness in God made him
decide to kick us out of Paradise? To get palestines kicked out of the
'Promised Land'? (Old Testament; not the current events) This goodness of
God got Goliath killed, because he was a big guy that liked playing with
little guys?
Strange acts of kindness.
>
> >
> > > -What about the mercy for those who thought they had lost a family member,
> > > but later found out they were alive?
> >
> > What about the tens of thousands more who will never see their loved
> > ones/friends ever again? Mercy to a few is vindictive.
>
> Again, 45,000 people were saved vs. the 5,000 who died. See above.
Again, try to explain that to the families and friends of the 5000+ dead.
>
> >
> > > -What about the mercy for those who were donated blood, when they were
> > > injured in the hospital?
> >
> > The Kindness Of Man. See above, please.
> >
> > > -What about the mercy for those who were late coming to work that day and
> > > missed the explosion?
> >
> > Blind dumb luck. Happens to me all the time.
>
> What if God engineered it?
What if he didn't? These kind of questions makes me stop discussing anything
where someone drags in the religious factor. As soon as religion is
concerned, reason seems to have gone through the back-door and caught the
first train out of here.
>
> >
> > > What about the mercy for those working in the white house, but the plane was
> > > crash landed before it got there?
> >
> > The mercy of good city planning, perhaps. I'm currently not entirely
> > convinced the White House was really a target.
>
> What good city planning? Washington, D.C. was designed over 100 years
> before the invention of the airplane. A Congressman saw one of the planes
> circling the Capitol before it went off to hit the Pentagon. There had to
> have been some reason why the pilot didn't crash then.
Plenty of hypotheses: The terrorists and the pilots where fighting? Heroic
passengers tried to intervene? Who knows? Only the dead did know.
>
> >
> > > -What about the mercy for the families who have had money donated etc.?
> >
> > They wouldn't need it if the attack hadn't happened, and what about those who
> > have needed help longer?
>
> If the attack hadn't happened, nobody would be getting money anyway.
> Sometimes it takes a dramatic event to jump-start people into doing something.
Sounds like a design-fault in men. Where is God, so I can get a bugg-fix?
>
> >
> > > This has to be God at work, whether you like it or not, God has shown
> > > himself clearly in the face of tragedy.
> >
> > I'm sorry, I don't see God there anywhere. I see the kindness of people being
> > unfairly credited to a non-existant being. Why is all the evil in this world
> > credited to man, but none of the good? God sure doesn't have anything to do
> > with my good deeds.
>
> The more I look at this attack, the more I see that it could have become
> much worse in many ways, and yet it didn't. I see God's restraint
> throughout the whole thing.
Ahhh, so as long as people can say 'it could have been worse', you can
explain that as the restraining of God, or the kindness? I'm glad life is as
simple as that for you. That would also mean (warning: reason coming back)
that Armageddon, when 'things can't get any worse' is when God finally snaps?
>
> Evil is credited to man because it can't be credited to God -- God cannot
> commit evil. I agree that each person is responsible for his or her own
> deeds, but I believe it is God who prompts us to do good.
God = good and men = bad/evil? Again, I wish my life was as simple as that.
But please understand me: I have nothing against religious people. Just as
long as they don't try to enforce it on me.
Notice that I do not say 'Christians', to me all religions are the same.
They all are a way out of the harsh reality of the every day struggle for
survival. It is also a handy tool to explain things that men can't explain
in any other way (yet).
Example: a long time ago, men thought that a thunderstorm was (a) God, being
angry at men. Nowadays, men knows that it is just natural phenomena.
But my favorite example is the Rainbow, because I like boats.
>
> >
> > Jeff
>
> --Ian
and Mark - who did enjoy a religious back-ground but outgrew it -de Kock
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Rob Doucette writes:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > Think of how much worse things would have been, had they toppled sideways
> > instead of collapsing in a controlled way.
>
> Also, what would have been the outcome had the terrorists targeted the base
> of the buildings? Had the collisions occurred in the lower 20 floors, most
> folks would have been trapped inside, and toppling may have occurred.
It would be *extremely* difficult to crash a 767 travelling at 500km/h at the
lower 20 floors of any building in such a city. That is possibly part of the
reason they chose the WTC towers - they were so much higher than surrounding
buildings.
In fact, a couple of pilots I've talked to say they think the 2nd plane was
lucky to hit the south tower at all - the pilot was making an extremely steep
turn at the point of impact simply to avoid missing it altogether. At that kind
of speed, even those towers would seem like a very small target.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
<snip>
> Small consolation to the thousands who died but I personally feel a huge
> debt of gratitude to the (anonymous?) WTC engineering team, whoever they are.
Sorry, just saw this, can't say my attention was focused on LUGNET last week...
The architect of the twin towers was Minoru Yamasaki. You can read more about
him and the Twin Towers here...
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
Be sure to scroll down to "The Creator's Words"... They kind of take on a new
meaning now :-(.
Eric Kingsley
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> <snip>
> > Small consolation to the thousands who died but I personally feel a huge
> > debt of gratitude to the (anonymous?) WTC engineering team, whoever they are.
>
> Sorry, just saw this, can't say my attention was focused on LUGNET last • week...
>
> The architect of the twin towers was Minoru Yamasaki. You can read more about
> him and the Twin Towers here...
>
> http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
>
> Be sure to scroll down to "The Creator's Words"... They kind of take on a new
> meaning now :-(.
Someone on a local Australian show last night brought up the notion that US
buildings (including WTC) using more steel[1] may have been a factor in the
collapse. I figure things got pretty hot there for a little while, so concrete
would've been in pretty bad shape anyway, but it may have provided a little
more resistance to the planes, possibly reducing the number of structural
elements directly damaged by the impact.
ROSCO
[1] Most large Australian buildings use concrete exclusively for structural
members (Australia has no buildings anywhere near the height of the WTC towers,
however). It was suggested the Mafia controls the concrete industry in many
parts of the US making it much more expensive than steel. Dunno if this is
anywhere near the truth or not.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > <snip>
> > > Small consolation to the thousands who died but I personally feel a huge
> > > debt of gratitude to the (anonymous?) WTC engineering team, whoever they are.
> >
> > Sorry, just saw this, can't say my attention was focused on LUGNET last • week...
> >
> > The architect of the twin towers was Minoru Yamasaki. You can read more about
> > him and the Twin Towers here...
> >
> > http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
> >
> > Be sure to scroll down to "The Creator's Words"... They kind of take on a new
> > meaning now :-(.
>
> Someone on a local Australian show last night brought up the notion that US
> buildings (including WTC) using more steel[1] may have been a factor in the
> collapse. I figure things got pretty hot there for a little while, so concrete
> would've been in pretty bad shape anyway, but it may have provided a little
> more resistance to the planes, possibly reducing the number of structural
> elements directly damaged by the impact.
ROSCO more concrete would have not made a difference.The building withstood
the impacts.The fuel melted both the steel and concrete at the point of
impact which caused the floors weight above them to collapse the rest of
the structure.
Mafia? Come on ROSCO.......
Chris( a proud construction worker both at play((LEGO))and in real life)
> [1] Most large Australian buildings use concrete exclusively for structural
> members (Australia has no buildings anywhere near the height of the WTC towers,
> however). It was suggested the Mafia controls the concrete industry in many
> parts of the US making it much more expensive than steel. Dunno if this is
> anywhere near the truth or not.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Chris Leach writes:
> In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford writes:
> >
> > Someone on a local Australian show last night brought up the notion that US
> > buildings (including WTC) using more steel[1] may have been a factor in the
> > collapse. I figure things got pretty hot there for a little while, so • concrete
> > would've been in pretty bad shape anyway, but it may have provided a little
> > more resistance to the planes, possibly reducing the number of structural
> > elements directly damaged by the impact.
> ROSCO more concrete would have not made a difference.The building withstood
> the impacts.The fuel melted both the steel and concrete at the point of
> impact which caused the floors weight above them to collapse the rest of
> the structure.
The suggestion was not that the concrete would've survived the fire, but less
of the building would've been directly involved in the fire, and maybe that
little bit extra surviving support may have stopped the catastrophic collapse.
> Mafia? Come on ROSCO.......
Not my suggestion. I, too am skeptical about that, however I'd be interested to
know whether or not he was correct about American skyscrapers using more
structural steel than in Australia, and if so, why? Note also that they were
built in 1966, factors affecting building techniques may have been different
than they are now.
ROSCO
(trimmed .general)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > >
> > > > God has a reason for not intervening.
> > >
> > > When you make that non-falsifiable assertion, you are presumably implying
> > > that We Cannot Know His Ineffable Plan, and therefore we must assume that
> > > everything will work out for Good. However, if We Cannot Know His Plan,
> > > then we certainly can't know that it's all for Good--it could as easily
> > > (and as feasibly) work out for Evil. "Wait and See" just isn't a real
> > > answer.
> >
> > True. This assertion is based on faith more than fact.
>
> Let's be honest about this--it's *entirely* based on faith, and not at all
> on fact. And that's where the issue ends, for many people.
The "fact" side of this argument is based on Biblical "fact", but it
requires "faith" to trust that what is in the Bible is indeed "fact". I
suppose I can condede your point.
> > > No one really denies the existence of Jesus the man, since the Gospels are
> > > in themselves sufficient evidence for his mortal existence. However, the
> > > Gospels are manifestly insufficient proof of his divinity for a number of
> > > reasons. First among these is the obvious time gap between his life and
> > > the Gospels,
> >
> > The Gospels were all written during the first century, two (Matthew and
> > John) by people who belonged to Jesus's closest group of disciples, the
> > Twelve. Having followed Him for His entire three-year ministry, they were
> > certainly capable of writing a faithful account.
>
> Yes and no. They are capable of presenting a faithful account of their own
> recollections and of their interpretations of other people's recollections,
> but that's not the same as a record of fact. In addition, many of the alleged
> miracles are second-hand accounts allegedly reported to the Gospel authors by
> alleged first-hand witnesses.
I can think of only two miracles that were not personally witnessed by the
entire Twelve. The Resurrection was one, but this is accounted for by the
fact that they witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion squad confirmed
He was dead. The Transfiguration was the other, witnessed only by Peter,
James, and John.
> This two-step removal from the event invites multiple opportunities for
> confabulation of memory, errors in reporting, misinterpretation of
> perceptions, and simple embellishment of story. Any event recorded by the
> Gospel writers but not witnessed by them cannot in any way be regarded as
> first-hand accounts.
True, but most events *were* witnessed by them. For the ones that weren't,
the Holy Spirit advised them what to write. (This, unfortunately, is an
argument that can only be sustained by faith.)
> In any case I stress once again that the mundane record is not sufficient
> evidence for miraculous events, especially considering the obvious problem
> of circularity, since the Gospels are the only "evidence" of these miracles,
> and only the Gospels report them.
Well, the Old Testament predicts them, and the rest of the Bible expounds on
them, but this requires accepting the Bible as an authoritative source.
> > > not to mention the lack of solid first-hand witnesses to the events.
> >
> > Luke, in the introductions to his eponymous Gospel and the book of Acts,
> > says that he conducted painstaking research to prove to himself the accuracy
> > of what he wrote. This included conducting interviews with Jesus's close
> > associates, such as Mary and Peter.
>
> I don't necessarily doubt that Luke's research was painstaking, but as
> Lindsay has ably pointed out, our notion of historical fact differs markedly
> from the notions of history back then.
I don't see that "notions of historical fact" were any different, unless I
missed a corollary of one of the arguments. Interviews and painstaking
research would seem to lend themselves naturally to the creation of a
reliable historical document.
> > > Second, we are not able to rely solely on eyewitness testimony in this case,
> > > since the people of that time were not (through no fault of their own)
> > > reliable witnesses able to report on supernatural dealings. The functioning
> > > of a magnet would have mystified them, but that doesn't make it a Divine
> > > Magnet. Even today, creditable observers are fooled by sleight-of-hand
> > > magicians into believing that psychic phenomena are at work, but that
> > > doesn't make them true.
> >
> > Scattered witnesses here and there could be dismissed as unreliable. But
> > Jesus's life and miracles were witnessed by thousands of people, including
> > five hundred who saw Him after the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-6).
> > Anyway, where would Jesus have gotten enough bread and fish to feed five
> > thousand men (not including their wives and children) by slight-of-hand?
>
> Well, the first telling of that miracle story involved a smaller number, I
> believe (I'm at work and don't have my references handy).
There were two separate feeding miracles. The first one was a major event,
feeding a crowd of 5,000 Jewish men (Matthew 14, Mark 6, Luke 9, John 6).
The second was a slightly smaller event for a group of about 4,000 Gentile
men (Matthew 15, Mark 8).
> Moreover, we don't have any record of the 5000 men (plus wives & kids); what
> we have are a very small number of men reporting events as they want them to
> be reported.
Fine. But we have the testimony of the five hundred witnesses to the
resurrection. They didn't write anything down, but they no doubt spread the
word to many, many people. If Jesus had not been resurrected, the Romans or
the Pharisees certainly could have paraded the body around as proof. This
would have caused major disillusionment in the early church, because it is
the one miracle that the Gospel depends on for its validity. But there is
no sign of any such disillusionment or any fracturing; instead, the early
Christian church was bold and tenacious enough to endure the best
persecution the Roman Empire could throw at it.
> > > Third, the divine events of the Bible have left no direct physical evidence,
> >
> > At they time they did. "The blind received sight, the lame walked, those
> > who had leprosy were cured, the deaf heard, the dead were raised", etc.
> > This confounded the authorities, who could offer no explanation for what
> > happened.
>
> Again, this is hearsay. There is no record in the accounts of the
> authorities, so the only evidence we have comes from men with a vested
> interest in telling the story.
We could also say that the men who had a vested interest in covering it up
tried to do so.
> > > and they are entirely in contrast to everyday experience.
> >
> > That's why they were miracles!
>
> And that's why they need greater evidence than is necessary for an episode
> of everyday experience.
Is five hundred eyewitnesses to a ressurection not proof enough? Any lawyer
would be overjoyed to have five hundred eyewitnesses for a case.
> > Mark wrote his Gospel first, and successive writers drew from it in writing
> > their own, adding extra material that they had culled from their own
> > experience. The Gospels are superficially inconsistent because they are
> > written from different points of view, with emphasis on different details.
>
> Again though, this is entirely consistent with the process of editorial
> revision when a succession of writers are working toward a common goal of
> propaganda.
Granted.
> > When they are compared with this in mind, the inconsistencies quickly
> > resolve themselves.
>
> I believe they do, but not in the way that I think you'd like them to.
There are no inconsistencies in the Bible that cannot resolve themselves
from a different perspective.
Let me cite one: The death of Judas Iscariot is reported two different ways.
One, he threw the thirty silver coins into the temple and hung himself
(Matthew 27:5). Two, he bought a field with the money, where he fell
headlong and his body burst open (Acts 1:18-19). These two accounts can be
reconciled in the following series of events:
-Judas threw the money into the temple and hung himself
-The priests couldn't decide what to do with the money, so they bought a
field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:6-8). Judas therefore bought the field
indirectly. The money never entered the temple treasury.
-No one went to bury Judas, so after his body hung for a while, it became
detached from wherever it had been hanging, and fell. Since it had begun to
decay, it burst open.
> > > > Not only that, but we have external evidence as well. We know that Rome
> > > > conquered Europe because of the evidence it left behind. Likewise, we can
> > > > find out about God from the universe He created.
> > >
> > > That's called Argument From Ignorance, and it's a falacy; we can't prove
> > > Thing A, so therefore it must be Thing B.
> >
> > I don't follow how this is ignorance. Please clarify.
>
> Sorry. It's not a statement of your ignorance, but rather about the source
> of the argument's conclusion. Put simply, science cannot (yet) prove the
> "cause" of the universe, so Creationists conclude that it therefore must
> be God. In other words, "If we can't prove A, then it must be B."
> Obviously, if "B" is true, it's true regardless of "A," but the lack of
> proof for one is not proof of the other. We are "ignorant" of the true
> cause of the universe, so we cannot therefore argue from this ignorance that
> God caused the universe.
Okay, I see. I agree with you. I didn't mean to imply that the evidence
proved that God exists, only that it supported His existence.
> > > From the existence of the universe we can only deduce that the universe
> > > exists--we cannot prove that God created it unless we assume that God
> > > created it, which I'm sure you recognize to be a circular argument.
> >
> > Yes, but we can derive the essentiality of a Creator from what we can see
> > about the universe. I have a whole library of proof on hand, but let me
> > cite just two very broad points:
> > -The finiteness of Time. Science has proven that Time has a beginning. How
> > did it begin, then? Before there was Time or Space, there was Nothing.
> > Nothing cannot create Something. (Any Something cannot create a Thing
> > greater than itself.) Since we live in a highly complex, structured
> > universe in which lives intelligent life, an Intelligence - even greater and
> > more intelligent than what we can see - must have been behind it.
>
> You are, in essence, saying that since fundamentally simple particles
> cannot spontaneously arise (or cannot always have existed), then an
> infinitely complex Creator must have spontaneously arisen (or always
> existed). That's called the ontological argument, and it's a falacy.
(I thought the ontological argument was that "God has placed within us a
knowledge that He exists and cares for us";
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/godexist.html; but I don't have a
dictionary handy.)
I'm saying that, if you accept that fundamentally simple particles cannot
have always existed and cannot spontaneously generate, then something had to
have created them; and if that creator could not have always existed or
spontaneously generated, it had to have been created too. Confined to the
universe, this reduces to the chicken-and-the-egg problem. But the Bible
describes a God who has always existed and is outside the universal bounds
of space and time. A Creator of this nature is supported by the finite
universe model.
> In addition, if you're able to say that "God always existed, nuff said,"
> then I can say that the universe always existed, nuff said.
But modern science argues for a finite universe that had a beginning.
> > -The anthropic principle. Science has found that the laws of physics and
> > chemistry are extroardinarily convenient for matter, let along life, to
> > exist as it does. The degree of precision is astronomical. Even one
> > parameter were to be different by as little as 10^-5, life could not exist.
(I apparently was going too fast when I wrote this. 10^-5 isn't nearly as
small as some of the other tolerances such as the 1:10^120 tolerance, and
some are even smaller.)
> > This leads to the conclusion that a Creator had His hands meddling in the
> > works.
>
> Actually, that leads to a conclusion that the postultor of such an argument
> does not understand statistics, as Lindsay has also ably demonstrated.
"Leads to" does not mean "proves". Naturally, the existence of a Creator
cannot be proven with 100% certainty from the confines of the universe. But
if you establish the probability of all the necessary conditions being
randomly satisfied for the universe to exist as it does, it is extremely
small. If one accepts the existence of only this universe, the probability
in favor of chance rather than design is so small as to approach zero. If
one accepts the multiverse hypothesis, probability would indicate that an
astronomical number of botched unviverses have been spawned with no success.
But from the confines of this universe, the existence of a multiverse cannot
be proven and must be accepted on faith, just as the existence of God.
On the other hand, if you are referring to the "lottery" scenario, or the
"drawing 8 cards in a row" scenario, see my previous response at
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12941.
>
> Dave!
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Kingsley writes:
> The architect of the twin towers was Minoru Yamasaki. You can read more about
> him and the Twin Towers here...
>
> http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
>
> Be sure to scroll down to "The Creator's Words"... They kind of take on a new
> meaning now :-(.
Indeed. They made me cry again. I've been crying a lot lately.
Thanks for that excellent reference, Eric.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> The suggestion was not that the concrete would've survived the fire, but less
> of the building would've been directly involved in the fire, and maybe that
> little bit extra surviving support may have stopped the catastrophic collapse.
I'd say they're all wet. A building of that form factor and height HAD to be
at least as much steel as it was. Increasing the concrete ratio would mean
the building would not be able to hold up its own weight. This general
theory has been known since the time of Sullivan and the Flatiron Building.
You've got a mass fraction problem here in that the compressive (when used
in columns) strength of concrete per unit of mass is lower, so you have to
use more concrete. To increase the ratio of concrete on the upper floors,
pretty soon the entire lower floors are one solid pillar of concrete. And
that's even with the innovations in the way the floors themselves were done.
> > Mafia? Come on ROSCO.......
Actually not an unrealistic assumption at all. Steel can be sample tested
and the steelmaking process is way more controlled. It's not the PRICE
that's the problem, it's cutting the materials with sand to increase the
profit margin, and it's factual that large cities do have this problem. That
is VERY hard to inspect for, hence highways tend to be somewhat overdesigned
to compensate.
It may be hard for a UNION man to admit it, but many of the trade unions are
mob controlled or mob influenced as well. Not YOUR union of course. :-)
> Not my suggestion. I, too am skeptical about that, however I'd be interested >to
> know whether or not he was correct about American skyscrapers using more
> structural steel than in Australia, and if so, why? Note also that they were
> built in 1966, factors affecting building techniques may have been different
> than they are now.
I'm betting they probably are when viewed in the aggregate (ouch! Sorry
about that). But probably not as pronouncedly when you examine buildings of
similar height... Taller buildings, I assert, will necessarily have a higher
steel fraction.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > I don't understand this argument. Everything science proposes is theory
> > (hypothesis, actually). It never goes beyond that. Everything science
> > determines is a tentative explanation, pending better.
>
> That's exactly what I meant. It wasn't an argument; I was just restating
> the fact that evolution is, indeed, a theory.
To be more precise, evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The
Darwinian model of natural selection is an evolutionary theory--that is, a
theory that hopes to explain the process by which the fact of evolution occurs.
> > It is not valid to claim that "evolution is _still_ a theory" as if it were
> > somehow going to _ever_ change that state. It won't. It can't. Rational
> > people prepare to adapt to new data and refine their hypotheses.
>
> I wasn't claiming that it necessarily would. I was merely guarding against
> the possibility of anyone claiming it as absolute proof.
But no one in science claims anything in science to be absolutely
proven--that's why it's science and not rote dogma.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > Yes and no. They are capable of presenting a faithful account of their own
> > recollections and of their interpretations of other people's recollections,
> > but that's not the same as a record of fact. In addition, many of the alleged
> > miracles are second-hand accounts allegedly reported to the Gospel authors by
> > alleged first-hand witnesses.
>
> I can think of only two miracles that were not personally witnessed by the
> entire Twelve. The Resurrection was one, but this is accounted for by the
> fact that they witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion squad confirmed
> He was dead. The Transfiguration was the other, witnessed only by Peter,
> James, and John.
Sorry--your knowledge of scripture is more complete than mine. I'll need
to re-check my sources.
> > In any case I stress once again that the mundane record is not sufficient
> > evidence for miraculous events, especially considering the obvious problem
> > of circularity, since the Gospels are the only "evidence" of these miracles,
> > and only the Gospels report them.
>
> Well, the Old Testament predicts them, and the rest of the Bible expounds on
> them, but this requires accepting the Bible as an authoritative source.
That's not a bad point, but it is a fundamental sticking point for some
people. The notion that the OT was a book predicting Christ's arrival is in
many ways equivalent to historical revisionism--that is, a book about one
thing is re-interpreted to apply to something else.
> I don't see that "notions of historical fact" were any different, unless I
> missed a corollary of one of the arguments.
Lindsay addressed this more eloquently than I am able to do, but he
pointed out, for instance, that our notion of history decends from a
Greco-Roman model, while Luke's did not. I defer to Lindsay for elaboration
if necessary.
> Interviews and painstaking research would seem to lend themselves naturally
> to the creation of a reliable historical document.
Not necessarily. Even assuming a good-faith effort on Luke's part, his
good intentions are no guarantee of a reliable document. Further, the
eyewitnesses he interviewed must themselves be considered; their memories
were not fool-proof, nor were they credible interpreters of apparently
supernatural events. Many people on TV are sure that David Blaine
levitated, but that doesn't mean that he levitated.
> Is five hundred eyewitnesses to a ressurection not proof enough? Any lawyer
> would be overjoyed to have five hundred eyewitnesses for a case.
Only if that case dealt in mundane and not supernatural events. Frankly,
it is not sufficient proof. More than 500 people have claimed to see the
Loch Ness Monster, and far more than that have claimed to have UFO experiences.
> > > When they are compared with this in mind, the inconsistencies quickly
> > > resolve themselves.
> >
> > I believe they do, but not in the way that I think you'd like them to.
>
> There are no inconsistencies in the Bible that cannot resolve themselves
> from a different perspective.
Ah! Now we're getting somewhere! I submit, as you'll probably agree, that
the "correct" perspective is a matter of faith.
> Let me cite one: The death of Judas Iscariot is reported two different ways.
> One, he threw the thirty silver coins into the temple and hung himself
> (Matthew 27:5). Two, he bought a field with the money, where he fell
> headlong and his body burst open (Acts 1:18-19). These two accounts can be
> reconciled in the following series of events:
> -Judas threw the money into the temple and hung himself
> -The priests couldn't decide what to do with the money, so they bought a
> field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:6-8). Judas therefore bought the field
> indirectly. The money never entered the temple treasury.
> -No one went to bury Judas, so after his body hung for a while, it became
> detached from wherever it had been hanging, and fell. Since it had begun to
> decay, it burst open.
But don't you see this as an example of playing with the data to fit the
hypothesis? I recommend "Gospel Fictions" by Randle Helms for an elaborate
and well-reasoned discussion of this very sort of issue, as well as a great
examination of the Gospels as a succesion of revisions.
> > You are, in essence, saying that since fundamentally simple particles
> > cannot spontaneously arise (or cannot always have existed), then an
> > infinitely complex Creator must have spontaneously arisen (or always
> > existed). That's called the ontological argument, and it's a falacy.
>
> (I thought the ontological argument was that "God has placed within us a
> knowledge that He exists and cares for us";
> http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/godexist.html; but I don't have a
> dictionary handy.)
The ontological argument can be summed up as "A perfect being that does
not exist is less perfect than a perfect being that *does* exist; therefore
God, the Perfect Being, must by His very nature exist."
Here's one discussion (and there are zillions) on the net:
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/ontology.htm
> I'm saying that, if you accept that fundamentally simple particles cannot
> have always existed and cannot spontaneously generate, then something had to
> have created them; and if that creator could not have always existed or
> spontaneously generated, it had to have been created too. Confined to the
> universe, this reduces to the chicken-and-the-egg problem. But the Bible
> describes a God who has always existed and is outside the universal bounds
> of space and time. A Creator of this nature is supported by the finite
> universe model.
>
> > In addition, if you're able to say that "God always existed, nuff said,"
> > then I can say that the universe always existed, nuff said.
>
> But modern science argues for a finite universe that had a beginning.
Not all of modern science. Hawking, for instance, has postulated (though
not made much effort to prove it--it's more of a thought model) that the
universe may go through countless expansion/collapse loops. In other words,
the current universe is finite, but what about before and after the current
universe?
Recent data does indeed suggest that the universe is on an endless
expansion. I'm not an astrophysicist, though, so I can't give you a
technical response.
> > > -The anthropic principle. Science has found that the laws of physics and
> > > chemistry are extroardinarily convenient for matter, let along life, to
> > > exist as it does. The degree of precision is astronomical. Even one
> > > parameter were to be different by as little as 10^-5, life could not exist.
>
> (I apparently was going too fast when I wrote this. 10^-5 isn't nearly as
> small as some of the other tolerances such as the 1:10^120 tolerance, and
> some are even smaller.)
But even that is irrelevant after-the-fact, even if it were 1:10^10000000.
We're here, so we're possible.
> > > This leads to the conclusion that a Creator had His hands meddling in the
> > > works.
> >
> > Actually, that leads to a conclusion that the postultor of such an argument
> > does not understand statistics, as Lindsay has also ably demonstrated.
>
> "Leads to" does not mean "proves".
Well, that applies to your argument as well as mine! 8^)
> Naturally, the existence of a Creator
> cannot be proven with 100% certainty from the confines of the universe. But
> if you establish the probability of all the necessary conditions being
> randomly satisfied for the universe to exist as it does, it is extremely
> small. But from the confines of this universe, the existence of a multiverse
> cannot be proven and must be accepted on faith, just as the existence of God.
But again, the multiverse (even the "omniverse") is irrelevant. *This*
universe has spawned life, so conjecture about the likelihood makes no
difference.
If, however, someone had set out by saying "I want life to arise with this
set of characteristics," then the chances of the universe being compatible
with that proposed life would indeed have been vanishingly small. However,
we have arisen in direct response to the strictures and conditions of the
universe as-is; we have, in effect, been tailored to our environment. The
chance of our existence (as you have previously agreed) is 100%, so the
initial unlikelihood (if such it may be called) makes no difference.
> On the other hand, if you are referring to the "lottery" scenario, or the
> "drawing 8 cards in a row" scenario, see my previous response at
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12941.
I reject the notion that in the universal lottery "somebody will win," if
by "win" you mean that somebody will come into existence. Somebody (namely,
us) did win in that way, but that doesn't have anything to do with the proof
of a Creator.
Your quote by Gould is especially interesting, since he is directly
opposed to the model of life's origin that you suggest. Further, his quote
may be paraphrased in this way:
If we traced backwards the evolutionary history of homo sapiens and then
replayed it, the likelihood of the exactly same environmental conditions
occurring a second time is remote. Another organism would certainly have
evolved in response to those environmental conditions, but it wouldn't have
been homo sapiens.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
<snip>
> To be more precise, evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The
> Darwinian model of natural selection is an evolutionary theory--that is, a
> theory that hopes to explain the process by which the fact of evolution occurs.
Let me restate my position this way:
FACT: Many, many species exist and have existed on Earth. The first species
which appeared were very simple, single-celled organisms, without nuclei.
After these, nucleotic cells appeared, and after these, various multi-celled
organisms appeared. Species after species appeared in increasing
complexity, leading to the variety of organisms existing on Earth today.
I don't think this can be correctly called evolution; it has to be called
what it is, which would be "the continual appearance of organisms of
increasing complexity". This is evident from the fossil record. On the
other hand, *explanations* for the mechanism by which these organisms
appeared *are* theories.
The theory of evolution states that these organisms developed of their own
accord, by means of spontaneous, large-scale genetic mutations in a
completely random fashion. Those organisms which had the most beneficial
mutations survived and gave rise to new organisms.
The theory of creation states that these organisms were created by God and
installed on Earth as described in Genesis 1. God created species of
increasing complexity to fill the Earth, humans (Homo sapiens) being the
final and crowning work of His creation. He has created no new species
since then. (This theory is the same among both the old-Earth and the
young-Earth creationist camps. I'm an OEC.)
<snip>
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > God did not create evil. Evil is indeed the absence of good, just as cold
> > is the absence of heat, and centrifugal force is the absence of centripetal
> > force.
>
> Sorry, if God created everything, God created evil--at least, the capacity
> for it.
This is the key distinction. God created beings with free will, but free
will necessitates the possibility of rebellion. God created the universe
with the possibility of evil. This is not the same thing as creating evil
itself. He allows it, but does not sponsor it.
> Are you implying there are limits to the power of God?
I don't see how I'm implying that. God has the power to do anything which
requires power to do, but He works within a logical framework. Since God is
good, He cannot sin. This is not a detraction of God's power, but an
affirmation of His goodness: to sin would be to invalidate His perfect nature.
> Also, good and evil are subjective concepts, arrived at by consensus--though
> in dogmatic Judaeo-Christiano-Muslim thought they're not, I realize that.
Ok.
>
> best
>
> LFB
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > Are you implying there are limits to the power of God?
>
> I don't see how I'm implying that. God has the power to do anything which
> requires power to do, but He works within a logical framework. Since God is
> good, He cannot sin. This is not a detraction of God's power, but an
> affirmation of His goodness: to sin would be to invalidate His perfect nature.
You're wandering into the "Can god make a stone so large he cannot lift it?"
thicket. Here there be tygers.
I note you did not address my previous post on "Why this discussion now? Did
you do your homework before starting?" but just ignored it.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > In any case I stress once again that the mundane record is not sufficient
> > > evidence for miraculous events, especially considering the obvious problem
> > > of circularity, since the Gospels are the only "evidence" of these miracles,
> > > and only the Gospels report them.
> >
> > Well, the Old Testament predicts them, and the rest of the Bible expounds on
> > them, but this requires accepting the Bible as an authoritative source.
>
> That's not a bad point, but it is a fundamental sticking point for some
> people. The notion that the OT was a book predicting Christ's arrival is in
> many ways equivalent to historical revisionism--that is, a book about one
> thing is re-interpreted to apply to something else.
What about all the OT miracles, then? Leaving the NT aside for the moment,
the OT predicted many events that also took place in the OT.
<snip>
> > Interviews and painstaking research would seem to lend themselves naturally
> > to the creation of a reliable historical document.
>
> Not necessarily. Even assuming a good-faith effort on Luke's part, his
> good intentions are no guarantee of a reliable document. Further, the
> eyewitnesses he interviewed must themselves be considered; their memories
> were not fool-proof, nor were they credible interpreters of apparently
> supernatural events. Many people on TV are sure that David Blaine
> levitated, but that doesn't mean that he levitated.
>
> > Is five hundred eyewitnesses to a ressurection not proof enough? Any lawyer
> > would be overjoyed to have five hundred eyewitnesses for a case.
>
> Only if that case dealt in mundane and not supernatural events. Frankly,
> it is not sufficient proof. More than 500 people have claimed to see the
> Loch Ness Monster, and far more than that have claimed to have UFO
> experiences.
But Jesus's miracles are those which don't leave very much wiggle room. The
healing miracles, for example - He healed many crippled people, who, having
been unable to walk since birth, immediately jumped up and started walking
around. I don't see any slight-of-hand explanation for this. He didn't go
up to somebody random and say, "Okay, I'm going to give you your sight now.
On the count of three, you will be able to see everything!" On the
contrary, those in need of healing came to Him, requesting a specific miracle.
And the resurrection - Jesus was confirmed dead, and His tomb was sealed and
placed under guard. Pre-resurrection, the disciples would hardly have the
courage or resources to overpower the guards, unseal the tomb, and steal the
body. Post-resurrection, Jesus walked around in plain sight for 40 days.
He ate, drank, and was touched by the disciples. It's hard to interpret
this as anything other than what it was.
> > > > When they are compared with this in mind, the inconsistencies quickly
> > > > resolve themselves.
> > >
> > > I believe they do, but not in the way that I think you'd like them to.
> >
> > There are no inconsistencies in the Bible that cannot resolve themselves
> > from a different perspective.
>
> Ah! Now we're getting somewhere! I submit, as you'll probably agree, that
> the "correct" perspective is a matter of faith.
I suppose it is, but it must also be logically and scientifically sound.
> > Let me cite one: The death of Judas Iscariot is reported two different ways.
> > One, he threw the thirty silver coins into the temple and hung himself
> > (Matthew 27:5). Two, he bought a field with the money, where he fell
> > headlong and his body burst open (Acts 1:18-19). These two accounts can be
> > reconciled in the following series of events:
> > -Judas threw the money into the temple and hung himself
> > -The priests couldn't decide what to do with the money, so they bought a
> > field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:6-8). Judas therefore bought the field
> > indirectly. The money never entered the temple treasury.
> > -No one went to bury Judas, so after his body hung for a while, it became
> > detached from wherever it had been hanging, and fell. Since it had begun to
> > decay, it burst open.
>
> But don't you see this as an example of playing with the data to fit the
> hypothesis?
You could say that, but it hardly requires a logical leap to arrive at this
explanation. It's simple and it fits the facts.
> I recommend "Gospel Fictions" by Randle Helms for an elaborate
> and well-reasoned discussion of this very sort of issue, as well as a great
> examination of the Gospels as a succesion of revisions.
>
> > > You are, in essence, saying that since fundamentally simple particles
> > > cannot spontaneously arise (or cannot always have existed), then an
> > > infinitely complex Creator must have spontaneously arisen (or always
> > > existed). That's called the ontological argument, and it's a falacy.
> >
> > (I thought the ontological argument was that "God has placed within us a
> > knowledge that He exists and cares for us";
> > http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/godexist.html; but I don't have a
> > dictionary handy.)
>
> The ontological argument can be summed up as "A perfect being that does
> not exist is less perfect than a perfect being that *does* exist; therefore
> God, the Perfect Being, must by His very nature exist."
That's not what I said. That's a thought model, not a scientific model.
This was my argument:
> > I'm saying that, if you accept that fundamentally simple particles cannot
> > have always existed and cannot spontaneously generate, then something had to
> > have created them; and if that creator could not have always existed or
> > spontaneously generated, it had to have been created too. Confined to the
> > universe, this reduces to the chicken-and-the-egg problem. But the Bible
> > describes a God who has always existed and is outside the universal bounds
> > of space and time. A Creator of this nature is supported by the finite
> > universe model.
If the universe had an ultimate Creator, it must necessarily lead to one who
was not created Himself and who is not confined by space and time like we are.
> Here's one discussion (and there are zillions) on the net:
>
> http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/ontology.htm
This argument seems to be a logical leap - man attempting to "think" God
into existence by fiat. I agree, it is not an argument I would want to
build my faith on.
> > > In addition, if you're able to say that "God always existed, nuff said,"
> > > then I can say that the universe always existed, nuff said.
> >
> > But modern science argues for a finite universe that had a beginning.
>
> Not all of modern science. Hawking, for instance, has postulated (though
> not made much effort to prove it--it's more of a thought model) that the
> universe may go through countless expansion/collapse loops. In other words,
> the current universe is finite, but what about before and after the current
> universe?
The God model is one explanation. The expansion/collapse model is a thought
model and thus speculation.
> Recent data does indeed suggest that the universe is on an endless
> expansion. I'm not an astrophysicist, though, so I can't give you a
> technical response.
Endless expansion in the future, yes. So this universe does not seem to be
collapsing, as would be necessary to fit Hawking's model. And this does not
negate the possibility of a definite beginning.
> > > > -The anthropic principle. Science has found that the laws of physics and
> > > > chemistry are extroardinarily convenient for matter, let along life, to
> > > > exist as it does. The degree of precision is astronomical. Even one
> > > > parameter were to be different by as little as 10^-5, life could not exist.
> >
> > (I apparently was going too fast when I wrote this. 10^-5 isn't nearly as
> > small as some of the other tolerances such as the 1:10^120 tolerance, and
> > some are even smaller.)
>
> But even that is irrelevant after-the-fact, even if it were 1:10^10000000.
> We're here, so we're possible.
Yes. But this ignores what the universe had to go through to get to this
point. Suppose chance got us here. It had to go through so many flips and
leaps along the way that it could be considered a miracle in and of itself.
> > > > This leads to the conclusion that a Creator had His hands meddling in the
> > > > works.
> > >
> > > Actually, that leads to a conclusion that the postultor of such an argument
> > > does not understand statistics, as Lindsay has also ably demonstrated.
> >
> > "Leads to" does not mean "proves".
>
> Well, that applies to your argument as well as mine! 8^)
:)
> > Naturally, the existence of a Creator cannot be proven with 100% certainty
> > from the confines of the universe. But if you establish the probability of
> > all the necessary conditions being randomly satisfied for the universe to
> > exist as it does, it is extremely small. But from the confines of this
> > universe, the existence of a multiverse cannot be proven and must be
> > accepted on faith, just as the existence of God.
>
> But again, the multiverse (even the "omniverse") is irrelevant. *This*
> universe has spawned life, so conjecture about the likelihood makes no
> difference.
> If, however, someone had set out by saying "I want life to arise with this
> set of characteristics," then the chances of the universe being compatible
> with that proposed life would indeed have been vanishingly small. However,
> we have arisen in direct response to the strictures and conditions of the
> universe as-is; we have, in effect, been tailored to our environment. The
> chance of our existence (as you have previously agreed) is 100%, so the
> initial unlikelihood (if such it may be called) makes no difference.
True, it doesn't make any difference. But as I said before, it would be a
miracle in and of itself.
If you accept the Bible as authoritative, then all the miracles it descibes
happened. Just because they happened doesn't deny that they were miraculous.
> > On the other hand, if you are referring to the "lottery" scenario, or the
> > "drawing 8 cards in a row" scenario, see my previous response at
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12941.
>
> I reject the notion that in the universal lottery "somebody will win," if
> by "win" you mean that somebody will come into existence. Somebody (namely,
> us) did win in that way, but that doesn't have anything to do with the proof
> of a Creator.
The paragraph you are referring to is this:
> And the existence in the universe is not like drawing cards or playing the
> lottery, anyway. The rules mandate that *somebody* will win. There is no
> such mandate if you assume the nonexistence of a Creator, because there
> would be no outside authority setting the rules. The lottery would have to
> play itself.
I meant that in the regular lottery - the quotidian lottery, which you buy
tickets for - has rules that mandate a winner. As you say, there is no such
mandate in the universal lottery, which means there is no guarantee that
somebody will win.
> Your quote by Gould is especially interesting, since he is directly
> opposed to the model of life's origin that you suggest.
I was not agreeing with Gould's model by posting that quote. I was
indicating that Gould conceded a point that backs up my argument,
specifically, that generation of Homo sapiens from an a priori universe is
extremely improbable.
> Further, his quote may be paraphrased in this way:
> If we traced backwards the evolutionary history of homo sapiens and then
> replayed it, the likelihood of the exactly same environmental conditions
> occurring a second time is remote.
> Another organism would certainly have evolved in response to those
> environmental conditions, but it wouldn't have been homo sapiens.
The first sentence is a paraphrase. The second sentence is conjecture.
There is no guarantee that *any* life could have arisen, as you yourself say: "I
reject the notion that in the universal lottery 'somebody will win,' if by
'win' you mean that somebody will come into existence."
>
> Dave!
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > See http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12873 for a start.
> > Incidentally, Jesus was God in the flesh, and we have the recorded history
> > right in the Bible.
>
> Sorry, that's not recorded history. It's a literary chronicle--"history" as
> we know it today was part of the Greco-Roman tradition, not the Judaeo-
> Christian one.
I'm not clear on the difference. Anyway, the Gospels were written in Greek,
from within the Roman Empire.
> That, and the synoptic gospels have significant problems innate to their
> production. We don't even need to discuss the problems inherent in the
> canonification of Biblical books, do we? The truth of the Bible's fantastic
> claims is dependent on believing those writing and selecting its books were
> divinely inspired. Both are unprovable--some of the historical details can
> be corroborated, but that's because the Bible rested its veneer of veracity
> upon known place names and personal names, and a functionalist account of
> actual events. Then, as now, the Bible is often propaganda.
These are faith issues. They can't be "proven" either way.
> Embellishment, by the way, is quite common in historical chronicles. It's
> common in modern writing as well! Read the collected stories that we call
> the "Epic of Gilgamesh" to see what I mean.
If the books were divinely inspired, then they aren't embellished. If they
weren't, they might have been embellished. But this is another unprovable
point, and resolves to a faith issue.
> > > Religion operates within a faith paradigm. For example, if a miracle
> > > occurred that sufficiently defied natural laws (e.g., the planes stopping
> > > just inches from the WTC walls) then I think your postulate about people not
> > > understanding would be moot.
> >
> > Possibly so. But then the hijackers would be making the accusations. God
> > loves even them so much that He does not deny them their free will.
>
> Then God can't act at all--not in *any* way. Why would there be any divine
> inspiration at *all* if God's Prime Directive exists? Or is this God picking
> and choosing his battles as a capricious Roman deity might?
Free will means that God is not directing our actions like a puppeteer.
This does not mean that God is not free to intervene in other ways. He has
access to the laws of physics and chance, so He can manipulate these without
violating free will.
Closer to the boundary would be God's inspiration. I would assume that God
can show people things without violating their intellectual free will. For
example, He can place a thought on the edge of their consciousness, but
whether they choose to dwell on that thought or act on that thought is
entirely up to them.
Even closer than that: there have been experiments where scientists have
used probes to stimulate memories in the brain. Subjects were able to tell
whether a certain memory was stimulated by the probe or whether they thought
it of their own accord. If these scientists did not violate their subjects'
intellectual free will in this way, then God could do the same thing and not
violate it either.
> > > When science tries to make statements about the existence of God, or when
> > > religion tries to make statements about the conclusions of science (note:
> > > I'm not saying the *practice* here, because religion does come into
> > > bioethics quite strongly)
> >
> > Ah, but you bring up another point of contention here. If there was no God,
> > there would be no objective standard of right and wrong, which would leave
> > the moral system in bioethics completely without a logical foundation.
>
> Sure. Then science would be conducted functionally with a specific goal in
> mind rather than navigating a minefield of subjective moralities. Bioethics
> exists because of the need to navigate subjective religion. The existence or
> non-existence of a God doesn't even come into the picture--only the existence
> of religion, which isn't really doubtable unless one is a serious nihilist (in
> which case one has much much bigger problems ;) ).
<snipped the next paragraph as it was covered in a different post>
> > ...There is a lot of junk science and junk religion floating around, which
> > can distract people from what is actually valid.
>
> I'm pretty well-qualified to know the difference where science is concerned.
> Scientific Creation = junk science, more clearly in its YEC variety but often
> also in its OEC variant.
>
> As for junk religion, how does one decide what junk religion is? I have a
> feeling it's more subjective than most of us would like to think.
True; junk religion, I would think, is entirely subjective. I probably
should have said "misrepresentation of religion".
>
> best
>
> LFB
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> > > Are you implying there are limits to the power of God?
> >
> > I don't see how I'm implying that. God has the power to do anything which
> > requires power to do, but He works within a logical framework. Since God is
> > good, He cannot sin. This is not a detraction of God's power, but an
> > affirmation of His goodness: to sin would be to invalidate His perfect
> > nature.
>
> You're wandering into the "Can god make a stone so large he cannot lift it?"
> thicket. Here there be tygers.
Indeed. I would say that there is no answer to this question, because it's
a logical contradiction. God can lift anything He wants, and God can make
anything He wants. But God wouldn't set out with the express purpose of
making a stone too big for Him to lift, because this is a logically
impossible scenario.
A similar debate, without involving God, would be "What happens when an
unstoppable train hits an immovable, indestructable wall?" This is the same
contradiction - it's a logically impossible scenario.
> I note you did not address my previous post on "Why this discussion now? Did
> you do your homework before starting?" but just ignored it.
There were three posts:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12881
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12869
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12883
(I addressed Lindsay's refutation here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12941.)
None of them specifically asked "Why are you debating this? Did you refer
to previous discussions?" or added to the debate. Rather, they seemed to be
pot-shots and "grousing" (your own word), so I ignored them. About the
worst thing anyone can do in debate is take offense at something, because
then you start sounding reactionary and irrational.
In answer to your question, I did my homework in terms of external research
and scientific evidence to support my argument, but I didn't look through
previous discussions. I thought that, since those discussions had already
resolved themselves or petered out, I didn't need to bring them up. I
thought that whoever wanted to debate could, and those who didn't want to
debate or felt that this had been resolved already could just ignore it.
I'm not looking to *demand* anyone's involvement in this debate.
--Ian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark de Kock writes:
> Okay, I'm going to jump onto this one just this once...
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeff Stembel writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Geordan Hankinson writes:
> >
> > Coming together to help those affected by the attack is a good thing. It
> > fosters a humble, generous spirit.
>
> No God in there if you're not a religious person.
Granted.
> >
> > > In the first case, the vast majority of those people were not in need before
> > > the attack, so why did God need to kill so many to create a need? Why not
> > > create a non-tragic event that would cause people to help those who were in
> > > need *before* the attack?
> >
> > The response would probably not have been as dramatic or as widespread.
> > Sometimes it takes a shattering tragedy to shock people out of complacency.
>
> And all good religious people know this and STILL need this tragical event
> to wake them up?
Yes, unfortunately. Jesus warns against complacency and losing heart.
Being human, we fall short all the time.
It could be for the nonreligious people also. A tragedy like this forces
many to reevaluate their priorities in life and not take things for granted.
The search for meaning often leads them to God.
> > > In the second case, how can killing people without a trial be good? How can
> > > god want this? isn't there a Commandment that says "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?
> >
> > In war, things are slightly different. The commandment actually says "Thou
> > shalt not murder" and I have to assume that in war, killing is not the same
> > as murdering. God in fact commanded many wars in the Old Testament. He
> > would not have commanded the Israelites to violate His law.
>
> Whe quoting the bible, everyone can get his or her right. Check out the Old
> Testament; it's full of contradictions within itself. (Sorry, I'm still in
> the middle of a lot of boxes, so I can't find a bible).
Interpretation can either clarify the issue or muddle it further. In either
case, I think the original Hebrew supports "murder" rather than "kill".
> > In any case, if we do nothing in response, the terrorism will increase. By
> > demonstrating force, we discourage future attacks, and by rendering justice,
> > we stop (or at least slow down or set back) the evil. What would have
> > happened if we had never gone after Hitler?
>
> And with every step we take against terrorism, we should ask ourselves
> several questions. Questions like 'isn't this exactly what the terrorists
> want us to do?' and 'what will be the consequences for THE WORLD? (not just
> the USoA; the whole world is involved here!)'.
True. We need to consider our response carefully.
> > > > Right now I can name a number of good things that God has brought us due to
> > > > this already:
> > > >
> > > > It has brought the nation together,
> > > > It has brought most of the world together
> > > > People have opened up their houses to the people in need and therefore made
> > > > a few new friends, people have learned to appreciate others and be more
> > > > thankful.
> > >
> > > All of which SHOULDN'T take the deaths of thousands to perform. Besides,
> > > why are we only helping the victims, and not people who were suffering
> > > *before* the attack? Wouldn't it have been better to just leave it as it
> > > was?
> >
> > You're right, it shouldn't have taken this tragedy to produce this good.
> > But none of this was happening before the attack. The attack shocked us
> > into action.
>
> Again, this is due to the acts of God, if you are a religious person. To
> others it's just men, behaving like men. Nature at its best: survival of
> (part of) the species.
Again, granted.
> > Even *one* person is merciful. However, you forget that 50,000 people
> > worked at the World Trade Center daily. For whatever reason - they weren't
> > at work yet, they were able to evacute, or they were rescued, 45,000 people
> > were spared.
>
> Tell that to the family and friends of the 5000+ dead.
I know. I don't mean to belittle this tragedy, because it certainly was
horrible.
> > > > -What about the mercy for those who were stuck in a airport and someone
> > > > opened up their house so they would have someplace to stay?
> > >
> > > The Kindness Of Man. Please, give credit where credit is due, and don't
> > > shortchange the good people.
> >
> > All goodness derives from God, but this is a technicality in this
> instance :).
>
> Again, only if you're a religious person. This Goodness in God made him
> decide to kick us out of Paradise? To get palestines kicked out of the
> 'Promised Land'? (Old Testament; not the current events) This goodness of
> God got Goliath killed, because he was a big guy that liked playing with
> little guys?
> Strange acts of kindness.
This was due to God's judgement. God must render justice as well as love.
> > > > -What about the mercy for those who thought they had lost a family member,
> > > > but later found out they were alive?
> > >
> > > What about the tens of thousands more who will never see their loved
> > > ones/friends ever again? Mercy to a few is vindictive.
> >
> > Again, 45,000 people were saved vs. the 5,000 who died. See above.
>
> Again, try to explain that to the families and friends of the 5000+ dead.
Again, a valid reminder of the tragedy. I was pointing out God's mercy to
the 45,000, not belittling the tragedy of the 5,000.
> > > > -What about the mercy for those who were late coming to work that day and
> > > > missed the explosion?
> > >
> > > Blind dumb luck. Happens to me all the time.
> >
> > What if God engineered it?
>
> What if he didn't? These kind of questions makes me stop discussing anything
> where someone drags in the religious factor. As soon as religion is
> concerned, reason seems to have gone through the back-door and caught the
> first train out of here.
Reason should accompany faith. "Come, let us reason together, says the
LORD," Isaiah 1:18; and "Test all things, hold fast that which is good," 1
Thess. 5:21. God both created the universe and inspired the Bible, so it
follows that they should be logically consistent.
> > > > What about the mercy for those working in the white house, but the plane
> > > > was crash landed before it got there?
> > >
> > > The mercy of good city planning, perhaps. I'm currently not entirely
> > > convinced the White House was really a target.
> >
> > What good city planning? Washington, D.C. was designed over 100 years
> > before the invention of the airplane. A Congressman saw one of the planes
> > circling the Capitol before it went off to hit the Pentagon. There had to
> > have been some reason why the pilot didn't crash then.
>
> Plenty of hypotheses: The terrorists and the pilots where fighting? Heroic
> passengers tried to intervene? Who knows? Only the dead did know.
True. This is still speculation.
> > > > -What about the mercy for the families who have had money donated etc.?
> > >
> > > They wouldn't need it if the attack hadn't happened, and what about those
> > > who have needed help longer?
> >
> > If the attack hadn't happened, nobody would be getting money anyway.
> > Sometimes it takes a dramatic event to jump-start people into doing
> > something.
>
> Sounds like a design-fault in men. Where is God, so I can get a bugg-fix?
Too true! You just pegged the Gospel. The fault in men is that they
rebelled against God and plunged the world into sin. The fix is God -
accepting the free offer of salvation and thus gaining entrance to His
perfect paradise.
> > > > This has to be God at work, whether you like it or not, God has shown
> > > > himself clearly in the face of tragedy.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, I don't see God there anywhere. I see the kindness of people
> > > being unfairly credited to a non-existant being. Why is all the evil in
> > > this world credited to man, but none of the good? God sure doesn't have
> > > anything to do with my good deeds.
> >
> > The more I look at this attack, the more I see that it could have become
> > much worse in many ways, and yet it didn't. I see God's restraint
> > throughout the whole thing.
>
> Ahhh, so as long as people can say 'it could have been worse', you can
> explain that as the restraining of God, or the kindness?
True. The Christian position is that, since man is utterly sinful, it is
only through God's restraint that the unrepentant world doesn't go to Hell
right now.
> I'm glad life is as simple as that for you. That would also mean (warning:
> reason coming back) that Armageddon, when 'things can't get any worse' is
> when God finally snaps?
Exactly. God's patience reaches its limit and He removes His restraint.
> > Evil is credited to man because it can't be credited to God -- God cannot
> > commit evil. I agree that each person is responsible for his or her own
> > deeds, but I believe it is God who prompts us to do good.
>
> God = good and men = bad/evil? Again, I wish my life was as simple as that.
> But please understand me: I have nothing against religious people. Just as
> long as they don't try to enforce it on me.
God is good. Man was originally good, but through rebellion became sinful.
> Notice that I do not say 'Christians', to me all religions are the same.
> They all are a way out of the harsh reality of the every day struggle for
> survival. It is also a handy tool to explain things that men can't explain
> in any other way (yet).
> Example: a long time ago, men thought that a thunderstorm was (a) God, being
> angry at men. Nowadays, men knows that it is just natural phenomena.
> But my favorite example is the Rainbow, because I like boats.
> >
> > >
> > > Jeff
> >
> > --Ian
>
> and Mark - who did enjoy a religious back-ground but outgrew it -de Kock
and Ian again
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> > To be more precise, evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The
> > Darwinian model of natural selection is an evolutionary theory--that is, a
> > theory that hopes to explain the process by which the fact of evolution occurs.
>
> Let me restate my position this way:
>
> FACT: Many, many species exist and have existed on Earth. The first species
> which appeared were very simple, single-celled organisms, without nuclei.
> After these, nucleotic cells appeared, and after these, various multi-celled
> organisms appeared. Species after species appeared in increasing
> complexity, leading to the variety of organisms existing on Earth today.
>
> I don't think this can be correctly called evolution; it has to be called
> what it is, which would be "the continual appearance of organisms of
> increasing complexity". This is evident from the fossil record. On the
> other hand, *explanations* for the mechanism by which these organisms
> appeared *are* theories.
>
> The theory of evolution states that these organisms developed of their own
> accord, by means of spontaneous, large-scale genetic mutations in a
> completely random fashion. Those organisms which had the most beneficial
> mutations survived and gave rise to new organisms.
>
> The theory of creation states that these organisms were created by God and
> installed on Earth as described in Genesis 1. God created species of
> increasing complexity to fill the Earth, humans (Homo sapiens) being the
> final and crowning work of His creation. He has created no new species
> since then. (This theory is the same among both the old-Earth and the
> young-Earth creationist camps. I'm an OEC.)
There is more evidence around than just the fossil record though. For
instance, my work involves comparing DNA sequences from different organisms.
We can measure the differences between sequences, and draw a tree or nested
set describing how similar they are. So for instance (((humans, chimps)
gorillas) orangutangs) corresponds to the pattern apparent in DNA sequences
for four types of primate.
How do we explain this evidence historically (without a time-machine)? We
can look for either a natural or a supernatural process. Natural theories
can be tested; Lamarckian evolution can be rejected since we don't see
inheritance of acquired characteristics. With the advent of whole genome
sequencing we will soon be able to replicate Darwinian macroevolution, by
knocking out and inserting genes that differ between two species.
Supernatural explanations on the other hand are untestable. The only items
of evidence that support the existence of supernatural processes are
personal testimony and written authority, non-personal miracles being fairly
thin on the ground. These forms of subjective evidence may be appropriate in
some disciplines, but not natural history. The supernatural is by definition
not part of science. If ghosts, goblins or God were directly observable then
they would come into the scope of science; since they aren't they don't.
So how can we explain the similarity between human and chimp DNA sequences
for instance? Either we accept that it indicates a common ancestor or we
don't. If we accept that chimps and humans (and all life on earth) share a
common ancestor we can model evolution as a natural process. If we reject
evolution (no other natural theory being proposed) then we are forced to
invoke untestable supernatural explanations.
--DaveL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> What about all the OT miracles, then? Leaving the NT aside for the moment,
> the OT predicted many events that also took place in the OT.
That is, by definition, circular reasoning. I predict that I will attach
my name at the bottom of my post--that doesn't make it prophesy. My point
is that the Bible is *in no way* adequate confirmation of its own
supernatural claims, and there *is absolutely no* external confirmation
(that is, external to the vested interests of Christianity) of the miracles
reported in the Bible.
> And the resurrection - Jesus was confirmed dead, and His tomb was sealed and
> placed under guard. Pre-resurrection, the disciples would hardly have the
> courage or resources to overpower the guards, unseal the tomb, and steal the
> body. Post-resurrection, Jesus walked around in plain sight for 40 days.
> He ate, drank, and was touched by the disciples. It's hard to interpret
> this as anything other than what it was.
"What it was," as far as I'm concerned, is religious propaganda and the
mythic embellishment of the life of an individual. Again, there is no
confirmation whatsoever for any of Christ's miracles outside of the NT, and
testimony from within the NT is impeached.
> > The ontological argument can be summed up as "A perfect being that does
> > not exist is less perfect than a perfect being that *does* exist; therefore
> > God, the Perfect Being, must by His very nature exist."
>
> That's not what I said. That's a thought model, not a scientific model.
> This was my argument:
> > > I'm saying that, if you accept that fundamentally simple particles cannot
> > > have always existed and cannot spontaneously generate, then something had to
> > > have created them; and if that creator could not have always existed or
> > > spontaneously generated, it had to have been created too. Confined to the
> > > universe, this reduces to the chicken-and-the-egg problem. But the Bible
> > > describes a God who has always existed and is outside the universal bounds
> > > of space and time. A Creator of this nature is supported by the finite
> > > universe model.
> If the universe had an ultimate Creator, it must necessarily lead to one who
> was not created Himself and who is not confined by space and time like we are.
The reason that it is the ontological argument is that you are assuming
that, since fundamentally simple particles cannot spontaneously generate and
cannot always have existed, therefore some supreme Creator must by its very
nature either have spontaneously generated or must always have existed. You
are hypothesizing an infinitely complex being in order to explain a
fundamentally simple particle. If it is absurd to assume that a
fundamentally simple particle can self-generate or can always have existed,
it is infinitely more absurd to assume that an infinitely complex being can
self-generate or can always have existed.
> > Here's one discussion (and there are zillions) on the net:
> >
> > http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/ontology.htm
>
> This argument seems to be a logical leap - man attempting to "think" God
> into existence by fiat. I agree, it is not an argument I would want to
> build my faith on.
But millions have and continue to do so. Even your argument above is a
21st century retooling of the ontological argument.
> The God model is one explanation.
> The expansion/collapse model is a thought model and thus speculation.
Yes, but as in all science, it is a thought model based on and consistent
with observation and is subject to modification as more data become
available. Religious dogma (ie: Creationism) is not consistent with
observation and is not subject to modification.
> > But even that is irrelevant after-the-fact, even if it were 1:10^10000000.
> > We're here, so we're possible.
>
> Yes. But this ignores what the universe had to go through to get to this
> point. Suppose chance got us here. It had to go through so many flips and
> leaps along the way that it could be considered a miracle in and of itself.
Well, no, unless miracles are a great deal more mundane than is usually
reported. The universe as-is has resulted from initial governing
conditions. If the conditions had been different, the universe would be
different. If the conditions allow life to arise, life may arise. If the
conditions do not allow life to arise, life does not. There's nothing
miraculous about small odds; a miracle, to be of any miraculous value, must
by definition be nearly an impossibility. Or, as Hume eloquently put it:
"no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the
testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more
miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."
Show me a square circle, or show me two people who are simultaneously taller
than one another, or show me God lifting the proverbial
Rock-That-He-Can't-Lift, and then I'll consider the possibility of miracle.
> If you accept the Bible as authoritative, then all the miracles it descibes
> happened. Just because they happened doesn't deny that they were miraculous.
That's a colossal "if," though; I suppose you are by that statement
admitting (as you have done previously, I grant you) that one's acceptance
of the Bible is based on faith. Those who see the Bible instead as a
fictionalized work of propaganda do not accept its authority in reporting
miracles.
> > Your quote by Gould is especially interesting, since he is directly
> > opposed to the model of life's origin that you suggest.
>
> I was not agreeing with Gould's model by posting that quote. I was
> indicating that Gould conceded a point that backs up my argument,
> specifically, that generation of Homo sapiens from an a priori universe is
> extremely improbable.
>
> > Further, his quote may be paraphrased in this way:
> > If we traced backwards the evolutionary history of homo sapiens and then
> > replayed it, the likelihood of the exactly same environmental conditions
> > occurring a second time is remote.
>
> > Another organism would certainly have evolved in response to those
> > environmental conditions, but it wouldn't have been homo sapiens.
>
> The first sentence is a paraphrase. The second sentence is conjecture.
I was being imprecise and was assuming that time would only have been
'rewound' to some point prior to homo sapiens, but not prior to all life.
If any organism existed, it is likely that such an organism would have
evolved to adapt to the environment, but the likelihood of the same series
of minute genetic mutations leading to an organism identical to modern homo
sapiens is vanishingly small.
> There is no guarantee that *any* life could have arisen, as you yourself
> say: "I reject the notion that in the universal lottery 'somebody will win,'
> if by 'win' you mean that somebody will come into existence."
Again, though--I was taking as given the idea that something (in the Gould
model) had already come into existence. If, however, we rewound time back
to a point prior to life on Earth, then indeed there is no guarantee that
life would arise at all, and subsequently no guarantee that something would
evolve into homo sapiens' shoes.
Dave!
^ look! My prophesy came true!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> I predict that I will attach
> my name at the bottom of my post--that doesn't make it prophesy.
<snip>
> Dave!
> ^ look! My prophesy came true!
Wow. A miracle! The Church of Larritarianism IS accepting applications for
prophets, if you're interested. Entrance exam is way less strict than, say,
the Church of the SubGenius.
And for all you other sinners out there, we also accept love offerings. In
fact, show your love by bidding on my current auction and there will be a
Special Reward for you in the next life.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > I predict that I will attach
> > my name at the bottom of my post--that doesn't make it prophesy.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Dave!
> > ^ look! My prophesy came true!
>
> Wow. A miracle! The Church of Larritarianism IS accepting applications for
> prophets, if you're interested. Entrance exam is way less strict than, say,
> the Church of the SubGenius.
In the biz, I believe that's called a wide Prophet Margin.
> And for all you other sinners out there, we also accept love offerings. In
> fact, show your love by bidding on my current auction and there will be a
> Special Reward for you in the next life.
You had me up until this part--sounds too much like Amway or Scientology
(the latter of which is certainly and irrefutably a religion, and not in any
way a cult dreamed up by a hack SF writer. I mean, if both Travolta AND
Cruise believe it, it must be true!)
Dave!
|
|
| |
|In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
|
|>Let me restate my position this way:
|
|>The theory of evolution states that these organisms developed of their own
|>accord, by means of spontaneous, large-scale genetic mutations in a
|>completely random fashion. Those organisms which had the most beneficial
|>mutations survived and gave rise to new organisms.
|
| I would amend that by pointing out that mutations are *NOT* completely
|random, which implies that any single mutation is as likely as any other.
|Mutations arise as a result of environmental factors altering the organism's
|DNA structure as well as from errors in DNA replication.
| To assert that evolution is completely random is to buy into the
|hopelessly misguided analogy of the tornado-and-the-747.
|
|>The theory of creation states that these organisms were created by God and
|>installed on Earth as described in Genesis I.
|
| This would be a good time to point out the two competing notions of theory:
|
| Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory:
|
|A scientific theory is empirical, falsifiable and possesses predictive
|power, e.g., the wave theory of light, the theory of evolution, and the Big
|Bang theory. Scientific theories are essentially concerned with discovering
|the mechanisms by which Nature functions.
|
|>Scientific theories attempt to understand the world of observation and sense
|>experience. They attempt to explain how the natural world works. A scientific
|>theory must have some logical consequences we can test against Nature by
|>making predictions based on the theory.
|
| Creationist theory is a conceptual theory:
|
|>A conceptual theory is non-scientific and non-empirical. Some conceptual
|>theories are explanatory, e.g., metaphysical theories such as creationism,
|>materialism or dualism. Like all conceptual theories, creationism,
|>materialism and dualism cannot be empirically tested. They are not
|>falsifiable nor do they have any predictive value.
|
|these cites come from from the Skeptic's Dictionary at
|http://www.skepdic.com/theories.html
|which is, by the way, an absolutely excellent website, and I cannot
|recommend it strongly enough for anyone who aspires to any level of critical
|thought.
|
|So what we've got here is a conflict between types of theory, which are not
|equal in style or intent. I have no problem with your assertion that
|Creationism is a theory (just as I don't mind my coworker espousing his
|theory about why the Pirates lost (again) last night), but I flatly reject
|the idea that it is an empirical scientific theory with predictive value.
|
| Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> |In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> |
> |>Let me restate my position this way:
> |
> |>The theory of evolution states that these organisms developed of their own
> |>accord, by means of spontaneous, large-scale genetic mutations in a
> |>completely random fashion. Those organisms which had the most beneficial
> |>mutations survived and gave rise to new organisms.
> |
> | I would amend that by pointing out that mutations are *NOT* completely
> |random, which implies that any single mutation is as likely as any other.
> |Mutations arise as a result of environmental factors altering the organism's
> |DNA structure as well as from errors in DNA replication.
> | To assert that evolution is completely random is to buy into the
> |hopelessly misguided analogy of the tornado-and-the-747.
> |
> |>The theory of creation states that these organisms were created by God and
> |>installed on Earth as described in Genesis I.
> |
> | This would be a good time to point out the two competing notions of theory:
> |
> | Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory:
> |
> |A scientific theory is empirical, falsifiable and possesses predictive
> |power, e.g., the wave theory of light, the theory of evolution, and the Big
> |Bang theory. Scientific theories are essentially concerned with discovering
> |the mechanisms by which Nature functions.
> |
> |>Scientific theories attempt to understand the world of observation and sense
> |>experience. They attempt to explain how the natural world works. A scientific
> |>theory must have some logical consequences we can test against Nature by
> |>making predictions based on the theory.
> |
> | Creationist theory is a conceptual theory:
> |
> |>A conceptual theory is non-scientific and non-empirical. Some conceptual
> |>theories are explanatory, e.g., metaphysical theories such as creationism,
> |>materialism or dualism. Like all conceptual theories, creationism,
> |>materialism and dualism cannot be empirically tested. They are not
> |>falsifiable nor do they have any predictive value.
> |
> |these cites come from from the Skeptic's Dictionary at
> |http://www.skepdic.com/theories.html
> |which is, by the way, an absolutely excellent website, and I cannot
> |recommend it strongly enough for anyone who aspires to any level of critical
> |thought.
> |
> |So what we've got here is a conflict between types of theory, which are not
> |equal in style or intent. I have no problem with your assertion that
> |Creationism is a theory (just as I don't mind my coworker espousing his
> |theory about why the Pirates lost (again) last night), but I flatly reject
> |the idea that it is an empirical scientific theory with predictive value.
> |
> | Dave!
Dave!:
Here we come to the great defeater of your argument: The existence of Baseball
is final and convincing proof that a Loving and Good God does in fact exist. I
defy you to postulate any theoretical universe in which Baseball, in all its
Infinite Glory, could arise given the vagaries or time, chance, and the pennant
race.
james, who's still bitter that his 'Stros dropped 2 out of 3 to St. Louis in the
most important series of the year.
fut set to .fun
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> james, who's still bitter that his 'Stros dropped 2 out of 3 to St. Louis in
> the most important series of the year.
I'm not a particular fan of baseball, but even I am amazed that the
Pirates have seemed somehow to lose more games this year than everyone else
in the league combined. What especially steams me is that Pittsburgh in its
infinite, civil-engineered genius decided to build not one but TWO brand new
stadiums (stadia?), one for each of the two losingest teams in their
respective sports! I say we should've made the Pirates and Steelers play on
raw cinders until they turn their records around. Meanwhile, the Penguins
languish in an arena that was actually built before the invention of the ice
skate.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> Here we come to the great defeater of your argument: The existence of Baseball
> is final and convincing proof that a Loving and Good God does in fact exist. I
> defy you to postulate any theoretical universe in which Baseball, in all its
> Infinite Glory, could arise given the vagaries or time, chance, and the pennant
> race.
>
> james, who's still bitter that his 'Stros dropped 2 out of 3 to St. Louis in the
> most important series of the year.
>
> fut set to .fun
While the existence of Baseball may be an unarguable proof of God, I feel
that I must point out that unfortantely, the Dodgers are an unarguable proof
of the existence of the Devil (some might argue that the Yankees are
actually the proof of that, but they would probably also argue that the
Devil looks suspiciously like Ray Walston). Anyway, the Dodgers seem bent
on sending me to Hell every time I curse Dem Bums. *&%$#@!
Bleeding Dodger Blue Bruce
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> Here we come to the great defeater of your argument: The existence of Baseball
> is final and convincing proof that a Loving and Good God does in fact exist. >I
> defy you to postulate any theoretical universe in which Baseball, in all its
> Infinite Glory, could arise given the vagaries or time, chance, and the >pennant race.
No, it is proof that the universe is in fact random, if not actually cruel
and malevolent. Why else would such an ultimately boring game fascinate so
many? (including me)
> james, who's still bitter that his 'Stros dropped 2 out of 3 to St. Louis in >the most important series of the year.
And if you REALLY want proof of no justice, consider the Tigers.
> fut set to .fun
As it should be, although there is nothing funny about the dismal
performance of the Tiggers for the last N years.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> (some might argue that the Yankees are actually the proof of [the Devil], but
> they would probably also argue that the Devil looks suspiciously like Ray
> Walston).
Wasn't he implicated in the Applegate scandal a few years back?
Dave!
FUT OT.Alleged-Humor
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> > Here we come to the great defeater of your argument: The existence of Baseball
> > is final and convincing proof that a Loving and Good God does in fact exist. >I
> > defy you to postulate any theoretical universe in which Baseball, in all its
> > Infinite Glory, could arise given the vagaries or time, chance, and the >pennant race.
>
> No, it is proof that the universe is in fact random, if not actually cruel
> and malevolent. Why else would such an ultimately boring game fascinate so
> many? (including me)
Ah, but here we have merely the inscrutability of Divine Wisdom. Presumably God
foreknew that a universe with baseball, in sum totality of its joys and many
despairs, would be an inherently better state of affairs than a universe without
baseball. The greater good hath prevailed.
> > james, who's still bitter that his 'Stros dropped 2 out of 3 to St. Louis in >the most important series of the year.
>
> And if you REALLY want proof of no justice, consider the Tigers.
>
> > fut set to .fun
>
> As it should be, although there is nothing funny about the dismal
> performance of the Tiggers for the last N years.
Yes, but the meek shall inherit the earth. God is Just and Good, and the
faithful shall have their reward in the kingdom of heaven. The momentary
sufferings of the Cubs, Tigers, Pirates, Expos, Rangers, and, alas, Astros fans
among us are nothing compared with the great glory that shall one day be given
them.
james, who is getting teary-eyed
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> > Here we come to the great defeater of your argument: The existence of • Baseball
> > is final and convincing proof that a Loving and Good God does in fact exist. • I
> > defy you to postulate any theoretical universe in which Baseball, in all its
> > Infinite Glory, could arise given the vagaries or time, chance, and the
> pennant race.
>
> > fut set to .fun
>
> As it should be, although there is nothing funny about the dismal
> performance of the Tiggers for the last N years.
Perhaps they just bounce too much....
ROSCO
|
|
|
