To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 12862
12861  |  12863
Subject: 
Re: Mercy? (Was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sun, 16 Sep 2001 22:00:52 GMT
Viewed: 
1315 times
  
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



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Mercy? (Was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)
 
(...) Refer to the post I just put up: (URL) There is more, if you're interested. (...) 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. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Mercy? (Was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)
 
I'll try to address both Adam's and Ross's posts at the same time. (...) 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% (...) (23 years ago, 16-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

98 Messages in This Thread:





























Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR