Dear Christians: why doesn't god DO something? - Page 10

NotReady · #91 10-23-2005, 01:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This is where you are wrong. I think this is some sort of falicy, perhaps the unbounded middle?

[/ QUOTE ]

The syllogism I would make goes something like this:

1. The ultimate source of the universe is either God or not-God.
2. If God is the source, everything must be explained in terms of God.
3. Any explanation that isn't in terms of God presupposes not-God.

That doesn't mean that every explanation has to refer specifically to God or not-God, nor does it mean that you make a concious mental assertion about either one. What I mean is that when discussing ultimate issues there is an implication involved that assumes either God or not-God. To speak of chance in an unqualified and ultimate way implies the non-existence of God without proving it, because the Christian theistic concept of God excludes the possibility of ultimate chance. Therefore to treat chance as ultmate presupposes the non-existence of the Christian theistic God.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't even know what you mean by chance is ultimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really don't understand what that means we are talking at cross-purposes.

[ QUOTE ]

Chance exists thus chance is ultimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't say this. I qualify chance with the word ultimate. I've stated before that from the human perspective we can use the word chance as a euphemism for ignorance. There is 1 chance in 52 that the top card of a standard deck is the ace of spades. This means we don't know what the top card is, but it can't be just anything. It can't be a birthday card. It is defined within the limitations of a standard deck in a universe that has order and which doesn't normally allow the ace of spades to randomly become a birthday card. If we were omniscient there would be an absolute, 100% certainty about the top card.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm tangled up here because you grasp that evolution doesn't include biogenesis, but you still wish to base your arguements on a false def of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you define evolution as the beaks of finches and peppered moths we have no disagreement. If you say these things occurred randomly, without qualification, we have an issue - not that the beaks are different, but WHY they are different.

[ QUOTE ]

You are happy to have tought in schools both that life was created by chance and that life was created by god. Why would you want such a thing when both are lacking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I say the opposite. Teach neither in public schools. But if you preach evolution by chance then also preach ID.

David Sklansky · #92 10-23-2005, 01:20 PM

"I say the opposite. Teach neither in public schools. But if you preach evolution by chance then also preach ID."

Why not the middle groung that you say is possible, guided evolution, often left up to chance?

chezlaw · #93 10-23-2005, 01:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"I say the opposite. Teach neither in public schools. But if you preach evolution by chance then also preach ID."

Why not the middle groung that you say is possible, guided evolution, often left up to chance?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm with NotReady on the is one. In school just teach evolution. Unless there are philosophy/theology classes in which case that is the place to discuss whether evolution is by chance or by design.

chez

Zeno · #94 10-23-2005, 02:28 PM

Additional more general link that is also helpful Examining Miracle Claims

-Zeno: Hell bound Infidel

Peter666 · #95 10-23-2005, 02:43 PM

This article, as just about all the others I have seen by skeptics are so full of factual and reasonable errors that it is a joke. These guys claim to be scientists or researchers?

For example, this guy cites "miracles" that a Catholic Bishop refuted upon investigation, and this is suppose to condemn miracles that the Church claims to be true after investigation by its Bishops? That's stupid.

Factual errors: The 1988 Carbon testing has already been scientifically refuted for years now yet he still cites it.

He also claims the Shroud has no history prior to the 14th Century which again is historically validated bull crap.

Amongst the 70,000 who saw the Fatima miracle, thousands were curiosity seekers or masons and anti-clerics who purposely came to dispute the occurences until they saw it for themselves.

I mean, get real. At least be factually correct.

NotReady · #96 10-23-2005, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Why not the middle groung that you say is possible, guided evolution, often left up to chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. Just don't make chance ultimate.

Zeno · #97 10-23-2005, 03:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What I mean is that when discussing ultimate issues there is an implication involved that assumes either God or not-God.

[/ QUOTE ]

This 'implication' is outside the syllogism. No doubt you have axoims to plug the gap.

[ QUOTE ]
1. The ultimate source of the universe is either God or not-God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this assumes a single timeline - a begining - the 'ultimate source' and usually an ending, or some ultimate destination point, though I suppose that is not really necessary.

How about this:

[ QUOTE ]
1. The ultimate source of the universe is either Gods or not-Gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

-Zeno

DougShrapnel · #98 10-23-2005, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1. The ultimate source of the universe is either God or not-God.
2. If God is the source, everything must be explained in terms of God.
3. Any explanation that isn't in terms of God presupposes not-God.

[/ QUOTE ] Number 1 is close to a reasonable thought. It's just that it assumes so much that we just don't know. Like the properties of universes and the nature of time. 2 is just opinion. 3, well 3 has nothing at all to do with 2 and 1 even if 2 and 1 where reasonable.

It's easy "I don't presuppose the non existance of god." To say anything else is intellictual sloth.

[ QUOTE ]
What I mean is that when discussing ultimate issues there is an implication involved that assumes either God or not-God.

[/ QUOTE ] Can it not grant maybe god? Is God really that important to ultimate issues? Ultimate issues may be evident in themselves with or without god.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore to treat chance as ultmate presupposes the non-existence of the Christian theistic God.

[/ QUOTE ] No but if chance is ultimate, which as i said before I don't know what that means, it appears to imply that God doesn't exist. Or provide evidence that God doesn't pay as much attention to this world as some would think he does. There is no presupposition made by those that advocate chance being ultimate. The only presupposition being made is by you. Period.

[ QUOTE ]
talking at cross-purposes.

[/ QUOTE ] I am sure we are. I'm looking to learn something, and you are looking to deny any evidence against the existance of god.

[ QUOTE ]
If we were omniscient there would be an absolute, 100% certainty about the top card.

[/ QUOTE ] We wouldn't even need to be omniscient.

[ QUOTE ]
If you define evolution as the beaks of finches and peppered moths we have no disagreement. If you say these things occurred randomly, without qualification, we have an issue - not that the beaks are different, but WHY they are different.

[/ QUOTE ] Are you trying to say that evolution is only adaption and not change in species?

Why are they different, is this the point in evolution that you find lacking. Or do you still wish to say that evolution states something about the creation of the universe and the creation of life?

[ QUOTE ]
I say the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ] Good, than just say that. No need to mess around with teaching 2 speculative theories. But first you really need to figure out what part of evolution you are actually arguing against. Is it the part of evolution that states the creation of the universe? Is it the part of evolution that states biogenesis? Is it the part of evolution that states how old the world is? Is it the part of evolution that says we evolved from apes? Is it the part of evolution that states random mutations? Is it the part of evolution that is genetics? Is it the part of evolution that is the fossil record? Is it the this goofy thing you keep calling evoution by chance? Is it the part of evolution that talks about adaption? Is it the part of evolution that doesn't state that in the begining there was adam, and god took a rib and created eve? Is it the part of evolution that doesn't include god? Is it the part of evolution that doesn't include NotReady as a direct purposeful creation of God, a preplaned servant of the lord?

Seriously, so you can't answer my 3 questions, I am done with the conversation. Even when you are granted that a god exists, you can't reason anything about god. Isn't that a huge problem? So i guess you have to presuppose that God, the xtain god exists. And in order to make this jumped conclusion reasonable, you then have to assume that everyone else presupposes things just as ridiculous. And you may in fact be correct about some of the things that science presupposes at times? But instead of making your presuppositions true, you really are only stateing that presuppositions are ridiculous. Good work. I agree presuppositions are ridiculous. Lets all not assume things. I know I will try not to assume to much. Thanks for the conversation.

razor · #99 10-23-2005, 03:53 PM

What a train wreck... when will people realize that their beliefs/faith (whatever they may be), by definition, can not be proved. You can't prove your faith, I can't prove mine. Anyone expecting otherwise is misguided.

carry on...

David Sklansky · #**100** 10-23-2005, 06:15 PM

"Why not the middle groung that you say is possible, guided evolution, often left up to chance?"

"Fine. Just don't make chance ultimate."

Fine? Then why not advocate this position instead of making yourself look silly in the yes of experts? It's just like the oddity of your well reasoned posts about God that you then besmirch with unecessary agreements on specifics with that nut Calvin. God almost certainly does indeed have a spanking awaiting you.