by KateWild 112 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Some atheists (me included) would be delighted to see evidence for the existence of God - I would still wonder why he is such a jerk though.-besty
I am afraid I disagree with you besty. I don't think you want to see evidience of an intelligent creator, because God is such an enormous indifferent jerk. This anger towards God can, in MANY, atheists stop enquiry in science with religion. I don't think you can see religion in science besty, it's there I can.
Kate xx
KateWild:
I don't think you want to see evidience of an intelligent creator, because God is such an enormous indifferent jerk. This anger towards God can, in MANY, atheists stop enquiry in science with religion.
You do realise, don't you, that atheists don't believe God exists?! By definition, atheists cannot be 'angry at God'. They might reason that the biblical character is a bit of a jerk, but that's an entirely different (and completely justifiable) thing altogether.
Concluding that there is probably an intelligent creator on the basis that carbon is complex is an (untestable) hypothesis .-jeffro
Good point, but I don't care that I cannot test it with stats and draw a graph about it.
If a man beats his child for 3 yrs at 6months intervals approx, is it probable he will beat his son in the next 6 months? I would say it is probable and allow the child to live with his mother as he wishes. It's not testable, and nor should it be, but the probability of beatings recurring is high.
Carbon is complex and beautiful, so I think of God. There is not need to test my theory, no one has proven my theory wrong, but I am open minded to the possiblity and it fuels my enquiry into science further to test my theory or prove myself wrong.
Kate xx
By definition, atheists cannot be 'angry at God'.-jeffro
Wonderful point, I am irate with God, fuming angry with him. I cannot be an atheist can I? Kate xx
KateWild:
If a man beats his child for 3 yrs at 6months intervals approx, is it probable he will beat his son in the next 6 months? I would say it is probable and allow the child to live with his mother as he wishes. It's not testable, and nor should it be, but the probability of beatings recurring is high.
That hypothetical example isn't remotely similar to your assertion about 'carbon and God'. It's based on a specific (but hopefully fictitious) sample of data, and it is testable. But probably better not to though.
Carbon is complex and beautiful, so I think of God. There is not need to test my theory, no one has proven my theory wrong, but I am open minded to the possiblity and it fuels my enquiry into science further to test my theory or prove myself wrong.
'Beautiful' is entirely subjective. 'Carbon is complex and beautiful' is meaningless as a data sample for testing probability of the existence of God. As already stated, it is not possible to test your 'theory'. But if there were a testable theory for the existence of God, given all the claims Christians make about how important it is to believe in God, there would certainly be a 'need' to test such a theory.
Why do you equate beauty with god?
You have already asserted that if there is a creator it has demonstrated an ugly malevolence towards its creation by its inaction.
I don't get the lack of Manna...
I saw a book in a bookshop yesterday., It made me smile and think awhile.
"And Man Created God."
Why do you equate beauty with god?-cantleave
Good question. I don't just equate beauty with God. I think of God when I have the emotional feeling beauty gives me. Likewise wrt suffering and uglyliness I feel emotions of anger and sorrow, I think of God and strike up dialogue with him. Albeit shouting, still a dialogue.
Sam xx
Jeffro,
The example is real. It is comaparable in the sense that we can predict things without all the data. If there is a risk of harm or danger we asses the risk and make our own predictions. We decide what is or isn't probable. We don't all agree.
Organic chemistry is one way I enquire about theological theories, science without religion is lame. You don't get the full picture if they aren't combined. In turn religion without science is blind, you get uneducated churgoers who worship God with no idea about the scientific facts. This is dangerous.
Kate xx
