crelution or evelation

by showme 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Abaddon

  Cheers Xander!

  freedom & petty; you can believe in a god/s if you want, but you don't seem to answer the point I make - not that you have to but I'm interested in what you have to say. that essentially if god/s existed, it would be self evident.

  If god exists and cares, but does not make his existence self evident and in fact designs the Universe in such a way you can explain how the Universe came to be without god, then... he can't care THAT much, thus the asshole thing; see 6/ and 7d/ below.

  I have yet to see one decent arguement as to why god's existence (if there is such a thing) is subject to such a high degree of 'stealth'.

  If god exists and does not care (see 7b/), then it actually doesn't matter at all that it exists
• 

  Perry

  What do you think about the thought that Evolution might be part of creation. Evolution being the process which God used to get things the way they eventually became.

  That is an interesting thought. It makes sense to me. It fits well with the age and processes that we see in the fossil record. But of course I have chosen to believe that the start of life was from an intelligent source. To someone who chooses to believe that there was no "First Cause", simply an infinite digression of cause and effect events, it wont.

  So logically, there are only two choices to embrace. An infinite digression of events or a First Cause who is also infinite. Neither one is provable, although the former is sometimes associated with a total lack of manners and/or respect for competing beliefs.

  Edited by - Perry on 29 January 2003 16:34:30

  Edited by - Perry on 29 January 2003 16:35:14
• 

  Abaddon

  Special smiley for you Perry.

  Neither one is provable, although the former is sometimes associated with a total lack of manners and/or respect for competing beliefs.

  Now, that in itself shows you are merely playing the part of one of two cooking impliments exchanging views about the others degree of carbonisation.

  It also shows you have as much bias as you accuse others of.

  The Israelites god-backed campaign of ethinic cleansing and genocide in what is now Palestine was done with respect and politefullness? I suppose the Crusade was polite? And the expansion of Islam was carried out by respectfully offering people the choice of the sword or Islam? And burning witches was done out of a great respect for their Wiccan beliefs? That the Roman Catholic Church were always mindful of respecting the indigenous cultures beliefs in South America? That Christian missionaries showed respect for the beliefs of the aboriginal peoples they sought to convert? And the Islamic fundamentalists who carry suicide bombs strapped to them, ensure they say 'excuse me' after detonation. And anti-Abortionists respect the beliefs of pro-choicers? That the Muslims hacked to death by rioting Hindu mobs in India last year were politely asked if they minded?

  Shit. Are. Full. Of. You. Rearrange the words... oh, I forgot the question mark... it's a question you see, one I'd love to see you respond to.

  Edited by - Abaddon on 30 January 2003 4:30:41
• 

  Perry

  Ah Abaddon,

  You know full well that the evil people don't need a particular world view to be evil right? Surely you've heard of the some of the world's most notorious athiests, Right?

  Let's see, there was the champion of human rights Stalin...he slaughterd dozens and dozens of millions of people....remember?

  Then there was the incarnate of evil himself Hitler. Remember him? No? He was the one who liked to bake Jewish pot pies.

  Then there was that Chinese Marxist guy..... he murdered milloins too.

  So, by saying that I am full of shit simply furthers my agrument that some world views are commonly associated with a lack of manners. Thanks for illustrating my point is such a predictable way. Why many rabid atheists simply don't like to tolerate competition to their pet beliefs is beyond me. Are they afraid of examining the effects of that world view too closely? Things that make you go Hmmmmm.

  Anyway, thanks for the philosophy lesson.

  Perry
• 

  peacefulpete

  Hitler was a believing Catholic, but this is irrelevent. Core ethics are genetically and socially formulated. Religion has merely assumed a role of protector of morality due to humans granting it that place. Yes I did say genetics. Nonhuman species display very selfless even altruistic behavior as well as selfish. This is exacly expected given the evolutionary adaptiveness (uefullness) of both. With humans, our intelligence has given us greater abilty to select behavioral appropriateness. This is in part automatic by virtue of our greater self awareness and farsightedness. It requires only fine tuning from social convention. Religion is not truly required to provide this constraint. Community standards may by communicated through entirely secular agencies. Unfortunately so long have superstition and myth been used to enforce ethics that most now see them inseparable. People who were once religious but have left for intellectual reasons often feel a period of angst, but then find themselvs in the process. They do not have to be locked away to protect the public. Secularly arrived at ethics in fact often are broader in scope and less discriminating in application.
• 

  Perry

  Where are you from Pete?
• 

  Sentinel

  Hey, Justhuman,

  I tend to agree with you. They may have indeed began their experiments with "man" by enhancing something already created. I even believe they allowed the different experiments to go quite a ways in time, before the natural catyclysms got rid of them, over many thousands of years. (But not before some survivors mated with those of other groups.)

  Actually, not all of us may descend from Adam and Eve....but, that's another idea of mine.

  By the way, there are some really good posters here....peacefulpete, Perry, Abadden. Thinking minds. There's nothing like it, is there?
• 

  rem

  Though I respect the belief many people have that a Creator started the evolutionary process, I don't personally believe it. The reason is simple... Occham's Razor. The Creator theory posits yet another unknown, unprovable entity (or entities). Until there is evidence of such an entity, I'll stick with naturalistic explanations since we know that atoms and molecules do exist and they react in many ways that we still do not know about.

  Also, positing a Creator does not rid the believer of an infinite regress problem. If all things had to be created, then the same is true of the Creator. Infinite regress ensues. To claim that the hypothetical creator did not need a creator is to commit the logical fallacy of special pleading.

  rem
• 

  Perry

  rem,

  Good critical thinking. However there are some holes. Although none of them is a logical reason for you to change your position.

  Though I respect the belief many people have that a Creator started the evolutionary process, I don't personally believe it. The reason is simple... Occham's Razor. The Creator theory posits yet another unknown, unprovable entity (or entities).

  While this is technically true it is only true because of a willingness to name an impossible - the infinitenes of God or a First Cause. Atheists simply do not choose to name the infinitenes underlying their position; which simply put, is an infinite digression of cause and effect events. Neither one can be proven. both are equally valid or invalid.

  Until there is evidence of such an entity, I'll stick with naturalistic explanations since we know that atoms and molecules do exist and they react in many ways that we still do not know about.

  Has science ever observed the cause and effect principle violated? Doesn't your faith in the supposedly unknown nature of a something from nothing viewpoint violate your own criteria for your position you stated above? ie, they react in many ways we still don't know about? I fail to see the consistency in your logic.

  Also, positing a Creator does not rid the believer of an infinite regress problem. If all things had to be created, then the same is true of the Creator. Infinite regress ensues.

  The position you have embraced directly supports the same thing - infinite regression; cause and effect, retroactive endlessly.

  To claim that the hypothetical creator did not need a creator is to commit the logical fallacy of special pleading.

  Agreed. An infinite, inteligent First Cause does not.

  However, to claim that an infinite digression of events is supported by "naturalistic explanations" is committing the same fallacy.
• 

  rem

  Perry,

  Has science ever observed the cause and effect principle violated? Doesn't your faith in the supposedly unknown nature of a something from nothing viewpoint violate your own criteria for your position you stated above? ie, they react in many ways we still don't know about? I fail to see the consistency in your logic

  Actually yes, uncaused events have been observed in nature. At the quantum level, virtual particles are generated spontaneously in a vacuum without cause. What this means is that it is possible that all matter is uncaused (ie. the Big Bang - there was no time and space before it). To say that everything must have a cause is to go down the road to infinite regress unless special pleading is used. To say that there are uncaused events observed means that you can just as easily see both matter/time/energy and a Creator as uncaused. The advantage to the former is that it does not posit extra, unknown entities.

  I probably should have brought this out in my original response, but I was trying to keep from getting too technical.

  I do enjoy your posts! You keep me thinking, that's for sure.

  rem

  Edited by - rem on 30 January 2003 13:33:0