Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[+Liquid Gardens]

6 minutes ago, Harte said:

Sorry, but no.

Unless the creator reveals himself through overt action, there is no way for you to observe it.

Your dogma that the creator has this or that attitude is the only tool you have for deciding whether or not a particular event is the result of the creator's action.

I don't have to 'observe' that a supreme creator is ultimately responsible for cancer and earthquakes, that's what 'supreme creator' logically entails; if you don't think the creator is supreme then we're not talking about the same god conception.  If you are talking about a supreme creator, then I'm open to ideas as to who or what then is responsible ultimately for earthquakes existing.  Based on this reasoning, I have then suggested subjectively that this being therefore is not 'pure love' or 'pure good' or some other things he's claimed to be.  Logic and reason ain't 'dogma'.

[Harte]

3 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't have to 'observe' that a supreme creator is ultimately responsible for cancer and earthquakes, that's what 'supreme creator' logically entails; if you don't think the creator is supreme then we're not talking about the same god conception.  If you are talking about a supreme creator, then I'm open to ideas as to who or what then is responsible ultimately for earthquakes existing.  Based on this reasoning, I have then suggested subjectively that this being therefore is not 'pure love' or 'pure good' or some other things he's claimed to be.  Logic and reason ain't 'dogma'.

The existence of a thing, like an earthquake, is not evidence of a creator, nor of interference in that thing by a creator.

You cannot infer the existence of a creator from nouns.

Harte

Edited February 18, 2018 by Harte

[+Liquid Gardens]

18 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

The bold portion of your previous post necessarily assumes God/a god cares to adhere to the human ideas of morality.

“but I don't see how that prevents us from evaluating the morality of his actions.”

I don't think so, I think it just assumes that we have some idea of what 'morality' means, which is by necessity the human definition.  When I say it doesn't prevent us from evaluating the morality of his actions, I am of course referring to human morality there, that's the only 'morality' that can be evaluated.  It doesn't mean God needs to adhere to it, nor does it mean that what appears to be a bad thing is/will be actually an overall good thing in some entirely unknown way.

24 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Assuming God pays attention it’s just as likely he/she/it doesn’t remotely care what we think. Why would “he”?

Because one of the theories that is being discussed, Harte's, derives from the idea that god gave us free will so we could freely love him without the influence of knowing he actually exists, which logically means that he does kinda care what we think, or I guess feel to be accurate.

[+Liquid Gardens]

5 minutes ago, Harte said:

The existence of a thing, like an earthquake, is not evidence of a creator, nor of interference in that thing by a creator.

You cannot infer the existence of a creator from nouns.

Everything I've discussed is taken as a given that a supreme creator exists and what then may logically follow from that.  I don't think I've said anything about evidence of a creator or arguments for his existence, that's a different conversation.  Your point and paper I thought were about how suffering is not an argument against God, not anything to do with whether he exists.

[Hre2breal]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

You rest your case? You who now no longer believe? I don"t believe you ever really did.

I think its his mouth that needs tne rest not the Case..

[Only_]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

I don't even care. Apparently no matter what I could every do in life, I am damned. Might as well make the most of it. 

We gotta fight for the teachings of Christ to applied in these days, man.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[Harte]

Quote

Everything I've discussed is taken as a given that a supreme creator exists and what then may logically follow from that.  I don't think I've said anything about evidence of a creator or arguments for his existence, that's a different conversation.  Your point and paper I thought were about how suffering is not an argument against God, not anything to do with whether he exists.

It may be a different conversation to you, but it is the subject of the post you responded to.

The paper examines the "reasonableness" of belief in a creator. It does not assume such an existence, just examines the arguments for and against that existence.

Harte

Edited February 18, 2018 by Harte

[XenoFish]

29 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

We gotta fight for the teachings of Christ to applied in these days, man.

The only thing we really need is the golden rule. Regardless of whatever ideological package it comes in. From theism, pantheism, to atheism. I think we all want people to treat us as we wish to be treated, correct? Isn't that the real point. Hope, salvation, faith, all of that is up to the individual. I don't care how big a god soldier someone is, we're all human and we have nothing guaranteed.

[+Liquid Gardens]

23 minutes ago, Harte said:

It may be a different conversation to you, but it is the subject of the post you responded to.

The paper examines the "reasonableness" of belief in a creator. It does not assume such an existence, just examines the arguments for and against that existence.

Fair enough, I think I was responding to just a portion of that as you touched on several arguments, but these conversations always evolve and slight differences can be relevant.  I don't think we're really that much in disagreement anyway.

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I don't even care. Apparently no matter what I could every do in life, I am damned. Might as well make the most of it. 

Sometimes xeno, and I don't mean it unkindly, you really seem to positively relish your misery.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[XenoFish]

9 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Sometimes xeno, and I don't mean it unkindly, you really seem to positively relish your misery.

Sometime Hammer, I try to look at the world subjectively. That's when I expect a knife to my back. I barely trust people, some of you want me to trust god? 

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Sometime Hammer, I try to look at the world subjectively. That's when I expect a knife to my back. I barely trust people, some of you want me to trust god? 

The only thing a man can trust is his own heart and if he can't do that, his life is miserable, indeed. I trust mine, conditionally, but I've learned from bitter experience never to turn my back on it.

[XenoFish]

31 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

The only thing a man can trust is his own heart and if he can't do that, his life is miserable, indeed. I trust mine, conditionally, but I've learned from bitter experience never to turn my back on it.

I trust myself more than I could ever willingly trust anyone. I don't like taking bets with anything. While many of you naively think I'm miserable. I've found my peace. Life isn't sunshine, kitty cats, and rainbows. I acknowledge this. No need for blinders. 

Edited February 18, 2018 by XenoFish

[psyche101]

18 hours ago, Harte said:

Some forms of faith in history weren't exactly what you'd call comforting.

Harte

[psyche101]

18 hours ago, Illyrius said:

What can you evidence?

Better evidence for evolution vs adam and eve, the let there be light claim, the creation of planets, the great food, and the big bang. 

More solid than the assurances of people talking like fortune cookies. 

18 hours ago, Illyrius said:

When you put Charles Manson as an example that man is made in God's image hahahaha

In our image right? 

The resemblences are uncanny

Both ordered people to murder in his name 

18 hours ago, Illyrius said:

come on... seriousness ... please 

I didnt make the silly comment  I just illustrated it. 

[Illyrius]

13 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Better evidence for evolution vs adam and eve, the let there be light claim, the creation of planets, the great food, and the big bang. 

More solid than the assurances of people talking like fortune cookies. 

In our image right? 

The resemblences are uncanny

Both ordered people to murder in his name 

I didnt make the silly comment  I just illustrated it. 

You are not getting anywhere with dissecting my sentences and putting them out of context, just like science does with nature!!

hahahahahahaha!!!

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Illyrius

[Guyver]

8 hours ago, joc said:

Then do it...because there isn't...unless of course you want to s t r e t c h the definition of reincarnation as you did death.

Link

[Guyver]

8 hours ago, joc said:

Dead is dead ...if they come back they weren't dead...you are stretching...let's just say ...3 days dead..

Yes, dead is dead.  Death is defined by medical professionals and referred to as clinical death.  As I mentioned, there are many examples of people who have been declared dead and returned to life.  There's plenty to study.....I'll just link some easy reading.  

Lazarus Effect

Near Death Experience.  

[MauriOra]

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Link

Atamarie Friend..

Awesome ...... There are Many Stories on Reincarnation.. 

Thankyou..

Mo..xx

[Guyver]

8 hours ago, joc said:

Dead is dead ...if they come back they weren't dead...you are stretching...let's just say ...3 days dead..

There are several accounts of three days dead, and many of people waking in the morgue.  Here's one where the guy came to during the autopsy after three days of death.  It's been decades since I studied the topic in detail, and no longer have my support materials - ie - books on the topic.

Link

So, yes....I stand by my earlier statements even though made in a less-than sober state.  :]

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

I trust myself more than I could ever willingly trust anyone. I don't like taking bets with anything. While many of you naively think I'm miserable. I've found my peace. Life isn't sunshine, kitty cats, and rainbows. I acknowledge this. No need for blinders. 

Glad to hear it 'cause you sure talk a good act.

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

We gotta fight for the teachings of Christ to applied in these days, man.

Which teachings of Christ do you believe are worth fighting for?  Or, do you believe that all of Christ's teachings are equally valid?

Also, I'm just wondering here.....since you believe that Christ's teachings are worth fighting for, do you believe that Christ's teachings still apply in today's world?

[Guyver]

18 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

But proof is just one part of the equation.

Just the belief that God is in everything, would eventually lead us to world peace..

How is this possible? 

If God is in everything, then that means we are not separate from God, it means that we are in, and a part of God, not separate but in essence the same thing. This idea and belief in the non-separate God, and therefore the notion that "All is One", then we would start to see the whole of humanity as non-separate as well. 

So, this idea leads us to a belief, which leads us to act in ways that are more compassionate and kind because we will see and experience all life as One. And in so doing, we would no longer lie, cheat, steal and deceive, no more war, poverty, or any other crimes.

 

This is a positive viewpoint, IMO.  Regarding God, and his oneness or separateness - obviously.....I don't know.  I do know that the bible teaches clearly that God is separate from the creation, yet in the New Testament Jesus claims that God is intimately aware of every thing.  Since God is past human understanding in my estimation, we may never know....though some people do claim to.  In any event, we should do the right things for the right reasons, but speaking for myself, I admit that I don't always live that way.  For example, I know that drinking too much is going to make me feel badly the next day, and is not good for my health, but sometimes I drink too much - like last night.  

[XenoFish]

8 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Glad to hear it 'cause you sure talk a good act.

It's not for you to decide my temperament. A lot of people here seem to have some level of respect for you. I'm still on the fence about it. 

Edited February 18, 2018 by XenoFish

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

It's not for you to decide my temperament.