Quote:As you can see, to present a critique of any paper will take a lot of space and a lot of time. That is why I referred to it as the logical fallacy of "elephant hurling". All points in this treatise can also be explained by the existence of a common designer.
Ian
Plus, the designer as defined by Christianity not only has the capability to create life, but would be expected to do so, while cold, unfeeling, unintelligent matter's ability to create life is wholly questionable and, even if possible, so entirely arbitrary that I cannot accept it as the most reasonable explanation for existence. Glad I could have reached this point, and James is free to respond.
Quote:Plus, the designer as defined by Christianity not only has the capability to create life, but would be expected to do so
Expected by what/whom?
Quote:In Jr. High School, I would take a gummi bear, squeeze its ears into points so it looked like Yoda, and then I would say to it "Eat you, I will!". And of course then I would it eat.
Quote:
Expected by what/whom?
I could suggest attributes of God's nature that could explain why, with all knowable information at hand, He would decide to create rather than (as I sometimes joke) lounge around and mentally solve Sudoku puzzles for all eternity. The biblical understanding of God, as I'm reading it, is creative and personal, such that it gives Him pleasure to create and to share Himself with sentient beings; it's just in God's nature, so we would expect creative action when presented with this scenario. (Dave might have more input, as he commented on a similar status of mine; ask him.) The parents here could also relate this to why they decided to have children: not because they needed kids, but because having children pleased them. To gauge somewhat what I'm posing, you can test this thought experiment: what might you decide to do in God's position, with all knowledge and capability thereof? We can perhaps divert this thread to this thought now; I would argue that we all have ideas of what a god or gods should be and do, regardless of whether we even believe in any. I never had truly considered your query before, BitBuster, so thank you for asking it. 
There's a difference between feeling an urge to do something and being expected to do it, imo. Some people feel the urge to drink heavily, or smoke, or use drugs, or play CC, but I wouldn't say that any of them are expected to do so.
If it gives God pleasure to create, does that mean that we're not the only world? Would he stop with just one?
Do you believe God to be omnipotent? Depending on the definition of "omnipotent," wouldn't it be possible for God to change his nature (if he wanted to)?
I have class, so I'll ask about the "share Himself with sentient beings" part later, but in short, I guess I have questions about the utility that an omnipotent being could derive from lesser beings that are wholly his/her/its creation.
Quote:In Jr. High School, I would take a gummi bear, squeeze its ears into points so it looked like Yoda, and then I would say to it "Eat you, I will!". And of course then I would it eat.
Posts: 1,531
Threads: 136
Joined: Jan 2012
Scorecard: Dave Varberg
This brings up a completely different topic -- the origin of creativity. For those of you who don't believe in angels and devils and such, you can probably skip this comment.
Anyway, it's my opinion that part of God's nature to be creative, and being "in his image" we are also creative. However, since demons (including Satan) are not created in his image, they didn't get this. As a result, Satan is not creative. So, he uses the same tricks over and over. Also, he co-opts OUR creativity to do his dirty work.
I think this is probably a better argument than evolution to make people thing about God -- if there is no God, then where did we get creativity from?
"Bad news, bad news came to me where I sleep / Turn turn turn again" - Bob Dylan
I don't see anywhere that it is argued that angels, including fallen ones like Satan, are not creative or created in God's image. And humans aren't the only animals which are creative.
I think part of the issue is that even if you accept that there's a God, it brings up the issue of "which God?" Even Christianity has plenty of different sects, most of whom interpret the Bible in a different way (and within those denominations, individual people often interpret it a different way...).
If it's in God's nature to be creative, and we're supposed to be creative too, does it offend God when we accept a job that involves menial, rote labour?
Sometimes it's not good to be creative (this coming from a person who believes strongly in romantic ideals and the value of novels, music, etc.). I mean, if you're killing a wooly mammoth, you probably want to use the "same tricks over and over" (assuming they've worked in the past). You don't want to say, "Hey, maybe we can capture the mammoth by using logs to trip him up, ala the Ewoks in Return Of The Jedi!" I mean, that's just a recipe for disaster.
I'm not sure creativity directly implies that there's a God. Why do you think that, Dave?
Quote:In Jr. High School, I would take a gummi bear, squeeze its ears into points so it looked like Yoda, and then I would say to it "Eat you, I will!". And of course then I would it eat.
Quote:I think part of the issue is that even if you accept that there's a God, it brings up the issue of "which God?"
Certainly a valid question; there are a few approaches by which I determine this. I find no historical evidence supporting religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, and while I hold respect for the philosophies of these belief systems and find significant truths within them (some of their philosophies definitely influence my Christianity), I can't accept them as a true religion as opposed to a true philosophy. As a prominent world religion and an Abrahamic faith, Islam is reasonable to consider, but I find it lacking in how it describes human nature, and I find no compelling reason to believe its alternate historical account of major events in Christianity. Traditional Muslim explanations of Christ's crucifixion are that He was crucified, but ascended to heaven before dying, or that He asked someone else to double for him and suffer the crucifixion instead; not only have I found no historical corroboration of either event (except what the Qur'an says, and that was written six hundred years later, when skeptics question the reliability of the Gospels for only being a few decades late), but Jesus asking someone else to die in His place is out of step with His character as displayed by the rest of His life, of which Muslims would have to accept much of the biblical and extrabiblical sources of to have any support for their claim anyway. Perhaps I'm rambling somewhat, but I find the Muslim account of events simply doesn't make logical sense to my mind, nor do I see sufficient reason to think that, if one accepts that the Abrahamic God exists, the Muslim explanation is more credible than the Christian one. I independently studied some Islamic theology and concepts in the past, but I'm largely operating from my own understanding here.
One other observation I make about the differing gods is the often-cited argument from inconsistent revelations: that all theists experience God, so why should one be any more credible than the other? It is obvious that not everybody can be correct, so the solution is, again, which god makes most sense. I find that positing the Christian God as true, or at least one of the Abrahamic ones, sorts out this problem: His omnibenevolent nature explains why everybody senses Him and why He seems to bless everybody whatever their beliefs are, and the mess of incorrect gods is an attempt of the devil to imitate God and be like Him, the same trick as always. My basic belief is that if one posits a deity, there are only a few religions which have any notable apologetics at hand, and there is one which makes the most overall sense in the broad world context; I chose Christianity as that one, and Muslims follow the same path, though end with a different conclusion. Perhaps you can grasp my perspective somewhat by asking yourself another question: if you knew there was one true religion, which one would you pick and why? Maybe even answer this before rebutting my earlier points, which I, as always, anticipate with interest. I find you satisfyingly informed, BitBuster, and I've learned much from this discussion.
People don't choose their religion based on fact or evidence, because no religion is supported by facts. They choose evidence and facts which support, or at least do not conflict with, their religion, because they have to justify that their faith is not blatantly contradictory to reality. I'm sure that many (most?) religious people live with a cognitive dissonance of knowing things that seem to contradict their religion while simultaneously having faith in that religion. The market for apologetics to try and create "scientific" narratives to fight this dissonance is probably only going to increase even as the evidence comes out more and more against faith.
The only thing I have faith in regarding God is that God's existence as a concept accepted by educated people is doomed. Nietzsche said that God was dead, I think he was just a few hundred years early in that prediction.
Posts: 54
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2012
Quote:Plus, the designer as defined by Christianity not only has the capability to create life, but would be expected to do so, while cold, unfeeling, unintelligent matter's ability to create life is wholly questionable and, even if possible, so entirely arbitrary that I cannot accept it as the most reasonable explanation for existence. Glad I could have reached this point, and James is free to respond.
I'm not James, but I feel like replying to the bolded statement since no one else has yet... Actually, could you elaborate on this a little bit first?
|
