Why did God give up?

[Darth Rotor]

...attempts worst Shatner voice....

"Ummm. Excuse me...why does God need to...

Win Powerball!!!!

?"

Who said anything about a "need" here?

Want and need are not alike. You can ask any parent who has had to explain that to a child.

I want to Win Powerball. Do I need to? Not yet. If I do, I'll buy you a few pints.

DR

 

[dglas]

Who said anything about a "need" here?

Want and need are not alike. You can ask any parent who has had to explain that to a child.

I want to Win Powerball. Do I need to? Not yet. If I do, I'll buy you a few pints.

DR

Alas, poor quip. You died so young. So very young...

I sit corrected. Take 2...

...attempts worst Shatner voice....

"Ummm. Excuse me...why does God [want] to...

Win Powerball!!!!

?"

 

[Darth Rotor]

"Ummm. Excuse me...why does God [want] to...

Win Powerball!!!!

?"

Beer money?

No idea.

DR

 

[fuelair]

I have a couple of problems with your question. First, since I haven't posted here in a while and people may not remember me, let me say that I am an atheist, and not a theist. That having been said:

The Earth isn't about to die anytime soon. It was around for millions of years before humans walked the earth, and is (if I remember correctly) going to be for several million years more before the Sun blows up. Pretending for a second that an all powerful God does exist, what makes you think that he's forgotten about us (speaking solely from a planetary/astronomical viewpoint and ignoring the countless other indicators)? Several million years is a long time from now, and certainly more than enough time for an all powerful God to swoop in and save us from total annihalation (sp?).

Beyond that, what makes you think that our hypothetical God didn't give us the tools and abilities to save ourselves? Do you think that human technology is going to suddenly stop just short of intergalactic travel?



My knowledge of astronomy is very shaky at this point. Is it definite that life cannot exist anywhere else in the universe? Or is it just that we haven't found any yet? And frankly the fact that we're here does not necessarily mean we could be no place else, if you mean in the sense that life couldn't have developed the same way it has here. The universe is big. Do we really know that there is no chance of another earth like planet somewhere out there?



I'm skipping these, because others are already discussing them here. I simply wanted to comment on what I already have.

Marc

Cute little in the avatar! Yours,I assume.


As to life. Probably some in our galaxy - almost certain - and definitely in the Universe. Whether it will find us, we will find it or we will ever meet is very much in question though just due to the vastness and the time frame.

 

[Radrook]

Undoubtedly - When the Bible is confirmed as a natural history text book, I will probably care

For you that that might very well turn out to be an impossibility.
Don't care?-then don't misrepresent.

 

[Radrook]

Reject the claim of an intelligent designer. While we cannot know what exists in the indetectable reaches of being, we have excellent arguments (dating from Hume onwards) against the idea of an intelligent designer -- which is the argument that you brought into play. There is no -- still standing -- argument for an intelligent designer beyond "I want it so". All the rest have been demolished, despite the protestations of some like Michael Behe (who appears to me to be one of the most stubborn men I have ever seen). That is the reason to reject it. There is a big difference between humility in the face of the vastness of being and believing tripe just because someone likes it.

ETA:

But, there is a deeper issue in the formulation of an intelligent designer that most arguments for and/or against the design argument never rise to -- that it forever mires you in a form a dualism. If you have way to make dualism work, then let's here it. I've never encountered one.

All the conclusions you mention are by necessity conclusions reached via perceptions garnered in this minute unrepresentative area of existence. As is unanimously agreed upon by logicians, extrapolations based on unrepresentative or scanty evidence constitutes fallacious reasoning. And unfortunately for those employing it-and despite its popularity on this forum, fallacious reasoning is worthless.


BTW

Liking has absolutely nothing to do with it despite your illogical and repeated attempts to describe it that way. As for tripe, I guess we are similar in that area because that's exactly how I view the counter-arguments that use fallacious reasoning pure unadulterated tripe. Especially arguments which go completely contrary to the exigencies of logic simply because the arguer doesn't like the idea which the use of strict logic would force him to accept and believes that his aversion justifies putting forth trash as truth.

 

[Belz...]

All the conclusions you mention are by necessity conclusions reached via perceptions garnered in this minute unrepresentative area of existence. As is unanimously agreed upon by logicians, extrapolations based on unrepresentative or scanty evidence constitutes fallacious reasoning. And unfortunately for those employing it-and despite its popularity on this forum, fallacious reasoning is worthless.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

All the conclusions you mention are by necessity conclusions reached via perceptions garnered in this minute unrepresentative area of existence. As is unanimously agreed upon by logicians, extrapolations based on unrepresentative or scanty evidence constitutes fallacious reasoning. And unfortunately for those employing it-and despite its popularity on this forum, fallacious reasoning is worthless.


BTW

Liking has absolutely nothing to do with it despite your illogical and repeated attempts to describe it that way. As for tripe, I guess we are similar in that area because that's exactly how I view the counter-arguments that use fallacious reasoning pure unadulterated tripe. Especially arguments which go completely contrary to the exigencies of logic simply because the arguer doesn't like the idea which the use of strict logic would force him to accept and believes that his aversion justifies putting forth trash as truth.

Belz's response was much more elegant, but just so it is clear that you get the point -- have you ever bothered to read Hume? You do know that is one of his primary arguments against an intelligent designer? I don't think you could have more effectively shot yourself in the foot if you had gone out of your way to try.

Liking it has everything to do with it. Face it, you like the idea of God's existence. That's fine, but you should at least be honest about it.

Belief in an intelligent designer can never rise above the level of belief without evidence (based on the evidence that we do have).

If you would bother to listen to what others are saying instead of mouthing off you might see that many here do not discount all ideas of God. We do jettison simplistic, childish views -- which includes the idea of an intelligent designer. We also don't cotton to bad thinking, to which you seem to think you are immune but which you display like a herald.

You have yet to deal with the issue of dualism. Care to take a shot?

 

[MG1962]

For you that that might very well turn out to be an impossibility.
Don't care?-then don't misrepresent.

What exactly am I miss representing? That the Bible is a document designed to help me evolve in my relationships with God, and not a book on the history of the universe.

It is the problem that creationists and ID people have. They require a certain illogical element in a universe that so far has remained totally within its internal logic.

While ever that internal logic remains unchallenged. Science will never find evidence of ID. The fact that ID cant be proved, can in fact prove ID is real. Such an arguement would of course unfuriate an atheist, because both sides are then left trying to prove and defend a negative at the same time.

And that is why I dont care - The real value of the Bible is an instruction book for helping me with God, not endlessly worry about balancing science with what the Bible says. How man physically arrived at this point is meaningless to the Bible, it does and always has concerned itself with the spirit that is man

 

[Radrook]

What exactly am I miss representing? That the Bible is a document designed to help me evolve in my relationships with God, and not a book on the history of the universe.

You are right. It isn't a book about the history of the universe. IT is a book to help us establish a good relationship with God.

It is the problem that creationists and ID people have. They require a certain illogical element in a universe that so far has remained totally within its internal logic.
While ever that internal logic remains unchallenged. Science will never find evidence of ID. The fact that ID cant be proved, can in fact prove ID is real.

Evidence of ID surrounds us. But that's not the subject of this thread. In any case, making all encomparrsing temporal universal claimes and predictions based on this little area of existence is neither scientifc nor logical. If scientists did such a thing-which they are careful to avoid doing lest they be laughed out of the profession-then their credibility would suffer.
So automatically, when someone makes those all encompassing presumptuous claims, I know he m,ost likely isn't a scientist. Or if he is a scientist-then he is probably here just to fool around or entertain himself by doing some leg-pulling.

Such an arguement would of course unfuriate an atheist, because both sides are then left trying to prove and defend a negative at the same time.

I'm not trying to prove anything nor trying to infuriate anyone. I'm simply reacting to what I consider misrepresentations of what the Bible basically teaches or says in order to reduce the incidence or strawman attacks.

And that is why I dont care - The real value of the Bible is an instruction book for helping me with God, not endlessly worry about balancing science with what the Bible says. How man physically arrived at this point is meaningless to the Bible, it does and always has concerned itself with the spirit that is man

Your caring or not caring or finding the book you claim to be your guide meaningless please take note this time- is irrelevant from my viewpoint. But far less relevant is the infuriation you say exists. Only biblical misrepresentation is relevant.

 

[Belz...]

IT is a book to help us establish a good relationship with God.

It's hard to know the how-to, however, since even at that it is contradictory.

Evidence of ID surrounds us.

I'm yet to see one.

 

[The Grave]

The Faither loses

Let me address just one of the many interesting arguments you put forth:

First, why do you arrogantly reject conscious power as a possibility behind the commencement of the universe? After all, your world if full of things which are the result of conscious power, things infinitely less complex than the universe you claim is the result of mindless blind chance but which are sufficiently complex too demand a conscious power as their source.

Also, from our viewpoint we see the universe as intimidatingly vast. But who are we to say that this viewpoint is shared by all intelligent beings in possible existence? Which would include other dimensions or other perhaps existing universes not bound by the laws of our own?

BTW
The assumption that one knows all their is to know is both illogical and unscientific since obviously we don't. Or do you?

See above in bold:


Let's say, when a blacksmith is forging an 'article' of immense complexity he needs to swing his hammer......... CRASH!

He hits it in slightly different places each time.... AT RANDOM. He tries and tries to hit it ""exactly"" in the same place but can only manage ""approximately""......

AND there you have it; a complex machine out of randomness....

 

[Radrook]

See above in bold:


Let's say, when a blacksmith is forging an 'article' of immense complexity he needs to swing his hammer......... CRASH!

He hits it in slightly different places each time.... AT RANDOM. He tries and tries to hit it ""exactly"" in the same place but can only manage ""approximately""......

AND there you have it; a complex machine out of randomness....

First, thanx for the relevant feedback. Can you please specify what the complex machine you say might possibly emerge via that hammering? Because try as I might I can only see sparks fliying and bits of metal going in all directions, assembling temporarily perhaps,and then being imediately dissassembled by the very hammering which resulted in their tempory assemblage.

 

[Marc L]

Cute little in the avatar! Yours,I assume.

Yep. Though not the lights, I'm afraid. Actually, I'm going to need to update soon. Not only has the BorgMonkey grown since then, but now there's a RoboSmurf as well.

As to life. Probably some in our galaxy - almost certain - and definitely in the Universe. Whether it will find us, we will find it or we will ever meet is very much in question though just due to the vastness and the time frame.

I seem to recall hearing mention of ET bacteria being found (and I could be wrong at that), but I don't know if anyone's found anything bigger, or the chance of anything bigger.

Marc

 

[Marc L]

What exactly am I miss representing? That the Bible is a document designed to help me evolve in my relationships with God, and not a book on the history of the universe.

Sure, get closer to God by hating people who are different than you and killing people who disagree.

Marc