Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 63 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 23 of 35 < 1 2 ... 21 22 23 24 25 ... 34 35 >
Topic Options
#20088 - 04/08/07 11:05 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: terrytnewzealand]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Terry,

Six day creation was not always such a strong belief in the church. It is partly a reaction to losing ground to science generally. A kind of intellectual siege mentality by the church.

?St. Augustine was a kind of evolutionist, although hardly a Darwinist. In his second commentary on Genesis, written around the year 410, he speculated that God had planted "rational seeds" in nature which eventually fructified into plants and animals. This would be evolution in the strict meaning of the word, an unfolding of what is already there, like an acorn turning into an oak. Being directed and purposeful, however, St. Augustine's version of evolution is utterly non-Darwinian: it is, rather, creation on the instalment plan.?

This was not an uncommon view. They understood the text better and believed that it was talking about long periods of time and not days ? it is certainly possible to understand the word ?yowm? not as a day, but as a period of time.

See:

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html

I think the context of the quote was about a creative act. The steady state universe didn?t allow for it. The quote is about Creation Ex Nihilo ? which fits equally with Genesis?s reading and with current cosmological knowledge.

Blacknad.



Top
.
#20091 - 04/08/07 10:12 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: terrytnewzealand]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Terry, you write: "It's unbelieveable that after all this time he is yet to show us he exists...."

Terry, in my humble opinion, it will never happen. Here is why: God, even for theism, is NOT a being who exists like you and I do. To indicate this is why I created the special word, G?D, that I use in my signature.

Keep in mind that only very unsophisticated theists--no disrespect meant--think of God as a being who exists in the same way that you and I exist.

Knowledgeable theists do not think of God as a subjective/objective human-like being with a physical body. Do you I make myself clear? Or is there still some confusion?

G?D, even God, is that which includes all other conceivable things. Therefore, in my humble opinion, as I experience all that IS, I am experiencing God, or G?D.

I ask all atheists: What do you call all that is? How do you define it? Let's dialogue about the nature and function of self-evident existence, okay?


_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#20093 - 04/08/07 10:22 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Revlgking wrote:
"I ask all atheists: What do you call all that is? How do you define it? Let's dialogue about the nature and function of self-evident existence, okay?"

Well as long as everyone wishes to play this preposterous tr?ll game so be it.

We call it reality. Objective reality. Not the fairy tale whoo-whoo synapse-free zone created by pathetic old men to make themselves seem important.

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
~ Isaac Asimov

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge:
it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who
so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
~ Charles Darwin

"Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no question too big for even the smallest mind."
~ Rev. Donald Morgan
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#20105 - 04/09/07 02:18 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
scpg02 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/03/07
Posts: 217
Loc: Sacramento
What mortal man can know the mind of a being that is infinite? Who can know the plan of someone who operates on a scale of millennia? Consider the butterfly effect on time and human existence.
_________________________
It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.

Top
#20106 - 04/09/07 02:24 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: scpg02]
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
Awe, couldnt agree more, scpg, about how we cannot know the way an infinite mind works. how infinately vast is His ways, how vast indeed! yes, the problem with us temporal beings, is that we see but a pinprick in this vast (excuse my poeticness) stage. o, how faint a whisper we hear of him. this is why Job said, that he sees but the outer fringes of His Creator's works. God has manifested Himself to us, yet we barely see His handiwork in this vast ocean (again, the poeticness). Science will, I optimistacly think, lead to God. At the present, we have just reached the surface in this vast sea of knowledge. And the wonderful part is, that God makes Himself known to us!

Top
#20108 - 04/09/07 02:45 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Tim]
scpg02 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/03/07
Posts: 217
Loc: Sacramento
Quote:
(excuse my poeticness)


Appreciated and enjoyed.
_________________________
It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.

Top
#20109 - 04/09/07 03:17 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Tim]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
"We call it (that is, all that is)reality. Objective reality." DM writes.

Sounds similar to what any kind of theist, including this unitheist can say. Realism is very important to me.

And I can say this without having to add, "Not the fairy tale whoo-whoo synapse-free zone created by pathetic young, or old, atheists to make themselves seem important." smile

Tim and scpgo2: I appreciate the poetic approach to God by both of you. I consider that my thoughts, without neglecting the probing by the sciences, are congruent with that approach. In the poetic spirit I offer the following:

THE HIGHEST GOOD OF ALL
There's God-like power in every tiny atom;
I feel that power in galaxies above.
But best of all, that power is deep within me,
And manifests as faith and hope and love.

Then sing of love, the highest good of all,
For God is love, the power of love;
Then sing of love, the highest good of all;
For God is love, faith, hope and love.

GOD in nature.
One of the things that intrigues me about nature is the immense diversity there is in all it facets.

We have all heard that no two snow flakes are exactly alike. I read somewhere that this is also true of the grains of sand. It is probably also true of every atom, molecule and galaxie. Awesome to contemplate.


Edited by Revlgking (04/09/07 03:50 AM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#20121 - 04/09/07 09:44 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Blacknad, you wrote:

"Six day creation was not always such a strong belief in the church. It is partly a reaction to losing ground to science generally. A kind of intellectual siege mentality by the church."

This is very much in agreement with what I wrote a few weeks ago:

"As people feel threatened they often retreat into a more extreme version of their beliefs rather than adjust those beliefs to fit the facts as demonstrated."

It seems to me any argument that the six days are not to be taken literally ignores the fact that this is almost certainly what the originators of the myth intended. God was so powerful he could make the whole universe in just six days, literally from dawn to dusk.

I certainly don't wish to annoy you Blacky but I have a gripe with people who use arguments to prove to their own satisfaction there is some sort of God then, with no evidence whatsoever, make the completely unjustified leap to saying this God is the one represented in the Old Testament. Even Revlgking, who claims to have a liberal view of who or what God is, makes this leap of faith. His beliefs are totally grounded in Judeo-Christian cosmology. The God of the Old Testament is a really nasty old [censored], completely inappropriate for anyone to worship these days. I have no argument with the God of the New Testament but this God is totally different to that of the OT, although he still seems to want to punish harshly anyone who doesn't follow him.

A mass of evidence shows us the OT is simply a series of writings collected around 600 BC to justify the Jerusalem temple's right to collect donations from surrounding groups. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that anything before this time is other than myth. This includes stories about Adam and Eve, Noah, the tower of Babel, Abraham, Moses and even King Solomon. It's possible the legends around David developed from a real person, but a person who was little more than a hill country bandit at the time the Philistines were Egyptian mercenaries.

Top
#20125 - 04/09/07 06:17 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: terrytnewzealand]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
scpg02 wrote:
"What mortal man can know the mind of a being that is infinite?"

None. But that sure doesn't stop a lot of them from claiming that they, and they alone, can and do.

Revlgking wrote:
"Realism is very important to me."

Which, of course, explains your need to play make believe by putting ? in the middle of a perfectly good word. It makes such a huge difference. god doesn't exist but g?d does. God is dead but G?D is not. A contrived affectation is so important for achieving the appearance of realism.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#20128 - 04/09/07 06:28 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
I would disagree with Terry, when he said that the God of the OT is different from that of the New Testament.
Let me ask you this: have you read the old testament? the whole way through? have you read the whole new testament?
there is a common theme throughout the whole Bible, an underlying concept taught by the many different authors in different time perios. And that is, that there is a God, and you must turn to Him, who in fact created you and loves you, no matter what you do.
And DA, we do not know the ways of God, an infinite, omniscient being. But we do know that He Is, by the world surrounding us. We do not know exactly His ways, but we do know that He has ways. Ways that are not masked to us, namely creating the universe and this beautiful earth. It alone testifies of His greatness!

Top
#20129 - 04/09/07 06:28 PM Re: Evidence for God *DELETED* [Re: DA Morgan]
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
Post deleted by Amaranth Rose II

Top
#20132 - 04/09/07 07:25 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Tim]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Tim, I presume that you know that you can get rid of the double postings by using the edit function.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#20133 - 04/09/07 07:42 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Terry,

Please don't worry about offending me. Feel free to call it as you see it.

I'll respond to your comments when I have a bit more time.

Suffice to ask where you have garnered your understanding about the historicity (or lack thereof) of the Old Testament.

Blacknad.

Top
#20139 - 04/09/07 08:40 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
DA writes: "Which (my concept of the divine mind), of course, explains your need to play make believe by putting ? in the middle of a perfectly good word. It makes such a huge difference. god doesn't exist but g?d does. God is dead but G?D is not. A contrived affectation is so important for achieving the appearance of realism."

Posters, even while disagreeing with me, I greatly appreciate it when readers make a sincere effort to understand what I write, and not add their own spin as to what they want it to mean.

In no way did I ever, or would I ever, write, "god, or God, doesn't exist but g?d, or G?D, does"

ORTHODOX JUDAISM AND G-d
'G?D' is not a noun for some divine subjective/objective anthropomorphic three-dimensional superbeing. It is an anagram, a short way of saying, goodness, order and design.

I use it, as I have said before, much in the same way that Orthodox Jewish writers use 'G-d'. They use it to avoid objectifying, making a mental idol out of the ineffable, the divine mind behind all things. I respect what Orthodox Jews are trying to say, not ridicule them and accuse them of playing games. For Jews, G-d is not a being subject to existing in a three-dimensional, like things and people.

BTW 1: If an Orthodox Jew were to write in this forum about his belief in G-d would atheists accuse him a being a troll playing make believe? Yes or no!

BTW 2: Atheists have every right to tell Orthodox Jews, theists, deists, and unitheists/protheists/panentheists such as Warren and me: "Look, I disagree with your theologies and, until you present me with concrete evidence, I cannot accept that the one you call God really exists."

But do atheists have the right to twist what others write and mock their sincerely held faith? Yes or no!

BTW 3: I readily acknowledge that the god-concept (unitheism) which Warren and I espouse--similar to that of Orthodox Judaism--is quite different from how people usually think, theologically. It is, like the poet wrote, "The Road Less Traveled". It is a road which we do not insist everyone must take. Most won't. Your choice is your choice and we will respect you for it, even when it happens to be atheism.

BTW 4: Do atheists have a kind of Golden Rule?

Top
#20145 - 04/09/07 10:48 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Tim asked:

"have you read the old testament? the whole way through? have you read the whole new testament?"

Yes.

Tim further wrote:

"there is a common theme throughout the whole Bible, an underlying concept taught by the many different authors in different time periods."

But I pointed out that for most of that time the stories are purely myths.

Another point you raised:

"there is a God who in fact created you"

Exactly how long ago, and in what form, did he create humans, Tim?

Blacknad. Thanks for your encouragement. I have read a great deal on the history and prehistory of the whole Middle East. It's become possible to easily see how the connections and contradictions between the various histories arose. A good place to start is any books by Israel Finkelstein. Widely criticised in conservative circles of course.

Revlgking. There you go again with your Judeo-Christian cosmology. How do you know God is a Jew?

Top
#20157 - 04/10/07 12:20 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: terrytnewzealand]
Turner Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 02/02/07
Posts: 16
Things are getting interesting. I will keep reading, as long as you treat one another with respect. Stick to the facts. Too much flaming, without factual evidence, is boring, okay?

Top
#20158 - 04/10/07 12:42 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Tim]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Tim wrote:
" And that is, that there is a God, and you must turn to Him"

Because he is childish, immature, and loves blood and destruction? Yeah I got that message. I got the part about drowning everyone on the planet not a member of a single family. I got the part about murdering the first-born (innocent as well as guilty) in an entire country. I got the part about the end-of-time.

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees but thanks for asking me to kow tow to a despot.

Tim wrote:
"we do not know the ways of God"

Sure we do. We know the story of Noah. The story of the Exodus. The story of Armageddon. What's not to know. Every Christian, Jew, and Moslem on the planet keeps flogging us with it.

Tim wrote:
"we do not know the ways of God, an infinite, omniscient being."

Perhaps you should look up the definitions of the two big words you just used. Because you clearly do not understand that you just contradicted yourself.

The truth is that you have no knowledge of his/her/its existence other than an authorless book both intentionally and accidentally mistranslated of which you have never, and will never, read any original manuscript.

But thank you for proving once again what Ambrose Bierce wrote:
"Scriptures: the sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based."
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#20159 - 04/10/07 12:46 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Revlgking wrote:
"I greatly appreciate it when readers make a sincere effort to understand what I write"

You really should seek professional help.

I made a sincere effort to understand you more than a month ago. Now I just marvel at your inability to offer anything more substantive than condescension and contrived affectation.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#20161 - 04/10/07 01:12 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Wolfman Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/06
Posts: 264
Loc: Pago Pago, American Samoa
I don't agree with everything you post here, DA, but I do agree that the Rev should seek professional help. But then so should anyone who puts blind faith in something like the Bible, the Talmud, the Qur'an, the Bhaggavadagiitta (SP?) or dried chicken bones tossed onto a blanket.

Top
#20163 - 04/10/07 02:52 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Wolfman]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
You see there you go getting it wrong again.

They aren't using bones they are using b?nes. The difference is substantial don't you know.

Bones are skeletal remains of fowl.
B?nes are the skeletal remains of foul.

PS: If you agreed with everything I said we would likely both agree that you'd need some serious counseling too. <g>
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
Page 23 of 35 < 1 2 ... 21 22 23 24 25 ... 34 35 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.