Well while I'm not really all that offended by 'evolution' like some folk are, that sunflower does seem to reflect a universal law of cool spiral patterny type things that seems less than random.
Some say random chance, I like to think there is something more interesting at play.
Shunda, is this the same intelligent 'someone' who 'almost' designed innocents with Ichthyosis fetalis? (google it, then have your intelligent designer own it)
If an intelligent designer (purported to also be benevolent and omnipotent) created that, then I'm a virgin birth.
At what point will 'believers' stop filling in gaps with 'faith' and just admit they really have no idea? I guess when they have an epiphany, which is a greek philosophical term that the religious hi-jacked.
With respect, intelligent design is a weaker argument. From my experience, and this is backed-up by wikipedia, it's: a form of neo-creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented as a scientific hypothesis that avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer. It seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations.
To accept this theory, one must also accept that the supernatural episodes of Americans being abducted by aliens is as valid. It is possible that these personal realities exist for certain individuals within the chemical functioning of the brain, and I would agree with you if this is what you mean by supernatural.
You haven't explained the intelligent design of Ichthyosis fetalis. I'd be interested in your take on that, as it doesn't fit into 'supernatural'. As I said, if an intelligent designer designed Ichthyosis fetalis, then I'm the human incarnation of a supernatural omnipotent entity.
So Achi, do you blame God for 'thalidomide' children, if not why not?
And regarding the supernatural, I think you are confusing terms, perhaps you mean 'paranormal'?
If big bang cosmology is correct, (and indeed it would appear to be almost proven) do you realise that the cause of the universe is by definition supernatural?
Oh, and backing your experience up with 'wikipedia' is an odd appeal to authority in my opinion, wiki is certainly not infallible, do you have faith that it is? ;)
1) No I don't. Because I have no reason to believe there is a god unless I decided I wanted to. (And I'd be honest about my reasons for wanting to).
2) Supernatural is what I mean.
3) I don't see your point? If a theory is explained by the laws of physics (i.e. nature), then it is no longer supernatural. It can still be wondrous and very difficult to understand. If it is not proven/explained, then it is a theory. I think this is where religion loses the ability to discuss rationally. It is unwilling to admit to just being a very flawed theory.
4) No. But when I corroborate experience with a number of sources, (including a large experienced-based reading list) I call that evidence. As an aside, based on experience I'd take wiki (flaws and all) over the bible and for accuracy.
May I ask, why you have 'faith' in a monothesitic tradition? And are you willing for it to be replaced by 'truth' if 'knowledge' and 'experience' and 'wisdom' combine to usurp it?
1) No I don't. Because I have no reason to believe there is a god unless I decided I wanted to. (And I'd be honest about my reasons for wanting to).
Ok, so you will suppose he exists in order to attack the beliefs of another, but you won't allow the same for your opponent?. Intellectually dishonest?
2) Supernatural is what I mean.
Good.
3) I don't see your point? If a theory is explained by the laws of physics (i.e. nature), then it is no longer supernatural.
If the big bang theory is correct, the laws of physics, time, and space were created in the big bang and therefore could not be part of the first cause, ie, the first cause /by definition/ was a supernatural event. This is why atheists like Fred Hoyle were strongly opposed to the theory.
It can still be wondrous and very difficult to understand. If it is not proven/explained, then it is a theory. I think this is where religion loses the ability to discuss rationally. It is unwilling to admit to just being a very flawed theory.
Some religions are very flawed, others describe the first cause.
4) No. But when I corroborate experience with a number of sources, (including a large experienced-based reading list) I call that evidence. As an aside, based on experience I'd take wiki (flaws and all) over the bible and for accuracy.
The bible is what it is, modern day revisionists are just as flawed and ideologically motivated.
May I ask, why you have 'faith' in a monothesitic tradition? And are you willing for it to be replaced by 'truth' if 'knowledge' and 'experience' and 'wisdom' combine to usurp it?
Ha!! You just described what Jesus meant by "the renewing of the mind" - a life long process.
Rationality has nothing to do with calling oneself an atheist or a Christian or anything else, it is to do with how you live and how connected to the reality of this universe you really are.
For instance,I have met plenty of atheists that condone the unsustainable exploitation of the Earths resources.
My faith is based on my observations of people and the world around me, and it is getting stronger all the time.
I see you one as yet undiscovered natural 'first cause' and raise you one 'first cause' to be applied to your 'God'. Can you do that?
Ah.. not so hasty there Archy, just how to you propose to discover something that exists beyond the laws of this universe, and therefore beyond our reality
The 'God' hypothesis is firmly back in business. You can make good arguments against young earth creation and other such nonsense, but you can't say a damned thing about the first cause.
Trying to diminish the philosophical implications of such a remarkable discovery is more than a little dishonest IMO.
So why YOUR god as opposed to my friends Jeff's whose god is a six horned falcon/goat cross that can fly backwards and poops lampshades. He has total belief in him and I can't understand why. Perhaps if there was a book pieced together from translated scrolls that told me he had a son who came to earth in human form I'd take more notice...
I mean, I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow, but that's essentially a figure of speech based on the evidence of the past few million years, and I'm not going to pretend it happened if it tomorrow does not. So what's with 'Faith'. Why would you need or want a God to be the case for faith?
So why YOUR god as opposed to my friends Jeff's whose god is a six horned falcon/goat cross that can fly backwards and poops lampshades.
All of those traits exist within the material universe, it sounds like your friend may have made it up.
He has total belief in him and I can't understand why.
Well we both know that is nonsense, goes Jeff even exist?
Perhaps if there was a book pieced together from translated scrolls that told me he had a son who came to earth in human form I'd take more notice...
I doubt it, my version is much more believable and it still didn't appeal to you.
I mean, I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow, but that's essentially a figure of speech based on the evidence of the past few million years, and I'm not going to pretend it happened if it tomorrow does not. So what's with 'Faith'. Why would you need or want a God to be the case for faith?
"need" or "want"? Perhaps I find answers in my personal faith that rationalists, humanists, atheists, and any other 'ists' just can't provide.
Perhaps there is more to this, perhaps /your/ insults and patronising comments would actually turn out to be more irrational than even Jeffs 'god' when reality is truly grasped.
Faith is a powerful force, even in a secular context. Some even believe that faith is the very essence of the 'first cause' and that the only way to see beyond the temporal is to have 'faith'.
Hey, when atheists have been responsible for the most efficient extermination of human life in human history, I think resting your case just now would be a bit premature.
To be honest, you are lucky more people don't understand (and most don't) the philosophical issues the big bang theory has raised.
But hey, the most popular 'religion' on planet earth is materialism, and that religion will finish us off quicker than any of the traditional religions will, so the likes of you and I, and our silly squabbling don't really matter anyway.
It is a lovely photo renetsil, but it wasn't taken by me - it was recommended to me by the Anonymous person who brought my attention to the fibonacci sequence. I've seen images like it in permaculture manuals which refer to the sequence as part of their encouragement to observe and model from natures patterns.
Hey Shunda - I'm happy for you to have your say on whatever topic and I found it very interesting. Didn't want to interfere with the professionals though. Me, I'm a simple soul and can't get my head around those religious/ideological debates.
Me, I'm a simple soul and can't get my head around those religious/ideological debates.
Don't ever change Robert, I don't think those debates really do me any good either.
Maybe it helps me process, I like to see how (and why) people see the world the way they do, and my ultimate goal is to become a more reasonable, balanced person.
Anonymous said...
23 comments:
Almost looks like someone intelligent designed it! ;)
Perhaps not the same person who thought of eating tripe.
Someone Shunda?
And 'almost'?
Well while I'm not really all that offended by 'evolution' like some folk are, that sunflower does seem to reflect a universal law of cool spiral patterny type things that seems less than random.
Some say random chance, I like to think there is something more interesting at play.
What do you think?
Shunda, is this the same intelligent 'someone' who 'almost' designed innocents with Ichthyosis fetalis? (google it, then have your intelligent designer own it)
If an intelligent designer (purported to also be benevolent and omnipotent) created that, then I'm a virgin birth.
At what point will 'believers' stop filling in gaps with 'faith' and just admit they really have no idea? I guess when they have an epiphany, which is a greek philosophical term that the religious hi-jacked.
I am familiar with that argument and I think it is a very weak position to hold in order to 'judge' a possible creator.
There are a number of ways to interpret such an occurrence that don't require your "virgin birth!" ;)
With respect, intelligent design is a weaker argument.
From my experience, and this is backed-up by wikipedia, it's: a form of neo-creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented as a scientific hypothesis that avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer. It seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations.
To accept this theory, one must also accept that the supernatural episodes of Americans being abducted by aliens is as valid. It is possible that these personal realities exist for certain individuals within the chemical functioning of the brain, and I would agree with you if this is what you mean by supernatural.
You haven't explained the intelligent design of Ichthyosis fetalis. I'd be interested in your take on that, as it doesn't fit into 'supernatural'. As I said, if an intelligent designer designed Ichthyosis fetalis, then I'm the human incarnation of a supernatural omnipotent entity.
So Achi, do you blame God for 'thalidomide' children, if not why not?
And regarding the supernatural, I think you are confusing terms, perhaps you mean 'paranormal'?
If big bang cosmology is correct, (and indeed it would appear to be almost proven) do you realise that the cause of the universe is by definition supernatural?
Oh, and backing your experience up with 'wikipedia' is an odd appeal to authority in my opinion, wiki is certainly not infallible, do you have faith that it is? ;)
1) No I don't. Because I have no reason to believe there is a god unless I decided I wanted to. (And I'd be honest about my reasons for wanting to).
2) Supernatural is what I mean.
3) I don't see your point? If a theory is explained by the laws of physics (i.e. nature), then it is no longer supernatural. It can still be wondrous and very difficult to understand. If it is not proven/explained, then it is a theory. I think this is where religion loses the ability to discuss rationally. It is unwilling to admit to just being a very flawed theory.
4) No. But when I corroborate experience with a number of sources, (including a large experienced-based reading list) I call that evidence. As an aside, based on experience I'd take wiki (flaws and all) over the bible and for accuracy.
May I ask, why you have 'faith' in a monothesitic tradition? And are you willing for it to be replaced by 'truth' if 'knowledge' and 'experience' and 'wisdom' combine to usurp it?
1) No I don't. Because I have no reason to believe there is a god unless I decided I wanted to. (And I'd be honest about my reasons for wanting to).
Ok, so you will suppose he exists in order to attack the beliefs of another, but you won't allow the same for your opponent?.
Intellectually dishonest?
2) Supernatural is what I mean.
Good.
3) I don't see your point? If a theory is explained by the laws of physics (i.e. nature), then it is no longer supernatural.
If the big bang theory is correct, the laws of physics, time, and space were created in the big bang and therefore could not be part of the first cause, ie, the first cause /by definition/ was a supernatural event. This is why atheists like Fred Hoyle were strongly opposed to the theory.
It can still be wondrous and very difficult to understand. If it is not proven/explained, then it is a theory. I think this is where religion loses the ability to discuss rationally. It is unwilling to admit to just being a very flawed theory.
Some religions are very flawed, others describe the first cause.
4) No. But when I corroborate experience with a number of sources, (including a large experienced-based reading list) I call that evidence. As an aside, based on experience I'd take wiki (flaws and all) over the bible and for accuracy.
The bible is what it is, modern day revisionists are just as flawed and ideologically motivated.
May I ask, why you have 'faith' in a monothesitic tradition? And are you willing for it to be replaced by 'truth' if 'knowledge' and 'experience' and 'wisdom' combine to usurp it?
Ha!!
You just described what Jesus meant by "the renewing of the mind" - a life long process.
Rationality has nothing to do with calling oneself an atheist or a Christian or anything else, it is to do with how you live and how connected to the reality of this universe you really are.
For instance,I have met plenty of atheists that condone the unsustainable exploitation of the Earths resources.
My faith is based on my observations of people and the world around me, and it is getting stronger all the time.
1a) no and no.
2a) ummm... ok.
3a) I see you one as yet undiscovered natural 'first cause' and raise you one 'first cause' to be applied to your 'God'. Can you do that?
4a) I agree, the bible is indeed mostly science fiction peppered with some Pilgrim's Progress style lessons.
5a) 'Ha!!'??
I think that says a lot.
Plus you failed to answer the question.
I see you one as yet undiscovered natural 'first cause' and raise you one 'first cause' to be applied to your 'God'. Can you do that?
Ah.. not so hasty there Archy, just how to you propose to discover something that exists beyond the laws of this universe, and therefore beyond our reality
The 'God' hypothesis is firmly back in business.
You can make good arguments against young earth creation and other such nonsense, but you can't say a damned thing about the first cause.
Trying to diminish the philosophical implications of such a remarkable discovery is more than a little dishonest IMO.
Hypothesis. Yes.
So why YOUR god as opposed to my friends Jeff's whose god is a six horned falcon/goat cross that can fly backwards and poops lampshades. He has total belief in him and I can't understand why. Perhaps if there was a book pieced together from translated scrolls that told me he had a son who came to earth in human form I'd take more notice...
I mean, I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow, but that's essentially a figure of speech based on the evidence of the past few million years, and I'm not going to pretend it happened if it tomorrow does not.
So what's with 'Faith'. Why would you need or want a God to be the case for faith?
Hypothesis. Yes.
So why YOUR god as opposed to my friends Jeff's whose god is a six horned falcon/goat cross that can fly backwards and poops lampshades.
All of those traits exist within the material universe, it sounds like your friend may have made it up.
He has total belief in him and I can't understand why.
Well we both know that is nonsense, goes Jeff even exist?
Perhaps if there was a book pieced together from translated scrolls that told me he had a son who came to earth in human form I'd take more notice...
I doubt it, my version is much more believable and it still didn't appeal to you.
I mean, I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow, but that's essentially a figure of speech based on the evidence of the past few million years, and I'm not going to pretend it happened if it tomorrow does not.
So what's with 'Faith'. Why would you need or want a God to be the case for faith?
"need" or "want"? Perhaps I find answers in my personal faith that rationalists, humanists, atheists, and any other 'ists' just can't provide.
Perhaps there is more to this, perhaps /your/ insults and patronising comments would actually turn out to be more irrational than even Jeffs 'god' when reality is truly grasped.
Faith is a powerful force, even in a secular context. Some even believe that faith is the very essence of the 'first cause' and that the only way to see beyond the temporal is to have 'faith'.
Perhaps I rest my case.
This debate was shaped akin to a Fibonacci sequence.
Hey, when atheists have been responsible for the most efficient extermination of human life in human history, I think resting your case just now would be a bit premature.
To be honest, you are lucky more people don't understand (and most don't) the philosophical issues the big bang theory has raised.
But hey, the most popular 'religion' on planet earth is materialism, and that religion will finish us off quicker than any of the traditional religions will, so the likes of you and I, and our silly squabbling don't really matter anyway.
I apologise Robert, I shouldn't have written my first comment.
I didn't really intend to turn it into one of 'those' threads.
Beautiful photo....I love it :)
You guys are funny.....
It is a lovely photo renetsil, but it wasn't taken by me - it was recommended to me by the Anonymous person who brought my attention to the fibonacci sequence. I've seen images like it in permaculture manuals which refer to the sequence as part of their encouragement to observe and model from natures patterns.
Hey Shunda - I'm happy for you to have your say on whatever topic and I found it very interesting. Didn't want to interfere with the professionals though. Me, I'm a simple soul and can't get my head around those religious/ideological debates.
Me, I'm a simple soul and can't get my head around those religious/ideological debates.
Don't ever change Robert, I don't think those debates really do me any good either.
Maybe it helps me process, I like to see how (and why) people see the world the way they do, and my ultimate goal is to become a more reasonable, balanced person.
I guess the jury is still out on that one ;)
I'm just thankful no one mentioned the unicorn.
Post a Comment