D
Deleted member 40035
Guest
Imagine believing in a sky fairy.
Evolution suggests God does exist
- Thread starter dangermows
- Start date
- Status
JAZZMANB
Striker
Can't remember what it was ,it was fairly average news to the layman but the news guy said this turns the while theory on its head and the scientist admitted it did .He said we're back to square one on our understanding
JAZZMANB
Striker
That lots probably 1% of their gang ,still worth worrying over though (not)
Charmless Man
Striker
Sounds suitably vague.
JAZZMANB
Striker
However many month later it certainly does but I thought at the time so much for Theory .
Eventually everything in the universe will be explained except why bumble bees are able to fly. At which point God will be reduced to pollinating stamens in Richard Dawkins’ garden
Some Random Guy
Striker
We have Theories that answer a lot despite being wrong. Relativity for example.
Charmless Man
Striker
Theories are not perfect and nobody claims they are. They are however the most rigorous frameworks for explaining things.
The fact that they're accepting of modification and change where evidence dictates is a good thing.
What would you say is more reliable?
scraff
Striker
I also stopped reading at that point.<< I should say that I am trained originally as an economist, but have been working at the intersection of economics, environmentalism and theology since the 1990s. >>
JAZZMANB
Striker
Science or god ? Science without a doubt .Watching This strange rock last night and its an hours worth of stuff you couldn't makes up its that crazy and hard to comprehend but it's all what we know of the universe etc .Just as mad as the crazy cloud guy story but with stuff to back it up
AlpineExile
Striker
One Strange Rock.
JAZZMANB
Striker
Yup ,class isn't it ?
Lot of people on here confusing god and religion. Completely different IMO. Religion is man made which is a way of life for many. There are many versions, none of which I believe in.
A God like entity either exists or doesn’t and I lean towards believing in that existence because I simply can’t accept that life, the universe and everything just happened by chance. The more you study science and nature, and see the laws and patterns, the more difficult it becomes.
A God like entity either exists or doesn’t and I lean towards believing in that existence because I simply can’t accept that life, the universe and everything just happened by chance. The more you study science and nature, and see the laws and patterns, the more difficult it becomes.
Kent_Mackem
Striker
The fact one doesn’t understand something shouldn’t mean one just accepts the lazy magic wand answer.
Whatever happened happened. That doesn’t make it chance, just that the laws of nature were followed as they always are and events took their cause. Why not just accept that we don’t yet understand it all, start with far simpler explanations than “a god did it” (that’s so prehistoric! Tsssk!) and get involved trying to work it out ?
Last edited:
Ilios
Winger
'That the Christian essence, as arose out of Judaism, showed such great staying power amidst the extraordinary political, economic, intellectual and other radical changes of the modern age is another reason I offer for thinking that the existence of a god is very probable.'
- That's an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
'In the Axial Age (commonly dated from 800 to 200 B.C.), world-transforming ideas such as Buddhism, Confucianism, the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, and the Hebrew Old Testament almost miraculously appeared at about the same time in India, China, ancient Greece and among the Jews in the Middle East, groups having little interaction with one another.'
- That's false. They didn't all happen at the same time, and some of them had considerable contact with each other. It isn't remotely 'miraculous' either, and he's cherry picked examples and left others out that don't fit in that period, which were also significant.
'That all these astonishing things happened within the conscious workings of human minds, functioning outside physical reality, offers further rational evidence, in my view, for the conclusion that human beings may well be made “in the image of [a] God.”
- the conclusion is a complete non-sequitur, and there is absolutely no evidence of minds 'functioning outside of physical reality', that's an assertion that attempts to smuggle in supernatural woo.
- That's an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
'In the Axial Age (commonly dated from 800 to 200 B.C.), world-transforming ideas such as Buddhism, Confucianism, the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, and the Hebrew Old Testament almost miraculously appeared at about the same time in India, China, ancient Greece and among the Jews in the Middle East, groups having little interaction with one another.'
- That's false. They didn't all happen at the same time, and some of them had considerable contact with each other. It isn't remotely 'miraculous' either, and he's cherry picked examples and left others out that don't fit in that period, which were also significant.
'That all these astonishing things happened within the conscious workings of human minds, functioning outside physical reality, offers further rational evidence, in my view, for the conclusion that human beings may well be made “in the image of [a] God.”
- the conclusion is a complete non-sequitur, and there is absolutely no evidence of minds 'functioning outside of physical reality', that's an assertion that attempts to smuggle in supernatural woo.
pinewaves1868
Midfield
It's a misprint. They meant to say "Zod" out've Superman 2. We can all relax and go back to sinning, praying, believing in fairies, not giving a feck.
Mercia Blackcat
Striker
The problem is that God is an emotive word and we could spend the rest of our lives debating what constitutes any concept of God.
I think it is logically unsound to consider a God that was separate from reality and the laws of the universe, as such a God would surely be a part of reality anyway and could not be external. Therefore reality must be self contained.
However, this also raises a problem within physics as the Universe is allegedly expanding into nothing, something that is not defined by space or time or the space-time continuum. Therefore in such a model reality (the Universe) is not self contained.
If we go back to the origin of the Universe the common concept is again that reality (the Universe) came from nothing. However, the Universe (reality) emerged with constraints that provided structure. So all we can say is that this "nothing" was unconstrained potential that allowed the Universe (reality) to emerge. Possibly a quantum foam with infinite potentialities.
This tends to indicate that both an external God and absolute nothing are both illogical.
A third possibility (there may be others) is that reality (the Universe) self actualised using telic recursion and so selected a structure that could be utilised. This process of telic recursion has then continued through time and reality (the Universe) has continued to select from infinite potentialities the one that allows for continued generalised utility. The issue would then be that reality (the Universe) is inherently cognitive utilising the process of telic recursion.
Totally agree regarding the so called Axial Age.
Last edited:
Harry Angstrom
Striker
It isn't just that. Perception and what we think is linked with language.
Many through the ages. We believed many bizarre things until the obvious was pointed out.
We all carried suitcases for 6000 years after the wheel was invented.
Last edited:
I get all that. We don’t and probably can’t understand.
And I don’t see God as a big old bloke with a long white beard.
Just that I find it hard to believe we got to where we are without some sort of external influence.
Same with the theory of infinite numbers of Monkeys with typewriters producing the works of Shakespeare. No they would not.
- Status
