this is why "debating" with you is a relatively tedious semantic excrcise. you are clearly bright but your talents are wasted, IMHO, doing thi ssort of stuff.
Conversely, debating with you Junkyard is frustrating because you DON'T pay attention to detail, you just deal in sweeping statements!
Me: Oh dearThis is "not playing nicely"?
It's called being passive-aggressive isn't it?
so we all evolved from a common ancestor and god made us all as well
It's not that hard. A baker makes a cake by putting all the ingredients together and creating the right conditions for the cake to appear (ie putting it in a hot oven). The baker still MADE the cake. Likewise God could set up the big bang, knowing humans would appear. Seems quite reasonable to me. Genesis could be considered just a parable.
As far as I know, biblical literalism and creationism are fringe beliefs within Christianity in this country.
However, I don't believe it's worth entering into a debate without mutual respect on both sides.
Excellently put - I hope junkyard doens't exclude an excellent contributer by being disrespectful or dare I say it - offensive.... (reading on catch-up is like following a little story, what happens next?)
the lack knowledge about religion which i find wearing
Agreed, and I've been trying to say that, but my knowledge on religion is not good enough to argue as well as you have been CM. And you just get accused of nit picking...
I dont see how you can take the "facts" in the bible and acientfic knowlegde and combine them coherently.
She already explained that - Genesis is allegorical - simple.
its not a great system to generally accept things which have no facts to support them.
Many would disagree. This is like trying to describe Beethoven to a dog. If you believe that, then your mind is closed to the concepts of religion. So you might as well leave it there. You can't argue about religion on the basis of known scientific facts about the physical world - that's not really the point. It might've been 500 years ago.
Your arguments therefore are circular, self referential. I would suggest you don't bother debating religion, I'm not sure you're capable of understanding the idea of faith.
I have to say, it's great that we've reached 16 pages and it's still pretty good-natured!
That's why STW is such a great forum!
Within the context here i assume it means the central claims re being given 10 commandments, Noah and the flood, and the nature of god. There is no "fact" [proof]. I think we all know some of the people lived but it is not a hoistorical record in that sense
As i understand it, within RC, theologians can trace the 10 commandments to the code of Hammurabi, if not earlier. There is no claim that Noah etc. was real, though historicaly, there was evidence of a severe case of the annual flooding which took place in the region and at least one merchant who but all his stuff on a big raft or boat, it was on the telly!
The nature of God is a strange one i think folks claim to know one or two things about God, e.g. Loving, forgiving etc. but not many more. I hink hey accept there is lots about God which they do not know. The Muslims say you cannot attribute human characteristics to God, i think some of the legacy of wherever that came from contiues today in other ibrahamic faiths
Likewise God could set up the big bang, knowing humans would appear. Seems quite reasonable to me. Genesis could be considered just a parable.
That seems reasonable to you - Really - Its completely wrong but still broadly accurate 🙄
biblical literalism
So it is both the word of god and not literally the word of god - this is what i mean about the fudges to rational thought that believers make.
Which means factually innacurate and nothing but a creation myth. Is this meant to make me take the bible more seriously seeing as the opening is , by all accounts, wrong?She already explained that - Genesis is allegorical - simple.
Many would disagree.
Your right they would think you can hold opinions that have no fact nor evidence to support them [ conspiracists. homeopathists , alternative medicine fans etc]but it is still not a wise move as the list of things you will believe is limited only by your immmagination rather than pesky things like reality ,facts or evidence [ he writes to the degree educated physicist]
This is like trying to describe Beethoven to a dog. If you believe that, then your mind is closed to the concepts of religion.
Careful now you are getting intolerant and apparently only militant aethists do this.
You can't argue about religion on the basis of known scientific facts about the physical world - that's not really the point.
So we accept that they have no physical basis for their belief system but its unfair to argue about this - why is it unfair to point out they have no evidence to support a view- the extent of your faith has no bearing on whether your argument is true or false so why would we debate that? What do you suggest we debate then if not the evidence?
Your arguments therefore are circular, self referential.
What are you on about? Science is circular and self referential - their argument is i have no proof but i have faith [ in something i know there is no evidence of]and that is all I need. I fail to uderstand why you would claim it is my position that is circular and self referential when that is nothing but a closed loop. I know i dont know but i dont care as i have faith- can you get more circular?
I would suggest you don't bother debating religion, I'm not sure you're capable of understanding the idea of faith.
Ad hom/insults again
I am capabale of understanding its a belief in something that has no evidence[ i quoted the bible up there molly] - i have suggested for all the reasona above that this is unwise - you dont do this either so i dont know why you attack me for this - do you believe in things that have no evidence molly ? Do you have faith in a graviton particle? - you are an aethist you think and believe as i do on this and follow the evidence
CM the phrase you are probably looking for is
corinithians 13:12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
So we have a position where we all accept the following
1. The bible has aspects that are not true
2. We dont seem to know which bits are true and which are false or allegories- i guess this one is debatable to be fair.
3. We know their is no proof of god and faith has no factual basis
3. We cannot actually explain what god is or know god
and yet some still wonder why folk have an issue with this position and scientist molly calls my argument for evidence circular.
Oooh lots!
That seems reasonable to you - Really - Its completely wrong but still broadly accurate
Well, you mean you think it's wrong unless of course you know what is right. If so do tell, or even a best guess will do.
CM please feel free to defend creationism as accurate rather than troll so lazily.
Do you believe in creationsim? You must or why bother to ask etc
yes you first etc YAWN 🙄
CM please feel free to defend creationism as accurate rather than troll so lazily.
Do you believe in creationsim? You must or why bother to ask etc
yes you first etc YAWN
No, i don't believe in creationism. But that's me. My turn now, JY what triggered the big bang?
You must or why bother to ask etc
Don't get this bit. Can you clarify?
JY what triggered the big bang?
If I may?
The answer to this question (repetition number 14,000,053) is:
We don't know.
means factually innacurate and nothing but a creation myth.
Dunno about the 'nothing but a creation myth' bit. But yes, it dodn't happen like that.
Is this meant to make me take the bible more seriously seeing as the opening is , by all accounts, wrong?
No, i'm not sure who you think expects you to take it more seriously as a result.
Wrong seems a strange word to use in thsi context. It didn't happen, it is allegorical. That doesn't really make it wrong.
Unless you think Harry Potter is wrong, Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea is wrong, Shakespeare is wrong. When Munch painted the Scream, that wasn't a real person, so he was wrong. Picasso's Guernica did not happen literally as depicted. So he too was wrong. However, wrong as they are,all these things help us to know more about ourselves and the human condition. Would you dismiss them?
The answer to this question (repetition number 14,000,053) is:We don't know.
Really? No idea at all?
Except you know it wasn't God, or a spaghetti monster, because neither of those exist?
Ok, so they are pretty unlikely, but please give me a more likely suggestion
So we accept that they have no physical basis for their belief system but its unfair to argue about this - why is it unfair to point out they have no evidence to support a view
I don't think anyone is saying it is unfair. My understanding can't is that they are 'non overlapping magisteria' so it makes no sense to argue about it in that way. NOMA from Stephen Jay Gould.
Ok, so they are pretty unlikely, but please give me a more likely suggestion
That information is currently unavailable, caller.
Ok, so they are pretty unlikely, but please give me a more likely suggestion
That information is currently unavailable, caller.
Excellent! So any suggestion you have is just as likely as that it was triggered by God.
they are 'non overlapping magisteria' so it makes no sense to argue about it in that way.
That used to be the (convenient for religion) position.
However, sometime around the publication of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", the position changed to "Everything is open to scientific enquiry, including deistic belief systems and their claims."
I think this was as a response to the increasingly vocal demands of superstitions generally following Islamic violence and Christian political encroachment into the Republican Party and civil life in the USA...
So any suggestion you have is just as likely as that it was triggered by God.
I don't have a suggestion.
Puzzled why you didn't get that.
I don't have a suggestion.Puzzled why you didn't get that.
I get it now, just couldn't quite believe it. Seems you have a few things you know it could not be but no idea at all what it could be.
Seems you have a few things you know it could not be
Not quite sure how you arrive at that conclusion.
That used to be the (convenient for religion) position.
However, sometime around the publication of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", the position changed to "Everything is open to scientific enquiry, including deistic belief systems and their claims
Whose position changed? Gould? National Academy of Sciences? (Real question)
Seems you have a few things you know it could not be
Not quite sure how you arrive at that conclusion.
Ok, bit by bit if you like.
Could God have triggered the Big Bang?
And a follow up question, do you know anything beyond some basics about the big bang?
This should be fun as you both debate without saying anything
You keep saying that JY. But, I've answered all questions directed at me. You don't ask me anything then complain I haven't said anything. You'll make someone a fine wife some day.
Tell me, do you dismiss Shakespeare as wrong?
Barking, the lot of you. the Goddists for parading fairytales and butwhatifs as an actual argument, and the NoGodists for even thinking that rational argument and reason is going to make the slightest bit of difference to the mindsets of people who have closed their minds a long time ago.
you are all wasting precious time, of which you only have a finite amount. Go do something productive, good, profitable, pleasurable... But give up with this pointless collective banging of heads on proverbial brick walls.
Excellent surface reading V8, now you might read it again and see if you see what we are discussing.
Excellent surface reading V8, now you might read it again and see if you see what we are discussing.
18 pages?? No ta. I refer you to my previous post. I'm off to the park with my kids.
Whose position changed?
I don't have the names, but it was a position I heard with increasing frequency since 2001 via the media, from several in the scientific community as I recall, whenever the subject came up.
Ok, bit by bit if you like.
So you're now trying to construct, after the fact, some proofs of your statement that it "Seems (I) have a few things (I) know it could not be".
Interesting approach.
Could God have triggered the Big Bang?
Unlikely - there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a deity of any sort (do you REALLY want to sick all this up yet again?).
And a follow up question, do you know anything beyond some basics about the big bang?
Yes, again and again, because it's a complicated explanation full of abstruse observations and explanations, many of which are hard to grasp so I don't carry them around in my head. I am able to access the references, though. I recommend the Brian Cox contribution to "An Atheist's Guide to Christmas", if you're curious.
So you're now trying to construct, after the fact, some proofs of your statement that it "Seems (I) have a few things (I) know it could not be".
Well, it did [i]seem[/i] that way, to me. So, in short 'no'. This isn't a competition for me, i'm try to work out what people think and why. Maybe address some misconceptions, in others and myself. I had thought you would have said god did not trigger the big bang, I was wrong, I can live with that
Could God have triggered the Big Bang?
Unlikely - there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a deity of any sort (do you REALLY want to sick all this up yet again?).
Not necessary, i'm happy that you think it is a possibility
I don't have the names, but it was a position I heard with increasing frequency since 2001 via the media, from several in the scientific community as I recall, whenever the subject came up.
Ok, so you don't know.
Closed mind you say V8
Tell us, how many times have you actively looked to let God into your life?
As I've said before, Richard Dawkins generously gives the existence of a god a measure of probability so small that the likelyhood of the existence of such a thing is next to zero as makes no difference.
I'm less generous.
I had thought you would have said god did not trigger the big bang
As I said - there is no evidence of a god, so to attribute a measurement of probability that the universe was "triggered" by a god is , to put it mildly, risible.
Charlie and Ro5ey - just one irrefutable item of proof, just one cast iron piece of evidence that can be tested by a third party. Go on, just one. Otherwise V8 looks to have summed it all up rather well IMO. 🙂
As I said - there is no evidence of a god, so the measurement of probability that the universe was "triggered" by a god is , to put it mildly, risible.
Fine but,i 'm just trying to be clear, you admit it is a possibility,even if you would laugh at the probability.
CM it is not really debating but sport for you. I think the exchange with northwind where you denied examples were given yet another then argued etc sums you up on here tbh. i dont want to join in feeding you tbh and its a shame as you are clearly bright
Fine but,i 'm just trying to be clear, you admit it is a possibility
Read it again.
As I said - there is no evidence of a god, so to attribute a measurement of probability that the universe was "triggered" by a god is, to put it mildly, risible.
Charlie and Ro5ey - just one irrefutable item of proof, just one cast iron piece of evidence that can be tested by a third party. Go on, just one. Otherwise V8 looks to have summed it all up rather well IMO.
You haven't read the thread either have you, the issue with V8's comment os nothing to do with the proof of the existence of God,it's that he / she completely missed what we have been discussing. But thanks for your input, you moron.
In the same vein Charlie, do you also agree that there may be a possibility that God does not exist, even a probability at which you would laugh?
Read it again.
I did, except you edited out the bit of my quote which was a the same as what you said.
Why did you do that?
In the same vein Charlie, do you also agree that there may be a possibility that God does not exist, even a probability at which you would laugh?
Yes.
For clarity and focus.
i said
Fine but,i 'm just trying to be clear, you admit it is a possibility,even if you would laugh at the probability.
You said
As I said - there is no evidence of a god, so to attribute a measurement of probability that the universe was "triggered" by a god is, to put it mildly, risible.
They are the same thing aren't they? Why cut out he bit of my quoute which actually made them the same thing,then ask me to read again.
Well, if clarity and focus are what you are after, then a simple yes or no, would suffice.
Well, if clarity and focus are what you are after, then a simple yes or no, would suffice.
For you, maybe.
But thanks for your input, you moron.
At this revelation of attitude, despite my reputation for being something of a "rottweiler" in these matters, I take my leave...
Just checking if he was reading.
Wow, that's a bit nasty and not very Christian!
I have read the entire thread thanks.
I cannot recollect a direct quote to me re damnation for non adherence to a church edict but the fact that a set of rules, defined by the church, that state clearly that some deity, the existence of whom cannot be proven, may condemn you to purgatory ad infinitum implies the fact that you will be damned if not explicitly stated.
But thanks for your input, you moron.
At this revelation of attitude, despite my reputation for being something of a "rottweiler" in these matters, I take my leave...
This wasn't even directed at you, but when asked a direct question you chose to take offence and leave. Do you happen to live in Tower Hamlets?
So any suggestion you have is just as likely as that it was triggered by God.
There's two flaws in this.
1) You appear to be suggesting that in the absence of a definite explanation, all possibilities are equally likely, which is silly. Say I find a dead bird in my garden; I don't know what killed it, but that doesn't mean that aliens from the planet Splot are 'just as likely' an explanation as that ginger tom from two doors down.
2) You know, it's ok not to know things. We don't absolutely know lots of stuff about the Earth and the universe around us, but fortunately for us nature does not require our understanding in order to get on with things.
Retro-fitting "god did it" as a convenient explanation for anything we don't understand is a cop-out; it's the same sort of lies-to-children story as the stork bringing babies. And one the biggest issues I have with it is that it doesn't actually answer anything, it just rephrases the same question. If a god did it, where did he come from?
Big questions often have difficult, complicated answers, and sometimes no answers at all. And that's ok.
Wow, that's a bit nasty and not very Christian!
I have read the entire thread thanks.
I cannot recollect a direct quote to me re damnation for non adherence to a church edict but the fact that a set of rules, defined by the church, that state clearly that some deity, the existence of whom cannot be proven, may condemn you to purgatory ad infinitum implies the fact that you will be damned if not explicitly stated.
Good, that's what i understand too.
I personally believe the Catholic Church is quite evil. In many cases they are more interested in maintaining power and influnce, rather than doing whats morally right, just off the top of my head:
- protecting those who sexually abuse children and in (granted isolated cases) punishing the victims ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/9153676/Dutch-Roman-Catholic-Church-castrated-at-least-10-boys.html)
- no condoms, even in AIDS ridden areas of Africa becuase it's better that more catholics are created rather than controlling the spread of disease.
- virtually everyone I have met who went to a catholic school has a story about evil nuns and/or getting battered by those in charge.
Rogertgecat, won't happen, religion is all about faith, they're inseparable. Without faith there's no religion. Facts take away the faith bit. If you could prove the exsistance of god ( any one of them would do it) that's pretty much the end of any/ all religions So, it's in the best interests of the churches to be as obscure as they can. Otherwise they pretty much disappear in a puff of logic. If god exsists you don't need a church....
Ergo trying to argue the toss with religion using facts ain't going to get very far.
1) You appear to be suggesting that in the absence of a definite explanation, all possibilities are equally likely, which is silly. Say I find a dead bird in my garden; I don't know what killed it, but that doesn't mean that aliens from the planet Splot are 'just as likely' an explanation as that ginger tom from two doors down.
Not at all, i asked Woppit for a more likely explanation. He said there wasn't one.
2) You know, iit's ok not to know things. We don't absolutely know lots of stuff about the Earth and the universe around us, but fortunately for us nature does not require our understanding in order to get on with things.
Of course it's ok to not know things, apart fromanything else, i think, this is what faith is based on.
Retro-fitting "god did it" as a convenient explanation for anything we don't understand is a cop-out; it's the same sort of lies-to-children story as the stork bringing babies. And one the biggest issues I have with it is that it doesn't actually answer anything, it just rephrases the same question. If a god did it, where did he come from?
i agree, but often people suggest pseudo-scientific explanations for things they don't understand, most commonly ohnthat was due to evolution. I don't say evolution is wrong only that it should not be used as a glib response tomwhy things are the way they are anymore than God should. I oly ask that people have an understanding of the science tomwhich they attribute the causal mechanism. Case in point below.
Big questions often have difficult, complicated answers, and sometimes no answers at all. And that's ok
Yup, but I'm sure you agree, we should keep looking.
- no condoms, even in AIDS ridden areas of Africa becuase it's better that more catholics are created rather than controlling the spread of disease.
Have you looked at the data?
Wow, that's a bit nasty and not very Christian!
I have read the entire thread thanks.
I cannot recollect a direct quote to me re damnation for non adherence to a church edict but the fact that a set of rules, defined by the church, that state clearly that some deity, the existence of whom cannot be proven, may condemn you to purgatory ad infinitum implies the fact that you will be damned if not explicitly stated.Good, that's what i understand too.
Good, I am glad we agree that some unprovable idea - let's call it God - has influenced a group of "people" to impose the threat of eternal damnation upon other people, unless they obey the rules set by the "people" in charge.
i asked Woppit for a more likely explanation. He said there wasn't one.
Well, no, he said he didn't have one, not that there wasn't one.
I don't say evolution is wrong only that it should not be used as a glib response tomwhy things are the way they are anymore than God should. I oly ask that people have an understanding of the science tomwhich they attribute the causal mechanism.
Sure, and I'd love it if that could be the case. But as I said before, these things are complicated and difficult. So, the amount of explanation people are actually capable of understanding will vary wildly between individuals and, with the best will in the world, most people are not scientists.
Even with simplified examples, people still misunderstand. For instance, "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" People poking holes in TBBT usually follow the same format too; they fundamentally misunderstand the theory and then adopt the opinion that it's wrong.
Yup, but I'm sure you agree, we should keep looking.
Of course. And as far as I'm aware, we are.
