Evolution - A Weak Argument for the Anti-Supernatural?
- Thread starter ShoeshineBoy
- Start date
Yes, I remember when you said that. I thought it very intuitive. I agreed with part of it, but prefer to be more exact in the cause. And this is so that in can be uncaused effectively.
The designer is indeed intelligent...a genius...logical...but mad as a hatter.
I've described it as an artificial intelligence, itself designed on purpose, to accomplish a goal.
It is the necessary "co-creator" element required to accomplish anything at all, either in true creation, or illusory making. This artificial intelligence is co-maker of this world because our Father, whom we usually co-create with, would have nothing to do with the making of this world. It's that insane. Co-creation with our Father would have made this world real. Let us be thankful it is not.
So the "devil" was a necessary evil, to accomplish the goal of madness.
The unmaking of this world also requires a co-unmaker. That is what I have sometimes termed the "Holy Spirit", the source of miracles. The world is set up to get us into an impossible situation, needing Guidance to get us out. And yet, we lead our own exodus.
Jesus
But Johnny you're getting so far out there that you don't even recognize how outlandish your claims here. Where are you getting this "truth"? Are these thoughts popping into your head? Are you channeling this? Are you watching Dr. Phil?
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously unless you identify the source of all this great wisdom that has turned you into Jesus, the 12 Apostles, the Dalai Lama and David Carradine all rolled into one resplendant human vessel?
Quote from traderNik:
I can't honestly say I know what you mean. After all, the Deistic position is that at some point in the future, the heavens are going to open up and Rams with 17 eyes are going to come raining down and the earth is going to open up and Christians will ascend to heaven and non-believers like me will sink into the fire and brimstone. Have I got that right? Is that only a sect of Christianity? I think that's from Revelations, isn't it? Pretty mainstream Christianity.
My point is, if your Deistic position admits the possibility of that happening, what on earth (no pun intended) could not be explained?
For a non-believer, religious faith is akin to belief in magic. If you believed in magic, then of course you could explain some of the weirder things we see in nature.
I hope I'm making myself clear here. If you accept that there is a sentient Creator who 'made' all life, the door is wide open, isn't it? If that were the case, what wouldn't be possible? Only secular thought limits what is possible to what is scientifically possible at the present time. I will never be able to take a running leap and jump up to the moon and land in the Sea of Tranquility. That just isn't going to happen, ever. However, if I believed in a Creator God, that would not be outside the realm of miracle.
Actually, Deism is a "half way" position and a lot of people that I have met in one form or another believe in it. It's basically the idea that God created the universe and/or the earth and then let it go. He "set everything in motion" and then let the drama upon earth play itself out. There have been quite a few prominent Deists over time. Today there are a lot of "liberal" Christians who basically believe this. They think God created the universe and/or world and then has had very little interaction with man since.
Yes, I agree that once you accept the idea of a Creator then you can use that, as I do, to say, "Well, why couldn't He have 'upgraded' man from the hominds? That would explain man's incredibly advanced brain in a very short time period."
But if you used the word "magic", I would assume you were picking a fight, although now I know you better, because "magic" implies (often) something w/o evidence. Now imo I do have evidence. As I've mentioned on ET, I feel that I have seen significant evidence for God and so my faith is not "baseless".
Again, I'm not saying I can prove God. It's still faith after all. But I don't consider my beliefs without any verification or evidence. And I'm not mentioning specifics only because I don't want to sound like I'm "witnessing".
I'd never do that.
Johnny's assertion that Satan/the devil is the creator of this mad, deceptive and even evil universe is a branch of Gnosticism if anyone is interested. This is straight from Wikipedia:
"The Cathars (Cathari, Albigenses or Albigensians) are typically seen as being imitative of Gnosticism; whether or not the Cathari possessed direct historical influence from ancient Gnosticism is disputed. Though the basic conceptions of Gnostic cosmology are to be found in Cathar beliefs (most distinctly in their notion of a lesser, Satanic, creator god), they did not apparently place any special relevance upon knowledge (gnosis) as an effective salvific force. For the relationship between these medieval heresies and earlier Gnostic forms, see historical discussion above. "
However, unlike the Cathars, Johnny thinks that he has the divine gnosis (hidden Truth) within him and has arrived to the place of godhood...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
I don't remember whether I've posted this link before but I think you're referring to the "Wedge Document" by the Discover Institute:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
Its stated goals in this document were "1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies. 2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." This document was composed in 1999.
Go to its page 4 and look at the middle column. These guys were definitely counting using their fingers, and only on one hand.
Not true. We have only copies of copies of the new testament the oldest dating 120-150 years after Jesus time and that fragment is only the size of a credit card.
You would think believers would at least take the time to learn about the history of the bible they claim to base their life on.
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.html
No, not picking a fight. Just pointing out that, in my opinion, the 'better explanations' that Deism might provide as to the wondrous and unexplained aspects of the natural world are to be expected, given that the philosophy has a strong element of the mystical about it (hopefully we can agree that the concept of a sentient Creator entity is a pretty mystical concept and that suggesting that this is the origin of life on earth basically kicks the door down in terms of what is and what is not possible in the natural world, in terms of things like spirits and ghosts and the afterlife, as well as all the stories from the Bible.).
If you've seen evidence for God, great. If it's not the type of evidence that can be experimentally verified, then I'm sure you can see that your beliefs are indistinguishable from the belief that __________ (fill in the blank). This is in no way meant as as a slight or a taunt. In fact you seem more objective than the majority of your co-religionists in the sense that you readily admit that there is no proof for your beliefs. If you tell most of the others that this is the case, they get very irate and defensive.
Let us not get caught up in the semantics of 'proof' vs. 'evidence'. I understand the difference and clearly you do too.
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
Again, I'm not saying I can prove God. It's still faith after all. But I don't consider my beliefs without any verification or evidence. And I'm not mentioning specifics only because I don't want to sound like I'm "witnessing".
I'd never do that.
lol... well actually, I would be very curious to know about the evidence which causes you to believe in a Creator God.