Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Hansel H]

Quote from Turok:

HH:
>real Christians exercise the minds God gave them.

And, "real Christians" (like you I assume) aren't judgemental either. Right?

JB

I'm not a real Christian. I'm an agnostic who loves the basic logic of Christianity and has a lot of respect for those who understand it as Shoe appears to. I have nothing more than a gut feeling that there is something we might call 'God' somewhere that designed the world and bestowed free will on us humans for some purpose known only to that God. These beliefs, however tenuous they may be, allow me to dialogue with free-thinking believers, like Shoe, on at least a basic level.

If you've read my responses to Shoe you've noted that in those responses I capitalized 'God', 'Jesus', 'Christian', etc.; this I have done purely out of respect for Shoe, just as I have hitherto refrained from capitalizing these words when responding to you out of respect for you. Now that I consider the issue, however, I have decided to capitalize because although I'm leaning on the agnostic fence I have at least one foot on deist/theist ground simply because I find the view from that side of the fence more to my liking. Also, it's because you, being the astute and observant fellow you are, might note the inconsistency in my capitalizing and might decide that I'm patronizing you or am being hypocritical.

No such thing.

Re my comment(s) about the 'wrong kind of Christians' : by that I meant that both you and Shoe are obviously bright and might have difficulty relating to people who appear not to be open minded.

So Now You Know More Than You Ever Wanted To About Me And Capital Letters ( and maybe a few other things ).

Hans

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from DerekD:

I am...

That's a little over my head. But thanks for taking the time though. Maybe as I get a little further on into this subject, I'll be able to see what you're getting at.

Actually, it's all pretty simple. "I Am", which used to be a guy on this board named JohnnyK almost for sure, espouses gnostic/New Age beliefs. Let me put it in everyday language if you're not familiar with it:

1. All souls preexisted and have been run through many reincarnations. (A mathematical impossibility by the way).
2. All souls have a Higher Self, a God-self.
3. We are locked into a body which is essentially "evil" because it helps to keep us from realizing our Higher Self, i.e. it deceives us.
4. Eventually, after X number of reincarnations, we will realize or awaken to our Higher Self.
5. After awakening to our Higher Self, we become a God/god.

New Agers believe step 5 is what happened to Jesus and other "Great Teachers".

#5 btw is imo what can help lead to New Age cults because some individuals, apparently like JohnnyK here, believe they have awakened and realized their Higher Self or Consciousness and thus have become God-like. Thus, IAm's use of God's name and his patronizing attempt at being one of the Sages of the Ages.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from I am...:

The "God" of this world does know about all choices, and has scripted them into a multiple-choice environment in which there is the appearance of free will.

Man does not realize he is an automaton who chooses only between illusions while he values illusions.

So it's actually a form of slavery.

Man is not free except to choose no longer to be a man.

The most fundamental tenet of Christianity is that we have free will and are responsible for our choices - hence sin, redemption, Heaven, Hell.

How does this jive with what you say here?

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from DerekD:

Shoeshineboy,

Thanks for all the info and links. They're sure to get me thinking in different directions. It's interesting stuff I think. Worth looking into.

Thanks again.

I promise you that it'll make your head hurt...

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from Hansel H:

The most fundamental tenet of Christianity is that we have free will and are responsible for our choices - hence sin, redemption, Heaven, Hell.

How does this jive with what you say here?

I'm going to guess that he'll tell you, in a very verbose way, that the primary choice you need to do is to forget about this body and the illusions of this life and get in touch with your Higher Self. That is the primary choice you need per his philosophy.

Let's see how I do...

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from powerfade:

Hmmm.. actually, it works the other way around. It's not up to me to provide evidence to 'thwart your suspicion'. It's up to you to provide evidence for your beliefs - that is, if you want publicize them and subject them to scrutiny. You seem to have it backwards!

Now, if you want to believe in Creation in private, then no problem - that's where religion should be practiced.

Please provide some evidence for your claims!! And remember, you can't ask us to prove and negative - that is, saying "you can't prove that ID is not true' is not proof that it is!! In the West, we operate the other way around - we need to prove something is true. If you can't, then believing in it is simply a matter of faith. No problem with that, let's just call it what it is!!

For the sake of argument:

The coin is tossed on a glass table. You look from under the table and see that the head side is down. You infer from this that the coin toss resulted in a tail. You proved that the toss was a tail by proving that it was not a head.

Similarly, if the Universe came into being either by way of divine or natural causes then by ruling out the possibility of one you prove the other. Since it's impossible for All There Is ( including all natural means ) to come from absolute nothingness by natural means then the Universe came into being by some divine means.

If the Universe came into being by divine means then it was brought into being by an act of divine will. An act of will implies purpose. If the Universe was brought into being for a purpose then the it was designed to achieve that purpose.

Here I am assuming that is-ness does not apply to divinities since divinities are exempt from temporal references or any other restrictions.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Hansel H:

For the sake of argument:

The coin is tossed on a glass table. You look from under the table and see that the head side is down. You infer from this that the coin toss resulted in a tail. You proved that the toss was a tail by proving that it was not a head.

This is intellectual dishonesty. You didn't see that the head side was down (how could you see the head side if it was down). You saw that the tail side was up. From that you inferred that the head side was down.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

This is intellectual dishonesty. You didn't see that the head side was down (how could you see the head side if it was down). You saw that the tail side was up. From that you inferred that the head side was down.

You're looking from under the glass table and seeing which side is down. I wouldn't cheat. Honest.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Hansel H:

For the sake of argument:

The coin is tossed on a glass table. You look from under the table and see that the head side is down. You infer from this that the coin toss resulted in a tail. You proved that the toss was a tail by proving that it was not a head.

Similarly, if the Universe came into being either by way of divine or natural causes then by ruling out the possibility of one you prove the other. Since it's impossible for All There Is ( including all natural means ) to come from absolute nothingness by natural means then the Universe came into being by some divine means.

If the Universe came into being by divine means then it was brought into being by an act of divine will. An act of will implies purpose. If the Universe was brought into being for a purpose then the it was designed to achieve that purpose.

Here I am assuming that is-ness does not apply to divinities since divinities are exempt from temporal references or any other restrictions.

Why must the universe be the same as a coin and provide only two choices? Why can't the universe land on the rim of the coin?

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from kjkent1:

Why must the universe be the same as a coin and provide only two choices? Why can't the universe land on the rim of the coin?

Let's not haggle over the analogy; it's really just a song and dance to set up the proposition that it's an either/or situation.

However, if you can think of a rim equivalent in the case of the world's coming into being I would like to hear it. Truly. No sarcasm.

I think you'll find it pretty tough given that one side of the coin must be divinity.

In any case, thanks for your response.

Hans