You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent design not so intellignt.
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Quote from Ricter:
I'd have to consider that the designer's (if there is one) notion of loving might be far beyond what I think loving is, particularly since the designer appears to be working at a "divine" level, from my pov. Then I might have to consider the possibility that the suffering is, from that pov, neither ultimate or eternal and could well be akin to "ripping a bandage off".
that could all be true. if so can you think of any reason that humans should worship a being that could care less about human suffering?
The beauty of this slippery argument is that you can justify just about anything with such mystical divinity talk, even when it flies in the face of your own "god-given" cognition. However, would "god" want you to disregard the very cognitive capability "he" had given you?Quote from Ricter:
I'd have to consider that the designer's (if there is one) notion of loving might be far beyond what I think loving is, particularly since the designer appears to be working at a "divine" level, from my pov. Then I might have to consider the possibility that the suffering is, from that pov, neither ultimate or eternal and could well be akin to "ripping a bandage off". This "god" feeling is a feeling billions have, so it's not likely going away.
I don't see how a theist can win this argument. If a theist uses the judgment he is presumably capable of, then he can only conclude that "god" is not good. If a theist does not use his cogntive capability and judgment, then he is disregarding his "god-given" gift of reason, which is the only thing that has brought him out of his cave. You really have to squint and use pretzel "logic" to make it all "come together" as a theist.
Epicurus: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Quote from Free Thinker:
that could all be true. if so can you think of any reason that humans should worship a being that could care less about human suffering?
My point is that "could (sic) care less" implies that our understanding of suffering is the best (or only) understanding of suffering, and that may not be true.
Quote from Gabfly1:
The beauty of this slippery argument is that you can justify just about anything with such mystical divinity talk, even when it flies in the face of your own "god-given" cognition. However, would "god" want you to disregard the very cognitive capability "he" had given you?
I don't see how a theist can win this argument. If a theist uses the judgment he is presumably capable of, then he can only conclude that "god" is not good. If a theist does not use his cogntive capability and judgment, then he is disregarding his "god-given" gift of reason, which is singularly the only thing that has brought him out of his cave. You really have to squint and use pretzel "logic" to make it all "come together" as a theist.
Epicurus: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
For it to have any hope of being plausible one has to be able to infer that, like the amoeba to ourselves there may be an analogous relationship from ourselves to a god. To an atheist, proceeding from the forgone conclusion that there is no higher power than ourselves, there can be no higher understanding than ours.
"âif you are a person of faith, you canât do science, in fact, you arenât even capable or qualified to do scientific work. If you donât believe in Darwinism, we canât give you a degree in science or publish any paper you have written in one of our scientific journals. You canât be both a person of faith and a good scientist.â
this is bs. can you imagine the fame and fortune awaiting the christian scientist that produced any evidence refuting the toe?
in the 150 plus years since darwin no piece of evidence has ever been found that would falsify evolution. no reason you cant keep trying but dont expect the scientific community to give you credibility until you present something credible.
i understand. it is possible that god,if he exists, is like the little boy that likes to light ants on fire to watch them scramble for kicks. maybe to god we are nothing more than ants. why should humans worship such a being?Quote from Ricter:
My point is that "could (sic) care less" implies that our understanding of suffering is the best (or only) understanding of suffering, and that may not be true.
Quote from Free Thinker:
i understand. it is possible that god is like the little boy that likes to light ants on fire to watch them scramble for kicks. maybe to god we are nothing more than ants. why should humans worship such a being?
Statements like that indicate that you've already made up your mind, so why ask questions??
Quote from Wallet:
Millers explanation of irreducible complexity is flawed imho. In all things we find ourselves digging deeper or smaller into the material of matter, when we look at the cell, now we realize the complexity of it's inner workings, Miller addresses this as breaking the flagellum into smaller but identifiable parts thus possibly proving evolution.
How ever when taking those parts to the next level we find our selves looking at the basic bio-building blocks being assembled. To me this is outside the possibility of chance
Again, the complexity of the body, at every level, all biology down to the most basic level/quantum, screams design.
An Atheist who disagrees with a Christian (?) who disagrees with Creationism.
Why I disagree with Ken Miller, by Massimo Pigliucci
http://www.scientificblogging.com/rationally_speaking/why_i_disagree_ken_miller
so. Massimo Pigliucci, a Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York disagrees with ken miller, a cell biologist who works every day in the field of cell biology, about cell biology?
can you see any problems here?