What price religion?

Quote from Turok:

>This thread is about arrogant people saying the
>scientific evidence does not in any way match
>the theistic position. And that's simply not true.

Please find me a single post in this thread where someone says the above. There is a world of difference between "it does not in any way fit" and "it does not in any way prove".

ANY method of universe formation can fit the theistic notion of an omnipotent and omniscient creator because this creator can do ANYTHING. I can't stop laughing at your missing of this concept.


JB
More...

And I can't believe you're missing this point: intricate design, as far as we know, does not happen w/o outside intelligence. This universe displays intricate design therefore one can assume intelligence.

Or even if you do not make that assumption, one cannot reasonably rule out outside intelligence.

That is, unless one is so arrogant to assume that he already has all the answers and has the right to belittle and demean anyone who does not agree with his position....

And I'm not saying you're in the latter's camp, but some on this thread are...
 
>unless one is so arrogant to assume that he already
>has all the answers and has the right to belittle and
>demean anyone who does not agree with his position....

Oh, you mean like the christians in general.

>And I'm not saying you're in the [this] camp,
>but some [] are...

And the same kudos back at you. :-)

JB
 
>And I can't believe you're missing this point:
>intricate design, as far as we know, does not
>happen w/o outside intelligence. This universe
>displays intricate design therefore one can
>assume intelligence.

I get the point that YOU believe the above statement to be true, but if your point is that I must accept it as fact rather than opinion then I guess your right...I don't get it (and proudly don't get it).

I find snowflakes to be quite intricate and yet I don't hold the belief that intelligence went into their design. I find cloudstreets quite intricate and am intrigued at how these patterns form over flat terrain and even water without the benefit of wind. There are a lot of things that appear quite intricate in design that don't pique my interest in higher intelligence. That's just where we're different.

>Or even if you do not make that assumption, one
>cannot reasonably rule out outside intelligence.

I pretty much agree with you here (I don't rule is out personally), but I do understand that everyone has the vacuum limit somewhere (meaning in the absence of evidence...) and mine may be higher than some.

To use the words from one of my favorite bumper stickers. "I don't know and you don't either" (thanks Jack)

JB
 
Shoeshine...

Read the book "The blind watchmaker".

Specifically.... look at the section where the author
uses a computer program to simulate evolutionary process.
He creates little entities called biomorphs to showcase
the power of cumulative selection.

A random number generator (mutations) coupled with the ability
to "pass on" genes, **creates** a vast assortment of
computer generated bugs, plants and aliens which you would look
at and proclaim "definitely requires intelligent design", when
in fact, there was none at all.

After a mere 100 generations... its amazing what pops up
out of randomness coupled with cumulative selection.

This little biomoprh experiment proves that things which
LOOK to be intelligently designed, in no way require
any kind of intelligence at all.

A simpler example is clouds. Ever see a horse or a smiling
face in a cloud? Purely random, and yet we PERCEIVE great
order and design in a nearly random system.
How about ink blots??? What do you see?

You are confusing your human pattern matching abilities
with "design".

A creator or intelligent design is not required for things to exist
which may LOOK intelligently designed to YOU.
The above examples prove this.

With the complete absence of evidence/proof of a creator,
there simply is no rational reason to believe so, especially
when we have many other concrete cases which show its
not only possible to perceive design where there is none,
but in fact ITS QUITE COMMON.

The simple notion that it "looks designed", does not constitute
any kind of evidence at all, since we are already aware of many
cases where it does not. Many random systems LOOK designed
to us as well.


peace

axeman
 
My first question? Who should be Plaintiff and who should be Defendant, i.e. Are we proving that there is enough evidence of God or are we proving there is enough evidence to deny the existence of God?


People have asked for what proof there is of God. My question to them is what proof would you find acceptable? This is not a new question. There is a great deal written about the proofs us agree to what standards should be applied. I will approach this with a business plan. Then we can decide the standards and the presentation and location of the material. I think I would enjoy taking the best points and counter points and laying it out.

P.S.

As I wrote this I have decided offer the following plan: This case will be conducted as a California Civil Jury Trial.

There will be a threshold question of whether the facts need to be presented to a Jury or is there enough law or evidence for a Judge to make a declaration on the issue (most likely everything will go to a jury)

The arguments and issues will be crystallized by pretrial motions.

Then the facts will be presented to a jury to see if they can make findings as to the issues.

The issues currently at bar : Does God exist? If there is a God; is he the God of the Jewish Bible? Is Jesus also God? Is the bible reliable? These issues may be refined or changed by motion.

After we decide Plaintiff and defendant we will have to determine who the "lawyers" will be. I will accept new lawyers as they prove themselves to be capable of following Civil Procedure.

I know a few handles I would like to draft into this case. perhaps I will force darkhorse to argue for the side which has the least effective counsel.

(Gordon Gekko will not be admitted to practice in this Jurisdiction but he may be a paralegal. I will hear arguments as to his admittance as I have the time to hear the motion. ) Just kidding.


The burden of Proof will be more likely than not as defined by the burden of Proof for California civil trials. (We can use California Jury trial instructions)

The jury will be asked to weigh the evidence in support of the arguments and they will be make their findings based on the burden of proof equivalent to a finding of more likely than not. (We can use the exact terms in the Jury instructions but it has been 8 years since I conducted a trial so I will have to refresh myself as the terms and exact wording as to the burden of proof.

I will now entertain any suggestions. Including the ones to get lost in which case I will start my own website which I may anyway.

Who should be Plaintiff and who should be Defendant, i.e. Are we proving that there is enough evidence of God or are we proving there is enough evidence to deny the existence of God?
 
Since it is impossible to come up with enough evidence
to prove a negative outside of formal mathematics,
the answer is obvious.

But this begs the question.

what is your precise definition of "god".

This trial will never get off the ground because you will
never get everyone to agree on this.


peace

axeman
 
good point.

The first refinement. The primary issues as I see them now. Does the God of the Jewish Bible exist? Is Jesus his devine son. I realise that really the first issue may be the most pressing but I would like to work on both of them, especially since some of the evidence of the former may be related to prophecy of the Jesus?

As to: "Since it is impossible to come up with enough evidence
to prove a negative outside of formal mathematics,
the answer is obvious."

No one can really prove O.J. did it but he was found liable in a Civil Jury trial. Are you comfortable with the standard of Proof in a Jury trial.

Your question suggests to me that you think it would be better to have the Plaintiff being the side that argues for evidence God.
 
Quote from axeman:

Since it is impossible to come up with enough evidence
to prove a negative outside of formal mathematics,
the answer is obvious.

But this begs the question.

what is your precise definition of "god".

This trial will never get off the ground because you will
never get everyone to agree on this.


peace

axeman
More...


the bottomless pit......there need not be a precise definition of "GOD" to enjoy ones faith...Do you believe in love??? I can almost guarantee we may have different definitions of love; this does not mean you or i can't believe in it or enjoy it...peace
 
Quote from axeman:

Since it is impossible to come up with enough evidence
to prove a negative outside of formal mathematics,
the answer is obvious.

But this begs the question.

what is your precise definition of "god".

This trial will never get off the ground because you will
never get everyone to agree on this.


peace

axeman
More...

You can't "prove a negative" per se but one can marshall sufficient evidence to the contrary position or a competing assertion to render implausible the notion in question, and therefore this does constitute a proof.

The God Hypothesis is so such rendered implausible by this sort of proof, ie there is sufficient evidence of its UNTRUTH.

ps isnt it about time you changed your sig?! it's very annoying.

:-/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top