|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
 Posted - 07/15/2007 : 11:06:46 [Permalink]
|
What we find from this argument is that natural causes are the primary and efficient causes,not God. This is the presumption of naturalism[ before his dotage from Antony Garrard Newton Flew].We find as Hume notes in his attack on miracles, that we have to go by experience; theists have to show that in our experience that natural causes and explanations do not suffice,but their problem is that the God-hypothesis lacks cogency.This does not beg the question as theists could possibly find that there is something new that overrides previous experience.Einstein overrode some of Newton's ideas.We notice that the dead do not ressurrect,so what could override that? We see that natural selection accounts for population changes without divine intervention[ and contradicts it].As Existence just is whether on a bounce or other theory, we notice no need for God.[See the ignostic-Ockham arguments.]. |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 11:15:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by skeptic griggsy
What we find from this argument is that natural causes are the primary and efficient causes,not God. This is the presumption of naturalism[ before his dotage from Antony Garrard Newton Flew].We find as Hume notes in his attack on miracles, that we have to go by experience; theists have to show that in our experience that natural causes and explanations do not suffice,but their problem is that the God-hypothesis lacks cogency.This does not beg the question as theists could possibly find that there is something new that overrides previous experience.Einstein overrode some of Newton's ideas.We notice that the dead do not ressurrect,so what could override that? We see that natural selection accounts for population changes without divine intervention[ and contradicts it].As Existence just is whether on a bounce or other theory, we notice no need for God.[See the ignostic-Ockham arguments.].
|
The need for god does not preclude the existence of God.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 11:51:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The need for god does not preclude the existence of God. |
Are you saying that your belief rests upon no evidence, then? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/15/2007 : 12:57:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The need for god does not preclude the existence of God. |
Are you saying that your belief rests upon no evidence, then?
|
The evidence currently available only shows life coming from life. So, no; my beliefs are based on current evidence.
Edit:wording
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 07/15/2007 12:58:57 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 14:51:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The evidence currently available only shows life coming from life. So, no; my beliefs are based on current evidence. |
What does that have to do with the existence of a creator, unless that creator grows, reproduces, metabolizes, dies, uses DNA or RNA for heretible information, is subject to evolution and lives on Earth, just like all the evidence we currently have for any life shows? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 16:38:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The evidence currently available only shows life coming from life. So, no; my beliefs are based on current evidence. |
What does that have to do with the existence of a creator, unless that creator grows, reproduces, metabolizes, dies, uses DNA or RNA for heretible information, is subject to evolution and lives on Earth, just like all the evidence we currently have for any life shows?
|
You argument is unless a life conforms to our understanding of life it is not life therefore life came from non life.
This is a reasonable thought; just as the thought that life only comes from life and there is information beyond our knowledge.
These are equal in the context of evidentially fact. The problem is you have little respect for those that disagree with you and your faith based conclusions.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 16:55:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You argument is unless a life conforms to our understanding of life it is not life therefore life came from non life.
This is a reasonable thought; just as the thought that life only comes from life and there is information beyond our knowledge.
These are equal in the context of evidentially fact. The problem is you have little respect for those that disagree with you and your faith based conclusions. |
No, the problem is that following your "life comes from life" logic to its rational end leads us to conclude that God must have been just another lifeform here on Earth, and that God is unquestionably dead by now. This is decidely ungodlike, and leaves us with the question of "what was God's mother?" or "who created the creator?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 17:08:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You argument is unless a life conforms to our understanding of life it is not life therefore life came from non life.
This is a reasonable thought; just as the thought that life only comes from life and there is information beyond our knowledge.
These are equal in the context of evidentially fact. The problem is you have little respect for those that disagree with you and your faith based conclusions. |
No, the problem is that following your "life comes from life" logic to its rational end leads us to conclude that God must have been just another lifeform here on Earth, and that God is unquestionably dead by now. This is decidely ungodlike, and leaves us with the question of "what was God's mother?" or "who created the creator?"
|
Only if you are constrained by our concept of time.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 17:14:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Only if you are constrained by our concept of time. |
How would a different concept of time change things? God still must have been born, like all the evidence we have for life suggests. What evidence is there of a different conception of time, anyway? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 17:23:18 [Permalink]
|
Jerome pointed out: | Only if you are constrained by our concept of time. |
And silly little self-imposed contraints like "reason," "facts," "reality," "logic," and "sanity."
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/15/2007 17:23:55 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/15/2007 : 19:16:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Jerome pointed out: | Only if you are constrained by our concept of time. |
And silly little self-imposed contraints like "reason," "facts," "reality," "logic," and "sanity."
|
What is time?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 19:30:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What is time? |
How would a different concept of time change the logical conclusion of the "life comes from life" argument, Jerome? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 19:37:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Only if you are constrained by our concept of time. |
How would a different concept of time change things? God still must have been born, like all the evidence we have for life suggests. What evidence is there of a different conception of time, anyway?
|
| The Indian conception of time is very different from what the Western mind regards as intuitively obvious. In Indian thought, time, like other phenomena, is conceived statically rather than dynamically. It is, of course, recognized that the things of this world are always moving and changing. But the substance of things is seen as basically unchanging, its underlying reality unaffected by the ceaseless flux. |
Indian concept of time
| The Japanese disposition is to lay a greater emphasis upon sensible, concrete events, intuitively apprehended, than upon universals. It is in direct contrast to the characteristic Indian reaction to the world of change, which is to reject it in favor of an ultimate reality, a transcendent Absolute in which the mind can find refuge from the ceaseless flux of observed phenomena. The Japanese reaction is rather to accept, even to welcome, the fluidity and impermanence of the phenomenal world. |
Japenese concept of time
Here are just two cultures that view time in a different manner than you or I. I assume you concede that our concept of time may be incorrect. Notice that both of these concepts involve an implied eternity.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 19:39:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What is time? |
How would a different concept of time change the logical conclusion of the "life comes from life" argument, Jerome?
|
Eternity allows us to accept that life has always been and always will be.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Existence
