What is God to you?

banquo

Jakass's tags.

philologos

banquo wrote: »

Jakass's tags.

Alas, only one of them is mine, the more atheism... one, just to give people a little warning of what they are letting themselves in for

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

I have a number of reasons.

I'm well aware of that line of thinking, and I'm sure creationists (you know what I mean!) may highlight the odds against evolution in defense of their own beliefs. This obviously is absurd, but it's basically the same reasoning you use.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for dinosaurs, I assume your reasoning is going to end up with you asking why were the dinosaurs made extinct. The answer is I don't know, perhaps dinosaurs were intended for a time, and that time has now passed. I don't claim to know everything, no doubt I have quite a bit I have to learn before this life ends.

Not necessarily why they're extinct, but how? An asteroid yes, but was this a coincidence, or specifically the work of God? Because had it not happened, we probably wouldn't be here.

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm well aware of that line of thinking, and I'm sure creationists (you know what I mean!) may highlight the odds against evolution in defense of their own beliefs. This obviously is absurd, but it's basically the same reasoning you use.

The odds against evolution only become an issue if one believes that evolution is a process that came about by its own accord. If one believes that God was responsible for evolution, the issue is no longer. It is only when one argues that all creation, and all existence ultimately comes down to a series of causeless processes that the absurdities begin. At least that is the case from my perspective.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Not necessarily why they're extinct, but how? An asteroid yes, but was this a coincidence, or specifically the work of God? Because had it not happened, we probably wouldn't be here.

Admittedly, I haven't given this the most thought.

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

The odds against evolution only become an issue if one believes that evolution is a process that came about by its own accord. If one believes that God was responsible for evolution, the issue is no longer. It is only when one argues that all creation, and all existence ultimately comes down to a series of causeless processes that the absurdities begin. At least that is the case from my perspective.

Admittedly, I haven't given this the most thought.

Why is it so absurd that life came about spontaneously? There are already a number of plausible theories including the RNA Hypothesis. IMO the only thing more absurd than this is believing that some magical being personally placed the first molecules there himself and then just sat back! Then the dinosaurs come along and he decides ''No, wait, I've changed my mind, I don't want these anymore''. No very omniscient of him?

How can you honestly believe that we were put here for a purpose when all the facts show we wouldn't be here were it not for sheer luck and coincidence?

coffee_cake

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why is it so absurd that life came about spontaneously? There are already a number of plausible theories including the RNA Hypothesis. IMO the only thing more absurd than this is believing that some magical being personally placed the first molecules there himself and then just sat back! Then the dinosaurs come along and he decides ''No, wait, I've changed my mind, I don't want these anymore''. No very omniscient of him?

How can you honestly believe that we were put here for a purpose when all the facts show we wouldn't be here were it not for sheer luck and coincidence?

Nah MM, it was the cylons putting us here

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why is it so absurd that life came about spontaneously? There are already a number of plausible theories including the RNA Hypothesis. IMO the only thing more absurd than this is believing that some magical being personally placed the first molecules there himself and then just sat back! Then the dinosaurs come along and he decides ''No, wait, I've changed my mind, I don't want these anymore''. No very omniscient of him?

When you put the ideas side by side, the latter doesn't actually seem that absurd aside from the language that you choose to attach to it. When one looks at the former, and then looks at the latter, one would have to ask how one could blatently rip into the latter when the former is so counter-intuitive.

As for the dinosaur, one could say that of any of the transitory species that existed between the current species we had. I.E - That they existed for a time, and then died out, or else survived to mutate further.

MagicMarker wrote: »

How can you honestly believe that we were put here for a purpose when all the facts show we wouldn't be here were it not for sheer luck and coincidence?

The facts don't show that we are here by mere luck, that is the atheistic hypothesis. It assumes that all the current processes were causeless. The other side of the coin of course is that God created mankind, and that we are here to fulfil a purpose.

If you mean that your interpretation of the facts brings you to that conclusion, then yes, I'm sure it does given your current position.

If one assumes from the get go, that God doesn't exist, then yes we are here by mere luck. However, other issues clearly arise when one takes such a position.

Terry

Jakkass wrote: »

When you put the ideas side by side, the latter doesn't actually seem that absurd aside from the language that you choose to attach to it. When one looks at the former, and then looks at the latter, one would have to ask how one could blatently rip into the latter when the former is so counter-intuitive.

As for the dinosaur, one could say that of any of the transitory species that existed between the current species we had. I.E - That they existed for a time, and then died out, or else survived to mutate further.



The facts don't show that we are here by mere luck, that is the atheistic hypothesis. It assumes that all the current processes were causeless. The other side of the coin of course is that God created mankind, and that we are here to fulfil a purpose.

If you mean that your interpretation of the facts brings you to that conclusion, then yes, I'm sure it does given your current position.

If one assumes from the get go, that God doesn't exist, then yes we are here by mere luck. However, other issues clearly arise when one takes such a position.

Fair enough, but you are talking from the bible.
According to that book, the Earth is only around 5,500 years old and it completely skips over the dinosaurs. Not one mention of them.

Aside from that, minerals in rocks can tells us how old the rocks are. That's just one example which emphatically proves that the planet is more that 5,500 years old.

Now you could turn around here and claim that the bible is therefore just an allegory, and one written to teach us the ways of God. Ignoring the countless contradictions, this theory just shows that the bible was written by man. Therefore it is not in fact the book of God, and all Abrahamic religions are wrong.

Sorry if that doesn't make much sense. I'm tired and will try to clarify it in the morning.

philologos

Terry wrote: »

Fair enough, but you are talking from the bible.
According to that book, the Earth is only around 5,500 years old and it completely skips over the dinosaurs. Not one mention of them.

Really, where does it say that the earth is 5,500 years old, chapter and verse?

Terry wrote: »

Aside from that, minerals in rocks can tells us how old the rocks are. That's just one example which emphatically proves that the planet is more that 5,500 years old.

Hold yer horses a bit longer! - We haven't dealt with the claim that the world is 5,500 years old.

Terry wrote: »

Now you could turn around here and claim that the bible is therefore just an allegory, and one written to teach us the ways of God. Ignoring the countless contradictions, this theory just shows that the bible was written by man. Therefore it is not in fact the book of God, and all Abrahamic religions are wrong.

Where does the Bible say that the earth is 5,500 years old? (The city of Damascus, in Syria is scarcely younger than that figure)

I think a lot of the issues surrounding the Bible are issues that arise from having pre-conceived notions of, 1) what the Bible is, 2) what the Bible means to us, 3) how Christians commonly interpret the Bible, and 4) what the Bible actually says?

Donkey Oaty

There is one thing that the writer says in the piece in the link provided by Jakkass that I completely agree with:

What little I know of science, and I’m not going to argue to be an expert because quite frankly I’m not

Now then. Suppose Adam cut down a tree on his first day in the garden of Eden.

What would he see? Rings telling him how old the tree is.

Silly discussion. The Bible might be a great work of literature and full of fascinating stories, but as a historical record it is worthless at best, dangerous at worst.

philologos

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Silly discussion. The Bible might be a great work of literature and full of fascinating stories, but as a historical record it is worthless at best, dangerous at worst.

What makes you think this? Just curious?

Wibbs

"God" to me is an unknowable thing. Neither false not true. I may suspect either way, but I cannot know. The religious have faith and the scientist has evidence. The latter I put more "faith" in, but when the big questions are asked by me, I am still somewhat adrift.

Why are we here? Why is here here? Why is why a question I can internally ask? Why does complexity exist in the first place? Never mind you or me, what about elements or stars? Why this lumpiness inherent in the greater universe when it should have expanded evenly? Why did it expand at all? Why be?If it was at an information equilibrium, why unbalance? I am not suggesting the "here be dragons/God did it", but there is a reason, unless reason itself is a side effect of physics. If it is then why? Look at life and evolution. Both of which I fully believe in the science. We evolved from goo, to organised goo, to fish to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, us. OK I;ve left out a few steps. Feck off :D

But my question has always been, why evolve beyond single cells? The ability to exploit new niches doesnt cut it. Any niche any animal or plant has ever exploited, the bacteria were there first and way ahead and more successfully too. Makes complex lifeforms more resilient? Nope. Shoot a rabbit shaped group of bacteria and you may kill a couple of 1000. Shoot a rabbit and most of it's cells dies. We're missing a helluva lot of the why. Never mind the how. Explaining ot all away as a fluke is just as much a copout as saying god or the FSM did it. Yes we will always strive to know more and will know more, but some questions end up back with the hermits in the desert. the madmen and the theologians.

Donkey Oaty

Jakkass wrote: »

What makes you think this? Just curious?

I've read it.

Ickle Magoo

Does there have to be a question of why single cell bacterium would want to evolve, though? Even very simple bacteria can have millions of base pairs and anywhere there is a genetic code requiring replication, genetic mutations are inevitable. All it takes is for a particular random mutation to be as successful as any competitors and that mutational lineage will survive.

Even in a relatively short time under strict laboratory conditions, bacteria can evolve completely new characteristics purely thanks to a chance mutation. Given the 4 billion years the earliest bacterium have had to evolve and the wealth of ecology they have had to evolve in, you would have to concede that almost anything is actually possible as a result.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

If you look at evolution in terms of bacteria wanting to change and aiming at becoming humans then the probabilities are astronomical and using that leap of hindsight it's little wonder that many write it off as statistically impossible. However, if you break it down into the simple steps and calculate a priori probability of a particular path being taken based on no more than the probability of one step occurring from the previous step then the odds shift considerably.

What are the probabilities that a single cell bacterium will mutate - pretty much 100%, what probability that out of the numerous mutations one will result in the mutated organism being as successful as the original, what probability that the successful mutated bacterium mutates - again, pretty much 100% and so on. When you consider the trillions of replications and mutations that each and every minuscule stage of evolution has had over 4 billion years, the end result being a range of organisms both extraordinarily complex and ridiculously frail are not the gazillion to one shot that some would have us believe.

Nailz

Fictitious.

Aido15

What has gone so wrong with people in Ireland? I’m talking about how little we value our lives and how we suddenly crave everything all at once, all the highs with none of the lows and no thought of the consequences. How little we value authority? Were we better people as a God-fearing and police-fearing people? I’m not traditional in any sense, I simply believe in respect- for one another, for ourselves, for the land we live in. The rubbish strewn across this country outrages me, mattresses left at football pitches, washing machines fly-tipped into ditches, wrappers, cans, bags, plastic, paper, kitchen sinks.
I’ve been looking at the Oxegen festival with increasing bewilderment. Scum destroying the good times of good people. By good I mean considerate, respectful, understanding, empathetic, sympathetic. We’ve lost a huge amount of understanding of each other. Where in the last ten years have we turned into this monster that needs more and more. We’re screwed as an economy, completely screwed, but as a people. Are the Icelandics, much more troubled by bad financial thinking, walking around with hoods up and knives out. We’re in serious trouble.

ColmDawson

Aido15 wrote: »

What has gone so wrong with people in Ireland? I’m talking about how little we value our lives and how we suddenly crave everything all at once, all the highs with none of the lows and no thought of the consequences. How little we value authority? Were we better people as a God-fearing and police-fearing people? I’m not traditional in any sense, I simply believe in respect- for one another, for ourselves, for the land we live in. The rubbish strewn across this country outrages me, mattresses left at football pitches, washing machines fly-tipped into ditches, wrappers, cans, bags, plastic, paper, kitchen sinks.
I’ve been looking at the Oxegen festival with increasing bewilderment. Scum destroying the good times of good people. By good I mean considerate, respectful, understanding, empathetic, sympathetic. We’ve lost a huge amount of understanding of each other. Where in the last ten years have we turned into this monster that needs more and more. We’re screwed as an economy, completely screwed, but as a people. Are the Icelandics, much more troubled by bad financial thinking, walking around with hoods up and knives out. We’re in serious trouble.

People littering ... teens listening to music of questionable quality in a muddy field ... unreliable governments ... the world has never seen such horrible things before.

If only Yahweh would come along and cleanse the earth.
What's that? No, no, don't worry — it's the good kind of genocide.

Terry

Jakkass wrote: »

Really, where does it say that the earth is 5,500 years old, chapter and verse?



Hold yer horses a bit longer! - We haven't dealt with the claim that the world is 5,500 years old.



Where does the Bible say that the earth is 5,500 years old? (The city of Damascus, in Syria is scarcely younger than that figure)

I think a lot of the issues surrounding the Bible are issues that arise from having pre-conceived notions of, 1) what the Bible is, 2) what the Bible means to us, 3) how Christians commonly interpret the Bible, and 4) what the Bible actually says?

It implies it.
Basic reading of it would imply that before the bible, there was nothing.
At best, it says that the earth is 200,000 years old.
According to Genesis, God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days.
Seeing as how man (in our current form) has only been around for ~200,000 years, this would imply that the earth is only that old (however, some Christians would say 5,500 or thereabouts).

Seeing has how Man has only been on the planet for ~200,000 years, and we know by reliable scientific methods that the planet is ~4 billion years old, then the bible is wrong.

Aido15 wrote: »

What has gone so wrong with people in Ireland? I’m talking about how little we value our lives and how we suddenly crave everything all at once, all the highs with none of the lows and no thought of the consequences. How little we value authority? Were we better people as a God-fearing and police-fearing people? I’m not traditional in any sense, I simply believe in respect- for one another, for ourselves, for the land we live in. The rubbish strewn across this country outrages me, mattresses left at football pitches, washing machines fly-tipped into ditches, wrappers, cans, bags, plastic, paper, kitchen sinks.
I’ve been looking at the Oxegen festival with increasing bewilderment. Scum destroying the good times of good people. By good I mean considerate, respectful, understanding, empathetic, sympathetic. We’ve lost a huge amount of understanding of each other. Where in the last ten years have we turned into this monster that needs more and more. We’re screwed as an economy, completely screwed, but as a people. Are the Icelandics, much more troubled by bad financial thinking, walking around with hoods up and knives out. We’re in serious trouble.

Dude, scumbags have been around since the dawn of time, and it has nothing to do with a lack of religious beliefs.
The only reason we are more aware of scumbags today is because of media saturation. Or you're only 15.

philologos

Terry wrote: »

It implies it.
Basic reading of it would imply that before the bible, there was nothing.
At best, it says that the earth is 200,000 years old.
According to Genesis, God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days.
Seeing as how man (in our current form) has only been around for ~200,000 years, this would imply that the earth is only that old (however, some Christians would say 5,500 or thereabouts).

Where does the Bible say that the world is either 5,500 years old, or 200,000 years old? Implies != said. Implies means that you have placed such an interpretation on passages, this doesn't mean that this is correct, either in your case or in the case of YEC's. As for the 6 days, I've given my reasoning as to why I think the "days" in Genesis aren't 24 hour time periods (particularly in the absence of either the sun or the moon).

Donkey Oaty: That's a bit of a cop out answer in all fairness.

Canis Lupus

There is no spoon.

coffee_cake

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Does there have to be a question of why single cell bacterium would want to evolve, though?

It's not like there's a question of "why would a single cell want to die" ><

Terry

Jakkass wrote: »

Where does the Bible say that the world is either 5,500 years old, or 200,000 years old? Implies != said. Implies means that you have placed such an interpretation on passages, this doesn't mean that this is correct, either in your case or in the case of YEC's. As for the 6 days, I've given my reasoning as to why I think the "days" in Genesis aren't 24 hour time periods (particularly in the absence of either the sun or the moon).

Donkey Oaty: That's a bit of a cop out answer in all fairness.

Ahh. The interpretation angle.
I'm done.
I've argued with you before on this, and we're both as stubborn as each other.
Still, why not say in the first billion years, God created the heavens and the Earth?

philologos

Terry wrote: »

Still, why not say in the first billion years, God created the heavens and the Earth?

People, time, context, understanding. Those words give a good picture of why God revealed it the way He did. The same is true of why didn't God go right into the detail of the science behind what He did. Genesis isn't intended to be a science book, it is intended to be a description of why we are here, and we are here with the intention of being God's people. Whether or not that actually is the case is down to us!

smokingman

God: A theoretical construct for weak minds to offset the personal responsibility for their own actions.

Simples...

rovert

An oppressive figure who refuses to take the blame for any but but takes all the credit.

philologos

smokingman wrote: »

God: A theoretical construct for weak minds to offset the personal responsibility for their own actions.

Simples...

In what way? Particularly in respect to personal responsibility, I find that quite odd.

rovert wrote: »

An oppressive figure who refuses to take the blame for any but but takes all the credit.

Why would God take blame? - Personal responsibility is important no?

rovert

Jakkass wrote: »

Why would God take blame? - Personal responsibility is important no?

It is inconvenient to the con job that is Christianity to subscribe any sort of responsibility to God. But you guys wil continue to praise hallelujah when something positive happens while pointing to personal responsibility whe something negative happens. Sorry but that is low IQ thinking.

philologos

rovert wrote: »

It is inconvenient to the con job that is Christianity to subscribe any sort of responsibility to God. But you guys wil continue to praise hallelujah when something positive happens while pointing to personal responsibility whe something negative happens. Sorry but that is low IQ thinking.

Why would God be responsible? - As for what is positive and negative, it depends what you mean by positive and negative. Ultimately, if God uses us to do His work, then He is worthy of praise. Ultimately He knows what is best, and His will is more important than mine. If we choose to resist God's work, then yes that can be regarded as negative.

Bad things may happen for a reason, and good things happen for a reason. What the reason is might be difficult to ascertain at times though.

If that renders me as having low IQ sobeit! The Gospel is much more important than intellectual smarts

rovert

Jakkass wrote: »

Why would God be responsible? - As for what is positive and negative, it depends what you mean by positive and negative. Ultimately, if God uses us to do His work, then He is worthy of praise. Ultimately He knows what is best, and His will is more important than mine. If we choose to resist God's work, then yes that can be regarded as negative.

Bad things may happen for a reason, and good things happen for a reason. What the reason is might be difficult to ascertain at times though.

Where did you get this stock answer a guide book?

Jakkass wrote: »

If that renders me as having low IQ sobeit! The Gospel is much more important than intellectual smarts

It is low IQ thinking, subscribe this trait to any person and youve got a douche.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Gospel is much more important than intellectual smarts

Religion in anti-intellectual shock.

Wibbs

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Does there have to be a question of why single cell bacterium would want to evolve, though?

I agree with all of that but that wasn't my point. "Want" is too loaded a term, maybe "need" is a better one. There is no niche whatsoever where a multicelled organism has the advantage over a single celled one. None, zip, nada. Where such an organism has exploited new niches the bacteria were there before it. Long before it. Where is the biological and physical benefit to evolving in a less advantageous way? I have no issue with bacteria mutating. Again they are way ahead of complex life on that score too. It's why complex life evolved in the first place. Complex itself is a loaded term too, as single celled critters are very complex and the more we know about them the more complex they appear to be. Indeed if a "God" did exist and wanted to design the perfect lifeform he could have done worse than a single celled bug.