A case for religion, and against AA.

[bunnyfubbles]

Again let me point out -- There are things that we are not or cannot even begin to conceive that have to do with God!!

this is a 'confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable' fallacy combined into an 'argument from ignorance' fallacy

You are attempting to be cute by claiming that you understand totally on God`s level the things of God...are you not?

this is another fallacy, an atheist doesn't believe there is a god to be on level with in the first place

Isiah 55:8 -- “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” saith the Lord.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." ~ Christopher Hitchens

 

[jackstar7]

I'm not claiming to have any understanding of the God you speak about. As a matter of fact, I think the entire endeavor of giving any thought to any god is pointless.

But I contest you and others as giving your god these characteristics that conflict completely with the ideas of omniscience and omnipotence and eternity and infinity.

The quote you repeatedly post is a rhetorical cop-out. The Lord with his infinitude could have explained the differences. If all things are possible in him, then that would be as well. So why not explain it? Oh right... the motives of the omnipotent won't be explained. That quote just wraps up all questions about god's behavior in a warm blanket of "inexplicable mystery"... just because.

Which brings me back to my point: if god's behaviors and motives cannot be understood by us... then why give even a moment's thought to them? Why give a thought to a creator who claims love, but prevents understanding? Those contradictions are irreconcilable. I know you won't see it as such, but that is your active choice and not something that logical. Reason demands understanding and answers. It would not settle for unknowable. It reject unknowable.

 

[JEDIYoda]

this is a 'confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable' fallacy combined into an 'argument from ignorance' fallacy

You mean to say that God`s thoughts are not far and above our thoughts and can also encompass our thoughts? I see nothing confusing as long as you don`t try to understand God`s thoughts...

this is another fallacy, an atheist doesn't believe there is a god to be on level with in the first place.

It`s only a fallacy to Atheists! If it is a fallacy then perhaps Atheists should just keep their mouths closed and stop trying to proselytize those who believe in God. In other words Atheists might be better off living their lives and being an example of a good Atheist, instead of trying to convert others to Atheism.....feeding the poor...volunteering at a soup kitchen.......etc...

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." ~ Christopher Hitchens

problem is I don`t place any value on what Christopher Hitchens say.....sorry!!

 

[IronWing]

problem is I don`t place any value on what Christopher Hitchens say.....sorry!!

Why not? He has the benefit of existing outside of your head. At least I think he does.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I'm not claiming to have any understanding of the God you speak about. As a matter of fact, I think the entire endeavor of giving any thought to any god is pointless.

But I contest you and others as giving your god these characteristics that conflict completely with the ideas of omniscience and omnipotence and eternity and infinity.

The quote you repeatedly post is a rhetorical cop-out. The Lord with his infinitude could have explained the differences. If all things are possible in him, then that would be as well. So why not explain it? Oh right... the motives of the omnipotent won't be explained. That quote just wraps up all questions about god's behavior in a warm blanket of "inexplicable mystery"... just because.

Which brings me back to my point: if god's behaviors and motives cannot be understood by us... then why give even a moment's thought to them? Why give a thought to a creator who claims love, but prevents understanding? Those contradictions are irreconcilable. I know you won't see it as such, but that is your active choice and not something that logical. Reason demands understanding and answers. It would not settle for unknowable. It reject unknowable

That is how you believe I can`t argue with your personal beliefs!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Why not? He has the benefit of existing outside of your head. At least I think he does.

why should I value anything Christopher Hitcens says as opposed to what the Bible says?

 

[IronWing]

why should I value anything Christopher Hitcens says as opposed to what the Bible says?

Why would you value what the bible says?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Ok, I will. Whatever stuffs your pie hole.

What a peculiar remark.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

What a peculiar remark.

I think there's a sociology article to be written out of observing this thread.

 

[witeken]

why should I value anything Christopher Hitcens says as opposed to what the Bible says?

Because he was educated in a time when science existed, as opposed to the farmers who wrote a book that has nothing to do with reality.

 

[jackstar7]

That is how you believe I can`t argue with your personal beliefs!

You misunderstand, or remain decidedly obtuse -- I am not sure which of those is true. My beliefs are irrelevant. The inconsistency of your beliefs is that with which I take issue.

 

[dphantom]

Because he was educated in a time when science existed, as opposed to the farmers who wrote a book that has nothing to do with reality.

Those who wrote ancient texts were highly educated for their time, as smart as we are today. Don't be so quick to dismiss those who can do what you cannot.

 

[jackstar7]

Those who wrote ancient texts were highly educated for their time, as smart as we are today. Don't be so quick to dismiss those who can do what you cannot.

This is a meaningless thing to say.

 

[PingviN]

Those who wrote ancient texts were highly educated for their time, as smart as we are today. Don't be so quick to dismiss those who can do what you cannot.

For their time? That's not saying much.

 

[witeken]

Those who wrote ancient texts were highly educated for their time, as smart as we are today. Don't be so quick to dismiss those who can do what you cannot.

For their time, maybe.

But not as smart as we are today. Not at all.

 

[dphantom]

This is a meaningless thing to say.

What you said certainly is since you give no reason.

 

[dphantom]

For their time, maybe.

But not as smart as we are today. Not at all.

you are confusing knowledge with the ability to think. Hence why some of our ancients are smarter than you.

 

[lotus503]

This is my point exactly, and my comment had nothing to do with Evolution as per PingVin's post.

Of course erosion happens; that's pretty much common sense and I would think that I didn't have to explain that part to people here. I just figured that if you can go from simple to complex simply with the passage of time without any intelligent intervention, then any matter should do the same given the time and circumstances.

But I think the truth is, things break down with the passage of time if no intelligent agent is performing upkeep.

Our world is full of examples of this.

Yes I am saying the atoms in the phone can in fact turn into something else altogether. Consider your iphone, then consider it erodes to dust and mixes with other atoms, then consider a seed falls onto the ground where it eroded.
and a plant processes the atoms into energy and grows or the atoms are used by bacteria etc.

Its not hard to postulate this process occurring over a few billion years multiple times in fact. In fact we know this occurs the only real factor is the time for matter to break down to more basic elements. obviously organic matter breaks down more rapidly than inorganic matter.

 

[Retro Rob]

For their time, maybe.

But not as smart as we are today. Not at all.

Every generation has its intellectual peak. A hundred years from now, your great grand kids will look back in shame about how uneducated you were.

 

[jackstar7]

What you said certainly is since you give no reason.

You didn't back up what you said with anything... so why should anyone else in response to you?

How exactly were the people of thousands of years ago "as smart" as we are now? How do you measure that? Also, what difference would it make as the context of life thousands of years ago vs life now is hardly comparable?

 

[jackstar7]

Every generation has its intellectual peak. A hundred years from now, your great grand kids will look back in shame about how uneducated you were.

And they'll be correct.

It's a cumulative thing.

None of us are going to begrudge them for being smarter... as that's usually the intent of parents in the first place.

 

[dphantom]

The answer is obvious, but let me provide a handful of examples.
Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Lucretius, Imhotep, Confucious, Pythagoras, Husayn Ibn Sina

These and others laid the foundations of much of what we know today as science and math and philosophy. That is at least one measurement of how smart they were.

And I was not comparing the context of their life to ours today. That was some others who were doing that who think we are smarter than the ancients simply because we "know" more.

 

[lotus503]

Every generation has its intellectual peak. A hundred years from now, your great grand kids will look back in shame about how uneducated you were.

Sure but our understanding of the natural world is inconceivable compared to biblical times.

 

[dphantom]

Sure but our understanding of the natural world is inconceivable compared to biblical times.

We certainly have orders of magnitude more data than the ancients.

 

[jackstar7]

The answer is obvious, but let me provide a handful of examples.
Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Lucretius, Imhotep, Confucious, Pythagoras, Husayn Ibn Sina

These and others laid the foundations of much of what we know today as science and math and philosophy. That is at least one measurement of how smart they were.

And I was not comparing the context of their life to ours today. That was some others who were doing that who think we are smarter than the ancients simply because we "know" more.

So... no measurement. Got it.