I would think there would be a lot less barracking as such, if those of a religious bent would be as clear as you have been in your post above , that they are not asserting God exists but that God may exist. Well, that isn't quite my position, I do assert God exists -- in the sense that I believe (on faith and for various reasons) -- but I don't claim to have proof that he does nor do I argue in such a way that demands anyone seeing merit in my point of view would be forced to agree that he does either. First let me say that, of the examples you cite, surely you must agree to a point at least that axeman really does give some extremely eloquent and well laid out argument. Well, you're welcome to your opinion, however I'll have to disagree and say I find it the standard atheist fare and don't see anything particularly impressive (and hardly eloquent) about it all. That's not to say axeman's position isn't reasonable; I think it's eminently reasonable and if he wishes to live his life in that way all the best to him. I do happen to think he's cutting the journey of greater understanding arbitrarily short, but that's not necessarily any grave problem. Gordon Gekko raises very good points, even if rather energetically - you can't condemn someone for that. Yes there is the LMAO!!! but I have to laugh my arse off many times at GG or FPC or vinny nolan's etc outrageously irreverent comments. Again, I respectfully disagree. Early on in a thread somewhere Daniel_M once asked his 'opponent' to define God. A great starting point,, [paraphrasing] if you believe in God please explain what God is so I can understand... No definition of God was provided. I guess once you define God you are left open to have any definition queried, in the end that seems to lead inexorably to a blind faith conclusion. Ok, let's look at that. I'm not sure that's the best way to begin. Sure, this was a car or a golf ball or a piece of pre-cambrian rock we might want to define what we are discussing, but God is so much more an abstract concept that, imo, by his very nature seems to defy definition. However, I submit that we do all understand what God is -- even atheists (who may well claim otherwise) -- even though we don't have a crystal clear definition. Much in the same way that as children growing up we understood concepts like love and beauty before we were ever handed a dictionary definition of them. Rather than starting with a definition, I think a definition ought to be the end point of an investigation into God. Now, although I don't have such a definition, I think we can still make some kind of comments on the nature of God. However, before doing that I should address the question below: So I ask again alfonso, just what is so complicated about religion Stu, if it's going to be a matter of "BZZT, your religion is wrong. next please", then okay, it's all very simple. If all you want to do is leave it at that, then I don't think I can accomodate you. However, if we're willing to look religion in terms of its place in humanity, the meaning humans derive from it, evaluating notions of "religious truth", understanding, or attempting to understand, the mysteries of life, of the universe and of humanity's relationship to them, and the nature and validity of the kinds of ideas that emerge from such a reflection, then religion becomes quite complex indeed.
Doubter, I'd extend those comments to the entire Bible. (Although, I wouldn't put it in terms of the Spirit "doing it for you", as the inclination to understand must come from personal volition.) It's a concept that I extend to all religious writings, in the sense that reading them isn't akin to reading a newspaper. That's a very unsatisfactory for atheist to hear, so I suppose if they choose to opt for the simple, minimalist approach they're well within their rights to do so.
Get real alfonso. Drop your silly implications. I'm simply stating that I don't need to use evolution to debate intelligent design, and I prefer it this way, because they theists like to dodge the entire argument by attacking evolution. I rather we stick to intelligent design without making this an intelligent design VS evolution debate. That would make it TOO easy I think I can defeat intelligent design easily enough on it's lack of merit alone. peace axeman
I maintain that you cannot completely defeat ID any more than I can completely defeat it's polar opposite. And that is the point: both viewpoints are valid, both theistic and non.
Have you considered the teleological implications of evolution? I'm not sure how the naturalist assumption in "natural selection" gets squeezed in so easily. If some evolved 'function' can be 'selected' because it is 'better' (at ensuring survival) then I have trouble understanding how this can be called "natural", as both "selection" and "better" imply an intelligence and an end goal. What sense does it make to say a particular function is 'selected' unless there is some intelligence there to make the selection? And how can something be "better" unless there is an ultimate purpose to be achieved? Left at that, I consider evolution to support intelligent design.
Now wait a second, I haven't had a chance to reply. I contend this still does NOT match the astronomical record at all. I have 2 issues here. 1) It is obvious that this is not the case because we KNOW the order in genesis does not match current scientific knowledge. The earth was not created in some simplistic order as described. The lights did not just suddenly turn on. The water did not just suddenly appear. The atmosphere didn't suddenly just pop into existence. The dry land did not suddenly pop up and collect the water into pool, and so on and so on... Reality is, this all kinda happened all at once in a very chaotic storm of events, more or less in parallel. 2) I read it one way and you read it another way. You are no more qualified than me to interpret "the REAL meaning" behind genesis. And there is the real problem. It is so ambiguous that you have to creatively twist and extract meaning to defend it. Whereas I see it saying something completely differently, and it seems pretty clear to me. In any case, creative interpreting does not lend itself to a very good foundation of proof that this is the "best" creation story by any means. If I am free to creatively interpret, then I could take almost ANY creation story and go head to head with YOUR creation story, and simply extract meaning from it to make it more and more accurate as we continue to debate the two. In the end, all we have is mere OPINION based on individual interpretations. In any case, this is a side debate that doesn't carry much weight because it does not have the ability to prove god either way. I rather focus on the more interesting intelligent design debate which really gets to the core. We will just have to disagree on the genesis story. peace axeman
Since you are asserting that intelligent design is true, all I must do is to continue to find flaws in your argument. If you fail to defend ID, then I have succeeded. Up to this point, I still see many flaws in your argument. Stu has already addressed many of these and you still need to resolve them. I will provide a different angle, since I think stu is a little more difficult to understand than I am. (More eloquent). I like to use the simplest of terms to get my point across. See next post. Also.... I need to be a little more precise with my original claim. I think I can defeat YOUR defense of ID. I can't claim to be able to defeat ID in general, unless I debate every ID guy in the universe Fortunately, I don't have to. ID, like all knowledge, is assumed untrue until proven. Which to my knowledge, no one has successfully done. peace axeman
More diversions. We are discussing intelligent design here, not evolution. Although I would love to rip into the flaws which exist in your post, I refuse to take the bait. I will stay on subject here and only discuss intelligent design. peace axeman
I can see your point about interpretation. There is always a certain amount of interpretation when looking at any written passage. But my point is, again, not that I am always right but simply that there is a logical explanation for the order of Genesis and that it is unfair to call it "nonsense" as long as there is a perfectly valid interpretation.
Who's diverting? I am charging that evolution, as described in the brochures, makes a case for an intelligent agent. So just imagine that that is my case for ID and "rip into" it. I await your answer.