SB, Read these: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html peace axeman
Hmmm, I think we are just talking past each other now. If God exists then anthropocentric arguments regarding the morality of God are flawed because man cannot be the center of a universe created and sustained by a higher being. You cannot propose condition 'A' as a hypothetical for debate and then assume a world in which condition 'A' does not apply. Why is a definition of God essential before the debate can begin? Why can't positions be uncovered through the course of ongoing discussion? When you have a discussion with someone on a topic you haven't discussed before, isn't mutual discovery exactly what happens? What about topics in which detailed paramaters are hard to define, like quantum gravity or string theory? Does the necessity of having hard definitions from the start preclude any chance of reasonable discussion? Do you always have the habit of knowing where you are going before you start out? How do you ever learn anything you don't already know? When and where does God ever say that rationality is useless? Isn't this just a belief you choose to have in regards to theistic belief? It must be a very cherished belief on your part, because I have tried hard to divest you of it seemingly to no effect. Who says God is hurtful, cruel or even absent? Those are all opinions you hold- and not even opinions in relation to a possible God, but rather in relation to the self contradictory straw man whose image you call upon to ridicule. And again the question has to be asked, in relation to what? How can you consider these things without the proper context and surrounding implications? We run into the anthropocentric problem once again- if man is not the center of the universe then man's judgments cannot assume such. There is much deeper water to swim in here, but it seems these trails keep getting written off with pat disagreements so that another clay can be launched. In regards to man being the chief source of pain, that is a subject that could be discussed in far more detail, though I think it does not take much to deem microbes a poor scapegoat. The more we discover about our eating habits and lifestyle decisions, the more we recognize that many common day ailments are ultimately a result of our own choices even if passed down from multiple generations. Of course this only scratches the surface and opens another interesting can of worms- another well that probably delves too deep for a message board. When I made reference to the ability of choosing evil I was referring to possibilities as to why evil existed in the world. If you remove God from the equation, the question becomes irrelevant because evil loses all definition. How did we shift the subject back to a different track so quickly anyhow? You say being free to choose is what defines freedom. Yes, but free to choose WHAT? If there is no standard above man, then there is no good or evil either, there is only individual preference and social norms enforced by violence, controlled or uncontrolled, for societal benefit. If man is the highest being in existence, then every man is his own god, and no judgment can be visited upon him other than judgment of force by others around him who disagree with his choices. When man dies in this scenario, his morality dies. Good and evil are formless, empty and meaningless excepts as ephemeral definitions of what is generally accepted by society at the present time. Your references to pink unicorns, gravity pills and unicorns et. al, not to mention the continued implications that God requires irrationality from his subjects, gives strong indication that you consider this debate beneath you. It's hard for me to answer your queries in a spirit of mutual interest when they are laced with insults, however indirect, and I really don't understand the purpose of engaging in mockery. I would think that given the opportunity to hear legitimate responses to your questions, you would be more interested in keeping the rapport going. I remain surprised and mildly baffled that (many) atheists can be so naive as to assume their position is unassailable in terms of theists having no access to rational presuppositions. To believe you are right is one thing. To believe those of differing opinion cannot possibly have a logically developed position, to believe they are utterly incapable of having a reasoned framework, is mind-bogglingly obtuse. But you must assume this, otherwise why the continued cutting in with the patronizing bullshit about fairies and unicorns before the debate is finished- heck, before it has even really begun?
give it up, darkhorse. maybe there is a god(s), maybe there isn't. one thing is 99.99999999999999% sure, though: MAN MADE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF WHO/WHAT GOD IS ARE NOTHING SHORT OF FAIRY TALES. you are a smart guy PLAGUED by religious nonsense. same goes for aphexcoil. you guys have extra pieces to a puzzle that do not fit anywhere; get rid of them.
hey stu, suggestion for you: i will read any three books of your choosing, and you read three of my choosing. in six months we both post our critiques on ET to compare and contrast. some standards will have to be set to ensure the books are read thoroughly and the critiques are of sufficient rigor and detail. you up for it?
I Was A Teenage Skeptic I was a skeptic in good standing for many years. I rested in safety and comfort that the better of a skeptic I wasâthe fewer premises to which I could constrict myselfâthe better I could squelch the arguments of others who assumed more than I did. I was on the watch for anything that even resembled a non sequitur in a discussion. I felt that if I could just believe less, then soon I would be the Ultimate Fighting Champion of argument. At some point, though, I realized that ultimately to pursue this course I had to believe in skepticism as a path to enlightenment. This is what I noticed: I struggled toward true knowledge, and my mental sinew was being increased through skepticism. But, I did not know of anyone I considered as having this perfect knowledge; I knew that I didnât have it; although I felt I was getting there and skeptical treatment provided the avenue. But, in this, I had no proof that skepticism would get me there. The skeptic in me hates analogies, but they can be useful illustrations. I want to go north. skeptic Street runs north and south. As long as I stay on the road, Iâm going north. Can I then assume that this road will take me to the North Pole if it has gone 2 miles? A body builder has gone from curling 10 pounds to 110 pounds. His biceps have grown over 6 inches in the last 6 months. Can we then assume that all he has to do is increase his curling weight 100 pounds every 6 months and his biceps will be 6 inches bigger? Children make assumptions like these, not men. (I can just see myself as a little kid fantasizing about 3-foot arms in 2 years and 400 pounds.) I had added to my reasoning by stripping the fluff of convention, but were there limits to what could be done from a skeptical perspective? Maybe, a seasoned skeptic out there will say that my problem was pursuing a kind of enlightenment. Maybe I was too mystical in the first place. Skepticism is down-to-earth, pragmatic. There is no reason to believe that anything can provide the certain knowledge that I looked for. First, I describe it now as a search for enlightenment. I did not think of it then as such. Back then, I would have agreed that we struggle to find just exactly what can be known in the first place. Second, if we canât be sure of our knowledge, we can never be sure of our central argument as well. Thus, skepticism is useful, but if it is turned back on itself, it would cut itself to shreds. Any skeptic that holds this central argument can only ever believe it. Skepticism, to me, is a discipline. I still practice it. Eliminating unnecessary conclusions has led me to a better understanding of the conclusions that I was drawing, and which conclusions I could draw. These essay pages will serve as an example of the conclusions that I have drawn. And I think my thinking has progressed to the point that I know most of the assumptions I am making. I use various schools of thought as disciplinesâI try to think in their context as much as possible, so that I can understand the issues raised by that particular dialect of thought. I am familiar with skepticismâs evil twin, Nihilism. I also am conversant with Logical Positivism, Positivism, and Phenomenology. I do extend to Naturalism, but only until I feel my brain sludge over. John Cassidy ___________________________________________________
i found this in a amazon.com book review. the reviewer is also an author of some books, Dr. W. Sumner Davis: "Science starts with an idea, then moves forward in attempts to either a. show that it works, or b. find that it does not work, and adjust itself accordingly. Creationism begins with a belief i.e.: God is at the center of all things, and then works backward in an attempt to persuade the gullible of its truth. It does not change its ideology, nor it's outcome-that has already been decided."
Gee Gordo, substitute 'scientism' for 'creationism' and 'atheism' for 'God' in that paragraph, and it becomes an exact definition of YOUR position. how uncanny.
i will do exactly that... Scientism begins with a belief i.e.: Atheism is at the center of all things, and then works backward in an attempt to persuade the gullible of its truth. It does not change its ideology, nor it's outcome-that has already been decided. ...and guess what? that is not my position. how uncanny. science DOES change and its outcome is NOT already decided. i'll be the biggest believer of any religion, should it be shown to be true.
darkhorse: "Why is a definition of God essential before the debate can begin? " Because god has so many different definitions, that you must both agree on one, in effect agreeing on LANGUAGE, before you start or you will not be able to communicate properly. Defining terms is extremely important in any real debate where the precise meaning of words are required for the proper exchange of thoughts and ideas. How many times have you gone in circles with someone for hours only to discover that your arguing semantics? "Why can't positions be uncovered through the course of ongoing discussion? " They can. What does this have to do with defining terms first? Nothing. Positions and definitions are two very different things. Properly defined terms are a catalyst to uncovering positions. "When you have a discussion with someone on a topic you haven't discussed before, isn't mutual discovery exactly what happens?" Yes... but again... what does this have to do with defining terms? Nothing. If the discussion is about formulating a definition, then of course it doesn't make sense to define the term up front, since that is the point of the discussion. But even then, you must STILL define other nebulous terms you plan to use, or you might as well be speaking greek, and will end up miscommunicating with one another. w peace axeman