Ed and God

catefrances

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Does this mean you have broadband now?

nope unfortunately darlin'. im using my ex's computer.

MrFadedGlory

timsinclair wrote:

I find this 'whats true for you is different to whats true for me' attitude frustrating. Truth is not subjective. If you are an atheist and you believe in evolution, your belief necesarily requires that my faith is based on a very big lie, conversly If I am right that God created the world as is recorded in genesis 1 & 2, this requires that your belief is based on a very big lie. Only one can be true!, stop hiding behind this 'i'm so tolerant I would never criticise your faith so dont criticise mine' facade. Epistemological relativism is philosophical suicide, if you are an atheist, its ok if you think I am deluded, I wont be offended, this is the only basis for honest discussion. Peace

No facade, I was being honest. I do find you dilusional, but there is nothing wrong with that - that's all I was saying. My kids believing in Santa Claus is also their dilusion...but I'm ok with that. My wife fortunately doesn't really think chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla (thank God-oops). The point is that whether people are dilusional or not really isn't for me to decide. Why should anyone (ah hem TimSinclair) want to change or argue anyone's reality be it dilusional or not? It's not for anyone else to decide. Individual freedom is of critical importance IMO. So when I say I'm glad your beliefs have released you from said chains I am being sincere...but thanks for calling me a liar (it's ok, God forgives you).

PS You have way to much time on your hands. END THREAD/

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

You are correct collin, when you say that Mathew and Luke were not eyewitnesses to the birth of Jesus, most of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses of some of the events, but the gospels are compilations of these accounts. Luke makes this crystal clear in the introduction to his Gospel:

'Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.'

I had an injury a year and a half ago; subluxation of the clavicle. I was on my way to the hospital when a friend called to invite me to a party. I said I'd come a little later. When I arrived at the party, about four hours later, two people came up to me, separately, and they both told me they heard I had broken my collar bone in a fight (it was really and sports injury) and was in the hospital for two days (I was there two hours). Two days later I received a call from an old friend who had heard I had broken my back and was in a wheelchair. This is a true story.

I'm sorry but you'll have to understand my scepticism. People who we know very very little about claim to have gathered accounts of the birth of a man we also know very little about. This process took almost 50 years. I went from a minor injury to a broken back in two days. People exaggerate, especially if the story is a great one, or a shocking one. Have you ever done that little test with a group; you whisper a long sentence into one person's ear and he passes it on and so on and on. The last person almost always says something different than the original sentence. And we're talking about one sentence, not a story, and in a timeframe of minutes tops.


Moreover, the absolute majority of people could not write, so it's not a stretch to think the stories were passed orally, and quite possibly, or almost certainly distorted during the process.

I find it far more absurd to claim that the exact facts of the stories were kept in those fifty years. In fact, I say it's nearly impossible. Journalists today can't even get their facts right.

You need an tremendous, gargantuan amount of faith to believe that.

You suggest that the authors deliberately manipulated the facts to make it seem as if Jesus fulfilled prophecies from the Jewish scriptures. I look forward to hearing your examples of this.

I will try to find them. But it might take a while. I haven't seen those papers in years. Last time I saw them was 6 years ago when I moved house. Since then I moved about 5 times.

I know that your faith in naturalism demands that genuine prophecy does not exist, but Jesus fullfilled about 300 prophecies, even the year of his death was foretold in prophecy centuries before he was born. Beware! many who have attempted to refute Jesus messiahship on these grounds have ended up believers, as I think slightofjeff has already mentioned.

I have read the bible more than once. There's nothing in the entire book that will ever make me change my mind.

Cate's and grazman's videos sum up what I believe. I would like it if you addressed grazman's video about the bible.

You mentioned that Luke used Mark and Q as sources, yes he certainly used mark and the theoretical document Q is a valid theory. You say you would not consult other sources, as if doing so is something shameful.

It's not shameful. It's odd. They were inspired by the perfect god. It's god perfect word. Why would they need to double check their facts?

Collin

slightofjeff wrote:

You got me there. I over-spoke. What I mean is they had no motive to lie. If they are inaccurate, it is because of some other reason (as we mentioned before).

I'm still going to say they wouldn't have greatly exaggerated on purpose. The things they wrote and preached wound up with a lot of people getting killed, including themselves. They really had no motive to try and convince people Jesus was the savior except that they actually really believed it. Again, I'm not ruling out the fact that these people might have been believing a lie -- that's up to each reader to figure out on their own.

Even if they believed it, they still could have lied and exaggerated. Main motive; convincing Jewish people, making their group stronger, whatever.

For all we know, they could have written the whole thing as a fictional story.

Nothing. I think the people who followed Koresh -- at least the ones that stayed until the burned up -- firmly believed the guy was telling the truth. If you believe the early Christians were all a bunch of crazies running around, well, you wouldn't be the first.

Cool.

I don't want to go over this again. But -- I'm not saying the "teachings" in the gospels are historical fact. That would be absurd. I'm saying the story of Jesus -- that there was such a man running around preaching and performing magic tricks -- is a historical fact. He is mentioned in all kinds of historical texts outside of the Bible.

No, he's not mentioned in all kinds of historical texts. He's mentioned in a very small number of texts. The texts mention early christians and a Jewish leader named Christ. One of those few sources also calls christians gullible fools.

The evidence is scarce.

timsinclair

I had an injury a year and a half ago; subluxation of the clavicle. I was on my way to the hospital when a friend called to invite me to a party. I said I'd come a little later. When I arrived at the party, about four hours later, two people came up to me, separately, and they both told me they heard I had broken my collar bone in a fight (it was really and sports injury) and was in the hospital for two days (I was there two hours). Two days later I received a call from an old friend who had heard I had broken my back and was in a wheelchair. This is a true story.

I'm sorry but you'll have to understand my scepticism. People who we know very very little about claim to have gathered accounts of the birth of a man we also know very little about. This process took almost 50 years. I went from a minor injury to a broken back in two days. People exaggerate, especially if the story is a great one, or a shocking one. Have you ever done that little test with a group; you whisper a long sentence into one person's ear and he passes it on and so on and on. The last person almost always says something different than the original sentence. And we're talking about one sentence, not a story, and in a timeframe of minutes tops.

Hi Collin
Sorry to hear about your accident. Hope you are ok now.
I understand what you are saying, but none of the people who came up to you and told you what they had heard were eyewitnesses (primary sources), hence no serious historian would give them any credibility. Luke says that his sources were eyewitnesses, that is the difference. I think you also underestimate the accuracy of the Jewish scribal tradition. Before 1947, the oldest Biblical texts we had were those of the masorite scribes, the dead sea scrolls are at least 1000 years older. Did this show that the texts had 'evolved' over time? No.

It's [using souces]not shameful. It's odd. They were inspired by the perfect god. It's god perfect word. Why would they need to double check their facts?

The Bible is a compilation of lots of different kinds of literature, history, prophecy, poetry etc. Some of these genres are more from God, and some more from man. Prophecy, for example begins with: 'Thus says the LORD:', while Paul sometimes says: 'Not the Lord but I say:'.In writing his gospel Luke was allowed to use his intellect. As a believer, I also think that Luke had a heightened sense of discernment as he evaluated the sources. That is a faith position, but even if you dont share it, his work should be taken as seriously as any other historical writing.

Regarding the utube videos, Very amusing but a gross characterisation of God and a misleading oversimplification of reality. The notion that the only evidence for God is the Bible is wrong and the suggestion that God requires belief in him on Biblical ground alone is false. Romans Ch 1 clearly says why, when we meet him, we will be short of excuses, and it does not even mention the Bible:

'For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.'

The evidence of design is all around us, if we have 'eyes to see', if we have not been blinded by naturalism. The second video uses 'scientist' to mean 'evolutionists' and ignores that many, many, scientists do not agree with Darwin, As I said before, there is a list of 400 pHD scientist who do not agree on the Discovery Institute website.
Peace.

timsinclair

No facade, I was being honest. I do find you dilusional, but there is nothing wrong with that - that's all I was saying. My kids believing in Santa Claus is also their dilusion...but I'm ok with that. My wife fortunately doesn't really think chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla (thank God-oops). The point is that whether people are dilusional or not really isn't for me to decide. Why should anyone (ah hem TimSinclair) want to change or argue anyone's reality be it dilusional or not? It's not for anyone else to decide. Individual freedom is of critical importance IMO. So when I say I'm glad your beliefs have released you from said chains I am being sincere...but thanks for calling me a liar (it's ok, God forgives you).

Sorry if my post came accross as aggressive. I didn't mean to call you a liar (i dont think I did). I know I used the word 'facade', I think I was wrong to use that. I dont think you are lying, I am just irritated by the 'each to their own' argument that I have heard so much on this thread (sorry I took it out on you). I think this attitude lends itself to epistomologcal relitavism and so stops real dicussion. I am glad you have acknowledged that your position requires mine to be false, now we could discuss if you want to. Why would I want to change someones reality, delusional or not? Because I care about people, because people are worth caring about. Because delusions are destructive.because lies bind us. Because deception is from the evil one.Because I love truth. Because truth sets us free. Because others are more important than me. Because people are worth dying for. Peace

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

...
Regarding the utube videos, Very amusing but a gross characterisation of God and a misleading oversimplification of reality. The notion that the only evidence for God is the Bible is wrong and the suggestion that God requires belief in him on Biblical ground alone is false. Romans Ch 1 clearly says why, when we meet him, we will be short of excuses, and it does not even mention the Bible:

'For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.'

The evidence of design is all around us, if we have 'eyes to see', if we have not been blinded by naturalism. The second video uses 'scientist' to mean 'evolutionists' and ignores that many, many, scientists do not agree with Darwin, As I said before, there is a list of 400 pHD scientist who do not agree on the Discovery Institute website.
Peace.

how can invisible qualities be seen? how can anything invisible be seen without other characteristics that allow us to know it exists. what characteristics does God have that make it allowable for him to be 'seen'? and please guide me so that i may see the evidence of design.

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

Hi Collin
Sorry to hear about your accident. Hope you are ok now.
I understand what you are saying, but none of the people who came up to you and told you what they had heard were eyewitnesses (primary sources), hence no serious historian would give them any credibility. Luke says that his sources were eyewitnesses, that is the difference.

No, his sources are not eyewitnesses.

"just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word"

They were handed down, hence my whole argument. I had an injury, I handed my story down, it got distorted quite rapidly, which is fairly common with stories handed down. Sensational stories almost always get distorted or twisted. I'm sure everyone has noticed this.

I think you also underestimate the accuracy of the Jewish scribal tradition. Before 1947, the oldest Biblical texts we had were those of the masorite scribes, the dead sea scrolls are at least 1000 years older. Did this show that the texts had 'evolved' over time? No.

I don't know what you mean exactly. Could you elucidate

The Bible is a compilation of lots of different kinds of literature, history, prophecy, poetry etc. Some of these genres are more from God, and some more from man. Prophecy, for example begins with: 'Thus says the LORD:', while Paul sometimes says: 'Not the Lord but I say:'.In writing his gospel Luke was allowed to use his intellect. As a believer, I also think that Luke had a heightened sense of discernment as he evaluated the sources. That is a faith position, but even if you dont share it, his work should be taken as seriously as any other historical writing.

I know Luke has a reputation of being a historian, however, that does not mean all his writing is historical or true. It simply means that the things that are accurate in his writing are accurate, if that makes any sense to you.

I'll give an example; Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe is considered a 'false document' i.e. a document that is presented to the reader as authentic. It is characterised by the realistic, accurate information. It was, in fact, even loosely based on real events namely the story of Alexander Selkirk. That doesn't mean, however, that Robinson Crusoe is true. Despite its accuracy.

Likewise, Luke could have used very accurate information, I'm sure he did, that doesn't mean, however, that I should believe angels were flying about.

Regarding the utube videos, Very amusing but a gross characterisation of God and a misleading oversimplification of reality. The notion that the only evidence for God is the Bible is wrong and the suggestion that God requires belief in him on Biblical ground alone is false. Romans Ch 1 clearly says why, when we meet him, we will be short of excuses, and it does not even mention the Bible:

'For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.'

You're using the bible to prove your point.

But anyway, I was interested in what you thought about the passages he quoted, for example. How do you interpret that?

The evidence of design is all around us, if we have 'eyes to see', if we have not been blinded by naturalism. The second video uses 'scientist' to mean 'evolutionists' and ignores that many, many, scientists do not agree with Darwin, As I said before, there is a list of 400 pHD scientist who do not agree on the Discovery Institute website.
Peace.

I am not blinded by naturalism. I believed in god, I searched for god, I was open to god... My parents and family joked that I would, for sure, study to become a priest because ever since I was little I was very interested in the bible, Jesus and god... But eventually none of it made sense to me. I came to see things as they are, I have found the truth for myself. Just like you found your truth. I could say you are blinded by faith, which I suppose I do believe, but it's not relevant to me.

But, I don't agree at all that intelligent design is science. I've explained why.

I'm not impressed by 400 people who don't agree with evolution. It's actually a rather small number, furthermore, I also saw that some of those, quite a few actually, are not experts in the relevant fields of study. The actual research staff at Discovery consists of three persons, of which two have more or less relevant phd's. They do not publish their research or their results and their research happens in secret. Why?

timsinclair

catefrances wrote:

how can invisible qualities be seen? how can anything invisible be seen without other characteristics that allow us to know it exists. what characteristics does God have that make it allowable for him to be 'seen'?

Reason shows us that things that exist in the natural world must have a cause that is intelligent and all-powerful, even though it is invisible to us:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The Universe has a beginning.
Therefore the Universe has a cause.

A cause cannot presuppose what it means to explain.
The Universe consists of time, matter/energy, and space.
Therefore the cause of the Universe is transcendent.

Matter/energy cannot be created by natural forces.
Matter/energy exists.
Therefore the cause of matter/energy was supernatural.

The Universe displays a high degree of order and complexity.
Only Intelligence has been observed to generate order and complexity.
Therefore the cause of the universe is intelligent.

and please guide me so that i may see the evidence of design

The appearance of design in nature is compelling, even for the most hardened evolutionist atheists. Richard dawkins, for example, in his classic defence of Neo-Darwinism offers the following definition of biology: ‘the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’. However, Dawkins compels us to reject these observation-based inferences and accept the counter-intuitive hypothesis that a blind, unconscious force is responsible for producing every feature of biological life. Why? The best explanation is that biology, like physics, currently operates within the prevailing scientific paradigm of naturalism. Consider also Dawkin's criticism of the classic design argument of William Paley:

‘Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics,

Dawkins’ use of the phrase ‘all appearance to the contrary’ affirms that intelligence is the natural, logical, explanation for the existence of biological life. naturalism is a religion, when freed from its constraints, design is obvious in nature.

timsinclair

Reply to Collin.
Interesting. What was it that convinced you to accept a new version of reality, was it a personal thing? or was it Darwinism?

You're using the bible to prove your point.

Yes. Because the videos suggest that the God of the Bible is demanding faith on the sole evidence of the Bible. The best place to see if this is true is the Bible. The Bible NEVER makes this claim, it is purely atheist rhetoric. The Bible clearly says that God requires faith primarily on the evidence for him that exists in the natural world, as I have just elaborated on to Catefrances.

regarding the dead sea scrolls, my point is that the Jewish process of manuscript copying ensures that texts are transmitted with accuracy. The case in point is the best example of this - 1000 years of copying and the text remains unchainged. For this reason, it is reasonable to suggest that the eyewitness texts that Luke used as sources (being only handed down for 20 or so years, not 1000) retained their accuracy. In addition, the differing accounts of your accident are shown to be false because they did not agree with eachother so they could not all be accurate. When luke evaluated his sources, the extent to which they agreed with eachother would surely be one of his criteria. I suggest that your skepticism about Luke's gospel is based, not on Luke's credibility, but on the fact that sections of it conflict with your belief in naturalism/materialism, this is shown by your comment about 'angels flying around'. Naturalism is an unproven philosophy that requires a 'gargantous' amount of faith, given the vastness, complexity, order, and beauty of the world we live in.

Regarding ID, I know you dont regard it as 'science' but you have admitted that ID people are 'scientists' the conflict is over the definition of 'science'. The film uses 'scientists' to mean 'evolutionist scientists' this is inaccurate. Regarding publications, there are shedloads of ID books and scientific papers out there. You asked me for one example of a peer-reviewd paper. I gave it to you. how can you now say 'ID does not publish?'

MrFadedGlory

timsinclair wrote:

Sorry if my post came accross as aggressive. I didn't mean to call you a liar (i dont think I did). I know I used the word 'facade', I think I was wrong to use that. I dont think you are lying, I am just irritated by the 'each to their own' argument that I have heard so much on this thread (sorry I took it out on you). I think this attitude lends itself to epistomologcal relitavism and so stops real dicussion. I am glad you have acknowledged that your position requires mine to be false, now we could discuss if you want to. Why would I want to change someones reality, delusional or not? Because I care about people, because people are worth caring about. Because delusions are destructive.because lies bind us. Because deception is from the evil one.Because I love truth. Because truth sets us free. Because others are more important than me. Because people are worth dying for. Peace

The truth is that I am happy, free and full of love and beilieve that one's own free will is far more important than fighting over who has the biggest dick among us (christians, agnostics, atheists, muslims, jews etc.) and then cloning us all into followers. So, thanks but no thanks.

timsinclair

MrFadedGlory wrote:

The truth is that I am happy, free and full of love and beilieve that one's own free will is far more important than fighting over who has the biggest dick among us (christians, agnostics, atheists, muslims, jews etc.) and then cloning us all into followers. So, thanks but no thanks.

Ok. If you are happy, and if your happiness is all that's important to you. Then nothing I can say will make a difference.

May your glory never fade.

Peace.

Wilds

Don't think Given to Fly is about the christ story, but here is what Ed said about the song in Las Vegas 06. Just stumbled across it.

07/06/06 - MGM Grand, Las Vegas, NV, USA
opening act: Sonic Youth
Ed pre-set: Man of the Hour
set: Inside Job, Corduroy, World Wide Suicide, Grievance, Given To Fly, Marker in the Sand, Faithfull, Even Flow, Gone, Daughter, Green Disease, Rats, Garden, Parachutes, State of Love and Trust, Life Wasted, Do The Evolution
first encore: Little Sister, Elderly Woman..., Better Man, Black/(Come Back), Alive
second encore: Go, Comatose, Fortunate Son, Porch/(Dirty Frank)
TFT Notes: This show is the return of Pearl Jam as the headlining act, following six shows opening for Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. After starting with songs like "Inside Job", "Given to Fly" and "Marker in the Sand", Ed mentions that "there's been a few songs already about 'faith' and this is yet another one", leading to "Faithfull".

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

Reply to Collin.
Interesting. What was it that convinced you to accept a new version of reality, was it a personal thing? or was it Darwinism?

It's like when you're reading a difficult and very complicated book and you struggle with the matter of the book, you don't understand certain parts and then you read further and everything false into place. Things become clearer.

Yes. Because the videos suggest that the God of the Bible is demanding faith on the sole evidence of the Bible. The best place to see if this is true is the Bible. The Bible NEVER makes this claim, it is purely atheist rhetoric. The Bible clearly says that God requires faith primarily on the evidence for him that exists in the natural world, as I have just elaborated on to Catefrances.

Dude, come on!

regarding the dead sea scrolls, my point is that the Jewish process of manuscript copying ensures that texts are transmitted with accuracy. The case in point is the best example of this - 1000 years of copying and the text remains unchainged. For this reason, it is reasonable to suggest that the eyewitness texts that Luke used as sources (being only handed down for 20 or so years, not 1000) retained their accuracy.

So? I really don't see your point. A source remained unchanged. That doesn't mean the stories that were handed down remained unchanged. That doesn't mean anything of the bible is real. It doesn't prove a thing expect that the scrolls were transmitted accurately. Nothing more. How many documents were distorted, how many documents were lost...

In addition, the differing accounts of your accident are shown to be false because they did not agree with eachother so they could not all be accurate. When luke evaluated his sources, the extent to which they agreed with eachother would surely be one of his criteria.

When Luke evaluated his sources a monkey could have been playing the piano. We don't know, there's absolutely no way of knowing, you said you yourself. So, he could have left out sources, he could have made the intro up, maybe he didn't even have handed down stories, he could have concocted everything.

I suggest that your skepticism about Luke's gospel is based, not on Luke's credibility, but on the fact that sections of it conflict with your belief in naturalism/materialism, this is shown by your comment about 'angels flying around'.

Look, you don't know me. Stop talking about my beliefs in naturalism. I don't believe in naturalism. I just don't freakin' believe in angels, I don't believe in unicorns, I don't believe in ghosts, I don't believe in dragons and vampires and other monsters. I have the feeling you think I came to "naturalism", read about it and adopted it as a philosophy. You are wrong, I didn't believe in vampires and ghosts when I believed in god because there was no evidence, nothing substantial to suggest they are real or exist. And there are plenty of people who claim to have hard evidence they exist.

It seems to me you are a bit confused about my beliefs and I think it has to do with the fact that I'm an atheist and it seems you don't really know what atheists are. You seem to think all atheists cling to science and naturalism as a belief system. That is ridiculous.

Regarding ID, I know you dont regard it as 'science' but you have admitted that ID people are 'scientists' the conflict is over the definition of 'science'. The film uses 'scientists' to mean 'evolutionist scientists' this is inaccurate. Regarding publications, there are shedloads of ID books and scientific papers out there. You asked me for one example of a peer-reviewd paper. I gave it to you. how can you now say 'ID does not publish?'

I was talking about the research lab of discovery. I have read plenty about ID and there are very few peer-reviewed papers. We already discussed this.

timsinclair

After starting with songs like "Inside Job", "Given to Fly" and "Marker in the Sand", Ed mentions that "there's been a few songs already about 'faith' and this is yet another one", leading to "Faithfull".

Well spotted wilds. It was during Faithfull that I heard Ed say 'hats off to belief, faith in something bigger'. Then afterwards, when the song had ended, he withdrew his comment, saying 'i said faith in something bigger, I dont know about that, how about faith that it will all work out.' I think the yeild songs Carry Ed back to a time when he had 'faith in something bigger' even if he was uncommited, but when the songs finish, he is back in his atheistic 'present tense'.

timsinclair

Look, you don't know me. Stop talking about my beliefs in naturalism. I don't believe in naturalism. I just don't freakin' believe in angels, I don't believe in unicorns, I don't believe in ghosts, I don't believe in dragons and vampires and other monsters. I have the feeling you think I came to "naturalism", read about it and adopted it as a philosophy. You are wrong, I didn't believe in vampires and ghosts when I believed in god because there was no evidence, nothing substantial to suggest they are real or exist. And there are plenty of people who claim to have hard evidence they exist.

It seems to me you are a bit confused about my beliefs and I think it has to do with the fact that I'm an atheist and it seems you don't really know what atheists are. You seem to think all atheists cling to science and naturalism as a belief system. That is ridiculous.

Ok... Ok...Chill.
I am not saying that you came to naturalism, read about it as a philosophy and adopted it. Absolutely not. What I am saying is that naturalism is the underlying philosophy of the Evolutionary worldview that you have read about and adopted. Evolutionists do not often admit that their worldview is based on a philosophy, but it is and sometime they do admit this as I pointed out in the quote from leading evolutionist Richard Lewontin, which you have not commented on:

'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'

This is faith, and once you accept the evolutionary narritive, all things that are not strictly natural (ie angels) become, not just unproven, but ridiculous - not even worthy of consideration. Naturalism becomes the unconcious software that filters all that we see, hear, and read. You say that you do not believe in naturalism, if this is true then you would be willing consider non-natural causes for life and the universe but from all you have said, this does not seem to be the case. Correct me if i'm wrong.

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

Reason shows us that things that exist in the natural world must have a cause that is intelligent and all-powerful, even though it is invisible to us:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The Universe has a beginning.
Therefore the Universe has a cause.

A cause cannot presuppose what it means to explain.
The Universe consists of time, matter/energy, and space.
Therefore the cause of the Universe is transcendent.

Matter/energy cannot be created by natural forces.
Matter/energy exists.
Therefore the cause of matter/energy was supernatural.

The Universe displays a high degree of order and complexity.
Only Intelligence has been observed to generate order and complexity.
Therefore the cause of the universe is intelligent.



The appearance of design in nature is compelling, even for the most hardened evolutionist atheists. Richard dawkins, for example, in his classic defence of Neo-Darwinism offers the following definition of biology: ‘the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’. However, Dawkins compels us to reject these observation-based inferences and accept the counter-intuitive hypothesis that a blind, unconscious force is responsible for producing every feature of biological life. Why? The best explanation is that biology, like physics, currently operates within the prevailing scientific paradigm of naturalism. Consider also Dawkin's criticism of the classic design argument of William Paley:

‘Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics,

Dawkins’ use of the phrase ‘all appearance to the contrary’ affirms that intelligence is the natural, logical, explanation for the existence of biological life. naturalism is a religion, when freed from its constraints, design is obvious in nature.

how interesting. my reason shows me that God does not exist. you cant show me something and say that it began with God. that God is this so called intelligence and all power from which everything began. to me its a copout. we cant explain something so we say, "oh God did it". sorry i cant even entertain the idea that this God exists. however, if i were to do so, i'm much more likely to have faith in lugh, brighid and taranis. afterall these are the Gods of my heritage.

oh and just in case youre interested though i cant imagine you would be considering you didnt seem be interested in any of the other answers i gave you, even when i was answering a query from you. i do believe jesus was a real man.

timsinclair

catefrances wrote:

oh and just in case youre interested though i cant imagine you would be considering you didnt seem be interested in any of the other answers i gave you, even when i was answering a query from you. i do believe jesus was a real man.

Sorry, what answers did you give me? and to what questions? what are you refering to?

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

Sorry, what answers did you give me? and to what questions? what are you refering to?

i was just being petty. i guess when an atheist says they believe they have a soul, that they see examples of evolution on earth, today or even that they dont doubt jesus was a real man, it can be a bit perturbing. but it did illustrate to me a major problem i have with believers. they engage you in conversation and when you give them an answer that goes counter to their belief or is something they cant explain, they brush it aside. im not saying this is what you did tim, im just saying.

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

I know you are sincere slightofjeff, and I respect your view but I think it is mistaken. The idea of God and Darwin as mates is like a horse pulling a tractor. The tractor was created to replace the Horse, it has no need of the horse cos it can do the job all by itself. Darwinism was dreamed up as an alternative to the Genesis account and as I have said it is based entirely on the philosophy of naturalism, which explicitley rejects any divine cause for the natural world. Theologically, the problems of trying to fit the two together are massive. Genesis is clear that God's origional creation was 'very good', so evil, no sin, no death. Everyone, man and animal was vegetarian - no lions tearing Zebras apart with their teeth, as gen 1:30 says they were given 'every green plant for food’. Now, however much you try to allegorize these texts one vital thing is clear from the whole Bible: the entrance of pain, suffering, and death into the world is a consequence of Adam and Eve's rebellion against God. You can see this in Romans ch5: 'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men… death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses'. Without this foundation, the whole mission of Jesus is meaningless since he was sent to reverse the effects of Adam's sin, as Rom ch5 goes on to say: ...

so youre telling me what? that the animal world paid for the sins of man? that animals got it into their brains to rebel against a God they have no knowledge of and in doing so became sinful? how did the carnivores become carnivores then? are you telling me those sharp teeth used for tearing apart flesh were originally used for munching on grasses and such? or did the teeth evolve over time so that once the lion, for example, turned into a meateater its teeth adapted to be used for such?