Well, that's the problem.
How can a person know that the knowledge they are taking in, truly is the knowledge of God, and not just some ponderings of an "american church marquis"?
Necessary requirement for believing in God
- Thread starter greenberg
- Start date
Well, that's the problem.
How can a person know that the knowledge they are taking in, truly is the knowledge of God, and not just some ponderings of an "american church marquis"?
A good point, in which the 'faith' of theists becomes misplaced, in that they don't really require faith in god, but faith in whoever wrote the scriptures.
Quite simply...by searching...The same method science uses to search for answers its a proven method. What you're looking for is litterally is traces or evidence of higher than human involement.
For an atheist this will be difficult. An atheist has already convinced himself that one of the most highest example of higher than human involement (life) is a coincidence. But there are others. and if you believe in an "infinite amount of that which inforbids" there will be no convincing you.
Last edited:
Not only that. I suspect a theist or pro-theist stance is necessary apriori. Ie., people probably already need to be theists or pro-theists before they can (consciously) convert to theism. Social conditioning can account for this apriori stance.
There is another point to be made about having theistic faith. Namely, that theists are generally unable to coherently explain how they have arrived at their faith, they are unable to give a precise account of the cognitive processes that lead them to their faith. Usually, they only give an account of externally observable activities (such as studying the Bible, praying), but nothing more precise.
Ironically, it is after all possible that (at least some) theists have genuine faith in God, genuine knowledge of God, one that is not due to social conditioning or self-fulfilling prophecy (it is after all possible that God exists).
But still the way they describe how they have arrived at their faith is third-class pseudo-scientific moralizing - and it's this that is so damn offensive.
Last edited:
Ah, the undiluted and misplaced arrogance is warming.
So you choose to ignore valid criticism of your claims - which either shows you to be disrespectful or, more likely, totally unable to refute the arguments against you. But that is your choice, and speaks volumes of your (lack of?) character.
If you can not be bothered to follow logic or rational reasoning then there is little place for you here - unless you wish to be a mere scratching post for others to sharpen their claws on?
You seem to infer that the scientific community engages in aimless wanderings, when in fact if anyone using the scientific method to prove any theist claim must be looking exactly for evidence of higher-than-human involvement.
1. Coincidence has little to do with Darwinian theory.
2. You think theists haven't done any self-convincing? (there's only one correct answer to that...they have)
3. Please list the other examples you refer to...
Obviously you're ignoring the clear infinite loop of a statement you posted. I'll not comment further on it, as two other respondants picked up on it.
There's more than enough information on what? I told you that you cannot logically make the statement that "evolution doesn't exist...". You cannot prove that evolution does not exist. It's proving a negative.
This sentence makes little sense; however you're still holding on to the fact that the failures of humanity must mean that god exists. One does not logically lead to the other.
I don't see why not. You yourself have progressed in your own life by adaptation and experience. You've learned and become a draft designer. Why couldn't sea-creatures eventually learn to be amphibious given enough time?
You have a very chaotic definition of order if you think life is orderly.
Further, and once more unto the breach, failures of humans who are just learning speaks nothing to our origins. If one of your drafts has erroneous measurements, or for that matter, if your department produces 10 erroneous drafts, does it speak to the doom of the entire architectural industry?
picked up on what? That i had to repeat myself?
I can prove it wrong and conflicting to the scientific method. And that would be good enough despite the "negative".
I'm holding to the reality that biology is a far more complicated contruct than humanity can explain by random chance. Such construct which exeed explanation infer a superior design. Simple and Logical.
Really. So you think I designed myself and proceeded to create myself?
Time would be a non factor...no matter how long you leave the parts of a super computer in a pile it will never become a super computer without the purposeful efforts of an outside force.
You have a very contrary point of view in general. Life is orderly. You think a 99% replication rating is chaos? You think the brain's ascending foundation of complex processes such as speech, motor function and combined eye-hand coordination and balance is chaos?
Well we have a very large chasm of perspective between us. You seem to be determined to minimize Life asell. I'm am only high lighting the incredible abilities of life which you say is chaotic which no chaotic system could produce...and no I don't belive in chaos systems. Even the most chaotic systems are goverened by basic laws such as gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak forces and thermal dynamics. It's predictable if you know all the variables.
Origins?
I said nothing of our origins. I speak of the theory of evolution. And the scientific methods defines a successful theory against trial and error. So there is a prescedent...if something continues to fail experimentation it is an failed premise.
The scientific community has been known to be society of competitivness, cheating, and hoaxes. Obviously there alterior motives involved. They simply don't wish to excercise any consideration toward design.
It has everything to do with Darwinian theory otherwise you wouldn't be talking chaos theories.
Human is human...To deny what is human is to deny logic itself. But theist are not the held as the zenith of human understanding. Science has failed often and it will continue to fail because there working in a vaccum...in a world of competitvenss and motive. And the scientific comunity has attempted to disprove Inteligent Design and it's impossible to disprove Inteligent design.
To what end? Where shall I start...Universe...Galaxy Solarsytem or just Earth itself? Any way you cut it evolution falls in line with an impossible line or lucky coincidences attempting to make everything we see as simple as stumbling in the dark.
Ah, the undiluted and misplaced arrogance is warming.
I'm afraid "good enough" is not evidence, or proof. Many a theist claim to be able to prove science wrong via the scientific method. Clearly an effort in futility.
Sorry, but random chance has nothing to do with Darwinian Theory.
No, you assume that a human requires design. You automatically ignore the possibility that evolution resulted in intelligent life.
Further, you ignore the obvious...the designer of a complex system must himself be a complex system...so who designed the first designer?
What has a 99% replication rating?
I think humanity's behaviour is chaotic. I think the brain's very inconsistency is chaotic (start with varying intelligence and move right through to epilepsy). I think that the 84% of us that stubbornly cling to ancient superstition is chaotic. Weather is chaotic - barely predictable at the present time, and even that changes in an instant. Virii are chaotic.
This is a fallacy, an appeal through incredulity. The grandeur of a system has nothing to do with its origin.
Evolution and Creationism (oh pardon me...ID as they're calling it nowadays), are both theories that concern themselves with the origin of humans. Please do not nitpick.
Further, a failed premise is one that is proven wrong. Evolution, and ID for that matter have both not been proven wrong. Evolution merely holds the advantage of logic. ID supporters constantly fail to produce any evidence of their theory being right, so perhaps this is a failed premise too?
I disagree. You'll have to prove it before I believe this claim. Show the purpose and direction from point A to Z if you can and I'll consider that it's not randomness.
ignore no. Evolution brings forth it's idea and I have two options. Creation or happenstance...Logic dictates design. Evolution rules it'sself out by contradiction.
That's a good question and it's also irrelevant to the conversation.
I believe God is very complex. The variables I've seen in place are directed not a creators creator but humans creator...this just purposely takes us off topic.
DNA
whose talking behavior.
Let me ask you something Enterprise D. Is it your intention to contradict everything I say even if you can't back it up? At what point did I ever say or imply behavior.
What are you talking about Enteprise are we on the same subject?
I see you have your bic marker and notepad out too. Prove that it's a fallacy and identify the falsehood.
I'm not the one who said "I'll go at this surgicaly".
A failed premise is also that which fails experimentation. Logic is not failure.
ID has the same evidence as Evolution...it just fits ID better. That's logical. What you're asking is proof in experimentation. To my knowledge there is no experiment that could prove Inteligent Design only speaking with the Designer. How would you attempt to experiment that the Pyramids were designed and constructed? You can't but we see the complexity and form of the pyramid and recognize the implication of design and the traits of function and purpose we also see information...
Both Pyramids and Life have a function, carry traits of function, and contain information. By comparison the logical inference is Design...we can't prove who the designer is less he tells us and science is ill equiped to talk to the creator. But he has chosen to leave his signiture in us and the bible.
Any evidence of this? Or just another confidence statement?
I won't even go into the high levels of underhanded politicking and even downright warfare that various religions sink to.
I didn't say anything about the Chaos Theory. This is something completely different.
LOL
Theists have surely been the bastion of success! The failures of few scientists does not grant any theism any modicum of accuracy.
Oh and it's very easy to punch holes in ID. Like I asked in a previous post...who designed your first designer, who is necessarily a complex system?
The Universe is not a life. The neither is the solar system or even the planet. All of these locations house lives. Feel free to resumbit examples for approval.
And once more, for what I'm sure is the thousandth time in Sciforums alone, evolution has nothing to do with luck, chance, coincidence or random occurences; (I'm pretty sure that Sarkus and Q have posted links to explain evolution on more than one occasion). Until you can understand this, you cannot hope to argue against it. You prove your immense misunderstanding every time you confidently dismiss Darwinian Theory as nothing more than a roll of dice.
No scientist ever claimed that evolution is unchallengably correct. Theists purport that evolution is random chance. YOU need to prove this.
Darwinian Theory basically theorizes that the development of skills, attributes, intelligence etc is a function of surviving destructive environments and continuing a species. Given enough time, a species develops these attributes and pass them on in an ever changing genetic code. As someone posted before, virii are short term examples of this...we have yet to defeat the common cold, which evolves defenses for every medicine we invent.
Of course, you have already concluded in your mind that I'll be wrong, so maybe I'm wasting time.
No, your emotion cannot accept that you are a function of survival of the fittest. It is understandably disturbing, but it might be true.
Rubbish, this topic is necessary requirement for believing in god. If ID is to be believed, it is necessary (at least to me) for theists to prove that the theory of ID applies to their magical designer.
1% can be enough for disorder. But I am not a molecular biologist.
I'm speaking lack of order. I have provided examples of disorderly systems...which include human behaviour. Or do you dismiss psychology completely?
Further I can say the same for you. You have done nothing but dismiss anything that runs roughshod of your sensibilities and beliefs.
Oh please Saquist.
Saquist said:
Clear indicators that you are awed by the spectacle of life.
And earlier in this thread where you state that ID must be true because of the incredible complexity of life. Get off your high horse, grandeur does not evidence create. Therefore, you have given no postulation for anyone to prove any falsehood.
Saquist. Evolution and ID have everything to do with our origin. You don't have to state this for us to know this.
Experimentation is an extension of logic. Until some sort of test proves either conclusively, you cannot declare yourself et. al. (of ID) the winner.
Merely because you cannot imagine the experiment or method of gathering evidence, does not mean there is no way to do so. Now or in future.
Further, the evidence more strongly supports the theory of evolution.
Pyramids are dead stone buildings. They do not have the ability to adjust to surroundings and have no need to earn money or survive. Pyramids are the result of human evolution. And this is the key difference here, humans built pyramids - inanimate objects - for a function. We are not inanimate.
Further...your quote in orange is another example of a foregone conclusion...a confidence statement that gives no value to the conversation.
Let us focus on this.
I've said yes or no to everything you've said. I've explained myself and I've asked question of you.
You have ignored the question of evolution compared to the brain. So it's not me....It's you Enterprise D, not me. This is something you won't let go of. If you haven't noticed I'm dealing in absolutes. What is and What isn't.
Facts.
Adaptation is a normal biological process.
DNA's purpose is to allow adaptation but to resist error.
Mutation is notably bad for DNA
DNA has a 99% sucess rating for replication
Mutation has a 99% rating for adverse effects
Natual Seclection has never been observed altering an animal beyond the boundaries DNA Allows for Adaptation. (barring the dead and disfigured)
Evolution has never been observed altering an animal beyond the boundaries DNA allows for Adaptation.
The fossil record does not show the necessary change for evolution.
Evolution has failed countless experiments
Abiogenesis has failed experiments to create life.
This is real Easy....
Evolution is not the answer.
Last edited:
You've ignored everything Enterprise.
You've not faced a single one of those truths.
You've ignored my examples and have anemicly explained away the need to face those examples. This is Cowardice. "Dead Stone Buildings" Indeed.
You don't really want to have a conversation...you want to argue debating strategy...pathetic... If I had know you were going to dodge and evade a meaningful conversation like Sarkus I would have ended this long ago....
But now will have to do....
You've not faced a single one of those truths.
You've ignored my examples and have anemicly explained away the need to face those examples. This is Cowardice. "Dead Stone Buildings" Indeed.
You don't really want to have a conversation...you want to argue debating strategy...pathetic... If I had know you were going to dodge and evade a meaningful conversation like Sarkus I would have ended this long ago....
But now will have to do....
While...certain requirements of God relate litteraly to science, not all things spiritual can pass through the Scientific Method grinder. So the Bible has a litteral harmony with science. This is a foundation not pseudo science in the end, because we've been told no further examples will not be given, we must come to reason on the facts, cause, and effect.
My Faith is built on Facts...not assumptions.
Is there truth in the Bible?: Yes....
Is everything in the Bible confirmable?: No
Are there confirmed events in the Bible?: Yes
Do sources contradict the Bible: YES
Does the Bible speak with One purpose? YES
Does the Bible speak truthfully on process it mentions? YES.
The truth is there will be contradiction to the bible and it should be expected since we know humans are capable and often motivated to lie. While we can't explain fully the "supernatural" events that occur in the bible from their perspective we must at least take it as testimony. All ancient text must be considered as testimony. Science is completely ill equipped to judge the bible or any other text created before modern times as a falsehood and those that do are truely afixed upon their own understanding of reality.
Donald Patten should quite well that LISTEN to these ancient texts could reveal more than we could possibly imagine. We must treat this as EYE WITNESS testimony. However they discribe it however they percieved it through superstitious eyes must be genuinely considered and in some cases interpretted in order to understand what they saw. Some of them were just stories fortunatly the Bible is one of the few that present it's self as truth rather than epic tales of Gods vs Titans.
And none of this supposed facts gives a single credibility point to the theory of creation or the existence of god.
If you like, but I have addressed almost all of your comments. You on the other hand have failed to prove your assertions, instead only focussing on the few failures of your opponents as if it justifies your entire belief system.
I'm afraid it has to be more sinister than that.
My most recent candidate for the necessary requirement for believing in God is this -
Holding the stance that there is nothing better in this Universe than to believe in God.
Although this seems to be a requirement based on several others, in our culture, it is possible to pick it up in just this form, ready-made.
Most of the other requirements listed so far were not exclusive to the belief in God, but this one is.
Of course, it's a bit circular and aprioristic - but apparently, this is just what is necessary.