I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
More as our tool. We don't feel secure via Science, but, I'll tell ya that Humans feel better when they feel they are in control. If you wanna stay in control, you gotta know, and knowing comes from Science. So yeah, it, in a way, does the same thing as the idealogy of God - comfort.
But not the main reason, nor the intent.
and if presented miracles, you seem to seek for any explanation that could fit into your mind, and if you fail, you just say "LALALA I don't hear it"
I'd like you to point this out somewhere.
as I have seen you accusing some of us that do like this.
Some of your (as in Christians) perceptions of evidence is human testimony and biblical scriptures. And that's all they've been perceiving it as.
but there are nitpicks that contradict it, you throw an argument from ignorance yourself
Ignorance? How?
Ahh humans, they are imperfect, so this should be verified with an experiment, unbiased, stuff
Something objectified is not biased. Something that is quite obvious. Humans aren't perfect - that is also quite obvious.
And... O.o MGW's the ignorant one? Of course if what you said is true.
this does not work with supernatural.
If it's there. The only Supernatural I care about is this kind.
So even if you try, you fail, then you call it experiment error and plain ignore.
I don't speak for MGW, and I wasn't trying to but, I have every right to ignore if you can't prove it in the first place. It would be like saying why did Joan of Arc kill her 3 children before becoming general of her army. No point going over why, because that has no evidence / proof of happening.
Aren't you a hypocrite when you do like this?
A few questions: Did he say humans were perfect? Did he say any experiments were flawed? Is this actually what you meant, Mage? Also, quotes, please. Thus far that seemed like a paragraph of empty blabbering.
You can GET something without God? In order to do this, you first have to prove there is no God to start with.
No I don't, that's not how it works. I no more need to disprove God to claim we can get something without God then I need to disprove magic pixies to say it things can happen without them. We have to first demonstrate there is a God before we can say something came from God.
If you speak with probabilities, you are oversimplifying both, which is technically wrong if applied to reality.
Fine seven and four outcomes, but your ignoring the point I was making. These outcomes don't require including a God. These sorts of probabilities also work in nature.
This seems to be a really refined "ure evolutionist" position, very close to an ideal.
I was pointing out the fallacious assertions being made in your argument. These would apply to any number of topics dealing with unknowns, not just evolution.
You have science as your god
THE POWER OF SCIENCE COMPELS YOU! THE POWER OF SCIENCE COMPELS YOU!
Care to come up with a few more fallacies? Your on a roll.
and if presented miracles, you seem to seek for any explanation that could fit into your mind, and if you fail, you just say "LALALA I don't hear it"
I'm going to seek a verifiable explanation before going with an unverifiable explanation like magic. That's just good logical reasoning.
While this works with science (I used "mundane" to designate this field of application), this does not work with supernatural. So even if you try, you fail, then you call it experiment error and plain ignore. Aren't you a hypocrite when you do like this?
If observation and experimentation doesn't work with the supernatural, what reason do I have to accept such a claim?
No I don't, that's not how it works. I no more need to disprove God to claim we can get something without God then I need to disprove magic pixies to say it things can happen without them. We have to first demonstrate there is a God before we can say something came from God.
I mean, that you say you can get something without God. This means you have to secure this condition "without God", otherwise all that comes after that "if" is unsupported. And, "I no more need to" stuff, while being true, has both its inside statements as true. If you claim you can do something without X, you need to secure the "without X", which might be possible with pixies (I don't know, maybe not), but is impossible with God. Like early 20th century scientists said "I can explain the atom's structure without that quantum theory", presuming it's false, but were eventually forced into accepting the quatum theory as experiments amass.
I was pointing out the fallacious assertions being made in your argument. These would apply to any number of topics dealing with unknowns, not just evolution.
While it's correct that you did a reductio ad absurdum, you were incorrect of throwing in an ad hominem in form of a "mindset" reference. If you uphold science, but include "random" in your theories, either explain the random or let it be, and let us stuff it with God's actions. If eventually you will explain the random on a higher scale, as scientists did with evolution, but let it remain on the lower scale, we are safe to relocate "God's actions" theory (or belief, if you're strict to meanings) into the lower-level random.
Thus far that seemed like a paragraph of empty blabbering.
Basically yes, that was a kind of rant, based on my entire experience of this dialogue, and I think I am wrong in throwing all of this to MGW, while there was a lot of other people who were even more stubborn in their position. But MGW did confirm something from there, so it's not as baseless as it could look.
I'm going to seek a verifiable explanation before going with an unverifiable explanation like magic. That's just good logical reasoning.
If this is logical, then why you stop refining your explanation if you are presented with details that contradict your theory? I am speaking about the complete set of evidence about Fatima's miracle in particular.
[quote] [quote]If you have God doing something imperfectly that makes him no longer perfect.
Incorrect.[/quote]
Really? How do you figure that Vesper. [/quote]Then, please explain how an intention of making something imperfect detracts from the maker's perfectness.
NIV 1984: Titus 3 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. NLT 2007: Titus 3 Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights about obedience to Jewish laws. These things are useless and a waste of time.
I think it's really cool how the bible covers EVERYTHING that christians will face in their lives.
I mean, that you say you can get something without God. This means you have to secure this condition "without God", otherwise all that comes after that "if" is unsupported. And, "I no more need to" stuff, while being true, has both its inside statements as true. If you claim you can do something without X, you need to secure the "without X", which might be possible with pixies (I don't know, maybe not), but is impossible with God. Like early 20th century scientists said "I can explain the atom's structure without that quantum theory", presuming it's false, but were eventually forced into accepting the quatum theory as experiments amass.
Unlike quantum physics there is nothing demonstrating God in the first place. You don't need to secure "without X" if there isn't any indication of X in the first place.
While it's correct that you did a reductio ad absurdum, you were incorrect of throwing in an ad hominem in form of a "mindset" reference.
I pointed out how still trying to claim "God did it" in the face of evolution and scripture is moving the goal post and claiming he's working from the points that are random is a form of argument from ignorance. If you are referring to to where I say God becomes an unnecessary variable ie useless if we can get these outcomes without him I don't see how that is a reduction to the absurd.
Also non of my arguments hedged on linking the truth of my claim with negative characteristics. If you mean this part, "If we can get these outcomes without God there is no point to add him beyond some feeble grasp to hang on to a silly misplaced belief."
I could just as easily leave out "feeble grasp to hang on to a silly misplaced" and the statement would still stand. So no I didn't use an ad hominem here.
If this is logical, then why you stop refining your explanation if you are presented with details that contradict your theory? I am speaking about the complete set of evidence about Fatima's miracle in particular.
You haven't presented me with jack that contradicts that in this case it may be just an illusion.
Then, please explain how an intention of making something imperfect detracts from the maker's perfectness.
perfect means without fault. If someone does something faulty they can not be regarded as being without fault.
I think it's really cool how the bible covers EVERYTHING that christians will face in their lives.
Okay, say I have made a perfect software with an intended backdoor. Will this make me less of a perfect programmer?
That doesn't quite work for what you're trying to make an analogy of. Let me help you rephrase it a bit...
Let's say you're the supposed best software designer, and you release a new product that has multiple bugs, glitches, and very inefficient data processing. Furthermore, it crashes often, and is incompatable with the majority of technologies out there.
Now, you "could" say that you intended for all that to be there, but, what purpose would you have in doing that? To waste your time making a faulty product? To laugh at your customers troubles? Either it comes down to, you're incompetent, or you're an *******.
There is evidence of God.
No, there's evidence of things happening, which you then ascribe to god with no particular reason other than that you want to/don't understand it.
Now, you "could" say that you intended for all that to be there, but, what purpose would you have in doing that? To waste your time making a faulty product? To laugh at your customers troubles? Either it comes down to, you're incompetent, or you're an *******.
Another "why God had to make us imperfect" question? I don't know. The answer given was that we are able to evolve and grow, as a perfect being cannot become more perfect, while an imperfect being can become closer to perfectness.
No, there's evidence of things happening, which you then ascribe to god with no particular reason other than that you want to/don't understand it.
Basically I am speaking about miracles that still happen, and that have happened in the past. Was reminded just yesterday about the event in book of Jesus Navin, chapter 3 (full reading). Speak some natural explanation, please.
Another "why God had to make us imperfect" question? I don't know. The answer given was that we are able to evolve and grow, as a perfect being cannot become more perfect, while an imperfect being can become closer to perfectness.
What was the point of that if he could have just gone with the perfection?
Was reminded just yesterday about the event in book of Jesus Navin, chapter 3 (full reading). Speak some natural explanation, please.
