as for christians and evolution - even vatican was ok with it. and they know a lot about christianity.

emmanuelle cunt wrote:

galanter wrote:
(And yes, the question of God is different than any other question of the form "does x exist"." God is not a thing among other things. God is, in a sense, being itself not some particular thing that is here today and gone tomorrow. When we ask "does God exist" we are asking a question about the metaphysical nature of reality...that is quite different than asking "does a green dragon exist" or some such.)

you're making suppositions about the nature of god and then you're treating them as a facts to show that question of god existence is from a different class of question that question's of everything else's existence. this is circle reasoning, and i think it's one step away from anselm's proof of god's existence.

This is a constant misconception on this board. I'm not hypothesizing a God and then using the definition to prove the existence as in Anselm's proof.

What I am saying is that the proposition "God exists" is a metaphysical hypothesis. A hypothesis doesn't prove itself, but the nature of the hypothesis does condition what kinds of proof are adequate. Saying "unicorns exist" does nothing to reset ones expectations about how statements about objects existing should be treated. But saying "God exists" does because it's not a standard physical world object that is the question...it's the whole metaphysical nature of being that is in question, and that's an entirely different kind of discussion.

The tendency of disbelievers here has been to think that "unicorns exist" and "God exists" are equivalent claims with a mere change of noun. This is a mistake.

so we should be agnostic when it comes to all metaphysical hypothesis?

and saying that X has an methaphysical aspect is making a presumption about X.
it is possible to think that god is "just" a creature millions times more advanced then we are so we can't understand it, just like ants can't understand us. but we belong to the same class of objects as ants, so saying that question of god existance is a question of methaphysical aspect of the world is a presumption.


why not threat god as an object who exists or not (just like unicorns) and the methaphysical aspect of the world as the consequence of his existance? cause his existance is something that is way beyond this world (presumption, but let's stick to it) while unicorns (if they exists) are located in time and space? but i'm not asking about the (methaphysical or not) nature of god but about his existance. in the same way i can ask about the existance of unicorns without asking about whether they have souls or not.

galanter wrote:What I am saying is that the proposition "God exists" is a metaphysical hypothesis. A hypothesis doesn't prove itself, but the nature of the hypothesis does condition what kinds of proof are adequate. Saying "unicorns exist" does nothing to reset ones expectations about how statements about objects existing should be treated. But saying "God exists" does because it's not a standard physical world object that is the question...it's the whole metaphysical nature of being that is in question, and that's an entirely different kind of discussion.

No one has ever given me the slightest reason to think that metaphysical questions have any impact on the real world. If a metaphysical being (this God fellow) has an impact on our real world, then certainly someone can show it to me, as he has joined our real world in that instance. If not, then fuck it, even if he does exist, he's meaningless.

You can't tell me on one hand that this god fellow is incredibly important and has effects in the real world, and then on the other hand say he has no relationship to the the real world, so we can't look for him there.

Either he is real and has an affect on the real world, or he doesn't exist, or he doesn't matter. Pick one. If you pick the first one, show me some evidence.

Ultimately it is a total dodge to say that the question of god is an important one, but then say that we cannot fathom how to answer it. It creates a space of doubt about tangible reality, and insanity pervades that doubt. It's the insanity, and the real world effects it inspires, that is the true evil, and belies the notion that religion is benign and personal. It isn't. It is a culture weapon and it breeds evil.

steve alibini, secular materialist detective, back on the case, every time.

If you are very religious, and believe in an omnipotent god, then why would this god need to constantly re-write the rules of life? Because it made a mistake? Because it changed its mind?

Intelligent design is a case of people believing in an anthropomorphic and imperfect god. One that is just like us, that makes mistakes and needs to do things over again. Intellegence is a human thing. An ominiscent and omnipotent being would not need intelligence or need to experiment and develop new lines of organisms.

One thing I find interesting is how inbreeding creates diversity. If a bro and sis have kids, chances are the kid will be mutated. This is how genetic diversity is maintained, even if the gene pool is limited.

yut wrote:One thing I find interesting is how inbreeding creates diversity. If a bro and sis have kids, chances are the kid will be mutated. This is how genetic diversity is maintained, even if the gene pool is limited.

Nnnnno it's not.

I mean, seriously, that's why cheetahs are doomed to extinction - because their gene pool is more like a gene puddle, thanks to some long-ago disease.

So now they just get fucked-up-er.

---

Mutations caused by inbreeding aren't mutations so much as they are the emergence of awful recessive traits. That's why royal families have hemophillia.

steve wrote:

galanter wrote:What I am saying is that the proposition "God exists" is a metaphysical hypothesis. A hypothesis doesn't prove itself, but the nature of the hypothesis does condition what kinds of proof are adequate. Saying "unicorns exist" does nothing to reset ones expectations about how statements about objects existing should be treated. But saying "God exists" does because it's not a standard physical world object that is the question...it's the whole metaphysical nature of being that is in question, and that's an entirely different kind of discussion.

No one has ever given me the slightest reason to think that metaphysical questions have any impact on the real world. If a metaphysical being (this God fellow) has an impact on our real world, then certainly someone can show it to me, as he has joined our real world in that instance. If not, then fuck it, even if he does exist, he's meaningless.

You can't tell me on one hand that this god fellow is incredibly important and has effects in the real world, and then on the other hand say he has no relationship to the the real world, so we can't look for him there.

Either he is real and has an affect on the real world, or he doesn't exist, or he doesn't matter. Pick one. If you pick the first one, show me some evidence.

Ultimately it is a total dodge to say that the question of god is an important one, but then say that we cannot fathom how to answer it. It creates a space of doubt about tangible reality, and insanity pervades that doubt. It's the insanity, and the real world effects it inspires, that is the true evil, and belies the notion that religion is benign and personal. It isn't. It is a culture weapon and it breeds evil.

It may sound trite and tired, Steve, but the answer to how God relates to man is the person of Christ. It's as simple and intellectual as that.

Also, how can you say anything is evil or bad or not good or just simply distasteful when you deny the existence of an unshakable moral foundation? How then can you possibly defend sanity if you have no firm moral ground to stand on? You're bloviating!

matthew wrote:It may sound trite and tired, Steve, but the answer to how God relates to man is the person of Christ. It's as simple and intellectual as that.

So Jesus can do things in the real world? Like hand me that ashtray over there? He can't? Then he doesn't matter and may as well not exist.