Premier Rock Forum

Posted: **Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:55 am**

galanter wrote:In other words by definition God is beyond us in everyway imaginable, and an infinity of ways we can't imagine...but God can't be limited, and so he has to have any ability imaginable, including making it so that we can know him.

Of all the things I could disagree with in this paragraph I have to ask you to please just define "know" or knowledge, so I can understand in some way where you are coming from.

matthew wrote:But the fundamental axioms I subscribe to are superior to his...historically,philosophically, theologically, biologically and otherwise, There's nothing personal, nothing prideful nor anything ad hominem in me saying that"

how is it that you don't see how arrogant you are?
It's like saying "American culture is superior to Chinese culture in everyway, from the clothes we wear, to our literature, food we eat and even the utensils we eat it with I mean come on, these people eat with sticks". Then turning around and saying "of course chinese people shouldn't feel inferior about their inferiority"
I'm sorry you can't have it both ways you can't say I'm superior but it's not prideful or personal. That's like saying "I hate all plumbers but I'm not prejudiced"(silly yes but wanted to avoid opening up a can of worms)

Finally how is Jesus Christ not a philosopher? You know I can deify Socrates and say he was god incarnated into the form of a man and therefore not a ___ (insert whatever suits my purposes) that doesn't really mean anything, answer the question please!

Posted: **Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:40 am**

matthew wrote:Rejoice in the birth of God Incarnate...and stop being so bitter!

Posted: **Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:49 am**

eva03 wrote:
galanter wrote:In other words by definition God is beyond us in everyway imaginable, and an infinity of ways we can't imagine...but God can't be limited, and so he has to have any ability imaginable, including making it so that we can know him.

Of all the things I could disagree with in this paragraph I have to ask you to please just define "know" or knowledge, so I can understand in some way where you are coming from.

Just to be clear, I was responding to the implicit notion that (paraphrasing) "If God is beyond our senses, and is also beyond our understanding, how can people claim to know he exists?" I was pointing out that any claim that we can't possibly know God is a claim that puts limitations on God, which is a contradiction.

By "know" I mean it in an everyday sense. If you say "I know Joe" that first entails, for example, a belief that Joe exists.

As a reminder, my position is that atheism is not a defensible position because it claims that God doesn't exist, and I just don't see how such a thing can be proven, and I've yet to see it proven.

Many of those who have disagreed here seem to say that atheism doesn't mean a claim that God doesn't exist, it means a belief the question isn't even worth consideration. Or it means a lack of belief, which is not the same as a belief that he doesn't exist.

My own position is what is sometimes called "soft-boiled" agnosticism. i.e. (1) I don't know whether God exists and (2) I don't know whether other people can know if God exists. That's not to say I don't have suspicions. My own suspicion is that God doesn't exist, and that's more or less how I live my life. But I just don't see how such things can be proven, and in the interest of intellectual honesty soft-boiled agnosticism is the best I can do.

(So called "hard-boiled" agnosticism is (1) I don't know whether God exists and (2) it's impossible for others to know as well. The problem I have with (2) is that it places limitations on God as discussed above).

Posted: **Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:53 am**

And back on topic...

I think "creative design" is not science and therefore doesn't belong in science class. It seems obvious to me that the creative design movement is really a political movement to bring God affirmation into the state sponsored classroom, and as such it should be resisted.

Posted: **Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:01 am**

But do I have to be agnostic about unicorns and yetis in order to be intellectually honest? Why does God, as a proposed but unproven entity, get this epistemological concession, but not others?

And why does this non-existence of an unseen, unknown, unproven entity require the burden of proof? I can't prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a Halle Berry lookalike with a ratchet vagina and an insatiable sexual appetite for redheaded writers living in Brooklyn doesn't exist somewhere in the universe, but I feel pretty comfortable in stating that is in fact the case.

Posted: **Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:29 am**

Ty Webb wrote:But do I have to be agnostic about unicorns and yetis in order to be intellectually honest? Why does God, as a proposed but unproven entity, get this epistemological concession, but not others?

And why does this non-existence of an unseen, unknown, unproven entity require the burden of proof? I can't prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a Halle Berry lookalike with a ratchet vagina and an insatiable sexual appetite for redheaded writers living in Brooklyn doesn't exist somewhere in the universe, but I feel pretty comfortable in stating that is in fact the case.

This was gone over earlier in this thread (well, not the Halle Berry part), but I'm happy to reiterate it. I only mention it because I think this thread is more or less played out (if read from start to finish), and it's fairly clear (to me at least) that the differences here are so axiomatic that argumentation is sort of beside the point.

Anyway I would make these quick points.

* First, the burden of proof consideration itself is not some kind of stable universal truth. Even in everyday life we have varying standards of burden of proof. e.g. criminal versus civil law. Burden of proof is variable, and often a reflection of underlying (axiomatic) values.

* In the case of God you are talking about a very high stakes proposition relative to, say, unicorns. Unicorns may or may not exist, but it matters little to everyday life. If God exists the ramifications for everyday life are much more important (at least in terms of typical western notions of God).

For example, if I told you that behind your front door there is a lost penny you might use one standard of proof, and if there was reason to believe that your front door may be booby-trapped with a bomb you might use another standard of proof.

Similarly it wouldn't be unreasonable to be much more careful when dealing with the issue of God than with the issue of unicorns.

* Also, in the case of God we aren't dealing with some specific instance of an object among objects, we are dealing with the very ground of being itself. It is metaphysically a different level of ontological consideration. That too might call for a different standard of proof.

Posted: **Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:37 am**

galanter wrote:This was gone over earlier in this thread (well, not the Halle Berry part), but I'm happy to reiterate it.

I was afraid that might be the case, but I'm sneaking C/NC time at work and couldn't read the whole thread. Thanks for the patient and cogent reply.

Posted: **Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:10 am**

alpha80 wrote:
However, several things summise my hunch in a greater intelligence either collecting/coding/creating life on Earth as we know it today:

1. The astounding beauty, self-sufficiency, and resilience in all codes of DNA, simple and complex.

2. The astounding similarity in structure and function between the smallest perceptible particle(atom), and the largest perceptible(Solar systems)

3. The ridiculously abundant presence of altruism in nature.

I have a strong hunch there is something greater than humankind who is aware of our doings, likes us very much, and is far different/greater/more interesting than any current divine theory/religion/x-file has guessed.

As an secular humanist I frequently gibber in amazement at all these things too. However, there is no need to ascribe them to anything supernatural. I have found far more spiritual succour in knowing we are an infinistesimal dot on an infinistesimal dot of a place that is wonderful and mysterious beyond measure; we are made of atoms forged in the heart of stars, and those same atoms will eventually become part of some other form of life when we are dead, than through any of the hypocritical crap I was brought up with.

I have no problem philosophically with a God permeating the planes of the universe beyond our limited biological perceptions. But don't forget, anyone filtering this God into a supernatural being who will judge you for your actions knows as much about the true nature of God as you or any other feeble human: nothing.

Posted: **Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:29 am**

"intelligent design" is just an appeal to religious anthropomorphism (religious anthropomorphism meaning, you see this "greater force" that you choose to call god (or God?), and assume it to have human qualities). "intelligence" is a human quality, and obviously many humans (especially in the west) see the human race as the center of the universe (a basis from which the rest of the universe must be modelled), so i can understand how something such as intelligent design becomes popular (just as i can understand how a religion involving "god the father" and "god created man in his image" becomes popular... freud had a great take on that).

but intelligent design is really no different than other forms of superstition, such as the bermuda triangle: just because something cannot be totally explained by science doesnt mean that its now time to look to mysticism for an explanation.

Posted: **Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:32 am**

Butterfly effect: New species hatches in lab

James Randerson, science correspondent
Thursday June 15, 2006
The Guardian

The creation of a new species, something that scientific orthodoxy says should take thousands of years of genetic isolation has been achieved in the lab in just three months.

Scientists think they have recreated the process that produced a stunning South American butterfly called Heliconius heurippa virtually overnight. And they suggest that similar rapid species creation could help to explain puzzling groups of closely related species such as Darwin's finches and cichlid fish. The finding is yet another challenge to the charge from creationists that evolutionary biologists are unable to explain large scale evolutionary shifts that result in new species.

Biological dogma is that speciation, the process by which a new species forms, happens when two populations of the same species become separated for millennia by a new mountain range or a change in a river's course, for example. In their separate environments, the two diverge genetically and cannot mate when reunite. "The orthodoxy up to now is that it mostly has a destructive role," said George Turner, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Hull, "That's how species sometimes come to an end when they collapse into each other and all their unique adaptations are all mashed up together."

But Chris Jiggins at the University of Edinburgh and his colleagues were able to recreate butterflies with the same characteristics as H. heurippa after just three generations of breeding in the lab between two related parent species - H. melpomene and H. cydno.

"It was quite surprising how easy it was," said Dr Jiggins. "That really implies that the process of speciation could also have happened naturally very quickly." He said the process may explain the remarkable diversity among Heliconius butterflies. The research is reported in the journal Nature.

Premier Rock Forum

DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design

DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design

DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design

DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design

DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design

DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design

DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design

DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design

DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design

DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design

DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design