Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 generalgrog wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
If God created the Universe, then whats the problem with believing in a virgin birth?

There is no problem...that's my point.

GG

I guess I missed something somewhere, but ok.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
I believe God is a personal God, He is involved in the day to day affairs of the world. How He does it.....I do not know.

So if you have no idea how "god" is involved in the world then why are you so sure that he is, or that he even exists at all?

Faith. It's a thing. Learn about it, maybe you'd stop coming across so brashly in these convo's.

 djones520 wrote:
Faith. It's a thing. Learn about it, maybe you'd stop coming across so brashly in these convo's.

I know what faith is. I'm asking if he has any good reasons for his beliefs.

Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka.

last warning.

 djones520 wrote:

Faith. It's a thing. Learn about it, maybe you'd stop coming across so brashly in these convo's.

One person's inquiring mind is another person's brazeness. Simply inquiring 'why' or 'how' in order to understand what constitutes faith, or the process people go through to accept things without question, is to be applauded.

 insaniak wrote:




Or, to look at it another way - Why would God need to use this incredibly convoluted developmental learning path to get man to the point where he can build, say, a computer, when he could have just given us all computer trees in the Garden?

We had those and that damn woman ruined it for all of us....DAMN YOU EVE!!!

 generalgrog wrote:
You've kind of got the point. If God allows it......

Let's be sure we're talking about the same thing. On the one hand, there is the idea that "God allows" by not intervening such that natural law is possible. On the other hand, there is the idea that "God allows" by intervening and in that sense natural law is not possible -- and therefore science is not possible. I am in the former camp; which one are you in?

 generalgrog wrote:
And I'm glad you pointed out that it is your belief that God chooses not to intervene.

However that belief is inconsistent with your religion

No, it is not. Catholicism acknowledges that there are aspects of God's being -- such as in the Incarnation -- that are vera et proprie dicta mysteria; that is, not available to unaided reason. We cannot know these things except that God reveals himself to us. To put it another way, we only know these things through faith. The gospel accounts of miracles are not stories about what we can scientifically know about nature; they are stories about what we know through faith about God.

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course it's unscientific. Claims are unscientific if they directly contradict known facts/theories, but they're also unscientific if they're made without any evidence to support them.

A thing is unscientific if it contradicts science, but not if it has nothing to do with science. "Grimlock is awesome", "I like giant robots" and "I think God created the Big Bang" aren't unscientific statements, they're statements that have nothing to do with science at all.

And, again, what exactly is the purpose of this second tool? All I see is a bunch of attempts to figure out a place for religion based on an assumption that it must have a purpose and be valuable, and a complete lack of explanation for why religion is necessary or productive at all.

Who gives a gak what the purpose is? Do you walk up to children on swings and demand they tell you the purpose of going back and forth? Just let people be.

You're right. I don't like it when people are wrong. How is that any different from criticizing someone for claiming that 1+1=4?

1+1=2 is an essential cornerstone of almost all parts of human life and society. Whether or not people believe in God, ultimately, doesn't mean a damn thing.

Yes, and my point is that the "divine watchmaker" religion exists almost entirely in forum arguments where theists attempt to find a version of "god" that the atheists can't disprove.

You're framing it as a confrontational debate between atheists and believers. That's not how it works.

The divine watchmaker is about individuals finding a way to reconcile their own belief with what we know about the world. To the extent that the watchmaker analogy works for an individual, good for them.

That some atheists out there on the internet want to tell them they're wrong... well those people are engaged in an exercise that's about as useful as the nonsense Ken Ham is attempting.

I will not say this very often...

Amazing post Sebster. I tip my hat to you.

 Manchu wrote:
But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood.

I really really enjoyed that statement Manchu

I think god needs to get off his high horse and give us back those computer trees that eve denied us. I mean hugging your computer makes people think you're weird , but hugging a computer tree would make people think you were getting in touch with nature

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
It's likely me misunderstanding what others are saying when they state "God created the Big Bang"--but if I understand that correctly, that is a classic God of the Gaps argument. To qualify for a God of the Gaps, (IMO)--a person must;

1. Be making an assertion that celestial intervention caused the effect
2. The effect is something that we currently do not understand
3. The effect is something that may be proven, disproven or explained in the future

As I understand it, a God of the Gaps argument is looking to prove God. It is saying in some way that because our scientific knowledge can't explain something, it must somehow be a mystical thing that can only be due to God. ie it must be God holding the atoms together, therefore proof of God.

Whereas "God caused the Big Bang" is basically accepting whatever science has to tell us about how the universe formed, and then saying 'well however it formed, it did so because that's what God intended.'

 sebster wrote:


As I understand it, a God of the Gaps argument is looking to prove God. It is saying in some way that because our scientific knowledge can't explain something, it must somehow be a mystical thing that can only be due to God. ie it must be God holding the atoms together, therefore proof of God.

Whereas "God caused the Big Bang" is basically accepting whatever science has to tell us about how the universe formed, and then saying 'well however it formed, it did so because that's what God intended.'

Ahh, well then I was misunderstanding the way "God Caused the Big Bang" was being employed then. Whereas I understood it to be "No one can explain the singularity, therefore God"--it appears that it's being used more as a a quasi-pantheistic (Or pure deist) belief? I almost typed fine tuner argument--but that's just a very complex god of the gaps as well.

@ Your statement seb "Whether or not people believe in God, ultimately, doesn't mean a damn thing". Do you really think that to be true? In my experience, dogmatism (which faith would be perhaps the poster child of)--has very real world effects--some good--many bad. Then again, I live in the Midwest...where a church congregation ready to accept your sins is but a knock at your door or drive down the block away...

 Manchu wrote:

 sebster wrote:
God of the gaps is only wrong when it develops specific, psuedo-scientific ideas like that one about God being the reason atoms don't fly apart. When kept at the general level, 'God created the big bang' there's nothing problematic or unscientific about it at all.

"God caused the big bang" is a specific, pseudo-scientific idea. The claim that God did or does anything is a matter of faith but the big bang is a (theoretical) natural phenonmenon. Claiming that God caused the big bang is the same as claiming that God caused any other natural phenomenon. "God causes chemical reactions. God causes our finger nails to grow. God causes cars to be built. God causes bank robberies."

I think you're maybe interpreting 'God caused the big bang' as 'God put in place the specific physical processes that originated the big bang', but I really don't believe anyone means that. I think all it means is 'well however the universe originally formed, it did so because God intended it'.

Bullockist wrote:
I think god needs to get off his high horse and give us back those computer trees that eve denied us.

You ever heard of Apple computers?You're welcome.

 sebster wrote:
I think you're maybe interpreting 'God caused the big bang' as 'God put in place the specific physical processes that originated the big bang', but I really don't believe anyone means that. I think all it means is 'well however the universe originally formed, it did so because God intended it'.

Well, that may be halfway right. I think you're right in the sense that people who say "God caused the big bang" don't put a lot of thought into it. But I do think it means something specific; namely, that the big bang forms a kind of line as to where it's okay to stop talking about science and start talking about God. That's clearly not scientific. But it's also not suitable as to Christianity given that we Christians hold that God is always present to us (as opposed the the ephemeral watchmaker deity).

 Aerethan wrote:
My only thought to consider on this:

Evolutionists believe in insane probabilities and statistical nightmares that brought about the state of everything as it is. Just the right conditions, the right time, all of it. The odds are incredibly small. Yet they believe it entirely as truth. The very idea of God or intelligent design offends them, in almost the exact same way that their view offends hardcore creationists.

No, they don't. People who believe in evolution believe in following the scientific theory that makes the best predictions of future events. ie evolution predicted that eventually a species in which one population was seperated for long enough would, over time, differ so much that they would no longer be able to breed with the original group. That was later proven.

And those 'insane probabilities' you're talking about, well evolution predicted that a number of sub-systems would occur to make the final form more probable... and science then found a lot of those sub-systems.

End of the day, when a theory says 'well given our theory then all these are probably out there' and then those things kept getting verified... well then you're on to something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
so your saying science cannot work without uniformitariansm? So speed of light "has" to be the same now as in the past otherwise science just somehow stops working?

The speed of light isn't just a number. It's a central component of relativity, and if you change it then you're talking about an entirely different universe, one in which the basic physical building blocks don't interact like they used.

If the speed of light used to be a different speed, or the rates of decay at the atomic level were different, you'd be talking about a completely alien universe, one in which life as we know likely wouldn't work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

An all powerfull God who can create the universe we live in, has to resort to some long evolutionary model to bring about his masterpiece.

'Has' to resort to evolution?

Why on Earth are you assuming that God must have wanted to do it some other way, but could only get it done through evolution. How do you know that isn't how God simply wanted it to be?

Thought this was a pretty good line, pretty much sums it up

Question: "What, if anything, would make you change your mind?"
Hom: "Nothing"
Nye: "Evidence"

 sebster wrote:
A thing is unscientific if it contradicts science, but not if it has nothing to do with science. "Grimlock is awesome", "I like giant robots" and "I think God created the Big Bang" aren't unscientific statements, they're statements that have nothing to do with science at all.

Except "god created the big bang" does contradict science. It might not contradict any particular theory/law, but it contradicts the fundamental rules about what is and isn't a legitimate explanation for something. It's a statement that inherently includes the claim that it's ok to make up random stuff and believe it just because you want to, and that attitude is clearly anti-scientific.

Who gives a gak what the purpose is? Do you walk up to children on swings and demand they tell you the purpose of going back and forth? Just let people be.

You do realize that this is a thread for debating the subject, right?

The divine watchmaker is about individuals finding a way to reconcile their own belief with what we know about the world. To the extent that the watchmaker analogy works for an individual, good for them.

And my point here is that those individuals are incredibly rare. Walk into an average church and ask how many people believe in the "divine watchmaker" god, and how many people believe in a more traditional god (miracles happened, Jesus was real, prayer works, etc) that is actively involved in the world. What you'll find is that in the real world "watchmaker" theists are an almost nonexistent minority, and the only place those beliefs show up with any real frequency is in debates where the theist side needs them as an argument strategy.

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
You've kind of got the point. If God allows it......

Let's be sure we're talking about the same thing. On the one hand, there is the idea that "God allows" by not intervening such that natural law is possible. On the other hand, there is the idea that "God allows" by intervening and in that sense natural law is not possible -- and therefore science is not possible. I am in the former camp; which one are you in?

 generalgrog wrote:
And I'm glad you pointed out that it is your belief that God chooses not to intervene.

However that belief is inconsistent with your religion

No, it is not. Catholicism acknowledges that there are aspects of God's being -- such as in the Incarnation -- that are vera et proprie dicta mysteria; that is, not available to unaided reason. We cannot know these things except that God reveals himself to us. To put it another way, we only know these things through faith. The gospel accounts of miracles are not stories about what we can scientifically know about nature; they are stories about what we know through faith about God.

Manchu..stop with the Roman Catholic philosophic psychobabble. Do you believe that the Miracles I mentioned as portrayed in the Bible happened or not. I'm not interested in what "Catholicism" or the Vatican "acknowledges". I'm interested in what Manchu believes.

If "knowing these things through faith" means that you believe in those miracles just say so. :-)



GG

 Manchu wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
I think god needs to get off his high horse and give us back those computer trees that eve denied us.

You ever heard of Apple computers?

Spoiler:

You're welcome.

Steve Jobs is God? Now I truly understand why those people go to wait in line to see new Apple products . Those retail staff known as geniuses already realised this fact hence the title, I think for me the mysteries of the universe are finally solved except for one...does that make Bill Gates Jesus?

Grog , Manchu believes in allegorical boats, I think that's all anyone needs to know about someones beliefs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

A thing is unscientific if it contradicts science, but not if it has nothing to do with science. "Grimlock is awesome", "I like giant robots" and "I think God created the Big Bang" aren't unscientific statements, they're statements that have nothing to do with science at all.

God did create the big bang , that was when he impregnated the virgin Mary, it has to be a powerful load of sperm in order to force it's way past a hymen.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Skimmed through the thread to see if anybody had posted the videos.







I think what Nye said wasn't particularly unreasonable or inflamatory. I'm not sure why Ken Ham chose to respond, he's really just going to make himself out to be an idiot.

It looks like he is quite confident he is going to do ok. You can pre-order the debate on the creationist museum website!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/uncensored-bill-nye-debates-ken-ham/?sku=30-9-472

Hahahaah ohh my god Ken Ham's video here made me laugh so much.

The irony is so thick I cannot beleive he does not see the hypocrisy in what he is saying.

 generalgrog wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Catholicism acknowledges that there are aspects of God's being -- such as in the Incarnation -- that are vera et proprie dicta mysteria; that is, not available to unaided reason. We cannot know these things except that God reveals himself to us. To put it another way, we only know these things through faith. The gospel accounts of miracles are not stories about what we can scientifically know about nature; they are stories about what we know through faith about God.

Manchu..stop with the Roman Catholic philosophic psychobabble. Do you believe that the Miracles I mentioned as portrayed in the Bible happened or not. I'm not interested in what "Catholicism" or the Vatican "acknowledges". I'm interested in what Manchu believes.

You quoted the answer to the question you just asked. Considering you called it "philosophic psychobabble," is it fair to say it was too complicated for you to understand?

 Peregrine wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Faith. It's a thing. Learn about it, maybe you'd stop coming across so brashly in these convo's.

I know what faith is. I'm asking if he has any good reasons for his beliefs.

Are you interested in a reason that makes sense to that person subjectively, based on their upbringing, mores, personal experiences, etc.
Or
Are you looking for a reason that you can test objectively?

I'm sure a few people following this thread also saw this "viral" story from Buzzfeed yesterday: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

These questions exhibit a gross misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works, what cosmology is, and even what basic science is and how it works. They serve to illustrate the reason why Bill Nye decided to "debate" Ken Ham: a culture that not only accepts but promotes that kind of ignorance (for lack of a better term) cannot be at the forefront of scientific and technological innovation. Period.

Also, here is a answer to each of those questions: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/06/religion_and_science_answering_creationists_questions.html

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I'm sure a few people following this thread also saw this "viral" story from Buzzfeed yesterday: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

These questions exhibit a gross misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works, what cosmology is, and even what basic science is and how it works. They serve to illustrate the reason why Bill Nye decided to "debate" Ken Ham: a culture that not accepts but promotes that kind of ignorance (for lack of a better term) cannot be at the forefront of scientific and technological innovation. Period.

Also, here is a answer to each of those questions: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/06/religion_and_science_answering_creationists_questions.html

The worst part is that the basic principles behind most of those questions should be taught around elementary and middle school. At the most basic level, these concepts are not difficult to understand.

I really love the ones mentioning thermodynamics. That last one's a real kicker too. You don't need a course in primatology to figure that one out (although in taking one, you'll learn more about hot monkey/ape sex than you ever wanted to).

Watched this on YouTube last night. It was really good, and I loved how Bill Nye brought so much scientific fact in to actually answering the question the debate was about, and Ham brought assertions of hijacking terminology and other social tenets. Not to mention kept up the strawman argument about how the world (apparently) claims creationists don't have the capability of being scientists.

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
the strawman argument about how the world (apparently) claims creationists don't have the capability of being scientists

It wasn't a strawman argument. Bill Nye contended that creationism is bad for America people who believe in it are less qualified to be scientists and engineers and the lack of effective scientists and engineers will negatively impact technological innovation and therefore also material prosperity.

 Manchu wrote:

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
the strawman argument about how the world (apparently) claims creationists don't have the capability of being scientists

It wasn't a strawman argument. Bill Nye contended that creationism is bad for America people who believe in it are less qualified to be scientists and engineers and the lack of effective scientists and engineers will negatively impact technological innovation and therefore also material prosperity.

No, no, no, I did not hear Bill Nye assert that nonsense ANYWHERE. He kept reiterating that naturalism is important to be focused on in schools, not saying creationism = inept and unintelligent humans.

From the pre-debate vid, regarding American innovation and prosperity:

Bill Nye wrote:That is largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science. When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe that, it holds everybody back, really.

Regarding why creationists should not insist that their children be creationists:

Bill Nye wrote:Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can, uh, we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
the strawman argument about how the world (apparently) claims creationists don't have the capability of being scientists

It wasn't a strawman argument. Bill Nye contended that creationism is bad for America people who believe in it are less qualified to be scientists and engineers and the lack of effective scientists and engineers will negatively impact technological innovation and therefore also material prosperity.

No, no, no, I did not hear Bill Nye assert that nonsense ANYWHERE. He kept reiterating that naturalism is important to be focused on in schools, not saying creationism = inept and unintelligent humans.

What Manchu said has been Bill Nye's stance for a while, he has YouTube videos and TV appearances saying as much. The subject of the debate was "is creationism viable in today's modern scientific era?" and Bill Nye's (correct) position is "no." The reason is because it is decidedly not science and creationists like Ken Ham push an agenda of radical anti-science and if that is allowed in the classroom, it will breed an atmosphere such as the one Manchu described.

I stand corrected, it now makes sense why Ham kept bringing in creationists reciting their CVs. I only watched the debate, I didn't even know there was a pre-debate video. I'll have to watch it when I get home today.

Regarding children being taught creationism or not, I don't think Nye is advocating not passing on your religious teachings insofar as they don't result in a closed mind.

We've had tons of hugely important scientists who were clearly scientifically literate AND creationists. The key was that they didn't close their mind off.

Of course, parents will push their beliefs on their children, so it's tough to ensure that.