This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Richard Dawkins Hero
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
derben  17 Jun 15 10.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Ray in Houston at 17 Jun 2015 10.01pm
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 9.23pm
But if God is omnipotent, God has unlimited powers. This would include the power to create itself or even retrospectively make itself exist from eternity!
Claiming that "my God can beat up your science" does not make it so. Not saying it is my God. Just saying that if there is an omnipotent God, then God's omnipotence defeats all arguments.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 TUX redhill 17 Jun 15 10.35pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 10.07pm
Quote Ray in Houston at 17 Jun 2015 10.01pm
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 9.23pm
But if God is omnipotent, God has unlimited powers. This would include the power to create itself or even retrospectively make itself exist from eternity!
Claiming that "my God can beat up your science" does not make it so. Not saying it is my God. Just saying that if there is an omnipotent God, then God's omnipotence defeats all arguments.[/quote] What created God?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| derben 18 Jun 15 7.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TUX at 17 Jun 2015 10.35pm
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 10.07pm
Quote Ray in Houston at 17 Jun 2015 10.01pm
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 9.23pm
But if God is omnipotent, God has unlimited powers. This would include the power to create itself or even retrospectively make itself exist from eternity!
Claiming that "my God can beat up your science" does not make it so. Not saying it is my God. Just saying that if there is an omnipotent God, then God's omnipotence defeats all arguments.[/quote] What created God? As the omnipotent God has unlimited powers, ie: God can do anything, then it could have created itself.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Jun 15 8.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 18 Jun 2015 7.28am
Quote TUX at 17 Jun 2015 10.35pm
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 10.07pm
Quote Ray in Houston at 17 Jun 2015 10.01pm
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 9.23pm
But if God is omnipotent, God has unlimited powers. This would include the power to create itself or even retrospectively make itself exist from eternity!
Claiming that "my God can beat up your science" does not make it so. Not saying it is my God. Just saying that if there is an omnipotent God, then God's omnipotence defeats all arguments.[/quote] What created God? As the omnipotent God has unlimited powers, ie: God can do anything, then it could have created itself.
You see why that's not scientifically acceptable though.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Jun 15 8.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Ray in Houston at 17 Jun 2015 7.17pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm
About sums up the level of scientific knowledge being shown here. In science, the term 'theory' is only used for well-established principles. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis.
Technically its not really a hypothesis, as a hypothesis should really be constructed around disproving a stated null hypothesis, and establish the basis of the hypothesis, and reference supporting research on which the argument has been built. You can't just have a hypothesis without a proposal as to why your testing it.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Jun 15 8.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 12.32pm
Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 11.19am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 9.27am
Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 8.49am
Quote reborn at 17 Jun 2015 8.36am
LOL sadly for you I live it, I spend all my days when I am not working trying to help other people and significant amounts of my money. You see its not a club, its a way of life. I think the thing that irritates you the most is I don't fit into your close minded and prejudiced view of what a Christian is. I will pray for you, not least for a sense of humour. Lighten up man, you seem so angry at everything.
Edited by TheJudge (17 Jun 2015 8.51am) Dawkins would be incorrect, except on a genetic level (however we cannot presume that genetics defines all behavior and genes are sentient), as such degrees of altruism exist and what is more the case is that people who don't believe resort to rhetoric and abstraction of the individual, in order to demonstrate this. Its a move the goal posts argument, similar to that used in religion, by saying god creates evolution or the big bang, its hiding in the semantic limitations of proof (ie that you can neither truly prove or disprove something). Granted no act is truly selfless, as existence is experienced existentially, so it must tie back to the individual making the action, but that doesn't distract from the fact that its more selfless than selfish (and we shouldn't mistake selfish for egocentric either, a selfish act is not immoral, unless it is committed egocentrically). Wow. Where to begin. Firstly, genes determine behavior for their own survival using the animal as a vehicle. Not very romantic I concede. Human behavior is complex but we must not let that cloud the reality of existence. As for proof of anything. You must realise that just because you cannot disprove something does not make it more or less likely. This is the kind of absurd argument that followers of religion use. The fact that you cannot disprove god is irrelevant. As Dawkins would say: You cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster either. Only if you discount evidence from psychological sciences, that demonstrate quite adequately that genes at best have a influence on behavior and in no what categories it. The paradigm limitations of Biology, which has limited capacity to study behavior, relates to species not individual behavior. Its convenient when dealing with species and generations, but ultimately its reductionist and unsupported from outside of biology. There is a relationship between genetics and behaviors, but in no way is it definitive, and evidence suggests that experience plays a far more important role in determining how we react than genetics. Even neurology suggests that the role of genes in behavior is limited to structural influence, rather than determinism. Whilst humans do not possess free will, its equally absurd to suggest that they lack agency.
Mechanisms don't explain the whole of the process, but the basis on why the system operates, and its limitations. Also because something is biological doesn't follow that its genetically directed, genes create the system, and its flaws, but behaviour certainly has a fail safe of agency and consciousness, that can and does manipulate behaviour - The fact we are capable of learning, demonstrates a degree of agency is required and that in that process of learning (and reflection on what we experienced) we adapt the biological machine. The mind is a product of the brain, but its also capable of changing that brain by its decisions. I'm a middle ground guy, that the reality lies between the two arguments. Agency-Structure, as the individual-self dualism breaks down when we look at groups as individuals, rather than as a species. Genetics correlates with behaviour, its not causal.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Jun 15 9.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 7.22pmThis is rather applying a macro explanation to a micro system. I don't really accept that biology has the limitations of which you speak. Our very consciousness is biological/physiological and all behaviors must ultimately be biological in nature. The gene is the only thing that must survive for life to continue in it's current form. (There may only be one)
You might prefer a more fluffy interpretation, but its only man's own arrogance that allows him the luxury of delusion regarding his consciousness and his significance beyond being some animate matter. I think its more or less true, that a macro model will differ from a micro model because of the different assumptions, variables discounted and how observation and study is undertaken. However one must also account for reductionism. A degree of sentience and agency, also makes sense as a evolutionary benefit (it massively aids adaptability). I don't think we have free will, that's nonsense, but I also think that the paradims of biological science cannot function when determining individuals (simply because of the scale) and so it abstracts. Biology often refers to things we can demonstrate that are learned from our peers as hereditary, without them being genetic. I don't think this is unique to humans either, just its most pronounced, because we're humans - and that we reduce this phenomena in other mammals because its convenient to our ego. Its also not active on an autonomic scale, we react in the moment, but reflect and plan our actions out and prepair in advance by running scenarios, that allow us to adapt our reactive self. Essentially, we can, on some level, reprogram our own behavior, according to our experiences and desired outcomes. When faced in the moment we react.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 18 Jun 15 11.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 8.06am
Quote derben at 18 Jun 2015 7.28am
Quote TUX at 17 Jun 2015 10.35pm
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 10.07pm
Quote Ray in Houston at 17 Jun 2015 10.01pm
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 9.23pm
But if God is omnipotent, God has unlimited powers. This would include the power to create itself or even retrospectively make itself exist from eternity!
Claiming that "my God can beat up your science" does not make it so. Not saying it is my God. Just saying that if there is an omnipotent God, then God's omnipotence defeats all arguments.[/quote] What created God? As the omnipotent God has unlimited powers, ie: God can do anything, then it could have created itself.
You see why that's not scientifically acceptable though. I guess an omnipotent God could make it scientifically acceptable if that God chose to.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Lyons550 Shirley 18 Jun 15 1.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 3.22pm
Quote Lyons550 at 17 Jun 2015 2.41pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 10.44am
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am
One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period. Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation. What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all? Or that they all tie into a greater cosmic reality, that people of ages, including this one, are attempting to relay. One should always accept the very strong likelihood that people thousands of years ago might have been very much 'filling in the gaps' and relying on their knowledge of the times and existent knowledge's / experiences. The Catholic church struggled a long time with many of these arguments, and came to a number of interesting to absurd conclusions, based on their faith, some of which were quite surprising (they saw the pagan faiths as evidence of the age of the Nephilim in genesis, for example) and the idea or purgatory and the harrowing of hell etc. We're always limited by what our 'situated knowledge's', and we will likely as not look as limited in our capacity to people in several hundred years.
Pending sufficient evidence, yes. At present its a no, on the basis that there is no credible evidence of extra terrestrial life, let alone visitations to earth Same with God I suppose
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TheJudge 18 Jun 15 1.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 9.31am
Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 7.22pmThis is rather applying a macro explanation to a micro system. I don't really accept that biology has the limitations of which you speak. Our very consciousness is biological/physiological and all behaviors must ultimately be biological in nature. The gene is the only thing that must survive for life to continue in it's current form. (There may only be one)
You might prefer a more fluffy interpretation, but its only man's own arrogance that allows him the luxury of delusion regarding his consciousness and his significance beyond being some animate matter. I think its more or less true, that a macro model will differ from a micro model because of the different assumptions, variables discounted and how observation and study is undertaken. However one must also account for reductionism. A degree of sentience and agency, also makes sense as a evolutionary benefit (it massively aids adaptability). I don't think we have free will, that's nonsense, but I also think that the paradims of biological science cannot function when determining individuals (simply because of the scale) and so it abstracts. Biology often refers to things we can demonstrate that are learned from our peers as hereditary, without them being genetic. I don't think this is unique to humans either, just its most pronounced, because we're humans - and that we reduce this phenomena in other mammals because its convenient to our ego. Its also not active on an autonomic scale, we react in the moment, but reflect and plan our actions out and prepair in advance by running scenarios, that allow us to adapt our reactive self. Essentially, we can, on some level, reprogram our own behavior, according to our experiences and desired outcomes. When faced in the moment we react. I understand your view point but I'm inclined to think that in the same way that technology is an extension of nature, so is the complex nature of animals,including humans. I can't separate the agency of the animal from the genetic survival mechanism.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Ray in Houston  Houston 18 Jun 15 3.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TUX at 17 Jun 2015 10.35pm
What created God?
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 18 Jun 15 3.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Ray in Houston at 18 Jun 2015 3.51pm
Quote TUX at 17 Jun 2015 10.35pm
What created God?
You are confusing God with Cod.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.