Ant, if you have time I'd very much be interested in reading exactly what your religious beliefs are. I'd like you to be as exact as possible in stating what you believe in - what/who your God is - as well as if you believe in ghosts/angels/demons, any proofs of existence, how your beliefs came down from God to you, so on and so forth.
If you could go into detail, it'd be much appreciated... such as - does god need to eat, who created god, what do angels look like (black, white, asian, smoke, etc.), how the earth was created by god, ... really whatever you can think of.
I'd also like you to explain why yours is the true religion as opposed to all the others.
-
In total there are 9 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 8 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1086 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:03 am
Yes. Evolution.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- President Camacho
-
- I Should Be Bronzed
- Posts: 1655
- Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:44 pm
- 16
- Location: Hampton, Ga
- Has thanked: 246 times
- Been thanked: 314 times
- etudiant
-
Masters
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:33 pm
- 15
- Location: canada
- Has thanked: 64 times
- Been thanked: 174 times
Re: Yes. Evolution.
And that relationship is? It is easy to convince oneself of certain concepts when ruminating to one's self, especially if these are essential to a sense of well being. When one then has to articulate these in the company of others, it can then be surprising how flimsy they seem in the light of day.ant wrote: I think your working definition of “faith” is an impoverished one. It exposes a very poor religious and theological understanding of faith and reason, and the relationship both share.
Name calling can be sure sign of a loosing arguement.ant wrote: It is not surprising. The commonality among atheists is their prodigious ignorance of related concepts. As an example, Dawkins is a great scientist, but also a blathering idiot when he attempts to characterize religion.
I find it interesting that you promote the views of thinkers from the Middle Ages, but are critical of those today who have the benefit of access to a vastly greater store of knowledge. Hidden meanings here, or convenience? As for being taken seriously, you have been given a definition of faith and reason. Where is yours?ant wrote: To educated yourself on faith and reason you might want to read some Saint Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. I don’t think it’d be a total waste of your time if you wish to be taken serious when you use the word faith as a talking point.
"I suspect that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose"
— JBS Haldane
— JBS Haldane
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Yes. Evolution.
Johnson wrote;
(note:I'm not talking about the scientists you meet at booths set up at your local grade school science fair.
I'm talking about some BIG names in Physics and Cosmology here).
What observations should science point to as related "accumulated evidence"?
Do you think the scientists that support the multiverse theory confidently expect to discover the reality of endless universes?
Does the Mutliverse explanation fit nicely with Occam's Razor?
You probably are willing to ignore this area of science.
Do you think that it's pseudo science they are engaging in?
.
Confidence is an expectation held based on a history of corroborative evidence which supports that expectation.
What is the corroborative evidence that supports the "expectation" there are 11 dimensions as claimed by a growing consensus of scientists who support string theory and a multitude of universes?Science proceeds on a confident expectation that there is order to nature, based on the accumulated evidence which demonstrates that to be the case, and seeks to explain natural phenomena as best as possible. If not for the fact that the universe operates through universal laws which we can use to make predictions science could not proceed.
(note:I'm not talking about the scientists you meet at booths set up at your local grade school science fair.
I'm talking about some BIG names in Physics and Cosmology here).
What observations should science point to as related "accumulated evidence"?
Do you think the scientists that support the multiverse theory confidently expect to discover the reality of endless universes?
Does the Mutliverse explanation fit nicely with Occam's Razor?
You probably are willing to ignore this area of science.
Do you think that it's pseudo science they are engaging in?
.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Yes. Evolution.
I'm a theist.President Camacho wrote:Ant, if you have time I'd very much be interested in reading exactly what your religious beliefs are. I'd like you to be as exact as possible in stating what you believe in - what/who your God is - as well as if you believe in ghosts/angels/demons, any proofs of existence, how your beliefs came down from God to you, so on and so forth.
If you could go into detail, it'd be much appreciated... such as - does god need to eat, who created god, what do angels look like (black, white, asian, smoke, etc.), how the earth was created by god, ... really whatever you can think of.
I'd also like you to explain why yours is the true religion as opposed to all the others.
God lives up in the clouds, has a long white beard, and looks a youngish 80 years old.
I believe in ghosts. As a matter of fact, one lives with me! I named him Casper. He's my friend!
I saw a demon once. He was red, had horns, and carried a large, red pitchfork.
I saw God driving through Taco Bell once. I guess he likes tacos cause that's what he ordered, I think.
God's father created God. That's the true, true God, but remains outside our telescope range.
Angels are white - ALL WHITE. Google it as evidence.
Is that you, Richard Dawkins??!!I'd also like you to explain why yours is the true religion as opposed to all the others.
- Chris OConnor
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 17034
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
- 22
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 3521 times
- Been thanked: 1313 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Re: Yes. Evolution.
Ant, you're asking some great questions here. I think we're on the same page with regards to string theory and some of these pretty wild ideas about multiple universes. I'm on the sidelines as a layperson and I readily admit the math and science behind these subjects is a bit beyond me. So I'll refrain from belief or non-belief and leave the subject up to those more capable of understanding the material.
With that said some of this sounds quite contrary to Occam's Razor. Then again, so does the idea that a deity exists. A God existing clearly isn't the simple answer, as many believers want to posit.
In Michael Shermer's "The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense," Shermer argues that string theory is in a grey area between science and pseudoscience. Publisher's Weekly says: Superstring theory is one of the latest inhabitants of what Shermer (Why People Believe Weird Things, etc.), editor of Skeptic magazine, calls the "borderlands" of science: that is, ideas that fall somewhere between established, likely explanations for reality (or some small part thereof) and pseudoscientific claims (e.g., remote viewing or alien abduction).
With that said some of this sounds quite contrary to Occam's Razor. Then again, so does the idea that a deity exists. A God existing clearly isn't the simple answer, as many believers want to posit.
In Michael Shermer's "The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense," Shermer argues that string theory is in a grey area between science and pseudoscience. Publisher's Weekly says: Superstring theory is one of the latest inhabitants of what Shermer (Why People Believe Weird Things, etc.), editor of Skeptic magazine, calls the "borderlands" of science: that is, ideas that fall somewhere between established, likely explanations for reality (or some small part thereof) and pseudoscientific claims (e.g., remote viewing or alien abduction).
- Chris OConnor
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 17034
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
- 22
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 3521 times
- Been thanked: 1313 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Re: Yes. Evolution.
Ant, now that you got that out of your system how about you explain your religious beliefs with a bit more seriousness. ![Cool 8)](https://www.booktalk.org/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
![Cool 8)](https://www.booktalk.org/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
- johnson1010
-
Tenured Professor
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
- 15
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 1280 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
Re: Yes. Evolution.
He is NOT an authority (nor am I) on Faith and Reason. Instead, he is willing to fashion terms in a manner that both eviscerates their meaning AND supports his argument.
There are no authorities. Everyone who has ever tackled these questions did so with human brains. I am not required to bow to Thomas Aquinas. If my framework for discussing this distinction has merit, which I believe it does, it will stand on its own.
I am making the distinction between faith and confidence. In most common usage faith is used as a term which implies total trust in an expectation. An unshakeable trust which is not bound by evidence.
People say you need faith for belief of any kind. That simply isn’t true. MOST of our beliefs are not faithful, but confident. Words get blurry edges. In an earlier conversations someone said that they had faith that they could feed a chipmunk by hand.
I pointed out that faith is a fine word to use in everyday conversation, but if we were speaking didactically it doesn’t apply to that situation. Based on a wide range of information that you have on hand about chipmunks you can be confident that it’s possible to feed one by hand. And it is this confidence, in fact, which is informing your expectation. Not faith.
Lets drill down a little further. How would you be able to tell whether it was confidence or faith that led you to that expectation? If I ask you, “why do you believe you could feed a chipmunk by hand?” Your first impulse might be to say “I have faith”. But if you are pressed for reasons you will likely have them ready. You’ve seen it done first hand, or in a video. You understand that chipmunks like nuts. You know you can procure nuts and other sorts of foods that chipmunks would like. You would likely be aware of a method to gain the animal’s trust by sitting quietly near the food and letting it get used to you before you try to be closer and closer with successive feedings.
These are evidentiary reasons to have confidence it’s possible to feed a chipmunk by hand, even if you attempt to do so and fail.
I think if he made an honest effort, he and I could have a more open conversation about this.
I have been completely open and honest of my thoughts in these conversations, Ant.
Do I evade? Do I not address points? Do I attack the person, to dodge the argument?
Do you think he's standing on the shoulder of giants with his water-downed definition of "faith?"
Please, give us your potent, well concentrated, definition of “faith”.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: Yes. Evolution.
You're welcome. The SEP is a great source, I go there for anything philosophical.Thanks for the link. It's a great one. I plan on looking it over later tonight (honestly).
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
- etudiant
-
Masters
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:33 pm
- 15
- Location: canada
- Has thanked: 64 times
- Been thanked: 174 times
Re: Yes. Evolution.
Fellows, I think we have indeed proven that one can feed a chipmunk by hand, or at least certainly an ant. In fact, we have already done so (metaphorically speaking), providing nutritious nuggets of logic to one resident on this thread, over and over. But to what avail?
One might hope for some sort of recognition- a twitching of a tail, a sparkling of an eye. But none is forthcoming. We might at least hope to say that we weren't bitten in the process. Alas, even this minimal standard has not been met. We have seen a flashing of tiny claws and teeth; reckless responses that seem more like survival reaction than considered thought.
These peanuts and cashews have value- should we keep throwing them on the ground? And is that consciousness before us truly considering the act in progress, or simpy re-acting in a way that survival (real or philosophical) urges up from lower regions of consciousness? There indeed is a question.
Larger mammals (and maybe insects too) are thrust into the universe with no explanation, and are then required to brave it out. No operater's manual, no tech support, no instructions, no warranty. No wonder some of the deeper recesses of the brain will blunder out: give us a mooring of some sort, some kind of secure berth! It would be nice. But there is none.
Some cannot accept this, and for their own existential imperatives argue in favour of a softer universe, one in which father figures will offer up support of at least some small sort. The fact that evidence does not support this is a major roadblock here, but not impassable. Really, nothing is impassable if psychological need is strong enough. Rationalization will make it into the required shape.
I have a feeling that we never will get an explanation of religious belief from ants, chipmunks, or others. To do so would take what is psychologically necessary and emotionally comforting, and drag it into the the cold light of observation, a place where it stands a good chance of being diminished, or even demolished. That is too big a risk for most species.
One might hope for some sort of recognition- a twitching of a tail, a sparkling of an eye. But none is forthcoming. We might at least hope to say that we weren't bitten in the process. Alas, even this minimal standard has not been met. We have seen a flashing of tiny claws and teeth; reckless responses that seem more like survival reaction than considered thought.
These peanuts and cashews have value- should we keep throwing them on the ground? And is that consciousness before us truly considering the act in progress, or simpy re-acting in a way that survival (real or philosophical) urges up from lower regions of consciousness? There indeed is a question.
Larger mammals (and maybe insects too) are thrust into the universe with no explanation, and are then required to brave it out. No operater's manual, no tech support, no instructions, no warranty. No wonder some of the deeper recesses of the brain will blunder out: give us a mooring of some sort, some kind of secure berth! It would be nice. But there is none.
Some cannot accept this, and for their own existential imperatives argue in favour of a softer universe, one in which father figures will offer up support of at least some small sort. The fact that evidence does not support this is a major roadblock here, but not impassable. Really, nothing is impassable if psychological need is strong enough. Rationalization will make it into the required shape.
I have a feeling that we never will get an explanation of religious belief from ants, chipmunks, or others. To do so would take what is psychologically necessary and emotionally comforting, and drag it into the the cold light of observation, a place where it stands a good chance of being diminished, or even demolished. That is too big a risk for most species.
Last edited by etudiant on Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I suspect that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose"
— JBS Haldane
— JBS Haldane
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Yes. Evolution.
I'd have to say I have no traditional religious beliefs to speak of.Chris OConnor wrote:Ant, now that you got that out of your system how about you explain your religious beliefs with a bit more seriousness.
All manmade institutions have historical blemishes/dark epochs that are worthy of ridicule and or condemnation to a degree. Needless to say, religion is not the exception.
I am not chauvinistically tied to any particular religion that would cause me to proclaim it to be the one, true path to God.
I must say that I am guilty of a mild case of anthropocentrism in that I believe our species is unique in the sense that as conscious beings, it is apparent our uniqueness lies in our ability to experience a "participatory universe." ( John Wheeler).
Although Wheeler prefers the explanation of a universe that is a"self excited circuit," I lean toward a more meaningful purpose for the very fact that we are able to look back in time to our origin. We have in essence transformed the cosmos from a cold, indifferent realm into perhaps an infinite mindscape. Prior to our arrival, perhaps there existed infinite potential which gave birth to us. Who's to say infinite potential and God are not synonymous?
I can not rule out intentionality written into the fabric of creation. We have a mind that has been honed to ask questions based on assumptions of rationality, with expectations of definitive answers.
But is it possible at this point to be certain that the answers we seek are within reach? Why should we assume our evolutionary inheritance provides sufficient guidance for answering ultimate questions?
Why all the certainty from the atheist camp?
And to be fair, why all the certainty from the theist camp?
From a scientific perspective, the only truly reasonable position is that of agnosticism.
From an inferential, intuitive perspective, and an admittance of our finite knowledge of the nature of reality, it is not unreasonable to consider the existence of a Creator, in my opinion.
The human experience is full of paradox and uncertainty.
Even our most refined, logic driven language, Mathematics, is itself filled with paradox and uncertainty. Kurt Godel's legendary theorem tells us there will always be truths that cannot be obtained with absolute certainty.
How can a Christopher Hitchens, a Richard Dawkins, a Carl Sagan, a Stephen Hawking, or even a Robert Tulip tell me with atheistic certainty there is no God?
Surely school is not out as of yet.
(iPhone - I need to hang around computers more often!)