Necessary requirement for believing in God

[greenberg]

What would be the necessary requirement for believing in God?


Most of the requirements for believing in God that are listed in this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1591546&posted=1#post1591546) seem to be only sufficient requirements.

What about the necessary requirements? Is there such a thing as a necessary requirement for believing in God?

If there is no such requirement, what would this imply about believing in God?

[lightgigantic]

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to get at.

For instance if I was to say what is the necessary requirement for believing that china exists one could say "visiting china". IOW if I have visited china and continue to disbelieve in it, it would be irrational.

In the same way the necessary requirement for believing in god is having experience of god.
(other than that, one could have a belief based on inference or authoritative testimony)

The next question that would follow could be "what constitutes a valid experience of god?"

[Saquist]

What would be the necessary requirement for believing in God?


Most of the requirements for believing in God that are listed in this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1591546&posted=1#post1591546) seem to be only sufficient requirements.

What about the necessary requirements? Is there such a thing as a necessary requirement for believing in God?

If there is no such requirement, what would this imply about believing in God?

You might be intrested to know that are three essential qualities for believing in God accoding to scripture.

Jesus showed that Faith is Primariliy important numerous times during his ministry. However jesus didn't require blind faith. His miracles served to prove hie was chosen by Good. Hebrew 11:1 says that faith is anything but blind. "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for the evident demonstration of realities though not yet beheld."

Faith is hope based on seeing is believing. Not only seeing but proving. Jesus' coming fullfilled many prophecies the Isrealites were expecting from scripture laid down hundreds of years ago.

The second requirement is knowledge.
"This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."- John 17:3
Because according to John 6:66-69 belief comes first but we must come to know and set and fortify by learning more.

The third is pivotable to approaching the first two. It is Humility.
*Before a crash the heart of a man is lofty, and before glory there is humility. We need the propper mindset to approach and draw ourselves toward God. With out humility all the miracles and knowledge in the world wouldn't help us believe in anything but ourselves. Humility keeps our ego's in check so as not to presume we know more than the Sovereign of the Universe.

[(Q)]

What would be the necessary requirement for believing in God?

Simple. A complete suspension of disbelief and lack of education.

[Photizo]

What would be the necessary requirement for believing in God?

Love... specifically, Love of the Truth is the necessary requirement for believing in God.

[Saquist]

That is true. Love too is essential.
Love for the ranson Jesus Christ paid for us all. Love too, for God for offering his only Begotten son as that sacrific. Sometimes I focus on the facts abit much but love is the number one commandment for Christians.

[(Q)]

Love too, for God for offering his only Begotten son as that sacrific.

There was no sacrifice. You can't sacrifice a god, right?

[Enterprise-D]

Simple. A complete suspension of disbelief and lack of education.

Actually, only the suspension of disbelief is required. I know many well educated people, logical in every other way, who are unshakeable in their belief in their various gods.

[greenberg]

Love... specifically, Love of the Truth is the necessary requirement for believing in God.

Case in question.

There are people who have love of truth, but who have not arrived at believing in God.

I surmise that there must possibly be more necessary requirements than just love of truth.


Earlier, faith, knowledge and humilty have been mentioned.

Re. faith - The way Saquist described it earlier, it seems faith is a kind of given; something which is not under a person's control, but dependent on external factors, ie. God having done something.

Re. knowledge - "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."- John 17:3
But how is someone - who does not yet believe in God - to know which religion to study? Why Christianity? Why not Hinduism etc.?
In terms of knowledge, there is another requirement hidden in here. What is it?


The third is pivotable to approaching the first two. It is Humility.
*Before a crash the heart of a man is lofty, and before glory there is humility. We need the propper mindset to approach and draw ourselves toward God.
With out humility all the miracles and knowledge in the world wouldn't help us believe in anything but ourselves. Humility keeps our ego's in check so as not to presume we know more than the Sovereign of the Universe.

To be noted that this application of humility makes sense only in conjunction with certain other requirements.
Otherwise, humility is a recipe for disaster - a person humble enough will believe anything.

[greenberg]

Actually, only the suspension of disbelief is required.

But can disbelief be suspended by the power of one's will?

Because if it can't, then it seems that God's intervention, mental illness or temporary cognitive incapacity (such as caused by drugs, stress and other duress) are further requirements.
This is important because none of these is under a person's control - and thus, it could be that it is not under a person's control whether they believe in God or not.

(Which would of course mean that the various accusations theists charge against atheists (such "You lie to yourselves") are null and void.)

[Enterprise-D]

But can disbelief be suspended by the power of one's will?

Yes. Despite the fact that we say the "weak-willed" are lured by religion, it is by virtue of that same will that they resist the de-programming by outside catalysts. Beliefs are necessarily a function of will, even if external factors are considered, it is a decision by the individual to accept or reject any "foreign" ideas.


Because if it can't, then it seems that God's intervention, mental illness or temporary cognitive incapacity (such as caused by drugs, stress and other duress) are further requirements.
This is important because none of these is under a person's control - and thus, it could be that it is not under a person's control whether they believe in God or not.

(Which would of course mean that the various accusations theists charge against atheists (such "You lie to yourselves") are null and void.)

It's null and void anyways, since atheism is the default state. We are not born with any religious belief whatsoever. Theists are indoctrinated by their parental units.

[(Q)]

Actually, only the suspension of disbelief is required. I know many well educated people, logical in every other way, who are unshakeable in their belief in their various gods.

I wouldn't put them into the same categories for 'requirements' considering they were probably indoctrinated by their families and friends.

[Enterprise-D]

I wouldn't put them into the same categories for 'requirements' considering they were probably indoctrinated by their families and friends.

Perhaps it might be more accurate to say indoctrination followed by suspension of disbelief is necessary. Since as I remind-posted earlier a lack of belief is the default state. Indoctrination comes next, followed by the seeming lack of ability to doubt...

[nova900]

Jesus' coming fullfilled many prophecies the Isrealites were expecting from scripture laid down hundreds of years ago.

.

Ironically, the majority of Jewish people do not believe Jesus fufilled those prophecies.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm

[greenberg]

Perhaps it might be more accurate to say indoctrination followed by suspension of disbelief is necessary. Since as I remind-posted earlier a lack of belief is the default state. Indoctrination comes next, followed by the seeming lack of ability to doubt...

Indoctrination certainly seems like a good candidate for a necessary requirement.

[Why?]

A brain is a necessary requirement. Hard to have a belief without a brain.

[MZ3Boy84]

I personally feel that this is an open-ended question which will lead to much opinionated responses.

Some may say you must believe in Jesus or Muhammad to believe in God.

Some may say that you have to do certain things or believe certain things in order to fulfill a belief in a God.

It is all based on an individuals personal perspective of a any given belief system that has been chosen. Thus the responses and views will differ.

[greenberg]

But can disbelief be suspended by the power of one's will?

Yes. Despite the fact that we say the "weak-willed" are lured by religion, it is by virtue of that same will that they resist the de-programming by outside catalysts. Beliefs are necessarily a function of will, even if external factors are considered, it is a decision by the individual to accept or reject any "foreign" ideas.

I'm inclined to think it is impossible to suspend disbelief by the power of one's will. I find it more likely that the suspension of disbelief is due to stress, other forms of duress, memory biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases), cognitive biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) and the bias blind spot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot) - all of them moot areas of human cognition that could hardly be considered deliberate and conscious.

Anyway, my point is that it seems that a person cannot meaningfully be held accountable for whether they believe in God or not.

[greenberg]

It is all based on an individuals personal perspective of a any given belief system that has been chosen. Thus the responses and views will differ.

That's part of the problem. If there were a one and only true God (like various religions claim there is), it should be possible to name the necessary requirements for believing in this God - a finite number of necessary requirements.

If there is a one and only true God, then why are these requirements so elusive to list, or so general that all religions fit in?

I really don't see any more options but these two:
There either
- are no necessary requirements for believing in God and belief in God is an open-ended matter,
- or all theisms are about the same God.

[MZ3Boy84]

That's part of the problem. If there were a one and only true God (like various religions claim there is), it should be possible to name the necessary requirements for believing in this God - a finite number of necessary requirements.

If there is a one and only true God, then why are these requirements so elusive to list, or so general that all religions fit in?

I really don't see any more options but these two:
There either
- are no necessary requirements for believing in God and belief in God is an open-ended matter,
- or all theisms are about the same God.

Great response!

The world may never know.

If infact God does exist, this question may only be answered by God through a direct communication, which thus far in the history of man-kind, has not happened, atleast not to my knowledge.

[MZ3Boy84]

Quick question, is there a reason this was double posted? Just curious...

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72832

[greenberg]

No, it's not a double thread. The other one is a referential list of requirements, this one is a discussion on the topic of necessary requirements. Two connected, but different things. I first thought to keep it all in one thread, but then saw that the topic is too broad. I like to be as systematic as possible. :cool:

[MZ3Boy84]

No, it's not a double thread. The other one is a referential list of requirements, this one is a discussion on the topic of necessary requirements. Two connected, but different things. I first thought to keep it all in one thread, but then saw that the topic is too broad. I like to be as systematic as possible. :cool:

I see! :)

[Enterprise-D]

That's part of the problem. If there were a one and only true God (like various religions claim there is), it should be possible to name the necessary requirements for believing in this God - a finite number of necessary requirements.

If there is a one and only true God, then why are these requirements so elusive to list, or so general that all religions fit in?

I really don't see any more options but these two:
There either
- are no necessary requirements for believing in God and belief in God is an open-ended matter,
- or all theisms are about the same God.

There is also a third and much more believable possibility...that all theisms were created or even derived to control the masses of the countries that they originated. Hence religions' various dissimilarities, but their consistant match to their own origin country.

[Photizo]

Case in question.

There are people who have love of truth, but who have not arrived at believing in God.

Possibly--but then, that's not what I'm talking about...I said THE Truth:

Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice...But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger they will not follow.

Love of THE Truth is fundamental to faith in God.

[MZ3Boy84]

Possibly--but then, that's not what I'm talking about...I said THE Truth:....

...Love of THE Truth is fundamental to faith in God.

Of course, because in your eyes, there is only one way. And if its not your way, it's wrong. Puh-leeze! :wallbang::wallbang:

[Photizo]

Of course, because in your eyes, there is only one way. And if its not your way, it's wrong. Puh-leeze! :wallbang::wallbang:

There is only one way, but it's not my way--it's His Way.

Ignore that to your peril.

[MZ3Boy84]

There is only one way, but it's not my way--it's His Way.

Ignore that to your peril.

Please answer this... if one believes in a higher power (God) but not in Jesus, does that mean they will go to hell, in your personal opinion.

[Photizo]

Please answer this... if one believes in a higher power (God) but not in Jesus, does that mean they will go to hell, in your personal opinion.

My personal opinion in matters such as these is of no consequence. A personal opinion might amount to belief in a higher power being sufficent for salvation...but which higher power? Higher powers are a dime a dozen. What, precisely, does belief in some generic higher power accomplish? Possibly a fleeting experience of the bliss of ignorance lulling oneself into a false sense of security.

Eventually, our state of ignorance begins to gnaw at us and so one's personal opinion must be re-enforced with whatever support one can garner from whatever sources...ultimately it's a no win situation.

On the other hand, there is the option of yeilding/deferring to The Word of God Who declared Himself to Be The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

[MZ3Boy84]

My personal opinion in matters such as these is of no consequence. A personal opinion might amount to belief in a higher power being sufficent for salvation...but which higher power? Higher powers are a dime a dozen. What, precisely, does belief in some generic higher power what accomplish? Possibly a fleeting experience of the bliss of ignorance while lulling oneself into a false sense of security.

Eventually, our state of ignorance begins to gnaw at us and so one's personal opinion must be re-enforced with whatever support one can garner from whatever sources...ultimately it's a no win situation.

On the other hand, there is the option of yeilding/deferring to The Word of God Who declared Himself to Be The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

Ok, well can you answer my question in accordance with your interpretation of your religion? In other words (the question revised...)

if one believes in a higher power (God) but not in Jesus, does that mean they will go to hell, according to your religion?

[Photizo]

Ok, well can you answer my question in accordance with your interpretation of your religion? In other words (the question revised...)

if one believes in a higher power (God) but not in Jesus, does that mean they will go to hell, according to your religion?

Religions are a dime a dozen just like higher powers. What matters is what God says through His Son Jesus Christ:

...all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him...he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.

Jesus states unequivically that what He says comes directly from the Father Himself:

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak...the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

So, there you have your answer.

[MZ3Boy84]

Religions are a dime a dozen just like higher powers. What matters is what God says through His Son Jesus Christ:

...all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him...he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.

Jesus states unequivically that what He says comes directly from the Father Himself:

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak...the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

So, there you have your answer.

A simple yes or no would have worked, but thanks nevertheless lol.

[Photizo]

A simple yes or no would have worked, but thanks nevertheless lol.

You're welcome.

[MZ3Boy84]

You're welcome.

One last question if you don't mind. I apologize if I am bugging you. It is not my intention, but rather to get some answers from a different point of view. To be honest, these are questions that I've never been able to recieve a firm answer from a devout Christian such as yourself.

If one lives a completely honorable life, travels the world and spreads teachings of loving kindness, promotes peace and equality, helps the helpless, feeds the hungry, gives with no intention of recieving, and who holds good intentions in all they do, however does not hold a belief in Jesus Christ, are they still destined for Hell?

[Photizo]

If one lives a completely honorable life, travels the world and spreads teachings of loving kindness, promotes peace and equality, helps the helpless, feeds the hungry, gives with no intention of recieving, and who holds good intentions in all they do, however does not hold a belief in Jesus Christ, are they still destined for Hell?

No.

[MZ3Boy84]

No.

Once again, thanks. :D

[lightgigantic]

Simple. A complete suspension of disbelief and lack of education.

certainly doesn't explain why there are numerous theistically inclined scientists and philosophers in the past and present - also doesn't explain why teh great achievements of culture in terms of architecture, literature (greece, India, china, Italy etc) and other social structures have been achieved by cultures that have a prominent focus on transcendental values

[greenberg]

There is only one way, but it's not my way--it's His Way.

That's calling upon some external authority which we do not have access to.
It's a convenient way to relieve yourself of the responsibility for what you say.


Ignore that to your peril.

I'm going to say the same to you as I said to Sandy elsewhere:

And we should take for granted that you know better than we do, right?

Can't you see how manipulatively you communicate? You speak in a manner where you create a situation where the audience simply has to take for granted that you know better than them. If they don't, they receive your scorn.

[(Q)]

certainly doesn't explain why there are numerous theistically inclined scientists and philosophers in the past and present - also doesn't explain why teh great achievements of culture in terms of architecture, literature (greece, India, china, Italy etc) and other social structures have been achieved by cultures that have a prominent focus on transcendental values

Who said it does?

[Photizo]

That's calling upon some external authority which we do not have access to.
It's a convenient way to relieve yourself of the responsibility for what you say.

You're projecting...speaking out of your ignorance...desperately trying to make sense of something you just don't understand. That said, what you call "some external authority" has an open door policy--therefore, all have access to Him.

I'm going to say the same to you as I said to Sandy elsewhere:

And we should take for granted that you know better than we do, right?

Take for granted? No, but... the fact remains we know something you don't...knowledge of a sort that far surpasses anything you 'know'.

Can't you see how manipulatively you communicate? You speak in a manner where you create a situation where the audience simply has to take for granted that you know better than them. If they don't, they receive your scorn.

I'm here to impart knowledge...knowledge that has been gained through years of studying God's Word...knowledge that you would otherwise not have access to. Do with it what you will.

I rarely show "scorn"...but I don't mince words either. Your souls are at stake, so there are times when I might come across as harsh but...ultimately the motivation behind the time I spend here is your (plural) welfare.

[(Q)]

You're projecting...speaking out of your ignorance...desperately trying to make sense of something you just don't understand.

Take for granted? No, but... the fact remains we know something you don't...knowledge of a sort that far surpasses anything you 'know'.

I'm here to impart knowledge...knowledge that has been imparted to me through study of God's Word...knowledge that you would otherwise not have access to. Do with it what you will.

I rarely show "scorn"...but I don't mince words either. Your souls are at stake, so there are times when I might come across as harsh but...ultimately the motivation behind the time I spend here is your (plural) welfare.

Again, like Sandy, we have another evangelic fundamentalist Christian with the same holier-than-thou, condescending, patronizing attitude who doesn't have a clue other than what his indoctrination has given him.

It is tragic to say the least that these individuals have been mentally maligned in this way and will never know the world around them for what it is, and would rather live their lives perched atop their mounted sermon, despising and condemning all who question or disagree with their worldview.

[lightgigantic]

Again, like Sandy, we have another evangelic fundamentalist Christian with the same holier-than-thou, condescending, patronizing attitude who doesn't have a clue other than what his indoctrination has given him.

It is tragic to say the least that these individuals have been mentally maligned in this way and will never know the world around them for what it is, and would rather live their lives perched atop their mounted sermon, despising and condemning all who question or disagree with their worldview.

and you are leading us by example as an alternative?
:D

[(Q)]

:yawn:

Thanks for driving home my point. :)

[spidergoat]

certainly doesn't explain why there are numerous theistically inclined scientists and philosophers in the past and present - also doesn't explain why teh great achievements of culture in terms of architecture, literature (greece, India, china, Italy etc) and other social structures have been achieved by cultures that have a prominent focus on transcendental values

They were all greatly, magnificently, awesomely wrong. They built vast monuments to their delusions, some of which were used to observe the torture of Christians in luxury and comfort.

[Photizo]

Thanks for driving home my point. :)

That's just your interpretation.

[scorpius]

I'm here to impart knowledge...knowledge that has been gained through years of studying God's Word....
first WHERE in the bible does it say its the WORD of god?

and IF it was why it has so many contradictions,inconsistent with our empirical KNOWLEDGE on the age of Earth, universe.,and everything,
could be that whoever invented this god and wrote the bible didnt have a scientific knowledge we now have,way back then ;)

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

I rarely show "scorn"...but I don't mince words either. Your souls are at stake, so there are times when I might come across as harsh but...ultimately the motivation behind the time I spend here is your (plural) welfare.
not to worry bud..souls are just a lot of hot air,they dont exist..
www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html

[scorpius]

What would be the necessary requirement for believing in God?

I guess you have to be GULLIBLE,HYPNOTIZABLE and/or have a LOGIC gene missing or supressed.

I noticed theists dont use or understand what REASON is.=no logic!

[lightgigantic]

I guess you have to be GULLIBLE,HYPNOTIZABLE and/or have a LOGIC gene missing or supressed.

I noticed theists dont use or understand what REASON is.=no logic!

or so you would have us believe ....
:D

[lightgigantic]

They were all greatly, magnificently, awesomely wrong. They built vast monuments to their delusions, some of which were used to observe the torture of Christians in luxury and comfort.
I think you miss the point
generally we don't see anything great in the way or art, philosophy. architecture, systems of morality, etc coming from deluded persons/communties

[Sarkus]

I think you miss the point
generally we don't see anything great in the way or art, philosophy. architecture, systems of morality, etc coming from deluded persons/communtiesProvide an example of a "deluded" community.

The problem with your argument is that the delusion under consideration is so entwined within the fabric of nearly all societies that there is no understanding of their deluded state. Hence they would not, to you, seem to be "deluded societies".
YOU don't see these societies as "deluded".
YOU are part of that delusion - and hence you can not see any alternative.

So, to answer your question - please have a look at ANY Christian, Muslim or any society where religion is prevalent - and take a look at their art, philosophy, architecture, systems of morality etc.
There you have your "deluded society" and the items you seek.

If you don't agree (which you won't, obviously) then please give an example of what YOU would see as a "deluded community"?


Further, it is a well-accepted notion that there is a disproportionate representation of mental illness (including delusions) in the creative community - per this (http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/philosophy/downloads/artanddelusion.html) at any rate.
I'm sure you could actually find other supporting evidence if you bothered to look - just try not to continue spouting your confidence statements.

[greenberg]

You're projecting...speaking out of your ignorance...desperately trying to make sense of something you just don't understand. That said, what you call "some external authority" has an open door policy--therefore, all have access to Him.

Take for granted? No, but... the fact remains we know something you don't...knowledge of a sort that far surpasses anything you 'know'.

I'm here to impart knowledge...knowledge that has been gained through years of studying God's Word...knowledge that you would otherwise not have access to. Do with it what you will.

I rarely show "scorn"...but I don't mince words either. Your souls are at stake, so there are times when I might come across as harsh but...ultimately the motivation behind the time I spend here is your (plural) welfare.

Perhaps we should just consider you to be our God, right?
We don't need Jesus, we need you, right!



For crying out loud! We don't exist for you, do we?
You don't care about us, you don't care about what we know and what we don't know.
You're just here on your trip, taking advantage of whatever spiritual/philosophical insecurity we might have.

And with ever bout of our resistance, your faith, your conviction grows stronger. There is no way that we could get through to you. Your communication is strictly one-way, from you to us. We don't really exist for you.

[lightgigantic]

Provide an example of a "deluded" community.

The problem with your argument is that the delusion under consideration is so entwined within the fabric of nearly all societies that there is no understanding of their deluded state. Hence they would not, to you, seem to be "deluded societies".
YOU don't see these societies as "deluded".
YOU are part of that delusion - and hence you can not see any alternative.

So, to answer your question - please have a look at ANY Christian, Muslim or any society where religion is prevalent - and take a look at their art, philosophy, architecture, systems of morality etc.
There you have your "deluded society" and the items you seek.

If you don't agree (which you won't, obviously) then please give an example of what YOU would see as a "deluded community"?


Further, it is a well-accepted notion that there is a disproportionate representation of mental illness (including delusions) in the creative community - per this (http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/philosophy/downloads/artanddelusion.html) at any rate.
I'm sure you could actually find other supporting evidence if you bothered to look - just try not to continue spouting your confidence statements.

I think you miss the point

basically the argument on offer is aka dawkins god delusion - namely that there are persons who see pink elephants, persons who think they are charlie chaplain, persons like the yorkshire ripper etc and that the only ultimate difference between these persons and persons who make theistic claims are the numbers

this argument has numerous problems

one is that using general evidence that people get something wrong to indicate that someone is getting something specifically wrong is flimsy (for instance I can provide many examples of persons who got lost or were bewildered about where they are situated geographically - is that sufficient to indicate that you are deluded as to what city you are located in?)

further problem is that most people don't see pink elephants, most people don't think they are charlie chaplain, most people don't kill other people etc etc so its not clear how he is offering even a "general" indication

and finally, if you compare the cultural achievements (science, art, philosophy) it also tends to indicate a further distinction between the two categories

to try and skirt this issue and simply cajole around in UPPER CASE letters about the nature of delusion simply indicates a lack of thought going into the argument

[Saquist]

I wouldn't put them into the same categories for 'requirements' considering they were probably indoctrinated by their families and friends.

Yes...lets not give credit where it might be due eh...

[Non-Logical-Idea-Guy]

What would be the necessary requirement for believing in God?


Most of the requirements for believing in God that are listed in this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1591546&posted=1#post1591546) seem to be only sufficient requirements.

What about the necessary requirements? Is there such a thing as a necessary requirement for believing in God?

If there is no such requirement, what would this imply about believing in God?

You must accept that there is something out there that is bigger and better than you are. As silly as it seems most people seem to struggle with this idea, such people tend to be aethists.

[Sarkus]

I think you miss the pointI'll take that as an indication of your inability to answer the questions asked of you. Fair enough.

basically the argument on offer is aka dawkins god delusion - namely that there are persons who see pink elephants, persons who think they are charlie chaplain, persons like the yorkshire ripper etc and that the only ultimate difference between these persons and persons who make theistic claims are the numbers And that is, unfortunately for you, the grossest simplification of the argument I think I have ever come across, and as a result you completely miss the point of his argument and argue against strawmen of your own making. Now where have I seen you do that before.... :confused:

So before you attack an argument:
(a) make sure it is the one actually being made;
(b) make sure you understand it;
(c) be prepared to counter the argument made, not some logically fallacious argument of your own devising.

[peta9]

The uncompromised Word of God is just that, His Word. You know in your spirit if what you're reading is true or not. That is IF God lives inside of you. If not, you have no discernment.

This is a quote from Sandy, one of the resident evangelists.

This is a well-worn and used argument by theists. The only problem is "spirit" would apply and reside in everyone since this monotheistic god is responsible for all of creation. Therefore this argument is laughable. Of course we can discern what we read is true or not by using our intellect, sometimes our intuition. But that's no different than stating dogs see in black and white and we can see in color. Or that christians are mentally deficient and deem the bible to be fact way before any evidence is in.

[Enterprise-D]

You must accept that there is something out there that is bigger and better than you are. As silly as it seems most people seem to struggle with this idea, such people tend to be aethists.

- Why must there be something out there bigger and better than the best human?
- Why do Christians get to define it as "God"?
- Why do Muslims define it as "Allah"...and define "Allah" as a different concept to christianity's god?
- Why do these and other theist groups feel it is their obligation to beat and induce such beliefs on resistant or unsuspecting planetary citizenry?
- On what grounds must this "something bigger and better" be any sort of god at all?


In other words, the awe-inspiring panacea you've typed there defines absolutely nothing of substance.

[greenberg]

You must accept that there is something out there that is bigger and better than you are.

You seem to think that I don't accept that "that there is something out there that is bigger and better than I am".
I do accept that.

But I refuse to take this superiority for granted.
I refuse to accept this superiority simply because someone declares it.


There are several people whom I deem superior to myself. But I haven't acknowledged this superiority simply because they demanded me to, or because they declared themselves to be superior to me.

[Sarkus]

There are several people whom I deem superior to myself.Aw, shucks. That's so nice of you to say. :D

[(Q)]

You must accept that there is something out there that is bigger and better than you are. As silly as it seems most people seem to struggle with this idea, such people tend to be aethists.

My question to you would be WHY should we accept that? How is that you're completely convinced there IS something out there bigger and better than us?

[Saquist]

Because we're here. As complex as man is the next logical assumption is that complexity requires a designer. We've all had a pro creator the thought of humans not having a creator despite our lineage an superiority over all things earthly really defies logic.

[Enterprise-D]

1. Please carefully read your own words...it is an assumption. It is certainly by no means the truth.

2. Complexity requires only time.

3. Evolution is a plausible system that is complex that requires no designer...

[Non-Logical-Idea-Guy]

- Why must there be something out there bigger and better than the best human?
- Why do Christians get to define it as "God"?
- Why do Muslims define it as "Allah"...and define "Allah" as a different concept to christianity's god?
- Why do these and other theist groups feel it is their obligation to beat and induce such beliefs on resistant or unsuspecting planetary citizenry?
- On what grounds must this "something bigger and better" be any sort of god at all?


In other words, the awe-inspiring panacea you've typed there defines absolutely nothing of substance.

I'm just answering the thread topic don't shoot the messanger, I'm agnostic and I'm not preaching so stop biting my head off.

[(Q)]

Because we're here.

That is simply another alternative, which is absent of any evidence and rife with assertions of supernatural beings. We were brought here by an alien species is yet another alternative, also void of any evidence with a host of other similar assertions.

As complex as man is the next logical assumption is that complexity requires a designer.

That is yet another alternative. That assumption, however, would only be relevant if one can demonstrate that it is entirely impossible for complex systems to form naturally. Evidence from evolution demonstrates that complex systems can form naturally over time.

There would also be a requirement to understand why we as humans have flaws in our "design" which other species do not have or are better equipped. The eye is a good example of those flaws.

We've all had a pro creator the thought of humans not having a creator despite our lineage an superiority over all things earthly really defies logic.

No, it doesn't defy logic at all. How does lineage equate to the demand of a creator?

How are we superior over all things earthly?

I can only conclude that anyone who would automatically assume there was a creator has not looked at any evidence, and is merely making that assumption based on first view.

A similar assumption can be made thusly: I look out my window and conclude the earth is flat.

[Enterprise-D]

I'm just answering the thread topic don't shoot the messanger, I'm agnostic and I'm not preaching so stop biting my head off.

I know...I responded to your answer. It was illogical. Sorry if I appeared hostile.

[greenberg]

Because we're here. As complex as man is the next logical assumption is that complexity requires a designer.

What is the moral system that produced this assumption?


[human] superiority over all things earthly

What is the moral system that produced this assumption?

[Saquist]

That is simply another alternative, which is absent of any evidence and rife with assertions of supernatural beings. We were brought here by an alien species is yet another alternative, also void of any evidence with a host of other similar assertions.

Well since we're here...I'd say that would be evidence to conclude we got here through some process.



That is yet another alternative. That assumption, however, would only be relevant if one can demonstrate that it is entirely impossible for complex systems to form naturally. Evidence from evolution demonstrates that complex systems can form naturally over time.

There is no such evidence. Certainly that shows they can create themselves or devlop themselves beyond limits.

There would also be a requirement to understand why we as humans have flaws in our "design" which other species do not have or are better equipped. The eye is a good example of those flaws.

No that would not be a require it's more like a desire. It's completely an unnecessary question because errors can be itroduced after creation and less you're capable of deciphering the entry time of those errors it's impact on the initial design is irrelevant.



No, it doesn't defy logic at all. How does lineage equate to the demand of a creator?

What lineage. As I've posted in the sticky thread for Evolution in the science and society forums...there is more than enough quotes to say there is no lineage. Fragglerocker made excuses but didn't disagree.

How are we superior over all things earthly?

That's a good question surely you're not just going to stop there.

I can only conclude that anyone who would automatically assume there was a creator has not looked at any evidence, and is merely making that assumption based on first view.

An that is perfectly all right. A further search finds that life if far more complex than darwin or anyone else could have ever imagined. There is a beauty in that truth.

[Sarkus]

Well since we're here...I'd say that would be evidence to conclude we got here through some process.Aye - and why would it be a supernatural process?

No that would not be a require it's more like a desire. It's completely an unnecessary question because errors can be itroduced after creation and less you're capable of deciphering the entry time of those errors it's impact on the initial design is irrelevant.Right - so now we have "evolved" into lesser creatures than originally designed?
Not a very good design initially, then, is it - if it is prone to "devolution".

An that is perfectly all right. A further search finds that life if far more complex than darwin or anyone else could have ever imagined. There is a beauty in that truth.Beauty in truth is a far cry from ID or God.

Complexity has its own beauty. And natural complexity the most beautiful of all.
Nowhere in that is there evidence of anything other than nature.

[Saquist]

Aye - and why would it be a supernatural process? because of the intricacy of that complexity...

Right - so now we have "evolved" into lesser creatures than originally designed?
Not a very good design initially, then, is it - if it is prone to "devolution".

Evolution doesn't exist therefore neither does de evolution. Yet decay is real and complex machines are prone to break down in an oxygen atmosphere.

The idea that the design must not be very good is the argument I'm less concerned about. Atheist have used this thinking in attempt to counter intelligent design and it really has no basis. Atheist aren't really good judges of good designs since they believe life isn't design at all despite the fact they can't reproduce those some complex forms. They seem to have complete disrepect for life.

[greenberg]

Aye - and why would it be a supernatural process?

because of the intricacy of that complexity...

So the intricate complexity of the state of my sock drawer is a SUPERNATURAL PROCESS.




:wallbang:

[greenberg]

Saquist,

But please do answer my questions from post no. 66.

[(Q)]

Well since we're here...I'd say that would be evidence to conclude we got here through some process.

Quite. Long slow processes, over millions/billions of years.

There is no such evidence. Certainly that shows they can create themselves or devlop themselves beyond limits.

You are free to deny there is no such evidence, however mountains of evidence are widely available for you to peruse. Please do so before making unsubstantiated comments.

No that would not be a require it's more like a desire. It's completely an unnecessary question because errors can be itroduced after creation and less you're capable of deciphering the entry time of those errors it's impact on the initial design is irrelevant.

Errors after creation? Can you explain or substantiate that in any way? With evolution, the changes are usually in favor of the species. What your claiming is opposite, that the changes are not in favor of the species. Perhaps the creator made the errors?

What lineage. As I've posted in the sticky thread for Evolution in the science and society forums...there is more than enough quotes to say there is no lineage. Fragglerocker made excuses but didn't disagree.

Then, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here:

"We've all had a pro creator the thought of humans not having a creator despite our lineage an superiority over all things earthly really defies logic."

That's a good question surely you're not just going to stop there.

You made the claim, I can only assume it was made with some reasoning in mind. Have you any reasoning or merely an unsubstantiated assertion?

An that is perfectly all right. A further search finds that life if far more complex than darwin or anyone else could have ever imagined. There is a beauty in that truth.

It doesn't matter what Darwin imagined in regards to complexity. Again, if one is concluding a creator, they simply have not taken to the time to understand the evidence, nor have thought it through.

[(Q)]

because of the intricacy of that complexity...

That simply does not follow, Saquist. There is no reasoning whatsoever in concluding supernatural beings from the 'intricacy of complexity' - of course, you'll need to explain that.

Evolution doesn't exist therefore neither does de evolution.

Then, why do people still get sick from the flu? The virus evolves.

Yet decay is real and complex machines are prone to break down in an oxygen atmosphere.

The eyes of humans are breaking down compared with the eyes of hawks? Why didn't the eyes of hawks break down? Or the smell of dogs? Or... endless examples to follow...

The idea that the design must not be very good is the argument I'm less concerned about. Atheist have used this thinking in attempt to counter intelligent design and it really has no basis. Atheist aren't really good judges of good designs since they believe life isn't design at all despite the fact they can't reproduce those some complex forms. They seem to have complete disrepect for life.

On the contrary, atheists respect life FAR more than theists, who view life as a mere stepping stone to an afterlife.

So, how are scientists to reproduce something that took millions of year to produce?

[Enterprise-D]

Aye - and why would it be a supernatural process?

because of the intricacy of that complexity...


Circular reasoning...the intricate complexity is supernatural because of its intricacy?


Evolution doesn't exist therefore neither does de evolution. Yet decay is real and complex machines are prone to break down in an oxygen atmosphere.


You cannot logically make this statement with any certainty.


The idea that the design must not be very good is the argument I'm less concerned about. Atheist have used this thinking in attempt to counter intelligent design and it really has no basis. Atheist aren't really good judges of good designs...

Being a graphic designer hardly gives you any more qualifications to judge a cosmic design either. Just because ID and your job title share a word grants you no authority to speak from a pedestal.



...since they believe life isn't design at all despite the fact they can't reproduce those some complex forms. They seem to have complete disrepect for life.

Further this makes no sense. ID supporters should be the ones to attempt to reproduce complex life forms since ID purports that a complex system requires a designer.

Even further, successful or failed attempts made by geneticists and other types of biologists to achieve perhaps cloned animals - or whatever experiments you might wish to disdain today - says nothing of our origin.

[Sarkus]

because of the intricacy of that complexity...:shrug:
Sorry - was that meant to be the extent of your argument?
Somehow I expected... more.
Nothing complex, just... more.

The others before me have covered the bases for the pathetic drivel of an argument that you make.

Atheist have used this thinking in attempt to counter intelligent design and it really has no basis.You are correct - ID really has no basis.

Atheist aren't really good judges of good designs since they believe life isn't design at all...Actually it's 'cos we know design (seemingly better than you) when we see it that we understand there to be a lack of intelligent design in our own makeup.

...despite the fact they can't reproduce those some complex forms.A logical fallacy (irrelevancy).
Lack of ability in no way (except through irrational and illogical means) leads to evidence, let alone proof, of impossibility.
Please understand this.
It gets irritating to have to repeat it over and over again.

They seem to have complete disrepect for life.Evidence please.
Where is evidence of my "disrespect for life"?
For that matter where is evidence of your "respect for life"?

Mere confidence statements, Saquist - and they grow tiresome.

[Saquist]

Circular reasoning...the intricate complexity is supernatural because of its intricacy?

uh...no...That was more like repeating myself.



You cannot logically make this statement with any certainty.Logicaly I can. There is more than enough information. Doubly we know that science doesn't have a firm grasp on how biology works. The incurring errors that simply have to be there because of our ignorance in this department mean that the adverse information has more than a little credency.

I'm not saying you can't argue infinitely till time peals away...obviously you can but LOGICLY...Logic dictates much and thus far it is logical to say life does not come about by it's own design. Life doesn't rewrite it'self into another form and design. That's just observation that is a logical conclusion.



Being a graphic designer hardly gives you any more qualifications to judge a cosmic design either. Just because ID and your job title share a word grants you no authority to speak from a pedestal.

I'm not a "graphic" designer. I am Drafter. My field is Drafting and Design and I speak from no pedestal I speak from experience.




Further this makes no sense. ID supporters should be the ones to attempt to reproduce complex life forms since ID purports that a complex system requires a designer.

Failure speaks volumes. Where evolution errors or failues...and it is in many areas...It eliminates evolution, randomness, from consideration. At which point we must recognize that these functions are not random but ordered. And order is not something that happens on it's own. Even the universe has a mixture of order and chaos. Biology too has that mixture...but for sucess order is a must.

[Saquist]

]:shrug:
Sorry - was that meant to be the extent of your argument?
Somehow I expected... more.
Nothing complex, just... more.

elegantly simple, logical.


The others before me have covered the bases for the pathetic drivel of an argument that you make.

covered is a good word. Covered over the evolutionary errors, covered over the hoaxes, cover over the information, covered over their true...intentions. Yes I believe they have covered over everything that could point away from evolution.


Actually it's 'cos we know design (seemingly better than you) when we see it that we understand there to be a lack of intelligent design in our own makeup.

If you say, so...

A logical fallacy (irrelevancy).
Lack of ability in no way (except through irrational and illogical means) leads to evidence, let alone proof, of impossibility.

A lie?
Experimenting is the form and standard of the Scientic Method. Failure and Lack of ability to prove a theory is grounds for dismisal....(except for evolution)


Please understand this.
It gets irritating to have to repeat it over and over again.

Then I suggest that you as a free thinking moral agent, use your perceptive powers and be happy with the rationale that you've chosen rather than confront mine. You'll not get anywhere with this attitude or the constant exceptions to the rules you provide for evolution. Any fool with a bic marker and notepad can make a fallacy and they often do...


Evidence please.
Where is evidence of my "disrespect for life"?
For that matter where is evidence of your "respect for life"?

The question is where isn't the evidence for your disrepect for life. I don't even have to go down the list of complex biological forms to know that you're going to belittle everyone as a contruct of chance. Evolution is...a disrepect for the complex functions of life. You attempt make it easy...comfortable. Your...use your euphemism and fallacies....."oh...it's not complex at all." The human brain can only hold billions of times more information than the best computer on the Earth....Right? But that's not complexity... We can't reproduce that in the same efficiency we can't fathom how it came to be in the first place. The process through evolution is completely undefined.

WE're so complex... The Encyclopedia Britannica says..

"The Brain is endowed with considerably more potential than is realizable in the course of one person's lifetime."

Why would evolution create such an excess beyond our lifetimes?

"This is, in fact, the only example in existence where a species was provided with an organ that it still has not learned how to use." said by a scientist who then asked..." How can this be reconciled with evolution's must fundalmental thesis: Natural selection proceeds in small steps, each of which must confer on its bearer a minimal, but nonetheless measurable advantage?"

On the human brains development...""It remains the most inexplicable aspect of evolution."" Since evolution would never produce and pass on such an excessive never -to-be-used capacity.

Disrepect for Life is and understatement. You ridicule Life. You don't understand it but somehow it's beneath you. You can copy and clone it...destroy it...slice and dice it...but you can't explain it. By way of explanation of the incredible abilities of life you aspire chance and random forces to it's development...You've never seen it work...and you don't seek to attempt to define it's limitation sinces you believe it's limitless despite your inabilities of your own limitations..

If I wanted to talk to you...explain to you and explicitly draw out the case for you I would...The information is at my finger tips...But you don't want to be convinced so...why would I waste my time with you...It's triffling. You've never heard what I would be telling you and you'd just make it up as you went along...

Why...I don't know why. May be science have given you a sense of superiorty over me. Perhaps it's never your intention to be proven wrong. Or...you've already decided that I am wrong....so it would be truely triffling for me to................................................ .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........................

[Donnal]

green berg u dont need a requirement to love god there is no colour or race that can say u have to have requirements we dont fill in forms for job interviews and they say do u have requirements to believe or love a god
the reality is u dont need a requirement to have a say in what god or what religeon u want to chose in life understand this would u do to others what u dont want done to u would u kill cause ur god says so would u eat food infront of a hungry child cause ur god says so ....am sorry but that is no god nor a religeon is a terrible act of cruelty god in every form of religeon no matter what one u choose has to be ur desicion and no requirments for u to undergo just be careful cause people are always condemning other religeons than their own and sum will hurt kill to prove that their god is theone when in actual fact there is no requirment to love a god or belief
JUST HAVIN A SAY

[Sarkus]

elegantly simple, logical.And circular - and a logical fallacy. Not elegant, not simple and not logically sound.

covered is a good word. Covered over the evolutionary errors, covered over the hoaxes, cover over the information, covered over their true...intentions. Yes I believe they have covered over everything that could point away from evolution.:rolleyes:
So no actual counter-argument then?
Didn't think so.

A lie?
Experimenting is the form and standard of the Scientic Method. Failure and Lack of ability to prove a theory is grounds for dismisal....(except for evolution)And so I'll say it again - as you clearly do not understand - failure to be able to recreate something is NOT evidence of impossibility.
What of this simple, elegant and logical statement do you not understand?
Why would you honestly think that something that has taken the order of millions of years to happen in nature can happen in even one lifetime in a lab?
And why would you honestly think that current inability to create life from raw materials is evidence that it is impossible, and thus evidence for a creator?
If you really do - may I suggest you browse through: THIS WEB SITE (http://fallacyfiles.org/)

Then I suggest that you as a free thinking moral agent, use your perceptive powers and be happy with the rationale that you've chosen rather than confront mine.Oh, I am happy with the logic I use - and the reason I confront yours is to try and get through to you the clearly illogical arguments on which your position is based - and yet you are seemingly unable to see them.
If someone understands and accepts their position as illogical and irrational but still wishes to hold their position - no problem - there is then nothing one can do to educate or argue with them further. But when one clearly uses logical fallacies and doesn't realise, someone should point them out.

You'll not get anywhere with this attitude or the constant exceptions to the rules you provide for evolution.What exceptions to the rules???
Point them out!

Any fool with a bic marker and notepad can make a fallacy and they often do...True - some more than most - but that means we shouldn't point them out? If one's position is based on a logical fallacy that means we should ignore it - or brush over it?

The question is where isn't the evidence for your disrepect for life.No - the question was what I asked. Either have the decency to ask it or stop with the flippant comments that you know you can not support.

I don't even have to go down the list of complex biological forms to know that you're going to belittle everyone as a contruct of chance.You're grasping at straws, as well as creating strawmen, as well as now arguing from emotion (aka Appeal to Emotion).

Evolution is...a disrepect for the complex functions of life. And there you go: clear appeal to emotion.

You attempt make it easy...comfortable. Your...use your euphemism and fallacies....."oh...it's not complex at all."More of the same.

The human brain can only hold billions of times more information than the best computer on the Earth....Right?No - it's not right.
Estimates of brain capacity are between 1 and 1,000 Terabytes.
1 Tb drives are now becoming more frequent in computing, with some computers having up to 100 Tb of storage.
So - care to revise your estimate of "billions of times more" - to merely "the same as"?

But that's not complexity...No - it's not.
Size is not equivalent to complexity.
A diamond the size of a planet is no more complex than a diamond the size as a grain of sand.

We can't reproduce that in the same efficiency we can't fathom how it came to be in the first place. The process through evolution is completely undefined.And there you go again - arguments from incredulity (another logical fallacy).

WE're so complex...
...
Why would evolution create such an excess beyond our lifetimes?Who says it's excess?
A lack of understanding is not evidence for anything else. Learn this.

Disrepect for Life is and understatement. You ridicule Life.Again I will ask you to provide evidence of my "disrespect for life"? If you have none - evidence of MY disrespect or others on this site - then please refrain from such drivel.
Support your claims or don't make them.

You don't understand it but somehow it's beneath you.......The rest is just a diatribe of strawmen, irrelevancies and ranting.

If I wanted to talk to you...explain to you and explicitly draw out the case for you I would...The information is at my finger tips...But you don't want to be convinced so...why would I waste my time with you...It's triffling. You've never heard what I would be telling you and you'd just make it up as you went along...Feel free to start.
Just bear in mind that if you don't support your claims with evidence or with logic / rationality then they will not be accepted.

However, at present you have demonstrated nothing of any value, merely confidence statements and a clear lack of understanding of some of the more basic concepts of logical debate (demonstrated by your continued illogic despite it being pointed out).
Come back when you have evidence to support your claims, please.

[Saquist]

However, at present you have demonstrated nothing of any value,

To a person of no value, I offer no value. To a person that demonstrates nothing I offer the same.


That's calling upon some external authority which we do not have access to.
It's a convenient way to relieve yourself of the responsibility for what you say.




I'm going to say the same to you as I said to Sandy elsewhere:

And we should take for granted that you know better than we do, right?

Can't you see how manipulatively you communicate? You speak in a manner where you create a situation where the audience simply has to take for granted that you know better than them. If they don't, they receive your scorn.

I think that short of communication is used to often by churches..."Hell Fire" and it's not even a true teaching of the Bible. Heaven and Hell have the largest misconception in christendom today. the Chruches have engineered a dominion of error that prevails the earth today and they did for power and subjugating people to their will.

Today you will often see warnings on american church marquis that warn your immortal soul will suffer in Hell if you don't come to church...

They're lying and Omitting details of the bible.
They won't tell you the bible says Jesus also "went to hell"
That good people that served God faithfully also "went to hell"
and they leave out the details of what the Lake of Fire and sulfer really mean...

And today proves no one really wants to know what the bible really teaches they're engrossed in Christmas Holloween and games and toys... It's part of the Syndrome of Indifference that frequently prevails societies and tends to be a blinding effect untill something desasterous strikes and suddenly they're asking...

"Why would God allow such loss of life?"
"Why did God take my child from me?
"What did I do to deserve this?"

They've been told God is responsible...thus the scientific community scorns this outlook...It's one imperfect perception looking upon another imperfect perception. The truth is powerful and as Jesus said is sharper than any two edge sword...He was talking about the truth of God...but Truth alwasy has such an effect.

These people who cry out like this in times of peril often do so because "truth" has cut them....reality has cut them. It's made them wake up briefly from the lies and omition perpetuated by tradition. If God really cared then why does the pastor say he took my child..."that New Orleans was punished for it's debased activity."

Thus the only real NECESSITY is to take in knowledge about him....How can you come to understand or "believe" in anyone who you haven't gotten to know?

[greenberg]

Thus the only real NECESSITY is to take in knowledge about him....How can you come to understand or "believe" in anyone who you haven't gotten to know?

Well, that's the problem.

How can a person know that the knowledge they are taking in, truly is the knowledge of God, and not just some ponderings of an "american church marquis"?

[(Q)]

Well, that's the problem.

How can a person know that the knowledge they are taking in, truly is the knowledge of God, and not just some ponderings of an "american church marquis"?

A good point, in which the 'faith' of theists becomes misplaced, in that they don't really require faith in god, but faith in whoever wrote the scriptures.

[Saquist]

Well, that's the problem.

How can a person know that the knowledge they are taking in, truly is the knowledge of God, and not just some ponderings of an "american church marquis"?

Quite simply...by searching...The same method science uses to search for answers its a proven method. What you're looking for is litterally is traces or evidence of higher than human involement.

For an atheist this will be difficult. An atheist has already convinced himself that one of the most highest example of higher than human involement (life) is a coincidence. But there are others. and if you believe in an "infinite amount of that which inforbids" there will be no convincing you.

[greenberg]

A good point, in which the 'faith' of theists becomes misplaced, in that they don't really require faith in god, but faith in whoever wrote the scriptures.

Not only that. I suspect a theist or pro-theist stance is necessary apriori. Ie., people probably already need to be theists or pro-theists before they can (consciously) convert to theism. Social conditioning can account for this apriori stance.

There is another point to be made about having theistic faith. Namely, that theists are generally unable to coherently explain how they have arrived at their faith, they are unable to give a precise account of the cognitive processes that lead them to their faith. Usually, they only give an account of externally observable activities (such as studying the Bible, praying), but nothing more precise.

Ironically, it is after all possible that (at least some) theists have genuine faith in God, genuine knowledge of God, one that is not due to social conditioning or self-fulfilling prophecy (it is after all possible that God exists).
But still the way they describe how they have arrived at their faith is third-class pseudo-scientific moralizing - and it's this that is so damn offensive.

[Sarkus]

To a person of no value, I offer no value. To a person that demonstrates nothing I offer the same.Ah, the undiluted and misplaced arrogance is warming. :rolleyes:

So you choose to ignore valid criticism of your claims - which either shows you to be disrespectful or, more likely, totally unable to refute the arguments against you. But that is your choice, and speaks volumes of your (lack of?) character.

If you can not be bothered to follow logic or rational reasoning then there is little place for you here - unless you wish to be a mere scratching post for others to sharpen their claws on?

[Enterprise-D]

Quite simply...by searching...The same method science uses to search for answers its a proven method. What you're looking for is litterally is traces or evidence of higher than human involement.

You seem to infer that the scientific community engages in aimless wanderings, when in fact if anyone using the scientific method to prove any theist claim must be looking exactly for evidence of higher-than-human involvement.


For an atheist this will be difficult. An atheist has already convinced himself that one of the most highest example of higher than human involement (life) is a coincidence. But there are others. and if you believe in an "infinite amount of that which inforbids" there will be no convincing you.

1. Coincidence has little to do with Darwinian theory.
2. You think theists haven't done any self-convincing? (there's only one correct answer to that...they have)
3. Please list the other examples you refer to...

[Enterprise-D]

uh...no...That was more like repeating myself.

Obviously you're ignoring the clear infinite loop of a statement you posted. I'll not comment further on it, as two other respondants picked up on it.



Logicaly I can. There is more than enough information.

There's more than enough information on what? I told you that you cannot logically make the statement that "evolution doesn't exist...". You cannot prove that evolution does not exist. It's proving a negative.


Doubly we know that science doesn't have a firm grasp on how biology works. The incurring errors that simply have to be there because of our ignorance in this department mean that the adverse information has more than a little credency.

This sentence makes little sense; however you're still holding on to the fact that the failures of humanity must mean that god exists. One does not logically lead to the other.


I'm not saying you can't argue infinitely till time peals away...obviously you can but LOGICLY...Logic dictates much and thus far it is logical to say life does not come about by it's own design. Life doesn't rewrite it'self into another form and design. That's just observation that is a logical conclusion.


I don't see why not. You yourself have progressed in your own life by adaptation and experience. You've learned and become a draft designer. Why couldn't sea-creatures eventually learn to be amphibious given enough time?



Failure speaks volumes. Where evolution errors or failues...and it is in many areas...It eliminates evolution, randomness, from consideration. At which point we must recognize that these functions are not random but ordered. And order is not something that happens on it's own. Even the universe has a mixture of order and chaos. Biology too has that mixture...but for sucess order is a must.

You have a very chaotic definition of order if you think life is orderly.

Further, and once more unto the breach, failures of humans who are just learning speaks nothing to our origins. If one of your drafts has erroneous measurements, or for that matter, if your department produces 10 erroneous drafts, does it speak to the doom of the entire architectural industry?

[Saquist]

Obviously you're ignoring the clear infinite loop of a statement you posted. I'll not comment further on it, as two other respondants picked up on it.

picked up on what? That i had to repeat myself?




There's more than enough information on what? I told you that you cannot logically make the statement that "evolution doesn't exist...". You cannot prove that evolution does not exist. It's proving a negative.

I can prove it wrong and conflicting to the scientific method. And that would be good enough despite the "negative".



This sentence makes little sense; however you're still holding on to the fact that the failures of humanity must mean that god exists. One does not logically lead to the other.

I'm holding to the reality that biology is a far more complicated contruct than humanity can explain by random chance. Such construct which exeed explanation infer a superior design. Simple and Logical.



I don't see why not. You yourself have progressed in your own life by adaptation and experience. You've learned and become a draft designer. Why couldn't sea-creatures eventually learn to be amphibious given enough time?

Really. So you think I designed myself and proceeded to create myself?
Time would be a non factor...no matter how long you leave the parts of a super computer in a pile it will never become a super computer without the purposeful efforts of an outside force.



You have a very chaotic definition of order if you think life is orderly.

You have a very contrary point of view in general. Life is orderly. You think a 99% replication rating is chaos? You think the brain's ascending foundation of complex processes such as speech, motor function and combined eye-hand coordination and balance is chaos?

Well we have a very large chasm of perspective between us. You seem to be determined to minimize Life asell. I'm am only high lighting the incredible abilities of life which you say is chaotic which no chaotic system could produce...and no I don't belive in chaos systems. Even the most chaotic systems are goverened by basic laws such as gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak forces and thermal dynamics. It's predictable if you know all the variables.

Further, and once more unto the breach, failures of humans who are just learning speaks nothing to our origins. If one of your drafts has erroneous measurements, or for that matter, if your department produces 10 erroneous drafts, does it speak to the doom of the entire architectural industry?

Origins?
I said nothing of our origins. I speak of the theory of evolution. And the scientific methods defines a successful theory against trial and error. So there is a prescedent...if something continues to fail experimentation it is an failed premise.

[Saquist]

You seem to infer that the scientific community engages in aimless wanderings, when in fact if anyone using the scientific method to prove any theist claim must be looking exactly for evidence of higher-than-human involvement.


The scientific community has been known to be society of competitivness, cheating, and hoaxes. Obviously there alterior motives involved. They simply don't wish to excercise any consideration toward design.


1. Coincidence has little to do with Darwinian theory.

It has everything to do with Darwinian theory otherwise you wouldn't be talking chaos theories.


2. You think theists haven't done any self-convincing? (there's only one correct answer to that...they have)

Human is human...To deny what is human is to deny logic itself. But theist are not the held as the zenith of human understanding. Science has failed often and it will continue to fail because there working in a vaccum...in a world of competitvenss and motive. And the scientific comunity has attempted to disprove Inteligent Design and it's impossible to disprove Inteligent design.

3. Please list the other examples you refer to...
To what end? Where shall I start...Universe...Galaxy Solarsytem or just Earth itself? Any way you cut it evolution falls in line with an impossible line or lucky coincidences attempting to make everything we see as simple as stumbling in the dark.

Ah, the undiluted and misplaced arrogance is warming. :rolleyes:

:cool:

[Enterprise-D]

I can prove it wrong and conflicting to the scientific method. And that would be good enough despite the "negative".

I'm afraid "good enough" is not evidence, or proof. Many a theist claim to be able to prove science wrong via the scientific method. Clearly an effort in futility.



I'm holding to the reality that biology is a far more complicated contruct than humanity can explain by random chance. Such construct which exeed explanation infer a superior design. Simple and Logical.

Sorry, but random chance has nothing to do with Darwinian Theory.



Really. So you think I designed myself and proceeded to create myself?
Time would be a non factor...no matter how long you leave the parts of a super computer in a pile it will never become a super computer without the purposeful efforts of an outside force.

No, you assume that a human requires design. You automatically ignore the possibility that evolution resulted in intelligent life.

Further, you ignore the obvious...the designer of a complex system must himself be a complex system...so who designed the first designer?



You have a very contrary point of view in general. Life is orderly. You think a 99% replication rating is chaos? You think the brain's ascending foundation of complex processes such as speech, motor function and combined eye-hand coordination and balance is chaos?

What has a 99% replication rating?

I think humanity's behaviour is chaotic. I think the brain's very inconsistency is chaotic (start with varying intelligence and move right through to epilepsy). I think that the 84% of us that stubbornly cling to ancient superstition is chaotic. Weather is chaotic - barely predictable at the present time, and even that changes in an instant. Virii are chaotic.


Well we have a very large chasm of perspective between us. You seem to be determined to minimize Life asell. I'm am only high lighting the incredible abilities of life which you say is chaotic which no chaotic system could produce...and no I don't belive in chaos systems. Even the most chaotic systems are goverened by basic laws such as gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak forces and thermal dynamics. It's predictable if you know all the variables.

This is a fallacy, an appeal through incredulity. The grandeur of a system has nothing to do with its origin.



Origins?
I said nothing of our origins. I speak of the theory of evolution. And the scientific methods defines a successful theory against trial and error. So there is a prescedent...if something continues to fail experimentation it is an failed premise.

Evolution and Creationism (oh pardon me...ID as they're calling it nowadays), are both theories that concern themselves with the origin of humans. Please do not nitpick.

Further, a failed premise is one that is proven wrong. Evolution, and ID for that matter have both not been proven wrong. Evolution merely holds the advantage of logic. ID supporters constantly fail to produce any evidence of their theory being right, so perhaps this is a failed premise too?

[Saquist]

I'm afraid "good enough" is not evidence, or proof. Many a theist claim to be able to prove science wrong via the scientific method. Clearly an effort in futility. Sorry, but random chance has nothing to do with Darwinian Theory.


I disagree. You'll have to prove it before I believe this claim. Show the purpose and direction from point A to Z if you can and I'll consider that it's not randomness.









No, you assume that a human requires design. You automatically ignore the possibility that evolution resulted in intelligent life.

ignore no. Evolution brings forth it's idea and I have two options. Creation or happenstance...Logic dictates design. Evolution rules it'sself out by contradiction.

Further, you ignore the obvious...the designer of a complex system must himself be a complex system...so who designed the first designer?

That's a good question and it's also irrelevant to the conversation.
I believe God is very complex. The variables I've seen in place are directed not a creators creator but humans creator...this just purposely takes us off topic.




What has a 99% replication rating?
DNA

I think humanity's behaviour is chaotic.

whose talking behavior.

Let me ask you something Enterprise D. Is it your intention to contradict everything I say even if you can't back it up? At what point did I ever say or imply behavior.

I think the brain's very inconsistency is chaotic (start with varying intelligence and move right through to epilepsy). I think that the 84% of us that stubbornly cling to ancient superstition is chaotic. Weather is chaotic - barely predictable at the present time, and even that changes in an instant. Virii are chaotic.

What are you talking about Enteprise are we on the same subject?



This is a fallacy, an appeal through incredulity. The grandeur of a system has nothing to do with its origin.

I see you have your bic marker and notepad out too. Prove that it's a fallacy and identify the falsehood.




Evolution and Creationism (oh pardon me...ID as they're calling it nowadays), are both theories that concern themselves with the origin of humans. Please do not nitpick.

I'm not the one who said "I'll go at this surgicaly".

Further, a failed premise is one that is proven wrong. Evolution, and ID for that matter have both not been proven wrong. Evolution merely holds the advantage of logic. ID supporters constantly fail to produce any evidence of their theory being right, so perhaps this is a failed premise too?

A failed premise is also that which fails experimentation. Logic is not failure.

ID has the same evidence as Evolution...it just fits ID better. That's logical. What you're asking is proof in experimentation. To my knowledge there is no experiment that could prove Inteligent Design only speaking with the Designer. How would you attempt to experiment that the Pyramids were designed and constructed? You can't but we see the complexity and form of the pyramid and recognize the implication of design and the traits of function and purpose we also see information...

Both Pyramids and Life have a function, carry traits of function, and contain information. By comparison the logical inference is Design...we can't prove who the designer is less he tells us and science is ill equiped to talk to the creator. But he has chosen to leave his signiture in us and the bible.

[Enterprise-D]

The scientific community has been known to be society of competitivness, cheating, and hoaxes. Obviously there alterior motives involved. They simply don't wish to excercise any consideration toward design.

Any evidence of this? Or just another confidence statement?

I won't even go into the high levels of underhanded politicking and even downright warfare that various religions sink to.



It has everything to do with Darwinian theory otherwise you wouldn't be talking chaos theories.

I didn't say anything about the Chaos Theory. This is something completely different.


Human is human...To deny what is human is to deny logic itself. But theist are not the held as the zenith of human understanding. Science has failed often and it will continue to fail because there working in a vaccum...in a world of competitvenss and motive. And the scientific comunity has attempted to disprove Inteligent Design and it's impossible to disprove Inteligent design.

LOL :)

Theists have surely been the bastion of success! The failures of few scientists does not grant any theism any modicum of accuracy.

Oh and it's very easy to punch holes in ID. Like I asked in a previous post...who designed your first designer, who is necessarily a complex system?


To what end? Where shall I start...Universe...Galaxy Solarsytem or just Earth itself? Any way you cut it evolution falls in line with an impossible line or lucky coincidences attempting to make everything we see as simple as stumbling in the dark.

The Universe is not a life. The neither is the solar system or even the planet. All of these locations house lives. Feel free to resumbit examples for approval.

And once more, for what I'm sure is the thousandth time in Sciforums alone, evolution has nothing to do with luck, chance, coincidence or random occurences; (I'm pretty sure that Sarkus and Q have posted links to explain evolution on more than one occasion). Until you can understand this, you cannot hope to argue against it. You prove your immense misunderstanding every time you confidently dismiss Darwinian Theory as nothing more than a roll of dice.

[Enterprise-D]

I disagree. You'll have to prove it before I believe this claim. Show the purpose and direction from point A to Z if you can and I'll consider that it's not randomness.

No scientist ever claimed that evolution is unchallengably correct. Theists purport that evolution is random chance. YOU need to prove this.

Darwinian Theory basically theorizes that the development of skills, attributes, intelligence etc is a function of surviving destructive environments and continuing a species. Given enough time, a species develops these attributes and pass them on in an ever changing genetic code. As someone posted before, virii are short term examples of this...we have yet to defeat the common cold, which evolves defenses for every medicine we invent.

Of course, you have already concluded in your mind that I'll be wrong, so maybe I'm wasting time.




ignore no. Evolution brings forth it's idea and I have two options. Creation or happenstance...Logic dictates design. Evolution rules it'sself out by contradiction.

No, your emotion cannot accept that you are a function of survival of the fittest. It is understandably disturbing, but it might be true.



That's a good question and it's also irrelevant to the conversation.
I believe God is very complex. The variables I've seen in place are directed not a creators creator but humans creator...this just purposely takes us off topic.

Rubbish, this topic is necessary requirement for believing in god. If ID is to be believed, it is necessary (at least to me) for theists to prove that the theory of ID applies to their magical designer.



DNA

1% can be enough for disorder. But I am not a molecular biologist.


whose talking behavior.

Let me ask you something Enterprise D. Is it your intention to contradict everything I say even if you can't back it up? At what point did I ever say or imply behavior.

I'm speaking lack of order. I have provided examples of disorderly systems...which include human behaviour. Or do you dismiss psychology completely?

Further I can say the same for you. You have done nothing but dismiss anything that runs roughshod of your sensibilities and beliefs.



I see you have your bic marker and notepad out too. Prove that it's a fallacy and identify the falsehood.

Oh please Saquist.


Well we have a very large chasm of perspective between us. You seem to be determined to minimize Life asell. I'm am only high lighting the incredible abilities of life which you say is chaotic which no chaotic system could produce...

Clear indicators that you are awed by the spectacle of life.

And earlier in this thread where you state that ID must be true because of the incredible complexity of life. Get off your high horse, grandeur does not evidence create. Therefore, you have given no postulation for anyone to prove any falsehood.



I'm not the one who said "I'll go at this surgicaly".

Saquist. Evolution and ID have everything to do with our origin. You don't have to state this for us to know this.



A failed premise is also that which fails experimentation. Logic is not failure.

Experimentation is an extension of logic. Until some sort of test proves either conclusively, you cannot declare yourself et. al. (of ID) the winner.


ID has the same evidence as Evolution...it just fits ID better. That's logical. What you're asking is proof in experimentation. To my knowledge there is no experiment that could prove Inteligent Design only speaking with the Designer. How would you attempt to experiment that the Pyramids were designed and constructed? You can't but we see the complexity and form of the pyramid and recognize the implication of design and the traits of function and purpose we also see information...

Merely because you cannot imagine the experiment or method of gathering evidence, does not mean there is no way to do so. Now or in future.

Further, the evidence more strongly supports the theory of evolution.


Both Pyramids and Life have a function, carry traits of function, and contain information. By comparison the logical inference is Design...we can't prove who the designer is less he tells us and science is ill equiped to talk to the creator. But he has chosen to leave his signiture in us and the bible.

Pyramids are dead stone buildings. They do not have the ability to adjust to surroundings and have no need to earn money or survive. Pyramids are the result of human evolution. And this is the key difference here, humans built pyramids - inanimate objects - for a function. We are not inanimate.

Further...your quote in orange is another example of a foregone conclusion...a confidence statement that gives no value to the conversation.

[Saquist]

Further I can say the same for you. You have done nothing but dismiss anything that runs roughshod of your sensibilities and beliefs.

Let us focus on this.
I've said yes or no to everything you've said. I've explained myself and I've asked question of you.

You have ignored the question of evolution compared to the brain. So it's not me....It's you Enterprise D, not me. This is something you won't let go of. If you haven't noticed I'm dealing in absolutes. What is and What isn't.

Facts.

Adaptation is a normal biological process.
DNA's purpose is to allow adaptation but to resist error.
Mutation is notably bad for DNA
DNA has a 99% sucess rating for replication
Mutation has a 99% rating for adverse effects
Natual Seclection has never been observed altering an animal beyond the boundaries DNA Allows for Adaptation. (barring the dead and disfigured)
Evolution has never been observed altering an animal beyond the boundaries DNA allows for Adaptation.
The fossil record does not show the necessary change for evolution.
Evolution has failed countless experiments
Abiogenesis has failed experiments to create life.

This is real Easy....
Evolution is not the answer.

[Saquist]

You've ignored everything Enterprise.

You've not faced a single one of those truths.
You've ignored my examples and have anemicly explained away the need to face those examples. This is Cowardice. "Dead Stone Buildings" Indeed.

You don't really want to have a conversation...you want to argue debating strategy...pathetic... If I had know you were going to dodge and evade a meaningful conversation like Sarkus I would have ended this long ago....

But now will have to do....

[Saquist]

But still the way they describe how they have arrived at their faith is third-class pseudo-scientific moralizing - and it's this that is so damn offensive.

While...certain requirements of God relate litteraly to science, not all things spiritual can pass through the Scientific Method grinder. So the Bible has a litteral harmony with science. This is a foundation not pseudo science in the end, because we've been told no further examples will not be given, we must come to reason on the facts, cause, and effect.

My Faith is built on Facts...not assumptions.
Is there truth in the Bible?: Yes....
Is everything in the Bible confirmable?: No
Are there confirmed events in the Bible?: Yes
Do sources contradict the Bible: YES
Does the Bible speak with One purpose? YES
Does the Bible speak truthfully on process it mentions? YES.


The truth is there will be contradiction to the bible and it should be expected since we know humans are capable and often motivated to lie. While we can't explain fully the "supernatural" events that occur in the bible from their perspective we must at least take it as testimony. All ancient text must be considered as testimony. Science is completely ill equipped to judge the bible or any other text created before modern times as a falsehood and those that do are truely afixed upon their own understanding of reality.

Donald Patten should quite well that LISTEN to these ancient texts could reveal more than we could possibly imagine. We must treat this as EYE WITNESS testimony. However they discribe it however they percieved it through superstitious eyes must be genuinely considered and in some cases interpretted in order to understand what they saw. Some of them were just stories fortunatly the Bible is one of the few that present it's self as truth rather than epic tales of Gods vs Titans.

[glaucon]

What would be the necessary requirement for believing in God?
...



The same thing that is required to believe in the Tooth Fairy: naivety.

[sisyphus__]

Lol

[Enterprise-D]

Let us focus on this.
I've said yes or no to everything you've said. I've explained myself and I've asked question of you.

You have ignored the question of evolution compared to the brain. So it's not me....It's you Enterprise D, not me. This is something you won't let go of. If you haven't noticed I'm dealing in absolutes. What is and What isn't.

Facts.

Adaptation is a normal biological process.
DNA's purpose is to allow adaptation but to resist error.
Mutation is notably bad for DNA
DNA has a 99% sucess rating for replication
Mutation has a 99% rating for adverse effects
Natual Seclection has never been observed altering an animal beyond the boundaries DNA Allows for Adaptation. (barring the dead and disfigured)
Evolution has never been observed altering an animal beyond the boundaries DNA allows for Adaptation.
The fossil record does not show the necessary change for evolution.
Evolution has failed countless experiments
Abiogenesis has failed experiments to create life.

This is real Easy....
Evolution is not the answer.

And none of this supposed facts gives a single credibility point to the theory of creation or the existence of god.


If I had know you were going to dodge and evade a meaningful conversation like Sarkus I would have ended this long ago....

But now will have to do....

If you like, but I have addressed almost all of your comments. You on the other hand have failed to prove your assertions, instead only focussing on the few failures of your opponents as if it justifies your entire belief system.

[greenberg]

The same thing that is required to believe in the Tooth Fairy: naivety.

I'm afraid it has to be more sinister than that.
My most recent candidate for the necessary requirement for believing in God is this -

Holding the stance that there is nothing better in this Universe than to believe in God.

Although this seems to be a requirement based on several others, in our culture, it is possible to pick it up in just this form, ready-made.
Most of the other requirements listed so far were not exclusive to the belief in God, but this one is.

Of course, it's a bit circular and aprioristic - but apparently, this is just what is necessary.

[Enterprise-D]

I'm afraid it has to be more sinister than that.
My most recent candidate for the necessary requirement for believing in God is this -

Holding the stance that there is nothing better in this Universe than to believe in God.

Although this seems to be a requirement based on several others, in our culture, it is possible to pick it up in just this form, ready-made.
Most of the other requirements listed so far were not exclusive to the belief in God, but this one is.

Of course, it's a bit circular and aprioristic - but apparently, this is just what is necessary.

This is actually somewhat insightful! You're right that this is based on several other requirements, the longevity of the belief depends entirely on its own supremity...the theistic "impossibility" as it were that there could be any better theory or commodity.

[Devildriver_rocks]

the requirements for believing in god is pretty much the same as the requirements as living in a dictatorship