Languish's church attendence

[Syt]

Seeing how I don't believe in God I don't go to church except for sightseeing.

If other people believe in God and go to church I respect that. Unless they want to impose their views on me/convert me. Fortunately, most believers aren't like that.

[Sheilbh]

So, God's a dick?

God's incomprehensible.  God's not not a dick.

Claiming that one cannot understand god's ways is the equivalent of refusing to show your work on a math exam.

No it's not.  Theology's not a maths exam.  It's impossible for us to understand an omnipotent, omnipresent thing.  Religion accepts that and wonders in it.  Theology's our human construct around what is, ultimately, a mystery.

The thing is that every argument for and against the existence of god apart from the watchmaker argument was fully developed by 270 BC and the watchmaker argument died in 1859.

There's no argument for or against.  Even Dawkins says he's only an agnostic.  It's unprovable, you either believe or you don't.

I believe Aristotle called it the unmoved first mover.

That's always been my favourite.

I always thought the fixation on Evolution was strange.  Why not geology, or linguistics or history?

We only notice it because creationists keep it going.  In the 19th century geology and linguistics were hugely controversial because of their implications for the Bible.  A lot of Tennyson's doubting verse in 'In Memoriam' is about geology.  On the one hand it undermined traditional interpretations of the Bible, on the other it's seen as demonstrating a more rational comprehensible God.  That the physical world makes sense is a consolation in a grief as well as a challenge to the old spiritual order's reassurance.

[Razgovory]

To be honest before 1859 you could not be an honest well informed rational atheist because of the design argument.

Edit: This is why evolution is the biggie for the creationists if you disprove evolution then they think they can return to the design argument.

The design argument only works for biology?  Nothing about physics or chemistry?

[Viking]

To be honest before 1859 you could not be an honest well informed rational atheist because of the design argument.

Edit: This is why evolution is the biggie for the creationists if you disprove evolution then they think they can return to the design argument.

The design argument only works for biology?  Nothing about physics or chemistry?

Biology was the last bastion of design to fall. The physical universe had already been shown to be free of miracles. Newtons clockwork universe applied to physics and chemistry as well. Once Darwin had published no detail in the universe needed god to explain it. In physics and chemistry you could actually write down equations that accurately and repeatedly predicted the location of the heavenly bodies and the ammount of product you get from a reaction. There was no place for god there. Biology was last because life appeared to be special somehow and it's variation was seen as a part of a plan, given that every life form was so well adapted to its environment. Darwin showed that you need no plan and life will adapt itself to the environment it inhabits.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

It just occured to me that religion may be God's ultimate test.  If you manage to resist indoctrination and realize that atheism is the one true answer, you passed God's test, and you go to Heaven.

Isn't that mass effect 3?

[Valmy]

Once Darwin had published no detail in the universe needed god to explain it.

Whille I am not declaring we need God to explain anything you are talking as if every single thing in the Universe has been figured out, or was figured out by 1859, and there were/are no mysteries left.

[Viking]

So, God's a dick?

God's incomprehensible.  God's not not a dick.

How do you know that?

Why is god incomprehensible when he condemns at least 3/4 of humanity to torment in hell but you can somehow comprehend that god doesn't hate fags anymore despite it being pretty damn clear in his book what you should do with them? That's pretty hypocritical. The Incomprahensability argument is a copout to deal with theodecy, a pretty pathetic one at that. It is the last defense of the beliver when reason logic and argument fails. The "I can't explain it but I'm sure god is doing it for his own munificent reasons" type of defense is there to deal with the cognitie dissonance caused by reality clashing with theology.

Claiming that one cannot understand god's ways is the equivalent of refusing to show your work on a math exam.

No it's not.  Theology's not a maths exam.  It's impossible for us to understand an omnipotent, omnipresent thing.  Religion accepts that and wonders in it.  Theology's our human construct around what is, ultimately, a mystery.

It's just like not showing your work in a math exam. Religion claims to know truth but refuses to explain itself. Why does god do x is the equivalent of where do the trains travelling from new york and boston meet. Claiming that gods ways are mysterious is just like answering 500km without showing how you got that answer. The mysterious ways argument is not an argument for anything it is merely a copout for those who cannot explain or justify their dogma.

The thing is that every argument for and against the existence of god apart from the watchmaker argument was fully developed by 270 BC and the watchmaker argument died in 1859.

There's no argument for or against.  Even Dawkins says he's only an agnostic.  It's unprovable, you either believe or you don't.

thats just stupid. There are arguments for and against true and false propositions. These arguments can be valid, unvalid, strong or weak. Dawkins agrees with Russel that he can't disprove the teapot, that is all. It's the philosophically valid statement consistent with theory of knowledge.

I believe Aristotle called it the unmoved first mover.

That's always been my favourite.

My favourite counter to that is Infinite Regress.

I always thought the fixation on Evolution was strange.  Why not geology, or linguistics or history?

We only notice it because creationists keep it going.  In the 19th century geology and linguistics were hugely controversial because of their implications for the Bible.  A lot of Tennyson's doubting verse in 'In Memoriam' is about geology.  On the one hand it undermined traditional interpretations of the Bible, on the other it's seen as demonstrating a more rational comprehensible God.  That the physical world makes sense is a consolation in a grief as well as a challenge to the old spiritual order's reassurance.

Newton was just as much of a shock to the interventionist god. As I said above Darwin smashes the designer god's last gap to hide in, that is why evolution is so vindictively opposed, in addition to evolution directly contradicting much more of the bible than newtons mechanics does.

[Viking]

Once Darwin had published no detail in the universe needed god to explain it.

Whille I am not declaring we need God to explain anything you are talking as if every single thing in the Universe has been figured out, or was figured out by 1859, and there were/are no mysteries left.

I am not claiming that there were no mysteries left. I am just claiming that there were no longer any answers about the material world to be found in theology. We had answered all the questions that the jews of babylon had managed to think of and give "god did it" as an answer.

[Razgovory]

To be honest before 1859 you could not be an honest well informed rational atheist because of the design argument.

Edit: This is why evolution is the biggie for the creationists if you disprove evolution then they think they can return to the design argument.

The design argument only works for biology?  Nothing about physics or chemistry?

Biology was the last bastion of design to fall. The physical universe had already been shown to be free of miracles. Newtons clockwork universe applied to physics and chemistry as well. Once Darwin had published no detail in the universe needed god to explain it. In physics and chemistry you could actually write down equations that accurately and repeatedly predicted the location of the heavenly bodies and the ammount of product you get from a reaction. There was no place for god there. Biology was last because life appeared to be special somehow and it's variation was seen as a part of a plan, given that every life form was so well adapted to its environment. Darwin showed that you need no plan and life will adapt itself to the environment it inhabits.

No questions left in physics after 1859?  Nobody asks why physical constants are the way they are?  Well I'll be damned.

[Sheilbh]

Whille I am not declaring we need God to explain anything you are talking as if every single thing in the Universe has been figured out, or was figured out by 1859, and there were/are no mysteries left.

And that the only purpose of God/religion was to explain things.  It's a very odd version of faith.

How do you know that?

Because God's an omnipotent, omnipresent being; the Alpha and the Omega.  Now maybe you're able to understand that, but I doubt it.  I can't.

The incomprehensibility argument isn't a pathetic cop-out or even really an argument, it's the first principle of faith.  A sort of humility in front of mystery.  I don't think we can even say God is good, or omnipotent - those are human terms.  The best we can approach is that God is not not good and so on.

I'm sure my Biblical knowledge is less than yours so I'll leave that to you.

[Viking]

No questions left in physics after 1859?  Nobody asks why physical constants are the way they are?  Well I'll be damned.

We always reach this point were you blatantly misrepresent me. This is what I said

Once Darwin had published no detail in the universe needed god to explain it.

As Hitchens likes to quip, I call upon the honesty of the audience to decide, did I claim that there were no questions in physics left in 1859 or did I assert that theology did not answer any of them?

[Viking]

Whille I am not declaring we need God to explain anything you are talking as if every single thing in the Universe has been figured out, or was figured out by 1859, and there were/are no mysteries left.

And that the only purpose of God/religion was to explain things.  It's a very odd version of faith.

"only purpose" ? Valmy said no such thing. However explaining shit is most certainly one of the most important functions religion. The explanations are usually formulated in a manner to get people to make offerings, yes, but explanations they are non-the-less.

How do you know that?

Because God's an omnipotent, omnipresent being; the Alpha and the Omega.  Now maybe you're able to understand that, but I doubt it.  I can't.

The incomprehensibility argument isn't a pathetic cop-out or even really an argument, it's the first principle of faith.  A sort of humility in front of mystery.  I don't think we can even say God is good, or omnipotent - those are human terms.  The best we can approach is that God is not not good and so on.

I'm sure my Biblical knowledge is less than yours so I'll leave that to you.

It is a copout for the simple reason that the idiocy of the incomprahensability argument necessitates the end of inquiry. Inquiry itself becomes impious. It is the little brat claiming that the majesty of his calculations are such that they are incomprehensible to the teacher so the teacher must just accept his answer to be true.

Furthermore the religious actually do believe that he is good and omnipotent, without those beliefs their faith is pointless. Claiming that god is neither good and/or ominpotent contradicts all abrahamic religions.

[Razgovory]

Okay Viking how could physics be considered "free of miracles" if it isn't fully understood?

[derspiess]

Why does this interest you so much, Vike?

[Razgovory]

I'm sort of losing focus.  The watchmaker argument is essentially a naturalist one, it doesn't need overt miracles.