24 replies to this topic

[nivek]

Folks,

TO and Hans will be given the opportunity to duke it out in their own thread.

This thread is for ALL OTHER COMMENTARY

If an honest mistake is made I'll cut the actor some slack, however any posts in their discussion(s) will get nuked and I'll take your cookies and milk away.

What I'd like to see is a link to the particular post in which you reply to:

http://ex-christian....har.nahr/thread 12576796797898/boogereating/blah

Makes things a bit easier to follow along when the peanut shells get deep on floor.

Thanks for your participation.

kevin, peanut shell sweeper and head bottle washer,L

[freeday]

can't wait for this one, finally the heat is off of me.

i say the debate should consist of is the Quran the authority on God?

[RHEMtron]

I think i like Han's topic of TO being convinced that the Quaran is true because of scientific accuracy.

[KT45]

This one looks like a toughie!!! Best wishes to Hans!!

[DucorpsToo]

Wishing Hans the best!

Edited by DucorpsToo, 26 July 2006 - 01:57 AM.

[ficino]

If the Kalam argument comes up, I'm eager to see how you guys deal with it. Go for it, dudes. Fascinating discussion, I'm all "eyes."

[freeday]

an excellent response OT. can't wait to see Hans' reply.

[Rank Stranger]

OT makes several interesting arguements, but I don't see how any of them point toward any particular 'god'... or any god at all.

[duderonomy]

Interesting that Omni thinks that 'God is God' because we have a purpose. What purpose then? The one God gave us. Very circular logic, IMO. Outside of his Holy Book, what is our purpose? And why, outside of his Holy Book, do we need to have one at all?
He grasps at his version of a straw, because he can't just accept that we are here. There has to be a reason. Well sure there is a reason why we are here, but that doesn't mean that there has to be a 'divine' cause! One does NOT automatically follow the other.
Like most 'believers', he can't seem to separate the how from the why and examine them for what they are.

And why, as Omni stated, would God have to 'subjugate' His creation of Nature for li'l ol' us?? Couldn't He just create the thing right the first time?

A fundie by any other name, would sound as illogical.

[freeday]

Interesting that Omni thinks that 'God is God' because we have a purpose. What purpose then? The one God gave us. Very circular logic, IMO. Outside of his Holy Book, what is our purpose? And why, outside of his Holy Book, do we need to have one at all?
He grasps at his version of a straw, because he can't just accept that we are here. There has to be a reason. Well sure there is a reason why we are here, but that doesn't mean that there has to be a 'divine' cause! One does NOT automatically follow the other.
Like most 'believers', he can't seem to separate the how from the why and examine them for what they are.

And why, as Omni stated, would God have to 'subjugate' His creation of Nature for li'l ol' us?? Couldn't He just create the thing right the first time?

A fundie by any other name, would sound as illogical.

i think the argument always goes, if you can logically deduce that we were created, not a by product of random chance, then we were created for a purpose. this is where religion comes in, the purpose of why we are here.

[scotter]

2.2 Comment on Omni’s reply: The example of Diamond is quite a good example, but extending this example, isn’t a cubic zircona looks identical in the human eyes-of-flesh? Only a jewelry professional, or with certain instruments the cubic is identified as non-diamond. And, if you have two pieces of flashing gems, one is diamond, one is cubic, and you tell the layman about it, and somehow the cubic is less appreciated just because it is not real diamond, just because the layman knows it is not real diamond – they look as flashy as to each other in the layman’s eyes. Why is that? That is my counter-point to Omni’s example to humans appreciating the beauty of a diamond.

Cubic zircona serves a lesser purpose, serves a cheaper purpose.

On Omni’s derived argument - Humans are able to recognize the beauty of the universe – for the sake of argument (this is not to suggest I personally believe that), and no derogatory tone to Allah-Islam intended, how do you not know the Universe, this Universe that we live in, is a cubic zircona?

2.3

Even as a God believer, and I am speaking in terms of neutral third party, Omni’s response to 2.3 is less capable to cover Han’s arguments. If read as spirituality writing, the 2.3 response is good on its terms with refreshing philosophical context, Omni speaks like a Guru. Han’s academic argument is that God must be more complex than the created Universe – makes sense. For example, the computer is complex, the human brain / human mind that creates the computer is unarguably more complex than a computer.

Omni uses “God is pure and simple” to respond thus he skips Han’s follow-up questions: “That would contradict that God is the First Cause. If he appears intelligent he must be designed, or is the answer that he is Un-Designed and Un-Caused? But if so, then why can’t the Universe be Un-Designed and Un-Caused as well? Why go the extra step? Maybe the Universe is the Intelligence, and it caused itself into existence?”

God is pure and simple - that Omni mentioned this is the spiritual approach to understand God. Quote: ‘This is what "spirituality" is.’

Omni can’t go back-and-forth like that, when he presents academic arguments like Kalam theorem and uses spiritual argument to respond to 2.3. This is the Arena.

As a God believer talking to a fellow God believer: say a computer scientist who creates the computer is also a meditation practitioner, when he meditates, his mind is in a pure-and-simple state, which is also true, which is also one of the scientist’s attributes. So if a person sees God as pure-and-simple and approaches God in this way, there is nothing wrong, but if the person defines for God that God is pure-and-simple and only is, one has limited God.

.

[NotBlinded]

Interesting that Omni thinks that 'God is God' because we have a purpose. What purpose then? The one God gave us. Very circular logic, IMO. Outside of his Holy Book, what is our purpose? And why, outside of his Holy Book, do we need to have one at all?
He grasps at his version of a straw, because he can't just accept that we are here. There has to be a reason. Well sure there is a reason why we are here, but that doesn't mean that there has to be a 'divine' cause! One does NOT automatically follow the other.
Like most 'believers', he can't seem to separate the how from the why and examine them for what they are.

And why, as Omni stated, would God have to 'subjugate' His creation of Nature for li'l ol' us?? Couldn't He just create the thing right the first time?

A fundie by any other name, would sound as illogical.

I don't see a purpose to the universe any more than I see a purpose to a song or to a dance. Of course, I stole that from Alan Watts, but I happen to believe it. The purpose is life itself, IMO.

[freeday]

damnit man, what a response hans, there were a couple of things i saw fault in, but overall outstanding.

[duderonomy]

Not to belabor the point, but...


"Even as a God believer, and I am speaking in terms of neutral third party, Omni’s response to 2.3 is less capable to cover Han’s arguments. If read as spirituality writing, the 2.3 response is good on its terms with refreshing philosophical context, Omni speaks like a Guru. Han’s academic argument is that God must be more complex than the created Universe – makes sense. For example, the computer is complex, the human brain / human mind that creates the computer is unarguably more complex than a computer."


Yet the human mind that created the computer is slower, weaker, simpler, has less memory than it's 'creation', and doesn't have instant messaging.

Hence, more pure and simple.

I'm just saying, an argument could be made...

I'm not making it, because it's full of holes. But I can see where the 'pure and simple' God thing could be believed.

Have 'we' created technology that is 'better' not 'smarter' than our own brains when it comes to calculating, estimating, reaching others far away with our thoughts, etc. etc?
I say yes.

And still, while we wait for these f*ck*ng computers to obey us, we remain supreme in that we can always pull the plug on them and go to bed.

But I don't, because I am benevolent, and full of grace.

[nivek]

Christshairyballs thares a lotta words talking about myths and bedtime stories...

kFL

[Bruce]

Another version of a bronze-age fairy tale told by gullible goat herders. Yawn.

[Dark Helmet]

Still waiting for that second part from Omni...

[Antlerman]

Yet the human mind that created the computer is slower, weaker, simpler, has less memory than it's 'creation', and doesn't have instant messaging.

Hence, more pure and simple.

I'm just saying, an argument could be made...

What if a human could make an external universe that had the potention for self-evolution, then in time the system became higher than the creator? Maybe God lost control of his project in the Garden of Eden and has been trying to bring it back down to something he can deal with? We evolved beyond the creator, and salvation is a step backwards. Why not?

[KT45]

I don't think Omni coming back anytime soon. It rain couldn't have killed his internet connection for this long.