Actully, youe just as dumb when you say, "And it'd be pretty dumb to say "they're going to go wherever God tells them to go" " since you are passing judgement on a thing that you cannot define if it were to exist. While there is no proof that God exists, there is no proof God does not exist. There is absolutely nothing wrong in saying that the marbles go where God wants them to go, because if an all powerful God exists, then for all you know God could change the laws of physics at any moment, to alter one chemical reaction, and put all the laws back into place, and who would be the wiser? As you have already told us, science and math are not good at prediction. Dynamical Instability(sensitivity to initial conditions), difficulties in solving non-linear equations etc.. all are showing us that although our Universe is pretty deterministic, prediction of future events is impossibly hard, or impossible. So there is no way we can know if God intervenes in some chemical reactions or not. Also note that ideas such as chaos, are showing us that the minutest change in one variable in a dynamic system can alter large macroscopic behavior of the system. For example, a little flutter in the right place and right time, unde some leaf can cause it to rain on my head two month from now. No human could know that particular flutter will cause that, but an all powerful God could.
Look all I am trying to say is: I know Christians don't give scientists a fair chance, because of their narrow ideology. But I know that Scientists are too damn cock-sure about things that science can not test or describe.
Most likely untrue. If you are not a specialist into the theory of evolution, then you are acting on a faith in science coupled with a general yet imprecise knowledge of the process of evolution through natural selction. I am not saying that it is evolution untrue. What I am saying is that evolution is not truly as obvious as you'd like to make it out to be. Sure it is easy to understand that species that have a good genetic fit for their environement are likely to survive better and pass on their offspring. The parts that are not obvious are things like, group level selection,(why is it weak, and when is it strong?) How do complex systems maintain there organization across scale? There are whole departments working on the theory behind the theory of evolution. true? probably. simple no.
! 11 million years!! and no change? And what, was evolution doing all this time, twiddling its thumbs?? It just happened to be the perfect genetic fit for its environment for 11,000,000 years, as well as fooling the rest of the world in thinking it no longer existed? What gives? I know its not 30,000,000 , or 50,000,000 years, but hey!
You'd think that after 10 million years that they'd get tired of being a stinkin rat squirrel.
I think you missed the point. Perhaps because I am not precise.
1.By creator in general, I meant a creator. Ie It was not a natural proocess based on physical laws that created the Universe. [Period]. At least we can agree that you have no specific logic argument against the existance of a creator. You just have a belief in the non-existance of a creator because you have not seen any evidence to propel you to believe in one.
I think youmisunderstood about christian's meeting God's standard. The Christian belief does not contend that a Christian's flesh and bones, any aspect concerning their moral behavior, or any aspect of their thoughts or dreams will ever meet God's standard after becoming Christian. Read the last sentence again. It might be hard for you to believe that Christians believe this, since so many Christian's act all high and mighty. But of course all their high and mighty attitudes, so prevalent in white middle-class christians, shows us that Christian's fall short too.
As someone who does not believe, you might say something like: Of course, aside from the particulars of their cultures people are people are people, aside from some minor and unsifgnificant variation which might exist between populations. Christians are no exception. Christians do not have a perfect moral behavior, if such a perfect moral behavior exists. Etcetera.
Got it. To christians, the difference that makes them acceptabl to God is not in their flesh, or their moral uprightness. In fact, moral behavior doesn't even matter for being saved. You are either saved or you are not, your flesh will continue to sin. The basics are this.
1) To be perfect means to have a pure soul.
2. No human is Perfect.
3. God is perfect.
4. Human must realize that he is not perfect.
5. Human must realize that God is perfect.
6. Human flesh is sinful and influences the acts of the flesh no matter what the state of a human soul is. Being Perfect does not mean an absolute moral person.
7. God decides to allow us to become perfect if 8)we believe in and admit to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. and (9)We ask Jesus to forgive us.
The supposed Result...............
a) Soul becomes perfect.
b) Flesh remains sinful.
.....result of (a ^ b ) >> A sinful in the flesh, perfect in the soul human.
It think that the point that is stressed most often is to realize that your flesh is your enemy, that it makes us do things God doesn't like, and we need forgiveness for that.
A freshman reply would be, "Well that means Christian's can be like Hitler, and still go to Heaven." The short reply is yes. The long reply is that Christian's do not sin any less in an absolute sense, before and after being saved, and can sin more if the dire occasion arises. However, it might be doubtful that you have asked for forgiveness for sins, without also wanting to lessen in any small way the amount of sin that you need forgiven.
Anyway, this is not a logic argument here, It is a belief system not a science. Just in case you want to be more specific in future argument you might build specifically against the Christian religion.
Hey, Ill be the first one to admit that I have reservations about the Christian/Judeo theology myself. However, I can't seem to get the red letters out of my head.
lol
Ok, have I mentioned Christianity in particular?
The focus of my argument is whether your argument can proove the non=existance of a creator, in general.
Clearly, it cannot.
Besides, I think you might have Christianity mixed up. The common thread I pick up is that we cannot, no matter how hard we try, become sinless, but by the blood of Jesus/ ie faith in a christ who died for our sins we are born again. Born-again can be construed in the context of our argument as meaning: For that particular individual, all of creation has now become complete, and the spirit/ soul of that person has been washed clean of imperfections and now meets the standards set by God.
So if you are arguing that "A fourth option is proposed by some theists, that beings simply cannot be created as perfect ex nihilo, but rather must mature into perfect beings" That IS the christian theology. Well at least as I know it. But rather than say "mature into perfect beings" Christians would say,"born again of Christ and transformed into perfect beings within Christ, but not of our own will or ability do we achieve that perfection except perhaps the choice itself of accepting Jesus as a savior."
So in anycase, as an attack on Christianity you might want to strengthen that point of yours some more since you seem to base it upon human behavior. As I should stress, It is not the official stance of christians that after they are 'born-again' that they commit less immoral acts than ones that are not born-again. Perhaps there is some small differential though, just because thre rather conservative doctrine stresses a more or less unified moralcode, making it an important more of Christian cuture.
I am saying that flaws in arguments lie with inprecise language, and that a precise language is impossible. Of course this conjecture is self referential, and my previous arguments fall under the same criteria as any other attempt at logical proof.
Your "PROOF" is a bunch of nonsense. It is the type of proof that over overextends itself. BUt you will not except this on faith.. so here goes.
First off. Your formal logic is correct. It is your assumtions which can be incorrect.
Assumtion 6. # At least some elements of the existing universe, particularly humans, do not satisfy God, do not meet God's standards. should be modified to
# At least some elements of the CURRENT STATE OF THE existing universe, particularly humans, do not satisfy God, do not meet God's standards.
Now we can see the error in your logic. From your other assumptions it is obvious that God would not make a Universe which doesn't meet his standards. And the sin of current humans certainly does not meet his standards for an acceptable Universe.
But you assume that the Universe's creation is complete in HIS eyes, while you have no evidence for this hidden assumtion. Perhaps this God's standard for Universe making is applied only after creation is complete and the flaws of human kind are being shed layer by layer like a carpenter shapes wood. Shall we judge the worthiness of something that is yet unfinished? It is this: You assume that you know the state of crteation from God's perspective. Yet a God possessing omniscience knows the true state of his creation is because HE can see the end product from any point in the process of that creation.
Ok what about a previous subset of creation which does not meet God's standards? Can God excuse the means for the ends? The idea here is that it is possible that God's standards for a Universe that is unfinished differ from the criteria of a finished Universe. This can obviously inclde having free-willed agents that choose to do good or evil independednt from God.
of course this isn't the end of my argument, and the argument thus far has holes.. But at least understand that YOUR attempt at proving things beyond your comprehension IS freshman in that is bases a lot on assumtions that can easily be circumvented by theinfinite real of possibilites.
pP Oh and keep your reply from taking the cheap shots.
I note your point. However, a logic proof is only as good as it's assumptions. I contend that if there is an infinite God of more complexity than can be imagined, etc. then no single conceivable set of axioms could accurately and precisely capture the essential nature of such a God. The problem, as I see it, with logic is that it builds complex, towering hierarchies of arguments and proofs upon unworthy foundations, of language. In particular, I mean human language, though it may extend to all theoretically possible languages. A lesson may be learned, perhaps from the studies of chaos theory and iterative complexity. Small errors in measurement will compound over time leading to failing predictions about the state of a system. It is not neccessarily the theory of the physics or chemistry that caused the predicitve failing, rather we may point the finger at our failure to know absolutely the initial state of a system, along with the ability to express it meaningfully..and in the end, calculate it.
So too does a logical argument lead to false conclusions, especially upon deep subjects. Small errors and hidden assumtions compund as the logical argument builds upon its foundation into ever more complex bits of reasoning. Of course it is probably not logic itself that is to blame, but our ability to utilize it correctly to build correct and substantial claims. Is this not obvious? How many masterworks of logical thought lay uncontested? In general, it seems to me that the more complex the proof, and the further it is from its foundational assumtions the greater its chance for being incorrect.
I think that there is a fundamental limit to our ability to comprehend this Universe. If a part of the "logic" needed to prove that God exists lay outside such a horizon of comprehension, shall we just assume it does not exist?
Know that I am not trying to prove God's existance. Instead, I am trying to lay the ground work to let you see that it is at least possible that your assumtions upon this matter are in need of gross validation. We all know it is not the business of science to tell us what is not there. Their job is to tell us what they're reasonbably sure IS there.. But most of all the scentist and thinker alike must be best at acknowledging the limitations of their discipline.
Hey. Your approach is a fallacy. Have you ever perused a graduate level text on some advanced mathematics? If I assume that you are not a mathmatician who has gained the knowledge which allows comprehension of the syntax,and language of mathematics and if I further assume that you were to you approach this mathematic's book with the same attitude that you recommend we take with us to church once, (that is you assume there is no mathematics) you will most certainly draw erronious conclusions about the validity of that text.
I know that you will argue that with mathmatics we can build upon first principles and reconstruct the proofs that will eventually lead to the appropiate mathematical basis for comprehending and **believing** our selected advanced-mathematics text. This is certainly true.
HOwever, I do not think that an atheist has the appropiate knowledge to comprehend the matters of God. And certainly you cannot be sure that your conclusion upon this matter are sound, since if God did exist you would not be capable of discerning the 'logic' of the arguments. God is our first principle.
Slashdot Mirror
recording music would benefit from a faster write and read times of a flash drive.
Look all I am trying to say is: I know Christians don't give scientists a fair chance, because of their narrow ideology. But I know that Scientists are too damn cock-sure about things that science can not test or describe.
Rather, I think the question is: Can such complexity arise from a single selection event per organism.
Most likely untrue. If you are not a specialist into the theory of evolution, then you are acting on a faith in science coupled with a general yet imprecise knowledge of the process of evolution through natural selction. I am not saying that it is evolution untrue. What I am saying is that evolution is not truly as obvious as you'd like to make it out to be. Sure it is easy to understand that species that have a good genetic fit for their environement are likely to survive better and pass on their offspring. The parts that are not obvious are things like, group level selection,(why is it weak, and when is it strong?) How do complex systems maintain there organization across scale? There are whole departments working on the theory behind the theory of evolution. true? probably. simple no.
Lets all bow our heads for a moment.... for the loss of the sixth wheel.
I was going to mod you funny. But I hate that movie. So..I gues no one else here gets my points because of you.
oh never mind. ITs a family, not a species...... I Take it back.
You'd think that after 10 million years that they'd get tired of being a stinkin rat squirrel.
Ahhh a gimmick band. Well now we know not to go see that one.
I think youmisunderstood about christian's meeting God's standard. The Christian belief does not contend that a Christian's flesh and bones, any aspect concerning their moral behavior, or any aspect of their thoughts or dreams will ever meet God's standard after becoming Christian. Read the last sentence again. It might be hard for you to believe that Christians believe this, since so many Christian's act all high and mighty. But of course all their high and mighty attitudes, so prevalent in white middle-class christians, shows us that Christian's fall short too.
As someone who does not believe, you might say something like: Of course, aside from the particulars of their cultures people are people are people, aside from some minor and unsifgnificant variation which might exist between populations. Christians are no exception. Christians do not have a perfect moral behavior, if such a perfect moral behavior exists. Etcetera.
Got it. To christians, the difference that makes them acceptabl to God is not in their flesh, or their moral uprightness. In fact, moral behavior doesn't even matter for being saved. You are either saved or you are not, your flesh will continue to sin. The basics are this.
1) To be perfect means to have a pure soul.
2. No human is Perfect.
3. God is perfect.
4. Human must realize that he is not perfect.
5. Human must realize that God is perfect.
6. Human flesh is sinful and influences the acts of the flesh no matter what the state of a human soul is. Being Perfect does not mean an absolute moral person.
7. God decides to allow us to become perfect if 8)we believe in and admit to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. and (9)We ask Jesus to forgive us.
The supposed Result...............
a) Soul becomes perfect.
b) Flesh remains sinful.
.....result of (a ^ b ) >> A sinful in the flesh, perfect in the soul human.
It think that the point that is stressed most often is to realize that your flesh is your enemy, that it makes us do things God doesn't like, and we need forgiveness for that.
A freshman reply would be, "Well that means Christian's can be like Hitler, and still go to Heaven." The short reply is yes. The long reply is that Christian's do not sin any less in an absolute sense, before and after being saved, and can sin more if the dire occasion arises. However, it might be doubtful that you have asked for forgiveness for sins, without also wanting to lessen in any small way the amount of sin that you need forgiven.
Anyway, this is not a logic argument here, It is a belief system not a science. Just in case you want to be more specific in future argument you might build specifically against the Christian religion.
Hey, Ill be the first one to admit that I have reservations about the Christian/Judeo theology myself. However, I can't seem to get the red letters out of my head.
So if you are arguing that "A fourth option is proposed by some theists, that beings simply cannot be created as perfect ex nihilo, but rather must mature into perfect beings" That IS the christian theology. Well at least as I know it. But rather than say "mature into perfect beings" Christians would say ,"born again of Christ and transformed into perfect beings within Christ, but not of our own will or ability do we achieve that perfection except perhaps the choice itself of accepting Jesus as a savior."
So in anycase, as an attack on Christianity you might want to strengthen that point of yours some more since you seem to base it upon human behavior. As I should stress, It is not the official stance of christians that after they are 'born-again' that they commit less immoral acts than ones that are not born-again. Perhaps there is some small differential though, just because thre rather conservative doctrine stresses a more or less unified moralcode, making it an important more of Christian cuture.
Now we can see the error in your logic. From your other assumptions it is obvious that God would not make a Universe which doesn't meet his standards. And the sin of current humans certainly does not meet his standards for an acceptable Universe.
But you assume that the Universe's creation is complete in HIS eyes, while you have no evidence for this hidden assumtion. Perhaps this God's standard for Universe making is applied only after creation is complete and the flaws of human kind are being shed layer by layer like a carpenter shapes wood. Shall we judge the worthiness of something that is yet unfinished? It is this: You assume that you know the state of crteation from God's perspective. Yet a God possessing omniscience knows the true state of his creation is because HE can see the end product from any point in the process of that creation.
Ok what about a previous subset of creation which does not meet God's standards? Can God excuse the means for the ends? The idea here is that it is possible that God's standards for a Universe that is unfinished differ from the criteria of a finished Universe. This can obviously inclde having free-willed agents that choose to do good or evil independednt from God.
of course this isn't the end of my argument, and the argument thus far has holes.. But at least understand that YOUR attempt at proving things beyond your comprehension IS freshman in that is bases a lot on assumtions that can easily be circumvented by theinfinite real of possibilites. pP Oh and keep your reply from taking the cheap shots.
So too does a logical argument lead to false conclusions, especially upon deep subjects. Small errors and hidden assumtions compund as the logical argument builds upon its foundation into ever more complex bits of reasoning. Of course it is probably not logic itself that is to blame, but our ability to utilize it correctly to build correct and substantial claims. Is this not obvious? How many masterworks of logical thought lay uncontested? In general, it seems to me that the more complex the proof, and the further it is from its foundational assumtions the greater its chance for being incorrect.
I think that there is a fundamental limit to our ability to comprehend this Universe. If a part of the "logic" needed to prove that God exists lay outside such a horizon of comprehension, shall we just assume it does not exist?
Know that I am not trying to prove God's existance. Instead, I am trying to lay the ground work to let you see that it is at least possible that your assumtions upon this matter are in need of gross validation. We all know it is not the business of science to tell us what is not there. Their job is to tell us what they're reasonbably sure IS there.. But most of all the scentist and thinker alike must be best at acknowledging the limitations of their discipline.
Hey. Your approach is a fallacy.
Have you ever perused a graduate level text on some advanced mathematics?
If I assume that you are not a mathmatician who has gained the knowledge which allows comprehension of the syntax,and language of mathematics and if I further assume that you were to you approach this mathematic's book with the same attitude that you recommend we take with us to church once, (that is you assume there is no mathematics) you will most certainly draw erronious conclusions about the validity of that text.
I know that you will argue that with mathmatics we can build upon first principles and reconstruct the proofs that will eventually lead to the appropiate mathematical basis for comprehending and **believing** our selected advanced-mathematics text. This is certainly true.
HOwever, I do not think that an atheist has the appropiate knowledge to comprehend the matters of God. And certainly you cannot be sure that your conclusion upon this matter are sound, since if God did exist you would not be capable of discerning the 'logic' of the arguments.
God is our first principle.
However
That is one of the best ideas I've heard in a long time. ..
It should be done....really.
Speaking of slashdot, What the hell does the slashdot topic logo of a caterpillar have to do with viruses?
This is not readable.
For thinking the same as millions will think after you. shhes.. Didn't you pass your time traveling class?
Yeah, you can get those anywhere these days for next to nothing...Why do normal consumers buy PC's with such a deal on the market.
instead it was a pole.
Fact. You are not my ruler, nor my king. But firefox is my right hand man.
Exactly.. And could you convince them to up the monitor's refresh rate from the mininum to something that won't kill this poor student's eyes?
I use CowboyNeal. --oops.
thats funny. I mean really funny.
I wasn't Sarcastic.